Judge rules on public employees' retirement pensions

Judge rules on public employees' retirement pensions (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Fightdirecto -> Judge rules on public employees' retirement pensions (9/13/2011 2:11:10 PM)
Judge's Ruling quote: Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Super. R. Civ. P. 56, seeking a determination as to whether the ERSRI—a statutorily-created pension system for most state and some municipal employees—establishes a contractual relationship between the State of Rhode Island and participating employees. For the reasons stated herein, the Court denies Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and finds that the ERSRI does give rise to an implied contract and the rights and obligations incident thereto. If your city, state or nation hires a soldier/policeman/fireman/public school teacher/trash collector - his or her pension is NOT an entitlement - it is an obligation the city, state or nation made and they must fulfill that obligation - even if it means raising taxes and violating your pledge to Grover Norquist. [image]local://upfiles/42188/10D4E15F93DF4B8E95BF094C99D0DA0C.jpg[/image]

tazzygirl -> RE: Judge rules on public employees' retirement pensions (9/13/2011 2:19:48 PM)
Now thats gonna hurt.

kalikshama -> RE: Judge rules on public employees' retirement pensions (9/13/2011 2:35:38 PM)
Here's more: http://newsblog.projo.com/2011/09/update-union-wants-pension-ref.html Added J. Michael Downey, president of Council 94, American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees: "Council 94 and other state employee/teacher unions have argued all along that pensions are not simply gratuities. We have to work long and hard to earn a pension. The state should not simply be able to take away or make changes to our pensions whenever they want.'' Downey highlighted several key quotes, in his view, in the decision. Among them: "The major purposes underlying public pensions are to induce people to enter public employment and continue faithful and diligent employment and to furnish public employees with employment stability and financial security....[The benefits ] are not gratuities that may be taken away at the whim of the state."

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Judge rules on public employees' retirement pensions (9/13/2011 2:35:39 PM)
Sounds good. Except, what happens when the state is driven into bankruptcy trying to pay these pensions? I think this decision may just be delaying the inevitable, especially when you look at the numbers. Calpers, one of the world's biggest investors, is a good example:. "Calpers is at the forefront of a national crisis as public pension funds struggle to meet their obligations to more than 19 million active and retired firefighters, police officers, teachers and other state workers. In 2000, more than half of the 50 states had the funds to cover what they owed. By 2008, that number had shrunk to four -- Florida, New York, Washington and Wisconsin -- as total unfunded liabilities reached a record $1 trillion, according to a February 2010 report by the Pew Center on the States that uses the latest available data. Calpers made a series of disastrous bets on real estate after letting its internal risk controls break down and ceding too much control to outside investment advisers during the housing bubble. The pension fund has earned an annualized 2.88 percent return on its assets through the 10 years ended on June 30, far below the 7.75 percent it must collect every year to meet its obligations to 1.6 million beneficiaries. Improper Influence Calpers’ unfunded liabilities amounted to $240 billion as of 2008, leaving it with only half of the assets it needs to make its required payouts, according to a Stanford University study released in April." Read more: Troubled Calpers Piles on New Risk Oregon is another good example. At $22 Billion, the unfunded future liability of Oregon’s PERS exceeds the total biennial fund budget for 2009-2011 by $5 Billion. I hate to think of it, because I know state employees are relying on their pensions. However, in light of these numbers (1 TRILLION dollars in the hole), I don't know how reasonable that reliance is. PS: Social Security is not an entitlement either, but I am not relying on it.

tazzygirl -> RE: Judge rules on public employees' retirement pensions (9/13/2011 2:43:31 PM)
Its a contract. If you enter a contract with the state, you cannot get out of it. Why should the state be allowed too?

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Judge rules on public employees' retirement pensions (9/13/2011 2:45:41 PM)
Well, that isn't entirely true. It is always possible to "get out" of many contracts. Bankruptcy, at the most basic level, is all about getting out of contracts. I am not saying it is moral, I am not saying it is just, but I don't see how these states are going to get out of the hole they are in without revisiting the pension systems retroactively. quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Its a contract. If you enter a contract with the state, you cannot get out of it. Why should the state be allowed too?

SternSkipper -> RE: Judge rules on public employees' retirement pensions (9/13/2011 2:45:41 PM)
quote: If your city, state or nation hires a soldier/policeman/fireman/public school teacher/trash collector - his or her pension is NOT an entitlement - it is an obligation the city, state or nation made and they must fulfill that obligation - even if it means raising taxes and violating your pledge to Grover Norquist. If I had one wish it would be for Heather and Hanners to give Grover Norquist a month long pegging till he bled out the fucking ears

kalikshama -> RE: Judge rules on public employees' retirement pensions (9/13/2011 2:46:27 PM)
quote: Calpers made a series of disastrous bets on real estate after letting its internal risk controls break down and ceding too much control to outside investment advisers during the housing bubble. I don't have a solution but think it's despicable that the retired firefighters, etc., have to suffer for these bad decisions.

SternSkipper -> RE: Judge rules on public employees' retirement pensions (9/13/2011 2:46:44 PM)
quote: Well, that isn't entirely true. It is always possible to "get out" of many contracts. Bankruptcy, at the most basic level, is all about getting out of contracts. I am not saying it is moral, I am not saying it is just, but I don't see how these states are going to get out of the hole they are in without revisiting the pension systems retroactively. That's it... that's their out... They're all morally BANKRUPT

tazzygirl -> RE: Judge rules on public employees' retirement pensions (9/13/2011 2:48:37 PM)
Its very hard to get out of back taxes, either on the state or federal level. Thats the type of contract I was thinking about with the state.

slvemike4u -> RE: Judge rules on public employees' retirement pensions (9/13/2011 2:54:02 PM)
Elected officials through collected bargaining negotiated these contracts....if need be those same official ,or the present occupants of those offices,MUST honor those contracts.If raising taxes is what it takes....so be it.

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Judge rules on public employees' retirement pensions (9/13/2011 2:58:49 PM)
The states have little ability to create income to fund their pension liabilities at this point, except through raising taxes. How much more is the average taxpayer who is struggling themselves and worried about their own retirement going to be willing to pay? I don't think people realize what a fucking mess this is. But Oregon's unfunded liability is FOUR TIMES!! their total budget. That ain't gonna be easy to make up. I hope no one is taking this as me being down on public employees, because I am not. There are those who do demonize public employees, even though this mess is really not their fault. However, these numbers are frightening, and despite this recent decision, I suspect a number of the states are going to try to lessen their obligations, and at some point, the courts are going to have to be realistic.

slvemike4u -> RE: Judge rules on public employees' retirement pensions (9/13/2011 3:04:46 PM)
Let us assume the courts are "realistic".... Who would those municipalities that have availed themselves of such realistic courts ever again enter into good faith negotiations with civil service employees?

Slavehandsome -> RE: Judge rules on public employees' retirement pensions (9/13/2011 3:05:09 PM)
Why don't we have that same judge rule on the Constitution, the Declaration Of Independence or the Patriot Act.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Judge rules on public employees' retirement pensions (9/13/2011 3:08:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet The states have little ability to create income to fund their pension liabilities at this point, except through raising taxes. How much more is the average taxpayer who is struggling themselves and worried about their own retirement going to be willing to pay? I don't think people realize what a fucking mess this is. But Oregon's unfunded liability is FOUR TIMES!! their total budget. That ain't gonna be easy to make up. I hope no one is taking this as me being down on public employees, because I am not. There are those who do demonize public employees, even though this mess is really not their fault. However, these numbers are frightening, and despite this recent decision, I suspect a number of the states are going to try to lessen their obligations, and at some point, the courts are going to have to be realistic. Courts have to apply the law...these are contracts and short of re-opening bargaining there isnt much that can be done short of bankruptcy. Hopefully there will be reforms to unconscionable practices like basing benefits on the single highest year of earnings, including OT.

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Judge rules on public employees' retirement pensions (9/13/2011 3:13:51 PM)
Do you mean "how would those municipalities . . ."? I don't know, although I suspect that the movement to switch public pensions to a 401K type plan will eventually happen. As for the current problem, the feds are certainly not in a position to bail any of the states out of their unfunded obligations, so I wouldn't count on that. I have been wondering if California, or some other state, might try to declare bankruptcy and avoid their obligations that way. I don't know if they can, but I think most, if not all, of the states are basically insolvent right now. It is certainly a brave new world, and the idiots who ran these pension systems bought into the bubble in a big way, to the detriment of retirees and taxpayers alike. quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Let us assume the courts are "realistic".... Who would those municipalities that have availed themselves of such realistic courts ever again enter into good faith negotiations with civil service employees?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Judge rules on public employees' retirement pensions (9/13/2011 3:17:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet Do you mean "how would those municipalities . . ."? I don't know, although I suspect that the movement to switch public pensions to a 401K type plan will eventually happen. I hope not!

tazzygirl -> RE: Judge rules on public employees' retirement pensions (9/13/2011 3:24:11 PM)
quote: Courts have to apply the law...these are contracts and short of re-opening bargaining there isnt much that can be done short of bankruptcy. Hopefully there will be reforms to unconscionable practices like basing benefits on the single highest year of earnings, including OT. Can they get out of those contracts by declaring bankruptcy themselves? Not necessarily the states, but maybe the municipalities?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Judge rules on public employees' retirement pensions (9/13/2011 3:26:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: Courts have to apply the law...these are contracts and short of re-opening bargaining there isnt much that can be done short of bankruptcy. Hopefully there will be reforms to unconscionable practices like basing benefits on the single highest year of earnings, including OT. Can they get out of those contracts by declaring bankruptcy themselves? Not necessarily the states, but maybe the municipalities? Depends on the bankruptcy judge.

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Judge rules on public employees' retirement pensions (9/13/2011 3:29:43 PM)
Who knows? I think the municipalities usually participate in the state systems, rather than have their own systems. At least, that was the case in Washington when I worked for a small city years ago. It would suck for state employees to switch to a 401K system, I agree, but I have less of a problem with that happening prospectively. What I am afraid of is that these pension obligations are going to have to be revisited retroactively. I was pretty horrified when I found out how in the hole CALpers was, for example. Washington and Oregon are not much better. There is no precedent for a state going bankrupt, that I am aware of, so who can guess how it would shake out.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

2.929688E-02