Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Feb 1, 2012 11:33:08 GMT -5
"Yes the do.. and we are the one's paying them, overpaying them.. for life. You can retire on full salary after 20 years, and live off that or take another job.. which I have seen many do. Its a joke."
You're blatently WRONG about this. I'm sorry but do you even research the facts before you start "running your mouth"?
No federal employee gets full pay in retirement, even under the more generous civil service retirement. And no government employee can obtain a full retirement after 20 years, again, even under the more generous "old system." It takes a minimum of 30 years to qualify for full retirement, and even then you have to meet a "minimum retirement age" which is usually in your late mid to late 50's. Furtheromre, 30 years doesn't get you much...... just 30% of your high three if you retire before 62.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Feb 1, 2012 11:40:46 GMT -5
So it looks like NorCal women are not stepping up . I'm glad to hear women in other places are stepping up, it'll give me ammunition when I bash our lazy moms here. It's weird too, like half of them show up to every single practice and game. They bring camp chairs, set up just outside the fence, and sit there gabbing the whole time. I've also noticed that about half of them are starting to uh, get their middle age plump on. The guys tend to be in way better shape. Gee, I wonder why? Get off your damn lawn chair and out on the field, and maybe you wouldn't have such a problem keeping your weight under control.
|
|
TheOtherMe
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 14:40:52 GMT -5
Posts: 27,280
Mini-Profile Name Color: e619e6
|
Post by TheOtherMe on Feb 1, 2012 11:45:23 GMT -5
"Yes the do.. and we are the one's paying them, overpaying them.. for life. You can retire on full salary after 20 years, and live off that or take another job.. which I have seen many do. Its a joke." You're blatently WRONG about this. I'm sorry but do you even research the facts before you start "running your mouth"? No federal employee gets full pay in retirement, even under the more generous civil service retirement. And no government employee can obtain a full retirement after 20 years, again, even under the more generous "old system." It takes a minimum of 30 years to qualify for full retirement, and even then you have to meet a "minimum retirement age" which is usually in your late mid to late 50's. Furtheromre, 30 years doesn't get you much...... just 30% of your high three if you retire before 62. Full retirement does not equal retirement that is the same as your pay. I think under CSRS, we got 2% for each year worked up to some number of years where it was capped. I didn't work that many years, so I don't have that information. One of my managers worked as long as they would let him--something like 45 years and came down with Parkinson's not long after he retired.
|
|
aliciar6
Familiar Member
Joined: Oct 11, 2011 10:34:31 GMT -5
Posts: 594
|
Post by aliciar6 on Feb 1, 2012 12:36:45 GMT -5
www.opm.gov/retire/pre/fers/index.aspand you have to put in a certain percentage of your salary in order to get the TSP match by the Gov't, I also pay into the FERS portion (the 30% of my high 3 if i work 30 years), and i pay into SS. so for all parts of my retirement I pay a portion of my salary into. when i started (and i'm a chemical engineer) i was a GS-5, my salary (and i am in the NJ/NYC area) was just under 28K...my classmates started out making 53K in LCOLA. for all the different things i have to do, run, manage, learn...i would say I am underpaid when you look at what a person in the private sector would make. They would make at least 25K more than I do now. Job security: yes, it is there, but right now and for the past 6 months we have been on a hiring freeze, we are on a pay freeze, we are trying to offer early retirement and voluntary separation before we look into a RIF. We have to eliminate around 200 positions at least right now at my base.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,374
|
Post by Tiny on Feb 1, 2012 12:54:47 GMT -5
However, as I worked my way up after getting an accounting degree, I could have made more money in private industry. However, I had so many years in that it would have been difficult to leave and start over as to retirement. TheOtherMe has just pointed out the "Trap" that alot of people get stuck in, in both areas of jobs (private and government). The old "I've got too much invested in this job to risk starting over somewhere else". I see/hear this from teacher friends/aquantainces and even from some other union workers I know. I also had a friend who stuck with a company to the bitter end (and got a big Thank You for your 27 years of hard work when she was let go). They are all hanging in there in order to receive some 'big reward' at the end. I guess that's an example of the ever lauded "Puritan Work Ethic" suck it up, tough it out, endure the hardships and get your reward from the Big Guy (someone else - your employer, your union, the governement) when all said and done. I think the people I know have gotten caught in the 'trap' due to Human Nature (and fuzzy math) about "sticking with what you've invested alot into' versus the intent to become incompetent at their jobs or being lazy or not having the education to do some other job.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Feb 1, 2012 13:20:30 GMT -5
"Job security: yes, it is there, but right now and for the past 6 months we have been on a hiring freeze, we are on a pay freeze, we are trying to offer early retirement and voluntary separation before we look into a RIF. We have to eliminate around 200 positions at least right now at my base. "
They aren't planning on doing RIF's in my agency, or so we've been told. We also essentially have a hiring freeze, and they only plan on replacing 1 in 4 positions after people retire. Also our operating budget is going to be dramatically slashed.
|
|
aliciar6
Familiar Member
Joined: Oct 11, 2011 10:34:31 GMT -5
Posts: 594
|
Post by aliciar6 on Feb 1, 2012 13:30:13 GMT -5
They are trying to avoid a RIF, in part by not replacing people who retire, but we may not make the goal so they are letting some people go, I think our police department is getting a large number of people cut as well. Our tech base funding has almost been cut in 1/2 so we have to really look to a lot of different avenues for R&D funding. Granted if we got rid of a large chunk of a certain building, we would be way under budget and be over producing.....
|
|
dancinmama
Senior Associate
LIVIN' THE DREAM!!
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 20:49:45 GMT -5
Posts: 10,659
|
Post by dancinmama on Feb 1, 2012 14:04:40 GMT -5
phenoix/TheOtherMe: You both mentioned benefits at Fortune 500 companies in your posts.
DH works for a Fortune 500 company. It is a huge company with multiple divisions and employs over 140K workers world wide, but mostly in the US.
They dropped their defined benefit plan in 2006 for new hires. Those people will get no pension at all. Why? Because corporations are realizing that offering lifetime pensions to employees is unsustainable in this age when people will easily live into their 80s and 90s.
RETIREMENT BENEFITS
MEDICAL Employees who hired in before 2006 have to work until 55 and put in at least 30 years before they get the maximum corporate subsidy for retiree medical. Here are the options:
Kaiser HMO: Over $800/mo. with 30 years or more of service. This is only available to retirees who were carrying Kaiser as employees in 2009 or earlier. Employees can no longer choose it as an option and retirees cannot switch to it.
Aetna PPO: $1157/mo. with 30 years or more of service. $1500/person annual deductible. Then it pays 20% until you reach a maximum of $3K out of pocket per person per year. IF a couple both end up in the hospital in the same year, their annual out of pocket cost for medical that year would be almost $20K WITH CORPORATE SUBSIDIZED INSURANCE!!
DENTAL / VISION Currently our dental and vision plans aren't "that great" either and our medical premiums go up every year too. We will be on our own for dental and vision in retirement; there is no benefit for them in retirement.
PENSION When DH retires he will get a pension. It will be less than 30% of his current gross pay. That comes out to less than 1% for each year that he worked.
Remember anyone who hired on after 2006 gets NOTHING.
BONUSES/PROFIT SHARING His company does not give annual bonuses and only directors on up get what I would call "profit sharing".
The pension/retiree medical benefits have continually been reduced over the years. In the 80s, many people who we worked with and were our age (early to late 20s) did not aggressively contribute or contribute at all to a 401k or IRA when they became available because they thought that the corporate retirement benefits would be enough for them, just as they had been for their fathers. They did not really think that they would NEED IT to retire. Now, they are stuck working until age 65 (if they don't get laid off first) because they found out too late that their pensions are too low (less than 30% of current gross after 32 years) and the cost of retiree medical is too high (a 1500% increase or more in retiree medical premiums over the last 10 years). Those benefits, although very helpful, would not sustain most people in retirement.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Feb 1, 2012 14:26:24 GMT -5
Dancinmanna,
Thanks for the summary. Just curious though, what's your medical premiums/copays for someone working, not retired?
I'm admittingly not very familar with how the feds handle medical care in retirement. I THINK (don't know for sure) they offer to subsidize your medical insurance plan you had while working at the same rate until you reach 65 in which case they no longer do so and you go on medicare like everyone else.
I'm sorry I don't know the details of our dental and vision plans. I know they aren't "that great" because I occassionally look, and find it's usually just cheaper to self pay.
The way the pension works with the feds. You get 1% per year of service if you retire before age 62, and 1.1% per year if you retire after 62. They set up the system to discourage retiring before you qualify for SS.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Feb 1, 2012 14:31:12 GMT -5
And the whole point of pensions for government employees - I thought - was to help offset the below-market wages. Fortune 500 employees might not get a pension, but they make more over their working lifetime, so it ostensibly evens out.
I don't work for the feds, but our state pensions are not going to allow anyone to retire in Bermuda. It's based on your lifetime average earnings, takes 10 years to vest, and you have to work another 30+ years (Rule of 85). I did a calculation estimating my average lifetime earnings at $80K and - if I retired at 65 - I'd get about $2K/month.
The people complaining about golden parachutes for federal employees are behind the times, there haven't been cushy pensions for a while now. I think the only people getting $100K+ in pensions these days are municipal employees, and maybe legislators.
|
|
dancinmama
Senior Associate
LIVIN' THE DREAM!!
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 20:49:45 GMT -5
Posts: 10,659
|
Post by dancinmama on Feb 1, 2012 14:31:45 GMT -5
They are not dropping pensions because employees are living longer. They are dropping pensions because they have already looted the pensions for other purposes in many cases. There is an excellent book I recommend: " Retirement Heist", by Ellen E. Schultz. Because of the way pensions are accounted for, a company with many older employees is actually less expensive where pensions are concerned. The money to pay those pensions has already been accounted for and benefits are no longer accruing. Then too, each year some of those seniors drop dead and relieve them of all liability. According to Schultz, it was moves by companies to fund additional benefits for executives that stripped many of these plans, combined with the use of pensions to fund mergers. It is a very complex subject, not to be addressed in a sentence or two, so I urge you to put the book on reserve and read it for yourself. toughtimes: You have a point. That book sounds very interesting and I will try to pick it up. Regardless, I don't see how longevity does not also play a role. IF someone is getting a pension of say, $40K/yr. and retires at age 55, the pension liability to the company for 30 years of payments is $1.2M for ONE person and that doesn't even include the company's cost of retiree medical. Social security is facing the same problem - longevity is greater than ever anticipated.
|
|
|
Post by illinicheme on Feb 1, 2012 14:45:40 GMT -5
How come it's always moms getting the business? Let's bash dads for a change [image] What is there to bash? Dads are awesome! While we're on the subject of moms though, what is it with you chicks never stepping up to coach your kid's teams? My daughter's play in an all female fast pitch softball league. Every single coach is a guy, and none of the mother's volunteer to coach because they don't have enough experience/don't feel comfortable doing it. You think your husband played female fast pitch softball as a kid??? He doesn't know what he's doing either. Get off your lazy butt's and help out, and no, being "team mom" is not helping out. Neither is bringing snacks. What is this 1950? If I end up having kids, I promise to volunteer to coach. I'd have to - because my DH kind of throws like a girl. ;D
|
|
dancinmama
Senior Associate
LIVIN' THE DREAM!!
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 20:49:45 GMT -5
Posts: 10,659
|
Post by dancinmama on Feb 1, 2012 14:49:22 GMT -5
Dancinmanna, Thanks for the summary. Just curious though, what's your medical premiums/copays for someone working, not retired? I'm admittingly not very familar with how the feds handle medical care in retirement. I THINK (don't know for sure) they offer to subsidize your medical insurance plan you had while working at the same rate until you reach 65 in which case they no longer do so and you go on medicare like everyone else. The way the pension works with the feds. You get 1% per year of service if you retire before age 62, and 1.1% per year if you retire after 62. They set up the system to discourage retiring before you qualify for SS. phenoix: Currently we pay $332/mo. for Kaiser (HMO). We pay a $30 co-pay to go to our PCP and a $50 co-pay for a "specialist". There are daily co-pays for hospitalization, but neither of us has been hospitalized in the last 3 years so I don't know what they currently are. Kaiser is only offered to employees who had selected it as an option prior to 2009. The PPO has a higher premium and higher co-pays, but I can't really tell you how much higher; we had Kaiser so I didn't pay that much attention during open enrollment last year. We pay $78/mo. for dental. Benefits (including the cost of exams and cleanings) are capped at $1500/person per year. We pay $6/mo. for vision. We see an optometrist (no an MD). We can get new lenses every year and new frames every other year, but there are caps on costs so we end up paying something out of pocket - even when we get them at Costco. What do you do while your frames are getting new lenses and you can't see? So we get new lenses and frames every two years. In the off year DH gets contact lenses.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,374
|
Post by Tiny on Feb 1, 2012 15:46:51 GMT -5
The people complaining about golden parachutes for federal employees are behind the times, there haven't been cushy pensions for a while now. I think the only people getting $100K+ in pensions these days are municipal employees, and maybe legislators. Could it be that they are complaining about the people who DID get the nicer pensions/benefits and are still alive, collecting them versus the people who are retiring now or in the next few years who won't be getting the nice pensions/benefits?? I know there's been a local flare up about a handful of politicians and school district employees who managed to get themselves sweet retirement deals while the majority have mediocre retirement deals.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Feb 1, 2012 15:49:08 GMT -5
I suppose, but what good does it do? There's not much you can do about it but change the system going forward. (I suppose you could strip people of their pensions retroactively, but I'd hate to see the backlash if that became common).
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,418
|
Post by NastyWoman on Feb 1, 2012 15:49:37 GMT -5
Interesting how people reacted to the article. Yes, no, whatever, pensions etc... What I saw when reading it was that there is a salary schedule in place that is in serious need of an overhaul. And since the higher educated federal workforce is in fact underpaid I think that there is no way for me to predict whether this would result in lower or higher salary costs. I would depend on the make-up of the federal workforce. So my answer to the question is: run the numbers and we'll know. And next we should act on them.
|
|
dancinmama
Senior Associate
LIVIN' THE DREAM!!
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 20:49:45 GMT -5
Posts: 10,659
|
Post by dancinmama on Feb 1, 2012 15:52:25 GMT -5
And the whole point of pensions for government employees - I thought - was to help offset the below-market wages. Fortune 500 employees might not get a pension, but they make more over their working lifetime, so it ostensibly evens out.I don't work for the feds, but our state pensions are not going to allow anyone to retire in Bermuda. It's based on your lifetime average earnings, takes 10 years to vest, and you have to work another 30+ years (Rule of 85). I did a calculation estimating my average lifetime earnings at $80K and - if I retired at 65 - I'd get about $2K/month. The people complaining about golden parachutes for federal employees are behind the times, there haven't been cushy pensions for a while now. I think the only people getting $100K+ in pensions these days are municipal employees, and maybe legislators. mid: Really? Do you actually know people who have worked for a Fortune 500 company for any period of time? After 25 years with a Fortune 500 company as a salaried/professional employee, DH was making less than $84K at age 48. He had spent all of those years working at a remote field site, so promotion/job growth opportunities were limited. He was able to get a promotion and break into management in 2005 which increased his pay to a whopping $104K, but he had to move to the south SF Bay Area to do it. That's $104K/yr. at a time and in an area where a piece of crap house (emphasis on "crap") cost well over three quarters of a million dollars!!
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Feb 1, 2012 15:58:51 GMT -5
Wow, did I hit a nerve? There is a Fortune 500 company headquartered in the city in which I live, and a good third to half of the 18+ population works there (including two close friends of mine). So I do have some idea of what I'm talking about. I looked at some job postings when we moved here, and mechanical engineers (for example) were starting out at $70K. The same job with the state pays $40K or so. There weren't many attorney jobs, but the ones that were posted paid $100K+. And this company's benefits are just as good as ours. Perhaps lumping all Fortune 500 companies into one group is a mistake, but yes, IN GENERAL their employees receive higher pay than government employees. Otherwise, how would they find workers? Also notice that I said "ostensibly". I know there are always outliers, and it sounds as though your DH's company is one of them. If your DH was unhappy with his pay, he was free at any time to apply for one of these supposed cushy government jobs... (and to be fair, I say the same thing to coworkers who bitch about our pay/benefits). The grass may seem greener, but chances are it's not.
|
|
The J
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 11:01:13 GMT -5
Posts: 4,821
|
Post by The J on Feb 1, 2012 16:09:17 GMT -5
And the whole point of pensions for government employees - I thought - was to help offset the below-market wages. Fortune 500 employees might not get a pension, but they make more over their working lifetime, so it ostensibly evens out.I don't work for the feds, but our state pensions are not going to allow anyone to retire in Bermuda. It's based on your lifetime average earnings, takes 10 years to vest, and you have to work another 30+ years (Rule of 85). I did a calculation estimating my average lifetime earnings at $80K and - if I retired at 65 - I'd get about $2K/month. The people complaining about golden parachutes for federal employees are behind the times, there haven't been cushy pensions for a while now. I think the only people getting $100K+ in pensions these days are municipal employees, and maybe legislators. mid: Really? Do you actually know people who have worked for a Fortune 500 company for any period of time? After 25 years with a Fortune 500 company as a salaried/professional employee, DH was making less than $84K at age 48. He had spent all of those years working at a remote field site, so promotion/job growth opportunities were limited. He was able to get a promotion and break into management in 2005 which increased his pay to a whopping $104K, but he had to move to the south SF Bay Area to do it. That's $104K/yr. at a time and in an area where a piece of crap house (emphasis on "crap") cost well over three quarters of a million dollars!! My mom works for a Fortune 500. She makes ~100k a year. A person doing similar work for my municipal employer (and we are one of the higher paid municipalities in the state) tops off at ~75k a year. My mom also can get a bonus, which people here can't. She also has a similar amount of paid time off, and pretty much unlimited sick pay. When she had cancer, she got was off for about 6 months on paid leave. When she had wrist surgery, she was off for about 2 months. Both of these occasions were at full pay.
|
|
dancinmama
Senior Associate
LIVIN' THE DREAM!!
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 20:49:45 GMT -5
Posts: 10,659
|
Post by dancinmama on Feb 1, 2012 16:22:10 GMT -5
There is a Fortune 500 company headquartered in the city in which I live, and a good third to half of the 18+ population works there (including two close friends of mine). So I do have some idea of what I'm talking about. I looked at some job postings when we moved here, and mechanical engineers (for example) were starting out at $70K. The same job with the state pays $40K or so. There weren't many attorney jobs, but the ones that were posted paid $100K+. And this company's benefits are just as good as ours. Perhaps lumping all Fortune 500 companies into one group is a mistake, but yes, IN GENERAL their employees receive higher pay than government employees. Otherwise, how would they find workers? If your DH was unhappy with his pay, he was free at any time to apply for one of these supposed cushy government jobs... I guess then, I could ask the same thing of you. If you knew that Fortune 500 jobs paid so much more, why not continue applying for one of those until you got one? To tell you the truth, when we were starting our careers, we didn't give much thought to working for the government vs working in the private sector. We didn't pay attention to the similarities or differences. Once you have put several years into one of them, you are not "free at any time to apply" for the other because you've already invested too many years toward your defined benefit plan to make a change. There was a time when DH could have gotten a job with the DCAA and would have been interested, but he already had too many years in with his Fortune 500 company to start all over.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Feb 1, 2012 16:25:52 GMT -5
Once you have put several years into one of them, you are not "free at any time to apply" for the other because you've already invested too many years toward your defined benefit plan to make a change. One of the many reasons I'm glad that pensions are going the way of the dinosaur. My 401k money can follow me wherever the hell I want, at a moments notice.
|
|
dancinmama
Senior Associate
LIVIN' THE DREAM!!
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 20:49:45 GMT -5
Posts: 10,659
|
Post by dancinmama on Feb 1, 2012 16:26:30 GMT -5
Wow, did I hit a nerve? Not at all. I do not think that Fortune 500 salaries are bad, but for the rank and file workers, they are not exactly what I would call extravagant.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Feb 1, 2012 16:38:09 GMT -5
Because I like my job! I'm not complaining about my salary/benefits, nor am I complaining about anyone else's.
I think - although there are always some outliers - there is a pretty clear tradeoff between the two. Higher salary in the private sector vs. better benefits/more job security in government. If at any point I felt the benefits/job security here no longer balanced the lower pay, I'd go somewhere else.
I disagree with the premise that once you've "invested" a certain amount of time with that company, you can't go anywhere else. If you can earn enough working somewhere else to offset the benefits you're giving up, then go for it. If you can't, then it's probably not that good a deal.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Feb 1, 2012 16:45:59 GMT -5
Dark, it is perfectly possible to have both a pension and a 401K and at one time that was common. Sure, but then the 401k wasn't matched, and had lower contribution limits. Your disappearing pension is no gain to you. My 401k match says otherwise. Granted it's not that great with the company that bought us, it was pretty sweet under the old one though. If you have five years towards a pension and leave in a lot of cases you get nothing, or really close to it. If you have five years of 401k matching contributions and leave, every single penny comes with you. If you'd rather rely on your employer not to steal the money, to actually honor it when you're old, and have to put in 7-10 years just to vest, and 20-30 with the same employer to actually get anything, be my guest. Personally, it scares the shit out of me.
|
|
dancinmama
Senior Associate
LIVIN' THE DREAM!!
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 20:49:45 GMT -5
Posts: 10,659
|
Post by dancinmama on Feb 1, 2012 16:48:08 GMT -5
mid: Really? Do you actually know people who have worked for a Fortune 500 company for any period of time? After 25 years with a Fortune 500 company as a salaried/professional employee, DH was making less than $84K at age 48. He had spent all of those years working at a remote field site, so promotion/job growth opportunities were limited. He was able to get a promotion and break into management in 2005 which increased his pay to a whopping $104K, but he had to move to the south SF Bay Area to do it. That's $104K/yr. at a time and in an area where a piece of crap house (emphasis on "crap") cost well over three quarters of a million dollars!! My mom works for a Fortune 500. She makes ~100k a year. A person doing similar work for my municipal employer (and we are one of the higher paid municipalities in the state) tops off at ~75k a year. My mom also can get a bonus, which people here can't. She also has a similar amount of paid time off, and pretty much unlimited sick pay. When she had cancer, she got was off for about 6 months on paid leave. When she had wrist surgery, she was off for about 2 months. Both of these occasions were at full pay. Again, you can't make such broad generalizations. My BFF from high school works for a municipality as a clerk (high school education only). She makes aver $70K and her annual pension will be higher than DH's for less years of service. There is ONE reason that many large companies went to unlimited sick pay - MONEY!! They can either allow employees to accrue sick pay and pay them for it when they leave the company OR they can offer unlimited sick pay and council people who they think are abusing it. My DH has been working for the same company for almost 32 years and has taken the normal day off here or there when he had a cold or the flu. He also has to keep an eye on the "lost time" of people who work for him to ensure that they are not abusing the "benefit". IF his company had accrued sick leave instead of unlimited sick leave, the company would owe my DH a shitpile of money upon his upcoming retirement. With unlimited sick leave, they owe him nothing.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Feb 1, 2012 16:52:42 GMT -5
A good portion of the people in 401Ks never receive those matches because they don't vest, and that is intentional. Are you kidding? 401k vesting schedules, for those companies that even have them anymore, are much more lenient than pension vesting schedules. Furthermore, under a pension system, lower paid employees wind up with something. 401ks require discretionary income and some judgement to fund. Only because people view them as optional. Every single working person should be putting at least 10% into their 401k. No matter what. I don't care if that means you have to live in your car, survive almost entirely on beans and rice, and you never take vacations. That's how pensions work, after-all. Your pension contribution isn't a choice. It comes out of your paycheck automatically and you don't get a say in it. That's why lower paid workers get benefits later. There's no law against treating your 401k the exact same way.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Feb 1, 2012 16:54:41 GMT -5
Municipal employees are COMPLETELY different from federal/state government employees. I agree that this is where the big pension "abuses" occur - retired policemen receiving $100K/year after 20 years of service, etc. But lumping municipal employees with federal or state employees is no different from lumping mom & pop businesses with Fortune 500s.
I'd say a good 99% of the "OMG they're getting HOW much in retirement?" anecdotes involve municipal employees. As Phoenix and others have stated, the feds and the states are no longer that generous. NO ONE gets a pension that even comes close to their annual salary.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 14:01:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2012 17:07:04 GMT -5
So far as the mail carriers go, a good portion of that workforce includes part-time casual workers at about minimum wage, especially around Christmas. I'm going to have to call BS on the bold text above. I worked for a USPS encoding center for 4 years as a second part-time job. This was around 2000-2003. My pay started out at $12.75 and by the time I left 4 years later, I was making right under $15 an hour. That is hardly "minimum wage" as you put it. That's not even close to California's minimum wage.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Feb 1, 2012 17:07:21 GMT -5
Many 401ks don't vest for 5 years and many companies run lower-level folks out long before then. I don't know anyone with a vesting schedule that long on 401k matches. The most I've seen is 2 years, and quite a few companies have them vest immediately now. Is anyone on this board working somewhere that has 401k vesting schedules longer than 2 years?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 14:01:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2012 17:09:16 GMT -5
My first job had a 3 year vesting for the 401k back in 2006 to 2008
|
|