I was listening to talk radio the other day and something was brought to my attention that outraged me so I'll share it with you and see if it fires you up.
They were using a specific police officer, I'll call him Steve, to shed light on the craziness of the pension system that a lot of public employees are entitled to.
Steve worked for 20 years as a police officer and retired when he was 45. At the time of retirement he was making $90,000 a year. He then went on to work as a small town chief of police or something to continue earning income.
Now I'm fine with paying Steve the $90,000 a year. I think that's a fair salary. My problem is with the pension that Steve is entitled to. After "retiring" (since he went on to work another job it isn't completely accurate to call it retiring in my opinion), Steve's pension paid him $65,000 a year for the rest of his life. To fully grasp the amount of money being paid out here let's say Steve lives to be 85 years old. So from his retirement at age 45 until his death at 85 he will be paid $2,600,000.
So guys like this get to retire 20 years earlier than people working in the private sector, and they are guaranteed a sizeable income for life. All of this is on the taxpayer dollar. The bigger problem is that when Steve retires some one has to be hired to take his place and that person is going to get the same deal so now we are paying the new guys salary plus Steve's pension.
In my opinion this is absolutely insane that for some reason we think public employees need to be this taken care of. Big companies used to have pension plans for their employees, then they realized it was going to bankrupt them and they had to stop doing it.
Is there any legitimate reason to keep a system like this going? Public employees get better pay, better benefits, more holidays and more vacation than the private sector and have much higher levels of job stability. It seems like we are trying to bankrupt our local, state, and federal treasuries for this craziness.
Or maybe I'm crazy and am missing something here, feel free to weigh in.
55 minutes ago
10 comments:
I agree with you that this is insane! And I don't like this idea at all. Government employees, pensions, unions ...I think these ideas are outdated and need to be restructured to fit our current state. I also think that of pensions remain, the retired employee must truly be retired. Pension should not be paid out if the employee chooses another line of work.
You should become a public employee like "Steve". He seems to be making out like a bandit.
-Alex
I don't think it's right to "retire" and continue to double dip the system. Especially when it is on the public's dime. Why can't teacher's retire at 45 if cops can?...and is that all the information, or was there any reason "Steve" had to retire after 20 years or are cops just allowed to do that?
First of all...you must have never had a police officer in your family. I have. He misses most every important event because he is keeping people safe. He works holidays, nights and weekends. He puts his own money into buying supplies. His wife and children wonder whether or not he is safe and know that most of the time he isn't. He comes home with injuries often. Most police officers retire young because they aren't able to physically serve at an older age the way they could before. Someone who works as hard and sacrifices as much as police officers do should be rewarded. I'm okay with my tax money going toward that. Should we eliminate veteran benefits too?
I firmly believe that firemen, policemen, and veterans should be thanked (or rewarded) for being willing to put their lives on the line every day so that the general public can live safer, more peaceful lives. I do, however, think the current system is a little odd. It doesn't seem like paying someone is the best way to show gratitude.
What a great blog topic my friend! Yeah, I'm ok with it simply because it's not an easy job. Steves get shot at all the time. If someone paid me to get shot at I'd make sure it was a lot of money.
And as far as retiring goes, you can do whatever you want with your retirement years. If you want to work more, go ahead. I've always imagined being a professor or something in my twilight years.
Amy M., what do you think would be a better way of showing someone appreciation, a neat plack or some cash in the hand?
LOTS of jobs/careers are difficult and involve risks. The lines of work that are coming up most here seem to me to also be ones of passion. Shouldn't doing what you love be part of the compensation? And I know that not all of these lines of work (government employees) require a higher education. Jonathan's example sounds like high salary for the level of education ... and then the passion and rewards of protecting the people boost it up even more.
It seems that if we let emotions cloud our judgement, we can't fully understand why this system is no longer valid. Many lines of work have "odd" schedules and dangers, but in the end, don't most people choose their own line of work. It is a trade off - and if emotion is left out of it, there is no sense in continuing outdated systems.
I agree with Amy - certain lines of work should be rewarded in a way that shows our appreciation, but it does not have to be as it is now. It is excessive for our times. Rewards could still involve money - but in a different form, healthcare for example.
I don't have an answer ... but agree that the current system is outdated and needs reform.
As the wife of an officer, and a biased opinion, I fully support the wages officers are paid. For a long time, the pay scale was totally skewed, similar to the way teachers are still unpaid. And I don't feel firefighters and officers should be put in the same class as "other" government employees. Some entry level "paper pushers" make more money than my husband. That is not fair.
While this is a career of passion, it is a job of risk. ALL jobs that involve risk have added benefits. If they didn't no one would want the job. Education is one thing that does contribute to higher pay, but being in a specialized field, like law enforcement or fire equals a level of education and should be fairly compensated. When my husband graduated the academy, he obtained enough credits to fulfill his AA in Law Enforcement Technology, all in an 18 week accelerated, and intense, program.
There is a constant demand of officers, but the quality of applicants is low. When competing with agencies that offer higher pay, other cities must up the appeal of their agency. This translates to higher pay, better benefits, and other incentives, like signing bonuses. It is a competitive market and similar to supply and demand. While living his dream is a great benefit, his dream isn't what got him the job, it's what got him to apply. His knowledge, skill, and physical capabilities is what got him the job. And it is not a job everyone can do. We don't live in CA and compared to CA agencies, he is paid anywhere from $8 to $15 less per hour.
Yes the pension schedule needs to be changed because as we see with General Motors, the overhead is excessive and not beneficial for a company's bottom line. However, government employees do not pay into social security and medicare or have a employer matching 401(k) like the private sector. They have the option of a 401(a) but the matching level is not as generous. He pays a fixed percentage of his check each paycheck and the city (taxpayers) pay a portion. If for whatever reason he does not make it to retirement age, we lose everything outside of our personal retirement plan.
As taxpayers, you approve these pensions and salaries. This is done through the city's board of directors, elected by the taxpayers. Some pay increases are even put to vote through measures. Once approved, it is hard to retract. However, you can change for the future. Pension structure can be changed for new officers hired, but you cannot change what current officers expect. If you do that, expect a strike and one that will effect everyone negatively.
As we suffer though this current economy, things will change because states, counties, and cities must reevaluate all aspects of the budget. These agencies must be willing to work with their respective jurisdictions, but since you have older, retired officers (unpaid) heading the unions, it'll be a tough sell. At the least, they can lower the percentage paid out because less is more at the older ages. Or change the age in which you can collect your pension, like social security. Sure you can retire at 45, but you can't collect until 65. Personally, I think it's excessive and I joke with my husband that we'll live better at retirement age than we do now.
People are wired differently. Not everyone can be an officer or fire fighter. It takes a special person to run towards the destruction and sacrifice himself to protect another. While it is a chosen profession, if no one chose it because of the risks, where would we be?
It is easy to speak from the outside looking in on how to change. It is easy to speak from the inside saying how things must stay the same. The goal is to find a happy compromise. Just remember, you get what you pay for, don't sacrifice safety and service for budget. Public safety is the last place you cut in a budget.
I appreciate all the comments everyone. Thanks for taking the time to weigh in on the discussion. My issue with this pay system is the way that pension plan works. It will basically result in costs going up every year without new revenue coming in to cover those costs. The longer this continues more and more tax money will be needed to cover the costs. It is inefficient, something typical of government and how they budget and spend money. In California we are having taxes raised because our government doesn't want to look for ways to cut spending and improve efficiency. This tax increase and the public employee pension system are just two frustrating things the government does that it feels like we have no control over, we just have to take it.
Jonathan, Do you really think the State of California isn't cutting costs? Have you talked to a first-year teacher lately? Odds are, he or she will be unemployed next year. EVERY first year teacher is being laid off in our district.
I think it is only obvious that CA is not cutting enough costs. That is sad about Sherry's district, and that they seem to be simply cutting all first year teachers rather than encouraging early retirement or laying off according to teaching skills and impact in the classroom. But odds are that LOTS of people will be unemployed next year. That is the time we are in ... I do agree, costs are going up, taxpayers end up paying for it, and my family almost always votes no on anything that involves more and higher taxes.
But I think the point of the blog is to discuss, hear other points of view and to have fun. Not to get so upset and only comment in the negative.
Post a Comment