I would agree that it's not the time to be firing essential workers that happen to be in the public sector.
But per my previous post, Illinois has a big problem with their debt, and they've borrowed and kicked the can down the road so many times that they're the only state in the union that doesn't have at least an "A" credit rating. ...and for the last 20 years, up through the present, the public sector unions have rejected any sort of of negotiating and pension reform.
They're asking for $40 billion, but only about $10 billion is for things that can be considered remotely related to covid-19.
I see this much like a Greece/EU scenario. Austerity measures are sometimes needed, but they need to happen with concessions from the other side that are aimed at addressing the problems that long pre-dated the pandemic.
In Illinois, 60% of public sector/state workers retire with full pensions in their 50's. Another 30% retire between 60-64 with full pensions.
When you look at how they're paying out:
View attachment 284874
...that's simply not a sustainable model. Allowing someone to retire at age 55, and collect $60k-$70k/year until the day they pass away (which could be 10 years, it could be 25+) is a bubble that has to burst as life expectancies increase.
And the state is still dealing with the fallout from the policies of Gov. Rod Blagojevich who, rather than standing up to the public sector unions' demands (how could he, they're who helped him get elected), had to resort to things like trying to issue, what were basically, junk bonds, and selling and mortgaging state property, as well as shutting down state parks and historic sites, in order to try to fill in budget gaps without cutting the state pension funds...as well as exercising line-item and reduction vetoes to remove his political opponents' "member initiatives" from budget bills.
I know there's a balance to be had when it comes to public sector unions. Obviously we shouldn't be just giving our public teachers, fireman, police, etc... just a $500 watch and a pat on the back after 30 years of service to their communities and leaving them with nothing else. ...but Illinois has swung to far in the other direction, because we also can't be saying "After 30 years of service, you get to collect $60k/year for the next 20-30 years plus full health benefits"
I would say a deal needs to be made. ...and if I were a republican, and in a position of legislative power, my terms of bailing them out would be this:
"Okay, we'll assist with the debt, and help re-fund the pension fund for current retirees who were already promised this or people who are within 10 years of retirement...but moving forward for anyone who's not already retired or within 10 years of retirement, here are the stipulations:
- 10 year cap on pension payouts...meaning, if you put in your 30 and want to retire at 55, that's fine, but those checks will stop showing up when you're 65, and you'll be on social security like private sector retirees at that point"
- 25% of all union dues most go into a 401(k) for the employee who's paying them.
- reform on what union dues can be used for. While it's true that law prohibits unions from using dues to directly fund political efforts that favor one party over another, there's a host of ways they "dance around that line" and indirectly help one party over another. (for instance, they're allowed to transfer money from the union dues to a PAC, that the union itself may also run, with the written consent of the user when they sign on for membership/employment, and that line granting authorization may be buried on page 6 of a packet...they're also allowed to use the money to engage in "political education efforts", , where they don't explicitly endorse a candidate or party, but produce materials that certainly steer people in one direction over another, and
non-partisan 'get out and vote!' drives (that just so happen to target demographics that they know lean their way politically))
