Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

(Greedy government) Workers resist North Dakota switch from pension to 401K
Valley News Live ^ | 9/22/10

Posted on 09/25/2010 5:32:48 AM PDT by Libloather

Workers resist ND switch from pension to 401K
Posted in: Valley News Live Facebook,
By the AP
Sep 22, 2010 - 6:03:30 AM

BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) _ Spokesmen for North Dakota school teachers and government workers are resisting proposals to put new employees into a 401(k)-style retirement savings plan. Both teachers and government workers now have pension plans with guaranteed retirement benefits. The pension funds are in financial trouble and North Dakota lawmakers are looking for solutions.

A legislative committee is considering proposals to ease the state out of the pension business and put new workers into 401(k) type plans that they would control. Analysts say that idea would worsen the problems of the existing pension funds.

Greg Burns of the North Dakota Education Association says the "defined contribution'' plans are tougher to maintain because workers have to make the investment decisions.

Stuart Savelkoul is director of the North Dakota Public Employees Association. He says converting to 401(k) style plans would be expensive and benefits wouldn't be as good for public employees.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 401k; nd; pension; unions; workers
He says converting to 401(k) style plans would be expensive and benefits wouldn't be as good for public employees.

After a few elections go by, it may not be a choice, Sherlock.

1 posted on 09/25/2010 5:32:53 AM PDT by Libloather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Libloather
Wow, the Unions are acting like Gordon Geckko...


2 posted on 09/25/2010 5:37:53 AM PDT by darkwing104 (Lets get dangerous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
He says converting to 401(k) style plans would be expensive and benefits wouldn't be as good for public employees.

That's the whole point.
3 posted on 09/25/2010 5:40:52 AM PDT by Girlene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

I am betting that the administrators and higher level govt employees will keep their government pension.

Most of this reducing govt pension talk never focuses on the people who cost taxpayers more money....administrators, executive level workers, politicians, and the like.

To reduce govt spending, we need just to cut spending, and not engage in class warfare


4 posted on 09/25/2010 5:49:01 AM PDT by UCFRoadWarrior (They don't let you build churches in Mecca)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

I am betting that the administrators and higher level govt employees will keep their government pension.

Most of this reducing govt pension talk never focuses on the people who cost taxpayers more money....administrators, executive level workers, politicians, and the like.

To reduce govt spending, we need just to cut spending, and not engage in class warfare


5 posted on 09/25/2010 5:49:11 AM PDT by UCFRoadWarrior (They don't let you build churches in Mecca)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UCFRoadWarrior
I am betting that the administrators and higher level govt employees will keep their government pension.

I expect that the gubmint is going to come after 401K's in the not too distant future. There simply is no way the Bawney Fwanks of the Congress are going to leave that much money lying around.....

6 posted on 09/25/2010 6:04:25 AM PDT by Thermalseeker (Stop the insanity - Flush Congress!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
OK, here's a compromise proposition:

We give you nothing, but allow you live.

I know, it's overly generous, but consider it.

You have until November to decide.


Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

7 posted on 09/25/2010 6:04:55 AM PDT by The Comedian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

As long as this applies to NEW employees, I don’t have a problem. They can either sign a contract or work somewhere else.

But some states are now cutting the amount of pensions for current employees they guaranteed in good times. That is hitting someone in my family who is not greedy, just wanting to get what the contract promised years ago.

Time for obama to bail the states out on this one, too. After he completely takes care of the UAW and SEIU, of course.


8 posted on 09/25/2010 6:05:20 AM PDT by Right Wing Assault (The Obama magic is <strike>fading</strike>gone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
"defined contribution'' plans are tougher to maintain because workers have to make the investment decisions."

Asset allocation of 401 or IRA, low risk tolerance: 30% long Term (5yr) CD 50% Good Balanced Fund such as Vanguard or Fidelity Balanced funds (60% Equities, 40% bonds and cash) 10% lg cap growth stock fund 10% low price stock fund (Fidelity). Fund each class faithfully, have all dividends reinvested and watch it grow.

9 posted on 09/25/2010 6:06:04 AM PDT by 101voodoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Assault
That is hitting someone in my family who is not greedy, just wanting to get what the contract promised years ago.

Kinda like Sosha Security?

10 posted on 09/25/2010 6:21:15 AM PDT by Libloather (Teapublican, PROUD birther, mobster, pro-lifer, anti-warmer, enemy of the state, extremist....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Assault

The Federal Government did this more than 20 years ago. All new employees were under a three tier plan: small defined benefit, 403B, and Social Security. Those there had the option to switch to the new system, few did, but it will reduce government outlays in the future.

Now, here is the rub...during the runaway markets of the late 90s, many employees who chose the most aggressive funds for their 403s and contributed the maximum to them plus received matching funds, were millionaires on paper so much so the Congress considered trying to reign in THEIR MONEY. Sounds familiar? That is what the current Congress is considering doing to all 401s, 403s and IRAs now. “we got to get our hands on all that money we let them keep or acquire” has always been the attitude of the tax and spend Government. The only way to make government fiscally responsible is to cut it down in size, remove the extraneous from its designated powers, and set up term limits to get the bums out from jobs they have Gerrymandered to excess.


11 posted on 09/25/2010 6:27:20 AM PDT by Mouton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
He says converting to 401(k) style plans would be expensive and benefits wouldn't be as good for public employees.

That's the point. No more nursing at the public teat after retirement. Right now their pensions are insulated from any liberal mistakes they vote for. I've been preaching conversion of public service pensions to 401Ks for years, with the realistic proviso that it would only apply to the newbies. Not immediate relief, but a start. (i.e. Imagine if we had converted 20 years ago.) The current crew can/will have their pensions shaved by reality.

12 posted on 09/25/2010 8:44:27 AM PDT by Oatka ("A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves." –Bertrand de Jouvenel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

They will throw new workers under the bus and the new workers will dump the unions hopefully.


13 posted on 09/25/2010 8:57:20 AM PDT by ThisLittleLightofMine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
This is inevitable, as more and more poension plans prove to be broke or unsustainable. The days of defined pension benefits are over, and it is only a matter of time before the union dinosaurs learn it the hard way, sort of like the steelworkers at LTV et al.
14 posted on 09/25/2010 11:35:56 AM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UCFRoadWarrior
No, the admin and staff people will be converted to contribution plans first, because they are fewer and unorganized and have no constituency to advocate for them.. The unionized rank and file will be the last to go.
15 posted on 09/25/2010 11:39:15 AM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 101voodoo
That's all excellent advice for 98% of people contibuting to 401k's, but most of the folks who did that in 2008/2009 still ended up with a "201k". Maybe the bonds bailed them out a little.

You still HAVE to watch these things like a hawk. There will never be a substitute for that effort, if you want to retire comfortably.

16 posted on 09/25/2010 12:16:00 PM PDT by willgolfforfood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: willgolfforfood

Had a portfolio of my design been in place before 9/09, today’s value would be perhaps 8-10% below it’s highest value.

I personally have a;ways been perfectly satisfied with a return of 8%, something very easy to realize by investing conservatively. The way it works is the less upside potential you have by investing conservatively, the less downside potential you have when the sh*t hits the fan.

L


17 posted on 09/25/2010 1:27:27 PM PDT by 101voodoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson