Wisconsin Public Workers Pay for 100% of Their Pensions and Health-Care

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Out of every dollar that funds Wisconsin' s pension and health insurance plans for state workers, 100 cents comes from the state workers.

How can that be? Because the "contributions" consist of money that employees chose to take as deferred wages – as pensions when they retire – rather than take immediately in cash. The same is true with the health care plan. If this were not so a serious crime would be taking place, the gift of public funds rather than payment for services.

Thus, state workers are not being asked to simply "contribute more" to Wisconsin' s retirement system (or as the argument goes, "pay their fair share" of retirement costs as do employees in Wisconsin' s private sector who still have pensions and health insurance). They are being asked to accept a cut in their salaries so that the state of Wisconsin can use the money to fill the hole left by tax cuts and reduced audits of corporations in Wisconsin.

The labor agreements show that the pension plan money is part of the total negotiated compensation. The key phrase, in those agreements I read (emphasis added), is: "The Employer shall contribute on behalf of the employee." This shows that this is just divvying up the total compensation package, so much for cash wages, so much for paid vacations, so much for retirement, etc.

http://www.alternet....nd_health-care/

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Is there a point to the article's convoluted logic?

Out of every dollar that funds Wisconsin' s pension and health insurance plans for state workers, 100 cents comes from the state workers.

No. Every cent a public employee receives, in benefits, in salary, in pensions, in any form of compensation, comes from the taxpayers.

Edited February 25, 2011 by Some Old Guy

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Is there a point to the article's convoluted logic?

No. Every cent a public employee receives, in benefits, in salary, in pensions, in any form of compensation, comes from the taxpayers.

Wages and benefits are compensation for providing labor. Using your logic, it's your customers who make your house payment, not you rightfully possessing the money you receive in exchange for your service.

Edited February 25, 2011 by 8TBVBN

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Wages and benefits are compensation for providing labor. Using your logic, it's your customers who make your house payment, not you actually rightfully possessing the money you receive in exchange for your service.

Steven, watch your argument. Your argument is the EXACT reason why a lot of people argue income taxes cannot be placed upon 'labor.'

Is there a point to the article's convoluted logic?

No. Every cent a public employee receives, in benefits, in salary, in pensions, in any form of compensation, comes from the taxpayers.

You'll have to excuse the fact that he forgets little details.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Wages and benefits are compensation for providing labor. Using your logic, it's your customers who make your house payment, not you rightfully possessing the money you receive in exchange for your service.

Key word is compensation, and the customer, i.e. taxpayer, gets to decide whether or not that compensation is justified, not me, or the public servant.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Key word is compensation, and the customer, i.e. taxpayer, gets to decide whether or not that compensation is justified, not me, or the public servant.

The taxpayer does get to decide by proxy. It's no different from the shareholders don't directly decide how much publicly traded company employees make, but they do by proxy.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The taxpayer does get to decide by proxy. It's no different from the shareholders don't directly decide how much publicly traded company employees make, but they do by proxy.

So, we should trust the GOP Governor and the GOP Legislators to make that decision for the taxpayers of Wisconsin? I agree.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So, we should trust the GOP Governor and the GOP Legislators to make that decision for the taxpayers of Wisconsin? I agree.

The collective bargaining process is no different between public employees and private. The teachers in Wisconsin did agree to concessions (collective bargaining), but Gov. Walker wants to eliminate them from even being part of that decision making process.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The collective bargaining process is no different between public employees and private. The teachers in Wisconsin did agree to concessions (collective bargaining), but Gov. Walker wants to eliminate them from even being part of that decision making process.

They can join the rest of the electorate as part of the decision making process.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

They can join the rest of the electorate as part of the decision making process.

That doesn't answer the question as to why you think public service employees shouldn't be allowed the right to collective bargaining.

[luckytxn 2,263]

They can be given the right to bargain any way they want but also how about anyone not being a part of that union if they don't want and not pay dues. Also if they want to be a collective then they can be fired as a collective and replaced. No what the public employees want is to be able to wield a work stoppage when they think will do them best and get the upper hand. Just make it fair and say this is what we pay and this is the extras. Want it take it if not then too bad. After they accept the offer then if they want to hand over part of their pay in dues then fine.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

That doesn't answer the question as to why you think public service employees shouldn't be allowed the right to collective bargaining.

The issue is not collective bargaining. The question is whether the unions should have an exclusive franchise at taxpayer expense.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

That doesn't answer the question as to why you think public service employees shouldn't be allowed the right to collective bargaining.

They do. It's called election day in November.

[mawilson 2,133]

Is there a point to the article's convoluted logic?

Yes, to confuse people. I re-read it several times and even I was confused.

It's the same convoluted logic that was used to make the case for

"investing" the Social Security trust fund surplus in US government

bonds and spending the proceeds of the sale.

Next time you decide to spend your savings, think of it as "investing

in yourself" - just put an IOU in its place and promise to pay it

back with interest.

[SMR 368]

Out of every dollar that funds Wisconsin' s pension and health insurance plans for state workers, 100 cents comes from the state workers.

How can that be? Because the "contributions" consist of money that employees chose to take as deferred wages – as pensions when they retire – rather than take immediately in cash. The same is true with the health care plan. If this were not so a serious crime would be taking place, the gift of public funds rather than payment for services.

Thus, state workers are not being asked to simply "contribute more" to Wisconsin' s retirement system (or as the argument goes, "pay their fair share" of retirement costs as do employees in Wisconsin' s private sector who still have pensions and health insurance). They are being asked to accept a cut in their salaries so that the state of Wisconsin can use the money to fill the hole left by tax cuts and reduced audits of corporations in Wisconsin.

The labor agreements show that the pension plan money is part of the total negotiated compensation. The key phrase, in those agreements I read (emphasis added), is: "The Employer shall contribute on behalf of the employee." This shows that this is just divvying up the total compensation package, so much for cash wages, so much for paid vacations, so much for retirement, etc.

http://www.alternet....nd_health-care/

This is fine logic and all. Pension plans are part of the compensation plan and thus can be considered as pay without stretching your imagination. But what's the point of the argument? Does a pay cut sound so much worse than a pension cut to most people? I would have thought that the author's point is kind of obvious and altogether not worthy of merit due to the fact that it proves nothing and doesn't change anything.