And that's the part of the job that people like maxiep and el presidente want to gut. What's your opinion about that?
I’m up & down about that.
The down is that the relationship between a public employee union and government is an incestuous one. The government is playing with house monopoly money and really have no one to answer to because there’s no financial bottom line like a private business has. They are negotiating with a substantial voting block and generally very strong lobby group. As a result, the bargaining agreement tilts to the union. I mean, who wouldn’t want to retire, potentially, at age 52, collect 110% of their pay and have free healthcare for life? I mean, hell, sign me up!! But is it really fair and fiscally sound? Of course not.
On the other hand, given the fact teachers have to pay so much out of their pockets for Masters degrees, Continuing Education, hundreds of dollars yearly for classroom items… and then have to build their own retirement via a 401K? Again, I don’t think so. I also am deep set against state governments tearing into collective bargaining agreements that are in place, like we’ve been seeing.
So, to me, I think the answer lies in between. Say, a good matching 401K program and a small government retirement stipend. For example, when I worked at Farmers Insurance, they took the equivalent of 10% of our pay each year and it went into a 401K if we contributed 5%. In addition, we got a retirement set aside worth $100 per year of employment (it took 7 years to get vested), up to a max of 30 years, or, $3,000 per month + our 401K upon retirement. One had to be 65 to collect the retirement stipend pay. In so doing, the company could easier control and plan retirement costs and still maintain a healthy business. I see no reason the states and union couldn’t work something out like that.