| | | | |

Newspaper Editorial Unhappy With “Happy Talk” About UC Pension Fix

Yet another reminder that the pension/retirement issue at UC did not end with the December Regents meeting below:

UC president’s happy talk not helpful (excerpt)

San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial

December 20, 2010

Like so many public agencies in the Golden State, the University of California has promised vastly more in retirement benefits for its employees than it can afford. Taxpayers should find the UC system’s woes particularly appalling because of this fact: For two decades, the state and UC employees didn’t put aside any money at all toward future pension costs, leading to a current overall shortfall of $13.4 billion. Earlier this year, UC President Mark Yudof finally began pushing to adequately fund pension costs. But the plan that regents approved last week for nonunionized workers – who make up nearly 60 percent of UC’s employees – is a huge disappointment. It raises the earliest retirement age for new workers hired after July 1, 2013, from 50 to 55 and requires that workers contribute somewhat more toward the cost of their benefits.

Yudof’s declaration that the changes “will go a long way in solving a major long-term challenge to the university’s solvency” is hard to fathom. Significant savings are decades away. A Contra Costa Times analysis indicates the overall shortfall still will soar to $21.9 billion by 2020.

What will happen in the meantime? If retirement benefits are funded in an actuarially sound way, the result is likely to be enormous frustration for both taxpayers and UC students, who are sure to face more tuition hikes.

Yudof’s assertion that these and previous modest changes were necessary to ensure that UC maintains its academic reputation is also questionable. UC’s reputation depends on its faculty – which represents slightly more than one-seventh of its work force.

If UC’s president and its regents really wanted to fix this problem, a bolder approach makes far more sense. First, retirement health benefits should be dropped for all new hires and for any current employee who can qualify for Medicare coverage. Second, just as more generous public safety agency benefits are often decoupled from those of general government workers, benefits for UC faculty should be decoupled from other UC workers, whose retention is simply not as important to UC’s future success…

Full editorial at http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/dec/20/uc-presidents-happy-talk-not-helpful/

UPDATE: The view from calpensions.com http://calpensions.com/2010/12/20/uc-pensions-did-regents-solve-the-problem/

Similar Posts

  • | | | |

    UCLA-FA files Unfair Labor Practices charge against UC

    LOS ANGELES, CA (June 5, 2024) – On June 3rd, the UCLA Faculty Association (UCLAFA) filed unfair labor practice (ULP) charges against the University of California (UC) to vindicate faculty rights to protest, organize, and exercise academic freedom. The ULP charges the UC for UCLA’s failure to uphold, and their choice to interfere with, faculty’s legally protected rights during and after the recent UCLA Palestine Solidarity Encampment. This is the fourth organization to file a ULP against the UC in the wake of its actions at UCLA in late April and early May, following charges by UAW, UC-AFT and AFSCME….

  • | | |

    Faculty associations address UCOP

    The UCLA Faculty Association is part of a UC-wide coalition of faculty associations known as CUCFA–the Coalition of UC Faculty Associations. Through CUCFA, UC faculty are able to address the UC Office of the President on issues of importance to faculty, their students, and staff. Below is a round-up of recent communication between CUCFA and UCOP. UC Union Coalition on Health Insurance Costs CUCFA signed on to a joint letter from unions representing employees across the UC system expressing concern with large increases in the cost of health insurance. The unions requested a meeting to “address what appears to be…

  • | |

    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)…

  • | |

    UCOP Response to CUCFA on Health Options

    In April, the Council of UC Faculty Associations drafted a letter of concern over proposed changes to UC employee health insurance options. Over 2,500 faculty system-wide added their names in support of these concerns. Now we have a response from the UC Office of the President (UCOP): Subject: Health care options letter Date: Wed, 6 May 2015 23:40:06 +0000 From: President at UCOP dot edu To: info at cucfa dot org Dear Professor Hays: Thank you for sharing the Council of UC Faculty Associations’ letter of April 7 to President Napolitano regarding the possible restructuring of healthcare plans available to…