Our local City employees have VAST pensions. They retire on over 200k a year. It's ridiculous. That's why they can't see the problems of normal working people and they vote like they don't have a care in the world. They don't: they are taken care of for life.

Government workers should go on social security like everyone else and get a taste of their own medicine.

Right wing talking points.

No we should bring back pensions for all workers.

And then vote in ways that cut social security and other social programs for everyone else.

This is not RW talking points if they have to live on social security like everyone else. It's fairness so they vote in ways where they understand the consequences of what they do.

You make assertions without even an attempt at proof, then call for the end of the pension when any decent person should be calling for more and larger pensions in every line of work, Union for all.
Name your city.

If you are willing to call on "pensions for all" to replace social security, okay I'm for that.

I've also been pro-union in the past and on DU, except recent events regarding the financial situation of Berkeley have given me pause. We have City bureaucrats walking away with over two hundred thousand dollar pensions, and the City still granting enormous salaries under those pension conditions, while starving community agencies and affordable housing because they "don't have the money". It's not RW talking points at all: it's watching how a particular city's budget got looted without anything being left over for the people who most need it.

My understanding is the city union just underwent a renegotiation and are getting a 3% raise even while community agencies are being cut. If you want the right-wing talking points - you should see the people talking about "fixing" the problem by driving the City into bankruptcy. At least I'm not talking about getting rid of unions for City staff!

You're acting like the money in the pension funds, that's been invested and seen dividends and capital appreciation, belongs to the City. It doesn't; it belongs to the employees. It's their money. The fact that there's a million dollars in a pension fund right now doens't mean a million dollars was put in; a much smaller amount was put in a long time ago.

Looks like upper five-figures for most people, which sounds about right for the Bay area. What in particular bothers you?

Supposedly the City has no money because of gigantic unfunded liabilities that are looming - even though we are not currently cash-strapped: this is boom time for a number of different types of taxes.

This article explains the ostensible pension issue: http://www.dailycal.org/2012/02/27/some-claim-high-pensions-could-deplete-berkeleys-funds/

http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_19691120

Just ctrl+F for Berkeley and remember this was 2013:
http://transparentcalifornia.com/pensions/2013/calpers/

The problem is worse now.

what their pension is worth?

I know because I live here.

Here's an article about our former City Manager:
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Berkeley-s-ex-city-manager-retires-with-windfall-2416243.php

The City Manager who replaced him (but who just left for a job in Oakland) will have even more because of her larger salary. And since nothing has been done about this situation, and we have a new highly paid City Manager...

But it was also in the two articles I posted above that explained why the City's contributions made the pensions larger than salaries.

And I'm sure if you clicked around the database there is a way to figure that out, but I'm not the database analyst type, so I wouldn't be able to explain that to you. Sorry you just can't take my word that I live in a place and no very well from public discussion that our public officials and university professors make in the 200k range YEARLY in pension.

I hope you "believe" the San Francisco Chronicle article I posted above. Here it is again in case you don't want to check the above comment: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Berkeley-s-ex-city-manager-retires-with-windfall-2416243.php

If you post one more "skeptical" comment, I'm going to assume your trolling.

I just asked you a question, no reason for you to call me a troll!

Bad site usability, but that's where it says it's yearly.

ETA: a little bit more clarity on where to hover

I am a state employee and my pension is/will be much less than my actual salary. So unless you pull down that much, it's unlikely your annuity is that high.

Now, a person could retire from the military after 20 years and get a pension for that, then work another 20 or whatever at a state and get that pension as well. Still probably won't equal that much for middle-rank people.

And I also saw a Berkeley school teacher - perhaps he pulled some time as an administrator. While salaries are high in the area because of housing costs, one of the articles I posted above also explains how pensions are higher than the salaries.

You can view them by pension system here: http://transparentcalifornia.com/agencies/pensions/

When you get into other types of bureaucratic jobs, a few California officials were making 500k/yr. There seems to be one that broke a million last year: http://transparentcalifornia.com/pensions/2014/

I'm sure RW forces are behind that database, and RW people are probably who resort to it. But people challenged me to bring up data, so that's where it is. Those size pensions are indeed by the year.

A decade ago when I saw UC tenured professors I KNEW retiring on 200k pensions while most Ph.D.s I knew had needed to go into adjunct work, I just about lost it. This issue shouldn't be owned by the Rightwing, even if it needs to be discussed in Left terms.

It was a huge deal in Las Vegas a few years ago. Part of it was an amazingly good contract worked out by a proactive Union (because what politician wants to be "the anti-firefighter candidate?&quot . The bigger part of it was gaming the sick day system. Most firefighters and police here are still making six figure salaries (without benefits), although they assure us that the overtime and sick day abuses have been eliminated.

Meanwhile, the per pupil expenditure in Clark County is lower than any state in the union.

People used to laugh at our piddly pension plan.

Now, of course, it's different. Now, we're just parasites sucking on the economy. I've actually been told that. Not to my face, of course.

The PTB won't be happy until everybody is in poverty.

defined benefit pensions, this is way down from the late 70's when it was about 62% of private sector workers in such plans.

I didn't think there were still that many in unions left.

One fifth of workers currently have a defined benefit plan, while one third have a defined contribution plan.

https://www.dol.gov/ebsa/pdf/historicaltables.pdf

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v69n3/v69n3p1.html

Most of the nonprofits I've worked at had a defined benefit plan, though their supplemental defined contribution plans were matchless so it pretty much came out as a wash (and I've never stayed at a job long enough to vest in a defined benefit plan anyways).

if you switch jobs, which younger people are a lot more used to doing than older people. I'm in IT; 3 years is a long tenure for me anyways, so the places I've worked that had defined benefit plans I've never managed to vest in, but my 401(k) and IRA money is still there.

It is one reason I took my job. I used to have great health insurance too.

The pension is still there.

Not only does he have a pension (which means "we" have one, because the rules are that he cannot make major decisions about it without me signing off, as a spouse) but a 401K with company-matched funds, and guaranteed health insurance along with Medicare.

We are approaching retirement without fear. I realize every day how fortunate we are, and how every worker should have the same benefits.

20+year state worker here. I try not to talk about the pension +benefits +deferred compensation (401k) to non union/civil servants in mixed company. We don't get the matching funds but I'm more than happy to take the overtime/holiday pay to make up for that.

The level of vitriol/jealousy is surprisingly amusing, but it's tiring having to defend a system that they used to laugh & scorn at just a few short years ago. Not so funny now is it?

When I tell them I'm under 50 and able (if I choose) to retire in under 5 years they start to lose it. Don't blame the working man that you made poor career choices is what I tell them when they get stupid.

I'm vested in two separate pensions, both federal, I'll hit retirement age in one of them in 4 years and the other in 9 years. I've thought about getting a state job when I retire from the Feds and working on a 3rd one.

Cities, counties and the state here still have pension plans, some offer the option of an alternate investment plan. Electric Utilities, railroads, power plants, paper mills, etc, etc, still offer pensions around here.

and I get a pension.

But I actually CHOSE a defined contribution option in the private sector. Frankly, I don't trust big companies and banks to manage and protect my pension, which could be wiped out in a bankruptcy court. Screw that. My company provides a generous 401K match. I'm making the best of that.

Sadly I only got there two years ago at age 50. Still, it's better than nothing!

We also have the option of a 401k in addition to the pension.

https://secure.rrb.gov/default.asp

As well as a 401(k) with company match. My pension isn't nearly as generous as my wife's (public school teacher).