Retired public workers can count on promised benefits, court says
BUT FUCK THE REST OF US!!!
Retired public workers can count on promised benefits, court says By Maura Dolan, Los Angeles Times
California Supreme Court rules in an Orange County case that implied contracts covering retirees' healthcare are valid.
Health benefits for government retirees may not be eliminated if state and local governments had clearly promised workers those benefits, the California Supreme Court ruled in an Orange County case Monday.
The unanimous ruling is expected to make it more difficult for state and local governments to shave costs by cutting health benefits to retirees if elected officials in previous years made it clear that those benefits would last a lifetime.
The state high court decided that retired Orange County employees may be able to show they had an implied contract that prevented the county from changing a healthcare plan in a way that caused the premiums of many retirees to skyrocket.
"Under California law, a vested right to health benefits for retired county employees can be implied under certain circumstances from a county ordinance or resolution," Justice Marvin R. Baxter wrote for the court.
Retirees sued Orange County in 2007 after it revamped the health benefit program to save money. A federal trial court sided with the county. An appeals court, which is now considering the case, asked the California Supreme Court to clarify state law in the case.
"This decision says that when you are in the process of doing public employee pension reform, you have to respect the rights of current retirees," said Ernest Galvan, a lawyer who represented more than 5,000 Orange County retirees and their family members.
"If you promised them a particular benefit when they were working and promised that would be part of their retirement, then that is a promise you have to keep."
But lawyers for cities and counties said they were pleased the court established a hurdle for showing that such promises were made.
"The good news for cities and counties is that the court made it clear that you need very strong evidence that the [elected officials] intended to create a lifetime benefit," said Jonathan V. Holtzman, who represented associations of California cities and counties.
Arthur A. Hartinger, who represented Orange County, said the county changed the health insurance plan to ensure it could survive.
"This was about saving a plan that was on the verge of bankruptcy," Hartinger said. "Almost all the retirees have remained covered in group health insurance."
The case will now return to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Lawyers said they expect the lawsuit to be sent back to the trial court to determine whether there was evidence of clear promises.
This reminds me a lot of when my grandfather pounded his fist on my parent's dining room table back in the early 00's because GM was bargaining with the UAW on their newest contract and one of the 'sacrifices' the retirees were asked to make by GM was going from a $0 medical co-pay to a $5 medical co-pay. "GM promised me a $0 co-pay and that's what I'm going to get."
Typical inflexible union slave but in his defense he had been one since he was 17. The funny thing now in 2011 is he hates the UAW as much as he does DC politicians of both parties. I guess it's never too late to see the light.
If ignorance is bliss, then knock the smile off my face
As they should be. Retirement benefits are promised upon employment, and you can't just take them away after retirement.
If they do, let's make it fair. Take back the golder parachutes.
So many cries of inequality stem from one of group
of people doing little or nothing and then bitching
about another group that actually does something
to improve their lives.
DISCLAIMER:
All health, fitness, diet, nutrition & supplement information presented on IronMagazineForums.com's pages is intended as an educational resource and is not intended as a substitute for proper medical advice. We do not condone the use of anabolic steroids (AAS), all information about AAS is for educational and entertainment purposes only. Consult your physician or health care professional before performing any of the exercises, or following any diet, nutrition or supplement advice described on this website. As well as any exercise technique or regimen, diet, supplement, etc., particularly if you are pregnant or nursing, or if you are elderly or have chronic or recurring medical conditions. Discontinue any exercise that causes you pain or severe discomfort and consult a medical expert. The statements made about products have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration (U.S.). They are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any condition or disease. Please consult with your own physician or health care practitioner regarding the suggestions and recommendations made at IronMagazineForums.com. Neither the author of the information, nor the producer, nor distributors of such information make any warranty of any kind in regard to the content of the information presented on this website. Except as specifically stated on this site, neither IronMagazineForums.com, nor any of its authors or other representatives will be liable for damages arising out of, or in connection with the use of this site. This is a comprehensive limitation of liability that applies to all damages of any kind, including (without limitation) compensatory, direct, indirect or consequential damages, loss of data, income or profit, loss of or damage to property and claims of third parties. Sponsors pay for advertising space, we have no affiliation with the companies that have banners displayed on our websites. Please be advised it is your responsibility to check the laws that govern your country, state, or province in regards to items offered by some companies you may read about on this site.