Jun 28, 2012 -- 1:35PM, Erey wrote:

Jun 28, 2012 -- 9:01AM, Druac wrote:

Jun 27, 2012 -- 6:28PM, Erey wrote:

Dru here:

cozylibrary.com/?p=1315

 

Then the author visited one last country (the United States, specifically California). Piled on the other stories, reading about California’s problems was just plain sad. When a prison guard in California earns $100,000 and is allowed to retire after five years and receive a pension almost that generous – how can anyone believe that’s sustainable? And California’s political gridlock is not that much different from that of the US Congress … and that doesn’t bode well for any quick recovery from our economic doldrums.

So there was a prison gaurd...somewhere in California that retired after five years and was making $100,000.00? And this was simply a mention in a book?

I still don't buy it. In fact, the only thing I can find on this is that exact statement...echoed through the Internet...like most "facts" echoed through the Internet.

I still don't buy it.

I think it was a real trend in Ca to have these tremendous unsustainable benefits for state and municipal employees.  I find it rude to ask for sources and then be a jerk about it.  This source is a review of a book, a highly celebrated book that discussed the global economic meltdown.   If you are honest you will research the subject on your own and look into where unions coupled with politicians screwed society. 

LOL...rude...well here is some more rudeness for you. Pay attention to what I actually wrote. I wasn't arguing that point...only the validity of the one example you sited. I agree whole heartedly with your last statement and wasn't arguing that. I have agreed to that point before on these forums.

I still don't see evidence to show this actually happened...that is what I am looking for...and have looked for it on my own with no success…which was my other point...which hopefully you can now understand.

Jun 28, 2012 -- 3:32PM, Qwesam wrote:

Jun 27, 2012 -- 3:12PM, Erey wrote:

I don't know about Stockton, CA but I do know there were other CA cities where the unions "negotiated" such high unsustainable benefits it created a bankruptcy style situation.  Also on the state level this happened too.

The clearest example I can remember is prision guards/workers were eligible for 80% retirement after only working for 5 years.  So people were becomming prision guards at say 40, retiring at 45 and set for life. 

 

unions IMO are like any other special interst.  Not bad in and of themselves but pretty much will abuse the situation if given the opportunity.  They will and have sabotoged themselves by creating unsustainable situations. 

 

Actually, in california...>

California They can retire as early as age 50 with 5 years of service. Normal retirement in this

formula is age 50.

www.ncsl.org/Portals/1/Documents/employ/...

Thank you so you can join at age 45 work for 5 years and then the state has to support you until you die which is easily another 20-30 years on average. 

Thanks to you Find1.  just because it is a union does not mean it is good.  However in this case, I don't blame the unions wholly. unions like corporations are self interested entities.   For politicians have to agree to this kind of thing and they do because they reap the rewards of friends in high places and then they are gone before they have to be held accountable.