In the first six months after City Hall offered the Early Retirement
Incentive Pprgram, 625 workers have actually retired with pensions
averaging more than $1,000 a week with 32 of them getting pensions in
excess of $100,000 a year, according to records obtained by OurLA.org. under the California Public Records Act.
Read who joined the city’s nearly 1,000 members of the Six-Figure Pension Club and the list of the 625 who retired since enhanced pensions were offer to city workers and how much they get monthly at yearly. Go to OurLA.org.
The pension system needs serious overhaul. Based on current wages, the number of 100,000+ club is only going to increase. There are two suggestions. The pension is based on a formula of a factor into number of years into the highest 12 months pay.
This should be changed to the average pay an employee makes into 30 years and no more. So if an employee chooses to work beyond 30 years the pension accrual stops. Besides not bankrupting the system for future employees, it will also encourage many to retire after 30 years and create openings for new hires.
To be fair, a reasonable time should be given to employees about the change, so they can quit or retire before it applies.
They can do whatever they want with their pension fund, as long as we (the tax/rate payers) don’t have to replenish the funds they squander, lose or whatever. That’s the problem with this. We shouldn’t have to pay for their mistakes and mishaps.
The only way they will make the right decisions is if they know they cannot rely on us to rescue (or enable) them.
Can this be a ballot measure?
To: By Anonymous on February 6, 2010 4:34 PM
“This should be changed to the average pay an employee makes into 30 years and no more. So if an employee chooses to work beyond 30 years the pension accrual stops. Besides not bankrupting the system for future employees, it will also encourage many to retire after 30 years and create openings for new hires.”
Please give me a break. What you are saying here is that people who enter a job with a college degree in their 20′s – should retire in their 50′s because of a 30 year max on their pensions?
So you want these 50 + year olds on the job market looking for new jobs because their Social Security and Medicare will not come into play until they are in their 60′s. And what about health benefits – who pays for these when these people retire in their 50′s. Do you have any idea about the pre existing conditions that most people will have by the time that they are in their 50′s?
We need some reforms – but this is not one. You want to make room for new hires? Are you like the Mayor – you think anyone over 50 is “dead wood”?
These people in their 50′s are probably the people that actually run the departments and really understand how their departments work.
There are laws about age discrimination.
“This should be changed to the average pay an employee makes into 30 years and no more.”
Besides what Chris Rowe said, your idea would actually increase the number of $100,000 pension holders. Right now the only city employees who grab a $100,000 pension are either upper management, specialists, or employees that put in an excess of 40 something years to where the formula approached 80-90% of their highest salary. You’d be including a lot more people.
Facts:
City workers do not contribute to social security.
After twenty five years of city service you get free health care for you and your spouse for life(no pre-existing).
I will be receiving with an 80% pension at age 56, if you cant live off of that then your an idiot.
Most people leave at 55 anyway.
Facts:
City workers do not contribute to social security.
After twenty five years of city service(30 for DWP) you get free health care for you and your spouse for life(no pre-existing).
I will be receiving with an 80% pension at age 56, if you cant live off of that then your an idiot.
Most people leave at 55 anyway.
Facts:
City workers do not contribute to social security.
After twenty five years of city service(30 for DWP) you get free health care for you and your spouse for life(no pre-existing).
I will be receiving with an 80% pension at age 56, if you cant live off of that then your an idiot.
Most people leave at 55 anyway.
Facts:
City workers do not contribute to social security.
After twenty five years of city service(30 for DWP) you get free health care for you and your spouse for life(no pre-existing).
I will be receiving with an 80% pension at age 56, if you cant live off of that then your an idiot.
Most people leave at 55 anyway.
Most older employees are deadwood.
The pension system right now is a good reason for starting layoffs for those with under 5 years of service (not vested). Some of these current 20 something or less employees have been brought in by relatives in the past 3 years, have been promoted fast, and are making 70-80K plus per year. 5 years and under layoffs should lower the pension guarantees, also give those responsible for decisions to join reality about current pension system, and fix it to apply to new employees. Reform has to start somewhere.
Thanks you for bringing this non-actionable issue to our attention. Yes, we know about the pension deal. Thanks for adding nothing.
Chris Rowe, you usually understand the issues, but your comments here show a complete lack of the issue. 4:34 is not suggesting that employees be kicked out after 30 years, but rather that the pension accrual stops at 30. You can chose to work for 50 or infinitum years, but the pension will be based on 30 and not the additional years as currently allowed. The comments were related to pension, not to wages and health care. Councilman Parks was a 38 year LAPD employee, and the reason why his pension is close to $300,000. See the difference between 30 vs 38 years. Charlie Mimms who negotiated the bad ERIP already has over 38 years. He will hang around so his pension continues to grow with each passing year.
If employees knew that additional years would make no difference to the pension, a few may leave and create openings for new hires.
Ron, is this really a “non-actionable” item? Am I right? Aren’t we being charged for replenishing monies lost (squandered, etc)? If so, can’t we vote not to do this and it’s up to the unions to protect their pension monies (and pick their investors-or pension commission)?
Since we’re really not being represented, do we not have the right to challenge this with a ballot initiative?
And, like our elected officials that tack on term limits to ballot initiatives, can we also add to it no more raises (civil service, exempt and elected) in future contracts for the next five plus years?
I know this sounds harsh, but it beats the alternative (I think).
Actually 3:48, Chris was not incorrect in understanding the the secondary intent of the 30 year max. Providing a “Pension Holiday” would seem to keep the max payout down, but despite our cityguy’s final attestation, it may very well be that having one experience manager inching into the $100k club might actually provide more benefit with their institutional memories then two or more ‘Five and Dive’ short-timers.
Going after double-dipping may be possible for City of Los Angeles, but what’s really obnoxious is when a State pensioner get’s a backscratcher appointment, and vice versa.
Say what you will about Charley, but he isn’t the only one pointing out the downside of the City’s “Pension Holiday” earlier in the decade, (such as the John Mumma’s PPL presentation at LANCC on Saturday) and posing the question as to where that money was spent when the previous cast of puppet’s was mouthing the Billionaire Boys’ babble….
This is where the problem is: exceptions to the rule. If the intent is to save pension costs, then that one good manager has to be sacrificed. How is this any different from the rules applied to billboard companies or AEG in LA. Exceptions to the rule. The Courts didn’t buy that. Further, never forget that you are working in a public agency for the good of the city. If you were truly civic-minded, you’d want the job (after all you are still getting that higher pay) for the good you can do regardless of the pension accrual, otherwise you are in the wrong profession.
4:34 is not suggesting that employees be kicked out after 30 years, but rather that the pension accrual stops at 30.
Reread the first post. He was suggesting that employees be encouraged to leave after 30 years of service. On top of that he wasn’t saying pension accrual stops at 30 – he was saying the pension formula should be replaced with an averaging of the salaries during first 30 years of service. You misread.
Further, never forget that you are working in a public agency for the good of the city. If you were truly civic-minded, you’d want the job (after all you are still getting that higher pay) for the good you can do regardless of the pension accrual, otherwise you are in the wrong profession.
If you’re gonna use that kind of logic, you might apply it to every service profession. IE I’m not gonna pay my doctor because if he really was in it to help people, he’d be willing to work for free.
Why even bother commenting on this site. It is just a handful of bloggers with zero influence talking to each other.
4:36, perhaps you might considering expanding your definition of influence.
Surely, you don’t just mean city-wided elected officials and their major campaign contributors?
Why indeed would YOU bother to comment?
Keep in mind that the Dept of Water and Power has a separate pension system, as does the Police and Fire Department(s), separate from the City pension system. Also, many are not aware that civil servants, not just City employees but also State and Federal, cannot draw private industry Social Security benefits – even, let’s say they worked in private industry before or after becoming a civil servant. This is known as the Windfall Elimination Provision – Social Security Administration and the Government Pension Offset. Also, the City requires retirees to register for Medicare, which when activated – now offsets their health $ subsidy and reduces the $ the City benefit pays towards health insurance. The subsidy is 100% vested when and only when a City employee reaches 25 years of full time active service. Yet, the City employee cannot receive a medical carrier until the legal age of 55, even if they have reached the 25 year mark,say oh, at age 51 and they want to retire even with a penalty in the retirement formula. They still have to wait. The retirement formula has significant reduction penalties for retirement if a person retires before age 55 and/or with less than 30 years of service. ultimately if an employee retires, regular retirement from the City general fund department at age 55 with 30 years of service – they receive 64% of their highest paid (12 months) of regular salary and they must register for Medicare. The ERIP provides in the formula a penalty for leaving early for the lifetime of the retired employee. Orange County is reforming their sworn retirement pension to raise the age and the years of service. I think this is also something that needs to be looked at within the City, not just the civilian retiree system. Just a thought.