News Now

Plan to Reduce Pensions for Teamsters Halted for Now

The troubled Central States pension fund serves 270,000 union drivers and retirees. A plan to curtail benefits and reorganize the fund, which is on track to go bankrupt in 10 years, was rejected by the Treasury Dept. recently. This is a temporary reprieve as the fund is paying out $3.46 in benefits for every dollar contributed. If the fund fails, the cuts will be much more drastic and because the plan is so big it would wipe out the federal insurance for this type of plan. Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/07/business/dealbook/treasury-department-rejects-plan-to-cut-pension-benefits-for-teamsters.html?_r=0

Debunking Claims that all Public Pensions Plans are Too Generous

Even though this “Governing” article cites a study by the ultra conservative American Enterprise Institute claiming that “full-career” workers in five states (including California) make more in retirement earnings than their final salary, it also points out that many public pension plans are well funded, well managed and deliver modest secure benefits. It concludes with a suggestion that a goal should be to apply some of the best practices of these well-managed public plans to assist private sector workers who generally have little or no retirement savings. Read more: http://www.governing.com/topics/finance/gov-pension-envy-lessons-from-well-managed-plans.html

All of San Diego’s D9 City Council Candidates Want to Bring Back City Pensions

“Critics say San Diego can’t compete with neighboring agencies like the county or city of Chula Vista since the passage of Prop. B, which ended pensions for new city employees. The candidates in the race for City Council’s District 9 believe restoring pensions would solve some of the city’s hiring problems.” Read more: http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/all-narratives/city-council/san-diegos-d9-city-council-candidates-all-of-them-want-to-bring-back-city-pensions/

The text on this page and any links to articles are being provided as a convenience and for informational purposes only. The views expressed by the authors of the articles are theirs alone, and do not reflect the opinions of RESDC, nor do these links constitute an endorsement or an approval by RESDC. RESDC bears no responsibility for the accuracy, legality, or content of external sites or for that of subsequent links. Contact the external site for answers to questions regarding its content.