[Texdentist]

I love cops and firefighters as much as anyone. But taxpayers are on the verge of a permanent drowning in retiree payments negotiated by public employee unions. Here is an example from todays Ft. Worth Star-Telegram

This is about local politics, but this is becoming a problem across the country that most people don't know about.​

"To understand why Fort Worth's pension system is such a financial disaster, look at one month's list of recent retirements.
In January, a 53-year-old policeman retired with an annual benefit of $90,312 for life, plus $256,000 in a lump sum payment. Another policeman, 57, got almost $74,000 annually, plus $313,000 in a lump sum. A 54-year-old firefighter got an annual pension of $90,130, plus $178,000 in cash.
These are not typical cases, but they're not rare, either. The shocking takeaway from the 22 retirees is that they stand to earn significantly more from their pensions than they earned on the job.
With an average age of 50 for the police and 54 for the firemen in this group, they're likely to spend more years in retirement than they worked. An analysis for the City Council, presented in July, projected that the retiring policemen would collect $3.1 million in pension pay. That's a stunning number, almost twice as much as their career earnings, and it more than compensates for the fact that city employees don't get Social Security or a 401(k)-type account. It's worth stating again: In retirement, many will get more money than they made on the job, and for more years."

More: http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/09/04/2445012/fort-worth-pension-bubble-will.html​

 

[Texdentist]

Can't be allowed to happen.

I don't care if there were contracts and committments.

There has to be equity that is commensurate with their regular pay. A correction towards fairness must be accepted or enforced. Either way.

Unfortunately, it seems TX law prohibits that. We taxpayers will have to come up with it one way or the other. What we must do immediately is change the rules for future employees. The unions resist this to the death, but otherwise, our localities will go bankrupt trying to support these retirees. What regular employee expects to receive benefits like these? Why should these people retire at 50? I realize it's a tough job, but, in any other job if you tried to retire at 50, your benefits would be minimal.

 

[Texdentist]

I have to be honest with you, if I ever have to call the police I don't want a 57 year old man rolling out of the car to protect me. Let them retire and hire younger people who get paid less and can do a better job physically.


These lump sum payments are usually the result of unused sick time which is a pretty standard practice across most employment fields. I think we should be thankful that these people were able to stay healthy during their careers in order to protect us.

I agree about not wanting cops too old to do their job. My point was that that job requirement is no excuse for mega-retirement benefits in early 50's. As for the lump sum, the article says that the last few years they work, they can start drawing retirement benefits and plow them back into a bigger retirement fund --- while working! Who passed this stuff? They also now get to base retirement pay on their highest earning years --- including overtime! They can pile a bunch of overtime in their last couple of years on the job and increase their lifetime benefit by hundreds of thousands of dollars. Someone has to pay for this for 30 years or more for every retiree. Not one cent of it goes to current public safety. As the public becomes aware of this and other public employee mega-retirement benefits, there will be a huge battle between public employees and all others. Those public employees - including teachers - obviously think they deserve their benefits, but as individuals, they aren't thinking about the cumulative cost of this largesse. Mark my words, you will hear much more about this in the next five years after cities, states and the feds have to face these unfundable benefits and taxpayers balk at paying more.

 

[Texdentist]

Which is exactly why new pension tiers need to be negotiated. Don't blame union members for the benefits they receive when the local government negotiated them and agreed to them in good faith. Those ocntracts are made public, every member of the community has access to it and no one ever complains until they see an article in the paper. Again, I'm no big fan of unions but don't put the blame squarely on them here.

Abslolutely agree, and I don't blame them for benefits negotiated. My problen with unions is their general utter unwillingness to negotiate lower benefits for future employees. American Airlines mechanics just did that in Fort Worh last week. They had a really good contract for current employees with reduced benefits for younger and future employees (the future numbers for current benefits are completely unsustainable). Even with the union reps recommendation to pass it, it was voted down 2 to 1. Retirement benefits in general are killing our national competitiveness. Most private companies saw it coming and either negotiated or imposed a switch to 401(k) type retirements. Government just has not been able to do that. As taxes go up, the public will balk.

 

[Texdentist]

We give Athletes crap when they don’t honor contracts … right?

I say, Honor your contract, but don’t make another contract if you can’t afford it … simple. :thumbsup:

With a company, the dynamics are easy. You honor the contract as long as you can, but if you will go out of business trying to honor it, you have bankruptcy available to force renegotiation. With government, there is no going out of business or bankruptcy. The expectation is that you will keep raising taxes to cover contracts. But at some point, the taxpayers revolt. They can demand votes on taxes and refuse to ante up. As these retirement shortfalls cause more and more pain on cities, there will be more voter backlash.

 

[Texdentist]

I beleive we (Tax Payers) shouldn't force renegotiation.

I would like to agree, but no one can foresee future economic problems like we now have when negtiating contracts. Cities and states make their agreements based on projections of interest rates and tax revenues. No one saw the dramatic drop in home property values (trillions) coming with it's associated drop in property tax revenue. At some point, I do believe you have to go back and say we must have a more realistic contract. You can't pay these kinds of exorbitant benefits if the money simply isn't there. Generally speaking, the give/take is that if the union refuses to renegotiate in good faith, the next time the contract is due, it will be hardball with major cutbacks. If they agree to a renegotiation now, the gloves will be kept on and they will try to reach agreement that benefits everyone.