Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Janesville, WI Police supervisors form union to avoid pension payments

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • AI_guy
    replied
    Originally posted by -Erik- View Post
    Do you know how much that would be per check?
    If a supervisor made about 67K / year, it (5.8%) would be about 150.00 per check or a total of 3880.00/ year

    Leave a comment:


  • -Erik-
    replied
    Originally posted by SRT936 View Post
    The complaint is over 5.8%. Not 25% or even the 50% that the state requires individuals to pay into their pension. The average private-sector union worker in Wisconsin pay 12% into their pensions.
    Do you know how much that would be per check?

    Leave a comment:


  • SRT936
    replied
    Originally posted by -Erik- View Post
    How much would they have to pay into their pension? 25 percent? 50? No matter how you slice it I am sure it is less then what those who do not get pensions from there job get to pay into theirs.....
    The complaint is over 5.8%. Not 25% or even the 50% that the state requires individuals to pay into their pension. The average private-sector union worker in Wisconsin pay 12% into their pensions.

    Leave a comment:


  • SRT936
    replied
    Originally posted by jeffIL View Post
    So you're telling me that when they joined the department they weren't told this is your pension and how it works? Now mid-game they want to change the rules.
    Actually the rules say that the individual officer will pay 50% of their pension. The vast majority negotiated contracts that said that the employer would pay both halves. The supervisors, who were non-union up to this point, were benefiting from a contract benefit they did not negotiate for. In fact, when you take a supervisor position, you are told specifically that the rules have changed and can change at a whim.

    Leave a comment:


  • PoliceProspect
    replied
    I have to agree with jeffIL. States are gambling on the issue of changing compensation packages in the middle of the workers career. There is something called the contract clause and if a governor takes things too far I'm sure it will come back to bite them.

    These officers are doing what they can to keep what they have and had for their whole career. I admit it does make them look bad in the eyes of the public, but no one likes cops anyway so it really doesn't matter.

    Leave a comment:


  • DAL
    replied
    I doubt that the legislature even considered this issue.

    These supervisors very likely came up through the ranks and belonged to the police union before being promoted. They already have pension rights.

    Leave a comment:


  • FNA209
    replied
    Originally posted by DAL View Post

    They are dealing with the legislation quite effectively. The new law decreases their net compensation unless they form a union, so they are forming a union. Adults respond to incentives and act in their own rational self interest.
    This the best post here. Unintended consequences at its best. Pass a law. People or groups read it and figure out how to best use it. It's little different than reading the tax laws and paying as little as possible by using the various tax breaks available.

    If the intent was to limit people from adding themselves into the exempt group, the writers should have written it to exclude any new unions or something. Or the state/cities/towns could have excluded those groups by making them administrative positions and unable to unionize.

    But I do agree with the OP. It does make those involved in sidestepping the law look rather greedy. Although the media won't pan them for it, I'm sure some taxpayers will remember.

    Leave a comment:


  • DAL
    replied
    Originally posted by 1042 Trooper View Post
    That's life for us grown ups. Deal with it.
    Us grownups????

    They are dealing with the legislation quite effectively. The new law decreases their net compensation unless they form a union, so they are forming a union. Adults respond to incentives and act in their own rational self interest.

    Leave a comment:


  • BigPat
    replied
    Originally posted by 10-94/10-96 View Post
    Promised? If they didn't have some sort of employment contract, then compensation is free to be changed by their employer.

    As for bitching about patrolmen possibly making more...it happens when you're on salary and they aren't. It happened in my department, and I'm sure it happens at most decent-size agencies across the country.

    Bottom line: the individuals involved came out on record saying they voted a union in place strictly so they wouldn't have to contribute to their pension. What does that say about their character?
    I don't think that it says anything wrong about their character. They are simply using a perfectly legal means to preserve the same level of compensation/benefits that their subordinates receive.

    Leave a comment:


  • BigPat
    replied
    Originally posted by 1042 Trooper View Post
    Gotta love them unions! Ad nauseum ........
    What does any of this have to do with the actions of existing unions?

    Leave a comment:


  • -Erik-
    replied
    Originally posted by jeffIL View Post
    Ok, but then don't they have every right to try to avoid it? They signed up for one thing, and now the state wants to change the rules in the middle of the game. And 1042, ya...I get it. Screw the guys that are still working. Enjoy your retirement.
    Good for them if they get to avoid it, but I still say that paying into a pension at 25 percent or 50 percent is better then paying into it 100 percent like a lot in the private sector.

    Leave a comment:


  • jeffIL
    replied
    Originally posted by -Erik- View Post
    I'm not saying it is fair in the least. But the voters allow you to have that pension, they can just as easily take it away. Or to ease the tax burden on the citizens that pay your pension, you are being asked to pay into it a little.

    The bottom line, they still get to have a pension. Does it suck for them that they now might have to pay into it somewhat? Yeah kind of. But none the less they get to keep the pension.
    Ok, but then don't they have every right to try to avoid it? They signed up for one thing, and now the state wants to change the rules in the middle of the game. And 1042, ya...I get it. Screw the guys that are still working. Enjoy your retirement.

    Leave a comment:


  • -Erik-
    replied
    Originally posted by jeffIL View Post
    So you're telling me that when they joined the department they weren't told this is your pension and how it works? Now mid-game they want to change the rules.
    I'm not saying it is fair in the least. But the voters allow you to have that pension, they can just as easily take it away. Or to ease the tax burden on the citizens that pay your pension, you are being asked to pay into it a little.

    The bottom line, they still get to have a pension. Does it suck for them that they now might have to pay into it somewhat? Yeah kind of. But none the less they get to keep the pension.

    Leave a comment:


  • 1042 Trooper
    replied
    That's life for us grown ups. Deal with it.

    Leave a comment:


  • jeffIL
    replied
    So you're telling me that when they joined the department they weren't told this is your pension and how it works? Now mid-game they want to change the rules.

    Leave a comment:

MR300x250 Tablet

Collapse

What's Going On

Collapse

There are currently 5401 users online. 329 members and 5072 guests.

Most users ever online was 158,966 at 04:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

Welcome Ad

Collapse
Working...
X