Howard, just one second. . . . Every penny comes from those workers.

[TacticalPeek]

On Reliable Sources today:

KURTZ: Jim Warren, as an old labor reporters, you're the perfect person to ask this. Why on a national basis -- not the state and local contract negotiations that are always a big local story -- why has there been such miniscule coverage until now of this whole issue of public employee benefits?

JIM WARREN, FMR. MANAGING EDITOR, "THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE": Well, I think, first of all, there's an absolute lack of knowledge of the history of American unionism. There's a tremendous ignorance about basic economics, particularly pensions and taxes.

And I think what you're seeing here, mainstream media, left or right or centrist, whether it's The Associated Press or "The New York Times" or even places like Politifact, which we rely on for supposedly neutral fact-finding, I see you have a lack of perspective. They have reference to watershed moments in labor history from people who have no clue about true watershed moments in labor history, places like Ludlow, Colorado; Flint, Michigan, Homestead, Pennsylvania. But then something that Steve may have picked up on, woeful ignorance of economics.

For instance, just in the setup to the piece, you mentioned about whether public employees there are contributing too little to their pensions. The fact is when folks continually refer to the issue of the employees "contributing more" to their pensions, they are ignorant of the fact that every single penny of those pensions comes from the Wisconsin employees. They've been collectively bargained, money diverted from, knowingly by them -- knowingly diverted from their wages into their pensions. And so the suggestion when you talk about contributing more --

KURTZ: Let me go back --

WARREN: Howard, just one second. When you talk about contributing more, there's a suggestion that there's other revenue streams. Every penny comes from those workers.

KURTZ: Most newspapers, "The New York Times" an exception, don't have labor reporters anymore.

PEARLSTEIN: No longer.

KURTZ: And isn't that hurting the coverage of this whole area? I mean, I understand unions are a shrinking part of the American workforce, but still an important force.

PEARLSTEIN: This is one of my bugaboos, as you know, Howie. These issues tend to get covered by political reporters, by White House reporters, by congressional reporters, whether it's trade or this. And they bring to it a sort of he said/she said. You know, it's this interest group versus that interest group, and they don't have the time or the experience or the knowledge to dig into it, to read the report of the pension trustees, and find out about this, or to say, well, gee, someone is contributing X to their health care.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1102/27/rs.01.html

Jim Warren speaks for me in this matter.

Try a little aloe cream on that, Howie.

[rgbecker]

1. Good points all....K&R

[Igel]

2. Devil's in the details.

Don't know about Wisconsin. Perhaps every cent of future liability is public-employee funded by pension contributions. That can change. It many places, it has changed.

This hit home rather strongly in 2008 when a lot of that money "paid in" vanished because the stock market tanked. Where do pension funds put their money? Stocks, bonds, long-term paper. A lot of pensions' unfunded liabilities soared to 50% or more. While the money paid in vanished (it's largely been recouped as stocks have appreciated), the obligation to actually pay the pensions typically held constant. Voila: "We paid in every cent" and "Taxpayers are going to have to pay those pension commitments" were *both* completely true statements. The first was completely irrelevant, however.

[TacticalPeek]

3. Details about Wisconsin are every penny is paid by employees.

Check out section 13 of the Wisconsin Association of State Prosecutors collective bargaining agreement – “For the duration of this Agreement, the Employer will contribute on behalf of the employee five percent (5%) of the employee’s earnings paid by the State. ”
http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/02/25/the-wisconsin-lie-exposed-taxpayers-actually-contribute-nothing-to-public-employee-pensions/

:kick:

[boppers]

4. Many non-union workers don't have anything to relate it to.

The closest thing (which was latched on to, for better or worse), that most workers can compare to is healthcare, where a company chips in a portion of their profits to benefits, and the employee chips in a portion.

Governments, however, aren't supposed to run profits.

"...a suggestion that there's other revenue streams. Every penny comes from those workers."

Uhm, when did governments stop taxing people?

[quaker bill]

5. That is the way they explain it to me

and I am non-union in a "right to work" state. When they decide what I should be paid, they do a market survey in the private sector. For comparison, they total up salary, all benefits, all taxes, and the pension contribution. They then compare that total to the private sector total package for similar jobs in the same field that require similar education and experience. When they do it fairly, they quickly note that I am coming up short and adjust the pay scale to make up some portion of the difference. This has not happened in a decade or so, but the last time it did, the adjustment to market was fairly significant.

Even in a "right to work" state the pension is considered part of my pay, and not a gift.