If “existing retirees” and those “deferred retirees who are soon to retire,” such as myself, are affected by any “pension overhaul” pending the outcome of these cases, I predict the cities/counties will first go after those members who took advantage of “enhanced benefits” while still working in 2002 or later. The formula for “enhanced benefits” results in a pension for an employee of the same classification and years of service of an earlier “retired” employee of about 2.25 to 2.75 times the earlier “retired” employee’s pension. HOWEVER, the “enhanced benefited” employee does NOT have a guaranteed healthcare allowance (+/- $300 mo). That will be the “low-hanging fruit” that goes away first, unless their pension is adjusted downwards. If it is, the Ret Assns will have to refund all their extra employee payroll contributions into the “enhanced system” to their respective employee-contributors in a lump sum (which employees in my category did not have to make).
These refunds will still be cheaper for the Assn (and severely limit any future gov’t backstops, if needed) and so will be preferable to the masses retiring under the “enhanced” systems.
I haven’t read the article in the OP yet, but I really believe it’s a HUGE uphill battle for these city/county/state govm’ts to win the right to decimate the retirement system formulas currently in place … yes, even in BK court.
