Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

DataRikerGeordiTroi t1_j6husoa wrote

Can someone who is smart explain if this is good or bad

Also crazy in the richest country in the world benefits aren't already guaranteed in retirement. So gross.

26

mowotlarx OP t1_j6hvmrd wrote

Good or bad for who?

It's good for a short sighted City government that is desperately cutting corners to save a few bucks. This would save about $500 million, about 2/3 of the OT budget for NYPD last year.

It's bad for retirees on a fixed income (who were paid far less than their private sector counterparts) who were promised their health plan as trade off of working for the city and now are being forced to take on a private health plan (calling itself Medicare) that will reduce the amount of healthcare they receive and thin the selection of doctors.

At the end of the day, most of us will be retirees some day and will regret what we do now to cut those benefits.

65

Pool_Shark t1_j6iktps wrote

Anytime you attach healthcare with profits it’s bad. Private managers will now make all moves to cut costs and ensure largest profit instead of the goal being to maximize benefits for the workers on the plan

14

DataRikerGeordiTroi t1_j6hyatu wrote

like in general. I, like a lot of folks, have little education or background in this area or matters -- but I want to try to learn.

It is confusing and kinda hard and complex so every explainer helps.

6

mowotlarx OP t1_j6hzhub wrote

There's been a ton of back and forth on this and you're going to get a totally different spin from the city and from retirees. The base of it is that the city is trying to make budget cuts and save money and think switching retirees to this plan will do so. The retirees are worried this is going to be a lot out of pocket on a fixed income and they will lose health coverage and doctors.

7

queensnyatty t1_j6i3sgp wrote

“who were paid far less than their private sector counterparts”

Depends on the role. Doctors, lawyers, and computer programmers—all way less pay in government service. But bus drivers, teachers, and garbage men make more than their private sector counterparts plus benefits on top.

6

qdpb t1_j6i4gk6 wrote

No that’s wrong. These other professions also made less than they would be willing to accept from the private employers, but the generous retirement benefits convinced them to work for the city.

6

queensnyatty t1_j6i4vnv wrote

Go look up the offered pay for bolt bus and the MTA

−12

mowotlarx OP t1_j6i6sjl wrote

MTA isn't a city agency.

7

queensnyatty t1_j6i89oo wrote

Ok. Are you still insisting that every city worker makes more than their private sector counterpart or is the retreat into technicalities your way of acknowledging being wrong?

−7

mowotlarx OP t1_j6i9yel wrote

We already know that city workers make less than private sector counterparts. This is well known and I'm not going to argue with you about it.

The MTA isn't a city agency. You are wrong, very wrong, and trying to push me on this? Ok.

8

qdpb t1_j6ilo2z wrote

I think you’re going to say that Bolt pays less than MTA, but I wasn’t saying they didn’t. I was saying (in this instance) MTA drivers accepted the job based on the total benefits. It doesn’t matter that they could find a worse job elsewhere. We all could, yet we work where we work and expect to get paid what was promised to us.

2

queensnyatty t1_j6ioxy3 wrote

You responded to my comment with “No that’s wrong.” Which part of my comment is wrong?

0

app4that t1_j6hx6ja wrote

Counterpoint/opinion would be that many municipal workers may not be paid in salary what their counterparts in private enterprise are paid but they typically get pensions, full health and benefits and more stability in terms of job safety. Additionally, there are a lot of employees in the municipal workforce who engage in schemes to enhance their overtime in the final year of their employment so they make much more in (early) retirement due to the padding in their final year.

As a result of much of this nonsense, taxpayers pay astronomical sums for certain health benefits given to retirees (something unheard of in the private sector) as well as the concept of a fully paid early retirement.

I know not every city or state employee is doing this, but there is such significant graft and corruption in multiple agencies and public unions that this barely makes the news anymore.

Personally, I think it’s time to stop some of the gravy-train and get some of our money back. I’m not sure Adams is the guy to do it or if this is where to start but I think we need someone to step up for the taxpayers who are paying through the nose while getting wrecked financially.

−11

mowotlarx OP t1_j6hzlrp wrote

Tier 6 pension is not as good as being paid more $$ annually and putting into a 401k. This isn't a gravy train. I know people who retired city service after 3 decades and maxed out around $41k salary at retirement. Even with a better pension tier they will be living in poverty despite their pension. It is only as good as the salary is.

When you're talking about people taking advantage of OT, you're mostly talking about cops, firefighters and sanitation. I agree we should go after them specifically, but they aren't the rule.

9

bittoxic00 t1_j6j3u40 wrote

What city jobs are only paying 41k after entry level?

1

mowotlarx OP t1_j6j635s wrote

People who retired in the last few years didn't begin at $41k. You're awfully naive if you think most city workers are being land market rate or are getting significant pay bumps just because they've worked for decades.

1

bittoxic00 t1_j6kofkm wrote

You said they maxed out at 41k salary, who’s making 41k at max let alone entry

1

mowotlarx OP t1_j6kyt1g wrote

I said I know someone who worked for the city for decades and their highest salary when they left was around there. Welcome to NYC civil service, people are paid like shit and cost of living increases don't keep pace with inflation.

1

bittoxic00 t1_j6l4jtk wrote

What job? Because I looked up upcoming exams for jobs here.

https://www.nyc.gov/site/dcas/employment/how-can-you-find-upcoming-exams.page

And picked one at random, child welfare specialist.

https://www.nyc.gov/site/acs/about/becoming-cps.page

And learned level one starting salary is 52k a year. Who is maxing out at 41k?

1

mowotlarx OP t1_j6mi4ik wrote

What don't you understand about someone starting a job at a salary versus retiring at a salary?

1

bittoxic00 t1_j6mjpg3 wrote

It’s simple, what job is maxing 41k when starting salaries are 50

0

mowotlarx OP t1_j6mtete wrote

DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT PEOPLE WHO BEGAN THEIR CAREER 20 AND 30 YEARS AGO DON'T START AT THE SAME STARTING SALARY THAT PEOPLE DO NOW?!?

The city doesn't increase the salaries of veteran workers to be in parity with brand new hires as a rule. There are people who began here making $25k (or less) when they started. There are people who have worked here for decades making an hourly wage and are still only making $18/hr.

1

bittoxic00 t1_j6n6cgu wrote

Do you have an example, I just find it unbelievable and if you had proof it would be cool, so there are child specialists working for 30 years that make less than a brand new hire, Idk about that

1

bittoxic00 t1_j6i69dv wrote

Most people would need to have saved a million dollars to buy an annuity that would pay 41k a year. Add in their social security and it’s a decent retirement, no one is entitled to retire in a high col area

−10

jay5627 t1_j6i6rmk wrote

Yet an institution is able to offer lower wages with the guarantee of certain things post retirement and then take it away once the people finished their careers?

9

mowotlarx OP t1_j6i747t wrote

Exactly. These retirees were promised these benefits. They're on a fixed income. $100-200 extra per month (plus extra healthcare costs they're now on the hook for) can make or break many people.

5

bittoxic00 t1_j6i7ijl wrote

Social security age of retirement has been raised since I’ve started working, it’ll likely go up again

1

mowotlarx OP t1_j6i6q2f wrote

So what do you think people who aren't millionaires, the vast majority of people in NYC, are supposed to do after spending their life serving people in the city where they live? Throw themselves off a cliff?

7

bittoxic00 t1_j6i7y22 wrote

Florida? Do you also think people who get 4 bedroom rent controlled apartments should get to keep them once their kids move out? I’m not for government changing terms but these once generous handouts need to adapt, no millennial will ever see these

−9

mowotlarx OP t1_j6i8ef0 wrote

You must know a lot of cops who flee to Florida. Because it's not normal for middle and lower income New Yorkers to pick up their life and move to fucking Florida because they retire. That's not cheap.

And don't pretend to speak for Millennials. Any Millennial who has thought for more than a few minutes on this subject knows that us fucking over these retirees means we are only fucking over ourselves. Every time we take away retiree benefits for current retirees we're making it less and less likely we will ever be able to retire.

3

bittoxic00 t1_j6ibtll wrote

I’ll let you in on a secret, we’ll never retire unless ubi is implemented or you save and invest privately.

−5

soupdumplinglover t1_j6i45in wrote

As a city employee who cannot get overtime, this is really unfortunate. I think the overtime eligible employees should get the new plan, and all the rest should get the existing plan.

6

bittoxic00 t1_j6hyvec wrote

Every municipal retiree I know pulled that scam, overtime was reserved for those close to retirement for that reason and everyone was in on it. With retirement ages being raised for a variety of reasons this whole ‘screw you, got mine, just let everyone else pay’ mentality will keep younger generations working forever

−7

jay5627 t1_j6hxprc wrote

> Also crazy in the richest country in the world benefits aren't already guaranteed in retirement

They were guaranteed. People worked their whole lives below market rate for the security. Now that's being pulled out from under them. I'm not sure why any person would continue to work for the city if they have any other option. They've proven they won't keep their word

30

mowotlarx OP t1_j6i0ee4 wrote

People forget that even when you have a "good" pension, if your highest salary in city work was only $40k, you're only making a percentage of that upon retirement. That is a very low fixed income. Most city workers don't get that sweet NYPD, FDNY, DSNY overtime they can tack on to retirement. Add an extra $100-200 a month for worse healthcare and fewer doctors and that's enough to really push people over the edge.

21

Pool_Shark t1_j6ikx1f wrote

Pension + SS is still more than SS alone

3

mowotlarx OP t1_j6ioxb0 wrote

And it's still not enough to live on and definitely won't be enough 20-30 years from now.

8

Pool_Shark t1_j6ipe04 wrote

That’s fair. 20-30 years from now everyone is screwed so we’ll need a bigger reform unless then plan is to let older people die homeless on the streets

6

philmatu t1_j6hz8q0 wrote

I work for the state, I'm paid roughly 33% of what I could make in the private sector. I exchange the low pay with a stable job, union protection, healthcare (including if I retire directly from this job with 10+ years of service I'll get my healthcare for life), and a pension (for me its 2% of my final salary * years of service after 20 years or more). I still have to pay for my healthcare and pension in payroll deductions but it's less than if I was in private. The newer hires pay more overall but get similar benefits. If it wasn't for the long-term benefits, I'd probably hop for the private sector as many of my smarter colleagues already have. For me, state government has very interesting problems to solve and they impact the greater good, as where most of the private sector work I've seen impacts the company's profits and does little beyond that.

17

DataRikerGeordiTroi t1_j6hyh5l wrote

Thank you.

I shared in another comment that I find these kinds of topics really difficult to understand, but I am genuinely trying, so any kind of explainer helps.

3

retiredfromfire t1_j6i0ftc wrote

Its just the usual BS. Hire a group a people with a promise, and then beak the promise. All across America

16

Pool_Shark t1_j6il8gt wrote

That’s because there is no repercussions for breaking promises. Instead they get re-elected or a nice “consulting” gig with the pharma company after their term

8

Babhadfad12 t1_j6ivrnb wrote

The repercussion should be workers valuing those promises at zero. Governments lowering the value of deferred compensation at time of payout has been a thing for decades.

2

Sciurus_carolinensis t1_j6i1mpf wrote

I’m a current city worker and I’m confused as hell. All I know is that this seems to be dragging out contract negotiations.

7