name an occupation you are referring to as a well as a position that is not CEO or something similar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
Printable View
name an occupation you are referring to as a well as a position that is not CEO or something similar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
Interesting. So basically the figure is so much higher than the average, because they are actually setting aside as much money as they are supposed to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
As I have noted from what I have read about pension funds nationally, both private and government, are under-reserved.
So essentially, the reason that Wisconsin actually pays so much more into the fund is that they are being fiscally prudent, and not shoving the payments off until later, when they will need to be much bigger.
Even more telling:
It is a well-worn budget gimmick for governors to monkey with pension funds to balance budgets and create gimmies. Either taking money directly, as appears to be the case here, or changing some of the assumptions to make it appear as if the liability is smaller (reducing funding requirements, and freeing up cash for other pet projects)Quote:
Blogger Kristen Emery points to what she calls a "pension theft provision" in Walker's bill:
On page three of the bill, "third paragraph from the top, there is very interesting language that leads to the very important question for Governor Walker. The paragraph mandates that a study of the existing Wisconsin Retirement System be performed and it must “specifically address establishing a defined contribution plan as an option for WRS participating employees” and the deadline for completing this study is June 30, 2012. I don’t think that Walker would be adding retirement benefits for workers - so I am wondering if the Republican Governors that are trying to get rid of collective bargaining of retirement benefits, so that they can terminate the existing plans and recover excess assets for their state balance sheets.
"If Governor Walker’s bill passes, and collective bargaining of retirement benefits is eliminated, then next year when Governor Walker decides it is in Wisconsin’s best interests to get rid of the existing plan and replace it with something less valuable for the employees. And the employees would have no say and no one can keep Walker from raiding your retirement savings."
Over beers at Donnelly's retirement party, Phillips agrees: "ETF has $78 billion in retirement funds--it has got to have occurred to someone in the Governor's office to use those funds," says.
:wtf Have you really never worked in a place, or known anyone who has worked in a place, where lower level (thus lower paid) employees typically stay in the office for much longer hours than their bosses and company executives?Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake
If you really need an example of a workplace like this, how about an ad agency?
I don't want to derail the thread. All I was saying is that it's a curious standard to suggest that teachers are overpaid because of the number of hours they work.
If there is one segment of government that should pay better than average, it is teaching.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
I'm all for paying the really good teachers even more. Problem is, the union hates merit-based pay.
Come to think of it, unions don't really foster individual excellence.
A shitty teacher with "tenure" will make more than a great teacher with only a few years of experience. Sad.
sorry, I must have missed somewhere and apparently I don't know who you original post was directed at......Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
who suggested that teachers are overpaid because of the number of hours they work?
not much more.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
it's the starting salary that's pretty good.
Post 30.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake
And pension + benefits.
what do you mean by "90 percentile"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
and the love of educating kids and on and on.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
I changed my post.
Point being 0 years is not much different than 10 years.
So the union gets everything it wants? I'm all for something like merit pay and I'm in no way a fan of the teachers unions but there's 2 bodies at the negotiating table.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
That is simply not true. There's very, very little risk in public sector negotiations. Both sides are negotiating using a 3rd party's money, there's no pressure to be profitable or efficient, there's little to no consequences for either party when a bad deal gets made. Neither side is faced with the possibility of losing everything. Accountability is a function of risk and public sector risk doesn't come anywhere close to private sector risk.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
The taxpayers don't really give a shit. All they see are prospects of paying higher taxes for lesser services and a bunch of money being spent on benefits for public sector retirees who don't work for them anymore.Quote:
The fact remains that public sector employees total compensation is perfectly in line with private sector employees. There have been studies that testify to this.
You're using the fleecing word, not me. I'm not saying anyone is fleecing anyone. I'm just saying how collective bargaining in a public sector setting is a fundamentally flawed application of the CBA concept. The unbalanced budgets, unfunded obligations and declining levels of service we're seeing nationwide provide ample evidence of this.Quote:
The idea that the public sector unions are fleecing us all is just a flat out lie.
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue
It's the credit card approach. Eventually it catches up to you, and we're there.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
See above, not talking about fleecing. It's simply a flawed system.Quote:
I think CG is making a point about fleecing, however. If there is no fleecing going on then I fail to see how there are flaws in the relationship that are being exploited.
Damn skippy!Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
Perhaps a stupid question, and maybe its been covered but I can't seem to find it...Are teachers better taken care of the our military? I wonder since they're both integral to the security of our country, albiet in different ways.
I don't have a problem paying teachers better than average. Just do it by paying them a better than average salary TODAY. Don't tie up damn near half of their compensation in pension and long term health benefits that don't get paid out until decades later.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
I have a question, I have heard or read about a week or week and a half ago (but maybe have misunderstood or something) that the unions have agreed to all of the cuts proposed by the Gov. Is this true? If so, doesn't it kinda prove that the CBA works?
P.S. I know, if I provide no link it didn't happen, I am searching. In the meantime, I wanted to know if someone else heard this.
http://www.todaysmilitary.com/benefi...e=no&x=41&y=11Quote:
Originally Posted by Stringer_Bell
New officer's make out like bandits compared to teachers (who have equal degrees). A better comparison would be with enlisted. 21.5 k is starting salary on the lower end so take that with full medical and dental the teacher still squeeks out ahead. This is assuming that the teacher has medical insurance and is paying off student loans.
Just redid the options and if you're married and enlisted, you do much better starting than a teacher does. It's not even close.
Thanks for the info! :toastQuote:
Originally Posted by Vici
I would assume teaching is a tad bit less risky than, say, being deployed to Afghanistan. Well, unless you're a teacher in Detroit.
So Darrin is also against such bargaining rights and benefits for police and firefighters as well.
:lolQuote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Talk to a teacher.....most would rather be in Afghanistan....
:lol:lol You can reason with some Afghanis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nbadan