The bills will pass on Monday with token ‘no’ votes from a few Republicans who don’t really need union support in their districts but what does allowing the Police & Fire unions to manage their pensions mean for the system as a whole?
A. Asset value adjustments
The NJ Division of Investments (NJDOI) claims to have $77.55 billion as of 12/31/17. The breakdown by fund according to the latest GASB reporting is fairly close:
In theory $25.4 billion should be transferred out of the plan but there are questions as to which assets will be transferred (the hedge fund junk or real money) and this might spur the NJDOI to get an honest value of their holdings.
B. Return of COLAs
After losing in court a retiree population that has never had a pension check bounce might see their biggest problem as getting back cost-of-living-adjustments on their pensions. It’s not.
C. New actuary for PFRS
Conduent (formerly Buck Consultants) are the actuaries for all but the Teachers’ plan (Milliman has TPAF) and their continued employment by those paying the contribution amounts they come up with depends on their continued use of dodgy assumptions to keep those contribution amounts low. But here we have the participants (through their unions) taking over the hiring of the actuary. Will they jettison the actuarial practices accepted within the public plan community in favor those that honestly cost their benefits? If they do, will that bill be paid in full?
Burypensions Blog 
Posted by R Quinn on March 23, 2018 at 11:33 am
A major farce. Nothing changes, benefits are too generous and funding inadequate and unaffordable to taxpayers, most of whom have no pension at all. Having evaluated NJ state benefits three times for different governors I know of what I speak. If benefits were affordable they would have been funded.
Posted by skip3house on March 23, 2018 at 11:55 am
R.Quinn Most clear comment here in ‘too long’.
Good Mr.Bury thought on which…hedge fund junk or real, also.
Posted by Tough Love on March 23, 2018 at 1:21 pm
Quoting R Quinn……….. “benefits are too generous and funding inadequate and unaffordable to taxpayers, most of whom have no pension at all. ”
I have been saying the same thing for a VERY long time, and I’d like ALL of the PFRS participants reading this comment to respond to the question I asked commentator El Guapo (a PFRS participant) in an earlier Blog:
———————-
Given the level of NJ Police “wages” (alone), which I believe are more likely to be higher (than lower) those of Private Sector workers in jobs with no less risk, and who have comparable experience, education, skills, and knowledge ……… what justifies the current structure wherein Police pensions have* a value upon retirement that is now 3.5 to 4 TIMES (rising to 5 TIMES if COLAs are reinstated) that of the comparable Private Sector worker who retires at the SAME age, with the SAME wages, and the SAME years of service …… and with all of the Police Officer’s pension contributions, accumulated to the date of their retirement (INCLUDING the expected investment earnings thereon) rarely sufficient to buy more than 15% of that VERY rich pension ……… and then layer ON TOP OF THAT, a retire healthcare subsidy that may approach $500K that VERY VERY few in the Private Sector get any longer ?
* via their pension “formula” and the pension’s “provisions”, such as a very young age at which an unreduced pension can commence
Posted by Tony W on March 25, 2018 at 1:00 pm
Simple answer, because you have provide a decent retirement plan so members can retire comfortably at an early age or else you will have 65-70 year old cops and firemen working the front lines of public safety. Is that what you were prefer ???
Posted by Tough Love on March 26, 2018 at 1:26 pm
No Tony, not a “decent” retirement, but one that’s 4 TIMES greater in value than that typically granted an otherwise identical Private sector worker. It’s FAR more than a “decent” retirement. It’s patently outrageous….. coming from the Taxpayers
The great (not “decent”) retirement that you want should come major savings …..ON YOUR OWN ……. just like the rest of us,
Posted by rdquinn on March 26, 2018 at 2:47 pm
The problem is that state workers have little frame of reference as to the private sector. And they do not understand the great value in the non cash portion of their compensation. They were incensed when their COLA was suspended, yet any COLA in the private sector is rare. I have been retired 8 years and no COLA and there will not be any. They complain about a higher co-pay for prescriptions (still ridiculously low) when retiree medical has been long gone on the private sector. They say they have no SS, but did not pay any taxes. The typical pension plan where it still exits costs about 8% of payroll, but the state plan is nearly double that between worker and government payments. Full retirement without reduction is rarely available before age 60, yet the state measures by service only.
Posted by Tony W on March 27, 2018 at 1:48 pm
Exactly what line of work is “identical” to being a firefighter or police officer in the private sector. It’s apparent you have zero understanding of the physical, mental, and emotional tone this line of work takes on a person. If you want 70 year old cops and firemen so be it, luckily most people don’t and realize they need to provide a decent retirement plan for those in that line of work.
Posted by rdquinn on March 27, 2018 at 2:34 pm
Good pay, yes. Decent retirement, yes but that does not mean full retirement after 20 years regardless of or before age 55 or 60. It doesn’t mean the level of health care currently provided retirees. One can rationalize all sorts of reasons to treat officers differently but it all still has to be paid for mostly by people earning a lot less with no benefits.
Posted by Tough Love on March 27, 2018 at 2:36 pm
No Tony, I don’t want a 70 year old Policeman or Fireman, but there is no reason that they cannot work until 62. There are plenty of positions in these departments that do NOT require running into burning building or chasing down 20 year olds.
ANY pension that commences before age 62 should be subject to a PROPER actuarial reduction for early retirement of no less than 5% PER YEAR OF AGE before 62 …. noting the Social Security use an even LARGER reduction factor of 6% per year of age.
—————————————————————————
Of course now that PFRS has been transferred to UNION-control ….. thanks to our UNION-BOUGHT legislature, that certainly isn’t going to happen.
Every NJ Legislator who voted for this and accepted PFRS campaign contributions should be prosecuted for accepting BRIBES.
Posted by Stephen Douglas on March 24, 2018 at 10:48 pm
R Quinn,
Public workers do not have a package valued 45 percent higher than private workers.
If you evaluated NJ state benefits three times for different governors thusly in a professional capacity, you did it wrong.
Posted by boscoe on March 23, 2018 at 12:33 pm
The assets of the several systems are pooled for investment purposes into Common Funds, depending on what types of investments are held. Each pension fund is credited with a proportionate percentage of returns (or losses) depending on the size of the fund. In other words, the separate pension systems do not have separate investment strategies as far as I know (the Judicial System may be an exception due to its precarious status). This would suggest that the PFRS will be detached with roughly the same asset base and investment portfolio as shown above. When PFRS takes over the process of investing its own ascribed assets, then their investment portfolio and returns will change. As far as actuaries are concerned, who knows? You can pretty much be sure that they will not hire an actuary who tells them their assets are way lower than they have been represented in state reports.
Posted by skip3house on March 23, 2018 at 12:44 pm
boscoe…. Why does it bother me when the same numbers can be figured to different answers? ‘…they will not hire an actuary who tells them their assets are way lower than they have been represented in state reports…’
Posted by boscoe on March 23, 2018 at 3:03 pm
skip3house, great question. You should probably ask John Bury or Mary Pat Campbell, both actuaries, why this is so. Mr. Bury hinted at one reason (above) that the true value of some of the more speculative investments in the pension portfolios (e.g., hedge funds) is open to question. Another reason is that the State Treasurer, not the actuary, decides the assumed interest/discount rate for the systems — something that has been in play recently after the outgoing Christie administration dropped the rate precipitously from 7.65% to 7% and then the new treasurer for the Murphy administration raised it back to 7.5%. Finally, there is the cynical answer that actuaries are paid by their clients and are susceptible to subtle or not-so-subtle pressure to paint a rosier picture.
Posted by burypensions on March 23, 2018 at 3:22 pm
Another question is whether the plan will now no longer be a government plan (exempt from funding rules) and now be a multiemployer plan (subject to funding rules – though not as strict as other private plans – and PBGC coverage). Would the unions argue for this designation so they can get away from public plan actuaries?
Posted by Anonymous on March 23, 2018 at 3:58 pm
John, with this bill passing can you give the nutshell version of what it will mean for taxpayers………I guess taxes will go up once again to fund this new arrangement? Will it be town by town or how will that work out?
Posted by burypensions on March 23, 2018 at 4:51 pm
I see this as all about getting COLAs back. It is still an unknown to me whether the unions are looking to maintain status quo funding (as little as possible) so as to prevent sticker shock and maintain benefits or whether they get serious about putting in (or having taxpayers put in) the real amount of the benefits accrued. I suspect the former but if this move gets the plan reclassified as multiemployer that decision would be made for them.
Posted by geo8rge on March 24, 2018 at 11:03 am
Can ordinary citizens of NJ (or anyone else) sue to demand that PRFS be treated like a multiemployer plan? Is the PBGC or ERISA on top of this? Aren’t they supposed to be sending threatening letters or something?
Wouldn’t an Actuary be required to know and use the correct regulator? If an expert knowingly does not use the correct regulator or regulations, isn’t that a personal legal problem for the individual expert?
Posted by geo8rge on March 24, 2018 at 11:06 am
Isn’t ERISA regulated by the IRS? Could this trigger whistleblower statutes and compensation from the IRS? If so go for it Mr Bury, you deserve the money.
Posted by burypensions on March 24, 2018 at 12:22 pm
Nobody wants PBGC coverage these days as premiums are massive, they don’t cover much – for multiemployer plans especially – and they are a front gov’t agency to justify benefit cuts – especially under MPRA. They are however a possible source of bailout money when all assets dry up. Should know more when this multiemployer committee they set up comes up with their plan after the mid-term elections.
Posted by MJ on March 24, 2018 at 7:46 am
John, so when the COLAs are reinstated, and if they become serious about putting in the real amount of benefits accrued I get the sticker shock
But would you explain what it would mean if the plan is reclassified as multiemployer?
Thanks
Posted by burypensions on March 24, 2018 at 8:06 am
Just my theory for now but with the PBGC having so many fewer plans to oversee they may be interested in more work for their people. The plan would immediately be in critical and declining status which could mean forced benefit cuts and a plan for solvency (something that does not exist now).
What is more likely is conflict between the new Board and the state when they send the bills and the state decides to pay a fraction of it (as they have been doing). Could be another court case there.
Posted by El gaupo on March 24, 2018 at 9:45 am
John, I don’t think NJ (according to Sweeney’s comments for what thats worth) is the only state that has done this with one of their pension funds. If so, if the PBGC took over a fund and especially if the fund was in bad shape, we may have seen a court case by now. Is there a precedent for this?
Would the fact that the fund is still funded by taxpayers and managed with some influence by appointed officials on the state side allow for this? There is also a clause keeping a non forfeitable right to pension for guys hires prior to 2010(again for whatever that’s worth). The bill also states that after 6 years of signing the board could vote to go back to the way it is now. Should be interesting.
I agree this entire bill is about COLA.
Posted by burypensions on March 24, 2018 at 12:13 pm
I would love to know of another public plan where the unions took over management. I think it is unique since benefitslink picked up this blog piece possibly because it may be a precedent.
Posted by Anonymous on March 24, 2018 at 1:18 pm
Sweeney said Washington state and Ohio have done it. Not sure how it is working out.
Posted by Stephen Douglas on March 24, 2018 at 1:22 pm
In spite of often being accused of being a union shill, I have never, ever been strong on the union. I was a member while working because it was quasi-mandatory and not worth fighting. Also not opposed to the union. They have good and bad aspects, like most things. Everything in Moderation.
But, this is the dumbest idea I’ve seen yet. As a box of rocks.
Facebook couldn’t figure out if this was satire, but even this makes more sense than S5…
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2018/03/23/this-school-districts-plan-to-stop-shooters-a-bucket-of-rocks-for-students-to-throw-at-them/?utm_term=.5cbf1be62f79
Posted by El gaupo on March 24, 2018 at 1:36 pm
Op-f.org
Posted by Stephen Douglas on March 24, 2018 at 4:32 pm
Thanks, El gaupo,
(cute, I tried to convince TL some time ago that public workers ARE, in fact, special, because they are, on average, taller and more handsome. Studies have shown that taller and more attractive people earn more, on average.)
Anyway, I checked out a few articles on Ohio pensions. It appears there are active and retired police on the Board, it doesn’t appear they have the same power as S5, however, not sure, yet. Maybe after yard work I can look at it closer.
In answer to another’s question, how is that working out? About the same as public pensions all over the states, apparently. Possibly looking at cuts to COLAs and retiree healthcare.
Speaking of which, how is retiree healthcare affected by S5?
Posted by Tough Love on March 24, 2018 at 7:39 pm
Lol ……….. on some of your comments on other Blogs, your picture (the same one that’s on your Facebook page) pops up. You’re a 70 year old goat who looks more like an 80 year old goat …… but perhaps a tall goat.
Posted by Stephen Douglas on March 24, 2018 at 4:54 pm
If necessary, I could find the studies on greater pay for taller or more attractive employees.
I shamelessly admit the claim that public employees are taller and more attractive is from anecdotal evidence only. Maybe I just hang out with the right crowd.
Posted by El gaupo on March 24, 2018 at 7:06 pm
Well put in the tall and handsome group. As I once told TL, don’t hate me cause I’m beautiful. Lol. Just kidding TL. Happy married.
Retirement health benefits are not affected by the impending passage of S5.
Posted by El gaupo on March 24, 2018 at 1:37 pm
Some guys are over the top w union demands. But on a whole, if it wasn’t for the Pba, my standard of living would be considerably less.
Posted by Tough Love on March 24, 2018 at 1:49 pm
As it rightfully SHOULD HAVE BEEN* with respect to your pension and retiree healthcare.
* and may yet still be …… remember, the “math” ALWAYS governs in the endgame.
Posted by El gaupo on March 24, 2018 at 2:18 pm
That’s your opinion fool. Thanks for sharing. I’ll take the PBA any day over the shit salaries my brothers and sisters make in south. The PBA has given me the security of not having some 3 year wonder council person tell me my pay is getting cut or worse fire me cause I gave his kid a ticket or his friend needs a job. I’ve enjoyed a solid middle class lifestyle(split level in the suburbs and been able to save for college for my kids). No vacation home here. No sports cars. Decent 457 balance. Wife went back to work a few years ago when kids got old enough. NONE of that would’ve happened if YOU were in charge. Lol.
But….hmm, something tells me you would feel just like me if you were employed with a police department.
Christie is history— along with the attitude that we are assholes. Sorry. The pba is going to be around a long time. . Despite what the Supreme Court will say. We are smart and very influential in state politics. There have been very few cops that have retired in the last 20 years that can’t pay their bills.
The “you guys are overpaid” crowd isn’t what it used to be. So, while you continue to bitch and moan I’ll keep serving for a few years than get my pension. Whether you like it or not. Id like to be centerfield for the Yankees. He makes good money. Oh well I’m happy with what I have and will continue to try to improve my lot in life. Thanks for playing.
Posted by Tough Love on March 24, 2018 at 2:56 pm
BS, Even the experienced Patrolman has a job with total compensation (when your pension & benefits are PROPERLY valued) over $200K annually when it should be about 2/3 of that amount ….. mostly taken out of your pension & benefits
Posted by rdquinn on March 24, 2018 at 2:32 pm
Actually if it weren’t for taxpayers may be more accurate. A fair compensation package is justified, but when the package has a value 44% greater than the private sector where most people have no pension or retiree health benefits, something is wrong.
Posted by El gaupo on March 24, 2018 at 3:10 pm
I don’t get social security though. So if I didn’t have a pension, I would have absolutely nothing except my 457 for my entire retirement. You would also have trouble keeping folks in police work for a long time if there was no pension. And I think a middle class lifestyle is a fair compensation package. I don’t like among the rich and famous. Lol. In fact, the younger guys on my force are a few years behind financially speaking than I was. I.e they are living st home an extra couple years. Renting longer etc.
Posted by Tough Love on March 24, 2018 at 4:10 pm
Quoting El guapo ………………. “I don’t get social security though….”
Accurate but still BS because (a) you don’t pay for it, and (b) for workers with your wage level, it’s a very bad return on investment.
And who said “no pension”? How about one EQUAL to what Private Sector taxpayers typically get.
Posted by Stephen Douglas on March 24, 2018 at 5:17 pm
and (c) the employer does not pay into it, which gives him 6.2 percent he can add toward the pension contribution. If SS is a “bad return” how much better is it for the employer to put that into a DB system? Win/win.
” How about one EQUAL to what Private Sector taxpayers typically get.”
Now, are you talking real EQUAL, or AVERAGE equal?
Got a problem with REAL equal?
Posted by Tough Love on March 24, 2018 at 10:46 pm
Yup Stephen, 6% out of the 45% in level annual Total Contributions it would take just to pay the Plan’s annual NORMAL COST if valued using the SAME assumptions & methodology required of Private Sector DB Plans.
Big Whoop !
And there is no win/win ………… the Taxpayers ALWAYS lose.
Posted by Stephen Douglas on March 24, 2018 at 4:20 pm
Who has a 44% greater package?
Posted by rdquinn on March 24, 2018 at 4:39 pm
Virtually all public employees. That includes cash compensation plus all benefits. The private sector rarely has a pension let along pension plus defined contribution. Retiree health benefits are unknown in the private sector let along the type NJ retirees have. Few private sector had Dick days they can cash out.
Posted by Stephen Douglas on March 24, 2018 at 4:49 pm
I hope you have a source for that
Posted by Stephen Douglas on March 25, 2018 at 3:23 pm
Apparently not.
TL, Which is it? 44% or 23%?
Big data doesn’t change. Has the public sector advantage been 44% through the last three governors?
Posted by rdquinn on March 26, 2018 at 10:13 am
This discussion can go forever. The fact is that the benefits offered state workers are generous by any comparison, so generous in some aspects as to be unaffordable to average taxpayers. When you are a public employee there are limits, the only source of funding is taxes. What you think you deserve and what you may deserve are secondary. It must be affordable. Total compensation is out of wack. It needs to be rebalanced even if it means higher cash pay which is more manageable than pension and health costs. Public unions have done their members no favors by grabbing all they can from politicians looking for votes. Sooner or later it all has to be paid for and NJ citizens are already taxed at the top of the Country.
Posted by Tough Love on March 25, 2018 at 3:58 pm
Stephen,
Depends on what is included in the comparison.
In NJ and CA the Public Sector Total Compensation ADVANTAGE starts at 23% of pay (per the AEI Study).
Add in the incremental value of the MUCH greater Public Sector job security and (again, per the AEI Study) the 23% in NJ and CA increase to 33%-34% of pay.
Adding in Safety workers (excluded from the AEI Study) would assuredly increase the 33%-34%, because of the much greater than average Safety-worker wages and much richer Safety-worker pensions. By how much, we don’t know.
And then there are some VERY VALUABLE items never mentioned. In NJ, there are very few “Plans”, and workers can move from a job in one Agency to a job in another Agency while continuing with the SAME pension as though there had been no change in employment for pension/benefit purposes. An example might be an Engineer that works for an Agency that designs bridges, to a one with a totally different function, such as reviewing building Plans. If a Private Sector Engineer changes jobs (equivalent to what I just described), even if the new employer had the identical DB Plan as his/her prior employer, the prior pension is FROZEN and will not be based on higher wages earned over all future years in the new job. That difference ALONE is a HUGE benefit to public Sector workers
Posted by Earth on March 25, 2018 at 4:52 pm
Earth to Mr. Douglas:
And don’t forget free parking. It’s a jungle out there.
Posted by Stephen Douglas on March 25, 2018 at 5:33 pm
Except in California, of course.
https://californiapolicycenter.org/californias-government-workers-make-twice-as-much-as-private-sector-workers/
Posted by Tough Love on March 25, 2018 at 8:56 pm
Stephen Douglas,
You asked me …………….. “TL, Which is it? 44% or 23% …. ?”
I replied with detail, suggesting that 44% is certainly possible. Rarely do you not immediately challenge what I say. The absence of that challenge is deafening. Seems that you have no response …………. that indeed in at least some (perhaps MANY) cases Public Sector Total Compensation may be 44%-of-pay greater than COMPARABLE Private Sector workers………. so you and (Earth) your alter-ego (who I still believe may be YOU posting under the handle “Earth”) quickly changed the subject.
I’ll repeat (below) my answer to your question. I’m sure the readers would love to read what you have to say.
——————————————-
Stephen,
Depends on what is included in the comparison.
In NJ and CA the Public Sector Total Compensation ADVANTAGE starts at 23% of pay (per the AEI Study).
Add in the incremental value of the MUCH greater Public Sector job security and (again, per the AEI Study) the 23% in NJ and CA increase to 33%-34% of pay.
Adding in Safety workers (excluded from the AEI Study) would assuredly increase the 33%-34%, because of the much greater than average Safety-worker wages and much richer Safety-worker pensions. By how much, we don’t know.
And then there are some VERY VALUABLE items never mentioned. In NJ, there are very few “Plans”, and workers can move from a job in one Agency to a job in another Agency while continuing with the SAME pension as though there had been no change in employment for pension/benefit purposes. An example might be an Engineer that works for an Agency that designs bridges, to a one with a totally different function, such as reviewing building Plans. If a Private Sector Engineer changes jobs (equivalent to what I just described), even if the new employer had the identical DB Plan as his/her prior employer, the prior pension is FROZEN and will not be based on higher wages earned over all future years in the new job. That difference ALONE is a HUGE benefit to public Sector workers
Posted by Stephen Douglas on March 26, 2018 at 12:23 am
Mr. Quinn was most likely referring to the BLS ECEC. The epitome of “apples and oranges” comparisons. Above I linked an Ed Ring article stating California public workers earn twice what private workers do.
100 percent more is bulls hit.
44 percent more is bulls hit.
23 percent more is bulls hit.
No matter how you mangle those assumed numbers.
Rauh…
“I am, however, skeptical that comparability of individual and job characteristics in the public and private sector has been or really can ever be achieved.”
Bulls hit, however, is eternal.
Posted by Earth, (allegedly) on March 26, 2018 at 12:27 am
Earth to Mr. Douglas:
Apparently Mr. Love doesn’t understand satire.
Or logic.
Posted by Tough Love on March 26, 2018 at 12:39 am
A 44%-of-pay Public Sector Total Compensation ADVANTAGE certainly seems plausible when your START with a 23%-of-pay advanatge in NJ and CA, add another 10% to11% (per the AEI Study) for the incremental value of greater Public Sector job security, add MORE resulting from the exclusion of Safety workers in the AEI study, and than add more again to reflect the fact that unlike the treatment of Private Sector Workers who move from job to job, when Public Sector workers do that, their pensions don’t get “frozen” which each move starting the pension over from scratch.
Posted by Stephen Douglas AKA Moderation Personified on March 26, 2018 at 12:46 am
GAO-12-564, Federal Workers: Results of Studies on Federal Pay Varied Due to Differing Methodologies
• On average, federal workers’ pay was higher than private
sector workers’ pay by an unexplained 14%.
• On average, federal workers’ pay was higher than private
sector workers’ pay by an unexplained 2%.
• On average, federal workers’ pay was higher than private
sector workers’ pay by an absolute amount of 58%.
• On average, federal workers’ pay was lower than nonfederal
(private, state, and local) workers’ pay by an unexplained
24%.
• On average, federal workers’ pay was higher than private
sector workers’ pay by an unexplained 20% across the
occupations studied.
• On average, federal workers’ pay was higher than private
sector workers’ pay by an unexplained 22%.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.gao.gov/assets/600/591817.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi356TRk4naAhUr_IMKHc0jCDcQFjAAegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw1MSMfSgGXl2OgZlgc1CPm0
More bulls hit.
And you fell for it.
Posted by Tough Love on March 26, 2018 at 1:20 am
Stephen,
What a hoot, when you have NO ANSWER …. you re-direct the focus to something else, this time ………… . “FEDERAL” worker pay studies
Sorry turkey, were talking about the LUDICROUSLY Excessive State & Local Public Sector compensation vs that granted the Taxpayers who pay for it.
Posted by Stephen Douglas on March 26, 2018 at 1:50 am
Rauh…
“I am, however, skeptical that comparability of individual and job characteristics in the public and private sector has been or really can ever be achieved.”
Are you suggesting that determining state and local compensation is somehow more accurate than federal? When we already have three wildly different averages for state workers?
Posted by Stephen Douglas on March 24, 2018 at 4:48 pm
On March, 18, John quoted FDRs famous letter. Like most who use that quote, he did not quote the paragraph directly preceding…
“The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.”
Some say there is no need for public unions because they are protected by civil service rules. It may, or may not surprise you to know there are at least two times where I might have been fired if not for union assistance. Verbal threats were made. I tried my best to get it in writing. Both cases were resolved in my favor, one involving a change in safety rules to conform to OSHA standards.
Government management doesn’t have much respect for many of the work rules and will try to sidestep them whenever convenient.
Viva la Union!
Posted by Tough Love on March 24, 2018 at 5:21 pm
Public Sector Unions are a CANCER inflicted upon Civilized Society.
Posted by Stephen Douglas on March 24, 2018 at 5:29 pm
déjà pu
Posted by El gaupo on March 24, 2018 at 7:09 pm
Rdquinn. I really hope that was a typo in your earlier post. 🤣
Posted by Tough Love on March 24, 2018 at 7:32 pm
El gaupo, I noticed that as well ………. pretty funny.
Posted by What the PFRS Board Is Getting | Burypensions Blog on March 27, 2018 at 11:03 pm
[…] can expect the asset transfer to be at the end of the year but the dollar amount will not be the $25.4 billion in the actuarial reports. Considering the right-sizing of the numbers that the state is likely to […]
Posted by Murphy (sounds like More Free) Consequences | Burypensions Blog on May 2, 2018 at 9:18 pm
[…] 10 when he vetoes the attempt by the unions to control the PFRS, not on account of the cost but because an examination of system assets for purposes of allocation […]
Posted by NJ PFRS Asset Move | Burypensions Blog on June 15, 2021 at 2:59 pm
[…] New Jersey Police and Firemen’s Retirement System (PFRS) was supposed to get their assets to invest three years ago but the process seems only to be starting now with an RFQ for Class Counsel that the PFRS board […]
Posted by NJ PFRS Asset Move – Actuarial News on June 15, 2021 at 6:23 pm
[…] New Jersey Police and Firemen’s Retirement System (PFRS) was supposed to get their assets to invest three years ago but the process seems only to be starting now with an RFQ for Class Counsel that the PFRS board […]