No one can accuse California of being lax on its reaction to the mounting costs of retirement benefits - but it seems like this election season has kicked reform into high gear.
Following on the heels of last week's adoption of changes to state-level retirement benefits - raising the retirement age and limiting pensions for new hires, as well as requiring workers to pay significantly more for their own future benefits - Los Angeles City Council has begun its own campaign to reform retirement benefits for city workers.
On Tuesday, Los Angeles leaders presented their plans to set the city retirement age at 65 and penalize employees who retire at an earlier age. According to the Los Angeles Times, the plan would also ask employees to contribute more if the existing retirement fund suffers major investment losses - as most pension systems have in recent years.
The changes would not apply to workers hired before July 1 or to firefighters or police officers. Officials say the changes could save the city up to $70 million in the next half-decade and almost $5 billion over the next 30 years.
Employee unions, predictably, have responded negatively to this, the most recent move in a summer's worth of state-wide pension and retirement benefit battles - similar proposals were introduced and passed by voters in both San Jose and San Diego, and are also being contested by municipal employee unions.
"We'll take whatever action necessary to enforce our rights, even if it means going to court," Bob Schoonover, president of L.A.'s Service Employees International Union Local 721, told the Times. He called the proposal "more of a political move than a financial move" and suggested legal action was imminent.
City officials say that since the changes will only affect new employees, they don't put much weight on the legal threats.
"I don't think that their membership cares, quite frankly. This is all about people who don't work for the city today," Los Angeles CAO Miguel Santana told the Times.
Other changes included in the proposal would deny health care benefits to spouses of retired city workers, as well as changing the formula for pensions, basing it on the last three years' worth of pay, not just the final year.
Complete your profile to continue reading and get FREE access to BenefitsPRO, part of your ALM digital membership.
Your access to unlimited BenefitsPRO content isn’t changing.
Once you are an ALM digital member, you’ll receive:
- Breaking benefits news and analysis, on-site and via our newsletters and custom alerts
- Educational webcasts, white papers, and ebooks from industry thought leaders
- Critical converage of the property casualty insurance and financial advisory markets on our other ALM sites, PropertyCasualty360 and ThinkAdvisor
Already have an account? Sign In Now
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
