Corbett seems set on making pension reform top priority

Probably most are covered by union contracts that only allow lay offs based on seniority. Others are covered by Civil Service rules that are probably similar. Only a small percentage, mostly management, could be subject to lay offs in such a manner. And I really don't believe it would happen if it could. Who could they get to fill those positions knowing that they would be booted before they became eligible for a pension?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mike, thanks for the legal explanation. That is something I wasn't familiar with actually. I would agree to a system that would make changes that would affect new hires and let the 'current employees' ride our their benefits. Here is one question I would have with that however, does that make employees a target to layoffs? Aka avoiding the benefits/pension all together?

Because if so, that's not fair either.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Zippie-""legal contracts" have been broken by the government before"

I don't know if they have or not, but what I do know is that the pensions, which are a matter of law, not contract negotiations, have been ruled a legal contract by the PA Supreme Court that can't be changed or broken once in force.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wwhickok,

From what I've read and heard, the PS Supreme Court has ruled that you can't change the plan for those currently in the system. I've also heard it said that it's those who are vested (and it depends on when you were hires as to how many years you needed to be vested since it recently changed).

I am glad to finally see the SG recognize those in the system who have given service to the people of the Commonwealth and have based their retirement planning on what they were told they were getting in return for their service and the money taken each payday from their checks.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

That is why legal, moral, and ethical are not synonyms.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

"legal contracts" have been broken by the government before

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

.......These people worked decades with one understanding of what their retirement plan would look like. That can't be changed at the last minute........

What about us who worked/are working in the private sector and saw our retirements fall like lead ballons during the stock market crash?

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Elimination going forward for new employees makes more sense to me. That said, give this guy credit for at least addressing the fact times have changed and the word 'pension' hasnt existed in non-union workers i the private sector for a decade.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Here's the problem. These people have a legal contract with the state that says upon your retirement your benefit will be calculated using this formula # x % x $ = . You can't simply change the formula, it's a binding legal agreement. If you took out a 30 year fixed-rate mortgage from your bank and signed the contract, I bet you'd be getting a lawyer when midway through the term the decided that the interest rate should be raised because they need more money. It's not right and it's not legal (imho). Harrisburg has created this problem with a decade of underfunding and now they are trying to deflect the blame and cover their collective arses.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

I agree with the mentioned changes, but I'm curious, what determines the 'cut off' for employees near retirement? Pension changes are NEEDED. But I also agree that it's not fair to make changes to the pensions of those who've worked for years and are very close to retirement, so would say 5 years be reasonable? Anyone within 5 years of retirement would not be affected by pension changes? I think that's fair and then change it for everyone else. Because $41 Billion is insane.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »