Last month, a unanimous California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) board tentatively approved a roughly 50% hike in the employer pension contribution rate.
Bargaining season in the public sector is here again, and this year promises to be very challenging. After years of concession bargaining, employee expectations are rising with the economy.
Recent court decisions illustrate the difficulty public employers face after the California Supreme Court’s decision in Retired Employees Assn. of Orange County, Inc. v. County of Orange (known as REAOC).
Effective local governance is another victim of the increasingly polarized world of politics. On one side, strains of the Tea Party refrain that government is the problem can be heard everywhere.
When bargaining over major changes, the usual advice is harder to follow, the organizational strains are greater, and the consequences of mistakes are direr.
While I think this case badly misreads the MOU, it’s best to avoid using the term “future” in a document that’s intended to have limited duration.
The advent of Assembly Bill (AB) 646, which requires fact-finding after a bargaining impasse, has revived the wage/benefit comparability analysis in the public sector.
Although things are moving in the right direction, we ain’t there yet.
While the Contracts Clause is a key navigational star in the firmament of our Constitution and economic universe, it is subject to being eclipsed by the Bankruptcy Clause.
San Diego v. Haas confirms that a vested right may be implied only when a public employer’s governing body intends to confer such a benefit.