If there is one thing the public employee unions and newspapers such as the News and Post seem to agree on, it's that the quality of public services doesn't matter and future generations should be worse off. Since the former vigorously defends those workers who do not do their jobs and those with seniority, the latter always seeks to go after future public employees and those who do the most work.
Two issues come to mind. The fact that both newspapers continually advocate diminished pay and benefits for future public employees, without saying that current public employees and retirees should have their compensation cut, is infuriating. Either the compensation package is fair, or it is not, for all. It is not fair for Generation Greed and unfair for those coming after. And if different levels of compensation are to be provided, fairness requires an up front statement that older generations — their readers — have irrevocably diminished the future of younger generations. Intentionally, and to their own benefit. They do not make such a statement.
Moreover, it is simply not true that the retirement benefits of current and former employees cannot be changed. Yes the dollar amount of pension payments cannot be changed, but those payments could be made taxable instead of tax free, current workers can be asked to contribute more to the pensions (they contribute more just about everywhere else in the U.S.), and current retirees can be made to pay for more of their health insurance.
The New York State legislature refuses to consider any of those options — passing legislation to ban increased health insurance contributions for retirees even if the unions agree in an attempt to undo past deals and equalize lifetime compensation — and the newspapers refuse to talk about them. Only certain honest actuaries working for other publications talk about them, because the alternative is collapse.
In addition we once again hear complaints about public employees cashing in sick leave when they retire. As a former public employee, I can tell you that a very large share use the generous sick leave as vacation time over and above their generous vacation days. They'll come to work when sick to save sick leave for the beach. They get paid one day to do nothing for each day of sick leave.
Almost any employee that is honest will run up a huge sick leave balance. That turns out to be useful if one suffers an heart attack or comes down with cancer before retirement. Otherwise, they end up being paid one-half day for each day of unused sick leave. The honest receive half the value for those sick days as the dishonest. So who is getting too much according to the Post? The honest.
Why are the News, Post and city making an issue of one-half day of unused sick leave for each sick day rather than one full day of vacation for each unused sick day? Because they know that those workers who don't game the system and run up a big balance are not represented by the unions. Just as younger and future public employees are not represented by the unions, who get to seize part of their paychecks due to deals they cut with politicians.
What message does this send about public service? Unless you are a grifter, make your living elsewhere. And if you insist on being a teacher, get a job with a charter school.