New Jersey Public Safety Officers Law Blog : New Jersey Public Safety Employee Lawyer & Attorney : Pellettieri, Rabstein & Altman Law Firm : Workers Compensation, Discipline Representation for Police & Firefighters : New Jersey

As reported by nj.com, for the second year in a row, public employees across New Jersey are retiring at a record rate, state figures show. Nearly 15,000 public workers are expected to retire from January through the end of July, a slight increase from the same period last year, when a record number of state employees left their jobs.

The steady rise in retirements comes amid economic uncertainty, with changes in pension and health benefits for public employees remaining at the top of the state’s political agenda. As a result, an increasing number of the more than 500,000 state and municipal employees are choosing to retire rather than risk having their benefits cut by legislators.

“People have a certain set of expectations, and at some point, it just makes sense to retire,” said Jim Ryan, a spokesman for the state Policemen’s Benevolent Association. Ryan said retirements, combined with layoffs, have left police departments across the state understaffed and in many cases without the streetwise experience needed to conduct adequate investigations.

The numbers provided by the state Treasurer’s office show that State Police officers are also retiring at a record pace, a trend that the superintendent recently told a state Senate committee was disturbing. By the end of July, records show, 144 state troopers are expected to retire, significantly higher than any 12-month period since at least 2000. In the previous decade, an average of 61 state troopers retired each year.

Overall, more than 20,000 public workers retired last year, a 60 percent increase over 2009 and the highest number in at least a decade, according to the state Department of the Treasury. The unexpected surge may eventually force the state to pay more money into its troubled pension fund. Every three years, the state examines such assumptions as retirement rates and employee levels, which serve as the basis for pension payments, and adjusts accordingly. The next study will look at the three-year period from June 2008 to June 2011, when retirements jumped.

While public employees ponder whether to remain at their jobs or retire and lock in their benefits, Governor Chris Christie and Democratic leaders are trying to work out the details of health and pension reform. Under all of the proposals that have been floated so far, public employees who have spent a prescribed amount of time on the job, generally 25 years, would not have their benefits cut upon retirement.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Recently, Karen Pierog and Jim Christie published an article addressing state pension overhauls during these tough economic times. Specifically, the article examines how Illinois, California, and other states have instituted reforms to combat increasing and debilitating unfunded pension liabilities. 

According to the article, the National Association of State Retirement Administrators found a nearly $443 billion collective unfunded liability for the 125 state, local government, and teacher pension funds in its most recent survey. The situation is likely to worsen as the recession punches holes in budgets nationwide and causes big investment losses for defined-benefit pension plans that pay out a fixed income. As a result, it is suggested that the economic downturn may also lead to more reforms as politicians and taxpayers realize they can no longer afford plush pensions compared to defined-contribution 401(k) plans in the private sector which pay income based on variable investment returns. 

This year, laws were enacted in Georgia, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Rhode Island, and Texas that reduced benefits for new employees. On the local level, New York City has repeatedly trimmed pension benefits for new hires by creating pension tiers. Illinois and California are among the states evaluating various reform suggestions and/or establishing pension commissions in order to adequately address the problem. In all, it is clear state pension systems are facing a major overhaul in response to the poor economic climate.

This article is of particular importance because the status of the New Jersey public pension system is vital to every resident of this state and especially crucial to public safety employees. Consequently, all current or retired New Jersey public safety officers should read this article in order to fully understand the measures being taken across the country to rectify the problems that have become prevalent in defined-benefit pension plans. To read the full article, click on the following link.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

An association of retired cops has warned Hamilton Township to not tamper with their retirement package. The association alleges it would be illegal to change the terms of their benefits “in the middle of the stream.” The Mercer County Local 12 of the Retired Police and Firemen’s Association sent the warning to the Hamilton Township Business Administrator John Ricci this week in a letter.

Ricci confirmed he received the letter a letter from Trenton attorney Sid Lehman, saying the association “objected” to the Township’s plan to change retirees’ prescription drug co-pays to match the co-pay terms of active employees. “Sid sent a letter saying you can’t do that because they are retirees and they are entitled to the same benefit they had when they retired,” Ricci said. “He gave me the case law, and I agreed with him, and that was the end of that.”

Thomas Murphy,a retired Trenton cop and president of the 400-member Local 12, said there is nothing “adversarial” about the issue. “We want to sit down and see if we can come to an agreement at the table. We have precedent on our side, and we won’t hesitate to use it.”

“They’re not a union, they have no right negotiate,” Ricci said, “but they do have certain rights to continue receiving the same benefits they had when they retired, and that’s what this is about.” 

Both Ricci and Murphy expressed optimism that the issue would be resolved without any legal action.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On May 28, 2009, the Honorable Peter A. Buchsbaum, J.S.C. decided Mark Petersen v. Township of Raritan, Docket No. HNT-L-446-08. The complaint alleged contractual violations of the 1997-1999 collective bargaining agreement between the Township of Raritan and the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff was police officer who retired in 1999. The 1997-99 collective bargaining agreement included retiree health benefits at Article XXII. As of July 1, 2008, current employees and retirees would no longer be able to enroll in the Traditional Plan. Those who were already enrolled in that plan, such as Plaintiff, could switch to the POS plan without any cost to them. They could, however, choose to remain in the Traditional Plan, provided they agreed to pay the excess premium between these two plans from that point in time.

Count one of the complaint alleges a violation of Section 5 of the insurance clause of the collective bargaining agreement because, as of July 1, 2008, Plaintiff is paying a premium differential for the Traditional Plan in which he is enrolled, that is, the difference in premium costs between the Traditional Plan and the POS plan offered by the Township. Count two of the complaint alleges a violation of Section 5 of the insurance clause of the collective bargaining agreement because, as of July 1, 2008, Plaintiff’s co-pays for certain prescription drugs have increased. In response to the complaint, Defendant moved for summary judgment.

The trial court found the language of the collective bargaining agreement sufficiently complex to warrant further examination. Specifically, the court found ambiguity in the insurance clause as to whether the language “shall continue to receive all health and medical benefits provided by the employer for the remainder of his life” would reasonably lead Plaintiff to believe that he would receive health coverage equivalent to the Traditional Plan for the remainder of his life. Therefore, the court determined Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was premature and, thus, factual exploration of the issues in this matter is necessary.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link