Still there is no funding stream to pay for the current transportation needs as referenced in the 2007 Transportation Finance Commission report and here is the best part.
The biggest potential savings, trimming healthcare costs for MBTA workers, was among the most contentious issues. The MBTA’s largest union was so concerned about the loss of benefits it hired former Senate President Robert Traviglini to lobby on its behalf…..
Future T workers would also lose the famous “23 and out” provision that allows workers to retire with a substantial pension after 23 years of service, sometimes in their early 40s, meaning some retirees could collect pensions as retirees longer than they collected regular salaries as employees. The new rules require workers to put in 25 years and reach age 55 before pensions kick in.
Future workers!!!
You knew something was up when the pension reform bill came out, and it applied to all current legislators, didn’t include the elimination of “23 and out” for the MBTA workers.
They needed a separate bill to hide the fact that they are too afraid to impact 5,000 workers at the MBTA.
So instead of ending this unjustifiable costly abuse, millions of Commonwealth citizens will be forced to fund this, because Trav is their lobbyist.
Now only time will tell, since the full details aren’t yet available. But I am skeptical of true reform.
So for now, lets call this bill the 23 years before Reform and no revenue bill!
to be fair, if Trav was hired to preserve the existing health benefits, he failed — T workers have to join GIC by 2010.
I am not sure if that was said tongue-in-cheek.
<
p>Let me ask you this, what do you care about if you are a 35 year old that has worked at the MBTA for 13 years: The ability to retire in ten years with full pension, or having to pay a new $5 co-pay for your doctor visits?
It’s too bad they didn’t get rid of 23-and-out completely, but the article doesn’t seem to say that Trav was involved with that one.
Sorry I missed the sarcasm the first time. Kudos for your sharp sense of humor.
My understanding is that the AG said the Legislature couldnt apply 25-55 to CURRENT employees because it would be a violation of contract law.
<
p>In simple terms, MBTA workers are hired with the expectation they will be able to retire in 23 years. To change the rules 10 or 20 years into an employees’ employment would be considered a violation of this contract.
<
p>It may not be fair, and it may not be right, but it’s the law.
<
p>In our fury over this point, however, lets not lose track of the other reforms. The health care changes alone are going to save hundreds of millions of dollars in the coming years.
<
p>Trust me, if Trav really had his way, there IS NO WAY retirees would be paying 15% for their health insurance.
… to the other pension changes? “I took this job with the expectation that one day of service would be one year of retirement credit.” … “I took this job with the expectation of a termination bonus and/or disability enhancement.”
If not, that argument doesn’t fly.
Making it retro to current employees would set a dangerous president and likely wind up in the courts with an out come no one would be happy with such as the legislation thrown out and zero reforms occurring. Unfortunately like many the hope was for reforms that would some how easy the burden and the perception of the state as a wasteful and underproductive employer. I for one think this is a great first step in a process that will make it more accountable and more productive with lower costs on the tax payers, like all large things in life they move slowly. At no time would you see a major Corporation turn on a dime and remake itself. Just look at the example we have with Wall Street and GM and Chrysler. Look to California and there is a state with a gun to its head and still unable to change significantly.
<
p>I think the taxpayers did win here it may have been by a very small margin but it was unlikely we would have seen a huge margin survive. Lets see what the next step brings, more importantly we will see what the next contract is able to alter. Maybe full pension reform (in line with other state and municipal pensions) can be accomplished in the new contract or in future legislation.
<
p>Time to take on the Big Dig, big bill and put it where it should be and not on the MBTA and not on the Turnpike. This is a result of the past Republican administrations unwilling to tell us the taxpayers what the real cost was so they tried to hide it with some artful accounting and swaptions and now the piper has come to collect. Not a great position to be in at this time and place but we know whom to blame for this impending disaster. How about taking it off the books of the authorities with new State bonds and let the Turnpike authority payoff it’s debt and then fade into the sunset and allow the MBTA to stay affordable and up to date.
<
p>As Usual just my Opinion
Ridiculous. For the record, I called this when it wasn’t in the pension bill: http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/s…
<
p>Can we also say that even retirement at 55 seems generous? I thought people have posted on here that new hire teachers have to wait longer (age 65?) for a full pension.
Teachers can retire at 55…but the pension benefit is minascule. Teachers also have a special retirement law that passed a few years back that gives them a turbo-charged pension package if they work x number of years, but they are also paying, I think, 15% off the top to self-fund it.
<
p>25/55 is just an absolute minimum to qualify to receive anything substantial. The math used to figure out pension payouts increases with every year you work and every year you age. So the pension you would receive retiring at 55 with 25 years of service is much smaller than if you work 35 years and retire at 65.
so to evaluate the MBTA deal, we need to know the specifics. Do we gather from the news reports that like the teachers, the pension ramps up between 55-65? Or do they get the full deal @ 55?
MBTA employees won’t qualify to receive a pension until they work 25 years and are 55 years old. However, the value of that pension will increase based on the number of years worked and other afctors.
<
p>Currently, MBTA employees qualify and max out at the same time: 23 years (I think)so there’s no incentive for MBTA employees to work until they are 65. Again, I think.
<
p>Check out this link: http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws… and scroll about half-way down for a chart on how age and years of service affect state employee pension calculations.
<
p>
Districts are happy to get teachers to retire at 55. Budget considerations. 55 year old teacher makes 70K, new hire teacher might make 40K. District happy to save the money.
There’s various points in which teachers can retire and still get pensions, the longer they stay, the more they get (up to a point), but at some point it just makes economic sense for them to retire ‘early’ because they could work part time for a year or two and make more in those years than the 2-3% difference in pensions paid out over the course of the rest of their lives. It makes sense for schools, too, because why pay a high school English teacher $65k + benefits when you can hire some twenty or thirty something $35k to do the same job?
<
p>Not sure on the differences for new teachers, but I tend to doubt the retirements for them will take place that much later, assuming they finish early. Again, it doesn’t make sense for any of the parties involved.