Law Restricts Pension Cuts For Existing Workers

AP) ^ | August 29, 2012 4:04 PM

[BenLurkin]

The bulk of the projected savings in the pension-reform deal announced by Gov. Jerry Brown won’t be felt for decades because most of the proposed changes will affect employees who have yet to be hired.

While Brown touted his deal as a way to shore up California’s pension funds, it also illustrates the difficulty in addressing runaway pension costs. That’s because retirement benefits for current government employees are protected by decades of court decisions.

Jeff Lewis, an Oakland-based attorney who represents public workers, said Wednesday that it’s nearly impossible to change their retirement benefits because courts have generally viewed them as a vested right.

One of the few changes to affect current workers is a provision that would have them contribute at least half the cost of their retirement benefits.

[BenLurkin]

Stupid is as stupid does.

[USNBandit]

“Full pay ‘til the last day!” -Eastern Airlines Union motto.

[Drango]

Brown gives smoke and mirrors a bad name.

[kingu]

Paraphrasing the appropriate part of the California constitution: The State of California shall issue no bond or warrant, nor guarantee of a service of debt, without a vote and approval of the people.

Court decisions can not override a restriction upon the legislature and state government. These are not compensation, they are future bonds of debt upon the people of California to provide future benefits, in which they have had zero opportunity to approve.

I’d love to see this actually come up in a court battle, but they’ve drifted around it over and over again. IF every state employee’s benefits were paid for in full each year, this would be another matter. But it compels spending by the state for future sessions without financial approval of the state assembly and senate. It is, in all respects, simply service upon debt created out of thin air to buy votes (and to pad the pockets of politicians, since they get to dip into it too...)

If you did this at your work, you’d be in handcuffs and hauled off to jail for embezzlement. I don’t think this is as settled law as the unions imagine it to be. But so long as they continue to buy politicians by the bus load, I don’t see if changing short of a ballot initiative, forcing the state to actually follow the state constitution.

Then again, a constitutional amendment can be declared unconstitutional... So following the law isn’t exactly a high priority for anyone in Sacramento.

[stocksthatgoup]

Bankrupcy the only answer left for the left.

[ScottinSacto]

State of CA cannot declare bankruptcy. Taxpayers are on the hook. Municipalities can, and a few have. Others to follow, especially when the fiscal benefits become readily apparent. I wonder if the citizens could force a municipal bankruptcy for the sole purpose of yanking out the union contracts by the roots.

[ModelBreaker]

“I wonder if the citizens could force a municipal bankruptcy for the sole purpose of yanking out the union contracts by the roots.”

That would be the first step. But then, Zero would bring huge pressure on the BK judge to somehow for the union debt to be non-dischargeable ala GM bankruptcy. If that succeeds, the next step would be to unincorporate the municipality. That would leave services to be provided by the county. Disruptive but it could happen. That doesn’t work for counties or for the state.

[dragnet2]

State of CA cannot declare bankruptcy. Taxpayers are on the hook.

This charade has run it's course. No money left, taxpayers broke, or unemployed.

Remember this one, "They all left"...Hmmm

[publius911]

Law Restricts Pension Cuts For Existing Workers

The law can do as it pleases, but it cannot repeal physical laws or outlaw math.
The courts will NEVER have the power to tax working taxpayers beyond their ability to pay.

Not in the past. Not now. Not ever!

The Unions robbed working taxpayers blind with the complicity of elected representative who failed miserably, out of sheer incompetence, stupidity, or both.

That is relentlessly changing.
No court can stop it!

[publius911]

I wonder if the citizens could force a municipal bankruptcy for the sole purpose of yanking out the union contracts by the roots.

It's happening as we speak, and I hope the unions have the ****s to challenge their employers, the taxpayers, in court.

Good luck to them.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

"because courts have generally viewed them as a vested right. "

Every two years or so the private company I work for changes the retirement benefits for current and future employees. In all cases the changes made our benefits worse.

How can the courts find that public employees have greater protection for their retirement benefits than private employees?

[command_liner]

There is no decision yet at to the bankruptcy possibilities of the state.

If the top 3 constitutional officers — gov, treasurer, AG - were to walk across town to the Matsui federal court ouse and present a bankruptcy petition, the clerk of courts ould stamp it in, or could reject it. If stamped in, a judge could toss it, or hear it.

Nothing prevents the constitutional officers of the state from trying, and nothing prevents a federal judge from starting the proceedings.

Overall though, the state is toast, screwed, over, done.
I left last year.

[Trod Upon]

First clue: Court staff are public employees. Some animals are more equal than others.

[ScottinSacto]

"Nothing prevents the constitutional officers of the state from trying...."

Other than taking a look at where all of the current officeholders get the majority of their campaign cash. After the taxpayers have been standing in the creditor line for about ever, the unions will pop up and cut in front when the remaining treasure is being handed out. They paid for the VIP FastPass on the State Legislature Ride.

You are probably right, I just don't see this State doing it. A POTUS Romney would be better off giving CA to China as a debt settlement offer.

[fifedom]

That’s because retirement benefits for current government employees are protected by decades of court decisions.

This is Associated Press and union bullsh*t. This has never been tried in court. Just this June the voters of San Jose passed a ballot measure (by 71% in a leftist NorCal city!) to modify the deal for current employees.

The unions pulled this same BS out and the mayor (Chuck Reed) said bring it on. The unions are taking it to court but they will lose. Nothing in the law says once hired your deal is frozen. They get to keep their past contributions but the future ones can be changed.

In the past, the city governments rolled over when sued because they were run by Rats who were in the pockets of the unions. But now even Democrats like Reed see that this is unsustainable and they are fighting it.

Even if the unions judge shop and find some leftist judge to agree with them, there simply is no money so the government will say to the judge like Andrew Jackson said to the Supremes: "You have made your ruling now you enforce it!"