Andrew Cuomo said of pension padding “It’s been going on for a long time, everyone knows it but no one’s done anything about it.” He is right but it’s not just an “Albany” story, it’s much more widespread. People high in public office are the worst offenders because they can accumulate vacation, sick and overtime hours without the restrictions in place at lower levels.
But since human nature is the same everywhere, this game isn’t just restricted to public employees. In the corporate world different methods are used to fashion golden parachutes.
IP: Logged
01:16 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27079 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
This has been common knowledge in New York for decades. I know several police officers in New York City that confirmed this story to me back then. Their retirement pay is based on their last year's wages, sick time and overtime. When an officer is in his last year of duty he will save any accrued sick time and he will be allowed to work as much overtime as he can. All of this is to pad how much he will make for that final year of service. It will significantly raise what his retirement benefits will finally be and this will end up costing the taxpayers more money to pay for it. This is all legally done because of the agreement the police union has with the city and that is what needs to be changed.
IP: Logged
11:35 AM
spark1 Member
Posts: 11159 From: Benton County, OR Registered: Dec 2002
It has little to do with unions. Many lawmakers will sell their souls to get an endorsement from a police association. That's why the pension laws are written the way they are.
IP: Logged
12:24 PM
madcurl Member
Posts: 21401 From: In a Van down by the Kern River Registered: Jul 2003
Not sure what Madcurl is complaining about. I assume he votes Democrat. What does he expect?
I'm sorry, this isn't some type of a "football" were YOU are allowed to spike the ball. Rather "pension padding" is a pandemic problem that reaches every state and every tax payer's pocket. As the video indicated, a officer whose yearly salary is 74k can "pad" (1-year prior) his/her retirement and net 199k for life. Thus the tax payers is left holding the bag.
Yet, Fierobear is wondering what I'm complaining about.
IP: Logged
04:50 PM
madcurl Member
Posts: 21401 From: In a Van down by the Kern River Registered: Jul 2003
It has little to do with unions. Many lawmakers will sell their souls to get an endorsement from a police association. That's why the pension laws are written the way they are.
I think you've already answered the question, but let my clarify.
How is it that this provision was allowed for this to occur? Was it an oversight on the part of the unions who wrote this provision? Obviously, the unions are the ones that write the contracts, right? The politicians are the ones who need the union's votes to be elected, right?
There is one thing that is obvious. The "gig" is up. "Pension padding" is the best thing since slice bread and all are jumping in on the sweet heart deal. However, "Chickens come home to roost" and the tax payers are left holding the bag.
IP: Logged
05:08 PM
May 24th, 2011
spark1 Member
Posts: 11159 From: Benton County, OR Registered: Dec 2002
I doubt that the pension system in New York State is an employment contract provision. In the State that I am familiar with, the public safety pension system was created by the State and it serves all the various local governments that choose to participate. Since issue is commonly discussed in Albany, it is likely a State system they are talking about there too. New York City is large enough to have it's own system so maybe a union agreement is part of that one.
Pension systems are required to be actuarially sound. They control vast amounts of money invested in various ways to help build the fund and pay the pensioners or their beneficiaries. Typically the supporting funds also come from employee contributions and a similar amount contributed by the employer.
The padding described can have many effects. It may reduce or eliminate any cost of living increase that pensioners might otherwise receive from investment earnings. It also may cause current employees and agencies (taxpayers) to contribute more to keep the fund sound. The taxpayers aren’t the only ones taking a hit on this.
Changes to pension laws usually grandfather those affected and only apply to new members. So don't look for a quick fix to this problem.
IP: Logged
02:12 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27079 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
I'm sorry, this isn't some type of a "football" were YOU are allowed to spike the ball. Rather "pension padding" is a pandemic problem that reaches every state and every tax payer's pocket. As the video indicated, a officer whose yearly salary is 74k can "pad" (1-year prior) his/her retirement and net 199k for life. Thus the tax payers is left holding the bag.
Yet, Fierobear is wondering what I'm complaining about.
And which political party is more in bed with the unions? Or are you not smart enough to know that? Geez.
IP: Logged
02:28 AM
PFF
System Bot
madcurl Member
Posts: 21401 From: In a Van down by the Kern River Registered: Jul 2003
And which political party is more in bed with the unions? Or are you not smart enough to know that? Geez.
I repeat: THIS THREAD IS ABOUT THE CORRUPTION IN PENSION PADDING AND UNIONS. IT IS NOT ABOUT WHAT POLITICAL PARTY THAT SUPPORTS THE UNIONS. IT IS ABOUT TAX PAYERS BEING HOSED!
IP: Logged
12:14 PM
madcurl Member
Posts: 21401 From: In a Van down by the Kern River Registered: Jul 2003
I doubt that the pension system in New York State is an employment contract provision. In the State that I am familiar with, the public safety pension system was created by the State and it serves all the various local governments that choose to participate. Since issue is commonly discussed in Albany, it is likely a State system they are talking about there too. New York City is large enough to have it's own system so maybe a union agreement is part of that one.
Pension systems are required to be actuarially sound. They control vast amounts of money invested in various ways to help build the fund and pay the pensioners or their beneficiaries. Typically the supporting funds also come from employee contributions and a similar amount contributed by the employer.
The padding described can have many effects. It may reduce or eliminate any cost of living increase that pensioners might otherwise receive from investment earnings. It also may cause current employees and agencies (taxpayers) to contribute more to keep the fund sound. The taxpayers aren’t the only ones taking a hit on this.
Changes to pension laws usually grandfather those affected and only apply to new members. So don't look for a quick fix to this problem.
Then what you're implying is; there's a loop-hole that is being exploited. Exploited either by those in these unions. If the state (or those in charge) of oversight was caught sleeping then there's a major problem. Obviously, this exploitation or oversight can't continue or "pension padding" will break the state (to which is well underway or if not off to a bad start already).
The only real solution is to put a stop to pension padding and revoke all past "paddings" and pay them the "correct" retirement pay. If revoking past retirement pay sounds a bit too harsh I'd bet my employer will come after me if there was a mistake in my retirement package.
[This message has been edited by madcurl (edited 05-24-2011).]
IP: Logged
12:30 PM
FriendGregory Member
Posts: 4833 From: Palo Alto, CA, USA Registered: Jan 2004
I must be one of the few that understand. The state and local governments are losing control of their budgets due to these badly designed pension provisions. How many "Heros" can we afford to pay excessive pensions - that are even beyond the generous pay/pension that we agreed to? How do you tell that government pay is too high? People want the job. Heck, when I had a good job, I wanted a government job.
IP: Logged
12:58 PM
May 26th, 2011
spark1 Member
Posts: 11159 From: Benton County, OR Registered: Dec 2002
The former head of the International Monetary Fund accused of sexually assaulting a New York hotel maid will receive a $250,000 severance payment -- paid in part courtesy of the American taxpayer -- unless U.S. lawmakers can stop the "golden parachute" from landing in the French politician's bank account.
The IMF claims it has no discretion in the matter of Dominique Strauss-Khan, who was already pulling down nearly $500,000 as managing director when he resigned after being arrested in New York. The one-time severance, along with a much smaller annual pension, was part of his contract.
IP: Logged
01:52 AM
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
Originally posted by madcurl: I repeat: THIS THREAD IS ABOUT THE CORRUPTION IN PENSION PADDING AND UNIONS. IT IS NOT ABOUT WHAT POLITICAL PARTY THAT SUPPORTS THE UNIONS. IT IS ABOUT TAX PAYERS BEING HOSED!
There is a political party that is owned by the unions? I did not know that.
IP: Logged
08:28 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27079 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Originally posted by madcurl: I repeat: THIS THREAD IS ABOUT THE CORRUPTION IN PENSION PADDING AND UNIONS. IT IS NOT ABOUT WHAT POLITICAL PARTY THAT SUPPORTS THE UNIONS. IT IS ABOUT TAX PAYERS BEING HOSED!
Unions cannot hose the taxpayers directly. They need government help. We all know which party is helping them (except you, evidently).
