Advertise Here

Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.

Our readers are influential opinion makers - politicians, journalists and activists.

Learn more about ads.

About Us

David Greenwald, Editor. (Contact David.)
CFC Education Foundation, Publisher. (Contact us.)

Got a news tip? Want to write a guest column?
Contact David here.

About California Progress Report.

Founded by Frank D. Russo (Publisher and Editor, 2006-08).

Sponsors

Books

New Initiative Retroactively Threatens Public Employee Pensions

David M Greenwald.jpgby David M. Greenwald
Editor
California Progress Report

The Secretary of State's office recently released a notice of a new initiative entering circulation.

"Renegotiation of Public Employee Pension Contracts. Initiative Constitutional Amendment."

At first it seems rather innocuous simply stating that it "eliminates certain state constitutional restrictions on renegotiating public employee pension contracts."

It continues however:

"Allows vested pension benefits to be reduced for existing and prospective public sector retirees."

Okay it allows reduction for prospective public sector retirees. But wait a second it also allows reduction of benefits for "existing" retirees.

That means that people who are currently retired and expecting benefits from their years of public service may suddenly face the reduction in their pensions retroactively?

Under this scenario, faced with possible cuts for existing workers, negotiators could instead negotiate a contract that protects their current members but completely erases the retirement benefits for those people over the age of 75.

That would certainly change the rules of the game. But not necessarily even in a good way for those who believe we need to rein in spending on retirement and pensions.

Right now, one of the contract inducements for management side is the tradeoff between current salaries and pensions. Workers often give away profit now in exchange for better pensions down the line.

However, this would invalidate all future contracts basically. Contracts signed for a certain pension rate would have no meaning if this passed. In fact, 30 years of service in the government would have no meaning if this passed once one retires. All levels of government would be affected by this.

With no protection, the only thing workers could cling to would be to try to get as much as they can while they work, and put it aside themselves for retirement. No more golden handshakes, no more deferred payments. The entire system as it exists now would change and not necessarily in a positive manner.

Meanwhile the current people on retirement would be extremely vulnerable having been led to believe that they would have a pension upon retirement. They could find those pensions cut over time. Instead of getting their 2.5% at 55 or 60, they might end up with 1.5% in ten years, or perhaps see a cancellation of medical benefits.

It is clear that this initiative tries to get a handle on some of the problems facing the pension system in the future, but like most initiatives it is not well-written and could have dire unforeseen consequences.

This is just another reason in general to oppose the initiative system.

Posted on January 27, 2009

Comments

Thats right the rules are changing, millions who retired have seen their 401k get cut. Everyone sould have the same. Why should only the people with pensions not have their income cut? The rich are now the poor and time to bust into those pensions and share with the people who don't.

Posted by: Jeff at January 28, 2009 11:27 PM

The previous comment is unbelievably idiotic!

"Thats right the rules are changing, millions who retired have seen their 401k get cut. Everyone sould have the same. Why should only the people with pensions not have their income cut?"

Everyone should have the same? Gee, why don't we just throw in the towel all together and totally let the government provide for all of us equally? Does that sound like a democratic capitalisic society? I think it sounds like a government that starts with the letter "C"!

In other words the pervious poster is saying, "I didn't properly prepare for retirement by seeking a career with good benefits so I don't think you deserve to have anything better than me regardless how you planned for retirement? Wow! What thinking!

Posted by: Tim Karwoski at February 1, 2009 09:13 AM

The previous comment is unbelievably idiotic!

"Thats right the rules are changing, millions who retired have seen their 401k get cut. Everyone sould have the same. Why should only the people with pensions not have their income cut?"

Everyone should have the same? Gee, why don't we just throw in the towel all together and totally let the government provide for all of us equally? Does that sound like a democratic capitalisic society? I think it sounds like a government that starts with the letter "C"!

In other words the pervious poster is saying, "I didn't properly prepare for retirement by seeking a career with good benefits so I don't think you don't deserve to have anything better than me regardless how you planned for retirement? Wow! What thinking!

Posted by: Tim Karwoski at February 1, 2009 09:14 AM

Tim,
I was being facetious. I'm sure after reading my post many were thinking I was correct. Sad!

Posted by: Jeff at February 2, 2009 08:49 AM

This is scary. It's like we're already starting to drown and now the sharks are coming.

I hope they can't get enough signatures for the ballot, because considering how voters can get...well, let's just say they put Schwarzenegger in office.

Posted by: Corinne at February 2, 2009 11:54 PM

This is scary. It's like we're already starting to drown and now the sharks are coming.

I hope they can't get enough signatures for the ballot, because considering how voters can get...well, let's just say they put Schwarzenegger in office.

Posted by: Corinne at February 2, 2009 11:55 PM

This is scary. It's like we're already starting to drown and now the sharks are coming.

I hope they can't get enough signatures for the ballot, because considering how voters can get...well, let's just say they put Schwarzenegger in office.

Posted by: Corinne at February 2, 2009 11:56 PM

Those people who would wantingly detroy the PERS system because they feel it's "not fair" that public employees have good retirement benefits are the same people that would never think to risk their live for strangers by walking down a dark alley alone to arrest someone, or crawl down a burning hallway to save someone or guard the criminals that would otherwise prey on our soceity if they weren't in prison. Most public employees forego high wages for the sense of service we have and the promise of a secure retirement. Taking the latter away will only make it tougher to find qualified people to do the jobs that keep our communities safe.

Posted by: Dale at February 3, 2009 08:34 PM

And while we are at it, lets change the results of the super bowl and declare the Arizona Cardinals the winner, have a parade for the SF Giants for winning the world series, and give the Detroit Lions' players a bonus for a perfect season.
I work at San Quentin, and when I started twenty five years ago I didn't see the Wall St. types leave their jobs and line up to enlist as prison guards. Those other GED guys and I were the only ones willing to work in that environment. I say we keep our full pensions. Don McLeod, Antioch, CA

Posted by: Don McLeod at February 5, 2009 10:17 AM

And while we are at it, lets change the results of the super bowl and declare the Arizona Cardinals the winner, have a parade for the SF Giants for winning the world series, and give the Detroit Lions' players a bonus for a perfect season.
I work at San Quentin, and when I started twenty five years ago I didn't see the Wall St. types leave their jobs and line up to enlist as prison guards. Those other GED guys and I were the only ones willing to work in that environment. I say we keep our full pensions. Don McLeod, Antioch, CA

Posted by: Don McLeod at February 5, 2009 10:19 AM

And while we are at it, lets change the results of the super bowl and declare the Arizona Cardinals the winner, have a parade for the SF Giants for winning the world series, and give the Detroit Lions' players a bonus for a perfect season.
I work at San Quentin, and when I started twenty five years ago I didn't see the Wall St. types leave their jobs and line up to enlist as prison guards. Those other GED guys and I were the only ones willing to work in that environment. I say we keep our full pensions. Don McLeod, Antioch, CA

Posted by: Don McLeod at February 5, 2009 10:19 AM

When asked how much I make in retirement, I rarely give a dollar amount, especially to those Silicon Valley snobs who used to laugh at my wages while they were becoming millionaires overnight - by the dozens - during the high tech boom. That's right, I was pushing a beat car at all hours of the night and on holidays while my techy neighbors were collecting huge checks, insane stock options, and attending lavish parties hosted by their start up companies. But I didn't complain or begrudge their good fortune.

I made a decision to become a cop when I was in high school and prepared accordingly. Before I was sworn in as a very young man, I was told that I would be seeing the worst in people. I would be exposed to many illnesses and deseases, and my particular line of work made me vulnerable to heart attack, cancer, and divorce... And one more. I could possibly die doing my job.

But then I was told.. "All we want is 30 years of your life. If you are one of the lucky few to make it to the finish line (8 out of an academy class of 43), we promise to take care of you for the rest of your life." Many of my academy mates quit, were fired, or died prematurely, but I hung in there. I kept my promise and gave them 30 years. Sadly, it now appears they may not keep theirs.

In these times of economic uncertainty, I'm sorry that so many folks in the private sector came up snake eyes with their 401k's and stock market investments. I never made enough do the same. Instead of being happy for me, they are now resentful and begrudging what I never begrudged them during the "Good Times."

After everything I saw in humanity during my years in law enforcement, it shouldn't surprise me. I'm just hopelessly dissapointed.

And to think I risked my life for these ingrates...

Posted by: Noe Longoria at February 5, 2009 11:48 PM

When asked how much I make in retirement, I rarely give a dollar amount, especially to those Silicon Valley snobs who used to laugh at my wages while they were becoming millionaires overnight - by the dozens - during the high tech boom. That's right, I was pushing a beat car at all hours of the night and on holidays while my techy neighbors were collecting huge checks, insane stock options, and attending lavish parties hosted by their start up companies. But I didn't complain or begrudge their good fortune.

I made a decision to become a cop when I was in high school and prepared accordingly. Before I was sworn in as a very young man, I was told that I would be seeing the worst in people. I would be exposed to many illnesses and deseases, and my particular line of work made me vulnerable to heart attack, cancer, and divorce... And one more. I could possibly die doing my job.

But then I was told.. "All we want is 30 years of your life. If you are one of the lucky few to make it to the finish line (8 out of an academy class of 43), we promise to take care of you for the rest of your life." Many of my academy mates quit, were fired, or died prematurely, but I hung in there. I kept my promise and gave them 30 years. Sadly, it now appears they may not keep theirs.

In these times of economic uncertainty, I'm sorry that so many folks in the private sector came up snake eyes with their 401k's and stock market investments. I never made enough do the same. Instead of being happy for me, they are now resentful and begrudging what I never begrudged them during the "Good Times."

After everything I saw in humanity during my years in law enforcement, it shouldn't surprise me. I'm just hopelessly dissapointed.

And to think I risked my life for these ingrates...

Posted by: Noe Longoria at February 5, 2009 11:49 PM

Newsweek is right "we are all socialists now."

Posted by: Bob at February 10, 2009 07:42 AM

My wife and I both worked at public service jobs. While I worked, I ensured that you, your elderly parents who couldn't drive anymore, and your children got to work, to the grocery store, the doctor's office and to school/college. I thought I was doing a service for those who couldn't drive anymore or were too poor or young to own their own cars. I worked days, nights, weekends, and the holidays that you all had off. I was taxed like you and contributed to my retirement system, like my wife. But, did you know that government employee retirees don't get much of or any of their Social Security benefits like you will? We're told we would be double dipping, even though we paid taxes in addition to Social Security. If we had worked at a bank, at a computer company or other company, and collected a retirement through that private company, we would be eligible for a full Social Security benefit at retirement. That's after working at higher wages for all of our career, instead of being stupid enough to commit our lives to helping the public at a lower wage and expecting to be treated honorably upon retirement. What a laugh! If this change goes through, there will be no trust, no honor and no reason to feel any loyalty to a society of ingrates who feel it's okay to double-deal and go back on their contractual word. It will be the end of the American "Social Contract". May God give the people what they truly "deserve".

Posted by: Eric at February 20, 2009 08:53 PM

I have been a state employee for 4 years and will see at least 27 more years of work before retirement is an option. I ensure that when an employee of a California employer is hurt at work, he will receive medical care and be provided benefits to compensate for his lost wages. It makes me proud to be able to help my fellow citizens recover and get back to being productive members of society.

Retirement benefits are only as sound as the hands they are placed in at any place of employment, we have all heard of or maybe even experienced a large corporation who suddenly pulls the rug from under the feet of their dedicated employee who put in the time that was asked of them (most times their entire working life) and then suddenly found themselves out in the cold, with half of their life invested in a company who no longer cares what happens when their usefulness has expired. I believe any person would be hard-pressed to say that was an ethical business decision, no matter how profitable it may be. The government is responsible for regulating nearly every industry, their ethics and business practices. In this light, the government is also responsible for setting the standards for industry ethics and business practices through the departments which provide the public service. For our employer, the people and State of California to attempt to pull the same trick and attempt to leave their employees out in the cold because it's more profitable that way makes me want to cry and sets the worst possible example for the corporations who operate in California. I am hopeful that all of my fellow citizens will have a career that will provide for their retirement and not pull the rug out from under them when they are waiting for that monthly check. I hope they want the same thing for me.

If retirement is no guarantee, it's real value is nothing and that will make a big difference to the skilled professionals in State Service who could make twice the money in the private market. The services provided by the state will most definitely suffer, because they will no longer be able to attract or retain high-level talent unless the wage increases to match the loss of retirement benefits. You always pay for what you get, it's just the real cost may not be immediately apparent.

Posted by: Bill at February 25, 2009 11:42 AM

To the comment posted by Jeff at January 28, 2009 11:27 PM. Are you really that stupid? That is is like saying "because I went out and wasted all my money on junk instead of buying the things I need, I am entitled to break into my neighbor's house and take his hard earned money and goods." We work hard and put our hard earned money into a very successful pension. The fact that PERS invests very well, does not give you or anybody else the right to take it. That is what is wrong with this country... There are too many people like you, who think they are entitled to get something for nothing. Get a job, get a life, leave MY Money alone! If you put money into a 401 that is losing, then you need to adjust the risk level of that fund to mitigate some of that risk. By the way, I, along with many other Govt Workers under PERS also have 401ks and 457ks that have lost money. Additionally, Govt workers are also Taxpayers and Consumers. We are getting hit from all directions, too!!!! So Shut the Heck up!

Posted by: stephen at March 3, 2009 03:10 PM

My husband and I are both state retirees. We also contributed to our deferred compensation plan. Now I learn that, after losing over $50,000 in deferred comp savings (no matching funds for state employees)over the past 6 months, there are those who have managed to push their agenda against state employee retirements. It is more terrifying as a retiree as many of us are helping to support "boomerang" children caught in the fallout of the economy as well as dealing with the loss of value in homes. We are suffering, too, with many struggling just to get by.

Taking away or reducing our retirement and/or benefits which we negotiated and contributed to in good faith is stealing, pure and simple. If changes are made, they need to be negotiated and no "grandfathering" should be allowed. New employees have a whole career to plan other options. Those of us who are retired usually do not have the earning power or time to recoup our losses.

Posted by: Teri at March 8, 2009 03:19 AM

You are crazy with your thinking. If your 401K's had continued to push through the ceiling, you would not be volunteering to give hand outs to those of us with pensions. Go get a life and leave us the heck alone. You can't blame us for your lack of foresight and "gambling" with the stock market strategic planning.

Posted by: Nancy at May 15, 2009 07:31 AM

So all the private sector people can damn well pay for your retirement. Pay for mine, and I'll be willing to pay for yours. The sheer arrogance of "I planned for my retirement by working for the government" knowing that the taxpayers will have to foot the bill is criminal. Where do you think the tax money comes from? Not the public face in the trough public sector. School administrators getting over $100,000 as retirrement is ridiculous. Break the system and then whine about not getting yours. Well, up yours. I want paid holidays, I don't want to pay $8000 a year for shitty health insurance, and I do not want to pay for your retirement. Pay for it yourself like I have to. So you went to work, so did I.

Posted by: John at July 3, 2009 09:47 AM

Sorry, comments are temporarily disabled. We're doing a bit of server maintenance on the commenting area. We'll be back up and running shortly. Thank you for your patience.

Get email updates!

Get Email Updates

Want the California Progress Report by email? Once a week, we'll send you the latest and greatest headlines.



© 2008 California Progress Report Our copyright and fair use policy.
Powered by Mandate Media. Logo design by Jane Norling.

RSS

Stat tracker