Showing posts with label Greedy Bastards. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Greedy Bastards. Show all posts

Monday, June 18, 2012

GREED killed the American Unions

The Atlantic Magazine wrote a piece titled " Who Killed American Unions??"

The article was not very compelling....it focused on all aspects other than the key issue.

The one part of the liberal whining that goes on in this article is they didn't mention the key reason why Unions have cratered...

GREED.

Yes, GREED.  The Unions and their members got GREEDY.  That's what killed them.

Now, I understand and agree they are not the only ones who got greedy.  CEOs and other getting obscene pay packages, stock insiders pillaging the economy and causing chaos, etc. etc.  I see it and agree that they have caused as many issues for the American Economy as the Unions.

But, the question is " Who Killed American Unions??" - The main culprit is the Unions themselves.

The last three and half years have accelerated their demise but it started way before that.....
GREEDY UNION Members and their fat arse bosses used their muscle to bully and batter companies like GM, Ford & Chrysler into ridiculous labor agreements.

Public Employee Unions gamed the political system and conceived ridiculous laws and agreements that allow public employees to retire on sky high pensions inflated by overtime and into which many have never paid a cent.  They don't have any care that the agreements were  faulty and unsustainable.  it didn't matter that they got paid for standing down on the job or doing little.  They got the agreements put in place and even if it bankrupts the town, they want the money.

Union Leaders lined their pockets with dues paid by the members and did little other than make themselves rich on the backs of the workers.  They decided that they were entitled to the same type of compensation as those who ran the businesses.....GREED.  More and more was their only goal.

This is what killed the Unions and why today, they only represent a minor fraction of all workers.  Unions were needed when there were no laws to protect workers but in the last 40 years, the Unions became only about paying their workers and the Union Bosses as much as they could extort from the companies and government.

Now the companies have had enough.  The cost of a new car produced in Detroit had almost $10K cost tacked on to it to provide incredible huge pay & benefits to assembly line workers.  The added cost is borne by every person who bought a vehicle from the big three, while others like Toyota set up factories in Tennessee without Unions.  The new factories were able to produced excellent vehicles and cheaper.

That helped put the Big Three teetering on the edge....The market was cornered by cheaper, leaner, better.

Now, Towns and States are seeing the light.  They know that they have been had and the voters are pushing back.  Taxpayers have had enough. Voters have started fixing what has been known for many years.  It wasn't just enough to earn good money, these Union types needed to earn MORE.  And it doesn't bother them at all that it is costing others services or extra costs tacked on to things they want.

It is all about them and their need to satisfy their Greed.

That's what killed the Unions and for the author of the article in the Atlantic Magazine to miss that completely shows there still are people who don't want to acknowledge reality.

Reality is the Unions caused their own demise.  Their GREED and their need to be GREEDY to the detriment of all others.

And the Mass Media wonders why people aren't siding with the Unions....it is because they see the wanton GREED with their own eyes and recognize it for what it is - shameful.

Tuesday, April 17, 2012

US Senator Scott Brown calls for Government Employees to pony up $1 Billion dollars in overdue taxes

THIS is a good example of why we need Senator Scott Brown representing us in Massachusetts. He is not afraid to call out those who feel that the rules are for "the little people".

Awesome. VOTE Scott Brown for an other term as our US Senator in Massachusetts. We need him.


Sen. Brown: Bill targets tax scofflaws in Congress Friday, 13 Apr 2012, 8:41 PM EDT

BOSTON (AP) - U.S. Sen. Scott Brown is pushing a new bill that he said would make it easier to collect back taxes from federal workers and members of Congress.

The Massachusetts Republican said that a recent report by the Internal Revenue Service showed that in 2010, 98,000 federal employees owed a combined $1 billion in back taxes.

Brown said members and employees of the U.S. Senate alone owed over $2 million.

The bill would require members and employees of Congress and federal employees who file financial disclosures forms to report any delinquent tax liability to the appropriate ethics office and come up with a plan to pay off the taxes.

Those who fail to arrange a payment plan with the IRS within a year could have those back taxes taken directly out of their wages

Friday, September 2, 2011

Chicago Union Leader personifies why Unions represent greed, lack of morals and ethics - Happy Labor Day !

Happy Labor Day Weekend.....Labor likes to tout the movement as " supporting the rights of the workers, etc. etc."....Reality is a far different outcome.

The enclosed story reminds me of " ANIMAL FARM " by George Orwell. The crux of the story is that the Animals kick the humans out because they want things to be fair for all animals....until some animals get greedy, and take more for themselves.

The key quote is when the other animals ask the Pigs why they get more of everything, and live in the farmer's house, the Pigs reply, " All Animals are equal, but some are more equal."

This is the PERFECT analogy for what goes on with Labor Leaders as they espouse they are there for the workers, but in reality, they are there only for their own greedy needs.

Exhibit #1 on Labor Day Weekend - Thomas Villanova, a union leader in Chicago.

His $108,000 city pension comes on top of the $198,000 annual salary he is paid to represent the interests of thousands of city workers.

Villanova last worked for the city in 1989 as an electrical mechanic with the Department of Streets and Sanitation, making about $40,000 a year. Yet in 2008 he was allowed to retire at age 56 with a $108,000 city pension. That's because, under a little-known state law, his pension was based not on his city paycheck but on his much higher union salary.

If this kind of outright THEFT and Chicanery doesn't make your blood boil, I am unsure what would. The Taxpayers in Rahm Emanuel's Chicago and the Union Workers are footing the bill for a greedy and obviously unethical shaking down of the taxpayer. Tax dollars feather his nest and I am sure Chicago needs every penny they have for the citizens, instead of giving this b@stard a champagne lifestyle because he exploits the rules.

THIS is the poster child for what the UNION movement has become. That is why UNION membership is down because people know that in the end, it will not help them, but only the few greedy pigs at the top.....who have no ethics or morals.


chicagotribune.com
Union leader draws lucrative pension perk based on false information
By Jason Grotto, Tribune reporter

10:09 PM CDT, September 1, 2011

Every month, Thomas Villanova gets a $9,000 reminder of how lucrative it can be to serve as a union leader in Chicago.

The sum is part of a city pension that comes on top of the $198,000 annual salary he is paid to represent the interests of thousands of city workers.

Villanova last worked for the city in 1989 as an electrical mechanic with the Department of Streets and Sanitation, making about $40,000 a year. Yet in 2008 he was allowed to retire at age 56 with a $108,000 city pension. That's because, under a little-known state law, his pension was based not on his city paycheck but on his much higher union salary.

This kind of deal is available only to union officials who meet certain requirements, but a Tribune/WGN-TV investigation has uncovered documents that show Villanova violated state law when he applied for the pension and cast doubt on whether he truly qualifies for all that money.

To boost his taxpayer-supported city pension, Villanova signed documents certifying that he had waived his union pension and had two union officials write letters supporting his claim. In fact, records show dues collected from the rank-and-file were still set aside for Villanova's union pension.

When city pension fund officials discovered last year that Villanova never gave up his union pension, they gave him a pass and didn't move to take away his city retirement benefits.

What's more, labor leaders can get an inflated city pension only if they are on a leave of absence from a city job to work full time for a union. But officials from the municipal pension fund approved Villanova's application despite city employment records that show he took a leave to go back to school and then let that leave of absence expire in 1992.

Now just 58, Villanova stands to collect approximately $3 million from the city's municipal pension fund during his lifetime, according to a Tribune/WGN-TV analysis based on the fund's actuarial assumptions. And because the state's pension laws are so broken, he didn't have to contribute enough to the city pension fund to cover the costs, which means taxpayers will make up the shortfall.

"It's egregious. I haven't seen this anywhere else in the country," said Keith Brainard, research director of the National Association of State Retirement Administrators, when he heard about Villanova's deal. "The spirit of a pension plan is insurance against poverty. It's not to become wealthy."

In order to receive an inflated city pension, state law says labor leaders can't be part of any pension plan from their union. Yet Villanova is one of four officials from Local 134 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers who received city pensions based on their union salaries even though they never gave up their union pensions.

Terrance Stefanski, executive director of the Municipal Employees' Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago, conceded that the union leaders violated state law by participating in both the city and union pension funds at the same time. But he said the law is confusing and the city pension fund isn't in a position to determine whether the labor leaders knowingly submitted false information, which would be a felony.

"We are not an investigative agency," he said.

Stefanski said the city still considered Villanova to be on a leave of absence, and therefore he qualified to receive the pension perk.

Villanova declined to be interviewed. Through attorney Patrick Deady, Villanova said he followed the city pension fund's directions and that he qualified for his city pension because he taught union apprenticeship classes while in school.

Now president of the Chicago and Cook County Building and Construction Trades Council, Villanova helped negotiate every current collective bargaining agreement between Chicago and the 33 trade unions that do business with the city.

With the Emanuel administration struggling to fill a $635 million budget hole, Villanova sits at the bargaining table and speaks on behalf of 8,000 city tradesmen who face layoffs, furlough days and reduced benefits, in no small part because of the city's rising pension costs.

Today, the municipal pension fund is racing toward insolvency, with barely half of the assets needed to cover its liabilities. That means city workers face threats not only to their current job security but also to their future retirement security.

The average city retiree receives a pension of about $28,000 a year, roughly a quarter of what Villanova is drawing from the same fund.

Meanwhile, about $200,000 in rank-and-file dues that were paid into a union pension fund for Villanova have yet to be returned to the union. Documents show that Villanova agreed in writing last year to "disclaim" the pension money — but left the door open to taking it back if the rules change.

Double-dipping

Villanova's six-figure city pension is far better than that offered by his former union, Local 134.

The local's pension plan would have provided Villanova with 45 percent of his average salary during his highest-paid five years of work. He couldn't retire until he turned 65, however, without forfeiting a significant chunk of his union pension.

Under rules governing the city pension plan, on the other hand, Villanova could retire from his old city job at 56 with 70 percent of his average union salary during the prior four years; that average turned out to be $158,000. What's more, he could keep his high-paying union position.

To get that deal, Villanova had to make $344,000 in contributions to the plan as if he had been a city employee all along. He also had to submit an application certifying that he met all the criteria for the city pension, including that he wasn't part of a union pension plan.

In November 2008, Villanova signed an application that included this line: "I also understand that I am allowed to make these contributions as long as I do not receive credit in any pension plan established by such local labor organization."

In addition to his signed application, Villanova submitted a letter from a trustee of Local 134's pension plan that said Villanova had waived his union pension.

"We are in receipt of a letter from Mr. Villanova requesting that his Local 134 pension credits cease immediately. The Local 134 Executive Board will act upon his request accordingly," Peter Cerf, the pension fund's executive board secretary, wrote in September 2007.

Frank O'Lone, secretary-treasurer of the trades council, also wrote a letter on Villanova's behalf, in October 2008. "Thomas Villanova will not receive any pension credits in the Building Trades Council Pension Plan for the period starting 3/5/2004 to present," the letter read.

Yet documents submitted by the union pension fund to the U.S. Department of Labor show that money set aside for Villanova remained in the fund.

When Villanova became president of the trades council in 2004, Local 134 amended its pension plan to allow certain employees of the council to be participants. The Tribune and WGN-TV were able to identify contributions the trades council made on Villanova's behalf because he was one of only two council employees who were part of Local 134's plan and the only one who had worked long enough to be vested.

Records submitted by the union pension plan show that, in all, about $200,000 in member dues from the trades council went toward a union pension for Villanova. He also received a decade's worth of contributions from Local 134 members before becoming president of the trades council. But it's impossible to know the total from publicly available documents.

Officials from Local 134 and the trades council declined to comment on Villanova's pensions.

The municipal pension fund discovered in September 2010 that Villanova was not complying with state law by participating in both funds. City pension officials could have pursued criminal charges against him if they thought he had knowingly made false statements on his pension application, which is a felony.

Municipal pension fund officials had Villanova sign an affidavit admitting that he was participating in both plans at the same time and promising to "disclaim" union contributions that overlap with his city pension. But the money is staying in the fund in case municipal pension fund requirements "are reversed pursuant to action of the (fund's) trustees or litigation by similarly situated participants."

That means Villanova wasn't required to return union members' money that went to his union pension, and eventually he still could get access to it.

'It does look bad'

Villanova's hefty municipal pension depended, in large part, on how he described his leave of absence from the city in his pension application.

"I was an employee with the City of Chicago or Board of Education," his signed application states, "and was granted a leave of absence to work as an employee of the labor organization named below." The organization he wrote in was Local 134.

Yet city records show that Villanova didn't take a leave of absence to work for Local 134. He took a leave to attend Moraine Valley Community College in Palos Hills. While there, he earned roughly $41,000 a year working for the college, state records show.

Under city work rules, employees can receive various types of leaves, including disability, maternity, military, personal and union. City workers must apply for a leave of absence and in many cases must renew those requests after a certain time period has elapsed.

Villanova applied for his leave of absence on Oct. 25, 1989, according to city employment records. In the section of the form marked "Reason for Request," he wrote: "Return to school for advanced courses."

He renewed his leave every three months, filing seven requests in all. On each, he wrote that he was taking a leave to go back to school. All of the forms he signed say that if he failed to report back to his city post within five days after his leave of absence expired, he would resign his position with the city.

Villanova's last leave of absence request expired on July 24, 1991. State records show that he continued working full time for the state community college until November 1992. The municipal pension fund's own records show that he didn't start at Local 134 until January 1993, a year and a half after he had effectively resigned his city job.

Yet when Villanova applied for a city pension in November 2008, the municipal pension fund approved an amount based on his union salary — even though he did not take a leave of absence to work for a union and had allowed the leave he did take to expire 17 years earlier.

The fund's board of trustees, composed of union leaders and city officials, signed off on Villanova's $108,000-a-year pension in February 2009, backdating the start of his benefits to November 2008.

"It does look bad," said city Treasurer Stephanie Neely, a trustee of the city pension fund. "But we on the pension board didn't do anything wrong. We did everything we could do, and that's all I can somewhat control."

As part of the justification for awarding him the higher city pension, the municipal pension fund provided the Tribune and WGN-TV with a 2008 letter written by then-Deputy Streets and Sanitation Commissioner Vanessa Quail on Villanova's behalf.

"Mr. Villanova's current status with the Department of Streets and Sanitation is that we regard him on a personal leave of absence," she wrote. "While we have not located any leave of absence papers of Mr. Villanova's subsequent to April of 1991, that is not inconsistent with his retaining his status."

The reason he was able to maintain his leave of absence: No one at the city department entered a code in its computer system showing that Villanova had given up his post. According to Stefanski, the technicality means Villanova qualifies for a city pension based on his union salary.

Thanks to his work at Moraine Valley, Villanova's city pension is one of two public pensions he is currently receiving.

Villanova gets another $12,000 a year from the State University Retirement System of Illinois, based on his work for the community college. Although he held that job for only three years, state law allows him to receive reciprocal pension benefits from SURS when he retired from the city.

That pension is also based on his union salary, not the $41,000 he made working for the community college.

In all, Villanova takes home about $120,000 a year from taxpayer-supported pension systems, an amount that will grow by 3 percent every year as long as he lives.

WGN-TV producer Marsha Bartel and reporter Mark Suppelsa contributed to this report, along with Tribune reporter Jodi S. Cohen.

jgrotto@tribune.com

Copyright © 2011, Chicago Tribune

Monday, July 25, 2011

Like Pigs at the feeding trough - Educators line themselves up for taxpayer-funded benefits of $100,000 a year or more

The fact that the number of $100K pensions has skyrocketed is a key indication that the people setting themselves up for these outrageously high retirements have no care for anyone else but themselves. Greedy Bastards who claim to have worked for this waste of taxpayers money. The educators only paid in 11% of their pay in and in return collect the other 89% from the taxpayers......Nice return when you get 800% back on your investment.

They claim that they are entitled to it because they worked hard over their careers...the many taxpayers who will be footing the bill for these blowhards worked hard also, they just didn't have a HACK based & written law mandating a major ripoff of the taxpayers assisting them.



These HACKS can make up all the reasons they want to justify this ripoff of the taxpayers. It is still an affront to all those who have to pay the way for these ripoff artists who have used the law to feather their own nest with a " I got mine" selfish attitude.


Educator’s pensions skyrocket
Expert: ‘Urgent need for reform’
By Chris Cassidy - Boston Herald
Monday, July 25, 2011

The number of retired Bay State public school employees raking in six-figure pensions has skyrocketed — more than doubling in just four years — contributing to a booming retirement bonanza that could plunge the Bay State into a deep financial crisis unless lawmakers move quickly to fix the system, experts told the Herald.

The latest pension records indicate 140 educators, most of them administrators, are enjoying retired life with taxpayer-funded benefits of $100,000 a year or more — up from 93 in 2009 and 55 in 2007, a Herald investigation found.

Topping the list is retired Randolph Superintendent Arthur Melia, with an annual pension of $147,492.

“I always strived to be No. 1 at everything, you know?” Melia told the Herald. “This was part of the law and part of what I earned over 32 years.”

Former Concord Superintendent Brenda Finn ($145,724) and retired Whittier Vocational Superintendent Karen Sarkisian ($142,913) round out the top three.

The June 30 figures from the Massachusetts Teachers Retirement System also showed educators’ pensions last fiscal year totaled $2.1 billion, up $300 million in two years.

“This is a serious problem, and there’s an urgent need for reform,” said Michael Widmer of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. “Just as companies have found they can’t afford defined pension plans because they’re too rich, governments are finding the same problems.”

“This is the tip of the pension iceberg,” said David Tuerck of the Beacon Hill Institute. “Sooner or later Massachusetts will reach a crisis point, where we find ourselves unable to maintain normal functions of government and are unable to pay for these pensions because of resistance of taxpayers to further tax increases.”

Critics point to the state’s generous formula that gives public retirees 80 percent of their three highest consecutive earning years. They warn the state is putting off the day of reckoning.

“They need to act fast,” said Jim Stergios of the Pioneer Institute. “This is something that’s not going away, and it’s going to eat up other services we’re trying to afford”

Gov. Deval Patrick introduced a pension reform bill in January that would push back retirement ages and base pensions on a retiree’s five highest years of service. A legislative subcommittee held a hearing in March and is considering other ideas, including putting a maximum cap on pensions, and expects to present a bill in early fall, state Rep. John Scibak said.

“The real thing I’m striving for is a system perceived both by state employees and the general public as fair and equitable,” said Scibak, who chairs the Public Service Committee.

The rising pensions are a result of a superintendent shortage and the grueling nature of the 24/7 job, which have driven up salaries, said Tom Scott of the Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents.

“There is a big problem with finding qualified people . . . even in this job market,” Scott said.

Paul Toner of the Massachusetts Teachers Association said strong pensions keep teachers from leaving the profession and that teachers now pay a higher percentage of their salary — 11 percent — into the system.

“A good pension is a major retention tool,” Toner said.

Friday, June 10, 2011

While BOSTON is home of World Class Sports Teams, it is also home to World Class HACKS/POLS/ GREEDY UNION TYPES

While the RED SOX and BRUINS show all that BOSTON is home of WORLD CLASS TEAMS, we have the other side of what happens in our state that shows we have some WORLD CLASS IDIOTS too....

THREE ARTICLES say it all when it comes to MASSACHUSETTS HACKS/POLS/GREEDY UNION TYPES -
all three of these stories are reported on one day...


T UNION TREASURER steals $250K
from fellow Union members to afford himself a very nice lifestyle...still has T job even though he has admitted he took the cash...This type of fool got his job because he knew somebody...turns out they trusted this greedy idiot and paid the price...

A WESTERN MASS HACK (aged 38) gets a PATRONAGE position from GOV. DEVAL " SPEND IT ALL" PATRICK that guarantees him $110K pay & benefits for life....likely up to 50 years as he is retiring at age 38....Deval Patrick supporter ya know.....

And just when you thought it couldn't get worse, GOV. DEVAL " SPEND-IT-ALL " PATRICK decides he doesn't care what voters think, he is giving 4000 State Managers a RAISE not caring that this will pull $10 MILLION dollars MORE out of the budget where the levels of funding for programs are at drastic levels already....


SO to sum up.... We have a Union Thief (Isn't that redunant?), Hackorama retiree robbing you for 50 years worth of $$$ for almost NO WORK and an Idiot Governor who hasn't got a clue -
Did I miss anything???



Sad to say, no I didn't.



T union tells court ex-officer stole dues
Local 600 says its treasurer took $250,000
By Eric Moskowitz - BOSTON GLOBE
Globe Staff / June 10, 2011

The MBTA Inspectors Union says its former treasurer stole $250,000 from membership dues, withdrawing cash, writing checks to himself, and spending freely with a union credit card.

Officials at the union, known as Local 600, say they discovered the alleged theft only after Brian C. Sheehy ran unsuccessfully for the union presidency, then scrambled in vain to retain his old post and avoid turning over bank records to the new officers of Local 600.

The union’s allegations have come to light in US Bankruptcy Court, where Sheehy filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection one day before he was scheduled to be tried by a union tribunal seeking to recover the money.

The union has asked Bankruptcy Judge Frank J. Bailey to prevent Sheehy from using Chapter 7 to avoid repaying Local 600. And the US trustee charged with administering the bankruptcy has asked the judge to dismiss Sheehy’s filing altogether, saying his $70,000 income from the MBTA is too much for him to qualify for Chapter 7 protection.

Sheehy, a 41-year-old Quincy resident, still works for the T as an inspector on the Red Line, because he has not been accused of stealing from the MBTA and because the matter is pending, said a spokesman for the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority.

Sheehy then paid the union $93,000, apparently hoping the new officers would accept the sum and drop the matter, according to the filings.

When that failed, he filed for bankruptcy and made what Local 600 says were legal maneuvers to avoid repayment and shelter assets that include a vacation home in Dennisport that he shared with his wife, an executive at an investment firm.

The alleged theft has roiled Local 600, the union that represents the 320 inspectors and chief inspectors who work in the MBTA subway and bus system, managing stations, responding to emergencies, helping customers, and providing a uniformed presence.

Those inspectors contribute 1.5 percent of their pay for union dues, money that was supposed to fund organizing, labor negotiations, member defense in job disputes, and other expenses, but much of which is now missing. The union, run by a full-time president and volunteer board, lacked financial safeguards and other controls to discourage theft.

The Sheehys have apparently separated. Sheehy, who is due back in court June 28, told the court last month that he had moved from their four-bedroom home in Quincy to an apartment nearby.

Eric Moskowitz can be reached at emoskowitz@globe.com.


Who says $100 doesn’t buy what it used to?
By Howie Carr - BOSTON HERALD
Friday, June 10, 2011

This time it’s an anonymous back-bencher state rep, Chris Speranzo of Pittsfield. He’s been handed extremely early retirement as the next clerk magistrate of the Pittsfield District Court for approximately $110,000 a year.

Not bad for a 38-year-old hack who can now hold this no-heavy-lifting job for the rest of his layabout life. Did I mention he’s a Democrat?

Speranzo will be replacing a guy who’s been gone for two years, one Leo Evans. I’ll bet you didn’t even know Evans was gone. I’m also guessing you never heard of this Speranzo character until this moment. I wonder whether he voted for the very ethical Sal DiMasi for speaker in 2007.

In 2006, Speranzo donated a C-Note to Deval Patrick. Not a bad return on investment — $100 in return for, according to actuarial tables, more than $5 million over the next 50 years or so. And that doesn’t include the free health insurance, plus all the extra dough the clerk magistrate can collect from OKing bail for the local perps.

What’s hard to figure is just how little the kleptocracy cares about pretending to observe the niceties of those proverbial nationwide searches. The Dreaded Private Sector continues to wither, and yet one after another, these worthless unemployable Democrat coatholders are taken care of, one way or another.

Consider the last couple of months. The wife of the state rep from Hingham: a judgeship. The defeated Democrat candidate for sheriff of Bristol County: a $103,000-a-year job as a college hack. The 78-year-old retired senator from Bristol county: a $120,000-a-year sinecure at a different community college.

I called Mary-Ellen Manning, the Democrat governor’s councilor who in a few weeks will have a chance to vote on this Sal DiMasi acolyte.

“He is 38 years old — odds are he’ll be collecting a paycheck for 50 years,” she said. “A half century. This is supposed to be a justice-delivery system, not a jobs program for Deval’s contributors. It’s a closed shop. You only have a chance if you’re on the team. Something is really wrong out west.”

Speranzo did not return a call yesterday seeking a comment.


Deval Patrick raises eyebrows, ire
By Hillary Chabot - BOSTON HERALD
Friday, June 10, 2011 -

Lawmakers and unions slammed Gov. Deval Patrick yesterday for triggering a pay-raise bonanza to the tune of nearly $10 million with a 3 percent salary hike for as many as 4,000 state managers — even as Bay State residents face frozen salaries and unemployment.

“There are people in the private sector who haven’t seen a raise in years. Most people feel lucky if they have a job,” said outraged state Rep. James Miceli (D-Wilmington).

Jay Gonzalez, Patrick’s finance and administration secretary who released the news of the pay raise, argued that state managers haven’t gotten a raise since July 2007.

It’s do as they say, not as they do,” said Steve Killion, president of the Cambridge Police Patrolman’s Union. “It’s unfortunately the way (Patrick) does business. He does what he wants and he hurts all the hard-working people in this state.”

Shortly after the administration announced the raises yesterday, the state Senate hit back, unanimously approving an amendment that would force the governor to control his personnel costs and detail efforts to control spending on staffing.

“This perfectly illustrates the point as to why you have to have reporting on spending and accountability,” said Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester), who filed the amendment. “You can imagine our surprise — he’s issuing a broad-based pay increase when we’re in the middle of a conference committee and struggling with serious (budget) cuts.”

Senators are trying to close a $1.9 billion budget gap — made worse by a cutoff of federal stimulus funds. Students at the University of Massachusetts will be whacked with a 7.5 percent fee hike while cities and towns took a $65 million cut in state funding. The pay hike, set to go into effect on July 1, comes only months after Patrick ousted MassDevelopment director Robert Culver for considering pay hikes at the quasi-public authority.



Thursday, May 19, 2011

"Where did his primary loyalty lie?" - To HIMSELF....How a State Employee held down two high risk jobs at the same time and endangered the public

The Boston Globe does a good job at investigating issues like the one in the story enclosed here.

The story ask the basic question, " Why did Massport, EMS let a public safety employee work 2 jobs simultaneously almost nonstop? "

There are three simple reasons:

1. POOR MANAGEMENT - No one at Massport and/or Boston’s Emergency Medical Services Department was doing the job we PAY them for - Managing the resources properly and ensuring that NO ONE is ginning up the system like this paramedic did....We pay the Directors/Managers/Supervisors at these agencies well above the average pay and bennies for life...You would expect (expect) a better ROI from them but we all know how these things work....STATE & MUNICIPAL employees were asleep at the switch...shocker. I say we need to look at firing a group of Managers that allowed this to occur and did nothing.

2. UNETHICAL CONDUCT IS THE NORM - The way things operate within the halls of the State Government and Municipal offices, "skinning the system" is a rite of passage...Cops, Firefighters, Town Managers....all do important work and all want to whatever they can do to crank up the $$$ and feather their retirements. We wind up having to write laws to stop all the loopholes they devise because no one sat down and tried to imagine how an employee would try to gin up the system. It takes away from all those who don't do so but "it is what it is" and the culture is based on fleecing the taxpayers, plain & simple.

3. GREED - " GREED IS GOOD "should be the motto for the State Government and Municipal employees and their unions. There is no care of how the money grab effects the taxpayers, who gets deprived of needed services because so much of the budget gets devoted to perks, etc. All that matters in the end, is " I GOT MINE". If you live in the belief that this is not so, I hate to burst your bubble but the Unions and their members have been laughing at you all the way to the bank for decades.

Like anything else, we are reaching a tipping point. The budget crisis is exposing the games and will bring them to an end. The only issue will be " How was this allowed to go on for so long??" - It comes down to we overpaid for poor management and a system that rewarded too many of the worst people in the positions we where we (the taxpayers) needed the best people.

It is to weep.....


One man, two jobs, and a question
Why did Massport, EMS let public safety employee work almost nonstop?
By Rachel Kossman and Walter V. Robinson
Boston Globe Correspondents

Last year, on April 27, Lieutenant Richard G. Covino was paid for working an 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. shift with the Massachusetts Port Authority Fire Department. All in all, an ordinary work day.

But starting at 3 p.m. the same day, Covino was also being paid for an eight-hour shift at his other full-time public safety job, as a paramedic for the city of Boston’s Emergency Medical Services Department, where he has worked since 1984.

It is one of several instances in which Covino was paid for working for both agencies at the same time.

For at least 11 years, Covino has juggled two full-time public safety jobs, his longtime position in Boston and successive jobs as a firefighter in Cohasset, Gloucester, and, since 2006, at Massport. In the last four years, Covino has been paid an average of $200,000 a year, including substantial overtime pay.

The overlapping shifts aside, Covino’s nearly 100-hour weeks confront two of Greater Boston’s most elite public safety agencies with an embarrassing question: Why would each allow Covino to hold two high-stress public safety jobs in which alertness and clear-headed judgment might spell the difference between life and death?

On at least five days last year, Covino was credited with starting work in Boston between one and three hours before he had purportedly finished his shift at Massport, according to a Globe examination of his attendance records over a recent 18-month period. On numerous other occasions, there was no more than five minutes, and sometimes less, between the time he officially finished work at one agency and started a tour at the other.

And the records show something else: Covino, who is 50, often worked long stretches with virtually no time off, sometimes 40 hours or more at a stretch, and much of that behind the wheel of a Boston ambulance speeding through the city on life-saving missions. In the last four years, he worked nearly 90 days of overtime a year at the two agencies, for which he earned close to $140,000.

On April 14, after an inquiry from the Globe triggered an internal review, Massport Fire Chief Robert Donahue suspended Covino without pay pending completion of a full investigation. Late on Friday, EMS spokeswoman Jennifer Mehigan said EMS was placing Covino on administrative leave with pay after an initial inquiry also uncovered problems.

Covino declined requests for an interview.

Why Massport and EMS permitted the arrangement is not altogether clear. Donahue, for instance, said he assumed when he hired Covino in 2006 that he was quitting the Boston job, and only found out months later that he had not. Mehigan said EMS officials knew only “anecdotally’’ about the Massport job. EMS has no restrictions on outside employment.

Massport has moved swiftly to make changes. Donahue suspended Covino and sharply curtailed the practice that allows firefighters to swap shifts with one another. This practice was critical to Covino’s juggling act. He routinely asked others to fill in for him so he could leave Massport halfway through a normal day shift to work his standard 3 to 11 p.m. EMS shift. He would repay the hours to them at another time.

Massport last week also changed its policy for new hires in any job: None will be permitted to keep a second full-time position.

EMS, which just launched its inquiry, has not said whether its policies might change.

Neither agency had a policy prohibiting its employees from having another public safety job, or even a requirement that managers be notified about other positions. Indeed, EMS Chief James Hooley, in an interview Thursday, said it is possible that Covino may not be the only one of his 350 EMTs and paramedics working for another public safety agency.

“I don’t know if I could say no to someone having another public safety job,’’ Hooley said.

Samuel R. Tyler, the president of the Boston Municipal Research Bureau, a business-supported watchdog agency that focuses on city finances and management, said he was astonished to learn that either agency would countenance such an arrangement.

“To allow one person to hold two high-stress public safety jobs is inconceivable. It makes no sense,’’ Tyler said. “It should be common sense — you cannot permit someone to have two jobs, each one stressful, that require quick decisions that affect the safety and lives of the public.’’

Tyler said that such arrangements may “cheat the taxpayers out of the services they should expect,’’ and could leave the city vulnerable to substantial legal damages for any serious misstep by an exhausted paramedic.

Hooley said that Covino has been “one of our better performers,’’ with no hint that his Massport job had affected his work as a paramedic. In 1992, when he had just the one job, Covino was awarded the department’s highest honor, the Medal of Honor, for leading people to safety from a Mattapan house fire before firefighters arrived, Hooley said.

Jay Weaver, an EMS partner and friend of Covino’s, had nothing but praise for his colleague. “Rick is an exceptionally skilled and knowledgeable paramedic, among the finest I’ve ever worked with,’’ Weaver said in an e-mail exchange from Afghanistan, where he is serving a tour as an Army lawyer. “He is an extremely hard worker.’’

Donahue, the Massport chief, would say only that Covino was suspended “for possible violations of department policies and procedures.’’

Friday evening, Mehigan released a statement that said Covino had just been placed on leave “while questions raised by his dual employment with Boston EMS and another agency are being reviewed.’’ It said the Boston Public Health Commission, which oversees EMS, “is committed to ensuring that Boston residents have the utmost confidence in its employees and services.’’

The EMS, with 50 ambulances, responded to emergency calls 110,000 times in 2010. The Massport Fire Department, with 85 firefighters, responds to about 3,000 calls a year, almost all at Logan. Its principal firefighting training involves aircraft fire and rescue operations.

Donahue said that by the time he learned Covino had kept his EMS job, his new hire was fulfilling his work requirements and the agency had no policy barring second jobs. “Obviously, in the future, based on this case, we’d do it differently,’’ Donahue said in an interview. “Safety is our highest priority.’’

At EMS, Hooley said that because of concerns about on-the-job fatigue, EMTs and paramedics can work no more than 18 hours at a stretch. “We would never approve anything more than that,’’ he said.

But serving two masters, Covino regularly violated the spirit of Hooley’s restrictions, according to a Globe review of his work records.

Starting last March 13, for example, Covino was off for less than two hours in a 50-hour stretch. That day, a Saturday, he clocked in to Massport at 5:52 in the morning, then left there at 10:21 p.m. for his Boston job, which started at 11 p.m. and ended at 7 a.m. on Sunday. After an hour’s break, Covino worked another shift at EMS, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. After a quick commute, he was back on duty at Massport at 4:17 p.m. Sunday for an overnight shift that ended at 8:10 a.m. on Monday.

After that marathon effort, Covino was off for part of Monday, until he went back to EMS for a 3 to 11 p.m. shift.

Such extraordinary work patterns appear again and again during the 18 months of attendance records from the two agencies that the Globe was able to compare. Prior to August 2009, the Massport records do not contain the start and stop times for firefighters’ shifts.

The Massport job allowed for some sleep, typically between midnight and 5 a.m., but only if there were no calls, according to Donahue.

Until the Globe made its public records request in February, neither agency was aware of Covino’s specific work schedule at the other, a scheduled that still allowed for extensive overtime.

Dr. Charles A. Czeisler, director of the Division of Sleep Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and one of the country’s leading authorities on sleep deprivation, said in an interview that physicians and first responders like paramedics and firefighters have a much higher risk of making errors when they go long periods without sleep. Someone who has gone without sleep for 24 hours, he said, has impaired judgment similar to a person who is legally drunk. In such cases, he said, people are more likely to make bad decisions and have short-term memory problems.

Neither EMS nor Massport has evidence of fatigue-related mistakes by Covino.

Covino’s dual positions raise another issue as well: Which hat would Covino don if there were a major terrorist episode at Logan that required both agencies to call in all available personnel? Donahue said that he believes Covino’s first responsibility would be to Massport. Said Hooley: “He understands that Boston EMS is his principal employer. That’s where his primary loyalty lies.’’

This article was prepared for an investigative reporting course at Northeastern University. It was overseen by Walter V. Robinson, who is distinguished professor of journalism and a former editor of the Globe Spotlight Team. Robinson can be reached at w.robinson@neu.edu. Confidential messages can be left at 617-929-3334.

Saturday, March 19, 2011

Talk about a Trainwreck - Massachusetts Commuter Rail hands out big $$$ to Unions and sticks it to the riders....what a way to run a railroad!!


Two News stories.....another case of unbelievable stupidity and incompetence costing the middle class extra while rewarding those who can't get the job done.......you be the judge.


1st has been the all winter long saga of the local commuter rail service in Massachusetts - Bad service, late trains, broken down trains and poor performance all around.

Mass. GOP senators call for commuter rail hearings
By Associated Press
Monday, March 7, 2011 - Added 2 weeks ago

BOSTON - The four Republican members of the Massachusetts Senate are calling for legislative oversight hearings on the spate of recent service interruptions and mechanical failures at the MBTA.

GOP Senate Leader Bruce Tarr said the group is asking the chairs of the Joint Committee on Transportation and the chairman of the Senate Post Audit and Oversight Committee to hold one or more hearings to figure out the causes of the problems and to come up with some solutions.

The MBTA’s commuter rail trains have been plagued with delays during the winter, including a four-hour ordeal for passengers trying to get from Boston to Worcester last week

The service has been dismal, the trains are old, the cost is high ($250 a month for a monthly pass and $4 a day to park at the T station)

Sooooo....what gets printed on page B11 of the Saturday paper next to the Obituaries in the Boston Globe????

THIS does -

Commuter rail pact includes wage increase
Talks continue with other unions
By L. Finch
Globe Correspondent / March 19, 2011

Unions representing Massachusetts Bay Commuter Railroad Co. conductors and locomotive engineers agreed to a new contract Thursday, ending more than two years of negotiations. Labor talks continue, however, between the remaining commuter rail unions and the company, officials said.

The new four-year contracts with the Brotherhood of the Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen and the United Transportation Union afford a total 13.7 percent wage increase to members including retroactive pay to July 2009, include a $1,000 signing bonus, and cap employee health coverage contributions at $100 per month, according to statements released by the unions yesterday. This marks the first time MBCR employees will contribute to their health insurance costs; the company previously covered 100 percent of health insurance premiums.

The agreement, which runs through July 2013, also raises the layover pay for employees forced to wait for more than an hour between train routes, from half-time to five-eighths time.



ARE YOU KIDDING ME?? No wonder they have needed to charge us higher costs !! They have been footing the full bill for the healthcare all along (at the same time the public pays the full cost for our healthcare) and now that the union members will be asked to pay, they cap it at $100 a month !!! That is $25 a WEEK...who do you know has family healthcare for $25 a week....and they will get 13.7% pay increase and a $1000 signing bonus.....what a racket.

The public gets screwed, the trains are still old, not maintained, broken down and the Union idiots walk away with all of the $$$ and benefits they can haul.....the riders get screwed and the Unions walk away with the benefit. And of course, the Boston Globe buries the story on the back of the paper next to the Obits.

INCOMPETENCE of the highest order by the public sector and those who put these feckless idiots in charge of running the commuter rail which so many have to depend upon. The middle class who need this service to get to work takes another hit and the Politicians turn a blind eye to the gouging of the public....pissa.

Saturday, February 12, 2011

Wisconsin Gov. Walker to Greedy Unions, " We don’t have anything to give. Like every other state in the country, we’re broke...it’s time to pay up."


LOOKS LIKE WE ARE REACHING ANOTHER "TIPPING POINT...and none too soon.

To wit: The "Tipping Point" is an idea outlined by that name by Malcolm Gladwell. According to Gladwell, ideas change society by behaving like viruses....the moment of critical mass, the threshold, the boiling point; the point when everyday things reach epidemic proportions.


It looks like we have started to reach that point in our States.

After the impressive progress of Gov. Chris Christie in New Jersey, the Gov. of Wisconsin is my newest hero.....taking a stand against the greedy state hacks who don't care that the economy is in the crapper, they just want their $$$ and life-long entitlements....regardless of who it hurts or what it does to the rest of the state. The biggest issue is that these greedy hacks usually pull up stakes and move somewhere else once they retire on their benefits for life.....

Look, I don't want to see anyone do without BUT there is no way that we can honor golden ticket promises made by "pie-in-the sky" pension managers from 30 years ago. The market has turned south and no one should expect to be immune from change. To do so shows a level of selfishness that is the Hallmark of unions and their leaders.

I salute the honorable Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin !!! He is taking on the problem head on.....Go get'em Sir !! Do what is best for your citizens, not just the well connected state hacks!!



Wisconsin May Take an Ax to State Workers’ Benefits and Their Unions
By MONICA DAVEY and STEVEN GREENHOUSE
Published: February 11, 2011

Citing Wisconsin’s gaping budget shortfall for this year and even larger ones expected in the years ahead, Gov. Scott Walker proposed a sweeping plan on Friday to cut benefits for public employees in the state and to take away most of their unions’ ability to bargain.

The proposal by Mr. Walker, a Republican who was elected in November after pledging that he would get public workers’ compensation “into line” with everyone else’s, is expected to receive support next week in the State Legislature, where Republicans also won control of both chambers in the fall.

The prospect left union leaders, state and local employees and some Democrats stunned over the plan’s scope and what it might signal for public-sector unions in the state. Union leaders began planning rallies in Madison and contacting lawmakers, pressing them to reject the idea.

Mr. Walker said Wisconsin was prepared for any fallout, noting in an interview that the National Guard was ready to step in to handle state duties, if need be.

“I’m just trying to balance my budget,” Mr. Walker said. “To those who say why didn’t I negotiate on this? I don’t have anything to negotiate with. We don’t have anything to give. Like practically every other state in the country, we’re broke. And it’s time to pay up.”

State leaders across the country have talked about solving budget woes with actions that in other climates might have been politically impossible: cutting the salaries and pensions of government workers and limiting the power of labor unions.

But the plan in Wisconsin, which faces a $137 million shortfall in the current budget and a gap in the billions for the coming cycle, is among the most far-reaching of such proposals to be delivered to lawmakers. Mr. Walker expects swift approval.

Among key provisions of Mr. Walker’s plan: limiting collective bargaining for most state and local government employees to the issue of wages (instead of an array of issues, like health coverage or vacations); requiring government workers to contribute 5.8 percent of their pay to their pensions, much more than now; and requiring state employees to pay at least 12.6 percent of health care premiums (most pay about 6 percent now).

Mike Imbrogno, a cook at the University of Wisconsin in Madison who belongs to a union and said he earns $28,000 a year, described the move as an “attack” on working people.

“He’s basically trying to smash the last remaining organized upward pressure on wages and benefits in Wisconsin,” Mr. Imbrogno said. Governor Walker’s proposal would specifically remove the right of the university’s faculty and staff to bargain collectively.

Mr. Walker made several proposals that will weaken not just unions’ ability to bargain contracts, but also their finances and political clout.

His proposal would make it harder for unions to collect dues because the state would stop collecting the money from employee paychecks.

He would further weaken union treasuries by giving members of public-sector unions the right not to pay dues. In an unusual move, he would require secret-ballot votes each year at every public-sector union to determine whether a majority of workers still want to be unionized.

He would require public-employee unions to negotiate new contracts every year, an often lengthy process. And he would limit the raises of state employees and teachers to the consumer price index, unless the public approves higher raises through a referendum. Exempted from those changes would be firefighters and law enforcement personnel.

“We think that the proposal that’s put forward, it just goes too far,” said Phil Neuenfeldt, president of the Wisconsin A.F.L.-C.I.O. “The right to negotiate wages and benefits for a union is a fundamental underpinning of the American middle class.”

But Mr. Walker and Republican leaders said disassembling unions was not the point at all. The intent, Mr. Walker said, was to avoid balancing the budget some other way: by laying off some 6,000 state workers, and taking away Medicaid coverage for hundreds of thousands of children.

Wisconsin officials say Mr. Walker’s plan would save the state $30 million in the current budget, and $300 million in the next budget. “In these tough times, I think people are going to feel that this is not that much to ask,” said Jeff Fitzgerald, the Republican speaker of the State Assembly. “Everyone is going to have to pitch in.”

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

The fiscal burden of public-employee unions - a class of citizens who set themselves up as "Lords of the Manor"


We learn our mistakes and how the mistakes happened when we study history. Only in hindsight can we see that decisions that seemed to be in our best interest at the time, can have disastrous consequences late on.

We now have a class of citizens who by virtue of working for your local, state or Federal Government, have set themselves up as the "Lords of the Manor", granting themselves entitlements that last a lifetime that few if any other citizens could possibly hope to achieve. And at the same time, they will expect all others to pay for their entitlement, even to the detriment of all others needs.

Siegel writes " Instead, the decision to grant this privilege was a political decision designed to enhance the power of a pressure group whose interests, even many liberals assumed, would be at odds with those of the general public. Political decisions can be reversed."

Agreed sir. We NEED to reverse the decision to give them this ability to hold all us collectively hostage, the sooner the better. To not do so, would to put the success of our nation and it's communities at grave danger. These greedy Unions don't care about you & me,or how their demands effect the rest of the population, only their own selfish needs.



How Public Unions Took Taxpayers Hostage -
The first to seize on the political potential of government workers was New York's Mayor Robert F. Wagner.
The Kennedy White House took notice of his success
Text By FRED SIEGEL - Wall Street Journal Opinion


The turbulent years of the 1960s and '70s are best known by the headline-grabbing civil rights and women's rights movements. But there was another "rights" movement, largely overlooked, that has also had a profound effect on American life. The looming public-pension crisis that threatens to bankrupt city, county and state governments had its origins in those same years when public employees, already protected by civil-service rules, gained the right to bargain collectively.

Liberals were once skeptical of public-sector unionism. In the 1930s, New York Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia warned against it as an infringement on democratic freedoms that threatened the ability of government to represent the broad needs of the citizenry. And in a 1937 letter to the head of an organization of federal workers, FDR noted that "a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable."

Private-sector union leaders were also divided. George Meany, the president of the AFL-CIO from 1955-1979 who came out of the building trades, argued that it was "impossible to bargain collectively with the government." Private unionists more generally worried that rather than winning a greater share of profits, public-sector labor would be extracting taxes from a public that included their own workers. But in the late 1950s, with the failure of the labor movement's organizing campaign in the South, Meany's own executive council insisted on the necessity of winning the right to organize public employees.

The first to seize on the political potential of government workers was New York City Mayor Robert F. Wagner. The mayor's father, a prominent New Deal senator, had authored the landmark 1935 Wagner Act, which imposed on private employers the legal duty to bargain collectively with the properly elected union representatives of their employees. Mayor Wagner, prodded by Jerry Wurf of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (Afscme), gave city workers the right to bargain collectively in 1958.

Running for re-election in 1961, Mayor Wagner was opposed by the old-line party bosses of all five boroughs. He turned to a new force, the public-sector unions, as his political machine. His re-election resonated at the Kennedy White House, which had won office by only the narrowest of margins in 1960.

Ten weeks after Wagner's victory, Kennedy looked to mobilize public-sector workers as a new source of Democratic Party political support. In mid-January 1962, he issued Executive Order 10988, which gave federal workers the right to organize in unions.

Two young and militant public-sector unionists, Al Shanker of the American Federation of Teachers and Wurf of Afscme, both strong supporters of the still nascent civil rights movement, seized the opportunity. Shanker saw both teachers and African-Americans as second-class citizens fighting the old-line political bosses. He'd also called a brief teachers strike in 1960. Shanker called another strike in 1962 that shifted the balance of power from principals to teachers, where it has remained down to the present.

In 1958, there had been but 15 public-employee strikes nationwide, involving a handful of workers. By 1968, after the old guard in Afscme had been deposed by the so-called young Turks led by Wurf, more than 200,000 union members, mostly in local and state government, were involved in 254 strikes.

In 1968, amid rioting, civil rights and antiwar protests, Martin Luther King Jr. backed an Afscme strike by poorly paid, mostly African-American sanitation men in Memphis, Tenn. After King's tragic assassination, the city quickly settled with the union.

In the 1970s, government-worker unions became a political venue for New Leftist, feminist and black activists hoping to carry on in the militant spirit of the 1960s. The divisions within organized labor over the Vietnam War allowed Wurf and his allies to take on the declining private unions of the AFL-CIO, whose leader Meany backed the war. Wurf made himself a key player in George McGovern's 1972 presidential campaign, and public employees have had a lead role in Democratic Party politics ever since.

Public-employee unionism seemed to be moving from success to success—Afscme was gaining a thousand (mostly female) workers a week—until the summer of 1975. At that point there was a surge in strikes, and the government unions began to threaten Democratic officeholders.

On July 1, 1975, New York sanitation workers walked off the job, allowing garbage to pile up in the streets of a Gotham already in the throes of fiscal crisis. In short order, cops objecting to furloughs imposed by the city's liberal Democratic Mayor Abe Beame shut down the Manhattan side of the Brooklyn Bridge, with marchers carrying signs that read "Cops Out, Crime In" and "Burn City Burn."

On that same July 1, 76,000 Pennsylvania state workers went on strike against liberal Democratic Gov. Milton Shapp's austerity measures. Afscme's leader in Pennsylvania, Gerald MacIntee, told his members "Let's go out and close down this God-damned state." And in Seattle, the fireman's union initiated a recall ballot on July 1 directed against the one-time union favorite, Mayor Wes Uhlman, who held back pay hikes in the midst of rising deficits.

Mr. Uhlman narrowly survived and he, like Beame and Shapp, calmed the situation by largely caving in to the striker's demands. But a line had been crossed: With New York's near-bankruptcy a visible marker, the peril posed by public-sector unionism became a problem for Democrats as well as Republicans.

The fiscal burden of public-employee unions briefly became visible again in the early '80s, when many warned of a looming public-pension crisis. That crisis was averted by the stock market boom that began in 1982-83 and lasted until 2007-08. It is now back with a vengeance.

Restraining the immense clout that government-employee unions have accumulated over the past half-century will be difficult, but not impossible. Civil rights for African-Americans and women was a fulfillment of the universalist American promise as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. Collective bargaining by public employees was not rooted in deep-seated American tradition.

Instead, the decision to grant this privilege was a political decision designed to enhance the power of a pressure group whose interests, even many liberals assumed, would be at odds with those of the general public. Political decisions can be reversed.

Mr. Siegel is a scholar in residence at St. Francis College and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Public Employee Unions need to get a clue - "This is the new norm. It's a different day for public sector employees."


When you look at how things are rigged in favor of Public Employee Unions, you realize that if anyone in private business operated this way, you'd be able to support an indictment for Racketeering.

Of course, the Union Bosses and members don't see it that way but in the new economy, they are trying to hold on to promises that were made by people who had no idea how bad our economy would be at this time.

Public Sector employees need to adjust to the new reality as the taxpayers have had to do so for some time now....and I am getting a little tired of listening to their gripes when the rest of us, (The Majority of Workers), have little sympathy for Unionized Government Workers when all other workers have suffered severe pay cuts, loss of benefits and job cuts.


The tax dollars we pay must benefit all citizens, not just those lucky enough to be inside the system....The Hacks need to get over themselves....really.



Unions Mobilize Against Curbs
By KRIS MAHER And JEANNETTE NEUMANN - Wall Street Journal

Several big public- and private-sector unions are launching a campaign aimed at stopping a growing push by states to curb union bargaining rights and benefits.


Union members, clergy and community leaders were using a pre-Martin Luther King Day candlelight vigil in Cincinnati on Friday to protest proposals by Republican Ohio Gov. John Kasich to eliminate collective-bargaining rights for thousands of home health-care workers.

Mr. Kasich is considering changes to union rights and benefits in light of a pending big budget gap, said Rob Nichols, a spokesman for the governor. Mr. Kasich also supports banning strikes by public school teachers.

"There are going to be concessions in many facets of government," Mr. Nichols said. "Everyone needs to be contributing."

The Cincinnati event is one of several planned over the next few months, coordinated by both private and public unions. Those representing government workers face a tough battle this year to convince lawmakers and the public that precious tax dollars should be spent on their pensions and health-care benefits amid widespread government budget woes.

Unions are also filing lawsuits challenging cutbacks and offering lawmakers other suggestions on how to cut costs and raise revenue.

"Every segment of the labor movement is under attack right now," said Naomi Walker, director of state-government relations for the AFL-CIO, which is working with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the U.S.'s biggest public-sector union; the Service Employees International Union; the American Federation of Teachers; and others.

The pay and benefits of the highly unionized public-sector work force have become prime targets for cuts as many states face budget shortfalls. Some politicians argue that union workers, who typically enjoy stronger job and benefit protections than those in the private sector, will have to make sacrifices.

The union campaigns—targeted now on Ohio, Wisconsin, Florida and New Jersey—will include phone calls and visits to union members, as well as demonstrations and meetings with elected officials. The goal is to get union members to convince state officials to oppose these measures and turn public opinion in their favor.

Labor expects the fights to be most intense in typically union-heavy states, such as Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Changes are being considered in those states that include right-to-work proposals that would eliminate mandatory union membership and dues in organized workplaces.

Republican Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker said eliminating bargaining rights for public-sector workers is one option to help rein in costs and help control the state's budget gap, which is $158 million now and set to grow to $3 billion in the next fiscal cycle.

Some unions are trying to prevent cuts affecting their members by proposing ways for states to address shortfalls.

"They are seeking to put out their ideas and to engage the budgets in some new and innovative ways," said Harley Shaiken, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, specializing in labor issues.

Other unions are turning to the courts. In Miami, the firefighters' union last fall filed a lawsuit in state circuit court saying the city circumvented full collective bargaining and then cut wages, health insurance and pension benefits for current workers because of what the city called financial urgency.

"The bottom line was that wages and pensions are the biggest chunk of our budgets," said Julie Bru, Miami city attorney. "This is the new norm. It's a different day for public sector employees."

Write to Kris Maher at kris.maher@wsj.com


Wednesday, January 12, 2011

NJ Governor - "Sick leave is for when you're sick- It's not supposed to be a second taxpayer-funded retirement payment."


Our man in New Jersey strikes again at the rigged systems that reward the feckless hacks that are on the state employment rolls - Limiting how they can rig the system in their favor and cutting the WASTE that has been allowed for far too long....

NOW, if we can only get someone like him into the Massachusetts State House....we tried but POTUS' Buddy SPEND-IT-ALL Deval Patrick got reelected by the DEMS and Unions....The economic crisis might force Deval's hand but he is a "tool" for the unions so we will keep paying idiot hacks in Massachusetts, even when they don't deserve the extra pay they will help themselves to.....Greedy Bastards.


NJ gov. signs law capping pay through arbitration
By David Porter
Associated Press / December 21, 2010

WAYNE, N.J.—Gov. Chris Christie signed a bill Tuesday that caps increases to police and firefighter pay awarded through arbitration, a measure he called the most important of the proposals in his so-called toolkit to help towns control costs.

Tweet Be the first to Tweet this!Yahoo! Buzz ShareThis With Democratic Senate President Stephen Sweeney looking on, Christie hailed the passage of the bill as a testament to bipartisan cooperation.

"We've proven over the last year that Republicans and Democrats can get things done together," he said. "Mayors have been yelling and screaming for these kinds of reforms for years."

The bill caps salary awards, including longevity pay and automatic step increases, for police and firefighters at 2 percent when their unions engage arbitrators to settle contracts.

It also fast-tracks the arbitration process by giving arbitrators a 45-day window to rule on disputes and limiting the appeal process to 30 days. In addition, arbitrators' pay will be capped at $1,000 per day or $7,500 per case, whichever sum is lower.

Christie said Tuesday that some cases in arbitration have dragged on for years, and that fear of excessive arbitration awards has hampered some towns' ability to conduct effective contract negotiations.

"Arbitration works when it's balanced," said Sweeney, who is an organizer for the International Association of Ironworkers. "But the system has gotten out of whack over the last 20 years."

Pension and health care costs are not included in the cap. Christie said the cap will lapse in April 2014, at which time lawmakers will review its effects and consider modifications.

"This is the most significant individual bill in the toolkit," Christie said.

Municipalities have been clamoring for tools to help them control costs since the Legislature approved -- and Christie signed -- a 2 percent cap on annual property tax increases that goes into effect Jan. 1.

Christie said residents could see a difference in their tax bills by August, but that the effect likely won't be seen until the end of 2011 or beginning of 2012.

"It's one of the major issues we're dealing with," Hoboken Mayor Dawn Zimmer said after the signing. "This gives us the tools going forward to make sure it's fair for the residents of the city of Hoboken and of New Jersey."

The governor said another primary target is sick leave policies for public employees, some of whom routinely get tens of thousands of dollars in unused sick time when they retire. Christie noted a case in Parsippany in which four police officers reportedly were due a total of $900,000 upon retirement.

Christie signed a bill this year that limits state employees to receiving $15,000, and he said Tuesday a similar measure in the Legislature for school, government and public safety workers needs to be toughened.

"Sick leave is for when you're sick," he said. "It's not supposed to be a second taxpayer-funded retirement payment."


Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Why Teacher Pensions Don't Work - " we simply kick the can down the road by underfunding pension obligations..."

Pension promises made to Teachers were built on a foundation of Hope - Hope that there would be enough money in the future to pay off on the promises.....Now, we are dealing with promises that can't be paid out by those stuck with the bill in the present.

The promises made by those in charge back-in-the-day were done with "good intentions" and we all know that the "Road to Hell" is paid with those same good intentions....I am sorry about what will have to happen but there are just as many private sector workers who lost their pensions when Big Business ran into the same issue....


As much as Teachers do great work, they are no more valuable than all the other workers who lost pensions they counted on and do not hold any kind of privileged standing that should protect them from what all the rest of us will have to deal with in the new economy. Life sux and SHITE happens...Teachers will be learning a lesson that private sector employees learned about 10-15 years ago.


Why Teacher Pensions Don't Work
Defined-benefit systems aren't merely Ponzi schemes. They discourage talented teachers who would prefer front-loaded compensation..

Text By JOEL KLEIN - Wall Street Journal



We live in a funny world. Bernie Madoff pretended he was getting 8% returns on his clients' investments—and he's in jail for running a Ponzi scheme. But in the public sector that kind of make-believe is common. As former chancellor of the New York City public schools, I learned that one of the options the city pension plan offered teachers and administrators guaranteed an 8.25% return, regardless of what the investments actually earned in the market. In fact, throughout the country public-employee pension plans have been massively underfunded, often pretending, like Madoff, that they'd get 8% returns forever, even if they didn't get them in reality.

Whether the investment returns are there or not, defined-benefit pensions require the government to pay retirees a predetermined amount for life. For example, today a teacher in New York City can retire with an annual pension of $60,000 (or more) that is exempt from state and municipal taxes. In short, lots of obligation; little set aside to meet it.

While irresponsible, this kind of behavior makes good political sense. After all, people run for office in the short run, and money spent now—rather than put aside in a pension reserve—is more likely to garner votes. As one legislator recently told me, "When budgets are tight, as they often are, we simply kick the can down the road by underfunding pension obligations." But as with Madoff, inevitably a day of reckoning arrives. For many states and municipalities, that day is now.

But this time it won't be private investors who get hurt. Instead, children currently in our schools, as well as future students, will be high among those paying the price. To cover the underfunded pension obligations to teachers and other public employees, cities and states have little choice but to divert money from what would otherwise be their operating budgets. And since schools make up a big part of those operating budgets, education will get significantly shortchanged as we make up for past underfunding.

This problem won't go away soon. There are lots of current retirees who must be paid, lots of people now working who have earned some part of their pensions, and, in many states, it is legally dubious whether current workers can have their pensions adjusted even prospectively. Consequently, no matter how you slice it, today's and tomorrow's students will long be subsidizing retired teachers who never taught them.

You would think that such a costly program, even if underfunded, would at least make sense. But while defined-benefit pensions sound good in theory—retirees should have security for their later years—they actually create incentives that impede hiring and keeping the best teachers.

To begin with, these pension systems make the total compensation package much too back-loaded: Pay in the early years is needlessly low, so we lose good people who don't find the generous benefits at the end worth the lifetime commitment.

Today in New York City, for example, the average annual per-teacher compensation is more than $110,000. The salary portion is $71,000, and the pension portion is $23,000. (The rest is for health insurance, FICA and other benefits.) A mix that was more typical of what exists in the private sector would help us attract more qualified people into teaching—and keep them there during the first five years, when we traditionally lose a third or more.

Here is an example of what that means. New York City's starting salary for teachers is $45,000, and the increases in the early years are low. If instead we started teachers at $52,000 or $55,000, gave them bigger increases in the early years, and paid for it by reducing their pensions, we would attract and keep better teachers.

At one point when I was chancellor, based on discussions with many new and prospective teachers, I proposed that we offer each new hire a choice between the current salary and benefit package and an alternative based on a higher entry salary and lower pension benefits. No one would lose anything: new hires that wanted the lifetime pension benefit could still have it, while those who preferred the proposed alternative obviously would be better off.

Nevertheless, the teachers union rejected the offer, calling it "anti-union."

On the other hand, because employees typically get a significant lifetime pension only after working 25 or 30 years, there comes a point at which almost no one leaves the system. In New York, few teachers leave after 10 years. Quite a few of these senior teachers admit they're burned out, or would want to try something else, but they stay simply because they cannot afford to forego the pension. Given that these teachers are already tenured, moreover, it's virtually impossible to remove them. This is not a good way to get the teachers that children need in our classrooms.

Defined-benefit pensions helped bring the once-vibrant U.S. auto industry to its knees. The promised benefits just proved too costly. In that industry, such pensions are mostly a thing of the past. Global competition eventually demanded as much.

Alas, the same kind of pensions are now hollowing out public education. Because there's essentially no competition in education, however, the effect has until very recently been hidden from public view. Today incoming governors—Democrats and Republicans—faced with this dismal equation are looking for a way to undo the damage and get out from under these unsustainable promises.

It won't be easy.

Mr. Klein, former chancellor of New York City's public schools, is the CEO of News Corporation's educational division


Sunday, January 9, 2011

ObamaCare - If you believe that a new entitlement saves money, you'll believe anything...

This article from the Wall Street Journal pretty much sums it up.....



REVIEW & OUTLOOK
JANUARY 8, 2011
ObamaCare's Reality Deficit

If you believe that a new entitlement saves money, you'll believe anything
..

Of all the claims deployed in favor of ObamaCare, and there are many, the most preposterous is that a new open-ended entitlement will somehow reduce the budget deficit. Insure 32 million more people, and save money too! The even more remarkable spectacle is that Washington seems to be taking this claim seriously in advance of the House's repeal vote next week. Some things in politics you just can't make up.

Terminating trillions of dollars in future spending will "heap mountains of debt onto our children and grandchildren" and "do very serious violence to the national debt and deficit," Nancy Pelosi said at her farewell press conference as Speaker. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius chimed in that "we can't afford repeal," as if ObamaCare's full 10-year cost of $2.6 trillion once all the spending kicks in is a taxpayer bargain.

The basis for such claims, to the extent a serious one exists, is the Congressional Budget Office's analysis this week of the repeal bill, which projects it will "cost" the government $230 billion through 2021. Because CBO figures ObamaCare will reduce the deficit by the same amount, repealing it will supposedly do the opposite. The White House promptly released a statement saying repeal would "explode the deficit."

Meanwhile, other Democrats have taken up arms about House procedure. The GOP adopted a budget rule that says repeal doesn't have to be "paid for," and the press corps is treating this exemption as a scandal against Washington decency.

In a memo, the inimitable Pete Stark spied a GOP plot "to shove through a massive bill"—the repeal measure is all of two pages—while Henry Waxman and other outgoing committee chairmen shook with outrage about "an offense to good government."

Republicans ran on "transparency in government and more fiscal responsibility," they wrote recently, and now here they are bringing "major legislation to the floor without any public hearings and without paying the trillion dollar cost of repeal. . . . The contrast between the approach the Republican leadership is proposing and the open process the Democrats followed last Congress is stark."

It sure is. Ten months ago, Democrats used a partisan majority to narrowly defeat bipartisan opposition and pass a national health-care program that a majority of the public opposed and continues to oppose today. Gallup reported yesterday that Americans favor repeal, 46% to 40%. Among the worst Democratic abuses was gaming the CBO's budget conventions to make it seem as if ObamaCare "saves" money.

The accounting gimmicks are legion, but we'll pick out a few: It uses 10 years of taxes to fund six years of subsidies. Social Security and Medicare revenues are double-counted to the tune of $398 billion. A new program funding long-term care frontloads taxes but backloads spending, gradually going broke by design. The law pretends that Congress will spend less on Medicare than it really will, in particular through an automatic 25% cut to physician payments that Democrats have already voted not to allow for this year.

The CBO budget gnomes are required to "score" what's on paper in front of them, no matter how unrealistic, and that's the method its Congressional masters prefer. The political class makes believe that CBO's forecasts are carved into stone tablets through divine revelation, but all they really show is that politicians have rigged the budget rules to hide the true cost of entitlements.

Anyone in search of economic or fiscal reality will have to turn to other sources. Two particular ObamaCare heroes are Richard Foster, the chief Medicare actuary with the courage to publish more honest analyses, and Paul Ryan, the Wisconsin Republican who is the most fluent scourge of ObamaCare's book-cooking, including in a debate last year in which President Obama had no response to his critique.

We also single out the economists Doug Holtz-Eakin, a former CBO director, and Eugene Steuerle, of the Urban Institute. Both have been voices in the wilderness about the incentives ObamaCare creates for businesses to drop coverage and dump their employees into "free" coverage, which really will "explode the deficit" far more than CBO projects.

But our core appeal isn't to this technical detail or that underlying assumption. It's to common sense. Amid the repeal debate, Democrats and the media are behaving as if they have no knowledge of Congress's habits or the history of government health-care programs over the last half-century. Entitlements are always sold as modest and "paid for," then years later everyone suddenly discovers that they are "unaffordable" without digging deeper into the pockets of the middle class. How do you think Medicare and Medicaid got to their current pass?

The government can't subsidize coverage for tens of millions of new people and simultaneously reduce the deficit, as most Americans seem to intuitively understand. The real offense Republicans are committing in the eyes of Washington is exposing its illusions.

Copyright 2010 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved