| | | |

Yudof’s Pension/Retiree Health Plans Getting Outside Criticism

As previous posts have noted, UC has proceeded on its proposed modification of the pension and retiree health plans with an inward looking focus. The external world may not be so receptive. Even before the formal presentation to the Regents later this week, there is public criticism.

See below:

UC changes barely touch retirement cost problem (excerpt)

Daniel Borenstein, MediaNews columnist, Contra Costa Times

Posted: 11/13/2010 09:00:00 PM PST
Updated: 11/15/2010 08:34:45 AM PST

GENEROUS retirement programs that have been irresponsibly managed for decades are pushing the University of California off a financial cliff.

President Mark Yudof will ask regents this week to change the employee pension plan for new hires and reduce UC’s contribution to health care costs for current and future retirees. But rather than reform retirement programs that are sucking money away from the classroom, Yudof is timidly fiddling on the margins, ensuring UC will be strangled by tens of billions of dollars of debt for decades to come…

UC could not, and should not, tamper with pension benefits employees have already earned. But, unlike most California public employers, it could, like the private sector, reduce, or even end, accrual of pension benefits for future work. That was never seriously considered, even though, for example, Harvard, Stanford, Yale and the University of Michigan don’t provide guaranteed pension plans. Those schools instead offer faculty 401(k)-style retirement plans that avoid the risk of billions of dollars in unfunded liabilities.

Nor did the task force question why providing top-level pensions to attract coveted faculty members should determine the benefits for the much larger number of other university employees, who are more easily replaceable.

Instead, the task force proposed preserving the system for all employees with only minor tweaks. Yudof, in turn, echoes that in his recommendations to the regents in which he promotes inadequate solutions that will push the problem onto future generations.

Retiree health care

Since 1962, UC has promised health care coverage to retired workers. But rather than set aside money to cover the costs, the university has only paid the health insurance premiums when they come due. It’s like promising a pension but failing to save money to fund it. It’s a financial time bomb.

To adequately cover the retiree health benefits current and former workers have earned, UC should have set aside $16.1 billion by July 1, 2011. That “unfunded liability” is equal to more than two-thirds of the university’s annual budget.

Yudof proposes two changes. First, he would reduce for all retirees the university’s standard contribution to health care premiums from 89 percent of the cost to 70 percent over about the next six years.

Second, he would change the eligibility rules. UC currently makes the full standard contribution for 20-year employees who are at least age 50 when they retire. Under the new rules, 20-year employees would have to be 65 when they retire in order to receive the full benefit. Younger employees and those with less experience would receive smaller amounts.

But Yudof chose not to apply the second change to about half the current employees, thereby significantly reducing the potential savings. Consequently, the university would still be left with an unfunded liability of $13.4 billion by next year. Moreover, since Yudof has no plans to set aside money for future costs, the debt would continue to grow, reaching $21.9 billion in 2020.

If UC officials this week try to sell this plan as reform, know that it’s really only a minuscule down payment on a huge debt.

Full article at http://www.contracostatimes.com/daniel-borenstein/ci_16598906

Similar Posts

  • | | |

    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…

  • | | | |

    UCOP Study Shows Decline in Faculty Compensation

    A year ago Colleen Lye and James Vernon, co-chairs of the Berkeley Faculty Association, drew the attention of faculty across the ten campuses of the University of California to the continuing degradation of their pensions, benefits and salaries. Increasing employee contributions to health insurance and pensions were compounding the negative impact of slow salary group, they argued, and retirees faced fewer choices for healthcare. Now UCOP’s own study of total remuneration has confirmed much of their argument. The executive summary of this document contains the following depressing bullet points: Between 2009 and 2014, UC’s total remuneration fell from 2% below…