"Now, you might come back and say 'my pay is a lot higher than someone who is just starting out'... which I will reply... WHY
The salary should be based on the job you are doing, not how long you have been doing it... IOW, a starting teacher and a 20 year teacher both are teaching a class of our youth... why should their salary be so different
Just because someone has 20 years experience does not make them a better teacher.... but we do pay them a lot more than a new one.. stupid IMO..."
So experience is worth nothing? Either for a civil servant or a worker in private industry? And a new teacher (or someone pretty much new anything) has the knowledge of what is to be done and how to do it just as well as a 20 year employee? Ever hear of learning curves? Most companies employ them as the more experience a worker has, the less time it takes them to do a job and the more money a company makes. IMHO, stupid is saying that experience has no role in the performance of a job. And you don't pay a sergeant with 3 years the same as one with 15 years - same with teachers - you do get more pay for the years you have served as well as the experience you have gained. You must have had one hell of a bad working experience.
I don't think I'm hearing anyone say new workers have a contract that shouldn't be broken. That's not even an issue. New hires can be put under whatever system is designed for them. There are states and local governments that have 3 and 4 different pension systems running simultaneously - each with a different level of benefits. Private companie are the same. My company has different PTO levels depending on when you were hired. That way new folks can make a decision based on what is available when they are hired. They eliminated profit sharing last year on the strange premise that they are not making a profit - yet, at each annual meeting they announce joyously how much "profit" they make each year.
The relevence of this to me is that states and locals have a lot more ability to cut expenses to preserve pensions for existing retirees and for near retirees than they admit. of course, those cuts will gore someone's ox, so they don't make them. The federal government is no different. Look at the USPS. Try to eliminate a local post office and all hell breaks loose. Try to eliminate a useless weapons systems and the same thing happens. I refuse to accept the logic that cutting the pensions of current or near retirees is the only solution. It just doesn't pass the giggle test when you look at the alternatives.
Youbet is right - pensions are no more of a promise than social security. So exactly when will be cutting social security for current recipients?? Not until we have a really cold day in hell. Plus the fact that two years of -0- inflation adjustments have decreased the future liability of the system by a significant amount.
BTW, until governments at every level actually lock up the money held for pensions in non-radiable funds, this problem will never be solved. Politicians have been using the money set aside for SS for every conceiveable project except the one it's intended for and hoping that inflation will solve the problem. The government has even "borrowed" money from the federal TSP plan when we run out of room on the budget ceiling. That's not even their money, and yet they do it.
The fact that the pensions are not properly funded and run has been and is the problem, not the salaries and pensions that 95% of civil servants receive.