Teacher Tenure/Unions/Government/Pensions

[macrockett]

We need to vote all these bums out of office.

[macrockett]

www.suntimes.com/news/politics/2122040,general-assembly-pension-overhaul-032410.article#
General Assembly passes state pension reform

March 24, 2010

ASSOCIATED PRESS

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. -- A bipartisan Illinois General Assembly handed Gov. Pat Quinn a victory Wednesday, sending him an overhauled state pension system, cutting benefits for new city and state employees to save money for woefully underfunded retirement systems.

The measure requires future workers to work until age 67 to get full retirement benefits, sets a maximum salary on which pensions may be calculated and limits annual increases in payments. There would be no change in benefits for current employees.

Legislative Democrats said the changes would save more than $100 billion -- although they didn't have exact figures from experts -- over several decades for 13 state and local pension systems covered by Illinois law, including state programs that are underfunded by $80 billion.

But it has labor unions that represent government employees angry. They point out that slicing future benefits does nothing to reduce the outstanding liability.

With a 92-17 House vote and a Senate tally of 48-6, the action reflected rare agreement between House Democrats and minority Republicans, who have sparred for years over what has become an $11 billion deficit, who is responsible and how to fix it.

"It's very important to send the signal," said Senate President John Cullerton, D-Chicago. "It's very important to save the money, billions of dollars that we won't have to pay into the system in the future."

It's a political and strategic triumph for Democrat Quinn, who unsuccessfully pursued such a two-tiered pension program last year to reduce the amount of money the state must contribute to retirement systems while it wrestles with a budget deficit.

A statement from Quinn praised the effort to "stabilize the system, protect current state employees and provide attractive pension benefits to future state workers."

It provides that employees hired after that date would have to work until age 67, the current age for Social Security benefits, to get their full pensions. Those who retire at 62 would get less.

Currently, retirement benefits are calculated on an employee's full salary. Under the new plan, any income over $106,800 would not be included.

The size of retirees' pension checks would climb by 3 percent or half the rate of inflation, whichever is less. That percentage would be calculated based on the original amount instead of compounded annually as it is now -- except for judges and members of the General Assembly, who would continue getting compounded increases.

Fewer employees would qualify for enhanced benefits because of the dangerous work they do. State police officers, firefighters and prison guards would keep the extra money while highway workers, prison teachers and others would lose it.

Unions oppose the plan. Henry Bayer, executive director of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, which represents 70,000 government and 25,000 retirees statewide, said on average, pensioners earn $20,000 a year.

Will Lovett, a lobbyist for the Illinois Education Association, said surrounding states have much better retirement plans for their teachers, so making future Illinois educators work until age 67 will drive good teachers from the state.

Illinois pension systems are among the most financially troubled in the nation. They have money for benefit checks now, but the amounts promised to future retirees outweighs the systems' assets by roughly $80 billion.

Eventually, taxpayers will have to come up with that money. Already, rapidly increasing annual payments to the pension systems eats up billions of dollars in state revenue each year, leaving little new money for government services.

"We shouldn't saddle our children and grandchildren with debt," Bayer said. "We're going to saddle them not only with debt, but we're going to saddle them with pensions they can't live on."

But reducing retirement benefits would slow the growth in that funding gap. State officials might use that slower growth to justify making smaller pension contributions now while the state faces a budget crisis.

Opponents argued there was little time to review the legislation, which surfaced Tuesday. But Senate Republican Leader Christine Radogno of Lemont, who introduced similar legislation earlier this month, said the idea has been discussed for years.

And quick action will give lenders more confidence in the state's fiscal picture as Illinois prepares to borrow more than $1.3 billion for Medicaid services, school construction and transportation projects in April, according to administration officials.

Republicans who opposed the plan argued the measure wrongly allows the Chicago Public School pension system to skip more than $1 billion in payments during the next three years to provide money for classrooms.

"The most important thing you could do in pension reform is you have to make the payments," said Rep. Bill Black, R-Danville. "You can't skip payments. That's what got our public pension systems into this mess."
Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Related Blog Posts
State Pension Programs Are Underfunded By $1 Trillion

[macrockett]

www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-pension-reforms-0325-20100324,0,3095048.story
chicagotribune.com
Illinois lawmakers rush through pension reforms

By Ray Long and Michelle Manchir, Tribune Reporters

9:54 PM CDT, March 24, 2010

SPRINGFIELD —

Future government employees throughout Illinois would have to work longer to get full retirement benefits, and the size of those pensions would be limited under a measure that zoomed through the General Assembly on Wednesday after years of calls for reform.

The idea is to save billions of dollars in the coming decades for taxpayers who will have to dig deep to cover retirement costs for teachers, lawmakers and many public servants throughout state government, universities, cities, counties and park districts.

But the pension cutbacks won't apply to anyone currently in the retirement systems, only to new government hires and state officials elected after the measure takes effect.

And the measure won't do much to whittle down Illinois' worst-in-the-nation pension debt, which is estimated to be $77 billion to $90 billion.

In a rare case of bipartisan agreement, Democratic and Republican lawmakers maintained that the legislation is legitimate reform on pensions, a long-languishing issue in state government.

"This bill is not window dressing," said Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno, R-Lemont. "It's substantial reform."

House Speaker Michael Madigan and Senate President John Cullerton, both Chicago Democrats, sprung the reform legislation Wednesday morning and rushed to get it through the General Assembly before influential government employee and teachers' unions had much time to pressure individual lawmakers to vote against it.

Union leaders argue that new employees should get the same benefits as current employees. Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn will face union pressure to veto the bill, but a spokesman said he plans to sign it soon.

The legislation also would provide some relief to Chicago Public Schools, allowing the system to skip teacher pension payments for three years to give the district financial flexibility while its leaders struggle to fill major budget gaps.

Republican Rep. Randy Ramey of Carol Stream argued that the Chicago provision was unfair when other districts are facing "draconian cuts."

But Madigan insisted that the Chicago school system needed a break on its pension burden, which is largely supported by Chicago property owners while the pensions for teachers outside of Chicago are paid by the state.

One of the biggest cost savings is expected to come from increasing the general retirement age to 67 from 62 or lower in many cases, amounting to more than $40 billion over several decades, said Dan Hankiewicz, pension manager for the legislative forecasting commission.

The measure would also limit the salary level on which pension benefits are based to $106,800, as a way to reduce retirement benefits going to some of the state's highest-paid public employees.

The legislation also would strike at one form of double-dipping by banning public employees from getting a pension from one government while collecting a salary from another.

With voters already angry about high unemployment and a falloff in their 401(k) retirement nest eggs, lawmakers have heard increasing complaints that they needed to get the state's finances in order. The dissatisfaction over government spending has been amplified as Quinn presses for an income tax hike.

Madigan said Quinn made a special request to take action on the legislation this week, hoping that passage would allow Illinois to maintain its credit rating as it seeks to borrow money for a significant state construction program.

The House approved the bill 92-17, with seven lawmakers voting present. The Senate followed suit, approving it 48-6, with three present votes.

R. Eden Martin, president of the Civic Committee of The Commercial Club of Chicago, called the bill a "small step in the right direction, but it doesn't begin to solve the state's urgent fiscal problems."

But the growth in the state's pension debt should be reduced dramatically, said Dan Long, executive director of the Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability. Long also said the state will save $119 billion over the next 35 years under the legislation.

Though major pension savings won't accumulate for years, Quinn and lawmakers plan to use the pension changes to save money as they craft a budget in the face of a $13 billion shortfall. Because the bill allows officials to recalculate the state's overall pension burden, they estimate saving $300 million to $1 billion in pension payments that would have been required in the next budget.

[e-mail]

[e-mail]

Copyright © 2010, Chicago Tribune

[EagleDad]

Mar 24, 2010 21:44:59 GMT -6 macrockett said:

The legislation also would strike at one form of double-dipping by banning public employees from getting a pension from one government while collecting a salary from another.

I wonder if this was called the "Gail F. McKinzie" clause.

It should take effect immediately for all employees, regardless of length of service or employment date, IMHO.

[asmodeus]

Madigan says the plan would save the state’s pension systems more than $100 billion over the next several decades.

Madigan and the rest of these Democratic thieves should just shut their traps. The bill does NOTHING for the current $80b that is underfunded. Saying that it will save hundreds of billions over the next several decades is fallacious. It's like saying that by not buying a Porsche next year, I will be "saving" $100k. And it does nothing to address the Mercedes that I bought last year.

[casey]

State pushes through pension overhaul in day
By John Patterson | Daily Herald

A sweeping pension reform plan that would raise the retirement age for new teachers, state and local government workers to 67, ban so-called double dippers and restrict how much salary goes toward pensions cleared the General Assembly Wednesday.

The 92-17 vote in the House and 48-6 Senate approval capped a whirlwind series of events that saw the pension overhaul emerge Wednesday morning and end up on lawmakers' desks for final action that evening.

It seems fear of a credit rating downgrade hurting the state's ability to finance billions worth of construction projects is more of a motivator than politics. The state's budget director told lawmakers that lenders are wary of not just the state's nearly $78 billion unfunded pension liability, but also lawmakers refusal so far to address it.

Any further credit downgrade would mean the state would pay more to borrow money and that means fewer projects get done. The state is on the verge of borrowing more than $1 billion to begin work on roads, bridges, schools and other projects in the coming months.

"That's why we want to do this now," said Senate President John Cullerton, a Chicago Democrat.

With billions of dollars in projects at stake, House Speaker Michael Madigan, a Chicago Democrat, quickly prodded the pension overhaul through the House.

Many House Republicans were left griping that pension reform - which they'd previously demanded - was advancing too quickly and asked that they get to go home and have town hall meetings to gauge public sentiment.

Only two area House members, however, didn't vote for the changes.

State Rep. Paul Froehlich, a Schaumburg Democrat, voted "no." Froehlich said he opposed the measure because of its negative effects on future government employees and teachers.

State Rep. Randy Ramey, a Carol Stream Republican, voted "present." Ramey said a provision letting Chicago shortchange its teacher pension fund by $400 million to help balance its budget and the lack of time to discuss the proposal with education groups prompted him to cast that vote.

There also were two suburban senators who didn't vote for the changes.

State Sen. John Millner, a Carol Stream Republican, voted "no." He too questioned the pension funding breaks for Chicago and the speed at which this passed.

"A bill of this magnitude should not be rushed through in a few hours," said Millner.

State Sen. Kirk Dillard, a Hinsdale Republican, voted "present", citing concerns with raising the teachers retirement age to 67 and not addressing police or fire pensions.

Following the General Assembly's approval, Gov. Pat Quinn issued a statement indicating his support. His budget plan counts on $300 million in savings from unspecified pension reforms.

If this becomes law, anyone hired by schools, universities, the state or local governments after Jan. 1 would have to work until 67 to get full retirement benefits. They could retire at 62 with reduced benefits. They can leave earlier, but cannot collect a pension until those ages.

Currently, under certain circumstances teachers and other public sector employees can begin collection pensions at 55.

In addition, pensions would be based on the highest consecutive eight years out of the last decade of service. Pensions currently are based on the highest four years. That change could drive down overall averages. The maximum pension remains at 75 percent of the final average.

The maximum salary for figuring a pension would be capped at $106,800. Public employees could still make more, but it wouldn't count toward pensions. Annual pension cost-of-living increases, now an automatic 3 percent, would be limited to half the rate of inflation or 3 percent, whichever is less and based on the beginning pension amount, not compounded every year.

As for double dippers, the proposed law would ban people from collecting one government pension while taking another public sector job. The first pension would be suspended during the duration of the second job. Upon retirement, the person could then collect both pensions.

The proposal also would raise judges' and lawmakers' retirement age to 67 from 55, similarly cap salary used for pensions and base retirements on 60 percent of that salary rather than the current 85 percent.

Labor unions were uniform in their opposition.

Steve Preckwinkle, director of political activities for the Illinois Federation of Teachers, asked lawmakers to envision 67-year-old teachers in classrooms across the state and noted how district budgets are set up for people retiring in their 50s after 30 years of work. Another dozen years of employment, at the top of the salary structure, would cost local taxpayers deeply, he argued.

"The impact on school district budgets is going to be severe," Preckwinkle said. "This will be the largest single unfunded mandate on school districts going forward. Property taxpayers - they are the ones who will be picking up the tab."

[lacy]

Pr*ckwinkle:

Quit giving teachers across the board automatic raises and maybe their salaries wouldn't soar to unsustainable levels.

And there are many older teachers at my child's private school (some taught friends of mine who are my age). They are some of the best and most engaged teachers there.

[asmodeus]

Quit giving teachers across the board automatic raises and maybe their salaries wouldn't soar to unsustainable levels.

An article in today's Trib discusses the financial problems in the Wheaton district, and of course, the admins predictably blame the tax cap which is limiting their increase in revenue to only $106k. But the article also mentions that they gave teachers average raises of 17% of the last 3 years.

www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-met-school-budget-wheaton-20100324,0,4451961.story

[slp]

When you RETIRE and draw your pension, you should be required to really be retired! No second income, period!

[sam2]

Isn't this politics at its best? Make "sweeping" changes now, with great fanfare to quell the growing uprising from taxpayers. Never mind that it does nothing to solve the current problem -- new hires won't retire at full benefits until 67. Wow! But the 30 year old with 5 years service today will still retire with full benefits at 55. These changes will have minimal effect for the next few decades. By then, someone will argue ( with some justification, IMO) that limiting increases in benefits to the lower of 3% of half of the inflation rate is unfair and it will be changed.

It's also nice the the legislators are exempt from the changes.

Now, I understand the difficulties in changing something in mid-stream. If I were nearing a pension and it was pulled out from under me, I'd be upset and justifiably so.

On the other hand, changes can be phased in -- even for current employees. One: don't change the value of any benefits already earned. That way, nothing is taken away. But, from today going forward, reduce the rate at which benefits accrue. Perhaps it can be phased in at varying rates depending upon time remaining to normal retirement age, which for years has been defined as 65.

I don't know the law in Illinois that governs these things, but right now, we're all getting a lesson in how federal law trumps state law when it suits those in control....so, consider that social security was changed in mid-stream, retirement ages increased, taxation applied to benefits etc. This was legal....how are government pensions different?

Also, our company eliminated 3 different defined benefit pension plans over the past 20 or so years. Every participant was made fully vested in their benefits to date, they received a cash payout that was the actuarial equivalent of the value of their plan at that date and all could roll that distribution amount into their own IRA or into the new, company sponsored, 401(k) plan without incurring any income tax penalties. ERISA, which oversees this type of transaction for the federal government determined it was legal and fair. Others on this board have experienced the same change at their companies.....Why cannot it not be done at the state level? If the law currently prevents it, let's ask why and see if the law can be changed to match the federal law.

Under this approach, everyone gets full value of the retirement benefits they've earned to date and everyone has the chance to participate in a 401(k), or whatever the government employees equivalent program is called, the unsustainable drain on taxpayers stops immediately and life goes on. Any government employee who finds that unacceptable would be free to take their earned benefits with them when they take a new job that provides a level of benefits that is acceptable. ( Don't know where they'll find one, but there would be nothing to stop them for looking. )

Legislatures change the law all the time -- why not now? I refuse to accept the position that it is impossible to change the current plan. Again, take nothing away that has been earned, only reduce the rate of future benefit accruals.....

My last suggestion, let's limit the assumptions used for investment returns when determining plan values....There was a time whne those assumptions were tied to the return on the 30 year treasury debt. The assumption that plan assets will return 8% a year may have worked for a while, but part of today's problem is that net investment returns on stocks were negative over the last 10 years -- far short of the 8% planning assumption. If benefits are limited by using a more conservative return for planning, then there is some room for error. The downside to limiting the assumed investment return is that if benefits are given way with reckless abandon, then using a lower rate of assumed return will result in even greater current contributions to fund the plan. Fiduciary responsibility -- what a concept.

[doctorwho]

Mar 25, 2010 7:54:58 GMT -6 sam2 said:

Isn't this politics at its best? Make "sweeping" changes now, with great fanfare to quell the growing uprising from taxpayers. Never mind that it does nothing to solve the current problem -- new hires won't retire at full benefits until 67. Wow! But the 30 year old with 5 years service today will still retire with full benefits at 55. These changes will have minimal effect for the next few decades. By then, someone will argue ( with some justification, IMO) that limiting increases in benefits to the lower of 3% of half of the inflation rate is unfair and it will be changed.

It's also nice the the legislators are exempt from the changes.

Now, I understand the difficulties in changing something in mid-stream. If I were nearing a pension and it was pulled out from under me, I'd be upset and justifiably so.

On the other hand, changes can be phased in -- even for current employees. One: don't change the value of any benefits already earned. That way, nothing is taken away. But, from today going forward, reduce the rate at which benefits accrue. Perhaps it can be phased in at varying rates depending upon time remaining to normal retirement age, which for years has been defined as 65.

I don't know the law in Illinois that governs these things, but right now, we're all getting a lesson in how federal law trumps state law when it suits those in control....so, consider that social security was changed in mid-stream, retirement ages increased, taxation applied to benefits etc. This was legal....how are government pensions different?

Also, our company eliminated 3 different defined benefit pension plans over the past 20 or so years. Every participant was made fully vested in their benefits to date, they received a cash payout that was the actuarial equivalent of the value of their plan at that date and all could roll that distribution amount into their own IRA or into the new, company sponsored, 401(k) plan without incurring any income tax penalties. ERISA, which oversees this type of transaction for the federal government determined it was legal and fair. Others on this board have experienced the same change at their companies.....Why cannot it not be done at the state level? If the law currently prevents it, let's ask why and see if the law can be changed to match the federal law.

Under this approach, everyone gets full value of the retirement benefits they've earned to date and everyone has the chance to participate in a 401(k), or whatever the government employees equivalent program is called, the unsustainable drain on taxpayers stops immediately and life goes on. Any government employee who finds that unacceptable would be free to take their earned benefits with them when they take a new job that provides a level of benefits that is acceptable. ( Don't know where they'll find one, but there would be nothing to stop them for looking. )

Legislatures change the law all the time -- why not now? I refuse to accept the position that it is impossible to change the current plan. Again, take nothing away that has been earned, only reduce the rate of future benefit accruals.....

My last suggestion, let's limit the assumptions used for investment returns when determining plan values....There was a time whne those assumptions were tied to the return on the 30 year treasury debt. The assumption that plan assets will return 8% a year may have worked for a while, but part of today's problem is that net investment returns on stocks were negative over the last 10 years -- far short of the 8% planning assumption. If benefits are limited by using a more conservative return for planning, then there is some room for error. The downside to limiting the assumed investment return is that if benefits are given way with reckless abandon, then using a lower rate of assumed return will result in even greater current contributions to fund the plan. Fiduciary responsibility -- what a concept.

"Now, I understand the difficulties in changing something in mid-stream. If I were nearing a pension and it was pulled out from under me, I'd be upset and justifiably so. "

here's the difference between public employees and private company employees- after 24 years with my company they had NO trouble yankng my pension and getting the FEDERAL COURTS to support. Yet this cannothappen to them-- nice double standard huh ?
And there were hundred's of thousands of employees involved at my company - nobody gave a rat's behind about us - including all the politicians who of course are preotected from this.


And yes ours went to a cash accumulation fund - but it alldepends on the forumlas. It sure as hell wasn't equivalent to the value...as I had earned well over $3,000/month for life and some bean counter translated that into approx $50K total value ? or a little over $2K per year of service - nice huh ?

[macrockett]

The problem with this legislation is it isn't sweeping at all. This is a bone, a very small bone. There are so many things this bill does not address. Go back and take a look at all the things that need to be corrected to have real reform. As reported by the Sun Times and Tribune and Civic League, etc. Here are a few posted earlier on this thread in SunTimes. And this isn't even all of them.

September 11, 2009

. . . that most people don't. Here are six ways government workers in Illinois get sweeter retirement deals than most taxpayers:
1. Guaranteed pension payments until death

* All government workers -- from teachers to garbage collectors -- get a "defined-benefit" pension. That means they'll get monthly checks until they die -- most don't get Social Security, though.

* Most employers have abolished pension plans, leaving people to save on their own and rely on Social Security, whose payments aren't guaranteed.

2. Pensions that start at age 50

* City of Chicago and Cook County workers can retire at 50 and begin collecting monthly pension checks.

* Private companies don't offer that benefit. And you have to wait until you're at least 65 to collect Social Security, though if you're willing to take less money, you can start getting Social Security at 62.

3. A pension that nearly equals your salary

* Government workers can get pension checks equal to at least 75 percent of their final average salary -- or, in the case of state legislators, as much as 85 percent of their last day's pay.

* For most of us to get that much money in retirement, we'd need to save and invest well. Most Americans have watched their retirement savings plummet during the recession. And Social Security will give you much less than half of your salary.

4. Use multiple jobs to build a bigger pension

* Under Illinois pension laws, government employees get bigger pensions by combining years of service earned among 17 different retirement plans that cover virtually all governmental agencies. Some government retirees have combined years of service in four separate pension plans -- such as Chicago teachers, Cook County, City Hall and the State of Illinois -- to get one bigger pension that's then split among the four pension plans. This system includes most state and local governmental pension plans in Illinois. Notable exceptions: those of the CTA and the Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority.

5. A 3 percent raise each year

* All Illinois government pensions automatically go up by 3 percent each year -- a cost-of-living increase, though those increases typically don't start until age 60. These automatic raises ensure that government retirees eventually will have pensions that are greater than their final salaries.

* It's rare for private pension plans to provide automatic raises. Social Security payments began automatically going up each year in 1975, but that's based on the actual cost of living, which has usually been less than 3 percent. And those automatic increases now face the possibility of being suspended for two years.

6. Death benefits for a spouse

* These government pensions provide widows and widowers with death benefits ranging from 50 percent to 85 percent of the pension provided to the deceased retiree.

* If you're covered by one of the few remaining private pension plans, your spouse can expect a similar benefit. Otherwise, your widow or widower will get just a fraction of your Social Security payment.

[sam2]

Doc,
I understand that you're upset about your pension changes. But you make my point: federal law allows private industry to change, or discontinue, pension plans. It's preposterous that state plans cannot be changed....

Lastly, to try to clarify my discussion about freezing earned benefits, thee majority of defined benefit plans had a option related to payouts: an annuity, which was typically the benefit elected -- so much a month for life, but they also provided for a lump sum payment. That sum was determined by doing a net present value of the projected monthly benefit payments. In other words, what amount of money today, is necessary to fund the amount of payments an participant would receive if tehy elected an annuity. They are, in theory, equivalent values.

WHat I don't know is how government pensions are calculated. The three we terminated had benefits that were calculated at a rate of $x/month per year of service. Government pensions may be based on some percentage of final pay and length of service. It changes the calculation I propose, but not the methodology...Participants may not like it but it really is financially fair, unless the pension plan is fatally flawed to begin with... There is an entire market for immediate annuities that is exactly the same calculation:: how much money do I give an insurance company in exchange for the promise of a monthly check for the rest of my life.

It's not a groundbreaking idea -- it's been around for a long, long time -- I can see no reason not to adopt it as part of the solution to our current problem....the unions won't like it, the participants may not like it, but it can be explained and it can be done fairly.

[doctorwho]

Mar 25, 2010 8:19:22 GMT -6 sam2 said:

Doc,
I understand that you're upset about your pension changes. But you make my point: federal law allows private industry to change, or discontinue, pension plans. It's preposterous that state plans cannot be changed....

Lastly, to try to clarify my discussion about freezing earned benefits, thee majority of defined benefit plans had a option related to payouts: an annuity, which was typically the benefit elected -- so much a month for life, but they also provided for a lump sum payment. That sum was determined by doing a net present value of the projected monthly benefit payments. In other words, what amount of money today, is necessary to fund the amount of payments an participant would receive if tehy elected an annuity. They are, in theory, equivalent values.

WHat I don't know is how government pensions are calculated. The three we terminated had benefits that were calculated at a rate of $x/month per year of service. Government pensions may be based on some percentage of final pay and length of service. It changes the calculation I propose, but not the methodology...Participants may not like it but it really is financially fair, unless the pension plan is fatally flawed to begin with... There is an entire market for immediate annuities that is exactly the same calculation:: how much money do I give an insurance company in exchange for the promise of a monthly check for the rest of my life.

It's not a groundbreaking idea -- it's been around for a long, long time -- I can see no reason not to adopt it as part of the solution to our current problem....the unions won't like it, the participants may not like it, but it can be explained and it can be done fairly.

Yep and that was my goal also- to show that this can happen for private employees but not public - why? The explanation from the higher courts was that although we may have viewed discussions we had with managers as verbal contracts- and IBM company booklets showing 'vested' pension plans as contracts.....since we had actually paid nothing into them ( our own funds)- we therefore owned nothing. Morally and ethically maybe wrong, but not legally.

[casey]

Mar 25, 2010 8:32:27 GMT -6 doctorwho said:

Morally and ethically maybe wrong, but not legally.

Kind of how we ended up with Metea at its current location. Legal but definitely not moral or ethical. Everyone knows that was the biggest screw job ever.