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.....................

[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.

[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.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by 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.

Aside from the 35 years until your full pension, it sounds like you guys are getting a pretty decent deal compared to a couple of the schools around here. Keep in mind, "good deal" is a relative term and I'm sure it's still a screw job for taxpayers.

It's comforting to hear from someone that has to pay into a Union and sees the scam for what it is. There's no doubt that it works to your benefit but I'm also sure you see everyday a lackluster effort by teachers that have been there 15+ years, do the minimum necessary and don't give a damn about the students.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by 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.

I really respect someone who would opt out of the union, and I like hearing your reasons. I am sincerely impressed.

"we have 7% of our salary deducted automatically from our pay for retirement."

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.

If I am forced to live on whatever I can accumulate on my own, I see no earthly reason why public servents getthis golden guarantee. And that guarantee will cost our state tens of billions that we don't have.

Healthcare is the same thing. yes, you pay for some of the cost of your healthcare, but not NEARLY what the average person pays in the private sector. I respect teachers, and wish you were all billionaires. But there is a limit to what we can reasonably afford, but your union doesn't want to hear any of that.

"We pay no social security, but we don't get any benefits from it when we retire"

PLEASE, PLEASE do not pretend that you are making a "sacrifice" by not paying into social security. Nobody would voluntarily choose to pay into social security, if they could instead get a sweet pension. My social security taxes are used to fund the retirement of current retirees. In other words, I am paying for others to retire. Why don't teachers also have to pay to help others retire? Teachers really have it great here...by being exempt from social security, they don't have to fund anyone else's retirement. But because your pension is guaranteed (and because your contributions won't be nearly enough), everyone else has to pay for your retirement. Teachers aren't forced to fund anyone else's retirement, yet everyone else is forced to pay for teachers' retirement. How on Earth is that fair?

'In my district we contribute 18% of the cost of our medical insurance "

In the CT private scetor, on average, we pay 30% of the cost of our health insurance, and we generally have higher co-pays as well.

Here's whatr also gets me. Whenever someone like me says "geez, we need to tighten our belts here", your union responds by screaming that I do not like children. It's never a discussion about the mathematical facts, it's always an emotional appeal about the welfare of kids.

[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]

[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.

[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?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by CTSurfrat

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.

"From my district retirees pay about 12k a year for health insurance"

Please sir, tell me the other piece of that, which is, how much do the taxpayers pay for an eaverage health plan for retirees? Are you saying that the retired teacher pays 100% of the cost of the plan? I seriously doubt that.

"We have the option to contribute to a 403b, which is similar to 401k, but there is no matching"

Oh. So you want the taxpayers to match your contribution into your 403b, ON TOP OF GIVING YOU A GUARANTEED PENSION?

What's next? A hope diamond on your birthday, and a Fabrege egg for Christmas? Is there any limit to what you feel entitked to confiscate from your neighbors? Is there any limit to what property taxes should be? Is it ever enough?

you folks are public servents. And when the public you serve, collectively has less money than they used to, the sad reality is that we have less to give you. But your unions refise to listen to that, and they grotesquely claim that they are fighting for the middle class. It's repugnant.

[Swimmer]

Originally Posted by :deadhorse:Jim:deadhorse: in CT

"you folks are public servents. And when the public you serve, collectively has less money than they used to, the sad reality is that we have less to give you. But your unions refise to listen to that, and they grotesquely claim that they are fighting for the middle class. It's repugnant.

Hey Jim, do you do your brother-in-law's taxes? You know the guy who retired from where was it now, Meridian, Ct. police, or what department was it, refresh my memory. I'll bet you do taxes on the side to make ends meet. Hey Jim, when people pay you cash do you claim it all? Ya, have to watch out for those actuaries. They are a devious bunch.

[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]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"From my district retirees pay about 12k a year for health insurance"

Please sir, tell me the other piece of that, which is, how much do the taxpayers pay for an eaverage health plan for retirees? Are you saying that the retired teacher pays 100% of the cost of the plan? I seriously doubt that.

"We have the option to contribute to a 403b, which is similar to 401k, but there is no matching"

Oh. So you want the taxpayers to match your contribution into your 403b, ON TOP OF GIVING YOU A GUARANTEED PENSION?

What's next? A hope diamond on your birthday, and a Fabrege egg for Christmas? Is there any limit to what you feel entitked to confiscate from your neighbors? Is there any limit to what property taxes should be? Is it ever enough?

you folks are public servents. And when the public you serve, collectively has less money than they used to, the sad reality is that we have less to give you. But your unions refise to listen to that, and they grotesquely claim that they are fighting for the middle class. It's repugnant.

Seriously if you think you have it that bad here, then why not take you money and move to South America?

[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?