USM workers privatized to old age poverty? - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: May 4, 2006

USM workers privatized to old age poverty?

Date: May 4, 2006

Yup.. I have heard this from committee member and from a number of physical plant employees (I'd like to call them partners). The so-called deal looks extremely detrimental to our friends on staff in physical plant.

Amy Young

Date: May 4, 2006

The folks at the physical plant will be able to step from the dark wasteland of socialism into the bright sunshine of capitalism.

Date: May 4, 2006

So, we are to FORCE persons into a plan (pension or otherwise) for their own well-being?

What percentage of employees on campus (admin, faculty, staff) would gladly contribute the current forced 7.25% if it were optionally? I know what percentage of the current dining employees contribute and it doesn't hold to economic scales.

Me, I would like the option to manage my own retirement funds.

Date: May 4, 2006

Mr.Capitalist wrote:

The folks at the physical plant will be able to step from the dark wasteland of socialism into the bright sunshine of capitalism.

This brings tears to Joker's old eyes as I remember the good ole days on the plantation.

Date: May 4, 2006

So, I can be forced to contribute +7% of my $20k/year salary and after 25 years receive 50% of the average of my 4 highest paid years. Great! That $10k/year is going to ROCK! And after I croak at 55 and I enjoyed that for 5 years my kids are really going to enjoy that inheritance!

That's so much better than having a big wad of money in a money market account that draws interest and acts as an asset for me to leverage against.

Man, these state folk really know what they are doing when it comes to retirement!

Date: May 4, 2006

Financial planner wrote:

Man, these state folk really know what they are doing when it comes to retirement!

You better bet they know what they're doing, Financial planner. And there's no large commission taken off the top! And no ever-increasing 13th check generated by what is essentially a "profit sharing" program through their wise investments. Try it. You'll love it. Thanks, PERS, for making my retirement comfortable.

Date: May 4, 2006

comfortable . . . yeah, wealthy sucks; I just want to be "comfortable."

Date: May 4, 2006

Financial planner wrote:

And after I croak at 55 and I enjoyed that for 5 years my kids are really going to enjoy that inheritance!

You can set it up just about any way you want to. If you want your spouse or your kids to receive a income for the rest of their life you can do that too. And those ever increasing 13th checks keep rolling in!

Date: May 4, 2006

Rock 'n Roll Retiree wrote:

Financial planner wrote: Man, these state folk really know what they are doing when it comes to retirement! You better bet they know what they're doing, Financial planner. And there's no large commission taken off the top! And no ever-increasing 13th check generated by what is essentially a "profit sharing" program through their wise investments. Try it. You'll love it. Thanks, PERS, for making my retirement comfortable.

Oh, trust me, I'm being FORCED to try it. Maybe I just like making my own decisions.

Date: May 4, 2006

Yeah, that's an interesting thought wrote:

comfortable . . . yeah, wealthy sucks; I just want to be "comfortable."

If your goal was to become wealthy, you probably chose the wrong career.

Date: May 4, 2006

Rock 'n Roll Retiree wrote:

Financial planner wrote: And after I croak at 55 and I enjoyed that for 5 years my kids are really going to enjoy that inheritance! You can set it up just about any way you want to. If you want your spouse or your kids to receive a income for the rest of their life you can do that too. And those ever increasing 13th checks keep rolling in!

And my grandchildren?

Date: May 4, 2006

Rock 'n Roll Retiree wrote:

Yeah, that's an interesting thought wrote: comfortable . . . yeah, wealthy sucks; I just want to be "comfortable." If your goal was to become wealthy, you probably chose the wrong career.

ITS ABOUT CHOICE

Date: May 4, 2006

Financial planner wrote:

Maybe I just like making my own decisions.

You've got a choice. Try TIAA/CREF. Do the Physical Plant workers have the choices you have?

Date: May 4, 2006

Oseola McCarty

Date: May 4, 2006

??? wrote:

And my grandchildren?

Are you trying to support the world's population for the rest of their lives? Get real, man.

Date: May 4, 2006

You're obviously faculty or admin ~ we don't have that choice down here.

Date: May 4, 2006

Inheritance helps

Date: May 4, 2006

Financial planner wrote:

You're obviously faculty or admin ~ we don't have that choice down here.

If you'd entered public service you'd have that choice.

Date: May 4, 2006

Financial planner wrote:

Inheritance helps

It sure does. It keeps financial planners in business.

Date: May 4, 2006

Rock 'n Roll Retiree wrote:

Financial planner wrote: Inheritance helps It sure does. It keeps financial planners in business.

Oh, now it's about that?

Date: May 4, 2006

Financial planner wrote:

Oh, now it's about that?

It's about helping to ensure an adequate retirement in old age . . about keeping people off the public dole . . about helping ensure that people don't have to drink at the public trough after they retire.

Date: May 4, 2006

aramark just went private....(CEO and investment group made bid to take company private) as reported Monday

Date: May 4, 2006

Rock 'n Roll Retiree wrote:

It's about helping to ensure an adequate retirement in old age . . about keeping people off the public dole . . about helping ensure that people don't have to drink at the public trough after they retire.

And it's about helping ensure that those who entered the public sector at a modest income will have at least a modest income for the rest of their lives at retirement. And that includes staff as well as faculty.

Date: May 4, 2006

Mr.Capitalist wrote:

The folks at the physical plant will be able to step from the dark wasteland of socialism into the bright sunshine of capitalism.

These uber-capitalists are really getting disgusting. As of the 1930s America decided it wanted government to assist citizens with minimal levels of social saftey nets. Now, we are going to throw all of that away? Have things gotten so bad in corporate America that they are jealous of us low-level government employees? How about the military? That is the most "socialistic" segment of our society: you get training, income, meals, housing, clothing, scholarships, and retirement. I say we all should get all of those things if we work for the government in service to our great country. Somehow, I doubt Mr. Capitalist, aka throw everyone in the streets with no retirement, no social security, no welfare, no scholarships, etc., is not for ending the military as we know it. What's good for them is good for all the rest of us who serve, and down here in Mississippi I do mean SERVE, the state and country through our government employment.

Date: May 4, 2006

RRR apparently doesn't realise that staff do not have the choice of PERS vs TIAA-CREF. Staff are locked into PERS, although PERS is not a bad system insofar as the success of its investments. However, that extra 7% comes out PLUS the 7.5% for Social Security, so the average miserably paid staffer is taking quite a hit.
The beauty of TIAA-CREF (which I had at LSU) is that you have control over where at least part of the money is invested, plus it's portable.

Date: May 4, 2006

LVN wrote:

RRR apparently doesn't realise that staff do not have the choice of PERS vs TIAA-CREF.

LVN, you must have missed, or didn't understand, the post where I said "You've got a choice. Try TIAA/CREF. Do the Physical Plant workers have the choices you have?"

That comment was meant to call attenntion to the fact that non- faculty do not have the choice between PERS vs TIAA/CREF. Maybe it was too subtle.

Date: May 4, 2006

LVN wrote:

RRR apparently doesn't realise that staff do not have the choice of PERS vs TIAA-CREF. Staff are locked into PERS, although PERS is not a bad system insofar as the success of its investments. However, that extra 7% comes out PLUS the 7.5% for Social Security, so the average miserably paid staffer is taking quite a hit. The beauty of TIAA-CREF (which I had at LSU) is that you have control over where at least part of the money is invested, plus it's portable.

Actually, PERS was a good way for a poor state to hold onto poorly paid faculty and staff. Now that faculty has the TIAA_CREFF option, I'm sure that the incentive to stay that a state retirement system offers isn't as strong an incentive - particularly for new faculty.

If USM workers were paid well, it wouldn't really matter as much. So PERs really isn't a freebee -- it is actually a backdoor way of paying workers for something that approximates their real worth in terms of the university's need to have a consistent work force that doesn't cost a lot of money. It really is a pretty good deal, if you think about it, for the workers and university.

As of this moment, workers are fleeing the university for better paying jobs. The older folks with their almost 30 are just waiting on the word to hand their papers in. (Some of them will turn right around and get rehired by Aramark -- how about that?) Younger workers with skills are leaving already. It did not help that Human Resources promised workers with +25 that they would keep them on PERs until they retired -- only to stiff them by renigging on that promise. There are some really steamed people right now on campus and around town. The last thing I heard from an employee was that quality control has gone out the window -- there are few deep backgrond checks being made right now because there are too many positions to fill.

The university has said it was going to take care of its people. The attitude that I have heard spoken by some administrators is "these people just have ot learn to take care of themselves." A trade of 7% matching 7% does not sound like 3% matching 6%. Aramark is going to give them a 5% raise for the first nine months ( a probationary period for workers). That isn;t mch when you consider they are about to get a state mandated raise anyhow, although it may not be quite that much.

Oh, and by the way -- Aramark's bid was higher than what physical plant apparently spent last year. Go figure.

The committee that met to "recommend" a company was originally formed to determine if outsourcing was necessary. It didn't meet until after Gregg Lassen left, by which time its task has migrated to "recommending" a company. And the committee was stacked with people who are not only Shelby Clones, but are anti-worker to boot. Sorry about the class war thing folks-- but it exists none the less.

A human resources office is supposed to be an honest broker between workers and employers. Ours has put its thumb on the sales pretty heavily in favor of management.

Date: May 4, 2006

stephen judd wrote:

A trade of 7% matching 7% does not sound like 3% matching 6%. Aramark is going to give them a 5% raise for the first nine months ( a probationary period for workers). That isn;t mch when you consider they are about to get a state mandated raise anyhow, although it may not be quite that much. Oh, and by the way -- Aramark's bid was higher than what physical plant apparently spent last year. Go figure.

Stephen Judd's remarks go a long way toward bringing this thread back on track. Some may have missed the point and gravity of the initial post on this thread.

Offering a miserly 3% retirement contribution which requires an employee contribution of 6% of gross from low income workers pretty much guarantees there will be few takers. This means that these people will reach retirement age with no pension after working at the university for
much of their adult lifetime.

In many cases we are talking about people who have faithfully worked for USM for many years only to be kicked to the curb. Early statements that the employees who were picked up by Aramark would be well taken care of appear rather hollow at this point. The physical plant employees are rightfully concerned about their fate.

Date: May 4, 2006

RRR, sorry I misunderstood.

Stephen, this is the first I've heard (and probably the first that anybody on campus has heard) that the change is essentially a done deal. Hattiesburg American, where are you?