Advertisement
YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollectionsBusiness

Public pension reform, not public-worker bashing

We'll never achieve an equitable and effective fix to the very real problem of unsustainable public pension obligations until we dispel the miasma of non-facts enveloping this highly fraught topic.

May 15, 2011|Michael Hiltzik
  • Public-safety employees such as police officers have the best retirement packages.
Public-safety employees such as police officers have the best retirement… (Josh Edelson, Associated…)

Here's what we know for certain about the public pension crisis facing California: The obligations owed or promised to public workers are growing, and unsustainable.

Almost everything else said about public employees and their retirement packages is open to question, misleadingly simplified, or infected with ideology, partisanship or emotion.

One might ask if that matters, given the overwhelming weight of fact No. 1. The answer is yes, because we'll never achieve an equitable and effective fix until we dispel the miasma of non-facts enveloping this highly fraught topic.

For example, are public employees better paid than their private-sector fellows? Some are and some aren't. A study done for the California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility, which is pushing pension reforms, found that public workers at the low end of the income scale were better paid than private-sector workers in similar jobs. But it was the opposite for those in management and specialized occupations, such as computer science.

That suggests that finding a one-size-fits-all pension solution will be difficult.

Are California public retirement plans better than those for federal or private-sector workers? Yes in some ways, no in others.

Generally they allow earlier retirement than their counterparts. Typically, public-safety employees such as police officers and firefighters have the best deals, schoolteachers the worst. Unlike the typical private-sector defined-benefit plan, state pensions often require a contribution by the employee, though this is covered by some public employers.

On the other side of the ledger, the formulas for calculating the retirement payouts are much more advantageous for state employees than in the private sector.

In a crucial way, public-employee pensions are a throwback. Such defined-benefit plans barely exist anymore for new employees in the private sector. These are classic pensions — they accumulate value slowly at first and rapidly toward the end of a worker's career and they can't be transferred to other employers, so they're geared to encouraging long-term employer-employee relationships.

In return for employee loyalty, the employer bears the risk of bad investments or market reversals — the benefits have to be paid regardless. Today's private employers don't care as much about worker loyalty and don't like investment risk; hence the rise of the 401(k), which requires larger contributions from the workers and transfers market risks to them but can be ported from job to job.

In part because the state pensions don't include a 401(k)-style plan, they're less generous than many private-sector plans for short-term workers. A schoolteacher who leaves his or her job before 10 years leaves with nothing; a federal or private-sector worker might have money in a defined-contribution account and be on track to qualifying for Social Security, which doesn't now cover California schoolteachers or public-safety employees.

These distinctions aside, the overall costs of public pensions are poised to crush state and local services. The problem is bad nationwide, but especially severe in California, in part because state courts have blocked efforts to roll back pension benefits that haven't yet accrued, such as credits for future service.

Things are different in the private sector, where federal law prohibits reductions in retirement benefits owed for years already worked but allows employers to terminate or reduce benefits for future service. (Depending on applicable union agreements.)

Because 1978's Proposition 13 and other laws also make it very hard to increase taxes in California, the most practical way of covering the increasing costs of employee pensions is to cut back other programs — leading to closed libraries, fired teachers, less road repair, etc., etc. Public employees, whose jobs and public standing are on the line, have as much at stake in corralling pension costs as anyone.

Unquestionably, state and local political leaders have been profligate with pensions, awarding workers improved benefits and post-employment health coverage — the value of the latter being perhaps the largest single difference between California retirement plans and those of federal and private workers. Some enhancements were awarded retroactively, which is an absolute sin in the pension biz.

Advertisement
Los Angeles Times Articles
|
|
|