Friday, December 23, 2005
Part III -- The SEIU Candidate Questionnaire – Pensions
When I asked what used to be called the Illinois Economic & Fiscal Commission, I found that this proposal would have increased the unfounded liability of the pension system by $26 million. The annual additional cost was estimated to be $2.2 million in the pension impact note.
It’s probably deliberate that candidates would have to do research to figure out the cost of what they were asked to commit themselves to support.
And, who would the bill add to the special group of employees allowed to retire in 20 years?
“Toll collectors, lane walkers, truck drivers, clerks, cash handlers and custodians,” the analysis says. Already, the legislature has put highway maintenance workers (including sign hangers and sign hanger foremen) into the special program under which one can retire under the same pension rules as state police, prison guard and highway maintainers enjoy after working 20 years.
A little more detail: those who work 20 years and are age 55 can multiply 20 times 2.5% to calculate their pension. In other words, they qualify for a pension that is 50% of their salaries. The maximum state worker pension is 80% after working 32 years.
But, candidates, don’t worry about the details. Just answer, “Yes.”
Amazingly enough, the next question is about the $43 billion unfounded liability of the five state-funded pension systems. The questionnaire relates that the Governor’s Pension Commission has “recommended addressing the problem, in part by reducing pension benefits for newly higher employees, thus creating a two-tiered pension system….(including) increasing the retirement age for participants as well as drastically reducing the annual cost-of-living increases for retires.”
Needless to say, the union opposes “any reductions.” Two reasons are given on page 4:
· Compared to other “jurisdictions” our state pensions are lower and
· Cutting “already modest pensions for new hires doesn’t address the cause of the pension crisis,” which the union state is the “persistent structural deficit.”
And, of course, “Only a serious proposal to raise new revenues” can provide the money to pay for “state government as well as education.”
So, Candidates, will “you oppose any effort to reduce pension benefits for newly hired state and state university employees?”
Those whose salaries depend on these future employees being dues-paying members want to know.
To return to McHenry County Blog, click here.
It’s probably deliberate that candidates would have to do research to figure out the cost of what they were asked to commit themselves to support.
And, who would the bill add to the special group of employees allowed to retire in 20 years?
“Toll collectors, lane walkers, truck drivers, clerks, cash handlers and custodians,” the analysis says. Already, the legislature has put highway maintenance workers (including sign hangers and sign hanger foremen) into the special program under which one can retire under the same pension rules as state police, prison guard and highway maintainers enjoy after working 20 years.
A little more detail: those who work 20 years and are age 55 can multiply 20 times 2.5% to calculate their pension. In other words, they qualify for a pension that is 50% of their salaries. The maximum state worker pension is 80% after working 32 years.
But, candidates, don’t worry about the details. Just answer, “Yes.”
Amazingly enough, the next question is about the $43 billion unfounded liability of the five state-funded pension systems. The questionnaire relates that the Governor’s Pension Commission has “recommended addressing the problem, in part by reducing pension benefits for newly higher employees, thus creating a two-tiered pension system….(including) increasing the retirement age for participants as well as drastically reducing the annual cost-of-living increases for retires.”
Needless to say, the union opposes “any reductions.” Two reasons are given on page 4:
· Compared to other “jurisdictions” our state pensions are lower and
· Cutting “already modest pensions for new hires doesn’t address the cause of the pension crisis,” which the union state is the “persistent structural deficit.”
And, of course, “Only a serious proposal to raise new revenues” can provide the money to pay for “state government as well as education.”
So, Candidates, will “you oppose any effort to reduce pension benefits for newly hired state and state university employees?”
Those whose salaries depend on these future employees being dues-paying members want to know.
To return to McHenry County Blog, click here.
# posted by Cal Skinner : 10:31 AM
