It used to be (I don't know about now) that 20 years in the military got you a half-salary for life, which meant I knew guys who "retired" at 40.

Some points:

--$55,000 a year is *not* "good money" in New York City, where it's been calculated one needs about $65,000 for a family of four to get by.

--Take a look at this post by a TWU worker. It explains a great deal about why early retirement is appropriate.

--Other municipal unions (police, fire, santitaton) have the same retirement age, 55, and i the last negotiation with the teachers, Bloomberg promised to support their bid for early retirement with the state legislature. What the TWU wanted was to remain at parity with their compatriots.

I'm self-employed. I agree that if you work for a pension, you should get what was agreed to.

But for a lot of us, a pension is something that just isn't going to happen.

It used to be you could enlist, get out, get a federal job, retire, and then collect your military pension, your federal pension, and Social Security.

Somehow, the outrage wasn't that great, except for the dipping into the well three times. I guess because in those days, people thought a pension came as part of the American Dream, like a car or house.

Boy, we were so deluded back in those liberal Eisenhower days.

It took me three and a half hours to get home on Wednesday, including a 66 block walk, and Kevin, I think you are full of it. Most people don't breathe steel dust and asbestos on a daily basis. And even if most people don't have pensions as good as the TWU's, maybe that's because most people aren't unionized. The reasoning that the TWU should accept a cut in benefits because most nonunionized workers have it worse is perverse to say the least. That's a slave mentality that would allow companies to cut benefits to nothing, as workers blithely shrugged, "Hey, most people have it worse."

I'm surprised that someone thinks
1. That a family can live in NYC on 55K a year and be upwardly mobile.

and
2. you can retire on 27K a year and live within NYC and not eat dog food 3 times a week. Not gonna happen.

Most of the point of sweet early 55 retirement is to get a turnover. People become expensive as they get older. There is salary but also there is health insurance. The older you get the more expensive you are to insure.

Also since the 80's the notion that anyone who has been around for 25 years and/or is 55 is almost by definition deadwood-resistant to change, inflexible. True or not that has been a management mantra.

So it seems to me that the implication that the union has a sweet deal and that it is somehow their fault is a bit excessive. You can likely find similar arrangements in any insurance company which is just chock full of white collar non-union types and they have that deal for exactly the same reasons.

If they are going to raise the age of pensions for the transit workers they should start weaning the merc's ( thugs in uniform present military) of the government dole as well.

No military pensions until 65.

This post is uninteresting in and of itself. This post would be more interesting if you posted statistics as to what percentage of Americans are eligible for early-retirement (perhaps comparing that to 1960, and 1980).

And boobies. The post would be more interesting with boobies.

Think of the boobies!

I was amused to see comments over at the TWU's "unofficial blog" (apparently the comments were removed at some point, though Instapundit links to someone who mirrored them) from people saying they didn't want no stinkin' coughin' 62-year-olds driving the bus anyway.

If this were about anyone but old people, it'd be bigotry. As it is, I'll take the posters' word for it that it's all about the safety of the public. I do hope that the people wanting TWU members to retire at 55 attempt to make that mandatory, since having someone over age 55 driving a bus (or a train) is apparently unsafe for the passengers.

Dudes, walk, already.

Ed: What's the median salary in NYC? I'll bet it's less than $55K. But in any case, like I said, I don't have any problem with TWU's salary structure.

Technowitch: everyone agrees that current workers who were promised a pension are entitled to whatever they were promised. I don't think that's an issue.

Tia: Generally I agree, but there are limits. The status quo isn't always reasonable, and retirement at age 55 with only 25 years of service seems hard to defend. I think most Americans (including me) are fine with the idea of decent pay for hard work, but equate sweet retirement plans like TWU's (and others) as an excuse to avoid hard work. In the end, it probably reduces support for unions.

On the health issues and working conditions: I don't know much about this, but if it's really as bad as everyone is saying, the union ought to be pushing for better working conditions, not early retirement. Something doesn't add up there.

because in those days, people thought a pension came as part of the American Dream

Pensions are deferred compensation. The deal on them is work now but get paid later. I don't know how they ever came to be considered a gift...they are earned.

Those companies that are bailing on their pension promises are stealing from their employees.

--Emma

Thanks for advocating a race to the bottom Kevin.
Lets pit workers without adequate pensions against workers with adequate pensions. Teachers, veterans, policemen, fire-fighters. Lavish lifestyles!

The transit workers were right to strike, and damn-it, if you think their pension is so great, learn to control a train or bus. New York is the most expensive place on earth and dangerous too. How would you like to cut your way through it for hours and hours a day for a barely living wage?

When do we start caring for people again and congratulating them for decades of service?

Kevin-- some of the previous commenters on federal excesses are absolutely right. I am a federal employee who is under what is called the "FERS" system, which started around 1986. Most civilian feds who were hired after that date are on this program, which consists of a modest pension, but is primarily funded by the 401(k)-like Thrift Savings Plan, into which employees contribute, and the feds match up to a certain limit. It's a nice deal but nothing excessive.

But, just about all of the feds retiring now are doing so under the CSRS (Civil Service Retirement System), under which persons can retire with thirty years of service at age 55, and get about 70% of their salary as a pension!!!

And the number of people who double dip-- i.e., take retirement from the gov or the military and then come back and work as consultants, often making more as consultants than they ever did as employees, is astounding.

Finally, I think the commenters who disagreed with you about this being an excessively good deal for NYC transit employees are right. Compare that to your typical private sector retirement plan (ok, so many folks don't have ANY pension) and it is probably at or slightly below average.

Keep up the good work.

sometime in the past the unions asked for the pension deal they now have. do you blame them for asking? sometime after they asked for the deal, presumably after due consideration, management agreed to it. whose fault is this deal again? and after *you* worked for 24 years would it be ok with you to change the deal? as a previous poster pointed out, pensions are deferred compensation, not presents from santa.

I don't really have any bigger point to make here.

I have made the point that public employee unions are illiberal. Automatic Democratic support for them is frequently not in the public interest, and probably not in the interest of the Democratic party. Obviously, unions are not uniformly and automatically bad, but they are not uniformly and automatically good either, and their strong influence in the Democratic party is a flaw in the Democratic party that you ought to examine more.

In the recent California elections the public employee unions spent much more money opposing Gov. Schwarzenegger's initiatives than his supporters (including businesses) spent supporting the initiatives. Anybody concerned with the supposedly malign influence of money in politics needs to be concerned with this. Since the money comes from taxpayers who have to pay or go to jail, we have a system where taxpayers fund the efforts to raise their own taxes. It's not malign (to quote myself), but a person who worries more about corporate influence than union influence needs to reconsider.

Still looking for the specific reference to the amount a family of four needs to get by in NYC, but untl I find it, there's this:

New York City is one of the most expensive cities to live in. Mercer Resource Consulting ranked as the 12th most expensive city in the world with Tokyo at number one, London at number two and Moscow at number three. In 2003, New York was ranked ten but due to currency fluctuations between the dollar and the Euro, 1:1, 0.8:1, European cities have surged to the top. Within the United States, New York remains the most expensive city with Los Angeles at twenty-seven and Chicago at thirty-five. The median income of a New York is $60,765, $10,000 more than the national median. Based on a US average at an index of 100.0, the overall cost of living in New York is 189.1. Housing is almost triple the national average at $314,000 for a house and $2,483.64 for one months rent of a two bedroom apartment. Secondary education is about $2,000 more than the national average at $7,428. Utilities, including electricity and gas, are almost twice the national index at 179.9. Food and groceries is about 1.5x the nation's index at 142.5. A mere cup of coffee with table service is $5.48 while in Buenos Aires, ranked 141st, the same service costs $1.10. In fact, despite attaining a lower ranking than cities like London and Tokyo, one thing remains the most expensive in New York, phone service for one month at $25.99. The cheapest city surveyed by Mercer Resource Consulting was Pittsburgh ranked 112th. According to the index, a person who earns $50,000 in Pittsburgh will need $97,9776 in New York. Overall, New York City is two-times as expensive as any other city in the United States.

Kevin:

As reported, the median income in NYC is $60,765.

DH,

You're wrong about CSRS, a 55 year old with 30 years of service would get only 56% of their average salary (NOT 70%).

I think Kevin is correct, but not for the reasons some of the posters seem to think. Its not that the municipal unions somehow have an unfair advantage in having an early pension and so need to be spanked. It is that the system that developed over time doesnt make demographic sense. Many of the age threshholds of the old economy were set at a time when many Americans died in their 50s and 60s of heart attacks and lung cancer. Also, our growing population had many more yound people relative to old. If people live longer in the care of modern medicine and more sensible life habits, young workers must become much more productive to support the growing ranks of oldsters. There is a limit to how much increased productivity can accomplish, and oldsters are healthier than before. (Everyone can think of counter examples, but spend some time reviewing the lives of mid-century Americans and you will be shocked at how young many of them were at death.)

So I think we are all, as a society, need to adjust to the concept of working longer. Maybe not at the same jobs. This means that we need to pay attention to the workplace more. It would be wiser to invest energy to improve the environment at work than to defend a set of retirement threshholds that are unsustainable demographically.

So, by the stats I just posted, a TWU worker earning $55,000 is the equivalent of a worker in Pittsburg earning $28,000. The national Federal poverty threshold (wide thought to be too low) for a family of 4 is $18,850.

Whatever way you slice is, $55,000 is *not* comfortably middle class in NYC. Knowing this is not a matter of knowing stats: I live here, our family income is higher than that, and we're definitely struggling. We're not starving, there's always food and clothes, but we live paycheck to paycheck and sometimes have to put aside some bills until we can afford to pay them.

I would say that $100,000 is comfortably middle class here.

Kevin if you are concerned about this you should also be concerned about similar situation closer to Irvine.

niversity of California system, if you retire after 25 years at 55, you get half of your salary as pension for life, with health benefits.

Papageno: there is enough to go around. People who grouse about public unions and unions in general are simply wrong. There is nothing wrong with people making a living wage. There is a weird dynamic about the value of work and hence, the value of people in this country. I would like to see more wage equity in America, and I would like to see an age where unios are not necessary to ensure a decent way of life-but I don't think Democrats should ever propound that some workers have it too good. People working in Wendys or Washington Monthly should be respected, and should have a reasonable chance at upward mobility. Those grousing about municipal, state or federal pensions, are clueless--it is sad when the only decent retirement income is from government service. Business should have shared more all along. There is a great post over at Kos tonight on this issue. Work should be valued, but workers more valued. Kevin's naive posting here shows that even progressives have much to learn.
There is enough for everyone, but we are tearing each other apart for the scraps at the bottom.

And I should point out, that retiring frees jobs for the 10-million workers who gave up finding a job in this economy. We should encourage 20-25 pensions in all jobs to give more workers a chance at finding a chance at upward mobility. Or we can just open up more large Wal-Marts next to the shelters and free clinics in every town. Look at Judy Miller's pension should you want to scream about unwarranted compensation. Or any CEO. Somehow, those don't get the MSM coverage.

$55K with overtime is hardly a great salary. Just because Republican administartions gutted the Labor department to allow everyone to suddenly be salaried workers means that only union employees tend tog et overtime. And their pension would be half of their base salary which is likely closer to $40-45K so a pension of $20K or so.

KEVIN DRUM: But retiring at age 55, with 25 years on the job, at half salary? I support unions and I support the notion that Americans work too much — but even so that strikes as indefensible.

KEVIN DRUM [a bit later] ..retirement at age 55 with only 25 years of service seems hard to defend.

What strikes me is that I've never seen a post from you bemoaning the fact that millions of people devote decades of their lives to their jobs only to be left without any pension at all. And I don't see posts from you complaining about the obscene pensions given to those whose salaries should have insured their comfort without any further drain on society.

Like so many pseudo-liberals, you are married not to equality or even fairness, but to elitism. You actually believe that being born with wealth or beauty or talents or industrious parents or any number of other guiding hands are not rewards enough on their own. You believe such good fortune deserves further reward, ad infinitum. Tell me, do you also buy into congress's favorite reason for upping their pay? Namely, that in order to get the best and brightest we have to pay them ever more? Right. I guess that's why our lawmakers today represent the current state of perfectibility.

Your outrage, even in its revised and reduced form, is ugly and pretentiously patrician. If the time comes when transit workers are no longer needed, when it occurs that any of the lowest level of laborers are obsolete for lack of their necessity, then will be the time to decry their overpayment of salary or benefits. New York was brought to its knees as a result of the transit strike, but if Bill Gates calls in sick tomorrow it will cause not even a ripple at Microsoft, much less in New York.

Sorry my last post of somehow truncated.

In the University of California system, if you retire after 25 years at 55, you get half of your salary as pension for life, with health benefits. And if you retire at 60 with 30 years of service, you get 75% of salary as pension for life, duly indexed for inflation. (the factor is 2.5% per year of service if you retir after 60, 2% otherwise.)

Rather than complain about such generous packages we should try to make sure that all of us get it.

Sounds like the slam against NYC transit workers has as much credence as the myth of cadillac driving welfare mothers. Just because others are being screwed by this utopian free market system is no reason to go after those who are maybe just making it in their marketplace.
A true liberal would be working for a living wage for all, affordable housing, universal health care and education, a reduction in the absurd disparity between wages,salaries, and benefits at the ends of the continuum, hefty short term capital gains taxes, estate taxes, progressive taxes, global labor standards....

According to this 2000 report, the monthly self-sufficiency wage for 2 adults with 2 kids (a preschooler and a schoolage kid) in New York City is (by county):

Bronx - $4,006 per month ($48,072/yr)
Brooklyn - $4,107 ($49,284)
Lower Manhattan - $6,328 ($75,936)
Upper Manhattan - $4,373 ($52,476)
Staten Island - $4,248 ($50,976)

This is from five years ago, of course, so the current figures would undoubtedly be higher.

The "Self-Sufficiency Standard" is described in this way:

As a standard of income adequacy, the Self-Sufficiency Standard defines the amount of income required to meet basic needs (including paying taxes) in the regular “marketplace” without public or private/informal subsidies. The Standard, therefore, determines the level of income necessary for a given family—whether working now or making the transition to work—to be independent of welfare and/or other public or private subsidies. By providing a measure that is customized to each family’s circumstances, i.e., taking account of where they live, and how old their children are, the Self-Sufficiency Standard makes it possible to determine if a family’s income is enough to meet their basic needs.

I live in lower Manhattan, where the self-sufficiency wage was $76k, which seems pretty correct to me.

"They average $55,000 a year, including overtime."

This is probably misleading. When the Longshoreman struck a couple of years ago they trotted out the same type of statistic !!They average $100,000 a year!! That was the number the New York Times loudly publicized.

Not quite. First of all, they used the wrong average, the mean rather than the median.

Secondly, it was only for fulltime workers, not the 30% who were part timers.

Thirdly, the overtime required for a Longshoreman to make $100k is 20 hours a week. I don't begrudge a good wage to folks working 50% overtime.

All of you who think that the NYC workers get too much salary should apply for a job at the MTA.

Before bemoaning what a rich deal these transit workers get (and calling it indefensible), one might want to get a more complete picture by looking at statistics on the health problems that NYC transit workers face compared to workers in other industries, and their life expectancies. Let me note up front that I do not have these facts, but they are salient to whether the thing can be defended or not. Specifically, I wonder if the 55 retirement age is not that different in actuarial terms from other kinds of retirement plans (with retirement at 65) when all of this is taken into consideration.

I personally do not see how one could even conceive of living in NYC on half of 55K.

McDruid also raises a good point. The coverage has been so slanted against the transit workers that I would not necessarily trust the 55K number without a lot more detail about where it came from.

From the census info in GoogleEarth, the median family income (1999) in New York City was:

New York County (manhattan): $50,229
Queens County: $48,608
Richmond County (Staten Island): $64,330
Kings County (Brooklyn): $36,118
Bronx County: $30,682

Not sure exactly how "family" is defined, but can't be larger than 2 adults + 2 children. Anyway, the point is that contrary to what many posters are saying here, $55K from is a perfectly livable (an above average, and I assure you the average family in New York does not eat dog food even once a week) salary in most of New York City.

As a grad student living in upper Manhattan just a few years ago, I lived perfectly comfortably (with no dependents) on 18K a year.

Oh lookie, here's a real figure, from a source more trustworthy than the New York Times:

Mean hourly wage for New York City transit workers: $21.47 (compared to $19.78 in San Jose, CA and $18.23 in Memphis TN) Median wage is $23/hr.

Annual Mean wage: $44,650 (compared to 41,140 in San Jose and $37,920 in Memphis)

Grade A US government numbers for 2003 from:

http://www.bls.gov/oes/2003/may/oes533021.htm

If you do not like it, do not use the MTA. The labor contract was negotiated in a 'free' market, but eh consumer is not obligated to pay to use the transit system.

Sorry Kevin, love your blog, but jayarbee is right on.

"Your outrage, even in its revised and reduced form, is ugly and pretentiously patrician. If the time comes when transit workers are no longer needed, when it occurs that any of the lowest level of laborers are obsolete for lack of their necessity, then will be the time to decry their overpayment of salary or benefits."

Yep.

I think those of us who work at desk jobs have difficulty appreciating the relatively short work life that is possible for people who do hard labor. My understanding is that most of the MTA jobs are pretty physically demanding. My husband works with people who have become disabled doing jobs like these, who suddenly discover they're only eligible for minimum wage jobs, after being accustomed to making good money. They're in an awful bind. I think it's just not possible for most people to do hard labor after about age 55. It's different for people in white-collar jobs.

Pesnion rates are often set based on the rate of return of the investment fund versus the expected rate of consumption. You have to factor in stock market performance as well as actuarial data for your expected retireees. It may be the case that the pesion managers felt that in the case of the NY transit workers the 50% at 55 formula was workable without a significant increase in employer contribution to the fund. Does anyone have information about this?

A post just to make a lame point. How did Kevin put it, oh yes:

"I don't really have any bigger point to make here."

If Kevin thinks that the transit workers of NYC have it so good, why doesn't he become one? I mean, how many of us in the relative comfort and periphery of white collar work would do many of the jobs that transit workers do? Not many, I bet.

Seems that Kevin is content and willing to have us all race to the bottom when it comes to workers' rights.

One thing is for certain, Kevin; when all you young folks hit the age of 40, you will be looking at life without rose-colored glasses. If you only knew how great my parents had it during the U.S. heyday of a good pension; generous vacation, sick day, wages and health care. The TWU is taking a stand on principle, which is a good lesson for all of us because at least they have a real vision of the future and its not going to be the Tale of Two Cities. Yes, nyc is very, very expensive, and yes, working on the subsway lines is like working the coal mines. Just being a passenger makes you know the stench and filth of the job.

This discussion is full of self-righteousness and a lack of civility (not from all participants mind you).

It's one thing to believe in one's rightness, but it's another to suggest that someone else's disagreement is a moral failing or separates them from being worthy of a group (i.e. "real liberals").

When watching "Bowling For Columbine", I wondered what the movie suggested about Americans vs. Canadians, a question he didn't actually answer.

With Americans, when we disagree, we turn everything into a moral question and demonize those who disagree with us. In that sense, we have not outgrown our Puritanical origins (culturally).

And that pretty much everyone does it (of all political stripes is further evidence).

So that's the larger point.

The smaller point is: People, make your points, I agree with many of them. Don't go after, call names or somehow demean those you're arguing against --it doesn't really strengthen your argument.

I don't understand why people don't generally think that any job should be a good job, with reasonable pay and decent benefits.

There's the attitude that "I don't get that, so why should they?" Which side are you on, bub? You ought to be getting that too. You shouldn't be against the rare American that gets a decent break.

And merry Christmas to all.

Bad Jim,

I don't get that either.

Wishing someone well is the equivalent of employing, "there but for the grace of God go I". Hey, I could be driving a bus if things get tough!

I could be in their shoes and then how would I want to be treated? And if you're making less than them, you should hope that any blue-collar worker does well because in theory that helps you.

Fascinating thing is median income nationally is something like 50k? If that's the case, the highest paid NY Transit workers are only 5k above that? Is that right? Anyone who drive a bus or train in NYC deserves to be well-paid --that's damn hard work. Oh yeah, them and the garbage men .

I wish they had not struck when they did and without better PR in advance, but I don't begrudge them of respect in the form of good pay, benefits and a decent increase for the current contract.

You're awfully glib, Drum.

Others before me have said it well, but to your comment about "On the health issues and working conditions: I don't know much about this, but if it's really as bad as everyone is saying, the union ought to be pushing for better working conditions, not early retirement. Something doesn't add up there."

Have you ever been involved in labor contract negotiations? Without knowing the specifics of the history of what's been the history of the MTA's labor negotiations (but knowledgeable about labor contract negotiations in California's public service sector), I can pretty much guarantee you that the workers have been on the short end of the stick for decades of contracts. What do you think a union can do about health and working conditions when the solution is going to cost what the city says is "bankrupting"?

Here, Drum, what's the solution to this?

Train operators complain about the fear of driving through tunnels filled with debris; female workers recently went public with descriptions of the rusted, filthy, freezing bathrooms provided for them.
Few riders know, for instance, that transit workers have to ask for a day off 30 days in advance. Back in October, in an annual ritual, some MTA workers slept on cots in bus depots so they could be first on line the next morning to ask for permission to take Thanksgiving off.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/local/story/375722p-319283c.html

The solutions to these problems is more money. More money to hire more workers to clear the debris in tunnels, more money to renovate, clean and heat bathrooms, more money to hire more workers so that more workers can get holidays off.

What do you think it would cost to filter the air so that these workers aren't breathing in heavy metal all day long?

The transit authority cries poor:

None of that got mentioned at the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's news conference at the Grand Hyatt on Friday when talks broke down. Peter Kalikow, the MTA chairman, flanked by Executive Director Katherine Lapp and labor negotiator Gary Dellaverson, declared the talks at an impasse and earnestly pleaded that there was no more money to put on the table.
Unfortunately, Kalikow and the MTA have long since thrown away their credibility. The agency lost $300 million to fraud and cost overruns at its own headquarters, leading Attorney General Eliot Spitzer to tell my colleague Michael Goodwin, "Of all the authorities, the MTA is the most mismanaged, least competent one out there, and everybody knows it." That's putting it mildly. This is the agency that Controller Alan Hevesi found kept two sets of books - one for the public, and the real numbers. The same place that claimed a deficit, then a small surplus, and then a billion-dollar surplus - which the MTA voted to spend down last week even as the strike deadline approached.
So when Dellaverson told reporters that "the bucket is full" and that no more money could be offered to workers, it was almost comical. A reporter asked how much money it would take to meet the union's supposedly unreasonable demands, Dellaverson waffled.
"I have a spreadsheet upstairs," he said. "I haven't run it."

Drum, the air didn't stay polluted, the bathrooms didn't go uncleaned, the workers weren't given holidays off for years because of union dereliction. The city chose the cheapest way to get workers to run the transportation system: retirement pension at 55. It wasn't for any other reason than it was cheaper for them to continue to operate their business as a health hazard with miserable working conditions and they weren't going to budge.

When every contract negotiation comes along and a union tries to dig its' heels in, threaten to strike, and a city plays the class card ("They're getting paid a fortune, more than you, and they want to strike, keeping you from getting to work"), a clown like you comes along to help the city. The city, who is keeping a double set of books!

How the hell do you call yourself a democrat, much less a liberal? You've got much to learn about labor negotiations and contracts, especially in the public service sector, before you weigh in with an opinion.

I support unions and I support the notion that Americans work too much, but even so that strikes me as indefensible.
So you don't actually support unions?
Without information your bias is that the union'n position is indefensible?
Shouldn't you have said:
I have a bias against unions and the great unwashed masses so, naturally, this strikes me as indefensible.

Holy Cow! 25 years on a job with a $27,000 a year pension is indefensible? Do you think ANYONE can live on $27K in New York City? Yeah, you're supposed to save, too, but at $55K with two kids in New York that's not so easy.

They have another 10 good years to work another job after that, which is not enough time to get a supplemental pension.

Liberals and progressives need to realize that retirement security is something we should be fighting for, not something to be resented.

And I'm management.

Linkmeister, Trying living on that military retirement as age 40. Impossible. The promise of that retirement check is what Uncle Sam needed to do to get one to miss a whole bunch of Christmas’, children’s birthdays, wedding anniversarys and a lot of other family events.

Dipping, Hey, dude, I payed into Social Security for 45 years. I think I earned that SS check I get every month ‘cuz over 6% of my pay went to the Social Security Administration. And yes afte I served 21 years in the Navy, for which I get a check every month, I went to work as a Computer Specialist for the civilian side of the federal government. And I paid into that retirement system, also.

If it is against the law for transit workers in New York to strike, what incentive is there for management to bargain in good faith?

How many folks reading this blog are a) over 55 years old and b) still doing manual labor? It is nice to have a college education and sit in a clean office. But someone must take care of the subway system. We aren’t talking just train drivers here. Somebody must maintain the track, maintain the cars, maintain the stations, clean up all the refuse et al. And if all they are earning is $55,000 a year, why, hell, they deserve more.

Kevin, I read you several times a day. But I must ask, how long has it been since you’ve had a job where you had to scrape the dirt from under your fingernails after you got off work?

Beardsley pretty well nailed it. He? has a lot more info than I but the feelings are about the same.

> but if it's really as bad as everyone is
> saying, the union ought to be pushing for better
> working conditions, not early retirement.

It is the nature of some jobs, particularly those involving heavy outdoor physical labor (railroads, eh?), that their conditions cannot really be improved. When it is 33 degrees and sleeting someone has to go out in the sleet and unfreeze the switches - and there is no pretty or automated way to do that.

You are also missing one issue: one of the points of the 55-60 retirement requirements is to clear the decks and allow more people to cycle through the jobs that pay decently. It is a deliberate counterbalance to the "winner-take-all" concept that seems to pervade society every 50 years or so (for example, right now). There were plenty of people competing to be CEO General Motors when it paid 750,000/year; there is no need for it to pay 7.5 million. The early outs force the employer to share more of that weath with more citizens.

Cranky

Drum: You are definitely full of crap on this one! Can we see a serious mea culpa?

$27,500 is not much in the New York metro area. All those 55 year olds must look for another job.

Somewhere between funny and sad.

Kevin, how would you improve working conditions? Roofs over the switching yards? (Hint: there are hundreds of acres of switching yards.) Heat the subway tunnels? (NYC has about 650 miles of track.)

And when you compare pay, compare it with other New Yorkers who are responsible for several million dollars worth of investment when they work, not to mention 300 lives or so.

25 years dealing tokens? Why, that ain't no very long time! I wonder what is the longest KD has stayed on a dead-end service job.

Things are better than they used to be. When I was young I worked with guys who pulled nets in Alaska during the Depression. I'll never forget their hands- they were massive, and their remaining fingers didn't bend- they closed on a wrench or line like a coupler on a train closes.

So, maybe today the life expectancy of a motorman isn't just 57, like it was when the age-55 rewtirement was first agreed to. And most of the workers still have all their fingers. That doesn't make it a cushy job.

I also remember a contracter telling me he lost more time due to rain in Los Angeles that he did in Seattle. Yeah, we loves us some Southern California lifestyle, but in most of the country you can't just go inside when the weather turns bad.

I would say it's too bad there isn't a national youth service corps to give people like Kevin an experience of real toil. But the fact is that young people, especially those who were raised for college, could never do the jobs the NYC transit workers do, and still keep the trains running. A "service corps" for these young people would have them pushing brooms for two years, and spending the rest of their lives cursing people who actually work, because you can't learn enough to do a real job in a few years of apprenticeship.

Well, Kevin, you pushed a few buttons with that post.

The points above about what 55 means to a transit worker and the NYC cost of living are good.

I would also like to say that I get a kick out of the position that goes: I don't support them because they have a better deal than I do. Wouldn't it be better think about how to improve your deal than to begrudge others theirs? Maybe we "professionals"--more and more a diluted, meaningless sop to our vanity--could learn a thing or two from "non-exempt" workers.

Just my $0.02 -- and all I can spare.

If I could force 7 million people to walk to work with a strike, I'd demand a hell of a lot more than retirement at 55. If I had to work under the conditions that the TWU does, I'd demand even more.

As for those who complain about luxurious government jobs - work one. When you receive your first paycheck, you'll understand why your benefits are not "excessive." They are why you take the job, not a perk of the job.

Maybe Kevin's view of retirement benefits would be a tad different if he had a job that consisted of more than sitting around in his u-trou, pounding away at the keyboard.

These workers are not all sitting in toll booths. They are laying track in dangerous, rat infested, noisy tunnels, breathing horrible pollution. They work all night in many cases, their lives on the line.

Kevin Drum disgusts me.

1) I don't think one could own a home on 55K in NYC. That means they'll have to pay rent with that pension.

2) Our economy can afford pensions like that for everyone. And we all should have them. What we can't afford is quite so large a super upper-class, whose members get their money without working at all.

3) That's 25 years at MTA, but probably 35 years working. And probably only 10 or 15 years to help raise grandchildren, do volunteer work, be active in the community in a way they don't have time for when they're working.

Ah yes, the over-generous MTA pension.

You don't mention the decade or two that the job knocks off the lives of those who take the rich pickings of that pension.

Snort.

what makes you say that the ny twu age 55 and 25 years half-pay retirement is indefensible?

how much of the average yearly earnings of the ny twu of $55,000 was overtime?

Like you, Kevin, I am both white and white-collar workers, so I will be able to retire when I'm 55 and I'll have -- unless the market crashes really badly -- at least $25,000 to live on. And like you, I find it horrifying that a minority member of the working class, one who actually works all day for a living, could have the same privilege. How am I going to maintain my superior social status if we start to provide manual laborers and other lower orders with the same kind of lifestyle you and I take for granted.

As a grad student living in upper Manhattan just a few years ago, I lived perfectly comfortably (with no dependents) on 18K a year.

Nick S - that doesn't even pass the laugh test.

And yes, Kevin, the reason you think it's 'unfair' is because you've bought into what Tom Frank calls 'market triumphalism', where the notion of workers getting a decent fucking deal out of their employers seems... well, shocking.

I think that means you ought to spend a few hours in the cold shower of priorities. It's not the MTA workers that are greedy; it's you that's deluded by decades of media-supported corporate fuck-overs.

Well fiend, I'm afraid it does. Morningside Heights, $650/month (this is 2001) to share an apartment, health insurance covered by the school, no car, nobody to take care of but myself - after taxes this leaves ~$700-$800 month to feed and clothe myself. A couple thousand people do this every year (although stipends are now ~24K.)

So..what's the big deal?..I retired at age 50 with a
pension two-thirds of my appx. 100k salary after a grueling 29 yr. career which affected my health and family. Its the "American" way... grab what you can as
we follow the example of our political and business leaders. Under the current free-for-all "owmership"
society model being imposed on our society, its time the working and middle classes to wake and join in the feeding frenzy and grab whatever they can.

> Maybe Kevin's view of retirement benefits would
> be a tad different if he had a job that consisted
> of more than sitting around in his u-trou,
> pounding away at the keyboard.

Yeah, it is amazing how this "you will work until you are 75" meme comes from economics professor types (or pundits such as Robert Samuelson of Newsweek) who sit in their book-lined offices, thinking deep thoughts, meeting with co-eds, and then heading to the gym for an environmentally controlled, doctor-monitored aerobic exercise program. Who haven't done any physical labor since they were 19, and who think that if they had to do it again at 45 that their bodies would work just as the did in their teens.

VP of Marketing, anyone? Tough work driving to downtown LA to meet with the cuties as the ad agencies, eh?

Cranky

I happen to live next to a transit worker family -- they have had terrible health problems and no timely care. In fact, the father and oldest son are now dead -- the father at sixty and the son at thrity-nine. The second son works as a driver and his mother has been frantic because they took out conductors on his line (the L). They are Norwegian Americans.

By son works for a large corporation run by a famous millionaire. All corporate employees get free admission or reduced rates to many city amenities, museums, Shakespeare in the park, and sports events. It is a corporate perk.

Bloomberg and former slum-lord Kalikow seem to care about one thing and one thing only, building new sports arenas for their pals and employees to be able to sit in luxury skyboxes, free of charge.

I don't think this line could be posted enough times:

All of you who think that the NYC workers get too much salary should apply for a job at the MTA.

It's interesting how the people who find the 55K exhorbitant then go on to a "heady" discussion.

While those who find it meager are well mostly well versed in the context.

Hell! I wouldn't apply for those transit jobs for 100k and 50yrs retiremenet! Hey, you want to work in a mine [subway] or a smog-trough [bus line] all day? Go ahead, go to it.

Wow, see what happens when you question union demands, out come the opinions, but only anecdotal facts used to support those opinions. What if both sides are wrong, what if both the MTA and the TWU are mismanaged and exagerate their grievances?

At any rate, they are in a mediation and arbitration process now and hopefully a solution is reached that doesn't result in the MTA feeling compelled to raise rates or curtail service or the TWU to punish us with slowdowns and indifference.

Well, the issue isn't whether Kevin Drum has lots of sympathy for any particular group of workers (I bet Kevin hates it when workers fight and win decent retirement benefits, immediately losing sympathy for them). The issue is whether Kevin Drum is willing to pay a market rate for the labor required to run an entire subway system and run it well. Take your sympathy, or lack thereof, and stick it up yer ---.

That $55,000 average salary figure for New York City transit workers is a bit misleading.

The base salaries are lower. The $55,000 average is hit by working a shitload of overtime.

Nonetheless, Mayor Moneybags and Governor Bagman and the the corporate-owned media love to throw around that average salary figure and note how the TWU workers aren't college-educated, or terribly hard-working, yet they are making good money.

My grandfather was a track worker. I currently teach high school and some of my students' mothers and fathers work for the MTA. A friend of mine from high school works for the MTA

I have some familiarity with who these people are and how hard they work for the money they make. And I am sick of rich fucks like Michael "Union-Busting" Bloomberg or Mort "Ugly Labor Relations" Zuckerman tarring the TWU rank-and-file as lazy, overpaid, good-for-nothing, ne'er-do-wells who are basically living off the public trough like bloodsuckers.

Boy it certainly took a while for this comments thread to wise up. Physical work in freezing/steaming tunnels is not a desk job, and it's appalling how easily deskbound white collar workers forget that. Remember August in NYC? Think it's any cooler in the tunnels? How about January? Think it's any warmer?

A lifetime of physical work NOT performed in the great outdoors will not harden your body and help you to outlive Carpathian Mountain urine drinkers — it will break your body down and kill you!

Yes old farmers live forever (depending on which chemicals they used), but old factory workers certainly don't, and I doubt very much transit workers live any longer than railroad workers, who aren't exactly known for their longevity.

The naivete of the comfortable class is astonishing at times.

what's with the class warfare, Kevin? Not very progressive of you.

Who said they have to live on a 55K a year pay check?
Like most family if both spouse work they make between 75K to more than 100K a year. Hardly below the poverty level!!!
Then no one is obliged to retire at 55 and get a 27K check. This is a nice option. You can change job, get a full pay check and add it to your pension.
For whatever reason, MTA workers, teachers, firemen can claim their job deverve more benefit than the average joe. This is called corporation lobbying. Stop the crap. This isno more 19th century jobs.

It is no 'anecdote' about Bloomberg, Kalikow and stadium-building mania of the real-estate oligarchy that runs New York. Nor the free tickets for the corporate class. It is no anecdote about the quality of health care for blue collar workers.

It no 'anecdote' that the working environment of transit workers sucks. If you think it is an 'anecdote' why don't you take a little walk beside the third rail?

It is an 'anecdote' -- or rather an urban legend -- that these workers have an 'indefensibly' great deal.

Kill The Rich.

Some companies shield executives from taxes
Some companies shield executives from taxes
Thursday, December 22, 2005

By Mark Maremont, The Wall Street Journal

Like most Americans, rank-and-file employees of Home Depot Inc. must reach into their own pockets to pay taxes.

But not Robert Nardelli, the home-improvement retailer's chief executive. Under his employment contract, Home Depot picks up a big chunk of his federal and state income taxes. Specifically, the company is obliged to reimburse its CEO for taxes due on a slew of perks, including a high-end luxury car, his family's travel on Home Depot jets and forgiveness of a $10 million loan. Last year, these payments amounted to at least $3.3 million, topping Mr. Nardelli's $2 million base salary.

Amid soaring CEO compensation, a number of companies are paying extra sums to cover executives' personal tax bills. Many companies are paying taxes due on core elements of executive pay, such as stock grants, signing bonuses and severance packages. Others are reimbursing taxes on corporate perquisites, which are treated as income by the Internal Revenue Service. They run the gamut from personal travel aboard corporate jets to country-club memberships and shopping excursions.

"This smacks of Leona Helmsley-like treatment, that only little people pay taxes," says Patrick McGurn, an executive vice president of Institutional Shareholder Services Inc., an influential adviser to big investors that often critiques companies' corporate-governance practices. For these top executives, he says, companies "are removing taxes from the list of inevitable life experiences, leaving only death."

Details of the little-known payments, called "tax gross-ups," are often buried in impenetrable footnotes or obscure filings. In its 2005 proxy statement, Home Depot didn't disclose many of the perks it must give Mr. Nardelli, or that the company is required to reimburse him for taxes related to those perks. The company provided specifics of these benefits and the gross-ups in his employment agreement, which was attached to a 2001 regulatory filing...

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05356/626535.stm

eat them, too. Yum!

Posted by: DH in DC on December 24, 2005 at 1:29 AM

You neglected to mention in addition to FERS "pension," Federal employees also get Social Security. Sure must be nice to be a Fed. employee these days. Especially compared to those of us without any pensions or 401K because we are "self-employed." Since we the tax-payers foot the bucks for those FERS contributions, why doesn't every taxpayer get that deal?

Perhaps someone above has already pointed this out...

If $55k is the average employee salary, wouldn't we expect that senior employees near retirement age actually make significantly more than that?

Nick S. your example is ridiculous. You only accepted to live at that wage -- like I did myself when in graduate school -- because you were in graduate school. You were not supposed to do that for life, and you were probably counting the days until you could get your 50k or 100k salary upon graduation.

Would you do it again, now? Remember you said you had then a comfortable life. So why not to go back to that?

It is no 'anecdote' about Bloomberg, Kalikow and stadium-building mania of the real-estate oligarchy that runs New York. Nor the free tickets for the corporate class. It is no anecdote about the quality of health care for blue collar workers.

It no 'anecdote' that the working environment of transit workers sucks. If you think it is an 'anecdote' why don't you ubermenschen try taking a little 3-mile walk alongside the third rail, or is that only for untermenschen?

It is an 'anecdote' -- or rather an urban legend -- that these workers have an 'indefensibly' great deal.

"basically living off the public trough like bloodsuckers. "

That ain't the American working man.

We all know who the blood suckers living off the public trough are. They live well, too, and that ain't most of us.

Regarding the University of California's pension plan (UCRP):

I am a UC employee and have been since I was 21, right out of college. (I am now 35.) Based on my calulations in my own personal situation, I will need 42 years of service in order to retire with a full pension at age 63 and I will have full health benefits (meaning I'll pay the same premiums and copays as an active UC employee pays) after 20 years service.

It sounds generous, but keep this in mind: UCRP is so well managed and has had such good returns that it has not required employer or employee contributions since 1991. It has been funded entirely by returns on its investments since then. This includes paying benefits and accouting for the promised benefits of current employees. (Employee contributions, which are about 2%, have been going into a personal account similar to our 403(b) during this time.)

So it's possible to run a public retirement plan that doesn't drain money from the public coffers.

By this point, many if not most California municipal and state employees have even sweeter pension deals, with great heapings of new sugar added by Gray Davis and the Legislature under his administration.

But don't let that color views of Schwarzenegger or anything.

"This smacks of Leona Helmsley-like treatment, that only little people pay taxes," says Patrick McGurn, an executive vice president of Institutional Shareholder Services Inc., an influential adviser to big investors that often critiques companies' corporate-governance practices. For these top executives, he says, companies "are removing taxes from the list of inevitable life experiences, leaving only death."

Only the little people pay taxes and they have no need for repeal of the inheritance tax, either.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05356/626535.stm

> Remember August in NYC? Think it's
> any cooler in the tunnels?

I haven't worked in NYC transit tunnels, but I have worked in other underground locations, and that is part of the problem: on a hot day it is 55 deg and damp in the tunnels. Then you come out into the 95 deg and humid for 10 minutes. Then you go back to the 55 and damp. Then the 95 and humid...

Can you say environmental arthritis? I thought you could.

Cranky

I worked in a maintenance shop at a Gary IN steel mill, similar to working in a shop for the transit system. After twenty five years of hugging cold steel in the winter (shop is not unheated but pretty damn close to it) and dusty sweat in the summer (definately no AC) retirement is a blessing. You want steel to frame your building, you want someone to transport your ass to a downtown job, you want you desk and chair and electricity etc., then pay the working people a living wage and give them a decent retirement!
Wouldn't it be a nice world for you middle class idiots if those workers would just do their job and go away.

Kill everyone with an MBA and teach business at trade schools where it belongs, not major teaching institutions, and pay these little twerps what they are worth, which ain't much. They produce nothing and buy up all my favorite cigars, and they aren't even funny.

These folks make "$55K" because they negotiated that pay rate as part of their total compensation package. Pensions, retirement age and medical benefits are part of the package. Jerking the pension benefit would require an improvement somewhere else to stay "even".

Did I miss the part where the offsetting improvement was described?

This is happening wherever organized labor tries to keep what they've negotiated over the years. As an airline pilot, I've taken a 45 percent pay cut in the last 12 months.

I'm going to lose my pension because my company underfunded it by 5.8 BILLION dollars. The PBGC thinks that $28K is plenty of pension for pilots, who are required to retire at age 60--which is "early" by their standards. Thanks.

My medical benefits now eat up $500 a month, with high deductibles and high copays. My company has announced that I'm still over compensated and need to give up more.

American Airlines pilots, who gave up huge pay cuts after 9/11,-with no raises since- are now the the highest paid in the industry. Guess what? They're getting ready to take more cuts so that they can establish a new bottom for us to strive for.

So where does it end? Mesaba airlines is now proposing to pay its First Officers a salary below federal poverty guidelines for a family of four. In a few years, expect the forecasts in the skies and tunnels of this country to include regular aluminum showers.

I think I'll go drive a garbage truck. At least I'll be home every night.

'Anecdote' -- Federal workers' taxes and healthcare is fully funded by taxpayers.

Fact -- Federal workers contribute half of their own pension and healthcare costs through deductions from their salaries.

By this point, many if not most California municipal and state employees have even sweeter pension deals, with great heapings of new sugar added by Gray Davis and the Legislature under his administration.

But don't let that color views of Schwarzenegger or anything.

Posted by: trotsky on December 24, 2005 at 10:24

And if those people are lucky enough to be able to retire here in CA, they will benefit from Prop. 13, Jarvis-Gann, which killed this state. Most can't afford it. Only the truly wealthy can afford states like CA, in the bay area, Seattle, in WA, or NYC in New York. You are full of shit, and stop using my name.

The real bottom line is not the $55k/year number, but the total cost of all compensation, including the pension. Without this there is no basis for comparing the cost of employing transit workers. Neither the NYT nor anyone above has addressed this. Anyone have an answer?

Does anybody know whether MTA employees even get Social Security? Whether they do or not doesn't affect my own views, but it's interesting that Kevin Drum never stopped to ponder the fact that many government employees don't even receive Social Security.

For some more perspective, the average 2004 Christmas bonus among New York City's 158,000 Wall Street workers was $100,600. The 2005 Goldman Sachs mean is a cool $500,000.

Kevin Drum is working on his next blog post about these indefensible Christmas bonuses. (Right, Kevin?)

basically it boils down to a privileged academic living a cloistered life opining on something he has not a fucking clue about. for a better insight into the class, race and economic issues of the strike, i highly recommend steve gilliard, who has written informed and passionately about this:

http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/

Point 1: It's understandable that someone who's lived on the other side of the continent most of his life might not have the value of money in NYC right at his fingertips, but that's why it's not a good idea to react to a dollar number if you don't know the context. Instead I recommend the opposite strategy: follow the money-followers. If working for the MTA is such a sweet deal, how come the white folks aren't queueing up to apply for jobs there? How come there are so many black and hispanic faces in the union? Could it be that a comfortable white Californian hasn't got as good a grasp on the facts as he thinks?

Point 2: The union workers are being called "selfish". I don't get how anybody comes to that conclusion, when they are striking for members who haven't yet joined them! Hint: if they were really selfish, they could agree to let new hires be taken on without a pension, and keep theirs.

Point 3: What is all this crap about wishing unions would accept every deal management offers them, anyway? If that's such a good idea, why doesn't management accept any deal unions offer them, eh? Why don't the Republicans accept any deal the Democrats offer them? And why don't defense attorneys and prosecuting attorneys "work together" for the sake of harmony in the law, instead of this adversarial stuff? Why is an adversarial system good enough for your legislature, and good enough for your courts, but not good enough for your corporations? Did Gordon Gecko die in vain, or is "Greed Is Good! Greed Works!" only a rule to be observed when the greedy ones are stockbrokers, and not the drivers who take them to the Stock Exchange?

I once wrote in my Devil's Dictionary...

ACADEME, n.
An ancient school where morality and philosophy were taught.

ACADEMY, n.
[from ACADEME] A modern school where football is taught.

Today I would amend that to...

ACADEME, n.
An ancient school where morality and philosophy were taught.

ACADEMY, n.
[from ACADEME] A modern school where *business* is taught.

Yes, and all the universities are bastions of liberal bias and thought...

not one soul in all of this conserversation has mentioned the largest union in the world and how it affects everyone , no matter where you live work , or what is the description of the work that entitles you to a pay check an/ or a retirement. ( IT IS CALLED THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ) THIS GROUP OF PEOPLE IS IN EVERY CITY , TOWN AND HAMLET NO MATTER HOW LARGE OR SMALL.
AS FOR YOUR UNION REPS THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE IN THE SAME BOAT WITH YOU IF YOU STAY ON STRIKE FOR FORTY YEARS---THEY WILL GET THEIR PAY CHECK AND HAVE A NICE TIME SO HOW DO YOU LIKE THEM GRANNY SMITH APPLES.
THERE IS ALWAYS SOMEONE WHO IS HAVING
A HELL OF A TOUGHER TIME THAN YOU. THE HOWLER MONKEY

I support the privatization of the courts.

All the union reps are corrupt...

Libertarians invented outrage over government and/or union waste, bureaucracy, injustice, etc. Nobody else thinks they are bad, knows they exist, or works to stop them.

I support the privatization of the courts as well. I can afford it.

This isno more 19th century jobs.

Um, if anything defines a "19th century job," it would have to be a train worker.

Oh, and Kevin? Merry Christmas to you, too.

Kevin: At 55, $27,500 pension after twenty-five years of breathing dust, smoke, smog (surely reducing the life expectancy)- and you are critical? What's wrong with you? Please, save your indignation for the retirement plans of corporate executives.

It seems that a lot of people are overlooking the societal value of pensions. No, they're not primarily designed for old codgers to move to Arizona and have money enough to golf all day. They're a recognition of the fact that after a certain age, most people are simply not physically able to handle the rigor of working for a living. (And I should note here that this is a big picture comment. I'm not really interested of hearing about your Uncle Charlie, who worked until he fell over dead at 112.) Pensions are a way of taking care of society's older population. An alternative that we're currently barreling toward is the return of rampant poverty among the elderly. If you like the idea of old people eating cat food to survive, then, sure, consider pensions a "gift" that lazy workers really don't deserve. If you've got a better way of handling the older population, then, for the love of god, push for that. Until then, I don't really care if a small minority of people designed their lives to double dip from a variety of pensions (and were lucky enough to stay healthy long enough to pull it off). Paying people enough of a wage that an employer can defer some of it to handle the likelihood that many people will not be able to work until they die seems to me a reasonable expectation of any country that dares to consider itself civilized.

All the primates need to unionize, now!

In this season of "It's A Wonderful Life" it's distressing to read this pro-Mr. Potter diatribe on one of my favorite sites.

I'm one to believe in 'trickle up' economics-why not have everyone who works for wages make more?