Another perspective might be that corporate-government collaboration to enable "free trade" killed not only the steel industry, but the wages and benefits of workers in other US industries that have 'survived' in some form....The Steelworker's union killed the steel industry...
Why Are Digital Cameras Disappearing?
By Jared Spurbeck, via Yahoo! Contributor Network, February 1, 2012
"So, what are the manufacturers doing?"
"Canon is replacing its CEO..."
Ken
The "Right To Work" legislation is passing in more and more states indicating that there is some reluctance to join unions. And, our state budgets and federal budgets are overwhelmed with entitlements imposed by civil service unions. Therefore we have a high wage base and a high entitlement burden. This is both good and bad. The good sets our standard of living and protects us in our old age, but the bad forces jobs overseas.
OTOH, another "bad" is that civil service entitlements begin after much shorter service than those in industry thus allowing long payments and double dipping.
PE
The passage of "right to work for less" legislation in states is a product of collaboration between the legislators and the corporations that own them. Take a look at the reaction in Wisconsin and Indiana to union-stripping laws, including successfully overturning one of them so far (along with recalling a number of the legislators who voted for it) and ongoing actions with the goal of continuing to reverse these things. There's no reluctance to join or for others to support a right to join unions.The "Right To Work" legislation is passing in more and more states indicating that there is some reluctance to join unions...
The budgets are overwhelmed by intentional revenue reductions, not "entitlements." This has been a deliberate, systematic series of actions over the last three decades by those who would 'starve government so it can be eliminated.' Or as close to eliminated as possible. Except for those aspects of it they wish to rob for themselves....And, our state budgets and federal budgets are overwhelmed with entitlements imposed by civil service unions. Therefore we have a high wage base and a high entitlement burden. This is both good and bad. The good sets our standard of living and protects us in our old age, but the bad forces jobs overseas...
In general, excepting cases of criminal conduct, the ability of civil servants to retire after fewer years than private sector jobs typically require is limited to police and fire personnel. The reasoning behind what might seem like an overly generous arrangement is that those two jobs make extreme demands on the health of those doing them, thus justifying shorter careers. The retirement benefits (dollar payments, medical coverage, etc.) granted retirees, regardless of whether their employment agreements / union contracts required any contributions on their part, are deferred compensation. Referring to them as "entitlements" connotes "welfare" or "something for nothing." Nothing could be further from the truth. Retirement benefits are earned and owed to the retirees....another "bad" is that civil service entitlements begin after much shorter service than those in industry thus allowing long payments and double dipping...
I already addressed police and fire positions, but teachers are another matter. When we left NY State in 1978, my wife withdrew her NYS Teachers' Retirement System funds, so I haven't kept up with the latest specifics there, but doubt it's more generous than other states' systems, particularly California's, with which I am intimately familiar. Typical teachers' retirement systems offer nothing even approximating full pay after 20 years service. After 34 years here, my wife still hasn't come close to a benefit of that magnitude. Also, medical coverage is a matter addressed (if at all) by each individual school district - teacher union contract, not a vested benefit administered by the state system. If and when offered, it can end at any time, i.e. should it be negotiated away in the next contract....in terms of "entitlements" locally, we have civil service employees that can retire after 20 - 30 years service with nearly full pay and total health care benefits for life. If that is not an entitlement, IDK what is, as it is fully paid by the taxpayer. NYS is now fighting out this problem regarding police, firemen and other civil service including teachers...
Those are terms and "definitions" used by politicians to stir up resentment in support of those who "own" the politicians. In the private sector, a "vested benefit" is one resulting from an employment relationship that is addressed by ERISA and covered by the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation. Public sector employees are subject to similar arrangements, covered in statues of the states. The duration of employment required to earn vested benefits is explicitly spelled out in their associated plans, which are made formal and provided to employees. "Entitlement" has no meaning in this arena. Things that aren't vested benefits can be modified or terminated at any time. There is no "entitlement" associated with them....to me a benefit is earned by joint contribution over a reasonable employment and kicks in upon retirement but is regulated in the US by law as to age and what can be collected. An entitlement is a lifetime benefit that is paid over a persons lifetime and can be given after rather short terms of employment such as 20 years or so, and which has often received no funds from the employee...
Again, retirement of a civil service "clerk" at age 41 after 20 years of service is not a typical situation in the US. It is possible for many such employees to leave with a vested retirement benefit, but it would be a rather small dollar amount (especially if requested to begin at age 41, should that even be possible) and usually not include any medical benefits until older. I find it difficult to accept that a local or state government has offered such a generous package of vested benefits. If they're not vested, more rational heads can rescind or delay qualification for portions that exceed reasonableness, namely medical coverage starting before age 55....Thus a civil service clerk might work from age 21 to 41 and "retire" to another profession such as a secretary in a law office. That person would be entitled to all "benefits" or "entitlements" from the first job and a salary from the second job. Very often, since they turn down benefits from the new job, they beat out others who are not so lucky and need a job with benefits...
The link you included explains that teachers who are age 50 and have 30 years of service can retire. First, let's be clear; most public school teachers (at least in this state) are women. Very few of them start teaching at age 20 (finished college and student teaching early?) and work as teachers for 30 years straight. Most take leaves of absence to raise one or more children of their own. Therefore, the number of California teachers qualified to retire at age 50 is very small. Anyone qualifying for that option, if they do receive retiree medical benefits, usually get those for a limited number of years, not even until age 65. Average age at retirement is 61.8 years. Typically, any retiree medical benefits end at age 65....Teachers are underpaid, but they do get to retire earlier...Overhead in schools is eating up our budget. When I went to school, there was a guidance councilor for the entire building of several hundred students and one Principal and Vice Principal. Today, there are one each for each grade level. Our local budget is hugely "bankrupt" and our town wants to cut teachers and make classes larger. Our neighbor just retired from being a school administrator and she is much less than 65 (see below)!
In CA, you can retire as early as age 50 from your teaching job! http://www.calstrs.com/Members/Defined Benefit Program/retbenes.aspx
This is somewhat above the requirement I stated as a broad "rule" but is below what Sal has mentioned it seems to me upon reading it and your note Sal. It varies from state to state and town to town within states...
I see no parallels between California's fiscal condition and Kodak's. California started its long, painful slide from progressive leadership to today's pitiful situation as a result of Proposition 13 in 1978, the same year I arrived here from New York. It was the beginning of the rebellion against taxes. It resulted not only in starving public education by severely limiting property taxes, but also imposed a requirement for legislature- or voter initiative-levied tax increases and new taxes to be approved by 2/3 votes. In other words, it started the process of revenue starvation so beloved by those who want to mostly eliminate government. It was elegant, since it ensured a continuous degradation of civics understanding by generations who would be "educated" by the gutted system. Generations who know the price of all things ("Cut my taxes") and the value of none (a real education). Sadly, like many things that began here, it spread across the country to infect other states and the federal government....In any event, our system is breaking down overall and going broke. CA itself is almost bankrupt - kind of like Kodak, right?...
We don't all contribute to our retirement plans. In the private sector, only those who participate in "defined contribution" plans contribute. Those working under "defined benefit" plans make no contributions. Also, if a corporation, which pays fees to the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation for defined contribution plans, fails to adequately fund its plan and, as part of a bankruptcy, causes the plan to terminate, not everyone loses all or part of their vested benefit. Whether a monthly benefit is forfeited or reduced depends on the retiree's age when a plan is terminated (or bankruptcy filed). Generally, those who retired earliest and started with the highest monthly dollar amount lose most. In most cases, someone in the private sector who retired at the California teachers' average age of 61.8 with comparable monthly benefits would lose very little, if anything. Again, medical coverage, both in the public and private sectors, is typically not a vested benefit and is subject to termination at any time, limited only by contracts....So, we all contribute something to our retirement plans. But when the company goes belly up, we lose all or part of what was there. Except government employees...
I'm not sure whether it's legal under law for a hiring entity to consider that factor during the interview and offer stages, but let's assume that it is. The key questions are: what retirees are taking what kind of jobs? Are they police and firefighters moving to a completely different field after short careers? If so, their medical benefits are deferred compensation and an asset they offer to potential employers like any other aspect of themselves....don't let this get lost in the chaff. If a person gets medical benefits as a retiree and moves on to a new job, a real possibility hereabouts, well, then they can bump a person in need of a job who wants benefits. The hiring company sees this as a real benefit to them, a real cost savings, as they do not have to pay out as much to the one as compared to the other...
...
Things are broken. ...
PE
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?