Rutherford needs to find $500,000 so ...

Rutherford needs to find $500,000 so officials can retire

There are 8 comments on the Newsday story from Dec 11, 2007, titled Rutherford needs to find $500,000 so officials can retire. In it, Newsday reports that:

Rutherford officials are trying to come up with more than $500,000 to pay the town's retiring police chief and captain.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Newsday.


United States

#1 Dec 11, 2007
Quoting from the article ..... "Rutherford officials are trying to come up with more than $500,000 to pay the town's retiring police chief and captain. The money would cover hundreds of sick and vacation days that they never used.
Nienstedt will receive a pension of about $127,000 a year. Farrell's annual pension is $111,000. "

The Taxpayers never stop being SUCKERED ! We need to elect politicians who will end these outrageous civil servant benefits..... Corzine is a CAVE-IN to the unions. Under the most generous large private employer pensions, we are lucky if we get 40% of final avgerage pay, and thats after a full 35 year career! That means that the Neinstedt's pension is the same as a non-civil servant making $127000/0.40 =$317,000 ! WHY should TAXPAYERS fund such outreageous benefits? Add to this the OVERLY GENEROUS retiree health benefits (which almost no non-civil-servant gets anymore) for an ADDED INSULT to taxpayers. And how about payment for unused sick and vacation days .... non-civil servants DO NOT get paid for unused sick days and rarely can carry over (from one year to the next) more than a 1 or 2 weeks of unused vacation. These benefits need to be reduced IMMEDIATELY for CURRENT, not just new employees. And, since we can't reduce the PENSIONS of thoses already retired, we need to add very substantial PREMIUMS, DEDUCTIBLES, and COINSURANCE to their retiree benefits. ISN"T IT TIME FOR A CHANGE ???

Westwood, NJ

#2 Dec 11, 2007
The benefits of a powerful union. Dont blame the police unions because white color workers dont have them. Thats our fault not his. Instead of pointing the finger at him take a look at why you dont get these excellent benefits.

Haworth, NJ

#3 Dec 11, 2007
The comment from Fed UP is right on the mark. It is time these benefits were reduced. And, re "Jeff's" comment, private employees do not get such rich benefits because corporate managemnet knows they are unsustainable/unaffordable and could lead to bankruptcy. Private company customers cannot be forced to pay the excessive prices that would cover the very high cost of excessively rich benefits. Unfortunately, as FedUp said, politicians seem to thing is OK to force the taxpayers to pony up.

Saddle River, NJ

#4 Dec 12, 2007
The elected officials of Rutherford knew that, at some point, these two police officers were going to retire or die. They also knew that the Borough of Rutherford had a contractual obligation to compensate these officers or their estates for unused sick time and vacation days upon retirement or death. If Rutherford has to scramble for money now, shame on the borough for not being ready for this totally foreseeable payout.

United States

#5 Dec 12, 2007
And shame on the Borough Officials for not long ago ending any benefits for unused sick time and allowing the accumulation of years of vacation days to be paid out at the much high end-of-career rate of pay. If the taxpayers don't get such benefits for themselves, why should the taxpayers fund such benefits for the police and other Borough workers?

Macomb, MI

#6 Dec 12, 2007
what ever happened to use'em or lose'em, they should not receive something for nothing, this kind of corruption is why jersey is a laughing stock of the country
Miss Donna


#7 Aug 9, 2008
When Caughey retired he did the same thing. How many times were these guys woken up at 3 in the morning to go to a call because they needed a chief? In all fairness they are owed this money regardless because it's what their contracts stipulated. Neinstadt retired because McPherson got voted out, thus losing his "friend" in town. I don't like it either but there's no changing it and they can demand full payment upon retirement. Once again the taxpayers are stuck holding the empty bag. They should have put money away in an interest bearing account years and years ago before the retirement but the retirement was early like I SAID ABOVE.
Ticked off ruth resident

Union City, NJ

#8 Jul 2, 2010
It is a shame that the people of rutherford haven't taken action against the offensive benefits that the police of rutherford receive. Rutherford cannot afford to payout the outrageous monies paid in the form of pensions and health benefits that these cops receive. I am a taxpayer of rutherford and employee of a private corporation. I should have a say over how I pay the employees (aka Cops) of rutherford. I should not be bullied into providing monies to people so that I cannot afford my own home.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Rutherford Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News DUI arrest is second for Hudson County s... (Mar '09) Apr 9 Tia19 13
Camp Invention Summer Camp K-5 Apr 8 STEAM 1
News Pat Battle - About Us News Story - WNBC | New York (Mar '08) Apr 2 pkielbasa 36
Parking Enforcement Mar '17 NJ Shopper 2
News In Passaic, Acting Mayor Lora Looks to Run for ... Mar '17 Dorota 2
News 1,500 child porn files found on Phillipsburg ma... (Mar '15) Mar '17 rasputinsir 5
News Woman accused of taking 2-year-old child to buy... Feb '17 Iris Rodriguez 1

Rutherford Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Rutherford Mortgages