More than 6,400 Mass employees make over $100K

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

and besides.....thats not what you asked.

This is what you asked



and I said Go ahead and ask them.....seems like I answered the question you asked.

Again, focusing on the details, instead of the main issue.

Dad, I didn't ask you if I had your permission to ask them. I asked if they "SHOULD" be asked...meaning, do you think switching from pensions to 401(k)s is the right thuing to do?

Dad, do you know the difference between "can" and "should"? If my question was "CAN I ask them", then your response (that no one is stopping me) would have been pertinent. But, as you see, what I posted was "SHOULD we ask them". The word "should", to most people, gets at whether or not something is the right thing to do, not whether or not you have permission to do something.



Is that clear enough?

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"By your logic then, we should send everyone home at 40 hours, then have none to pick up the rest of the work."

Have you ever worked in the private sector? I'm expected to do my job, regardless of how many hours it takes. That is standard, accepted practice, except for municipal employees I guess.

Specialist, I see that you ignored my question. Gee, I wonder why? I'll post it again...

""If the entire private sector has to live with whatever we can accumulate in our 401(k)'s, why is it unfair to ask our public servents to do the same?"

1st I have and still do work in the private sector, in fact every job I have had has been in the private sector. Since High School I have worked for 4 different private companies, with the exception of 1 all offered 401k, and the current one offers a pension as well. So in all 4 private sector jobs, ot was offered to complete the days tasks as opposed to hiring more employees. It makes more sense because it cost less money, and the ot is not always consistant. My salary is probably less than yours, and when I work ot I have the chance to get into 6 figures. On some weeks it is not uncommon to work as many as 30 hours of ot. Now if you make say $100,000 a year and 50-60 hrs a week , how is it any differant than someone to make 60 or 70,000 a year and then work as many hours as you and turn it into 90-100,000. ? Most of the employees in that article probably make 60-70,000 as a base salary, they then work an enormous amount of extra hours like you do and they made more. Big friggin woop. Now if you got all of your work done within yourr 40 hours, you make out, no? The reasons givem for the Massport workers was that due to constuction and some other problems some employees worked more hours, but it was n, because it was a temporary thing to worth it to hire any new employees.

As fas as your benefits question goes, this posting had nothing to do with benefits, 401k's or pensions, it was about the amount of money some people made in one year. Are the costs out of control absolutely, should something be done, for sure but what I don't know.

I will also tell you this that my pension in know way will ever meet or exceed my salary. Those are the promplem pensions.

[Fly Rod]

I thought that 401's should have been introduced several years ago. The energy spent here should be directed to your local city council or town selectmen. Not one thing would be solved here. The rant goes on.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

I thought that 401's should have been introduced several years ago. The energy spent here should be directed to your local city council or town selectmen. Not one thing would be solved here. The rant goes on.

Fly Rod, I don't expect issues to be solved here. What I hoped for, was good, rigorous, open debate. But when I ask a pointed question, one gyu accuses me of being jealous of public employees, one guy tells me to stop hating public employees, one guy tells me that people are only "safe" if cops get these benefits...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

1st I have and still do work in the private sector, in fact every job I have had has been in the private sector. Since High School I have worked for 4 different private companies, with the exception of 1 all offered 401k, and the current one offers a pension as well. So in all 4 private sector jobs, ot was offered to complete the days tasks as opposed to hiring more employees. It makes more sense because it cost less money, and the ot is not always consistant. My salary is probably less than yours, and when I work ot I have the chance to get into 6 figures. On some weeks it is not uncommon to work as many as 30 hours of ot. Now if you make say $100,000 a year and 50-60 hrs a week , how is it any differant than someone to make 60 or 70,000 a year and then work as many hours as you and turn it into 90-100,000. ? Most of the employees in that article probably make 60-70,000 as a base salary, they then work an enormous amount of extra hours like you do and they made more. Big friggin woop. Now if you got all of your work done within yourr 40 hours, you make out, no? The reasons givem for the Massport workers was that due to constuction and some other problems some employees worked more hours, but it was n, because it was a temporary thing to worth it to hire any new employees.

As fas as your benefits question goes, this posting had nothing to do with benefits, 401k's or pensions, it was about the amount of money some people made in one year. Are the costs out of control absolutely, should something be done, for sure but what I don't know.

I will also tell you this that my pension in know way will ever meet or exceed my salary. Those are the promplem pensions.

"So in all 4 private sector jobs, ot was offered to complete the days tasks as opposed to hiring more employees. It makes more sense because it cost less money"

If the pensions are fattened by the overtime (as they are in many cases), then that system does not cost less money. It makes cops rich and taxpayers poor. If the pensions do not reflect overtime, you have a point.

"Now if you make say $100,000 a year and 50-60 hrs a week , how is it any differant than someone to make 60 or 70,000 a year and then work as many hours as you and turn it into 90-100,000. ? "

First, I don't work 50 hours on average, though I do some weeks...In some cases, you are right. In the case of some police departments, where the overtime is so steady, it would in fact be cheaper to hire additional employees to do that work at base pay instead of 150% of pay. They could hire part-time officers to do the extra work. But the unions won't allow that, because they want those cops to get rich.

"this posting had nothing to do with benefits, 401k's or pensions, it was about the amount of money some people made in one year."

Granted. But my question (about benefits) is pretty closely tied to the issue of public employee compensation, it's an issue that effects us all, and it's an isue that provides a huge benefit to a small number of people, while asking a large number of people to make huge sacrifices.

"Are the costs out of control absolutely, should something be done, for sure but what I don't know"

It's not rocket science, there are 2 choices. Raise taxes or cut benefits. We need to decide which is more fair. If cutting benefits meant that cops/teachers would have to eat cat food, I'd say raise taxes. But if cutting benefits simply means that cops/teachers have to live like the rest of us, then I say cut benefits.

I have no problem with folks in the private sector getting rich, because they still have to make their customers want to pay for their product or service. But no one in public service should be rich, because taxpayers do not have the option of refusing to pay.

Good, thoughtful post. Thanks.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Answer it, don't answer it, ignore it and insult me instead...your choice.

Because you, yourself, would never insult anybody in the context of a thread

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Wrong again, because you don't get economics 101.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Nice dodge, coward.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Are you getting it now?

I'll answer your question...

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Dad, pretend you are governor of Mass. Given the current economic climate, would you recommend that public employees switch from pensions to 401(k)'s? Or would you recommend leaving the pensions in place, and raising taxes significantly to pay for that?".

I would keep the pensions in place for those who were hired under that plan. These were the benefits packages that were offered them when they accepted the job, so they need to be honored. Going forward w/ new hires I would go to a 401k scenario.

Does that answer your question? You can throw out more questions or find flaws in this but I really don't care....you're not changing my view on this. You can't renege' on benefits offered...sorry that's just me.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I truly couldn't care less.

Now here's a statement that I've been trying to strike from conversation. Seems like every time I say, "You know what, I could not f(*&ing care less," I always surprise myself in how much less caring there is to do. I get there eventually though.

[scottw]

I love the new civility...isn't it great?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Because you, yourself, would never insult anybody in the context of a thread









I'll answer your question...




I would keep the pensions in place for those who were hired under that plan. These were the benefits packages that were offered them when they accepted the job, so they need to be honored. Going forward w/ new hires I would go to a 401k scenario.

Does that answer your question? You can throw out more questions or find flaws in this but I really don't care....you're not changing my view on this. You can't renege' on benefits offered...sorry that's just me.

Dad, after all that, and it turns out our positions are almost identical. The only difference is, I would require that younger workers (say under 35) hired under a pension, be forced to switch to a 401(k), of course keeping the portion of the benefit that they have earned. That's what the private sector did in the mid 1990s.

Yes, that answers my question. That was a direct answer, and I only needed to ask you 300 times to get it out of you.

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Dad, after all that, and it turns out our positions are almost identical. The only difference is, I would require that younger workers (say under 35) hired under a pension, be forced to switch to a 401(k), of course keeping the portion of the benefit that they have earned. That's what the private sector did in the mid 1990s.

Yes, that answers my question. That was a direct answer, and I only needed to ask you 300 times to get it out of you.

I also agree with this, but I think that anyone already hired should be either left alone, or some form of buyout in the form of a lumpsum payment equal to the current value of their pension be place into the new 401k plan to get them started. Like I stated earlier this post was strictly about the amount of income these people earned.

Also you previously stated in the private sector the companies make the customer pay for services they want. As an intelligent person I assume you would agree, that we all have wants and needs. Seeing as basic needs are that potholes are repaired, traffic, and street lights work, water and sewer work, someone protects our property, and someone teaches our children, then we must pay for these services as well. If we did not there would be fewer public servants to provide these services, cause like you stated you did, they would go to the private sector for more money.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

then we must pay for these services as well. If we did not there would be fewer public servants to provide these services, cause like you stated you did, they would go to the private sector for more money.

now ya did it....I'm weeping...

[Swimmer]

Originally Posted by Piscator

Details and overtime are typically viewed as two different things. Overtime counts toward pension and retirement "credit" and details do not as they are funded by the company needing it (which in turn passes the cost on to the consumer). Soooo, we are all paying for it in the end anyway. We are not paying the "detail" portion in pensions later.
The other question is, at what point does working all the "detail" & "overtime" hours impact the person performing their job. The rules are very lenient on allowing a lot of hours being worked in the course of the week and i hope it does not affect performance

I wasn't going to get involved in this again, but in Massachusetts overtime does not add to police pensions. Not one dime. Detail pay does not count either. Base salary only counts toward retirement. For thirty seven years when the phone guy or the N Star/Edison crew went for coffee I had to pay for my own and they never took money from me for thiers. No coffee, no beer, and I worked with some pretty loose crews, but thier was never any quid pro uo, never. Everyone always wants to think the worse, no doubt thier are some #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&s out there who try make all of us look bad, but we only look bad as the #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&s, if we allow ourselves to be included in your and thier thought processes.

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by Swimmer

I wasn't going to get involved in this again, but in Massachusetts overtime does not add to police pensions. Not one dime. Detail pay does not count either. Base salary only counts toward retirement. For thirty seven years when the phone guy or the N Star/Edison crew went for coffee I had to pay for my own and they never took money from me for thiers. No coffee, no beer, and I worked with some pretty loose crews, but thier was never any quid pro uo, never. Everyone always wants to think the worse, no doubt thier are some #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&s out there who try make all of us look bad, but we only look bad as the #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&s, if we allow ourselves to be included in your and thier thought processes.

[Swimmer]

Jim, the next time you need help call a friend or a stranger, and see if the can help you clean up your problems. Get in a crash, exchange papers with the other person, and dont bother the cop Fall flat on your face, unresponsive, at the post office and see who get there more quickly, cop or a firefighter. Cops do CPR really well. Remember, it is the first few minutes that count the most. Your relative that retired at 43 and is going to collect his retirement for 50 years is an anomaly. In Mass. the only way that would occur would be if he retired on a disability. To max out here you have to served 32 years and be 55 years of age. You can retire under 55 on a regular retirement, but the pay is reduced drastically for every year under 55 that that the person is who is retiring.

My wife has a grad degree in math and she cant stand it either when everyone (me) doesn't agree with her . You need something more to do in the winter. And stop calling people cowards here. That word shouldn't be used loosely.

[Chesapeake Bill]

Swimmer,

I can take it. I've been called worse by better. I have lots of ribbons and metals to prove him wrong. If you look at my early discussions I tried to be civil. Then, like others here, I realized it was like wrestling the proverbial pig in mud...so I started just poking into the corral to get teh bull mad. It worked.

You hit it right on the head. He needs more to do in the winter.

Bill

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by Swimmer

I wasn't going to get involved in this again, but in Massachusetts overtime does not add to police pensions. Not one dime. Detail pay does not count either. Base salary only counts toward retirement. For thirty seven years when the phone guy or the N Star/Edison crew went for coffee I had to pay for my own and they never took money from me for thiers. No coffee, no beer, and I worked with some pretty loose crews, but thier was never any quid pro uo, never. Everyone always wants to think the worse, no doubt thier are some #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&s out there who try make all of us look bad, but we only look bad as the #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&s, if we allow ourselves to be included in your and thier thought processes.

Hey Swimmer, thanks for getting involved in the post again. You are correct. Quinn Bill $ does count but OT & Details do not. I stand corrected. More importantly, I apologize if my post lumped all the good in with the bad. It wasn't my intention and I should have been more careful. Sorry for that. Thank you for posting and pointing that out. The reason I posted is that I know of very specific instances where this quid pro quo happens consistently in a particular town/city with a number (not all) of particular officers. I know this because I have some close friends/relatives that are on the force there (& no, not the town I live in). You are correct, the few bad eggs make everyone else look bad.

One thing I don't get is why does a 4 hour and 30 minute detail get rounded up to 8 hours?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Chesapeake Bill

Swimmer,

I have lots of ribbons and metals to prove him wrong.

Bill

can we see your "metals" ?

Originally Posted by Chesapeake Bill

Swimmer,
The fire is so much brighter to the uninformed...

I'm noticing that cheap shots and reveling in prodding, insults... is OK if it goes one way(your way)...."do you fish""...that's a good one....proverbial pig...brilliant...just don't say "coward"...the thought/word police get mad and tell you what you may and may not do and say here(themselves excluded of course)....I think there's a word for that too but I wouldn't want to use it loosely...

[Chesapeake Bill]

Scott,

You are more than welcome to see both the ones I display in my shadow box (properly referred to as medals) and the ones I sling! Good catch. My bad for typing too fast. I can take a ribbing. I actually nejoy the good natured subtle humor that this board provides. There are many closet commedians here.

I have found that with the written word it is often difficult to tell when you have crossed that thin line from kidding into insults or accusations. Pardon me while I continue maintaining some reels for the upcoming season.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Chesapeake Bill

Scott,

You are more than welcome to see both the ones I display in my shadow box (properly referred to as medals) and the ones I sling! Good catch. My bad for typing too fast. I can take a ribbing. I actually nejoy the good natured subtle humor that this board provides. There are many closet commedians here.

I have found that with the written word it is often difficult to tell when you have crossed that thin line from kidding into insults or accusations. Pardon me while I continue maintaining some reels for the upcoming season.

get on it man...spring is coming fast...building my collection of bucktails as we speak...good to have thick skin, particularly in here

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Swimmer

Jim, the next time you need help call a friend or a stranger, and see if the can help you clean up your problems. Get in a crash, exchange papers with the other person, and dont bother the cop Fall flat on your face, unresponsive, at the post office and see who get there more quickly, cop or a firefighter. Cops do CPR really well. Remember, it is the first few minutes that count the most. Your relative that retired at 43 and is going to collect his retirement for 50 years is an anomaly. In Mass. the only way that would occur would be if he retired on a disability. To max out here you have to served 32 years and be 55 years of age. You can retire under 55 on a regular retirement, but the pay is reduced drastically for every year under 55 that that the person is who is retiring.

My wife has a grad degree in math and she cant stand it either when everyone (me) doesn't agree with her . You need something more to do in the winter. And stop calling people cowards here. That word shouldn't be used loosely.

Swimmer, let me see if I understand you, OK?

I am not saying cops don't deserve a fair wage. What I am saying is, I don't see why they deserve richer benefits (retirement and healthcare) than what's available to the public they claim to serve.

Instead of telling me what's wrong with that (because obviously there is nothing wrong with that), you tell me that I therefore don't deserve police protection?

I'll say this. If my town offered a private company-alternative to public police, and I got to choose which covered me, I would go private, because it would obviously be much cheaper.

You are another one of thise clowns who cannot attempt to respond to the merits of my argument, so you come up with some stupid response that's off point. Somehting that's designed to stop the debate.

Dad Fisherman also agreed with me that they should switch to 401(k)s, I guess he doesn't deserve that protection either.

"Your relative that retired at 43 and is going to collect his retirement for 50 years is an anomaly"

How would you know that? How could you possibky know how many guys do that? Here in CT, most towns have no age minimum, they only require 20 years of service.


"stop calling people cowards here. That word shouldn't be used loosely"

Last time I checked, I don't answer to you, I don't need your permission to state my opinion. I don't use that term loosely. I use it when it fits, for example, when someone like you refuses to answer a simple question, and instead hurls insults.

I asked many times why cops deserve pensions instead of 401(k)s. It's a simple, direct, fair question. Instead of answering, you went on a nonsensical rant about how, if I want some limits on public compensation, then I don't deserve those services. Believe me, if I could opt out o fthose services, and get my property taxes back, I would. Because every service provided by a public union, can be provided by a private entity for a fraction of the cost. Everyone knows this. That fact may not serve your personal agenda, but it's a fact nonetheless.

You didged my question completely. That's intellectually cowardly.

"You need something more to do in the winter."

Sorry if my questions make you uncomfortable. In the description of this forum, John R stated somehting to the effect of "if you don't want to hear what someone has to say, then do not enter".

I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong, I'm as flawed as anyone else. However, I apply a thoughtful, common sense thought process to these issues, and that makes it tough for someone like you to debate me, because you aren't able to articulate why you feel the way you do. If you could, you would have responded to my question instead of dodging and insulting.

I just cannot think of a reason why towns should face bankruptcy so cops should have pensions instead of 401(k)s. Obviously you disagree, but you will not tell me why. Can't you try?

[Jim in CT]

Swimmer, in another one of your asinine rants, you said people give cops pensions to "feel safe".

I asked you to support your assertion that communities where cops have pensions are "more safe" than communities where cops have 401(k)s. I noticed you never responed to that, either.

Swimmer, I respond to your points directly, I think you'll agree. All you do is dodge my points.

If that's not cowardly, what do you call it.

One last time Swimmer. Why would it be inappropriate to expect cops to live with 401(k)s instead of pensions, since everybody else has to do that?

Am I going too fast for you? Too many big words in that question?

I was a Marine, Swimmer, I was in combat twice, and I'm damn proud of that. However, I don't think that entitles me to lifetime benefits that people are genuinely burdened to have to pay for. I don't feel entitled to benefits so rich that it literally effects the bond rating of the government that pays for them. I don't want senior citizens to have to do without medicine or heat so that I can have a fat, cushy pension.

You, apparently, are fine with asking people to work an extra job so that you can have benefits that do not exist, in fact can not exist, in the real world.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I was a Marine, Swimmer, I was in combat twice, and I'm damn proud of that.

Someone with a taxpayer paid retirement system complaining about taxpayer paid retirment systems.

Classic.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by likwid

Someone with a taxpayer paid retirement system complaining about taxpayer paid retirment systems.

Classic.

My wife was a schoolteacher before we had kids. She agrees with me that pensions are an unfair burden to ask the taxpayers to pay for, and she has ticked off her union by saying that. She has begged her union to switch to 401(k)s, and she has made more than a few enemies.

I don't just talk the talk likwid. In this economic climate, pensions are just wrong and unfair. If that means my wife gets a smaller retirement package, fine, that's what I want. As I said before, I don't feel personally entitled to benefits that are so rich that folks have to struggle to pay for them.

I'm being less hypocritical given that this effects me personally, not more hypocritical. I stick to my convictions. When she goes back to teaching, I'd prefer that she get a 401(k) than a pension.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Jim,

I think Ted was asking if you get a pension from your service in the USMC.

[Jim in CT]

Swimmer, I apologize for the personal insults. I was called on it, and the person who called me on it was exactly right to do so. A perfect example of my many flaws that I need to work on.

I stand by my assertion that you have repeatedly refused to answer my direct questions. If I ask why do cops deserve pensions, I don't think an appropriate response is that I don't deserve police protection.

I said before that I respect cops and teachers. I have 2 family members who are cops, and my wife is a temporarily retired teacher. These are difficult, vitally important jobs.

That being said, I see no reason why these folks (who are public servents) should not be expected to get by with the same benefits available to the public the claim to serve.

If anyone disagrees with me, instead of insulting me, perhaps you could explain why. I genuinely like to debate with those who disagree with me, it's the best way to learn.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Jim,

I think Ted was asking if you get a pension from your service in the USMC.

No pension.

I will say this. If I did receive a pension, I would take it, i wouldn't burn the money. But if it was put to a vote, I would vote to abolish pensions.

My wife will likely receive some kind of pension. We'll take it, because we did pay into it with our own money, but I don't think it's fair. And I would support any politician who agreed with me.

I wish we all had enough money to give teachers and cops a blank check, I really do. But the fact is, we don't.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

No pension.

I will say this. If I did receive a pension, I would take it, i wouldn't burn the money. But if it was put to a vote, I would vote to abolish pensions.

My wife will likely receive some kind of pension. We'll take it, because we did pay into it with our own money, but I don't think it's fair.

Fair enough.

thanks for the answer

[Chesapeake Bill]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I will say this. If I did receive a pension, I would take it, i wouldn't burn the money.

Comes across as hypocritical IMHO. A sort of, "I can't have it so neither can you" approach. Not that you meant it that way but rather the way the words read.

[likwid]

Military Retired Pay Overview - Military Benefits - Military.com

Military has quite a few different pension/retirement pay systems.

Seems a bit better than having to wait till you're 55 too!

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by likwid

Military Retired Pay Overview - Military Benefits - Military.com

Military has quite a few different pension/retirement pay systems.

Seems a bit better than having to wait till you're 55 too!

Likwid, I am as opposed to pensions for veterans as I am opposed to pensions for everyine else. In my opinion, pensions so expensive that they represent an unreasonable burden on the customer (taxpayer).

The fact that the only entities that still offer pensions are all going bankrupt, seems to support my opinion.