Sunday, January 24, 2021
  • About
  • Advertise
  • Careers
  • Contact
Pension Changes
  • Home
  • Government Policy
  • Pension Changes
  • Pension Information
  • Pension Rights
  • Retirement Pension
No Result
View All Result
Pension Changes
Home Pension Rights

State Supreme Court to Begin Hearings on Public Worker Pension Reductions Next Week

May 2, 2020
in Pension Rights
State Supreme Court to Begin Hearings on Public Worker Pension Reductions Next Week
0
SHARES
6
VIEWS
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

The State Supreme Court will begin oral arguments early next week on a case that may drastically reduce public worker pensions that had been boosted to receive higher totals.

State and county pensions face reductions

Alameda County Deputy Sheriff’s Association v. Alameda County Employees’ Retirement Association specifically targets the pay public workers receive in their last few years of service. As public workers receive larger pensions equivalent to how much they made in their last one to three years on the job, many would “spike” their last few years of pay with extra income. In some cases it was as blatant as giving and receiving out of nowhere bonuses.

Former Governor Jerry Brown had targeted this public pension practice in 2012 by signing the Public Employee’s Pension Reform Act into law. Under the law, any payments “paid to enhance a member’s retirement benefit” during the last few years of employment would not be figured into the pension amount.

However this was challenged by the Alameda County Deputy Sheriff’s Association just before taking effect in 2013 with the Association arguing that those workers before 2103 should keep the higher pensions.

Governor Brown later predicted 5 years later, amid more unions and groups joining the growing court case, that public pensions would be in serious danger during the next economic downturn.

Legalities over protected pensions

“What they did looks illegal,” said former attorney Milo Crawford, who had specialized in pensions and benefits. “It looks like they had given themselves extra money to have a bigger end of the year total which would then qualify them for a higher pension. Besides being inherently wrong and taking money away from taxpayers, it can be argued that this is illegal.”

“Pensions are very protected in California. In the Allen v. Board of Administration in the early 1980’s, a new precedent was created that stopped pension reductions without new benefits. Rulings like this is part of the reason why most employers don’t give pensions anymore.”

“And this case showed another reason: they can be manipulated to give others more money in retirement despite the person getting it having done nothing to deserve that extra money.”

“Either way this case goes it is going to change a lot for pensions.”

California state attorneys have largely agreed that, under the current ruling, lawmakers cannot make any needed changes on the state and county level to protect the pension systems. Many counties have been struggling to pay many public pensions due to the rising costs, and with the economic effects of coronavirus continuing, many counties have asked for pension protections. Unchecked pensions hurt many county budgets during the Great Recession and many states, including California, are now facing huge amounts of pension debt. California, in total, currently has over $1 billion in pension debt. At the same time, retired teachers alone receive $5.7 billion a year under the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS).

Arguments for keeping the pension systems as-is

On the opposing side, the Alameda County Deputy Sheriff’s Association  has argued that, under the 1983 Allen v. Board of Administration ruling, any pension reduction would need to have other equally-valued benefits given in return.

“We have held that any modification of vested pension rights must be reasonable, must bear a material relation to the theory and successful operation of a pension system, and, when resulting in disadvantage to employees, must be accompanied by comparable new advantages,” ruled the California Supreme Court in 1983 in Allen v. Board of Administration.

The Association will be using this sentence specifically to argue that pensions should not be reduced, pointing out that “must” is definite and cannot be ruled around as it would endanger public pension benefits to other budget needs. If pensions are reduced, then other benefits would be given.

“The court must look at whether the change results in a detriment to employees and, if it does, must then determine whether the change is reasonable and necessary for an important public purpose,” noted an Association legal brief. “Saving money is not an important public purpose.”

Hearings are expected to begin this coming Tuesday in Sacramento.

Evan Symon

Evan V. Symon is the Senior Editor for the California Globe. Prior to the Globe, he reported for the Pasadena Independent, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, and was head of the Personal Experiences section at Cracked. He can be reached at evan@californiaglobe.com.

Evan Symon
Latest posts by Evan Symon (see all)

— to californiaglobe.com

Related posts

EU Court to Consider if an Irish Pension can be Exempted from a UK Bankruptcy Estate

Jurisdiction issues were a part of our lives long before Brexit

January 23, 2021
Brexit and Covid-19 Universal Credit changes in 2021, including to benefits and pensions

Brexit and Covid-19 Universal Credit changes in 2021, including to benefits and pensions

January 21, 2021
Previous Post

Canada: Locked-out Saskatchewan refinery workers reject FCL’s concessions contract

Next Post

Pension-spiking showdown at California Supreme Court

Next Post
Pension-spiking showdown at California Supreme Court

Pension-spiking showdown at California Supreme Court

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

RECOMMENDED NEWS

‘Don’t ditch your pension for short-term hardship help’ says former minister

‘Don’t ditch your pension for short-term hardship help’ says former minister

9 months ago
Govt to pay AE contributions for employers participating in Kickstart Scheme

Govt has no plans to change ‘frozen’ expat state pension policy

3 weeks ago
Pressure on other judges to refuse hike as Chief Justice gives up new €5,200 pay rise

Pressure on other judges to refuse hike as Chief Justice gives up new €5,200 pay rise

2 months ago
What are the new emergency coronavirus laws? – The Sun

What are the new emergency coronavirus laws? – The Sun

10 months ago

FOLLOW US

  • 79 Followers
  • 27.6k Followers
  • 40.7k Subscribers

BROWSE BY CATEGORIES

  • Government Pension Policy
  • Pension Changes
  • Pension Information
  • Pension Policy
  • Pension Rights
  • Retirement Pension
  • Uncategorized

BROWSE BY TOPICS

2021 2021 Pensions auto-enrolment age 18 auto enrolment pension contributions 2021/22 auto enrolment rates 2020/21 auto enrolment rates 2021/22 cashing in pension at 55 cashing in pension calculator cashing in small pension pots CCP retirement check my state pension Disabled pensions drawdown employer pension contributions 2021/22 government policy examples uk list of government policies uk minimum pension contributions 2021 minimum pension contributions 2022 new state pension Pension age pension issues pension ombudsman pension plan pension regulator Pensions Advisory Service Pensions Brexit pension scheme uk Pensions outlook retirement 2 million scams scheme funding Single mothers pensions State Pension State Pension age state pension changes state pension forecast State Pensions State triple lock taking pension at 55 the pensions regulator Therese Coffey uk pension age UK State Pension uk state pension age what is government policy uk

POPULAR NEWS

  • Multiemployer pension reform not happening this year

    Multiemployer pension reform not happening this year

    5 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • Exit payment cap: Implications for the LGPS

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • Public Service Pensions Update | October 2020

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • NEST: More than a pension | Country Report

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • Builders were not self-employed, rules employment tribunal

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0

Follow us on social media:

Recent News

  • Don’t believe the pension poppycock … it’s a divide-and-conquer strategy.
  • Small pots working group report
  • Affordability checks could drive punters away from racing says bettors’ forum | Horse Racing News

Category

  • Government Pension Policy
  • Pension Changes
  • Pension Information
  • Pension Policy
  • Pension Rights
  • Retirement Pension
  • Uncategorized

Recent News

Don’t believe the pension poppycock … it’s a divide-and-conquer strategy.

Don’t believe the pension poppycock … it’s a divide-and-conquer strategy.

January 24, 2021
Guaranteed Minimum Pension (GMP) equalisation newsletter – July 2020

Small pots working group report

January 24, 2021
  • About
  • Advertise
  • Careers
  • Contact

© 2020 Please contact us on partnership@pensionchanges.co.uk if you would like to reach our audience.

No Result
View All Result
  • Home

© 2020 Please contact us on partnership@pensionchanges.co.uk if you would like to reach our audience.