4 ms·
Maybe pensions are a bad idea after all, but the bigger implication of this is that it will be yet another thing that dissuades people from public service. Som
by GVIrish 13y ago
Maybe pensions are a bad idea after all, but the bigger implication of this is that it will be yet another thing that dissuades people from public service. Some may say that's a good thing, but if you keep removing benefits of public service, it is only going to reduce the quality of people working for our government.
People talk about how bad government incompetence is now, but it can get far worse in the future. Not saying that pensions need to stay, or that they should never be cut. Just saying that if the good reasons to go into public service keep getting removed government is only going to get worse.
- 001sky 13y agoit will be yet another thing that dissuades people from public service Lets face it, greed and easy-money is absolutely the wrong reason to be in "public service".
- dmm 13y agoAsking to be paid what you are promised is "greed"?
- 001sky 13y agoHa ha you should write one liners for [insert special interest here]. The parent is espousing "greed" as a primary means of recruitment. The method of payment my point. People motivated by "greed" is not the type of people one wants in government. Especially If we have to pay them with a form of remuneration is at once both opaque and easily manipulated. In otherwords, if these people (say teachers) are valuable, pay them proper salaries. Don't pay them poor salaries and then promise them a $2 or $5 million dollar pension pot if the "stick around" for 20-30 years. Just pay them fair and square a proper wage from the get-go. The poor pay + gold plated pension thing is just a form of dis-honest pay, where special interests manipulate the system for their own advantage. So, don't negotiate cut-rate payment plans for cut-rate people. Seems simple enough. If you want good people, pay them properly and transparently.
- GVIrish 13y agoI'd be all for just paying proper salaries up front. Chances are it would be very politically difficult to lobby for raising salaries for government workers, even if pensions were eliminated but it's a good idea IMO. As I said though, it's not "greedy" of people to choose a job that pays less in the short term because it makes up for it with a deferred benefit. It's no different than getting a smaller salary in return for equity or a lower salary in return for more leave. It's just another thing that goes into the equation when people are evaluating their options.
- 001sky 13y agoI don't disagree with anything as you've stated it here. The word "greed" (typically) goes beyond "rational foresight"to include opportunistic self-enrichment (esp. in the absence of transparency, effective oversight or control). But doing a DCF of a career trajectory vs. a simple Salary comparison is legitimate math any employee, IMHO.
- GVIrish 13y agoI don't think it's greed at all, if you're going into public service a lot of times you are paid less as a result but it's made up for in the benefits package. If the benefits package gets drastically reduced, then you're left with less pay, and less benefits than the private sector. So maybe some people will still go govvie out of a sense of duty, but for more than a few people it'll make it a raw deal. Especially considering how government workers now have to deal with furloughs and shutdowns. Sure, many people in other fields have to deal with a lot of uncertainty too, but one of the pluses of gov't work used to be stability. Without stability, it makes the job even less attractive.
- gaius 13y agoExcept in the UK public sector salaries are higher than private sector, plus the gold plated pension, job for life, etc. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14028848 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14028848