So has there been any clarity on the definition of freezing pension benefits for current employees? The city's finance director (I think) made a statement that the city's interpretation was that employees could still accrue years of service, the pension board just couldn't change the rate per year. I've heard diferent things from the state.
While it's a good idea, isn't it balancing the pension issues on the backs of newer employees (say those who have worked for the city for 5 years)? They're pension is frozen at 10% of their current salary, even if they work for the city for another 20 years? Do we change the regs to allow them to stop making contributions or switch to the new plan? Does that make the fund even more under-funded?
I'm thinking it's starting to sound like social security where the y'ungins are paying and paying and paying with little chance of ever seeing their contributions back.
|