Our nation's debt is literally indenturing our children to our international debt holders, but most Americans don't care because they are more concerned about the latest saga involving Snooki on Jersey Shore rather than what really matters, our country’s future.
Showing posts with label union. Show all posts
Showing posts with label union. Show all posts

Monday, June 6, 2011

Phoenix pay raises sure to be a campaign issue

In April 2010, the Phoenix City Council imposed a 2 percent tax on food in order to keep police and firefighters on the streets and prevent painful cuts to libraries, senior centers and after-school programs.

Or so we thought.

The food tax is expected to bring in $28 million this year. Meanwhile, city employees got $27 million in raises and bonuses this year.

Now the Phoenix City Council has tentatively approved a budget that includes another $28.9 million in pay raises and bonuses for the coming year.

Somehow, in 15 public hearings on the budget, the plan to boost the pay of virtually everybody other than city managers never came up -- until this week, when the City Council promptly voted 6-2 to OK the deal.

City leaders justify the pay hikes, saying they are offset by a 3.2 percent cut to wages and benefits agreed to by employee unions last year – concessions that will save the city $52 million next year.

What they didn't mention – until this week, that is – is that nearly $29 million of that $52 million will be plowed right back into salaries. This, at a time when the city faces a $59 million shortfall, at a time when residents still see cuts to libraries and pools and such.

In the coming year, about half of the city's employees will receive merit raises averaging 4.6 percent. It's not yet known how many will receive “longevity” bonuses – basically, rewards for those at the top of the pay scale who no longer qualify for raises. But in recent years, at least 89 percent of employees have gotten one or the other each year.

So now seems a very good time to remind you that city elections are Aug. 30. I'm guessing pay raises might be an issue for some in this city – people who are unemployed and those whose “bonus” this year was hanging onto a job. Given that, I polled the major candidates for mayor, to see where they stand.

Councilman Claude Mattox didn't return a call. But he voted for pay raises and bonuses both last year and this week, noting that the city is contracturally obligated. He ought to know. He voted for those contracts.

Former Councilman Greg Stanton said he, too, would likely have supported the pay raises. “Last year, the city employees took a pretty good pay decrease,” he said. “They did not fill any positions so we're asking our city employees to do a heck of a lot more for the salary reduction that they took. And when management makes an agreement like that, the credibility of the city is really important.”

Every other mayoral candidate panned the pay boosts. Thane Eichenauer and Wes Gullett questioned how 89 percent of employees could merit a raise. “You want to reward people who are going above and beyond but 89 percent are not going above and beyond,” Gullett said. “That's not a bell curve, that's a vertical line. That's almost everyone.”

Jennifer Wright pointed to the promised $104 million in employee concessions over two years, which really only amounted to $69 million given the raises. Meanwhile, the food tax was supposed to save police and firefighter jobs.

“Essential services like fire and police and after-school programs are continually put on the chopping block first,” she said. “They are used as political pawns to raise taxes.”

Former Councilwoman Peggy Neely said she, too, would have been a no on the pay hikes, which is fairly interesting when you consider that like Mattox, she voted for this year's pay raises and bonuses.

Neely said she agreed to those raises because the city still saved money, given the 3.2 percent employee concessions. That's no longer true, she adds, though the city says otherwise.

“After we had been beaten down by the budget and food tax, I agreed that we could do the issues on the employees issues,” she said. “But then with the furor that began to come out over this last year, it should have been fully aware to the city manager and staff that this was going to be a hot issue and we should have been talking about it at the budget hearings.”

Instead, it never came up, not in a single one of those those 15 public hearings and not in any of the budget information given to the public.

Curious, don't you think?

 azcentral.com blogs - Laurie Roberts' Columns & Blog - LaurieRoberts - Phoenix pay raises sure to be a campaign issue

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

AZ Republic - Arizona pension plan for police, fire adds to cost

Why are state pension plans broke? Answer: Corrupt and stupid politicians that create laws like those in Arizona, which lead to unsustainable payments to state retirees. I thought the only people who got $250K lump sum payments were Wall Street bankers not firefighters and cops.

Arizona pension plan for police, fire adds to cost
Fearing a potential exodus of police officers and firefighters eligible to retire, the Arizona Legislature a decade ago created the Deferred Retirement Option Plan ("DROP") as a way to keep experienced public safety officers on the job.

The deal seemed simple: If officers agreed to work up to five extra years before retiring, the DROP program would pay them a lump sum in addition to their annual pension when they finally retired.
The program remains enticing. Today, participants' lump-sum payments at retirement average $268,938 for all public-safety officers. The average payment for police officers is $247,422, and $314,338 for retiring firefighters.

Officers enrolled in DROP also draw their annual pensions once they step off the job.

The lump-sum payouts, combined with cost-of-living increases that have outpaced inflation and multiple years of investment losses, caused taxpayers' costs for the program to soar.

As a result, the Public Safety Personnel Retirement System is so underfunded that even its top administrator says the overall pension program needs to be changed, perhaps drastically, to stem the expanding public subsidy.

"The plan is upside down," said Jim Hacking, its director. "It's not reasonable or realistic for our constituent groups or anybody to say, 'We will not do anything.' It's not a rational response."

As DROP was rolled out during the past decade, public-safety retirees received cost-of-living adjustments to their primary plan, and average annual pension benefits grew to $44,025 - the highest among all Arizona public pension systems.

The public's tab through employer contributions for the combined pensions, cost-of-living increases and DROP payouts in the past decade has grown from $46.8 million to $316.2 million a year - a spike of nearly 576 percent, or 22 times more the rate of inflation during the same period. Those increasing costs mirror the growth in Arizona's five other public-pension systems. An Arizona Republic investigation has found the pension systems are costing taxpayers at least $1.39 billion a year - more than the current state budgets for higher education, corrections or a health-insurance program for the poor.

Byron Schlomach, an economist with the Goldwater Institute and a critic of the state's pension systems, said the public-safety benefits are overly generous and the burden for taxpayers was unreal.

"It's nice they have figured out a way to rob us," said Schlomach. "This is ridiculous. How can anybody justify this?"

Hacking said there was "no question DROP added some liabilities" to the public-safety pension trust, but he believes the system has been hurt more by investment losses at the beginning and end of the last decade due to stock market conditions, and by guaranteed cost-of-living increases to retirees.

Supporters of DROP say it has helped police and fire departments retain experienced talent while allowing municipalities to better plan when to add staff.

"Police officers were leaving as soon as they were eligible to retire," said Jim Mann, executive director of the 6,500-member Fraternal Order of Police. "There's a real need to keep experienced officers on the job because it costs so much to train new officers."

Tim Hill, president of the Professional Fire Fighters of Arizona, which also has 6,500 members, said the lump-sum payments were misleading. While they sound high, he contends the program saves the pension system money in the long run. He said once public safety officers opt into DROP, they no longer continue to accrue credits for their years of service. By comparison, he said, officers who remain a full 25 years or more and do not take part in DROP have their pensions calculated based on total years of service, giving them larger pensions that, over time, may eclipse DROP's upfront cost.

Neither employee organizations nor the pension system could provide precise estimates of whether DROP has been a net expense or savings for the pension system. However, around the same time the public-safety system instituted DROP, the Arizona State Retirement System, the largest public pension program, rejected the same program because its director said it was too costly.

While the payouts are rich, participation in DROP in recent years has fallen after steadily growing from 2002 to 2006, when a record-high 1,746 members were enrolled. Last year, participation fell to 1,044, or roughly 5 percent of the total active membership in the pension program.

Hacking said enrollment fell because in the past few years there have been fewer employees with the required 20 years of service to enter the program.

How it works

The Public Safety Personnel Retirement System allows its members to enter DROP after 20 years of service. They then must remain with their employer for up to five more years, and during that time neither the employee nor employer contributes to the retirement system.

Upon entering DROP, the employee's pension is calculated based on years of service up to that point and the highest consecutive three years of compensation. The amount the employee would have received in a pension is essentially set aside by the public-safety pension system, and the money is guaranteed to increase at the trust's assumed rate of growth, currently 8.25 percent.

The DROP payments are higher for those who come into the program with a larger salary and more years of service.

By law, the interest is paid even if the assumed rate doesn't materialize. That means there's no risk to the employee, but it's a big problem for taxpayers when the stock market drops, which caused negative returns for the trust in 2001, 2002, 2008 and 2009. When the system loses money, employers using tax dollars have to pay more to make up the losses.

Anthony Webb, an economist at the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, said the guaranteed growth rate for DROP participants is unheard-of in the private sector unless money is placed in high-risk investments, but even then, there are no guarantees.

Hacking said the interest rate is set by state law, and he said the pension system is well diversified and not dependent on high-risk investments.

Along with the DROP benefit, participants have other benefits unique to public-safety personnel. Because of the recognized physical stresses of police and firefighting jobs, and the dangers of being killed on the job, public-safety pension systems generally have allowed participants to retire earlier than those in the private sector.

The average age for public safety retirees is 50.8 years, and the pension continues until a person dies. At that point, a spouse receives 80 percent of the pension until that person dies and the pension payments stop.

Benefits for DROP participants skyrocketed in 2007, when some of the first participants left the program and collected payouts after participating for the maximum five years.

That year, DROP benefits totaled $151.9 million, a 566 percent increase from the previous year when $22.8 million was paid. In 2007, DROP accounted for one-third of all pension benefits paid to police and firefighters. The previous year, it accounted for just 8 percent of all benefits.

DROP payments declined to $98 million and $91 million, respectively, in the past two years. But they still accounted for roughly 21 percent of all pension benefits for 2008 and 2009.

'Unsustainable'

A consequence of the large payouts and diminished investment earnings is that the pension trust currently is funded at just 65.8 percent, the lowest among the six public pension systems in Arizona.

That means the money now in the trust would pay for only 65.8 percent of the system's current liabilities if they all came due at the same time.

The goal is to be 100 percent funded; 80 percent is considered healthy by industry standards.

The closer a pension is to being fully funded, the lower the contribution rates for members and their employers.

Arizona law sets trust contributions by police and firefighters at 7.65 percent of their wages. If investment returns are poor and the trust is underfunded, the employee contribution is not raised.

Instead, any shortfall is generally made up by employers through tax dollars, though the trust also is partly funded through taxes on homeowner-insurance policies.

Employers currently contribute an amount equivalent to nearly 21 percent of an employee's gross wages. That's roughly four times the rate 10 years ago.

But Mann, of the Fraternal Order of Police, countered that while employer contribution rates may be high now, there were times when police officers and firefighters paid higher rates than their employers. When employers had lower rates, he noted, they were not asking to pay more to make it equitable.

Employer rates are projected to rise to 37.5 percent by 2024 in order to make up for the system's current indebtedness.

One reason for the increase: cost-of-living raises have been given to public-safety pensioners for 24 consecutive years.

In 2009, each retiree received an additional $1,761, a flat amount calculated on the average pension.

Hacking said the current overall program was "unsustainable," and he said he would work with employees and employers to propose changes to the Legislature next year.

He declined to disclose specific reforms, but he said it was possible DROP "will not look like the one we have now."

Thursday, November 4, 2010

California Teachers' Fund May Cut Return Forecast to 7.5% Following Losses

Thank goodness Nancy is no longer the Speaker because when this pension fails, and it will fail, the bailout money would have been attached to a required spending bill for vetrans or seniors by the Democrats so that it would get passed by Congress.

California Teachers' Fund May Cut Return Forecast to 7.5% Following Losses
By Michael B. Marois

The California State Teachers Retirement System, the second-largest U.S. public pension, will consider cutting its expected earnings rate on investments to 7.5 percent, increasing the need for higher contributions as it recovers from market losses.

The $132 billion pension fund’s governing board will consider approving a new rate of return, now 8 percent, at its Nov. 5 meeting in Sacramento, according to its agenda. The so- called assumed rate of return on investments is used to calculate the size of pension contributions from employers needed to pay retirees.

Public pension funds across the U.S. are adjusting their assumptions following losses in the recession that within three years may leave them $1 trillion short of the amount needed to pay benefits, according to a National Bureau of Economic Research report. The largest fund, the California Public Employees Retirement System, known as Calpers, uses a 7.75 percent assumed rate of return.

“The impact of reducing the assumed investment return and assumed inflation rates will result in a better representation of the fiscal condition of Calstrs benefit programs based on the current economic outlook,” the fund’s actuary Rick Reed said in a report to be presented to the board.

Calstrs, as the teachers’ fund is known, is 78 percent funded, meaning it is short by more than $42 billion. Reducing the assumed rate of return would lower that funding level to 74.2 percent, according to the report posted on the fund’s website.

Higher Contributions

The fund, which provides benefits for 848,000 public-school and community-college teachers, would need to ask lawmakers for an increase of as much as 16.8 percent in the amount the state and school districts pay toward employee retirement benefits if the board adopts the 7.5 percent assumed rate of return. Teachers are likely to be asked to pay more from their paychecks as well.

The teachers’ fund earned 12.3 percent in the year that ended in June, after losing 25 percent in fiscal 2009 and 3.7 percent in 2008.

Fewer than half of the public pension funds in the U.S. had assets to cover 80 percent of promised benefits in fiscal 2009, according to data compiled for last month’s Cities and Debt Briefing hosted by Bloomberg Link.

New York’s $124.8 billion pension fund, the nation’s third- largest, in September reduced its assumed rate of return to 7.5 percent from 8 percent. Calpers will review its 7.75 percent rate of return in February.



Thursday, October 28, 2010

Business Insider- California Is Broke: 19 Reasons It May Be Time For Everyone To Leave The State For Good

After decades of mismanagement by both liberal Democrats and RINOs, California, like Europe, is just plain broke. 

How did it happen? How is it possible that a state built by the 49ers, not the football team although they were once great too, is now known more for the amount of 99ers it produces each month rather than the latest innovation from silicon valley? The answer is simple. The politicians raised very type of tax known to man so they could pay for all types of social experiments and the citizens let them do it because they were creating a better society.

Well ladies and gentlemen here is what a better, kinder society looks like and believe me it isn't pretty but rather downright depressing.  

California Is Broke: 19 Reasons It May Be Time For Everyone To Leave The State For Good
Michael Snyder, The Economic Collapse

Back in the 1960s and 1970s, there was a seemingly endless parade of pop songs about how great life was in California, and millions of young Americans dreamed of moving to the land of sandy beaches and golden sunshine.

But now all of that has changed. Today, millions of Californians are dreaming about leaving the state for good. The truth is that California is broke. The economy of the state is in shambles.

The official unemployment rate has been sitting above 12 percent for an extended period of time, and poverty is everywhere. For many Californians today, there are very few reasons to stay in the state but a whole lot of reasons to leave: falling housing prices, rising crime, budget cuts, rampant illegal immigration, horrific traffic, some of the most brutal tax rates in the nation, increasing gang violence and the ever present threat of wildfires, mudslides and natural disasters.

The truth is that it is easy to understand why there are now more Americans moving out of California each year than there are Americans moving into the state. California has become a complete and total disaster zone in more ways than one, and an increasing number of Californians are deciding that enough is enough and they are getting out for good.

Sadly, the state of California is facing such a wide array of social, economic, and political problems that it is hard to even document them all. It is really one huge gigantic mess at this point.

Just consider the following facts about what life is like in the state of California today....

Click here to see the facts >

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Man Fired for Wearing Bush Sweatshirt at Obama Rally - Son currently serving on the aircraft carrier U.S.S. George H. W. Bush.

There was a time when being in a Union was a good thing.

Unions at one time stood up for the middle class and helped to build this country. But todays Unions are no longer full of patriotic Americans, many of whom were Veterans themselves, but rather Marxist bullies who believe that they are owed something because the Man be rich.


Thank you Mr. Hammond for both your son's service to our country and for not caving into the leftists.

  

Friday, September 24, 2010

Chrysler Autoworkers Caught on Camera Drinking Beer, Smoking Pot During Break

Is it any wonder that the Japanese, Koreans and Chinese are kicking our collective asses when it comes to manufacturing? Thanks guys. You are a disgrace to every unemployed American and to your union brothers. Unfortunately, all these guys have to do is say they have a drinking problem and its off to rehab while they continue to get paid. Its great to be an American Union worker.

Friday, September 3, 2010

AFSCME’s Big, Brazen Attack- Labor union spends a pretty penny on misleading ads against GOP House candidates in Michigan and Nevada

If you want to know how badly people will lie to get someone elected you only have to look at recent ads being produced by Unions in support of Democratic canidates.

Afscmes Big Brazen Attack

The American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees is spending more than $1.5 million on ads that attack Republican congressional candidates in Michigan and Nevada. The big ad buy from the labor union also comes with some grandiose — and misleading — claims:


  • An ad in Michigan says GOP candidate Tim Walberg cast votes that "helped burn down our economy." But the four Democratic-backed bills the ad cites all passed — regardless of how Walberg voted.

  • The ad also charges that Walberg "skipped out on a vote" to save auto industry jobs. He was in the hospital, recovering from surgery, when the House voted on, and easily passed, the automakers bailout bill.

  • In Nevada, an ad claims that Republican Joe Heck’s Social Security proposal "would have erased" a woman’s retirement. But Heck has called for voluntary private accounts, not forced "privatization" of the whole system.

  • Another ad makes the over-the-top charge that Heck is "dangerous to women," because of his Social Security idea and his opposition to a state bill to require insurance coverage of a cervical cancer vaccine. Heck opposed the bill, but it easily became law.
Both Republican candidates are running against freshman Democrats in the House.




Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

So Who is Exempt from the Proposed Universal Heathcare Taxes?

Well well it looks like two very powerful lobbies will be exempt from the new taxes being proposed to cover the costs of universal heathcare. Last Friday, in the Wall Street Journal Betsy McCaughey noted that under the current Kennedy healthcare bill both Federal Employees and Politicians won't be paying any more taxes for their very generous insurance plans as they are exempt from the proposed tax. Further as Betsy notes in her opinion piece "last September Sen. Barack Obama promised that under his health-care proposal "you'll be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves." On Monday, President Obama repeated that promise in a speech to the American Medical Association. "http://tiny.cc/U29Gf
The problem is that we are not going to get the same level of care as our public servants nor are they going to have to accept the new "public plan" or contribute towards it. Its great to be king.

But wait its not just Congress and Federal Employees that get exemptions under the new plan. All of our union employees at Chrysler and GM (yes our employees we do own their companies) are likely to be exempt from the new taxes proposed to cover the costs of insuring all Americans. Check out this article by Jed Babbin at Human Events.com http://tiny.cc/6bgqZ So while some of us will see our benefits decreased or dropped if this legislation is passed the rest of us will see higher taxes unless we fall in one of these categories. I think I need to start a union just so I can avoid taxes. Anyone with me.