• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Indiana Democrats flee state legislature to avoid anti-union vote

Hmm. I have a question here. If someone works all his life, he doesn't deserve a pension, if the pension comes from the public sector? The way I see it, he deserves a pension if he has worked in either the public or private sector.

I've forgotten in what context I made that comment, Dan. (And too lazy to go back and check.)

Public sector pensions are Rolls Royces. While the private sector has almost exclusively embraced 401K's or other Defined Contribution Plans, public sector pensions are Defined Benefit Plans.

Simply explained, that means that the private sector is promised, as an example, "we'll match any money you put into your 401K up to 15% of your income." That money is then left in a family of funds or other investment options -- to grow and become available to the account holder when he retires.

In the public sector, these Rolls Royce Plans promise a % of one's salary depending on age at retirement and length of service. These plans are structured actuarily with imputed growth rates and, whether those growth rates are met or not, the benefit doesn't change. These plans are under water big time. And taxpayers are paying the price. Example:

Continuing to sound the alarm on local pension funds, Chicago's Civic Federation will release a report Thursday that shows the unfunded liabilities for 10 city and county pension funds grew sixfold from 2000 to 2009, with shortfalls now totaling nearly $23 billion.

Coupled with Chicago residents' share of state pension debt, covering the unfunded liabilities of public pensions would now cost every man, woman and child in Chicago more than $11,934, up from $2,442 just a decade ago, the report found.

Everybody should have a pension. Everybody should contribute to their pension. The right of a public employee to have a Rolls Royce Plan can no longer be carried on the backs of those taxpayers in the private sector. We can't afford it anymore....thanks to politicians who gave away the store at the bargaining table and public sector employees who have no idea how exceptional their pensions are in the real world and, frankly, don't give a damn. They just want 'em.
 
I've forgotten in what context I made that comment, Dan. (And too lazy to go back and check.)

Public sector pensions are Rolls Royces. While the private sector has almost exclusively embraced 401K's or other Defined Contribution Plans, public sector pensions are Defined Benefit Plans.

Simply explained, that means that the private sector is promised, as an example, "we'll match any money you put into your 401K up to 15% of your income." That money is then left in a family of funds or other investment options -- to grow and become available to the account holder when he retires.

In the public sector, these Rolls Royce Plans promise a % of one's salary depending on age at retirement and length of service. These plans are structured actuarily with imputed growth rates and, whether those growth rates are met or not, the benefit doesn't change. These plans are under water big time. And taxpayers are paying the price. Example:



Everybody should have a pension. Everybody should contribute to their pension. The right of a public employee to have a Rolls Royce Plan can no longer be carried on the backs of those taxpayers in the private sector. We can't afford it anymore....thanks to politicians who gave away the store at the bargaining table and public sector employees who have no idea how exceptional their pensions are in the real world and, frankly, don't give a damn. They just want 'em.

The FERS uses a 401K plan as the primary source of retirement along with social security.
 
The FERS uses a 401K plan as the primary source of retirement along with social security.

This is the "reformed version," yes? That's a wonderful thing. And fair to all concerned. Who could have a problem with that? Not me, certainly. But there's alllll those other ones out there --

•State pension funds are underfunded by over $3 trillion; this is more than six times the $438 billion in underfunding the plans themselves report. Pension shortfalls far exceed explicit state debts.

•Current state pension accounting practices are inaccurate and outmoded. Private pension plans would not be allowed to use such methods.

•Market valuation of pension shortfalls more accurately shows the risk to state budgets and taxpayers.

•Pension contributions, benefits, and retirement ages must be reformed, but this will be difficult until states adopt accurate accounting methods.
AEI - The Market Value of Public-Sector Pension Deficits
 
I honestly didn't think the dems could trump the bad publicity the republicans got from their "party of no" platform, but this comes close (only because it's not in the federal government but in a state government). It's just sort of pathetic, really.
 
Standing up for the rights of working people is HEROIC.
 
Standing up for the rights of working people is HEROIC.

Surprise, Haymarket!!!! We're all working people!!!! It's just that us "non-public-sector workers" can't afford carrying you "public-sector workers" on our backs much longer.

We're ALL working people!! What an arrogant statement.
 
Standing up for the rights of working people is HEROIC.

Yeah, I'll stand up for your rights....from over there....by avoiding actually doing anything...

And they're not standing up for working people rights anyway, they're standing up for the unions coffers.
 
I've forgotten in what context I made that comment, Dan. (And too lazy to go back and check.)

Public sector pensions are Rolls Royces. While the private sector has almost exclusively embraced 401K's or other Defined Contribution Plans, public sector pensions are Defined Benefit Plans.

Simply explained, that means that the private sector is promised, as an example, "we'll match any money you put into your 401K up to 15% of your income." That money is then left in a family of funds or other investment options -- to grow and become available to the account holder when he retires.

In the public sector, these Rolls Royce Plans promise a % of one's salary depending on age at retirement and length of service. These plans are structured actuarily with imputed growth rates and, whether those growth rates are met or not, the benefit doesn't change. These plans are under water big time. And taxpayers are paying the price. Example:



Everybody should have a pension. Everybody should contribute to their pension. The right of a public employee to have a Rolls Royce Plan can no longer be carried on the backs of those taxpayers in the private sector. We can't afford it anymore....thanks to politicians who gave away the store at the bargaining table and public sector employees who have no idea how exceptional their pensions are in the real world and, frankly, don't give a damn. They just want 'em.

Well, here is the problem I have with changing public pensions, and making them retroactive to employees who were hired with a condition being the public pension that they were offered. It is breaking the hiring agreement, which under the law is a tort. The government can actually be sued for breaking an existing hiring agreement although, for new employees, it would be considered fair, since it would be part of a new hiring agreement. I have no problem with changes in the way public pensions are administered, but it cannot apply to those already hired under the old pension plan who, under the law, accepted their positions with the assumption that they would be receiving what was offered as a part of their benefits, when they were offered their position. Had they been offered the new pension plan when they were being offered a job, then would they have turned down the job offer, and taken a position in the private sector instead? And that, in a nutshell, is a major problem, both legally and ethically.
 
Last edited:
Standing up for the rights of working people is HEROIC.

Lots and lots and lots of working people don't belong to a union, and don't want to belong to a union.

A lot of us have done very well, in fact, without a union to hold our hand.
 
Well, here is the problem I have with changing public pensions, and making them retroactive to employees who were hired with a condition being the public pension that they were offered. It is breaking the hiring agreement, which under the law is a tort. The government can actually be sued for breaking an existing hiring agreement although, for new employees, it would be considered fair, since it would be part of a new hiring agreement. I have no problem with changes in the way public pensions are administered, but it cannot apply to those already hired under the old pension plan who, under the law, accepted their positions with the assumption what was offered when they were hired. Had they been offered the new pension plan when they were being offered a job, then would they have turned down the job offer, and taken a position in the private sector instead? And that, in a nutshell, is a major problem, both legally and ethically.

I look at it like this. When you start a business, the idea isn't to go bankrupt. The millions you intended to make are not guaranteed to you.

If your state is broke, and it's LARGELY because of these pension programs and compensation scales, then you've got to shift gears. Everyone benefitting has skin in the game, and employees aren't exempt from that.
 
I look at it like this. When you start a business, the idea isn't to go bankrupt. The millions you intended to make are not guaranteed to you.

If your state is broke, and it's LARGELY because of these pension programs and compensation scales, then you've got to shift gears. Everyone benefitting has skin in the game, and employees aren't exempt from that.

They are if they were hired under a hiring agreement that includes the pension that was part of their hiring agreement. A hiring agreement is essentially a contract, and if a government breaks a hiring agreement, it can be sued just like any other entity can be sued for doing the same. If the pensions are changed, there is no problem as long as it applies ONLY to new hires. Otherwise, the government will lose big in court.
 
They are if they were hired under a hiring agreement that includes the pension that was part of their hiring agreement. A hiring agreement is essentially a contract, and if a government breaks a hiring agreement, it can be sued just like any other entity can be sued for doing the same. If the pensions are changed, there is no problem as long as it applies ONLY to new hires. Otherwise, the government will lose big in court.

Contracts are worthless if the money's gone.

Besides, Walker isn't going to take away anyone's pension here. He's just saying that if they want it, they'll have to contribute more in the future. And, he wants to convert Wisconsin into a right-to-work state, hoping they'll be able to duplicate the success of so many of the nation's other right-to-work states.
 
Contracts are worthless if the money's gone.

Besides, Walker isn't going to take away anyone's pension here. He's just saying that if they want it, they'll have to contribute more in the future. And, he wants to convert Wisconsin into a right-to-work state, hoping they'll be able to duplicate the success of so many of the nation's other right-to-work states.

Whatever he does, he must do it legally. If he changes the hiring agreement for existing employees, he will be sued in court, and he will lose. Again, whatever difficulty Wisconsin is in does not supersede a valid and legal contract.
 
Last edited:
This is a good example of why collective bargaining for public unions fails. Half the people who the unions are bargaining with in the legislatures are bought off with political capital. This is what isolates the public unions from their real bosses the tax payer. This is basically incest.
 
Hmm. I have a question here. If someone works all his life, he doesn't deserve a pension, if the pension comes from the public sector? The way I see it, he deserves a pension if he has worked in either the public or private sector.

The way I see it... government should be out of the pension business and benefits business. Pay the people and let them be responsible for themselves. Those pension funds have no money... so why let government waste it?

Is anyone in the forum hoping they get their government pension? Think this will be abnormal in the future? Think again.
The pension crisis: Promises unkept - CBS Sunday Morning - CBS News

.
 
Whatever he does, he must do it legally. If he changes the hiring agreement for existing employees, he will be sued in court, and he will lose. Again, whatever difficulty Wisconsin is in does not supersede a valid and legal contract.

No, the taxpayers in Wisconsin will be sued, and you'll have a civil war on your hands.

They can sue all they want. Nothing minus nothing equals nonthing. Wisconsin will have to borrow from China because right to work states won't offer, and union states don't have it to loan. LOL
 
Whatever he does, he must do it legally. If he changes the hiring agreement for existing employees, he will be sued in court, and he will lose. Again, whatever difficulty Wisconsin is in does not supersede a valid and legal contract.

You are absolutely right. Cuts to wages and perks must be agreed to by the union, or they simply aren't valid. If the bill the governor is pushing does that without union agreement, it will be invalidated on appeal. That's one of the problems with huge, multi-year union contracts. They can't be renegotiateed when the economic situation changes and the money runs out. When I was on our management negotiating team, there was never an instance where the union would ever agree to concessions. They simply wanted us to terminate employees... and again, per the union contract, we didn't even have the choice of which employees to terminate. Excellent employees would frequently be terminated because they were newer than mediocre or even poor employees.

It's one of the reasons I think unions per se in the public sector are so onerous. Those appropriating taxpayer money are hamstringed on how they can do it.

I haven't read Walker's bill. Does it contain language that will inevitably be overturned in court? If so, he's an utter jackass whose using a legitimate issue, bullying tactics of public sector unions, and doing something that will in the end make those unions even more powerful. :(
 
They are if they were hired under a hiring agreement that includes the pension that was part of their hiring agreement. A hiring agreement is essentially a contract, and if a government breaks a hiring agreement, it can be sued just like any other entity can be sued for doing the same. If the pensions are changed, there is no problem as long as it applies ONLY to new hires. Otherwise, the government will lose big in court.

What the heck are you talking about? A lot of things change over the time someone starts with a company including the benefit package. There is a good arguement for those already retired, but for those working, just like pay raises or new benefits you may get over time, other benefits go down. Not sure where you have worked or for how long, but benefits do change. Not worth debating just stating a fact.
 
I wonder if we are going to see more of this with redistricting later this year in Republican-controlled states?

That's why the Texas Dems ran away from home a few years ago, so it wouldn't surprise me.
 
Hmm. I have a question here. If someone works all his life, he doesn't deserve a pension, if the pension comes from the public sector? The way I see it, he deserves a pension if he has worked in either the public or private sector.

I don't think anyone is saying otherwise. However, when it's Public service workers, tax payers have to pay those and it's hurting the states. They need to pay more into them themselves instead of getting such sweet heart deals. These governors are just trying to fix something that's been a problem for a long time and only getting worse.
 
Lots and lots and lots of working people don't belong to a union, and don't want to belong to a union.

A lot of us have done very well, in fact, without a union to hold our hand.

I agree and Walkers plan would give people a choice. They could no longer be forced to join and pay dues, but they could if they wanted to.
 
To me its a bit different. We get our senators from every state of the nation. WI gets their reps from...WI. I dont believe I have the words to express what I mean tonight, so I believe I am finished with at least this post for the night
thumbs_up.jpg

Thanks for stopping by. I look forward to reading a future post that includes a coherent thought.
 
I don't think anyone is saying otherwise. However, when it's Public service workers, tax payers have to pay those and it's hurting the states. They need to pay more into them themselves instead of getting such sweet heart deals. These governors are just trying to fix something that's been a problem for a long time and only getting worse.

That is not what is happening here. The unions have already made the solicited economic concessions, but apparently that was not enough, as it isn't the real issue.
 
Well, here is the problem I have with changing public pensions, and making them retroactive to employees who were hired with a condition being the public pension that they were offered. It is breaking the hiring agreement, which under the law is a tort. The government can actually be sued for breaking an existing hiring agreement although, for new employees, it would be considered fair, since it would be part of a new hiring agreement. I have no problem with changes in the way public pensions are administered, but it cannot apply to those already hired under the old pension plan who, under the law, accepted their positions with the assumption that they would be receiving what was offered as a part of their benefits, when they were offered their position. Had they been offered the new pension plan when they were being offered a job, then would they have turned down the job offer, and taken a position in the private sector instead? And that, in a nutshell, is a major problem, both legally and ethically.

First, that's not what's on the table in Wisconsin. Second, my Social Security age was upped. Ooops. Money out of my pocket that I'd planned on. How much more "up" will the age be set before 40-year-olds retire? Soooo, it's no more an ethical problem in a pension plan than in the Social Security system. Pension plans are changed and even dissolved every day in the United States. That's why there's a Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation in existence. (PGBC)

Further, at the Federal level, union members cannot collectively bargain their wages or benefits. Wisconsin's legislation let's them continue bargaining their benefits. Yet President Obama weighed in to say this was union busting. Folks, we'd better start waking up.
 
Back
Top Bottom