Quote:
Originally Posted by knightsroad
Just know that the FOP didn't trot anybody out there. Those families volunteered their time to put a face on the situation. All the politicians out there see are what they want to see. They have to be made to see the faces of those people whom their political based bull**** games affect. These are some of the same politicians who pour out alligator tears at a cop funeral and talk about the benefits they deserve for giving all and then spit on the officer's grave with their true actions a few months later.
|
that's a bit over the top. Pensions are but one facet of city employment.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Valley Twin
While it's a good idea, isn't it balancing the pension issues on the backs of newer employees (say those who have worked for the city for 5 years)? They're pension is frozen at 10% of their current salary, even if they work for the city for another 20 years? Do we change the regs to allow them to stop making contributions or switch to the new plan? Does that make the fund even more under-funded?
I'm thinking it's starting to sound like social security where the y'ungins are paying and paying and paying with little chance of ever seeing their contributions back.
|
You're probably right but that's also the most likely scenario. there are few new employees than retired or close to retirement and people don't feel bad for them. In San Juan,
PR where pensions are worse, that's exactly what happened. they have to help support the pension system but are not eligible and receive a 401k. The 401k parts is fine, but supporting the pension system hurts. Of course, at least the problem is no longer getting worse and eventually they will have paid it off. In the long run I'd like to see pensions eliminated and salaries increased. In the short run, banning pension increases for underfunded plans seems like common sense. If you can't fund current promises, how will you fund future promises?