CA legislators can undermine key public retirement reform

From And WaltersCalmness

This comment was originally published by CalmattersS Register about their ballots.

Thirteen years ago, a small political miracle happened in California California.

Adopted legislation dominated by Democrats and democratic governor Jerry Brown signed a repayment of state and local state pension systems.

It was a miracle because the reform was universally opposed by the public unions of employees who were and still are still the most powerful political interests of Capitol with years of relations with the Democrats.

The main repairs, supported by Brown, did it in law, as the state was then restored from a very heavy recession that devastated government finances and retirement obligations – which expanded sharply during the Gray Davis government – became unstable weightsS

Compulsory retirement payments in the California Public Office Retirement System were factors in the insolvency of two cities, and the unfinanced obligations for future benefits amount to many billions of dollars.

The legislation restricted benefits, increased retirement ages, blocked maneuvers that artificially increased some pensions, created a two -tier system that maintained benefits for current workers, but restricted them for future rentals and required workers to pay at least half of the retirement costs.

“This is the biggest discount on public pension benefits in the history of pensions in California,” ” Brown said as he signed the billS “We reduce the benefits of what they were before I was a manager for the first time and reduce costs by up to $ 55 billion in Pers and billions more in other local retirement systems. Under the new rules, employers and employees will contribute to their fair share of expenses, which will lead to a more resilient system.”

It is not surprising that some unions challenge aspects of the reform, especially those that go beyond the maneuvers that go beyond pensions, but Brown is fighting back and won in the Supreme Court of the State. The court, however, refused to take another step that Brown wanted, eliminating “California Rule” This prohibits the reduction of worker benefits after being enrolled in the system.

This part of political history is the background of the new legislation, which, if adopted by the legislature and signed by governor Gavin New, to begin to cancel what the reform of the 2012 reform.

Assembly Member Catherine StephanieDemocrat from San Francisco, carries the legislation, Assembly A assembly 569which would cancel one of the main provisions of the reform that prohibits local authorities from introducing “additional retirement benefits” for their workers.

Stephanie and the Teamsters Union, the sponsor of the measure, claim that Brown’s reform leaves workers without enough retirement benefits to compensate for the notorious high costs in California and make it difficult for local authorities to fill jobs.

“It just gives the local authorities and their employees another option of the negotiation table that can make the difference between losing or maintaining a talented worker,” Stephanie told Stephanie Public Employment and Retirement Committee of Assembly last week.

The bill breaks through the committee with 7-0 votes, including the two Republicans of the Commission, Tom Lakay and Juan Alanis, and they are both former police.

While the lawsuit of the bill say it would be just a permit, allowing local authorities to increase the benefits, its practical effect would be to tingle one of the most important precautions of the reform. This would restore the ability of local government unions to put in political pressure on urban councils, district councils of the supervisory authorities and other local employees to expand the benefits for workers who have been hired because the reform has come into force, a long -inflamed point for trade unions is long.

It is amazing that such a major change in retirement law will begin to move through the process without, so far, any opposition or even comment from the local authorities that this will affect.

This article was Originally Published on CalMatters and was reissued under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Noderivatives License.