Implementing union law

California Gov. Edmund G. Brown Jr. is intervening in several court cases that ultimately will be decided by the California Supreme Court, arguing that public worker pension benefits in the state can be reduced during employment.
If the court agrees with the governor, it would mark a revolutionary change from a ruling it made more than 60 years ago that pension benefits are guaranteed from date of hire.

This is not the executive branch issuing its opinion, this is Jerry negotiating with the unions about new contract law. When Jerry gets the unions to agree then the Supreme Court is free to make the prescribed ruling. 

Our problem is clearly evident.  If the union system is legal, then contract law applies and the California rule was a valid verbal contract,  Cities and counties were free to write the California rule out of contracts.  They did not, they choose not to write out the California rule because they did not want the unions upset.

On what basis does the California Supreme Court have to alter standard contract law?  None, in US federal courts. The unions can demand the verbal California law, go to the US Spremes and ask them.  The US Supremes will say government contracts are a legislative issue and side with the unions,  Cal elected bodies can write the rule out.

The real issue is union oversight of legislation in California, is it a fundamental violation?