5 ms·
"Retirement entitlements"? You mean the pensions people have earned, with their labor? It's not a surprise, to anyone who thinks about it for more than 20 seco
by content_sesh 6y ago
"Retirement entitlements"? You mean the pensions people have earned, with their labor?
It's not a surprise, to anyone who thinks about it for more than 20 seconds that RN or firefighter is not, in fact, a revenue generating position for the city. But they're generally agreed to be necessary, so why should they not be paid a living wage?
- emsy 6y agoSome might say they're... entitled to them.
- mc32 6y agoNo issues with common sense retirements —but some of these are 90% of pre-retirement salaries where people “retire” take their entitlements and work elsewhere after retirement making good money on top of their retirement.
- freeone3000 6y agoOkay, so what?
- mc32 6y agoI want service out of my money that contributes to that pension. Make it 30 or 40 years like everyone else has to work.
- shaftway 6y agoI know a couple firefighters in the bay area and they definitely game this system. They'll work a typical salaried position for ~30 years, and then in their last year (or last couple years) they'll stuff as much overtime as they possibly can in, sometimes more than triple their regular salary. Pension is based on wages over the last year or two, so their pension payments skyrocket upwards. Managers know and are complicit in this, in solidarity with their coworkers. There's often peer pressure too; lower ranked staff are urged to not even request overtime so that it can all go to the near-retirees without a paper-trail of favoritism. It's not uncommon for >98% of overtime to go to the 2 or 3 people who are close to retirement. I'm all for a living wage for people in critical or permanent roles, but this is not that, and it's not fair. This is the opposite, driving pay down for newer recruits (because they can't request overtime), driving retirement benefits up (far above what was earned during the career), and costing the public in the process.
- diebeforei485 6y agoIf public sector employees want private sector wages, they shouldn't also get pensions. They can save for retirement in a 401(k) or equivalent.
- freeone3000 6y agoJust because you are dissatisfied with the options your job gives you isn't a reason to remove the compensation of other workers. There's no reason private companies can't offer pensions - they used to! Organize and talk to your employer.
- diebeforei485 6y agoTaxpayers have every right to question where their money is being spent. SF's pension liabilities are too high.
- content_sesh 6y agoIf private sector employees want public sector benefits and job protections, they can agitate for them. Talk to your coworkers about organizing and unionizing. You don't need to drag down others to pull yourself up.
- mc32 6y agoCompanies who overcompensate can liquidate if they have to. Cities can’t easily dispose of their obligations no matter how foolhardy they were. Instead they raise taxes, deliver fewer services or incur further debt via bond issuance.
- WkndTriathlete 6y agoNo. There are three problems with defined-benefit systems, especially as a form of civil servant benefit: 1) There is far too much risk involved. No one really knows how long a person will live beyond retirement 40 years from now; 2) The systems, as they are in place today, result in retirement income that far exceeds expected returns from investment or growth in GDP over the preceeding 30-40 years of work, and are unsustainable by taxpayers _by definition; 3) The taxpayer - who should be the adversary when negotiating pensions and salaries for public servants - gets no place at the table during negotiations. It is in the best interests of both the leadership of civil institutions and the employed civil servants to increase both salary, pensions, and benefits far beyond any rational economic analysis. Eventually these policies result in places like Flint or Detroit. My expectation is that Illinois is likely to join them in about 10 years they are so far in the hole.
- SamReidHughes 6y agoFirefighters are far above the "living wage" line already. They should make whatever lets the department keep headcount up.
- someguydave 6y agoThey should eliminate professional firefighters as a profession and go back to drafting the population or allowing volunteers to serve.