I started in public service in 1984. After graduating from college summa cum laude in the middle of the worst recession in Oregon since the Great Depression, I managed to get a clerical job with a state agency. I made about six bucks an hour, and even back then $6 an hour didn't go very far. At the end of every month it was pretty much bread and peanut butter. I had a car that was a rusted-out hulk that I bought for $200, but it was a financial struggle just to put gas in it.

At that time the agency I worked for did a salary survey and found that comparable jobs in the private sector paid 25 percent more than what I and my coworkers were making. But we never got any salary adjustment. That was just our misfortune.

So I had my state job and my PERS retirement. But back then a person without even a high school diploma could make $12 an hour, twice my wage, sweeping a factory floor, and sometimes even with bonuses, profit-sharing, and stock options. (While in college I had a summer cannery job that paid $8 an hour. It took me three years in public service to get back up to what I made as a student.) So nobody gave a damn about me or my PERS retirement. In fact, I looked like a sucker -- all those years of eduction, and nothing to show for it. Meanwhile, the guys with (or even without) a high school diploma who were fortunate enough to have factory jobs were out buying houses and boats.

But I stuck with it, and over the years crawled my way up the ladder. And in public service jobs, you indeed do crawl your way up. Bonuses? Forget about it. Stock options? Don't exist. Fast promotions from a boss who likes your work? Doesn't happen.

But the one thing I had was the famous "PERS Retirement." Several decades out, just beyond the horizon, one could almost see the faint glow of a retirement that promised a decent life. All I had to do was stick with it, and eventually, years later, there would be at least a little payback, a little compensation. So I stuck it out. While other opportunities came and went, I stayed with public employment, waiting for the day of the Great Retirement.

Comes now the State of Oregon, deciding that the PERS retirement is too generous. Having promised the benefits of PERS as an inducement to continue in State service, the State now decides that it's too much. But what to say about me, and the thousands of others who believed the promises and made life decisions as a result? I guess we were suckers, duped by the very organization to which we devoted years of service.

Russell,

You say, "But as in the private sector -- auto manufacturing and airlines, for example -- it’s the retired and just retiring who demand what they were promised over their working lifetime that are the biggest cost."

Are you suggesting that Oregon goes the same route as the auto industry and airlines? Do we approach or go into bankruptcy, before we reign in unsustainable public sector employee costs? Oregon employees have among, (if not the, highest costing benefit program in the U.S. per employee of any state. Do we continue this situation to the demise of Oregon? At the same time, Oregon is one of the poorer states in the U.S. (36th in "per capita income") and we have led the nation in the last five year period for unemployment. Our very generous compensation to the public sector is clearly not sustainable. At this time, we are starving services just to maintain the high compensation. Examples of the starvation are seemingly endless and can be observed in almost every Oregon public sector department.

You suggest, "No amount of tantrums thrown by the budget-baiters and government-haters can renege on that obligation"

I hope you aren't suggesting, that anyone who searches and tries to implement more prudent allocation of Oregon's finite revenue are "budget-baiters and government-haters"?

Your defense of the status quo in our public sector compensation begs the question, "how can Oregon continue this high level of individual employee public sector compensation"? It is hurting the newly hired public sector employee as well as limiting services provided to the Oregon citizens.

Russell presents an incomplete portrait of the PERS issue. Luckily, legislative hearings, the Special Masters Report, the findings of several courts, numerous newspaper reports, and the Oregon Supreme Court decision have shed considerable light on the background and legal issues of Oregon's public employees retirement system.

Several aspects of the PERS scandal merit comment. The PERS board failed to provide prudent oversight and control of the system. The legislature, the public's backup protection against failed state level boards, failed to provide effective oversight of the PERS board. The PERS has not been eliminated, should not be eliminated, and faces few demands that it be dissolved. It had to be reformed because the rates of payment to some retirees had become a public stench.

Ultimately, the public employees retirement system will respond to the state of the economy. The economy is not healthy despite considerable recent job growth and a recovering stock market. Our low personal savings, giant national debt, large trade deficits, and falling domestic oil production point to a difficult economic future. Public employees merit respect and support for their work. We all merit a sound and efficient PERS.

Jack, I appreciate your comments about Bob Straub. I can't help but believe that Bob Straub would have been dismayed of the handling of PERS to the detriment of Oregon. The leadership and the people of Oregon have "blinked" for the last 20 years, all attributing to the economic instability for Oregon. My last conversation with him represented a very frugal individual as we had fun haggling over the price of a fuel tank that I had, and he wanted. We had a great conversation.

Marvinlee writes:

" It had to be reformed because the rates of payment to some retirees had become a public stench."

This canard gets repeated so often that it begins to take on a ring of truth even when it isn't exactly true. While Marvinlee doesn't misrepresent the facts -- there are a FEW retirees who received extreme benefits -- the facts are not there to merit generalizing this to the whole system as most try to do. Even PERS itself has released the most comprehensive statement of the system status as a corrective to all the misinformation out there. You ought to read it. It is available as "PERS By The Numbers" and can be downloaded from the PERS web site, or from the Oregon PERS Retirees (www.opri.org) site. The facts speak louder than the canards.

I'm going to branch out a little here, and reflect on a point that Russell makes, but give another side to the story.

Russell talks about private industry going to part-time employees to reduce benefit costs just at the point in time that the State reached parity with the private sector in salaries. True, but not the whole picture.

Starting in earnest in the 1970's the State found a different way to reduce costs. They were able in many sectors to farm out to private non-profit tax exempt organizations their work. For most of the time since 1970 to now, there have been more children that the State has supervision over in the care of contracted private non-profits than in actual State institutions - not even counting foster care. All the Boys/Girls ranches, Christie Home, Waverly, etc., etc. are non-profits that contract with the State to provide services. While things have improved in the last few decades, most of these non-profits, for most of those years, did not have sufficient funding to provide any retirement benefits at all. Most barely were able to afford health care insurance. Salaries have been lower than State paid positions. In fact, borrowing a term from prostitution, the State contract managers used to joke that they got "more bang for the dollar" by contracting State services to non-profit corporations.

It was only later that private business copied this practice by "out-sourcing" work out of country to lower wage workers.

I was involved in a study in the early 1980's where 500 "line" workers in State and non-profit jobs related to children’s' services were surveyed related to their education levels. State employees who worked at places like MacLaren and Hillcrest, known to make 150% more than the non-profit employees, averaged a high school education. Those working in the non-profits, the lower paid employees, averaged college level education. Consequently, there was a high turn over rate in the staff at the non-profits, and a fairly stable work force in the State jobs.

So, Russell, the State created a large group of second class workers, without significant benefits and no retirement, that in many areas of government was a larger group than the State employees. Whether mental health, children’s services, vocational rehab, alcohol and drug treatment, etc. etc. - the human services end of State government has for years had vastly more of the sector in the private non-profit world than the State employment end.

The general public has never understood how the State saved untold millions and millions of dollars by exploiting workers in non-profit agencies to do the State's work.

To those of us who spent 20 years in the non-profit world, with our only retirement funds being social security, it is painful to advocate for the rights of State employees to retain their PERS pensions. Having been made into "exploited workers" by some of these same people, it is difficult to protect the rights of those who have abused you.

Yet, I for one do.

A contract is a contract. Everyone who took lower wages at the State but saw a good retirement as compensation, should have that understanding honored. Many State employees don't have cushy jobs, many work under difficult conditions. Unlike the private sector that can make rapid changes to increase efficiency and deal with changing circumstances, State employees often have to wait for the two-year legislative cycle to come around before they can “fix problems”. State employment certainly has some nice places, but by in large it isn’t as attractive as the private sector. A good retirement program has been one compensation. And we (workers/State) all agreed to it. A contract is a contract.

The legislature and the press can dither until hell freezes over about who is responsible and who should "fix" PERS, but eventually either the voters or the laws of economics will step in. My wife worked at OHSU for the first third of her career and she remains an inactive Tier I participant. While she (and I) will no doubt find a good use for the money when she retires, the fact remains that compared to the pension benefits she has earned in the private sector, PERS seems awfully generous. The total benefit package provided to public sector employees in Oregon does remind me a bit of the situation at GM or perhaps at Delphi. You can try to make yourself an island and avoid the changes swirling around you, but it only works for so long and then the laws of economics kick in and what happens can be very ugly indeed. It is perhaps better to take a little pain now than a lot of pain later? Easy for me to say, since it won't be my pain.

bailie slightly changes the focus of his/her usual argument: "Your defense of the status quo in our public sector compensation begs the question, "how can Oregon continue this high level of individual employee public sector compensation"? It is hurting the newly hired public sector employee as well as limiting services provided to the Oregon citizens.

I wonder if you'd make this same argument if you took out a mortgage 30 years ago at dirt-cheap interest rates. Now, 29 years into your mortgage, the mortgage company decides that they had fouled up in year 24 and instead of your mortgage being paid off in 30 years, you'd have to continue paying it for another couple of years. You'd scream bloody murder, since you'd been paying faithfully according to the contract for 29 years. They can't do this to you, you argue. They say, hey, we might go bankrupt if you don't pay us what WE think you now owe, not what we TOLD you you would owe.

Why is the PERS situation different? Just for a moment, get off your soapbox and address the contractual issues? Do you think that your mortgage holder can unilaterally change the terms of your mortgage provided you've done everything you were told to do - made your payments in a timely manner, maintained insurance, and paid your property taxes? If you don't think this is legal, why do you think it is legal for the Legislature to do exactly this?

Slightly off your point, nothing that PERS is doing right now to "recover" overpayments is authorized by the Oregon Supreme Court. The court made some very clear rulings in March 2005, which put bounds on what the Legislature could and couldn't do. PERS has chosen to ignore that aspect of the Court's ruling and is following a legal decision that has never been subjected to appelate review. That is why you can expect to see several more lawsuits filed over the next few months that will, I hope, bring some clarity to this confused mess.

You suggest, "No amount of tantrums thrown by the budget-baiters and government-haters can renege on that obligation"

I hope you aren't suggesting, that anyone who searches and tries to implement more prudent allocation of Oregon's finite revenue are "budget-baiters and government-haters"?

Someone who runs for office on the platform of "here is my plan to implement more prudent allocation of Oregon's finite revenue" or Gasp! "Here is my plan for tax reform including some new revenue sources", complete with bullet points and the effort to line up the votes in the House and Senate to pass such a specific proposal is serious.

Saxton's PERS=ENRON and more recently "let's fire all the public employees and rehire them" don't qualify as serious. By definition, ballot measures are not candidates running for office.

And sorry Bailile, but those serious details are not in " Our very generous compensation to the public sector is clearly not sustainable. At this time, we are starving services just to maintain the high compensation. "

I DO believe that such rhetoric (as opposed to the hard work of publishing a proposal with bullet point details and lining up the votes to pass it) IS budget baiting, and no matter how often Bailie posts I will still believe the serious people don't just blog, they campaign on a specific proposal which they have available in detail for all of us to read.

mrfearless47, I can appreciate your devotion to PERS and the mismanagement of it. I have two in my immediate family who are PERS recipients.

My only dog in this fight is what I think is best for the state as a whole. The mismanagement of PERS was/is the largest economic blunder in Oregon's history. Do we protect a relatively small group at the expense of everyone else in this state. I have concluded that we shouldn't. I understand the point of view of the PERS members. I also, somewhat understand the ineptitude of our government bodies as well as the self serving PERS Board of Directors. Oregon has "blinked" for 20 years, do we continue to "blink" for the next 20 and join General Motors and the airline industry (and the rest) in the junk pile? Or do we make some significant changes while there is still time?

Oregon is being economically decimated at this time and is one prolonged recession away from disaster. We do not have the economic cushion that some states have. To endorse the status quo is irresponsible for anyone. Unfortunately, that is what the "leaders" in Oregon are doing, while compromising our way to mediocrity.

In response to your analogy with the "mortgage company", I would be naturally be upset with the changes. Especially, if it was mismanaged to the extent that PERS has been. PERS (correct me if I am wrong) was changed (promises made) 43 different times during the last 30 years. It is not the same PERS as 30 years ago (using your example). Similarly, it would be wrong if I had a mortgage that was changed continually during the 30 year life of the mortgage.

bailie writes: "In response to your analogy with the "mortgage company", I would be naturally be upset with the changes. Especially, if it was mismanaged to the extent that PERS has been. PERS (correct me if I am wrong) was changed (promises made) 43 different times during the last 30 years. It is not the same PERS as 30 years ago (using your example). Similarly, it would be wrong if I had a mortgage that was changed continually during the 30 year life of the mortgage."

PERS has been changed quite a few times in the last 30 years - that's true, to be sure. But every change was either unilateral by the Legislature, mindful of the need to preserve existing contracts, or bilaterally negotiated by the unions and the Legislature. There has never been a unilateral change that broke the existing contract. Those times the Legislature tried, the State Supreme Court slapped the Legislature upside the head (see e.g. Hughes v Oregon, OSPOA v Oregon, Strunk et al v Oregon) and said, you can't do that. So, to say that PERS has been changed x number of times sort of ignores the fact that in addition to those unilateral changes that preserved the contract, and those bilateral changes that both sides agreed to, there have been the changes the legislature has been forced to change because other changes made previously were ruled illegal.

To me the analogy here is that my mortgage loan isn't the same as it was when I first took it out. I may have refinanced the loan many times (dozens in fact), my loans may have been sold (more times than I can count), and my mortgage holder has come to me with "better" offers that would preserve my basis but sweeten the terms.

The analogy I drew was apt. If a mortgage company (though mismanagement or ineptness) came to you near the end of your mortgage and said, whoops, we screwed up, we shouldn't have given you that deal in 1999 and now you're going to have to pay on the mortgage a bit longer than you had imagined, you'd be pretty pissed and you'd raise quite a stink.

I worked for a PERS employer from 1970 to 2002, retiring in September 2002. At the time I retired, I received this piece of paper that told me exactly what my benefits were and PERS has been paying those to me since I retired. There was no legal decision on anything known at the time and at no time did PERS tell me that my future benefits might be in jeopardy because of something the Board did or did not do in early 2000. There was no asterisk by my benefit that said, "this number subject to change because of pending litigation". Then in 2003, the Legislature tried to force retroactive changes on my benefit by withholding a piece of my benefit (my COLA) for the sins of the 1999 Board. The Supreme Court said that PERS couldn't withhold my COLA; it was part of the contract. The Supreme Court also said that the Legislature couldn't define a benefit as "fixed" and then claim that this "fixed" benefit was in error. So, the inference here is that the benefit I was receiving at the time of my retirement was computed correctly, contained no errors, and that PERS was obliged to restore my COLA. The Supreme Court correctly held that the Legislature CANNOT define a "fixed benefit to which no COLA attached". THAT was the contract violation. That was the mortgage company saying, oops, we screwed up and you get to pay for our mistake.

For all the problems of PERS, I refuse to believe that the low level secretary or accountant or any basic worker (not in management) should be held responsible for the mess PERS has become. The critics make it sound like any office assistant or secretary who retired on PERS was able to afford a home in Palm Springs because after all, those PERS retirees all got such sweet deals.

Are there some people who have a problem with the concept that a few lucky individuals were able to take advantage of a situation? That is NOT the same thing as implying that every public employee who retired in a certain year was able to afford a lavish lifestyle due to PERS.

Is someone just looking for an enemy to bash because having to talk details is too difficult? And yes, by that remark I do mean comments like Blue Note saying "compared to the pension benefits she has earned in the private sector, PERS seems awfully generous".

We are debating the system which pays retirement benefits for public employees in this state on the basis of "seems awfully generous"? Compared to what? If you randomly take any public employee and any private employee in this state, the public employee will have better retirement benefits? Or is this about scoring rhetorical points?

I think the people outraged by PERS made a strategic mistake early on. Not only did the Saxton PERS = ENRON commercials not solve anything, but the implication by some that anyone enrolled in PERS was jointly and indiv. liable for mistakes made in the management of PERS only made people angry.

Suppose the very first complaints about PERS had been worded like this: The PERS board failed to provide prudent oversight and control of the system. The legislature, the public's backup protection against failed state level boards, failed to provide effective oversight of the PERS board. rather than the "overpaid public employees retiring with more money than their salary who were never that hard working to begin with" public employee bashing attitude.

Why should someone who was hired by the State of Oregon 30 years ago be held to the whim of the PERS critics rather than to a signed contract?

Is this an attempt to say contracts only apply in the private sector, not in the public sector?

Bailie writes: "My only dog in this fight is what I think is best for the state as a whole. The mismanagement of PERS was/is the largest economic blunder in Oregon's history. Do we protect a relatively small group at the expense of everyone else in this state."

Ok, I'll make you a deal. I'll give you back my PERS retirement, and you give back my life. Deal?

I'm not asking anyone to "protect" me. I'm only asking to receive the retirement that was promised to me -- the retirement on which I based my decision to stay in public service for over 20 years.

The deal I had with the State went like this: I'll work for you for lower wages than what I could have made in the private sector. Furthermore, I'll agree to forgo things such as bonuses, stock options, and other perks. On top of that, I'll agree to work in a system that provides only very slow opportunities for advancement. In exchange for all that, you give me a retirement plan that is nicer than what I would have gotten in the private sector.

It's a little late to back out of the deal now.

theanalyst writes:

"The deal I had with the State went like this: I'll work for you for lower wages than what I could have made in the private sector. Furthermore, I'll agree to forgo things such as bonuses, stock options, and other perks. On top of that, I'll agree to work in a system that provides only very slow opportunities for advancement. In exchange for all that, you give me a retirement plan that is nicer than what I would have gotten in the private sector.

It's a little late to back out of the deal now."

This is the part that no one seems to "get". This bargain was two-sided. I do what you ask of me; in exchange you give me what I was promised at retirement, no more, no less. The deal seems to be now, we get our part of the bargain but we don't have to honor our committments to you. To make out PERS retirees as somehow responsible either for creating the mess or for solving it completely misunderstands the nature of a contract. The courts have clearly TOLD the legislature in no uncertain terms what part of the contract can be changed and what part can't. The rule is clear: prospective changes OK; retroactive changes not OK. What part of that isn't clear to bailie and others?

theanalyst,

You say, The deal I had with the State went like this: I'll work for you for lower wages than what I could have made in the private sector."

Just curious, why did you make this deal? If it was like everyone of my friends who made the same deal, it was because that was the only job they could get 1980-85. Plus, the added bonus was that unless they really messed up, they would have a job as long as they wanted. It wasn't for the noble cause of devoting your life to public service.

bailie insults again:

"Just curious, why did you make this deal? If it was like everyone of my friends who made the same deal, it was because that was the only job they could get 1980-85. Plus, the added bonus was that unless they really messed up, they would have a job as long as they wanted. It wasn't for the noble cause of devoting your life to public service."

Oh cut this crap out. You make it sound like people only worked for the State or public employers because they couldn't get any other kind of job. This is a f*cking insult to those of us who really did devote our lives to public service. This is bullshit and an insult to every hardworking public employee.

If you don't have anything useful to add to this discussion, sit on the sidelines for a change. We already know that you are a one-trick pony.

If it was like everyone of my friends who made the same deal, it was because that was the only job they could get 1980-85. Plus, the added bonus was that unless they really messed up, they would have a job as long as they wanted.

So thus spake Bailie: Everyone who got a job in the public sector in the 1980-1985 time frame took the job because it was all they could get, with the "added bonus" that they would never get laid off unless they "really messed up". And NO employee hired in that time frame was ever laid off due to budget cuts?

Does Bailie have any real proof that none of the people laid off (most recently due to positions cut in the early 21st century recession) was hired in the 1980-1985 time frame? As I understand it, there were layoffs in everything from public safety (uniformed police, state crime lab, etc) to education to a variety of other areas, a few years ago during the recession (generally highly paid administrators were not those laid off). But according to Bailie none of those laid off were hired in the 1980-1985 time frame?

Or was it just people Bailie knows were hired in that time frame were never subject to layoff?

Sounds like propaganda to me.

mrfearless and LT,

I was only speaking of my friends. Unemployment at the time was hovering around 8 to 10 percent in Oregon. Are you two OK? Take two tablets every four hours and you will be fine.

bailie whines:

"I was only speaking of my friends. Unemployment at the time was hovering around 8 to 10 percent in Oregon. Are you two OK? Take two tablets every four hours and you will be fine."

Yep, and "the check is in the mail", "I'm with the government and I'm here to help you", "I'll still respect you in the morning", and all the other lies. I don't need a history lesson. I know what unemployment was like between 1980 and 1985. Why is so hard to admit that you took a cheap shot at a whole group of public employees unnecessarily. You've already tried to villify us with your "facts", but having not convinced us that your "facts" are really significant or meaningful, you resort to slandering nameless public employees. That's a really grown-up response.

Jenni, I don't know to whom you addressed your comment, but it didn't reflect anything I mentioned. So I guess it wasn't me. You were probably in Texas during the early 1980s, but Oregon had a severe recession which lasted several years. It took 59 months to regain previous levels of employment with several counties over 15 percent unemployment.

"Anyone who was here 20 years ago remembers that the early 1980’s was a period of serious economic downturn in the Portland metropolitan area and in the State of Oregon. Statewide we lost about 10% of our employment from 1979-1982."

Many people were taking any job that was available. Often there were hundreds applying for a position.

Bailie writes: "Just curious, why did you make this deal? If it was like everyone of my friends who made the same deal, it was because that was the only job they could get 1980-85. Plus, the added bonus was that unless they really messed up, they would have a job as long as they wanted. It wasn't for the noble cause of devoting your life to public service."

Like many at that time, it was a job that was available. Why was it available? Because it was in less demand than private sector jobs. State jobs just weren't very good at that time. "Not very good" translates into worse pay, fewer opportunities, worse supervision, worse working conditions, and so on. Of course, there was the PERS retirement, but that was something that kicked in several decades later, and certainly wasn't a factor in taking the job.

But time passes, and one day you find that you are "vested." A magic thing has happened, and all of a sudden you are guaranteed a little piece of retirement. Now it becomes harder to leave, even if a better job comes along. Five years later you have ten years invested, and the idea of a retirement some day seems real. And it goes on like that. Again, the actual pay and other conditions at the time might not be all that great, but as time goes on the retirement becomes increasingly important. I would say that by the time you have 20 years in, the retirement is virtually the ONLY factor.

Your comment about the "noble cause" is perhaps a little to cynical. The mission of the agency is something that grows on you after time, and it definetly provides an incentive to stay. But the bottom line is that the agency mission doesn't pay the bills, and at some point you have to consider your own economic interest.

As far as the lifetime employment, that may have been true at one time, but it is no longer true. I currently work for a private company. Why? A few months ago my agency laid off a number of people, seemingly targeting the higher-paid individuals with longer service. So I think the era of long-term state service is just about over. The Tier One retirement is out, so there's no particular reason for someone to stay around for a long time. And those who want to stay anyway will become natural targets for cost-cutting managers.

theanalyst, Thank you for your comments. I would guess your situation was not too unlike many in the early 1980s. It was difficult to find a job. When you said, "Your comment about the "noble cause" is perhaps a little to cynical.", it was not meant to be cynical. The friends I had who went to public sector jobs in early 80s, were interested only in a paycheck at the time. It wasn't to serve the public. I realize that different people have different reasons, but that particular era was treacherous for employment.

The friends I had who went to public sector jobs in early 80s, were interested only in a paycheck at the time. It wasn't to serve the public. I realize that different people have different reasons, but that particular era was treacherous for employment.

There, now that wasn't so hard, was it. An admission that your friends didn't reflect every public employee in the state! What an admission!

I worked in daycare and retail in the 1980s, and was subject to layoff. Not sure what universe you live in, Bailie, but not every unemployed person in the 1980s was able to find a public sector job.

Maybe if you talked more specifically (how were you employed in 1980-85, having brought up that time period), perhaps you might influence more people.

The whole "theory of public employment being a sweet deal which private sector people never had" is getting old. Perhaps you should research that ballot measure (I forget the year) where someone had the bright idea to equate public and private salaries for every position where there were comparable salaries. Not sure if it even got on the ballot--some sharp people did the analysis and discovered it would cost the state money because of the number of occupations where the private sector paid more (computer people and others?). That study really angered the ideologues who were trying to convince the public how lazy and overpaid the public employees were.

One more thing: having worked for both public and private employers, I know a private sector check has the logo of Meier and Frank or McDonalds (nowhere on the check does it say "private sector") and a public sector check says the name of the school district, state agency, county, or whatever (nowhere on the check does it say "public sector"). Each check is produced by individuals (HR and accounting professionals in a large employer, to the business owner of a small business sometimes even writing and signing the checks). Let's be honest about that, OK?

This is about people's lives and livelihoods, not a debating society.

Russell Sadler: "It is an important lesson in democracy. Public employees are demanding benefits promised by elected officials chosen to act in our name. We are morally obligated -- and the courts have repeatedly ruled, legally obligated -- to honor agreements made in our name."

A more important lesson in democracy is the will of the people to reign-in an overly generous public employee retirement system that Oregonians cannot afford. Why should private-sector employees be forced to guarantee public-sector employees' wages, benefits and retirement funds? If private-sector workers wages, benefits, and retirement funds are in decline, shouldn't public-sector employees share the burden?

I consider myself a progressive Democrat and I believe public employees should be compensated fairly. However, it is undemocratic for Oregonians to be forced into agreements that cannot be changed. Afterall, long-term union contracts and PERS are essentially taxes that Oregonians are forced to pay long after elected leaders leave the scene.

REAL democratic power would include voter approval of public employee union contracts and retirement benefits.

Jack Roberts,

Do you believe that an employee of a PERS participating employer has an individual liberty interest that is sufficient to gain standing on the issue of a demand to opt out of PERS?

More particularly, do you believe that one of the three dissenters in Strunk would allow such a complainant to get their freedom to opt out?

I presume from your praise of Straub that you like the notion that the Investment Banker's brilliance at creating a captive set of investors, via legislative mandate, was a good thing and that the liberty interest of individual employees would just get in the way.

The City of San Diego and their pension bond attorney (Orrick) are in a legal finger pointing match. Orrick is the PERB's lawyer too, by the way, and The Oregonian did not seem to find the link newsworthy.

Mr. Fearful,

You have me disappointed . . . we did not have enough time to overcome a pedagogical challenge.

Mr. Sadler,

The SC reaffirmed the notion of a legislative contract and expressly against the authority of any agency to alter PERS or to create some sort of "hybrid" version. What this means is that nothing in any local employer bargain on PERS, even within any Collective Bargaining Agreement, or policy or handbook or ordinance has any legal effect, none. Where the legislature has stepped in on PERS it has simultaneously removed such issues from the scope of bargaining; these are two mutually exclusive areas of interest or authority.

Would you tell a currently employed PERS Tier-One employee that they cannot go to court and demand a remedy from the court that is not tied to continued participation in PERS? The court is limited to rendering "final" decisions and cannot consider contingent future events. The rosy forecasts for stock market speculation, in the future, might not suit a particular employee. Suppose they demand a final remedy that involves an annuity that starts many years from now but that confines the investment of the present money into US Treasuries instead of gambles with the likes of TPG or KK&R, or crazy hedge funds that are actually leveraging devices with ADDED risk. They could ask to be treated like a tier-three employee for all future work and future pay, and that the tier-one status thing has been fixed, or fixed to the extent that is no long subject to the future variability of the stock market.

Mr. Sadler and Mr. Roberts,

How about it . . . are the PERS participants just so much fodder for the private Investment Banker clients of the Oregon Investment Council? You guys are weird.

How about demanding full funding, funding that must be made only in US Treasuries. Now that would ruffle some feathers, as I stated in my challenge to M29 and that the Calculated Underfunding Liability number would explode upward without the rosy forecasts from the actuaries. The bankruptcy judge in the United Airlines case had just accepted the PBGC's position that the money that needs to be set aside must be invested conservatively in like manner to the requirements for insurance companies that hold money to cover annuities. What do you mean when you say "full-funding?"

Would you borrow at 5.5 percent interest to reinvest at 4.5 percent in US Treasuries; so as to become fully funded? The Oregon SC surely did not and would not mandate such full funding, as it would be preposterous to demand the issuance of Pension Obligation Bonds that had a built-in one percent annual loss on the borrowed money. An earlier decision in Sprague v. Straub had allowed PERS investments in stocks specifically because PERS was "independent" of the state and neither PERS nor the beneficiaries could legally compel cover for losses from the risky investments.

The investment bankers still run this show, not the trapped PERS-covered employees.

Demand that public employees be allowed to opt out of PERS entirely.

Norm! writes: "Why should private-sector employees be forced to guarantee public-sector employees' wages, benefits and retirement funds? If private-sector workers wages, benefits, and retirement funds are in decline, shouldn't public-sector employees share the burden?"

I don't have any problem with that at all -- as long as public employees know what the deal is up front. In other words, employees have a right to know what are the conditions of their employment. If the employer says "here's the deal. You work for lower wages, no bonuses, no stock options, and fewer opportunities up front, and on the back end I'll give you this nice retirement," then that's the deal.

If the employer can no longer afford that deal, great, just change the conditions of employment for subsequent employees. But don't back out on the promises made to previous employees.

In other words, I don't particularly care WHAT the conditions of employment are. I just want to KNOW what they are. If the State can find accountants and social workers and database administrators who will work for minimum wage and no retirement, I say go for it. Make it happen. Just be honest up front about what the deal is. Don't string people along for 20 or 30 years and then pull the rug out from under them. As I've said before, you give me my life back, and I'll give you the PERS retirement back.

Jenni, Thank you for your recall of the Texas situation. I would guess you understand my comments about the Oregon situation in the early 80s.

LT, Your continued attempt at playing "gotcha" with my comments are interesting. What is your motivation. Nowhere have I belittled public service. As I said previously, two in my family work within the public sector (school district) on a daily basis. I was in the classroom as recently as last week.

I have "belittled" the incapacity of the leadership in this state to function in the best economic interest of this state. Our leadership has been seriously tainted by the influence of special interest groups without regard for the optimum viability of Oregon. Unfortunately, special interests are not parallel to best interests for Oregon. Oregon has dropped from a 26th in "per capita income" in 1999 to 36th in 2004. We have led the nation in unemployment for the last five year period. Clearly, there is something terribly wrong going on in Oregon. We have natural resources that other states only dream about, yet our leadership is woefully misguided and lacking. To accept this direction for this state, should be unacceptable.

So thus spake LT:

"So thus spake Bailie: Everyone who got a job in the public sector in the 1980-1985 time frame took the job because it was all they could get, with the "added bonus" that they would never get laid off unless they "really messed up". And NO employee hired in that time frame was ever laid off due to budget cuts?

Does Bailie have any real proof that none of the people laid off (most recently due to positions cut in the early 21st century recession) was hired in the 1980-1985 time frame? As I understand it, there were layoffs in everything from public safety (uniformed police, state crime lab, etc) to education to a variety of other areas, a few years ago during the recession (generally highly paid administrators were not those laid off). But according to Bailie none of those laid off were hired in the 1980-1985 time frame?

Or was it just people Bailie knows were hired in that time frame were never subject to layoff?

Sounds like propaganda to me."

I strongly suggest that bailie's unionized public school teacher relatives and friends hired 1980-85 would have had a minimum of 15 years seniority by the start of the 21st century and were safe from layoffs under collective bargaining agreements.

I am all for an adequate retirement for public employees. It is obvious, though, that PERS has been administered disastrously over the years when Tier2 and 3 public employees have to endure lesser salaries and benefits in similar jobs to retirees whose pensions exceed the wages of their replacements. And that recipients of public services get reduced benefits so that PERS liabilities can be satisfied.

Can anyone direct me to a reference showing a retirement "promise" to Oregon public employees that exceeds 60% of final salary at age 55 with 20 years service or 80% with 30 years of service?

Howard asks:

"Can anyone direct me to a reference showing a retirement "promise" to Oregon public employees that exceeds 60% of final salary at age 55 with 20 years service or 80% with 30 years of service?"

You won't find those promises anywhere. What you will find is a system defined and refined by the Legislature and the Courts over a period of 30 years in which the "promise" is embedded in the statutes themselves. The state (in my case) made me a promise that if I worked and did my job, I would receive a salary plus retirement benefits as defined in the statutes. I did my part of the bargain, accepting the State's offer in exchange for my 32 years of labor. Nowhere in the offer was any footnote stating that the retirement benefits could be changed RETROACTIVELY AFTER I retired. Moreover, nowhere in the offer was there any basis that the offer could be modified to my disadvantage while I was employed. Whenever anyone tried to change alter the retirement system in a way that would affect me retroactively, the Courts immediately (or not so immediately) stepped in to explain that the contract cannot be changed retroactively, only prospectively.

What part of that is so hard to understand?

To those who would argue that public employees should share the pain with the private sector, I would ask: did public employees get to share in the benefits of the private sector when the economy was roaring? Nope. We didn't get stock options, we didn't get bonuses, we didn't get fat salaries. The only thing we got was the benefit of a roaring stock market, which we wouldn't receive until we actually retired, many years down the road. Everyone else got theirs WHILE the market was hot. So, those in here who support PERS takeaways seem to want it both ways -- they want PERS members to be deprived while everyone else is getting fat, and they want PERS members to be deprived when everyone else is getting lean.

Jack Roberts,

I had tried to limit the opt out demand question to you, for the sake of argument, to that of "standing" to raise the issue of a constitutional liberty interest. That is different than an ultimate ruling on the merits. I hope that you are not saying that you would dismiss a demand to opt out for lack of constitutional standing, before reaching the merits.

The Oregon Constitution says that 6 percent must be taken out. But it does not mandate that the 6 percent must be redirected to an Investment Banker. The employee could argue that in the interest of full funding and financial soundness that the funds must be placed in US Treasuries only. That is, even if a judge and the legislature cannot ignore the Oregon Constitution on the 6 percent that this does not automatically lead to a conclusion that the legislature is thus free to dismiss all sense of reason on where they place those funds. Indeed, a pay-as-you-go system could use that 6 percent to pay out presently retired folks and still be actuarially sound, even while having a zero balance.

Again, the narrow question, would a PERS-covered employee have a "liberty" interest to obtain standing?

Can the beneficiary of a trust, public or private, bring an action in their individual interest even if there are other beneficiaries? (Rhetorically.) The beneficiaries are not a homogeneous class, but potentially have a wide range of concerns that may require distinctions in the classes for purposes of legal representation. The Oregon SC, on July 30, 2004, at oral argument raised the notion that two parties that have factually identical circumstances may nevertheless obtain different results (pay outs, remedies, whatever) as a consequence of going to court or not going to court.

Mr. Fearful has not reduced his demand to a court order. He remains, voluntarily, vulnerable to the whim of the legislature. He could sue and try to obtain an order demanding full funding based on investments in US Treasuries rather than risky stuff. (The statutes do hold PERB and the OIC members wholly immune from any investment decision for any reason.) A requested remedy to invest in US Treasuries, at least as to his contributions (or interest), is wholly reasonable to provide assurance of the annuity payments he expects. What he perhaps does not see, is that for purposes of Res Judicata (or even Judicial Estoppel) it is a claim that he could bring (or his chosen advocate could bring on his behalf) now in contemplated action and thus should preclude him from raising the same in some future proceeding. It is a tactical choice; not to demand conservative investment (prospectively).

theanalyst, the deal precludes cover for investment loss. ORS 238.600(2). The deal includes the limits of what is enforceable in court, in a full and final court order, where contingent future events such as speculative future stock market gains are not appropriate in any remedial order. The word inalienable or unalienable should still have some life left in it, as noted in the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the US Constitution). Your point about bargaining freedom is reminiscent of a railroad worker being demanded, as a condition of employment, to waive any claims for injuries resulting from the knowingly negligent driving habits of the engineer. The US SC, in a railroad case, allowed such a waiver because the private railroad company was a common carrier. If private Investment Bankers want to have a train wreck with other people's money why should anyone not have the option to get off that train? The US SC's Rutan case applied the federal free speech interests (a liberty interest) to public employees within a state to disallow a demand of political loyalty by lower level staff to a political party. A state demand to delegate investment decisions to a set of private investment bankers chosen by the OIC would be no less cognizable in federal court. Heck, even prisoners retain their rights under the federal constitution. Would you find that as a condition of public employment that one can waive their liberty interests? (Could they also be demanded to waive any contract clause claim too? Absurd.)

Howard, are you claiming that EVERY retiree under the specifications you give got the retirement you suggest? Can anyone direct me to a reference showing a retirement "promise" to Oregon public employees that exceeds 60% of final salary at age 55 with 20 years service or 80% with 30 years of service?

If there is evidence that EVERY retiree with 30 years of service got 80% of their salary (not some getting 90% and some getting 70%, for instance) that would be one thing. But this sounds like another attempt to blame the retirees rather than the management of the PERS Board and the legislature. Why is it so hard to hold elected/appointed officials accountable? Is it because it is so much more fun to bash anonymous public employees than to hold responsible those named public figures on the PERS board or in public office?

Why not "the _(name a year) legislature should have_, but it was (never discussed, bill never got out of committee, etc.)? Or is that expecting too much to ask someone for their proposed solution instead of just complaining?

fearless47,

You ask, "I would ask: did public employees get to share in the benefits of the private sector when the economy was roaring? Nope. We didn't get stock options, we didn't get bonuses, we didn't get fat salaries."

Your statement is one of the most overused misconceptions available to public sector employees. A minority of private sector workers in Oregon had opportunities to get stock options, fat salaries etc. that you proclaim. Since you are a demander of precise data, where is your data?

In reality and contrary to your beliefs, "per capita compensation" (salary, health benefits and retirement) in the private sector did not increase nearly as fast as the public sector total compensation in Oregon from 1990 until present.

bailie quarrels:

"Your statement is one of the most overused misconceptions available to public sector employees. A minority of private sector workers in Oregon had opportunities to get stock options, fat salaries etc. that you proclaim. Since you are a demander of precise data, where is your data?

Where ARE my data? Well, they aren't in any one particular place, but you can look at the publicly released information from Fred Meyer, Intel, Nike, Tektronix, PGE, Northwest Natural Gas, Mentor Graphics, Merix, and the other high tech companies, any of the "not-for-profit" hospitals with or without a unionized workforce, the banks. That would give you the stock option picture, the bonus picture, and the fat salary picture for starters. All those employers together combined make something far greater than "a minority of private sector workers".

"In reality and contrary to your beliefs, "per capita compensation" (salary, health benefits and retirement) in the private sector did not increase nearly as fast as the public sector total compensation in Oregon from 1990 until present."

Wait, wait, wait. You're comparing "per capita compensation" in the private sector, with "public sector total compensation". Ummmm. This is like comparing apples with string beans. But assuming that you're trying to compare the same thing, show me your data (on the whole private sector and the public sector), reduced only to compensation, not any of the other things that go into a public, or private sector budget. (And, please don't limit yourself to just K-12 because it is only part of the public employee sector. Actually, do us all a favor and leave out K-12 because we've heard your recitations over and over and over and over again. We know what your data show. They just don't whisper the same things to me that they do to you).

fearless47,

You say, "Where ARE my data? Well, they aren't in any one particular place, but you can look at the publicly released information from Fred Meyer, Intel, Nike, Tektronix, PGE, Northwest Natural Gas, Mentor Graphics, Merix, and the other high tech companies, any of the "not-for-profit" hospitals with or without a unionized workforce, the banks. That would give you the stock option picture, the bonus picture, and the fat salary picture for starters. All those employers together combined make something far greater than "a minority of private sector workers".

That was a pretty limp explanation of data to support your statement. I'm surprised that is the best you can produce. It is meaningless and you know it. You made a strong assertion with nothing to back it up. The "publicly released information" does not present the data you suggest. It does for the officers of the corporation and that is all. You guessed at your assertion. For someone who discounted/rejected all of the data I presented from NEA, OSBA, Chalkboard Project, ECONorthwest, Rand Research, AFT, National Center for Education Statistics and others, your explanation is lacking.

Contracts are contracts. The Legislature shouldn't, and can't, change the law to impair a contract. But the parties to that contract can change it for future years.

So while the retired PERS recepients are going to get their benefits, the government agencies can certainly ask the public employees to opt out of PERS. The incentive could be a higher wage for all employees (Tiers I, II and III). Those near retirement can save the raise in some other retirement vehicle, and the younger workers can use the raise to buy a home, save for college, whatever.

The overall cost to the gov't agency would have to be revenue neutral.

Some benefits. It leaves it up the employees and gov't agencies to bargain for their contract terms without court intervention. It means higher entry level wages, which usually means higher competence in entry level workers. Public employee bashers wouldn't have PERS to criticize anymore.

The downside, there would be winners and losers. The losers being, probably, Tier I workers. However, thats how unions work, the majority decides. Maybe if the Gov't agencies were to lay out what raises would be for Tier II and Tier III employees if it could shift some of its dollars to wages, it would help the workers decide if the current deal devotes too much resources to Tier I's.

Barriers: Obviously if Tier I employees may not like this tradeoff. Gov't administrators and their staffs who are leading the bargaining and staffing the bargaining for public officials are themselves mostly Tier I employees so they would probably Poo Poo the idea. It would take a strong citizen (school) board or mayor to push this negotiation.

This is a conversation the Public employees should have among themselves. Do we as a group, want great insurance and great retirement for long time employees, or higher wages.

bailie writes:

"That was a pretty limp explanation of data to support your statement. I'm surprised that is the best you can produce. It is meaningless and you know it. You made a strong assertion with nothing to back it up. The "publicly released information" does not present the data you suggest. It does for the officers of the corporation and that is all. You guessed at your assertion. For someone who discounted/rejected all of the data I presented from NEA, OSBA, Chalkboard Project, ECONorthwest, Rand Research, AFT, National Center for Education Statistics and others, your explanation is lacking.

You caught me! The reason the data are so limp is that there are no data on the private sector except what is published in sources like the Wall Street Journal, Barrons, Fortune, and shareholder reports. As it turns out, I know senior people in all these companies who have shared anecdotal evidence about salaries, benefits, bonuses, and stock options throughout the 1990's. It doesn't make my data strong, but since you have NO meaningful data on the private sector, and your data on the public sector is largely limited to K-12, I don't think you can substantiate a thing you've said regarding only a minority of the private sector shared in the largesse of the 1990's. Even if you had salary and benefit data on the private sector, you'd have a hard time finding information about bonuses and stock options.

Let me give you an example. My wife works for a large privately held organization. If you were able to "see" her salary and benefit package, you'd only get part of the picture. That's because about 20% her income doesn't show up as salary or benefits in the line of the budget attributed to her. She may earn as much as 20% on top of her salary for meeting performance targets in a number of areas, she may be able to earn another 10% in involuntary overtime, and, if her income reaches a certain threshhold, she's eligible for additional retirement benefits. And, her retirement benefits make PERS look pretty limp by comparison.

I can count several dozen of our friends and even more casual acquaintances who work for various large publicly-held corporations in Oregon whose total compensation package makes anything the public sector pays very mild indeed.

But this digresses. Your main point is about my "data", which I freely admit is both anecdotal and from public sources. But your data on the same group is no stronger than mine. You have no basis for the assertion that the party was only for a small minority of the private sector. For every single instance of someone not sharing in the bounty, I can match you with a counterexample of someone who did. But, I can find no single person in the public sector who ever got a bonus, who ever got profit sharing, stock options, a signing bonus, or whose salary kept pace with inflation during the 1990's.

Robert Harris writes:

"So while the retired PERS recepients are going to get their benefits, the government agencies can certainly ask the public employees to opt out of PERS. The incentive could be a higher wage for all employees (Tiers I, II and III). Those near retirement can save the raise in some other retirement vehicle, and the younger workers can use the raise to buy a home, save for college, whatever."

Two points here:

(1) retired recipients (such as myself) aren't going to get the benefits they were promised AT THE TIME THEY RETIRED. PERS is going in and retroactively changing those benefits. That's a fact, not an assertion. So, the issue of what is and isn't contractual still remains somewhat unclear despite the Supreme Court's multiple rulings on this matter.

(2) as for opting out of PERS, Higher Ed has had that option since 1995. I don't know what the percentage is, but a large number of Tier 1 members and many Tier 2 and Tier 3 members already opted out of PERS either in 1995 when it first became available, or at the time of hire.

However, thats how unions work, the majority decides.

Exactly--the majority of actual union members, not the majority of bloggers saying what union members should do.

Everyone on this topic with strong feelings should leave the blog world and try to push their ideas out in the real world where actual changes come.

Of course that means hard work, talking directly with people, etc.

Robert Harris writes:

"The downside, there would be winners and losers. The losers being, probably, Tier I workers. However, thats how unions work, the majority decides. Maybe if the Gov't agencies were to lay out what raises would be for Tier II and Tier III employees if it could shift some of its dollars to wages, it would help the workers decide if the current deal devotes too much resources to Tier I's."

IBM tried this with its "cash balance" system. It lost in court on the grounds that it unfairly discriminated against older workers. There would be no way to force Tier 1 members to involuntarily reduce their retirement benefits, even if the quid pro quo were higher salary. They could certainly do it voluntarily, if they chose, but the only system that would work would give individual employees the option of trading in future retirement benefits in exchange for a higher salary.

mrfearless47,

There is no doubt in my mind that you would not accept any data I presented, no matter the source.

You say, "But, I can find no single person in the public sector who ever got a bonus, who ever got profit sharing, stock options, a signing bonus, or whose salary kept pace with inflation during the 1990's."

I will give you data from the American Federation of Teachers. This information covers the largest segment of public workers in Oregon, K-12 teachers. This is just salaries (health and retirement are considerably above inflation rates). This is from Figure I-4, Inflation-Adjusted 2001-02 Average Teacher Salary Exceeds 1971-72 level (in Oregon) by $4,312.00. In inflation-adjusted dollars Oregon teachers were above the inflation rate from 1986 to 2002. The average U.S. K-12 Teacher salary 2002 was $44,367 (Oregon $46,081.). I realize you give no credence to K-12 data from any source I have found, but that is your problem not mine.

www.aft.org/salary/2002/download/SalarySurvey02.pdf

Page 5 is the inflation figure.

While you have it open, you might check out Tables I-3 thru I-9 to understand why we are struggling to sustain the high K-12 compensation in Oregon. Or you can just ignore the data as I would expect.

Fearless47 and LT,

Actually, I agree that there is little more that can be done to adjust Tier I retirees. The "fix" is in. I still feel that PERS was perhaps the greatest economic blunder in the history of Oregon. And, that private sector and public sector (Tier II and after) employees will be absorbing the consequences for decades to come. When PERS costs approach 28 percent of payroll in 2007 (compared to 6 percent in Washington), it won't be business as usual in Oregon. The fault lies within our legislature, the Governors and the PERS Board of Directors which rolled over for the unions. The unions which do their work for their members and not for the best interest of the state of Oregon. If you hold that the members have no influence on the unions, then you might consider they can be held harmless for blame in this fiasco.

Bailie wrote:

I will give you data from the American Federation of Teachers. This information covers the largest segment of public workers in Oregon, K-12 teachers. This is just salaries (health and retirement are considerably above inflation rates). This is from Figure I-4, Inflation-Adjusted 2001-02 Average Teacher Salary Exceeds 1971-72 level (in Oregon) by $4,312.00. In inflation-adjusted dollars Oregon teachers were above the inflation rate from 1986 to 2002. The average U.S. K-12 Teacher salary 2002 was $44,367 (Oregon $46,081.). I realize you give no credence to K-12 data from any source I have found, but that is your problem not mine.

One problem. AFT is not the majority teacher union in Oregon.

Try some NEA or OEA sources, and you might have some credibility.

jrw,

The data from NEA are no different. It all originates from Oregon Department of Education, OSBA and National Center for Education Statistics. That is what has been valuable, all of the information is consistent.

"The unions which do their work for their members and not for the best interest of the state of Oregon. If you hold that the members have no influence on the unions, then you might consider they can be held harmless for blame in this fiasco."

Well, I was never represented by a union and so your statement is completely irrelevant to me. But, let me ask you this. You claim that the Legislature and the PERS Board "rolled over" for the unions. Why don't you include the School Boards in all this? After all, they still negotiate the contracts and they have to sign off on them. Are you suggesting that the august OSBA not be held to accounts for whatever problems might exist in K-12 funding? Unions do what unions do best - negotiate for their members. That's why they exist. School Boards are supposed to represent the people who elected them and the school districts they run. They control the contracts, not the Legislature, not the PERS Board. So why place the blame exclusively on greedy unions, an inept Legislature, and a PERS Board that merely followed practices established in the early 1980's. Why do you exclude the School Boards -- all those august businesspeople and school advocates who should have known better than to cave in to such demands from greedy teachers? OSBA wants to point fingers, but it refuses to look in the mirror. If there was/is a problem, they had the power to stop/defuse it a long time ago. Instead of having the cajones to say "no" to teachers before the problem arose, now they go running to the legislature to fix the problem they could have solved on their own. I didn't notice OSBA objecting when PERS benefits were changed for the last time in 1981. They didn't object to the "pickup" in 1979; they didn't object to the guaranteed rate of return; they weren't really even involved to a significant degree when Tier 2 was created. But now they've got everyone's knickers in a twist and they've got people like you to repeat all their statistics like a catechism. The teachers didn't create this problem; public employees didn't create this problem.

Fearless47

Great questions. You ask, "Why don't you include the School Boards in all this? After all, they still negotiate the contracts and they have to sign off on them."

You will find no argument from me about OSBA. I agree completely that the individual volunteer school boards have succumbed to the union pressure. I agree that OSBA has not stood up to the challenge. There is no way that individual volunteer school boards can withstand the full force of OEA and OSEA. Look what happened in the recently completed strike. There was picketing at board members houses. I have belonged to three unions, I know the process of tightening the screws until it is unbearable. It all starts with the chant of "no respect". From there it escalates to borderline illegal behavior, to set an example to future school boards.

The cumulative effect is the evolution of compromises (drip, drip, drip) which favor the union. No school district wants to shut the doors to students, but this is not a reciprocal attitude of the union. This evolution has taken place over the last 20 years to the detriment of Oregon K-12. We are now in the position of large class sizes, poor graduation rates, laying off teachers at the expense of among the highest paid K-12 employees in the U.S. All of the different public sectors are paying the price of this process. It will be interesting to see how Oregon handles the situation in the next ten years, or until the next recession. We will either postpone proper action until economic disaster develops, or we will take preventative measures to avoid economic collapse. My guess is that Oregon will be "frozen in the headlights" for a decade and K-12 will deteriorate before our eyes.

bailie writes: "I agree completely that the individual volunteer school boards have succumbed to the union pressure. I agree that OSBA has not stood up to the challenge. There is no way that individual volunteer school boards can withstand the full force of OEA and OSEA.

And this is unique to Oregon? You act like this doesn't occur in any other state, and that Oregon alone has bred school boards so weak that they cave in "on demand" to unions.

Yes, I am suggesting that this is relatively unique to Oregon. Very few states have allowed the special interests to have the control that there is in Oregon.

bailie claims amazingly:

"Yes, I am suggesting that this is relatively unique to Oregon. Very few states have allowed the special interests to have the control that there is in Oregon."

What possible evidence do you have to support this? Why would "special interests" be more successful in Oregon than elsewhere?

The very best example is from a reluctant Gov. Kulongoski on January 15, 2003. He was dealt with quickly after saying, "I expect, and have suggested, that much of the shortfall will be made up by freezing the salaries and benefit packages of teachers, support staff and administrators, simply because employee compensation makes up over 80 percent of the cost of schools." He was backtracking within days after this State of the State address, due to immediate pressure from the unions. He realized very well the significance of his suggestion.

I left state service after 25-years for another job. I quite frankly had burned out on the constant barrage of criticism directed at state employees. We were lazy, greedy, unethical, and stupid. Barbara Roberts started the "Do more with less", refrain, but it began the slow descent into the reality of do less with less, and the result was poor morale, unrealistic expectations, and burned out staff. The government has responsibility and liability for essential services in the state, including care of the most vulnerable; the old, the young, the infirm, the mentally ill, the developmentally disabled. The public outcry over a bad outcome has led the state to hire very qualified, very trained, and very skilled employees. The state is not a fast food restaurant or a retail store, where the bulk of the workforce is entry level or unskilled labor. The state hires physicians, psychiatrits, RN's, social workers, engineers, business administrators, accountants, surveyors, occupational therapists, physical therapists, attorneys, teachers, professors, etc. etc. These folks don't work for free, but were smart enough to delay compensation for a pension plan, bought and paid for by their own money! Don't forget that employees gave up 6% of their salary throughout their working lives, to ensure a safe secure retirement after a career of public service. The state agreed to match that 6%. Ultimately, due to the cost of accounting issues, they agreed to pay the 6% for many employees in lieu of a pay increase.

A high school graduate may be thrilled to get a job with the state paying decent benefits. But an occupational therapist can get a private job paying twice as much as the state pays. RN's are often spirited away from state hospitals by private hospitals which routinely pay more. The state has a real problem recruiting qualified staff because their most skilled jobs are conpensated far below the private sector even today.

I am getting paid more in the private sector then I was at the state after 25 years. That wouldn't be true if I were a CNA or a secretary, but as someone with a post-graduate degree, it's true for me.

bailie writes again:

"The very best example is from a reluctant Gov. Kulongoski on January 15, 2003. He was dealt with quickly after saying, "I expect, and have suggested, that much of the shortfall will be made up by freezing the salaries and benefit packages of teachers, support staff and administrators, simply because employee compensation makes up over 80 percent of the cost of schools." He was backtracking within days after this State of the State address, due to immediate pressure from the unions. He realized very well the significance of his suggestion."

This isn't evidence of ANYTHING. How is this different from Schwartzenegger putting multiple initiatives on the California ballot to limit things like teacher tenure and having them defeated handily by voters? Or the unions in Oregon supporting Measure 28, Measure 30, opposing Measures 5 and 47 and 50. They certainly flexed their muscles there and crushed the state with their special interests.

I think you live in a fantasy world if you think the "special interests" in Oregon are MORE powerful and MORE effective than the special interests in any other state. It may seem that way because Oregon is a pretty small place filled with many small-minded people, but believe me, I've lived in lots of different states and special interests in Oregon are truly small potatoes compared to the special interests in, say, Pennsylvania or California or Illinois or Minnesota or Massachusetts.

Fearless47,

Let's just stick with what is obviously not working in this state. There are many in decision making positions who are too content with the status quo to make relevant changes. I guess I shouldn't care if Oregon K-12 deteriorates, my kids are out of college. Let it crash. It is obvious that there is not the will in this state to be run efficiently. That is why almost every department in the public sector is struggling, and it is not for lack of revenue.

bailie writes:

"Let's just stick with what is obviously not working in this state. There are many in decision making positions who are too content with the status quo to make relevant changes. I guess I shouldn't care if Oregon K-12 deteriorates, my kids are out of college. Let it crash. It is obvious that there is not the will in this state to be run efficiently. That is why almost every department in the public sector is struggling, and it is not for lack of revenue."

And I suppose I shouldn't care about K-12 or higher ed in Oregon since (a) my two older children are long out of college; (b) my youngest attends a private school and won't attend an Oregon public college (c) I'm retired from Higher Ed and (d) I'm drawing my PERS benefits already (subject to the latest legal shenanigans of the current PERS Board).

But to bring this back to PERS for a moment and to your constant refrain about "total compensation", I suggest that you take a really close look at the document "PERS By the Numbers" - especially Table 4, page 12. Explain to me exactly how the near constancy of employer contribution rates from 1975 - 2001 contributed to the growth of K-12 budgets DURING THE !990's? PERS represented a virtually constant percent of the budget for that entire period (except for the brief spike in 1997 that had to do with a Supreme Court ordered remedy for a contract impairment beginning in 1991). I'm not arguing about the big spike beginning in 2003, but I would assert that a significant reason for that was that employers did not want to pay for the system "as they went" and their efforts to defer payment finally caught up with them in 2003 and beyond. So, if you want to harp about K-12 budgets growing during the 1990's and complain about average K-12 compensation expanding during the 1990's, you'll have to find a different whipping boy than PERS costs because they just didn't affect budgets any more significantly during the 1990's than they did in 1975. They do now, but that's a completely different matter.

PERS is not a promise.

It is a LEGAL contract and the only people in the state of Oregon who want to break that contract are "Greedy Gusses" in debt to their ex-wives... like Baleful and most RepubliTHUGS.

The generous payout: 1) From 1990-94, the average retirement benefit for 30 year members equaled 85% of final average salary. 2) From 1990-2004, the average retirement benefit for 31+ year members equaled 91% of final average salary. 3) The average Oregon public employee who retired in 2000 with 30 years of experience was paid a pension that was 106 percent of final salary. 4) The 8 percent guaranteed payout creates a problem in down years. 5) In 1981, the Legislature decided to add another retirement formula, one based on years of service and a worker's final salary. Lawmakers set a clear goal with the new formula: Public employees with at least 30 years of service should receive a pension equal to about 50 to 60 percent of their final salary. The "Money match" was still on the books. The "money match" that required the doubling of employee accounts.

Is the "bungling" of our elected and appointed officials the fault of the PERS members? Only to the point that they influenced the decisions which were made.

The total compensation of public employees is a significant economic problem for Oregon. PERS is a significant part of the problem. Oregon is a relatively poor state, individually compensating employees at a very high level. The economic forces don't match. We are now suffering the consequences and it will be downhill from here for quite awhile. There are as many Tier I members working as retirees.

You mentioned K-12 increases in compensation during the 1990s. It was mostly salaries. The rapid increases of total compensation occurred from 2000 until present. This rate of increase is simply not sustainable. Employer contributions were approx. 11% (of salary) in 1997,99 and 01. They jumped to 15% in 2003, 17% in 2005 and will rise to 23% in 2007.

It will be an interesting exercise of futility, between those who feel entitled to the high compensation, and those who can't afford to pay. Everyone will suffer through loss of services and jobs.

Sid Leader,

Your intense attitude is one reason why the formation of Associated Portland Educators (PDXAPE.US) was near tops on my list of things to do in the public interest.

I have an exercise for you: Go read On Liberty.

Wait till I figure out the best approach to addressing the difference between speculative pricing of homes and their real rent-justified investment price levels. I can't wait to hear the bond community (issuers and lenders) scream that they have a contract with government to NOT let home price levels decrease.

I am an economic realist. I have already discounted the value of the holdings in PERF to their ultimate prices. Suppose there is an economic correction between debt and the income to support that debt? It is usually linked to notions like depression or recession or business cycle, whatever. Suppose it coincides with the restoration of genuine affordable housing through reduction in price levels?

If I were you I would not bet my retirement security on the vagaries of politicians, for they can turn on a dime. In ten years (or less) the tier-three folks will out-number (and out-vote) the tier-one folks. This is a simple fact. Your best bet is to go to court and demand that "I WANT OUT AND I WANT OUT NOW, SETTLE UP."

The Pension Obligation Bond money has the employer's name on the accounts, not yours. Has your advocate made this crystal clear to you? Go get it. It is almost psychotic for tier-one folks NOT to demand to get it.

Union(ization) is an adjective not a noun. The OEA shot themselves in the foot by tolerating multiple tiers, through legislation rather than through a CONTRACT. Oh well.

Any Portland teacher is free to join the replacement union (APE) if they abandon PERS tier-one or tier-two status.

If you anticipate a breach in a contract, or believe there is already a breach, why then would you insist upon contracting with the same party? It makes no sense.

Don't act like a tyrant, it makes you look bad.

bailie asks rhetorically:

"Is the "bungling" of our elected and appointed officials the fault of the PERS members? Only to the point that they influenced the decisions which were made.

Explain to me how I influenced any decision our elected (including the Supreme Court justices) and appointed (PERS Board, appointed by the Governor, approved by the Legislature) officals? I had no say in any of the changes made to PERS. No one asked my opinion. For example, when the "pickup" was authorized in 1981, I would have preferred a salary increase, but I wasn't given that option - it was rammed down my throat by the Governor and the Legislature because it would save public employers payroll expenses and would be cheaper than paying the money out up front. I wasn't asked about the addition of the Full Formula and paid no attention to it at the time. When the "guarantee" was introduced, no one asked me or anyone else amongst the 1500 or so employees I worked with. As for the "money match", it was the original basis of the PERS system in 1946.

On another point, the 8% "payout". Keep in mind that this figure has changed over the years and is determined by the actuaries and is used to set EMPLOYER rates. There is an inverse relationship between the actuarially assumed interest rate ("the guarantee") and employer contribution rates. It is in the EMPLOYERS' best interest to set that rate as high as possible, since the higher the assumed rate, the less money they happen to have to put in. That it is linked in statute to the rate of return that Tier 1 members are guaranteed is a consequence of employers and taxpayers wanting to minimize their outlays. Now that it is there, it won't go away. The Supreme Court has now twice ruled (OSPOA and Strunk) that Tier 1 members are entitled to the assumed rate of return as a contractual obligation. Is it my fault that the employers and the taxpayers got greedy and wanted to have their cake and eat it too? There is absolutely nothing prohibiting the PERS Board, acting on the recommendations of the actuary and any outside consultants the Board wants to hire, to LOWER the assumed rate. While this might reduce future benefits for Tier 1 members, it will also INCREASE the required payments by employers.

As for the rest of the statistics reported from the document, you are absolutely correct. But I'd also suggest that you look closely at the distorted table of actual benefits paid out. You'll notice that 75% of PERS retirees from 1990-2004 earn less than $3000 per month in retirement, while 68% earn less than the AVERAGE benefit for all retirees in that period. This is precisely the reason why averages are so misleading. The median monthly benefit for PERS retirees in that same period of time is more than $1000 less than the average monthly benefit. This is the reason why I'm always suspicious of average figures in things like salary, benefits, and total compensation. They may totally distort the true picture. I have no idea about K-12 compensation, but I can tell you that PERS averages have almost NO meaning to me because they're so misleading. That's why I always want to see the data broken out in more detail. The data are rarely as simple as averages suggest.

This conversation about PERS is taking place several years along our state recovery from the depths of our last recession. It is evident that even now state and local governments feel pinched for money. So do private workers, few of whom have pensions as good as provided through PERS.

In response to "You claim that the Legislature and the PERS Board "rolled over" for the unions. Why don't you include the School Boards in all this?" I believe that citzens are beginning to respond, by voting down local elections. Liberal, pro-spending Corvallis defeated a school levy increase proposal, perhaps due in part to integrity issues by the local school board. County citizens also defeated a county tax issue.

The topic of promises merits comment. The largest promise of all is implicit: that government will faithfully and honestly represent its citizens. Had that promise been kept, the PERS debacle would not have transpired.

This just in... PERS still a legal contract.

Leader A union man

RE: Ron Ledbury and PDXAPE

Change will come not so much from the Legislature, or public adminsitrators or the Courts. It will come from the Tier III employees, and perhaps some Tier II's as soon as working Tier I's are in the minority in the Public Employee unions.

PDXAPE appears to be persuing the most economically rational approach for non-Tier I employees. Its an issue of limited resources and unequal treatment of employees. Tier I's want to focus on revenues, and how public employees deserve a good retirement because of their "low" wages. What about Tier III's? Do they have to take the "low" wage and the average retirement plan they're offered so that Tier I's can keep their current benefit?

As I said in an earlier post, this is an issue public employees must discuss among themselves sooner rather than later. As Ron points out in his links, I don't understand how a union can adequately represent the interests of Tier I's and Tier III's due to the inherent conflict of interest between these different Tiers.

Ronnie L. asks me not to bet on PERS.

You mean someone, oh, like our very shaky President, may come along and try TO SCREW IT UP SIX WAYS TO SUNDAY?

Yup, that's why all my money is in Enron stock! If Enron was W's BIGGEST DONOR EVER, then they must be a safe bet.

Right, Eric? Right, Randy? Right, Ronnie?

Leader A union man

Ronnie L. asks me not to bet on PERS.

You mean someone, oh, like our very shaky President, may come along and try TO SCREW IT UP SIX WAYS TO SUNDAY?

Yup, that's why all my money is in Enron stock! If Enron was W's BIGGEST DONOR EVER, then they must be a safe bet.

Right, Eric? Right, Randy? Right, Ronnie?

Leader A union man

It's interesting that "Bailie" chose these stats from the PERS report:

The generous payout: 1) From 1990-2004, the average retirement benefit for 30 year members equaled 85% of final average salary. 2) From 1990-2004, the average retirement benefit for 31+ year members equaled 91% of final average salary.

RATHER THAN THESE STATISTICS:

Average salary replacement ratio The average annual retirement benefit (1990 to 2004) equaled 63% of final average salary at the time of retirement For those retirees in the most recent year (2004), the average annual retirement benefit equaled 59% of final average salary

PG

PMG,

You say, "RATHER THAN THESE STATISTICS:"

Average salary replacement ratio The average annual retirement benefit (1990 to 2004) equaled 63% of final average salary at the time of retirement For those retirees in the most recent year (2004), the average annual retirement benefit equaled 59% of final average salary

What do the statistics you mention mean? They could be for anyone vested after 5 years or a 35 year employee. I'm actually surprised that the percentage is as high as it is for the data you show.

I think the whole report illustrates the problem PERS is causing for Oregon. As the 36th most affluent state, Oregon is struggling to fulfill the generous commitments that were made. We are now experiencing the economic problems of these commitments.

We teachers think PERS is some kinda cruel joke... there... 25 years in the distance... is some money... a pension... all we have to do is work with 150 kids a day for 25+ years... changing kids twice a year... so... 7500-plus kids later... if a teacher is still standing... one of the very very few who will ever see a full PERS check... well... then congrats-u-freakin-lations!

We made it.

A few thou a month for standing and delivering every day for 25 years. Or the currency equivalent of the few crumbs I saw fall from PGE Peggy's fully-laden table at those City Club luncheons.

So, what's your problem, Bailie and Ronnie? If you are jealous of our benefits, go stand and deliver sometime. That'd be funny. Bailie going over the same 2 = 2 = 5 formula until even the kids think it's true.

Like W and Dark Dick say, it ain't a lie if the morons believe it!

We teachers think PERS is some kinda cruel joke... there... 25 years in the distance... is some money... a pension... all we have to do is work with 150 kids a day for 25+ years... changing kids twice a year... so... 7500-plus kids later... if a teacher is still standing... one of the very very few who will ever see a full PERS check... well... then congrats-u-freakin-lations!

We made it.

A few thou a month for standing and delivering every day for 25 years. Or the currency equivalent of the few crumbs I saw fall from PGE Peggy's fully-laden table at those City Club luncheons.

So, what's your problem, Bailie and Ronnie? If you are jealous of our benefits, go stand and deliver sometime. That'd be funny. Bailie going over the same 2 = 2 = 5 formula until even the kids think it's true.

Like W and Dark Dick say, it ain't a lie if the morons believe it!

Sid,

Perhaps the best way view the federal involvement in all pensions, public and private, is by way of altering the category of recipients of the cash. Suppose that the tax breaks were contingent upon investment in enterprises with a market cap below 25 million. This would effectively eliminate any investment of pension resources in Wall Street. Wall Street would scream if such a reverse scenario were proposed. The NYSE is a voluntary organization that is not entitled to your money.

If the PERF were terminated, and the funds distributed, the odds of it being invested locally is far higher. You could choose to trust the NYSE.

Heya Ron.

Is the NYSE the same crew who gave Mr. Grasso $200,000,000 for shuffling a few papers during his less-than-stellar term as Chairman?

Thought so.

Thanks for playing, but I'll stick with investing in my credit union CDs and local real estate, not a bald midget with a God complex.

Heya Ron.

Is the NYSE the same crew who gave Mr. Grasso $200,000,000 for shuffling a few papers during his less-than-stellar term as Chairman?

Thought so.

Thanks for playing, but I'll stick with investing in my credit union CDs and local real estate, not a bald midget with a God complex.

Sid. I tried to stop our State Treasurer from borrowing money to throw at Wall Street. I do not buy the notion that a lowly actuary that coughs up an assumption is even close to offering any sort of guarantee of a return. The mismatch between promises of future fixed returns that are achievable only though speculative gains in stocks and such was identified as a key problem that needed fixing in 1933. The fix was partially limited to demand deposits that could lead to a run.

By recharacterizing savings as a pension, and by slapping tax penalties on early withdrawal, we stop a run on the bank. Viola, I think I have the answer to a perpetual speculative bubble . . . invite everyone in with the lure of tax breaks and then slam the door of the bank shut and tell people to come back another day, or better yet another decade.

This could have fit on a napkin at a local pub a few decades ago, in New York.

Get some glasses with a polarization filter so that you are not blinded by the glare of the bright lights beaming at you.

Mr. Ledbury would make pension investment tax breaks "contingent upon investment in enterprises with a market cap below 25 million." That approach would cripple the ability of investment managers to apply their expertise to selecting the most rewarding investments for future retirees.

Mr. Leader sees the PERS as offering only "A few thou a month for standing and delivering every day for 25 years," and uses the term "crumbs." If one accepts his view, then a logical corolary is to feel deep compassion for the remaining Oregonians who in the main struggle along on less income than Oregon's public employees and who typically have inferior pension plans, or sometimes none at all.

But public employees do not work solely for pensions. They work because each month, with great reliability, the government provides monetary compensation for that month's work. Twenty five years of work earns 25 years of income that averages more than the average income of non-governmentally employed Oregonians.

Hey marvinlee.

So, I left a six-figure a year job at CNN for a $30,000 year job teaching for... stability?

In the past ten years, PPS has fired hundreds of teachers to keep our taxes 46th cheapest outta 50 states, according to www.taxfoundation.org.

CNN has fired one person in that same time period that I know of.

So your argument is specious.

Y'all are delusional if you think we don't pay enough taxes.

Oregon ranks #5 out of 50 states in per capita income tax collections, measured by dollars collected. Oregon is the 5th most expensive state in which to pay income taxes. The four "more expensive" states are: New York, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Connecticut. Notably, all four states have higher per capita incomes, which makes Oregon the third most expensive state to live in based soley on our State Income Tax burden.

Clearly, we are in the minority of states with no sales tax, but we do have higher property, liquor, and lottery taxes than the median.

Facts are stubborn things.

If you measure all state and local taxes, Oregon ranks 29th from the top (Table 32). Hardly a "cheap" place to live from a total tax burden perspective.

source... http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/255.html#f28a66d3d4301bfae71cc27fea56fe80

According to the above tax foundation publication (Table 15 "State Individual Income Tax Collections, Per Capita FY2002)

marvinlee observes:

"But public employees do not work solely for pensions. They work because each month, with great reliability, the government provides monetary compensation for that month's work. Twenty five years of work earns 25 years of income that averages more than the average income of non-governmentally employed Oregonians."

Duh. I hope my salary was higher than the AVERAGE income of non-governmentally employed Oregonians. I do hold a PhD and did expect to get paid slightly higher than average wages. But, your generalization is breathtaking. Why don't you compare apples with something other than okra? As I've said repeatedly, averages like this are utterly meaningless. Even bailie's statistics have more meaning than your statistical statement. I congratulate you for your keen perception of both the obvious and the meaningless statistic.

YO! Sid Leader. I don't know how you ever got a job at CNN. You certainly weren't a fact checker. Ever heard of GOOGLE. Try typing "CNN Layoffs" and see what you get. Whole lot of job security in the private sector, eh.

CNN Layoffs 03.12.2001 - Revised: 03.30.2002

Note: This list is a comprehensive listing of former CNNers resulting from retirements and layoffs. It does not serve to be the definitive or exhaustive list. Information has been gathered from various web resources such as news articles, Tedsturnovers.com [no more], and TVSpy.com - all subject to verification from the CNN Anchors & Reporters page. This page may change without notice.

Here is a list of the anchors/reporters that left CNN in no particular order:

Retired: Bernard Shaw Lynne Russell Charles Bierbauer Frank Sesno (resigned as Washington DC bureau chief) Bobbie Battista Kysa Daniels - resigned Andrea Thompson - resigned

Released/ Layoffs Round 2 - September to December 2001: Initial Wave (right after 9/11) Fred Hickman Vince Cellini Lou Waters Natalie Allen

Second Wave Bill Tush Eileen O'Conner Donna Kelley Jill Brown Dave Hennen Karen Magannis Brian Nelson Paul Vercammen Stephanie Oswald Denise Dillon Brad Huffines Kevin Corriveau Tony Clark Brooke Alexander Laurin Sydney Rick Lockridge Alexa Lee

Moved: Roger Cossack (Court TV "Open Court") Tamala Edwards (ABC News) Jacque Reid (BET News) Greta Van Susteren (Faux News Channel) Joie Chen (CBS News) Patricia Sabga (NBC London)

Re-hired: Charles Molinaux - transferred to Headline News Holly Firfer - general assignment reported and rotating anchor for Daybreak

Layoffs Round 1 - February 2001: Gene Randall Sonia Ruseler Perri Peltz Tony Guida Bill Tucker Prudence Solomon Ceci Rogers Jim Moret Flip Spiceland Elsa Klensch Carl Rochelle Greg LaMotte Greg Lefevre Beverly Schuch Lauren Theirre Charles Zewe Holly Firfer Chris Black Dan Ronan Inga Hammond Don Knapp Jim Hill Jennifer Auther Nick Charles Ed Garsten Bob Beard Jesse Jackson

Moby Facts writes:

"If you measure all state and local taxes, Oregon ranks 29th from the top (Table 32). Hardly a "cheap" place to live from a total tax burden perspective."

Absolutely correct! But, being 29th from the top (NY wins, but DC is actually worse but appears not to be ranked at all) means that Oregon is BELOW the median tax burden nationally; it is also below the national average as well. (I also suspect that Oregon's ranking might be even lower if they don't include Multnomah County's iTax).

I don't think Oregon is an "expensive" place to live; I don't think it's necessary "cheap" either. I figure that having taxes below the median for the country is just about right. But that's my opinion; I could be wrong.

Gee, Moby, I worked with TONS of those folks... Lynne Russell used to show me her gun... after hours. It is twice the size of Lars' gun, fer sure!

I was talking about CNN rank-and-file... Ted Turner... who hired me... did not believe in firing the writers and producers or even a Supervising Producer, like myself. Without us, he'd still be in the billboard business, like his deceased father.

So, sorry for the misunderstanding... but a LIST OF MILLIONAIRES WITH SIX-FIGURE SEVERANCES... is hardly a layoff notice tacked to the wall at BESC, is it, Moby?

But, as always, thanks for playing!

YO SID!

Maybe you heard the news: Ted Turner sold the place to Time Warner. Guess what? They didn't follow his "no-layoffs of rank and file" policy. I've attached a link to one of the larger layoffs: 400 people got the ax that week (there were several rounds...mostly in back office functions)...Guess you and Bernie Shaw left just in time.

http://news.earthweb.com/bus-news/print.php/562651

ATLANTA -- The much-rumored and highly-anticipated layoffs at CNN were unveiled Wednesday and no department felt the brunt of the dreaded pink slips more than CNN Interactive.

CNN Interactive will lose one-third of its employees in the Atlanta-based media giant's sweeping layoffs. Other cuts will come from CNN programming and other sectors of the company.

In addition to the job cuts, CNN Interactive president Scott Woefel announced his resignation. Edna Johnson, spokesperson for CNN Interactive, confirmed Woefel's resignation.

The job cuts are in response to CNN's desire to combine its various news units into a single cohesive entity, according to a statement released by CNN officials. The layoffs will reach throughout CNN's worldwide operations of 4,350 workers, 2,800 of whom are based in Atlanta. At press time, it is not known how many employees will be cut from any of CNN's operations around the globe.

The streamlining will include bringing together all CNN's news-gathering units - television, radio and Internet sectors - into one cohesive unit. In the past, employees have been "assigned" to separate operations.

CNN Newsgathering President Eason Jordan sent a memo to all employees detailing the massive restructuring plan. In the memo, Jordan said:

"I am an outspoken advocate of revolutionary change within CNN and am the architect of many of the initiatives we are implementing across the News Group, especially in Newsgathering�.This process initially will be painful for us because approximately 400 of our colleagues, our friends, will be leaving CNN due to these changes�.Those whose jobs are being eliminated will be told by their managers the week of Jan. 22�."

Eason?

Known him 20 years now... started on the overnight shift working for Jeannie... at Techwood... watching him go from graveyard shift pushing ITV tape... to President of CNN. Wow.

Now, he's pushing his resume somewhere after getting bagged in a big "Krakatoa, West of Java" way. Or was it East?

Anyway, it pays to keep up, friend. Most of those folks were never fired or transferred to one of the other 50,000,000 or so jobs AOL/TW has around the world.

Oh, and Jesse Jackson was never laid off from CNN. He was a talking head and not a very good one at that. Paid by the adjective.

Now, his Father! Well, I'm saving my Jesse Jackson/CNN story for my book. And it ain't going to remaindered in two days like "Bill O'Reilly Makes Kids Gag at Christmas" book, definitely.

Sid Leader wrote:

So, I left a six-figure a year job at CNN for a $30,000 year job teaching for... stability?

In the past ten years, PPS has fired hundreds of teachers to keep our taxes 46th cheapest outta 50 states, according to www.taxfoundation.org.CNN has fired one person in that same time period that I know of.

So your argument is specious. Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black to me.

SID: Your claim that Oregon ranks 46th in taxation is wrong. Your "specious" claim of only 1 layoff in the previous 10 years at CNN is also bogus. The guys you used to work with at CNN are now running the place, but you resent the public sector for providing you superior job security? Sounds like sour grapes to me.

Man, are y'all mixed up.

I'm not re-hashing the entire argument here, that's a stupid GOP ploy, but PPS, Salem and former PPS Superintendent Jim Scherzinger, a CPA by trade, all stand by the 46/50 tax burden. Burden.

The above posts, challenging though intellectually barren, are riddled with errors that would even make Lars choke on his gun barrel as he contemplates his newest KXL advertiser buy card.

Oh, and Moby (love the CD!) says we have some of the highest liquor taxes in the country, when the FACT is we have the second-lowest in the country, according to our camera-shy liquor lobby, but what do they know, they're probably drinking the profits!

In fact, Missouri, Wisconsin and Wyoming are only three states with higher beer taxes. In fact, many states have three to five times the beer taxes we do.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=349&Topic2id=90

As Ted Turner once told me, "Sid, a modem is a terrible thing to waste".

Back to pensions and promises.

It would seem irrelevant, for purposes of defining the contours of a contract, whether we ranked first or last in pay or tax burden or disparity between private sector and public sector employment.

The state themselves in their brief for the consolidated PERS cases asked for a remedy that was based on the notion of some unmeasurable burden upon the tax payers if the modifications were not allowed. So all the yammering about goodness and badness and rankings as argued here are not too far afield from the state's argument.

I said that the state's requested justification was just too wishy washy and would transfer to the judiciary the balancing of priorities that should remain a legislative choice.

The script for the case started with the assumption of liability and then all sides, all but me, argued for an excuse. I say there was zero liability (as to the fund and investment losses) and that the focus should be on a justification of the delivery of more dollars than that which the legislature was compelled to deliver, which was zero, as they could terminate PERS and not deliver a dime more than what was in the fund.

The notion of sticking with a legislative contract, particularly for those already retired, is not unrelated to the problems with the case that I noted. I don't recall even seeing a court notation to the ECONorthwest study predicting calamity if the claimed reductions were not upheld.

The continuing challenges relate to the lack of a proper case being filed. The arrows that one tosses must be pegged to actually altering the outcome in a future case. The ranking stuff is not such an arrow. Nor is Sid's claimed lost-opportunity argument relevant.

"But, as always, thanks for playing!"

Sounds like you have been on the receiving end of "talk to the hand" by your students and that you are parroting their direct responses to you. Perhaps they are learning it from you? Either way, it is you that is using it here.

"remedy" should read "justification"

Heya Ron,

See you in court.

Sooner... rather than later.

Sidney p.s. My 150 kids a day say hi... we learn all day and laugh all day... one of my favorite kids went home humming "I Am Pretty" last night... leaving me laughing as I walked to my car well after quitting time.

Sid,

So you use talk-to-the-hand only against adults? Heck, notable tyrants around the world have cheering child supporters. As if that were proof of their own goodness.

Am I supposed to respond as would a pair squabbling neighboring kids, each arguing that their dads will kick the butt of the other? How cute.

I am sure you can find a good course on interpersonal relations and then explore the notion of hit and run as a destructive method of argument. My two bits.

A lawyer that would make a threat of a law suit if they did not follow through would find themselves in a potential ethics bind. But then, I have no expectation that you understand the finer points of such matters, as is self-evident. Go find a lawyer and chat and then get back to me. The OSB has an automated service for delivering a few names and numbers. Be sure to ask them what my counter claims might be.

Back to pensions and promises . . .?

Just a turn of a phrase, Ronnie.

No need to get your panties in a twist.

Or is there?

I must admit that I totally agree with your analysis.