SAN FRANCISCOThe issue, I I get this correctly, was that workers could opt to purchase expanded retirement. If they had not yet purchased expanded retirement, then is may not be guaranteed as a contractual obligation.
The California Supreme Court on Monday upheld a decision by state lawmakers to rollback one way for public workers to pad their pensions, but avoided ruling on the larger issue of whether retirement benefits can be taken away once promised.
At issue in the unanimous decision was a provision of a 2012 pension reform law that eliminated the ability of public workers to pay for more years of service for a more lucrative pension when they retire. The law, backed by former Gov. Jerry Brown, sought to rein in costs and end practices viewed as abuses of the system.
Attorneys for a union argued that the elimination of additional retirement service credits violated a long line of California court rulings that have made pension benefits for existing employees sacrosanct. Those court decisions established the "California Rule," which says workers enter a contract with their employer on their first day of work that entitles them to retirement benefits that can never be diminished unless replaced with similar benefits.
Critics of the rule, along with employee unions, were keeping a close eye on the lawsuit because it had the potential to upend the California Rule. But the justices sidestepped the issue by ruling that additional retirement service credits were not "core pension rights" that lawmakers were contractually bound to honor.
This is where 'make shit up' gets the courts in trouble. Contract law has now changed a bit, and under this ruling a bunch more contract disputes may jam the courts. The Supremes, here, have modified options clauses in contracts, and that will need clarification. The Cal Supremes were getting a bit scared about stepping on fundamental rights, but nudging contract law is not the way to avoid it.
No comments:
Post a Comment