public sector leeches...15 years=lifetime health care benefits? - New England Patriots Forums

State · 06-05-2011, 02:49 PM

That's what public sector bus drivers--unionized of course--expected, demanded, and went on strike 44 days for a few years ago in Minnesocold.

Only public sector pigs at the trough could expect such lavish benefits not seen in the private sector for comparable jobs. the public turned against them, and then-gov. Tim palenty won. He looks pretty good to me.

We're in need of more of this type of back bone,, there's a big crunch happening paying for these exorbitant pay-offs for what used to be less pay. public servant pay, that is.
YouTube - ‪StopUnionCorruption.org‬&rlm;
» I Stand with Scott Walker - Big Government
The Coming Pension*Tsunami - Choose Red - TruthOffering.com

Stephen Meister wrote last year in the NY post--

Quote:

Last year, for the first time, the number of unionized public employees exceeded the number of unionized private workers--7.9 million to 7.4 million.

Now, since the country has five times as many private jobs as public ones, this was possible only because the public unionization rate (37.4 percent) was more than five times higher than the private one (7.2 percent).

Another big difference: The average federal worker is compensated at $123,000 a year, including $42,000 in benefits--more than twice what the average private worker gets. (State and local government employees don't do as well, but still beat private-sector pay.)

And these days a public job is a lot more likely to be truly a 9 to 5 affair than a private one.

The succubus of government employee unions

***DarrylS*** · 06-05-2011, 03:05 PM

The only leeches around here are the lazy right wing reactionaries who rely on sites like Big Government, or better still you tube compilation videos to come up with half truths and hysteria...

No one gets a pension after 15 years of driving a school bus...

If something sounds too good to be true it usually is, it is easy to post hysterical half truths and is often symbolic of a weak mind, not interested in searching for the truth.. it is akin to just another rumpswab following along without researching the issue..

Federal pay ahead of private industry - USATODAY.com

Quote:

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.

•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.

Are Federal Workers Overpaid? | FactCheck.org

Quote:

Furthermore, the $123,049 average compensation figure for federal workers is greatly inflated — and several thousand dollars too high. The BEA tells us that total compensation includes an unknown amount for retirees’ health and life insurance benefits. More importantly, it includes billions of dollars that Congress appropriates each year to pay "unfunded liabilities" for retirees and current workers covered by the old Civil Service Retirement System before it was replaced for newly hired workers starting Jan. 1, 1987. These payments for former workers obviously don’t benefit current workers, and should not be included in their average total compensation..

: TRENDS: Burning Question: Are Feds Overpaid? (4/1/10) -- GovExec.com

Quote:

One way to compare the data would be to look at similar jobs, while taking into account geographic areas and years of service. But even then, the numbers can tell conflicting stories.

In the Washington area, where roughly 10 percent of federal employees work, a private accountant earns an average annual salary of $49,800, compared with $43,432 for a GS-7 accountant, according to data from the Human Resource Association of the National Capital Area. But an editor in the GS-9 to GS-12 range earns an average of $75,269 annually, versus $63,300 for a private sector editor.

In reality, the question of whether or not federal employees are overpaid doesn't have a simple answer, according to Charles Fay, a professor at Rutgers University and former Federal Salary Council member. Those in entry-level jobs in the government might earn more than entry-level jobs private practice, he notes, while the opposite is true for those in management and specialized fields requiring years of experience.

"The higher you go, the more they're underpaid," Fay says. "The lower they go, the more they're overpaid."

State · 06-05-2011, 03:10 PM

Ha! That didn't take long for the name calling to begin. And that's what you lead off with as your clinching, devastating argument? You p--z.

***DarrylS*** · 06-05-2011, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by State

Ha! That didn't take long for the name calling to begin. And that's what you lead off with as your clinching, devastating argument? You p--z.

Just follow along Andrew Breitbart knows the way.. do not think, do not do any research.. believe everything you read.

If something sounds too good to be true it usually is.

State · 06-05-2011, 03:54 PM

I heard it from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

Tim pawlenty uses this anecdote as a prop in his many speaking engagements.

Specifically I heard it here Reining in the Public Sector | Tim Pawlenty | Daily Podcast | Cato Institute

It's true blue public sector extravagance. And the NY post editorial? You haven't commented on that, I notice. that's an amazing op-ed. You should read it.

***patsfan13*** · 06-05-2011, 04:14 PM

The public employees are certainly part of the problem and not part of the solution.

Patsfanin Philly · 06-05-2011, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarrylS

No one gets a pension after 15 years of driving a school bus...

http://www.ers.ga.gov/plans/psers/fo...rshandbook.pdf

In Georgia, these employees are vested after 10 years as school district employees. Go to page 21 for an example of a school bus driver with 15 years service and their pension.....
Edit- This was the second thing that popped up on a Google search. I'm sure there are others but you get the point.

PatsFanInVa · 06-06-2011, 01:09 AM

Whereas the current standard for being vested in a pension plan is 5 years.

Being vested doesn't mean you collect a full retirement. It means whatever formula they use applies and your retirement is now portable. So if you work 5 years you get a small pension from a place. If you work 50 years you get more accrued benefits.

As to the assault on the feds, Darryl's quotes seem much more germane to me.

The higher you go in the scale, the more likely you are to be underpaid; the lower down you are, the more likely you are to be overpaid. That is something you would expect from a flatter compensation curve than you find in the private sector.

Second point - They're counting the CSRS pensions from before the last time we all had to be up in arms about federal workers as averaged into the compensation of current federal hires.

So basically, you're saying that the last round of potshots at feds shouldn't even be counted as having happened.

Tell you what - you can go ahead and reduce my pension to what it already is, which is a small amount every month.

Since you're incensed not at me, but at the former federal pension system, I should think that would be more than sufficient.

This periodic bullsh1t, frankly, is just annoying.

Private sector employment is up over the last few months, and public sector is down... and it's a pubbie "win" if the economy/jobless rate is still high in '12. Put two and two together.

The goal of the currently contemplated cuts is to curtail the desire of people to work for government, and encourage people to leave government employment, reducing the workforce through attrition.

So, you kill several birds with one stone -

1) pubbies hate the government, in the abstract - so if the gubmit gets smaller or cheaper, that's good (without regard to unintended consequences.) In the main, this is a defensible position for most dems as well.

2) pubbies hate the civil servants themselves, as seen in the comment stream on this thread. So no amount of vitriol directed at civil servants is ever enough to get the job done in the Echo Chamber, and no amount of theft from the public-sector worker is ever "a bridge too far." So another campaign against the civil servants scratches that itch.

3) Having bashed the private sector unions, pubbies -- who also hate unions -- now go to mop up the public sector unions, complaining that "oh look, they're unionized at a far higher rate than the private sector!"

Comical, since that's been an emerging difference since the union-bashing of the last 30 years. The other solution to such a difference, if we define such a difference as a "problem," is to re-unionize the private sector.

But the idiotic drumbeat is just "oh look how unfair! They still have unions in the public sector!!!! It's only fair to make sure they don't have unions either!"

As I have always said, if you are so jealous of public sector workers, go out and get a public sector job.

That is, if you're good enough. And if the jobs are so good I can only imagine most of you guys have tried to and failed.

PFnV

***DarrylS*** · 06-06-2011, 03:53 AM

Public Sector leeches is a broad term and could be used to folks who availed themselves of a free education at a military academy and did not learn critical thinking skills.. just think 200K+ of the taxpayers money wasted so lessons can be learned on Breitbart Compilation video's..

PatriotsReign · 06-06-2011, 07:41 AM

So the bottom-line is that no public sector pension should be funded by the public. If they're going to make the same as a private sector worker, then like the private sector worker, they should be funding their own retirement...after all, the average American jane & joe don't want to pay for it!

...right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatsFanInVa

Whereas the current standard for being vested in a pension plan is 5 years.

Being vested doesn't mean you collect a full retirement. It means whatever formula they use applies and your retirement is now portable. So if you work 5 years you get a small pension from a place. If you work 50 years you get more accrued benefits.

As to the assault on the feds, Darryl's quotes seem much more germane to me.

The higher you go in the scale, the more likely you are to be underpaid; the lower down you are, the more likely you are to be overpaid. That is something you would expect from a flatter compensation curve than you find in the private sector.

Second point - They're counting the CSRS pensions from before the last time we all had to be up in arms about federal workers as averaged into the compensation of current federal hires.

So basically, you're saying that the last round of potshots at feds shouldn't even be counted as having happened.

Tell you what - you can go ahead and reduce my pension to what it already is, which is a small amount every month.

Since you're incensed not at me, but at the former federal pension system, I should think that would be more than sufficient.

This periodic bullsh1t, frankly, is just annoying.

Private sector employment is up over the last few months, and public sector is down... and it's a pubbie "win" if the economy/jobless rate is still high in '12. Put two and two together.

The goal of the currently contemplated cuts is to curtail the desire of people to work for government, and encourage people to leave government employment, reducing the workforce through attrition.

So, you kill several birds with one stone -

1) pubbies hate the government, in the abstract - so if the gubmit gets smaller or cheaper, that's good (without regard to unintended consequences.) In the main, this is a defensible position for most dems as well.

2) pubbies hate the civil servants themselves, as seen in the comment stream on this thread. So no amount of vitriol directed at civil servants is ever enough to get the job done in the Echo Chamber, and no amount of theft from the public-sector worker is ever "a bridge too far." So another campaign against the civil servants scratches that itch.

3) Having bashed the private sector unions, pubbies -- who also hate unions -- now go to mop up the public sector unions, complaining that "oh look, they're unionized at a far higher rate than the private sector!"

Comical, since that's been an emerging difference since the union-bashing of the last 30 years. The other solution to such a difference, if we define such a difference as a "problem," is to re-unionize the private sector.

But the idiotic drumbeat is just "oh look how unfair! They still have unions in the public sector!!!! It's only fair to make sure they don't have unions either!"

As I have always said, if you are so jealous of public sector workers, go out and get a public sector job.

That is, if you're good enough. And if the jobs are so good I can only imagine most of you guys have tried to and failed.

PFnV