Spiking Employers

New Jersey has had a spike in reported covid-19 infections, long lines outside of walk-in clinics, and a general feeling that it will only get worse. All after schools reopened and restrictions on restaurants eased.

So who is getting blamed for this spike?

The list of what employers now need to do is long but let’s examine that first part.

Does every employer in the state (which includes me) now need to test every employee every day for covid-19 or is asking ‘how do you feel’ enough? Would this apply to clients entering a workplace? Will every Costco shopper then need to be tested or is it OK if they infect workers as long as workers don’t infect each other?

Employers have generally been careful with this virus for seven months trying to keep their employees safe while looking to run a profitable business. The only employer to be blamed for this spike is the one making up these inane, impractical, and non-enforceable rules.

25 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by Tough Love on October 28, 2020 at 1:56 pm

    We need a national MANDATORY mask-wearing law, enforceable by a $500 fine for the 1-st offense, doubling with each subsequent offense.

    Too bad the pig-headed macho-man in the white house has more self-serving priorities than the health of American’s citizens.

    Reply

  2. Posted by geo8rge on October 28, 2020 at 2:55 pm

    “We need a national MANDATORY mask-wearing law, ”

    Is mask wearing one of the enumerated powers? Otherwise, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_powers_(United_States)

    Will this apply to hotels and lodgings? Will guests be required to wear masks ect. Will hallways have to be constantly cleaned? How about rental apartments?

    This all seems very poorly thought out, and will end up being one more reason not to do business in NJ.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on October 28, 2020 at 3:59 pm

      I think you get my “point” ………… the I-don’t-want-to-wear-a-mask shit ……… simply because I support Trump, has got to end.

      Reply

  3. Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, boasted in April that the president was “getting the country back from the doctors” who were trying to give him pandemic advice, reporter Bob Woodward recounted in his book “Rage.” “Trump’s now back in charge,” Kushner said on audio recordings obtained by CNN.

    Since day one, Trump has favored herd immunity. Everything he does verifies this. Why not just come out and say it, then take the blame when you are proved wrong?

    Herd insanity.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on October 28, 2020 at 4:02 pm

      WHEN (not IF) Trump loses re-election and is brought up on criminal charges for his MANY crimes, I’ll bet that his attorney will try to exclude from the Jury those who had relatives who died from COVID-19.

      Reply

  4. Posted by dentss dunnigan on October 28, 2020 at 4:12 pm

    Trump in a landslide …..

    Reply

  5. Posted by MJF on October 28, 2020 at 4:12 pm

    Cases do not matter, it is the numbers of deaths . It is in areas that are impoverished where poor diet and poor general health are prevalent where body counts will rise. These lockdowns are borderline sociopathic, people have had enough of this. Fix your goddam poverty problem and leave my business alone shitface.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on October 28, 2020 at 4:46 pm

      Murphy CAN’T fix the poverty problem because he’s too beholden to NJ Public Sector Unions, and won’t shut down the huge/unjustified sums funneled to the Unions/workers/retirees.

      E.G…………. END all Public Sector retiree healthcare subsidies immediately. Such subsidies (other than a few hundred dollars into a RHSA Plan) are all but unheard of as an employer-sponsored benefit in the PRIVATE Sector today. Hence there is ZERO justification for Private Sector Taxpayers to pay for this for PUBLIC Sector workers.

      INSTEAD, he borrows almost $5 Billion to fund OPERATING (not CAPITAL) expenses. It’s insane.

      Reply

      • Posted by MJF on October 28, 2020 at 5:13 pm

        Okay I get it but stop picking on LEOs if possible. Look, they bear the brunt of this. It isn’t funny dealing with a domestic where a child gets hurt, it wears on you. I can tell you from my military days it isn’t fun fun to kill people, I’m lucky to get get two hours of sleep every night. There are plenty of worthless shit brained school employees like superintendents getting 30k a month pensions that could be vaporized right now. They get monstrous pensions for doing clerical work. So why not leave E alone and focus on the real pension problem. Actually the .gov fiscal problem, trillions of debt.

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on October 28, 2020 at 9:04 pm

          MJF,

          Okay, I get that too.

          It’s not the Public Sector pensions and benefits of just Police. Public Sector pensions and benefits are excessive, and multiples greater in value than those granted comparable Private Sector workers (and with that excess in value of pension & benefits FAR exceeding any lower “wages”) for non-safety as well as safety (police, corrections, fire) workers.

          But ………. being MUCH MUCH more generous (due to BOTH richer formulas, and younger retirement ages) Safety work pensions (and benefits) are BY FAR the most costly and most egregious.

          To fully fund current NJ Police pensions over their working careers (and using the SAME assumptions & methodology required by the US gov’t in the valuation of Private Sector DB pensions…. and also similar to what Moody’s uses) requires a level annual taxpayer contribution about 10 TIMES (yes 10 TIMES !) the 4%-of-pay (into a 401K Plan) that is all most Private Sector workers get today in retirement security contributions from their employers.

          That patently outrageous.
          ——————————————–
          Quoting …………. “There are plenty of worthless shit brained school employees like superintendents getting 30k a month pensions”\

          In NJ ? I seriously doubt that. Prove that if so.with names.

          Reply

          • Posted by MJF on October 29, 2020 at 7:15 am

            NJ I’m not sure about. I did a search and found the top pension payout was $34k per month. Teachers seemed to be around $16k a month. A tidy sum. You think they actually put that much into it? Impossible, they get their real contributions back within a year and send out tax bills for the next 30.
            You can search data bases in Illinois and California to see the real monsters. The top is $76k per month, $30k is not uncommon
            But to be fair they don’t hold a candle to private corporate management who decimate their companies ( GE and Boeing anyone) destroy their employees lives and stuff billions into their little piggy banks, Too bad the former employees can’t just send out tax bills to replace the retirement funds that were lost. 401k’s don’t work when sick animals are running them. So DB’s levied to a taxpayer are the way to go. The only way. So if you can’t get a DB then look after yourself and forget being in any plan.

            Reply

          • Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog! 🐶🐶🐶🦴🦴🦴 on October 29, 2020 at 7:00 pm

            To fully fund current NJ Police pensions over their working careers (and using the SAME assumptions & methodology required by the US gov’t in the valuation of Private Sector DB pensions…. and also similar to what Moody’s uses) requires a level annual taxpayer contribution about 10 TIMES (yes 10 TIMES !) the 4%-of-pay (into a 401K Plan) that is all most Private Sector workers get today
            Bullshit. A “Public Safety” pension similar to the 3%@50 in Krazee KA requires a contribution that is at LEAST 100% of the base salary. Probably closer to 150% of base salary. These GED Wonders are NOT getting paid that much the first 10 years of their 30 year “careers”. They are making a tiny fraction of their final, or highest, years salary. A tiny fraction. These pensions are 90% based on the HIGHEST years salary at the age of 50, WITH COLA’S, meaning they go on for 30 years on average, but possibly even 50 years. They will be “retired” for MORE years than they actually WORKED. Some will have 20+ years ABOVE what they actually worked if they live to age 100 (not common but doe s indeed happen). If you think a 40% of base salary contribution will cover those multi MILLION dollar payouts then you need to go back and re-do 3rd grade math.

            Reply

          • Posted by Tough Love on October 29, 2020 at 8:00 pm

            Rex,

            Police pensions are indeed MORE costly in Ca than in NJ because the formula-factor (per year of service) is greater and they included Post-retirement COLA increases.

            Your cost estimates (as a %-of-pay) are too high. I already addressed this exact question (in a comment to Stephen Douglas in April) with actual cost calculations. I have pasted it below:
            —————————————–
            To answer your question (even though not addressed to me), I used Ed Ring’s “Pension Analysis Tool For Everyone” (a spreadsheet that he made available online some years back) to answer your question.
            Assumptions:
            Age at hire = 22
            Service years= 30, hence retires at age 52
            Dies after 30 years in retirement at age 82 (reasonable wrt life expectancy)
            Wages pattern assumes 5% total growth per year from all sources
            Pension formula 3% per year of service
            COLAs = 2% compounded during pension payout
            :——————————————————————-
            With interest rate assumptions of 3.0%, 3.5%, 4.0%, 4.5%, and 5%, the resultant LEVEL ANNUAL TOTAL (ER + EE) contribution as a %-of-pay necessary to exhaust accumulated funds at the time of death are respectively 94.0%, 81.6%,
            70.9%, 61.6%, and 53.5%.

            Above is for NORMAL COST ONLY.

            Reply

          • Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog! 🐶🐶🐶🦴🦴🦴 on October 30, 2020 at 6:14 pm

            Your cost estimates (as a %-of-pay) are too high. I already addressed this exact question (in a comment to Stephen Douglas in April) with actual cost calculations. I have pasted it below:
            —————————————–
            To answer your question (even though not addressed to me), I used Ed Ring’s “Pension Analysis Tool For Everyone”

            Ed’s “Pension Analysis Tool” is full of shit. Sorry TL, Ed is flat out wrong.

            Reply

          • Posted by Tough Love on October 30, 2020 at 10:24 pm

            Rex,

            Ed Ring’s “Pension Analysis Tool For Everyone” Is simply an EXCEL spread sheet …. showing ALL of the formulas, and allowing the user to input the assumptions that are NECESSARY to do the calculations (e.g., annual wages increase rate, age at hire, age at death, COLA %, service years to retirement, pension formula-factor, etc.).

            Other than some “timing” issues (are cash flows at the beginning, midpoint, or end of year), there are no errors in his spreadsheet. I have duplicated his results via a spreadsheet that I developed on my own.

            I am linking it below so you can take another look, and if qualified to review it for accuracy, you will do so. In essence, I giving you a chance to act like a big boy and not shoot your mouth off without even looking at it …. as you clearly did above.

            And if AFTER reviewing it, you still believe it to have error(s), please state EXACTLY what you believe is wrong.

            —————————-

            https://californiapolicycenter.org/a-pension-analysis-tool-for-everyone/

            The above webpage is to an ARTICLE, and the LINK to the spreadsheet can be found in BLUE in the 3-rd paragraph in that article. All you need to use is the first tab in the workbook. You will also need to hit “Enable Editing” at the top of the page to be able to enter your chosen assumptions (in the yellow-highlighted cells).

            FWIW, this spreadsheet is an abbreviated way to estimate the funding requirements for a clearly defined DB pension. Actually employed actuarial methods are considerably more complicated ….. but wouldn’t result in materially different results (as long as the assumptions are well chosen, for example, the age at death).

            Reply

        • A one-trick-phony beating a dead horse.

          Reply

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: