NYT series on Long Island Rail Road
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
high disability claims by workers and other issues of the railroad.
The following link connects to one article, but within the article are
links to other LIRR articles.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/nyregion/22railroad.html?hp
JimmyG...@mailinator.com
> The New York Times has a series of articles on the LIRR focusing on
> high disability claims by workers and other issues of the railroad.
>
Your subject line and summary don't do the article justice. It says
that in recent years, between 94 and 97 percent of all LIRR retirees
have applied for and received full disability benefits from the
federal Railroad Retirement Board, after they retire at age 50 with 20
years of service.
It also describes how they pad their paychecks (and therefore their
pensions) by taking advantage of contract provisions which give them
an entire day's extra pay for things like operating both a yard engine
and passenger engine, or a diesel engine and electric engine, during
the same day. People who earn a base rate of $30 per hour sometimes
end up with more than $1000 per day.
Many of these supposedly-disabled retirees then play golf all day (for
free at a state park golf course, since they're disabled), while
collecting more than $150,000 per year from their pension and
disability payments.
Jimmy
Stephen Sprunk
> On Sep 22, 10:08 am, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> The New York Times has a series of articles on the LIRR focusing on
>> high disability claims by workers and other issues of the railroad.
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/nyregion/22railroad.html?hp
>
> Your subject line and summary don't do the article justice. It says
> that in recent years, between 94 and 97 percent of all LIRR retirees
> have applied for and received full disability benefits from the
> federal Railroad Retirement Board, after they retire at age 50 with 20
> years of service.
> Many of these supposedly-disabled retirees then play golf all day (for
> free at a state park golf course, since they're disabled), while
> collecting more than $150,000 per year from their pension and
> disability payments.
Okay, I can understand how many RR employees would end up disabled, but
94-97% of them, after completing their 20 years of service? Something
smells really fishy.
> It also describes how they pad their paychecks (and therefore their
> pensions) by taking advantage of contract provisions which give them
> an entire day's extra pay for things like operating both a yard engine
> and passenger engine, or a diesel engine and electric engine, during
> the same day. People who earn a base rate of $30 per hour sometimes
> end up with more than $1000 per day.
Now I see the benefits of working for a union...
S
Bolwerk
Now the LIRR's bad farebox recovery ratio is becoming clear.
Candide
news:a5ydnbIFUP3RRkrV...@earthlink.com...
Oh you done did it now! *LOL*
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN2230724020080922
Merritt Mullen
<b5c35619-5409-435e...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
JimmyG...@mailinator.com wrote:
You pretty much have stated the facts, but don't blame the employees,
they are simply taking advantage of what the law provides. Most people
would do the same. It is the politicians and managers that are
responsible.
Merritt
Merritt Mullen
Bolwerk <n...@way.org2> wrote:
> Now the LIRR's bad farebox recovery ratio is becoming clear.
As I understand it, it is the federal railroad retirement that approves
the disability and pays the retirement/disability checks. Perhaps there
are some unethical medical doctors providing the health certifications.
Merritt
1100GS_rider
They are thieves. I'm not a thief. Are you?
--
You can trust me; I'm not like the others.
George
> In article
>
> You pretty much have stated the facts, but don't blame the employees,
> they are simply taking advantage of what the law provides. Most people
> would do the same. It is the politicians and managers that are
> responsible.
>
> Merritt
Why not? "everyone else is doing it" is one way to rationalize anything
(and a common protest offered by children) but it certainly doesn't
relieve someone of blame because the other choice would be not doing
something because it is wrong.
Bolwerk
I wasn't talking about the disability. I don't really care about that.
As far as I'm concerned, it's a way to get some of our own money back
from the feds.
I was referring to those archaic procedures, like the ones mentioned
upthread by Jimmy Geldburg:
It [the article] also describes how they pad their paychecks
1100GS_rider
> Merritt Mullen wrote:
> > In article <a5ydnbIFUP3RRkrV...@earthlink.com>,
> > Bolwerk <n...@way.org2> wrote:
> >
> >> Now the LIRR's bad farebox recovery ratio is becoming clear.
> >
> > As I understand it, it is the federal railroad retirement that approves
> > the disability and pays the retirement/disability checks. Perhaps there
> > are some unethical medical doctors providing the health certifications.
>
> I wasn't talking about the disability. I don't really care about that.
> As far as I'm concerned, it's a way to get some of our own money back
> from the feds.
But it's corruption like this that makes rail unaffordable in the US.
> I was referring to those archaic procedures, like the ones mentioned
> upthread by Jimmy Geldburg:
>
> It [the article] also describes how they pad their paychecks
> (and therefore their pensions) by taking advantage of contract
> provisions which give them an entire day's extra pay for things
> like operating both a yard engine and passenger engine, or a
> diesel engine and electric engine, during the same day. People
> who earn a base rate of $30 per hour sometimes end up with more
> than $1000 per day.
Work rules. Second only to corruption and fraud.
Laurence Sheldon
I read the article (actually had read it before it posted here) but I
don't remember...Do they get a feather bed?
Bolwerk
> Bolwerk <n...@way.org2> wrote:
>
>> Merritt Mullen wrote:
>>> In article <a5ydnbIFUP3RRkrV...@earthlink.com>,
>>> Bolwerk <n...@way.org2> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Now the LIRR's bad farebox recovery ratio is becoming clear.
>>> As I understand it, it is the federal railroad retirement that approves
>>> the disability and pays the retirement/disability checks. Perhaps there
>>> are some unethical medical doctors providing the health certifications.
>> I wasn't talking about the disability. I don't really care about that.
>> As far as I'm concerned, it's a way to get some of our own money back
>> from the feds.
>
> But it's corruption like this that makes rail unaffordable in the US.
Yes, it's monstrously stupid. I don't like the system, but I don't
blame the workers for playing by the rules of the game.
The point is that shouldn't affect the farebox recovery like what
Geldburg was talking about.
>> I was referring to those archaic procedures, like the ones mentioned
>> upthread by Jimmy Geldburg:
>>
>> It [the article] also describes how they pad their paychecks
>> (and therefore their pensions) by taking advantage of contract
>> provisions which give them an entire day's extra pay for things
>> like operating both a yard engine and passenger engine, or a
>> diesel engine and electric engine, during the same day. People
>> who earn a base rate of $30 per hour sometimes end up with more
>> than $1000 per day.
>
> Work rules. Second only to corruption and fraud.
I don't know if there's even fraud here. Corruption, sure, but not
fraud. The corruption is decades old.
1100GS_rider
> 1100GS_rider wrote:
> > Bolwerk <n...@way.org2> wrote:
> >
> >> Merritt Mullen wrote:
> >>> In article <a5ydnbIFUP3RRkrV...@earthlink.com>,
> >>> Bolwerk <n...@way.org2> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Now the LIRR's bad farebox recovery ratio is becoming clear.
> >>> As I understand it, it is the federal railroad retirement that approves
> >>> the disability and pays the retirement/disability checks. Perhaps there
> >>> are some unethical medical doctors providing the health certifications.
> >> I wasn't talking about the disability. I don't really care about that.
> >> As far as I'm concerned, it's a way to get some of our own money back
> >> from the feds.
> >
> > But it's corruption like this that makes rail unaffordable in the US.
>
> Yes, it's monstrously stupid. I don't like the system, but I don't
> blame the workers for playing by the rules of the game.
I do. They are unethical. Basically they are thieves.
Hans-Joachim Zierke
Merritt Mullen schrieb:
> You pretty much have stated the facts, but don't blame the employees,
> they are simply taking advantage of what the law provides. Most people
> would do the same. It is the politicians and managers that are
> responsible.
No.
Regarding the usage of existing work rules to their advantage, yes,
there you are right. But claiming to be disabled is called fraud, if not
supported by facts.
Hans-Joachim
--
Close to all politicians are amateurs in this field. [the economy] And the
worst dilettante is sitting in Washington.
Helmut Schmidt
Bolwerk
Maybe, but that doesn't mean what they're doing is illegal. And sadly,
the distinction is pointless if they can't be prosecuted because it is.
1100GS_rider
I'm not so interested in the fine details of the law. Morally, they are
committing fraud. They should be regarded as thieves.
Laurence Sheldon
>>>> Yes, it's monstrously stupid. I don't like the system, but I don't
>>>> blame the workers for playing by the rules of the game.
>>> I do. They are unethical. Basically they are thieves.
>> Maybe, but that doesn't mean what they're doing is illegal. And sadly,
>> the distinction is pointless if they can't be prosecuted because it is.
>
> I'm not so interested in the fine details of the law. Morally, they are
> committing fraud. They should be regarded as thieves.
In discussion elsewhere about a man that had money stolen from him, got
restitution, but the perk filed bankruptcy so the court told him to give
it back----long ugly story.
There and here it comes down to some of us gun-clingers make a
distinction between "legal", "makes sense", "right", and "fair".
I long for the day when those are all exact synonyms. (Again?)
Merritt Mullen
Hans-Joachim Zierke <Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote:
> Merritt Mullen schrieb:
>
>
> > You pretty much have stated the facts, but don't blame the employees,
> > they are simply taking advantage of what the law provides. Most people
> > would do the same. It is the politicians and managers that are
> > responsible.
>
> No.
>
> Regarding the usage of existing work rules to their advantage, yes,
> there you are right. But claiming to be disabled is called fraud, if not
> supported by facts.
But it is supported by facts, a certified examination by a physician.
It is just that the criteria are too weak. Either that or the
physicians are committing fraud. Don't get me wrong, something is
wrong, both morally and legally.
But you you retire at age 50, and the RR tells you here is your
retirement pay as we have calculated it, it would take an unusual person
to refuse to accept it.
You will find the same corrupt practice with most police and fire
department retirements in the USA.
Some people consider working hard all their lives is an automatic proof
of disability. After all, they are not as agile as they were when they
were 20!
It is a sad commentary, but it has been going on for a long time.
They say sunlight is the best disinfectant. Perhaps that will work
here. Especially when the Metro-North employees realize what they are
missing by not working for the LIRR.
Merritt
Bolwerk
If you say so. But I can't say I really see this being any worse than
exploiting a tax loophole, or sneaking around a toll using back roads.
Merritt Mullen
bmw1...@hotmail.com (1100GS_rider) wrote:
> Merritt Mullen <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> > You pretty much have stated the facts, but don't blame the employees,
> > they are simply taking advantage of what the law provides. Most people
> > would do the same.
>
> They are thieves. I'm not a thief. Are you?
They are being compensated for work performed in accordance with the law
and the RR Retirement Board regulations. That does not make them
thieves. As a matter of fact, it appears the employee has no control
over it. All retirement applications are submitted with a physical
examination, and the RR Retirement Board in Chicago determines
eligibility for disability and, in the case of the LIRR, about 97% are
determined to be disabled.
Blame the doctors that administer the physicals. Who is paying them?
I get three separate retirement check from the federal government
(military, civil service, and social security). Are you telling me I am
a thief, stealing your tax dollars? I see is as deferred pay or a
return of prior deducted pay.
Merritt
1100GS_rider
> In article <1inoiaz.80kzstp0h9aqN%bmw1...@hotmail.com>,
> bmw1...@hotmail.com (1100GS_rider) wrote:
>
> > Merritt Mullen <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> > > You pretty much have stated the facts, but don't blame the employees,
> > > they are simply taking advantage of what the law provides. Most people
> > > would do the same.
> >
> > They are thieves. I'm not a thief. Are you?
>
> They are being compensated for work performed in accordance with the law
> and the RR Retirement Board regulations. That does not make them
> thieves. As a matter of fact, it appears the employee has no control
> over it. All retirement applications are submitted with a physical
> examination, and the RR Retirement Board in Chicago determines
> eligibility for disability and, in the case of the LIRR, about 97% are
> determined to be disabled.
>
> Blame the doctors that administer the physicals. Who is paying them?
Blame everybody. It's still fraudulent if 97% of the people are labeled
disabled. A person with honor wouldn't take the money.
> I get three separate retirement check from the federal government
> (military, civil service, and social security). Are you telling me I am
> a thief, stealing your tax dollars? I see is as deferred pay or a
> return of prior deducted pay.
You are a drag on the economy, but retirement benefits are not
disability fraud.
1100GS_rider
> In article <slrngdg64b.ju9...@Odysseus.Zierke.com>,
> Hans-Joachim Zierke <Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote:
>
> > Merritt Mullen schrieb:
> >
> >
> > > You pretty much have stated the facts, but don't blame the employees,
> > > they are simply taking advantage of what the law provides. Most people
> > > would do the same. It is the politicians and managers that are
> > > responsible.
> >
> > No.
> >
> > Regarding the usage of existing work rules to their advantage, yes,
> > there you are right. But claiming to be disabled is called fraud, if not
> > supported by facts.
>
> But it is supported by facts, a certified examination by a physician.
> It is just that the criteria are too weak. Either that or the
> physicians are committing fraud. Don't get me wrong, something is
> wrong, both morally and legally.
>
> But you you retire at age 50, and the RR tells you here is your
> retirement pay as we have calculated it, it would take an unusual person
> to refuse to accept it.
Honest people are rare.
> You will find the same corrupt practice with most police and fire
> department retirements in the USA.
Absolutely. And it is fraud there, as well.
> Some people consider working hard all their lives is an automatic proof
> of disability. After all, they are not as agile as they were when they
> were 20!
Glad you're taking it seriously.
> It is a sad commentary, but it has been going on for a long time.
The bill is only starting to come due. Wait until we get the bill for
the huge numbers of pending 'disabled retirees' coming down the pike.
> They say sunlight is the best disinfectant. Perhaps that will work
> here. Especially when the Metro-North employees realize what they are
> missing by not working for the LIRR.
It's NYC. Fraudulent disability claims are major participant sport in
the city.
1100GS_rider
The difference is that the disability claims are obviously fraudulent.
Laurence Sheldon
> The difference is that the disability claims are obviously fraudulent.
What is really disappointing (but entirely consistent with the extreme
left running stuff now) is the number of people willing to explain to us
that it is all really OK, and not an issue with the tons of money being
asked to support free-ride railroads.
This is fraud, wrong, a crime in fact if not in law. There is just
nothing right about it.
--
Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics
of System Administrators:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to
learn from their mistakes.
Eppure si rinfresca
ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs
Mark Mathu
>>> Yes, it's monstrously stupid. I don't like the system, but I don't
>>> blame the workers for playing by the rules of the game.
>>
>> I do. They are unethical. Basically they are thieves.
>
> Maybe, but that doesn't mean what they're doing is illegal. And sadly,
> the distinction is pointless if they can't be prosecuted because it is.
If people applied for and recieve federal disability pension payments but
are not truly disabled, they are committing fraud. That's why Governor
Paterson has asked the state attorney general to investigate the matter. I
don't know what's worse -- the fraud, or the fact that people on this
newsgroup are defending it.
Candide
news:1inop89.oo464jg58a46N%bmw1...@hotmail.com...
While not based upon disability, various NYC and NYS workers, including
the uniformed services. and the MTA/NYC transit, have been doing
something along the same for years. Indeed unless the rules have
changed, continue to do so.
Retirement pension is based upon a formula heavily weighted with one's
final years or so of service, so what do these workers do? Simply work
masses of overtime those last few years and retire on a vastly inflated
pension.
We saw this after 9/11/01 when many NYC fire and police workers, having
made so much money in overtime had a tough choice. Those that were
eligible to retire, could do so then, and take a pension based upon the
much higher amount because of the amount of 9/11 related overtime, or
work several more years with no promise of said overtime and thus retire
on less. Not sure what happened in the end, but IIRC many retired.
As for such things not being "fair", again not including claiming false
disability, pensions and retirements are governed by statues and in many
cases union contracts. Why should anyone not take advantage of benefits
given to them via statue and or union negotiations?
Bolwerk
No one has defended the policy. It appears the rules are too lax, not
that the workers, at least not all of them, are intentionally acting
fraudulently. Maybe they are, but no one has shown that.
Merritt Mullen
"Mark Mathu" <ma...@mathu.com> wrote:
Nobody is defending the fraud. The question is, who is committing it?
It is a matter of accountability, and blaming the guy at the bottom of
the heap for a systemic problem is the way to avoid accountability.
If 97% of the retirees are getting disability, it is hard to blame that
on the individual retiree.
Merritt
Merritt Mullen
bmw1...@hotmail.com (1100GS_rider) wrote:
> Merritt Mullen <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> > Blame the doctors that administer the physicals. Who is paying them?
>
> Blame everybody.
In other words, you accept the current political reasoning that no one
is accountable for the actions of the government.
> It's still fraudulent if 97% of the people are labeled
> disabled.
We all agree that the system is wrong. But it is not "everybody's"
fault.
> A person with honor wouldn't take the money.
You are saying 97% of the LIRR workers are dishonorable. That is libel.
I bet you would not work for 30 years or so in a relatively dangerous
and stressful, and then refuse to take the pension you earned. Why do
you want to reward the government by giving them your money, when they
are the source of the problem?
Ask those people why they are getting it (as was done on TV) and they
will honestly answer that, according to the rules, they are disabled and
have earned the payments. They are not committing fraud, they are
playing by the rules. Who are you to define their disability?
>
> > I get three separate retirement check from the federal government
> > (military, civil service, and social security). Are you telling me I am
> > a thief, stealing your tax dollars? I see is as deferred pay or a
> > return of prior deducted pay.
>
> You are a drag on the economy, but retirement benefits are not
> disability fraud.
Now that IS libel!! After working for some 40 years defending this
country at low wages, I am suddenly a drag on the economy?
Merritt
Merritt Mullen
bmw1...@hotmail.com (1100GS_rider) wrote:
> The difference is that the disability claims are obviously fraudulent.
So who prepares the claims? They certainly do not take the worker's
word that they are disabled. A medical examiner makes the determination.
So who is committing the fraud?
Merritt
Merritt Mullen
Laurence Sheldon <lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1100GS_rider wrote:
>
> > The difference is that the disability claims are obviously fraudulent.
>
> What is really disappointing (but entirely consistent with the extreme
> left running stuff now) is the number of people willing to explain to us
> that it is all really OK, and not an issue with the tons of money being
> asked to support free-ride railroads.
>
> This is fraud, wrong, a crime in fact if not in law. There is just
> nothing right about it.
That's the whole obvious point that no one disagrees with. Clearly, no
industry disables 97% of its workers.
The problem is people want to blame the workers for a system the workers
have no control over.
And it is not just the LIRR. Police and Fire departments practice the
same fraud.
The fraud is performed by the politicians that set up the system, not
the workers.
The problem is getting politicians to be accountable for their acts,
instead of blaming it on the people.
Merritt
1100GS_rider
> The problem is getting politicians to be accountable for their acts,
> instead of blaming it on the people.
No, the people who take fake disability money are frauds.
1100GS_rider
> You are saying 97% of the LIRR workers are dishonorable. That is libel.
Truth is an absolute defense.
> I bet you would not work for 30 years or so in a relatively dangerous
> and stressful, and then refuse to take the pension you earned. Why do
> you want to reward the government by giving them your money, when they
> are the source of the problem?
It's not the pension that is the issue. It's the fake disability.
1100GS_rider
Peter T. Daniels
> 1100GS_rider wrote:
> > The difference is that the disability claims are obviously fraudulent.
>
> What is really disappointing (but entirely consistent with the extreme
> left running stuff now)
? What is "the extreme left" running?
Who represents "the extreme left" anywhere in the US?
Peter T. Daniels
> In article <1inoiaz.80kzstp0h9aqN%bmw110...@hotmail.com>,
>
> bmw110...@hotmail.com (1100GS_rider) wrote:
> > Merritt Mullen <mmullen8...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> > > You pretty much have stated the facts, but don't blame the employees,
> > > they are simply taking advantage of what the law provides. Most people
> > > would do the same.
>
> > They are thieves. I'm not a thief. Are you?
>
> They are being compensated for work performed in accordance with the law
> and the RR Retirement Board regulations. That does not make them
> thieves. As a matter of fact, it appears the employee has no control
> over it. All retirement applications are submitted with a physical
> examination, and the RR Retirement Board in Chicago determines
> eligibility for disability and, in the case of the LIRR, about 97% are
> determined to be disabled.
Why is there still a separate RR Retirement Board?
Because 75 years ago, the railroadmen had a decent pension system, so
they were excluded from Social Security.
What is the excuse for continuing the separate parallel system for all
these decades while the rail sector dwindled to near insignificance
and railroadmen benefited from featherbedding?
It's worse than farm subsidies for not growing crops.
Bolwerk
> On Sep 22, 8:58 pm, Laurence Sheldon <lfshel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 1100GS_rider wrote:
>>> The difference is that the disability claims are obviously fraudulent.
>> What is really disappointing (but entirely consistent with the extreme
>> left running stuff now)
>
> ? What is "the extreme left" running?
>
> Who represents "the extreme left" anywhere in the US?
At this point? Bush and McCain, given how right-wing Obama is. :-p
Mark Mathu
news:mmullen8014-539B...@netnews.mchsi.com...
>> The difference is that the disability claims are obviously fraudulent.
>
> So who prepares the claims? They certainly do not take the worker's
> word that they are disabled. A medical examiner makes the determination.
>
> So who is committing the fraud?
The railroad workers filing the claims of being permanently disabled for any
kind of regular work.
Re: Employee Disability Benefits, About Your Disability Annuity (Railroad
Retirment Board)
http://www.rrb.gov/forms/PandS/rb1d/rb1d-1.asp
Mark Mathu
>> It's still fraudulent if 97% of the people are labeled
>> disabled.
>
> We all agree that the system is wrong. But it is not "everybody's"
> fault.
>
>> A person with honor wouldn't take the money.
>
> You are saying 97% of the LIRR workers are dishonorable. That is libel.
Let's get back to the facts. The NY Times did not write, nor did they
imply, that 97% of the LIRR workers are getting disability payments.
The NY Time article said "... in each year since 2000, between 93 percent
and 97 percent of employees over 50 who retired with 20 years of service
also received disability payments." These are recent year data only, and is
only a subset of all retired LIRR workers.
It also said "... copy of that [internal retirement board audit ] report,
obtained by The Times, stated that medical files did not justify all the
disabilities awarded. 'This number could be as high as 10 to 20 percent of
the cases reviewed,' according to the report ..." Even with disabilaty
claims in the 90+% range, the article does not dispute that most of them are
justified.
Read and comprehend a little more, OK?
> I bet you would not work for 30 years or so in a relatively dangerous
> and stressful, and then refuse to take the pension you earned. Why do
> you want to reward the government by giving them your money, when they
> are the source of the problem?
This isn't a pension... LIRR workers are still eleigible for pension
benefits separate from disability payments. Don't bend the line dividing
pension benfits and disability benefits.
____
Mark Mathu
Whitefish Bay, Wis.
Greg Gritton
>> If people applied for and recieve federal disability pension payments
>> but are not truly disabled, they are committing fraud. That's why
>> Governor Paterson has asked the state attorney general to investigate
>> the matter. I don't know what's worse -- the fraud, or the fact that
>> people on this newsgroup are defending it.
>>
> Nobody is defending the fraud. The question is, who is committing it?
> It is a matter of accountability, and blaming the guy at the bottom of
> the heap for a systemic problem is the way to avoid accountability.
>
> If 97% of the retirees are getting disability, it is hard to blame
> that on the individual retiree.
Why? If it is common to cheat on taxes, or steal from others,
or commit any other crime, does that make it right?
If you have children, do you accept the excuse "everyone
is doing it"?
Of course, if fraud is so easy to committ, then there needs
to be an adjustment in how the law is enforced. But, that doesn't
mean that the fraud itself is right.
(Some other poster mentioned working a lot of overtime
the last few years to inflate pensions. That is a somewhat
different issue; the system is clearly broken, but I am not
sure I would blame the individual workers in that case.)
Greg Gritton
Mark Mathu
news:eef983a4-36f5-497d...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> What is the excuse for continuing the separate parallel system for all
> these decades while the rail sector dwindled to near insignificance
> and railroadmen benefited from featherbedding?
The trouble i see is that it is difficult to come up with a way to merge the
two systems in a way which is equitable to both the retirement benefits
which have been earned by both groups. People in the RRB pay higher
retirement taxes than people in Social Security and the retirement benefits
are higher for long-term employees.
So if we merge the two, how do you handle the discrepancy? Aboutt he best
we can hope for is to set a date after which new railroad employees become
part of the SSA system instead of the RRB, and sunset the RRB over a 50-year
period.
Also, if we drop the RRB they next thing that will happen is people will be
clamoring for the Congress to end the generous benefits they give themselves
through the federal retirement system, and they certainly can't let that
happen. So expect the status quo to remain.
J.R.Guthrie
who've ever paid into Railroad Retirement.
Financing is pretty much like Social Security, and in fact Railroaders
aren't in the Social Security system.
However, the actual payments are calculated more like a pension, based on
the average of the last five years of service.
Railroads pay in additional money to cover shortfalls -- especially those
caused by the tremendous drop in railroad employment over the years.
Taxpayers do not kick into theis directly -- but indirectly. The most
eggregious over the years was the extra cash Amtrak was forced to kick over
for pensions for railroad employees furloughed or retired long before
Amtrak. Although the actuyarial tables have been catching up, in its earlier
years, as much as 2/3 or more of the "operating subsidy" for Amtrak was
actually kicking in to Railroad Retirement for employees who never worked
for it.
This was always one of the arguments against killing Amtrak -- that the
liabilities would continue to be a burden on the taxpayer, so who not have
trains too for the same price?
That feature was also one of the reasons the railroads agreed to permit
Amtrak to use their tracks at only the marginal cost of keeping them up for
passengr service, rather than a normal trackage rights agreement. They did
the math and figured it would be cheaper than paying Railroad Retirement on
all the people they'd gotten rid of in dicontinuing the trains.
Some of the commuter operations had to pay extra when they took over from
the private railroads in the same manner. This worked against new starts
for a long time, because every time a city looked at establishing a commuter
line, they'd go nuts at the personnel costs associated with Railroad
Retirement.
As I understand railroad disability, that works more like State Unemployment
taxes, in that it is experience-based. i.e. the LIRR would pay far more into
Retirmen Disability than other railroads, based on experience.
Cheers,
Jim Guthrie
Peter T. Daniels
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in messagenews:eef983a4-36f5-497d...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > What is the excuse for continuing the separate parallel system for all
> > these decades while the rail sector dwindled to near insignificance
> > and railroadmen benefited from featherbedding?
>
> The trouble i see is that it is difficult to come up with a way to merge the
> two systems in a way which is equitable to both the retirement benefits
> which have been earned by both groups. People in the RRB pay higher
> retirement taxes than people in Social Security and the retirement benefits
> are higher for long-term employees.
If there weren't separate systems, there wouldn't be different pay-
ins.
> So if we merge the two, how do you handle the discrepancy? Aboutt he best
> we can hope for is to set a date after which new railroad employees become
> part of the SSA system instead of the RRB, and sunset the RRB over a 50-year
> period.
That should have been done 75 -- or, at least, 60 -- years ago. (60
years ago when the importance of rail began to dwindle.)
Laurence Sheldon
Laurence Sheldon
Merritt Mullen wrote:
You ought to read back through your recent posts in this thread, and
explain how you can flip flop worse than Obama and not hurt yourselt
physically (you have destroyed your credibility and and I am about to
adjust the filters so I don't have to wade through it anymore).
> The problem is getting politicians to be accountable for their acts,
> instead of blaming it on the people.
How about a short cut--blame averybody who put their name on a
fraudulent piece of paper?
Hans-Joachim Zierke
Merritt Mullen schrieb:
> But it is supported by facts, a certified examination by a physician.
For a 97% result, you can tell me what you want: The employees will have
known exactly, which physicians they had to visit.
> It is just that the criteria are too weak. Either that or the
> physicians are committing fraud. Don't get me wrong, something is
> wrong, both morally and legally.
... and it certainly includes the ethics of the employees, who will make
it extremely difficult for future /legitimate/ applicants, to get this
compensation for /real/ disabilities.
If all members of a society follow the rule, that everything is allowed,
which does not bring them into jail, this society will be destroyed,
because it's not practical and doable, to codify every behaviour into
law, and control it.
On the other hand, there is of course the question: "Why ask the average
employee for ethics, if Richard Fuld earned 40 millions per year for
ruining Lehman Brothers, and Stanley O'Neill received a golden parachute
of 162 million last year, for ruining Merril Lynch?" It is fully
logical, that the average guy takes an example from those, who are
successful, and it's really, really difficult, to find an argumentative
basis for claiming, that they shouldn't.
> But you you retire at age 50, and the RR tells you here is your
> retirement pay as we have calculated it, it would take an unusual person
> to refuse to accept it.
Inflating the pensions with overtime is an understandable reaction to
the rules, as they have been negotiated. There might be a problem with
it, but not an ethical one.
> You will find the same corrupt practice with most police and fire
> department retirements in the USA.
If they really worked their overtime, not sat through it, there is no
reason to call it "corrupt".
> Some people consider working hard all their lives is an automatic proof
> of disability. After all, they are not as agile as they were when they
> were 20!
Now that you tell me about it, yes, I should see a physician. ;-)
> They say sunlight is the best disinfectant. Perhaps that will work
> here.
Sometimes, I have been disappointed with the New York Times, within the
last years. But this one was certainly a piece of professional
journalism.
Hans-Joachim
--
Close to all politicians are amateurs in this field. [the economy] And the
worst dilettante is sitting in Washington.
Helmut Schmidt
JimmyG...@mailinator.com
> As a matter of fact, it appears the employee has no control
> over it. All retirement applications are submitted with a physical
> examination, and the RR Retirement Board in Chicago determines
> eligibility for disability and, in the case of the LIRR, about 97% are
> determined to be disabled.
So it's just a big coincidence that the LIRR's disability rate is
several times higher than any other railroad in the U.S., including
Metro North? The article describes how the LIRR has an extremely low
rate of employee injuries.
> Blame the doctors that administer the physicals. Who is paying them?
I don't know who pays the bill, but the doctor basically works for the
retiring employee. The retiree gets to see a private doctor of his
choice.
The article, or its accompanying video, describes how the doctors
order an MRI or X-ray, see a small arthritic change here or there, and
diagnose the employee as unable to work. But the stuff that comes up
on these tests is present in virtually all people of that age, and
doesn't necessarily indicate any kind of injury or inability to work.
Jimmy
Merritt Mullen
Hans-Joachim Zierke <Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote:
> Merritt Mullen schrieb:
>
>
> > But it is supported by facts, a certified examination by a physician.
>
> For a 97% result, you can tell me what you want: The employees will have
> known exactly, which physicians they had to visit.
I agree. And I wouldn't be surprised if those physicians were approved
by the LIRR and the unions. And probably paid by them.
> > It is just that the criteria are too weak. Either that or the
> > physicians are committing fraud. Don't get me wrong, something is
> > wrong, both morally and legally.
>
> ... and it certainly includes the ethics of the employees, who will make
> it extremely difficult for future /legitimate/ applicants, to get this
> compensation for /real/ disabilities.
It would be very difficult for a single employee to change the system
for himself because it offends his sense of morality. Not only would he
be told by the managers it can't be done, but he would incur the wrath
of all the other employees. About the only thing he could do is to
donate a portion of his retirement check to charity.
>
> If all members of a society follow the rule, that everything is allowed,
> which does not bring them into jail, this society will be destroyed,
> because it's not practical and doable, to codify every behaviour into
> law, and control it.
>
> On the other hand, there is of course the question: "Why ask the average
> employee for ethics, if Richard Fuld earned 40 millions per year for
> ruining Lehman Brothers, and Stanley O'Neill received a golden parachute
> of 162 million last year, for ruining Merril Lynch?" It is fully
> logical, that the average guy takes an example from those, who are
> successful, and it's really, really difficult, to find an argumentative
> basis for claiming, that they shouldn't.
Excellent point. But a lot of people will tell you that Fuld EARNED his
millions, while the poor LIRR retiree is simply a leech on society.
> > But you you retire at age 50, and the RR tells you here is your
> > retirement pay as we have calculated it, it would take an unusual person
> > to refuse to accept it.
>
> Inflating the pensions with overtime is an understandable reaction to
> the rules, as they have been negotiated. There might be a problem with
> it, but not an ethical one.
>
> > You will find the same corrupt practice with most police and fire
> > department retirements in the USA.
>
> If they really worked their overtime, not sat through it, there is no
> reason to call it "corrupt".
I wasn't talking about the overtime (I find it hard to believe that
overtime is a factor in determining retirement pay), but the fact that
almost all police and fire workers retire on disability. If you ask
why, they will tell you the severe nature of the job ensures they are
all disabled when they retire.
Merritt
Merritt Mullen
Laurence Sheldon <lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry for the empty "reply".
>
> Merritt Mullen wrote:
>
> You ought to read back through your recent posts in this thread, and
> explain how you can flip flop worse than Obama and not hurt yourselt
> physically (you have destroyed your credibility and and I am about to
> adjust the filters so I don't have to wade through it anymore).
I wish you would, as I don't really look forward to your responses.
>
> > The problem is getting politicians to be accountable for their acts,
> > instead of blaming it on the people.
>
> How about a short cut--blame averybody who put their name on a
> fraudulent piece of paper?
Anybody except those who are responsible, right? The problem here is
the system is set up so that no one is doing anything illegal, so you
blame all the people you want, but nothing will change, no one will be
punished, and the people responsible will still get re-elected by naive
voters.
Merritt
JimmyG...@mailinator.com
> If they really worked their overtime, not sat through it, there is no
> reason to call it "corrupt".
The problem isn't the overtime, so much as the penalty payments for
violations of ridiculous contract rules. That's how employees end up
with 4 days' pay for a day's work, just because they had to move an
electric train around a yard while they're classified as diesel
engineers.
Jimmy
Merritt Mullen
Greg Gritton <gritto...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > If 97% of the retirees are getting disability, it is hard to blame
> > that on the individual retiree.
>
>
> Why? If it is common to cheat on taxes, or steal from others,
> or commit any other crime, does that make it right?
> If you have children, do you accept the excuse "everyone
> is doing it"?
I didn't realize having children was a crime <grin>.
If 97% of the people cheat on their taxes, that is a problem of the tax
system, not the people.
If 97% of the people break ANY law, then the law is the problem, not the
people.
A good example of bad law that most people ignored was the era of
prohibition.
The law must serve the people, not the other way around.
Merritt
1100GS_rider
> In article <6js7n1F...@mid.individual.net>,
> Laurence Sheldon <lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Sorry for the empty "reply".
> >
> > Merritt Mullen wrote:
> >
> > You ought to read back through your recent posts in this thread, and
> > explain how you can flip flop worse than Obama and not hurt yourselt
> > physically (you have destroyed your credibility and and I am about to
> > adjust the filters so I don't have to wade through it anymore).
>
> I wish you would, as I don't really look forward to your responses.
> >
> > > The problem is getting politicians to be accountable for their acts,
> > > instead of blaming it on the people.
> >
> > How about a short cut--blame averybody who put their name on a
> > fraudulent piece of paper?
>
> Anybody except those who are responsible, right? The problem here is
> the system is set up so that no one is doing anything illegal,
BS The applicants and the doctors are clearly committing fraud.
Stephen Sprunk
I'm not 100% convinced that the legal definition of fraud is met in most
or even many of these cases, though I'm sure it is in at least a few.
It may simply be that the rules for a "disability" are so loose that
nearly everyone qualifies. If that's the case, I have a hard time
blaming people for taking advantage of what they're legally entitled to.
Now, if fraud is proven, I fully support prosecuting all those
complicit. More importantly, though, the rules need to be revised to be
more realistic and/or detect fraud more easily. However, it is the
_voters_ I blame for electing the politicians that set up this whole mess.
S
Hans-Joachim Zierke
Merritt Mullen schrieb:
> I wasn't talking about the overtime (I find it hard to believe that
> overtime is a factor in determining retirement pay),
The extremely high retirement rate of NY police officers and
firefighters, and the reasons for it, even made it into the press on
the other side of the pond.
> but the fact that
> almost all police and fire workers retire on disability.
I didn't know THAT.
Hans-Joachim
--
Loader ballet.
http://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/5/6/1/2561.1124286600.jpg
Merritt Mullen
Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
> 1100GS_rider wrote:
> > Merritt Mullen <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <6js7n1F...@mid.individual.net>,
> >> Laurence Sheldon <lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Sorry for the empty "reply".
> >>>
> >>> Merritt Mullen wrote:
> >>>
> >>> You ought to read back through your recent posts in this thread, and
> >>> explain how you can flip flop worse than Obama and not hurt yourselt
> >>> physically (you have destroyed your credibility and and I am about to
> >>> adjust the filters so I don't have to wade through it anymore).
> >> I wish you would, as I don't really look forward to your responses.
> >>>> The problem is getting politicians to be accountable for their acts,
> >>>> instead of blaming it on the people.
> >>> How about a short cut--blame averybody who put their name on a
> >>> fraudulent piece of paper?
> >> Anybody except those who are responsible, right? The problem here is
> >> the system is set up so that no one is doing anything illegal,
> >
> > BS The applicants and the doctors are clearly committing fraud.
>
> I'm not 100% convinced that the legal definition of fraud is met in most
> or even many of these cases, though I'm sure it is in at least a few.
> It may simply be that the rules for a "disability" are so loose that
> nearly everyone qualifies. If that's the case, I have a hard time
> blaming people for taking advantage of what they're legally entitled to.
The RR Retirement Board in Chicago was interviewed and they said no
fraud was being committed. According to them, they are administering
the law the way it is written.
> Now, if fraud is proven, I fully support prosecuting all those
> complicit. More importantly, though, the rules need to be revised to be
> more realistic and/or detect fraud more easily. However, it is the
> _voters_ I blame for electing the politicians that set up this whole mess.
Sure, but blaming the voters (that is, ourselves) does not fix anything.
The question is, do we want to play the blame game so we feel superior
to those we blame, or do we want to fix a broken system? I suggest the
proper response should be to correct the system.
Merritt
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> I'm not so interested in the fine details of the law. Morally, they are
> committing fraud. They should be regarded as thieves.
The people who drive cars and trucks are spewing poisons into the air
and ground. Morally (using your definition) they are murderers.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
>A person with honor wouldn't take the money.
By your way of thinking, a person with honor would pay to towns he
drives through to cover the loss of property taxes the highway has
removed. He might also cover the cost of lost commerce the highway
destroyed. Contrary to myth of the highwaymen, not all highways bring
about stupendous economic development.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> What is really disappointing (but entirely consistent with the extreme
> left running stuff now) is the number of people willing to explain to us
> that it is all really OK,
Actually, I didn't see anyone saying it was "all really ok".
Nor did I see anyone defending or excusing the practice.
What I DID see people doing is trying to define and understand the
practice in exact proper terms--so as to best be able to resolve it in
a sensible fashion. This is a superior approach than just a knee-jerk
condemnation of individual people receiving benefits to which they are
legally entitled.
I guess if it was up to you you'd make the minimum elgibile retirement
age to be 70, with zero benefits for anyone retiring before that age.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> If people applied for and recieve federal disability pension payments but
> are not truly disabled, they are committing fraud.
Your statement is incorrect. Your personal definition of "truly
disabled" is irrelevent.
If people applied for and receive federal disability pension payments--
for which they meet the definition--they are NOT committing fraud. I
don't care if they go out and join the NY Yankees or Green Bay Packers
the next day; they have not committed fraud.
Fraud occurs when someone lies in the application process. Now if
someone claimed pain where it did not exist, a movement or function
limitation where it did not exist, then yes they have done fraud.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Why? If it is common to cheat on taxes, or steal from others,
> or commit any other crime, does that make it right?
Actually, the answer to your questions is indeed YES.
The reality is that if a great many people are doing something, it
effectively becomes legal regardless of what the law says. Speeding,
for example, is illegal, but just try driving on a freeway at the
speed limit and see how dangerous it is with all the other cars flying
by you at a much faster and illegal speed limit.
> If you have children, do you accept the excuse "everyone
> is doing it"?
As times have changed, certain behaviors at certain ages became
acceptable because they became widespread (whether we like them or
not). Also, other behaviors (e.g. smoking) became less acceptable.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> It may simply be that the rules for a "disability" are so loose that
> nearly everyone qualifies. If that's the case, I have a hard time
> blaming people for taking advantage of what they're legally entitled to.
Bingo!
"Disability" is a legal definition.
Over time, the rules by various organizations, public and private,
have varied greatly from way too tight to way too loose.
> Now, if fraud is proven, I fully support prosecuting all those
> complicit. More importantly, though, the rules need to be revised to be
> more realistic and/or detect fraud more easily.
Agreed.
> However, it is the
> _voters_ I blame for electing the politicians that set up this whole mess.
That's where it gets really tough. Sure the voters demand "Stand up
to the unions!" until there's a train strike and no one can get to
work (or a teacher's strike and the kids are stuck home). Labor and
politics is a whole other issue, and a very complex one.
Phil Kane
wrote:
>The NY Time article said "... in each year since 2000, between 93 percent
>and 97 percent of employees over 50 who retired with 20 years of service
>also received disability payments." These are recent year data only, and is
>only a subset of all retired LIRR workers.
What I get out of this is that perhaps, like with Federal workers, a
railroad worker cannot retire at age 50 with 20 years' service UNLESS
one is disabled. Therefore, 97% falling into the "disabled" category
leaves me to wonder how the 3% snuck through. In the Federal system,
though, the disability payments end when the regular pension kicks in
- you don't get both.
Most of the "early retired" railroad workers that I know on the
Western railroads did so because they had emphysema from smoking in
the closed locomotive can environments. A lot of RR workers whom I
know are well over 50 with more than 20 years' service and still
working.
--
"Stand Clear of the Closing Doors, Please"
Phil Kane - Beaverton, OR
PNW Beburg MP 28.0 - OE District
Merritt Mullen
<0768901e-dfde-44af...@73g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> "Disability" is a legal definition.
>
> Over time, the rules by various organizations, public and private,
> have varied greatly from way too tight to way too loose.
And, in this case, it specifically means not fit for further railroad
employment, nothing more.
Merritt
Phil Kane
wrote:
>So if we merge the two, how do you handle the discrepancy? Aboutt he best
>we can hope for is to set a date after which new railroad employees become
>part of the SSA system instead of the RRB, and sunset the RRB over a 50-year
>period.
Basically that's what the Federal Civil Service did 20 years ago.
Those of us who were in the (older) Civil Service Retirement System
were exempt from making Social Security contributions (and therefore
received no credit toward a SS retirement annuity) but made mandatory
contributions equal or in some years greater than the SS amount to a
separate retirement fund. Newer employees came under the Federal
Employees Retirement System which had contributions to Social Security
and a much smaller mandatory separate retirement fund. Those of us
under the older system were given the choice of moving to the newer
system - some took it and some didn't. The vast majority of Federal
employees under the older system will be retired within 30 years of
the changeover.
JimmyG...@mailinator.com
> What I get out of this is that perhaps, like with Federal workers, a
> railroad worker cannot retire at age 50 with 20 years' service UNLESS
> one is disabled. Therefore, 97% falling into the "disabled" category
> leaves me to wonder how the 3% snuck through. In the Federal system,
> though, the disability payments end when the regular pension kicks in
> - you don't get both.
The article says that the LIRR contract allows early retirement at age
50, with a partial pension for a few years followed by a full pension,
for employees hired before 1988. (More recent hires can do so at
55.) It also says that the LIRR contract is unusual among railroads
in that it allows retirees to collect their pension as well as
disability payments.
Jimmy
Phil Kane
wrote:
>The article says that the LIRR contract allows early retirement at age
>50, with a partial pension for a few years followed by a full pension,
>for employees hired before 1988. (More recent hires can do so at
>55.) It also says that the LIRR contract is unusual among railroads
>in that it allows retirees to collect their pension as well as
>disability payments.
So the bottom line is that these employees are getting what they
signed up for when they hired out. That is only fair. In the Federal
system I signed up for a salary which was significantly less than that
I would have gotten in the private sector for the same work in return
for job stability and health benefits and a guaranteed pension towards
which I had to contribute post-tax money.
No fraud, no theft, no free ride.
Laurence Sheldon
> No fraud, no theft, no free ride.
I'm sure your neighborhood pusher says the same thing.
Just doing what I came here to do.
Jaap van Dorp
from LIRR.
People seem to think that its workers taking advantage, but its nothing
more than a negotiated item which can not be changed untill next
negotiations.
And even then the Union will get a dollar for every dollar negotiated out
of contract for its members.
Jaap
<JimmyG...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:bfd0b5f4-7b70-454c...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
J.R.Guthrie
news:dt-dnXidSs9MCUTV...@suscom.com...
> The labor contract as negotiated has two signatures, one from Union and
> one from LIRR.
> People seem to think that its workers taking advantage, but its nothing
> more than a negotiated item which can not be changed untill next
> negotiations.
> And even then the Union will get a dollar for every dollar negotiated out
> of contract for its members.
The 93-97% going on disability is not a contract matter.
Newsday and everyone else should have been complaining about the retirement
at 50 business for years -- IIRC, it was one of the earlier things the MTA
negotiated.
Workrules are workrules -- but the administration of the work so as to "help
out" the soon-to-be-retired also indicates a lack of management integrity.
Cheers,
Jim
Jaap van Dorp
to say these people do not comply or getting this thru fraud.
Jaap
"J.R.Guthrie" <jgut...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:R4udnYpUN5ciO0TV...@earthlink.com...
Mark Mathu
news:713aad6c-52d7-45cb...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 22, 8:41 pm, "Mark Mathu" <m...@mathu.com> wrote:
>> If people applied for and receive federal disability pension
>> payments but are not truly disabled, they are committing
>> fraud.
>
> Your statement is incorrect. Your personal definition of
> "truly disabled" is irrelevant.
>
> If people applied for and receive federal disability pension
> payments-- for which they meet the definition--they are NOT
> committing fraud
Whoa, whoa, whoa:
When I wrote "not truly disabled," I certainly meant that the RRB standard
for being disabled applies.
I wrote NOT TRULY DISABLED, and somehow you want to redefine the meaning of
true.
Well - fuck you! You can't do that.
Don't try to spin things, because we all can see what I wrote "truly
disabled," and what you tried to spin it into "personal definition."
You can kiss my ass if you want to spin my words. There is no "personal
definition" involved. Try to stick to the facts and you will help this
whole discussion.
1100GS_rider
1100GS_rider
1100GS_rider
> The RRB says no rules are broken all according the law. so who am I or you
> to say these people do not comply or getting this thru fraud.
1. It is NYC where union fraud is the norm.
2. 97% disabled; nothing more need be said.
Mark Mathu
news:slrngdhum5.86d...@Odysseus.Zierke.com...
>
>> But it is supported by facts, a certified examination by a physician.
>
> For a 97% result, you can tell me what you want: The employees will have
> known exactly, which physicians they had to visit.
Hans,
How do define "97% result?"
Measured how? Over what time frane?
Mark Mathu
> If people applied for and recieve federal disability pension payments but
> are not truly disabled, they are committing fraud.
> Your statement is incorrect. Your personal definition of "truly
> disabled" is irrelevent.
Don't apply a "personal definition" just for your convenience. My
definition of "truly disabled" means what the RIB decides.
Hans-Joachim Zierke
Mark Mathu schrieb:
> How do define "97% result?"
> Measured how? Over what time frane?
According to the New York Times, 97% of the retirees of one year. The
report also mentions about 2000 retirees since 2000, so I would expect,
that the sample size is somewhere around or a little over 250.
Philip Nasadowski
"Jaap van Dorp" <GEjo...@comcast.spam.net> wrote:
> The RRB says no rules are broken all according the law. so who am I or you
> to say these people do not comply or getting this thru fraud.
Apparently everyone's so sure that no laws were broken, that the FBI
raided the LI office of the RRB yesterday:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/nyregion/24lirr.html?_r=1&em&oref=slogi
n
J.R.Guthrie
> According to the New York Times, 97% of the retirees of one year. The
> report also mentions about 2000 retirees since 2000, so I would expect,
> that the sample size is somewhere around or a little over 250.
As all 2000 records are available, I son;t think they need to talk about
"ample size."
In any case, what's interesting is the apparent number of claims that are
photocopies of other persons claims with merely a signature at the bottom.
I also get nervouse when someone says "truly disabled." That's right up
there with the modern Calvinist "deserving poor" as opposed to the let 'em
rot in their sin poor.
Finally, you can be sure the anti-regulation psyche of the Bush
Administration has filtered down into the various agencies, and one can be
real sure that RRB is no exception.
Cheers,
Jim
Laurence Sheldon
> Finally, you can be sure the anti-regulation psyche of the Bush
> Administration has filtered down into the various agencies, and one can be
> real sure that RRB is no exception.
I've been wondering how long it would take somebody to work BDS into this.
By the way. Somebody said up-thread that Bush's FBI raided the place
yesterday.
Jaap van Dorp
scouts of America.
The FBI is only agency that can raid a federal office.
Just because they took records and computers does not mean there is
wrongdoings.
"Philip Nasadowski" <nasa...@usermale.com> wrote in message
news:nasadowsk-8CC85...@news.optonline.net...
Jaap van Dorp
paid social security.
The wifes of railroaders get paid their benefits thru RRB so their money
that they earned is transfered to RRB.
Same with people who earned money under social security but who later on
work for railroad, their social security money is transfered to RRB.
The RRB is solvent and self supporting, something that can not be said by
the Social security administration, specialy since the federal government
has raided SS several times.
They would love to get their hands on RRB money too.
Jaap
"Cyrus Afzali" <pns...@lnubb.pbz> wrote in message
news:qeskd49et2ap4r09d...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 08:56:57 -0400, "Jaap van Dorp"
> <GEjo...@comcast.spam.net> wrote:
>
>>Well once someone wants a investigation, who do you want to raid, the boy
>>scouts of America.
>
> There's an enormous amount of difference between a non-profit that you
> can choose to participate in and/or donate to as you wish and a
> government agency that takes taxpayer dollars.
Stephen Sprunk
> RRB does not take taxpayer money, except money earned by those people that
> paid social security.
All of the money those LIRR "paid" into RRR came from tax dollars on the
rest of us.
> The wifes of railroaders get paid their benefits thru RRB so their money
> that they earned is transfered to RRB.
> Same with people who earned money under social security but who later on
> work for railroad, their social security money is transfered to RRB.
> The RRB is solvent and self supporting, something that can not be said by
> the Social security administration, specialy since the federal government
> has raided SS several times.
> They would love to get their hands on RRB money too.
I'll grant that RRR seems to be better-run than SS, but that's not much
of a compliment, like saying a turd is better than a flaming turd. And
RRR is only "voluntary" in the sense that you can choose to leave the RR
industry entirely and go to some other job covered by SS -- or welfare.
S
Hans-Joachim Zierke
J.R.Guthrie schrieb:
> As all 2000 records are available, I son;t think they need to talk about
> "ample size."
They wrote about "up to 97%", so I expect, that the figures were at
least slightly smaller for other years.
> Finally, you can be sure the anti-regulation psyche of the Bush
> Administration has filtered down into the various agencies, and one can be
> real sure that RRB is no exception.
That would surprise me. My impression has always been, that regulations
have been removed for businesses in the USA, but not for
administrations.
Especially startup companies often have easier conditions in the USA.
But on the other hand, administrations and government institutions
especially on lower levels face a wealth of regulations, which might
make the same task far more cumbersome and expensive than in Europe.
So it's not an anti-regulation psyche, but an "anti-regulation for
private companies" psyche.
John Albert
<< The RRB is solvent and self supporting, something that
can not be said by
the Social security administration, specialy since the
federal government
has raided SS several times.
They would love to get their hands on RRB money too. >>
If Obama gets elected, they probably WILL.... :)
- John
Jaap van Dorp
stealing us blind.
"John Albert" <j.al...@snet.net> wrote in message
news:pDECk.1688$yr3...@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
Phil Kane
<ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>All of the money those LIRR "paid" into RRR came from tax dollars on the
>rest of us.
As transformed through the labor of the employee. In other words the
money is employee pre-tax wages. The fact that tax money pays for
part of the expense of running the LIRR is irrevelent.
Laurence Sheldon
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:11:02 -0500, Stephen Sprunk
> <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>
>> All of the money those LIRR "paid" into RRR came from tax dollars on the
>> rest of us.
>
> As transformed through the labor of the employee. In other words the
> money is employee pre-tax wages. The fact that tax money pays for
> part of the expense of running the LIRR is irrevelent.
For the cases where the employee did any work formthe wages paid, there
is some truth for that.
A lot of wages (it appears) were paid for work that was not done.
Bolwerk
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:11:02 -0500, Stephen Sprunk
> <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>
>> All of the money those LIRR "paid" into RRR came from tax dollars on the
>> rest of us.
The tax money comes from residents of New York State, although some of
it does pass through federal coffers first.
> As transformed through the labor of the employee. In other words the
> money is employee pre-tax wages. The fact that tax money pays for
> part of the expense of running the LIRR is irrevelent.
Well, it's significant from a perspective of taxpayers getting back for
the money they put up.
gl4...@yahoo.com
<lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
One of the significant problems of the railroad retirement fund is that
today railroads have far fewer employees. This is not just due to changes
in technology, but also changes in the way the railroad companies do
business. Significant track work, derailment response, general
construction, and in cases of the larger railroads like the PRR, even
complete locomotive building used to all be done by railroad employees.
Today, much of that is handled by outside companies, and those people pay
into social security and not the railroad retirement board funds.
Thus, there is a vast pool of retired railroad workers that are supported
by a much smaller pool of working railroad workers, compared to social
security.
My impression is that there are occasional shortfalls in the railroad
retirement fund, but considering the huge transition this should not be
surprising at all, and really the funds to handle that shortfall should
probably have been taken out of social security, since that is where the
supporting cast of labor went.
--
-Glennl
e-mail hint: add 1 to quantity after gl to get 4317.
1100GS_rider
> it can't be worse than Repukes and John McSame
Oh, yes it can. By the way, your 'cute' terms are an excellent
signalling mechanism that you shouldn't be taken seriously.
Mark Mathu
> I also get nervouse when someone says "truly disabled."
I was the one who used that phrase. I meant it in the context of actually
having a disability which met the criteria of the RRB system, as opposed to
someone who falesely reported a disability.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> I was the one who used that phrase. I meant it in the context of actually
> having a disability which met the criteria of the RRB system, as opposed to
> someone who falesely reported a disability.
From news reports it appears the problem is not 'false' claims, but
rather a liberal defiition of disabiltiy and a broad minded
interpretation of those rules by the disability determination board.
Several posters expressed their indignation, not only over the
situation, but that other posters weren't as outraged about it as they
are.
Where is the indignation over the many very sick people being denied
disability benefits? What about people in the private sector who lose
promised healthcare benefits--at a time late in their lives where they
have few options? For example, to get social security benefits these
days, one needs to hrie a lawyer (who gets a nice chunk out of the
disability payment). Years ago it wasn't like that (Pres. Carter
began changing the system.
One irony of the social security system is that someone with a minor
mental disorder has the presence of mind to file the necessary appeals
and like to get benefits, but someone with a severe affliction is
unable to.
It wouldn't surprise me to see a major management shift in a few years
at a certain major freight railroad. The terminated bigwhigs will
likely get a golden parachutte, that is, big bonsues even though they
failed to deliver on the job. But I can't help but suspect those
angry about these disability payments will be silent or even justify
those payouts; after all.
Stephen Sprunk
> On Sep 26, 2:06 am, "Mark Mathu" <m...@mathu.com> wrote:
>> I was the one who used that phrase. I meant it in the context of actually
>> having a disability which met the criteria of the RRB system, as opposed to
>> someone who falesely reported a disability.
>
> From news reports it appears the problem is not 'false' claims, but
> rather a liberal defiition of disabiltiy and a broad minded
> interpretation of those rules by the disability determination board.
I'm sure that at least some of the claims are fraudulent, given how much
higher the rate of "disability" is for LIRR vs. other RRs. One person
mentioned duplicate claims with nothing more than the names and
signatures changed. And, while I've never defrauded anyone, I do know
that many doctors will be happy to write a note or prescribe any drug
the patient asks for provided it's not blatantly unreasonable. Even if
you find one that isn't willing, all you have to do is keep trying until
you find one that is -- and the others can't talk due to patient privacy
laws.
> Several posters expressed their indignation, not only over the
> situation, but that other posters weren't as outraged about it as they
> are.
>
> Where is the indignation over the many very sick people being denied
> disability benefits? What about people in the private sector who lose
> promised healthcare benefits--at a time late in their lives where they
> have few options? For example, to get social security benefits these
> days, one needs to hrie a lawyer (who gets a nice chunk out of the
> disability payment). Years ago it wasn't like that (Pres. Carter
> began changing the system.
>
> One irony of the social security system is that someone with a minor
> mental disorder has the presence of mind to file the necessary appeals
> and like to get benefits, but someone with a severe affliction is
> unable to.
There are lots of problems with social services in the US. That doesn't
mean that we shouldn't attempt to fix one of the more flagrant cases
just because, so far, there hasn't been enough political will to fix all
the others.
> It wouldn't surprise me to see a major management shift in a few years
> at a certain major freight railroad. The terminated bigwhigs will
> likely get a golden parachutte, that is, big bonsues even though they
> failed to deliver on the job. But I can't help but suspect those
> angry about these disability payments will be silent or even justify
> those payouts; after all.
I doubt even the most die-hard Repub likes the idea of anyone getting a
huge payoff for failing to do their job well. That's a union thing, and
Repubs don't like unions.
However, the reality is that there are very, very few good executives
out there and organizations have to compete to attract them. I remember
when Ben & Jerry's was looking for a new CEO and they couldn't find
_any_ qualified candidates that were willing to work for a mere 100
times what the lowest-paid employee made (company policy). It's like
professional athletes: simply due to demand for the top 0.001%, they're
going to make millions of dollars even if they never win a game in their
career -- because anyone cheaper would be even worse.
S
Richard Mlynarik
[...]
> I doubt even the most die-hard Repub likes the idea of anyone getting a
> huge payoff for failing to do their job well. [...]
Heckuva job, Bushie.