On the Record with New Jersey Senate President Steve Sweeney and we find out that there is some sort of committee out there that is going to release some sort of report this summer with some really big reccomendations:
.
.
First off…
Throwing “money in it” IS the solution to the pension problem. Start with $15 billion this year with increases for inflation and the pension is solid under the current benefit structure. That is obviously not happening.
What I see as those big recommendations:
- Defined Contribution plan for new hires
- Mitshubishi Mirage health care benefits (as long as it doesn’t hurt Norcross too much)
- Move to career average salaries in benefit formula and higher retirement ages that apply to current participants under a certain age with less than a certain amount of service (don’t want to hurt the union reps too much)
Burypensions Blog 
Posted by State Aid Guy on May 19, 2018 at 8:58 pm
“Move to career average salaries in benefit formula and higher retirement ages that apply to current participants under a certain age with less than a certain amount of service (don’t want to hurt the union reps too much)”
This would be a violation of generational equity. Pension reform is necessary, but it should apply to current and future retirees.
Posted by larrylittlefield on May 21, 2018 at 3:30 pm
Everything done by Generation Greed for 30 years has been a violation of generational equity, at every level of government, in the private sector, and in many families.
Posted by Tough Love on May 21, 2018 at 3:47 pm
True, but with the PUBLIC Sector being the MOST egregious ….. BYFAR.
Posted by larrylittlefield on May 21, 2018 at 7:28 pm
Average pay has gone down, generation by generation, in the private sector too — all at higher educational attainment levels.
And American business was pretty much pillaged for short term gains as well.
As for the family, perhaps two thirds of those in Generation Greed grew up in stable families. That generation provided stable families for perhaps one-third of its own offspring.
It’s everywhere. The good news is that the public sector has been run like a business. The bad news is the business is GE.
Posted by Retired police on May 19, 2018 at 9:32 pm
The disparity in pension benefits is vast. PFRS You have retirees making less than $22,000.00 a year and the majority making well over $65,000.00 a year. The men who were truly disabled from a on the job injury were forced to retire never reaching their full
potential. These Men cannot not work to supplement their income, all they can hope for is their COLA returned or a slow death. Surely the the other retirees understand the dilemma these man or in. They need help very badly, they gave their all and now it’s time we give them what they deserve.
Posted by Tough Love on May 19, 2018 at 9:44 pm
Tell you what…………. I’ll buy in for every Officer that would currently meet Social Security’s requirement for Disability Benefits.
I couldn’t give a crap if they cannot still do Police work*, but can work in some other field. Go to work ………… just like those in the Private Sector would have to do.
* like the NJ transit cop who stapled her “Trigger Finger” ……. for God’s sake !
Posted by PS Drone on May 21, 2018 at 5:06 pm
Wrong requirement. Too many deadbeats “meet” SS disability requirements. There is a whole cottage industry dealing with people who just do not feel like working anymore. We need a whole new criteria for LEO (and Fire) who think they deserve to be called disabled and receive early benefits. If I recall, 44% of retired Scranton (PA) LEO are “disabled”. I would hazard a guess the actual number is closer to 10%.
Posted by Tough Love on May 21, 2018 at 5:46 pm
I recall reading that 90% of NYC Firemen retire on a Disability Pension.
One of the biggest problems is the ASSUMPTION that any one of MANY diseases (e.g. Cancer) is work-related. Ridiculous. ………… just more money unjustly shoveled to workers whose Union is BRIBING the City’s Elected Officials with campaign contributions and Election support.
To various degrees, the same crap happens all over
Posted by larrylittlefield on May 21, 2018 at 7:29 pm
That crap happens a hell of a lot more in NYC than in NJ. More taxpayer underfunding in NJ.
Posted by Tough Love on May 21, 2018 at 7:33 pm
Quoting Larry ………………. ” More taxpayer underfunding in NJ.”
GOOD.
Taxpayers should use every method/option at their disposal to NOT fund pensions that are ROUTINELY 3 to 5 times greater than those typically granted Private Sector workers who retire with the SAME wages, at the SAME age, and with the SAME years of service.
Posted by NJ2AZ on May 19, 2018 at 9:34 pm
I’d bet my house at some point they will try everything they can to cut “excessive” pensions for existing retirees, in the interest of “fairness”.
Probably everything over a nice political-ad -worthy figure like $100k
Not that this will make a dent in the problem..
Posted by Tough Love on May 19, 2018 at 9:38 pm
John,
If your answer to throw ‘MONEY IN IT” is not just to fully fund pensions already accrued for PAST service, but so that FUTURE service accruals need not be reduced (for CURRENT workers) ………. your “thinking” is off-the-wall.
As much as I would like to fund ONLY HALF of Past service accruals (because of their undeniably excessive and unjustifiable generosity), I do realize how hard it would be to get out from under PAST service accruals. However, it is beyond absurd that taxpayers should suffer the financial consequences of allowing FUTURE service accruals to continue unabated on the same overly-generous basis.
Thank goodness the Sweeney recognizes the need for material STRUCTURAL reform.
Posted by dentssdunnigan on May 20, 2018 at 9:00 am
“A promise is better than no promise” …NJEA …But money is always better
Posted by geo8rge on May 20, 2018 at 10:13 am
“Defined Contribution plan for new hires” What happens when the number of new hires becomes large the new hires might strike for improved benefits or salary. This will also not change the amount to be paid out anytime soon. So this is probably a speculative saving that may not materialize.
” career average salaries” The assumption is the pension spikers are scamming the system. The problem is most pension spikers are problably the most productive workers, not scammers.
But the pension spikers just sit in their cars watching road repairs being done. If that is true stop requiring road and utility repairs to be watched over by police.
Also, IMO, one reason for bloated government payrolls is to keep people employed. The entire DMV could be privatized, but where would those people work?
Posted by Tough Love on May 20, 2018 at 10:44 am
Quoting ……….
“This will also not change the amount to be paid out anytime soon.”
That’s 1 of the 3 major elements, the 2-nd being the “value” of each year’s additional accruals. If the latter is materially reduced (e.g., by AT LEAST 50%*, and MORE for Police) NJ “might” be able to avoid complete insolvency………. while very slowly paying off PAST service unfunded liabilities.
The 3-rd, healthcare, should be unilaterally changed immediately ………. MUCH Lower taxpayers contributions toward ACTIVE-employer health coverage, and a rapid (5-year) phase-out of traditional Heath coverage for RETIREES. Instead a MODEST (max $500/year) HSA should be instituted for actives to accumulate funds for retire healthcare expenses.
* Reducing the value of FUTURE service liabilities by 50% is NOT as hard as it sounds. For example, reduce the formula factor by 25%, increase the minimum age at which unreduced retirement can begin by 5 years, implement true-value early retirement adjustment factors (of about 5% per-year-of-age for each year that you begin collecting at an earlier age), and NEVER included COLAs (noting that in Private Sector Corporate-sponsored DB Plans, it would be extraordinarily rare to include them).
———————————————
FWIW, I don’t believe Police overtime is included in “pensionable compensation” in NJ.
Posted by El gaupo on May 20, 2018 at 10:52 am
Police OT has never been included for pension purposes.
1) DC plan for new hires. Maybe that’s why they rushed to seperate Pfrs? Can’t see that happening first to cops and firemen. Prob in Pers positions. Perhaps longevity payments come back for those folks? As a way to keep people? Lots of those folks stay for the pension.
2) Pension spiking is a huge problem. Particularly in PERS where the system is abused by elected officials everywhere to turn part time career gigs into full time pensions. At least everyone in Pfrs is a full timer there whole career. And no those pension spikers are NOT the most productive people. Just the most connected.
3) pension spiking has zero to do with cops at road jobs. Zero. In fact as pointed out before, the towns make money on it and it is in is private sector union contracts(pseg) to have police protection at work zones.
4) nj mvc was privatized years ago. It worked out so well that the state took over again in 2009. Considering the sensitive documents that driver license should be, this should always be a state run agency.
Posted by El gaupo on May 20, 2018 at 10:56 am
Wrong dates. Mvc was privatized from 1995 to 2003. Then state room over.
Posted by Tough Love on May 20, 2018 at 12:45 pm
Quoting ……………. “Perhaps longevity payments come back for those folks”
Yeah, goosing your pensions EVEN MORE ???
—————————————————————————–
Quoting ……………… “Lots of those folks stay for the pension.”
There needs to be a mechanism to terminate the lazy, the incompetent, the non-productive, and the hangers-on ……….. WITHOUT proving some gross misconduct. That’s the way it works in the Private Sector and it should be no different in the Public Sector.
——————————————————————————
Quoting ………….. ” Pension spiking is a huge problem. Particularly in PERS where the system is abused by elected officials everywhere to turn part time career gigs into full time pensions. At least everyone in Pfrs is a full timer there whole career.”
Couldn’t agree more, but that is a COMPLETELY separate issue from the HUGE need to VERY materially reduce the now LUDICROUS value of future service accruals for all CURRENT NJ Police Officers.
—————————————————————————
Quoting (re Police “road work” details) …………. ” In fact as pointed out before, the towns make money on it”
Somehow I doubt that the towns “make” much after the cost of the wear-and-tear on the police car running in neutral for hours on end, And your $125/hr for mostly sitting there on your cell phone comes out of the towns residents in the form of unnecessarily higher utility bills. Clearly, in 90+% of the cases, a $20/hr flagman would be MORE than sufficient.
Posted by El gaupo on May 20, 2018 at 1:05 pm
TL. The towns do quite well thank you, on the road details. $20 per hour per car and 15% on top of my salary for administrative costs(sending out bills). Enough to buy 2 cars last year. You may not like it, but it is a fact that the town officials like the details as much as the cops do.
I meant longevity for folks on
the DC plan. I thought you would have figured that out. My point being, with a dc Match similiar to private sector, but saddled with poor raises every year(see last 2 cwa contracts) how do you propose retaining folks to make a career out of it? Would a mechanic really stay working for the town When he could make more dough working for a private garage, or run his own business. There is only so long that you can give folks 1% raises(cwa deal, despite the flak Murphy is taking and comes in the heels of zeros with lard ass in charge) before the leave—again no pensions, give me one reason why a fleet mechanic would stay for a career doing That. Longevity pay would prevent that.
For police anyhow, check out the internal affairs reporting requirements— to think that pd at least gets away w stuff is ridiculous. Look at the amount of stuff that gets documented in state databases. You would be amazed.
And I would almost guarantee you that it a wash with these details. My town didn’t have to tax our residents to buy 2 police cars at $40000 a pop. That more than makes up for any rate increase you had to pay.
Stop being so biased against public workers. Again, it may make you feel better to call names, cops on cell phones etc. that in no way affect pensions.
You are in a very vocal minority (as am I apparently by the number of people who comment here). Neither you nor I are going to change anything by posting here.
And btw, you can’t give me the satisfaction of saying my math was correct or near correct on ref to cola/raise of retirement age.
Posted by Tough Love on May 20, 2018 at 1:27 pm
Quoting …………….. “Enough to buy 2 cars last year.”
I believe you likely heard some dopey Town Official who stated such and are just repeating what you heard.
I’d guess that 2 new fully equipped Police cars cost no less that $75,000.
Back into the # of hours of such road-work details that would be required (in one year) for the town to NET $75,000……… AFTER paying for gas, appropriately factoring in the cost of wear-and-tear from running the car in neutral for so many hours, and the out-of-pock administrative salaries/benefits for the paperwork you identified.
As someone who works in finance and does analysis like this all the time, I can all but guarantee that NETTING $75,000 (in Bergen County size towns …. not NYC) on the terms you identified, is all but impossible
Posted by Stephen Douglas on May 20, 2018 at 2:04 pm
TL @ 1:27…
Quoting …………….. “Enough to buy 2 cars last year.”
I believe you likely heard some dopey Town Official who stated such and are just repeating what you heard.
LOL!!!
TL @ 12:45…
“And your $125/hr for mostly sitting there on your cell phone…”
Whither, pray thee, didst though “hear” that anyone gets $125/hr for work zone duty?
Posted by Tough Love on May 20, 2018 at 2:08 pm
Quoting El gaupo ……………..
“And btw, you can’t give me the satisfaction of saying my math was correct or near correct on ref to cola/raise of retirement age.”
Actually, I started to draft a response (in WORD to past here) but stopped when realizing how “incompletely-defined” your proposal was. You cannot make the cost-neutral minimum age-increase determination without ALL elements of the change fully defined……….. and you left far too many elements/considerations undefined.
To show what I mean, below was the beginning of my “draft-response” before realizing that you left too many things/considerations undetermined, and by going further (by defining all the considerations that you neglected to address) all I would be doing would by calculating a cost-neutral minimum retirement age increases to offset COLA-reinstatement, would be making that determination for a completely DIFFERENT proposal.
——————————————————
Quoting El Gaupo ……
“I see that age requirement allowing for cola as it was under the old system and providing for additional monies to be put into the system therefore allowing the taxpayer portion to be reduced. ”
I “cost out” things all the time, but step 1 is always to VERY specifically identify the change(s) to be “costed out”. If one was to contemplate reinstating COLAs in a COST-Neutral way by determining a LOWEST age at which pensions can begin (w/o actuarial reduction) here are a few questions/considerations that would need to be answered:
(1) Thoroughly estimate the CHANGE in retirement-choice behavior that would act to negate the otherwise-calculated savings from the implementation of a minimum age before one can begin collecting one’s pension.
(2) Given that many Police would choose to work for more years (rather than choosing to retire BEFORE they could actually begin collecting their pension), specific “protections” would need to be implemented to prevent late career promotions with the associated raises that would result in the pension growing even greater. Perhaps limiting increases in “pensionable compensation” to 2% per year.
(3) Is anything done differently for Officers who would need to have service greater than 30 years (for which no additional service credit is currently granted) before they reach the new minimum pension-collection age?
(4) There would be a need to implement a fail-safe to GUARANTEE cost neutrality. Would we include an AUTOMATICALLY-TRIGGERED reduction in future COLA increases if the anticipated savings are not realized.
Posted by El gaupo on May 20, 2018 at 3:20 pm
Think so? A two person detail for 8 hours in $320 for fuel and wear and tear. Those same details would bring in average of $240 for the admin charge. $560 for one day. We average at least 150 hours a piece. Usually more. A year. Per hour for me the town makes $35. Times 150 and that’s over $5200 just for me. Times that by 17 guys and it easily would cover 2 patrol vehicles every year.
“Some dopey town official…”
lol. Most aren’t dopey…Crooked maybe. Not dopey.
And really… you don’t think I can access our towns budget?
Lose the chip. I am not your enemy TL.
Posted by El gaupo on May 20, 2018 at 3:20 pm
Think so? A two person detail for 8 hours in $320 for fuel and wear and tear. Those same details would bring in average of $240 for the admin charge. $560 for one day. We average at least 150 hours a piece. Usually more. A year. Per hour for me the town makes $35. Times 150 and that’s over $5200 just for me. Times that by 17 guys and it easily would cover 2 patrol vehicles every year.
“Some dopey town official…”
lol. Most aren’t dopey…Crooked maybe. Not dopey.
And really… you don’t think I can access our towns budget?
Lose the chip. I am not your enemy TL.
Posted by Tough Love on May 20, 2018 at 4:02 pm
Well, if there are as many road-work details as you state, it certainly is possible. Of course is the Chief Of Police one of the 17, and does he do this too? And I didn’t see any reduction for gas and car wear and tear.
But the REAL takeaway is this …………….
At $125/hour for YOUR time, with 150 hours, that’s 150x$125=$18,750 unnecessary factored into our Utility rates just for you, and if all 17 Officers chalk-up the same hours it’s 17x $18,750=$318,750.
AND of course if $20 Flagmen were used INSTEAD of Police Officers, most of that $20/hr for use of the Police Cars would also disappear.
This ridiculous expense of UNNECESSARILY paying Police Officers to be there is absurd.
Posted by Stephen Douglas on May 20, 2018 at 6:09 pm
Holy crap! More internet math.
“$125/hour” is, at best, an extreme outlier, assuming the officer works “for an hour or two”, but is paid for four. Now ye have multiplied that by the hypothetical 150 hours as if _every_ shift is one or two hours. Your “assumptions” are incredible. As in, literally, not credible.
Posted by Tough Love on May 20, 2018 at 7:06 pm
Yes Stephen, everything that doesn’t support your desire for …… more, more, and more for Public Sector workers and with a Taxpayer-be-damned attitude ………… is an “outlier”.
Well, one thing we know for sure is that you were a light-bulb-changer, by your your statement. Not that there is anything wrong with honest/hard work in a job that requires little skills …….. it’s just that Taxpayers should pay no MORE than what those skills would demand in the Private Sector.
From what you have told us, clearly you were overpaid and very materially over-pensioned and over-benefited.
Posted by Tough Love on May 20, 2018 at 7:10 pm
Quoting Stephen Douglas …………..
“Now ye have multiplied that by the hypothetical 150 hours as if _every_ shift is one or two hours. ”
No, I did NOT make that assumption.
So it seems your reading comprehension skills are at about the same level as the skills needed to change a light bulb.
Posted by Stephen Douglas on May 20, 2018 at 7:27 pm
It is an outlier because $125/hr was grade A bullshit right from the start. You “heard” what you wanted to hear, then multiplied the error.
Posted by Tough Love on May 20, 2018 at 8:42 pm
Interesting Stephen how you so quickly followed up on on the $125/hr comment, but NOTHING from YOU admitting that you were flat out WRONG in stating in your other comment that I assumed that the road-work shifts were only 1 or 2 hours ?
How about an occasional … Ooophs, I misstated that ?
—————————————————————-
And by the way……………. reread the above comments. I never stated that the $125/hr was NOT an Outlier, only that I was was told that from a Town Councilman.
And is that “bullshit” (about something that I did not say) directed to me …………. so now either I’m a liar or my hearing is bad ?
Your just reinforcing your reading-comprehension problem. Perhaps if you did something more mentally challenging for a living, you wouldn’t be having that problem.
Posted by Stephen Douglas on May 20, 2018 at 9:52 pm
Brother Love @ 8:42pm
Ooophs, you misstated that.
You have very consistently quoted that $125/hr BS as if it were fact. Ye “was was told that from a Town Councilman”, and never bothered to fact check it, because it conveniently fit your preconceived bias.
There ain’t no way on this green Earth that a patrolman can make $125/hr. _unless_ he works a short shift and is paid for the four hour minimum.
Brother Love @ 7:10 pm
“No, I did NOT make that assumption.” ?
“…At $125/hour for YOUR time, with 150 hours, that’s 150x$125=$18,750…”
Since the only way to make $125/hr is by working short shift, you absolutely made that assumption, whether you realized it or not.. and multiplied your error
No, it was I who said $125 is an outlier. An extreme outlier. At best. And it was you who still came up with $18,750.
(“Your” should be “You’re”.)
Posted by Tough Love on May 20, 2018 at 11:52 pm
Quoting Stephen Douglas,
“You have very consistently quoted that $125/hr BS as if it were fact. Ye “was was told that from a Town Councilman”, and never bothered to fact check it, because it conveniently fit your preconceived bias.”
I have indeed quoted what I was told by a Town Councilman … $125/hr.
Did that Councilman BS me ?
I have no reason to believe so.
——————————————————-
P.S., If you weren’t so math-challenged, you could have backed into El gaupo’s hourly rate (on “road details”) from the information he provided in the above comments.
In El gaupo’s above comment time-stamped May 20, 2018 at 1:05 pm, he stated:
“The towns do quite well thank you, on the road details. $20 per hour per car and 15% on top of my salary for administrative costs(sending out bills).”
And in his above comment time-stamped May 20, 2018 at 3:20 pm, he stated:
“Per hour for me the town makes $35.”
That means that his Town’s Total hourly earnings of $35 (car+override) – $20 (for the car) = $15 (for the override).
Dividing that $15 by the 15% factor give $100 as his hourly rate (for Road-work).
I don’t know why his town pays $100/hour (also with a 4 hour minimum per his comment below time-stamped May 20, 2018 at 3:21 pm) but it’s not that far off the $125 that I was told that my town pays, and I’m sure you would also consider $100/hr (with a 4 hour minimum) an “outlier”
*****************************************************************
But keep trying Stephen, EVENTUALLY you may find a substantive point that holds out under scrutiny.
Posted by Stephen Douglas on May 21, 2018 at 12:28 am
El gaupo is the very definition of “outlier”. Nothing wrong with that. If the city wants to pay, but he is not typical, average, median, or mean. No matter how you twist and shout, $125/hr is BS for him, and even more so for other NJ police.
I don’t know why you backed into his pay, with all the info. He said several times he makes $150k a year. That’s $72/hr or $108 for OT. More or less. Doesn’t change the fact that most cops earn _much_ less than $125/hr, and you were perfectly contented to regurgitate $125 as if it were gospel.
Go ahead, pretend you’re not biased. You crack me up.
Posted by Earth on May 21, 2018 at 12:53 am
Earth to Douglas:
He’s got you there, Doug. $100 an hour is “not that far off the $125 that I was told that my town pays.”
Ergo “150x$125=$18,750” is not far off 150x$100=$15,000
Or is it?
Posted by Tough Love on May 21, 2018 at 1:09 am
Yes STEPHEN itr’s not, and perhaps you can convince your alter ego EARTH of that as well ……………….. lol
Posted by Tough Love on May 21, 2018 at 1:15 am
Quoting Stephen Douglas …………….
“I don’t know why you backed into his pay, with all the info. He said several times he makes $150k a year. That’s $72/hr or $108 for OT. ”
Wow, ANOTHER reading comprehension problem.
I’ll clue you in ……….. what he is paid by contract for “road work” details has NOTHING to do with his rate of regular or OT pay from the town that employs him.
But, as I stated earlier …………
“But keep trying Stephen, EVENTUALLY you may find a substantive point that holds out under scrutiny.”
Posted by geo8rge on May 21, 2018 at 10:55 am
Thanks for the info on OT and police. It is not clear if the spikers are the most productive or most abusive workers. That is also a problem in the private sector with mass layoffs. Often it is impossible to figure out exactly which workers are key. I would not be surprised if the pension spikers are the key people who end up doing everything because they are willing and able. But given the lack of accountability in government you can’t rule out abuse.
Posted by geo8rge on May 21, 2018 at 11:05 am
“nj mvc was privatized years ago.” Why can’t Insurers and credit card companies issue drivers licenses and register vehicles? Actually auto makers should be able to manage the title of the vehicles they sell. Fed gov has created the Trusted Traveler card, why can’t you hand that to the police at a traffic stop, it is better ID than a NJ license. An enhanced credit card would also be ID. I also don’t get why local garages, especially dealers, cannot update your window inspection sticker. So there are now many alternatives to the DMV that could be used. NJ is probably going to have to throw many government functions overboard like it or not.
Posted by Tough Love on May 21, 2018 at 11:42 am
Quoting ………………… “NJ is probably going to have to throw many government functions overboard like it or not.”
Outsourcing would be a VERY positive financial step for NJ (and all of it’s little towns).
Get rid of an “employee” and you not only get rid of his/her “wages”, but there is ZERO growth in his/her pensions or benefits.
Posted by Tough Love on May 20, 2018 at 2:11 pm
Quoting Stephen Douglas ………….
“Whither, pray thee, didst though “hear” that anyone gets $125/hr for work zone duty?”
I was told that by one of my Town’s Councilman. And, that there is a minimum of 4 hours, so if you’re only needed for an hour or two, your STILL get paid for 4 hours.
I guess California (you home State) doesn’t have a lock on “stupidity”.
Posted by El gaupo on May 20, 2018 at 3:21 pm
Yep. 4 hr minimum.
Posted by Stephen Douglas on May 20, 2018 at 3:55 pm
That’s a stretch. Unless the “average” call was for “for an hour or two”.
Posted by Earth on May 20, 2018 at 5:50 pm
Earth to Brother Love:
You have a $125 bur under your saddle. Most cops won’t make anywhere near that.
You don’t know Jack about work zone traffic control.
You are your own worst enemy.
Always remember, all things in moderation. Moderation can protect, even from your own worst enemy.
Posted by El gaupo on May 20, 2018 at 6:42 pm
Amen Earth. As Peter griffin likes to sag to his wife—-TL, you don’t know nothing, (pause) bout anything. 😀
Eleven ways to Sunday about the details.
Can’t rebut the argument so its “some dopey town official..”. As if I can’t add. She sure is no expert on workzone safety. If she did she can tell me what the ATBAT acronym stands for. Lol. And her response to my cola argument is technical crap cause she knows I’m right. 1) still need 55 years old if more than 30 years on. 2) tier 2 and 3 officers pension is capped at SS amount (and no I’m not gonna give that up TL).
3) what Fail safe would you need? The savings are quite substantial. The only ones unhappy are the guys who have to work couple more years. Oh well, something has to give. If it make you feel better out in a failsafe.
4). And no police chiefs do not do these details. Only LT and below. (Sgt and patrol)
Posted by Tough Love on May 20, 2018 at 8:55 pm
Quoting ………….. “And her response to my cola argument is technical crap cause she knows I’m right.”
As you said earlier ……………… lol
——————————————————
Quoting ………. “3) what Fail safe would you need? The savings are quite substantial. The only ones unhappy are the guys who have to work couple more years. Oh well, something has to give. If it make you feel better out in a fail-safe.”
Oh please, NJ legislative history of pensions/benefits is replete with changes for which we Taxpayers were assured that the change is “cost-neutral” or very minimal …………….. where we only we later discover the true MUCH HIGHER cost of the change.
A fail-safe is the needed taxpayer GUARANTEE that if the cost of the change is NOT “neutral”, that we (the Taxpayers) WILL recover the shortfall by automatically-imposed additional changes.
Go a problem with the actually having to LIVE BY a promise of cost-neutrality ?
Posted by Tough Love on May 20, 2018 at 7:20 pm
Stephen,
The “burr under YOUR saddle” is that somehow you believe that Public Sector workers (taken as a group) are deserving of near equal (yes, only slightly less) in “wages”, but their VASTLY superior pensions and benefits ………. far overwhelming any amount in lower wages …….. is fine & dandy.
No it NOT OK.
Posted by Tough Love on May 20, 2018 at 7:22 pm
Because “Earth” is Stephen Douglas’s alter ego.
Posted by Tough Love on May 20, 2018 at 7:37 pm
I’d guess that the need for an alter ego to back-up comments under another handle, is more commonly found among the insecure and those of low intelligence.
Posted by Stephen Douglas on May 20, 2018 at 11:11 pm
Truth
Justice
and the American Way
Posted by Stephen Douglas on May 20, 2018 at 8:16 pm
No it NOT OK.
“Public Sector workers (taken as a group)”
http://www.businessinsider.com/tall-people-are-richer-and-successful-2015-9
http://www.businessinsider.com/beautiful-people-make-more-money-2014-11
It is common knowledge that public workers (taken as a group) are both taller and more attractive than private sector workers.
Don’t hate me cause I’m tall.
Posted by Stephen Douglas on May 20, 2018 at 9:04 pm
Butt seriously…
Whether in California or New Jersey, surely you have seen the effect of police presence on prevailing speed and on driver behavior in normal traffic.
The same thing happens in work zones. People slow down. They pay closer attention. They obey the law. Police presence saves lives and reduces property damage, both public and private.
“Flagman” don’t always cut it. California, for one, passed special laws protecting road maintenance and repair workers, both public and private. Without police presence, motorists speed, ignore flagmen and construction signs, and insult and threaten workers.
http://www.latimes.com/travel/la-trw-roadrage7jun7-story.html
The maintenance workers I have talked with are damned happy to see that black and white (or two) on site.
If the work is being done by private contractors on overtime, there’s a good chance some of the workers will be earning more than the police officer.
Posted by El gaupo on May 20, 2018 at 10:11 pm
He’s right TL. Motorists don’t give a shit what a flagman has to say if they are late for work. And drive like assholes where people are working in the street. Bad enough folks drive while texting.
Posted by geo8rge on May 21, 2018 at 10:49 am
“Motorists don’t give a shit what a flagman” I believe NY at CT did away with police on construction sites, including highways. Actually, NJ copying ‘best practices’ from NY and CT might make sense. Gov Phil ‘MBA’ Murphy should look into it.
Posted by Tough Love on May 21, 2018 at 12:10 am
We’re not talking about construction on an interstate highway, or even a 4 lane road (2 in each direction). Locally, in 90% of these road-work details, they are on 2 lane roads, very modest-traffic 4 lane County roads, and sometimes on cul-de-sacs or circles with almost ZERO traffic (the latter cases being beyond outrageous).
Sure, a few stupid drivers don’t respect anything but a Police Office, but in 2 decades, I have never seen a “flagman” (sometimes there when smaller Local contractors refuse the extortion-rate the Police charge) ignored.
—————————————
Quoting Stephen Douglas ………………
“If the work is being done by private contractors on overtime, there’s a good chance some of the workers will be earning more than the police officer.”
They sure won’t at $125/hr. AND, they’re actually “WORKING”.
Posted by Stephen Douglas on May 21, 2018 at 1:37 am
Weasel words.
“How about an occasional … Ooophs, I misstated that ?”
Your original claim was BS, even for some of the highest paid police in the state. For the average or lowest paid police, it’s not even in the ballpark. You know nothing about about how the system really works, how much it actually costs, or how effective it is. You are a one trick phony. And a boor.
Stop being a boor.
Posted by Earth on May 21, 2018 at 1:53 am
Earth to Douglas:
“One trick phony”
I like it! I’m stealing that one, pardner.
Posted by Tough Love on May 21, 2018 at 8:09 am
Stephen=Earth,
This “pony” (not phony) is running circles around you.
——————————————————————
But keep trying, EVENTUALLY you may find a substantive point that holds out under scrutiny.
Posted by El gaupo on May 21, 2018 at 2:23 pm
Running in circles is more like it.
Posted by MJ on May 21, 2018 at 3:18 pm
Why are you all talking about police details at construction sites…….talk about the possible changes coming and how it will help or hurt NJ…geeeeez
Posted by Tough Love on May 21, 2018 at 3:41 pm
I can’t wait to see Sweeney’s proposals. it’s about time someone is willing to confront the insatiably GREEDY & ARROGANT Public Sector Unions.
Gotta chuckle at the NJEA’s failed attempt to kick Sweeney out of Office. His revenge is coming.
Posted by El gaupo on May 21, 2018 at 9:25 pm
Thank you MJ. I think the police traffic detail topic is a little long in the tooth.
Posted by El gaupo on May 21, 2018 at 9:29 pm
And yes. The NJEA should have known better. Sweeney had that district locked up. Not nearly enough GOP there to unseat him. They doubled down when Sweeney showed an Ace. Dumb move. And it’ll cost them. They will be lumped in with Pers. The police and fire didn’t buck him and wound up getting their pensions separated.
Posted by Tough Love on May 21, 2018 at 9:56 pm
No El gaupo, remember the conditional veto ? And with his proposed changes* all the PFRS really wants will be beyond reach.
For you to get your COLAs back, the Stock Market would have to be on a tear for 5+ years. Chances of that happening …. ZERO.
* Those proposed change include:
(1) PFRS DOESN’T get control of the Plan’s assets
(2) the Plan’s newly hired Actuary CANNOT be an “Employee” of the new Trust
(3) the PFRS Trust MUST use the SAME interest rate as the Treasury Dep’t sets for the other Plans
Posted by El gaupo on May 22, 2018 at 2:21 pm
I think the cola will come back with a decade w the increase in retirement age.
Otherwise colligan wouldn’t have even mentioned it in the pba statement. I think he LOM wants it to be tied to another giveback. Retirement age being raised. We will see. The pba would get pressuring all he legislators to go back to 7 votes for cola if there wasn’t some “agreement” in the works. The math I showed you does not impact the towns or the police. I would gladly stay in for 2 or 3 more years to ensure that a cola would be reinstated. We will see. Old cops making less than $30 or $40 G w no SS will be a strong force to do this. So will disabled (truly disabled) cops/fire.
Posted by El gaupo on May 22, 2018 at 2:24 pm
If the math works it will fly. Some towns will not want to keep old guys around. They really don’t beleive it or not.
But if the pensions payment is reduced because they hang on for few more years(average age at retirement was 52.5) they will be on board too.
Younger cops will be fine staying till 55. Older cops will need to see the forest thru the trees. I think it is inevitable if someone presents the math that I did.
Posted by Tough Love on May 22, 2018 at 3:10 pm
El gaupo,
As I tried to explain to you in an earlier comment, your proposal to increase the retirement age by a few years as a cost-neutral trade-off to reinstate COLAs was woefully undefined in many ways.
AND your freeking out at my point that any agreement should include an automatically-imposed taxpayer “fail-safe” to GUARANTEE cost-neutrality via later COLA freeze/reduction if in fact “cost neutrality” does not materialize.
We all know the history of added Public Sector benefits* will little estimated cost ….. which turn out to be HUGE, or savings that never materialize. And please …….. Public Sector Unions/workers DON’T seek changes that have no incremental cost to taxpayers, because that just means there are as many losers as winners WITHIN their own ranks.
——————————————————–
* while not applicable in NJ, Safety worker DROP Plans are always presented as being of little or no cost, yet and ALWAYS wind up costing Taxpayers a fortune.
At every opportunity to improve pensions/benefits a Public Sector Union will lie & cheat taxpayers.
Posted by NJ Acting Governor Has a Plan | Burypensions Blog on July 29, 2018 at 12:13 pm
[…] last Wednesday for his state’s highest in the nation (and rising) taxes: . . The reforms (as mentioned in May) will be rolling out this coming week. What do you […]
Posted by Anonymous on June 14, 2019 at 2:47 am
How about giving cops and foremen a 20 year
50 percent pension option with no health benefits like they used too
Saves town money getting high salary employees out and saves the state money paying health benefits
Maybe stop making these public workers work 30 years