PENSION REFORM: San Jose council votes to put issue on ballot Comments on Stories, posted by Editor, Pleasanton Weekly Online, on Mar 7, 2012 at 2:33 pm
San Jose's city council voted 8 to 3 Tuesday to let voters this June decide whether to approve pension reform for city workers in what Mayor Chuck Reed and other council members call an essential move to free up funding for city services.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Tuesday, March 6, 2012, 8:03 PM
Posted by Barry, a member of the Alisal Elementary School community, on Mar 7, 2012 at 2:33 pm
Did anyone read the article about Stockton also nearing bankrupty due in large part to the unfunded pensions, notably life-time medican coverage for retirees and spouses after working only one year! This is a broken record and San Jose is no different. Im only annoyed the Council bows out of the decision by putting it to a vote instead, unless in doing so the unions cant challenge it if the voters agree to pension reforms.
If I hear one more public sector employee or teacher complaint about not getting a raise or a cost of living adjustment, I'll bauf. So many of us in the private sector have lost jobs or taken salary reductions, that's its an insult to hear whining about not getting a raise or having to actually contribute to one's own 401K or 457 instead of having the employer (public agencies) pay it. Check out the pay scales yourself. City workers make BETTER salary and compensation packages than a majority of their private sector counter-parts, and teachers work nine months and expect a pay check commensurate with a 12 month job. Many public employees do a great job, but as important are hospital workers and other behind the scenes jobs that contribute to our community.
Posted by Salty Dog, a resident of the Ironwood neighborhood, on Mar 7, 2012 at 2:54 pm
It's not one year! It's after one day! Full life-time medican coverage for just one day of work! What really tears me up is these whining teachers who haven't gotten a raise lately. In the private sector, the top 1% saw their incomes rise by only 93% this past year. We need to get our priorities straight. Until the top 1% see their incomes rise by at least 1000%, we need to continue to urge our politicians to cut the pay of the parasitical public workers who are sponging off of all of us.
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger, a resident of the Vintage Hills Elementary School neighborhood, on Mar 7, 2012 at 4:33 pm
Stay golD, "In the private sector, the top 1% saw their incomes rise by only 93% this past year." Darn if we didn't already cover the fact that the top 1% also took the biggest hit during the recession, primarily because their income is locked up in investments. Your pension is investing in those companies too, you know, awful places like WalMart. The question isn't pay; it's underfunded life-time defined benefit plans.
Posted by sknywench, a member of the Amador Valley High School community, on Mar 8, 2012 at 10:02 am sknywench is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
Kathleen, its about equity.But then again, I m not sure of your point. Alot of people in the private, or rather the other 99 percent did take a big hit during the recession and not because their income is locked up in investments. They saw it in actual lost wages and increased living expenses and medical premiums (if they were lucky enough not to lose their jobs). Why should taxpayers fund benefits beyond the norm given in the private sector? That means public employees should retire consistent with social security and not at 50 or 55 and still receive 80% of income plus lifetime medical. No wonder so many public employees are lacking in ability to fix problems and come up with innovative solutions. I wouldnt stick my neck out out of the herd and risk my pension benefits!