Analysis: Wall Street skeptical of N.J.’s pension reforms
APRIL 10, 2014, 10:15 PM LAST UPDATED: THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 2014, 10:20 PM
BY JOHN REITMEYER
STATE HO– USE BUREAU
THE RECORD
Governor Christie is calling for pension reforms, but analysts from the Wall Street ratings agency Standard & Poor’s said on Thursday that it’s unclear if that will put the state on a better financial footing.
Their concerns came a day after the agency lowered New Jersey’s bond rating, making it third worst among U.S. states.
In major speeches this year, and at many public events lately, Christie has said he wants to work with lawmakers to come up with new reforms, changes like those he negotiated with Democrats in 2011.
During a town-hall-style event in Fairfield on Wednesday, Christie said he would “force this discussion” again with lawmakers.
“I’m going to put a plan out there, and they’re going to have to deal with it,” Christie said.
But on Thursday, spokesman Kevin Roberts would not say exactly what Christie is considering at this stage.
“The governor has been clear that he is engaging the Legislature, and absent an indication from them that they are willing to recognize reality and negotiate next-step reforms in a bipartisan way, he will put forward a proposal of his own,” Roberts said.
Roberts also disputed the notion from the ratings agency analysts that recent changes to the pension formula and debt restructurings have pushed costs on to future budgets.
And it’s that uncertainty from Christie, along with his recent budget practices, like over-eager estimates for tax revenues that fall short, that have analysts concerned.
After years of skipped or only partial contributions from the state, the public employee pension system remains grossly underfunded and continues to weigh down New Jersey finances.
The burdensome pension payment — Christie’s latest spending plan calls for a record, $2.25 billion contribution that is still only a fraction of what actuaries say the state should be spending on an annual basis to bring the fund closer to solvency — was among the factors cited by Standard & Poor’s in announcing its move on Wednesday.
The downgrade was bad news for Christie, a Republican who has tried to portray his administration as having improved New Jersey’s finances after years of Democratic mismanagement. But the analysts said New Jersey is still dealing with some economic struggles while most other states have enjoyed fuller recoveries that have put their budgets back on solid ground.
The lower rating for New Jersey’s debt also comes just as state lawmakers are reviewing Christie’s latest spending plan, a $34.45 billion budget that is the largest in state history. The credit rating is an important factor in the budget talks because it helps determine how costly any future borrowing or refinancing will be.
Christie used the downgrade’s announcement to apply more pressure on Democratic lawmakers to enact new pension system changes, something they are reluctant to do yet again.
– See more at: https://www.northjersey.com/news/analysis-wall-street-skeptical-of-n-j-s-pension-reforms-1.898753#sthash.A1QigG3e.dpuf
The pension is only one of the problems. Accumulated sick leave, and PAYGO (“pay as you go”) health-care add billions to the unfunded liability for taxpayers. NJ pays medical bills and higher insurance premiums for municipal workers as they are incurred; we have nothing reserved for those expenses. With a wall of retiring municipal employees, state & local taxpayers have an over $60 billion unfunded coming healthcare bill. Plus the $47bn pension hole. Plus billions in payouts for accumulated sick leave to retirees. There is no way the state’s economy can grow us out of this mess. Think of it from the perspective of a parent: would you think you were bringing up your child properly if you said “yes” to everything they asked for? What sort of state would that be, where local & state governments, on behalf if taxpayers, agreed too everything the municipal unions have asked for over thirty years ? With all of those promises made with taxpayer money ? Well, we have our answer – it’s NJ.
#1 If the towns and state paid their fair share like they were suppose to there wouldn’t be a pension hole. From 2006 through 2013 they only paid a fraction of what they owed the pension system. Try reading the report at the link below and learn something before you make uninformed statements!
https://watchdog-newjersey.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2014/01/CSI-NJ-Pension-Study-2014.pdf
Uhhh, the statement wasn’t about pensions, it was about unfunded PAYGO healthcare and accumulated sick leave which ADD over $60bn to the unfunded liability of NJ taxpayers. The pension hole is “only” $47bn. You keep whining about the pension contributions or lack thereof from the state. What about the healthcare and accumulated leave costs ?
Oh really #3, I distinctly remember reading, and I quote “……Plus the $47bn pension hole.” in your statement above….Now your trying to back away from what you said? Why is that, did you get caught in a misstep?
Most public workers in New Jersey are now paying more for their health care (comparing percentage of premiums paid) than the average worker in the private sector. Most public workers get little or nothing in unused sick pay when they retire. Don’t base your statements on the few at the top who are screwing the system. Many public workers are taking home less this year than they did 3 or 4 years ago. The amount paid by public workers has been increasing for the last four years, while the State continues to pay the much less than legal amount to the pension.
Christie lied to get elected the first time, we may never know all the things he did to guarantee his (pre-presidential run) landlslide last time, and he continues to lie today
sorry but you have no clue what you are talking about , the Blog policy is not to publish total fabrications like this , but its so silly we made an exception , the over the top comments made by union hacks on this blog are having the reverse effect , people are starting to look forward to see workers let go
NJ.com Opinion: N.J. must honor its pension promise to state workers!
In his FY2015 budget address, Gov. Christie spoke about the burden of the state pension fund. He said it has an unfunded liability of $52 billion. He also said that he is reluctantly contributing $2.25 billion to the fund, which is more than any governor has contributed in the past. Many people incorrectly believe that the public worker’s pension is a “gift” from the state. The fact is, a pension is an investment, with joint participation by the employee and the employer. It is a defined benefit plan, much like Social Security, rather than a 401(k), which is a defined contribution plan. It is also a contract between employee and employer.
Since its inception, the pension fund relied on regular contributions by employees and the state. As a result of good investing, a long bull market and regular contributions, the pension fund was fully funded until 1997. In that year, Gov. Christie Whitman decided to stop paying the state’s contribution to the pension plan in order to use the money for other purposes.
Copy and Paste the link below in your browser to read the entire story.
https://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/04/opinion_nj_must_honor_its_pension_promise_to_state_workers.html
Can you back up these statemnets with real facts please ?
Did you read the post #4 or can you only see “$47bn pension hole” ? Please tell the readers why it is in your interest to keep raising taxes. Why is that so important to you ? What do you have to gain ? Why won’t you answer me about the healthcare and accumulated leave costs ?
#9 Asked,
1) Please tell the readers why it is in your interest to keep raising taxes.
Answer: It is not in my interest to raise taxes. I pay those taxes just like you do.
2) Why is that so important to you ? What do you have to gain ?
Answer: It’s important to me because you are repeating a lie about who is at fault for the financial mess we are in. You are blaming unions and municipal employees for the Pension underfunding problem and that is a lie. I have nothing to lose or gain
3) Why won’t you answer me about the healthcare and accumulated leave costs ?
Answer: I read your post and you clearly said “……Plus the $47bn pension hole.” I like to take one issue at a time. So why don’t you read my post above (#7) titled ” NJ.com Opinion: N.J. must honor its pension promise to state workers!” and then tell me why you keep trying to blame the workers for the Pension “hole” you keep harping on.
After we discuss the real culprits who caused the Pension mess then we can move on and discuss your other concerns.
#10, I completely agree with you. Where did I blame unions and municipal employees for the pension underfunding problem ? I was talking about healthcare and accumulated sick leave. The $47bn pension hole is just fact, it exists. I didn’t assign blame on the workers. No question, Whitman, McGreevey and Corzine and successive state legislatures raided the state pension piggy bank, and local governments followed suit. Where did that money go ? It’s not like NJ has improved its finances by borrowing from the state pension fund. Ridgewood has a $65mn debt. So where’s the money ? If governments had just made their contributions and the fund had been invested properly, the underfunding would be smaller or we’d still have a surplus like we did in 1997. But just wishing it away doesn’t remove the hole. It’s a fact; we have a $47bn pension hole. We can’t grow ourselves out of this with this NJ economy. But what about healthcare and accumulated sick leave #10 ? Those are a bigger hole than the pension underfunding problem. What’s the answer there ?
OK # 12, so if I understand your comment correctly we are in agreement that the local and state Government Pension System is underfunded and the underfunding has nothing to do with the employees, and we agree it was the past governors and state legislatures that have caused this problem.
Lets now move on to the Accumulated Sick Leave question. Village Employees are permitted to accumulate sick time (15 days per year) and carry that time over from year to year. This was agreed upon by the town so the town would not have to provide disability coverage to employees, which saved the town the cost of the annual premium payments for employees to have disability coverage. The maximum amount an employee can accrue is 1 years worth of sick time. Upon retirement the employee can be paid for up to half of the total time they had accumulated. The Village immediately benefits every year the employee works with the Village by not having to provide disability insurance. So to really understand if this is a net loss or gain to the taxpayers we would have to go back and determine the cost for disability coverage for an employee for their entire time they were employed and compare that cost to the payout received by the employee at the end of their employment. I believe you will find that the town saved money or broke even by not having to pay the disability premium for their employees.
#12, the Village does pay Worker’s Compensation insurance. And if you think the data is there to go back and determine the net benefit to taxpayers you describe above, well those are the kind of words union people throw around when they want brains to go dead and for all questioning to cease. To question your story on accumulated sick leave, you just have to look at Section 24 of the current police & fire contracts (on the Village website) on “Work Incurred Injury”. Both unions have negotiated a classic “Heads we win, tails you lose” deal for municipal employees whereby any employee suffering a work related injury or disability gets FULL PAY during the continuance of their inability to work. The Village keeps all of their disability benefits accruing under the Worker’s Compensation Act while the employee gets full pay. Did you want those disability payments for the employee as well ? Further, any injury on duty requiring time off for treatment, recuperation or rehabilitation shall not be considered as sick leave or a sick leave occasion ! So what are those 15 days of sick leave per year for if not to accumulate as a nice retirement bonus of six months pay at your highest salary + longetivity pay before retirement ? As for the $60bn elephant in the room , the unfunded healthcare liability – which is bigger than pensions & accumulated leave combined – what’s the answer there ?
#13, Clearly you do not understand the difference between Worker’s Compensation insurance and Disability Insurance. Yes, as required by law, the Village pays for Worker’s Compensation insurance as does every employer. Worker’s Compensation insurance is coverage for when an employee can not work due to a job related sickness or injury. Disability Insurance is coverage for non-work injuries, illnesses and surgeries for an employee. They are very different types of insurance.
I know the data is there to go back and determine the net benefit to taxpayers. You say “those are the kind of words union people throw around when they want brains to go dead and for all questioning to cease.” It’s obvious you have a distain for unions, and when someone points out FACTUAL information about the Village Employees salaries and/or benefits that you can’t refute you resort to name calling and demeaning rather than refuting facts.
You referred to Section 24 of the current police & fire contracts (on the Village website) citing the “Work Incurred Injury” section of the contracts. Here is a bit of news for you the “Heads we win, tails you lose” deal your talking about is consistent with New Jersey State law, which again applies to all employers not just municipalities. If you don’t agree with the Workers Compensation Laws then get the Workers Compensation Laws changed, don’t blame the Unions or Municipal employees. However, when an employee is sick, injured or requires surgery for NON job related illnesses or injuries, that is when the sick days are used in place of disability Insurance.
We will get to the so called $60bn elephant in the room soon enough.ke I said before I like to take one issue at a time, lets finish this discussion first.
Good, so you agree the number of sick days should be reduced in the next contracts and that they shouldn’t be accumulated beyond one year, correct ? If private sector workers want disability insurance for non job related illnesses or injuries, they pay out of pocket. Why should taxpayers cover municipal employees for that out of pocket expense with 15 days per year contracted sick leave ? You are of course avoiding the much larger issue of how up to 6 months of accumulated sick leave is paid out on retirement at the final rate of compensation (base wages + 10% longetivity payments) in a cash lump sum… why should taxpayers allow municipal employees to accumulate six months worth of sick days over 25 years and then get paid out on them at their highest final salary + 10% longetivity payments ? That’s clearly “Heads we win, tails you lose”, it makes no sense. Healthcare ?
#14 is arguing that all employers in NJ must give FULL PAY to anyone injured or disabled on the job like we do for municipal workers in Ridgewood. Huh ? They get disability insurance under Worker’s Comp, which is lower than full pay. Or they get put on the slow track for promotions. Or they eventually get fired.
Ahh #15 exactly where in my comment did I agree the number of sick days should be reduced or shouldn’t be accumulated beyond one year ? Please point that out to me because I don’t remember typing it and in reviewing my comment I can’t find it in there anywhere.
You said “If private sector workers want disability insurance for non job related illnesses or injuries, they pay out of pocket.” So your saying ALL private sector workers don’t get sick days? I find that hard to believe. And of course you are forgetting about the New Jersey Family Medical Leave Act which is the equivalent of Disability Insurance.
https://www.nj.gov/oag/dcr/downloads/FamilyLeaveAct-Regulations%20.pdf
All employers, not just taxpayers, are required by the NEW JERSEY FAMILY LEAVE ACT REGULATIONS to give time off for medical reasons. And NOT just for the employees health problems, but for the health care of their family members also. Read the law in the link above.
You said “You are of course avoiding the much larger issue of how up to 6 months of accumulated sick leave is paid out on retirement at the final rate of compensation (base wages + 10% longetivity payments) in a cash lump sum”
I am not avoiding that issue at all. Lets discuss that point. First off what you failed to mention your statement is the number of sick days earned is reduced by HALF before their value calculated, for example if an employee had accumulated 70 sick days during their employment the maximum number of days they could receive payment for would be 35 days, so the payout is actually HALF of the final rate of compensation (base wages + 10% longetivity payments) in a cash lump sum. Why did you purposely leave that FACT out?
That payment is compensation for sick days that are not used. If the Village decided that the days should not be paid but had to be used in the year they were earned the cost in overtime will increase as the employees would use or lose those days.
Someone said………#14 is arguing that all employers in NJ must give FULL PAY to anyone injured or disabled on the job like we do for municipal workers in Ridgewood. Huh ? They get disability insurance under Worker’s Comp, which is lower than full pay. Or they get put on the slow track for promotions. Or they eventually get fired.
Yea we all know how dangerous it is working in an Air conditioned and heated office can be dangerous, you could get a paper cut or even some dust in your eye and be out of work for months at a time. Workers who work outside year round deserve to have full coverage when they are injured on the job. Go back to your desk and drink your coffee and leave the hard lifting to the real workers of America.
Why do we have public safety officials getting paid more then the Village Manager ? How many Public safety retirees take that 6 month accumulated sick leave lump sum cash payout at their final compensation rate (base wages + 10% logetivity payments) when they retire ? I bet its’s 100%. No need to keep throwing dust in the air to keep obscuring the fact that the 15 days a year which can be carried over for up to one year’s worth of sick leave has nothing to do with saving taxpayers money, and everything to do with sweetening the contracts. It’s a taxpayer give away. Anyone trying to say that this somehow provides a net benefit to taxpayers and that the town “saved money” is being generous with the truth.
15 days per year is civil service law if you don’t like the law lobby to have it changed, but you still have to abide by the current cba’s . There are those on that post on this blog out of malice for public employees, and like to post their own facts or only post half the story obscuring any facts that doesn’t embellish their positions. The employees who accumulate sick time are not allowed to take the time in time off it has to be money as it is illegal to take sick time as terminal leave without legitimate reason. Compensatory time is regulated differently by the FLSA. But use it or lose it provisions are tacitly illegal.
There you go again trying to change the subject instead of refuting the facts & laws I have cited about sick leave. Why else would you say…
“Why do we have public safety officials getting paid more then the Village Manager ? How many Public safety retirees take that 6 month accumulated sick leave lump sum cash payout at their final compensation rate (base wages + 10% logetivity payments) when they retire ? I bet its’s 100%. ”
Where are your facts to back up your statement “It’s a taxpayer give away.”
Can you prove the sick days do not provide a net benefit to taxpayers? If where is your proof?
More dust in the air to cloud the issues, right #17 ? Private sector workers get 3-5 sick days, not 15 per year. Anything beyond that for non-work related illness is between them and their employer. As for accumulated sick leave, the contracts are very clear: you can accumulate up to one year’s worth of sick leave days and upon retirement you can get a lump sum payment equivalent to six months of that year’s worth of accumulated sick days your final compensation rate (base wage + 10% longevity). In practice, how many public safety retirees get the full six months cash payment at their final comp level ? 100% ? That means they’ve accumulated 25 years X 15 days = 375 days. it should be 3-5 days per year, with no carry over. Where is your proof that accumulated sick leave is a net benefit to taxpayers ? Healthcare ?
#18 wrote, “Workers who work outside year round deserve to have full coverage when they are injured ON the job. Go back to your desk and drink your coffee and leave the hard lifting to the real workers of America.” Well, they get that full ON the job coverage in their municipal contracts under section 24 which gives them full pay while they are injured or disabled in lieu of disability payments under Worker’s Compensation and the the New Jersey Family Leave Act regulations. You noted that sick leave was for NON-work related illness, and that the Village and the unions had negotiated that to offset disability insurance payments, at a net savings to taxpayers. So which is it ?
Now #20 is saying the 15 days per year sick leave is Civil Service law. So which is it ? Civil service law or because of a deal between the Village and the unions that provides a net savings to taxpayers on disability insurance payments ? Our municipal employees are well covered in case of injury ON the job, as they should be. They get a great deal for non-work related injury or illness, too. “Use-it-or lose it” is not illegal in the private sector, so Civil Service laws need to change, and will. All application of the new sick leave policy would of course have to be under new contracts and for new hires, not retroactive.
Wait, so just because you have sick days means you have to use them ? I guess you never worked in the private sector, huh ? Even with “use-it-or-lose it”, private sector workers have a right to work and don’t always use their sick days. Good health is reward enough. You are saying that the Village would have to pay for increased OT because of employees using sick leave instead of losing it. What ? Are contracts just a chance for you to take advantage of every single gimmick ? Where is your sense of honesty and fair play ? Where is your honor ?
We still haven’t heard boo on the $60 BILLION healthcare benefit liability we have to look forward to as state and local taxpayers. I can’t wait to hear what a great deal our CBAs are for Village taxpayers on healthcare, how we ask for fair contributions from municipal employees & retirees, and how we shouldn’t worry about the “pay-as-you go” cost for future healthcare benefits because municipal employees are in far better health than the average desk worker, given how they work outside year round while we sit at our desks, drinking our coffee, and leaving the hard lifting to the real workers of America. Given many of our employees retire after 25 years, we have 30 years or so before they die, so annual coverage should be cheap until their 80s. This ought to be good. I’m sure the reply will involve Civil Service Law, mandated coverage, and just about every other reason why it’s a net benefit to tax payers.
Where are your facts to challenge the statement that “It’s a taxpayer give away” ? Can you prove the sick days DO provide a net benefit to taxpayers? If so, where is your proof?
There is also an non-use incentive program to minimize the use of sick leave. As of January 2009, employees get 12 hours straight pay time if they use less than one day sick leave in either or both of any half calendar year period (Jan-Jun, or July-Dec). They get six hours straight time pay in either or both of any half calendar year period (Jan-Jun, or July-Dec) if they use two days or less sick leave. So you can earn up to 24 hours of straight pay in any given calendar year for using one day or less of sick leave, i.e. employees have an incentive to not use it, so they don’t lose it. That’s win, win.
The only one trying to cloud the issues is you #22. Ok having observed that, the fact that where you work only permits workers to get 3-5 sick days, not 15 per year is of no importance. The fact is that your employer is in violation of the Family Leave Insurance provision of the New Jersey Temporary Disability Benefits Law. That law requires employeers to provide up to 12 weeks of leave in certain situations.
Once again, as I stated earlier, the accumulated sick leave reduces the cost to the Village for overtime. Simply put, if the employee must use their sick time in the year it is earned and the day they take off causes an overtime situation the Village will spend more in overtime costs than they save by paying out at 50% the value of that sick day at the end of a persons employment. I do not have the statistics as to how many public safety retirees get the full six months cash payment.
Once again I told you when we finish this discussion we will cover Healthcare. How hard is that for you to comprehend?
Some towns offer unlimited sick time, with no accumulation, but if you get injured on your off time and you can’t come back 100% you lose your job after a year.
#23 wrote, “Workers who work outside year round deserve to have full coverage when they are injured ON the job. Go back to your desk and drink your coffee and leave the hard lifting to the real workers of America.”
Well, they get that full ON the job coverage in their municipal contracts under section 24 which gives them full pay while they are injured or disabled in lieu of disability payments under Worker’s Compensation and the the New Jersey Family Leave Act regulations. You noted that sick leave was for NON-work related illness, and that the Village and the unions had negotiated that to offset disability insurance payments, at a net savings to taxpayers. So which is it ?
Answer: Workers who work outside in bad weather conditions and catch a severe cold or the flu are NOT covered by workers compensation. They use their sick days. If you had to work outside one week in the freezing temperatures we had this year you would be crying “it’s too cold to be outside” You desk jockeys think you have all the answers, and you don’t so go back to work in your climate controlled work environment and watch out for those sharp papers and leave the real work to the professionals.
#27 said, Where are your facts to challenge the statement that “It’s a taxpayer give away” ? Can you prove the sick days DO provide a net benefit to taxpayers? If so, where is your proof?
Proof, if an employee is required to use their sick days each year and using them causes an overtime situation the town will have to increase their overtime budgets. No so hard to comprehend now is it?
Yeah, we all know about maternity & paternity leave, next ?
Wait , earlier you said the net benefit to taxpayers was from not paying disability insurance premiums, but now you’re saying that accumulating sick leave reduces OT. Which is it ? You are also, as always, being disingenuous on the accumulated leave payout. A sick day at $80,000 annual salary is 12/2800 X $80,000 = $343/day . A sick day at a $135,000 final salary is 12/2800 X $135,000 + 10% longevity payment which is folded into the base wage = $636/day. This is a savings ? Also, why are you implying that anyone who takes sick leave causes OT for the department ? Every time someone is out on sick leave taxpayers pay OT, too ? Say what ?
Yes, it is hard to comprehend. Do you even understand what you are saying ? A sick day at an $80,000 annual salary is 12/2800 X $80,000 = $343/day . A sick day at a $135,000 final salary is 12/2800 X $135,000 + 10% longevity payment which is folded into the base wage = $636/day. This is a savings ? Also, why are you implying that anyone who takes sick leave causes OT for the department ? Every time someone is out on sick leave taxpayers pay OT, too ? Say what ?
The usual suspects throw dust in the air as usual – on their account the CBAs are a bargain for taxpayers. Our taxes should go up more because these contracts clearly are of net benefit to taxpayers. We should just stop complaining and go back to work in our climate controlled work environment and watch out for those sharp papers and leave the real work to the professionals. Yep, thou can see the professional attitude right here on this blog, some of these posts are straight out of the union mumbo jumbo handbook. Pure silence on healthcare, I guess the union is still drafting your talking points for you ?
#34 SAID Wait , earlier you said the net benefit to taxpayers was from not paying disability insurance premiums, but now you’re saying that accumulating sick leave reduces OT. Which is it ?
So you were paying attention and yes it’s both. The Village and thereby the taxpayers benefit by not having to pay disability insurance premiums and not using sick time unnecessarily reduced over time. Now prove me wrong. Of course you can’t so I will not hold my breath waiting for any FACTS from you. I will see you call names, demean and rant and then try to change the subject but facts…..there will be none.
As usual the “I am better than you because I have a college degree” snobs attack our hard working municipal workers. They cry Our taxes shouldn’t go up more” You want to know why, because they want to trade in their 2012 Mercedes for a 2014 model and because they have mismanaged their personal finances and can’t afford the new lease they want to have their property taxes reduced so they can afford that nice new car.
According to this snob the Village workers should just shut up and be thankful they have a job. Sorry Mr. College Snob the world doesn’t work the way you think it should and thankfully so.
So by your logic, the Village is breaking the Family Leave Insurance provision of the NJ Temporary Disability Benefits Law by only offering 15 days of sick leave a year to our employees, not 12 weeks of leave in certain situations ? Are you saying municipal contracts don’t allow for maternity leave, which private employers do ? Wrong. On sick leave, first you said it was of net benefit to taxpayers because it reduced the cost of disability insurance. Then you said it’s because of reduced OT. Now you say it’s both. You are, as usual, talking out of both sides of your mouth. Municipal employees get full pay if they are disabled or injured on the job. Period. And the savings on OT is wrong again: A sick day for an employee with 5 years of work experience at an $80,000 annual salary is 12/2800 X $80,000 = $343/day. A sick day at a $135,000 final salary is 12/2800 X $135,000 + 10% longevity payment which is folded into the base wage = $636/day. This is not a savings. Most people in the private sector don’t use their sick days and don’t get paid out on 50% of accumlated sick leave when they retire. Good health is reward enough. But by your admission, sick leave is an added cash benefit for up to six months of pay at your highest final rate of compensation (base + longetivity) when you retire. How is this of net benefit to tax payers ? The Village pays Worker’s Comp insurance, which we should, for ON the job injury and diability, which is at FULL pay under our contracts. We also pay for 15 days of sick leave a year for NON-work related injury, which can be accumulated and paid out for as much as 6 months at the highest final comp on retirement. We also offer an incentive for non-use of sick days which can add 24 hours per year straight pay if workers use less than one sick day in a given year. Assuming an employee under these contracts suffers less than 25 days of non-job related illness or injury over their 25 year career, they can earn 25 extra 24-hour days of straight pay + six months of accumulated sick leave at their highest final comp. And yet you claim that everytime an employee uses sick leave it creates an OT expense for the Village, and added cost. So where exactly is the net benefit to taxpayers ? I’m not changing the subject. I am asking for facts to show that the accumulated leave deal in our CBAs is of net benefit to taxpayers. Facts please.
I will not hold my breath waiting for any FACTS from you. I will see you call names, demean and rant and then try to change the subject but facts…..there will be none.
.Quote
I will not hold my breath waiting for any FACTS from you. I will see you call names, demean and rant and then try to change the subject but facts ? There will be none.
Why do we have public safety officials making more than the Village Manager and yet we’re cutting the budget for public works, parks & rec and solid waste (incl leaves and Christmas trees) ? That’s not right.
Pure silence on healthcare, I guess the union is still drafting your talking points for you ?
#39 said, So by your logic, the Village is breaking the Family Leave Insurance provision of the NJ Temporary Disability Benefits Law by only offering 15 days of sick leave a year to our employees, not 12 weeks of leave in certain situations ? Are you saying municipal contracts don’t allow for maternity leave, which private employers do ? Wrong. …………………
Simple question, do you know the difference between workers compensation and Disability Insurance? If not then I will need to educate you before you comprehend what we are discussing.
I thought we agreed to take one topic at a time?
Why are you trying to change the discussion topic?
Are you afraid you will have to admit you are wrong, Remember you finally had to admit you were wrong about the Pension hole?
You remember saying this in your comment posted under #11?
“#10, I completely agree with you. Where did I blame unions and municipal employees for the pension underfunding problem”
Great #45, I am debating with someone who cannot read and repeatedly changes the subject. Okay, in plain English, I NEVER DISAGREED about what caused the pension underfunding. Get over yourself. All I mentioned was the EXISTANCE of a $47bn pension hole, which is FACT. On accumulated sick leave, you keep switching back and forth on job related vs. non-work related injuries. You have no facts or figures. You said we have the data, so show me the figures: what is the net benefit to taxpayers of 15 days annual sick leave, and allowing sick days to accumulate up to a six month cash payout at final comp vs. the Village paying for disability insurance for non-work related injuries ? Why would OT change if it was sick leave vs. disability insurance coverage ? Don’t forget to include the non-use cash incentive of up to 24 hours of straight pay per year for using less sick leave. You claim a net benefit. Prove it.
Pure silence on healthcare underfunded liability. Crickets chirping on reader question as to why we have public safety officials making more money than the person they report to.
“We have the facts” is one of those words union people throw around when they want brains to go dead and for all questioning to cease. Okay, where is the data to prove your “facts” on how the CBAs save money for taxpayers ?
Yep, class warfare trotted out as usual when someone questions the logic behind a supposed net benefit to taxpayers in the CBAs. “Don’t question why you pay such high property taxes, that’s an attack on municipal workers you snob !” Try to get the facts about the contracts and it’s an attack on the workers. Question the logic behind the wisdom of the CBAs and you’re a snob. Just shut your mouth and pay up, right ? No need to question where the money goes, you clearly didn’t earn it !
Inflation (CPI) running at 1.6% since we signed the current CBAs in 2009, so why are wages rising +4$ per year ?
#46 said, Okay, in plain English, I NEVER DISAGREED about what caused the pension underfunding.
Relpy: Really #46, so if you already knew, as you claim, who caused the “Pension Hole” why did you mention it in your first comment with your complaints about health care and sick leave payouts? I will tell you why, because you believed the employees were responsible for the “Pension Hole”. That is until I proved to you, and everyone else reading this blog, that it was the past governors and legislatures who caused the problem. Stop lying and spinning the facts.
On accumulated sick leave I keep trying to educate you by saying the Village selected to offer 15 sick days for non work related sickness or surgeries rather than offer non work related disability insurance that would have cost the town money in premiums. Apparently you can’t comprehend the difference between on the job injuries and illnesses (workers compensation) and off the job injuries and illnesses (disability insurance). So here is a fact for you, the sick days were offered in lieu of the disability insurance premiums which saved the Village the cost of the disability premiums for non work related illness and sickness.
I already explained to you that if a sick day is used by an employee because he has to use it or lose it and that day causes an overtime situation it costs the town much more than if the sick day is paid out at 50% of it’s value at the end of an employees service to the town. Below is the calculation:
Salary 65,000 a year / 2080 = $31.25 per Hour. $31.25 X 1.5 overtime rate = $46.87 per hour rate X 8 hours = $375.00 if sick day causes overtime.
Payout at retirement – Hourly Rate 31.25 per hour / 2 = $15.625 X 8 hours = $125.00
Cost of overtime $375.00 – payout at end of career $125.00 = $250.00 more that the town paid if the town adopted a sick day use it or lose it policy.
It would take 3 sick days paid out at $125.00 to equal the cost of overtime caused by one sick day.
Now I would like to see you prove the figures above wrong.