I'm surprised there's not more directed outrage at this - government
workers, in my experience, take a pay cut compared to the private
sector, in exchange for doing public work and for being able to retire
with a pension.

After being laid off three times, I decided to take the public work route.
When the time came to retire, I didn't regret the decision.

The latter seemed to drive behavior more than anything -
you don't want to risk getting a paycheck for the rest of your life. I
knew people whose sole driver at work was keeping their heads down, not making waves, and someday retiring after 30-someodd years with a
significant fraction of their take home pay guaranteed for life.

It is a more significant fraction than none here but there are people who
make it through private sector jobs who take home a *whole* lot more... if
they make it! I think federal employees have a better deal re: retirement
pay, too.

In the last office I worked in if you didn't do anything, as money was
tight, you were very much not likely to ever see any pay increases. A few non-performers would stick around but most would eventually get bored and leave. The office before that, most of the employees were contractors and had to perform or they got let go, and they were not a part of the retirement system.

Getting cut off from that, or reducing your pension amount should be
enough to get workers up in arms, figuratively.

What I have heard in some reports is that the employees cut off were "probationary" which means that they were not yet in the retirement system,
if that means what it does here at state level.

I do very much expect some fallout, and possibly very costly fallout, once
the lawsuits get going.


* SLMR 2.1a * Football players do it after they are blitzed.
--- SBBSecho 3.20-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)