U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) George Stern
(R) Sheri Davis
50%↑
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
May 02, 2006 08:00 AM UTC
27 Comments
What say we just eliminate PERA altogether and have all state employees join the fantastic retirement savings plan the rest of us poor schlubs have? It works really great if you can live on fucking nothing each month.
Or better yet, why don’t we make PERA open for any and all state residents that wish to join? I’d give up SS in a heartbeat and pay double the current rate in order to have a retirement waiting for me as nice as PERA is.
Establishing a rainy day fund sounds great to me, except “what are we doing for those who have no health insurance?”
PERA sounds like “privatization” to me … a replacement for “social security.” If this program works, then why are we not using a similar program for all (outside of those who work for the State) in the State of Colorado?
The following is from PERA, http://www.copera.org/PERA/about/overview.stm
“Its membership includes employees of the Colorado state government, most teachers in the state, many university and college employees, judges, many employees of cities and towns, state troopers, and the employees of a number of other public entities.”
“PERA is a substitute for Social Security for most of these public employees. Benefits are pre-funded, which means while a member is working, he or she is required to contribute a fixed percentage of their salary to the retirement trust funds. This percentage is 8% for most members. The employer also contributes a percentage of pay to the trust fund. For most employers, this is approximately 10.65% of pay.”
Terb —
I agree. A State program that takes care of everybody would be classified a Socialism under the definition of those “Republicans.” Capitalism cannot possibly work if you take care of everybody … just ask those on this program or Mike Rosen.
By the way, sharing the bounty and fruits of this successful program with others outside of the State will only create a “socialist” mentaility … thus, people will quit their jobs so that they get benefits for free. By the way, “Commensalism” doesn’t work in the environment BIOLOGY (He he he, stated with sarcasm) either !!!
Sharing the table never works to help others …
Terb
You could call it that but it would be no different than our SS is now except the benefits would be far greater.
I would love to just end SS altogether and invest my money myself. But I am forced to donate to a sucky system that gives back pennies on the dollar to what has been invested.
PERA is a far better system but only those lucky enough to be state employees are eligible to participate.
Call it frustration but SS sucks.
One example is my dad. He paid his entire life to SS like most of the rest of us. He got in a bad motorcycle wreck that put him in a coma for a year and a half. He was 63 when he crashed so we started he checks coming not knowing how long he would live. He received maybe 10 checks at $1200.00 a month and then died.
The government keeps the rest.
A privatized system would be far better.
State employees have gotten little (and in some cases) no raises in the last six years, thanks to the state budget crisis and other factors. The Joint Budget Commitee this year balanced its budget by cutting state employee raises once again, in a year with a nearly $1 billion Ref C surplus. State employees are paid well below what they could make in the private sector (estimates run at about 15 percent); the state’s health benefits are considered to be just awful – very expensive and of poor quality.
On top of that, Gov. Owens has remarked on several occasions that state employees don’t work for the money – they work for the “joy” of serving the citizens of this state. That kind of altruism may be accurate but you can’t pay the mortgage with it.
Then we have PERA – under SB 235 state employees will contribute another 3 percent out of their salaries in order to fix the mistakes made by Owens and the Republican-dominated legislature in 1999 and 2000, when they decided to reduce the employer contribution. That represents about one-third of the $11 billion shortfall; the other two-thirds comes from the recession.
PERA may look like a sweet deal for state employees, but please remember what they have to do, and give up, to earn it.
In America’s Protected Class: The Excess Value of Public Employment, we developed a model for estimating the compensation per work hour of public and private employees. At the national level, the model suggests that the average state employee is compensated 38 percent more than the average comparable private employee over a 40 year career. This model included not only wages, salaries, benefits and paid time off, but also estimated the value of both employer and employee security that state employees enjoy.
This analysis did not include state by state calculations. However, there is reason to believe that the state employee compensation advantage may be even greater in Colorado. In 1991, Colorado state government employees were compensated, on average, 36.9 percent more than private employees in Colorado — a gap that ranked 10th nationally among the states, and more than half again above the median state employee compensation advantage of 21.4 percent (see America’s Protected Class III)(2)
Until the administration of public employee compensation routinely employs complete and intellectually honest valuations of all comparative elements of government versus private sector compensation, private employees will continue to pay unnecessarily higher taxes to pay above market compensation to government employees.
Source: http://www.publicpurpose.com/l-apc-co.htm
*************
Granted, the data are somewhat dated (from 1997).
Sorry – typo there: should read “from 1991”.
Unawen
I haven’t had a raise since 1999, I have to pay quite a bit out of my check to keep a mediocre health insurance in place, plus extra for a real crappy dental plan, plus have to donate to that bullshit Social Security plan.
Cry me a river about PERA. If I was smarter years ago I would have tried to get on with the state, but from what I heard that was like getting on with the USPS. Damn near impossible.
When state employees retire at what,,,,50 something I’ll still be looking at 20 more years plugging away.
Like I said before, I would gladly give up paying SS each week and put that money in my own retirement account but I don’t have that luxury.
State employees have it made. If not, ask anyone of them why they don’t just quit and go to work in the private sector.
Unawen,
Congrats on the most ridiculous post of the day!!!! I really liked the part about how much ‘public” employees give up to serve!!! We taxpayers know the facts – that PERA commitments will cost us billions before those “sacrifical” employees finish slopping at the publiv trough. You’ve got to be a PERA “member”, nobody else would be stupid enough to come in here slinging that horseshit!!!
Bad Moon Rising, you seem to be under the impression that if you keep repeating a lie it somehow becomes truth. That ALEC study was the subject of the annual compensation audit, by an outside audit firm, at the behest of the then Republican dominated legislature. They found it to be totally without merit, misleading and dishonest. You might mention the fact that the ‘calculations’ you reference didn’t bother to include source notes that would allow anyone to identify the actual source of your data.
Anything is better than SS. Consider the fact that when the first person collected their first check, they had never contributed enough to warrant the benefits they received. SSI became an entitlment program, and after the Great Society under Lyndon Johnson, benefits were expanded even further.
Prior to the 1980’s, you could get disability benefits for alcoholism, drug addiction, and obesity. Now, we have a situation where there will be 42 million workers trying to provide enough cash for the 77 billion seeking benefits. Better hope somebody dies, and real soon.
BadMoonRising: I appreciate the fact that state employees might have had a good deal in 1991, but that deal has evaporated, if it ever existed, under the Romer and Owens administrations. The 2005 audit of the total compensation survey clearly stated that state employees are paid well below the private sector, and that health benefits are not only far more expensive than the private sector, but they are of poor quality as well.
Gecko: in response to your question on “why they don’t just quit and go to work in the private sector?”, the answer is, they do. The average new state employee hire lasts around three years (from the same audit), just long enough to get specialized training in areas such as the state patrol or heavy-equipment operator’s licenses, and then quits to go work for better paying jobs in local government police or the private sector. And you, as a taxpayer, paid for the training that benefits the private sector. And then the taxpayer has to to pay again to train someone else to do the same work. Does that make good fiscal sense to you?
And state employees do not retire at 50; they can, under PERA rules, but the retirement benefit is substantially reduced, and they also would have to pay much more for health insurance under PERA than they ever would under state health insurance. Very few, in these economic times, can afford to do so. In addition, under SB 235, should that pass, the minimum retirement age will be ratcheted up to 55, and the employee must have 30 years of service in order to quality for unreduced benefits.
Coldawg: nice comments. I won’t stoop to your level to respond.
Unawen
I have been with the same company for just under 22 years and have as I said before, mediocre benefits. I turn 50 this year and know I will never be able to actually retire. We have guys working here that are in their 80’s!.
I do get a very good paycheck but it is comparable to every other company in town that is in the same business.
If any employee in my industry wants to retire, they had better have saved their own money (because no company offers any matching or donated funds for retirement)or they best not need much to live on. Hell 15 years ago we did not have ANY health insurance or even any paid days off. You worked or you did not get paid.
Do you know what my plan is for retirement? I bought two huge life insurance policies. One for me and one for my wife. Which ever one of us goes toes up first, the other will at least have the bills paid. There will be no retirement savings to speak or except for SS. There are many many more in the same boat as me. We get to look forward to dying while on the job. I’m not complaining I’m just stating that most people would kill to have a PERA style retirement lined up guaranteed by the taxpayers.
I wonder what state employees would think if a portion of their checks went in to a fund to pay for my retirement? And if that fund ran short of cash if the state just upped the amount taken from their checks to cover the loss?
I’m not trying to be a smart ass I’m just stating that no matter what, if state employees look at the end result, they generally have it much better than the average working stiff.
I concur 100% with Unawen.
Being a state of CO employee is a disaster. Young people coming in quit and leave after a few years or less. Benefits suck.
Raises go to people like Gecko and company. Soon you can write your own ticket with no more state troopers and create your own drivers license with no more state employees. Oh, enjoy plowing those snowy roads as well BadMoonRising! Hope you don’t get killed by a drunk driver like some poor CDOT worker. Before I forget, you can teach your kids whatever you want. There won’t be any teachers left either.
That is a bullshit assesment “state employee”. I haven’t had a raise since 1999. You?
What is wrong with simply eliminating the retirement “PERA” altogether and raising the weekly pay scale?
Then they would be on the same terms as the rest of us.
Gecko: there are three problems that I can see with eliminating PERA entirely: #1 – the state would have to start contributing to Social Security and at a rate slighly less than they contribute now for PERA. So no dollar savings there. The state is still obligated to cover PERA commitments to its existing employees, so the costs overall would likely run in the billions, far more than the current shortfall.
#2: state compensation is subject to the whims of the legislature, which has not exactly been willing to fund raises for state employees in the last few years. What one legislature does, another doesn’t.
#3: PERA is one of the best incentives available to potential new hires to come work for the state: it sure isn’t the pay, health insurance, or the abuse that state employees take from the public. Take away PERA and the quality of the workforce will most certainly diminish. And that will have negative impacts on our roads, prisons, schools and other state services.
BadMoonRising: your study from 1991 (!!!) is very cute.
Read this: http://www.ecape.net/landing.asp?reid=A3U2109087DE
It is a CAPE-SEIU study from 2006 called: The Quiet Crisis in State Government: A Looming Loss of Skilled and Experienced State Employees Threatens to Undermine Services and Increase Cost.
Why don’t you haters look for a job at the state and see how good the milk and honey is?
Here are the state job openings: http://www.gssa.state.co.us/announce/Job+Announcements.nsf/$about?OpenAbout
I can’t wait to hear from all you guys how great it is to be abused by you all.
Get s state job or shut up idiots. You have no clue.
Being a state of CO employee is a disaster.
…………..
So why are you still there?
*******************
“Why don’t you haters look for a job at the state and see how good the milk and honey is?”
…………
Why is it that liberals automatically fall back on the “you’re hateful” excuse? That’s it? That’s your response to pointed (and fair) questions?
Here’s a news flash for you: GOVERNMENT DOES NOT, AND SHOULD NOT, EXIST SO THAT YOU CAN HAVE A JOB.
As of 2005, there were nearly 165,000 people employed by the government in the Denver-Aurora-Boulder area. That’s an increase of 1.3% since 2000, when the figure was 155,000. That 165,000 number is second highest, with professional & business services at 192,000 (private sector).
So, to you whiners who don’t like your government job and its benefits, go compete for work in the private sector. To paraphrase, “get a private sector job or shut up idiots. You have no clue.”
Job Title: Accounting Tech III – Payroll
Position Number: 00052
Job Location: Centennial
Salary: $2522-2947 mo.
Release Date: April 25, 2006 Apply By: May 9, 2006
Employment Type: Full-Time
Class Code: B1C3XX
Information About The Job:
Position is located at the Colorado National Guard Headquarters. Work Hours are Tuesday through Friday, ten hours a day (plus lunch). DUTIES include: prepare input sheets and enter monthly and bi-weekly payroll data into CPPS after calculating overtime, shift and other pay differentials. Review state active duty supporting documentation, prepare input sheets, enter into CPPS. Enter benefits, and forward appropriate records to carriers. Reconcile payroll, make necessary corrections, prepare adjusting entries as needed. Enter into COFRS. Prepare documents/spreadsheets for tracking and forecasting personal services costs. Track leave balances by updating Excel spreasheets. Send monthly reports to supervisors and employees. Interact with employees and managers on a daily basis. Assist the Controller with other reporting data as needed.
REQUIREMENTS: Three years of technical accounting experience (this does NOT include work such as cashier, bank teller, etc.) Experience must include use of ten-key, development of Excel spreadsheets, and ability to type. Experience with payroll preferred but not essential. Must be pleasant and customer and detail oriented. Must work well as a team member. Must be willing to submit to a background investigation.
*************************
$30,000 to $35,000 to start as an accountant, a position which requires no college education (or they’d substitute 2 years of college for actual experience).
The 2005 audit of the total compensation survey clearly stated that state employees are paid well below the private sector, and that health benefits are not only far more expensive than the private sector, but they are of poor quality as well.
…………….
Gosh, that’s odd – on Pages 40 and 41 of the 2005 Audit, the study found that pay in the majority of job matches was… CONSISTENT.
BMR: consistent is not the same as comparable. In this case the audit was stating that the state is matching salaries at a consistent level, which just happens to be below the market. Consistently below the market.
From the same audit: page 19 states: (with regard to health benefits)
“We compared the State’s major benefit plan features to the Mountain States Employers Council 2004 Health and Welfare Plans Survey and identified numerous critical areas where the State’s benefits are significantly below the market average” such as (with health insurance) lower employer contributions, higher copays and other out-of-pocket costs; higher employee costs for dental care and less life insurance.
Page 23, on salary and compensation: because of the way the state sets midpoint salaries, entry-level salaries lag the market, and there is a chart that shows a several thousand dollar lag (annual).
Go read the tables on P. 40 & 41. Salaries are not “consistently below market”.
The state’s problem also stems from paying the same wage for the same job regardless of where the employee lives. If an employee lives in Pueblo, for instance, they’re paid the same as if they lived in Denver. Yes, the reverse is also the case, such as if an employee lives in Steamboat (higher cost of living), they’re paid less.
As for health benefits, welcome to the real world. EVERYONE has higher copays and higher out-of-pocket costs. Dental care? YOU GET DENTAL CARE? I don’t. Life insurance? YOU GET LIFE INSURANCE? I don’t. Don’t even ask me about vision care.
With regard to health benefits and compensation, state law, including the state constitution, requires the state to be competitive in these areas as an employer. I can’t do anything about whether the state provides health, life, and dental benefits to its employees – it’s a matter of law. I’m sorry you don’t get dental and life benefits, but the state uses standard market data from companies that do provide those benefits, and there are apparently enough of them to create that data.
With regard to health benefits and compensation, state law, including the state constitution, requires the state to be competitive in these areas as an employer.
………..
Well then it seems to met that state employees should be getting … LESS when it comes to health benefits. That way you’re not getting more than the private sector offers.
They ARE getting less, according to the total compesnation audit and the CAPE-SEIU report.