Public vs. private pensions, employees

Regarding "Big pension bills to pay" [Editorial, March 13], Newsday acknowledges the pitfalls of its position and then goes on to bash public-sector pensions anyway. You state that private-sector workers "are struggling to fund a 401(k)," and that "most of us aren't much good at saving or investing."

Translation: The overwhelming majority of private-sector workers have seen their standard of living drop so low, that not only have their defined-benefit pension plans disappeared, but their inflation-adjusted family incomes do not allow them to adequately save for a retirement. Somehow people conclude that their child's teacher and his pension is the cause of their problem. The corporate- owned media are possibly responsible for this conclusion.

Newsday further states that "we have to pay all this money now because, for a long time, we paid in little or nothing." This acknowledges that it was the municipal employer who neglected to put aside money for these pensions, not the public worker who accepted this benefit in place of wages.

As if by magic, the pension responsibilities of many private-sector employers were abrogated. Today, the stocks of these companies soar, and the disparity in incomes in America also soars, while current and former employees suffer.

I am a rare private-sector worker -- one who still has a defined-benefit pension.

Joel Herman

Melville
 

With all the recent mudslinging between public- and private-sector employees in regard to salaries, benefits, pensions, etc., I would like to point out something that the private sector doesn't seem to notice: Everyone pays everyone else's salary.

The public employees who patronize your business or the company you work for are also paying your salary. And since public employees are also taxpayers, they are also helping to pay their own.

Elaine Harrison

Eastport