Judge blocks Illinois pension reform law

[ChezC3]

A state judge today temporarily blocked implementation of the big pension reform plan that passed the General Assembly last winter. But the action likely is only a preliminary skirmish in a wider conflict that already was headed to the Illinois Supreme Court.

Crain's Chicago Business : Subscription Center


We Won A Battle....Now Let's Win the War

 

[CalGun]

Don't the people have to know whats in it before they vote on it? Or is that just a federal mandate for democrats? Sorry I digress...I have to assume if pension reform was approved of by legislators bought and paid for by public employee unions its not too good for tax payers.

Crain's Chicago Business : Subscription Center


We Won A Battle....Now Let's Win the War

 

[ChezC3]

Don't the people have to know whats in it before they vote on it? Or is that just a federal mandate for democrats? Sorry I digress...I have to assume if pension reform was approved of by legislators bought and paid for by public employee unions its not too good for tax payers.

Pension benefits promised are trying to be reneged on which by IL State Constitution is illegal.

The politicians having raped, neglected and stolen from the Pension Fund for decades created this mess and now expect IL State retirees and employees to suffer by taking away what was promised for their years of service.

The reform is not too good for the people who gave their lives working for the State for benefits promised which these scumbags are trying to take away.

The taxpayers need to rise up and defend the State's employees and retirees and tell the politicians to figure it out another way...

 

[mtm1963]

people need to understand that most states never fully funded their public employee pension plans to live up to the benefits promised.

the states are in the hole for 10's of billions of dollars that don't have.

 

[ChezC3]

people need to understand that most states never fully funded their public employee pension plans to live up to the benefits promised.

the states are in the hole for 10's of billions of dollars that don't have.

So please allow me to do business with you, you come and work for me, just for a week, i will promise you XY and Z.

You complete your end of the bargain and because other people never fully pay their employees for their service, you should not expect to either.

This is sheer nonsense.

They could have it, they just choose to put money elsewhere, like Presidential Libraries...

:roll:

 

[mtm1963]

So please allow me to do business with you, you come and work for me, just for a week, i will promise you XY and Z.

You complete your end of the bargain and because other people never fully pay their employees for their service, you should not expect to either.

This is sheer nonsense.

They could have it, they just choose to put money elsewhere, like Presidential Libraries...

:roll:

i not sure what to think of your post. is it real or is it sarcasm!

 

[ChezC3]

i not sure what to think of your post. is it real or is it sarcasm!

The politicians are currently violating the State Constitution.
They also are trying to pass a bill giving $100 Mil for an Obama library

Don't put the $100 mil in the pension fund coffers by any means...:roll:

Promises were made and opportunities lost based on decisions made off those promises.

Obligations were fulfilled on the part of the employee/Retiree

Obligations MUST be fulfilled by the State.

there a little of both...

 

[mtm1963]

The politicians are currently violating the State Constitution.
They also are trying to pass a bill giving $100 Mil for an Obama library

Don't put the $100 mil in the pension fund coffers by any means...:roll:

Promises were made and opportunities lost based on decisions made off those promises.

Obligations were fulfilled on the part of the employee/Retiree

Obligations MUST be fulfilled by the State.

there a little of both...

illinois is the hole for billions of dollars in terms of pension obligations it doesn't have chez.

where do you get the money?

 

[ludin]

states should do away with pension funds and switch to 401k's just like everyone else.

there is no reason that tax payers should have to continue to pay people that no longer work for the state.

 

[ChezC3]

illinois is the hole for billions of dollars in terms of pension obligations it doesn't have chez.

where do you get the money?

Where do they get the money for the $100 mill for Obuma?

They can get it, this despondent, they don't have it so everyone just needs to give up and bend over is not a thought that will even get a shred of airtime with me.

Thy have an obligation. They need to fulfill it.

Lest others will think it their right to let promises go unfulfilled

Also, now thrice I'll say, it is IN THE STATE CONSTITUTION.

 

[CalGun]

This. In fact the simple solution is take the assets assembled, dived them as mathematics dictate into a 401k and wish them luck.

I often hear that pension funds were raped, plundered, not properly funded. I never hear we made a bad investment and the market went down, our mortgage investments were toast, and so it impacts your retirement. I never hear how a defined benefit gets blown up with aggressive last year promotions, cashed in sick / vacation time elevates the last years of pay which is all the defined benefit goes for....Cal teachers are great at this one it's called the 3 year administrative retirement run. It's never the public employee (who now makes more then non govt employees) didn't bother to save enough.

states should do away with pension funds and switch to 401k's just like everyone else.

there is no reason that tax payers should have to continue to pay people that no longer work for the state.

 

[Muhammed]

It is this type of situation where the union needs to back up their members. No pension, shut down the government. Period.

 

[Linc]

Judges are a big part of the Illinois pension problem, since their pensions are the largest and grand-fathered.

Changes will evcentually be made to the Illinois constitution since greedy pensioneers keep whining about losing a little COLA.

I get an Illinois teacher's pension and support the measure.

Current pensions are unsustainable; cut the COLA now or lose a big chunk of your pension later.

GOP candidate for governor Bruce Rauner opposed this agreement since it was NOT tough enough.
We don't hear that from disengenious righties like the OP .

Once again in this Country, you have the NIMBY

 

[Linc]

Where do they get the money for the $100 mill for Obuma?

This is the 2nd time you've interjected the Obama library into your own OP, derailing your own thread with ODS.

Thy have an obligation. They need to fulfill it.

If you think this agreement is bad, wait for the one GOP candidate Rauner pushes through.
Why don't you mention that GOPs wanted a stronger agreement, rather than the tame COLA cuts.

Also, now thrice I'll say, it is IN THE STATE CONSTITUTION.

Private pension GOPs will eventually pass an amendment to the Constitution to deal
with the greediness and stupidy of public pensioneers and their Unions in Illinois .

 

[justabubba]

states should do away with pension funds and switch to 401k's just like everyone else.

the feds did this. moved from a defined pension benefit to a less desirable plan but also one where employees have more control over how their contributions are invested
but significantly, those who were vested in the old plan were able to keep their promised benefits. only new employees were not entitled to the more desirable pension plan
that process should be the template for state and local governments

there is no reason that tax payers should have to continue to pay people that no longer work for the state.

that is like saying military retirees who have served their country should not get the retirement benefits they were promised and had earned
tell me you would be for reneging on that obligation to our government employees

 

[ChezC3]

This. In fact the simple solution is take the assets assembled, dived them as mathematics dictate into a 401k and wish them luck.

I often hear that pension funds were raped, plundered, not properly funded. I never hear we made a bad investment and the market went down, our mortgage investments were toast, and so it impacts your retirement. I never hear how a defined benefit gets blown up with aggressive last year promotions, cashed in sick / vacation time elevates the last years of pay which is all the defined benefit goes for....Cal teachers are great at this one it's called the 3 year administrative retirement run. It's never the public employee (who now makes more then non govt employees) didn't bother to save enough.

All you are dong is making excuses.

AIG, and other Bank, Wallst execs,they got their bonuses as promised despite the downfall, right? Why? What was the reason? Oh, that's right it was in their contract. Well, in the contract or as a verbal contract (which does stand up in court) the State of IL promised its workers and retirees benefits which they must honor as stated BY THE IL STATE CONSTITUTION

 

[ChezC3]

This is the 2nd time you've interjected the Obama library into your own OP, derailing your own thread with ODS.


If you think this agreement is bad, wait for the one GOP candidate Rauner pushes through.
Why don't you mention that GOPs wanted a stronger agreement, rather than the tame COLA cuts.

Private pension GOPs will eventually pass an amendment to the Constitution to deal
with the greediness and stupidy of public pensioneers and their Unions in Illinois .

It's my thread I say whatever the hell I want, and there was a point to it.

It's in the State Constitution there buddy, Rauner will get shot down like this crap is going to.

Don't derail my thread with your GOP bashing

As for your GOP dream

71 Dems 47GOP in the State House 60/40%

40 Dems 19 GOP in the State Senate 67.8/32.2%

Illinois Constitution - Article XIV

I don't think so...

 

[ludin]

the feds did this. moved from a defined pension benefit to a less desirable plan but also one where employees have more control over how their contributions are invested
but significantly, those who were vested in the old plan were able to keep their promised benefits. only new employees were not entitled to the more desirable pension plan
that process should be the template for state and local governments


that is like saying military retirees who have served their country should not get the retirement benefits they were promised and had earned
tell me you would be for reneging on that obligation to our government employees

no it isn't. we are talking state employee's not federal and as far as i know military pay is something different and it takes 20 years to get while it only takes 5 if you are a congressman go figure.

I have no problem paying our dedicated troops, however the office secretary? how is she different than a normal secretary that she should continue to get paid by taxpayers?
if i retire from my job the company doesn't continue to pay me so why are they so special that they continued to get paid more so from tax payer money.

pensions are a huge issue for states and they continue to driving up costs. this is why public workers should not be allowed to unionize there is a conflict of interest between them and the taxpayer.

state and government employee's need to switch to a 401k plan just like everyone else unless you are in a life threatening position such as a soldier.

 

[Helix]

My own state is trying privatize the pension fund that I am a part of, and will succeed. Teachers and researchers like me will take a massive hit. I hope that Illinois workers don't get screwed. it is breach of contract.

 

[Renae]

Pension benefits promised are trying to be reneged on which by IL State Constitution is illegal.

The politicians having raped, neglected and stolen from the Pension Fund for decades created this mess and now expect IL State retirees and employees to suffer by taking away what was promised for their years of service.

The reform is not too good for the people who gave their lives working for the State for benefits promised which these scumbags are trying to take away.

The taxpayers need to rise up and defend the State's employees and retirees and tell the politicians to figure it out another way...

Hey who gives a **** if the promises were bad, made by politicians at the time in return for political gain at tge cost of future generations? I guess the young just need to eat lower standard of living, higher taxes and more governnent bs to pay the bills thier parents and grandparents arranged for thenselves. Personally, I hope the courts force illinois to pay as promised. The bigger the train wreck the better the lesson for everyone else. Not that progs listen to history.

 

[MMC]

My own state is trying privatize the pension fund that I am a part of, and will succeed. Teachers and researchers like me will take a massive hit. I hope that Illinois workers don't get screwed. it is breach of contract.

Mornin Helix. :2wave: Teachers and City of Chicago City Workers, Illinois state workers. That's who the Dems have been taking from and Not putting into the cookie jar like they are suppose to. That's why their Unions are talking that talk.

Even CPS School's Union Leader is out vocally opposing an Emanuel's return to Office.

They are going after that Teachers Pension.....note all the Democratically led states that now want to run out Bad teachers. Bring in Common Core. Put teachers thru evaluations and testing. Yet they don't do anything about those Administrators that have Secretaries that have their own secretary. Come up with Districts that have 4 or 5 Assistant Superintendents. Principles and Assistant Principles making big time salaries.

 

[Helix]

Mornin Helix. :2wave: Teachers and City of Chicago City Workers, Illinois state workers. That's who the Dems have been taking from and Not putting into the cookie jar like they are suppose to. That's why their Unions are talking that talk.

Even CPS School's Union Leader is out vocally opposing an Emanuel's return to Office.

They are going after that Teachers Pension.....note all the Democratically led states that now want to run out Bad teachers. Bring in Common Core. Put teachers thru evaluations and testing. Yet they don't do anything about those Administrators that have Secretaries that have their own secretary. Come up with Districts that have 4 or 5 Assistant Superintendents. Principles and Assistant Principles making big time salaries.

good morning, MMC. while i'm not as familiar with schools in Illinois as i am with schools in my own state, it doesn't surprise me that there are problems in administration.

 

[MMC]

The politicians are currently violating the State Constitution.
They also are trying to pass a bill giving $100 Mil for an Obama library

Don't put the $100 mil in the pension fund coffers by any means...:roll:

Promises were made and opportunities lost based on decisions made off those promises.

Obligations were fulfilled on the part of the employee/Retiree

Obligations MUST be fulfilled by the State.

there a little of both...

Mornin Chez. :2wave: Yeah.....that's after they Opened the Obama School. Now they want that Library. New York is even Bidding for it......which I don't even Know why they are into the Bidding. he never came from there.

Myself I am hoping that Hawaii wins it.....they have more money than Illinois and are not hurting as bad as Illinoisans are. Plus that's where he really comes from. He was just an Implant here as you know.

 

[justabubba]

no it isn't. we are talking state employee's not federal and as far as i know military pay is something different and it takes 20 years to get while it only takes 5 if you are a congressman go figure.

the discussion is about GOVERNMENT employees, public workers, not receiving the pension that was promised to them
i am saying what was promised to the government secretary is just as committed to her as what was promised to the soldier when he hits retirement age. we would not approve reneging on the soldier's retirement benefit, so why are we saying the secretary's retirement benefit is eligible to be reduced to an amount less than was promised
please share with us why you think it is OK to renege on the obligation made to the secretary performing the public's work

I have no problem paying our dedicated troops, however the office secretary? how is she different than a normal secretary that she should continue to get paid by taxpayers?

just like the government promised the public worker in uniform that they would receive a specific retirement package once they reached retirement age, so was a promise made to the public working secretary that she would receive a specific retirement package once she reached retirement age. just as we would not reduce the retirement commitment to the soldier after the fact, we have no right to reduce the retirement package commitment to the secretary who performed years of work on the public's behalf

if i retire from my job the company doesn't continue to pay me so why are they so special that they continued to get paid more so from tax payer money.

there is a huge difference
the secretary chose to work at a place which promised her a retirement package after she fulfilled X years of service
on the other hand, you chose to work at a place which made no such promise

that public employee may have worked at a lesser salary than she could have received elsewhere for the duration of her career, because she recognized the retirement at the end of her working career justified taking the smaller annual salary. she postponed gratification based on the promise made by her government employer
i doubt you agreed to work for a lesser salary than those in your community performing similar labor ... because you would have been a fool to do so without the commitment of a retirement package. you would have had to save a portion of your prevailing wage income to establish a retirement fund. the government committed to do that for the secretary on her behalf; hence, her reduced salary

i am familiar with this because i too, accepted a lower salary working for the government than i could have received working in the private sector in the same community. i made that choice because the government promised me a retirement package once i reached retirement age. if upon retirement, the government said, ooops, we lied, your retirement will not be what we promised, i cannot now go back all those years i accepted a lesser income and recover the amount i deferred in salary to cover my retirement

pensions are a huge issue for states and they continue to driving up costs.

for states and local governments. but the question is why do they make commitments they cannot pay for. that should be found criminal to wait thirty years after making a promise to then say, so sorry, we don't have the money to pay you what we promised
that employee may have taken a reduced salary all those years in the knowledge they would receive that money back upon retirement ... money the government then insists it does not have because it spent it elsewhere. as stated in the OP's post, because they instead chose to fund the cost of the Obama library, as one example of misallocating committed money

this is why public workers should not be allowed to unionize ...

that would deprive government employees of their Constitutional right of assembly
your side trots out the union boogeyman to explain away management ineptitude. why do you not hold the government managers responsible for making promises they were unable to pay
why not hold them responsible for spending the available money to fund the pensions on other things
you are blaming the victim, the unionized employee, the person who is not going to receive their full retirement if the government gets its way

... there is a conflict of interest between them and the taxpayer.

no, there is not. but prove me wrong and point out what that conflict of interest happens to be. i look forward to that discussion

state and government employee's need to switch to a 401k plan just like everyone else unless you are in a life threatening position such as a soldier.

actually, even the military needs to move to the FERS system instead of a defined benefit plan. the nature of the defined benefit plan is that one cannot fully and accurately predict just what will be owed in 20-30 years once the employee becomes eligible for the retirement benefit. however, by moving to a defined contribution, the amount contributed to the employees' retirement plan with be known each year and no shortfall should result ... assuming the government officials then do not choose to under-fund the defined contribution

 

[ludin]

the discussion is about GOVERNMENT employees, public workers, not receiving the pension that was promised to them
i am saying what was promised to the government secretary is just as committed to her as what was promised to the soldier when he hits retirement age. we would not approve reneging on the soldier's retirement benefit, so why are we saying the secretary's retirement benefit is eligible to be reduced to an amount less than was promised
please share with us why you think it is OK to renege on the obligation made to the secretary performing the public's work

The obligation should have never been made to begin with. There is nothing special about a government worker that they should get a life time paycheck for 10 or 20 years worth of work. there is a reason almost all businesses have moved away from pension plans. they are simply unaffordable over the course of a lifetime.

just like the government promised the public worker in uniform that they would receive a specific retirement package once they reached retirement age, so was a promise made to the public working secretary that she would receive a specific retirement package once she reached retirement age. just as we would not reduce the retirement commitment to the soldier after the fact, we have no right to reduce the retirement package commitment to the secretary who performed years of work on the public's behalf

The state has an obligation to be responsible with taxpayer month. paying people lifetime paychecks for nothing in return is not being responsible with tax payer money.
she didn't work on the publics behalf she worked for a pay check. she got a paycheck that doesn't mean that we continue to owe her a life time of pay.

there is a huge difference
the secretary chose to work at a place which promised her a retirement package after she fulfilled X years of service
on the other hand, you chose to work at a place which made no such promise

that doesn't mean it should be lifetime or taxpayers should be on the hook for it.

that public employee may have worked at a lesser salary than she could have received elsewhere for the duration of her career, because she recognized the retirement at the end of her working career justified taking the smaller annual salary. she postponed gratification based on the promise made by her government employer
i doubt you agreed to work for a lesser salary than those in your community performing similar labor ... because you would have been a fool to do so without the commitment of a retirement package. you would have had to save a portion of your prevailing wage income to establish a retirement fund. the government committed to do that for the secretary on her behalf; hence, her reduced salary

It is not my fault or anyone else's fault that she chose to work for less pay. that doesn't mean she is owed a lifetime check from taxpayers. she is not special.

i am familiar with this because i too, accepted a lower salary working for the government than i could have received working in the private sector in the same community. i made that choice because the government promised me a retirement package once i reached retirement age. if upon retirement, the government said, ooops, we lied, your retirement will not be what we promised, i cannot now go back all those years i accepted a lesser income and recover the amount i deferred in salary to cover my retirement

Then that is your own fault that you worked for less money than you could have gotten. you are not special. we don't owe you a lifetime pay check. you should have made other investments just like every other working person does.

for states and local governments. but the question is why do they make commitments they cannot pay for. that should be found criminal to wait thirty years after making a promise to then say, so sorry, we don't have the money to pay you what we promised
that employee may have taken a reduced salary all those years in the knowledge they would receive that money back upon retirement ... money the government then insists it does not have because it spent it elsewhere. as stated in the OP's post, because they instead chose to fund the cost of the Obama library, as one example of misallocating committed money

you choose to take a reduced salary that was your own fault not mine or the rest of taxpayers.

that would deprive government employees of their Constitutional right of assembly
your side trots out the union boogeyman to explain away management ineptitude. why do you not hold the government managers responsible for making promises they were unable to pay
why not hold them responsible for spending the available money to fund the pensions on other things
you are blaming the victim, the unionized employee, the person who is not going to receive their full retirement if the government gets its way

give us want we want or we strike seem to be the union motto. they hold taxpayer money hostage. unions are only suppose to equalize out profits of companies. so i would say unless the state makes a surplus that unions have no neogation power at all.

taxpayer money should not be held hostage by a union period or it's employee's.there is a reason that federal employee's are not allowed to strike. the same should go for states as well. technically as a government employee you work for the taxpayer. if we choose not to pay you forever then we have the right not to pay you a lifetime check.

no, there is not. but prove me wrong and point out what that conflict of interest happens to be. i look forward to that discussion

see above.

actually, even the military needs to move to the FERS system instead of a defined benefit plan. the nature of the defined benefit plan is that one cannot fully and accurately predict just what will be owed in 20-30 years once the employee becomes eligible for the retirement benefit. however, by moving to a defined contribution, the amount contributed to the employees' retirement plan with be known each year and no shortfall should result ... assuming the government officials then do not choose to under-fund the defined contribution

I agree you can't define what benefits will cost 20-30 years from now. once you are done working you get whatever you invested your money in and saved. there is no reason that taxpayers owe anyone a lifetime check.