| | | | |

PEB Options vs. CalPERS New Hire Plan? UC vs. CSU? What’s in It for Me?

The governor made pension reform part of the proposed budget deal. Some state unions negotiated two-tier plans with bigger contributions by employees. Under two-tier, new hires get a lower pension; incumbent workers stay in the old plan. However, the big missing piece was the contract with SEIU Local 1000 which has now been negotiated. (The deal has to be ratified by members and approved by the legislature.) The workers involved are under CalPERS and as the deal spreads across other state workers under CalPERS, it might cover CSU. But in the state budget proposal, CSU gets an even more generous deal than SEIU.

In essence, the SEIU deal has an age factor of 2.418 at age 63. (If you retired at age 63 with 30 years of service, you would get 30 x 2.418% = 72.54% of your final salary.) That would seem to dominate options A and B proposed for UC by the majority of the Post-Employment Retirement Benefits (PEB) Task Force. The minority dissent to PEB proposes an Option C which has an age factor of 2.5 at age 65 (2.22 at age 63). So SEIU is better at age 63 but a bit worse at 65. Options A and B are “integrated” with Social Security which means a low age factor up to a salary index linked to Social Security and a higher factor above, but capped at 2.5. As the dissenting report notes, A is quite stingy. B is better than A. C is better than B on the benefit side. And SEIU-CalPERS seems most like Option C.

Note: In the state budget proposal (see the earlier post), CSU is listed as getting an age factor of 2.5% at age 55 for new hires!! That may refer only to peace officers employed by CSU; the table is ambiguous.

Almost all discussion to date within UC has revolved around comparisons of A, B, and C with our current UCRS pension plan. It would now be appropriate to make comparisons with what is likely to apply to CalPERS and CSU. If President Yudof picks A or B or some variant of those two options, he is likely to be offering new hires a plan below what CSU will be offering. Moreover, the PEB report suggests that incumbent UC workers be offered the option of going into the lower tier plan – whatever it turns out to be – for future service. So it isn’t just new hires for whom the comparison with CalPERS is relevant.

When either UC new hires or incumbent employees ask “What’s in it for me?”, shouldn’t they be able to compare the offering with CSU’s offering? Or with the typical new hire at CalPERS? Just asking.

Note: A description of the SEIU deal is at http://www.sacbee.com/2010/10/07/3086204/seiu-schwarzenegger-agree-to-labor.html

Music at:

Similar Posts

  • |

    Spotlight on Speech Codes, 2022

    Fire (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) has just released its yearly summary of the state of free speech at 481 public and private colleges and universities in the United States. FIRE defines free speech as “the overwhelming majority of speech protected by the First Amendment.” Few exceptions exist. The survey addresses a wide variety of issues with relevance to free speech, including: Free Speech Zone PoliciesPrior RestraintsSecurity Fee PoliciesPolicies Governing Speakers, Demonstrations, and RalliesPolicies on Bias and Hate SpeechInternet Usage PoliciesPolicies on Tolerance, Respect, and CivilityBullying PoliciesThreats and IntimidationHarassmentPolicies on Bias and Hate SpeechObscenityIncitement The report is both disappointing…

  • | |

    Academic Senate Rejects New Pension Tier

    Representatives of UC faculty on all campuses delivered a strongly worded rejection of the proposed 2016 pension tier. Reports from the campuses were extensive and overwhelmingly negative (link to PDF). Berkeley faculty called the proposal “imprudent and potentially fiscally irresponsible.” Davis faculty said, “It is a myth that UCRP is too generous,” and went on to detail a long list of likely negative outcomes from the new tier. Irvine faculty noted “the level of disappointment and depth of passion expressed from all quarters about the negative impact that the imposition of the PEPRA cap has on the future of the…

  • |

    Faculty Voice Opposition to Pension Proposal

    On Friday, the UCLA Academic Senate hosted an informational meeting that explained in clear terms that this is a bad, bad plan for faculty. What to do about it was less clear cut. Shane White gave a deeply detailed account of financial aspects of the plan (Slides here: Pension Presentation by Shane White). Among the things we learned: Last year’s budget deal introduced the “PEPRA cap” to UC retirement benefits. This is not a limit on retirement pay-outs, but a cap on the earnings that are used to calculate retirement pay-outs. So any new hire after July 1, 2016 who…

  • | | |

    Pension Changes Proposed: lower benefits, little savings, weaker UCRS

    The University of California will soon have a third pension tier if the Regents approve a plan put forth by the Retirement Options Task Force on Friday. UC President Janet Napolitano charged the Task Force, which included management and Academic Senate representatives, with finding a way to implement her agreement with Gov. Brown to set a cap on pension benefits in exchange for state funds to support the pension system. Over the weekend, as faculty activists read the task force report and a second report produced by Senate leaders (Guide to reviewing the recommendations of the Retirement Options Task Force)…

  • | | |

    The Degradation of Faculty Welfare and Compensation

    Colleen Lye and James Vernon (UC Berkeley Faculty Association) UC faculty need to wake up to the systematic degradation of their pay and benefits.  In 2009, when the salary furlough temporarily cut faculty salaries between 6 and 10%, faculty were outraged.  Yet since then our compensation has been hit by a more serious, and seemingly permanent, double blow. First, despite modest salary rises of 3% and 2% in October 2011 and July 2013, faculty take-home pay has been effectively cut as employee contributions to pension and healthcare have escalated.  Faculty now pay more for retirement and healthcare programs that offer less.  Secondly, faculty are…

  • | | | | | | |

    Listen to Part of the Regents Afternoon Session of 1-22-2014

    As we have noted in numerous prior posts, the Regents refuse to archive their meetings beyond one year.  So we dutifully record the sessions in real time.  Below is a link to part of the afternoon session of Jan. 22.  This segment is mainly the Committee on Educational Policy.  Gov. Brown was in attendance.  We will separately (later) provide links just to certain Brown segments.  But for now, we provide a continuous recording. There was discussion of designating certain areas of UC-Merced as nature reserves, followed by discussion of a new telescope.  The discussion then turned to online ed and…