CA: Arguments honed in fight over state pensions

Sac Bee ^ | 1/14/05 | John Hill

[NormsRevenge]

Government workers and their unions say that scrapping traditional public pensions, as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger proposed last week, would make it hard for the state to hire and keep qualified workers.

It would rewrite the long-standing deal in which government workers trade better pay for more secure retirement, they say.

Backers of the overhaul disagree, saying government workers now approach pay parity with the private sector. New 401(k)-style accounts will let workers change jobs without giving up retirement benefits, they say, encouraging a healthy rate of turnover.

The reality is more complicated than either side depicts.

Take the issue of pay, an essential part of the pension argument on both sides. Some state workers make more than their private sector counterparts, including janitors, clerks and drafters, according to an annual survey of "benchmark" positions done by the state.

But most do not, especially in the highest-paid ranks, such as doctors and lawyers. In some cases, it's hard to even compare, since there is no real private sector counterpart to a patrolman, say, or a firefighter.

Government jobs pay well compared to the labor market as a whole. But the pay doesn't look as good next to salaries in other big organizations, such as major corporations.

[Publius6961]

Government workers and their unions say that scrapping traditional public pensions, as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger proposed last week, would make it hard for the state to hire and keep qualified workers.

A remarkable statement, which has failed every time it's tried, and like a vampire, is resurrected by ... well, who do you think? The very incompetents who benefit from it!

D'OH!

Just think "full time" legislature, meeting in secret to find better ways to stall the budget indefinitely in private (thus screwing the taxpayers who pay their jobs) and blame the republicans...