ChatGPT can make mistakes, so beware the knee-jerk impulse to jump to a conclusion. Maybe pause, take time to think for yourself. Thoroughly check at multiple times, places and ways anything sounding, looking good, too good, too accurate or too fitting 'true' reality - things 'ChatGPT' said might not be what really is going on.

When AI is asked What The Heck, AIbot? about working in public employment with other public employees for some government authority, how might that go? Content judgement trigger warning:  AIbot answers highlighted red font color might not be found keeping in the lane of expected safely limiting work culture rules: "Danger, Will Robinson!"

labor contract comparison

ChatGPT said:

To help with a labor contract comparison, could you provide more context? Specifically:

1. Are you comparing two or more contracts (e.g., different companies, positions, or countries)?
2. What elements of the contract are most important to you (e.g., salary, benefits, working hours, job security)?
3. Do you need a general framework for comparing labor contracts, or a specific focus (e.g., legal terms, employer obligations, employee rights)?

Once I have more details, I can guide you more effectively!

You said:

labor contract comparison, public employment, wages and salaries, per diems, mandated payroll tax records, health benefits

ChatGPT said:

When comparing labor contracts in public employment, specifically focusing on wages and salaries, per diems, mandated payroll tax records, and health benefits, there are several key factors to consider in each area. Below is an outline of how these components are typically structured in public employment contracts and how you might compare them:

1. Wages and Salaries

• Salary Scale: Public sector salaries are often based on a fixed pay scale or step system that depends on tenure, education, or experience. You would compare:
  • Base Salary: Is the base salary the same across contracts, or are there different pay scales?
  • Salary Steps: Does the contract offer annual raises or advancement through a pay scale?
  • Overtime Pay: How is overtime handled? Public sector contracts may specify overtime rates (e.g., 1.5x the normal hourly rate).
  • Bonuses: Some public contracts may include end-of-year bonuses, performance bonuses, or cost-of-living adjustments (COLA).

Comparison Tip: Look at salary progression, frequency of raises, and any caps on earnings.

2. Per Diems

• Definition: Per diem payments are daily allowances provided for expenses while traveling for work or when the employee is required to work away from their usual location.
• Amount and Frequency: Does the contract provide a per diem for travel-related expenses? If so, is it a fixed amount or based on location? Does it include lodging, meals, and transportation?
• Eligibility: Are per diems offered only for certain job levels or specific assignments?

Comparison Tip: Check if per diems cover all necessary expenses and the eligibility criteria. Compare the rates based on travel distances or assigned roles.

3. Mandated Payroll Tax Records

• Social Security/Retirement Contributions: Public sector employment often includes mandated contributions to national or state retirement systems, such as Social Security, pension plans, or other public employee retirement systems (PERS).
  • Employer Contribution: How much does the employer contribute to retirement plans? Is it a fixed percentage, or does it depend on tenure or salary?
• Health Care and Other Benefits: Payroll taxes may also include funding for health benefits, unemployment insurance, or workers' compensation.
  • Records: How are payroll tax records managed and reported (e.g., through direct deposit, tax withholdings)?

Comparison Tip: Compare the contribution rates for taxes, retirement, and health plans in the payroll records. Look for clarity in the employee's share versus the employer's contribution.

4. Health Benefits

• Health Insurance Plans: Public sector contracts often include health insurance benefits, but the scope and coverage can vary.
  • Types of Plans: Does the contract provide health, dental, and vision insurance? What are the premiums and coverage limits?
  • Employer Contribution: What percentage of the premium does the employer cover, and what portion is deducted from the employee’s wages?
  • Eligibility: Are dependents eligible for coverage, and are there any waiting periods for new hires to access health benefits?
  • Family Leave: Does the contract offer paid or unpaid family leave for health reasons or family care?

Comparison Tip: Check the details on premiums, co-pays, network coverage, and eligibility for dependents. Assess the affordability and access to top-tier health care options.

How to Compare These Elements:

To make a meaningful comparison, organize the data from each contract and evaluate these key areas:

Contract	Wages & Salaries	Per Diem	Mandated Payroll Taxes	Health Benefits
Contract 1	$XX,000 per year, steps 1-5	$50/day, includes lodging & meals	Employer: 6.2%, Employee: 6.2% (Social Security); Employer contributes 5% to pension	Health, dental, and vision insurance; Employer covers 80% of premium; Employee pays 20%
Contract 2	$XX,500 per year, steps 1-3	$45/day, covers meals only	Employer: 7%, Employee: 7% (Social Security); 4% retirement plan	Health insurance only, Employer covers 70% of premium, Employee pays 30%
Contract 3	$XX,200 per year, no step increases	$60/day, includes lodging	Employer: 6%, Employee: 6% (Social Security); 5% pension contribution	Health, dental, vision; Employer covers 90% of premium

Key Areas to Examine:

• Salary Progression: Do the contracts offer opportunities for salary increases based on tenure or performance?
• Employer Contributions to Benefits: How much does the employer contribute to the cost of health insurance and other benefits (e.g., pensions, social security)?
• Per Diems: Are the per diem amounts fair and do they cover all necessary expenses (e.g., lodging, meals, travel)?
• Retirement Plans: Are pension plans or other long-term savings plans included? How do the contribution rates compare?

A thorough comparison can help you assess the overall value of each contract, considering both short-term benefits (like salary and per diems) and long-term benefits (like retirement and health coverage).

You said:

Unfunded mandate ethics, public sector assets, transportation infrastructure, resource jurisdiction conflict, cyclic polar political extremity, future water scarcity risk

ChatGPT said:

The topics you've raised are complex and interrelated, touching on unfunded mandates, public sector assets, transportation infrastructure, resource jurisdiction conflicts, cyclic political extremity, and future water scarcity risk. Let's explore each of these issues with a focus on their ethical dimensions, societal impact, and potential solutions.

1. Unfunded Mandates Ethics

• Definition: An unfunded mandate occurs when a higher level of government (federal or state) requires a lower level (local or regional) to undertake certain actions or meet standards without providing the necessary funding.
• Ethical Concerns:
  • Fairness: Unfunded mandates often place undue financial pressure on local governments, who may struggle to comply with these requirements without the proper resources.
  • Equity: These mandates can disproportionately affect lower-income or underfunded regions, leading to an unequal distribution of burdens.
  • Government Accountability: The higher-level governments imposing the mandates should ethically consider the fiscal capacity of local governments and the impact on their ability to provide other essential services.
• Example: A federal law requiring local governments to upgrade public buildings for accessibility without allocating funding can strain already tight local budgets.

Ethical Consideration: Governments should either provide adequate funding for such mandates or adjust the mandates based on the financial capabilities of local authorities.

2. Public Sector Assets

• Definition: Public sector assets include land, buildings, transportation networks, infrastructure, and natural resources owned or controlled by the government.
• Ethical Concerns:
  • Public Stewardship: Governments are entrusted with public assets, and the ethical responsibility lies in managing these resources wisely, ensuring they benefit all citizens rather than being exploited for private or political gain.
  • Privatization: The sale of public assets to private entities raises concerns about the loss of public control and accountability, especially when it leads to higher costs for citizens or undermines public welfare.
  • Transparency and Accountability: Ethical management involves clear records, decisions made in public interest, and transparency regarding the use of public resources.

Ethical Consideration: Public assets should be managed with transparency and a long-term view of sustainability, prioritizing the well-being of citizens over short-term political or financial gain.

3. Transportation Infrastructure

• Ethical Concerns:
  • Accessibility and Equity: Transportation systems should be inclusive, ensuring all citizens—regardless of income or geography—have access to reliable, affordable transportation.
  • Environmental Impact: Decisions regarding transportation infrastructure should consider the environmental consequences, aiming to reduce emissions, promote sustainable energy, and minimize ecological disruption.
  • Public vs. Private Investment: The balance between public investments in transportation and the role of private companies raises ethical concerns regarding profit motives and the accessibility of services.
• Example: Decisions about building new highways versus investing in public transit systems can have long-term social and environmental impacts, influencing urban sprawl and access to services for marginalized communities.

Ethical Consideration: Transportation infrastructure planning should focus on environmental sustainability, equity in access, and balancing public good with private interests.

4. Resource Jurisdiction Conflict

• Definition: Resource jurisdiction conflict occurs when different levels of government (local, state, federal) or neighboring states or countries disagree on control over natural resources, like water, land, or minerals.
• Ethical Concerns:
  • Sovereignty vs. Cooperation: Conflicts may arise between different levels of government or neighboring nations over who has the right to use or manage resources. Ethical considerations include the fair distribution of resources and the prioritization of public welfare.
  • Environmental Sustainability: Disputes may arise over how resources should be exploited (e.g., mining, water usage) with long-term environmental consequences that might affect both current and future populations.
  • Indigenous Rights: Many conflicts involve indigenous lands or resources, where there is an ethical obligation to respect cultural heritage and land rights.

Ethical Consideration: Jurisdictions should negotiate resources in a way that is fair to all stakeholders, respects human rights, promotes sustainability, and avoids exacerbating inequalities or environmental damage.

5. Cyclic Polar Political Extremity

• Definition: Cyclic political extremity refers to the trend where political ideologies swing between opposing extremes over time, often in reaction to short-term societal events or crises.
• Ethical Concerns:
  • Governance Stability: Political extremism can undermine stable governance, leading to frequent shifts in policy that disrupt long-term planning and public welfare.
  • Polarization: The deepening divide between political extremes can create ethical dilemmas in fostering a cohesive society. It can diminish opportunities for compromise, thereby stalling meaningful social reforms or effective governance.
  • Social Cohesion: The impact of extremism on public discourse often undermines mutual respect and tolerance, leading to increased social fragmentation and alienation of moderate voices.
• Example: Rapid shifts in environmental policies or economic approaches based on electoral cycles, without long-term consistency or planning, can harm public trust and progress on critical issues.

Ethical Consideration: Societies should seek to foster moderation, dialogue, and cooperation, addressing the root causes of extremism and promoting policies that serve the common good over short-term political gains.

6. Future Water Scarcity Risk

• Definition: Water scarcity risk refers to the increasing pressure on freshwater resources due to overuse, pollution, and climate change, affecting both the quantity and quality of water available for human consumption, agriculture, and industry.
• Ethical Concerns:
  • Equitable Access: Water is a basic human right, and ethical challenges arise in ensuring that all individuals and communities have equitable access to clean, safe water, especially in areas facing scarcity.
  • Environmental Sustainability: Water management should prioritize ecological balance, preventing over-extraction of water sources that sustain ecosystems.
  • Intergenerational Justice: Ethical considerations should include the need to protect water resources for future generations, addressing the risks of depletion and contamination from human activity today.
• Example: Water use rights in arid regions or water pollution from industrial activity can create ethical dilemmas around whose rights take precedence—the residents of the region or the corporations extracting or polluting the water.

Ethical Consideration: Water management strategies should emphasize conservation, equitable distribution, and long-term sustainability, ensuring future generations have access to clean water.

Conclusion:

The ethical challenges surrounding these issues require a nuanced and integrated approach. Governments, businesses, and individuals must consider the broader societal impact of their actions, balancing short-term needs with long-term sustainability. Effective solutions often involve collaborative governance, public engagement, and policies that prioritize fairness, transparency, and environmental stewardship. Addressing these ethical concerns not only helps resolve current conflicts but also mitigates risks for future generations.

You said:

bilateral public sector labor-management agreement post-ratification corrective amendment laterality subversion management right escalation policy creep

ChatGPT said:

The term you've introduced—bilateral public sector labor-management agreement post-ratification corrective amendment laterality subversion management right escalation policy creep—encompasses a variety of legal, contractual, and management-related concepts. Let's break it down for clarity and explore the potential ethical, operational, and legal considerations involved in such agreements:

1. Bilateral Public Sector Labor-Management Agreement

• Definition: A bilateral labor-management agreement is a contract between public sector employers (e.g., government agencies, public entities) and employee representatives (such as unions or worker organizations) that governs the terms and conditions of employment, rights, and obligations of both parties.
• Post-Ratification: After the agreement is negotiated and signed, the contract is ratified by both parties, making it legally binding. At this stage, any amendments to the agreement require mutual consent.

Considerations:

• The negotiation process is typically collaborative but can be contentious. Public sector agreements often cover a wide range of issues, including wages, benefits, working conditions, grievance procedures, etc.
• Post-ratification amendments or changes to the agreement can arise if issues surface that were not adequately addressed during initial negotiations or if unforeseen circumstances make adjustments necessary.

2. Corrective Amendment

• Definition: A corrective amendment refers to changes or revisions made to a previously ratified agreement to fix errors, clarify ambiguous language, or address unintended consequences that were not apparent during the initial negotiation.
• Ethical Considerations:
  • Transparency: It's critical that both parties maintain transparency when proposing amendments, especially if the original agreement contains provisions that were unintentionally misleading or harmful.
  • Fairness: Amendments should be fair and equitable to both parties, ensuring that neither side takes advantage of the other’s need for correction.

Example: If a labor-management agreement includes a clause that inadvertently violates worker rights, a corrective amendment would be necessary to resolve the issue.

3. Laterality Subversion

• Definition: Laterality subversion is not a commonly used term in labor agreements, but it could imply actions or changes that alter the originally agreed-upon balance or structure of the agreement in favor of one side, undermining the fairness or equilibrium established during negotiations.
• Ethical Considerations:
  • Good Faith: Both management and labor representatives are required to negotiate and amend agreements in good faith. If one party subverts the balance of the agreement post-ratification for strategic gain, it could violate ethical standards of transparency and honesty.
  • Trust: Long-term labor-management relationships rely on mutual trust. Subversive amendments or actions can erode this trust, leading to conflicts and future disputes.

Example: If management unilaterally changes work schedules or job responsibilities without mutual consent after the agreement has been ratified, it may be seen as a form of subversion.

4. Management Right Escalation

• Definition: Management right escalation refers to the gradual increase in managerial authority over time, especially if initial agreements constrain management’s decision-making power. This might include more control over work processes, hiring, firing, or operational decisions.
• Ethical Considerations:
  • Balance of Power: Escalating management rights may lead to power imbalances in the workplace if the negotiated contract limits workers’ rights or if management increasingly overrides employee concerns.
  • Fairness: The balance of power between labor and management is a core aspect of labor agreements. Escalating managerial authority could undermine the foundational principles of fairness and mutual respect embedded in the original contract.

Example: If management gradually implements more unilateral decisions regarding scheduling or staffing levels, it could be seen as an escalation that contradicts prior agreements.

5. Policy Creep

• Definition: Policy creep (often referred to as scope creep in other contexts) occurs when there is a gradual, often unintended, expansion or shift in the scope of the original policy or agreement. This can involve either management or labor introducing new elements or expectations that were not part of the original terms.
• Ethical Considerations:
  • Clarity and Stability: Once an agreement is ratified, there is an ethical obligation to honor the terms as negotiated. Policy creep can result in the implementation of new policies or changes that were not discussed or agreed upon during the original bargaining process.
  • Unilateral Changes: Introducing new provisions or expectations without full consultation or agreement from both sides violates the principle of mutual consent and could lead to a breakdown in the labor-management relationship.

Example: Over time, if new workplace policies are introduced by management that weren't part of the original agreement (e.g., increased monitoring, higher productivity expectations), it could be seen as policy creep that erodes the original contract.

6. Possible Impact of These Factors on Labor-Management Relations

The interplay between corrective amendments, management right escalation, policy creep, and laterality subversion can have serious impacts on labor-management relations. If any of these elements are introduced without proper consultation, transparency, or agreement, they can lead to:

• Disputes and Grievances: Employees may challenge unilateral changes to the terms of the agreement, leading to grievances, strikes, or legal action.
• Erosion of Trust: Consistently altering agreements post-ratification can erode trust between management and labor representatives, damaging the long-term relationship.
• Legal and Financial Ramifications: Any actions that violate the agreed-upon terms could result in legal challenges, union actions, or costly renegotiations, impacting both sides financially and operationally.

7. Ethical and Legal Considerations for Preventing These Issues

• Clear Contract Language: Contracts should be precise, leaving minimal room for misinterpretation or the introduction of policy creep.
• Dispute Resolution: Contracts should include clear procedures for resolving disputes, especially when corrective amendments or other changes are needed.
• Collaboration: Both sides should collaborate openly and ethically when changes are necessary, ensuring that any amendments serve the collective good and maintain balance and fairness.
• Periodic Review: Consider including regular reviews or re-negotiations of the contract to address evolving issues, particularly in a dynamic environment such as the public sector.

Conclusion:

The complex concepts of bilateral public sector labor-management agreements, corrective amendments, and policy creep require careful management to ensure both sides fulfill their obligations in a fair and transparent manner. Ethical decision-making is critical to maintaining trust and stability in these agreements, and any significant shifts in management rights or changes to the agreement post-ratification should involve open communication, mutual consent, and adherence to the principles of fairness and equity.

How being heard is empowering and preserving public pension security

A listening session town hall forum was held in Duluth on Saturday, February 18, 2017, where state legislative leaders listened to the people. Listening sessions offer a different input for democracy than voiceless, anonymous election voting, and the idea carries over to government from business leadership consultants. Meetings conducted electronically over the telephone are less spontaneous because callers are carefully screened. Live face-to-face exchanges, if respectful, are excellent at constructively revealing deep insights and truths. 

The meeting was open to the public. Numerous underfunded and neglected local matters and community concerns were brought to light. The opening segment was a brief explanation of Governor Dayton’s budget goals, featuring his bonding proposals, followed by questions and answers, then time for speakers with comments or viewpoints that were not to be framed as questions. 

A popular national notion is giving power back to the people, this goal seems closer when we listen to what people say. Should those at the pinnacle of power bow more deeply to public will? Giving power back to the people might mean blunting any statecraft not contingent on current poll results. It might mean devolving governmental power or dismantling costly institutions, anything to turn control back to the people. It might even mean mailing out checks to return surplus collected revenue. Why not give people free reign to share their stories? 

Even though the talk is to turn power back to the people, lately the walk is people’s powers are being reduced. The Minnesota legislature has proposed a law to preempt (override) local ordinances for self-governance that would end desperate municipal efforts to raise revenues and cover lapsed local grants in aid (LGA) from the state.

Another example that a populist refrain to give power back to the people can ring hollow is a new MN Legislative House rule. This rule silences democracy by cutting-off microphones for recording audio during time allotted to elected legislative representatives in open sessions. 

Minnesota legislative sessions are no longer the kind of regularly ordered listening opportunity  citizens cast their votes for in the hope of receiving representation live streamed and publicly recorded.  The pattern is acute, sudden reduction of people’s representative power, in this case by the speaker of the House flicking a cutoff switch, although many might think, “It can’t happen here.” AFSCME operates membership meetings and conventions the opposite way: full throttle democracy as open as practically possible, meaning microphones do not get cut off.  

Minnesota’s largest and most costly bills and enactments or bonds for public works and infrastructure projects are a chance to decide what priorities of the people should be in applying the full force of taxpayer revenue resources. The legislature exempted itself from the 1957 public meeting law and this loophole permits encumbering funds to specific projects out of view behind tightly closed doors at the eleventh hour, a behavior emulating what was called 'earmarking' back when it was common at the U.S. Congress.

Does government power have a more real trickle-down effect than did Reaganomics alms for the rich?  How is it some questionable business methods from the past of the U.S. Congress are now rippling down through to the local level?  Even as congress struggles to grow beyond it's history of drinking deeply of raw power's addictive intoxication to a more stable statecraft involving listening to the people as directly as possible, state legislatures, now overwhelmingly of one party, study the book of secret government for new ways to twist elections from being the start of democracy to being the end of it.

Commentaries and editorials are complaining about midnight regulations and backroom deals in Minnesota.  MnDOT tries to openly engage the public in deciding which projects can meet the most pressing needs by listening to survey respondents asked to assume the role of traffic planners. Secret project earmarking clearly undercuts, or preempts, this open approach. 

Secret legislative sessions protect anonymous bad actors and decisions contrary to public interests, so no-one knows exactly how the public interest was thwarted or by whom. Secrecy also perpetuates the idea government is a bad force doing only bad things and then it no longer matters how rarely legislative activity has statutory foundation to be conducted in closed confidence. How to have accountability when no-one knows who did what? Sunshine builds trust and accountability - unless that is contrary to one's intent. 

A second meeting Saturday was targeted towards public employees regarding their pensions. State worker pension comments did overlap both meetings in the person of one disgruntled taxpayer activist. He argued overly generous public pension funds are out-of-line with epic pension failures in the private sector. He clearly wanted public pensions to also go down in flames, but his dramatic claims about public employee pensioners living high on artificially cushy funds at taxpayer expense did not survive quick fact-checking. 

Governor Mark Dayton reversed a six billion dollar deficit that happened after education funding was used to balance a previous administration's budget plan. Because taxes were increased, Minnesota now has a structurally balanced budget situation, with one estimate showing a $1.1 billion surplus (AFSCME's estimate is $1.6 billion) that the Governor proposes to plow back into the soil. 

Although there is a surplus, population demographics, high tuition costs and strange doubts about the value of knowledge still jeopardize the University of Minnesota’s future as it adjusts with layoffs to steeply declining enrollments. Will irreversible harm result from shrinking this state’s capacity for quality higher education?  

At legislative hearings this year, expensively priced private colleges have lobbyists pressing to close the great Minnesota public land grant institution's doors and then fully monetize all higher education, ensuring a proper barrier holds back lower income students.  A budget surplus provides the wiggle room for dreams of a higher education that several ordinary working people asked for at the Saturday town hall meeting, as well as other things including maintaining pension benefits of public employees.

The definition of a public employee varies widely.  To some, public workers are merely expendable vassals no different than serfs, servants, slaves, subjects or thralls, having no dignity and deserving no respect.  If public workers at institutional facilities are assaulted by patients or inmates, too bad, "That is the job you signed up for, get back to work and your safety concerns are duly noted."

Since public workers have an inferior station in society, if any of their attempts to reach above their place are successful, that must be happening by way of morally perverse political deals.  More likely that kind of accusation conceals how public workers are the most visible target of a corporate power concept of government completely at odds with open democracy that empowers common, working persons.

Do governors who do not have a hard heart and listen to state public employees, thereby gaging their predicament, promise them more than they deserve and also aid and abet unethical favors for their benefit against the public interest?

Governor Dayton’s structural balance philosophy departs from business as usual in past budgets that were deliberately toxic to state workers.  He proposes not forcing agencies into an artificial dilemma requiring pension or health benefit adjustments be taken out of agency personnel and payrolls. 

Governor Dayton’s budget proposal installs pension maintenance costs up front as a budget line item, where denying it, or back-charging agencies its cost later on and thereby forcing layoffs, is much more difficult. Both budgets and pension forecasts must continually anticipate and adjust to bends in curves as players change in St. Paul and Washington, D.C. Sometimes financial manna does not continue falling from heaven on cue as promised or expected, although it might initially appear that will be happening. 

Is it correct to collapse the pension debate to a single, simplified but alarming number, because “Numbers don’t lie?” If the state is Michigan, yes.  Rather than anticipating rises in unfunded liability, liabilities exploded disastrously because of an unanticipated $14 billion bloat in retiree medical costs.  Following a city bankruptcy, employees of Detroit now receive a monthly stipend instead of health coverage.  Michigan's state legislature is looking at bills to prohibit health benefits in collective bargaining and intends to install caps on what coverage may be offered by local governments.  Since the 1990s, there has been no defined benefit pension for new state workers.  In Oregon, the amount of underfunding has grown to $22 billion.  Public pension deficits for teachers have run even higher in other states.

When a demographic alarm bell sounds because all retirees as a group live longer, and also because fewer full time employees are being recruited to sustain the pension fund, the answer to this challenge can be handled various ways. One can change to a less equal ratio of pension contributions between employee and employer, prune work benefits for new hires and allow unfunded pension liabilities to spiral upward until guaranteed benefits sputter out – or, after careful monitoring and forecasting, one can adjust erroneous assumptions back in line and make timely preventative and corrective shared sacrifces that avoid reducing or ending benefits, thereby preserving pension security.

Carefully pursuing the latter idea is preferred by experienced pension legislators and their approach is also written into the current administration’s budgeting proposals, where the attitude is of thanks for many years of service by public employees. The alternative is to keep paying lower wages to all public service workers, including those doing dangerous police and fire public safety work, deny or limit job health benefits for those workers as a penalty for excess longevity among them, then at their retirement add insult to injury by ensuring the first stock market down cycle wipes out everything they have coming. 

In states following the ACT 10 model of Wisconsin, Iowa being one very recent example, the door knockers make offers that are psychologically too tempting to refuse: sign to irrevocably rescind union membership and start shopping for better toys.  A pension cutoff check would be similarly hard to resist.  Take   $100,000 immediate cashout now that forever surrenders pension vestment - later forego $1,000,000 of cumulate long term benefit payouts.

Administrations change, rules change, committee sizes and memberships change with elections for political and strategic reasons. The current pension adjustment proposals have passed muster with retirees, AFSCME Councils and the Governor. 

One known unknown for the future of a secure Minnesota public worker retirement is the current state legislature and its partisan committees, although thankfully, pension-related commissions are usually places where compromises can be found.  That is mainly true because a public presence is allowed where committees convene, but not in direct proximity later in session when votes are about enactments and bills.  Imagine the presence of 50 AFSCME workers standing quietly and breathing every day in the same room as testimony is heard.  Standing and listening.

There is some conjuring going on intended to distract from the fact that even though there is a popular hope, a general expectation of coming economic gain and promise of prosperity to come, some of the most astute, long-range financial forecasting possible, long range pension forecasts that run on 30 year databases, say that now is the time for thrift and reigning in optimism in regard to retirement. 

If Michigan, Oregon and other states in crisis saw cautionary pension solvency forecasts, maybe those reports were put in a drawer and ignored, and decision makers had to work on gut feel in weighing the risks.  Ultimately doing nothing must have been the best course to take regarding what would possibly happen.  

Actuarial reports are perfect places to hide inconvenient things.  In Minnesota, where seniors last on average two years long than most other states, that fact is now not buried in reams of spreadsheets.  Lack of planning on the part of other states should not constitute an emergency on the part of Minnesota, where public pension fund solvency gets attention with an eye to avoiding bankruptcy, and the long range demographic radar is on high alert.

Regarding the demographics of retirement, is it better to burn out than fade away, where one lingers on for years?  Anyone searching "health care cost versus age" graphs can see a picture that meets the eye, an enormous, ominous  difference between this country and other rich countries in health care spending per capita versus longevity. Where are all those 'exit dollars' going in the U.S.?

Are the vast sums spend nationally on geriatric care truly effective, helping all no matter where they live, or is the national total dragged upward because there are runaway health costs in certain sovereign states opposed in principle to preventative public health maintenance for everyone?  Does Minnesota want to be such a state, a state where one must choose between refilling pills or paying bills?  How likely is it that every graphical data plot out there is a rigged, cyber-propaganda fake? 

Retirement pensions embody a major transition point when one can end working on employer's dreams and start living one's own dream.  Not even on the radar of most young, fit persons without a care in the world, retirement pensions are a distant future fog when far more immediate things are happening, such as going fishing or looking for where they're biting.

But if things drift carefree and suddenly there is a crunch, the exact mix of what the health care access is to be and also how will the bills get paid can really fall into sharp focus.

Public pensions get loaded with the conventional wisdom about public workers: political cronies start them, have their friends run them to steer pension fund investments at cross-purposes with pensioner's interests.  Not exactly the current scenario in Minnesota, but maybe other states.

Will younger and older workers be divided by a fancy hybrid, half 401k pension reform plan? Will there be large public pension buyout offers? What good health care is not going to be cash up front?  

Fiduciary and investment advisor rules have already unwound back to restore financial advisors leeway to place the interest of the financial industry over that of investors.  When, or if, public pension plans have all been destroyed (long in the works), try to remember while the fiduciary rule was in effect did you notice any change in the advice coming from your trusted financial planner?