4 ms·

It's one thing to "restructure" the comp package for future employees, and something else to change compensation arrangements retroactively after your employers

• treis 6y ago
  I don't think it's quite that black and white. The deal that was struck was between the government workers and the voters at that time. That deal, more or less, said that future tax payers would pay for their pension. As a group, those then future and now present tax payers don't have much of a moral obligation to follow a deal that they never agreed to. And the workers don't get to act indignant that their pensions are in question. Their unions negotiated the agreement and chose to let the buck be passed instead of insisting on pensions being fully funded. The bargain was, at least in part, corrupt. The various public unions would campaign for and help elect those that would give them more money. An obvious conflict of interest that raises questions on why a shady deal should be upheld. The pensioners are, in general, gaming the system. They artificially inflate earnings at the end of their career to pump up their pension. Nepotism is rampant and there are plenty of positions with absurd salaries for what they do. They've sold out new entrants in their field to protect their own pensions. In general they're a bag of dicks. Fuck them.