Totally agree.

Bear with the following pension comparison. It takes a bit to explain it, so just skip if you don’t want to read it.

Defenders of the status quo on pensions dismiss private sector comparisons as a “race to the bottom” mindset. So, I took a real life top-of-the-line defined benefit pension from a large company known for generous benefits and compared how much a retiree living to 80 would receive under that plan compared with somebody under a public sector plan. Long story short, the non-safety public sector plan used for comparison pays out 3-4 times as much.

Public sector plan: $80k employee retires at 55 with 75% pension starting at $60k and guaranteed cost-of-living hikes. By 80, receives $1.5 million (in constant dollars due to COLA’s). Also gets health benefits.

Private sector plan: A plan started in the early 1970′s (the glory days of defined benefit pensions, even though only about 40% of workers had such plans even then). The plan has not been watered down. $80k employee retires at 65 with a 46% pension (I’ll skip the formula details) of $36,800 based on 35 years service. Could take pension early, but it would be reduced due to fewer years of service credits and adjustment for more years of retirement. At 55, accrued pension would be reduced to 50% of the accrued full pension amount, or to 80% at 62. By 80, receives $552k with no COLA’s. Present value is less than $552 due to lack of COLA’s — probably more like $400k. Gets no health benefits.

Just as the public sector invented a bastardized version of collective bargaining, they did the same with the concept of pensions. Retirement experts used to speak of a secure retirement plan being based on the three-legged stool of pension, social security and personal savings. The idea was that those three combined would replace 80-90% of pre-retirement income. The pension component was never intended to replace 90%, 75% or even 60% of pre-retirement pay, let alone start in full at 55 or 60 or get COLA’s.

Seems fishy to me.

Example:
Is it a coincidence that the County Board of Sups is reluctant to make the necessary reforms of the County’s compensation system — to effectively take back promised benefits and work rules that were unaffordable from the get-go — when they receive the same comp package themselves?

Ergo:

Q: Who represents taxpayers at the County bargaining table?

A: Zero, zip, zilch, nada.

We’re all big fat suckers for allowing this outrageous state of affairs to continue.

Q: Why doesn’t the BOS reverse its decision (made just a few years ago, if memory serves) to grant themselves six-figure salaries and full benefits — effectively making them full-time County employees? It would be a nice, symbolic gesture that taxpayers — if not County employees — would surely appreciate.

If Sups had less time to devote to their public duties, the County’s financial situation might actually improve — fewer “bright ideas” floating around in search of justification and funding. In any event, it’s unlikely that things would be worse!

Just sayin’.