Even as a State employee, I will readily admit the pension system is generous.  There is no arguing that the pension system needs to be changed.  Since by law they can't make changes to any current employees pension plan without their agreement, they will need to make changes to new employees and do this soon before it becomes too late.

Rongone wrote:

If I'm not mistaken, legislators change existing laws to reflect current co sit ions all the time.

That's their job.

The employees have their responsibilities also . . . Like obey the law.

How would you feel, when you retire, you come to the realization that due to underfunding of your pension plan, you will only receive 40% of what you had thought you were entitled to?

Yes, legislators can change existing laws.  But if they try to make those changes as you suggested they would lose in court.

I will have to see if I can find the case because the name of it alludes me right now, but there is case law and precedent set where the state has tried to make changes like this to current employees in the past and lost.  I believe the judge basically said in order for changes to made, a majority of the employees have to vote for and agree to the change.  This is why you don't see the PA legislature try and make changes to pensions for current employees, because they will lose in court.

So case law and precedent is on the side of employees, not the state.

Read the linked article from Pennlive that discusses when Corbett tried to do exactly what is being discussed and why it is against the state constitution:

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2013/04/probing_the_constitutional_cru.html

 

Last edited by Brady Bunch (7/24/2016 8:51 am)

Rongone wrote:

If it is not possible for legislators to revise the pension system without approval of pensioners, then why do some (like Scott Wagner) continue to campaign and introduce legislation to change the program from defined benefit to defined contribution? One reason could be that career legislators do not want to disturb their own pension.

Why should public employees enjoy a pension system on the backs of citizens financed through higher taxes, when those citizens are subject to defined contribution plans to support their own retirement?

Do you believe the current system is fair to these citizens?

I said in my first post that I agree changes need made to the pension system.  Due to the state constitution, legislators can't change the pension benefits of current employees.  Therefore, the only changes they can make would be to future employees.

Nowhere did I say they should enjoy benefits that the rest of the citizens receive, I was pointing out the fact that changes can't be made to the pension of current employees.

One of the main reasons the pension fund is in the position that it is in today is because for most of the first decade of the 2000's, the state government didn't make its required contributions to the program.

Because the stock market and economy were doing so well, they just assumed the existing balance and employee contributions would be enough to fund the pension program.  Obviously the projections of 7.5% return every year was unrealistic.