Retirement Benefits In Jeopardy

The on-going saga about SMUHSD retired teachers' benefits does not appear to be getting resolved.  Heather Murtagh at the SM Daily Journal has the latest news on the negotiations

Former employees facing a sharp rise in health care costs say they will only accept what was promised to them when they retired, despite an announcement that the San Mateo Union High School District is willing to increase its contribution, cover deductibles up to $1,500 per insured for one year and form a special hardship fund.

“I think it’s an insult to us to even offer this, said retired classified employee Lucy Cerecedes.

Early retirees, former employees who retired before 65, previously were provided health care from the same pool as current employees. Earlier this year, the Board of Trustees decided to separate the group of about 70 people to save the district money. The decision, however, meant dramatically higher health care costs for the small but increasingly angry group.

Complaints from those facing costs that were set to quadruple next month resulted in the board creating some concessions to try and ease the financial impact. Those affected, however, want to be added back into the current employee health benefit pool, a move they say was promised to them prior to making the decision to retire early.

Some local parents are quite upset as well, but as with any of these benefit issues, it's complicated.

Comments

[Ron Fulderon]

All public sector retirement benefits will have to be renegotiated because they are unaffordable and unfair to the tax payers. My 401K and my personally funded retirement has taken a significant hit and those retirees from the county/city, state and fed also need to share the pain with the rest of us.

On top of the losses to the small 401Ks let's keep in mind that the private sector 401K plans offered by businesses have never even been close to what most public sector employees were given in this corrupt system. I have zero sympathy for those guys that have been promised retirement benefits for life that are 75-100% of their salaries. And let's not forget the double and triple dippers too.

Raising taxes is not an option for trying to pay for retirement benefits for the public sector. The solution will require renegotiating all those promised benefits so that the government can afford to continue to provide government services.

[Elizabeth]

How about not letting them retire until they are 60 to 65 like most of us in the private sector. I know many people that work for City, Federal and State departments. All of them are retiring at the ripe old age of anywhere between 52 and 57 with 90 to 100% of their salaries and full benefits. All of them have gone on to get other jobs and all of them are double dipping while we pay the bill. I agree Ron, I have ZERO sympathy!

[KRN]

Many complain now because of the down economy but where were you folks when the dot.com's were flying high? The public sector salaries are limited as are the ability to make 403(b) contributions.

How much money do you make in the private sector?

What is you 401(k)contribution limit with matching funds?

The issue above has NOTHING to do with either of your posts.

Double dipping while we pay the bill? How about a career military officer who retires from the military, takes the pension and benefits and then enters the private sector. Is that double dipping?

[Ron Fulderon]

The issue is that these pensions plans are not going to be able to pay the promised amounts without raising taxes or cutting services. There's probably still some room for cutting services (has anyone ever seen anybody in those Redi-Wheels buses and vans driving around?), but there isn't room for taxing more if we want any hope for growing the economy back somehow.

The politicians and government planners that counted on Calpers to pay for their employee retirements made huge mistakes in expecting permanent hyper-growth to fund the pensions. They over promised and now they can't deliver. It should not be the tax payer's responsibility to cover those bad decisions.

[Holyroller]

I think it is wrong for people to judge others.
I am able to comprehend the reasons I do not live in Hillsborough.
I am able to comprehend the reason I drive a 10 year old car.
I do not go through life being angery about my neighbors.
The people who recieve these retirement benefits, also pay taxes.
Are those school teachers, sewage workers, people who clean up restrooms and empty garbage cans in the Dog Park, and garbage deserve to make less that you?
Rob FullO'himself?
How do you go through life loking down on the people who keep your toilets flushing.
How much compensation would you ask for if that was your job?
Would you be in favor of a full time employee?
Or pick one or two up at 4th & Grant?
If you had to "work" that day, how would you feel about sending your teenage son or daughter to get a day worker?
Or how about this concept RON.
Get rid of your own garbage, clean out your own sewage system, home school your children, defend your own propery,(Ron has issues about Police/Fire pay and benefits) as well as keeping the utilities providing power to the bubble you seem to live in.
What happens when all the above are not availble Ron?
Dear Ron..
It is not you I am "picking on."
People get short sighted when they are unable to control thier destiny.
Welcome to the club!
Nevertheless, in hard times the people we do not need to pick on are the people who "KEEP THE MACHINE WORKING."

[Parent]

Enraged retirees organize, make demands
January 15, 2010, 03:29 AM By Heather Murtagh

Paul Carlson/Daily Journal
George Pleasant, a San Mateo Union High School District retired employee, hands estimates to Charlotte McNay, administrative assistant to the Board of Trustees and Superintendent Scott Laurence. The estimates represent the savings if changes to benefits were made differently.

Former employees unhappy with a sharp increase in health care costs formed a new representative group and are requesting Scott Laurence, San Mateo Union High School District superintendent, meet with them to discuss possible solutions.

Early retirees, former employees who retired before 65, previously were provided health care from the same pool as current employees. Last year, the Board of Trustees decided to separate the group of about 70 people to save the district money. The decision meant dramatically higher health care costs for a small, angry group of people and now concerns current employees who were considering early retirement. Although appreciative of a number of concessions the district made in December, the group argues that the only true solution is to have one pool for health care options for all employees, current and past. In an effort to make that happen, the teachers formed READ, Retired Employees Against Discrimination.