San Francisco’s city pensioners make more than the average city worker.

[ProfJohn]

And we wonder why California is going to hell in a hand basket.

Police and Fire pensioners making close to $100k a year?? What the hell!!!
These people are living the good life off the backs of people who earn half what they do.

And you wonder why the public is turning against public unions.

Here's some fun facts. OK, maybe not so fun, depending on your perspective.

The average retiree from San Francisco city government earns an annual pension of $46,272, according to the San Francisco Employees' Retirement System. The average retiree who worked at least 30 years in city government earns an annual pension of $76,981.

The average pension for a retiree from the Fire Department is $108,552. From the Police Department? $95,016. And everybody else? $41,136.

The figures show most retirees aren't getting anywhere near the fat packages that outrage many city residents - like the $264,000 pension paid to former Police Chief Heather Fong last year.

But city retirees are doing pretty well compared with working San Franciscans. Census data show the median family income in the city is $86,546. Per capita income is $44,373.

Public Defender Jeff Adachi is gathering signatures to place a measure on the November ballot that would require city workers to pay far more of their salaries toward pensions. Currently, most pay 7.5 percent of their paychecks, but some highly paid employees would pay double that in bad economic years under Adachi's plan.

"I think it's interesting that the average pension paid to a city employee is higher than the average earnings of most San Franciscans," he said. "When you start looking at the total cost of these pensions, it's through the roof."

Larry Bradshaw, vice president of Service Employees International Union Local 1021, said the averages are skewed by highly paid workers, and "your meat and potatoes city worker," like janitors and clerks, earn pensions not much higher than $20,000.

SEIU remains the lone city labor union declining to endorse a proposed November ballot measure backed by Mayor Ed Lee, other city officials and most unions.

Nathan Ballard, spokesman for the labor groups supporting Lee's plan, said, "We acknowledge the seriousness of the issue, and that's why we're focused on passing our consensus plan, which caps pension benefits, prevents pension spiking and raises the retirement age. All of this will save the city $1 billion over 10 years."



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/06/18/BA791JUFU5.DTL#ixzz1QJlbRsTo

 

[nageov3t]

do they allow double-dipping?

that's one of the things that's plaguing New Jersey's pension system... the principal at my sister's school, for example, is also a town councilman. when he retires, he'll be able to collect both his pension benefits from being a teacher and his benefits from being a councilman.

 

[Vette73]

Lst I checked the loacl Gov the CITIZENS elected gave them those benifits. Don't like it vote for someone else.

Just like all the baby boomers who voted for Ragean and others in DC that ran the debt up while taking advantage of it yet they don;t want "their" benifits cut to pay the bills they ran up.

 

[Doppel]

Those are some ghastly damn pensions for what they did. 30 years and $74k/year average?

 

[a777pilot]

Public sector unions make no sense what so ever.....unless you are in the Democrat Party and need to launder tax money through the unions to the Party.

 

[BoomerD]

Everyone bitches about pensions, but what no one ever mentions is that those pensions were paid for by the workers.
Every time there's a contract negotiation, the workers have to decide how much of a raise to allot to wages, how much to medical benefits, and how much to pensions.

The city/state has two options in these cases...pay a much higher wage now, or defer that increase into the pension plan...which they often fail to pay when it's due...leading to unfunded pension plans.

All the bitching and whining about pension plans sounds like much jealousy to me...

 

[ProfJohn]

Lst I checked the loacl Gov the CITIZENS elected gave them those benifits. Don't like it vote for someone else.

Just like all the baby boomers who voted for Ragean and others in DC that ran the debt up while taking advantage of it yet they don;t want "their" benifits cut to pay the bills they ran up.

No, the locals elected politicians and the politicians gave them those benefits and in return the unions gave the politicians tons and tons of money which allows the politicians to keep getting re-elected.

And you know what happens if you oppose the union? They give money to your opponent in order to get rid of you.

It is a protection racket and it is completely legal and disgusting.

 

[Doppel]

Everyone bitches about pensions, but what no one ever mentions is that those pensions were paid for by the workers.
Every time there's a contract negotiation, the workers have to decide how much of a raise to allot to wages, how much to medical benefits, and how much to pensions.

The city/state has two options in these cases...pay a much higher wage now, or defer that increase into the pension plan...which they often fail to pay when it's due...leading to unfunded pension plans.

All the bitching and whining about pension plans sounds like much jealousy to me...

So these San Fran pensions are completely funded then, no worries, fund will stay liquid for as long as it needs to to keep paying out?

 

[Generator]

I told you this would happen. Now after squashing the teachers, the jealous right will go after the fire and police. Last will be the soldier. Slave wage and no benefits for all. I wonder if even illegal Mexicans would take what the Republican wage of 20 grand, no benefits to serve a city as wealthy as San Fran.

You do realize there is a difference between cracker barrel Georgia and California right?

 

[ProfJohn]

Everyone bitches about pensions, but what no one ever mentions is that those pensions were paid for by the workers.

Seriously??

So the guy pulling down a $100k a year pension paid $100k a year into the system?

 

[Rainsford]

Did you even read your own article? The average public pension is about the same as the PER CAPITA income in the city and half that of the median family income in the city. That doesn't really sound very outrageous to me.

The really large pensions seem to come from city fire and police retirees. I'm not sure why that is, and your article doesn't go into any detail about average income or the structure of retirement packages in those jobs to help figure it out. But considering the relatively high levels of danger in those jobs, I don't have a major problem with people who spend 30 years as firemen getting a decent retirement.

 

[Rainsford]

Public sector unions make no sense what so ever.....unless you are in the Democrat Party and need to launder tax money through the unions to the Party.

Actually, public sector unions are probably among the BEST cases for unions in some form. Unlike in most other industries, the government is close to a monopoly employer in many public sector jobs. Absent a competitive employment environment, public sector unions help ensure fair treatment of employees.

 

[Farang]

Seriously??

So the guy pulling down a $100k a year pension paid $100k a year into the system?

I think BoomerD's point was that, yes, they do pay into the system, but also that the pension is part of their compensation package as a whole. So while $100k seems outrageous now, the union negotiated for that in lieu of wage increases or other benefits.

What you are incorrectly assuming is that these pensions were given to unions independent of any other agreements regarding compensation.

 

[ProfJohn]

Examiner Editorial: City benefits, pensions bleed budget dry

Ten years ago, some 23 percent of city workers’ salaries were benefit costs. We spent $383.7 million on health insurance for active and retired workers, retirement contributions and Social Security. In the current fiscal year, that bill jumped 132 percent to $890 million. Three years from now costs could hit $1.4 billion — at least 52 percent of the citywide payroll by fiscal year 2013-14, according to the Department of Human Resources’ latest report.

Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/e...efits-pensions-bleed-budget-dry#ixzz1QKOAMwe1

San Fran is toast if it doesn't fix this problem.
50% of their employee budget going to benefits, crazy.

 

[ProfJohn]

http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-03-16/bay-area/28693612_1_pension-fund-pension-benefits-budget-woes

The city is now spending $514 million every year on pension and retiree health costs, and that figure will hit $1 billion within five years. That's more than the budgets for the Police Department, Fire Department, Sheriff's Department, district attorney's office, and adult and juvenile probation departments combined.

 

[Infohawk]

A lot of the responses here are naive. Sure it's great that police and fireman can retire (more than) comfortably. It's not that simple of course. It's a choice. In recent years the SFPD has had hiring freezes. So all these fat pensions (that nobody in private industry gets anymore) are taking away from more police on the street or more health care for poor people or whatever other service you think government should provide.

Unlike in most other industries, the government is close to a monopoly employer in many public sector jobs.

Except "we the people" are the government. Unless there's a race or other protected class issue, it's hard to argue that the police and firemen need protection from the public.

 

[Rainsford]

...
Except "we the people" are the government. Unless there's a race or other protected class issue, it's hard to argue that the police and firemen need protection from the public.

What difference does it matter WHO has a monopoly on government jobs? Are "we the people" any more fair minded in our treatment of employees than the most tight-fisted private corporation? Given the demonetization of government employees present in a lot of of right-wing rhetoric, I'd say public employees need even MORE protection from unfair treatment than the average worker.

 

[Rainsford]

Examiner Editorial: City benefits, pensions bleed budget dry

San Fran is toast if it doesn't fix this problem.
50% of their employee budget going to benefits, crazy.

The problem is that I don't see anyone proposing actual solutions, or for that matter arguing that the benefits are unreasonable taken by themselves. Sure, that seems like a lot of the budget, and it would sure be convenient if San Fran could just tell the retired employees to piss off.

But the world doesn't work like that, either in the public or private sectors. Benefit agreements in the past sort of tie the government's hands, since they didn't decide to start screwing over employees on benefits and pensions as long ago as the private sector did. And government benefits are often the only thing those jobs have going for them that allows them to attract good employees to the field...cutting those benefits might have worse consequences than figuring out a way to pay for them.

Long story short...clearly there is a problem. I'm not sure the solution is obvious or simple. Which seems self evident, since most discussions on the topic (like this one) consist almost entirely of people complaining about the situation without offering ANY kind of solution.

 

[Craig234]

I think BoomerD's point was that, yes, they do pay into the system, but also that the pension is part of their compensation package as a whole. So while $100k seems outrageous now, the union negotiated for that in lieu of wage increases or other benefits. What you are incorrectly assuming is that these pensions were given to unions independent of any other agreements regarding compensation.

This is a key point. It's very common that in negotiations, the employers ask for the union to accept lower wages in exchange for better pensions.

This is partly because of the management bias to short-term looking good, whether it's for a quarterly report or to let the next politician worry about it - kick the can down the road.

But then after reaching the agreement - they launch a PR against the 'outrageous' pensions as if the exchange had never happened, demanding pension reform.

I'm not going to defend that there aren't problems with the deals that are struck, but the larger picture needs to be pointed out.

I'd say unions should start saying 'no' to the pension for wages deals.

Note in the OP's own article the unions backing changes what will reduce the pensions.

 

[Craig234]

Rainsford, good points. I regularly criticize when politicians (or business) make bad deals for short-term benefit.

For example, I criticized Chicago for selling all its parking meter profits for the next 75 years for a lump sum paid now worth far less, that made one year's budget a lot better.

I criticize the plans where government sell off their assets and then lease them back, giving them a big payment for one year - but costing a lot more longer term.

It's the same thing as our national deficit spending, with future Americans owing $14T.

I wonder how much of this comes from that same sort of thing discussed above, management looking good now with lower wages, by offering excessive pensions.

I'm not sure how we prevent this. Laws aren't easy to write that ban the practice; and voters seem to reward it (just as Wall Street rewards short-term profits).

 

[shortylickens]

Lst I checked the loacl Gov the CITIZENS elected gave them those benifits. Don't like it vote for someone else.

Just like all the baby boomers who voted for Ragean and others in DC that ran the debt up while taking advantage of it yet they don;t want "their" benifits cut to pay the bills they ran up.

I thought you just said that Democrats are looking out for the common worker and republicans were the ones who wanted to redistribute all the wealth to the rich.

Or was that some other dude?

 

[BarneyFife]

Everyone was laughing at public sector workers in the 90's. All the private sector workers were getting big paychecks, bonuses, and their 401k was going up 50% each year. Now that reality hit, they want to take things that were fairly negotiated. They are too stupid to realize through their jealousy that they are hurting themselves by attacking fellow workers.

 

[ProfJohn]

Now that reality hit, they want to take things that were fairly negotiated. T.

Fairly negotiated my ass.

Government unions hold politicians hostage through their campaign donations, or lack of donations.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/l.../local+(L.A.+Times+-+California+|+Local+News)

Last week, I found myself cruising the website of the California prison guards union. I was curious about whether the $7 million the California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. spent on last year's elections — including $2 million on Jerry Brown's governor's race alone — might have had something to do with the contract the union just scored.

From the video which seems to have been removed:

"We won big this year," the narrator says. "Played a decisive role in electing the governor. Elected new friends in the Legislature. Made a difference for the men and women who walk the toughest beat. We win because we never quit, and that's what makes us CCPOA."

Imagine the up roar if corporation posted a video about how they helped get a governor elected and that governor was going to award them a contract with all kinds of 'goodies' such as 8 weeks paid time off.

 

[ProfJohn]

^ and that is just ONE union.

 

[FallenHero]

Rainsford, good points. I regularly criticize when politicians (or business) make bad deals for short-term benefit.

For example, I criticized Chicago for selling all its parking meter profits for the next 75 years for a lump sum paid now worth far less, that made one year's budget a lot better.

I criticize the plans where government sell off their assets and then lease them back, giving them a big payment for one year - but costing a lot more longer term.

It's the same thing as our national deficit spending, with future Americans owing $14T.

I wonder how much of this comes from that same sort of thing discussed above, management looking good now with lower wages, by offering excessive pensions.

I'm not sure how we prevent this. Laws aren't easy to write that ban the practice; and voters seem to reward it (just as Wall Street rewards short-term profits).

Well I can't comment on CA pension system, I can tell you how Illinois runs theirs and are having similar problems. Back in 93-94, many of the local city governments lobbied the State to change the law regarding how they pay into the pension system. Instead of a flat rate every year, they wanted it changed so that they could pay less into the system now but more later, making up for payments on the backend. The thought process was that given the booming economy, they could invest that money, make more off of it and then have plenty left to reinvest into the pension.

The problem is the plan backfired on them. No one saved, no one invested and now the time has come to pay the piper. Now they all cry poor because they have to play catchup on 15 years of piss poor pension payments that THEY wanted to change so that the local governments could look good and have their pet projects. I have no doubt something similar happened in Cali. And that doesn't even mention the fact that our last Governor, Blago, failed to make pension system payments. Just failed to invest into it. It's akin to a 30 year traditional mortgage verses an adjustable rate one.

Now, it's not like the pension system is just a bank account...it's invested in the stock market and has active managers. My pension system is set up to where it is funded 10-15% by my payments into the system, 10-20% of the city payments, and close to 60% is investment growth. So when the government fails to pay their portion, per the law they also owe the interest/growth that was missed. Imagine missing 100 million in payments and watching the market skyrocket that year...so instead of owing 100 million, you now owe 115 million. Now they do it again, and it compounds...you see the problem that quickly develops and gets out of control. Those government agencies that did NOT opt into the modified pension system payment or simply have a different system set up are not having pension problems...because every year the payments stay roughly the same as the last. And they don't owe extra money because they always make their payments and let the stock market do the work.

Cali probably did the same thing...and their are abuses of the pension system. I admit that much...close those loopholes (double dipping, massive raises at the end of a career, missed payments) and that would solve some of the problems that exist in the system. Not all, but it is a start.