Comments
Babhadfad12 t1_j6ih1fc wrote
The lesson here is cash is king. Do not trust someone to pay you in non fungible, subjectively valued “benefits”, many decades in the future. Especially not someone who cannot print money (i.e. everyone that is not the federal government).
_Maxolotl t1_j6ilbn9 wrote
Fuck Eric Adams.
If you strike I will bring you donuts on the picket line.
(Or some other healthier treat of similar value if you prefer.)
lurrkee t1_j6ip6g6 wrote
This was first started by Di Blasio
carmansam123 t1_j6j5v3f wrote
or Nixon when you really think about it.
Sorry what were we talking about again? Anyway we can remain focused on the matter at hand to actually make an impact?
BourdainTiffin t1_j6j7ynq wrote
The fact that it was started under De Blasio is relevant. I would say De Blasio has pretty solid progressive Bona Fides and he was ready to make this transition. This is because the City has a limited budget and cannot deficit spend. If we are not switching to Medicare Advantage we are going to either cut spending elsewhere or raise taxes.
grandzu t1_j6lobbb wrote
They're screwing retired to pay for current. The supposed saved money directly gets funneled into the Health Insurance Premium Stabilization Fund initially established in the 1980s to balance the costs of the health plans available to current city workers.
BourdainTiffin t1_j6n18th wrote
What’s a better solution?
_Maxolotl t1_j6kgsuo wrote
He can't stop it now. Adams can.
sutisuc t1_j6j920q wrote
City employees can’t strike as far as I know
Pbpopcorn t1_j6jroju wrote
Can confirm. Got an email during the nurse’s strike few weeks ago reminding city employees that if they strike they’re automatically fired
ChipsAndLime t1_j6l9ru8 wrote
Edit: you’re right, I was wrong.
The recent strike was won by nurses at private hospitals.
Pbpopcorn t1_j6lb6n0 wrote
The nurses that went in strike were at private hospitals, not city
_Maxolotl t1_j6kgwra wrote
Call in sick.
ViolatedGhost t1_j6mmndi wrote
Municpal employees cant strike because of Taylor Law. Its Unions who are supposed to protect city employees from the mayor and city council. But they are like a dog without teeth.
Sunbound_Down t1_j6p9nto wrote
Fuck Eric Adams.
story_island t1_j6ip0vk wrote
The cost of healthcare has gone up immensely since these systems were put in place.
Everyone pays more for less now, and I don't know how city/state governments can afford to absorb that massive increase in cost.
mowotlarx OP t1_j6ipye4 wrote
So how are the retirees on a fixed income who were promised these benefits supposed to absorb it? For perspective, this would only save $500 million a year. That is less than 2/3 of what we spent on NYPD overtime alone in 2022. There are ways we could save this money, but it's much easier to fuck over retirees I guess.
DrRat t1_j6j1avr wrote
Advantage plans are notorious for denying anything they can get away with and really making the customer jump through hoops. Private Health insurance companies have stock holders to please whereas government-funded Medicare only loyalty lies with the enrollee. It'll be an instant and noticeable decrease in benefits and services, I'm afraid.
mowotlarx OP t1_j6j2jb9 wrote
The irony is it costs way more to make people access services only in an emergency rather than allowing people access to affordable preventative medicine. The decline in benefits costs us all more in the long run.
BourdainTiffin t1_j6j8i9e wrote
The retirees will not have increased costs.
mowotlarx OP t1_j6jc2rl wrote
Yes, they will. They will pay for more out of pocket because less will be covered. They will have fewer options for local doctors, meaning many may need to go out of network for specialty care. Medicare Advantage isn't Medicare, it's a private insurance company chosen because they intend to nickel and dime aging retirees who require more healthcare.
sirzoop t1_j6j71j9 wrote
>our retirement benefits will be superior to those in the private sector
Hate to break it to you but your retirement benefits haven't been better than the private sector for decades
soupdumplinglover t1_j6jd0q0 wrote
Thanks. Does this make you feel better about yourself
sirzoop t1_j6jdn7w wrote
No it makes me feel empathetic towards public employees and enraged at the government for undervaluing and underfunding them. You deserve better
Spider_pig448 t1_j6jsr7r wrote
How does this make the benefits shittier?
mowotlarx OP t1_j6jwu4u wrote
Because city workers are no longer guaranteed quality healthcare upon retirement. They will get a worse health care package that costs then more, covers less and has less options for doctors. When you really think about it, this is just a ploy to help retired workers die sooner due to substandard care.
So watching all of this play out, who would a prospective worker faced with lower salary and no schedule flexibility choose this route? They'll ultimately end up with less funds saved to cover the out of pocket expenses than someone making $20k more at a similar job in the private sector.
Spider_pig448 t1_j6jypzk wrote
Does the new health plan cost more? The article says it will continue to be premium free and is further subsidized. I haven't read much about the plans to know the differences besides the article. It simply being private isn't a reason to be against it though.
mowotlarx OP t1_j6jzn02 wrote
>Does the new health plan cost more
It costs more when a cheaper insurance plan covers less services and fewer doctors accept it.
myassholealt t1_j6ndh02 wrote
>It simply being private
is a reason to assume it's not gonna be of the same coverage and quality as the plan it replaces. The last 60 years or so of private healthcare in America is all the proof you need. Insurances nickel and dime you out of coverage every chance they get.
[deleted] t1_j6ngq64 wrote
[deleted]
VFL2015 t1_j6ibxhw wrote
Job security
mowotlarx OP t1_j6iirbn wrote
Does job security matter if you still can't retire on a living wage with basic healthcare required for older people?
Pool_Shark t1_j6ikaxz wrote
Lololol
George4Mayor86 t1_j6jaocb wrote
Great, you can be “secure” in a job with shit pay and shit benefits. Or if you’re remotely bright or ambitious, you’ll probably bail and move to the private sector.
manateefourmation t1_j6ilhsz wrote
This is so awful. Medicare Advantage is neither Medicare nor is it an “advantage.”
MA plans have tiny regional networks. Medicare is nationwide. Here’s a crazy stat. The best cancer hospital in NYC, Sloan Kettering does not participate in any MA plan. Dana Farber has the life saving treatment- sorry, you are limited to NY providers.
MA plans can have high deductibles and there are those dreaded “pre approvals” before many services, including things like MRIs.
MA plans are for profit and, last year, made private insurance companies almost $2bb in profit. At the same time, they have denied legitimate claims and delayed payments. Here is the HHS Inspector General report detailing these for profit abuses by MA insurers:
https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/OEI-09-18-00260.asp
The unions should be fighting back with all their might. I would never in a million years take an MA plan over Medicare with a supplement plan, which is $0 cost for services.
mowotlarx OP t1_j6ioo5f wrote
It's wild that we allow this private low quality health plan to use the word "Medicare" in its title. Privatizing Medicare is a mistake.
manateefourmation t1_j6iqmed wrote
If it was up to Republicans this is all we would have as options. The irony of older voters voting for people who want to strip them of their benefits. I believe not one republican in Congress last year voted to remove the Part D prescription “donut hole.”
This is a great example of what happens when you add the profit incentive into a health insurance product.
DrRat t1_j6j4mnd wrote
Affordable Care Act served up millions of Americans (with the help of the IRS) to private health insurance companies. Jimmy Carter's traditional Medicaid certainly did not include third-party profiteering. GWB's Medicare Modernization Act in 2003 also welcomed private insurance companies into the fold with Part C, D, E, and F.
manateefourmation t1_j6j7vuy wrote
Absolutely true on the ACA which was passed with no Republican support. But not because the Republicans wanted a better option without private insurance. They wanted no options at all. Obama, like Clinton, wanted universal Medicare-like insurance for everyone (or at least a public option to compete with the private insurers), but the lobbying of so called “center right” democrats killed those options off. So we are stuck with a private insurance based option with government support. Expensive for no reason other than insurance company profits. I’m all for capitalism - made my career in the capital markets. But health care is too fundamental to leave to unchecked market forces. And the Republicans have no solution that they have seriously offered.
Medicare Supplement plans predate GWB by quite a few years - 1992. Bush was president when Part D was signed into law. I liked GWB - donated to and voted for him. But todays Republican Party is an anathema to the party of Nixon, Bush senior, George W. Go look at the republicans party platforms from back then - they mostly read like democratic platforms. It was a time before the crazies took over the party.
Enderbeany t1_j6igil0 wrote
Oh, people are going to love it when their benefits need to trickle through the hands of the third parties who get to get their taste first.
Next up, meeting the 6-7 figure ‘market cost’ of executive administrators who’s job it is to make sure the investor sees regular, compounding growth year over year.
In the immortal words of George Carlin, “They’re coming for it…and they’re gonna get it. All of it.”
Sunbound_Down t1_j6paro3 wrote
Its a big club, and you ain't in it.
DataRikerGeordiTroi t1_j6husoa wrote
Can someone who is smart explain if this is good or bad
Also crazy in the richest country in the world benefits aren't already guaranteed in retirement. So gross.
mowotlarx OP t1_j6hvmrd wrote
Good or bad for who?
It's good for a short sighted City government that is desperately cutting corners to save a few bucks. This would save about $500 million, about 2/3 of the OT budget for NYPD last year.
It's bad for retirees on a fixed income (who were paid far less than their private sector counterparts) who were promised their health plan as trade off of working for the city and now are being forced to take on a private health plan (calling itself Medicare) that will reduce the amount of healthcare they receive and thin the selection of doctors.
At the end of the day, most of us will be retirees some day and will regret what we do now to cut those benefits.
Pool_Shark t1_j6iktps wrote
Anytime you attach healthcare with profits it’s bad. Private managers will now make all moves to cut costs and ensure largest profit instead of the goal being to maximize benefits for the workers on the plan
DataRikerGeordiTroi t1_j6hyatu wrote
like in general. I, like a lot of folks, have little education or background in this area or matters -- but I want to try to learn.
It is confusing and kinda hard and complex so every explainer helps.
mowotlarx OP t1_j6hzhub wrote
There's been a ton of back and forth on this and you're going to get a totally different spin from the city and from retirees. The base of it is that the city is trying to make budget cuts and save money and think switching retirees to this plan will do so. The retirees are worried this is going to be a lot out of pocket on a fixed income and they will lose health coverage and doctors.
gh234ip t1_j6i3hpa wrote
queensnyatty t1_j6i3sgp wrote
“who were paid far less than their private sector counterparts”
Depends on the role. Doctors, lawyers, and computer programmers—all way less pay in government service. But bus drivers, teachers, and garbage men make more than their private sector counterparts plus benefits on top.
qdpb t1_j6i4gk6 wrote
No that’s wrong. These other professions also made less than they would be willing to accept from the private employers, but the generous retirement benefits convinced them to work for the city.
[deleted] t1_j6owqvg wrote
[removed]
queensnyatty t1_j6i4vnv wrote
Go look up the offered pay for bolt bus and the MTA
mowotlarx OP t1_j6i6sjl wrote
MTA isn't a city agency.
queensnyatty t1_j6i89oo wrote
Ok. Are you still insisting that every city worker makes more than their private sector counterpart or is the retreat into technicalities your way of acknowledging being wrong?
mowotlarx OP t1_j6i9yel wrote
We already know that city workers make less than private sector counterparts. This is well known and I'm not going to argue with you about it.
The MTA isn't a city agency. You are wrong, very wrong, and trying to push me on this? Ok.
qdpb t1_j6ilo2z wrote
I think you’re going to say that Bolt pays less than MTA, but I wasn’t saying they didn’t. I was saying (in this instance) MTA drivers accepted the job based on the total benefits. It doesn’t matter that they could find a worse job elsewhere. We all could, yet we work where we work and expect to get paid what was promised to us.
queensnyatty t1_j6ioxy3 wrote
You responded to my comment with “No that’s wrong.” Which part of my comment is wrong?
app4that t1_j6hx6ja wrote
Counterpoint/opinion would be that many municipal workers may not be paid in salary what their counterparts in private enterprise are paid but they typically get pensions, full health and benefits and more stability in terms of job safety. Additionally, there are a lot of employees in the municipal workforce who engage in schemes to enhance their overtime in the final year of their employment so they make much more in (early) retirement due to the padding in their final year.
As a result of much of this nonsense, taxpayers pay astronomical sums for certain health benefits given to retirees (something unheard of in the private sector) as well as the concept of a fully paid early retirement.
I know not every city or state employee is doing this, but there is such significant graft and corruption in multiple agencies and public unions that this barely makes the news anymore.
Personally, I think it’s time to stop some of the gravy-train and get some of our money back. I’m not sure Adams is the guy to do it or if this is where to start but I think we need someone to step up for the taxpayers who are paying through the nose while getting wrecked financially.
mowotlarx OP t1_j6hzlrp wrote
Tier 6 pension is not as good as being paid more $$ annually and putting into a 401k. This isn't a gravy train. I know people who retired city service after 3 decades and maxed out around $41k salary at retirement. Even with a better pension tier they will be living in poverty despite their pension. It is only as good as the salary is.
When you're talking about people taking advantage of OT, you're mostly talking about cops, firefighters and sanitation. I agree we should go after them specifically, but they aren't the rule.
bittoxic00 t1_j6j3u40 wrote
What city jobs are only paying 41k after entry level?
mowotlarx OP t1_j6j635s wrote
People who retired in the last few years didn't begin at $41k. You're awfully naive if you think most city workers are being land market rate or are getting significant pay bumps just because they've worked for decades.
bittoxic00 t1_j6kofkm wrote
You said they maxed out at 41k salary, who’s making 41k at max let alone entry
mowotlarx OP t1_j6kyt1g wrote
I said I know someone who worked for the city for decades and their highest salary when they left was around there. Welcome to NYC civil service, people are paid like shit and cost of living increases don't keep pace with inflation.
bittoxic00 t1_j6l4jtk wrote
What job? Because I looked up upcoming exams for jobs here.
https://www.nyc.gov/site/dcas/employment/how-can-you-find-upcoming-exams.page
And picked one at random, child welfare specialist.
https://www.nyc.gov/site/acs/about/becoming-cps.page
And learned level one starting salary is 52k a year. Who is maxing out at 41k?
mowotlarx OP t1_j6mi4ik wrote
What don't you understand about someone starting a job at a salary versus retiring at a salary?
bittoxic00 t1_j6mjpg3 wrote
It’s simple, what job is maxing 41k when starting salaries are 50
mowotlarx OP t1_j6mtete wrote
DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT PEOPLE WHO BEGAN THEIR CAREER 20 AND 30 YEARS AGO DON'T START AT THE SAME STARTING SALARY THAT PEOPLE DO NOW?!?
The city doesn't increase the salaries of veteran workers to be in parity with brand new hires as a rule. There are people who began here making $25k (or less) when they started. There are people who have worked here for decades making an hourly wage and are still only making $18/hr.
bittoxic00 t1_j6n6cgu wrote
Do you have an example, I just find it unbelievable and if you had proof it would be cool, so there are child specialists working for 30 years that make less than a brand new hire, Idk about that
bittoxic00 t1_j6i69dv wrote
Most people would need to have saved a million dollars to buy an annuity that would pay 41k a year. Add in their social security and it’s a decent retirement, no one is entitled to retire in a high col area
jay5627 t1_j6i6rmk wrote
Yet an institution is able to offer lower wages with the guarantee of certain things post retirement and then take it away once the people finished their careers?
mowotlarx OP t1_j6i747t wrote
Exactly. These retirees were promised these benefits. They're on a fixed income. $100-200 extra per month (plus extra healthcare costs they're now on the hook for) can make or break many people.
bittoxic00 t1_j6i7ijl wrote
Social security age of retirement has been raised since I’ve started working, it’ll likely go up again
mowotlarx OP t1_j6i6q2f wrote
So what do you think people who aren't millionaires, the vast majority of people in NYC, are supposed to do after spending their life serving people in the city where they live? Throw themselves off a cliff?
bittoxic00 t1_j6i7y22 wrote
Florida? Do you also think people who get 4 bedroom rent controlled apartments should get to keep them once their kids move out? I’m not for government changing terms but these once generous handouts need to adapt, no millennial will ever see these
mowotlarx OP t1_j6i8ef0 wrote
You must know a lot of cops who flee to Florida. Because it's not normal for middle and lower income New Yorkers to pick up their life and move to fucking Florida because they retire. That's not cheap.
And don't pretend to speak for Millennials. Any Millennial who has thought for more than a few minutes on this subject knows that us fucking over these retirees means we are only fucking over ourselves. Every time we take away retiree benefits for current retirees we're making it less and less likely we will ever be able to retire.
bittoxic00 t1_j6ibtll wrote
I’ll let you in on a secret, we’ll never retire unless ubi is implemented or you save and invest privately.
soupdumplinglover t1_j6i45in wrote
As a city employee who cannot get overtime, this is really unfortunate. I think the overtime eligible employees should get the new plan, and all the rest should get the existing plan.
[deleted] t1_j6i0t5m wrote
[removed]
bittoxic00 t1_j6hyvec wrote
Every municipal retiree I know pulled that scam, overtime was reserved for those close to retirement for that reason and everyone was in on it. With retirement ages being raised for a variety of reasons this whole ‘screw you, got mine, just let everyone else pay’ mentality will keep younger generations working forever
jay5627 t1_j6hxprc wrote
> Also crazy in the richest country in the world benefits aren't already guaranteed in retirement
They were guaranteed. People worked their whole lives below market rate for the security. Now that's being pulled out from under them. I'm not sure why any person would continue to work for the city if they have any other option. They've proven they won't keep their word
mowotlarx OP t1_j6i0ee4 wrote
People forget that even when you have a "good" pension, if your highest salary in city work was only $40k, you're only making a percentage of that upon retirement. That is a very low fixed income. Most city workers don't get that sweet NYPD, FDNY, DSNY overtime they can tack on to retirement. Add an extra $100-200 a month for worse healthcare and fewer doctors and that's enough to really push people over the edge.
Pool_Shark t1_j6ikx1f wrote
Pension + SS is still more than SS alone
mowotlarx OP t1_j6ioxb0 wrote
And it's still not enough to live on and definitely won't be enough 20-30 years from now.
Pool_Shark t1_j6ipe04 wrote
That’s fair. 20-30 years from now everyone is screwed so we’ll need a bigger reform unless then plan is to let older people die homeless on the streets
philmatu t1_j6hz8q0 wrote
I work for the state, I'm paid roughly 33% of what I could make in the private sector. I exchange the low pay with a stable job, union protection, healthcare (including if I retire directly from this job with 10+ years of service I'll get my healthcare for life), and a pension (for me its 2% of my final salary * years of service after 20 years or more). I still have to pay for my healthcare and pension in payroll deductions but it's less than if I was in private. The newer hires pay more overall but get similar benefits. If it wasn't for the long-term benefits, I'd probably hop for the private sector as many of my smarter colleagues already have. For me, state government has very interesting problems to solve and they impact the greater good, as where most of the private sector work I've seen impacts the company's profits and does little beyond that.
DataRikerGeordiTroi t1_j6hyh5l wrote
Thank you.
I shared in another comment that I find these kinds of topics really difficult to understand, but I am genuinely trying, so any kind of explainer helps.
[deleted] t1_j6kmcwv wrote
[deleted]
retiredfromfire t1_j6i0ftc wrote
Its just the usual BS. Hire a group a people with a promise, and then beak the promise. All across America
Pool_Shark t1_j6il8gt wrote
That’s because there is no repercussions for breaking promises. Instead they get re-elected or a nice “consulting” gig with the pharma company after their term
Babhadfad12 t1_j6ivrnb wrote
The repercussion should be workers valuing those promises at zero. Governments lowering the value of deferred compensation at time of payout has been a thing for decades.
Sciurus_carolinensis t1_j6i1mpf wrote
I’m a current city worker and I’m confused as hell. All I know is that this seems to be dragging out contract negotiations.
LowellGeorgeLynott t1_j6i2x5f wrote
Cool a new way for companies to fuck over the elderly. Adams isn’t dropping the ball he’s slamming it down with all his might.
Feetus_Spectre t1_j6imbxy wrote
Fucking lies. Never-ending lies. Get the guillotine
MrFunktasticc t1_j6j85dg wrote
So the lying piece of shit, who everyone knew would lie and be a piece of shit, has proceeded to lie and be a piece of shit? I hope those of you who voted for him are smart enough to understand what he's doing.
grandzu t1_j6lgyg8 wrote
This process started with DeBlasio.
MrFunktasticc t1_j6lh0vu wrote
And?
grandzu t1_j6lnsqv wrote
Started by de Blasio, okayed by city council, being implemented by the Municipal Labor Committee unions, but Adams is a liar because...?
MrFunktasticc t1_j6lx9lm wrote
If you're looking for someone to sing DeBlasio's praises you've come to the wrong place. Adams can take his man of the people shit and shove it.
[deleted] t1_j6ouwfr wrote
[removed]
newnewreditguy t1_j6iko7a wrote
Their benefits will be cut. Period. And there is nothing people can do that can stop this. The public has almost no say anymore. Look at France, the changes in retirement proposed brought out some of the largest protests ever. That's how you get change done.
"Meanwhile, some of those critics are urging the city to establish a panel of stakeholders to come up with alternative ways to achieve the $600 million savings that this Medicare Advantage switch is supposed to deliver."
Easy, regulate the health insurance mafia. Don't pay hundreds of dollars for Tylenol, etc.
manateefourmation t1_j6m0wu5 wrote
Why not offer the option of traditional Medicare with ability if the retiree to pay the Medicare supplement plan payment out of pocket; the same choice Medicare recipients get? The cost should be negligible for the city because the supplement plan payments would be borne by the retiree.
[deleted] t1_j6k9v5n wrote
[deleted]
ChillBro13 t1_j6hxwjr wrote
Privatization is bad considering it introduces a capitalist into the equation. This is just more evidence that we’re living in a failed state and witnessing the decline of the empire in slow motion.
Bluehorsesho3 t1_j6i7cuw wrote
Adams has already gone on record calling himself a "compassionate capitalist". Dude is so full of shit, it's hilarious. The grin on his face when he rang the New York Stock Exchange opening bell says it all. Dude is a fraud.
casicua t1_j6i1ikf wrote
But why don’t you support profit for the poor, poor corporate entities that are just trying to skim every last nickel and dime off the middle and lower class?? Do you hate freedom or something?
k1lk1 t1_j6i5307 wrote
Capitalism is more efficient than state run bureaucracies
mowotlarx OP t1_j6i7aon wrote
Efficient for who, aside from the few at the very top?
Pool_Shark t1_j6ily1c wrote
We need a balance. Having state run jobs with great benefits puts completion on the private sector to provide workers with equal or greater benefits just as much as private benefits put some competition on the state programs.
When everything is private with no checks and balances the only thing efficient is making more money for the rich and screwing over the average Joe
Bluehorsesho3 t1_j6i6tdc wrote
City is both morally and financially bankrupt. Expect it to get worse. Don't get sick or injured because you'll be on your own.
sutisuc t1_j6j8vog wrote
Reminder that the largest city employee union endorsed this chuckle fuck in the primary. Anyone who is a member of that union should be calling for the resignation of their leadership.
mowotlarx OP t1_j6jbv1l wrote
Most city unions who aren't cops or DOC officers have very little power in a city where it's illegal for city workers to go on strike.
bluebirdisreal t1_j6k5pjz wrote
I know my city union (really big one) endorsed him. UGH, he was not even my top 5 choice.
[deleted] t1_j6ka38a wrote
[deleted]
mowotlarx OP t1_j6kcxwj wrote
They can't go on strike thanks to the Taylor Laws. It's illegal for public workers to go on strike in New York, even when part of a union. We only let NYPD go on silent strikes and work stoppages because, let's be honest, who's gonna stop them?
timpone t1_j6legi0 wrote
I would say wait for snow but i dont see it coming this year. Dsny can grind this city to a halt
Bleachflavored718 t1_j6l5zo3 wrote
Once again, he’s doing everything but helping the working class citizens of NYC. This guys a fucking joke.
promisestorm t1_j6lvxae wrote
lmao @ people saying city workers benefits are “too good.” i have a problem with insurance every fuckin month trying to get doctors appointments and medication. it’s always something. the benefits are garbage and nobody takes it.
kkalmightyagain t1_j6hzzh1 wrote
Bad bad idea. Poor elderly always get reamed.
ThreesKompany t1_j6jx8pa wrote
Eric Adams is a fucking joke.
PoppySeeds89 t1_j6jh6rx wrote
All to save 600 million.. there are 300 million in uncollected parking tickets in NYC. The NYPD's overtime budget alone was 850 million.
grandzu t1_j6lh17y wrote
Can't believe workers and unions standing for this.
NYCMAN7o7 t1_j6m2u2r wrote
If they want to save money just cut the salary of big bosses by 10pct. I am retiree of mta,so the moron governor,more than likely do this to us too.The mta,is full of superintendents making over $100,000 yr. With guaranteed rases anywhere from 3 pct -10 pct. Plus bonuses on top of thier bloated salary. Lot of them sexual harassment women on the job,because they know they can get away with it,lot of time the women go along with it because if they get written up,it swept under the rug,nothing will happen to them. I am sure it the same with most city agencies,big bosses get there fat rases every year plus bonuses money while the rank and file workers get screwed.
superbbfan t1_j6nyjpq wrote
City workers should all call in sick for a week. How can they prove they’re not sick?
If schools shut down, most people cannot make it to work.
One-Awareness-5818 t1_j6iyf79 wrote
Efforts should go into universal healthcare. I am surprised the uft union isn't fighting hard since all the retirees have voting power in the union and they definitely outnumbered the current members. But I don't feel bad for the retirees, because the way they have been voting, throwing the new hires under the bus to save their own benefits and most teachers are Republicans anyway, so they get what they voted for.
mowotlarx OP t1_j6j2pez wrote
>most teachers are Republicans anyway
Lol citation needed
[deleted] t1_j6kln4e wrote
[deleted]
fuckfuckfuck66 t1_j6kmdno wrote
Good
mmmmyeahhlumberg t1_j6idyvq wrote
Public union members are the true privileged class. Their salaries, benefits, and pensions are unheard of in private industry because they are basically financially unsustainable over the long term - and the suburbs are even worse than NYC.
Pool_Shark t1_j6im80c wrote
It’s all financially stable if we taxed the rich and private sector wasn’t so extremely top heavy with salaries.
mmmmyeahhlumberg t1_j6imwsu wrote
>It’s all financially stable if we taxed the rich and private sector wasn’t so extremely top heavy with salaries.
This is such a vague talking point.
You know that the bottom 50% of Americans don't pay any income tax, right?
Pool_Shark t1_j6inm7p wrote
Good. They can use all the help they can get.
Unless you are making over $1 million a year their is no point in defending the current system as is. It’s set up to benefit the richest few over the masses
mmmmyeahhlumberg t1_j6ip2ll wrote
What does it mean when you say the private sector is "so extremely top heavy with salaries"? Private companies are private companies. I can see if you were concerned about how much public employees make, if you were a taxpayer, but what a private company pays its workers is really their business. They are free to set their own salaries. We're still capitalists last I checked.
Pool_Shark t1_j6iqpd3 wrote
Pretending the private and public sectors are not intertwined is foolish at best.
In the 60s CEO pay was 20x higher than the average employee. Now it is closer to 400x higher. Our country is healthiest (for the average American) when the government regulations provide a healthy balance to our systems. Instead we have spent the last 50 years promoting unchecked greed and stacking the deck to high for the wealthiest.
Pure unadulterated capitalism is a terrible system, stop drinking the kool aid.
mowotlarx OP t1_j6ird6x wrote
>"Don't forget that most men with nothing would rather protect the possibility of becoming rich than face the reality of being poor."
I think about this quote from the musical 1776 a lot. It explains American conservative voters pretty well. How else to explain how people living in impoverished states were pushing to end the Estate tax when Trump took office.
manateefourmation t1_j6m271v wrote
I hate when I have to disagree with someone who I think I fundamentally agree with. But this is that case.
We live in a country far from “unadulterated capitalism.” The sheer number of regulatory agencies whose sole job is to regulate capitalism is astounding. We have social programs like Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security. In NYC, we tax people making even $200k a year (not exactly wealthy in this city) almost 50% between federal, payroll, state and city taxes. Again - not exactly unchecked capitalism.
That said, I absolutely agree with you that the wealth disparity in this county is unsustainable. The difference between the bottom 99% and top 1% is greater than at the time of the French Revolution. Federal tax cuts under the GOP mostly go to corporations and the ultra rich. Taxing passive income different than W2 income is a scam. But as long as the GOP has their base fooled to vote against their economic interests - this is not changing any time soon.
mmmmyeahhlumberg t1_j6j6uy8 wrote
We don't have pure, unadulterated capitalism. We have plenty of government regulation. We're also top five in the world for median income and median wealth. The average American is doing fine.
Pool_Shark t1_j6j9cnh wrote
Median income is a worthless stat if it’s not weighted by cost of living
manateefourmation t1_j6m1k13 wrote
It’s a bit deceptive. Yes, no income tax because they are poor. But they still pay payroll taxes which given there income has a much higher impact on their day to day lives than the top 50%.
Do you appreciate how little the bottom 50% take home each week? And I guess now you want to tax them 🥴
mmmmyeahhlumberg t1_j6mq3w8 wrote
I have no desire to tax the bottom 50% but lets understand the complete picture. It's amazing how many people don't realize the complete picture.
manateefourmation t1_j6nshnn wrote
Everyone I know recognizes that the bottom 50% don’t pay federal income tax - not exactly a secret. But to really complete the story you have to look at why the bottom 50% don’t pay and that due to the massive growth of income inequality of this country in the last 50 years, the destruction of good paying middle class jobs, the move to the giga economy (where poorly paid workers have to pay high self employment taxes (both ends of SS and Medicare taxes).
This is a really complicated story in this country and merely stating “50% don’t pay income tax is a Republican talking point and not understanding the “full picture.”
mmmmyeahhlumberg t1_j6nuw30 wrote
due to the massive growth of income inequality of this country in the last 50 years
The median family income in the U.S. has gone from 30k to 70k in the last 30 years...and America is top five in the world in median income. It looks like the average American is doing ok despite the "massive growth of income inequality".
Some people would rather have everyone doing poorly if it means the wealthy are doing poorly rather than have everyone doing better if it means the wealthy are also doing better. LOL.
manateefourmation t1_j6nvodx wrote
Here is a great analysis by Pew (which I think we can agree doesn’t bias left or right) on the decline of the middle class in America over the past 50 years.
*Edit: just to say this is the second time you’ve thrown out a simplistic number without trying to understand the “why.” For example what you cite as “family income”’is actually “household” income and more and more households have moved to three wage earners. You seem to like talking points by laughing at those less fortunate.
mmmmyeahhlumberg t1_j6nxmkd wrote
So 7% of the middle class from 50 years ago moved up to the upper class and 4% of the middle class from 50 years ago moved to the lower class. So more of the middle class from 50 years ago moved up to the upper class than moved down to the lower class. For some reason I don't have a big issue when more of the middle class is moving up than down.
manateefourmation t1_j6o3bjo wrote
That stat is nowhere in the Pew analysis. For those following this thread, the Pew study shows three things:
- “The share of adults who live in middle-class households fell from 61% in 1971 to 50% in 2021, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of government data.”
- “The rise in “household” income is more explained by the number of wage earners in the household.
- college grads make more than their high school equivalents- at a time when college enrollment is dropping.
But let’s say your stat has some truth, “Families that have risen above the middle class may still be doing worse than they were in 2000 because the inflation-adjusted median income has declined in all but four states — North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Wyoming.”
I’m the top percent of this country but have empathy for the destruction of high paying middle income jobs here / perhaps some empathy on your part and trying to look at the core reasons and fix them might be helpful instead of bemoaning the struggling half who “don’t pay federal income taxes.”
Here is a wonderful stat for you. The income disparity in this country as surpassed that of the disparity right before the French Revolution.
mmmmyeahhlumberg t1_j6o69i8 wrote
The very first chart confirms exactly what I noted. Exactly.
manateefourmation t1_j6m1bjw wrote
Are you serious. Do you appreciate how underpaid public service workers are compared to the private sector? There is a ton of data out there for you to review.
Some companies - VZ, ATT and others still offer traditional pensions on par with what the city is offering. And where there is no traditional pension, most large companies offer 5% 401K matching.
The city benefits actually suck compared to the Fortune 500 world that I spent most of my life in after leaving government.
mmmmyeahhlumberg t1_j6mr31p wrote
Wrong. I have family members that have worked in both public and private sectors. The excessive pensions and benefits of public union members are getting phased out more and more every day in the private sector because they are unsustainable over the long term - except when you have a captive source of funds known as taxpayers.
manateefourmation t1_j6nrsf6 wrote
I spent 10 years in government before moving to Fortune 100. I watched both systems change. So I’m not disagreeing with you - I said that some big companies still have traditional pensions but the move is to matching 401ks with health insurance at retirement.
oceanblue966 t1_j6mnptb wrote
Doesnt matter. They agreed to lower salaries and less flexibility for benefits they PAID into. You cannot promise x in lieu of y and then give them z.
yoshimipinkrobot t1_j6i0vye wrote
Good. City worker benefits are too fat
soupdumplinglover t1_j6i4hhw wrote
How do you think the city should recruit workers?
lightinvestor t1_j6i8dhu wrote
Better pay? City gov benefits 'lifers' which is very unappealing and disadvantageous to young people.
k1lk1 t1_j6i55mi wrote
Pay market rate.
Pool_Shark t1_j6imca2 wrote
Wish you would take that energy toward c-suite execs whose packages are too fat
soupdumplinglover t1_j6i3w8t wrote
As a city employee, this makes me furious. We are underpaid with the understanding that our retirement benefits will be superior to those in the private sector. Why would anyone want to work for the city for low salaries AND shitty benefits?