No Time for Mulitemployer Pension Reform

Senator Chuck Grassley took to the senate floor today to announce:

Full speech:

53 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by NJ2AZ on December 17, 2020 at 10:20 pm

    good grief how is that dood, 150??

    he should be worried about HIM running out of time

    Reply

    • Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog! 🐶🐶🐶🦴🦴🦴 on December 17, 2020 at 11:57 pm

      You got me wondering, so I looked it up. Grassly is the same age as Dianne Feinstein, 87. I swear, these ass clowns must LOVE power-tripping, the power they get as US Senators. WTF would ANYONE want to be working at age 87?? They are both a DECADE older than Sleepy Joe, and look at how much dementia he has. Yikes! I just cannot figure it out. And to top it off the US mortality rate for men is age 80, women age 82, so they are BOTH well past their expiration dates. Yet they are still working at their gov jobs…

      Reply

      • Posted by NJ2AZ on December 18, 2020 at 12:11 am

        yeah i too looked it up after i commented. 31 senators are age 70+.

        amazing NONE of them were done in by the ‘rona. got that federal healthcare i guess

        Reply

  2. Posted by Tough Love on December 18, 2020 at 12:04 am

    Good. Score one for the Taxpayers ………… for now.

    Reply

  3. Posted by Tough Love on December 18, 2020 at 12:32 am

    Off Topic ………………

    Sounds like Florida Gov. DeSantis should be criminally charged for gross negligence. How many MORE will die due his LACK of action?

    https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/17/us/desantis-covid-florida-invs/index.html

    Reply

  4. LOL

    Read the Katz study, it’s educational. And relatively painless.

    Reply

    • Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog! 🐶🐶🐶🦴🦴🦴 on December 18, 2020 at 8:41 pm

      Read the Katz study, it’s educational. And relatively painless.
      If only your insane comments were educational and painless, but nooooo, they are mind numbing and cause us all brain damage ….

      Reply

  5. Posted by MattJ on December 18, 2020 at 8:09 am

    The issue is not time; the issue is money. The only ‘reform’ the plan participants are interested in is more money, that would have to come from somewhere other than their employers, and no one is willing to provide it.

    Reply

  6. Speaking of which, here is another, more recent.

    7 percent

    “a “statistical marvel: the first time that the ONS has… arrived at a single number… to express the overall average differential in remuneration and benefits between the private and public sectors.”

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/articles/publicandprivatesectorearnings/2019

    2019.

    OK, it’s in England, but it is why, no matter how you twist and shout EQUAL, you are destined to be disappointed. The average public worker, with bonuses and pensions, earns 7 percent more than the private sector. I just scanned the article so far, but apparently healthcare is not a factor. Guess what is.
    A no brainer… the average is driven by the lower paid workers.

    Read Katz. It might tell you why.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on December 18, 2020 at 7:52 pm

      Hey Stephen, Just took a look at your linked Study………….

      Seems like there is no limit to your STRETCHING to find something/anything that supports your VERY OBVIOUS agenda of minimizing the Public Sector Total Compensation ADVANTAGE over their Private Sector counterparts.

      A Study based on UK compensation practices has NO RELATIONSHIP to what is going on here in America.

      Here is just a “taste”, quoting from your linked article ………

      ” Pensions are a large component of the remuneration package in the public sector where 89% of the workers contributed to a pension in 2019, compared with 75% in the private sector, notwithstanding the introduction of auto-enrolment in 2012.”

      While 89% is likely a bit LOW for PUBLIC Sector worker participation in DB pensions in America, the 79% for Private Sector worker participation in such Plans is completely absurd ……. with there likely being less than 10% of Private Sector workers still accruing service credits in DB pensions in America today.
      ————————-

      But PLEASE keep them coming ……….. as It allows me to keep responding what a phony, biased charlatan, and Public Sector Union “mouthpiece” you really are.

      —————————————–

      And P.S. I looked at your Katz study and my comment posted yesterday (when I first saw your reference to it) still stands (pasted below):

      “Holy cow …………………… you bitch when I reference Dr, Biggs study which goes back about 10 years, and then you reference a paper from 1991 that is based on data from the 1970’s and 1980’s ………… per it’s Abstract..”

      Reply

    • OK

      Maybe we read a different study. The study I read said the public sector had a 7 percent advantage over the private sector (including wages, bonuses, and pensions.

      But…

      “We  also found that the modelled average public sector earnings premium is mainly concentrated among low-skilled workers, while high-skilled employees in the public sector tend to have lower earnings than employees in the private sector employed in the knowledge-intensive services and primary sectors. 

      Sound familiar?

      I do not believe you will find popular or political will in the U.S. to reduce the pay and or benefits of the lower cohort of public workers.

      Also, the public sector average advantage of seven percent in 2019 is a decrease from an average ten percent in 2011. Perhaps in the U.K. big data does not move quite so slowly.

      “Bonuses are a large component of the remuneration package in the private sector. Pensions are a large component of the remuneration package in the public sector…”

      “Automatic enrolment – workplace pension duties. Under the Pensions Act 2008, every employer in the UK must put certain staff into a workplace pension scheme and contribute towards it.”

      I don’t understand your confusion. They compare total compensation, including pensions (and overtime and bonuses) and determined that lower level public workers earn more than the private sector, while the opposite is true for higher level workers. For the same reasons, I suspect, that occurs in the U.S. And Canada…

      https://globalnews.ca/news/4594385/more-money-private-or-public-sector/

      From recent studies, public workers have a 10.6 percent advantage. Guess what? Driven by the less educated, unskilled jobs.

      The more things change, the more they remain the same.

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on December 19, 2020 at 5:09 pm

        And what does anything about UK Public/Private Sector compensation relationships have to do with such relationships in America ?

        What next … comparisons with countries in Asia, Africa, Mars ?

        Reply

    • Yes, Katz is old, but it describes a time period (70s – 90s) when the income dispersion increased in the private sector, and the compression increased in the public. Its how we got here, partly. Just ignore it.

      Good luck getting “EQUAL” if all you have is “the damn unions did it!”

      Reply

    • There may be a light at the end of the tunnel…

      Posted by Tough Love on December 16, 2020 at 7:42 pm

      ” And to be “fair” …………. because proper Public/Private Sector compensation comparisons SHOULD BE made by comparing “Total Compensation” (wages + pensions + benefits), IF Public Sector wages are lower (higher) than those in comparable Private Sector jobs (after adjusting for hours worked in the year) Public Sector wages should be raised (reduced) to eliminate that differential.”

      A few short years ago, you would never have endorsed raising any public sector wages. The flaw of averages. Many public workers are underpaid, both in wages and in total compensation. I do believe I have been a good influence on you.

      And now we’re going international.

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on December 19, 2020 at 2:31 pm

        What a joke ………… you can’t find anything to back your VERY biased position …… so now your going International and referencing Studies based on 40 to 50 year old data.

        Sad, very sad.

        Reply

      • Katz is not just data, it is history.

        England is us… with socialized medicine. Lower public workers still “overpaid”?

        Canada public workers are “overpaid” by 10 percent (average). (Driven by lower skilled workers.) with socialized medicine.

        “In a post-financial crisis world, many US public pension plans are finally beginning to see a light at the end of the tunnel, but others are still at their wit’s end on how to crawl out of their obligatory holes.

        Canada, on the other hand, is doing just fine.

        With most of its pension plans at either fully funded status or close to it, Canadians have achieved a balance that the US has only seen in the corporate sector. In fact, some Canadian plans, such as the Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology ($8.3 billion) and the Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan ($59.9 billion) have become overfunded.”
        (Pension Pulse July 30, 2018)

        Apparently, excessive pensions are …not… the root of the problem.

        Reply

      • Andrew Biggs…
        “Put in simple terms, in exchange for near-term financial assistance, states would accept the same deal that federal law requires of private sector employers: Run your pensions right or don’t run them at all. If a state choses to continue running a defined benefit pension plan, it must do so using more prudent funding rules and more rapid repayment of unfunded liabilities.”

        Me…
        Do it right.

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on December 19, 2020 at 4:18 pm

          That’s correct, it’s “history” (40 to 50 year old history), and has NOTHING to do with the relationship between Public and Private Sector compensation today.

          Reply

        • You know this…

          The “public sector advantage” is an … average… skewed by the cohort of less educated, unskilled workers.

          You will eventually learn this…

          There is no public or political will to eliminate pensions and healthcare for that cohort and put them on the public dole for the sake of EQUALity.

          Not In the U.S. Not in the U.K. Not in Canada.

          Would be much more logical to just reform pensions.

          Reply

          • Posted by Tough Love on December 19, 2020 at 5:19 pm

            That what I advocate for ………. creating that “will”, via Taxpayer demands that our (now self-serving/Union-beholden) Elected Officials end the ABUSE of Private Sector Taxpayers by forcing them to pay for these ludicrously excessive pensions (AND benefits).

            Reply

          • You have heard this before. Ed Ring is one of the libertarian anti-union folks who actually endorses DB pensions over DC..

            “Impose a ceiling on pension benefits to retirees, based on the principle that pensions are supposed to ensure retirement security, not lavish affluence. Similarly, establish a floor for pension benefits to retirees, based on the principle that employees at the low end of the pay scale are nonetheless entitled to retire with an income sufficient to live with dignity. Assuming the pension ceiling is realistic, the savings from establishing a ceiling for benefits will greatly offset the costs of establishing a floor on benefits.”

            Take it from the attorney and give it to the clerk? That’s backwards, according to Biggs. When most pension reformers want to cut “excessive” pensions, they look at $100,000 plus pensions for lawyers, sheriffs, city managers, etc. They have no problem with Aunt Millie at the DMV.

            https://californiapolicycenter.org/defending-defined-benefits/

            My favorite story, haven’t gone there for a while. Michael Genest, California’s Finance Director under Arnold Governor Schwarzenegger, when he left office, formed Capitol Matrix Consulting. One of his first contracts was to compare public and private pay. He determined California workers were over paid by 30 percent. (In 2011)

            “Across the board public pensions and public total benefits, in other words salaries, pensions, health care all added together, is substantially better than in the private sector,” Genest told CBS 13.

            When asked about his own $127,000 pension (in 2011), Genest said ” We could have made more money in the private sector. We are making more money.”

            CalPERS response to the $100,000 club… “Less than two and a half percent of the employees, the retirees are in that category,” “Ninety-seven and a half percent of our employees, our retirees are receiving an average of about $2,300 a month”, or $27,600 a year in pension benefits.”*

            *Personal note, in 2011, $2,300/month was probably typical for full career DMV clerks of highway maintenance workers.

            Reply

          • “That what I advocate for ………. creating that “will”…”

            Good luck?

            The 23 percent advantage is misleading. Hopefully, someday, better data will be available. Meanwhile, a public sector attorney might hire a private sector attorney* to oppose your 23 percent claim. Using only Biggs data, he could demonstrate a 17 percent disadvantage.

            1. You need better data.

            2. You will need to convince the U.S., U.K., Canada, and most other OECD countries to reverse decades of public policy.

            *Because an attorney who represents himself has a fool for a client.

            Reply

          • Posted by Tough Love on December 19, 2020 at 8:10 pm

            Stephen,

            You have posted this from Ed Ring before:

            “Similarly, establish a floor for pension benefits to retirees, based on the principle that employees at the low end of the pay scale are nonetheless entitled to retire with an income sufficient to live with dignity. ”

            And my opinion has nit changed. I disagree with Mr. Ring (and you, clearly).

            There is no justification for Taxpayers (85% of whom work in the PRIVATE Sector) to guarantee …….. ” an income sufficient to live with dignity.” ………. to PUBLIC Sector workers “at the low end of the pay scale ” ………… when such guarantees do not extend equally to lower-income PRIVATE Sector Taxpayers.

            And certainly NOT with Private Sector Taxpayers who do NOT get those guaranteed being forced to pay for it.

            Reply

          • TL…
            “You have posted this from Ed Ring before:”

            Ergot… “You have heard this before.”

            And my opinion has nit changed. Either.

            Some people say, “There is no justification” For welfare, SNAP, EITC, etc., which, of course, Private Sector Taxpayers who do NOT get those are being forced to pay for.

            Public Policy Decision.
            ————————————
            You have also heard this before:

            Government as model employer…

            Government advocates (and legally requires) Equal Opportunity hiring for women and minorities. They lead by example.

            Government advocates, and requires, minimum wages. They lead by example.

            Government encourages (and subsidizes) employer supplied healthcare. They lead by example.

            Government encourages and subsidizes employer sponsored retirement plans. They lead by example.
            ——————————————
            Probably heard this before; Monique Morrissey…

            “The national pattern that public-sector workers with college degrees are compensated somewhat less and those without college degrees are compensated somewhat more than their private-sector counterparts holds true for Connecticut as well. The more compressed pay structure—with top and bottom pay closer together—reflects the fact that people are drawn to public service for nonpecuniary reasons and that government employers have an interest in setting a higher floor on compensation than private-sector employers, some of whom pay poverty-level wages and pass health care and other costs onto government programs. Because public-sector workers are more likely to have college degrees, public employers—and taxpayers—are getting a bargain while ensuring a decent standard of living for less educated workers.”

            Notice especially… “private-sector employers, some of whom pay poverty-level wages and pass health care and other costs onto government programs.”

            It is a Public Policy Decision.

            Reply

          • Posted by Tough Love on December 19, 2020 at 10:50 pm

            Quoting ………….

            “Government as model employer…”

            No, more like Government …… meaning Elected Officials ……… being more than happy to grant the Public Sector Unions wishes in exchange for BRIBES disguised as campaign contributions.

            Reply

  7. Posted by geo8rge on December 18, 2020 at 9:49 am

    Looks like they dumped Butch Lewis for Chris Allen.

    The death in January of 58-year-old Chris Allen, who spearheaded Senate Finance’s efforts on multiemployer legislation, complicated the situation. Allen’s passing has slowed efforts on the Senate side, where a replacement is being sought who can engender the high level of trust that both business and labor officials say Allen brought to the task.

    https://www.rollcall.com/2020/02/28/retirees-worst-nightmare-federal-backing-of-pension-funds-at-risk/

    Butch Lewis
    https://www.tdu.org/butch_lewis

    Reply

    • Posted by PS Drone on December 18, 2020 at 1:58 pm

      So let me see–pension plans are broke, the guaranty operation put in place in 1974 to “insure” pensioners that they would not become more Studebaker-like victims of corporate greed and poor planning is broke, the federal government who ordinarily would stand behind such a Frankenstein-monster like insurance creation is broke. Oh my, what are we to do? I have an idea. Let’s have the Feds print up a whole lot more funny money to make all of these plans whole. While we are at it, let’s do the same with the state and local pension plans. Then all of the pensioners will get what is coming to them – dollars that are worth about 10% of what they are today (which is currently about 10% of what they were worth in 1970). Good luck enjoying your “golden years” on that Scrooge-like stipend. Third world here we come.

      Reply

    • Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog! 🐶🐶🐶🦴🦴🦴 on December 18, 2020 at 4:14 pm

      Looks like they dumped Butch Lewis for Chris Allen.
      I do not support ANY type of bailout, BUT I am 100 times more hostile to the bailouts that the Feds gave Wall Street back in 2007/2008, @ 100 cents on the dollar (AIG/Goldman Suchs etc).

      Reply

  8. Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog! 🐶🐶🐶🦴🦴🦴 on December 18, 2020 at 4:07 pm

    Oh my, what are we to do? I have an idea. Let’s have the Feds print up a whole lot more funny money to make all of these plans whole. While we are at it, let’s do the same with the state and local pension plans.
    🤬🤬🤬

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on December 18, 2020 at 8:58 pm

      lol ….. “grifter”

      Reply

      • Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog! 🐶🐶🐶🦴🦴🦴 on December 19, 2020 at 12:08 am

        >>>https://www.refinery29.com<<<&lt;
        F’ing A! TL, why didn’t you TELL ME it was on “refinery29”??? That seals the deal, 100% unimpeachable truth. I mean if it is on refinery29 the truth meter can’t get any higher 😂😂😂

        Oh, you missed refinery29’s top two (2) stories:

        1)The Best (& Most Important) Memes Of 2020
        2) 7 Easy Ideas For Big Bar-Cart Vibes Inside Your Space

        hahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!

        Reply

        • As much as I love ya TL, that’s a three pointer for Rex. Few and far between but he gotta on that one.

          Reply

          • Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog! 🐶🐶🐶🦴🦴🦴 on December 19, 2020 at 7:06 pm

            Swish!!!!!!!!!!!!
            🤾‍♂️🤾‍♂️🤾‍♂️🏀🏀🏀

            Reply

          • Posted by Tough Love on December 19, 2020 at 9:03 pm

            LOL ……….. That your TAIL that you’re hearing.

            Reply

          • TL. In ref to your above statement about public sector employees shouldn’t be granted a “dignity” pension….what would you say about police or fire who (admittedly in NJ this wouldn’t be the case except maybe in Sussex or Cumberland or Salem county) received a roughly $35-40K pension and no social security? Putting aside the early retirement age, isnt that quite the same thing? I understand mine will be $80-90k more but 🤷‍♂️
            I ain’t no Latrell Sprewell who famously choked his coach, he later said that he wouldn’t settle for $11 MM contract to bounce a ball 🏀 around because he “had a family to feed”. Made $50M over his career and now he is dead broke.

            Reply

          • I’m sorry. He turned down a $21M three year deal cause it wasn’t enough to feed his family. lol. He made over $100 (not $50) M during his career. He is now worth $50,000 and rents a small house on WI. What an epic fail.

            Reply

          • Posted by Tough Love on December 20, 2020 at 2:21 pm

            E,

            To start with I would say ………. in any evaluation, ASSUME that they have saved & invested the 6.2% of wages that they didn’t contribute to SS like those in the Private Sector must do. If they didn’t …….. their problem. And should we assume that the Officer had NO OBLIGATION to see what was coming, and save mightily OUTSIDE of work-provided retirement security ….. like 90+% of all Private Sector workers must do ?

            But putting that aside ……. sure it’s would be great if EVERYONE had the funds to “retire with dignity”, but WHY should Private Sector Taxpayers be obligated to guarantee something to others that they don’t also get ? They should NOT.

            Reply

  9. Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog! 🐶🐶🐶🦴🦴🦴 on December 20, 2020 at 4:38 pm

    Made $50M[-100M] over his career and now he is dead broke.
    I recall this incident, what I did not know is that Spreewell is now dead broke. Similar to Mike Tyson, although with Tyson I am pawsuitive he was conned out of at least HALF of the $300 million he earned over his boxing career by Don King. But still, $150 million, minus taxes, even is not chump change. I wonder how much Mitch Green took for getting blasted by Tyson in that street fight in Harlem>>? Green went the distance with Tyson in the ring, and was a pretty good boxer (having his massive height and arm reach)…

    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: