Comments
TeamMisha t1_j0t58vf wrote
I would argue the public sector needs to move more like private: better pay, 401k match for retirement, and decent benefits. Pensions are/were a financial disaster and not good for the taxpayer. It is archaic rules holding the PS back, young hires want flexibility not "you must be here for X years", weird seniority rules, and "its gonna take us 8 months before you actually start". And I can't forget the 5 day in office rule by Adams being a major roadblock right now.
biggreencat t1_j0uwurm wrote
this is an oft repeated trope, "young hires want flexibility." they want pay. having to play a shell game to get benefits is not flexibility
TeamMisha t1_j0wwbp8 wrote
I mentioned pay as well for that reason. Personally I think I'd rather be in the private sector making more net income but paying for benefits. When you are young your risk factor is very low, you don't need a fancy insurance plan. We have a marketplace system at my company and bronze plans are between $10-$40 per pay check, very cheap, yet I'm not burdened by PS vesting rules and hiring practices in the event I want to change jobs. I do not believe that in the current system, the PS can possibly beat the income you'd gain by changing jobs every 3-5 years which is becoming more common now vs. stay at one company for life.
Plays_On_TrainTracks t1_j0uz23z wrote
It makes sense for some more physical jobs as long as you can keep the insurance when you retire. My government job doesn't let me keep the vision, hearing and dental coverage we have after retiring, which are the three things that deteriorate for most employees due to the job and are a fortune to fix.
Being able to retire at 55 is still great considering most office based employees are going to work till a minimum of 62.
bittoxic00 t1_j0rp2as wrote
Private companies make benefits promises for lower salaries too, it’s just the governments promises mean a little more. Honestly they should be relieved it’s not a pension reduction
ObjectivePitiful1170 t1_j0st7v9 wrote
I took a state exam for a position in my field in a state agency. By the time I got the first canvassing letter I was employed in the field already. My staring salary was over twice what the state offers. I went for an interview anyway. The benefit package was underwhelming (for example, healthcare premiums were quite expensive, and without an option for 2 members I would have to sign up for a family coverage, which was 4 times what I was paying for 2), pension plan was not that attractive, no maternity leave, strict deadlines, and limited promotion opportunities (essentially, waiting for an exam that might happen in few years, and then waiting and competing for a spot that was vacated). From what I understand their union was more or less their HR, and not much more than that. From time to time I interact with the state guys on some projects. I honestly feel sorry for them. They are good people and know their stuff, but believe in serving the public at their own expense.
knockatize t1_j0stb3g wrote
Pensions are guaranteed under the state constitution so they’re pretty much untouchable unless they wind up governed like Detroit for the next 40 years.
squall571 t1_j0r03lj wrote
More reasons to not work for the city
nickelloafer t1_j0sjqk2 wrote
Looks like New York City is trying to pull a fast one on its retirees by sneaking in a new Medicare Advantage plan. I guess they figured if they waited long enough, the retirees would be too old to put up a fight. Sneaky, sneaky.
sutisuc t1_j0t2wys wrote
Still blows my mind the union that represents the majority of city employees endorsed Eric Adams. The union bosses must have gotten quite the pay off
mowotlarx OP t1_j0ule4o wrote
The unions trying to paint this is a necessity and a win is fucking pathetic. Whatever we think of the pension system, these people were promised this and they are on a fixed income. New out of pocket costs for medical procedures (which happen more often at old age) and making it harder to find doctors is outright cruel. Medicare Advantage is a fucking scam.
SolitaryMarmot t1_j0utbmh wrote
This issue goes back to Bloomberg. Its based on an agreement the MLC made YEARS ago.
SolitaryMarmot t1_j0ut4c4 wrote
Yeah Medicare Advantage plans NEVER end up being cheaper. Like they say they are gonna save $600 million over X amount of years. I will be all I have that once the math is done in a decade it will have cost the city $50 million more for lesser coverage.
And Marty Schienman will have a new extension on his mansion after mysteriously showing up at the Aetna annual shareholder meeting.
mowotlarx OP t1_j0utiod wrote
The kicker is that people who forego medical treatment or can't afford it end up costing us all more in the end. It's far better to offer affordable and accessible medical treatment and prevention for people than nickel and dime them this way. All to save a few bucks in the short term.
ideological_fatling t1_j0v9bkz wrote
the Shock Doctrine, over and over and over again
5boros t1_j0v1nfu wrote
Be better if the lawsuits they cause abusing New Yorkers just come out of their retirement plans. They could just save up all the fraudulent overtime they collect over their careers and take care of themselves.
George4Mayor86 t1_j0r0gp1 wrote
It’s not hard to see why the city is facing a staffing crisis. Public-sector work will never pay as well as private-sector, so the trade off was good benefits, better hours, and a pension. With those things gone, why would anyone be a public servant?