The Retirement Heist

[eytonxav]

While this may not be true for all jurisdictions, the one area in these public pensions that really gauls me, is when city worker (mostly its cops and firemen) somehow are able to put in ridiculous amounts overtime in their last few years, and as a result can walk away with pensions that far exceed their actual salary. I do not believe these plans were designed with the expectation they would be gamed, and this area is one that does not seem fair to the taxpayers. Those loop holes need to be closed and those in charge should not allow that practice to continue (except their doing it too). The City of Ft Worth has major funding problems due to this.

That said, I greatly admire all police and firemen, but nevertheless, I feel this is just plain wrong.

 

[Gumby]

+1 . I can't blame any individual for taking advantage of the system that currently exists, but pension spiking really should be prohibited.

 

[MichaelB]

No. The state had bills in the amount of $xxx in a particular year. Some of bills were for economic development grants, some of the bills for building public amenities like parks and roads, etc., some of the bills were salaries for current state employees, and some of the bills were for required contributions for the employee pension plan (as calculated by the actuaries). Because the elected public officials refused to raise taxes to cover all the bills, they had to short something. They chose to short the pension plan contributions. They could have shorted road construction or economic development or something else. They chose the pension contribution because the other things would be immediately noticeable. It had nothing to do with the level of employee contributions. It had to do with choices by the people we elected and their cowardice in not doing the right thing and raising taxes. Using your logic, we could just as easily go back to the road paving company and say "we paid you too richly, you'll have to give us some money back."

Exactly. The underfunded pension issue is framed improperly and blaming the unions is a red herring.

Underfunding pensions in the past was a deliberate choice that enabled politicians to spend more elsewhere, which they did. Some got paid and others got promises. To say now that the ones that got promises do not deserve to be paid is unacceptable, as is asking the victims to make up the loss, and blaming their representatives is another form of blaming the victim.

Instead of lowering the pension or demanding more from the employees why not go back and ask all those that got contracts and did business to return part of that money? Better yet, go back and assess the difference on the taxpayers of the past. And if that can't be done, then the taxpayers now will need to foot the bill. And perhaps more politicians need to be made accountable for their actions.

+1 . I can't blame any individual for taking advantage of the system that currently exists, but pension spiking really should be prohibited.

+1

 

[donheff]

Actually, I will challenge this from one other angle, then go to work on my honey-do list

From the rest of the entries in this thread I get the feeling you are blowing off your to-do-list. Tsk, tsk. Since I last posted I have been off on the bike checking out all of the marches/rallies downtown - unfortunately they were not very inspiring.

It would be different if they raised the taxes in 'real time' to fund the pensions. To do it after the fact would be like:

Say you buy a big screen TV for cash. You have every right to expect that you paid your money and that was that. Ten years later, the company is going out of business, and traces it back to the fact that it cut prices on its products years ago and didn't fund R&D and now they don't have compelling new products. So heck, since you got a deal on that TV years ago (it didn't include enough R&D expenses), the company can go back and retro-actively charge you that higher price for the TV.

I don't think you would go for that (you'd laugh and tell them to pound sand). But isn't that analogous to your view that taxpayers were getting a 'deal' at the time, and now it's time to pay up?

-ERD50

I think a better analogy to the retroactive big screen TV payment scenario would be cutting employee pension benefits because the company/government realized it screwed up back in the day.

The appropriate taxpayer analogy would be the company shareholders taking a haircut when the poor planning comes home to roost.

 

[ERD50]

From the rest of the entries in this thread I get the feeling you are blowing off your to-do-list. Tsk, tsk.

heh-heh, yep, I just had to try to get in a quick reply as they were coming in. Now I'm gonna need a gear puller, no time to get one today before I'm going out again, so that to-do list is getting pushed back to next week. I'll survive though

RE: TV company asking for 'back pay':

I think a better analogy to the retroactive big screen TV payment scenario would be cutting employee pension benefits because the company/government realized it screwed up back in the day.

The appropriate taxpayer analogy would be the company shareholders taking a haircut when the poor planning comes home to roost.

I'd say you could also make a similar analogy that retroactively made employees pay more to keep their same promised level of pension benefits to make up for what their employer didn't contribute in years past.

Yes, the employees could be asked to pay, and/or have their benefits cut. The money has to come from somewhere, right? For public pensions, it is either the pensioners, the Union, or the taxpayers, or some combo. There's no getting around that.

I'm not sure there is any real analogy to a shareholder when we talk public pensions though. There are the bond-holders, but a default would raise interest rates hurting taxpayers anyhow. I can choose to buy shares or not in a company, that's tougher with a government.

Exactly. The underfunded pension issue is framed improperly and blaming the unions is a red herring. ...

Looks like we will end up agreeing to disagree on this one. I just can't see that it is a red-herring at all to say the unions share a significant part of the blame.

As I said before, the Union leaders are at the table with our politicians, and a wink-wink-nod-nod says 'Well, Mr Politician, you are up for election this next cycle, and you know we have not made our endorsements for our millions of members yet.... Now, about those benefits, you don't really want to suggest that our voting members have their contributions raised at this time, do you? No, I didn't think so....'


The taxpayers just don't have anyone at the table like that. Sure, to some degree the electorate has to take some responsibility for electing [derogatory remark self-edited] who we do, but the Union is just closer to this, and IMO, should share more of the responsibility in fixing it. If you don't see it that way, then well, you don't.

As a point of reference - when it comes to underfunded private pensions, there is some insurance/backup from the PBGC (limited to $54K annual currently). The key point here is that is not a taxpayer bailout, it is funded by contributions from those same private corporations. If a company offers a pension, they pay into the fund (and pay more if their funding level is lower). So (at least to date) they don't go outside and ask others to pay the bill. Makes me wonder why a program was not set up like this for State and Municipal govt pensions? We wouldn't have this discussion, they would be forced to buy 'insurance', and the insurance would be there if needed.

Of course, if the claims against PBGC exceed their ability to pay, it's a new ballgame. A quick scan of the wiki article didn't give me sense of how well covered they are, and it's admittedly tough to predict how many businesses will go bankrupt with an underfunded pension.

-ERD50

 

[GregLee]

... but the Union is just closer to this, and IMO, should share more of the responsibility in fixing it.

Broadminded though I am, I just don't get this at all. The union bargains with the state on the behalf of employees. That's its function. It doesn't represent you, taxpayers generally, the state, or anyone except its members. There are other ways for you, as a citizen and taxpayer, to be represented -- like, oh you know, voting, calling up your representative, and so on. But it's not your business to be telling the union what to do. You didn't elect union representatives, you don't pay their salaries, and you can't expect the union to defend your interests. When you don't like the way things are going, take it up with your own state representatives.

 

[ERD50]

Broadminded though I am, I just don't get this at all. The union bargains with the state on the behalf of employees. That's it's function. It doesn't represent you, taxpayers generally, the state, or anyone except its members. There are other ways for you, as a citizen and taxpayer, to be represented -- like, oh you know, voting, calling up your representative, and so on. But it's not your business to be telling the union what to do. You didn't elect union representatives, you don't pay their salaries, and you can't expect the union to defend your interests. When you don't like the way things are going, take it up with your own state representatives.

I understand all that. But as I pointed out, the Union has a power that I don't have - they can collectively throw around the power of millions of votes. Me calling/writing my reps and voting for the lesser evil that I can find is less than a drop in the bucket in comparison.

When they moved to reduce collective bargaining powers in Wisconsin, well, there was quite the uproar. I saw it as just leveling the playing field between public workers and taxpayers.

-ERD50

 

[GregLee]

I understand all that. But as I pointed out, the Union has a power that I don't have - they can collectively throw around the power of millions of votes. Me calling/writing my reps and voting for the lesser evil that I can find is less than a drop in the bucket in comparison.

If, when the Union's and your interests are opposed, sometimes the Union wins, that doesn't make you right and the Union wrong. Might doesn't make wrong.

When my workplace was unionized back in the 80s (I think), I had this major reservation about the union selecting political candidates and making political contributions, using my money and in my name. I didn't like it, and I didn't join the union. (I always had to pay union dues, but I didn't have to join the union.) However, in the years since, my union turned out to be meticulous about writing me in advance about what portion of my union dues would be used for what specific political purposes, and setting out a procedure for me to follow for getting a rebate of this portion of my union dues, in case I disagreed with this political function of the union. It seemed fair to me, though I would have preferred the union stay out of politics altogether.

 

[kat]

GregLee,

If anyone asked me in the past, I would say I support unions. No one has asked me lately, but I still do.

I believe it is a stretch to say people can take this up with their state representatives. I did not know what was going on. Only when there is a hiccup in the system does anyone put it in the media.

Even now, here in NY, with a union (PEF) dancing with the governor after its executive board backed a contract that its membership later voted down....and they all want tweaks....

that's all behind some doors, and no one is giving me facts.

I am left to say I want everyone to be happy. Know what I mean?

Where in this mix do I fit as a taxpayer?

Also, I doubt my state rep has an inside track on the governor. In NY, it's been three men in a room, and the unions work the same way.

No disrespect to any union member intended in my comments.

 

[GregLee]

I am left to say I want everyone to be happy. Know what I mean?

I think I do. Let's just try to all get along. I'm for that. And in times of prosperity, probably we will.

 

[JP.mpls]

Texas Proud,
You are correct about the pension pay out. I'm sure the amounts payed out were legal, based on our ages, and the return on this money if invested until 65.

Acting legally doesn't mean acting ethically. In my opinion they screwed all their employees over.

They were not in financial trouble. The pension was overfunded, and not costing the company anything. They saw it as a way to pay less toward employee retirement programs moving forward, and get a nice big payout at the expense of all their employee's retirements.

The pension plan was about 18 years old when it was dropped. Because the payouts increase exponentially over time, the longest standing plan participants were just starting to get to the point where the payouts would be more significant.

Employees now get up to a 3% match in their 401K plans. They froze all wages for 2 years at the same time. So these unpaid employee raises basically finance the employee retirement program moving forward.

I am upset about losing this pension. That being said, I actually like the work I'm doing, and I am thankful to have decent employment in this economy. Many are not so lucky. At 52 with no pension, it will be a long time before I can seriously consider retirement. I suspect that retiring at 62 might be the equivalent of ER for many people my age.

Take care,

JP

PS: Your concept of a steady 6% annual return on my 25K investment over 20 years creating a nice monthly annuity payment is a very nice dream. Have you truly obtained this type of return on your investments over the last 8 years?

 

[clifp]

Exactly. The underfunded pension issue is framed improperly and blaming the unions is a red herring.

Underfunding pensions in the past was a deliberate choice that enabled politicians to spend more elsewhere, which they did. Some got paid and others got promises. To say now that the ones that got promises do not deserve to be paid is unacceptable, as is asking the victims to make up the loss, and blaming their representatives is another form of blaming the victim.

Instead of lowering the pension or demanding more from the employees why not go back and ask all those that got contracts and did business to return part of that money? Better yet, go back and assess the difference on the taxpayers of the past. And if that can't be done, then the taxpayers now will need to foot the bill. And perhaps more politicians need to be made accountable for their actions.

A couple points, at the county/city level wages and benefits account for 70-75% of the expenditures. Christie in various YouTube uses this figure for NJ expense also. So any serious discussion of cutting has to focus on these expense which means either reducing the number of current employees, reducing their wages, or reducing benefits of current and/or former employees.

For the most part contracts to private business are awarded on the basis of competitive bids (Albeit with plenty of corruption and cronyism in some states. An area which I think HI may actual be competitive with IL). More importantly, unlike pension, the future costs of business providing services to the state are know. Gnerally bids are at fixed cost. E.g I'll pave your roads for $5 million next year, and overruns are the responsibility of the private business. Now I am completely in favor of forcing private business who don't deliver what the bid to eat the cost, instead of going back asking for more money which they often do.

This competition is pretty much completely missing in public employee negotiations. It is naive to expect that Mayor or Governor negotiating with public employee union is in position to be a tough negotiator. More often than not they politician owes their election to the support of the union. Even Hawaii's lone Republican governor was supported by both the police officer and the university unions although opposed by the other unions.

So when public employee union head is sitting across from the mayor and says we want 5% increase next year and the mayor say, "Joe you know I'd love to help you but the budget only allows 2%.". At which point Joe will start asking for allowing unlimited accumulation for sick leave and letting it count for pension calculations, letting workers buy 5 years of service, eyeglass and dental coverage for retirees etc. Now individually these perks aren't that expensive, especially if you make lowball assumptions about usage. However, collectively they add up to ton of money. But the big money is almost always well in the future. So do we really expect a politician to risk a strike from his public employees, they endorsing an opponent, all this reduce the future budget problems of some future successor?. Lets get real.

The employee unions had at least as much responsibility to ensure the future fiscal health of their employer as the individual politicians. The future has arrived and while taxpayers undoubtedly will get stuck with much of the bill I don't see how we can let the public employee unions off the hook.

 

[kat]

I think I do. Let's just try to all get along. I'm for that. And in times of prosperity, probably we will.

Do you have any ideas how it should work if we have extended down times ahead?

I didn't say it before, but I remembered after I wrote that in NY the contract is between the executive -- the governor -- and the union. My state rep is not in this picture, under any law or the way the politics here work, but I like him and I voted for the governor, and I respect unions. (You said state reps matter, and voting, but not in NY.)

I think it is much worse for people in companies, like JP described. It makes me shudder to see the wide divide between legal and ethical, though I've seen it before. I just do not understand the lack of foresight in our law makers. But living in NY made me aware that many important things happen behind closed doors, despite the way we describe our democracy.

 

[JP.mpls]

I think the blame is being shifted to public employees as well. We seem a convienent scapegoat. I search out and read any/all articles I can find on public employee compensation, pensions, etc, and things just don't look good in the court of public opinion.

Bimmerbill,
At the risk of offending current and former goverment employees on this site, I have to admit that I have a vision of public employees having a sweet deal.

I base this opinion on my friend's situation.

She had what I would consider a very easy low stress goverment job. Creating a newsletter for the organization she worked for. This is the kind of job that Corporate America simply eliminated as part of the many cost savings moves years ago.

She recently retired at 57 with 80% of her wages, and full medical for life. She had 25-30 years of employment.
Note: I have no idea what she paid into this retirement pension, and I know that she doesn't get to collect SS for those years of employment.
Note: She did tell me that she could also collect SS based on previous employment if she worked somewhere else for 12 more months.

I don't hold it against anyone for taking the retirement benefits they earned and were promised. That being said, it doesn't seem right if retirement benefits for goverment workers far exceeds what is being offered in the Corporate world.

I'm open to hearing a counterpoint opinion on this from any current or former goverment employees that I may have offended. I'm obviously not an expert on all of the details of their retirement benefits.


Take care,



JP

 

[clifp]

Texas Proud,
Y
PS: Your concept of a steady 6% annual return on my 25K investment over 20 years creating a nice monthly annuity payment is a very nice dream. Have you truly obtained this type of return on your investments over the last 8 years?

I don't have the figures for over the last 8 years, but over the last 10 years it has not been that hard to hit 6% and over 20 years 6% is pretty easy.

In the late 80s I moved most of parents money into Vanguard and bought 3 funds roughly 50% Vanguard GNMA, 25% SP500, 25% extended market. (Vanguard total stock market didn't exist). I have done very little fiddling with other than making the occasional large withdrawal and recently moving some to Wellesley Over 10 years this has had annual return of 5.4% and over 20 years 8% meaning that 10K investment is now worth over $45,000. Of course a simpler portfolio 100% Wellesley would produced a 6.24% over 10 years and 8.6% of 20 years.

 

[Mulligan]

Bimmerbill,
At the risk of offending current and former goverment employees on this site, I have to admit that I have a vision of public employees having a sweet deal.

I base this opinion on my friend's situation.

She had what I would consider a very easy low stress goverment job. Creating a newsletter for the organization she worked for. This is the kind of job that Corporate America simply eliminated as part of the many cost savings moves years ago.

She recently retired at 57 with 80% of her wages, and full medical for life. She had 25-30 years of employment.
Note: I have no idea what she paid into this retirement pension, and I know that she doesn't get to collect SS for those years of employment.
Note: She did tell me that she could also collect SS based on previous employment if she worked somewhere else for 12 more months.

I don't hold it against anyone for taking the retirement benefits they earned and were promised. That being said, it doesn't seem right if retirement benefits for goverment workers far exceeds what is being offered in the Corporate world.

I'm open to hearing a counterpoint opinion on this from any current or former goverment employees that I may have offended. I'm obviously not an expert on all of the details of their retirement benefits.

Take care,

JP

JP as a public employee and pensioner, I am not offended by your thoughts. In fact, all our viewpoints are obviously molded by the frameworks we live in and see. If I was a private worker, I would certainly have a different viewpoint. In fact concerning healthcare, I'm was surprised so many public pensions in various states pay for retired workers healthcare premiums. We just have the option to piggy back on existing plan and pay the rate, which I'm sure many ER private workers would be thrilled with that choice. My uneducated guess is public retiree free healthcare and COLA reductions will be the first cutting options. Our retirement system made some pre-emptive tweaks to strengthen the system. A different way to think about it, is the more unions fight initially to prevent early tweaks, the more dependent you become on the courts or the tax payer to fund these when the money runs dry. As a pensioner, I don't want my monetary lifeline left to that last line of defense.

 

[GregLee]

I don't hold it against anyone for taking the retirement benefits they earned and were promised. That being said, it doesn't seem right if retirement benefits for goverment workers far exceeds what is being offered in the Corporate world.

Can we just review? I was promised retirement benefits, I earned them, and I'm taking them, but that's not fair, because you're not getting them. Is that what you're saying?

 

[MichaelB]

Can we just review? I was promised retirement benefits, I earned them, and I'm taking them, but that's not fair, because you're not getting them. Is that what you're saying?

Did you miss the part where he wrote

I don't hold it against anyone for taking the retirement benefits they earned and were promised.

JP

 

[52andout]

this argument is heading downhill. Either you have a pension or not. I had a chance several times in my career to work for the state or the federal government. Had I realized what was going to happen I would have gone down that route. But I didn't. So I can't fault others for taking a road I did not.

Going forward I see federal and state pensions as low hanging fruit that politicians will be gunning for. Any way they can get out of their obligations- bankruptcy, changes in how they compute cola, changes in health benefits will be among the parts they try to chip away at.

Very sad, so the only answer is to CYA and protect yourself as much as you can if you depend on such pension. Same goes for SS and Medicare. Protect yourself as much as you can.

Also don't forget to be thankful for what you have, even if it is not exactly what was promised. Most of us who post here are among the best provided for in the world. Most of us live in nice houses, full of possessions, can attend university regardless of race, religion or gender, can heat our houses in winter and cool them in the summer, have children that can attend local schools and have more than enough food to eat. we are very lucky.

 

[kyounge1956]

I somewhat agree with GregLee on this. On the list of those who 'share the blame', I put the employees far down on the list. Ahead of them are the politicians who agreed to the benefits w/o proper funding, and at the top of the list, IMO, are the Union leaders, who negotiated for the benefits with full awareness that the funding was not adequate, and yet go back to their rank and file and tell them what a great job they did in getting these benefits. And kick the can down the road. And probably get out the vote for the politicians they 'negotiate' with. (snip)(italics added)

-ERD50

Given the woeful financial ignorance of a large percentage of Americans, how can you be sure that union leaders were "fully aware" the funding was inadequate? They aren't actuaries. ISTM that blaming pension underfunding on deliberate misdeeds ignores the principle of not attributing to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance. Deliberate misdeeds are not required to reduce a pension system's funding level from 100% to the mid-sixties in three years—all it takes is loss of about a quarter of the fund's assets in a stock market crash. I know, because that's what happened to the City of Seattle retirement system. There were no union demands for increased pensions, no employee abuses like spiking (which isn't allowed under our system) and no skipping of contributions by the employer.

I don't think there is necessarily much to be gained by trying to figure out who is to blame. Even if it's possible to figure out where the blame lies, it may not be possible to get the money back from the guilty party or parties. It's more useful, IMO, to determine how to fix the problem and prevent it from recurring, and that solution is going to vary from system to system.

 

[clifp]

Given the woeful financial ignorance of a large percentage of Americans, how can you be sure that union leaders were "fully aware" the funding was inadequate? They aren't actuaries. ISTM that blaming pension underfunding on deliberate misdeeds ignores the principle of not attributing to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance. Deliberate misdeeds are not required to reduce a pension system's funding level from 100% to the mid-sixties in three years—all it takes is loss of about a quarter of the fund's assets in a stock market crash. I know, because that's what happened to the City of Seattle retirement system. There were no union demands for increased pensions, no employee abuses like spiking (which isn't allowed under our system) and no skipping of contributions by the employer.

I don't think there is necessarily much to be gained by trying to figure out who is to blame. Even if it's possible to figure out where the blame lies, it may not be possible to get the money back from the guilty party or parties. It's more useful, IMO, to determine how to fix the problem and prevent it from recurring, and that solution is going to vary from system to system.

+1

This is actually a very good argument, and I know I often accuse the union leaders of making a deliberate grab for the all the money they can.

In reality, I think Kyounge you are probably right the union leaders probably fell asleep in statistics class like 90% of Americans, and never took a finance class in their lives. Pension plans are extremely complex beasts and it is entirely possible they actually thought the modest increases in benefits the negotiated weren't going to be that expensive. Who knows they may have had an expert or two tell them this was true.

There is some line about never attribute a bad action to malice, when incompetence and ignorance would explain it as well. Nor is assigning blame very productive.

 

[Gumby]

Bravi 52and out and kyounge1956 for two very thoughtful posts.

 

[donheff]

Given the woeful financial ignorance of a large percentage of Americans, how can you be sure that union leaders were "fully aware" the funding was inadequate?

+1 The impression I got years ago was that Government negotiators often countered with benefit increases to get unions off or down from wage increase demands. Short term savings, long term disaster. Sounds like the smart, tough thinking of the much vaunted private sector to me.

 

[ziggy29]

Short term savings, long term disaster. Sounds like the smart, tough thinking of the much vaunted private sector to me.

I don't disagree with that at all, having been a "victim" of more than my share of private sector beatdowns. I guess some of the resentment may come because when the "vaunted private sector" pulled this crap, they just "fixed" it by screwing everyone -- freezing pensions, ending retiree health insurance, freezing pay in place for many years. And it simply felt like there was no outrage or sympathy out there. So when folks who endured this predicament see all the efforts to "save" these deals for the public sector and how much many folks are trying to preserve it, it's hard not to feel like second class citizens who are less important.

 

[MichaelB]

I don't disagree with that at all, having been a "victim" of more than my share of private sector beatdowns. I guess some of the resentment may come because when the "vaunted private sector" pulled this crap, they just "fixed" it by screwing everyone -- freezing pensions, ending retiree health insurance, freezing pay in place for many years. And it simply felt like there was no outrage or sympathy out there. So when folks who endured this predicament see all the efforts to "save" these deals for the public sector and how much many folks are trying to preserve it, it's hard not to feel like second class citizens who are less important.

These are actually two different issues. One is the past promise made toward pensions. Should it be respected? It wasn't for people in the private sector, so why should public sector employees be treated any differently? The other is the average wage. It has been sharply reduced in the private sector. Why should the public sector employee earn so much more? Throwing in unions is a diversion that shifts the discussion away from the real questions and offers a bogeyman that serves to rally support for actions that otherwise might be unacceptable. In my view the real issues are:

- Should public sector employees be paid the pensions they were promised?

- Should public sector employees be paid a living wage?

Taxpayers should be asked these questions and be allowed to answer them without the distraction of blame or bias. It is possible the taxpayer response would be to walk away from their collective obligation, but I suspect the answer to both questions would be strongly affirmative.