34 Comments - Fred Klonsky - Friday, Sep 2, 11 @ 7:16 am: What does one guy scamming the system have to do with cutting the pensions of public school teachers? - Anon - Friday, Sep 2, 11 @ 7:24 am: I just read the whole story, and this guy is a pig. I hope his members revolt and remove him from power because he doesn’t represent them well. As for the previous commenter, this story shows that the system is broken and needs to be fixed. It’s not about the individual teacher, but rather a system that must be better policed because taxpayers deserve it. - Bill - Friday, Sep 2, 11 @ 7:26 am: The solution is pretty simple. Cap pensionable income at a level that would not harm honest, hard working public servants but would prevent this type of abuse. A cap of $100,000 would pretty much exempt teachers and other public employees while at the same time preventing over paid administrators and bureaucrats from getting rich at the public’s expense. - sad - Friday, Sep 2, 11 @ 7:42 am: Personally, I think the unions are just as bad as the corporation anymore. However, this appears to be an article that I would bet a large sum of money was supplied to the tribune by the emanuel\putin administration. - Wilson Pickett - Friday, Sep 2, 11 @ 7:57 am: “Like Villanova, all three retired from the city before the age of 60. Like Villanova, each signed an application saying he wasn’t participating in his union’s pension fun, and Local 134 officials wrote letters for all of them saying they weren’t getting any union pension benefits. But they were.” It would seem to be a slam-dunk for Patrick Fitzgerald and the Justice Department to issue an an indictment on these three men and the union officials involved for committing fraud. Fraud–a deception; a trick; artifice–something said or done to deceive–the intentional deception to cause a person to give up property or some lawful right. Now, while the the clock of justice in Illinois is ticking, we shall wait to see how long it takes for justice to be done to these schemers. In Illinois, they may dodge the bullet due to their political clout. If this took place in any other state, they would be going away on “a trip” courtesy of the Feds before this Christmas. - Rich Miller - Friday, Sep 2, 11 @ 8:00 am: ===by the emanuel\putin administration. === That thought crossed my mind, sans the Putin reference. lol - wordslinger - Friday, Sep 2, 11 @ 8:04 am: What Bill said. But this is fuel on the fire for those who want to go after the pensions of the janitors and the food service workers. - Cincinnatus - Friday, Sep 2, 11 @ 8:07 am: Unions are in the game, not for protecting their members, but for the enrichment of the union leaders and the political power that the members’ dues can buy. The members should be outraged and demand reform within their own unions. There are a couple of commonsense reforms that can be made. How about a SINGLE public service pension system that allows accrual of benefits in a single account as employees change position. Or a 401k system. And why the hell does a union employee (a private employee at a private entity) get a public pension in the first place? - Montrose - Friday, Sep 2, 11 @ 8:35 am: *Unions are in the game, not for protecting their members, but for the enrichment of the union leaders and the political power that the members’ dues can buy.* Painting all unions and their motivations with this broad brush is really unfair. This guy is, as said above, a pig, and there certainly is corruption in the world of unions, but don’t use that a spring board to say that unions are inherently corrupt. Such hyperbole only makes finding solutions to the real problems more difficult. - Meanderthal - Friday, Sep 2, 11 @ 8:44 am: In the face of an outrage like this we need to say more than Oops, Oy and Sheesh. The Tribune piece was well researched and well written. These pension abuses are shameful and show just how greedy the union leaders and political insiders are that benefit from them. - reformer - Friday, Sep 2, 11 @ 8:56 am: Wilson is right. This smells of fraud, not some innocent mistake, not when letters were procured attesting he wasn’t in the union pension when he was. - dupage dan - Friday, Sep 2, 11 @ 9:34 am: I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night, Alive as you or me Says I, “But Joe, you’re ten years dead,” “I never died,” says he “I never died,” says he If Joe were dead he’d be spinning in his grave. I sense a federal indictment coming in 3,2,….. - Esquire - Friday, Sep 2, 11 @ 9:34 am: The current president of Chicago State University, Wayne Watson, performed a little tap dance when he retired from the position of Chancellor at the City Colleges of Chicago. After his controversial selection to head the troubled CSU (as if the CCC system was not in trouble), Watson had to delay his “starting date” at the Englewood campus in order to max out his CCC pension benefits. Now, he is in line to collect more taxpayer money for years of incompetence. - whetstone - Friday, Sep 2, 11 @ 9:40 am: “What does one guy scamming the system have to do with cutting the pensions of public school teachers?” It doesn’t, exactly, but from my understanding of the article, he would have had an enormous pension even if he didn’t scam the system, if by “scam” you mean “violate the law” and not “violate the principle.” Pension reform can take other forms than cutting teacher pensions. I think Bill’s exactly right–cap pensions at something reasonable. I think most people are okay with a straightforward pension system that allows people relative comfort/financial security, but if someone has a high salary and wants to live in the lap of luxury in their remaining years, they can save (or increase their personal contribution). - Bob - Friday, Sep 2, 11 @ 9:43 am: Gov. Quinn already promised to stop this but nothing has happened yet. AFSCME staff reps get state jobs! They then get paid and retire off a public pension on what they made while a AFSCME rep.This is complete with state paid insurance. I don’t think the tax payers know they are paying for public pensions and insurance for Union representatives. If you work a public job you should get the benefits. But if you work for the Unions you should not get to live off the tax payers. - JBilla - Friday, Sep 2, 11 @ 9:47 am: Real quick, why don’t they just take away the double/triple dip pension? Sounds like he signed up for it illegally. Sometimes I wonder about the competence of anyone in government to do anything. This can literally be solved by walking downstairs to accounting and while sipping a cup of coffee, calmly say “Stop checks to Tom Villanova until notified otherwise, thanks.” As well, this is the last time I’ll say it, why can’t everyone be on a social security with a 401K matching fund plan. What is it about government jobs that requires a pension? - Cincinnatus - Friday, Sep 2, 11 @ 9:54 am: Montrose, I did not say that unions were corrupt, but said that they no longer care a whit about their members other than the money dues bring in. - Logic not emotion - Friday, Sep 2, 11 @ 9:55 am: This type of stuff is why unions have such a bad reputation among many of us. Can the municipalities go back on the individuals who made the illegal claims and the unions / union officials who made the untruthful attestations for reimbursement of amounts paid with penalties and interest? If they can, they should. - Michelle Flaherty - Friday, Sep 2, 11 @ 9:59 am: JBilla In theory that sounds very attractive. Think about how it would be put in place. For starters, TRS, SURS and a portion of SERS members don’t qualify for Social Security and therefore their is no federal payroll tax collected off their paychecks. If you switched to 401Ks the employer (read: taxpayers) would have to pay the payroll tax. Plus, keep in mind the state is still on the hook for the unfunded liability in the pension systems. (that payment plan is in place for 35 more years) So for the foreseeable future, you could easily end up with retirement costs being higher by switching to a 401K for everyone. Sure, you’d do away with the pension envy, but it wouldn’t produce big savings anytime soon. - Esquire - Friday, Sep 2, 11 @ 10:01 am: Years and years ago, I remember the tall tale about pensions for politicians being necessary to repay the patriots who sacrificed their own opportunities to earn substantial private sector incomes in order provide vital public services for the benefit of their constituents. This may have been an honest statement many decades ago, but, at present, many bureaucrats and political officeholders receive benefits that far surpass their counterparts in private sector jobs. Illinois pays legislators fairly lavish salaries for part-time jobs. Very few Chicago alderman do not have second jobs despite being paid full-time wages for part-time work. Chicagoans were sold the canard that higher aldermanic salaries would reduce the temptation of alderman to engage in official corruption for cash. What a laugh that proved to be! It has become unsustainable. I do feel for some low level teachers on this issue, but I will not shed a tear if an administrator or elected official has to share the pain and face a cut in benefits. - JBilla - Friday, Sep 2, 11 @ 10:21 am: Thanks for the breakdown Michelle, I’ll look this over. That unfunded pension liability, yeeps! - Leroy - Friday, Sep 2, 11 @ 10:25 am: If the union isn’t greedy, why didn’t the union call him out on publicly on this years ago? Unions being for “the little guy” and all. And the unions are just going to look corrupt as all get out once this does finally get out. - Michelle Flaherty - Friday, Sep 2, 11 @ 10:46 am: JBilla, to expand a little … The Social Security payroll tax is the hidden element in all of this. The SJR had a story several months ago about how some analyst said it was likely the new, second tier of the pension system at some point would no longer qualify for a federal payroll tax exemption and either the state or the school districts would have to start paying. The rate had been 6.2 percent but was cut last year to 4.2 percent and will be at the heart of the whole “jobs” debate in DC. Anyway, that tax is something the feds don’t let you skip. Just figure 4.2 or 6.2 percent of total school district payroll in Illinois and that’s a pretty big number to pay on top of the “mortgage” payments for the unfunded liability. Any debate on ending pensions that doesn’t include figuring out how to pay the payroll tax is incomplete and hides the true costs of any of these so-called reforms. This is a big, complex issue that is not going to go away overnight or even over the course of a few years. - Pelon - Friday, Sep 2, 11 @ 10:47 am: “Unions are in the game, not for protecting their members, but for the enrichment of the union leaders and the political power that the members’ dues can buy. The members should be outraged and demand reform within their own unions.” I agree that the number one priority of union leadership is keeping their own power base, but they still have done a lot for the average union employee. If you compare the treatment of union and non-union employees, it is easy to see why there is no outrage from the membership. The situation is very similar to companies with CEOs who spend lavishly. As long as they make money for the shareholders, it’s not an issue. It only becomes an issue when their performance doesn’t justify the personal benefits. - Ghost - Friday, Sep 2, 11 @ 11:06 am: The problem is this is an extreme example. your talking one person out of the current 55,000 employees not to mention the 100k+ retirees. We canot focus a debate on pension reform for regular employees citing extreme examples which make up less then 1% of the group. This should run as an example of a loophole thatneeds to be closed, not as a leader for a discussion about cutting the benefits of the average State worker. These stories always try to leave theimpression that the average employee has abloated pension. If I recall the average retirment is 3500 a month. It is rare that these stories run as an example of a rare loophole tat needs otbe closed, and identify how small the average pension actually is. - jeff - Friday, Sep 2, 11 @ 11:20 am: This policy of allowing union employees to collect a city pension does not just apply to this one individual. And this policy does not just affect city workers. CPS has the same policy. If I worked at the CTU right now and was collecting a CPS pension and contributing to my union pension, I would be wondering when the gravy train ends. - Irish - Friday, Sep 2, 11 @ 12:05 pm: I don’t think that there are any rank and file union workers out there, whether they be state workers, teachers, other public workers or those employed in the private sector who don’t want to see an end to the exploitation of the pensions systems by individuals of this ilk. However, the cases of individuals who are gorging themselves at the public trough and even those doing it in the private sector SHOULD NOT become the poster children for eliminating or cutting pensions for everyone. The main stream media probably exerts more effort in finding these glaring exceptions than they do in providing a fair and balanced reporting on the real story in the pension issue. Then they blast it across the papers and air streams and paint all union people with the brush. The bandwagon should be “Find the individuals who are taking more than their share and go after them individually or if a group is found go after the group.” But don’t take the easy, lazy way out and take the path of “Cut pensions now.” and penalize the majority because of a minority. - Indeedy - Friday, Sep 2, 11 @ 12:26 pm: @Ghost, how exceptional is it when all of us, I bet, can rattle off half a dozen (maybe more) pension abusers? The list is long and each of them carry on, untouched under the protection of state law and grandfathering provisions. It makes me wonder, have we been so focused on the letter of the law that we’ve lost sight of other relevant legal principles that might apply? Have these individuals been challenged in the courts for unjust enrichment? - Judgment Day - Friday, Sep 2, 11 @ 12:30 pm: First off, it’s not just a union problem. There’s more than a few County Board members in Counties who got creative and got themselves a pension by sitting on a County’s Board of Review for a few years, or something similar to that. There’s not just a little bit of this going on out there - it’s rampant. Yes, a lot of it is ‘past history’, but now days the pension obligations for those prior excesses are coming due, and that makes for very unhappy taxpayers who come face-to-face with some of these folks “living large” just because they played politics really well, or were union bigshots. It comes across to me that any “voluntary policing” of such pension excesses is not occurring (unless some newspaper accidently stumbles across a particularly outrageous case and pushes it out there on page 1). As a result, we taxpayers who aren’t eligible for such benefits are taking the only position we can to ‘fix’ the problem - advocate doing away with the whole mess. - wishbone - Friday, Sep 2, 11 @ 1:04 pm: And, of course, we have the Chicago teachers union’s response to the need to extend the school day to match what most other cities already have. “Where’s mine?” - steve schnorf - Friday, Sep 2, 11 @ 1:47 pm: If you make policy based on outliers you won’t make good policy–not a complicated concept. - Responsa - Friday, Sep 2, 11 @ 3:08 pm: ==The situation is very similar to companies with CEOs who spend lavishly. As long as they make money for the shareholders, it’s not an issue. It only becomes an issue when their performance doesn’t justify the personal benefits.== The “situation” is nothing like the CEOs who are overpaid and spend lavishly (contemptible though they may be). I can choose to be–or not to be– a stockholder or an employee in a particular private company. As a taxpayer or as a dues paying worker in a unionized state government job I do not enjoy such options. - Just Wondering - Friday, Sep 2, 11 @ 3:40 pm: I think the story is that these individuals,with the help of a statute that is currently on the books,were able to increase their City of Chicago pensions using their union saleries as a base. Two questions come to mind. When was the legeslation passed and who are those who have taken advantage of this in the past ? - Bill - Thursday, Sep 8, 11 @ 8:27 am: Business Agents collecting over 200,00.0 per year, BM’s getting 300,00.00 ! What do the IBEW 1700 unemployed think. They want to bring back Ed Buettner. Well he’s the only one not collecting all this - why would he come back? Then what about the pensions for sitting on the Amalgamated Bank Board and Blue Cross Board - that adds in even more $$$$$$$. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.