On Wisconsin! (Read 2073 times)

    The right to strike.

     

    Public employees have no right to strike in Wisconsin.  Their jobs are not protected if they do so.

    There was a point in my life when I ran. Now, I just run.

     

    Well, fuckers

    He still stands

     

    The Diary of a Once-ran.

    jimmyb


    port-a-bella-potty

      Public employees have no right to strike in Wisconsin.  Their jobs are not protected if they do so.

       

      Thanks for the correction. Cool

      Just when I thought I was an expert for a moment.

      I can still dream. LOL.

      --Jimmy

      Log    PRs

      DoppleBock


        The way I see it, is that Wisonsin state workers negotiated contracts

        with the state and the state agreed. Whatever they have been earning

        has been by agreement. It's not like they are ripping anyone off.

         

         If anyone

        is getting ripped off it is the taxpayer by corporate welfare. The shortfall in

        Wisconsin is equal to what they gave to corporations in tax breaks in that state.

         

        I do not blame teachers or any state employee for the benefits that they receive.  But I do believe that we are past the time when changes should have been made.

         

         

        We will spend 15% on education and 13% on Pensions - That is out of line

        http://a-big-horse.blogspot.com/ 

        2013 Goals ~ Mar < 3:00, 5M < 29, 10k < 35  

         

          Thanks, jimmyb!

           

          Dopple, I'm so sorry you've taken cuts. I would fight for your rights and well-being, as well. That's part of what I think I'm doing by voting for who I vote for and fighting big corporate influence that gives money to the rich instead of the middle-class/blue collar people who need it. I think a more appropriate enemy is union-busters including private sector bosses/corporations, not state workers.

           

          And those jobs going away? A lot of that is going abroad due to free trade agreements, not across state lines because of WI taxes.

           

          State workers have sacrificed in the economic downturn. We have left jobs unfilled and worked more than one ourselves to make up the difference. And in my department, funding for students through assistantships has taken a nosedive, meaning only the wealthier or those willing and able to go into astronomical debt can afford to become librarians and serve you by providing information, free internet, and services like tax help, story time, and help applying for food stamps. And for not much money, let me tell you.

           

          Also (crap, can't find citation...), an independent economic group has reported that WI state workers make LESS in salary + compensation than our private sector counterparts with the same jobs. It's even starker for college-educated workers. And let me say that state workers ARE willing to take cuts when and if necessary. We just want to be able to negotiate with our employers about those cuts.

           

          Finally, there was no budget shortfall until Walker orchestrated one. We were headed for a surplus before he gave away YOUR money to corporations that don't need it. The need for further suffering is a myth.

           

          "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." As in, thanks for weighing in. I'm trying to sit back a good deal and just listen.

           

          MTA: Dopple, you're right. The education-to-pension spending seems off. Makes me wonder what-all is in the "remainder" category.

          DoppleBock


            This from AFL-CIO Website

             

            What’s the Difference Between a Defined-Benefit and a Defined-Contribution Plan?

            Employer-provided pensions are an essential part of retirement security. But fewer employers today provide pension benefits for their workers—and among those that do, many are offering “definedcontribution” rather than traditional “definedbenefit” pension plans.

            Most union-negotiated pension plans are definedbenefit pension plans, which for decades have guaranteed retirees a fixed monthly income. These definedbenefit plans are usually funded entirely by employers through tax-exempt contributions and automatically cover all qualified employees. Since 1980, the number of definedbenefit plans plummeted from  148,096 plans covering some 38 percent of private-sector workers to only  48,982 today . The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics finds 20 percent of workers in the private sector have definedbenefit pensions.  In the public sector, defined benefit plan coverage is four times greater—about 79 percent according to BLS.

             

            I am not passionate in this arguement - Like I said above I am more concerned with some large issues that this touches the fringe.  Health Care and costs - They increase exponentially (Spelling) and although we spend 2x any other nation per capita we have something like 17th best health care.  Defined pensions. 

             

            Yes I do believe that the time of pension and early retirement is over for all American people - Including state or federal employees.  I do believe that we all need to bear a significant portion of our health care costs.  In exchange for changing that today - Say I just took $15,000 away - I would give a $15,000 raise = net $0.  Because Pension and health care are exponentially increasing costs and wages will be a linear increasing cost.

             

             

            Thanks, jimmyb!

             

            Dopple, I'm so sorry you've taken cuts. I would fight for your rights and well-being, as well. That's part of what I think I'm doing by voting for who I vote for and fighting big corporate influence that gives money to the rich instead of the middle-class/blue collar people who need it. I think a more appropriate enemy is union-busters including private sector bosses/corporations, not state workers.

             

            And those jobs going away? A lot of that is going abroad due to free trade agreements, not across state lines because of WI taxes.

             

             

            We sell to a lot fo companies - Although 70% is true (Leave Country) the 30% just leave the state for a more business friendly state. 100,00's of jobs have just relocated the last few years ... usually by the company closing the WI plant and re-allocating its work to the other state plant.

             

             

            State workers have sacrificed in the economic downturn. We have left jobs unfilled and worked more than one ourselves to make up the difference. And in my department, funding for students through assistantships has taken a nosedive, meaning only the wealthier or those willing and able to go into astronomical debt can afford to become librarians and serve you by providing information, free internet, and services like tax help, story time, and help applying for food stamps. And for not much money, let me tell you.

             

            Business in the last 5 years has had to figure out how to get 30-50% more productivity out of each worker by removing waste and innefficiency.  At $35M in sales we used to be full and working our people way too many weekend and holidays.  Now with the same number of people $50M is not enough to support 40 hour weeks.  THis includes all of the office jobs - We know if we do not reduce waste and increase efficiency we will not be in business.

             

            Teachers only can "Lean" their jobs so far and likely the best thing we could do for them is remove for of the bureaucratic red tape from their lives. 

             

            Also (crap, can't find citation...), an independent economic group has reported that WI state workers make LESS in salary + compensation than our private sector counterparts with the same jobs. It's even starker for college-educated workers.

             

            To me its all supply and demand - I could have went to school to teach (seriously considered it) - But I wanted to live in WI and in the early 1990s there were 500 applicants for each job opening in the area I lived in.  Many great teaching programs at our state colleges put out a lot of qualified teachers. 

             

            We have to keep the cost of education down ... we do not want huge class sizes ... we want our kids to have every extra curicular known to man ... something has to give.

             

            To be at full disclure - I do not send my kids to public school - It has nothing to do with quality of schools - but a religious descision.  So I pay another $3,500x2 a year for private school.

             

            Finally, there was no budget shortfall until Walker orchestrated one. We were headed for a surplus before he gave away YOUR money to corporations that don't need it. The need for further suffering is a myth.

             

            Mercury Marine - Was a big one that received money in this area - Although was that not before Walker took office - Either way - 3,000+ jobs would have relocated to another state.  I would guess the average employee paid

            $3,000-$4,000 in property taxes - Direcly of indirectly (Rent)

            $2,000 in state income taxes

            $500 a year in state sales tax

             

            = 6,000 a year in state related taxes x 3,000 = $18,000,000 annually and a lot of the spending of their $50,000 x 3,000 = $150 Million in wages  has a multiplication effect through the local economy.  Usually economists use a factor of 5 - so even if they spend 20% in the local economy it has a big impact.

             

            PS - I did not vote for Walker.

             

             

            "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." As in, thanks for weighing in. I'm trying to sit back a good deal and just listen.

             

            I had an interesting conversation with Skootr - Another RA'er while @ Monkey marathon this year - He wants government bigger (Not bureaucracy) so it can help more people - he would pay a much higher tax amount to reach more people with more services.  He sees people everywhere in need of help.  It gave me a moment to pause and think.  Unlike Skootr - 1st I want an efficient and cost effective government - Then I would feel ok about paying more taxes to 1) help more people and 2) reduce our national debt.

             

            Again I am way out of line with the original point of thread.

            http://a-big-horse.blogspot.com/ 

            2013 Goals ~ Mar < 3:00, 5M < 29, 10k < 35  

             

            DoppleBock


              The governor said the average pensioner now receives about $26,000 annually, and about 90 percent of state employees pay 9 percent of their income (up to $30,000 per year), and 11 percent for amounts over $30,000 per year, to fund their pensions. The state makes up shortfalls between total contributions and benefits.

              Because state workers do not pay Social Security taxes, they do not receive Social Security retirement benefits, making them primarily dependent on their pensions upon retirement.

              http://www.telegram.com/article/20110119/NEWS/101190428

               

              Wow - They pay $2,700 a year for 1st $30K and $3,300 a year for next $30K = $6,000 on $60,000 wages - The state only picks up the shortfall.   Avg pensioner receives $26,000 + $0 Social Security.  MA seems a much tougher place to be a state employee.

              http://a-big-horse.blogspot.com/ 

              2013 Goals ~ Mar < 3:00, 5M < 29, 10k < 35  

               

                Wow - They pay $2,700 a year for 1st $30K and $3,300 a year for next $30K = $6,000 on $60,000 wages - The state only picks up the shortfall.   Avg pensioner receives $26,000 + $0 Social Security.  MA seems a much tougher place to be a state employee.

                 

                Unfortunately (or fortunately if you're a public employee) there are loopholes galore which makes the shortfall that the state picks up rather huge.  The reason the average pensioner "only" receives 26k a year is that the retirement age is so young (and used to be even younger) that there are thousands and thousands of "retirees" who worked some number of years for the state "retired" at age 45, and have moved on to have lucrative private sector careers while collecting their pensions forever.

                 

                And it's the healthcare costs that are killing us more than the pensions.

                Runners run.


                A Dance with Monkeys

                  it's the healthcare costs that are killing us more than the pensions.
                  DoppleBock


                    A huge portion of healthcare is spent on the last 3-6 months of a persons life.  Some countries evaluated the cost versus the expected life extention and make the call - I would feel weird to put a value on a persons remaining life.

                     

                    The average life expectancy increases and as the cost of health insurance goes up 10-20% per year - The are the 2 factors that have made early retirement not a sustainable benefit. 

                     

                    On an unrelated side note - When my Dad retired as a Teemster - He can have his pension lost if he works any job (Non-Teemster) that the Teemsters have brothers and sisters working in (Basically most jobs) as he can not take bread out of a brother's mouth.

                    http://a-big-horse.blogspot.com/ 

                    2013 Goals ~ Mar < 3:00, 5M < 29, 10k < 35  

                     

                       

                      The average life expectancy increases and as the cost of health insurance goes up 10-20% per year - The are the 2 factors that have made early retirement not a sustainable benefit. 

                       

                       

                      I didn't really want to enter this fray, BUT...

                       

                      Yes, average life expectancy is longer. Butt it's primarily due to lower infant mortality rates. People that actually make it to 65 are not living appreciably longer than they did decades ago. Rising healthcare costs are the culprit much more than people living longer.  I cringe when I hear about raising retirement ages because we're living longer. Retirees aren't. 

                       

                      DoppleBock


                        That makes sense

                         

                        Rasing the average retirement age then just becomes a cost savings to the government

                        http://a-big-horse.blogspot.com/ 

                        2013 Goals ~ Mar < 3:00, 5M < 29, 10k < 35  

                         

                          Yeah the problem is healthcare costs are going up by 2-3x inflation which only compounds the problem that healthcare benefits given to public employees are much too generous (lets get back to who the real enemy is here, hah, I kid, sort of.)

                           

                          In MA, the current unfunded liability for public retirees healthcare costs is 2-2.5x the unfunded liability of pensions.  And it's billions with a "b."  Scary shit.

                          Runners run.

                            BTW, it's spreading. Ohio, you're up

                             

                            xor


                              Hmmm.  I dunno.  I've never worked in a job where I've been told "you will take a pay cut of x%".  But I've worked in jobs where my benefits got cut... either eroded over a few years or slashed dramatically.  And I don't mean "no more free soda".  I mean gigantic swings in health benefits, elimination of 401k matches (which directly impacts my finances), elimination of bonuses (which may SOUND LIKE 'oh give me a break', but when the bonuses were nudge-nudge factored into your salary and justified why the base salary was lower than the industry, it may as well be a pay cut), etc.

                               

                              So.  Plucking a couple things...

                               

                              >> an independent economic group has reported that WI state workers make LESS in salary + compensation than our private sector counterparts with the same jobs. It's even starker for college-educated workers.

                               

                              Ok.  This one puzzles me.  It's not like you are in the military.  If there are "same jobs" out there with better pay/benefits, go get them.  That's what us private sector people would do.  I think the key here may be that the jobs aren't really the "same", but that's sort of important.

                               

                              >> We just want to be able to negotiate with our employers about those cuts.

                               

                              That's cool.  I assure you that many folks who work in the real world would like this too... and don't have it. (edited to add: perhaps we should unionize.)

                               

                              The economy sucks.  I've been looking for a job for two years.

                               

                                I feel that the tipping point in public opinion has been reached on this issue.  And it ain't gonna be good for local, state and federal workers - welcome to reality.   All the protests in the world won't change that fact, sickouts and strikes will only make it worse.  My hope is that it's not too late for California to get it's house in order, a la Wisconsin.