Jerry Brown to propose higher retirement age, lower pension benefits for new state workers

[warrior1]

First I want to say that as a retired state worker (36 years) this incenses me. I started working for the state while still in HS and worked till I was able to retire at 55, last year. I don't think I could have taken anymore. Some of my old friends are still there but are counting the days. To say the least, it's good to have a job, but terrible to have to sweat out what the bureaucrats want to do with you because as a civil worker you are seen as a money grubbing parasite. Not a person that may protect the people of the state of California. These are his proposal.

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/10/27/4010117/jerry-brown-to-propose-higher.html

• New workers outside the public safety sector would collect full retirement benefits at age 67 instead of 55, with lower defined payouts.

• A 401(k)-style benefit would become part of the state's pensions.

• Workers would lose the ability to buy extra years of service, known as "airtime."

• A ballot measure would seek to change the structure of CalPERS' board.



That first one, you can't retire with full benefits until the age of 67. The idea is simple, many folks will not live to see their retirement and if they do the will be in ill health. At 55, I am healthy, but I have to work at it. I can't imagine what I would be like at 67 having sit and desk for 50 fucking years. Horrible.

Anyway, I thought I would share. Jerry Brown needs to lose his job and we need a new governor who has serious ideas on how to fix this state.

thanks

[edhopper]

1. The old Ernie Ford song

"16 Tons" comes to mind.

St. Peter don't you call me, cause I can't go.
I owe my sole to the company store."

[Le Taz Hot]

2. Jerry Brown continues to

handle the budget crisis on the backs of the poor and working class. PLUS he vetoed the Industrial Hemp Bill AND he's been strangely silent about the police violence in Oakland -- the town in which he was Mayor. I've been pummeled on this board in the past trying to warn people that Brown is NOT the liberal bastion everyone thinks he is. He's a Good Party Boy who will do nothing to upset the "New Democrats" of the California Democratic Party.

[Crazy Dave]

3. Making people work longer doesn't help create new jobs that would be vacant

There's probably millions of folks still working in their early 60s because they're too young for Medicare and/or lost over 50% on their 401k accounts and can't afford to retire.

[Cirque du So-What]

4. Not all state workers sit behind a desk

Nurses, corrections officers, & environmental technicians leap to mind. The RW is fond of portraying all state workers as 'desk jockeys' who won't be any the worse for wear by working a few more years, but what about those whose jobs take a physical toll? This is not to detract from the plight of those workers who actually do work in an office, as I am sympathetic to their plight as well, but imagine how hellish the prospect must be for those with physically-demanding jobs!

[JVS]

18. I think that's an important thing to remember.

Frankly, I'm not all that sympathetic to those who worry about sitting behind a desk for more time. They can handle that. In fact, there are a lot of out of work 50-somethings who would give their left testicle (or ovary when applicable) to be able to find a workplace that would let them work until 65 or 67 without shoving them out the door.

But provisions need to be in place so that those who do physical labor and are suffering from the associated physical maladies don't get pushed to work to the point where it is unsafe or an undue burden for them. Sitting at a desk is one thing, but doing something like maintaining schoolbuses or climbing telephone polls at 65 is too damned much

[warrior1]

5. Did you read this part?

New workers outside the public safety sector


I wasn't directly talking about CO and nurse. And the nurses tend to be county workers.

[NNN0LHI]

6. the ability to buy extra years of service?

I have heard of such a thing before.

Don

[warrior1]

8. It's called air time

You invest $'s based on your salary. I was looking at it, but it was out of the question because of the cost. It out weighted the benefit. I think it would have cost $60,000 to buy 5 years. I would have only saw maybe an extra $150 a month. Not worth the cost. Not many can buy time. It's not one of the proposals I have a problem with.

[CountAllVotes]

9. me either

However, I do have a huge problem with getting rid of the defined benefit pension system and this 401K crap! :mad:

New workers will have a highly inferior pension system and it won't attract the kind of workers the State needs IMO. Who wants a State job with a 401K pension based system (or I should say a pay and lose your ass pension system) ...

:kick:

[warrior1]

13. 401 k is a racket.

If the state doesn't want to pay it's workers a living wage, then get out of the business of government. Put someone in the system to make it work for the people of California and the workers who keep them safe.

State workers are not scum, they are the 99 percent.

[CountAllVotes]

7. well this totally sucks

They finally managed to get rid of the two-tier pension system some years ago only to attempt to replace it to an even worse case scenario for new workers. Brown is going up against the unions and that is not good for him or the unions.

This sucks in any event. :(

:kick: & recommend.

[warrior1]

10. The two-tier pension system

broke a lot of people. Friends of mine that did this, ended up paying it back. If you didn't invest the money you took out you would be left with nothing to retire with, at least very little. It hurts recruiting new hires and is hard on current employees because of the strain of the hate that you feel coming from the public and government. You are caught in the middle, just trying to make ends meet.

[CountAllVotes]

12. it also creates a lot of in-house jealousy

That is what I found anyway ... those that had the good pension system and those on the two-tier (put in place by Pete Wilson :puke: ) working at the same place and doing the same job.

I know of more that one person that got caught up in paying money back to the state (along with their pension and social security). I remember one person got a paycheck for the whole month and it was only $170.00 by the time they were done deducting all of the things you are required to pay into.

:kick:

[JVS]

11. "I can't imagine what I would be like at 67 having sit and desk for 50 fucking years"

Having a single job for your entire working life, what a goddamned nightmare!

[warrior1]

14. I think they

would be counting on you wouldn't survive long after you retire. And if you don't have beneficiary to leave your pension to, it would go back to the state. Same with you SS.

[ArtiChoke]

24. Working for more than 30 yrs...

deprives the next guy a job. What needs to happen is MORE retirees spending their pensions/savings not fewer. The SS retirement age needs to DROP from 62 to 60 or even less.

[JustAnotherGen]

15. My mom

Is going to have to work until she is 70 . . . in the 24 *7 Hotel Industry. I think she didn't have to expect to do that 46 years ago.

But for these younger employees . . . keep in mind that those of us in our late 30's won't be able to collect Social Security until we are 67. It appears CA is lining things up with the SS Retirement age perhaps?

[Gold Metal Flake]

16. What can Brown do to you?

[warrior1]

17. I think it's like

when you are bargaining for something. He goes in tough, just to want to meet somewhere in the middle. I don't really think he's serious in these proposals, he's just being a dick.

[Gold Metal Flake]

21. He's a career politician.

I think it comes with the territory.

[Axrendale]

19. Brown has a history of advocating for certain regressive policies that goes back a long way.

He probably reached his nadir when he was advocating for a balanced budget ammendment and the dismantling of the income tax (to be replaced by a flat tax).

He's moved somewhat to the left since then, but not by much. He remains at heart the fiscally conservative governor who cleaned up the mess that Ronald Reagan left behind by slashing the state's social services - actions that earned much praise at the time, but in the long run only set the state up for perpetual budget crisis.

[OHdem10]

20. More proof we are to be a LOW WAGE NATION. AS wages become

lower, people aill not have as much from which
to contribute.

Our Leaders are simply making changes for us
to be a low wage country without coming out and
explaining themselves.

[socialindependocrat]

22. 401K is dangerous - if you don't die!!

You put in your dollars and the company matched your "contribution"

Then you have a finite amount when you retire.

You figure how much a year to pull out.

When your money runs out - if you haven't died yet -
then you end up a ward of the state and the tax payers
have to take care of you.

Some people will have a great 5 years and then
3 meals and a cot for ever after.

This is very scarey way to play "the senior lottery"!

[Saving Hawaii]

25. I just want a fair retirement.

I don't want "risk". I really like CALPERS. Part of my paycheck goes towards the fund and when I retire I am guaranteed a monthly payment that I can live on. It's not great, but it pays the bills and allows me to enjoy my golden years. They can't take that away from me, but I care about the new guys showing up to work with me. I want them to have that safety and assurance too.

[KamaAina]

23. And the repukes are STILL going to say he's in the unions' pocket.

And the M$M is STILL going to swallow it whole. :eyes: