California rule on the docket once more

Can the employer change its retirment plan for unerned retirement?  What is expectation? If An employee hires on to $10/hr and the employer drops wages, well the employee has been paid up for work doen, he can retire.

The problem is the judges  ruled this this simple rule is invalid for public esector employers.  Why? No one knows, this is really a violation, an illegal taking (from the employer)  and should be handled in Federal court.  It is also discrimination as the deal only was applied to public sector employees.

“Employees don’t have a reasonable expectation of the salary they have not earned yet, (or) to the pensionability of pay items that they haven’t yet earned,” he said.

Justice Joshua Groban put the question of scope to Onishi directly.
“Are you arguing that any pension modification is appropriate as long as the employee hasn’t retired yet,” Groban asked, “or are you arguing something more narrow based upon what happened here?”
“I think I’m arguing something more narrow,” Onishi responded, “which is first that prospective-only changes to compensation that has not yet been earned (don’t) implicate the contract clause. And I think that principle alone decides this case.”
Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar seemed skeptical of Onishi’s argument.
“Employees that are currently working might view this as not prospective because they’re arguing that they have a set of expectations that are being violated,” Cuellar said.

End-of-career promises are particularly important for law enforcement officers, since the “wear and tear” of the work limits how long they can keep doing the job, Mastagni said.

 This statement:

“Employees don’t have a reasonable expectation of the salary they have not earned yet, "

On its face this is plain and simple, and to rule otherwise is definitely a Federal right violation.  This is the same issue with the San Diego mayor, denied the right of assembly.  But the cowards in the public sector will not go to Federal court, they will lose the election via union retribution.

The solution is for tax payers to quit working, which we are. Refuse to participate until the public officials are desperate and reasonable.

What about valid verbal contract? At one time this was a valid verbal contract. Not anymore, this is the third or fourth time public officials tried to write a written contract. This contract has long been under negotiation.

We do not have real constitutional law in California, we are a failed Hispanic state and cannot do better than a Tin Horn Dictatorship.

What about global warming, same effect.

California uses inflation updates, they legally cannot go away. So favored union members will always get an exemption to global warming taxes, and the whole green thing is a fraud out here, a complete fake and real enviromentalist know this fake.