wildthingRV wrote:KVDW wrote:Eagle82 wrote:So this is a public vs private sector bill?
in a sense but it primarily restricts the public sector's (government workers) outlandish benefits that FAR exceed private sectors benefits. politicians hand out pay, healthcare, etc. benefits like candy to the public workers FOR THEIR VOTES.
the current rate of healthcare, retirement, and other benefits to them is unsustainable and this bill is intended to curtail some of that and therefore cut government spending of YOUR money.
http://www.betterohio.org/Facts?gclid=C ... KgodSnPUOQ
I'm a teacher, and nobody has EVER purchase my vote. Ever. Some things people say on here are frustrating, but that is pretty insulting.
so tell me (very honestly), are you going to vote for Kasich next time around or his opponent that promises you pay and benefit increases?
and for JC's, Toast's and your benefit, I never said a word about cutting your wages nor did i say that teachers, cops or firemen made too much money. i do believe they make a decent wage and outstanding benefits for the most part (i don't have a clue what kind of public sector job JC has nor what kind of private sector job he is going to.... he didn't say).
since everybody is throwing their figures around let me give you a couple....
CASE #1
i have two uncles... we'll call them Unc A and Unc B....
unc A worked in the private sector ( a big time utilities company)
for 37 years and was making $67,000 a year when he retired and annually paid TWICE as much as Unc B for him and his wife's healthcare.
His retirement pay from that company is a little over
$800 per month.
unc B worked in the public sector for
30 years (most public sector jobs you can retire with 30 years service regardless of your age) and was making $56,000 a year when he retired (a pretty decent wage for a public sector job and especially 10 years ago). again let me emphasize that he was paying HALF as much monthly for his and his wife's healthcare with better benefits.
his retirement pay is a little over
$3,000 per month from his public sector job.
also upon his retirement he was able to "cash in" his unused vacation time at his regular pay rate (15 wks @5 wks per year for 3 years max) and half of his unused sick leave PLUS a couple hundred hours of "comp" time (overtime worked usually compensated for in time off at a rate of time and one half rather than dollars at payday).
All this for a total of well over $30,000 in a lump sum payout on his last check.
Unc A was making about $11,000 more per year than Unc B when each retired but by the time you added up the difference in what each paid for their heathcare package each year there was virtually very little difference in their take home pay.
CASE #2
i have a personal female friend that was working as a secretary in a private professional office at $7.00+ an hour with very little healthcare benefits which she mostly paid for herself.
She was fortunate enough to land a job as a secretary in a state government office and STARTED at $14.00+ an hour with MUCH better healthcare benefits at a lower cost to her. This was also about 10 years ago.
The fact is that the public sector simply cannot afford to pay those kind of retirement percentages unless the retiree either draws a lower percentage upon retirement or pays into the system at a higher out-of-pocket rate as the work years go by. I believe SB5 is just requiring them to pay in a little more each year (a little closer to what the private sector worker pays).
The alternatives seem to be:
Pay in a little more each year out-of-pocket.
Draw out less upon retirement.
OR
Draw NOTHING in a few years when the system goes BUST.
I, in no way meant to insult you but I DO know a little about the system you work in...
If one worker is currently doing his/her work PLUS the work of another person that got laid off, it just tells me that NEITHER of them was doing a full days work to start with.