Skip to comments.(Activist) Judge: Pension Rules Unlawful
Posted on 03/07/2012 6:04:10 AM PST by Bushbacker1
...Fulford also ruled the mandatory pension payments represented an "unconstitutional taking of private property without full compensation" and a violation of collective bargaining rights of the public workers....
So many “unintended consequences”, I have no idea where to begin.
NYT sold off this place off a few months ago.
“Circuit Judge Jackie Fulford, in a decision that could bring fiscal disarray to government budgets, said the state and local governments must pay back the money that the 560,000 workers have contributed since last summer, with interest.
The ruling if upheld on appeal could cost the state and county governments nearly $1.5 billion this year, including $860 million for the state and $600 million for the counties. It would have similar financial consequences for the governments in the coming budget year.”
Unbelievable! These liberal judges are out of control! Tyrants in black robes!
[In her decision, Fulford said making public workers contribute a portion of their salaries to their retirement was an “unconstitutional impairment” of their original employment terms with the state.”
Citing a 1981 Florida Supreme Court decision, Fulford said lawmakers could change benefits for “future state service.” ]
I guess the governments should just fire them all and replace them!
Making public workers contribute to their own pension funds is now unlawful?? Even though it is a law??
Just performing his Cloward-Piven obligation to overwhelm the system.
I just read some of the comments at the newspaper site. I am so glad to be out of that state now. Mind you it does have some very good points. But the Gimme-Gimme’s are going to take it over like they did California.
Then we can start making jokes about the (fill in the blank), roll downhill and end up in Florida.
Solution: Fire all public employees who were hired before July 1, 2011. Problem solved.
“Citing a 1981 Florida Supreme Court decision, Fulford said lawmakers could change benefits for future state service. ]
I guess the governments should just fire them all and replace them!
IMHO, those in a contract have to perform the duties in the contract. In the case of the teachers, since their students don’t pass standard tests, cancel their pensions, fire them, and hire new ones.
When they whine about losing their home, tell them to complain to the trolls living under the bridges - where they will be.
After all, who would hire an ex-trough feeder, anyway?
a contract is a contract, and yes, we may not like it, but this is the deal they were hired under... the judge was right to uphold the decisions of government contracts.
the solution is to fire the one’s who made the deal instead of giving them higher salaries.
maryland is thinking about sticking the ever increasing teacher retirement bennies onto the counties... this is unlawful because the state negotiated a benefit that was unsustainable.
we shall see.
I kind of like this decision. The libs of the state made a contract with people to buy votes. Now they have to pay for it. Make them live with the mess they created. Drive everyone out of the state—this will help stats that haven’t made obscene contracts with labor unions to thrive.
It then should become not a legal battle, but a PR one. The left couldn't argue that we can't do that without everyone seeing their hypocrisy. They could merely argue that we shouldn't do that. Then we get to 1) play the class envy card and say we're taxing the rich. (2) Grab the moral high ground and point out that the states got into their deep debts precisely by granting government unions fat pay increases out of then current revenues instead of funding their fat pension and other future benefit promises, actions that would put private businesses in jail. They had to know the process couldn't be sustained; it was just a matter of how much they could loot, for how long, before getting caught. If they don't like my "windfall pension tax" name they could instead call it a "corrupt bargaining tax" as it amounts to the same thing. If a private business tried to scam a state this badly they wouldn't just be stopping future payments they'd be looking to recover past payments, with interest and penalties added.
Here's the problem ~ there's a contract and that changes everything. The judge is telling the state it can change the terms by following due process of law and paying just compensation for the taking.
If these folks were just "at will" employees, you'd have a different sort of ruling ~ just like the courts have always upheld the right of Congress to change the terms of federal employment and there's NOTHING the employees can do about it.
Congress knows to NOT sign a contract.
The state would be well advised to change the terms of employment in the future and NOT sign any more contracts.
Most of our problems would be solved if all these lib/pro-regressive/commie/radicals would commit mass suicide. Instead they’re narcisistic/controll freakish/know better than everyone else tendency compells them take all their bitterness out on everyone else.
States, though, slip through the cracks of sound judgment and end up in the hands of the janitorial union.
The solution here is simple ~ never ever promote anyone covered by the contract. Two ways to do that ~ stipulate that all openings are now no longer covered by the contract. All openings will be filled with open bids from the general public under the stipulation that XYZ will be paid for retirement, etc.
That's kinda' what the judge told them they can do.
The labor union contracts are with PEOPLE, not VACANCIES.
Newt has aggressively addressed the subject of judicial activism. He’s the only candidate who has done so. I really wish he gets the opportunity to put his words into actions.
Why do we pay so much to keep legislatures running in 50 states (maybe 57) and Washington DC when so many judges are willing to do the work of the legislatures in addition to doing their own jobs?
I understand the concept of an unconstitutional taking of private property. The ultimate consequence of this decision is bankruptcy. We are going to see more and more cities using bankruptcy because they are insolvent. The unions will not like the results.
See my tagline.
Exactly! That’s why I like this decision. Let’s get the politician’s out of it. And let the bankruptcy courts handle it. It will be a mess, but it will be obvious which states are screwed up and why. Plus it’s probably the best chance to destroy the public sector unions.
You’ve been here since 2004, and you don’t know how to excerpt?
The NYT was culling some of its newpapers, The Ledger being one of them, but I don't think it's happened yet.
Brilliant point, especially considering that a pension fund which pays out isn't even a 'taking' anyway.
Were you able to read it?
A lot of chutzpa considering April 15 is just five short weeks away. For 51% of us, that is.
Only the little guys look forward to April 15.
Sorry. This evil force is too big for even the Jedi to overcome. You're on your own. ;-)
Is the state trying to rewrite a formal contract, or is this a case of plaintiffs arguing that the terms and conditions of employment under which they were originally hired should be deemed an implicit contract, binding in perpetuity? (Binding in one direction only, of course; I’m confident that employees hired 20 years ago will not object to any sweeteners that have been added since.)
The state should not monkey with existing pension accruals, but requiring an employee contribution going forward is perfectly ok, unless there is an explicit contract (e.g. union contracts) that say the state will pay 100%.
Every liberal knows there is good stealing and bad stealing.
Is it possible to pass a Constitutional Amendment barring unionization of public employees? We have now seen by examples here and in Europe how the linkage between public employee unions and the politicians they support produces financially disastrous inbreeding: the unions support the politicians, the politicians vote for more goodies for the unions.
If our government is to be “for the people” this has got to stop. Obviously, legislation is not enough because of the tyrants in black robes. It is no accident that they got to don those black robes because of their red diapers with the union label. It is part of the same protection racket, dressed up with noble workers’ rhetoric.
We need to go over the heads of the activist judiciary and tie their hands with the binds of a Constitutional Amendment: “Whereas this Constitution requires government for the people; and Whereas collective bargaining rights for public employees is inimical to self-rule and the public fisc, all collective bargaining rights are hereby abolished and shall be prohibited in any form.”
A man can dream, can’t he?
ANother Judge who thinks he has the legislative purse-strings of congress and free tax money.
I pay taxes and nobody has thought to ask me if i want some government worker to be paid a pension that i don’t have.
Love to see that happen.
The solution is obvious for hundreds of communities slowly going bankrupt trying to satisfy gold-plated pensions that none could actually deliver :
Eliminate Public employee pensions altogether.
After all, all private enterprise pensions are 100% voluntary on the employers' part.
Unless this moron judge is prepared to reason that public employee pensions are a constitutional private property right---- but private pensions are not.
Hey - a contract is a contract. If the state entered into an open-ended agreement with its long-time workers that stated they would not have to contribute, then the state has to live with it.
Workers hired afterwards would be subject to the new rules.
IF the term of the contract for the long-time workers expires - THEN new contract terms can be negotiated.
One party cannot enter into a contract with another party and then arbitraily, capriciously, and unilaterally change the terms of the contract just because they have the power to enact legislation.
I understand! GM & Chrysler...
Of course, bankruptcies toss contracts out the window and can then be renegotiated ...
Our leaders lack vision and certainly don't care for the constituents.
"...Politicians...blame the voters for allegedly wanting more government than they are willing to pay for. The effort of politicians to pin the blame on voters diverts attention from the real entitlement mentality that threatens to bankrupt the nation: A political class that feels entitled to rule over the rest of us." From The Real 'Entitlement Mentality' That Is Bankrupting America