Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

frankybling t1_iudpxu5 wrote

Reply to comment by NotCleverNamesTaken in Mass. Tax Refunds Will Start To Flow On Tuesday by husky5050

while I agree to a point… I don’t want them to just throw money at the issue without more accountability though. I like the T but it really feels like there’s been millions squandered on poorly written contracts for employees (possibly intentionally made that way) that provide 80% pensions (maybe more) for employees after 25 years of service… meaning that if you started working at 21 you could “retire” from the T and collect 80% of your three highest paying years for the rest of your life… at 46 years old! that’s a bad contract with our tax money. Obviously the T needs to be fixed but I want more accountability from the appointed officials before I hand them a blank check.

35

alongfield t1_iudsqhe wrote

That's about how it works for most every public service job, including military. You put in your years and you get the average of your last few years of pay. I've run across everything from 20-35 years of service to get full benefits.

You don't get blank checks in government. You get budgets that are written and approved before the year starts. In some states the excess would've gone to a general fund. In MA it has to go back to the taxpayers.

SO no, it isn't a "bad contract with our tax money", it's just a pension, like most every other pension anywhere else, both in the US and many other countries. It's how better places take care of their long-term employees.

26

frankybling t1_iudsz1d wrote

how do you retain employees after the 25 year mark? Also, military pension is not 80% neither are many other public sector jobs.

I understand how budgets work and I see how well the T has been maintained, that works for you?

5

alongfield t1_iudusz7 wrote

Nope, it doesn't, but I also think public transit should be 100% public operated. There still wouldn't be a "blank check" any way you did it.

Ask most US employers from 1945 - 1980. Most jobs had pensions until voodoo economics and boomer greed took over everywhere. Fucking Reagan made sure all that stopped when he signed a couple of nasty laws that have been screwing us ever since.

As far as "but what after 25 years"... I don't give a damn. You work to live, not live to work. They can go find someone else to take over. You've put in more than enough.

Every state job pays out a pension, and some of them are 75%-80%. Like the police.

18

1959Gibson t1_iueg2l3 wrote

You let them retire with some comfort. This isn’t China

2

frankybling t1_iuehsrb wrote

retiring at 46 years old? That isn’t what’s happening anymore, but certainly for the people that got that deal they definitely get to retire very young and reasonably comfortable. I’m probably really jealous about that. Can you retire at 46 with a blue collar job anywhere else with taxpayer funds?

4

clean_confusion t1_iugggvc wrote

Worth noting that most of the CBAs don't allow you to start collecting your pension at 46... you fully vest after 20-30 years, meaning that you're eligible for the max amount when you do start taking out, but you still might not be able to start collecting until 60, 65 etc. (And yes, the retirement age, vesting time, and contribution percentage have all gotten significantly higher over the last several decades, while real wages have decreased, so those currently receiving benefits got a much better deal than those currently paying in.)

8

1959Gibson t1_iueke6t wrote

This is the classic case of arguing against something good because of envy . The argument should not be why do they get to retire at 46 ? The question to argue should be why do I have to work until I’m 65 to retire ???

5

DulcineaC t1_iuikdmv wrote

Because workers need 25 years of service AND to be of an eligible age before they can receive pension payments. At least for most state agencies. So even if you have 25 years of service you still aren’t getting your pension until you’re 68 ( age might be lower depending when you started).

1

psychicsword t1_iueuhtc wrote

> That's about how it works for most every public service job, including military.

The existence of other contracts with similar terms doesn't make this a good deal in this case.

1

bakgwailo t1_iudsq59 wrote

As of 2012, you need 25 years of service and be at least 55 years old to retire, and the T is currently trying to bump that to 65. Nice try, though, at least we know what Howie Carr's Reddit burner account is.

17

frankybling t1_iudtcmg wrote

Howie Carr? Is he still around? (seriously I remember him from before I stopped reading newspapers, I figured he’d be retired by now too)… I just don’t think there’s enough accountability specifically within the MBTA to be sending them more money without a good public facing plan.

Also… fuck you

4

Accurate-Temporary73 t1_iuea0rz wrote

Don’t forget about the MASSIVE contract with that crappy Chinese company CRRC for the new train cars.

They’re years behind schedule, way over budget, and have had numerous mechanics failures on the few cars that were delivered.

They tried to save a few bucks by not going with Bombardier or one of the other US/Canada based companies and it’s biting them in the ass.

12

rip_wallace t1_iugkyoi wrote

What other US company? Lol

3

bakgwailo t1_iuiznul wrote

There are none. And Bombardier basically just got blacklisted by the MTA for fucking up the r211 order so badly.

1

rip_wallace t1_iuj0bue wrote

Exactly. The CRRC contract sucked because we asked them to build a factory in Springfield and provide manufacturing jobs despite Americas move away from those types of jobs

2

thejosharms t1_iuefish wrote

You could be upset about how that's a bad deal for taxpayers, or instead you could be upset why this isn't the standard for private companies and we all don't get to retire at a reasonable age with a pension and get to enjoy our time instead of working until we physically can't do it anymore.

You could also just go to work for the MBTA for yourself right? Then you'll get your vested pension you've earned after 25 years of public service. Also how many people do you know stay with one organization for 25 years?

2

frankybling t1_iueh0zv wrote

angry about both and got shut out when I applied at the MBTA in the 90’s and the job literally went to a friend of mine who’s last name rhymes with Bulger (remember Whitey’s brother Billy was the Senate President at that point)… this guy is his nephew. I’m still his friend but it was an inside thing… also I’ve been with the same company for 26 years… my pension is fully vested but it’s at 60% of my 3 top years. This seems pretty standard for folks that are able to still get pensions from their workplace. I also agree with the separate point (in my mind) that all companies should provide a pension, but this isn’t even what I’m talking about totally just one part that popped into my head about money being spent that should have been negotiated differently. I also don’t begrudge the people that got the sweet deal while it was available… it isn’t available anymore, but the money must still be paid to those that earned it in the 90’s.

4

DulcineaC t1_iuijzy8 wrote

I work in state government and while you do get something like 80% after 20 years of service you ALSO have to reach a certain age ( 68 years old) before you can start receiving the money. So in your example you could quit government at 46 and know that pension is out there waiting for you in another 22 years, but you’d still have to go work somewhere else in the meantime ti support yourself. I don’t know if the contract for T workers is different but I’d be surprised if it were.

2

frankybling t1_iuiy98s wrote

it’s that way now, it was not like that for a long time during the 80’s, 90’s and 00’s.

1

jvpewster t1_iufbv61 wrote

People want functioning government programs to pay poverty wages.

The T isn’t able to staff as is, and people are like “WOW A PENSION FOR 26 years of service?!?!?”

−1

frankybling t1_iufch19 wrote

$100k a year is the carman’s union top scale… that’s not exactly poverty

Before overtime

3

jvpewster t1_iufdog1 wrote

For a career job? Name any business that’s competitive in Boston that’s not paying its top end individual contributors significantly more then that? If pay were that far out of line they wouldn’t have a staff shortage.

−4

Wtf_is_this1234 t1_iufewcs wrote

Most businesses actually don't pay 6 figures to most of their employees. You must live in some magic fantasy land where someone earning $100k/year is considered poor instead of the real world where it's considered above average pay.

1

jvpewster t1_iufgq6h wrote

>most businesses don’t pay most of their employees 6 figures

Neither does the T, or even close to that. It’s the top scale, so the most experienced workers. Most businesses do pay 6 figures to their most experienced employees in roles for careers.

I’m sorry you’re living in a fantasy world if you think you could pay less and hold onto anyone for 5+ years in this economy. 100k a year is enough to buy a very modest house in an area with bad schools now. It’s middle class.

1