Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

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

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
warrior1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 09:05 AM
Original message
Jerry Brown to propose higher retirement age, lower pension benefits for new state workers
Edited on Thu Oct-27-11 09:09 AM by 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...

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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
edhopper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 09:09 AM
Response to Original message
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."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Le Taz Hot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 09:09 AM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crazy Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 09:10 AM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cirque du So-What Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 09:14 AM
Response to Original message
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!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #4
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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
warrior1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 09:18 AM
Response to Original message
5. Did you read this part?
Edited on Thu Oct-27-11 09:18 AM by warrior1
New workers outside the public safety sector


I wasn't directly talking about CO and nurse. And the nurses tend to be county workers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 09:36 AM
Response to Original message
6. the ability to buy extra years of service?
I have heard of such a thing before.

Don
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
warrior1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #6
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CountAllVotes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #8
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:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
warrior1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #9
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CountAllVotes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 09:38 AM
Response to Original message
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.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
warrior1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #7
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CountAllVotes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. it also creates a lot of in-house jealousy
Edited on Thu Oct-27-11 09:50 AM by CountAllVotes
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:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 09:47 AM
Response to Original message
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!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
warrior1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #11
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ArtiChoke Donating Member (21 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #11
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JustAnotherGen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 09:53 AM
Response to Original message
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?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gold Metal Flake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 09:55 AM
Response to Original message
16. What can Brown do to you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
warrior1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #16
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gold Metal Flake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #17
21. He's a career politician.
I think it comes with the territory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Axrendale Donating Member (159 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 10:00 AM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OHdem10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
socialindependocrat Donating Member (379 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 12:03 PM
Response to Original message
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"!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Saving Hawaii Donating Member (87 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-30-11 12:03 AM
Response to Reply #22
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KamaAina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-11 12:14 PM
Response to Original message
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:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Aug 01st 2014, 07:59 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC