Village of Ridgewood “Unfunded liabilities (retirement payouts) reach $7.1M
Now Look at the Village of Ridgewood 2014 Budget Newsletter: “Unfunded liabilities (retirement payouts) are $7.1M (against a reserve of $479K)”…https://mods.ridgewoodnj.net/pdf/manager/2014BudgetNews.pdf
Why should anyone get a FULL, risk-free pension immediately after only 25 years of work ? The average retirement age of our public safety officials is 52.4, and they immediately start their full pension. In addition to that, on retirement they get up to six months of accumulated sick leave, paid out at their FINAL comp rate (salary + 10% longetivity pay) instead of at the rate when the leave was awarded earlier in their career. Most private sector workers don’t carry over sick leave from year to year, and don’t use it always – good health itself is reward enough. Yet municipal workers see this as a retirement perk, and this is very clearly being abused as per the article above.
Time to start paying the bill and stop with all these so called perks. All government workers should come into the real world where a lot of this nonsense does not happen.
This is nothing more than well-organized defrauding of taxpayers. The unions have full time officials and lawyers looking for every way possible to way to increase benefits whether they are sustainable or not. It’s easy to spend other people’s money through these generous contracts; until it runs out. Then you become Detroit or Stockton.
Do it fer da kids
Think about it people: if you started working 25 years ago in 1989 and retired today, you’d get a full pension at 65% of your average final three years comp (base + 10% longevity pay). On top of that, half of your 15 sick days A YEAR + personal days would accumulate every year for up to six months worth of extra comp and be paid out to you today at your final comp rate of base + 10%. So those days you didn’t use when you were younger from 1989-1995 ? Not paid at your comp rate from 1989-1995, but at your final comp rate of 2014. The days from 2000 ? Paid at your final comp rate of 2014. In fact, upon retirement you’d get six months of accumulated leave at your highest final comp, not at the rate when the leave was earned. It’s a scam perpetrated on taxpayers, and it should be stopped.
I say good for them, they made shit in the 80,s . you know what is very funny. back in the last 100 years no gave a shit about the fire and police, but now we are making money the red flag goes up.
#4 I think that’s very fair it was bargained for legally, and signed off on by previous administrations. If you thinks it’s so great become a cop or a fireman, but you probably couldn’t stand the cut in pay.
#5, the trade-off has changed since the 1980s. Before it was a full pension and healthcare (when life expectancy was lower) in exchange for lower wages than the private sector, who fund the bill for all of these wages and benefits through their taxes But now senior municipal officials make just as much – or more – than the median household income in Ridgewood over $140,000. Also, people live to their 90s, which means you can have 50 year olds retiring after 25 years on 65% of the average of their final three years of comp, and drawing a full, defined benefit (i.e. risk-free pension and healthcare for 40 years or more. It’s not sustainable. So why should taxpayers pay for comparable wages, plus accrued leave, plus risk free pensions, plus heavily subsidized healthcare? You can’t just have unlimited fixed cost liabilities for taxpayers for ever. Sooner or later the money will run out, so something has to give?
Sure, maybe it seemed fair to those involved, but when you have a Police and Fire chief representing tax payers at the table with the unions, and poor oversight from the Council and Village manager, can we really say it’s fair? Legal maybe, but isn’t it true that the unions and their full time lawyers have been much better organized than tax payers and their elected representatives up until recently? Case in point: Gabbert gave 4% annual wages increases to Police & Fire in 2009 and again when he reopened the contracts in 201O. Was that really “fair” to taxpayers from the private sector who saw no wage increases or job security over that period? Yet the Council at the time approved the contracts and gave Gabbert a 12% retroactive raise. Legal maybe. A GOOD DEAL FOR TAXPAYERS? Very debatable.
#8 said……. but when you have a Police and Fire chief representing tax payers at the table with the unions, and poor oversight from the Council and Village manager, can we really say it’s fair?
There you go again lying and distorting the truth. #8. Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about. The Village did not just use the Village Manager and the Police and Fire Chief’s to negotiate for the town they used the law firm of Grotta, Glassman and Hoffman to negotiate their various contracts. Joan Foster and Beth Hinsdale were the lawyers from that firm that handled the negotiations for many years. Grabbit was the only manager who negotiated with the unions by himself, another major mistake he made.
To #7 the life expectancy of a police officer who completes 25 years of service is distinctly lower than “the national avg” and those who retire now collect 60% of their last 3 years avg, and when they turn 65 they go into Medicare part b. Employee contributions have been raised, but governor crispy crème violated his own law and failed to make the proper pension contributions along with the previous govenors of both political parties who raided the pension funds. That’s why there are problems now don’t blame the workers.
Oh #9. so these names don’t mean anything in terms of tax payer representation? You’re telling us the Police Chief and Fire Chief didn’t represent tax payers in these negotiatiosn?
page 31 here https://mods.ridgewoodnj.net/pdf/manager/2013FireSupervisor.pdf
page 36 here https://mods.ridgewoodnj.net/pdf/manager/2013PBA.pdf
We just let some law firm represent taxpayers ? Maybe the contracts should be declared null and void then if taxpayers didn’t get fair representation from the Village Manager and Police & Fire Chiefs in 2009 and 2010. You, yourself said that “Grabbit was the only manager who negotiated with the unions by himself, another major mistake he made.” Is that grounds to void the contracts ?
You also had a former Mayor who retired as Police Captain when these contracts were approved by the Council… I don’t see anyone abstaining when the Council voted on the contracts. Legal yes. Fair to taxpayers? Very debatable.
now come on playing word games again , the Police Chief recused himself from the negotiations , which btw were a vast improvement for the Village over the last round , not perfect but a vast improvement
#11….Are you really that uninformed or are you just playing stupid. The Chiefs advise the Village Manager on issues relating to the Department’s rules, regulations, work schedules and other issues. Salaries and benefits are agreed upon by the Council at the recommendation of the Manager.
Yes, the Village has retained the law firm of Grotta, Glassman and Hoffman for many years to conduct the negotiations on behalf of the Village. And just incase you aren’t aware, that law firm specialized in labor law. Go ahead and try to have the contracts declared null and void. I am sure the unions would respond with a lawsuit that would be easily won by the Unions and the residents would pay even more in damages and breach of contract fines.
Grabbit, as Chief executive officer of the Village had the responsibility to sign and execute the contracts with Village Council approval, regardless of who negotiated them on behalf of the Village.
Here is some good advise for you, don’t quit your day job and stop trying to be a citizen lawyer, you don’t have a clue what your talking about.
Well said 13
Not true #10. Anyone with 20 years service time as of 2011 retires at 65% of the average of their final three years, including the 10% longevity pay. That mans we’ll see a rush of retirees through 2016 taking advantage of this. Pension payments should start at 65 as well so as not to incent employees to just put in service time for the pension. If you only work 25 years and retire at age 52, don’t you think there’s a chance that pensioners could draw more years of risk-free pensions than the number of years they actually worked ? The math doesn’t work.
Obviously the contracts work for you. They stink for taxpayers. Giveaway after giveaway. Nobody in the private sector would get away with contracts like these. “Sure, take 50% of your accumulated leave (up to six months) at your final comp rate when you retire, not at the rate from when those sick days were earned. Oh, you only want $5 co-pays for drugs ? Sure. Retire after 25 years on a full, risk-free pension and comprehensive healthcare coverage massively subsidized by Village taxpayers ? Done. 4% annual wage hikes at the depths of the recession? Of course.”
#13, the question was whether or not these contracts were fair to taxpayers? For anyone from the private sector looking at these contracts , it looks like the Manager and the Council didn’t have a clue what they were signing or approving.
Fair for the Taxpayers ? My friend nothing done since Calvin Coolidge has been fair to taxpayers,even Reagan spen most of his time cleaning up the idiotic mess from the 70’s