Public employees always get a better deal

Reading the letter from Greg Stimpson, ("Exodus of public employees? C'mon." Nov. 17) brought to mind the lawsuit IDOT public employees intended to file if their jobs were terminated, even though they didn't deserve the jobs in the first place. Could it be that was one reason Pat Quinn lost to Bruce Rauner, since his office was involved in the hiring of these people?

Isn't it ironic that every time these public employees are granted an unconscionable raise, it is predicated on their indispensability, when in fact they'll use every means to keep those jobs? Witness this past election for 56th District state representative between Michelle Mussman and her opponent. Since taking office, she has done her best to serve all the constituents in her district, and what was her reward? Eking out a narrow victory over her Republican challenger. What was the underlying issue being used against her? She had the nerve to try to help both the taxpayers and salvage the public employee pensions by voting for the pension overhaul bill. Her Republican opponent said he would have voted against it, which garnered him 49 percent of the votes.

Where did those votes come from? Other fiscally conservative Republicans? What was his remedy to address the unfairness of the pensions between public and private employees? Social Security recipients get a raise of 1.7 percent next year; public sector employees always seem to get a minimum of 3 percent. Why are they more worthy? Why are private sector workers encouraged to save for their retirements out of their meager wages, and then have to pay for the retirements of public employees also, who already make more money? When did the public employee become the aristocracy, at the taxpayers expense? What is the remedy?

Rosemary Colbert

Schaumburg