OPINION: Pension debate is about the people who make government work

The debate about defined pensions is not about what unions want, it’s about the people who make government work. It’s about who we want plowing our roads, running our ferries, writing our transportation grant applications and educating our children.

My entire life, I have been mostly a public employee. I worked for the university as a student worker; I worked for the Department of Fish and Game; and now I work as a teacher in Anchorage. The current retirement system that we are forced into is fine — it’s as fine as it would be in any private-sector job, and what I like most about it is that it is portable. In my 20 years of work, I have had more than a dozen different employers. It’s fantastic for me; I continually have more lucrative opportunities and continue to raise my hourly compensation rate. The money I contributed to various retirement plans is sitting in the bank waiting for me to pay a tax penalty or turn 60.

But I often wonder how my life would be different if I had a defined-benefit retirement.

If I had a defined-benefit retirement, I would be in year 17 of working for ADF&G. I would have nearly 20 years of deep knowledge allowing me to be an extremely effective public servant. There is no way I could give up that pension to chase higher wages now. What I would lack in flexibility and earning potential, I would make up for in financial stability, knowing that when I retire I will be financially stable, after a life dedicated to service.

As a teacher, I see it all the time: Teachers work for five or 10 years, then decide to make more money and have less stress in their lives. Having been a new teacher, I can tell you I was not an effective teacher, and while I tried my best, I often went home upset at how I was failing those kids. Meanwhile, at year 10, I am just hitting my stride as an effective educator.

Now extrapolate my experience to the thousands of employees covered by public retirement systems: What percentage of them would have continued working for substandard wages with the carrot of a retirement check? If I were a snowplow operator, a geologist, a human resources specialist, an able seaman or one of countless other state employees who could easily make double in the private sector, there would be no question — I’d be out of public life. A defined pension would make these people think twice.

How much institutional knowledge have we as a state lost? How much money is wasted training new employees? How many businesses have lost sales due to unplowed roads? How many more students have been thrown into the classroom of a brand-new teacher, or a series of substitutes? How many people couldn’t go to the grocery store and buy fresh food because the ferry system is short-staffed? How much money does this cost the state?

This thought experiment leads to the question: Who do we want running our state and educating our youth? New people doing on-the-job training, or people with deep institutional knowledge? Do we want to spend our money training new people or keeping the old?

As an employee, I could go either way, and it has nothing to do with unions or politics. I want to serve my community and really enjoy the job I have now, but if someone offers me more money and a more flexible schedule, it’s really easy for me to change. I value this freedom, risks and all, I’m sure many state employees do too.

I know that if I had a defined-benefit pension, I would retire as a public employee with a lifetime of service dedicated to the state I love; without it, I’m not sure I can afford to make that sacrifice.

As a state, we must decide: Do we want those who make state government happen on a day-to-day basis to have experience or not? The answer to this question must inform our perspective on the pension debate.

Patrick McCormick is a commercial fisherman, sportfishing guide and educator who grew up in Eagle River and now resides in Anchorage.

The views expressed here are the writer’s and are not necessarily endorsed by the Anchorage Daily News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.