Posted on 03/07/2012 6:04:10 AM PST by Road Warrior ‘04
...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.
George Lucas
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.
teeman
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.
they’re=their
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.