The Rules Committee allowed my memo on Pension Reform to go before the City Council Tuesday, Aug. 3, to be considered as a ballot measure for San Jose voters this November. At the Rules Committee meeting, members of the public were few compared to the number of paid lobbyists that were in the audience.
I have a supplemental memo coming out today which will ask the Council to adopt the language below:
“To provide fiscal stability, control costs and maintain City services to residents, shall the Charter be amended to allow the Council, by ordinance and subject to the requirements of applicable law, to exclude any officer or employee hired on or after the ordinance’s effective date from any retirement plan or benefit of any plan?” (For example, this means we could exclude new employees from the 250% pension match.)
I have been a Councilmember for over three years and pensions have only increased in cost for residents of San Jose. The ability for the Council to have the flexibility and the option to negotiate a 2nd Tier would be a positive step for everyone involved, union members and taxpayers alike. Only through developing a new fair pension for new employees can we get to a point of trying to balance the structural budget deficit. However, during my three-plus years on the Council, discussions of 2nd tier always get postponed. “Kicking the can” is the easy thing to do, but San Jose can no longer pretend that our problems will go away.
Many of the union speakers at the Rules Committee last Wednesday mentioned that there needs to be dialogue, a process and time to discuss 2nd Tier. Actually my proposal does just that since changing the charter means we will still have dialogue and negotiations with the unions as obligated by law. A union lobbyist said Pension Reform would waste money since a second election would be needed once a 2nd Tier was agreed upon. Not so. As stated by the city attorney on Wednesday only one election would be needed since the 2nd Tier would then be implemented by ordinance which only requires a vote of the city council. The cost to the City to have Pension Reform on the ballot now is less expensive then a special election advocated by others.
Another union speaker was critical since my pension reform proposal did not mandate a specific 2nd Tier. This instead gives the Council flexibility in decision making as actuarial studies need to be completed as well as negotiation with our unions. Also, this allows the Council in future years to have the flexibility in adopting changes to a 3rd Tier should city revenues continue to deteriorate.
A letter submitted by a lobbyist for the union talked about needing two to four years to negotiate a 2nd Tier. This would be problematic—we should conclude negotiations within one year. Delay misses the opportunity to stop the bleeding. Another union speaker claimed the city is not hiring when that is not so. The City must hire to replace retiring employees. In fact 35 percent of the workforce is retiring in the next four years and it is important to lock in those cost savings. If we do not, each new employee carries 60 years of fiscal pension liability (30 in their career and 30 in retirement).
With all due respect, I believe the union leadership is missing the point. If we do not provide new pensions for new employees then the alternative will be to lower wages significantly and/or layoff employees. Laying off employees will affect residents. If the pension costs had not soared by $60 million this last year then we would not not be closing fire stations, libraries, postponing police academies and laying off other city workers.
The criticism I have heard from non-union people is that my proposal is not draconian enough and that the pension plans should be blown up. To them I paraphrase Voltaire: “Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.” Failing to act now will only lead to more obligations we cannot afford . Otherwise, do nothing and we will have more layoffs. Again, the increase in pension costs of $60 million dollars this year led to the layoff of city employees who provide services.
The ball has been teed up for the public. Speak now or forever hold your peace. Aug. 3 at 3:30pm. No need for a babysitter—City Hall is open to children. Bring a book or some knitting needles or both. If it is your first time to a Council meeting you may find you enjoy watching your city government in action.
Pierluigi; please explain why the City did not pay it’s portion to the retirement fund in the past several years, when the investments were doing well.
Was it planned so that politicians could claim the sky is falling and change the rules? Why not use current actuaries which show the plan is healthy and recovering along with the economy? Using numbers that reflect the stock market crash are disengenious.
Be honest with the workers who tow your line, don’t be a backstabber… again.
Pierluigi,
An excellent step in the right direction. I would go one better, however. Employees more than five years away from retirement should be moved into the Tier 2 Plan as well. I may be wrong but I don’t believe there is any contractual requirement to keep in place the existing plan for any city employee.
Why stop there? Why not just ask the employees to work for free and give up their entire retirement package? Look how fast you could bring down the structural deficit. After all, these are only city employees—it’s not like they are real people who need a salary or the benefits they were promised.
And, no, I am not now nor have I been a city employee.
Prof. Corey,
But you must be a public trough feeder,with that sort of mindset. Pension plan changes occur daily in the real world. Check out what’s taken place in the Fortune 500 pension plan arena in the last several years.
Greg,
Can you please try to make your points without the insults and name calling. There are plenty, if not most, of city employees who are very decent people. No need to call them “public trough feeders” to make your point.
It is true that many corporations have changed pension plans. Our economy is being dimantled and sent to other countries. Not only are pensions being done away with but so are entire industries. Do you support jobs and industries being sent to other countries and if so would you support your own job being eliminated if it was in the best interest of the Fortune 500 companies? Are you someday hoping to get a check from Social Security or should we do away with that too? What about the seniors who currently get a pension and Social Security – should Fortune 500 companies be able to terminate their pensions?
I am sure you will call me a “public trough feeder” as you did the prior comment. I am not a public employee but the way I see it by tearing apart each profession we are ultimately cutting our own throats on our way to being a third world country.
Our city has wasted hundreds of millions in the last few years on projects that everyone seems to have forgotten. A few of these include owning and maintaining 3 golf courses, a city hall the cost $650 million, continued annexation of many pockets of low income neighborhoods from the county, and now millions being spent on a baseball stadium.
This whole attack line of “you must be a public trough feeder” is bizarre. You make the assumption that the only people who support public employees and their benefits are public employees themselves and that everyone is against them.
You’d be surprised to find out that there are a sizable number of people in the private sector who support public employees and aren’t knee jerk against public employee unions.
Steve,
You are of course correct – I was out of line in labeling Prof. Corey. I sometimes lose my temper when provoked with sarcasm directed at me.
Prof. Corey, my apologies to you for my outburst. I need to practice what I preach.
Steve, of course I don’t want to see our economy exported to foreign countries. And I don’t think that shifting the cost or magnitude of benefits is necessarily linked to businesses moving offshore.
Regarding termination of pensions for those already retired – or for that matter, taking away accrued benefits for currently employed individuals, Federal Pension Law prohibits that sort of action, as it should.
I completely agree with you on all points regarding the plundering of SJ tax revenues to pay for every manner of ridiculous and exorbitant projects. But, alas, the subject of this particular column is pension reform.
“The ball has been teed up for the public. Speak now or forever hold your peace. Aug. 3 at 3:30pm.”
Yeah, that will do it. Have important “public” meetings during the day when most people are at work. That way, “public” turnout is limited to lobbyists and hangars-on who don’t have to work for a living.
And don’t forget union and retired union members. And union hacks sitting on the dais.
“This instead gives the Council flexibility in decision making as actuarial studies need to be completed as well as negotiation with our unions.”
In other words: Actuarial studies + Negotiations with Unions = Oliverio’s Reform
Not to be disrespectful, but were it not for the mayor’s success in demonizing our public safety employees the absurdity of your “reform” would be apparent to all. Actuarial studies? Sure, relying on them is a good idea, which is no doubt why both the City and its unions have based the negotiation process on them since day one. Negotiations with the unions? Absolutely! Two sides sitting down at the bargaining table, one sworn to protect the interests of the residents, the other the interests of its members, both restrained by actuarial data, sounds like a plan—a plan that also dates back to day one. In short, this plan is repackaging, not reform.
Once this is understood then it becomes obvious that today’s pension crisis did not arise due to structural defect in the plan, but instead came about because of other factor(s), which we owe ourselves (and our children) to identify and understand.
As a product of statistical records and probabilities, the weakness inherent in an actuarial report is twofold: the first being that something wildly improbable can happen to the economy, the second, that the involved parties fail to perform up to their historic and thus predicted levels of responsibility. While we know that current economic conditions have severely stressed the fund, what we don’t know is if they’re beyond the actuarial model. Because we’ve been supplied hysteria in lieu of detail, it could well be that, per the actuarial, we’re still within the bounds of sustainability.
As for the behavior of the involved parties, it should go without saying that in any contract for necessary labor, the supplier of that labor should be expected to push for increased compensation, while those contracting for it should strive to keep it affordable. That our police and fire unions have behaved as predicted—pushing for increased compensation, is beyond argument. Do I wish they would’ve shown some restraint when Ron and Cindy came a-courting? Absolutely, but such restraint is part of no actuarial.
But what of our city leaders? Have they behaved as predicted and kept things affordable? I don’t think so. In the past few decades, as this valley’s cost of living and labor has skyrocketed the City of San Jose, once obliged to provide only those services traditionally viewed as essential, consistently expanded services—creating entirely new classes of entitlements, no matter its persistently dismal record of improving its revenue stream. We took on the care of the aged, the health care of the young, the cultural heritage of the whiners. The true cost of these decades of what can only be classified as political pandering has been carefully buried, the corpse of absolutely zero interest to our politically corrupt representative of the Forth Estate.
Rather than acting responsibly, our city leaders chose, whenever those boom years made it possible to withhold their obligation to the pension fund, to live large, blow the windfall on bling and their ever-expanding posse, and manage our budget as if it never rains in California.
MC Hammer couldn’t have done worse, and Mr. Oliverio’s plan would do nothing to force the city into responsible conduct. 2nd Tier? 3rd Tier? How many tiers until the city understands the simple wisdom that without fiscal restraint there can be no such thing as sustainability?
You’re chasing your tail and asking us to see it as a march forward, Councilman. I say, no thanks.
BS,
Once again, I like what you have to say. I would ask for your opinion on two points:
1) Hypothetically, if the total budget for a particular class of employees provides 2/3 of the dollars for ongoing operations and 1/3 of the dollars for those already retired, is something wrong with that allocation? Moreover, left unchanged, if that ratio grows to a 1/2 to 1/2 split in the next decade or two, is that a workable business model?
2) One of the SJI bloggers recently posed the question, “Should the law of supply and demand be suspended for safety officers?” He went on to claim that for every open officer position, there are literally hundreds of applicants. I think his argument had merit, do you?
I don’t think there’s any way I can directly answer your first question without creating more confusion, so let me just say this: the fund from which current retirees draw their pensions had, at last posted report (2009) assets totaling about 1.5 million dollars per retiree, down from 1.9 m per in 2007. Many, if not the majority of these retirees, separated from active duty when salaries were substantially lower (30+ percent lower) and investment returns substantially higher (the fund has regularly bested it’s target), so in reality their pensions have been covered by interest earned on the money they contributed (directly and as part of their overall compensation) when actively employed. Even after the worst setback in the fund’s history there’s more than enough to take every current retiree to the grave.
The city does not pay pensions, nor own or control the fund (as evidenced by the fact that it’s still solvent). They’ve tried in the past to get their fumbling fingers on the cash but were denied at every turn (which allowed the fund to go on out-performing expectations and saving the city real money).
The crippling obligation the city now faces involves its duty to step in and do for the fund what the stock market didn’t, so the fund can achieve its performance target and meet the demands projected for the future. It’s a real blow, to be sure, but it’s a blow that was foreseeable in much the same way the real estate crash was to a home owner—an unlikely event for which only the most prudent prepare. Just like every homeowner who spent his equity (manna from heaven) on new cars and fancy vacations, our city conducted its fiscal practices as if worst case scenarios never come true.
Had the city maintained a doomsday fund from the inception of the fund, based on the worst case scenario that was part of the fund’s design, it would’ve enjoyed 60+ years of contribution and interest growth, and we wouldn’t today be laying off anyone.
As for the hundreds of applicants for every job, there is certainly a book to be written there. If you think of the selection process as an exercise in risk reduction (protecting the public and its tax coffers), you can visualize the risks posed and then begin to see the real challenge. If you start simple you can address some of the job’s most obvious requirements, like the need for physical courage, then imagine all the human train wrecks you have known who, in addition to their most frightening traits, possessed courage. Our prisons are full of courageous men, so obviously what is needed is courage + self-control + common sense + core values. Take one hundred courageous young people, apply the qualifiers, and maybe you windup with 30. Take those 30, subtract those who write below high school level, and you’re down to 10. Select for honesty, subtract those who lack the maturity and personal skills necessary to deal with a demanding public, and you’re left with 5. Take those five, subtract those who are prone to substance abuse, bankruptcy, or the allures of prostitutes, and interview your remaining candidate.
Our culture has made immature and unskilled young people the norm. College graduates routinely fail because they can’t write a report, drug use is depressingly widespread, huge debt (minimum wage kids with 15k in credit card debt) is common, the list goes on. Forty years ago the biggest issue was traffic tickets (think crewcuts and muscle cars), but of course that was before liberals improved our schools and our parenting styles.
BS,
Thanks for your answers, you make some very good points and you knowledge of the pension fund far outstrips mine.
Regarding the separation of the wheat from the chaff in the candidate selection process, it sounds as though safety officers surpass medical doctors in meeting the requirements.
Here’s a medical doctor you wouldn’t want on the force.
http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Geza-de-Kaplany
Good stuff you two. I can’t disagree with BS Monitor’s analysis yet I still come down on the other side and fully support pension reform. Our public employee unions, including “public safety” have been instrumental in helping labor friendly candidates get elected to office. It’s no surprise to many of us that those politicians who are generous with other peoples’ money when it comes to employee compensation have also not been shy about spending it on a multitude of dubious projects and programs. So part of my opinion is based on spite. I strongly feel the effects of the irresponsible decisions that the labor friendly politicians have made and I think it’s important that those who got them elected suffer some sort of consequence too.
Another thing to bear in mind when it comes to compensation levels for police and fire is that the contracts we negotiate with them do not exist in a vacuum. Ever higher salaries and benefits for public safety personnel are noticed by, and used by, every other public employee union when it comes time to negotiate their contracts. Democrats are fond of the term “multiplier effect”. Well, extremely generous contracts granted to police and fire wind up having a “multiplier effect” on the total amount we pay out to all city employees.
Finally, the whole notion of retirees not being expected to manage their own retirement but instead demanding that we people who paid them generously throughout their career cover any shortfall, is just plain immoral. I resent them for it. I don’t respect them because of it. And that’s not right because policemen and firemen should have the respect of all the people.
“You conveniently omitted the most important criteria in being hired as a firefighter.”
Your particular dog in this fight notwithstanding, what you interpreted as a convenient omission was in fact nothing more sinister than evidence that we interpreted the question differently. Where I saw a question about cops you saw one about firefighters. Nepotism is not an issue in police hiring.
Another example of negotiated labor contracts not existing in a vacuum: it was reported earlier this week that the SF Muni drivers most recent raise of 6% (OMG!!!)was based upon a covenant in the city charter or the contract – I cannot recall which – that assures them a pay rate equivalent to the average of the two highest muni driver rates in the nation. Egad, just think how much play unions across the land can get out of situations like this – it’s a never-ending upward spiral of “going one better.”
You conveniently omitted the most important criteria in being hired as a firefighter.
“It is the family business”…or so goes the saying for many firefighters.
Good luck getting in if you’re not related to a firefighter or from a firefighting family, only those in “the family” have any serious chance of being considered. Using your qualifiers, 99% of applicants not having someone in “the business” are addled, uneducated abusers, who lack courage and have no self control.
Thankfully the firefighter gene pool has eliminated all of those undesirable attributes.
In the recent past, SJFD only accepted firefighter applications for 1-2 days per year.
“… fully support pension reform.”
If by “reform” you mean fixing what is wrong, then I would argue that no reform has been offered. What is being offered is the promise of reform, absent even the slightest bit of evidence that anyone in government possesses the wisdom or political fortitude necessary to achieve it.
How does one go about preventing transient, self-centered politicians from choosing political expediency at the expense of runaway risk? The very people we’ve sent into office to protect our interests have repeatedly exited those offices, moved onto greener pastures, and left us taxpayers the worse for it.
Mayor Reed has proved himself a skilled, albeit duplicitous finger-pointer. He’s managed to get everyone looking at the city’s workers and seeing raw greed, with almost no one looking toward our elected and appointed officials and seeing reckless incompetence.
Unfunded liability. That is what ails the city’s pensions. Liability that the city accepted and ignored from the start, aggravated with its conduct during the last tumultuous decade, and wails about today. Were they mortgage holders we would evict them for their irresponsibility. But they’re not permanent residents, but instead short-term lease holders unconcerned with loose shingles, wood rot, or a crumbling foundation.
I too, have felt “the effects of the irresponsible decisions that the labor friendly politicians have made.” I try not to vote for such people, though locally that usually means voting for someone who hasn’t a chance of winning. I too, have regretted the attitude and consequences of the “me too” mentality so pervasive among government unions—it today makes up a significant part of the public’s resentment. Where I disagree with you is the notion that our public safety employees have been paid “generously throughout” their careers. No, generous compensation, at least at the working level, is a recent phenomenon, one that came in the wake of the tech boom, got a big bump under Ron Gonzales, and was supercharged by the Gray Davis effect.
Pierluigi,
IS there any legal, California Constitution, city charter or union contractual restrictions on changing the existing excessive city employee pension and benefits ?
Can voters change employee 3x / city 8x contribution rates if city charter amendment is approved by voters for existing and new employees?
If employees want higher pension benefits have them pay more to include making up any investment loses as happens for most of us
Thanks for clear answers since many are confused about what voters / city can do or not legally
Remember, Oliverio is not an attorney, he just likes to play one on this site.
BS Monitor – good comments – but add
1) San Jose for years has paid in poor city services and high taxes for poor Council / Senior Management conflict of interest decisions / political paybacks to South Bay Labor and their allies
– residential developers providing campaign contributions in return for industrial land conversions
– million per year to non profits providing campaign workers in return for city funding non profit’s non essential city services and bailouts
2) Eliminating arbitration is a band aid over a serious long term financial wound and will not stop financial budget deficits without major budget reform and stopping non essential city service spending ( non profits, low income housing, wasted economic development corporate, bailouts community organizations, downtown, developer and sports subsidies etc )
2) Excessive Pension Plans with unrealistic pension and benefits assumptions – 8% return on investment, low employee contributions, city makes up any investment losses, millions in cash out of sick time
Not because employees deserved excessive pensions based on risk, cost of living or others became rich or that California state or local governments could afford it without cutting many other desired or essential government services
Other government labor unions and non union Senior Management government employees ( major undiscused excessive pension beneficiaries ) also receive excessive 75% ( 2 1/2 % at 30 years ) pensions
( dysfunctional – failure to show the characteristics or fulfil the purposes accepted as normal or beneficial , any deviation from a healthy or normal condition )
3) Comparing a few Silicon Valley millionaires to many government employee millionaires misses 2 points
a) most public are not SV millionaires but have to pay taxes for government millionaires
b) many SV stock options were did not make people millionaires only small % cashed out like lottery many bet and few won
4) Current Pensions CAN NOT BE CHANGED by LAW only new employees so taxpayers are stuck with high costs and low services for years unless courts overrule existing pension law which is unlike since California Judges with conflict of interest also get excessive pensions
5) Pension Reform Voter Initiative will be declared unconstitutional by California Judges and no one politically will take to federal court as we have seen with questionably legal Proposition 13
6) California and local government have no method to prioritize spending between essential or required service and political non essential spending
7) Million / billions taxes wasted on political spending most voters / taxpayers would NEVER APPROVE but elected officials who represent special interests not voters APPROVE as political paybacks which could pay for essential government services
8) It isn’t that government doesn’t have taxes it is that taxes are poorly or politically spent or not collected from on special interests not for public good
Thank you Pierluigi for your common sense.
Looks like taxing marijuana has support on your survey but no support for sales tax increase.
1) Police and Fire obtained their excessive 90% ( 3 % at 30 years ) pension benefits for NO OTHER REASON than union political lobbying of Dysfunctional California Legislature and political control of local governments
2) Dysfunctional Governments can’t balance their budget but will always spend all taxes then borrow or makes legal obligations that dysfunctional government does not have money to pay, so will raise taxes higher again
Get rid of pensions once and for all! A waste of taxpayer money! Just rely on 401k.
Mr. P Oliverio,
The survey matched my opinion. Yes for roads and no children’s health care. Roads are poor in area by Leigh High.
I love this link Kenny supplied on Friday, it really is amazing.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/44384489/CitywideAvgCostByEmployeeUnit
Nothing like hearing two sides debate over irrelevant details (actuarial numbers, retirement ages, 90% 80%, etc.)
Move toward personal responsibility. Pay them $200,000/year if we have to, but eliminate all future obligations!
Bottom lining things:
1. We’re in a Depression.. not a Recession
2. Declining economy = declining consumer spending = declining tax revenues
3. Declining tax revenue will likely require further, and DEEPER cuts..
Welcome to the “new normal”…
Pierluigi,
I am unable to attend tonight’s council meeting but I have made my position clear to my representative, Judy Chirco. I am fully supportive of placing your pension reform initiative on this fall’s ballot.
2nd tier benefits for new hires is only going to show modest savings for years. Its just another example of kicking the can down the road. Plus it rewards the current employees with more compensation than younger workers who will be doing the same work.
I’d rather see every employee shoulder more of the true cost of the defined benefit pension. phase in 50-50 contributions over 5 years and require that investment losses or benefit increases be covered on the same ration (employee and employer sharing the pain.)
Half ass reform that doesn’t hurt anyone really doesn’t help anyone either. We’re back to needing a petition to get real reform on the ballot. Alas…
You just descibed a 2nd tier retirement!
Your suggestion could not be implemented given the constitutional protection of current public employees’ pensions.
This could occur for new employees, but it would require a 2nd tier and could only be implemented if this charter change occurs.
Thanks for making PLO’s point!
Blair,
Your advice makes too much sense for anyone down at city hall, the fire department, or the police station to comprehend!
I’m beginning to wonder if some of you have been made so angry by the Mayor’s misleading campaign that you can no longer see straight.
Understand this: when the police/fire pension plan was devised it was recognized that a mechanism would be needed to address the element of uncertainty in the fund’s investment component. Realistically there were two options from which to choose, each with its advantages and disadvantages:
Option A) An even split in liability and benefit. This solution would’ve allowed both employees and the City to reduce their contributions during years in which the fund bested expectations, while requiring both sides to up their contributions during years of underperformance.
Option B) An uneven split, one in which one side accepts all liability in exchange for enjoying all benefits.
In putting together the plan Option B was chosen, and over the years the City has reeked the benefits of its choice, having only of late to face the liability it long ago accepted. Mayor Reed has mesmerized the public with his focus on the current woes of a city administration whose incompetent approach to its liabilities stretches back for decades.
Those of you who call for a rule change in the middle of the game do so with zero regard for the sanctity of the agreement as well as the many decades during which employees benefitted not at all from the stellar performance of their own contributions to the fund. Such a dishonorable solution would effectively render meaningless any agreement (or new tier) offered by the City, leaving the public safety of this city in the hands of a mercenary, get-all-you-can-while-you-can workforce.
Comprehend that!
Pier and Council,
Ensuring that this reform is carried out responsibly is imperative. The amendments made to the pension structure will impact the quality of recruits and retention of personnel across all city departments.
Cost saving measures must be considered in order to return Police staffing levels to safe numbers and retain Fire personnel. The lack of Police Staffing in this city has put residents at risk, and many have already begun to feel this through an increase in property crime. It is vital to our residents that they receive the quality of services that they have come to expect and pay for. Neglecting our Sworn Personnel numbers is a recipe for disaster and you all can look no further than the cities of Vallejo or San Diego to find out how and why this can become a fiscal nightmare on both sides of this current debate.
Yes, we should also reduce the benefits to all federal and state workers. Even though we are now getting our teachers from the Philippines, our oil wells and mining operations are suffering from a total lack of oversight, we can still get all we want for free. The fact is, San Jose has enough of “can’t get a job anywhere else” typeS (mostly the managers!) without dumbing down the operation even more. YOU NEED A CARROT TO ATTRACT GOOD PEOPLE STUPID!
So impressed am I. Three whole years as a Councilman and now you have it all figured out. I want to thank you Pierluigi and Mayor Reed for doing something I did not think possible. You have demoralized the entire City work force past the point of any return, far beyond what Ron Gonzales with of his scandals could have ever done. Never have you cowards ever stood up with totally false accusations and statments are made at the workers expense. We all feel like crap to be stepped on and scapegoated without any sign of relief. The fact is, the reason the budget is in the trench is the Council who continues to prostitute itself to the housing development mafioso who run this City.
Joe and other government excessive pension defenders,
Just admit Government employees got a Great PAY & PENSION deal from their elected Labor Representatives while public got higher taxes and poor service
So STOP Complaining that the real jobs world caught up with government jobs gravy train
All current gov’t employees have locked in excessive pensions and above average pay as long as you still have jobs
So STOP Complaining you ALL have it better that people working in private jobs
If all jobs in US had excessive government pay and pensions we would have 30-40% or more unemployment since many jobs would go to lower pay countries and there would be MORE government layoffs
Does not really warrant a response… When starting with the City 20 years ago, the Pension plan is almost exactly the same as it is now. No one complained except for a scandal of millions lost do to fund mismanagement. I was not part of any union. Around five years ago, a union was formed for my group. None of us wanted it but our backs were against the wall. Our compensation package had fallen way behind the cost of living over the last decade. My salary is significantly less than private professionals with my experience. What would you like to “admit” now?
Now, my father worked as a professional for a non-profit research firm. His pension pays for all his needs and has more money allocated to him than it did 10 years ago. The firm has the same plan now as it did 60 years ago and has expanded its market share massively.
Do you have a clue as to how much of your income goes to fund prisons that are full because of ranters like you who vote for “law and order” candidates? What portion goes to fund Iraq and Afghanistan and Israel (did you vote for George and second time!)? So you must know how much of your property tax pays for a municipal non-uniformed employee. Give me a break. Yes, and I have years of private sector experience and I know exactly the difference. People who label others are pathetic in general.
Remember its the the city council or the mayor who is the Face of the city but the actual workers. They are the ones who makes this a great city. Periluigi is a one hit wonder and has no political future.