WHAT? I’m a state employee….one who does NOT receive compensation anywhere near the level of ‘gross’. Unless you consider $19/hour *grossly underpaid*. I would bet 2/3 of the state university employees are paid well below their counterparts in private industry.

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

0 for 9 ™

Call me 11-0, since the pension tax is DOA nov 6- I take credit now 🙂

Rex The Wonder Dog! Says:

August 15, 2011 at 7:56 pm
A new League of California Cities pension reform plan proposes a “detailed legal review” of whether pensions promised current workers can be reduced, a cost-cutting move widely believed to be prohibited by court rulings.

==================
it is not prohibited at all.

How many times must I school the trough feeding public employee piglets that the pensions for years NOT WORKED can be reduced with the next contract. Nothign to stop that from happening right now, today.

The employee does not obtain, prior to retirement, any absolute right to fixed or specific benefits, but only to a “substantial or reasonable pension.” (Wallace v. City of Fresno (1954) 42 Cal.2d 180, 183 [265 P.2d 884].) Moreover, the employee’s eligibility for benefits can, of course, be defeated “upon the occurrence of a condition subsequent.” (Kern, supra, at p. 853.) 864*864 (3) However, there is a strict limitation on the conditions which may modify the pension system in effect during employment. We have described the applicable principles as follows: ( “An employee’s vested contractual pension rights may be modified prior to retirement for the purpose of keeping a pension system flexible to permit adjustments in accord with changing conditions and at the same time maintain the integrity of the system. ( [Citations.] Such modifications must be reasonable, and it is for the courts to determine upon the facts of each case what constitutes a permissible change. To be sustained as reasonable, alterations of employees’ pension rights must bear some material relation to the theory of a pension system and its successful operation, and changes in a pension plan which result in disadvantage to employees should be accompanied by comparable new advantages.

And so he of course earned his 0 for 9 ™ designation!

Hey Poodle– Can I just call ya zero for short?

Rex The Wonder Dog! Says:

April 22, 2011 at 7:07 pm
Now it is time for the local muni’s-and the taxpayers-to sue CalTRDS for fraud over their fraudulent claism in SB400. They withheld vital, material information-namely the downside- while claiming it would “pay for itself”, to INDUCE the legislature and local muni’s and taxpayers to accept it.

Classic fraud. Time to sue.

Hey Poodle— How’d THAT lawsuit work out for ya! “Classic Fraud” !!
LOL—– geeeeezo this is easy!