Lawmakers propose raising retirement age for public workers
By Jon Ortiz, Sacramento Bee
Earlier this year, former Assemblyman Roger Niello proposed a ballot initiative that contained a politically explosive idea: set 62 as the full retirement age for all California public employees, including current workers.
Another idea floated by a pension reform group includes making “defined benefits payable when employees reach the retirement age established by the Social Security Administration” – now 62 years old.
The Little Hoover Commission, an independent state oversight agency, has suggested that looming pension costs as baby boomers retire threaten to crush state and local government programs. Part of the solution, the commission says, is giving current workers less incentive to retire early.
Retirement age is increasingly under discussion as strapped local and state governments scrutinize a range of expenditures, from cellphone costs to employee pay and benefits.
Nearly 60 percent of California voters think the minimum age for drawing a government pension needs to be increased, according to a March Field Poll.
Many public pension systems allow retirement as early as 50, although benefits increase if workers stick around longer.
I am writing in response to your June 8, 2011 article (South Tahoe employee benefits may be decided by voters). This article seemed a little one sided to me.
My name is I worked for the city for 29 ¾ years in the public works department. I will start with some items that were not mentioned in the article. In 1978 the city employee’s voted 100% to leave the social security system and go to a 457 deferred comp plan. The city contributes nothing to this plan it is all up to the individual employee to contribute or not. The CITY on the other hand came out of this deal with 6.2% that they no longer had to contribute to social security. In the mid 80’s we negotiated over a 3 year period to receive instead of a 61/2% pay raise to have the city pay our portion of Pers. This meant my hourly pay stayed the same but my take home pay went up. In the early 90’s we negotiated a four year deal with very small or no raises each in exchange for retirement health benefits. By my calculations I was receiving 15% less pay on my check because of these negotiated contracts with the CITY. The last year I worked for the city I earned $44,000. Simple math tells me that the 15% I was not receiving was $6,600 a year, if I worked for another 30 years and did not receive another raise or negotiate another “deal” with the city the city would be ahead $198,000. I do not feel it is right for the city to blame current and past employees for their current problems.
I feel it is the CITY managements fault for the current fiscal problems! Let me take you back to 1999. The CITY was having big money problems like this year and we went through a process known as D-2000. The CITY went from over 230 employees to right at 190 employees, it was a painful and ugly process. Safety employees, public works employees, finance employees all employees were affected. 4 department heads were let go also. When all was said and done the city manager at the time Kerry Miller
(I believe) got up in front of everybody and stated that the CITY was now right sized. Well the economy picked back up and the CITY was feeling flush again so they started hiring people back including 4 more department heads!! I hear they were close to 240 employees when the economy started going down.
Maybe I am wrong maybe it is the EMPLOYEE that is at fault?
The 457 deferred comp program is like anyone contributing to an IRA. But yours is pre-tax and not all IRAs are — so again, the public sector has more (better?) retirement options.
You are right, it’s the management team and ultimately the city councils that approved the contracts.
Have you thought that’s why the public wants to a chance to vote? They don’t like how the politicians are giving taxpayer dollars away.
But now that things are in the toilet financially why is it wrong to ask for changes from the group (employees) who are draining the system? Why should ANYONE be guaranteed to make half of their salary in retirement?
The idea of raising the retirement age is a short-sited temporary fix at best. What it will do is provide less turnover, and therefore, less opportunities for new job seekers, thus helping to keep the unemployment rate higher. What is needed regardless of the retirement age is sound fiscal responsibility on the part of every agency. Slashing wages and benefits is ineffective, if money just flows out in other areas without accountability.
Julie
Would you like the public to vote on your salary ? When I started working for the City in Public works, my salary was $1.85 an hour, while construction workers were making $8.00 an hour. The public workers make far less than the private sector but do have a good benefit package. most don’t have social security that work for the City and those that do must loose 70% of there S.S because of an agreement with the Government that P.E.R.S. pensions can only receive 30% of the Social Security that they were to receive. Is that fair?
Do you feel that someone that has been retired for 15 or 20 years and is on a fixed income should have the public vote on how much they make ? How would you feel if you were retired for 17 yrs, and someone said “hey, they make more than me so lets put it to a vote and lower there salary! or raise there Medical Deductable from $500 per person to $2000 per person plus.
Just some thoughts of mine.
The pat answer from the City these days must be “the most severe financial challenge since the Great Depression”. That is the exact statement in the City Manager’s response to me.
Maybe if the City Council wants to go to the public about Health Benefits and Pensions maybe we should include;
The City Council – should they get Health Ins. benefits since they are the ONLY part time people who do get the benefit.
The City Manager – does the public want his pay to be over $150,000 PLUS benefits like, life insurance, health insurance, pension (aka PERS) vision insurance, workers comp, car allowance, phone allowance, LTD, and on and on. Maybe the City should he cut his salary in half and use the $75,000 to fill some of those pot holes!
Does the public have sick leave, vacation leave, admin leave and holidays?
Is it legal to have the City Manager talk on a radio show about benefits that are being negotiated? Is that bargaining in good faith?????
Is it bargaining in good faith to tell employees if you don’t go along with cuts in Health and retirement benefits there will be more layoffs?
Is it legal to go to the public about what we negotiated in our contracts and can the public really vote on that?
This City Manager is a piece of work. I did not respond to the City regarding any of these current emails as this City is a completely different organization than when I worked there. No concern for anything. And by the way, I haven’t spoken to one City employee who like this City Manager and who doesn’t think he is a control freak.
I think the retirees would look at modest changes in the Health Plan but to slam a cost of over 5 times what we pay now is horrible for people on fixed incomes that can’t find an extra job to fill in or who unable to work.
Set retirement to be the same as Social Security. You can retire early if you are willing to take less. The government set up the social security system but doesn’t participate in it. How do we allow our elected representatives to get away with passing laws they don’t have to follow themselves?
x-local you could always come back fix it for us?
Seems no one in the current city offices can.
This part the new World Order that eating away at ever person on the planet.
Retirement,unions,war budgets and the city,state,feds have no answers when the 1% are calling the shots.
IT DOES NO GOOD TO WRITE OR CALL YOUR POLITICIAN ANYMORE,THEY ARE IN IT FOR THEMSELVES.
THEY ARE GONERS AS SOON AS THEY CATCH THEM WITH THEIR HANDS DOWN SOMEONE ELSES PANTS.LIKE THAT THE WORST THING THEY EVER DID TO US ,”THE TAXPAYERS’.
“BU–S–T!