Wow! Neither Tweety nor his guests, Howard Fineman and Josh Marshall, knew that public union

[CTyankee]

members in WI pay their ENTIRE pension benefits out of their salaries.

What is the best way for us here at DU to get that message out to the clueless media who don't even do their homework?

I had to learn this on DU because the media talking heads don't seem to know this fact.

[malaise]

1. Do you think they know that Walker plans to raid

those pension funds

[nebenaube]

2. Some of us do and this doofus is lying his head off gung-ho to

create his flavor of reality.

[CTyankee]

3. No, I didn't know that, altho I don't find it hard to believe!

Do tell me more...

[hfojvt]

4. where did YOU hear that

because I heard they only pay 1%.

And NOBODY pays all of it. I don't believe that. I pay 4% myself but that is not nearly all of it, there is earned interest and the city is supposed to be making contributions too.

[Skeeve]

5. it's called deferred wages.

And they pay 100% of every dollar.

[A Simple Game]

11. You can call it whatever you want. But the truth of the matter is

that union, non-union, or contractor, the entire compensation package comes from taxes. You can argue that they are also tax payers and that would be true.

I'm not bashing unions, I was a union member for about 30 years and was very happy to pay my dues.

[CTyankee]

12. But it is a job that needs to be done, isn't it?

So somebody has to do it, right?

Wages are compensation for WORK. Right?

[A Simple Game]

24. Yes it is a job that needs to be done.

It is a job that should be done by public employees and not private employees in a charter school.
It is wages and compensation for work.

Your point?

[CTyankee]

36. Well, isn't there a distinction between public unions where the government entity

contributes part of the pension cost and the employee contributes part versus the situation in WI where ALL of the pension cost is borne by the worker?

For example, my husband worked for the city, where the city contributed a certain amount and he contributed a certain amount. As a cash flow measure, the city could switch to a WI type of plan. Sure, the union will try its best to maintain workers' salaries to a decent wage that can cover a certain amount of pension allowance, but isn't that just an argument for a decent wage? And deferring part of that wage saves the city money in times of low tax revenues, while it cuts into the worker's cash flow. So the worker is certainly giving back something in return for a future benefit.

[A Simple Game]

37. There probably is an infinite variety in public union contracts.

That is not my concern. I support all unions and believe it is the unions job to get the best contract possible for their members. I also believe it is management or in this case the states job to settle for the least possible. The state must do this honestly through collective bargaining and they must then honor that agreement, as should the union, and not try to legislate it away. I think we can all agree with this.

My point is that all compensation, no matter how worded, comes from taxes. I do know that some comes from alumni, lotteries, interest on funds, etc. but that is a small amount in most cases.

So please show me how the money that you claim the employee contributes does not originally come from taxes be they local, state, or federal, I will be happy to be wrong.

[CTyankee]

54. I can't see where that is a problem, tho. If the government worker provides a vital function

that benefits the public, then shouldn't they be paid for their labor? Plus, union members pay taxes like everyone else. You have to drill down to the question of what the government is for in the first place and why do we have taxes to support it. Here's an argument: if I have to contract for a private company for say, my own little Fire Department, then it is not cost effective. We deem it the proper functioning of government to have public Fire Departments. But you have to staff a fire department and that means paying, out of taxes, a wage. I don't see how that is out of line or something that cannot be understood...

[mmonk]

13. And we're paying for those billions the corporations aren't paying

in taxes.

[A Simple Game]

25. Yes anyone who pays taxes pays a share.

Where I live a large proportion of the school budget is in the form of property taxes.

I do not mind paying those or any other taxes.

[ejpoeta]

15. if you take money and put it in a 401k is that not part of your wages?:

basically it sounds like they put part of their pay every week into this retirement fund for their retirement later. do you consider 401k to be benefits? i guess it's benefits only in the sense that it goes through the employer, but it sounds similar.

[hfojvt]

23. that's not how it sounds to me

it sounds to me like the employer puts a bunch of money in that 401K and some people are claiming that that extra money is the equivalent of pay, and thus the employee pays it all.

[ejpoeta]

27. it was a prior agreement whereby part of the pay is deferred and put in the pension fund

as if your pay was put in 401k. it makes sense to me.

[A Simple Game]

28. If it was entirely voluntary it would be part of your wages.

If it is a mandatory amount that is the same for everyone, it would be considered part of your compensation package.

Anyway it doesn't matter as this is all semantics, and it is all paid for with taxes.

It is not a problem, it is a fact.

When talking with people locally about adding programs or an addition onto our local school they often say we should do it because it is mostly free money. When asked how it is free money they will say 90 percent, or what ever the number happens to be, comes from the state. They can't understand that it is just money from your other pocket.

Taxes that pay public sector wages are not a problem for me, but don't try to tell me that it is anything other than what it is. I also don't mind teachers compensation packages, and don't feel they should be reduced. If there is a problem with their compensation being better than private compensation packages for equal jobs, raise the private compensation don't reduce the public compensation.

[dmr]

46. The money originally came from taxes, but once the employee

is compensated, the transaction is complete.

That money no longer belongs to the taxpayer. The money in the pension fund remains in that fund until the employee fulfills all their obligations toward retirement.

So yea, employee compensation begins with taxpayer money; but once that compensation is paid out, the taxpayer no longer has any claim. What I made 20 years ago is mine, not the taxpayer.

I'm a taxpayer, too. I've no problem with anyone else's benefit package. The nurse, teacher, cop or sanitation worker - all are compensated bi-weekly. As a taxpayer, I have no claim once their service was provided.

:hi:

[Occulus]

52. I am in the public sector and exactly 0% of my wages come from taxes

In fact, my employer's operating costs are not supported by any tax dollars of any kind.

I don't know where you got this particular pantload, but you're dead wrong, at least in my case.

[A Simple Game]

56. I'm all ears, educate me!!

Without too many details or letting slip where you live or who you work for, please tell me how this happens.

But even if true, do you think this is a pantload in most cases? Come on, be honest.

Waiting for my education and practicing how to say I was wrong.

[tblue37]

34. No. When they negotiate a contract, they accept lower wages NOW in return for

those pension funds to be paid at a later date. Thus those pensions are not "gifts," but deferred wages, wages they let go of during negotiations, to be put off until they reach retirement age.

[A Simple Game]

42. I agree with everything you say.

I do believe that public employees earn their money and none of it is a gift.

What does it have to do with my point?

If these deferred wages are not paid with taxpayer money, how are they paid?

[county worker]

43. They earned the money so it is no longer your taxes but their salary.

When I turn in my time card every two weeks the money that is paid to me is not taxes but my wages!

[A Simple Game]

50. Finally, some one that understands their wages come from taxes.

Thank you!

[county worker]

55. Of course my wages come from taxes.

The taxes that pay for Medicare, Medicaid, Federal and State grants, Vehicle License fees, Sales tax and a bit from general funds.

To earn that I help those afflicted with alcohol and drug dependency, mental illness and the homeless who cannot afford to pay for services themselves.

I just don't sit on my ass and collect tax money.

It seems that those who want to talk about taxes don't want to talk about what those taxes are for. If we didn't do what we do the cost to incarcerate those we serve would be much higher than the cost for us to serve them.

[xxqqqzme]

31. Here is the article in Forbes

The Wisconsin Lie Exposed - Taxpayers Actually Contribute Nothing To Public Employee Pensions

blogs.forbes.com
http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/02/25/the-wisconsin-lie-exposed-taxpayers-actually-contribute-nothing-to-public-employ

Pulitzer Prize winning tax reporter, David Cay Johnston, has written a brilliant piece for tax.com exposing the truth about who really pays for the pension and benefits for public employees in Wisconsin.

"...Gov. Scott Walker says he wants state workers covered by collective bargaining agreements to “contribute more” to their pension and health insurance plans. Accepting Gov. Walker’ s assertions as fact, and failing to check, creates the impression that somehow the workers are getting something extra, a gift from taxpayers. They are not. Out of every dollar that funds Wisconsin’ s pension and health insurance plans for state workers, 100 cents comes from the state workers...

...Simple. The pension plan is the direct result of deferred compensation- money that employees would have been paid as cash salary but choose, instead, to have placed in the state operated pension fund where the money can be professionally invested (at a lower cost of management) for the future..."

[Stinky The Clown]

6. Matthews will have to get the message at least 20 times before it will sink in.

Matthews in an embarrassment to real journalists.

[OHdem10]

7. Send them an E-Mail and respecftully explain the facts.

Do not be rude so they never accept your
EMail again. The more people who send\the letters
and EMails the better the results.

[EFerrari]

8. DU is invaluable in that way.

[Sirveri]

9. I think this approach is a non-starter.

They never see it as pay, and if you declare it as pay and that it's exactly the same as wages then suddenly they can start saying that teachers make 100k/yr (based off of Reagan High School in the Milwaukee Public School system).

It's better to compare average base salaries and then compare them to corporate trainers who make 90+k/yr on average.

[CTyankee]

10. based on what rationale? I don't get it...

the pay they get is reduced by a certain percentage that becomes, over the years, their pension fund.

I don't get what their argument is...

[progressoid]

14. I think because RWingers will still see it as tax dollars going into pensions

Since teachers salaries are paid by taxpayers, their pensions are paid by taxpayers too. Whether it is taken out of their checks or not doesn't matter to the rabid right.

[CTyankee]

16. Then they don't think union workers work for a wage. And that is crazy.

What do they think they work for?

[Hannah Bell]

18. the winger that runs the local radio station thinks government functions should be taken over by

volunteers.

for the love.

[CTyankee]

20. Well, I don't think that fools anybody...how stupid...

[Sirveri]

30. It's similar to what progressoid hit upon but I'll expand a bit more on it.

One, it will basically inflate the wages. It's a lot easier to argue that teachers are underpaid when you can point to an average salary of 50k, if we go your route then it hyperinflates their wages. In fact there are right leaning groups that are already attempting to do that. Basically they take a single sample group, which has a 77% benefit cost in addition to wages, add them together, and then declare that all teachers are making 100k/yr.
Here is one example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9x2N4bDmzdc
It's within about one minute in before they drop the 100k number, but it gives an example of the type of hit pieces they've already got prepared.

The other issue is that it's confusing. The teacher never actually sees that money in their paycheck, so what is the functional difference between it being a wage or a deferred compensation or an employer provided benefit? When I was a 20 something(a decade ago now...) and had health insurance through a private employer then got laid off I was quoted 450/mo for COBRA, so was that an extra 450 a month I was making in wages that was then automatically put towards my health insurance that I had no choice to purchase until I was laid off? Or was that a benefit? Is there a difference? What's the functional difference and point to it? Even writing it it sounds like the same thing to me.

It seems like you're trying to say a benefit cut is a pay cut, which is fine. But everybody recognizes that benefits or deferred comp or whatever you want to call it are worth something. The claim from the right is that they're worth TOO MUCH, and that they can retain their base pay and that a benefit cut wouldn't affect their take home pay (which is factually accurate and plays the lies with statistics card). The point shouldn't be that you're cutting teachers wages, but that teachers are underpaid compared to their private sector counterparts. And furthermore, that other workers should have more benefits and that this would benefit the economy better than cutting more wages and further depressing domestic spending by taking money out of the pockets of the people who actually spend it so that the rich can get another tax break from Walker. That was kind of a run on sentence but I hope it came across clear.

I hope that clears up where I'm coming from, and why I don't think this particular approach is all that useful.

[CTyankee]

35. Oh, I think it IS useful. however, if I had the power to add to the argument, I would

stress the inherent "divide and conquer" aspect to the conversation. I think the dialog would be helped by pointing out that to keep arguing this way is just a "rush to the bottom." Rather, the question should be "Why doesn't everyone have the right to collectively bargain for a decent wage that enables workers to carve out a pension from deferred wages?" Start the argument there. Explain the smoke and mirrors aspect to the debate that simply leaves workers (not management) out in the cold, rather than seeing that it is a matter of economic justice.

Focusing narrowly on whether it pay vs. "benefits" is just a diversion from the idea of economic justice and if we only focus very narrowly on that point we'll just keep going around in the same circles that we have had in this thread, to an unsatisfactory outcome.

Over 150 years ago Marx argued that human labor itself is the commodity the working classes bring to the market, but it differs from other commodities in that the laborer must advance his work (commodity) before it is paid for.
Moreover, the end product is the summation of human labor. While he was writing about industrial production, his point about human labor can certainly be applied with respect to other aspects of what human labor produces. I think we should introduce (or re-introduce) this aspect into the discussion.

[Sirveri]

51. I still don't get your original argument, maybe it's a long day or something for me.

I basically agree with what you're talking about with social justice (not really sure how it connects to the original argument however), but I don't understand how telling people that their benefits are really pay actually helps anyone other than the right?

Example:
Tea bagger: These guys make way too much money, 50k a year is crazy compared to most people who only average 40k, they should take a pay cut!
Dem: No way, teachers are underpaid, those benefits are part of their salary too, and that raises their pay to like 100k...

Arguing that a person is underpaid, and then in the next breath claiming they're getting more money but it's as benefits seems counter productive.

[CTyankee]

53. I thought I had addressed it. However, let's just say I want to stop the dialog

at "these guys make way too much money." Don't let them do their little dance. We have studies that show that unionized government workers with advanced degrees make LESS money than workers in private companies. So right there they are stopped from steamrolling over you. You can't just argue "underpaid;" you have to prove it by comparing apples to apples. Then you could say that the unionized worker put in the time, effort and cost to get an advanced degree, we pay more money for people with advanced degrees and advanced skills, and if we do it in private industry, it should be the same principle for people in government. Besides, as President Obama recently pointed out "We want the best and the brightest in public service." Wouldn't we rather have that talent pool in the government, instead of Wall Street?

I would then turn to the "rush to the bottom" argument and the "the union movement has produced benefits for nonunion workers...the 5 day week, workplace safety that we take for granted today but that were unknown before the union insisted on it, repeal of child labor laws...

[hfojvt]

22. I think anyone will see it that way

because that is the way it is, and the point is, it is NOT taken out of their checks.

The OP is comparing service to production, and claiming that all of the money that the employer is putting into the pension is really the same as wages. Even in production though, the worker does not produce it all. We need machines to do much of the work.

[fascisthunter]

40. sure....lol

[Hannah Bell]

17. That's today's "journalism" for you. The high-priced talking heads just mouth talking points.

[CTyankee]

19. And they are astonishingly IGNORANT!

Geez, that is sad!

[elehhhhna]

21. press releases. they read press releases. it's cheap & easy.

[Honeycombe8]

26. Hmmm. That doesn't sound right. I mean, what would be the point of that?

Wouldn't it be easier just to put your own $ in a savings account?

Pension benefits include paid insurance. The workers pay for that, too?

[JuniperLea]

38. No, and no...

If you put money into a "savings account" it is post-tax; when you put money into a pension account, it is pre-tax and there are penalties for taking that money out early.

And yes, the insurance benefits are paid by the workers as well. It's called "total compensation" and that's a piece of the puzzle that the RW is using to mislead everyone. Salary, benefits, and pension are all part of "total compensation" packages.

[Kurovski]

29. K&R. (nt)

[Sgent]

32. Maybe because they don't???

Most Wisconsin employees (inc teachers), pay 5-6.5% of their retirement. The state/local jurisdiction kicks in an additional 5.1%.

http://etf.wi.gov/news/2011_Contribution_Rate_FAQ.pdf

[JuniperLea]

41. Paid by employers and employees...

It's in the first sentence. It's called "total compensation" and it's part of the bargain. The employers get tax benefits for doing this as well. I'm not finding your figures either. Please point them out.

[Crabby Appleton]

45. Look at table on page 2 of this

under the heading Contributions

http://etf.wi.gov/publications/et8901.pdf

[county worker]

44. That 5.1% is also the employee's earnings. It is in the form of contribution to the pension plan

but it is still compensation. It is still wages! It is still earnings! It is still the employee's money.



"The 2011 employee contribution amount will not exceed the amount the state has agreed to pay in the
compensation plan."

[Sgent]

47. Do they pay FICA on that amount?

No...

Just like I don't pay FICA on my employer's matching contribution from my 401k, but do on my contributions.

[county worker]

49. The money is tax deferred until it is taken as pension income then it is taxed.

They take the pension payments after they retire so there is no FICA tax on it.

How it is taxed is no determination of who's money it is.

[snot]

33. K&R'd

[fascisthunter]

39. uh-oh... somebody figured it out, and now a right wing talking point gets destroyed

awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww... fuckers!

[Jennicut]

48. He needs to talk to Ed Schultz. He had the correct facts last night.