Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Assembly Bill -127

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

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

  • #16
    So, the cop doing the same job as you will be making less than you? You think that makes sense? That does nothing but divide. P;ss poor.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by sigcopper View Post
      So, the cop doing the same job as you will be making less than you? You think that makes sense? That does nothing but divide. P;ss poor.
      Like I said, IF its going to happen, it makes more sense to start it with new hires. If the new hires, as applicants, don't agree with the benefit package they're offered, they don't have to take the job. Its not the same as reducing the take home pay of someone who is established and may only be a few years from retirement.

      Comment


      • #18
        I used to work for a department that had a hefty educational incentive for the "old guys" and the young guys didn't really get squat. Well, us young guys weren't happy that the old guys sold us out for a 6-3 schedule and pretty soon we out numbered the old guys and were about to take over the union. It was well understood we were going to get voted in and that we would sell the education incentive out. It divide the department like you would have never have imagined. The old guys worked hard to get the incentive for ALL and we got it back. AI- your take it or leave it solution is simplistic and won't solve the problem of divisiveness. It should be all or none. Doing the same job but making less in take home pay isn't right.

        Comment


        • #19
          I don't know, I guess I just disagree. Having the increased contributions applied toward new hires from x-day forward just seems like a better policy to me. Those of us who are in the system now, knew and agreed to the current pension. New officers would know what they are signing on for.

          I can't help but think of the many things I was required to do as a new officer that the older guys weren't. Such as our education requirement. When I started in Milwaukee, I had 25k in student loans and I was making a mere 13.00/hr. When I graduated the academy, I went to a district where there were a lot of officers who were never required to have a college education.

          I'm not thrilled that the gov is going to require "protective" to contribute but at the end of the day it is still a contribution to your own insurance and your own retirement. All goods and services increase in price, this is no different.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by AI_guy View Post
            I don't know, I guess I just disagree. Having the increased contributions applied toward new hires from x-day forward just seems like a better policy to me. Those of us who are in the system now, knew and agreed to the current pension. New officers would know what they are signing on for.

            I can't help but think of the many things I was required to do as a new officer that the older guys weren't. Such as our education requirement. When I started in Milwaukee, I had 25k in student loans and I was making a mere 13.00/hr. When I graduated the academy, I went to a district where there were a lot of officers who were never required to have a college education.

            I'm not thrilled that the gov is going to require "protective" to contribute but at the end of the day it is still a contribution to your own insurance and your own retirement. All goods and services increase in price, this is no different.
            This pretty well sums up my feelings on it. I'd rather see new guys get the same things we get, but that simply isn't the way things are anyways. New guys start out at lower wages, get less vacation, have little to no shift selection, and get last pick on extra assignments. As part of previous contract negotiation, our union sold out new hires so they also get a significantly lower comp cap and pay more for their insurance (I didn't agree with it when it happened but a majority did.) These are all things that new guys know coming into the job so its no surprise. If having to pay into their retirement has to be added to the list, so be it.

            What I really don't like is the subsection that says that anyone lateraling to a new department will be considered a new hire under these new rules. One of the nice things about the Wisconsin Retirement System is allows for portability of pension for officers that want to move to a new department that might better fit them career wise. I think this element of the new rules will cause a large number of experienced officers to stay put instead of moving around.
            \

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by SRT936 View Post
              What I really don't like is the subsection that says that anyone lateraling to a new department will be considered a new hire under these new rules. One of the nice things about the Wisconsin Retirement System is allows for portability of pension for officers that want to move to a new department that might better fit them career wise. I think this element of the new rules will cause a large number of experienced officers to stay put instead of moving around.
              Boy I hope this only applies to new hires too.... If not 13 just turned in to 20...

              Comment


              • #22
                SRT- the young healthy guys suplement the health insurance of the old guys? That is wrong. Wait until those who don't have outnumber those that have. Kiss those benefits good bye.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Hey guys, so with the WI courts saying that the original law goes through and then a budget being passed my heads spinning a bit trying to figure out exactly where everyone stands now. I'm the rookie on the department, and unfortunately there is a bit of confusion about all this in the supervisor ranks so I'm having a hard time getting a definite answer.

                  Please correct me if I'm wrong. The way I understand it is that all current sworn employees are exempted from the 5.8% contributions, but all new hires from here on out will be required to pay the contributions correct? And this is not 'new hire' based on your entrance into the WRS program, but rather your start date at an agency?

                  Meaning even if you are currently hired, if you lateral to another agency in a couple years you end up getting hit with those contributions as if you were a new hire, regardless of any sort of union/non union contract deal?

                  I appreciate any information, for whatever reason there seems to be more views on this floating around in my neck of the woods then there should be...
                  Cash for clunkers was great for Wisconsin. We traded in Brett Favre for Aaron Rogers.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by PoorCollegeKid View Post
                    Hey guys, so with the WI courts saying that the original law goes through and then a budget being passed my heads spinning a bit trying to figure out exactly where everyone stands now. I'm the rookie on the department, and unfortunately there is a bit of confusion about all this in the supervisor ranks so I'm having a hard time getting a definite answer.

                    Please correct me if I'm wrong. The way I understand it is that all current sworn employees are exempted from the 5.8% contributions, but all new hires from here on out will be required to pay the contributions correct? And this is not 'new hire' based on your entrance into the WRS program, but rather your start date at an agency?

                    Meaning even if you are currently hired, if you lateral to another agency in a couple years you end up getting hit with those contributions as if you were a new hire, regardless of any sort of union/non union contract deal?

                    I appreciate any information, for whatever reason there seems to be more views on this floating around in my neck of the woods then there should be...
                    You've got it pretty well sewn up. If you are currently working for an agency, you are exempt. Even if you started the day before the new budget was passed. However, if you get hired on tomorrow, you will not be exempt.

                    If you transfer agencies, you will no longer be exempt. As you stated, the trigger is being a new hire at the agency, not WRS.
                    \

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by SRT936 View Post
                      You've got it pretty well sewn up. If you are currently working for an agency, you are exempt. Even if you started the day before the new budget was passed. However, if you get hired on tomorrow, you will not be exempt.

                      If you transfer agencies, you will no longer be exempt. As you stated, the trigger is being a new hire at the agency, not WRS.
                      SRT you seem pretty up on all these changes. Let me run this one by you.... I was in the Milwaukee pension system for 6 yrs (yes I'm vested), then took a lateral and am now in the WRS, for 10 years. I know they have a reciprocity agreement so my Milwaukee ERS has just been sitting there. Do you think the changes will affect my being able to add my Milwaukee pension to my WRS pension?

                      I know, you're way up north so you probably have no idea.... I'll probably have to call WRS to get the scoop.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by AI_guy View Post
                        I know, you're way up north so you probably have no idea.... I'll probably have to call WRS to get the scoop.
                        That would probably be your best bet, however, nothing about WRS has changed other than who pays in what to the system. If you were able to roll your ERS into the WRS before, that shouldn't change under the new law.
                        \

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          How about if you go from patrol to a patrol sgt and take the promotion at your dept?? Our Sgt's are still in the union. Would you be paying then or still covered under the old way?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by 3232 View Post
                            How about if you go from patrol to a patrol sgt and take the promotion at your dept?? Our Sgt's are still in the union. Would you be paying then or still covered under the old way?
                            Still covered, especially if your sergeants are still in the union. There is some debate about administration level promotions still.
                            \

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Thanks for the info SRT.

                              I was hoping that I was incorrect or this stuff would not become the real deal. It will certianly change parts of WI law enforcement for a while. One of the best things about working in the field in this state was the ability to move around and keep your pension unchanged. Not like that is technically changing, but for the current crop of younger officers it certianly changes options as far as career mobility.

                              I am also curious to see how things work with administration and their contributions with union vs. non union. Time will tell!
                              Cash for clunkers was great for Wisconsin. We traded in Brett Favre for Aaron Rogers.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by PoorCollegeKid View Post
                                Thanks for the info SRT.

                                I was hoping that I was incorrect or this stuff would not become the real deal. It will certianly change parts of WI law enforcement for a while. One of the best things about working in the field in this state was the ability to move around and keep your pension unchanged. Not like that is technically changing, but for the current crop of younger officers it certianly changes options as far as career mobility.

                                I am also curious to see how things work with administration and their contributions with union vs. non union. Time will tell!
                                There will definitely be a new environment for recruitment for next decade or so. We won't see as many laterals or experienced officers looking for greener pastures any more. This will be a boon for new people trying to get into the business, but will represent new challenges for agencies.

                                My agency, for example, hasn't hired a true rookie officer in over 20 years. Everyone we've hired has been working someplace else first and lateraled to us. I think those candidates willing to move will be much thinner now days. In the next 5 years, we'll be hiring around 8 deputies so the landscape will change dramatically.

                                I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing either. During the last hiring cycle, I was on the interview panel. There were several very strong candidates who would have been good fits for our department but because they were not current law enforcement officers, they fell to the bottom of the list.
                                \

                                Comment

                                MR300x250 Tablet

                                Collapse

                                What's Going On

                                Collapse

                                There are currently 4834 users online. 316 members and 4518 guests.

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

                                Welcome Ad

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X