The pension deal...

[catnhatnh]

...The amendment to strip pensions from government employees found guilty of "serious crimes" is good but could be greatly improved with a small "language tweak"...Since as a nation we abhor ex post facto laws, the following should be written into the rules..."Other provisions not withstanding, This law shall be in effect thirty days after adoption save the following-Any person convicted of a "serious crime" after adoption and the statutory 30 days shall forfeit all benefits EVEN for those acts committed before adoption should they continue in government service. Any person who resigns or retires previous to this time frame shall not be within this jurisdiction."...IE: If you done it get out right now or face the consequences.
That's right-no "get out of jail free card" but rather, do your time and keep your perks-If you quit now...Who quits?? Every sweating crook.It will cost us millions yet save us money. I'm betting this language would cause an exodus of just those people we NEED to lose-further, it reflects well on the Democratic party-leave now and we will not punish your families-stay and see our wrath.
Just an improvement I'd like to see....

[partylessinOhio]

1. I disagree with this legislation. This opens the door to take pensions

away from workers for all sorts of reasons some of which could be made up.

Do persons who have committed crimes lose their pensions in the private sector?

If a person gets an undeserved bad evaluation or termination will they risk losing their pensions?

I feel pensions are earned by years of work and should not be lost if a person commits a crime. JMO.

[catnhatnh]

2. I see your point...

however in this particular case, let us look at what the job entails and what crimes would remove a pension.The parties affected are people whom accept a public trust to act in the interest of the public-IE:fidelity to the will of the people and fiduciary trust.If I ask a dry cleaner to clean my shirts and instead he drags them through the mud, he has failed at the first, if I ask a stockbroker to handle my portfolio and he places me in equity positions for buggy whips and fairy dust he has failed at the latter. And if in either he accepts other remuneration to reach his actions he is neither an honest dry cleaner or stockbroker and deserves no recompense to be derived from his action...in short the disqualifying actions are in fact malfeasance at the job for which they were hired-not just an otherwise non-connected disqualifying action.It is called bad faith and should have consequences.

[partylessinOhio]

3. I see your points also. Spouses and children or even a parent will also be impacted by

the denial of a pension. Should they be punished for the wrong doing of a family provider? I don't feel they should be. The offender should suffer the consequences by job loss, fines, restitution and/or a prison sentence but I feel their pension is earned and should be untouchable.

This could open the door to pension denials for no reason. I myself am the victim of having my disability benefits unfairly withheld by my supervisor who did not like me. An employer or supervisor already have too much power and I'm not in favor of giving them more.

[lligrd]

4. Exactly. This Is A Slippery Slope

Pensions are benefits and are earned. It is just like taking pay away for a job already done. The real question is why a member of Congress is given a pension after serving just a few years.