Who, exactly, supports public unions?

[Jim in CT]

So in Ohio,m the governor passed legislation curbing the devastating economic impact of collective bargaining for public unions. The public overwhelmingly voted to overturn that legislation.

Ohio, like CT (and many other states), is faced with crippling debt, largely driven by insane promises made to public union employees for healthcare and retirement benefits.

Here's how it works. When contracts are negotiated, union reps ask for insane perks. The politicians sitting across the table, who are SUPPOSED to represent the public, decide how much $$ to give the unions. Here's where it breaks down...the same politicians who decide how much to give the union, only got elected because his campaign was funded by union campaign donations, so that politician is beholden to the union. The politician wants to get re-elected, and cannot do so without union support. So the unions get what they want.

Almost every municipality in the country - towns, cities, states - are looking at unfunded liabilities that can never be paid for. Yet whenever someone like me says "geez, we can't afford this", I get accused of hating teachers (and of wanting kids to be ignorant), and hating police officers (and of therefore being in favor of crime).

I simply don't get it. The healthcare and retirement benefits are irrefutably insane, are are irrefutably bankrupting our cities and states. So, unless you (or yuour spouse) are in a public union, how could any rational person claim that the system is working?

To me, this could not be more clear. I cannot fathom where the other side is coming from.

And the left turns this into a crusade about the "middle class". Most of the middle class don't work in unions, and we can't afford for our property taxes to go up 10% a year forever.

[Piscator]

Public Unions support Public Unions.....................

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Piscator

Public Unions support Public Unions.....................

It has to be more than that. In Ohio, 60% of those who voted, voted to restore power to the unions. I don't believe that 60% of those who voted are affiliated with the unions. So why would ANYONE believe that we don't need reform?

[Swimmer]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

It has to be more than that. In Ohio, 60% of those who voted, voted to restore power to the unions. I don't believe that 60% of those who voted are affiliated with the unions. So why would ANYONE believe that we don't need reform?

I would bet that of that 60% plurality, someone in everyone of those households has a job at a unionized business or public entity and pays union dues, whther it is an affillaition with a "public union, or a private company that is unionized". The governor inb Ohio and all his rich business owner buddies will never be able to strip unions of thier power. Same as in Wis.

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

It has to be more than that. In Ohio, 60% of those who voted, voted to restore power to the unions. I don't believe that 60% of those who voted are affiliated with the unions. So why would ANYONE believe that we don't need reform?

I wonder how far the tentacles reach, Let’s say a union guy (or girl) is married with 3 kids aged 19, 21 & 24. The family doesn’t want Mom/Dad to loose wages so they vote the favorable to the Union (can’t blame them). That is a total of 5 votes for one union guy. That doesn’t include extended family, let’s say the guys 2 parents are alive, that’s 7 votes for one Union guy. I think most elderly are favorable to Unions as well since they did serve a needed purpose historically

Ohio is a very industrial state with very strong union roots, not sure what the % of union workers are in Ohio but I’m willing to bet it is very high………

[Raven]

I need to find out where to read
about the origional marraige laws
guaranteed

[CTSurfrat]

I am a CT teacher and wish I didn't have to belong to the union. I pay over $800 a year in dues! It drives me nuts that I contribute money to an organization that supports politicians I don't agree with and coddles/protects workers that should be fired. In terms of amount paid by CT teachers toward benefits, we have 7% of our salary deducted automatically from our pay for retirement. We pay no social security, but we don't get any benefits from it when we retire. To get the maximum retirement - about 70% of the salary we have to work 35 years. In my district we contribute 18% of the cost of our medical insurance - which will undoubtedly continue to go up.

[PaulS]

I know - the Rep. crook govenor Roland really screwed us taxpayers.

[Jim in CT]

I'd also like to say that I have great respect for teachers, cops, and firemen. I just don't think we can afford to overpay them anymore.

Here in CT, teachers don't participate in social security. Why do they get the right to opt out, yet I'm forced to pay into this ponzi scheme? Furthermore, tecahers are promised these rich pension benefits, and pay almost nothing into it. And the law says that when their pension is proven to be underfunded, taxpayers have to make it whole?

Why do they deserve this? If my 401(k) goes belly-up, I can't ask the teachers in my town to make me whole. So why do they get to ask me for that same guarantee?

I don't get it, I just don't get it. Few things are this obvious.

[Swimmer]

Geez Jim, I am a public sector retiree now and I pay 50 % of my premiums. Thats the same rate I paid before I retire. You only pay 30%, sign me up.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Swimmer

Geez Jim, I am a public sector retiree now and I pay 50 % of my premiums. Thats the same rate I paid before I retire. You only pay 30%, sign me up.

Swimmer, one person's experience does not make a trend, nor does it drive the train.

30% is right about the national average for private sector employees, and we don't get any coverage in retirement. Public unionized employees, on average, pay less than 10% of teh cost of their healthcare, and they stage riots every time increases are discussed.

I can't address specific individual situations. In the big picture, it is irrefutable that public sector benefits dwarf what's available in the private scetor, and it's also irrefutable that those benefits are having catastrophic financial impacts on those who get stuck with the bill.

Swimmer, how about answering a question? If public sector benefits are not insanely rich, where does all the debt come from? Most cities and states are facing catastrophic debt because the benefit programs don't have enough money. There are only 2 ways that happens...either taxes are unreasonably low, or the promised benefits are unreasonably rich. There isn't a 3rd option, so which is it?

[TheSpecialist]

[QUOTE]And for that 7% deduction, you get a pension that costs several times what your contributions, and their earnings, could ever pay for. That's where we (taxpayers) get screwed. I put 15% of my pay into my 401(k), and whatever I can accumulate on my own, is what I have to live on. You get to put 7% of your pay into your pension, and your pension is guaranteed. Meaning, when your contributions aren't NEARLY enough to pay for the insane benefits your pension promises, we (taxpayers) have to pay the rest./QUOTE]

Jim are you self employed or do you have an employer?

Even at my last crappy nonunion job 15 years ago, my employer matched the first 6% of what I put into my 401k. If you are self employed thats one thing, if you have an employer who doesn't make any contribution shame on you for allowing that to happen.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

Jim are you self employed or do you have an employer?

Even at my last crappy nonunion job 15 years ago, my employer matched the first 6% of what I put into my 401k. If you are self employed thats one thing, if you have an employer who doesn't make any contribution shame on you for allowing that to happen.

Depends on if it's a small business and how established it is. Many small businesses don't have the overhead to provide a substantial match on their 401k.

The cliche union mentality in your post is amusing "if you have an employer who doesn't make any contribution shame on you for allowing that to happen." In the non-unionized world, employers are the ones to set what compensation is and potential employees can accept them or find a different job that compensates the employee in a way the employee feels is appropriate. In the unionized world, the union workers operate as though they are entitled to dictate the terms of their employment and press the employer (or taxpayer) for all that they're worth.

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Depends on if it's a small business and how established it is. Many small businesses don't have the overhead to provide a substantial match on their 401k.

The cliche union mentality in your post is amusing "if you have an employer who doesn't make any contribution shame on you for allowing that to happen." In the non-unionized world, employers are the ones to set what compensation is and potential employees can accept them or find a different job that compensates the employee in a way the employee feels is appropriate. In the unionized world, the union workers operate as though they are entitled to dictate the terms of their employment and press the employer (or taxpayer) for all that they're worth.

Every profession has somewhere the benefits are better. White collar, blue collar what ever color collar, union and non. Maybe someone makes more in salary and less match in their 401k, thats all on that person. All of my nonunion friends have changed jobs 5-10 times in their lives. All of them seeking better pay and better benefits. Many people look for new jobs because of it. I just happen to like my pay and benefits and have 15 years with the same company. There are not many people under 50 you can say that about these days. BTW there are plenty of nonunion places to work that treat there employees with very good salary and benefits. Including payed sick time, 401k plans with good matches, healthcare at reasonable rates, tuition reimbursement, vacation, you just need to figure out what is best for you.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

, you just need to figure out what is best for you.

No, that's not all you need to do. I have a great situation here at work, good 401(k) and all. I will likely have enough to be comfortable. But I WON'T BE ABLE to be comfortable if my property taxes triple in the next 15 years, because someone decided that it's MY RESPONSIBILITY to pay for the facft that union emlpoyees CHOSE, ON THEIR OWN, to underfund their retirement.

If I have to live on what I can accumulate, so can the teachers and cops, right? I'm not any smarter than they are...

[CTSurfrat]

Jim,

Many of your points are completely valid. (Can you believe a teacher is saying this! I'm a conservative in a blue state and surrounded by liberals at work!) You are correct, my 7% plus interest will not cover the money paid out to me during my retirement. My contributions do go to help pay for the teachers who have already retired. And I agree, I have no interest in paying into SS, although I have for years with all the odd and summer jobs I have had. I will never see that money again b/c I will get no SS benefits. I have no confidence it will be there anyway. I also have no confidence that the teacher retirement plan will be there either. As such, I contribute to a 403b - the public sector version of a 401k.

Our health insurance percentage goes up every year, and we have to pay for it all when we retire.

I understand your feelings about funding someone else. I did not get in over my head with my mortgage, why can't I get bailed out or special financing. I don't want to pay for those who made bad decisions.

Many of these benefits for public sector employees were put in place, I believe, when salaries were much less than they are now. There are still many areas of the state with low teacher salaries. Even still, I do think you are correct, if we don't get a handle of some of these unrealistic benefits, we are all in trouble!

My post was not an attempt to say how bad or good teachers have it, it was just to provide some information.

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Depends on if it's a small business and how established it is. Many small businesses don't have the overhead to provide a substantial match on their 401k.

The cliche union mentality in your post is amusing "if you have an employer who doesn't make any contribution shame on you for allowing that to happen." In the non-unionized world, employers are the ones to set what compensation is and potential employees can accept them or find a different job that compensates the employee in a way the employee feels is appropriate. In the unionized world, the union workers operate as though they are entitled to dictate the terms of their employment and press the employer (or taxpayer) for all that they're worth.

If you worked for someone offering no healthcare would that not be your own fault?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

If you worked for someone offering no healthcare would that not be your own fault?

The entire private sector offers no healthcare in retirement.. It's too expensive. That's why prices are where they are, if we offered healthcare for life, the price for everythinhg would double. See, in the real world (private sector) we have to make people WANT to buy our products and services, therefore, we cannot pass excessive costs on to our customers. Keeps things efficient.

In the public unionized world, unions give big $$ to elect politicians, and those politicians then reward the unions with insane perks. The cost of those perks is confiscated from taxpayers with force of law.

Those are irrefutable facts. If I'm wrong, please specify.

[Jim in CT]

[QUOTE=TheSpecialist;899670]

And for that 7% deduction, you get a pension that costs several times what your contributions, and their earnings, could ever pay for. That's where we (taxpayers) get screwed. I put 15% of my pay into my 401(k), and whatever I can accumulate on my own, is what I have to live on. You get to put 7% of your pay into your pension, and your pension is guaranteed. Meaning, when your contributions aren't NEARLY enough to pay for the insane benefits your pension promises, we (taxpayers) have to pay the rest./QUOTE]

Jim are you self employed or do you have an employer?

Even at my last crappy nonunion job 15 years ago, my employer matched the first 6% of what I put into my 401k. If you are self employed thats one thing, if you have an employer who doesn't make any contribution shame on you for allowing that to happen.

My employer matches, and you are missing the point, and the point is this..I need to find a way to live on whatever it is that I manage to accumulate on my own. If I fail to amass much, that is MY PROBLEM, it's not up to the teachers in my town to get second jobs to pay for my retirement.

Public unionized employees have it much, much better. Their pensions are all way underfunded, and when that happens, taxpayers get stuck with a huge bill.

It public employees want a $70,000 a year pension, than they can figure out, ON THEIR OWN, how to amass that much. If they choose to only put 7% of their pay into their pension, and it turns out that was less than half of what they needed, THAT SHOULD NOT BE MY PROBLEM TO SOLVE.

[TheSpecialist]

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;899686]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

My employer matches, and you are missing the point, and the point is this..I need to find a way to live on whatever it is that I manage to accumulate on my own. If I fail to amass much, that is MY PROBLEM, it's not up to the teachers in my town to get second jobs to pay for my retirement.

Public unionized employees have it much, much better. Their pensions are all way underfunded, and when that happens, taxpayers get stuck with a huge bill.

It public employees want a $70,000 a year pension, than they can figure out, ON THEIR OWN, how to amass that much. If they choose to only put 7% of their pay into their pension, and it turns out that was less than half of what they needed, THAT SHOULD NOT BE MY PROBLEM TO SOLVE.

I believe the line above covers you position those are your words right?

Your employer contributes to your 401k right, so if he tells you tomorrow he cant contribute anymore are you going to roll over and take it or are you gonna complain or maybe find a different job.

Fact of life everything is more expensive when you retire, just like it was for the people who retired 20 years ago and are still alive today, many with no increase in benefits.

As far as SSI goes, do you think that the SSi plan could handle the influx of public employees across the USA, and not have an across the board increase for all who pay into it? The money would have to come from somewhere, and yes I think that the states probably would pay less than combining a 401k, and ssi payment.

[TheSpecialist]

You know we have listened to you bitch about this for two years now. Instead of biotching lay out a proposal that would fix the mess, and be fair to all parties involved. You want to do away with pensions fine, then how do you make the people already working for the government and invested in said pensions whole in order to get rid of the pensions? Your an actuary, you must have a plan?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

You know we have listened to you bitch about this for two years now. Instead of biotching lay out a proposal that would fix the mess, and be fair to all parties involved. You want to do away with pensions fine, then how do you make the people already working for the government and invested in said pensions whole in order to get rid of the pensions? Your an actuary, you must have a plan?

"Instead of biotching lay out a proposal that would fix the mess"

How about this?

RETIREMENT: Just like everyone else, you put as much into your retirement plan as you choose (with a modest employer match). Whatever you can accumulate over the course of your career, is yours to keep. No more, no less. And everyone takes part in social security. That's how it works for the entire private sector. What could be more fair? But if you suggest that, MSNBC says you're declaring war on the middle class or some such nonesense.

HEALTHCARE: If the entire private scetor pays 30% of the cost of their plans, then you can too. What could be more fair?

Try making that wrong.

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Instead of biotching lay out a proposal that would fix the mess"

How about this?

RETIREMENT: Just like everyone else, you put as much into your retirement plan as you choose (with a modest employer match). Whatever you can accumulate over the course of your career, is yours to keep. No more, no less. And everyone takes part in social security. That's how it works for the entire private sector. What could be more fair? But if you suggest that, MSNBC says you're declaring war on the middle class or some such nonesense.

HEALTHCARE: If the entire private scetor pays 30% of the cost of their plans, then you can too. What could be more fair?

Try making that wrong.

Great but you didn't answer my question. What would bea fair way to make these people whole, cause it is not fair for them to start with zero. I am not a public employee, and my health care is paid 100%. I am a blue collar worker.

As far as health care you are wrong there are still corporations out there that cover 100% of employee health care, and many that have employees paying less than 30%. You need to stop using broad strokes with your approach.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

Great but you didn't answer my question. What would bea fair way to make these people whole, cause it is not fair for them to start with zero. I am not a public employee, and my health care is paid 100%. I am a blue collar worker.

As far as health care you are wrong there are still corporations out there that cover 100% of employee health care, and many that have employees paying less than 30%. You need to stop using broad strokes with your approach.

Specialist, can you elaoborate on who is starting "with zero"? EVERYONE starts with $0. That's what happens when you "start". Not sure what you mean by "making them whole". You get "made whole" by socking away enough of your own money to fund your own retirement. That's what most adults are expected to do in th ereal world, so I see no reason why union folk cannot get on board.

You are trying to refute my healthcare opinion by suggesting that some people get 100% of their healthcare paid for? Specialist, you cannot manage to such a rare exception. Some people also win the lottery, but that's not a viable strategy for the majority of us. When I say "all", can we assume that if I'm right for 98% of the group, that's close enough? Nit-picking isn't debate. I guess when you know you don't have facts or common sense that can justify the cost of the benefits, all you can do is dodge and dodge and dodge...

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Specialist, can you elaoborate on who is starting "with zero"? EVERYONE starts with $0. That's what happens when you "start". Not sure what you mean by "making them whole". You get "made whole" by socking away enough of your own money to fund your own retirement. That's what most adults are expected to do in th ereal world, so I see no reason why union folk cannot get on board.

You are trying to refute my healthcare opinion by suggesting that some people get 100% of their healthcare paid for? Specialist, you cannot manage to such a rare exception. Some people also win the lottery, but that's not a viable strategy for the majority of us. When I say "all", can we assume that if I'm right for 98% of the group, that's close enough? Nit-picking isn't debate. I guess when you know you don't have facts or common sense that can justify the cost of the benefits, all you can do is dodge and dodge and dodge...

New employees start with zero that is fine, but what would you do with current tenured employees? You are stating take away their pensions and start them with zero? I am saying based on years of service give them a lumpsum into a 401k plan to equal what they would earn if you freeze their pensions today. Then all pesions would be null and void. All most everyone would be happy clams. The taxpayers because there would be no more pensions, and the people who would lose them would be bought out of them and given a substantial start to their 401k.

If your employer came to you tomorrow and said, "Jim business is down and I can no longer contribute to your 401k, and any contributions I have already made I will be taking back." Would you be ok with that?

[TheSpecialist]

[QUOTE]EARTH TO SPECIALIST. In the real world, where people have to earn their money instead of confiscating it through taxes, no one gets healthcare in retirement. It's simply too expensive for any customer to voluntarily absorb that cost. Public union employees force me, through force of law, to give you benefits that NO ONE would voluntarily pay for. Is that fair?
/QUOTE]

You might want to check that fact

[Jim in CT]

[QUOTE=TheSpecialist;899904]

EARTH TO SPECIALIST. In the real world, where people have to earn their money instead of confiscating it through taxes, no one gets healthcare in retirement. It's simply too expensive for any customer to voluntarily absorb that cost. Public union employees force me, through force of law, to give you benefits that NO ONE would voluntarily pay for. Is that fair?
/QUOTE]

You might want to check that fact

Instead of calling me wrong without any support whatsoever, how about telling me where I'm wrong?

I keep asking you guys, if the benefits aren't excessive, why are so many cities and states so underfunded? YOU NEVER TRY TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

I don't want to move to South America, which some genius suggested. I want to pay reasonable taxes. I want my public servents to have compensation that is somewhat in line with mine.

[TheSpecialist]

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;899908]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

Instead of calling me wrong without any support whatsoever, how about telling me where I'm wrong?

I keep asking you guys, if the benefits aren't excessive, why are so many cities and states so underfunded? YOU NEVER TRY TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

I don't want to move to South America, which some genius suggested. I want to pay reasonable taxes. I want my public servents to have compensation that is somewhat in line with mine.

I never said I was a genius, whining about a problem, and not putting something substantial forward to the right people is useless. Come up with a real plan, not just give them what we have, everyone knows that what should happen. Where is the transition from what they have now, to getting what we have now. What do you do with the people that have 15 years invested in their pensions that is fair to both sides. I say give them a lumpsum into a 401k, if the feds would allow it.

Here is where you are wrong on healthcare, the retirees for the company I work for get their healthcare covered 100% just like us. There are other companies that do the same, but the majority probably do not. I don't paint with broad strokes see.