The three year average I think is best as it keeps cops and fireman from loading up last year or teachers from coaching and doing extra activities.
The three year average is what the military uses but that seemed to be more of a cost cutting measure.
Sorry if I was unclear, but I wasn’t suggesting any changes for current retirees or anyone other than new and (perhaps) recent hires.
I’m fine with the fact that not many folk agree with me. I guess my minority opinion is that public service ought not be something that folk overly (in my opinion) profit from. And multiple public pensions are (in my minority opinion) one manner of overly profiting.
Be assured that this is far down on the list of things I feel strongly about, and since so few folk see any merit in what I’m suggesting, I doubt I’ll try overmuch to persuade anyone.
One of the most offensive (IMO) schemes in these parts, is for education administrators to qualify under multiple states’ plans, with minimal service. It is very common for school district superintendents to get hired after fully vesting in a neighboring state, and fully vest after as little as 3 years service. Then they move to a third state and qualify under another plan. In my years of observation, these folk aren’t so uniquely qualified that no other candidates could have been found, or that such high compensation was required.
It strikes me as another version of excessive greed in sucking at the public teat, which so many folk decry when it comes to public aid. But I’m comfortable realizing that most folk around here don’t see it as a problem. And I realize this scheme I propose would have negligible effect on reducing the pension funding deficits enjoyed by states such as mine (IL).
There was nothing informal about it. We had contracts in writing.
And those contracts were negotiated. We gave up some things like pay raises in exchange for the agreement on the pensions. To take away those pensions retroactively would not only be illegal but also unjust.
You have to understand that being fully vested doesn’t mean you get a full pension. Being vested just means you’re in the pension plan. You then have to work a number of years to accumulate any significant pension.
In my pension plan, you were vested at ten years. But your pension was based on two percent for every year you worked, which maxed out at twenty-five years and fifty percent. (There were also other factors like a minimum age before you can start collecting.)
So using those figures as an example, a superintendent who is vested at three years will only be getting six percent of his salary as a pension. Say he made $100,000 a year during the three years he was a superintendent. His pension will be $6000 a year. If he does this in three different states, his collective pension would be $18,000 a year.
In PA the calculations are based, in part, on the average of a teacher’s 3 highest earning years. These are almost always the last 3. Some teachers do try to pick up extra money through tutoring and such during those years. Coaching isn’t usually something anybody jumps into during the last 3 years of their career. Normally, you are talking about tutoring, homebound instruction, and similar after school activity. None of these things pull in any great amount of money. Once all the calculations are done, the additional amount seen in your monthly payment is typically small. Small enough that many teachers don’t bother. I didn’t. The extra hours in question are things that are undesirable, for the most part. Teachers in their prime earning years would rather go home than have a few dollars more. You have two groups who are interested: new teachers at the bottom of the pay scale and a few teachers near retirement. If the latter can’t count it towards retirement, they won’t be interested either. Turnover in most districts is small. I can easily see districts where nobody will want to do it. What do you do then? Offer more money?
So they do this three times and they have 3x 3-year fully vested pensions. As opposed to 1x 9-year. Unless “vest” means something different where you live.
This is why I asked for numbers.
A 3 year vested pension sounds like very little. If the yearly pension multiplier is 1 1/2% per year, that’s a lousy 4.5% of the last salary for each employer.
This is one of those subjects that has so many variations out there that it’s hard to generalize. In my case, I work for state X but had prior work at state Y. My service time at state Y counts for my current state X pension, but I had to purchase the state Y time at actuarial cost. I was able to also count prior service at a public university, with no purchase required. We also no longer count overtime, but we do count 240 hours of unused vacation time in the 3 year final average compensation used to compute the benefit. But that’s just one state, I would guess that few are alike. I have family members that worked for GM, they have a deal where they reduce your pension at age 62 by an amount equal to your SS checks.
If you qualify for 2 pensions, you’re entitled to 2 pensions. Each of them would be less than if you stayed in either job the full time. I don’t see the problem.
I think that some view compensation for public employees as a public good or some type of welfare. It’s not.
I’ve applied for federal jobs and jobs as a contractor. The give and take, negotiations was very similar for both. I’ll give you matching this but not a bonus. I’ll give you this step increase but I’ll have to cut your vacation days.
The goal in both places is to put a package together to get the work done for the most cost effective price on the contractor government end, and to get as much compensation on the worker end. Did you all that think this is a “public good” type of job give money back to your private employer? Didn’t think so.
This is about business, pure and simple.
Vesting means to be fully invested. What that means is that, while the pension plan says it will pay 1.5% of your annual salary per year, before you are vested, you do not get 100% of that. If you only worked for 2 years, you would not be fully vested, and would either be ineligible for it, or would only receive a fraction of the full amount, like .75% or so of your annual salary per year, or a grand total of 1.5% of your annual salary.
It’s similar to your 401k from your employer with matching funds. Those funds "vest. If they match at 3%, then they may take 3 -5 years before you actually get that whole 3%, if you leave after 2, you may only get 1 or 2% of the matching funds.
Being vested does not mean that you have earned the full pension.
Your example of a 3x 3 year vs 1x 9 year does not make sense. That is not how vesting works. You would only be vested in a retirement program once, not three times.
I said there was no way to prevent it if the pension is tied to earnings - tying it to base pay is not the same as tying it to earnings
It’s three different pensions with three different employers.
Not really, I’m explaining the issue people have with it. They may be confusing fairness with necessity - but probably not
[quote]
I’d guess that being in the NYPD isn’t a picnic. And I’d further hazard that a lot of those stay for their 20 because they can retire then. And if that wasn’t there, a great many of them would leave prior to that. If you took the 20 year retirement away, you’d have to pay a lot more year-to-year to keep them. What’s the break financial even point? I don’t know. But the next time someone is upset about the NYPD pension, and you should ask them if they’d like to join the NYPD starting at $42k. I bet they’ll say “F no!”[ /QUOTE] And when you tell them it jumps to 76 base plus overtime after 5 and a half years, some will say " Why the F didn’t I apply when I was 21". Seriously, no one knows how the applicant pool would be affected if the pension was changed for future hires. Maybe you’d get lower quality applicants- or maybe you would get fewer but higher quality applicants after the people who are only interested in the pension self-select out of the pool. The basic NYC and NYS pensions are up to Tier 6, and each Tier is a little less generous than the one before. Hasn’t caused any issues with filling jobs.
But being “fully vested” does not mean that the you are drawing a full pension, it just means that the employer side contribution is full.
Assuming that the pensions are similar, there would be no difference between spending 3 years with 3 different pensions, and 9 years with one.
What would be different is if they spent 1 year at 9 different places each, and never became fully vested. In that case, they would have a much smaller pension than either of the other cases.
I may have mistaken your point though, and am not entirely sure still, if you were disagreeing with dinsdale, then I agree, but if you were agreeing that the practice is double (triple) dipping then I don’t.
Fair enough. Tie it to earnings that don’t exceed 100% of your base pay 
You and I are on agreement. It is not clear what, precisely, the OP is objecting to.
[quote=“doreen, post:53, topic:792575”]
Not really, I’m explaining the issue people have with it. They may be confusing fairness with necessity - but probably not
They are having issues filling jobs.
I am for paying police more, and giving them better benefits, so that we get a bigger applicant pool to choose from. Currently, there are not many applicants to join the police, so it is harder to find quality applicants. Having a lack of quality applicants is a large part of what causes the controversial encounters.
You get the police force that you are willing to pay for.
ETA: I want someone on the force who’s primary motivation is the paycheck. People who join the police for “noble” reasons: wanting to clean up their neighborhood, wanting to make a difference, wanting to stop crime, and other stuff like that scare me almost as much as the people who join up because they are looking forward to abusing their power.
During economic bad times, sometimes a State will offer her employees a better pension plan instead of cost of living raises … the theory is that the State can provide the extra dollars for retirement when economic good times come along … of course once these folks start retiring in sufficient numbers the public goes crazy complaining about the high cost of the State pension program …
My mother makes a for a good example, her retirement pay was 40% higher than her last salary … that’s her SS, dad’s SS, State pension and a deferred compensation program run by the State pension plan … it’s that last one where she had the big boost in retirement pay, but she deserved every penny of it since she deferred 75% of her income the last ten years she worked …
So, my question is IF someone has earned their military pension … and then works twenty years as a public school teacher … and IF we refuse this person their public school teacher pension … will we then pay that teacher the extra money that would normally go to the pension fund? … because I think it’s inherently wrong to force someone to pay for a retirement plan and then not let them collect … because then it’s not a pension plan but rather a tax like SS …
I fine either way, but I don’t see how this is going to save the government any money without harming the employees … and government employee wages, salaries and pension plans are not the problem with government spending typically … just this spending is the easiest to cut without harming legislator campaign contribution income, bribes, payola or “blind” trust funds …
You all are following the money from the wrong end. You have to start from the Gov’t budgeting perspective and move forward, not form the employee’s retirement backward.
This is the key. Those super-generous retirement schemes were just another form of government bond. It’s a way to get your Grandchildren to pay for what you want to buy today.
And workers who are security-minded, or who have a spouse making a high current salary in private industry, are willing to forego current income for future security. But their current salaries are much, much, lower.
It’s a serious problem for the Fed right now, because the old pension scheme has been dropped in favor of private company based 401k etc. And viewed alone, the retirement plans are competitive. But very few people are willing to accept the lower salaries the government offers without those generous retirement pensions.
No complaints here, I’m a contractor, and it means a lot of open jobs for me to fill in. But if I could get the deal the folks 15 years ago had, I’d take the salary drop in a New York minute. As it is, the Gov’t pays not only my higher salary, but also Overhead and profit to my company, in order to get the same job done. I haven’t done the calculations, but we’ve got a heck of a high-earning executive suite, and quite a few stock-holders, all making money off of this model.
I feel certain that the pension scheme was cheaper.
The pensions are part of the compensation package. It’s like saying retroactively “Sorry, but your salary was really too high, we’ll be taking back 15% of everything we paid you.” It happens in cases of bankruptcy, but it’s thievery IMHO.
Exactly. The key word here being “Earn.” There’s no windfall provision because there’s no windfall. A deferred compensation package was more convenient to the employer, and judged acceptable by the employee.
[quote=“k9bfriender, post:57, topic:792575”]
In 2015, NYPD suspended testing because they had a backlog of 50K applicants
Just because fewer people are applying doesn’t mean they are having trouble filling jobs - it is entirely possible that the NYPD is getting “fewer” applications but still more than enough.