Officials across the U.S. are watching as San Diego attempts to overhaul Municipal Pensions

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 21, 2012 5:13 PM GMT
    Quite predictably, unions are against the reasonable measures and for grossly unfair pensions that were originally negotiated with politicians who curried union favor.

    http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/19/local/la-me-pension-20120220

    Reporting from San Diego — The numbers released by the city's leading pension hawk were meant to shock: a retired assistant city attorney with an annual pension of $307,758; a chief librarian receiving $234,091; an 80% increase in the last two years in the number of retired city employees with pensions of more than $100,000.

    "At a time when roads are falling apart, services are being cut and private-sector taxpayers are facing difficult economic realities, these pension payouts are simply offensive," Councilman Carl DeMaio, a candidate for mayor, said at a news conference last week.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 21, 2012 5:29 PM GMT
    Said politicians gave themselves a 15% increase in 2010. Then the city workers took a 6% pay cut.

    http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2010/feb/02/panel-recommends-raise-mayor-council/


    http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2011/jun/17/pay-hiked-for-council-office-staff/



    The staff in this case are not union.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 21, 2012 5:34 PM GMT
    meninlove said Said politicians gave themselves a 15% increase in 2010. Then the city workers took a 6% pay cut.


    Couldn't find the reference for that... but this seems to be against trend - also in 2010 -

    http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2010/jul/26/high-paid-ca-council-members-vote-to-slash-pay/

    Under pressure from outraged residents and facing a probe by the California attorney general, the beleaguered City Council of this small blue-collar city voted Monday to slash its salaries by 90 percent, and two members said they will not seek re-election when their terms are up.

    The council voted unanimously to set every member's salary at what Councilman Lorenzo Velez is paid - about $8,000 a year. The other four council members have been making about $100,000 a year for their part-time service on the City Council of this largely working-class city of about 40,000 residents southeast of Los Angeles. About 17 percent of Bell's residents live in poverty.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 21, 2012 5:36 PM GMT
    http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2010/feb/02/panel-recommends-raise-mayor-council/


    http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2011/jun/17/pay-hiked-for-council-office-staff/


    Non-union staff. In municipal speak they are known as 'exempt'.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 21, 2012 5:39 PM GMT
    meninlove saidhttp://www.utsandiego.com/news/2010/feb/02/panel-recommends-raise-mayor-council/


    http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2011/jun/17/pay-hiked-for-council-office-staff/


    Non-union staff


    Lol - did you look at the numbers? That's pretty remarkable... "The mayor currently makes $100,464 annually while council members receive $75,386."

    Meanwhile, the former chief librarian as just ONE example got a pension of $234,091? Don't you think there's something slightly out of whack here? I mean one of the articles you link to also says "In a letter detailing the findings, Mark McMahon, the commission’s president, noted that elected officials haven’t had a raise since 2003 and a growing number of city workers -- 3,431 -- earn more than an individual council member."

    Of course these were only recommendations - the political reality is that I am guessing that these raises would be killed/vetoed.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 21, 2012 5:41 PM GMT
    As for Bell....you'd better read this:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Bell_scandal
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 21, 2012 5:43 PM GMT
    meninlove said As for Bell....you'd better read this:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Bell_scandal


    That's pretty disgusting - slashing salaries seems appropriate but down to $8000 a year may not be sustainable depending on how much work needs to be done (compared to say $75k for San Diego). But the idea of rising politician salaries I think in today's environment is a non starter - especially given the level of costs that need to be reined in.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 21, 2012 5:51 PM GMT
    As usual, Riddler starts a thread which proves his head is up his ass.

    Apparently, no matter what a CEO is paid or how fraudulent and despicable are the methods by which he earns his pay, that's fine. But municipal workers should do so for free. That's some "free market." icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 21, 2012 6:41 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidAs usual, Riddler starts a thread which proves his head is up his ass.

    Apparently, no matter what a CEO is paid or how fraudulent and despicable are the methods by which he earns his pay, that's fine. But municipal workers should do so for free. That's some "free market." icon_lol.gif


    Only someone with their "head up their ass" could think that $234,091 pension is working "for free" as a municipal employee - meanwhile the mayor makes $100,000.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 21, 2012 10:55 PM GMT
    lol, Riddler,
    A political figurehead requires the skill sets of the support staff, most of whom *gasps* are non-union. The support staff uses union workers to do their grunt work.







  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 21, 2012 11:10 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidAs usual, Riddler starts a thread which proves his head is up his ass.

    Apparently, no matter what a CEO is paid or how fraudulent and despicable are the methods by which he earns his pay, that's fine. But municipal workers should do so for free. That's some "free market." icon_lol.gif


    Only someone with their "head up their ass" could think that $234,091 pension is working "for free" as a municipal employee - meanwhile the mayor makes $100,000.


    That is the pension that was agreed to during his/her tenure. Are you suggesting that contracts are not enforceable?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2012 12:06 AM GMT
    meninlove said lol, Riddler,
    A political figurehead requires the skill sets of the support staff, most of whom *gasps* are non-union. The support staff uses union workers to do their grunt work.


    So politicians are only figureheads now? It is therefore your contention that these amounts appear reasonable?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2012 12:09 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidAs usual, Riddler starts a thread which proves his head is up his ass.

    Apparently, no matter what a CEO is paid or how fraudulent and despicable are the methods by which he earns his pay, that's fine. But municipal workers should do so for free. That's some "free market." icon_lol.gif


    Only someone with their "head up their ass" could think that $234,091 pension is working "for free" as a municipal employee - meanwhile the mayor makes $100,000.


    That is the pension that was agreed to during his/her tenure. Are you suggesting that contracts are not enforceable?


    Much like odious debts, they can and should be restructured - what some politicians do, should be undoable - especially if they contracts negotiated are unreasonable. Companies can go bankrupt, legislation is the mechanism available to governments.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2012 12:42 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidAs usual, Riddler starts a thread which proves his head is up his ass.

    Apparently, no matter what a CEO is paid or how fraudulent and despicable are the methods by which he earns his pay, that's fine. But municipal workers should do so for free. That's some "free market." icon_lol.gif


    Only someone with their "head up their ass" could think that $234,091 pension is working "for free" as a municipal employee - meanwhile the mayor makes $100,000.


    That is the pension that was agreed to during his/her tenure. Are you suggesting that contracts are not enforceable?


    Much like odious debts, they can and should be restructured - what some politicians do, should be undoable - especially if they contracts negotiated are unreasonable. Companies can go bankrupt, legislation is the mechanism available to governments.


    You're such a hypocrite. If a government tried to back out of a contract with your company, you'd call the lawyers faster than you can say "tort reform."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2012 12:50 AM GMT
    Christian73 saidYou're such a hypocrite. If a government tried to back out of a contract with your company, you'd call the lawyers faster than you can say "tort reform."


    You're right - they almost certainly will try to sue, but ultimately that's the risk you take when you negotiate with the government in what at least has the appearance of a corrupt process when the people you negotiated with are dependent on your campaign dollars and organization.

    It's hardly hypocrisy. These contracts on their face are unreasonable - and at the very least are unsustainable. I'd argue for some form of bankruptcy structure for these municipalities as this is an issue that will only grow given the unsustainable pensions that have been negotiated in the past.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2012 2:25 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidYou're such a hypocrite. If a government tried to back out of a contract with your company, you'd call the lawyers faster than you can say "tort reform."


    You're right - they almost certainly will try to sue, but ultimately that's the risk you take when you negotiate with the government in what at least has the appearance of a corrupt process when the people you negotiated with are dependent on your campaign dollars and organization.

    It's hardly hypocrisy. These contracts on their face are unreasonable - and at the very least are unsustainable. I'd argue for some form of bankruptcy structure for these municipalities as this is an issue that will only grow given the unsustainable pensions that have been negotiated in the past.


    It's only "corrupt" because you're not a party to the agreement/contract. There is no evidence that anything in these contracts is the result of corruption. As MIL has already shown you, there's no union involvement. So what's corrupt?

    Further, the primary reason why the pensions are unsustainable is that the municipalities didn't pay the portion of the pensions they were responsible for, in essence violating the contract and defrauding the employees. Another thing for which you'd be crying foul if it was done to you.

    And, before you want bankruptcy for municipalities, let's tighten for corporations like SB's employer who use it cancel contracts for workers and vendors while continuing to enrich their executives.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3280

    Feb 22, 2012 2:39 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    meninlove saidhttp://www.utsandiego.com/news/2010/feb/02/panel-recommends-raise-mayor-council/


    http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2011/jun/17/pay-hiked-for-council-office-staff/


    Non-union staff


    Lol - did you look at the numbers? That's pretty remarkable... "The mayor currently makes $100,464 annually while council members receive $75,386."

    Meanwhile, the former chief librarian as just ONE example got a pension of $234,091? Don't you think there's something slightly out of whack here? I mean one of the articles you link to also says "In a letter detailing the findings, Mark McMahon, the commission’s president, noted that elected officials haven’t had a raise since 2003 and a growing number of city workers -- 3,431 -- earn more than an individual council member."

    Of course these were only recommendations - the political reality is that I am guessing that these raises would be killed/vetoed.



    Is that the total value of the pension or the yearly pension?

    That's a ridiculous pension
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2012 2:43 AM GMT
    musclmed said
    riddler78 said
    meninlove saidhttp://www.utsandiego.com/news/2010/feb/02/panel-recommends-raise-mayor-council/


    http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2011/jun/17/pay-hiked-for-council-office-staff/


    Non-union staff


    Lol - did you look at the numbers? That's pretty remarkable... "The mayor currently makes $100,464 annually while council members receive $75,386."

    Meanwhile, the former chief librarian as just ONE example got a pension of $234,091? Don't you think there's something slightly out of whack here? I mean one of the articles you link to also says "In a letter detailing the findings, Mark McMahon, the commission’s president, noted that elected officials haven’t had a raise since 2003 and a growing number of city workers -- 3,431 -- earn more than an individual council member."

    Of course these were only recommendations - the political reality is that I am guessing that these raises would be killed/vetoed.



    Is that the total value of the pension or the yearly pension?

    That's a ridiculous pension


    Annual.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2012 2:47 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidYou're such a hypocrite. If a government tried to back out of a contract with your company, you'd call the lawyers faster than you can say "tort reform."


    You're right - they almost certainly will try to sue, but ultimately that's the risk you take when you negotiate with the government in what at least has the appearance of a corrupt process when the people you negotiated with are dependent on your campaign dollars and organization.

    It's hardly hypocrisy. These contracts on their face are unreasonable - and at the very least are unsustainable. I'd argue for some form of bankruptcy structure for these municipalities as this is an issue that will only grow given the unsustainable pensions that have been negotiated in the past.


    It's only "corrupt" because you're not a party to the agreement/contract. There is no evidence that anything in these contracts is the result of corruption. As MIL has already shown you, there's no union involvement. So what's corrupt?

    Further, the primary reason why the pensions are unsustainable is that the municipalities didn't pay the portion of the pensions they were responsible for, in essence violating the contract and defrauding the employees. Another thing for which you'd be crying foul if it was done to you.

    And, before you want bankruptcy for municipalities, let's tighten for corporations like SB's employer who use it cancel contracts for workers and vendors while continuing to enrich their executives.


    Is this indicative of how critically you read depending on who posts? MIL pointed out that the politicians aren't unionized and this was who the salaries referred to - while the pensions in the case of of the cases I cited are which is why the union is fighting against the reforms.

    reference please re: "tighten for corporations ..." seems like a bizarre interjection given that San Diego just can't afford these pensions anymore if they also want to provide services. It's ironic that you also claim that there's no issue with social security when it is also unfunded.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3280

    Feb 22, 2012 2:49 AM GMT
    I found this PDF. It also mentions double dipping and people drawing retirement at 35 years old. Also politicians drawing pensions in office. A setup for corruption.

    http://www.sandiego.gov/citycouncil/cd5/pdf/news/pensionreport.pdf

    Seems out of control in San Diego