Yet another example of the absurdity of public employee pensions 

When you read the following, keep this in mind. Salary spiking simply means that in the year before retirement a worker can load up on overtime and thus create a lifetime pension that can be equal to or in a few cases more than their actual pay. On the other hand, private employer pensions typically base the pension (where there is one) on an average of five to sevens year’s salary and either limit overtime in the calculation ignore it entirely. Don’t you wonder who in the bureaucracy allows workers to spike their pension earnings? Loading up on overtime at the end of a career is not a reflection of the income a pension is designed to replace.

And now look at the comments from the union leader. Prospective changes are unconstitutional, “going to keep opposing pension plans that hurt working Pennsylvanians…”  What about the majority of working Pennsylvanians who are paying for all this and who have no pension whatsoever?  If the union members had actually paid for their benefits, there would not be a funding problem.

A fair and reasonable retirement benefit? Certainly. The problem is that many state pension plans do not do that. Their plans are neither fair to taxpayers nor reasonable when compared with pensions in the private sector or available the vast majority of state citizens.

From the Press and Sun Bulletin, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

The Democratic governor’s revised plan would restrict salary spiking that helps teachers and state workers boost their pensions and would expand investment risk sharing, which under a 2010 law pertains to new hires. It would cover existing employees.

In perhaps the most surprising element, Wolf said he was willing to consider limiting how much of an employee’s salary would count toward a traditional pension.

In other words, he might support a hybrid pension system where workers stop accumulating pension credits after they reach a certain amount of pay, say $100,000. Anything earned above that amount would be covered by something that resembles a 401(k) plan.

“However, any new pension benefit plan must provide a fair and reasonable retirement benefit for future employees, and avoid incurring transition costs that would add to our unfunded liability,” the document said.

A similar idea floated by Republicans, with a $50,000 limit, stalled in the Legislature’s prior two-year session.

A spokesman for the state’s largest teachers’ union, asked about the memo, said the union is “going to keep opposing pension plans that hurt working Pennsylvanians, no matter who proposes it.”

“We have made it clear that changes to current employee benefits are unconstitutional (and) unfair to the retirement security that working Pennsylvanians have earned and paid for,” said David Broderic with the Pennsylvania State Education Association.

Albright said Wolf’s plan would only exempt state police from the so-called anti-spiking provisions, where the Republican pension bill exempted others, including prison guards. Pension benefits are based on the worker’s “final average salary,” a figure that can be increased before retirement with large amounts of overtime or salary raises.