Gov. Brown Steps Into Snakes Nest
by Brian Leubitz
No matter which side of this argument you are on, pension reform is fraught with political landmines. Of course you have labor and the far right, the traditional foes on the issue. But as this NPR report points out, there are a whole lot of other issues and stakeholders to consider.
Because of the balance of power between state and local government, pension systems in California have many levels. As Shrek would say, it’s like an onion. An onion, that depending on whom you ask, is either just a bit underfunded, or half a trillion underfunded. While that number is extremely pessimistic at best, and more likely wildly fantastical, there is some non-trivial level of unfunded pension liability hanging over the state that hasn’t been fully addressed.
And of course, Gov. Brown wouldn’t have cruised to victory in 2010 without the support of labor. But all that being said, this week he outlined a “12-step” pension reform proposal. You can read the full plan here (PDF), but here are the 12 points
* Equal Sharing of Pension Costs: All Employees and Employers
* “Hybrid” Risk-Sharing Pension Plan: New Employees
* Increase Retirement Ages: New Employees
* Require Three-Year Final Compensation to Stop Spiking: New Employees
* Calculate Benefits Based on Regular, Recurring Pay to Stop Spiking: New Employees
* Limit Post-Retirement Employment: All Employees
* Felons Forfeit Pension Benefits: All Employees
* Prohibit Retroactive Pension Increases: All Employees
* Prohibit Pension Holidays: All Employees and Employers
* Prohibit Purchases of Service Credit: All Employee
* Increase Pension Board Independence and Expertise
* Reduce Retiree Health Care Costs: State Employee
Obviously many of these points are not very popular with state employees, while others are a matter of details. But generally, labor is not that happy about concessions without going through the collective bargaining process.
“Unions across California have negotiated major retirement concessions, including increased payments by employees and two-tier benefits,” Low said. “These concessions have already saved the state, cities, counties and other entities hundreds of millions of dollars. We are strongly opposed to imposing additional retirement rollbacks without bargaining.”(SacBee)
No matter how it’s done, this not going to be a pretty or smooth process for anybody involved.
I knew there was a reason that I voted for ol’ Jerry. I’m a supporter of unions, both public and private, but the current system is extraordinarily generous and as a result unsustainable. There’s not an item on that list that doesn’t make sense and I hope he gets every one of them passed into law.
Of course the unions want to get into “collective bargaining” because they own the people they are bargaining with.
The retirement age dates back to what, the 50s? Obviously times have changed.
Pension reform is going to suck, but it’s also going to suck for some Republicans as the Public Safety Employees are also in the line of fire.
on social security and give them 401ks like everyone else
For the most part, I would agree with the pension reforms the Governor proposes. I think the problem is real and some kind of reform is necessary.
There are two provisions that I don’t quite get. Retirement at age 67 might make sense to Jerry Brown but what about a teacher or CalTrans worker? I know that people live longer and are active longer, but I think 67 is a bit too much.
Second, to deny pension benefits to someone convicted of a felony suggests a complete misunderstanding of what a pension really is. A pension is part of compensation for work. It is not a little prize package at the end.
When you work for the state and you earn a pension, you earned it and it should not be taken away for any reason. You earn it, you keep it.
Except for these two provision, I like the plan.
As they receive pension benefits under CalSTRS, not CalPERS, and Jerry hasn’t proposed a plan for them yet.
Sorry
67 is a little unreasonable for a retirement cut off
Yes, under Social Security , I have to wait until 67 to retire
Damned if I’ll wait that long
Under SS you can take a reduced retirement before your cut off age
Let’s see if the politicians get their retirement’s under the same terms
I wonder what Legislators get for retirement benefits ?
When can they collect ?
To say nothing of Congress
There should be reform, but make it reasonable
I’ll retire on my SS and my wife’s, our 401Ks and rental income from our downstairs unit
I’m glad I don’t depend on CalPERS
If you DO want to ‘Reform’ California’s pensions…..
MAKE SURE that Politicians can’t retire before 67
MAKE SURE that politicians can’t DOUBLE DIP
Some of them get pesnions for being Councilmen, Mayros, Supervisors, Assembly people, Senators, Governor, Lt Governor, ad nauseum
GIVE ‘EM ONE PENSION
they can have the highest, BUT ONLY ONE !!!
Eight years in the Legislature SHOULDN’T get you a FULL PENSIONS that others had to work 20 years for !!!
It seems like Politicians are TOO BIG TO FAIL !!!
And that goes for City, County officials, too
In Oakland, crooked Deborah Edgerly (who was hired by Jerry Brown) is gonna get an pension and golden handshake
(after tipping off her ex-con nephew about an Oakland Police Raid)
Pretty big pensions for school officials and UC Presidents and other UC Big Wigs
Some UC administrators were RETIRING, Getting Pensions, and getting RE-HIRED the NEXT WEEK
Let’s look at ALL PUBLIC PENSIONS !!