All precincts counted: San Jose passes pension reform

[kelly1mm]

Not just WI ..... This is in California. Just under 70% voted to cut public employee pensions. My question is is it time to throw in the towel on protecting public employee pensions (at least for new hires)? I think it may be. I understand the arguments for defined benefit pensions and against 401k's but I believe that battle is lost. They are gone for the VAST majority of workers and not coming back. Should the rest of the progressive agenda be dragged down by this issue? I don't know and would like to hear others thoughts. All I know is it sucks to be in this position of realizing that this may be a battle we just can't win anymore.
_____________________________________________________________________________
snip

But voter approval of San Jose's Measure B puts Reed and the city in the vanguard of efforts to shrink taxpayer bills for generous government pension plans. Passage also strengthen's Reed's hand as he and his City Council allies work to enact the measure's reforms with a vote next week to reduce pensions for new hires.

"I want to thank the voters of San Jose for their commitment to fiscal reform and to creating a more sustainable future for our children and grandchildren," Reed said as returns were coming in. He added in an interview that he expected a big win after talking with residents around the city and called it a victory not only for taxpayers who have watched city services trimmed as pension expenses surged, but also for employees whose retirement plans will be more sustainable with the changes.

The San Jose and San Diego votes drew interest around the country as a gauge of voter support for reforming pensions at the ballot box. Gov. Jerry Brown's pension reform proposals have gained little headway in the Legislature.

Voters like Howard Delano of Willow Glen were tired of watching their city shovel more and more tax money into government pensions far more generous than their own retirement

LINK:
http://www.mercurynews.com/elections/ci_20790991/early-returns-san-jose-voters-approving-pension-reform?source=most_viewed

[kelly1mm]

1. Sorry, put in wrong link. Correct link now. nt

[rurallib]

2. divide them and let them kill each other

from one of the .01%ers of the past, Jay Gould:

"I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half."

[HiPointDem]

25. +1

[upaloopa]

3. I work for a local government and we had the same situation. I am in the SEIU and we had a

bargaining session were we gave up a lot. One of the things is that new hires will have a 401K rather than the defined benefit plan I have. Also the starting salaries will be less.

Here's my thoughts. When they say "generous" retirement plans that is in comparison to what? To the 401Ks that people have today but in the past almost everyone had the same kind of defined benefit plan. When the union membership declined so did the retirement benefits. We still have a defined benefit plan because we still have a union but as I said even that is going by the board for future hires.

So we don't have something that others didn't have also. Now we are in a race to the bottom with people voting to take away from others what they don't have themselves. I think it is better to fight for union recognition for all rather than to fight your own kind.

Government employees are tax payers also. Tax payers are really not paying for our retirement in the sense that we gave up salary to get benefits in the past. It use to be that government workers were paid less that private workers but that went away also with the loss of union shops. So now we want to renege on agreements made in the past to people who gave up something to get the agreements.

Rising future benefit costs are one of the reasons used to support cutting the retirement benefits. The rising costs were caused by the losses in investments caused by the poor economic conditions on Wall Street in recent past. Define benefit plans are protected from those losses as 401Ks are not. Our plan has had great returns and the money was not invested poorly. Also people are living longer which increases the costs.

We have given up retiree health care, pensions for future employees, current and future raises for the length of the agreement. We work one week a year without pay. There will be lower starting salaries for future employees.

We have given up a lot but that is never talked about.

None of these things would hurt the pocket book of the average person very much if taxes were raised to pay for them. Lifestyles would not suffer if taxes were raised since the increase per individual is insignificant. Yet the effect on the employees of governments of the cuts is significant. I can't justify that kind of thinking.

We are making a future were the elderly work until they drop and hopefully they drop soon so the younger people can have their jobs at lower pay.

70% of our economy is made up of consumer spending but we vote to take buying power away from people.

We are in a race to the bottom. Welcome to the new reality were we fight among ourselves for the scraps the wealthy leave to us.

[kelly1mm]

5. That is what I am afraid is the current reality. Politically, do you believe it is time to end

defined benefit pensions for new hires (or just not fight against the changes)? Is this an issue that you believe will hurt progressives/Democrats? Is it worth it anymore?

[upaloopa]

8. We should fight for union representation for all of us and them bargain for better retirement plans.

If we had card check we could grow unions and we could all get better benefits. It isn't that it can't be afforded. It's because all the money goes to the top now.

We capitulate to the 1% when we vote against each other's interests.

[kelly1mm]

10. Thank's for the reply. Was there any consensus on why the President did not put

card check on the agenda in 2009? Looks like a lost cause for the forseeable future.

[tularetom]

4. The average public employee in CA draws a pension of about $2k per month

Hardly an amount which would cause a great deal of resentment among voters.

However there are many well documented cases of abuse of the system, particularly by public safety employees who have taken advantage of loopholes in the laws resulting in annual pensions far in excess of their annual salaries.

And a lot of the same politicians who are now crying crocodile tears over pension abuses were the same people who voted to adopt the rules that allowed the abuses in the first place.

Unfortunately something like this had to happen. Hopefully reforms will be targeted at the high end retirees who have caused the problem in the first place and not the rank and file workers who are struggling in retirement as much as they were while actively employed.

[kelly1mm]

6. Maybe a inflation adjusted pension cap? What should it be? $2000 per month may be fine in Fresno

but not so much in San Jose. When you get to about $3000 per month you start to get to the after tax wages of current average employees.

[tularetom]

19. I'm all for a cap. But it should not be that low.

That would unfairly burden clerical workers who are mainly female and have a tougher time in retirement anyway. Regardless of where they live.

But I see no reason why a police lieutenant who earned about $110,000 in his last year of employment, should draw $125,000 in his first year of retirement.

[upaloopa]

7. I wish you could provide the evidence of what you speak.

Firefighters and police have a much more generous pension because their jobs are more stressful on their bodies and health and they retire younger because of it. Everyday they risk injury and death to protect our property and safety.

There are no "loopholes" in a retirement system. There are rules and formulas and both sides abide by the rules. The rules are changing to make it harder to get what is available to older employees.

Words like "abuses", "loopholes", "generous" and "far in excess of annual salaries" are whistle words and are used to help the race to the bottom.

[tularetom]

15. There certainly are "loopholes"

Have you ever heard of spiking? That's the practice of deferring all your unused sick and vacation time to your last year of employment, thus raising your salary on which your retirement allowance is based. If your boss is cooperative you can also work a shitload of OT in that final year all of which raises the ol' basis for calculating your pension benefits.

If you are high enough up the food chain you may receive an allowance for vehicle use. Or for your cell phone. Under certain contracts they may be considered as salary when pensions are calculated.

And before you start accusing me of being a freeper or some such shit, I'm a retired public employee on a PERS allowance. I've been retired for over 10 years and I'm currently drawing a monthly benefit of maybe 70% of the salary I earned in my final year of employment. That's after 10+ years of COLA's. I think thats perfectly reasonable. Pulling down 125% of your final salary in your first year of retirement is not. I don't give a rat's ass how dangerous your job was.

I first went into public employment in the late 1960's. We knew we were getting paid significantly less than the private sector did but we accepted this because we had benefits like health insurance and a generous retirement plan. What has happened now is that public salaries have more or less reached parity with the private sector but the benefits are still in place.

I'm sorry for the effect these reforms will have on people in entry level jobs. But it all could have been avoided.

[upaloopa]

23. Yes I have heard of it. I am a public sector employee.

That is taking advantage of a rule that no longer exists in our contract. It was part of the bargaining for a contract in the past.

I never accused you of anything. I said there are no loopholes!

What you call a loophole was a result of formulas that these people bargained for.

[tularetom]

31. Regardless of whether or not they were the result of meet and confer

Last edited Wed Jun 6, 2012, 07:43 PM - Edit history (1)

they are still loopholes. The public was not aware that a public employee could in fact save his retirement and sick leave until he cashed it out in his last year of employment thus (in come cases) doubling his salary in that final year and in effect doubling his monthly retirement allowance.

I doubt if the city councils and county supervisors who approved the new retirement formulas were aware of it either.

You should read this article - this is the kind of thing that pisses people off. And it pisses me off too because it represents what public employment used to be and how it has changed.

http://taxdollars.ocregister.com/2011/11/02/100k-pension-club-soars-99-in-two-years/123353/

[Mairead]

21. You should check out your claims -- they're false as far as the cops are concerned

Firefighters and police have a much more generous pension because their jobs are more stressful on their bodies and health and they retire younger because of it. Everyday they risk injury and death to protect our property and safety.

There are about 800,000 cops in the US. About 145 die each year as the result of hostile action (as opposed to ODing on donuts, getting killed in a road accident because they were out-driving their ability, etc). That means that virtually every one of those cops --over 99%-- will live to draw his/her truly superb half-pay pension beginning around age 40.

Being a cop is nowhere near the top 10 occupations for danger. I don't believe they're even in the top 25, tho so far I haven't been able to find data on it.

Firefighters have an even tinier death toll --around 100 per year from the more than 1M firefighters in the US.

But I have no problem with their pensions because their whole role is to save our lives and the lives of our cats and dogs and other non-human companions at the risk of their own. They don't kill citizens or our companions to save themselves or just because they want to, nor do they lie under oath, or do all the other things that make so many cops a menace to the rest of us.

[upaloopa]

24. I am talking about the firefighters and sheriff deputies that work for our county.

If you don't think an officer puts his/her life on the line everyday than we must agree to disagree.

Other than marines and other military people I don't know of an other profession were someone will take a bullet for you.

Yes I know they shoot back too!

[Mairead]

33. What you *said* was "police".

And you have, shall we say, an "overly romanticised" view of them.

They in fact do not "take a bullet" for us. But they are quite likely to put a bullet (or twenty, thirty, fifty bullets) into us because they are poorly selected, poorly trained, and given immunity for everything they do.

There's a current case in which a cop in NYC, who was brutalising a man being arrested (the arrestee, who could have been killed or paralyzed by what the cop was doing to him, was later released without charges) karate-chopped a bystander in the throat. Internal Affairs claims to be investigating, but only because the bystander who was struck is a highly-respected, 69yo sitting judge!

[HiPointDem]

26. no, "reforms" will be targeted at the rank-&-file. the corrupt will continue to earn the fruits of

their labors.

[Zalatix]

32. Yet the politicians get huge pensions and generous health benefits, too.

[badtoworse]

9. In the long run, I believe defined benefit pensions will disappear and be replaced by 401k's.

They've all but disappeared in the private sector; the public sector is next.

[kelly1mm]

12. I agree. Should we thus continue to fight against the tide or just accept the new reality? Does

fighting for public employee defined pensions hurt the broader progressive cause? I think it might. Lots of socially liberal voters can't/don't want to fund these any more.

[badtoworse]

16. I would negotiate for the best 401k deal I could get

I haven't been in a defined benefit plan since 1988.

[HiPointDem]

28. what is the "broader" cause?

[Blue_Tires]

11. And how much $$$$ will these "fiscally responsible" jaggoffs

throw at the Oakland A's to entice them to move there??

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. Instead of punishing fellow workers, they should be striking for better benefits.

I hope the public employees walk out if they try to enforce this nonsense.

[Blue_Tires]

17. I've been saying the same thing

but that's what happens when you lose the "framing" battle...

[leftyohiolib]

14. this is the definition of asshole

"Voters like Howard Delano of Willow Glen were tired of watching their city shovel more and more tax money into government pensions far more generous than their own retirement."

well im tired of the company mr delano works for dumping more and more money into his paycheck that could go to making their product cheaper. this is the tread mill that that line of stunted thinking leads to.but im sure mr delano sees nothing wrong with the raises he gets. selfish fking prick

[Blue_Tires]

18. And if someone touched their retirements, they'd be all:

"Fuck you! I worked hard for what I got!!"

[HiPointDem]

29. actually, the definition of asshole is elsewhere.

[nanabugg]

20. Too many of them "others" work as public employees. When times were great and the private sector

was rolling, public employees were scoffed at and looked down upon as not being "worthy" of private sector largess. Now that the private sector has stollen and/or scammed all the money they could from the ditto heads, sucked up their pensions...now they want the public sector employees, who were willing to miss out on the huge pay checks and investments to serve in jobs that were unwanted by others, to be as miserable as they (the private sector folks who had their pensions stollen and mortgages scammed).

[demosincebirth]

22. Police and fireman's pensions were the one they were trying to rein in and the public

sector employees just got caught up in the frey. That's my take on this.

[HiPointDem]

30. police & fire are public sector.

[demosincebirth]

39. Public Safety

[Zalatix]

27. Public sector employees should just walk off and paralyze the government.

Starting with the cops down there whose retirement got hit first.

Who's going to come and arrest them?

[quaker bill]

34. Someday we can nearly all be poor together!

except for the few who have no need of pensions.

[adigal]

35. Why does a congressman who serves two years get a pension???

I would like to see them give up their retirements before I give up mine.

[deutsey]

37. All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others n/t

[taught_me_patience]

36. San Jose pension obligations are 20% of the budget!?!?!

WTF!?!?! Completely ridiculous. Of course they need to cut the pension benefits.

[bigdarryl]

38. They get a MEASLEY 2,000 a month and the people in this country act like thats alot of money

Hell there are people on Social Security getting more than that.And by the way when they start taking Federal taxes out it's probably around 1500 a month you can't live on 1500 a month these days especially in CA