[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by Patchman

Bind future legislatures for...

social programs like social security and medicaid?

programs like purchasing copier & toilet paper, office equipment, and such?

programs like constructing capital infrastructure?

programs like building and running county/state medical centers (or even VA hospitals), which are usually the only Level I trauma centers in the area?

continued fundings for agencies such as EPA, FDA, DOT?

Are you talking a blanket binding/non-binding? Or binding/non-binding with some programs/funding, while not with others?

You're wrong about all of the above.

SS and Medicare are great examples though. Just like public pensions.

[CAcop]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

Excellent! You pay attention. In all of these threads and all of the public employee butthurt, no one has ever made that connection.

Correct on all points. My income doesn't come from Medicare 100% but a large portion of it does.

That said I support the elimination of Medicare and would gladly find another job if it happened.

You?

Already looking. Just depends on what I want to do and where I want to do it. The way I look at it there are these choices:

1. Start firearms instruction school. I have the training and experience to do it.

2. Get into gunsmithing. This one I have less training and experience in terms of smithing.

3. Private investigation. Kroll and Associates would be my first choice. Apple next up. Then any numerous law firms or PI firms.

4. Just about anything else. To be honest it would be better than listening to people like you whine about the cost of public safety yet sleep feeling all smug in bed.

[jpa]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

My employer changes my comp all the time. Every year in fact. Private employers also routinely change 401k matching % and sometimes eliminate them.

As to disbanding the system:

Politicians won't because it'll cost them a huge block of votes. They dont have to either because they can send other public employees with guns out to seize wealth and property as needed. However I find it interesting that you admit that public employees are only in it for the pension gravy.

Again, you're intentionally missing my point. If you didn't know from year to year what your salary was going to be, would you continue to do that job? I understand you're in sales and I don't know if part of your compensation is commission based, but if so you started your job with that understanding, correct? I'm also not talking about raising or lowering 401k matching contributions, but a fundamental change in the structure of the pension from what you originally started with.

I also never said public employees are "only in it for the pension gravy." I'm saying that government pay sucks, the only upside is the benefits. Eliminate the benefits and those who are qualified will leave for better paying jobs, probably in the private sector.

[elsolo]

Originally Posted by jpa

I also never said public employees are "only in it for the pension gravy." I'm saying that government pay sucks, the only upside is the benefits. Eliminate the benefits and those who are qualified will leave for better paying jobs, probably in the private sector.

The number of applicants per job opening suggests that the compensation is above average for the requirements for most government jobs.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by CAcop

Already looking. Just depends on what I want to do and where I want to do it. The way I look at it there are these choices:

1. Start firearms instruction school. I have the training and experience to do it.

2. Get into gunsmithing. This one I have less training and experience in terms of smithing.

3. Private investigation. Kroll and Associates would be my first choice. Apple next up. Then any numerous law firms or PI firms.

4. Just about anything else. To be honest it would be better than listening to people like you whine about the cost of public safety yet sleep feeling all smug in bed.

Good luck. It's good to have options. Let us know what you decide. The more people we have out producing the better

As for whining about the cost: would public employees prefer the people paying them just shut up and pay whatever the unions and politicians decide on their behalf? Is that really the kind of country you want?

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by jpa

Again, you're intentionally missing my point. If you didn't know from year to year what your salary was going to be, would you continue to do that job? I understand you're in sales and I don't know if part of your compensation is commission based, but if so you started your job with that understanding, correct? I'm also not talking about raising or lowering 401k matching contributions, but a fundamental change in the structure of the pension from what you originally started with.

I also never said public employees are "only in it for the pension gravy." I'm saying that government pay sucks, the only upside is the benefits. Eliminate the benefits and those who are qualified will leave for better paying jobs, probably in the private sector.

I work on salary and commission. My commission is 2/3 of my comp. Every year the market changes and the company objectives change and my comp plan changes. One year I had $100k taken out of my comp plan RETROACTIVELY. It stings. I stayed there for 3 more years. I hated it but I understood the reason and I had significant stock and options so I was an owner.

Likewise, pre SarbOx we had an ESPP plan. I put a full 15% of my comp into it. 6 month offering period. We got the lowest price on opening or closing minus 10%. Price could go down but never go up. I was buying shares at $15.51 for 5 or so years. When we got bought the price was $170/share.

About midway thru the government mandated changes that affected how those shares hit the company's books. The plan got too expensive so the company changed it, at our expense. The EMT got to keep their plan. I won't say how much it cost me except to say it was a whole lot more than fun money. It sucks but it had to happen. The government forced it.

Likewise I've had changes in the matching % in my 401k plans.

See, like we talked about earlier, the BOD of a company has a fiduciary duty to look after the shareholders money. The government doesn't. In private industry resources get managed most effectively. In government resources get consumed and mismanaged.

To people leaving if the pensions are diluted:

Yes. With those statements you just made the 3rd time, you're saying public employees are in it for the pension gravy.

As elsolo said, the data proves public employee comp is too high.

Really we WANT public employees coming to work everyday busting their butts in hope of breaking out into the productive sector. We need more there. So if diluting the pensions causes that, it might be a good thing. We want our best people out pulling the wagon, not riding in it.

Clearly what we have now is unaffordable. I think we should at least try. If we make a mistake changes can always be made again b

[fastbolt]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

So long as tax money is flowing into it, it the politicians are able to reallocate that money or stop putting money in. And it should be so.

Tax money only. Not employee contributions.

Honestly the rub is a defined benefit plan. That is the fundamental problem.

"Tax" monies aren't flowing into mine. "Employer contributions", yes, but no specifically raised taxes for that purpose.

Employees pay significant contributions into the system. I know I did. The more I made, the more I paid into it.

The other benefits aren't "free" to me, either, costing me either accumulated service hours (worth money), and/or my own money.

I'm not surprised to see how counties and municipalities have been curtailing certain benefits, other than the actual pensions, either. I remember when I knew employees of other agencies who had retirement programs that included free medical for themselves and their spouses, as retirees, for life. That's been going away all over.

Also, creating safety retirement tiers that are 3%@55 instead of 3%@50 are going to be saving a lot of money. I think we'll continue to see more of them. I've spoken to board members who said the calculations showed that delaying raising the retirement age just 5 years generated (prevented paying out) millions of dollars in the fund.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by fastbolt

"Tax" monies aren't flowing into mine. "Employer contributions", yes, but no specifically raised taxes for that purpose.

Employees pay significant contributions into the system. I know I did. The more I made, the more I paid into it.

The other benefits aren't "free" to me, either, costing me either accumulated service hours (worth money), and/or my own money.

I'm not surprised to see how counties and municipalities have been curtailing certain benefits, other than the actual pensions, either. I remember when I knew employees of other agencies who had retirement programs that included free medical for themselves and their spouses, as retirees, for life. That's been going away all over.

Also, creating safety retirement tiers that are 3%@55 instead of 3%@50 are going to be saving a lot of money. I think we'll continue to see more of them. I've spoken to board members who said the calculations showed that delaying raising the retirement age just 5 years generated (prevented paying out) millions of dollars in the fund.

If you are a public employee those "employer contributions" are tax money. Your entire compensation package is tax money. Don't play word games.

I think CACOP said earlier that his employer paid 40% of his contribution. My employer pays a small fraction of that.

When I retire my private plan guarantees NOTHING unless I purchase certain instruments.

And who started this crap where it became acceptable for public employees to retire at 50 or 55? That's flat out luxurious. In the the productive sector that's a dream reserved for either the very frugal or the wealthy.

[CAcop]

Originally Posted by elsolo

The number of applicants per job opening suggests that the compensation is above average for the requirements for most government jobs.

Only 5% of the people who apply to us can meet minimum standards. We have been short 5% for the last three years. By your measure we should be paying more.

[CAcop]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

If you are a public employee those "employer contributions" are tax money. Your entire compensation package is tax money. Don't play word games.

I think CACOP said earlier that his employer paid 40% of his contribution. My employer pays a small fraction of that.

When I retire my private plan guarantees NOTHING unless I purchase certain instruments.

And who started this crap where it became acceptable for public employees to retire at 50 or 55? That's flat out luxurious. In the the productive sector that's a dream reserved for either the very frugal or the wealthy.

Try again.

Of the money me and my employer are paying I am paying 60%. It is 20.54% of my base pay. Before my portion was 9%. Of course before the city was paying 0-5%.

The reason why it is confusing is because every single employee/employer contract in CalPERS is different. Before the crash my uncle who is an IT manager for CalPERS said they offer "800 products" to cities and counties. Essentially they have 800 packages they can sell. Just take judges for example. There are three retirement plans for them depending on start dates. Then there are various deals over who pays what.

This is why CalPERS is going nowhere. They offer way more choices than any pension plan out there. If you dont like what they have to offer they just might make a new plan just for you.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by CAcop

Try again.

Of the money me and my employer are paying I am paying 60%. It is 20.54% of my base pay. Before my portion was 9%. Of course before the city was paying 0-5%.

The reason why it is confusing is because every single employee/employer contract in CalPERS is different. Before the crash my uncle who is an IT manager for CalPERS said they offer "800 products" to cities and counties. Essentially they have 800 packages they can sell. Just take judges for example. There are three retirement plans for them depending on start dates. Then there are various deals over who pays what.

This is why CalPERS is going nowhere. They offer way more choices than any pension plan out there. If you dont like what they have to offer they just might make a new plan just for you.

If you're paying 60% who's paying the other 40%??

Change employer to taxpayer. It makes things clearer.

[CAcop]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

Good luck. It's good to have options. Let us know what you decide. The more people we have out producing the better

As for whining about the cost: would public employees prefer the people paying them just shut up and pay whatever the unions and politicians decide on their behalf? Is that really the kind of country you want?

The people we negotiate with are hired by politicians. The politicians are brought into office by voters. I don't vote for to the politcians I negotiate with. Only 12% of our officers live in the city. I honestly don't even know why we bother endorsing people. We certainly don't give them money so they don't do us any favors. They also know we can't vote for them. It is a joke.

If the voters were really upset with our pay and benes they could so what San Jose voters just did. Of course they caused a exodus of officers never before seen. SJPD went from 1345 officer to a current 920. They just lost 30 in the last 60 days. Just before the crash the then cheif said they needed over 1800 officers.

This is for a city of 1 million people. This is for a city that built a hockey arena. A city that has an international airport. A city that proclaims itself to be "The Capital of Silicon Valley." It also claims to be "The Safest Big City in America" and they could back it up.

They just had the most homicides in 20 years this last year.

You get what you pay for.

[CAcop]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

If you're paying 60% who's paying the other 40%??

Change employer to taxpayer. It makes things clearer.

Like I said earlier. We have been short 5% for three years. They should pay more. Pay less and you will get less.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by CAcop

Only 5% of the people who apply to us can meet minimum standards. We have been short 5% for the last three years. By your measure we should be paying more.

Not necessarily.

1. Your target number may not be appropriate.

2. Running a little lean is good.

At my company, we run super lean. I'd say 1 person doing the job of 3. Certainly less than 95%. The shareholders decide how much revenue they want and how much overhead they'll accept. We work with that and constantly look for more heads to cut.

That's because our BOD has a fiduciary duty, jpa

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by CAcop

Like I said earlier. We have been short 5% for three years. They should pay more. Pay less and you will get less.

See above. Simply being "short" means nothing. 95% filled is pretty damn good.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by CAcop

The people we negotiate with are hired by politicians. The politicians are brought into office by voters. I don't vote for to the politcians I negotiate with. Only 12% of our officers live in the city. I honestly don't even know why we bother endorsing people. We certainly don't give them money so they don't do us any favors. They also know we can't vote for them. It is a joke.

If the voters were really upset with our pay and benes they could so what San Jose voters just did. Of course they caused a exodus of officers never before seen. SJPD went from 1345 officer to a current 920. They just lost 30 in the last 60 days. Just before the crash the then cheif said they needed over 1800 officers.

This is for a city of 1 million people. This is for a city that built a hockey arena. A city that has an international airport. A city that proclaims itself to be "The Capital of Silicon Valley." It also claims to be "The Safest Big City in America" and they could back it up.

They just had the most homicides in 20 years this last year.

You get what you pay for.

Clearly the taxpayers prefer to spend their money elsewhere. Who are you to disagree with the people writing the checks?

[CAcop]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

Not necessarily.

1. Your target number may not be appropriate.

2. Running a little lean is good.

At my company, we run super lean. I'd say 1 person doing the job of 3. Certainly less than 95%. The shareholders decide how much revenue they want and how much overhead they'll accept. We work with that and constantly look for more heads to cut.

That's because our BOD has a fiduciary duty, jpa

We had 105,000 calls for service last year. 15 years ago when I started we had 45,000 calls for service.

Same number of officers.

Now tell me what that does for response times and length of time for follow investigations?

[devildog2067]

Originally Posted by jpa

I'm also not talking about raising or lowering 401k matching contributions, but a fundamental change in the structure of the pension from what you originally started with.

When a private company goes out of business (for whatever reason) guess what happens to the people who depend on it for a pension? They get screwed.

Generally, people who get paid a public pension just scream until the taxpayer ends up footing the bill.

I'm saying that government pay sucks, the only upside is the benefits.

1) This is fiscally unsustainable. The reason it is this way is that politicians 40 years ago figured out that if they promised benefits instead of wages, they would be out of office before anyone would have to pay for it.

2) Government pay doesn't "suck" all that badly. Some people are underpaid, a whole lot are overpaid compared to what they could receive in the employment market.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by CAcop

We had 105,000 calls for service last year. 15 years ago when I started we had 45,000 calls for service.

Same number of officers.

Now tell me what that does for response times and length of time for follow investigations?

Work faster

[CAcop]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

Work faster

Can't the line at the jail slows me down. Hire more correctional officers.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by CAcop

Can't the line at the jail slows me down. Hire more correctional officers.

Sure it does

[elsolo]

Originally Posted by CAcop

Only 5% of the people who apply to us can meet minimum standards. We have been short 5% for the last three years. By your measure we should be paying more.

I have no doubt that is true at the police department you work at.

I was speaking of government jobs in general, which for the far majority of them do not have the hiring restrictions that LEO's have.

90% of the government employees I know personally are not LEO's, but rather clerks, maintenance mechanics on elevators of boilers, teachers, etc. They all get paid far in excess of what they made in the private sector, not including the benefits or retirement. Too bad the people getting hired today don't get a retirement deal anywhere near as good, because every time a union negotiates, they barter away the benefits of the new hires. Like a Ponzi scheme, if you got in early you get paid handsomely.


If there is a waiting list a year long just to take the test to even be considered for an opening, that says to me that there is a surplus of applicants.

[DanaT]

Originally Posted by Patchman

Oh believe me, I've often wished gov't agencies would just say, "we're not enforcing such and such laws/regulations unless the current (politicians) specifically enact laws requiring us to do so. Laws/regulations passed by past administrations have no binding effect on us today."

And current legislators can change laws. These laws can be changed to say we are not honoring old obligations.

[Bruce M]

Actually that sounds like it might be the perfect solution to the government related fiscal issues. Each government entity that owes money could simply pass legislation saying they will not honor the obligation. No more debt with a simple legislative change.

[SunsetMan]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

And who started this crap where it became acceptable for public employees to retire at 50 or 55? That's flat out luxurious. In the the productive sector that's a dream reserved for either the very frugal or the wealthy.

Don't forget, this is at 50 to 80% of base salary averaged over the last 3 years. Move from a small town to a big city your last 3 years and double your pension.