4 ms·

There also exists a culture in California of systematically looting the pension system via "spiking", where everyone knows the formula of the pension weights th

by patio11 12y ago

There also exists a culture in California of systematically looting the pension system via "spiking", where everyone knows the formula of the pension weights the last year's pay most heavily, and engages in a game of "I'll scratch your back and someone will scratch mine in N years" whereby people are allowed sudden bumps in seniority / job title / overtime hours months before retirement, to no legitimate governmental purpose, with the sole objective of increasing their pension's value. There are a variety of reforms designed to address this, from speedbumps like "OK, we'll use the average of the last 3 years" to making spiking outright illegal. The common argument against illegalizing spiking is, I kid you not, that spiking is so ingrained in the cultural mores and expectations of California public servants that to deny spiking for new retirees would be grievously unfair to them when compared to Of-Course-I-Spiked-Everyone-Does retirees.

dragonwriter 12y ago
Spiking as you describe it is always outright illegal (if its done "to no legitimate government purpose", its an outright illegal gift of public funds -- but if the personnel decisions are made under existing laws and procedures which exist to assure that personnel actions, positive or negative, have a legitimate government purpose, which is almost always the case with what is usually described as "spiking", its not what you describe as "spiking".) What isn't illegal, and what is what is usually called "spiking", is people changing their preferences in terms of what they will apply for that they are qualified for, or what they will accept in terms of overtime requirements in a position, based on proximity to retirement. With retirement programs that are based on last-years salary, this can produce an outsize reward, which is what reforms are intended to address. And the closest argument to the one you present I've seen -- and I've spent a lot of time in and around state government and public worker issues -- isn't that its "ingrained in cultural mores and expectations", but that changing the terms for current workers (not future workers) is not acceptable because the terms of the retirement program are part of the deal they accepted when they started working, and in which they have a -- legally enforceable under federal law -- property interest, so that it would be outright illegal to change the terms (which is exactly the reason that the change to the three-year rule only worked for new hires.)

by patio11 12y ago

dragonwriter 12y ago

Spiking as you describe it is always outright illegal (if its done "to no legitimate government purpose", its an outright illegal gift of public funds -- but if the personnel decisions are made under existing laws and procedures which exist to assure that personnel actions, positive or negative, have a legitimate government purpose, which is almost always the case with what is usually described as "spiking", its not what you describe as "spiking".) What isn't illegal, and what is what is usually called "spiking", is people changing their preferences in terms of what they will apply for that they are qualified for, or what they will accept in terms of overtime requirements in a position, based on proximity to retirement. With retirement programs that are based on last-years salary, this can produce an outsize reward, which is what reforms are intended to address. And the closest argument to the one you present I've seen -- and I've spent a lot of time in and around state government and public worker issues -- isn't that its "ingrained in cultural mores and expectations", but that changing the terms for current workers (not future workers) is not acceptable because the terms of the retirement program are part of the deal they accepted when they started working, and in which they have a -- legally enforceable under federal law -- property interest, so that it would be outright illegal to change the terms (which is exactly the reason that the change to the three-year rule only worked for new hires.)