Day suggests reducing public pension benefits in future

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/day-hints-at-two-tiered-federal-pensions/article1508555/

"We've been clear. We're not reducing existing pension benefits," he said as he marched toward a staircase and declined any further clarification.

The insertion of the word "existing" was enough for union and opposition critics to conclude that new hires may be offered a lesser pension plan.

Committee member and NDP MP Paul Dewar, who represents an urban Ottawa riding that is home to many public servants, said the minister's use of the word "existing" was no mistake.

"They've got to be clear about what their intentions are," he said. "When he says 'existing' benefits and pensions, he's using that word for a reason.

-----

D: public sector good benefits in pensions have been used in private sector debates.
To some people, it's not 'fair' that public pensions are in part funded by the tax base.
Well, that is true of public sector everything.

My roomie works in the public sector. He's been a desk monkey for a university computer store for over a decade.
He makes less in boom years, when the private sector is booming and head-hunting.
But he works steadily through the years of famine too.
You get something, you lose something.

We need to watch rhetoric on 'gold plated' public pensions.
Somehow it is used to argue for expanded coverage in the private sector.
Since the CPP plan is not exactly swimming in surplus, this move should be shrewdly viewed as a generational issue.
Just add the words "for Baby Boomers only" and see if the statement still seems coherent.
Good test.