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 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
)
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.
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.
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.
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.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |
