Public "Servant" Pensions Will Break This Country
I'm hugely grateful to people like my LAPD cop friend Sergeant Heather who lay their lives on the line to protect the rest of us. The thing is, there's no way we can afford to pay huge pensions for people's lifetimes -- especially when they retire young. In The New York Times, Mary Williams Walsh and Amy Schoenfeld write about the state of things in their state:
In Yonkers, more than 100 retired police officers and firefighters are collecting pensions greater than their pay when they were working. One of the youngest, Hugo Tassone, retired at 44 with a base pay of about $74,000 a year. His pension is now $101,333 a year.It's what the system promised, said Mr. Tassone, now 47, adding that he did nothing wrong by adding lots of overtime to his base pay shortly before retiring. "I don't understand how the working guy that held up their end of the bargain became the problem," he said.
Despite a pension investigation by the New York attorney general, an audit concluding that some police officers in the city broke overtime rules to increase their payouts and the mayor's statements that future pensions should be based on regular pay, not overtime, these practices persist in Yonkers.
The city has even arranged for its police to put in overtime as flagmen on Consolidated Edison construction sites. Though a company is paying the bill, the city is actually reporting the work as city overtime to the New York State pension fund, padding future payouts -- an arrangement at odds with the spirit of public employment, if not the law.
The Yonkers experience shows how errors, misunderstandings and wishful thinking are piling hidden new costs onto New York's public pension system every year, worsening the state's current fiscal crisis. And the problem is not just in New York. Public pension costs are ballooning everywhere, throwing budgets out of whack and raising the question of whether venerable state pension systems are viable.
In fact, the cost of public pensions has been systemically underestimated nationwide for more than two decades, say some analysts. By these estimates, state and local officials have promised $5 trillion worth of benefits while thinking they were committing taxpayers to roughly half that amount.
The real problem here is that most private sector employees have lost job security, benefits and pensions while public sector employees have seen their job security, benefits and pensions increase at the expense of the general public. And the general feeling is, "Why should we pay these public sector employees more then we earn in the private sector?" Why should I, pay for these pensions with my tax dollars, when I make less then they do and have no job security? It would be more understandable if the public sector had a track record of high performance, but this is generally not the case. We pay more and more for less and less.
Matthew at May 22, 2010 8:07 AM
see pensiontsunami.com
crid at May 22, 2010 11:12 AM
I have a friend who's a manager in the public sector (she quit about a year ago). The rules were not designed to run an efficient office. Rule one: You can't get promoted with a black mark on your record. Rule two: Giving someone a black mark gives you a black mark. Rule three: Firing someone gives you a black mark. So the majority did as little as possible because there was no way they were ever going to get fired. The result was that you 3-4 times the number of employees that you'd hire in the private sector to do half the amount of work. And don't forget all these people need pensions. And people wonder why Toronto is broke.
Nicky at May 22, 2010 12:28 PM
My ex is a cop and while he was a lousy husband and father, he did sacrifice a lot for his job. I'm not saying there are those who don't, but there are aspects of his job that aren't required in your average career. It is in his contract that he carry his gun 24/7. It is in his contract that he can be mobilized at any time for an emergency just as he is required to step in if he sees a crime in progress. At one time, there was no such thing as a steady shift. His hours rotated and he rarely was off a weekend of holiday.
The NYPD pay was ridiculously low which was the reasoning behind the pension system that was set up. It was standard that cops did major overtime their last two years to increase the pension. Many retired with broken marriages, heart problems, and drinken problems. The job does change them.
Personally, I'd rather see them get paid a higher salary and have more resources available to them to counter the tolls taken by their job. My ex didn't do right by me or our children, but I can't say the same for the City of NY. They got his heart and his soul. Yes, he signed on to do it, but the pension was part of the deal when he signed on the dotted line.
Kristen at May 22, 2010 2:09 PM
What a bunch of cities, towns, county and states are going to do is declare bankruptcy just to break the pension stranglehold they are facing.
About the only one's I think deserve it is the military. And even then, the DOD has been redefining it since 1980, and again in 1986.
Jim P. at May 22, 2010 7:53 PM
Kristen,
I am a cargo pilot. I am on the road, i.e. not home at all 24 hours, 5 or six days a week for 3 out of the four weeks. I am up at all hours flying in all kinds of weather, some of it hazardous.
But I am not compensated as well as your ex with regard to pensions. Nor are any number of other jobs who work equally hard.
These job qualities are not restricted to the NYPD or any other group. Heck, our soldiers in Iraq are facing much MUCH worse and won't be able to game their pensions a dime.
And when you add in the fact that the public unions play politics and support any politican who will line their pockets, my sympathy is muted.
I wish I could force my employer to give me raises...
JD at May 22, 2010 9:25 PM
You're just not going to get anywhere with this until the whole country goes broke. The princes of government today are above anything that happens to the little people, so they buy votes by promising $$ from the treasury.
Yes, Mr. Pension Padder, you're a scumbag. The taxpayers flatly do not owe someone who does nothing an income greater than your regular pay.
Radwaste at May 22, 2010 9:49 PM
"It's what the system promised, said Mr. Tassone, now 47, adding that he did nothing wrong by adding lots of overtime to his base pay shortly before retiring. "I don't understand how the working guy that held up their end of the bargain became the problem," he said.
But...my, friend, you are not a working guy.
Spartee at May 23, 2010 6:17 AM
JD, I wasn't trying to say other occupations don't work hard. My ex became a cop because he loved the idea of being a cop but the big sell was the 20 year retirement and pension. As far as the military goes,, it sickens me how low their pay is and the way they are treated especially now after many have served multiply deployments. I don't have the answers to fix it. I merely pointed out that he made a deal and kept his end. I will say though that there are abuses in the system. I know here in Nassau County that cops and crossing guards were allowed to retire with nice pensions and benefits and then hired back on an hourly wage. That's unfair especially when you see some of the jobs created for them.
Kristen at May 23, 2010 9:38 AM
Military pension is 50% of base pay at 20 years. If you stay in for 40 years you can get 100%...but that would require being an admiral/general, and you'll be 65-70 years old at that point. You can't game the system by doing overtime (what's overtime in the military anyway?).
It makes sense. If you retire from the military at ~40 years old, the pension is enough for a very low living standard (unless you are fortunate enough to have no bills) so you'll have to work another 20 years or so...just like most other people. If you are high enough in rank and importance that they keep you around after 20 years, you'll leave with a bigger pension, but you'll be older too.
As for military pay being low...that comment is misplaced. Military pay is not low. The very new enlisted guy pay (E-1 to E-4) is low, but you don't sit at those ranks very long. Once you make E-5, you get paid rather well.
And, its not just base pay. Let's look at the average E-5 sailor at 4 years in the Navy:
Base pay: 2414/month
Basic Allowance for housing (not taxed): 1212/month (assuming he's single)
Sea pay: 280/month
This amounts to 46,872 dollars a year, but only 32,000 is taxed. This is a single guy with no college education, after 4 years.
This doesn't include any re-enlistment bonuses or other special pays. If you're in Iraq, you get hazardous duty pay and don't pay taxes. If you fly, know a foreign language, or have another key skill, the military pays you more.
How many people without a college degree would kill for a 46K job per year? That's over 22 dollars an hour. PLUS, free medical, dental, etc.
Don't get me wrong, the military does a not-fun job. But we're paid well for it. Paying more means we spend less on body armor and weapons, meaning we give the bad guys a better chance at killing us. I don't like that option.
Sorry for the long post!
Ryan at May 23, 2010 5:10 PM
Greetings from Honolulu, Amy et al!
What I think some commenting on here fail to realize is that it's not about what's fair (for public sector employees) but what's economically feasible for those of us in the private sector who pay their wages & benefits. News Flash: The sweetheart deals worked out for all too many public sector employees are no longer possible.
Much like Black Americans rose up in the 1960's, sick & tired of being treated like 2nd Class citizens, soon will private sector citizens rise up as well. The newer cause clearly isn't as righteous as the old one but the dual classes of citizenship that has arisen between the public & private sector is wrong and absolutely unjust.
Anyone interested can watch a preview of what's to come by observing the public sector employees violently protesting in Greece. Watch them cry out at how wrong it is to stop paying them 14 months salary for 12 months of work! Watch them cry out at how wrong it is to stop allowing them to retire at age 53 with a full pension!
Perhaps it's human nature in most people to quickly think of privileges as rights. But in those working in the public sector, the time frame seems to have shrunk down to mere minutes.
Robert W. (Vancouver) at May 24, 2010 1:12 AM
The only way out of this mess is for states and municipalities to go bankrupt, or inflation. To paraphrase Robert: what matters is what is possible, not what is fair.
When something cannot continue, it doesn't - usually abruptly.
MarkD at May 24, 2010 8:29 AM
The highest percentage that a member of the military can get in their pension is 75% of base pay. Also single service members don't get payments for housing or rations unless government housing or dining facilities are not available.
ParatrooperJJ at May 24, 2010 1:19 PM
Leave a comment