Comments on: Public Sector Reform

By: Cities Retire

Cities Retire — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 09:35:24 +0000

Cities Retire…

I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but I guess I just need to check some more resources regarding this, because it sounds interesting….

By: Ed Ring

Ed Ring — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 03:33:19 +0000

Then good mid-western folks are invited to pick up the theme and run with it. These are not partisan, nor anti-union proposals. There are nuances upon nuances. Nationalization of unions, especially in the public sector, takes away local control and pulls money out of the community. Resisting nationalization, or lobbying for policies that would increase their efficiency and actually reduce the size of their organizations while providing more services, are examples of policies local public sector unions should carefully weigh if they are to continue being politically active. A national union cannot possibly equitably adjust salaries and wages to reflect local conditions, and city councils everywhere are completely outgunned. This is not how democracy should work.

Health and post-employment benefits for public workers are far greater than what private sector workers, as taxpayers, are afforded by government through medicare and social security, and they are financially unsustainable. Everyone’s security should matter to anyone who fights for workers. Public sector salaries and wages could be increased, if the future health and retirement benefits could be brought back to what government offers the private sector workers.

Increasing today’s salaries for the public sector workforce - or at least paying competitively with the private sector - while at the same time reforming future benefits would help the economy today by putting more cash into circulation and would actually save money. Equally beneficial, getting these pension liabilities reduced for existing public sector workers (step 2), along with accruing far less new liability for incoming public sector workers, would restore the solvency of cities. Public sector reform will save taxpayers money, it will turn the economy around, and it will actually allow the public sector to provide more services. Increasing salaries and wages is easily cost neutral given the savings on pension funding reductions, and would also help boost recruitment of highly qualified new public sector workers in all areas - saving on overtime and providing excellent new jobs.

By: Peter A. Quilici

Peter A. Quilici — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 16:38:15 +0000

Well done. If you can re-write the commentary so it is applicable to Illinois and have it published in the Sunday edition of the Chicago Tribune or Sun-Times, I’ll join and donate to your organization.

I’ve been following CA’s government employee benefit mess for a while. Illinois state and municipal employee pension plans and benefits are in the same apparently protected status due to union donations and political cowardice.

That the US Congress is co-opted should come as no surprise. Many US Reps and Senators started out in the state legislature, and the influence of their patrons merely followed them to DC.

Although, I may share many goals with the Democratic party, I avoid voting for its candidates because its public employee union affiliations cost me too much. Elections in Illinois’ Cook County, which includes Chicago, are all but pre-ordained by public employee unions, especially the teachers’ unions who control the most wealth.

It seems the topic of parity in private and public sector retirement is beginning to percolate upwards.