Comments on: Pension Fight Heats Up In Supreme Court

By: NHS

NHS — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 21:08:17 +0000

This is a violation of a contract that was agreed upon by the workers and the employers. It ended up basically being a pay cut for people that were already making less than those that work in the private sector (not all public workers do, but a lot make less). The workers weren’t even given a raise to make up the loss, it was just told to them that in few months, you’ll be making less money. Most people take these jobs for the benefits. The education system is already going downhill, and because the benefit packages available in Florida keep getting worse, the better teachers will keep staying away. I find it very interesting that the officials that make these laws and keep putting more on the backs of the middle class refuse to make any sacrifices of their own.

By: jesse

jesse — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 01:24:20 +0000

The annual salary for state senators is for life with nothing contributed by them.
The annual salary for Pam Bondi is for life no contribution from her.
House members for life.
State chief financial officer for life.
These are the people who introduced defended, voted on and passed the state employee contribution to state retirement bill, but they placed a clause in the bill excluding elected officials. Therefore they keep their obscene pension of full salary for life after serving 8 years part time while asking state employees to take a percentage of their salary after working full time for 25 to 30 years. They have also refused to give state employees a cost of living raise for the past 7 years while voting themselves one most every year. Now where do you all think the cuts should be made.

By: Bob Z.

Bob Z. — Wed, 13 Jun 2012 15:03:43 +0000

If you pay for your retirement you accepted that fact; I work for the State and accepted my position that included a paid retirement. And I accepted a lower salary that I would have made in the private sector based on the benefits provided. I find it hard to believe how some cannot understand how clear cut this is!

By: David Huie Green

David Huie Green — Wed, 13 Jun 2012 13:54:35 +0000

REGARDING:
“why shouldn’t the public workers pay for theirs?”

You pay according to the rules you were hired under. The state is wanting to change the rules AFTER hiring. Some hired on because of the setup in place at the time, therefore that was part of their pay. Requiring it for new hires is not a violation of existing contract. Unilaterally changing the contract IS a violation of contract.

For an analogy, imagine selling something you own for a thousand dollars a month and then the buyer tells you he has decided you are getting too much and he will now only pay $970 per month. Would that seem fair to you?

David explaining or trying

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 13 Jun 2012 13:23:05 +0000

If you were hired in at a salary of $15 an hour which you were promised would stay the same for your career. All of the sudden your boss comes in and says, “Oh sorry, now you make $12 an hour.” Would you feel cheated? Most public employees were hired in under this and now they are forcing already established employees to pay for a retirement that was promised to be free. These jobs include cops, firemen, (I think) teachers, among other already financially strained careers which most have not seen a raise in 10 years. This is where the problem lies. Also, I believe there is something in Florida consitution prohibiting this, but dont quote me.

By: Jane

Jane — Wed, 13 Jun 2012 12:30:24 +0000

I pay for my retirement, why shouldn’t the public workers pay for theirs? I didn’t ask someone else to pay for my retirement.