The rights of retirees, public employees, bondholders and citizens and taxpayers are all in play.
In simple language, there is not enough money to pay for all the promises that have been made by city officials to union represented employees and retirees, thereby jeopardizing the services to citizens and taxpayers, unless dramatic increases in taxpayer supplied funds, aka unaffordably higher taxes, are "donated" to the public sector's feeding trough by those already overburdened citizens and taxpayers. Lots of pain ahead for all concerned, and that's everybody involved.
Bondholders are sorry they've loaned money to those cities under the mistaken assumption that their loan would be repaid on time and with interest. Accordingly, these existing and prospective creditors won't be anxious to provide more funds at anywhere close to current interest rates or repayment terms, and perhaps not at all. In the end, that's probably a good thing, given the recklessness of city government officials and their public sector union counterparts and political allies over the years.
And these government officials should all be fired for caving in to the demands of public sector union leadership over time. Of course, many of these government officials who caved also were recipients of the exact same benefits given to their fellow public "servants," courtesy of their fellow citizens and holding-the-bag-taxpayers. It's a pure and simple case of conflict of interests, with nobody looking out for the interests of the broader citizenry and taxpayer base.
Not a pretty sight, that's for sure.
San Jose and Unions Set for Court Battle Over Pensions has the gruesome details of what's happening in California's third largest city:
"California's third-largest city, San Jose, and its employee unions (are facing off) in court over public pension reforms in a case that has major implications for other local authorities in the state trying to rein in the costs of retirement benefits.
The lawsuit brought against the measure, led by San Jose's police union, shows how difficult it is for local governments to break benefit promises to current and past employees even when other public services are being cut to pay for them.
San Jose's pension overhaul in San Jose was promoted by Democratic Mayor Chuck Reed and approved by nearly 70 percent of voters in 2012 but city unions argue the move violates the rights of its members and is in breach of the California state constitution. They want the court to block the measure from going into effect and to maintain the current pension plan.
"If the unions prevail it will give local leaders elsewhere reason to pause. If Mayor Reed prevails, they may get even more ambitious in finding new ways to reduce pension outlays," said Larry Gerston, a political science professor at San Jose State University.
In recent decades, municipalities across the country have provided their workers with higher retirement benefits, both pensions and health coverage, often in lieu of pay increases. But this has often created a future burden for budgets, made worse in some cases by skipping payments into pension funds.
Two other California cities, Stockton and San Bernardino, last year filed for bankruptcy due to deep financial problems that include spiking pension costs.
Detroit's decision to file for bankruptcy . . . was also partly related to the cost of pension and other post-retirement benefits for city employees.
San Jose's pension reform, which has not yet been adopted because of the lawsuit, does not reduce benefits already earned by employees, but would require them to either pay higher contributions to maintain current benefits or receive lower benefits.
It also requires new city employees to split pension contributions evenly with the city. San Jose, which has two pension funds, currently pays $8 toward pension benefits for every $3 contributed by its employees, according to Dave Low, a spokesman for the mayor.
Reed made tackling San Jose's pension spending, which rose to $245 million last year from $73 million in 2001, a priority. San Jose has had to slash other spending to help cover the costs and balance its budgets.
San Jose, Silicon Valley's biggest city, is starting to see its revenue pick up as its economy and real estate market strengthen, but Reed says city services could be back on the chopping block without the projected savings from the pension reform.
Savings from the measure will help balance San Jose's books in future years and restore services cut over the past decade in response to budget shortfalls, said Low.
A FLAWED MEASURE, UNIONS SAY
Unions for public employees don't see it that way.
"The mayor's initiative was flawed from the get-go because it pulls the rug out from employees who have worked hard, played by the rules and expected the city to keep its promise," said Steven Maviglio, a spokesman for Californians for Retirement Security, a coalition representing more than 1 million public employees.
"The foundation of California's public pension system for nearly a century is that pensions are a legally protected promise," Maviglio added. . . .
Public sector unions in California say the law shields their pension benefits from changes as they are the property of employees tied to their compensation.
San Jose's public pensions are generous in comparison to others in California, which are already well above the country's average.
The average San Jose police officer and firefighter who retired in the past decade, and worked for 26 years, gets an annual pension of $100,000, while the average civilian city employee who retired in the past decade, and worked for 20 years, has an annual pension of $45,000, according to proponents of the city's pension reform measure."
Government and union officials have duped the unwitting taxpayers over many years.
Now that the taxpayers have awakened and are unwilling to continue to throw the party for public sector employees at the expense of public services, the unions are trying to enlist the support of the California courts.
We'll stay tuned to what could be another precedent setting case.
My own take is that the unions are skating on thinner and thinner ice, but we'll see what the court says.