Ageism in State government

[leslieas]

State of California Premed plan discriminates against Seniors. 10 yr requirement to collect benefits , no opt out, no return of contributions if u retire, die or leave. Forced deduction of 3.5 % $294 of salary monthly (last contract lowered to 3%) . I can retire in 2 or 4 years but need 6 years working w the state to get the benefit . $294 deduction monthly & I am 63 w stage 4 breast cancer & only 5 yrs w the state. Where does all that $$ go? Ageism at its best. I could better use that money on retirement or anything else. At 65 I will be forced to Medicare, will have social security, Calpers retirement & have money going to a big pot from thousands of employees that I will not reap the rewards. I can also purchase medical from ATT as I retired from there for a lot less than what is being taken out for OPEB.  I figured i have had about $14,000 taken out and no hopes of using a benefit that publishes no real information about what it covers. Why am I forced to pay into this. So many of us came to the state after working many years in other private industries and will not be here 10 years. Young people will not stay 10 years, all this money going where. I worked hard for this money to flush it down the toilet or pay dome others retiree benefits. I want my money back with interest!
Leslie smith 
https://hrmanual.calhr.ca.gov/Home/ManualItem/1/1422

[Tonster521]

@leslieas the "Other Post Employment Benefit (OPEB)" policy that California created in 2016 addresses unfunded retiree health care by requiring employees to prefund future health care benefits for retirees. I clicked on the link you provided and read through various sub-links that provide a history of the OPEB policy and the provisions that govern the policy. The policy is collectively bargained and includes nonunion employees that are "directly associated" with the various bargaining units. I did not find any reference as to who paid for OPEB prior to the policy. However, I suspect California was passing that cost to the taxpayers via high State Income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, etc. As you may not be aware, California is the fifth (5th) largest economy in the world. Their OPEB costs for their public sector employees is probably in the trillions. At any rate, their OEPB policy is similar to the Medicare tax levied on workers (mostly private sector) of all ages to prefund Medicare Part A (Hospital Insurance). Workers need 40 Quarters (i.e., 10 years) of earnings/ Medicare taxes to attain Medicare Part A eligibility. Folks that do not attain/accrue the 40 quarters do not receive a refund of their Medicare taxes.I found a link that takes you to another website (Calpersd?) to review the various benefit plans that are available. I did not click on that link for fear that my email address will be used to sell me everything from A to Z. I can say that every State retiree benefit plan that I have reviewed in my past careers (benefit administration/consulting) are "golden". State benefit plans, far exceed, just about every benefit plan in the private sector. In summary, California is not discriminating by requiring employees of all ages to prefund OPEB. In your case, I am not sure if you need 10 years (second sentence) or just 6 years (fourth sentence) to meet the State eligibility requirement. If you need 10 years, I hope your health will allow you to continue working the required time. I suspect the California retiree benefit plan(s) are equal to if not greater than the ATT plan you are eligible for.

[GailL1]

Union coverage at its best - Right!!??!!  

I don’t think this is ageism because it would be the same if you were 40 and didn’t stay in this type of CA government employment for a long enough time to become vested.

I will assume you are not a member of the Union that has made this benefit but if you are then that’s where it would have to be changed but you would be up against a bunch of long term CA government employees.

SORRY 

[Tonster521]

@GailL1 Thanks for the "thumbs up". Prior to my retirement in 2015, I was hearing the "pre-funding" concept from some Unions (private sector) as they tried to address increasing retiree health insurance liabilities. Of course, they wanted Employers who provided retiree health insurance to pre-fund that cost. That concept was rejected by most Employers. However, agreeing to a dollar cap (collectively bargained) on an Employer's FAS 106 liability (i.e., $100 million, etc.) was generally agreed upon. In reality, the dollar cap was very high. So, the probability of reaching that dollar cap was not going to happen especially as retirees/spouses become eligible for Medicare which reduced liabilities in the retiree insurance plans. As you know, Employers also pay Medicare taxes based on the worker's earnings. So, carving out Medicare benefits is the correct approach. FYI, in 1990, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) developed FAS 106 which required Companies to disclose their future liabilities for Post Employment Retirement Benefits (other than pensions) in their financial statements. This info provides a better picture of an Employers financial status which is extremely important for investors, banks, etc. Prior to 1990, these liabilities (information) were not readily available. In summary, it is good to hear about States addressing their increasing Post Employment Healthcare Costs. Hopefully, their efforts may provide some relief to their never ending taxing (i.e., property taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, etc.).