Rest in piece public sector union “obligations”
I hereby rename Vallejo, CA to “Canaryville, CA, USA” because it’s financial ruin, based largely on public sector unions voting themselves goodies, is going to happen to many many cities in California and the rest of the U.S. Governing.com reports:
Vallejo, a city of 120,000 about 35 miles northeast of San Francisco, flat-out went broke this year through a combination of generous public-safety salaries, declining property values and fiscal mismanagement. The city is estimating a $17 million deficit for the current fiscal year
Vallejo is in court now asking that its public sector union contracts and obligations be voided. That means that instead of retiring at age 50 with a 90% pension, firefighters and policeman there are going to face similar retirement prospects to the rest of us.
Vallejo got in trouble because it was generous in good times and caught flat footed when its major employer, Mare Island Naval Shipyard, was closed. Combined with Wal-Mart leaving, citizens leaving and the general malaise in California economy… they are now in the hole deep with no prospects for improvement.
Naturally, public sector unions hate the thought of being treated like other people:
The California Professional Firefighters union proclaims, "If allowed to stand, Vallejo’s attack on its own employees would send shock waves throughout the labor movement." Gloster, the attorney representing Vallejo’s firefighters and police officers, says, "It’s very difficult to see how their politicians should actually do the hard work to balance their budgets if they can get a do-over with a simple bankruptcy filing."
A “deal” is a deal they will say. But “deals” with public sector unions, where their political influence makes the deal more than the market, should not be treated similar to normal contracts.
Clearly fireman, teachers, police, city workers all do important jobs. But only two of them risk their life and face special retirement needs do to the psychic traumas of the job. And even then that doesn’t mean that 90% at age 50 is appropriate or necessary.
Something has to be done. And taking from the taxpayers forever and ever will eventually grab their attention. Such notice happens faster with tax bases that are spread relatively evenly (municipal taxes). Expect public sector unions to try and band their obligations together as a federal obligation so they can start feeding off the trough of other people’s money where the money never seen due to paycheck withholdings or freshly printed (ala the “stimulus” or “bailout”), not where checks are written with every mortgage payment.
The farther the money is spent from the taxpayer it originated with the harder it is to cut. Public sector unions will try to get as far away as they can. We should resist.
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Well, a deal is a deal. You might argue they shouldn’t hire any new employees under that arrangement, but they owe the money. Its a great retirement, but its rarely at 50. More like 55, sometimes a little later. If you entered into a contract with a buyer, gave them the product, then they said were going to pay you 25% less than you agreed on, you wouldn’t like it. That’s what you are telling city governments they should do.
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:23 pm
I’m sympathetic to police and fireman on this. I’d break deals with other public unions first. But this town’s problem stems from their deals with those unions. They have no choice.
The deals themselves were politically inspired without rationale or market being in the picture. They were unfair to taxpayers who didn’t mind when times were good. Now times are bad and they realize they got hosed and will remedy it at the ballot box if the politicians don’t before the vote.
It may not be “right”. But then again, why should a voter be hosed just because public sector unions voted themselves a good deal.
I’m not sure the situation in your town, which seems better run than most. But I do know that the county it is in has among the highest foreclosure rates in the nation, so I’d expect trouble to be brewing.
December 2nd, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Most of these retirements were designed mid to late 90′s, when the economy was good and no one wanted to be a cop. It had more to do with competition amongst PD’s for the available employee pool than union pressure. . The problem is once you agree to it, its hard to take away. I would certainly recommend scaling it back for these new hires; a two tier system is doable, although the union hates it.
One thing that is true is the average life expectancy for retired cops has risen. Many young cops, myself included, don’t engage in the bad habits of the last generation. We can reasonably expect to live another twenty years or more after we retire. I knew a lot of old timers when I started who were taking dirt naps three yerars into their retirement.