More than 6,400 Mass employees make over $100K

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

That list is crap, look at the 40 hour salary for putting your life on the line. I say good for them they are working many more hours than most of us. Any job that pays a decent hourly wage can turn into a high wage job if you want to work like a dog...

You have no idea what you're talking about.

In the private scetor, your comment would make sense. Because if someone can make that much money, it';s up to the consumer to decide whether or not they want to absorb that cost. If the company can make a product that people want so badly that they are willing to absorb that cost, kudos to the company.

Public servants are in a very different position. The public cannot freely choose not to bear the burden of that cost, because the cost is a tax that is imposed by rule of law. That's not even remotely comparable to what happens in the free market.

Because of that difference, it's imperitive that public servents come up with compensation that we can reasonably absorb. The current Massachusetts tax levels, combined with the current deficits, tell me that municipal employees are being a bit too generous with themselves.

[Swimmer]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You have no idea what you're talking about.

In the private scetor, your comment would make sense. Because if someone can make that much money, it';s up to the consumer to decide whether or not they want to absorb that cost. If the company can make a product that people want so badly that they are willing to absorb that cost, kudos to the company.

Public servants are in a very different position. The public cannot freely choose not to bear the burden of that cost, because the cost is a tax that is imposed by rule of law. That's not even remotely comparable to what happens in the free market.

Because of that difference, it's imperitive that public servents come up with compensation that we can reasonably absorb. The current Massachusetts tax levels, combined with the current deficits, tell me that municipal employees are being a bit too generous with themselves.

The consumer is deciding to absorb the cost by continually voting the same town boards right back into office. Certain segments of society go to the town meetings and vote the school budgets in then get up and leave. The rest of the people in attendence care about being safe and vote the fire and police budgets in the affirmative. What a ridiculous asertion, "it's imperitive that public servents come up with compensation that we can reasonably absorb". Jim you just about call public servant thieves, but you think it should be left up to them to figure out a just compensation. Were you an actuary for an insurance company? Did you help set the usurious rates for homeowners I pay, and for collision for my car?

I don't think you should hide behind the anonimity of the internet. I think you should state your purpose at a town meeting where you live. Ya sure he is saying, and have every cop in town after me. After being on a police department for 37 years, I can truthfully say that never happened, and I worked with some pretty foolish people.

Do you fish?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Swimmer

The consumer is deciding to absorb the cost by continually voting the same town boards right back into office. Certain segments of society go to the town meetings and vote the school budgets in then get up and leave. The rest of the people in attendence care about being safe and vote the fire and police budgets in the affirmative. What a ridiculous asertion, "it's imperitive that public servents come up with compensation that we can reasonably absorb". Jim you just about call public servant thieves, but you think it should be left up to them to figure out a just compensation. Were you an actuary for an insurance company? Did you help set the usurious rates for homeowners I pay, and for collision for my car?

I don't think you should hide behind the anonimity of the internet. I think you should state your purpose at a town meeting where you live. After being on a police department for 37 years, I can truthfully say that never happened, and I worked with some pretty foolish people.

Do you fish?

Swimmer, you asked some great, probing questions. I'll try to respond.

"The consumer is deciding to absorb the cost by continually voting the same town boards right back into office."

I agree, but to a lesser extent. Here's why. If McDonald's gives all their employees a fat raise, and that causes the price of a Big Mac to go up to a price I think is unreasonable, I can easily buy at Burger King (or another competitor) instead. I don't think the same thing applies to politics. I live in CT, which is a state that has been run into the ground by liberals. It's a lot harder for me to say I'm moving to Kansas, than it is for me to switch from McDonalds to Burger King. Does that make sense? I'm much more "stuck" with the decisions made by politicians, than I am with decisions made by private businesses.

"The rest of the people in attendence care about being safe and vote the fire and police budgets in the affirmative."

Hogwash. If you can show me data that says that towns where cops get fat pensions are "safer" than towns where cops have 401(k)'s, I'd love to see it. Same with teachers. There is zero correlation between student performance and teacher compensation.

"you just about call public servant thieves, but you think it should be left up to them to figure out a just compensation."

You're right, it's not the public servents who design compensation...it's their unions, and the elected officials. I do not blame cops for accepting pensions, hell, I'd take it if someone offered me one. But here are 2 irrefutable facts...(1) Massachusetts and CT have tax rates much higher than the national average, so those states have collected a whole lot of money (2) Massachusetts and CT have massive debt and deficits, menaing that despite the fact that they collected so much, they spent a whole lot more. If that's not irresponsible, what the heck is?

"Were you an actuary for an insurance company? "

Yes.

"Did you help set the usurious rates for homeowners I pay, and for collision for my car?"

First, if you thought those rates were excessive, you were free to purchase elsewhere. Second, despite public perception, personal insurance is highly regulated, and has unbelievably thin profit margins. The best companies out there still spend 95 cents of every dollar they collect in premiums. So while you may feel ripped off if you don't have any claims, remember that you are part of a large group that's barely breaking even.

"I think you should state your purpose at a town meeting where you live"

I do. And no, I'm not worried about cops being after me. Please don't put stupid words in my mouth. At the same time, I've never had a cop give me a direct answer to this question...

"If the private scetor did away with pensions 15 years ago because they were simply too expensive, why is it fair that muncipal employees still get pensions? Put another way, why is it unfair for me to expect cops to live with benefits that are similar to what's available to the taxpayers?"

I respect cops, teachers, firefighters. But their financial security is NOT more important to society than anyone else's financial security. If everyone else has to find a way to live with whatever we can accumulate in our 401(k)'s, then certainly cops can too. It makes no sense for public servents to get benefits that dwarf anything available to the public which they claim to serve. A guaranteed pension after only 20 years of service, is simply too expensive. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be looking at the deficits we're looking at.

Swimmer, the numbers speak for themselves. Many states and towns are literally facing bankruptcy because of these union benefits. There are 2, and only 2, explanations for this. Either those municipalities set tax rates unreasonably low, or they promised benefits that were unreasonably rich. You tell me which you think is the case.

"Do you fish?"

Whenever I can!

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You have no idea what you're talking about.

In the private scetor, your comment would make sense. Because if someone can make that much money, it';s up to the consumer to decide whether or not they want to absorb that cost. If the company can make a product that people want so badly that they are willing to absorb that cost, kudos to the company.

Public servants are in a very different position. The public cannot freely choose not to bear the burden of that cost, because the cost is a tax that is imposed by rule of law. That's not even remotely comparable to what happens in the free market.

Because of that difference, it's imperitive that public servents come up with compensation that we can reasonably absorb. The current Massachusetts tax levels, combined with the current deficits, tell me that municipal employees are being a bit too generous with themselves.

By your logic then, we should send everyone home at 40 hours, then have none to pick up the rest of the work. Or should we hire enough people to pick up the extra work, whether or not that work is temporary or non consistent and pay training, and benefits, and salary. do you not think that option 2 would be more expensive to the public? As far as the police goes the details are predominately funded by the private companies and not the taxpayer. Also as a consumer I demand not to sit in line at a toll booth when there are other booths with no one manning them. Either hire more people or pay the piper. I f they have fifty details a day, and it cost them for 50 new officers to cover these details say 80-90 thousand with benefits, but we could work 50 cops and pay each one 60 thousand in ot a year it is not cheaper?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

By your logic then, we should send everyone home at 40 hours, then have none to pick up the rest of the work. Or should we hire enough people to pick up the extra work, whether or not that work is temporary or non consistent and pay training, and benefits, and salary. do you not think that option 2 would be more expensive to the public? As far as the police goes the details are predominately funded by the private companies and not the taxpayer. Also as a consumer I demand not to sit in line at a toll booth when there are other booths with no one manning them. Either hire more people or pay the piper. I f they have fifty details a day, and it cost them for 50 new officers to cover these details say 80-90 thousand with benefits, but we could work 50 cops and pay each one 60 thousand in ot a year it is not cheaper?

"By your logic then, we should send everyone home at 40 hours, then have none to pick up the rest of the work."

Have you ever worked in the private sector? I'm expected to do my job, regardless of how many hours it takes. That is standard, accepted practice, except for municipal employees I guess.

Specialist, I see that you ignored my question. Gee, I wonder why? I'll post it again...

""If the entire private sector has to live with whatever we can accumulate in our 401(k)'s, why is it unfair to ask our public servents to do the same?"

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Have you ever worked in the private sector? I'm expected to do my job, regardless of how many hours it takes. That is standard, accepted practice, except for municipal employees I guess.

Everybody in the Private sector doesn't get paid Salary. There are plenty of people who work Hourly, get paid Overtime and at a time and a half rate.

Its not just the Public Sector employees that are getting paid overtime

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Everybody in the Private sector doesn't get paid Salary. There are plenty of people who work Hourly, get paid Overtime and at a time and a half rate.

Its not just the Public Sector employees that are getting paid overtime

I'm sure most of us wish boat mechanics worked this way...
no more, sorry, it actually took me 5 hours not 3....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Everybody in the Private sector doesn't get paid Salary. There are plenty of people who work Hourly, get paid Overtime and at a time and a half rate.

Its not just the Public Sector employees that are getting paid overtime

Dad, if you hyper-disect every one of my posts, I promise that you'll find these issues. I don't see you doing that to anyone else, but that's OK, because I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong.

I never, ever said that no one in the private sector gets paid hourly. But many, many people in the private sector (especially those that are full time with benefits) are "exempt", which means their salary covers their workweek, regardless of how many hours they work. Is that correct?

"Its not just the Public Sector employees that are getting paid overtime"

True, very true. But it's also very different, and here's why. In the private scetor, if a company wants to pay overtime, they still have to make their customers WANT to buy their product. If a company can figure out how to pass on that cost to their customers in a way that makes those customers still willing to voluntarily pay that cost, I say good for that company. But the customer has the easy choice to say "no" to that cost of overtime, simply by buying from a competitor.

The public sector has MUCH more authority over their customers (the taxpayers). If the public unions give themselves a big fat raise, I (as a taxpayer) cannot easily choose not to pay that cost. That cost is forcibly passed on to me, taken away from my kids' college fund, and I cannot stop it (unless I move, which is a lot more cumbersome than simply buying something from another company, and a lot more expensive).

Would you say that's a significant difference Dad?

Dad, can you answer a simple direct question?

"Since most of the private sector did away with pensions years ago, because they were too expensive, why is it unfair to ask public unionized employees to follow suit? If everyone else is forced to find a way to live with whatever we accumulate in our 401(k)s, why can't teachers and cops do the same thing? Why can't public servents live with the same benefits offered to the taxpayers whom they serve?"

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Would you say that's a significant difference Dad?

Dad, can you answer a simple direct question?

OMG, I can't answer it, its impossible. I have been beaten by you, painted into a corner and trapped by your Superior Intellect and Amazing Internet Prowess....Kirk to Bridge, Get us out of here.

You posted a question and people here are trying to give you there take on it....but everytime they post something you don't agree with you come back w/ the "Can't Anybody answer a simple question" argument.

I'll Answer them for you and then maybe we can move on.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Would you say that's a significant difference Dad?

Difference in What? I stated that Private Sector Employees receive time and a half for overtime worked also.....so in that case the answer is No....No difference at all. Overtime is Overtime

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Dad, can you answer a simple direct question?

Yes.....but note that your "Simple Direct" Question is really 3 questions

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Since most of the private sector did away with pensions years ago, because they were too expensive, why is it unfair to ask public unionized employees to follow suit?

Its Not....Ask Away. No law says you can't ask

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

If everyone else is forced to find a way to live with whatever we accumulate in our 401(k)s, why can't teachers and cops do the same thing?

They Could

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Why can't public servents live with the same benefits offered to the taxpayers whom they serve?"

They Could

There....now can we move on.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

OMG, I can't answer it, its impossible. I have been beaten by you, painted into a corner and trapped by your Superior Intellect and Amazing Internet Prowess....Kirk to Bridge, Get us out of here.

You posted a question and people here are trying to give you there take on it....but everytime they post something you don't agree with you come back w/ the "Can't Anybody answer a simple question" argument.

I'll Answer them for you and then maybe we can move on.



Difference in What? I stated that Private Sector Employees receive time and a half for overtime worked also.....so in that case the answer is No....No difference at all. Overtime is Overtime



Yes.....but note that your "Simple Direct" Question is really 3 questions



Its Not....Ask Away. No law says you can't ask



They Could



They Could

There....now can we move on.

Dad -

"OMG, I can't answer it, its impossible. I have been beaten by you, painted into a corner and trapped by your Superior Intellect"

You said it, not me. I make no claims to have any special intellect. What I have is common sense, intellectual curiosity, honesty, and the desire to debate other similar individuals, especuially those who disagree with me, since that's how you learn. Unfortunately, it only works if the other folks are as willing to answer direct questions as I am, and on this issue, they keep dodging.

"Overtime is Overtime"

In the private sctor, customers can easily and freely choose to refuse to pay the costs of employee overtime. In the public sector, if unions want overtime, they take it from taxpayers with force of law. You claim you see no difference between money that is voluntarily traded and money that is confiscasted with force of law? Those 2 things are identical to you?

You did answer part of my question, in that you admit there is no reason why they can't live with 401(k)s. So, given how burdensome current tax rates are, don't you think they SHOULD live with 401(k)s, given that you concede that they COULD? Seems to me that the only answer to that question is "yes", unless you believe that public employees are somehow more entitled to wealth than taxpayers.

Dad, I admit I'm asking tough questions, these are not softballs.

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"By your logic then, we should send everyone home at 40 hours, then have none to pick up the rest of the work."

Have you ever worked in the private sector? I'm expected to do my job, regardless of how many hours it takes. That is standard, accepted practice, except for municipal employees I guess.

Specialist, I see that you ignored my question. Gee, I wonder why? I'll post it again...

""If the entire private sector has to live with whatever we can accumulate in our 401(k)'s, why is it unfair to ask our public servents to do the same?"

1st I have and still do work in the private sector, in fact every job I have had has been in the private sector. Since High School I have worked for 4 different private companies, with the exception of 1 all offered 401k, and the current one offers a pension as well. So in all 4 private sector jobs, ot was offered to complete the days tasks as opposed to hiring more employees. It makes more sense because it cost less money, and the ot is not always consistant. My salary is probably less than yours, and when I work ot I have the chance to get into 6 figures. On some weeks it is not uncommon to work as many as 30 hours of ot. Now if you make say $100,000 a year and 50-60 hrs a week , how is it any differant than someone to make 60 or 70,000 a year and then work as many hours as you and turn it into 90-100,000. ? Most of the employees in that article probably make 60-70,000 as a base salary, they then work an enormous amount of extra hours like you do and they made more. Big friggin woop. Now if you got all of your work done within yourr 40 hours, you make out, no? The reasons givem for the Massport workers was that due to constuction and some other problems some employees worked more hours, but it was n, because it was a temporary thing to worth it to hire any new employees.

As fas as your benefits question goes, this posting had nothing to do with benefits, 401k's or pensions, it was about the amount of money some people made in one year. Are the costs out of control absolutely, should something be done, for sure but what I don't know.

I will also tell you this that my pension in know way will ever meet or exceed my salary. Those are the promplem pensions.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

1st I have and still do work in the private sector, in fact every job I have had has been in the private sector. Since High School I have worked for 4 different private companies, with the exception of 1 all offered 401k, and the current one offers a pension as well. So in all 4 private sector jobs, ot was offered to complete the days tasks as opposed to hiring more employees. It makes more sense because it cost less money, and the ot is not always consistant. My salary is probably less than yours, and when I work ot I have the chance to get into 6 figures. On some weeks it is not uncommon to work as many as 30 hours of ot. Now if you make say $100,000 a year and 50-60 hrs a week , how is it any differant than someone to make 60 or 70,000 a year and then work as many hours as you and turn it into 90-100,000. ? Most of the employees in that article probably make 60-70,000 as a base salary, they then work an enormous amount of extra hours like you do and they made more. Big friggin woop. Now if you got all of your work done within yourr 40 hours, you make out, no? The reasons givem for the Massport workers was that due to constuction and some other problems some employees worked more hours, but it was n, because it was a temporary thing to worth it to hire any new employees.

As fas as your benefits question goes, this posting had nothing to do with benefits, 401k's or pensions, it was about the amount of money some people made in one year. Are the costs out of control absolutely, should something be done, for sure but what I don't know.

I will also tell you this that my pension in know way will ever meet or exceed my salary. Those are the promplem pensions.

"So in all 4 private sector jobs, ot was offered to complete the days tasks as opposed to hiring more employees. It makes more sense because it cost less money"

If the pensions are fattened by the overtime (as they are in many cases), then that system does not cost less money. It makes cops rich and taxpayers poor. If the pensions do not reflect overtime, you have a point.

"Now if you make say $100,000 a year and 50-60 hrs a week , how is it any differant than someone to make 60 or 70,000 a year and then work as many hours as you and turn it into 90-100,000. ? "

First, I don't work 50 hours on average, though I do some weeks...In some cases, you are right. In the case of some police departments, where the overtime is so steady, it would in fact be cheaper to hire additional employees to do that work at base pay instead of 150% of pay. They could hire part-time officers to do the extra work. But the unions won't allow that, because they want those cops to get rich.

"this posting had nothing to do with benefits, 401k's or pensions, it was about the amount of money some people made in one year."

Granted. But my question (about benefits) is pretty closely tied to the issue of public employee compensation, it's an issue that effects us all, and it's an isue that provides a huge benefit to a small number of people, while asking a large number of people to make huge sacrifices.

"Are the costs out of control absolutely, should something be done, for sure but what I don't know"

It's not rocket science, there are 2 choices. Raise taxes or cut benefits. We need to decide which is more fair. If cutting benefits meant that cops/teachers would have to eat cat food, I'd say raise taxes. But if cutting benefits simply means that cops/teachers have to live like the rest of us, then I say cut benefits.

I have no problem with folks in the private sector getting rich, because they still have to make their customers want to pay for their product or service. But no one in public service should be rich, because taxpayers do not have the option of refusing to pay.

Good, thoughtful post. Thanks.