Posted on 11/14/2014 5:09:18 PM PST by mdittmar
The incoming chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee has been outspoken about his plans to cut federal employees’ pay and pensions. Besides his previous proposal, Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin spoke with the Washington Post this week and discussed what he wants to do when he takes over the committee in January. On his chopping block are federal employees’ pay, health insurance, pensions, and the right to join a union.
“I think it’s unrealistic for public-service employees to believe they are immune from modifications to their pay and benefit packages,” said Sen. Johnson, who was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2010. He went on to say “those things in the private sector have been modified dramatically.”
It’s important to note that a pension is delayed payment for work already done, a condition for taking a job. It’s the employee’s money withheld and invested by the employer to be paid at the employee’s retirement when he/she can no longer work. If the employer cuts the employee’s pension, that means the employer has either embezzled or misspent the employee’s money. The employer is engaging in theft. The same is true for health care.
Obviously inspired by Walmart, Johnson also takes aim at federal employees’ worker protections and the freedom of association. He told the Post, “I really don’t think that the public-sector employees should be unionized.” So the senator wants federal employees to take whatever compensation their employer offers, most likely with ever changing work schedules, no guaranteed overtime pay, and little or no medical care and pension. He appears to oppose the idea of fairness, justice, equality, opportunity, and prosperity. Without a union, employees are basically slaves to their employer.
Meanwhile, Johnson supports massive tax giveaways for corporations and blocked a bill that would end tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas. But he voted against a bill that would end the government shutdown, blocked a bill that would help veterans find good jobs and get the health care they need, voted against reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, voted against a bill that would provide employment protections to gay and transgender workers, and voted to repeal the healthcare law that provides coverage to the uninsured and those with pre-existing conditions.
Worked for a research lab funded and run by DOE. We could make our own compensation packages to attract the best scientists and engineers to the lab. Life time health insurance coverage after age 55 with minimum 10 years service.
In other words, your benefits were so good that you could retire.
Spekaing as a taxpayer, that sucks, but as an FRiend, I’m happy for you and understand why you could/did do it.
That’s about it. Like I said in an earlier post, I worked first in private industry which must make a profit to survive, and then a government funded agency where the goal is to get as much funding from government as possible and then spend every dime of it or you might get less funds next year. The difference in attitudes was striking.
I meant “difficulty of the courses or the TEST (not text)”.
I believe the article says he was electd in 2010 - so the answer would appear to be NO.
“It’s important to note that a pension is delayed payment for work already done, a condition for taking a job. It’s the employee’s money withheld and invested by the employer to be paid at the employee’s retirement when he/she can no longer work. If the employer cuts the employee’s pension, that means the employer has either embezzled or misspent the employee’s money. The employer is engaging in theft. The same is true for health care.”
When your employee is the Federal Government you ain’t got no right to be surprises when or if they misspend or embezzle any such money.
This is after all a routeen function of Washington.
As for the employer taking your money and investing it for you thing, like any other investment it implicitly rely upon your faith in the employer and is really only ever preferable over say 3rd party options for tax(government) reasons. Not everyone after all has perfect confident in their bosses.
Just a small part of the bigger picture. Less than 1/3 of workers are preparing financially for retirement. As the population ages, where will retirement money come from? Nowhere is where. We are looking at national bankruptcy and a sinking to a subsistence level for most older people. This, in turn, means an ever more radical Democrat Party permanently in charge.
In light of this, you are going to LOVE an idea I’ve just prepped for posting. FRegards ....
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.