The panel's refusal to call for a reining in of benefits irked some fiscal conservatives. They say government workers in California are more richly compensated than their counterparts in other states and at private companies.Why is it wrong? Because they are public employees? At a time when we're bemoaning the break down of pension programs in corporate America, what, is it just unfair that anyone gets the benefits due after the requisite years of service? Why is it that public employees are expected to be altruistic with their job skills, gifting the state with their work and expecting next to nothing in return? Or, if you choose to believe that private industry doesn't get all mushy and lovey with its benefits packages, why shouldn't the state be a more model employer, setting up ample security to keep people from siphoning public reasources later on? I just don't buy the argument that California's goal should be to suck as much as other states or private entities. There's some inspirational goal setting.
"'Other states simply don't unilaterally grant retirees these healthcare benefits for life,' said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn.
"He said the commission should have proposed cutting the costly health benefits and raising the retirement age of state workers.
"Former Republican Assemblyman Keith Richman, who is leading an effort to place an initiative on the ballot that would cut pension benefits for government workers, agreed.
"'We have people retiring at age 50 with more than 100 percent of their salaries and lifetime health benefits, and the commission didn't address that at all,' he said. 'The benefits offered to public employees in this state are extravagant. . . . It is just wrong.'"
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Yes, Soon, California Will Be Known As The State That Cares About Its Employees. Oh No!
The Roundup excerpts reaction to a report on the costs of covering public employee benefits: