Messageboard - Politics

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard. As of 05/22/16 they have been closed to new comments and replies, but will remain accessible for archived searches and reference. For more information CLICK HERE

Are Ohio Public Employees Over-compensated?

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Politics Are Ohio Public Employees Over-compensated?

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 15 posts - 316 through 330 (of 363 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #427853

    Bear
    Participant

    Andrew Hall wrote >>

    GreatOutdoors wrote >>
    Economic Policy Institute: Wisconsin, Ohio public employees are not overpaid

    I have a question about the numbers used there and elsewhere and have not seen an answer: Do these analyses account for the being no cap on non-public employee earnings? That makes averages misleading. Does anyone list the median incomes which would be telling?
    A.

    Haven’t seen those numbers either. If that hypothesis explained the difference, I suspect you’d still see an advantage for mean private-sector income even when controlling for education, etc., because the skew in the conditional income distributions wouldn’t go away.

    The more important point, though, is that the percentage of people in the skinny little tail of that distribution is still far greater than the percentage of people who give a crap about the answer to this question. Even though it’s a really good question.

    #427854

    Andrew Hall
    Member

    berdawn wrote >>

    Andrew Hall wrote >>

    berdawn wrote >>

    Andrew Hall wrote >>

    berdawn wrote >>

    gramarye wrote >>

    berdawn wrote >>

    gramarye wrote >>
    Money is fungible. All expenses are technically causes of the state budget deficit. This one just happens to be a big one that is also resistant to savings measures unless SB 5 passes.

    How does the elimination of collective bargaining save money again?

    Seriously?

    Seriously. Binding arbitration finds 50% for workers and 50% for management and strikes are pretty much non-existent (happy to correct if not true).

    I suspect that there is going to be more of an issue going forward especially on the municipal level. Local governments have been able to paper over their potential payroll deficits with federal stimulus money.
    A.

    Unions have made many concessions through the bargaining process; there is no reason that would not continue. To eliminate this protection does nothing to close current budget gaps or solve any long-term problems.

    I don’t dispute that completely (nor am I particularly in suport of SB5). But the amount of the concessions needed was made much less by the subsidization that occurred and the real make/break showdown was deferred. Though the muni governments are quiet, I will bet that they are secretly hoping to have this arrow in their quiver going forward.
    A.

    I’m sure they are. I just think it’s disingenuous to frame this as a budget solution.

    I agree.

    A.

    #427855

    KittyM
    Member

    Anyone interested in having this conversation beyond the message board–Committee chair Sen Kevin Bacon 614-466-8064 and Bill sponsor Sen. Shannon Jones 614-466-9737 are taking calls today.

    personally agree w/ many points made here about the room for improvement w/i unions. also think the statehouse can accomplish this w/o hitting Cbus’s lower-middle class.

    the economic effect Senate Bill 5 will have on CITY OF COLUMBUS employees working under AFSCME contracts (lower-pay range workers):

    Effective 30 days from bill signing:
    * 11% increase in insurance premium
    * retirement fund contribution raised by 10%
    * lost ability to negitiate wages to offset the reduced take-home pay

    #427856

    KittyM
    Member

    #427857
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    KittyM wrote >>

    the economic effect Senate Bill 5 will have on CITY OF COLUMBUS employees working under AFSCME contracts (lower-pay range workers):
    Effective 30 days from bill signing:
    * 11% increase in insurance premium
    * retirement fund contribution raised by 10%
    * lost ability to negitiate wages to offset the reduced take-home pay

    Citation / source?

    #427858

    mirka
    Participant

    Financial impact of the bill from the Ohio Legislative Service Commission: http://www.lsc.state.oh.us/fiscal/fiscalnotes/129ga/sb0005s1.pdf

    eta: It’s 9 pages long, so not a bad read.

    #427859
    Snarf
    Snarf
    Participant

    My uncle, whom I don’t care for, always made light of the fact that he could do very little at work for DSCC, never be fired, have great benefits and retire with an awesome pension. Always like a joke to him.

    I’ve never thought it was someone else’s responsibility to pay for my health insurance, retirement, etc.

    I don’t have any collective bargaining for my salary either.

    I’m not sure what everyone is so upset about.

    #427860

    DavidF
    Participant

    Well according the arguments I’ve seen here, the more we impoverish the average worker, the more we take away, the more we lower the standard of living, the better off we will all be.

    p.s. It’s also a fact that unicorns fart rainbows.

    #427861

    gramarye
    Participant

    DavidF wrote >>
    Well according the arguments I’ve seen here, the more we impoverish the average worker, the more we take away, the more we lower the standard of living, the better off we will all be.

    That has never been the argument, and I think you know the argument well enough that this is deliberate disingenuousness at this point. The argument is that the overpaid public sector unions have been getting much better benefits than the private sector at the expense of nonunion private sector members of the public (a far larger number). In other words, their losses are not our losses, they are our gains (because everything we wrest back from them is either more money that remains in our pocket or more money available for other public purposes with more general benefits, such as infrastructure investments), and would serve mostly to move unionized public workers back into parity with the private sector average, not below it.

    p.s. It’s also a fact that unicorns fart rainbows.

    Cite? :-P

    #427862

    Andrew Hall
    Member

    http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/politics/How_much_do_public_workers_earn__The_facts-116516953.html

    In the case of Ohio, its unfunded liability amounted to 632 percent of its 2009 tax revenues, or more than $166 billion, using a return on investment calculation devised by Rauh and his colleague Robert Novy-Marx.

    “Under their own accounting rules, state and local governments have around $1.3 trillion of unfunded pension liabilities,” Rauh told the committee. The actual liability, he estimated, is more than twice that size.

    He added that if state and local governments “end up trying to cover the unfunded portion of pension bills from current revenues in the face of depleted pension funds, benefit checks will in most cases consume 20 to 50 percent of general tax revenues for these entities. And without significant tax increases, pension payments of this magnitude would make it virtually impossible for state and local governments to provide essential services and to service their other debts.”

    I don’t think SB5 touches any of that.

    A.

    #427863

    Antonio
    Member

    Snarf wrote >>
    My uncle, whom I don’t care for, always made light of the fact that he could do very little at work for DSCC, never be fired, have great benefits and retire with an awesome pension. Always like a joke to him.
    I’ve never thought it was someone else’s responsibility to pay for my health insurance, retirement, etc.
    I don’t have any collective bargaining for my salary either.
    I’m not sure what everyone is so upset about.

    Some are upset that they will have to work or be fired if they don’t.

    That it will no longer be the state that will be responsible for their retirement, just like the rest of the normal population.

    #427864

    gramarye
    Participant

    Not directly. But it would make touching it more feasible. The existing battle lines are just not where they need to be. SB 5 would be a large part (though not the complete act) of redrawing them.

    #427865

    joev
    Participant

    gramarye wrote >>

    DavidF wrote >>
    Well according the arguments I’ve seen here, the more we impoverish the average worker, the more we take away, the more we lower the standard of living, the better off we will all be.

    That has never been the argument, and I think you know the argument well enough that this is deliberate disingenuousness at this point. The argument is that the overpaid public sector unions have been getting much better benefits than the private sector at the expense of nonunion private sector members of the public (a far larger number). In other words, their losses are not our losses, they are our gains (because everything we wrest back from them is either more money that remains in our pocket or more money available for other public purposes with more general benefits, such as infrastructure investments), and would serve mostly to move unionized public workers back into parity with the private sector average, not below it.

    p.s. It’s also a fact that unicorns fart rainbows.

    Cite? :-P

    I’d like you to cite any evidence you have that public employees in Ohio are overpaid. Your basic premise is flawed.

    If the state doesn’t have money to fund workers for a program, and it is agreed that the program is no longer needed in light of a budget crisis, that’s one thing. If it wants to drive down costs of labor across the board for all public employees because it would be more convenient to pay less for the same workload from those employees, that’s an issue of fairness. The latter is what’s happening with SB 5.

    #427866
    Snarf
    Snarf
    Participant

    Antonio wrote >>

    Snarf wrote >>
    My uncle, whom I don’t care for, always made light of the fact that he could do very little at work for DSCC, never be fired, have great benefits and retire with an awesome pension. Always like a joke to him.
    I’ve never thought it was someone else’s responsibility to pay for my health insurance, retirement, etc.
    I don’t have any collective bargaining for my salary either.
    I’m not sure what everyone is so upset about.

    Some are upset that they will have to work or be fired if they don’t.
    That it will no longer be the state that will be responsible for their retirement, just like the rest of the normal population.

    I’m imagine my uncles feelings are commonplace among his co-“work”ers too.

    #427867

    lifeliberty
    Participant

    yeah, having job security is a bad thing.

Viewing 15 posts - 316 through 330 (of 363 total)

The forum ‘Politics’ is closed to new topics and replies.

Subscribe below: