[quote=harvey][quote=bearishgurl]
I’m truly sorry for you that YOU DIDN’T CHOOSE to attempt to “qualify” for one of these eligible positions in line for a(n eventual) DB plan upon retirement. However, that decision was YOUR CHOICE! You COULD have elected to “jump thru the proper hoops” in attempt to get hired … alas but you didn’t! Thusly, you have NO RIGHT at this late date to condemn those persons who have served their qualified (faithful) service so as to earn their current pensions.[/quote]
Typical ad hominem response.
BG, you can’t seem to discuss an issue without making personal claims about people that are completely fabricated.
(And then there’s the perpetual references to your personal financial situation, which are just plain weird…)
Here’s an actual fact: I did have a position that offered a DB pension. I was an officer in the US Army, commissioned through a full ROTC scholarship – a process that requires a few qualifications!
Now please tell us again, for the umpteenth time, how arduous it was for you to get your guberment job. I’m sure your experience makes boot camp and paratrooper training sound like a picnic on a sunny day…[/quote]
FWIW
[quote] Finally, a California government pension safety valve
For decades, under what was known as “the California rule,” once a government employee was hired, her or his pension benefits could only be increased, not reduced. This was based on the assumption that these benefits amounted to a contract between employer and employee.
But in a ruling on unions’ push to continue late-career pension spiking in Marin County despite a 2012 state law saying such maneuvers were no longer legal, Associate Justice James Richman made a broader point: “While a public employee does have a ‘vested right’ to a pension, that right is only to a ‘reasonable’ pension — not an immutable entitlement to the most optimal formula of calculating the pension.”
