Who, exactly, supports public unions?

[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 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.

So will you have a 70,000 dollar a year pension?

[TheSpecialist]

[QUOTE] 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.
/QUOTE]


Although these numbers are from 2002, I highly doubt that anyones pension benefit has doubled since then.

If you are talking 70,000/ year pension where are you getting these actual numbers?


TEACHER RETIREMENT COMPARISONS

[CTSurfrat]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

So will you have a 70,000 dollar a year pension?

If a teacher earns 100k year after 35 years of teaching, then yes he/she will have a pension of 70k. Most teachers don't make that kind of money! In 2006-2007 year average ct teacher salary was about 61k.

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by CTSurfrat

If a teacher earns 100k year after 35 years of teaching, then yes he/she will have a pension of 70k. Most teachers don't make that kind of money! In 2006-2007 year average ct teacher salary was about 61k.

Exactly, I know there are some exceptions like high paid administrators, but our friend Jim would have everyone believe that these people all earn a pension close to what their salary is, and that simply is not the case. Also in many cases these people are paying large payments for health insurance in their retirement.

Is the pension system out of control and costly , sure but what is the cheaper alternative. If they instituted 401k plans, than the employer would no doubt end up with a matching contribution of some sort. This would be a taxpayer cost. Also I believe these teachers would also then have to pay into SSi, as would their employer, and they would then receive benefits , another taxpayer cost.

[CTSurfrat]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

Exactly, I know there are some exceptions like high paid administrators, but our friend Jim would have everyone believe that these people all earn a pension close to what their salary is, and that simply is not the case. Also in many cases these people are paying large payments for health insurance in their retirement.

Is the pension system out of control and costly , sure but what is the cheaper alternative. If they instituted 401k plans, than the employer would no doubt end up with a matching contribution of some sort. This would be a taxpayer cost. Also I believe these teachers would also then have to pay into SSi, as would their employer, and they would then receive benefits , another taxpayer cost.

From my district retirees pay about 12k a year for health insurance. We have the option to contribute to a 403b, which is similar to 401k, but there is no matching.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

but our friend Jim would have everyone believe that these people all earn a pension close to what their salary is, and that simply is not the case. Also in many cases these people are paying large payments for health insurance in their retirement.

Is the pension system out of control and costly , sure but what is the cheaper alternative. If they instituted 401k plans, than the employer would no doubt end up with a matching contribution of some sort. This would be a taxpayer cost. Also I believe these teachers would also then have to pay into SSi, as would their employer, and they would then receive benefits , another taxpayer cost.

Specialist, you are either ignorant or biased.

"Jim would have everyone believe that these people all earn a pension close to what their salary is"

I never said any such thing. The pension payout is what, a % of their highest 3 years, or something? All I'm saying is, whatever the promised benefits are, the resulting debt proves that the benefits are simply too rich. Here in CT, the unfunded liabilities for retirement asnd healthcare benefits are $34 billion, which is $10,000 per person. Either our taxes are way too low (no one is saying that), or the benrfits are too rich. What other possibility is there?

"these people are paying large payments for health insurance in their retirement"

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?

"If they instituted 401k plans, than the employer would no doubt end up with a matching contribution of some sort. This would be a taxpayer cost. "

You need to get SOME FACTS before you form your opinions, sir. Yes, 401(k) contributions involve a cost, but that cost IS A PITTANCE compared to the cost of a guaranteed pension. For God's sake man, why on earth do you think the enitre non-union world switched to 401(k)'s 20 years ago? Because it was CHEAPER.

You have no idea what you're talking about. None.

"Also I believe these teachers would also then have to pay into SSi, as would their employer, and they would then receive benefits , another taxpayer cost"

Oh. So you are suggesting that teachers MADE A SACRIFICE by opting out of social security? You're saying it's CHEAPER for society to give teachers pensions, than it is for them to participate in social security?

Do you ever get tired of being so unbelievably wrong? Seriously? You really, really think that guaranteed pensions cost taxpayers LESS than social security?