“This measure dramatically cuts pension benefits for all new workers and would harshly penalize those who are unable to work due to sickness, accident or injury. It’s not right to take health benefits away from someone just because they are injured or become seriously ill before they are eligible to retire,” said Dave Low, Chairman of the CHCRS Coalition. “This initiative would create two classes workers—those who receive fair, adequate pensions and, health benefits and those who don’t.”
Cutting pensions and denying health care benefits to public employees—as proposed by this initiative—would mean less stability for our communities, because it would be harder to attract and retain the best teachers, nurses, firefighters, peace officers and other public employees.
“These are the people who keep us safe and healthy. They work hard and would be unfairly penalized, just because they do not, or cannot stay on the job until they are 67 years old,” said Low.
A teacher who works 30 years and retires at age 60 currently receives a pension of about $32,000 with full retirement and health benefits. Under the Richman-Moorlach initiative proposal, a newly-hired school teacher retiring at the same age would get $10,000 less in annual pension benefits, no retirement health benefits and would have to wait until age 67 to begin collecting their pension.
Also under the Richman-Moorlach initiative, a firefighter who starts at age 25, who puts in 20 years of public service and then suffers a serious illness, would face two choices: retire early and lose their health care coverage, facing a delay in receiving a pension, or keep fighting fires while seriously ill.
The Richman-Moorlach pension initiative would also eliminate all pension and retiree health benefits for part-time employees, regardless of how many years they have been employed. About 30 percent of public employees—mostly women employed as cafeteria workers, school bus drivers, instructional aides, or clerical workers—would be denied pensions or retirement health care regardless of how long they have worked.
“This initiative is unfair in every possible way. A woman who works six hours a day, ten months a year should be able to retire at age 60—after 20 years of hard work—with a pension of about $30,000 per year," said Low. “Under this misguided initiative, that same woman would not receive any retirement benefits at all, and she would also be denied health care. That isn’t right, and Californians will never support an initiative that undermines public services in our communities, schools and hospitals.”
