Pension Reform: Hits and Misses
Big changes are under way in some locales, but some unions are holding
out.
Girard Miller |
July 7, 2011 - GOVERNING
The great public pension debates of this century began in
earnest when the Great Recession clobbered investment portfolios by 30 percent
in early 2009 and the magnitude of pension deficits were magnified to levels
that attracted media attention nationwide. Even with the stock market recovering
75 percent of its 2008 losses, the liabilities of these plans have swollen by 25
percent since the beginning of the great recession as workers aged and earned
more service credits. So we still have a nationwide public pension funding
shortfall of nearly $1 trillion using the current market values of assets,
depending on whose calculations you chose to believe.
Until this year, very little of real substance was done to whittle down those
liabilities. Although a dozen state legislatures took action to "reform" their
pension plans, many of the early actions were more symbolic than substantive.
Often they tweaked the benefits for new hires and but left current workers
untouched. A few of them raised the employee contributions by a percent or two.
But in the grand scheme of funding shortfalls, they were almost cosmetic.
But now, we're beginning to see some real reforms. The city of Atlanta drew
national headlines last month when its city council unanimously approved a major
overhaul of the pension plan. Current employees escaped a proposed reduction
in benefits, but will pay an additional 5 percent of pay into the pension plan.
New hires will join a hybrid retirement plan that uses a slimmed-down 1 percent
pension multiplier and a 401(k)-style defined contribution plan with a city
match. Retirement ages are increased to 62 for civilians, with new public safety
workers subject to an age 57 requirement that I've been suggesting as the model
nationwide. That structure is much more consistent with the kind of pension
reform that taxpayer watchdog groups have advocated, and it deserves serious
study by public officials seeking to design sustainable benefits plans.
New Jersey's controversial GOP governor Chris Christie, with bipartisan
support from labor-friendly Senate President Stephen Sweeney, successfully
cleared a bill through that legislature to require higher employee
contributions, remove health benefits from the bargaining table, and freeze
cost-of-living allowances. Projected
savings are in the billions and could top $100 billion over time if you
believe the press releases.
Similar accounts are popping up elsewhere, and the tide has clearly turned in
favor of reduced benefits in many states and localities. Even in California,
where statewide pension reform is still elusive as the legislature failed to
address it in its new FY2012 budget, workers in many unions have agreed to pay
more to preserve benefits. Outgoing Governor Schwarzenegger negotiated a
half-dozen such increases in his final year in office, and the City of Los
Angeles has set a national precedent with an agreement for employees to
contribute 4 percent of pay into their retiree health care plan which has been
pay-as-you-go until now. Even the notorious six-figure lifeguards in Newport
Beach have agreed to lower future benefits and higher contributions
Some commentators see a growing national movement
toward reduced union power and taxpayer envy of public pensions. Certainly
the recent legislation in Indiana, Massachusetts, Ohio and Wisconsin would
support that claim. But unionists in other states would say they have stepped up
to the plate to negotiate responsible changes in their benefits and are willing
to make sacrifices to retain "hard-earned pension formulas." Public pension
advocacy groups have ramped up their efforts to dispel "myths" about pension
funds, and a more centrist, pragmatic tone has been seen in some states as
genuine solutions are sought and sometimes achieved.
Meanwhile, however, there are some notorious hold-outs. Some unions,
especially police unions, have have played hardball with their elected
officials. They have bet their jobs — and sometimes lost — that city councils
will blink and cut other departments rather than lay off cops. That strategy has
worked in many municipalities, but not all of them. Some mayors, city managers
and city councils have stared them down and cut the workforce after trying
unsuccessfully to negotiate pension reductions and fair-share employee
contributions. They had no other choice in most instances. It's become a giant
game of chicken with the public's safety, in part because union members have
taken the view that the public will always stand by the public safety workers
who became heroes in 9/11. Public opinion polls taken by one of the pension
reform groups suggest that the mood has shifted decisively against that
conventional line of thinking, and that pension envy now outweighs support for,
and fears about, public safety. The "$100,000 pension club" headlines in some
states have eroded public sympathy.
It's said that local government is the laboratory of American democracy, and
the pension reform trend is a good example of widespread variations on a theme.
In some states, the rules of the game are rigged against policymakers seeking to
make obvious changes to over-rich benefits formulas awarded to incumbent
employees in the halcyon days of the Internet bubble — which cannot not be
retracted under judicial precedents in certain states. The standard union line
is that retirement benefits should be bargained on an employer-by-employer basis
and there is no need for the legislature — or the voters — to get involved. The
problem with that line is that the resulting hodgepodge of benefits formulas,
contribution rates and funding schemes will eventually result in great
disparities in employee compensation and taxpayer impact. Municipalities in
particular are then left with a "beggar-thy-neighbor" labor market the next time
the economy gets back on its feet. And the unions will of course make the case
to restore their shrunken benefits, often through labor arbitration by pitting
one employer against another as they did in the late 1990s in several states.
That's why some pension reformers would advocate a level playing field with
common statewide limits on how rich a retirement benefit can be, with mandatory
use of a hybrid plan similar to Atlanta's new deal — so that the defined
contribution portion of the plan can be dialed up or down as the economy waxes
and wanes.
Even with all this activity to fix pensions, most public employers still
haven't begun to tackle the trillion-dollar problem of unfunded retiree medical
benefits (OPEB) which are double the size of pension deficits. Once all these
obligations start showing up on the balance sheets of state and local
governments under the Governmental Accounting Standards Board's pending
standards, a further round of benefits reductions and contribution increases
is inevitable. I've done some simple ballpark math, and nationwide the combined
annual cost to amortize the pension and OPEB liabilities under the new standards
will average 30 percent of full-time payroll, in addition the normal cost of
current benefits. That's about $16,000 per employee per year — around $8,000 to
$10,000 more than the average employer now pays annually for the average public
employee. Piecemeal collective bargaining and trivial ad hoc reforms will not
fix these problems in many states. Although incrementalism may work in some
states, more major surgery is inevitable in many jurisdictions.