As I was standing amidst the overflowing garbage on the boardwalk on Coney Island on July 4th, which the oft-downsized Parks Department can apparently no longer afford to pick up (the trash bins in Prospect Park were not emptied on Monday July 3rd either), and watching the police recruits, who will be replaced by those with so little ability that they cannot get a job for more than $25,000 per year, I wished more people were aware of the importance of the 2000 pension deal, which in an instant transferred $billions to retired and about to retire public employees from our then-future, now present. As long as the benefits for the insiders, and cost to the rest, are separated by a few years in time, most people do not notice the connection. They are vaguely dissatisfied, but they don’t understand why. The ongoing losses to our quality of life are “inevitable.” Now, it seems, more “inevitable” losses may be coming.
Based on what I have not read in the newspaper, even fewer are aware of the effect of that deal on public sector management. The number of years counted for the average annual salary used to determine pension income was cut from three years to one. Yes, this means a rank and file worker can run up a lot of overtime in his or her last year, then get paid more to do nothing than in most years they were purportedly doing something for the people of New York. But it also means someone near retirement age can be promoted to manager, hide in their office for a year, and retire with a vastly higher pension, a benefit with a present value of hundreds of thousand of dollars, leaving a mess behind. This is not theoretical – I saw it happen before leaving the public sector. And, political appointees can be cycled through higher paid jobs one year at a time via promotion, and then leave with a boatload of additional pension money.
Public sector management is a job I would not wish on my worst enemy. They are paid much less than those in comparable private sector jobs, they cannot fire employees who do not work, they cannot reward those who really care about public service, and if anyone is held accountable for the dismal results, it is they. So I’m not one who huffs and puffs each time managers get a salary increase. This assumes, however, that they actually manage. Under the pre-2000 rules, a manager had to do this difficult job for at least three years before getting the full richer pension associated with a managerial title. Now one year will do. Or no years, since no one will be held accountable for a decline in public services in that little time.
Now think about cronies. With the one-year provision in place, virtually every crony can be cycled through a high salary position for a year, then retire with a big fat pension. This provision is potentially an enormous transfer of wealth from us to them. There has been press coverage, for example, of the number of people Governor Pataki re-appointed to positions where they will serve years beyond the end of his term. But how many cronies did he promote to higher-paying jobs about one year (give or take) before he is expected to leave office? Of course, unless a crony has been around long enough to qualify for one of the richer pension tiers, they would have to be close to age 62 to take advantage of this.
Or would they?
Consider the piece of legislation on Governor Pataki’s desk, passed by the state legislature (presumably unanimously), to allow everyone to retire at age 55, and live a comfortable life of leisure the rest of their lives, with the cost to be paid by those who come after, regardless of how high.
I’m sorry I misspoke. It isn’t everyone who would get this benefit, just everyone in the public sector.
Ooops, sorry again. Not everyone in the public sector. Just those now at or over age 55, or who would reach age 55 in the next two years. Is that the same “at or over 55” that President Bush promised to protect when cutting Social Security benefits for those who came after? I think so. This isn’t ideological. It is generational.
The newspapers reported this story, but with a yawn, not moral indignation and fear. They said that the “incentive” would apply to state workers, but it wouldn’t surprise me if local government workers are included as well. After all, an early retirement for all teachers with seniority is the UFT’s plan for the Campaign for Fiscal money (I know it isn’t what they said, but who is kidding who?), and it was they who were pushing an age 55 retirement (not lower class sizes, better facilities, and better pay for teachers in tougher schools). But the newspapers also said that Governor Pataki would veto the legislation, and it would not be over-ridden – obviously that is what they were told.
Just a game. The legislators get credit for a handout, and make the Governor look “unkind” for not giving people money. Spitzer gets to say the idea needs “study,” even as he opposes health insurance for minimum wage workers of Wal-Mart. Shows he can be counted on. And in the end, Pataki vetoes and the additional disaster for the people and future of New York does not occur, so no one is blamed (as long as the cost is pushed off a year or two, no on is blamed anyway).
But just think how many additional Pataki cronies could retire on January 1st with a big fat pension if he signs the legislation. Don’t you think he knows this? Don’t you think this was pointed out to him? And he signed the previous pension enhancement, didn’t he?
Hey young people, may I distract your attention from your hormones long enough to point out just how much you are getting screwed?
This is not a boring, actuarial, accounting issue. This is a moral issue. The decision to given something to some is a decision to take something away from others, and those dollars — in this case billions of dollars — represent the actual beliefs of those who make the decisions. Will someone, anyone, say that continued enrichments for those "at and over 55" paid for by sacrificing future generations, which will surely be worse off, is morally wrong? Will someone now "at or over 55," or at least over 45, break the law of generational omerta and tell their children the truth?