Firm Manages My Retirement, Should I Sue?

[sailsmen]

The Story of Tier & E., Ultd.



Tier & E., Ultd. by law collects 6.2% of every paycheck and an additional 6.2% from my employer. In exchange when I reach the earliest retirement age of 67 Tier & E., Ultd. agreed to pay me a monthly benefit of $1,910 for the remainder of my life.

However, my November 2010 statement from Tier & E., Ultd. says due to their increasing expenses they project they will only be able to pay me $1,452 per month when I am 67. By law,”for my protection”, Tier & E., Ultd. can only invest in bonds in Tier & E., Ultd.

Had I been an employee of Tier & E., Ultd. the earliest retirement age is 57 and the monthly benefit is $3,938. If I wait until 62 the monthly benefit is $4,950.

Age Social Security Tier & E., Ultd. Employee
57 -0- $3,938

67/62 $1,452 $4,950.

I think Tier & E., Ultd. has been grossly negligent and should be criminally charged.

[Bluerauder]

The Story of Tier & E., Ultd.

Tier & E, Ultd = aka Social Security. Go ahead and sue.

[sailsmen]

Should I ask the D/A to press charges?

[Bluerauder]

Should I ask the D/A to press charges?

Absolutely ..... and a class action lawsuit is next. ;)

[Blk Mamba]

My FIL worked for Caterpillar, for 30 years, until retirement, and every year after they lowered his benefit amount, till his death. I feel this should be illegal, considering his union was the controlling body.

[sailsmen]

I find it very preplexing that Tier & E., Ultd. expenses keep going up and they keep spending the 12.4% contributions on things unrelated to my retirement but their answer to a shortfall in my retirement is always to cut my retirement and raise my retirement age?

Why won't Tier & E., Ultd. cut their own expenses and stop spending my 12.4% on things other than my retirement?

If Tier & E., Ultd. is cutting my retirement 24% and raising my retirement age to 67 should it not do the same for it's employees?:confused:

[MrBluGruv]

But then how can it be a good ol' boys club? :D

[Shaijack]

Billy I know a great LAWYER. HaHa

[knine]

I am forced (by law) to pay into a pension plan without option of self investment. I have almost 10% taken from me every two weeks for the last 22+ years. I pay into Social Security that will not be there. I pay my bills on time and do not run my household budget in the red. I am a police officer. I respond when you call at 3 am when some piece of crap social reject is holding a knife to your family demanding money for drugs. Because the state mismanaged OUR tax money and failed to live up to their part of the statutory obligation to pay in, now they want to come after my pension?

I have been spat at, attacked and received bones broken and have had someone try to kill me. I have to get blood tests when I get contaminated dealing with parts of society that most ignore or pretend don't exist. I have been physically attacked because of what job I do-- protecting you.

'Public service employees' shouldn't live in comfortable retirement with a guaranteed 3% raise annually and free health care for the rest of their lives some say. The average retirement life span of a cop is 4 years, because of our dedication and service to you and the wear and tear on our bodies. Do you wear 25 pounds of equipment at work every day for 8 to 12 hours? As I sit here, I have pain in my right hip from the equipment and a pain in the @$$ from this pension grab attempt sh it. Do you go to the next office to break up fights only to have the person who called for you to save them now turn on you and attack you? Have you been shot at lately?

People have said 'it's public service' and anyone can do it. Think about MOST people you know. Do you want any of them coming to your house at 3am with a gun to defend YOU? A society that wages war against its police had better damn well make friends with its criminals.

Did you know MOST elected officials get free health care and a pension just for being elected? YOUR city councilman gets free benefits just for a 'part-time' job, showing up to a meeting once or twice a month. And don't get me started on the Senators, Congressmen, Representatives and all their staff that will NEVER vote to reduce their pensions. When is the last time you can recall they did something significant when you dialed 911? I'm in a car 8 hours a day, 40+ hours a week responding to society’s filth. One of the new additions is they want us to work additional years to retirement. Do you want a 67 year old cop fighting to defend your life from a teenage societal reject?

911 heroes? Not when the government wants my retirement. Those bastards can leave my pension alone. I've EARNED IT.

[sailsmen]

They have already stolen 24% of my retirement and raised my retirement age. I will not get back the money I paid in unless I exceed the life expectancy tables by a large margin.

To take 24% of my retirement and give it to another person so that they can receive 100% of their retirement is wrong. This is what the Federal Gov't is doing.

[knine]

They have already stolen 24% of my retirement and raised my retirement age. I will not get back the money I paid in unless I exceed the life expectancy tables by a large margin.

To take 24% of my retirement and give it to another person so that they can receive 100% of their retirement is wrong. This is what the Federal Gov't is doing.
Totally criminal. If you or I did that, we'd be in jail

P.S., my post 2 above is not directed at any specific person on this site unless they are an elected official and are tring to grab the pensions of Police or Fire, or any other hardworking American who has done their part to pay in and the Government failed to pony up their part.

[sailsmen]

I have been to a number of meetings of local Gov't. Both them and I know there is a large shortfall to the States Public Employee Pension equaling $3,600 per person in the State.
I see the way they are throwing away money like there is no tommorrow. A lavish party with well known bands and catering for an historical event I never knew exisited. Giving public land to a group for something that is not needed. Hiring an additional lawyer because the "current one will retire someday". Paying for a color photo book of the areas history. Hiring a CPA firm because sales taxes may have dropped. Creating a new position that is a duplicate of a State position that is a duplicate of a Federal position.
A local Mayor demanding that her salary be supplemented by the State because the nearest other Mayor makes double what she makes. His city is 7 times bigger and he just got sentenced to the pen for corruption.
I can go on and on.
What are they going to do when the State Pension Plan is out of money? What is disturbing is I have asked several what is the State Pension Plan shortfall and they immediately give me the answer. Point is they know it and are doing nothing about it. They are essentially taking money from the State Employees Pension every time they make a new expenditure.

[CBT]

My FIL worked for Caterpillar, for 30 years, until retirement, and every year after they lowered his benefit amount, till his death. I feel this should be illegal, considering his union was the controlling body.

Bingo! But hey, unions are good for you! That's why the military has them! Oh snap, that's right, they don't. For a reason.

[CBT]

This is the most I've ever seen you type, I didn't know your keyboard had so many letters :)
I think police are underpaid, I've said that before. Firefighters, underpaid. EMT's are underpaid, but some cities split the duty so that you are ambulance half the day, FF the other half. If you are FF/EMT, way underpaid. Even they get shot at. Everyone thinks they are underpaid, but what do they really do? Police run towards bullets and FF run towards fire, while sane people run from both. The pay should somewhat reflect the danger is my feelings toward it.
I appreciate what you do, E. :flag:


I am forced (by law) to pay into a pension plan without option of self investment. I have almost 10% taken from me every two weeks for the last 22+ years. I pay into Social Security that will not be there. I pay my bills on time and do not run my household budget in the red. I am a police officer. I respond when you call at 3 am when some piece of crap social reject is holding a knife to your family demanding money for drugs. Because the state mismanaged OUR tax money and failed to live up to their part of the statutory obligation to pay in, now they want to come after my pension?

I have been spat at, attacked and received bones broken and have had someone try to kill me. I have to get blood tests when I get contaminated dealing with parts of society that most ignore or pretend don't exist. I have been physically attacked because of what job I do-- protecting you.

'Public service employees' shouldn't live in comfortable retirement with a guaranteed 3% raise annually and free health care for the rest of their lives some say. The average retirement life span of a cop is 4 years, because of our dedication and service to you and the wear and tear on our bodies. Do you wear 25 pounds of equipment at work every day for 8 to 12 hours? As I sit here, I have pain in my right hip from the equipment and a pain in the @$$ from this pension grab attempt sh it. Do you go to the next office to break up fights only to have the person who called for you to save them now turn on you and attack you? Have you been shot at lately?

People have said 'it's public service' and anyone can do it. Think about MOST people you know. Do you want any of them coming to your house at 3am with a gun to defend YOU? A society that wages war against its police had better damn well make friends with its criminals.

Did you know MOST elected officials get free health care and a pension just for being elected? YOUR city councilman gets free benefits just for a 'part-time' job, showing up to a meeting once or twice a month. And don't get me started on the Senators, Congressmen, Representatives and all their staff that will NEVER vote to reduce their pensions. When is the last time you can recall they did something significant when you dialed 911? I'm in a car 8 hours a day, 40+ hours a week responding to society’s filth. One of the new additions is they want us to work additional years to retirement. Do you want a 67 year old cop fighting to defend your life from a teenage societal reject?

911 heroes? Not when the government wants my retirement. Those bastards can leave my pension alone. I've EARNED IT.

[sailsmen]

Just remember this when Gov't has an underfunded Liability such as a shortfall in SS and Pensions any increases in spending or new spending is stealing from the underfunded Liability, SS and Pensions.

We need to march as one until the underfunded Liabilities, SS and Pesnions are fully funded. No new or increased spending until they pay their bills to meet their obligations to us.

They have already started pitting one group against another to maintain their power over who gets what.

[MrBluGruv]

No new or increased spending until they pay their bills to meet their obligations to us.

This actually calls to mind something that really bothers me:

A lot of politicians will say that cutting spending is bad therefore they must continue operating in this way or else everything will crash....

essentially, justifying a bad behavior or practice because it's been around so long that it's difficult to have it disappear.


If ever there was an example of why you need to address issues sooner rather than later, I think SS and government spending is a prime one.


The sad part is there is a LOT of government policy that operates that way, and it's frankly appalling that people let it slide for so long all the time.

[rayjay]

In NYS we are very, very, lucky that the public pension fund is totally seperate from other government funds and protected from the crook politcians. They have tried to get into it before, but by law they can not. Thank God or I'd be in Knine's shoes after having done 34 years as a LEO. I had heard that IL's pension fund was insolvent, but thought it was a rumor. I'm very sorry to hear it is true. That is CRIMINAL. The tier I was in had to pay for our pension, others didn't. Its screwed up. New hires now have to work until age 62 for a reduced pension and pay in 5% the whole time. I know very few people that could do law enforcement until age 62. I started at 20 years old. 34 years was more than enough, I was toast, 42?, they would have taken me out in a straight jacket with a drool cup strapped to my chin...

[babbage]

sailsmen (http://www.mercurymarauder.net/forums/member.php?u=672): I think you should run for office. I'd vote for you.

[Cheeseheadbob]

Rollback by Thomas E. Woods Jr.

Rollback: Repealing Big Government Before the Coming Fiscal Collapse

America is on the brink of financial collapse. Decades of political over-promising and underfunding have created a wave of debt that could swamp our already feeble economy. And the politicians’ favorite tricks—raising taxes, borrowing from foreign governments, and printing more money—will only make it worse. Only one thing might save us: Roll back the government.

In Rollback: Repealing Big Government Before the Coming Fiscal Collapse, Thomas E. Woods, Jr. explains that we may still have a chance to avert total economic disaster—but only by completely changing our understanding of government. With bracing candor, he dissects just how the political class has nearly destroyed America’s economy. In Rollback, you’ll learn:

Why practically everything you’ve been taught about government and the economy is wrong—the product of liberal pro–government propaganda
How the Federal Reserve helps create crises and slows recovery
Why big business is no ally in rolling back government and actually wants and needs big government intervention in the marketplace
How current policies, if unchecked, will lead to the collapse of the dollar
How government policies have driven the skyrocketing costs of health care
Why retirement will be a pipe dream for the next generation
How the coming collapse can be turned to your advantage—and the advantage of all who believe in liberty and limited government

Thanks to decades of politicians playing kick the can down the road, we and our children are facing economic Armageddon. But this crisis could help us see government for what it really is—an institution that has seized our wealth and taught our children to honor it as the source of all progress. The good news is it’s not too late to roll back government—and the opportunity to do so is now.

Read and digest, and after you finish the book, go punch a politician from either party...:mad2:

[knine]

I'm in a seperate, private fund that used to be 100% funded, is now about 90% (already back up from 80% only a few months ago) because of investment returns in this economy. The State is again trying to raid, to get access to the funds even though they are private. The have the balls to say that they need to manage the fund and control the funds because THEY are better at it...huh? NONE of their funds are any where near solvent. Illinois is about 80 Billion behind in payments for public retirement funds but they want to raid my fund. They have done it to other funds in the past and are trying to get mine again now. There is legeslation before the IL Senate( SB 1679 )trying to tie public funds into our private retirement then restrict the private imput. The first step in the takeover.. Also on a seperate, but related note, the State is trying to introduce legeslation that will be "pension reform" or "pension rollback" for all public employees funds that they control (which would be mine if they get their way). To my suprise, the city of Joliet Illinois just this week voted to END free healthcare and retirement pensions to future electees. I applaud them.

[rayjay]

I'm in a seperate, private fund that used to be 100% funded, is now about 90% (already back up from 80% only a few months ago) because of investment returns in this economy. The State is again trying to raid, to get access to the funds even though they are private. The have the balls to say that they need to manage the fund and control the funds because THEY are better at it...huh? NONE of their funds are any where near solvent. Illinois is about 80 Billion behind in payments for public retirement funds but they want to raid my fund. They have done it to other funds in the past and are trying to get mine again now. There is legeslation before the IL Senate( SB 1679 )trying to tie public funds into our private retirement then restrict the private imput. The first step in the takeover.. Also on a seperate, but related note, the State is trying to introduce legeslation that will be "pension reform" or "pension rollback" for all public employees funds that they control (which would be mine if they get their way). To my suprise, the city of Joliet Illinois just this week voted to END free healthcare and retirement pensions to future electees. I applaud them.

Thats just plain WRONG. What the hell is the union doing? Drag the state into Federal Court and get an injuction on their ash. Make the whole thing a media circus and embarass the hell out of them. Thats the ONLY thing they understand, being made fools of on TV.

Everything thing to do with working in the public sector has gone off the deep end. We fought with the state in binding arbitration for four years, twice had to sue them in federal court to get them to the table, and the end result for a two year award is so bad none of the sides will release the outcome or sign off. Some really sad things are going to transpire here over the next year so. The public won't care as long as their taxes don't go up. They will when there is a long delay after they've called 911. Its going to be difficult to recruit, very difficult... I've already said to people if I was young jack now, no way I'd do it again.

[sailsmen]

Just remember any increase in Gov't spending when there is an underfunded Pension or SS is in effect stealing from the Pension or SS.

The Federal Gov't has increased spending 20% in 2 years while telling me they are raising my SS retirement age and cutting my benefit 24%. The State I reside in is underfunded for it's State Employee Pension plan by $4 Billion and the State Budget has increased 68% in 9 years with no increase in population.

They are criminals. Can you start arresting them?

[Mike]

I am forced (by law) to pay into a pension plan without option of self investment. I have almost 10% taken from me every two weeks for the last 22+ years. I pay into Social Security that will not be there. I pay my bills on time and do not run my household budget in the red. I am a police officer. I respond when you call at 3 am when some piece of crap social reject is holding a knife to your family demanding money for drugs. Because the state mismanaged OUR tax money and failed to live up to their part of the statutory obligation to pay in, now they want to come after my pension?

I have been spat at, attacked and received bones broken and have had someone try to kill me. I have to get blood tests when I get contaminated dealing with parts of society that most ignore or pretend don't exist. I have been physically attacked because of what job I do-- protecting you.

'Public service employees' shouldn't live in comfortable retirement with a guaranteed 3% raise annually and free health care for the rest of their lives some say. The average retirement life span of a cop is 4 years, because of our dedication and service to you and the wear and tear on our bodies. Do you wear 25 pounds of equipment at work every day for 8 to 12 hours? As I sit here, I have pain in my right hip from the equipment and a pain in the @$$ from this pension grab attempt sh it. Do you go to the next office to break up fights only to have the person who called for you to save them now turn on you and attack you? Have you been shot at lately?

People have said 'it's public service' and anyone can do it. Think about MOST people you know. Do you want any of them coming to your house at 3am with a gun to defend YOU? A society that wages war against its police had better damn well make friends with its criminals.

Did you know MOST elected officials get free health care and a pension just for being elected? YOUR city councilman gets free benefits just for a 'part-time' job, showing up to a meeting once or twice a month. And don't get me started on the Senators, Congressmen, Representatives and all their staff that will NEVER vote to reduce their pensions. When is the last time you can recall they did something significant when you dialed 911? I'm in a car 8 hours a day, 40+ hours a week responding to society’s filth. One of the new additions is they want us to work additional years to retirement. Do you want a 67 year old cop fighting to defend your life from a teenage societal reject?

911 heroes? Not when the government wants my retirement. Those bastards can leave my pension alone. I've EARNED IT.

Well said E, very well said and I salute you :bows: :bows:

[jerrym3]

Mike, first thank you for your years of service.

But, did you join the police force because 1) you wanted to protect the public, 2) for the early pension/health benefit program, or 3) both of the above?

In any event, you picked a profession that put your life in danger. It's now too late to say "look what we do".

Also, you were forced to pay into a pension fund?

When was the last time you looked into the corporate world? I wish that I had had a pension fund to be forced to pay into.

My past two employee's (17 yrs/10 yrs) pension plans resulted in cancelled pension programs (three times) and an only alternative to go into 401K programs, which the company contributed to, but can go broke if the economy tanks and/or I live too long.

I chose to invest the max, so while I had to siphon a portion of my take home pay into my 401K, I should be OK until I die.

But, my 27 year combined annual pension is less than 11K per year, and I was fairly well paid as a middle level manager.

So, I, too, was "forced" to contribute to my 401K "pension fund", assuming I wanted to eat after I retired. But, if my 401K tanks, I tank along with it.

As for benefits, I'm in Medicare, my wife is not. We're paying about $800 per month just for her health plan, and, unlike public employee health plans, I don't get reimbursed for Medicare payments. (Is your spouse covered when you retire?)

67 yr old cop?

First, if you're still on the beat at 67, who's fault is it?. There must be other administrative positions that older officers can take without leaving the force.

Second, at least you would have a job.

In the corporate world, at advanced ages, unless you are in the upper "elite", you are either paid too much when compared to your peers, or considered a relic. First chance that a company gets, you are out the door (they phased me out at age 64 due to a "reduction in force". 55% of the reduction was workers over 55. We didn't have union reps to complain to.).

Assuming that I was still on the job at 68, I would be spending two weekends per month relocating remote branch offices, leaving the office in the early morning just to be back in four hours later, sometimes sleeping on an office couch, spending countless hours on planes and in airports, eating dinner (when I could) in a bar, alone, on a Saturday night, missing many family outings, and getting a whopping $62 for Saturday and $124 for Sunday premium pay.

No, my life was never in danger, but sometimes I wonder what the outcome would be if I relocated 200 rich spoiled brokers over a weekend, and their computers and phones weren't functioning on Monday morning.

But, this was the life I chose, so I have no justification to complain.

As for politicians, couldn't agree more, but it was those hated poiticians that agreed to sweetheart deals for public employees. Why? Because they loved you, or because thay wanted your vote?

I have a 1,900 sq ft, 45 year old house on less than a 1/4 acre in suburban NJ. It takes about four months of SS checks just to pay my local property taxes ($8500); add in my wife's medical (and mine) and you can see where I'm going.

While I believe law enforcement should receive a decent wage, our local police, after a few years, make low six figures. Took me over thirty years to make that amount.

How can I, as a retired, fixed income tax payer, pay these folks for their benefits for possibly decades after they retire?

Mike, I'm not flaming public employees, they do a great job, and I don't mean to insult you, but I feel you should understand what the other side is going, or has gone, through.

[duhtroll]

There is too much anti-union sentiment out there right now for most people to listen to what anyone IN a union has to say right now.

"Unions Bad" has been preached for so long and so often that people believe it without even looking into what they are criticizing.

When the economy is good, public sector employees by and large do not profit like the private sector. The knowingly and willingly trade salary "now" for job security and benefits "later." They know they will never be wealthy for the most part, but they have more security and used to know they could count on a halfway decent retirement.

Now the economy is bad and "Unions bad" means everyone wants them to not only give up the salary but the retirement and benefits, too.

"IT'S NOT FAIR! Those union workers have something I don't have!" we hear. Now the states are broke and the state assemblies will take it out of their public employees, because they couldn't avoid overspending and then raiding these pension plans.

Look at Wisconsin right now -- soon to follow, Ohio and other states. They aren't only going after pensions and benefits. They are going after collective bargaining. Now they not only want to take the benefits AND the salary AND the pension away from their workers, but they want to be able to do it on a whim, i.e. every year they feel like overspending their budgets.

As much as some people on here hate unions, giving more money to our legislatures (vs. employees) can't be the better choice.

And for the record, my state is not one with the problem right now, so I am not speaking about my own job.

No one should ever DARE look at a police officer or firefighter and say they aren't worth their pension. But that is exactly what some states are doing right now.


Thats just plain WRONG. What the hell is the union doing? Drag the state into Federal Court and get an injuction on their ash. Make the whole thing a media circus and embarass the hell out of them. Thats the ONLY thing they understand, being made fools of on TV.

Everything thing to do with working in the public sector has gone off the deep end. We fought with the state in binding arbitration for four years, twice had to sue them in federal court to get them to the table, and the end result for a two year award is so bad none of the sides will release the outcome or sign off. Some really sad things are going to transpire here over the next year so. The public won't care as long as their taxes don't go up. They will when there is a long delay after they've called 911. Its going to be difficult to recruit, very difficult... I've already said to people if I was young jack now, no way I'd do it again.

[guspech750]

You know. One thing everyone is overlooking is this. There is a big difference bewtwee someone who has worked 20 to 30 years doing what ever job for what ever state, county or town and recieving a well earned pension. Where lies the problem is when someone is elected to a 2 or 4 year position and then is not relected ever again and will recieve the same if not way better benifets than the people who have dedicated themselves to 20 to 30 years of service in the public sector. People are so blind. Towns, counties, and states have always had the money to "fund obligated pensions or programs". What they do instead is decide to build this or that, wastefull spending on whatever. What they do is cry wolf that they never have the funds to pay the pensions (by the way, their pensions and benifits will be their for them) and they cleverly spin it around and blame unions and other non-union public employees that they are the ones at fault. Well I know for sure if it were not for SO much wastefull spending and never ever do THEY want to cut funding for deadbeat welfare programs. There would be plenty of money to fund their yearly obligations. Doesn't anyone see what the hell is going on. Little by little. Small to big governments are purposfully eroding the working man. How come when ever there is a money crisis there is never talk of to pull money from welfare programs or instead of putting up new street lights because they look prettier government likes to use the pension and education cards? Or I stead of using taxpayers money on little give away flasholights and other useless junk that is wasted and ends up being tossed in the trash. What has happened in other states and may happen in Wisconsin is they are TAKING AWAY ANOTHER RIGHT as a working American. And its not just the public sector this is affecting here folks. This will affect all people who have a job. Public or private. This isn't just about public employees. This right to work takes away ANY working man/womans right to bargin fairly in the public AND private sector. Right to Work is designed to protect business and squash the working people and not treat Employees fair and not give them good pay and benifets. Again. This is against Public AND Private employees. The media and government are not saying this. The pension stuff really is easy to fix. For instance. My father inlaw used to be a fire chief in a near by town here. When he was cheif. The fire fighters pension was 94%+ funded. He had the insight to not uselessly spend taxpayers money on new extravagant firestations even though their old ones more more than adequate or buy all new equipment just for the sake of having nice shiney toys. If some one was injured. He had it investigated. Guess what. Some village trustees did not like that he ran a tight ship and forced him to retire. Now that same department is only funded 60% because the cheif who was chosen to replace my father inlaw had all new trucks and equipment along with new stations and such. And there have been fire fighters who have claimed to be injured knowing this current chielf will not investigate. Well guess what. There 4 or 5 guys collecting FULL pay and benifets for the rest of their lives because "they can't work". Current cheif will not even make guys take a mandatory physical to see if they are good to work. Yes unions have their faults. But goverment is using smoke and mirrors to make union and nonunion employees are at fault. Time for people to wake up. They want to take away your rights. One right at a time. It's only common sence.

I'm tired now. I'm going back to playing PS3.

Sent from my iPhone
Go White Sox

[Marauder386]

Being a Federal LEO isnt a cakewalk either and we DO NOT have some fat retirement....as is perceived by John Q. Public. We have very serious shortcomings in the system too and to have our pay frozen for two years and then possibly five more ( total seven ) after 3 years of zero COLA ... :mad2: :mad: :mad2: ...

Hows that hope and change working out for yah ?




:cool4:

[sailsmen]

How much this group or that group is being paid in pension or SS is irrelevant. Federal employees have their pension deal and we haVve our SS deal.

What is relevant is that our Gov't is stealing from our pension/SS. Every new dollar in spending when there is a current under funded liability is THEFT.

[sailsmen]

"The Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS)
Unlike many jobs in the private sector, government workers, including federal employees enjoy a pension system that provides for some level of lifetime earnings in exchange for public service. For federal employees this is theFederal Employee Retirement System (FERS) and with the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) and Social Security, a federal employee can have a reasonable retirement. Enrollment in FERS is automatic for new federal employees, and it comes at a cost of 1 percent of salary as the employee’s contribution to the pension plan. The federal government picks up the rest of the cost.
The pension a federal employee earns is 1 percent of salary for each year of federal service and it is based on the average of the highest 36 months of federal pay. In order to retire with this amount, the federal employee must meet one of four different ways as published by OPM. Some of these involve a term called Minimum Retire Age (MRA) which is between 55 and 57 depending on the year of birth.
The following scenarios describe the ways that a federal employee can meet retirement requirements:
Complete 30 years of service and have reached the Minimum Retire Age (MRA) which is between 55 and 57 depending on the year of birth.
Complete 20 years of service and have reached age 60.
Complete 5 years of service and have reached age 62.
Complete 10 years of service and have reached the MRA.
For those who retire at MRA with at least 10 years of service but less than 30, the retirement benefit is reduced by 5 percent a year for each year the retiree is under age 62, unless the retiree has 20 years of service and benefits start after reaching age 60 or later.
Those who are able to serve the federal government for at least 20 years and who are over the age of 62, the retirement calculation is increased to 1.1 percent of pay vice 1 percent."
A friend's son fresh out of College just got a $60K offer to work for the Fed and in 5 years he will make $100K and in 10 years $135K. He will then retire @57. His dad is the CFO and owner of a $20mm company and he makes a $100K in salary plus a $15k to $40K bonus. His Dad has to fund his own retirement, is sued, audited by EPA, EEOC, DEQ, DOT, DOL, NLRB, OSHA, IRS and must hire attorney from 3 different disciplines, obtain loans from a bank , hire a CPA and insurance broker. His son has none of these liabilities, job security and early retirement.
When the risk is less than the reward wealth stops being generated. Currently being a Federal employee far outways the risk of generating wealth.

[jabird56]

"The Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS)
Enrollment in FERS is automatic for new federal employees, and it comes at a cost of 1 percent of salary as the employee’s contribution to the pension plan. The federal government picks up the rest of the cost.



UPDATE:
1. For a government employee who was hired prior 01 August 2010, the government automatically enrolled the employee with a 1% contribution with the government matching that amount for a total of 2% into the employee's TSP account.
2. For a government employee who was hired after 31 July 2010, the government automatically enrolls the employee with a 3% contribution with the government matching that amount for a total of 6% into the employee's TSP account.
3. The government will match contributions up to 5%; however, the employee can contribute up to $16,500 per year into their TSP accounts.

[sailsmen]

UPDATE:
1. For a government employee who was hired prior 01 August 2010, the government automatically enrolled the employee with a 1% contribution with the government matching that amount for a total of 2% into the employee's TSP account.
2. For a government employee who was hired after 31 July 2010, the government automatically enrolls the employee with a 3% contribution with the government matching that amount for a total of 6% into the employee's TSP account.
3. The government will match contributions up to 5%; however, the employee can contribute up to $16,500 per year into their TSP accounts.

"What is the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP)?
The Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) is a retirement savings and investment plan for Federal employees and members of the uniformed services, including the Ready Reserve. It was established by Congress in the Federal Employees' Retirement System Act of 1986 and offers the same types of savings and tax benefits that many private corporations offer their employees under 401(k) plans.

The TSP is a defined contribution plan, meaning that the retirement income you receive from your TSP account will depend on how much you (and your agency, if you are eligible to receive agency contributions) put into your account during your working years and the earnings accumulated over that time.




How Does the TSP Fit into My Retirement Package?
If you are covered by the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS), the TSP is one part of a three-part retirement package that also includes your FERS basic annuity and Social Security.

If you are covered by the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) or are a member of the uniformed services, the TSP is a supplement to your CSRS annuity or military retired pay."

It is my understanding the TSP plan is in addition to the FERS. You get a Pension (FERS) and a "401K" (TSP). IF this is incorrect please advise.

[sailsmen]

By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY 8-13-2010
At a time when workers' pay and benefits have stagnated, federal employees' average compensation has grown to more than double what private sector workers earn, a USA TODAY analysis finds.
Federal workers have been awarded bigger average pay and benefit increases than private employees for nine years in a row. The compensation gap between federal and private workers has doubled in the past decade.
Federal civil servants earned average pay and benefits of $123,049 in 2009 while private workers made $61,051 in total compensation, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The data are the latest available.
The federal compensation advantage has grown from $30,415 in 2000 to $61,998 last year.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/2010-08-10-1Afedpay10_ST_N.htm

By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY 3-8-2010
Federal employees earn higher average salaries than private-sector workers in more than eight out of 10 occupations, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data finds.
Accountants, nurses, chemists, surveyors, cooks, clerks and janitors are among the wide range of jobs that get paid more on average in the federal government than in the private sector.
Overall, federal workers earned an average salary of $67,691 in 2008 for occupations that exist both in government and the private sector, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The average pay for the same mix of jobs in the private sector was $60,046 in 2008, the most recent data available.
CHART: Federal salaries compared to private-sector
These salary figures do not include the value of health, pension and other benefits, which averaged $40,785 per federal employee in 2008 vs. $9,882 per private worker, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm

[Marauder386]

That must be a bunch of different Fed employees because my TSP "401k" is a joke...had a coworker put in the max amount and lost over 40k from TSP in the last 2 years...THATS OUR RETIREMENT...THATS FERS...nothing else...as for the dollar figures on pay , those are high COLA area numbers...it varies nationwide...
Please look deeper and please dont drink the kewl-ayd ... its not what the press presents to everyone....



:cool4:

[sailsmen]

From the Gov't website;
"How Does the TSP Fit into My Retirement Package?
If you are covered by the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS), the TSP is one part of a three-part retirement package that also includes your FERS basic annuity and Social Security.

If you are covered by the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) or are a member of the uniformed services, the TSP is a supplement to your CSRS annuity or military retired pay."

Is the TSP a supplement to the FERS annuity and CSRS as stated above?

The 5 year return on the S&P is 3%, 1 year 27% and 2 year 2%. I am not sure what "lost" means. Did he contribute $40K and it disappeared?

[sailsmen]

"The Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS)
Unlike many jobs in the private sector, government workers, including federal employees enjoy a pension system that provides for some level of lifetime earnings in exchange for public service. For federal employees this is theFederal Employee Retirement System (FERS) and with the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) and Social Security, a federal employee can have a reasonable retirement. Enrollment in FERS is automatic for new federal employees, and it comes at a cost of 1 percent of salary as the employee’s contribution to the pension plan. The federal government picks up the rest of the cost.
The pension a federal employee earns is 1 percent of salary for each year of federal service and it is based on the average of the highest 36 months of federal pay. In order to retire with this amount, the federal employee must meet one of four different ways as published by OPM. Some of these involve a term called Minimum Retire Age (MRA) which is between 55 and 57 depending on the year of birth.
The following scenarios describe the ways that a federal employee can meet retirement requirements:
Complete 30 years of service and have reached the Minimum Retire Age (MRA) which is between 55 and 57 depending on the year of birth.
Complete 20 years of service and have reached age 60.
Complete 5 years of service and have reached age 62.
Complete 10 years of service and have reached the MRA.
For those who retire at MRA with at least 10 years of service but less than 30, the retirement benefit is reduced by 5 percent a year for each year the retiree is under age 62, unless the retiree has 20 years of service and benefits start after reaching age 60 or later.
Those who are able to serve the federal government for at least 20 years and who are over the age of 62, the retirement calculation is increased to 1.1 percent of pay vice 1 percent."

The above was copied from the Gov't web site. Are you saying the above is incorrect and that there is no Federal Employee Pension?
That I graduate from college at 22 and work for the Fed until 57 I don't collect 35% of my highest average 3 years pay or if I wait until 62 I don't collect 44% in addition to the Thrift Savings Plan (401K)?

[rayjay]

What to me and mine is a major problem is we were always promised that we would be taken care of when we retired for years and years of substandard wages that did not allow for putting money into outside pension funds unless you did not want to eat, live in decent housing, wear cloths, ect. Especially say if you ended up divorced and having to pay half of you wages in child support. Not to mention the toll the job took could take on your health and life expectancy. Lookup the actuarial chart for LEOs if you don't believe me. Median age of death is 56 years old. I'm 55. Now to pay for mismanaging the way goverment was run all those years they want to take away those benefits. A decent early retirement is powerful recruiting tool to get the best and brightest candidates out there. It is a major factor, period.

Cops making 6 figure incomes is a rarity confined to niche areas primarily around the NYC burbs. It isn't so elsewhere. I did it only once and practically lived there to achieve it. -and- NO I didn't want to, its called FORCED OT.

[sailsmen]

I want all SS and Gov't Pension recipients to recieve 100% of their benefits. SS and in many cases Gov't Pensions are under funded.
Until these under funded obilgations are fully funded any increase in Gov't spending or new spending is stealing from these under funded obligations.
I advise everyone to demand that the Gov't fully fund it's obligations to SS and Gov't Pensions before any increased or new Gov't spending.
It is in the best interest of Gov't Pension recipients to also demand the same for SS since the SS recipients far out vote the Gov't Pension recipients.

[sailsmen]

U. S. Office of Personnel Management
"Here is how the basic FERS annuity formula is calculated:

FERS Basic Annuity Formula

Under Age 62 at Separation for Retirement
Or
Age 62 or Older With Less Than 20 Years of Service
1 percent of your high-3 average salary for each year of service
Age 62 or Older at Separation With 20 or More Years of Service 1.1 percent of your high-3 average salary for each year of service


Your benefit was computed differently, if you retired under one of the provisions below:


Special Provision for Air Traffic Controllers, Firefighters, Law Enforcement Officers, Capitol Police, Supreme Court Police, or Nuclear Materials Couriers
1.7% of your high-3 average salary multiplied by your years of service which do not exceed 20,
plus
1% of your high-3 average salary multiplied by your service exceeding 20 years

Member of Congress or Congressional Employee (or any combination of the two)
Must have at least 5 years of service as Member and/or Congressional Employee
1.7% of your high-3 average salary multiplied by your years of service as a Member of Congress or Congressional Employee which do not exceed 20,
plus
1% of your high-3 average salary multiplied by your years of other service"

[dj_pizm]

911 dispatcher, pension raised from 10% to 13%, mandatory 5% pay cut, retirement switched from 20 yrs. of service to the age of 65. I started at the age of 22 and would of been eligible for full retirement at 42 yrs old, but now have to wait til 65!

[knine]

911 dispatcher, pension raised from 10% to 13%, mandatory 5% pay cut, retirement switched from 20 yrs. of service to the age of 65. I started at the age of 22 and would of been eligible for full retirement at 42 yrs old, but now have to wait til 65!
Police, Fire and EMS is not a normal career. It's hard enough to get thru 20 years, let alone 45.

jerrym3, go back and re-read the post, I thnk all of your answers are in there.

[duhtroll]

OK, some of the comparisons being made here are apples to oranges. It is not the clerical/custodial pensions that are breaking the bank.

Government clerical and custodial might make more than private sector. So what?

These are not lucrative careers we are talking about. Maybe the private sector should pay more, in that case. Of course, if any business cuts clerical and/or custodial, it means management might actually have to do some work for themselves, so I can see why they complain. :rolleyes:

Many of the jobs being compared in the public sector require more education than their private sector counterparts. Since I mentioned Wisconsin:

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_d4093848-3c92-11e0-ac18-001cc4c03286.html

"But what about teachers in private schools? They many times make less than public school teachers!"

Lots of private schools are religiously affiliated, too. My former school (grew up Catholic) wanted me to work for $10K less than the public school offered. I just didn't hear the calling that loudly, I guess.

The bottom line is this. How many rich police officers, fire fighters, and teachers do you see? I am not talking about the one guy who weaseled his way into a half a million $ pension. There are examples of that in every profession.

$100K in New York or CA is not a lot of money.

People don't go into those jobs expecting a windfall, either during employment or at retirement. That is why it galls me when people who have no experience with the public system start bashing the security (in a bad economy) that everyone knows existed for decades.

This is nothing more than "Things are *****y for me, so I want them to be *****y for everyone."

You don't hear public sector workers complaining that after 18 years experience and a Master's Degree in their field, they can't even touch $50K per year. They chose it knowing that even though the salary now is marginal, they at least could rely on a halfway decent (even if not by any means affluent) retirement.

You private sector guys enjoy the bonuses and the income spikes in the good times. Don't fault us for choosing service careers that include a higher level of stability in the bad times.

[rayjay]

I have a fairly close relative who is in the private sector. Insurance to be exact, niche stuff, high risk, very specialized. She worked her butt off to get where she is. It is extreemly cut throat and very stressful. Someone is always looking to steal your thunder. She has traveled the world for 20 years. Makes money I could only dream of. She could retire right now at 44 and not have a care in the world, but for some reason she won't. I guess my point is she doesn't even care about SS, doesn't plan on it being there and acted accordingly. She also is alone and doesn't have the one thing she truly wants, a family. Tough trade off huh.

Duhtroll, I don't necessarily agree with everything you said. I can remember when I worked at another station near a large construction project that many of the laborers, not skilled people, made more $$$ than I did. Then they were laid off in the winter and lived off unemployment and food stamps. They ate better food than my family, drove better cars, had nicer homes. All because they knew how to work the system, even with no education. Didn't seem right then and still doesn't, but these are the people calling for me to have my pension reduced or eliminated.

[sailsmen]

What this is about is the Federal Gov't stealing 24% of SS a/k/a Pension while maintaining 100% of the Pensions for itself at a time it has increased spending 20%.

The SS recipients out number the Federal Pension recipients. The Federal Pension recipients have an interest in seeing to it that SS is not cut or the SS recipients will demand that the Fed Pension recipients also be cut.

In many individual cases and on average Public sector pay/benefits are higher than private sector pay/benefits.

The Public sector employees recieve their pay/benefits from the earnings of the privates sector. We are not separate and our interest are the same.

[duhtroll]

Oh, I don't disagree with you - there is a lot of abuse in the system that needs to be eliminated.

Many people with high school educations make more than I do. My brother in law works in the finance area and didn't even complete an AA to my knowledge, yet his wife doesn't have to work - they have 4 kids and a bigger house than I own.

I really don't mind and I don't begrudge others what they make. I only mind when people tell me how I am not worth the money I make and complain about what it costs to the taxpayer, because they know so-and-so and "HE doesn't work at all," so I must not either just because I am a state employee.

Never mind that most of these people criticizing me make much more money than I do. I guess because they work in the private sector they feel they have earned their money whereas I have not. I am accustomed to it -- have been for years.


I have a fairly close relative who is in the private sector. Insurance to be exact, niche stuff, high risk, very specialized. She worked her butt off to get where she is. It is extreemly cut throat and very stressful. Someone is always looking to steal your thunder. She has traveled the world for 20 years. Makes money I could only dream of. She could retire right now at 44 and not have a care in the world, but for some reason she won't. I guess my point is she doesn't even care about SS, doesn't plan on it being there and acted accordingly. She also is alone and doesn't have the one thing she truly wants, a family. Tough trade off huh.

Duhtroll, I don't necessarily agree with everything you said. I can remember when I worked at another station near a large construction project that many of the laborers, not skilled people, made more $$$ than I did. Then they were laid off in the winter and lived off unemployment and food stamps. They ate better food than my family, drove better cars, had nicer homes. All because they knew how to work the system, even with no education. Didn't seem right then and still doesn't, but these are the people calling for me to have my pension reduced or eliminated.

[duhtroll]

In many individual cases and on average Public sector pay/benefits are higher than private sector pay/benefits.

No, they are not. Because you are comparing apples and oranges as I stated earlier.

In order to have a comparison you have to have the SAME job being done by persons with the SAME qualifications, not similar, no pigeonholing, etc..

In the case of police and fire, there is no real comparison to make. In the case of teaching, you have private schools that are private because of affluence and then you have private schools because of religion -- neither of which compare to public schools. Why? They get to decide who goes to their schools.

Too many comparisons are being made with no common point of reference. By far, most of the ones that come up as common are lower paying positions, which are not the large costs to the tax payer.

No one ever debated that tax money pays for public sector workers. Somehow that has become a bad thing. I say it is merely smoke and mirrors. Someone has to do most of those jobs (not all, most).

Our military is tax money too, but watch what happens when cuts to the military (personnel) are planned.

Yeah, tax money funds jobs. What is your point?

[sailsmen]

The entire article quoted in my previous posts;
3/8/2010 Dennis Cauchon
"Federal employees earn higher average salaries than private-sector workers in more than eight out of 10 occupations, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data finds.
Accountants, nurses, chemists, surveyors, cooks, clerks and janitors are among the wide range of jobs that get paid more on average in the federal government than in the private sector.

Overall, federal workers earned an average salary of $67,691 in 2008 for occupations that exist both in government and the private sector, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The average pay for the same mix of jobs in the private sector was $60,046 in 2008, the most recent data available.


CHART: Federal salaries compared to private-sector

These salary figures do not include the value of health, pension and other benefits, which averaged $40,785 per federal employee in 2008 vs. $9,882 per private worker, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.Federal pay has become a hot political issue in recent months because of concerns over the federal budget deficit and recession-battered wages in the private sector.

Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., made federal pay an issue in his successful campaign to fill Edward Kennedy's seat and is fighting for a pay freeze.

The federal government spent about $224 billion in 2008 on compensation for about 2 million civilian employees.

"The data flip the conventional wisdom on its head," says Cato Institute budget analyst Chris Edwards, a critic of federal pay policy. "Federal workers make substantially more than private workers, not less, in addition to having a large advantage in benefits."

But National Treasury Employees Union President Colleen Kelley says the comparison is faulty because it "compares apples and oranges." Federal accountants, for example, perform work that has more complexity and requires more skill than accounting work in the private sector, she says.

"When you look at the actual duties, you see that very few federal jobs align with those in the private sector," she says. She says federal employees are paid an average of 26% less than non-federal workers doing comparable work.

Office of Personnel Management spokeswoman Sedelta Verble, says higher pay also reflects the longevity and older age of federal workers.

USA TODAY used Bureau of Labor Statistics data to compare salaries in every federal job that had a private-sector equivalent. For example, the federal government's 57,000 registered nurses — working for the Veterans Administration and elsewhere — were paid an average of $74,460 a year, $10,680 more than the average for private-sector nurses.

The BLS reports that 216 occupations covering 1.1 million federal workers exist in both the federal government and the private sector. An additional 124 federal occupations covering 750,000 employees — air-traffic controllers, tax collectors and others — did not have direct equivalents, according to the BLS.

Federal jobs have more limited salary ranges than private-sector jobs, some of which have million-dollar payouts.

Key findings:

• Federal. The federal pay premium cut across all job categories — white-collar, blue-collar, management, professional, technical and low-skill. In all, 180 jobs paid better average salaries in the federal government; 36 paid better in the private sector.

•Private. The private sector paid more on average in a select group of high-skill occupations, including lawyers, veterinarians and airline pilots. The government's 5,200 computer research scientists made an average of $95,190, about $10,000 less than the average in the corporate world.

•State and local. State government employees had an average salary of $47,231 in 2008, about 5% less than comparable jobs in the private sector. City and county workers earned an average of $43,589, about 2% more than private workers in similar jobs. State and local workers have higher total compensation than private workers when the value of benefits is included.

Job comparison
Average federal salaries exceed average private-sector pay in 83% of comparable occupations. A sampling of average annnual salaries in 2008, the most recent data:

Job Federal Private Difference
Airline pilot, copilot, flight engineer $93,690 $120,012 -$26,322

Broadcast technician $90,310 $49,265 $41,045

Budget analyst $73,140 $65,532 $7,608

Chemist $98,060 $72,120 $25,940

Civil engineer $85,970 $76,184 $9,786

Clergy $70,460 $39,247 $31,213

Computer, information systems manager $122,020 $115,705 $6,315

Computer support specialist $45,830 $54,875 -$9,045

Cook $38,400 $23,279 $15,121

Crane, tower operator $54,900 $44,044 $10,856

Dental assistant $36,170 $32,069 $4,101

Economist $101,020 $91,065 $9,955

Editors $42,210 $54,803 -$12,593

Electrical engineer $86,400 $84,653 $1,747

Financial analysts $87,400 $81,232 $6,168

Graphic designer $70,820 $46,565 $24,255

Highway maintenance worker $42,720 $31,376 $11,344

Janitor $30,110 $24,188 $5,922

Landscape architects $80,830 $58,380 $22,450

Laundry, dry-cleaning worker $33,100 $19,945 $13,155

Lawyer $123,660 $126,763 -$3,103

Librarian $76,110 $63,284 $12,826

Locomotive engineer $48,440 $63,125 -$14,685

Machinist $51,530 $44,315 $7,215

Mechanical engineer $88,690 $77,554 $11,136

Office clerk $34,260 $29,863 $4,397

Optometrist $61,530 $106,665 -$45,135

Paralegals $60,340 $48,890 $11,450

Pest control worker $48,670 $33,675 $14,995

Physicians, surgeons $176,050 $177,102 -$1,052

Physician assistant $77,770 $87,783 -$10,013

Procurement clerk $40,640 $34,082 $6,558

Public relations manager $132,410 $88,241 $44,169

Recreation worker $43,630 $21,671 $21,959

Registered nurse $74,460 $63,780 $10,680

Respiratory therapist $46,740 $50,443 -$3,703

Secretary $44,500 $33,829 $10,671

Sheet metal worker $49,700 $43,725 $5,975

Statistician $88,520 $78,065 $10,455

Surveyor $78,710 $67,336 $11,374


Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, USA TODAY analysis

[Bluerauder]

In order to have a comparison you have to have the SAME job being done by persons with the SAME qualifications, not similar, no pigeonholing, etc..

So basically you are saying that no one can ever make any comparisons whatsoever since NO ONE ever does EXACTLY the same job nor do they have EXACTLY the same qualifications. What absolute :bs:

Sailsman's point of the AVERAGE Public Sector benefits being more than the AVERAGE Private Sector benefits is right on the money. They key here is "on average".

[sailsmen]

My point is 1) for the Fed Gov't to cut SS 24% while it increases overall spending 20% and maintains Fed Employees "SS" at 100% is wrong

2) for Federal Employees to take note that if SS is being cut 24% they will also be impacted, SS recipients out vote Fed Employees

3) that those paying into SS are paying the Fed Employees

4) the interest of SS payers and Fed Employees are the same in demanding that the Fed Gov't meet it's underfunded obligations before it increases spending or creates new spending.

I want the Fed Gov't and State Gov't to meet their SS and Pension obligations to everyone. This is the time to demand that the Federal Gov't and State Gov't freeze existing and new spending until the under funded SS and Pension obligations are funded.

Very simple the Federal Gov't has made a financial obligation to those for SS and for Federal Employees Pension. To think they will only renege on one and not the other is foolish.

PS I am not a Public employee and have no bnenfit from the State Pension plan. I have asked my Representatives what the State shortfall is and the plan to meet the shortfall. I have done this in public meetings and in letters. I have yet to get an answer on the plan to meet the shortfall. You may ask why since I have no dog in this hunt? I do have a dog in this hunt. If our Gov't has gotten so corrupt that it can increase spending while stealing it's own employees Pension what do you think they will do to me???

[knine]

The bottom line is this. How many rich police officers, fire fighters, and teachers do you see? I am not talking about the one guy who weaseled his way into a half a million $ pension. There are examples of that in every profession.
My Hero. :lovies2: Good point. It's the abuse in the system that gets the attention, like a public school administrator making 600,000 k+, or the rare exception that works 90 hours a week for a 100,000k pension. That draws attention in and the public cries foul thinking we ALL get that, then the pension axe starts swinging at the rest of us that paid into the system.

To think that a 67 year old cop or firefighter is not going to happen, I can name examples where they do. Forcing people to work longer in the emergency sector is not the answer. I've known people who have just walked away because of the stress and trauma they see on a daily basis, but hey, they don't deserve a pension according to those who will draw a pension for getting elected to an office and waste our tax dollars then come calling for us...either pension or tax increase.

We just suffered a 67% increase in state income taxe here as well because the State Govt. can't live within their means. The new budget the Gov proposed also hires thousands more state workers. I am so fu ckin g sick of this state. :mad2:

Can I move in with anyone who doesn't live in Illinois?

[guspech750]

I hear Anartica has a good budget plan.:rolleyes:

[duhtroll]

No, your paraphrasing of my point is incorrect, and the very same article Sails posted includes the responding point that in some cases the jobs are NOT the same.


So basically you are saying that no one can ever make any comparisons whatsoever since NO ONE ever does EXACTLY the same job nor do they have EXACTLY the same qualifications. What absolute :bs:

Sailsman's point of the AVERAGE Public Sector benefits being more than the AVERAGE Private Sector benefits is right on the money. They key here is "on average".

[duhtroll]

OK, I am going to take out some important points from your very own article.


The entire article quoted in my previous posts;
3/8/2010 Dennis Cauchon
"Federal employees earn higher average salaries than private-sector workers in more than eight out of 10 occupations, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data finds.

So... federal. Unfortunately the majority of public workers are state workers.

AND, the big debates right now are STATE workers and STATE pension plans because STATE legislators/governors are the ones wanting to cut pensions and remove bargaining rights right now.





"The data flip the conventional wisdom on its head," says Cato Institute budget analyst Chris Edwards, a critic of federal pay policy. "Federal workers make substantially more than private workers, not less, in addition to having a large advantage in benefits."

Chris Edwards thinks we are too dumb to know the difference between federal and state, apparently. Either that or he is trying to mix the two together to lump states in with the feds, who we all know are broken and have for a long, long time.


But National Treasury Employees Union President Colleen Kelley says the comparison is faulty because it "compares apples and oranges." Federal accountants, for example, perform work that has more complexity and requires more skill than accounting work in the private sector, she says.

"When you look at the actual duties, you see that very few federal jobs align with those in the private sector," she says. She says federal employees are paid an average of 26% less than non-federal workers doing comparable work.

Office of Personnel Management spokeswoman Sedelta Verble, says higher pay also reflects the longevity and older age of federal workers.

And again, here is the previous point. He is comparing older workers to younger, and different tasks.


USA TODAY used Bureau of Labor Statistics data to compare salaries in every federal job that had a private-sector equivalent. For example, the federal government's 57,000 registered nurses — working for the Veterans Administration and elsewhere — were paid an average of $74,460 a year, $10,680 more than the average for private-sector nurses.

And yet "private sector equivalent" has been shown to not be the same jobs with the same workers.

Not really a good comparison.



Federal jobs have more limited salary ranges than private-sector jobs, some of which have million-dollar payouts.

Another good point, seemingly overlooked here.



•State and local. State government employees had an average salary of $47,231 in 2008, about 5% less than comparable jobs in the private sector. City and county workers earned an average of $43,589, about 2% more than private workers in similar jobs. State and local workers have higher total compensation than private workers when the value of benefits is included.

And again, these are the jobs for which the "comparisons" fail, as I said before. And the ones that are direct comparisons are not the high dollar jobs in the first place.

[rayjay]

Just food for thought here, a 67 year old PO, firefighter, Paramedic, ect will be at the top of their payscale. Do you really think you are going to get your moneys worth? I can tell you I started slowing down physically at age 50. At about 45 I started becoming injured more. At age 45 I had 25 years on the job. The tax payers had to pay for my down time. So I guess I should have been fired and all the accumulated knowledge I had sent home with me since I was a senior Lieutenant at the time and still worked the street as much as possible.

As for private teachers vs public, unless somethings changed, the private sector didn't have to be accredited. My cousin was a private school headmaster at a prestigious school and told me this fact. I was quite surprised.

[ParkRanger]

I have been to a number of meetings of local Gov't. Both them and I know there is a large shortfall to the States Public Employee Pension equaling $3,600 per person in the State.
I see the way they are throwing away money like there is no tommorrow. A lavish party with well known bands and catering for an historical event I never knew exisited. Giving public land to a group for something that is not needed. Hiring an additional lawyer because the "current one will retire someday". Paying for a color photo book of the areas history. Hiring a CPA firm because sales taxes may have dropped. Creating a new position that is a duplicate of a State position that is a duplicate of a Federal position.
A local Mayor demanding that her salary be supplemented by the State because the nearest other Mayor makes double what she makes. His city is 7 times bigger and he just got sentenced to the pen for corruption.
I can go on and on.
What are they going to do when the State Pension Plan is out of money? What is disturbing is I have asked several what is the State Pension Plan shortfall and they immediately give me the answer. Point is they know it and are doing nothing about it. They are essentially taking money from the State Employees Pension every time they make a new expenditure.


Louisiana corrupt?? I'm shocked!

[ParkRanger]

No, they are not. Because you are comparing apples and oranges as I stated earlier.

In order to have a comparison you have to have the SAME job being done by persons with the SAME qualifications, not similar, no pigeonholing, etc..

In the case of police and fire, there is no real comparison to make. In the case of teaching, you have private schools that are private because of affluence and then you have private schools because of religion -- neither of which compare to public schools. Why? They get to decide who goes to their schools.

Too many comparisons are being made with no common point of reference. By far, most of the ones that come up as common are lower paying positions, which are not the large costs to the tax payer.

No one ever debated that tax money pays for public sector workers. Somehow that has become a bad thing. I say it is merely smoke and mirrors. Someone has to do most of those jobs (not all, most).

Our military is tax money too, but watch what happens when cuts to the military (personnel) are planned.

Yeah, tax money funds jobs. What is your point?

There you go being reasonable again. Your logic will just confuse.

[sailsmen]

WSJ April 5, 2010
"By CARI TUNA
A study released Monday by Stanford University estimates that California's three largest state-operated, public-employee pension funds—the California Public Employees' Retirement System, California State Teachers' Retirement System and University of California Retirement System—currently face a total shortfall of more than $500 billion.

The figure dwarfs the funds' own combined shortfall estimate of $55 billion as of July 2008, according to the report, which doesn't account for the more than $100 billion loss sustained by the funds during the recession. That adds a further wrinkle to California's already precarious fiscal situation.

The study, prepared by Stanford graduate students for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, used a more conservative formula to estimate the pension systems' unfunded obligations, an approach advocated by a growing chorus of experts. The report also recommended increasing contributions to the funds, investing in less risky assets and trimming pension benefits for future employees.

Gov. Schwarzenegger warned Monday that pension-fund shortfalls could lead California, which faces a $20 billion budget gap in the coming fiscal year, to divert more funds from other state programs to cover pension costs."

Good Luck!

[ParkRanger]

The Story of Tier & E., Ultd.



Tier & E., Ultd. by law collects 6.2% of every paycheck and an additional 6.2% from my employer. In exchange when I reach the earliest retirement age of 67 Tier & E., Ultd. agreed to pay me a monthly benefit of $1,910 for the remainder of my life.

However, my November 2010 statement from Tier & E., Ultd. says due to their increasing expenses they project they will only be able to pay me $1,452 per month when I am 67. By law,”for my protection”, Tier & E., Ultd. can only invest in bonds in Tier & E., Ultd.

Had I been an employee of Tier & E., Ultd. the earliest retirement age is 57 and the monthly benefit is $3,938. If I wait until 62 the monthly benefit is $4,950.

Age Social Security Tier & E., Ultd. Employee
57 -0- $3,938

67/62 $1,452 $4,950.

I think Tier & E., Ultd. has been grossly negligent and should be criminally charged.


If your really serious - how about getting John Edwards to sue for you. He's been very successful for the working stiff.

[ParkRanger]

WSJ April 5, 2010
"By CARI TUNA
A study released Monday by Stanford University estimates that California's three largest state-operated, public-employee pension funds—the California Public Employees' Retirement System, California State Teachers' Retirement System and University of California Retirement System—currently face a total shortfall of more than $500 billion.

The figure dwarfs the funds' own combined shortfall estimate of $55 billion as of July 2008, according to the report, which doesn't account for the more than $100 billion loss sustained by the funds during the recession. That adds a further wrinkle to California's already precarious fiscal situation.

The study, prepared by Stanford graduate students for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, used a more conservative formula to estimate the pension systems' unfunded obligations, an approach advocated by a growing chorus of experts. The report also recommended increasing contributions to the funds, investing in less risky assets and trimming pension benefits for future employees.

Gov. Schwarzenegger warned Monday that pension-fund shortfalls could lead California, which faces a $20 billion budget gap in the coming fiscal year, to divert more funds from other state programs to cover pension costs."

Good Luck!

GOOD - maybe NOW all the knuckleheads and losers will stop moving out here!!!!

[sailsmen]

"Benefits widen public, private workers' pay gap
Updated 4/10/2009 2:23 AM | Comments 223 | Recommend 27 E-mail | Save | Print | Reprints & Permissions |


Share
Yahoo! Buzz Add to Mixx Facebook TwitterMore
Fark Digg Reddit MySpace StumbleUpon Propeller LinkedInSubscribe
myYahoo iGoogleMore
Netvibes myAOL
By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY
The pay gap between government workers and lower-compensated private employees is growing as public employees enjoy sizable benefit growth even in a distressed economy, federal figures show.
Public employees earned benefits worth an average of $13.38 an hour in December 2008, the latest available data, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) says. Private-sector workers got $7.98 an hour.

Overall, total compensation for state and local workers was $39.25 an hour — $11.90 more than in private business. In 2007, the gap in wages and benefits was $11.31.

The gap has been expanding because of the increasing value of public employee benefits. Last year, government benefits rose three times more than those in the private sector: up 69 cents an hour for civil servants, 23 cents for private workers.

Labor costs account for about half of state and local spending, according to BLS and Census data. Benefits consume a growing share of that, now 34%.

Illinois state Sen. Chris Lauzen, a Republican, says government benefits are unsustainable and unfair to taxpayers who earn less than civil servants. "People will become angrier and angrier when they learn the difference between their pay and benefits and what we give to public employees," he says.

Jennifer Porcari of the American Federation of Teachers, a union representing 1.4 million educators and state employees, says BLS figures that show government employees earn higher wages are misleading because jobs aren't comparable. Government jobs, such as teaching, often require more education.

Some states are asking unions for help with budget problems. New Mexico employees will pay an extra 1.5% of salary toward pensions for two years, cutting the state's share. Ohio's unions will take unpaid furlough days to save the state $440 million over two years. In the third year, workers will get most of the money back.

The wage gap between government and private workers has stayed roughly the same since 2002. Benefits are a different story.

For every $1-an-hour pay increase, public employees have gotten $1.17 in new benefits. Private workers have gotten just 58 cents in benefits for every $1 raise. The difference: Companies have ended most traditional pension plans and increased workers' share of health care costs. Government paid an average of $8,800 annually toward employee medical insurance. Private companies paid $4,100.

A full-time government worker receives benefits worth an average of $27,830 per year. A private worker's benefits are worth $16,598."

A family member worked in one of the jobs listed above in the private sector. She went to work for the Fed for more pay and benefits doing the exact same job with almost the exact same increase in pay and benefits as listed above.

[sailsmen]

Comparing Private Sector and Government Worker Salaries
Public sector offers ironclad job security and greater pension benefits

Adam Summers
May 10, 2010

There has been much debate over whether public sector employees are overpaid or underpaid, relative to their private sector counterparts, and how to make an "apples-to-apples" comparison of the compensation received by each since job functions are oftentimes quite different. The following seeks to address this issue in light of a new report that suggests that state and local government workers receive less total compensation than comparable private-sector workers, and to examine how issues not addressed in the study might affect those conclusions.

Are Public Sector Workers Overcompensated?

Several analyses of average wages and benefits in the public and private sectors reveal that state and local government workers earn more than private sector workers. According to the most recent Employer Costs for Employee Compensation survey from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, as of December 2009, state and local government employees earned total compensation of $39.60 an hour, compared to $27.42 an hour for private industry workers-a difference of over 44 percent. This includes 35 percent higher wages and nearly 69 percent greater benefits.

Data from the U.S. Census Bureau similarly show that in 2007 the average annual salary of a California state government employee was $53,958, nearly 32 percent greater than the average private sector worker ($40,991). In addition, as noted by reporter and Calpensions.com blogger Ed Mendel, in 2006 the state conducted a comparison of state and private sector compensation for the first time in two decades. While the Department of Personnel Administration survey did not include all job classifications, the analysis determined a number of benchmark job classifications and found that state compensation was greater than private sector compensation for clerical jobs, accountants, custodians, electricians, stationary engineers, and analysts, but lagged in medical occupations.

Moreover, data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis illustrate that average state and local government compensation has been increasing at a faster rate than average private sector compensation over the past 30 years (see the graph on page 89 of this Cato Journal article).

Are Public Sector Workers Undercompensated?

But according to a new study published by the Center for State & Local Government Excellence and the National Institute on Retirement Security, these aggregate compensation comparisons are misleading. The authors, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee economics professors Keith A. Bender and John S. Heywood, assert that state and local government workers are better educated and have more work experience, on average, than do private sector workers, so it is natural that their overall average compensation would be higher. "Thus," they conclude, "the fact that public sector workers receive greater aver*age compensation than private sector workers should be no more surprising than the fact that those with more skills and education earn more."

Furthermore, after attempting to control for such variables, they find that state and local government workers actually earn less than their private sector counterparts. According to the analysis, state government workers earn an average of 11.4 percent less than private-sector workers of similar education and work experience and local government workers earn 12.0 percent less. Due to the greater benefits received by public sector workers, the gap narrows when these benefits are factored in, to 6.8 percent and 7.4 percent, respectively. (Even this appears to underestimate the cost of the benefits provided government workers, as discussed below.)
The Difficulty of Compensation Comparisons

As the report notes, it is difficult to do a real "apples-to-apples" comparison of public and private sector compensation because public sector job descriptions and duties may be very different from those in the private sector, and vice versa, so oftentimes there are no good positions to compare to in the other sector.

It would be interesting to take a closer look at the education statistics. Knowing the percentage of workers with a college degree, for example, is helpful, but not all college degrees are equal. Some fields of study are more rigorous than others, and some universities and colleges are more prestigious than others. One who earns a degree in a more rigorous field, or who attends a more prestigious (and usually a more costly) university, would expect to earn a higher salary after college than one who did not. While data with this level of detail do not seem to be available, it would be interesting to see if there are any differences in these more specific educational categories between public and private sector employees.

It is also worth asking whether higher education levels are actually required to perform many government jobs. The Bender and Heywood study presumes that we should expect public employees to be paid more because they tend to be better educated than comparable private sector employees, but is this additional education necessary?

It may be that state and local governments hire more educated people not because job duties demand more education, but rather simply because they can, as they have access to the public's money and, as such, government budgets are not so constrained as private firms' budgets. In the private sector, firms have strong incentives to keep costs down and pay no more for labor than they need to. The public sector, by contrast, is infamous for its lack of efficiency, and budgets are determined by political means, resulting in budgets that are usually much different-and more wasteful-than those determined by economic means (see the discussion of public-sector versus private-sector productivity below). This is why governments typically achieve significant cost savings by outsourcing the provision of services to the private sector. Thus, it may be that governments are paying higher wages to better-educated employees not because those employees' educational skills are required to perform their job duties, but rather because they are overqualified for their jobs.

It is worth noting that private sector compensation might also be skewed higher by a relatively small number of very high income earners, such as large corporation CEOs and senior officers, entertainers, and professional athletes, for which there is no equal in the public sector.

Productivity Differences
Even taking the study's analysis as given, this does not mean that the value of an average government worker's labor is equal to that of an average private sector worker with similar education and work experience. This is because private sector workers tend to be more productive. As Cato Institute Director of Tax Policy Studies Chris Edwards notes in a recent paper, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) National Compensation Survey, private-sector employees worked an average of 2,050 hours in 2008, 12 percent more than the 1,825 hours worked by the average public-sector employee.

Even on an hour-for-hour basis, one would expect private sector workers to be more productive due to the lack of competitive forces in government. Private sector businesses face constant pressures of competition to innovate and improve their goods and services, lest they lose business to their competitors. Government agencies, by contrast, are typically monopolies protected by law, and thus are not subject to such competitive incentives and pressures. (There is a reason for all those jokes and complaints about the efficiency of post office and DMV workers.)

Job Security Differences

The notion that public employees are significantly undercompensated begs the question: if they are so underpaid, why would they agree to take government jobs when they could earn more by performing similar jobs in the private sector? Some might cling to the romantic idea of "public service," but public-sector employees are every bit as self-interested as private-sector workers, so this answer is wholly unsatisfying.

One major factor not discussed by the report's authors that could provide an explanation (setting aside the possibility that public-sector workers are actually overcompensated, relative to their private-sector counterparts) is the significant difference in job security. Government job security is famously, and notoriously, ironclad, oftentimes making it practically impossible to fire or lay off public-sector workers for the same reasons employees are terminated in the private sector, even in cases of poor performance or unethical activity. This job protection has tremendous value which is not captured in the Bender and Heywood report.

Whether for job security or other reasons, the attraction to government jobs is evidenced by job-quit rates. Lower quit rates indicate a lack of better job opportunities elsewhere. Indeed, as the Cato Institute's Chris Edwards points out (see pages 92-93), BLS data reveal that the quit rate is significantly lower in the public sector than in the private sector. Between 2001 and 2009, the public sector layoff and discharge rate is only about one-third of the private-sector rate. Surely, if government workers were so poorly compensated and were qualified to earn significantly more in the private sector, they would leave for those private sector opportunities and the quit rate would be much higher.

[sailsmen]

In California, the state's prison guards provide a good example of the lack of dissatisfaction with public-sector compensation. According to a February 2008 Legislative Analyst's Office report, correctional peace officer costs make up the largest share of General Fund personnel expenses. The approximately 30,000 state correctional peace officers make up nearly 10 percent of all state employees. The report described correctional officers' overall compensation levels as "very attractive," particularly considering that the job requires only a high school or equivalent education, and noted that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) boasts that the job "has been called 'the greatest entry level job in California'-and for good reason," and that "Along with the great salary, our peace officers earn a retirement package you just can't find in private industry." Perhaps this, along with the CDCR's inability to control sick leave and overtime benefits, is why the state receives roughly 130,000 applications to become a prison guard each year.

Not surprisingly, there is very little turnover among California prison guards. A May 2006 California Policy Research Center report found that

Only 1,000 of California's 36,000 sworn peace officers left the CDCR [California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation], an annual turnover rate of 3.6%. This is very low for public service generally and quite unusual for correctional settings, where burnout is typically a significant staff issue. California may have the lowest turnover rate of any state corrections department. In many states, by contrast, turnover rates among correctional officers hover around 20%. (see page 27)


Rising Numbers of Government Workers

Even if we were to assume that the productivity of public and private sector workers is equal, or that differences in job security were not a factor, this would not speak to the necessity or sheer number of government employees, and thus to the overall cost or necessity of government programs. Unlike the private sector, where decisions on the number and compensation of employees are driven by supply and demand and economic realities, the size and cost of government employees is driven by the political process. Thus, government employees' labor unions are constantly pressuring legislators (who are frequently indebted to the unions for campaign contributions and other help provided to get them elected) to increase workers' wages and benefits, and legislators are always creating or expanding government programs that may or may not be needed or effective. These pressures are independent of economic constraints, and are limited only to the extent that taxpayers refuse to consent to additional borrowing or tax increases.

This has allowed governments at all levels to continue to add employees even during the severe recession that has forced a significant contraction in the private sector. Between December 2007 and December 2009, the private sector lost more than 7.3 million jobs, yet the number of government jobs actually increased by about 100,000 (see figure below).

In California, even as the state struggled with the recession, plummeting revenues, and record budget deficits, and Gov. Schwarzenegger issued a supposed hiring freeze, the state continued to hire more workers. Incredibly, the state has added over 13,000 employees since the onset of the economic recession in 2008 and continued hiring even during the worst of the recession. According to a Sacramento Bee analysis of State Controller's Office data, between June 2008 and January 31, 2009, most state agencies either maintained or increased the number of full-time employees, resulting in a net increase of over 2,000 workers (not counting the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, which always sees large drops in the number of its employees after fire season).



It should come as little surprise, then, that taxpayers are upset as they watch government union ranks swell as their governments face serious budget strains and private businesses and households have been forced to cut back to adjust to economic conditions and live within their means.

The implication behind the argument that public-sector workers are no better compensated than private sector workers is that taxpayers are getting their money's worth, but this is not necessarily the case. Even if public employee compensation is on an even keel with comparable private employee compensation, the government may still be employing more people than necessary to do the job or hiring people to perform tasks in which the government should not be involved in the first place. Such conclusions involve subjective determinations outside the scope of the Bender and Heywood report, but they should certainly not be overlooked in discussions of the cost of government services.

Public-Sector Pension and Retiree Health-Care Benefits Differences

As with job security, there is a value to the guaranteed nature of public sector benefits that is not captured in the Bender and Heywood report. In most states, including California, government workers' benefits are protected by state constitutions, and the benefits of current employees cannot be reduced. This is a protection that is not available in the private sector, where pension plans may be frozen, benefits may be reduced, and companies can go bankrupt, which could cause employees to receive fewer benefits than promised.

In addition, the value of public sector benefits seems to be understated. Granting that the BLS's Employer Costs for Employee Compensation (ECEC) survey does not account for differences in worker education, job experience, or job duties, the survey can nonetheless prove instructive. The survey estimated that public sector workers, in aggregate, earned an average 35 percent more than private sector workers, and the Bender and Heywood report found that, after controlling for the aforementioned variables, public sector workers actually earned 11-12 percent less than comparable private sector workers. Yet, while the ECEC survey reported a much greater 69 percent advantage for public sector benefits, the Bender and Heywood total compensation gap narrowed only slightly, from 11-12 percent to roughly 7 percent (public employees received more benefits than comparable private-sector workers, but the difference was much smaller than that reflected in the ECEC survey). The relatively small impact of the greater benefits of public employees also appears to fly in the face of the fact that in California and elsewhere, many state and local governments have increased government employees' benefits by as much as 50 percent in the past decade or so, allowing many workers to retire as young as 50 or 55 years old with pensions equal to as much as 90 percent of their final salaries. These are benefits unheard of in the private sector.

In the Bender and Heywood report, the authors assumed that the determinants of benefit values-factors such as education, age, and other demographic characteristics-affect the results in the same way that the determinants affect the calculations of hourly earnings. The authors acknowledge that this assumption is debatable. If the determinants affect the comparability of benefits in a different way than they affect wages, then this could skew the results. Perhaps this could account for at least some of the apparent discrepancy.

Moreover, the report cannot account for expected increases in benefits that would result in greater compensation for public employees, relative to comparable private-sector employees. The report is necessarily a snapshot in time, as it would be impossible to predict all future changes to employees' wages and benefits. Yet, we can safely assume that health care costs, and thus the costs of employees retiree health care benefits, which have risen on the order of 10 percent a year for most of the last decade, will continue to rise, particularly since demand for health-care services will increase as the Baby Boomer generation enters retirement (and, it could be argued, the supply of health care practitioners might be reduced by increased government involvement in the health care industry, thus exacerbating these cost increases). Retiree health benefits are typically much more generous in the public sector than they are in the private sector, if they are provided at all in the private sector. In California, the state pays 100 percent of health care costs for retired state workers and 90 percent of costs for retirees' families. Barring any commensurate reductions to these benefits, which, unlike pension benefits, can, in fact, be reduced, we should expect to see the gap between public and private employee benefits widen and the differences in comparable public and private employees' total compensation to adjust accordingly.

[sailsmen]

Conclusions

While the recent study from the Center for State & Local Government Excellence and the National Institute on Retirement Security comparing public sector and private sector compensation levels correctly notes that aggregate comparisons of average public and private wages and benefits can be misleading, its conclusion that state and local government employees are undercompensated, compared to private-sector employees, is suspect at best. The analysis ignores the value of virtually ironclad job security and certainty of pension benefits, features that are notably absent in the private sector. It also overlooks the greater efficiency and productivity of private sector workers, which is a result of competitive pressures not experienced in government agencies. The conclusion that public-sector workers are more highly educated than comparable private sector workers, upon which higher pay and benefit levels is justified, is called into question by the fact that not all college degrees are equal (and may vary between public and private sector employees) and the possibility that governments are hiring overqualified workers because they face looser budget constraints than private companies (i.e., governments are overpaying for their labor).

There are other considerations outside the scope of the report that affect discussions of the cost of government services. Since retiree health care costs are expected to continue to rise rapidly, and public employees' retiree health care benefits are significantly greater than those of private sector employees, this will increase government workers' total compensation relative to comparable private sector employee compensation. Furthermore, even if we assume that public employees are underpaid, or at least not overpaid, that does not mean that the number of government workers is necessary or desirable, or that the cost and scope of government is not excessive.

The fact is that state and local government labor costs are continuing to escalate drastically. There is a reason why the City of Vallejo, California, cited skyrocketing pension costs as the chief cause of its fall into municipal bankruptcy, and why many other local governments in California and elsewhere are on the brink of bankruptcy. There is a reason why California's pension costs have been described as unsustainable by everyone from the chief actuary of the California Public Employees' Retirement System to Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, to Democratic State Treasurer Bill Lockyer. There is a reason that governments at the federal, state, and local levels achieve significant cost savings by contracting with private sector businesses to provide a wide variety of services previously performed by government workers. State and local governments in California and across the nation must address public employee compensation levels if they are to maintain any sense of fiscal responsibility, particularly in these difficult economic times.

Adam B. Summers is a policy analyst at Reason Foundation.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[jabird56]

It is my understanding the TSP plan is in addition to the FERS. You get a Pension (FERS) and a "401K" (TSP). IF this is incorrect please advise.

FERS is a retirement plan that provides benefits from three different sources: a Basic Benefit Plan, Social Security, and the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP).

From my understanding the Basic Benefit Plan will pay out 1% of the employee's high-3 (years) average pay times years of creditable service

References:
FERS: http://www.opm.gov/retire/pubs/pamphlets/forms/RI90-1.pdf
TSP: https://www.tsp.gov/index.shtml

[duhtroll]

Ha ha ha.


Conclusions

While the recent study from the Center for State & Local Government Excellence and the National Institute on Retirement Security comparing public sector and private sector compensation levels correctly notes that aggregate comparisons of average public and private wages and benefits can be misleading, its conclusion that state and local government employees are undercompensated, compared to private-sector employees, is suspect at best. The analysis ignores the value of virtually ironclad job security and certainty of pension benefits, features that are notably absent in the private sector. It also overlooks the greater efficiency and productivity of private sector workers, which is a result of competitive pressures not experienced in government agencies. The conclusion that public-sector workers are more highly educated than comparable private sector workers, upon which higher pay and benefit levels is justified, is called into question by the fact that not all college degrees are equal (and may vary between public and private sector employees) and the possibility that governments are hiring overqualified workers because they face looser budget constraints than private companies (i.e., governments are overpaying for their labor).



Do you realize the first bolded conclusion has absolutely nothing to do with actual levels of compensation and includes unsupported opinion, and the other two I bolded are pure speculation and opinion?

"Not all college degrees are equal," :lol: Private workers are more productive. No facts, just an opinion. But see, he is CERTAIN of this.

That's like saying "Well, I'm better than you. I can't prove it, but I just know." I am glad this guy knows how much work each and every person has to do to obtain their certification and how much work they do on their respective jobs. :rolleyes:

What a crock.

EDIT: He even torpedoes his own argument when he equates hours worked to productivity. Productivity is the work done per hour, not the number of hours worked. He needs some 8th grade math review. It also leaves glaring omissions like the fact that public salaried employees are not paid overtime in many cases, making comparisons of hours worked meaningless unless he provides his criteria.

The other statistics you posted are subject to the same criticisms I made of your previous articles - bad comparisons. The conclusions in your last post attempt to "explain away" the bad comparisons by using opinion and speculation, but that doesn't lend any credibility to the position.

Here is a report released yesterday from my home state.

Study: Public workers in Iowa are paid less than private-sector workers
10:30 AM, Feb 22, 2011 | by Jennifer Jacobs |


Public employees in Iowa in general are paid less than their private-sector peers in comparable jobs, according to a new study by the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project.

Even if benefit packages are accounted for, Iowa’s public workers still are compensated less than those who work for private businesses, said Andrew Cannon, author of a new report.

For state government workers, male employees earned wages or salaries that were 9 percent less than comparable workers in private industry when taking into account education, experience and hours worked.

Women in state government earned 13 percent less, the study found.

For local government, men earned 14 percent less and women about 19 percent less than private counterparts, it says.

A battle in Wisconsin over collective bargaining rights there has put the spotlight on labor costs and worker rights in Iowa.

The study was timed for release today to coincide with a rally at the Iowa Capitol on workers’ rights and the first public meeting on a Republican bill in the Iowa House that would make significant changes to the state’s collective bargaining law.

Gov. Terry Branstad, a Republican, thinks unions should no longer have any say over their health insurance. Instead, government managers should exclusively decide how much employees contribute.

“It makes no sense for us to have health insurance as a mandatory bargaining item,” Branstad said in a telephone interview last week. “The result of it is we have an absolutely dinosaur system which is extremely expensive. That has got to change.”

Branstad has also called for changes to the state pension system. State and local government should no longer be entirely responsible for promised benefits in the future. Instead, benefits would depend more on how much workers contributed to their plans over time, he has said.

It’s true that such benefits comprise a larger share of public employees’ overall compensation than for most private-sector workers, Cannon found.

But even after adding in benefits such as health insurance and pension contributions, total compensation for Iowa’s male and female public employees was lower than for their private-sector counterparts, he said.

Public employees received 11.6 percent of their compensation in the form of health and other insurance benefits while workers at small, medium and large private firms received 7.2 percent, 8.4 percent and 10 percent.

Similarly, they receive a larger share of their compensation in the form of retirement benefits (6.4 percent) than private-sector workers (3.3 percent for small firms, 3.6 for medium firms and 5 percent at large private firms).

Almost one-sixth of all Iowa jobs — 234,400 of Iowa’s 1.47 million total non-farm jobs — are in either state or local governments.

David Osterberg, executive director of the Iowa Policy Project, said: “We need to be focusing on how to make jobs in Iowa better, and keep Iowa out of a race to the bottom with states that don’t treat workers well in either the public or private sector.”

The study used data from the U.S. Census Bureau and Bureau of Labor Statistics and took into account education, work experience, hours worked and other factors.

[rayjay]

Sailsmen, seriously I can not read that much mumbo jumbo. I did take note of the part on CA correction officers. I was a LEO not a CO, but I know COs. Do you have any idea how difficult a job that is? The stress involved? The burnout factor? The danger in the max jails? We took a transfer from State Corrections which at the time was a step down in pay. When asked why he would do this the candidate stated he goes to jail for 8.25 to 16 hrs a day and did nothing wrong. Three years and he'd had enough. He was no HS only education either. He had a batchelors in psych. I worked the last 20 years of my career with him on my shift. Seems CA found a way to retain their experienced personnel and not have to constantly run short staffed in highly dangerous places. Cuts down on having to constantly run basic training academies that are exspensive to operate. Sick leave abuse can be corrected by one word, discipline. I'll take one seasoned officer over two new jacks any day. You also have to remember how exspensive it is to live in CA.