Wow.
The Wisconsin Department of Employee Trust Funds tracks pension fund contributions. Before 2011, the vast majority of government employees in Wisconsin did not contribute towards their pension. Since Act 10 was implemented, state, local, university, tech college, and school district government employees have contributed $9 billion to their own pensions.
That’s $9 billion in taxpayer savings over ten years – just for the pension piece alone.
Tracking health insurance savings throughout the state is more complicated. There are thousands of local units of government and some Act 10 savings at the local level go unnoticed and unpublicized. Act 10 permanently changed the trajectory of those local healthcare costs. Local governments like the City and County of Milwaukee include that information in their annual budgets – and the savings continue to grow exponentially.
Using the same methodology that has always been used and the same public data sources, our new analysis shows that local governments have saved $2.4 billion, the state and university system have saved $1.2 billion, and school districts have saved $1.3 billion over the past nine years on health insurance.
That puts the total Act 10 taxpayer savings at $13.9 billion over nine years. $13.9 billion. Let that sink in for a second.
I was a state employee and school district employee in Wisconsin for a total of about 12 years.
I wish we had Act 10 when I was employed.
It would have benefited me.
Thank you Scott Walker.
Nord jeers.
With over 100,000 workers, it would be equally correct to say ACT 10 robbed public workers of over $10,000 per year over the last 10 years, for a net loss of over $100,000 per worker.
Right to Work was passed in 2015, do you have the amount of money that it took from manufacturing workers (both unionized and unionized since higher union wages raise non-union jobs) ??
Or as you would put it, how much money Wisconsin “entrepreneurs” saved?
“Right to Work was passed in 2015, do you have the amount of money that it took from manufacturing workers (both unionized and unionized since higher union wages raise non-union jobs) ??”
Do you?
We do know that thousands of workers saved money by not paying union dues.
Just curious mar, but could you explain, using verifiable facts, how you, as a public employee, would have benefited from act 10??
Thanks
With over 100,000 workers, it would be equally correct to say ACT 10 robbed public workers of over $10,000 per year over the last 10 years, for a net loss of over $100,000 per worker.
Explain how stealing money from NON-state employees is a “right” for union people.
We’ll entertain your argument before breaking into endless laughter.
I would not have had to pay union dues.
So mar, not having to pay dues outweighed having to pay more for your retirement, health care, loss of collective bargaining rights, etc?
With health care, I could have switched to a different policy.
Bargaining rights: didn’t bother me one way or another.
Pension: might have paid a little more but most would have been offset by not paying union dues.
So, yes, it would have been worth it.
And when I was teaching, if I wanted to, I could go to school districts that offered better benefits.
mar:
You skipped the “verifiable facts “ part, as usual.
See, sociopath, this is why we cannot have a decent conversation. I answer your question honestly and you just come back with your stupidity and your typical troll statement.
mar:
No mar, you didn’t answer at all, and waffled on what you didn’t know about the impacts to you from Act 10. But you have the nerve to blame me.
Again, sociopath, this once again shows that you are incapable of having a decent conversation.
It also shows me that you were never a public employee but probably a guest at Northern Wisconsin Center.
“With over 100,000 workers, it would be equally correct to say ACT 10 robbed public workers of over $10,000 per year over the last 10 years…”
Well that probably makes perfect sense to liberals, but the for people with common sense, the term ‘rob’ directly implies a breakage of laws. Since Act 10 is the law, no, it would not be equally correct to say that at all. Liberals are okay with liberals breaking laws, though, so you can excuse yourself for your liberal sense statement. Go put that on Huff post where everyone will think that makes perfect sense. You’ll get lots of likes and virtual back patting.
Wrong again, mar. I was a public employee for 32 years. And you can’t prove otherwise. Come on big talker, prove your claim.
>I was a public employee for 32 years. And you can’t prove otherwise.
And you can’t (or won’t) prove you were, so you were not. Talk about being a “big talker”. LOL you love getting your nipples tweaked dim one.
j:
I don’t need to prove anything to you folks. ETF keeps sending me a check each month, so I know where I worked. And I have a retirement resolution hanging on my wall detailing my career, signed by the Department Secretary. It doesn’t matter one iota to me what you or the lying mar think or believe.
As a former state employee, I know the State tries to hire the best, the most honest and nicest people.
That leaves Troll Boy out
Still waiting for your list degrees, Herbert sociopath.
You never were a state employee or employed else where. Most employers don’t hire liars and vile hateful people.
So, sociopath, when was the last time you contributed anything useful to a conversation here?
>ETF keeps sending me a check each month, so I know where I worked. And I have a retirement resolution hanging on my wall detailing my career, signed by the Department Secretary.
Ok Leroy Cuomo, whatever you say.