White Plains Jacks Up Retired FF's And PO's Healthcare Costs

[x635 4,066]

Every week it seems the City Of White Plains is trying to screw their employees and now former employees. As wraftery, JFLYNN and other members of this forum can attest, in 1970, firefighter pay was next to nothing and benefits were the only real compensation as I'm glad the article reflects.

Really, how can they continue to be this unethical and keep getting away with it? They are going to end up paying even more in litigation costs...

White Plains retirees threaten lawsuit over health-care cost

By Richard Liebson and Ben Rubin • rliebson@lohud.com • June 6, 2010

WHITE PLAINS — Like many who choose careers in public service, Phil Robbins joined the White Plains Fire Department in 1970 in part because "the benefits were good."

"The pay wasn't great," said Robbins, who retired in 1990, "but you knew that if you retired after 20 years you'd get free health care."

Not anymore.

http://www.lohud.com/article/20100606/NEWS02/6060385/1018/White-Plains-retirees-threaten-lawsuit-over-health-care-cost?GID=aksqjAZkLIg52cOreTEQlqGVWdydeWBtTvPmDjoRa/E%3D

[TRUCK6018 50]

Every week it seems the City Of White Plains is trying to screw their employees and now former employees. As wraftery, JFLYNN and other members of this forum can attest, in 1970, firefighter pay was next to nothing and benefits were the only real compensation as I'm glad the article reflects.

Really, how can they continue to be this unethical and keep getting away with it? They are going to end up paying even more in litigation costs...

http://www.lohud.com/article/20100606/NEWS02/6060385/1018/White-Plains-retirees-threaten-lawsuit-over-health-care-cost?GID=aksqjAZkLIg52cOreTEQlqGVWdydeWBtTvPmDjoRa/E%3D

Unfortunately this is a sign of the times with government agencies or public authorities.

While currently I do not have to pay anything towards medical benefit premiums, with the union contract expiring at the end of the month and a huge budget deficit looming over Metro North's and The MTA's head, I'm expecting to have to pay with the new contract when that gets ratified (my estimate is in three years).

Edited June 6, 2010 by TRUCK6018

[x635 4,066]

But, when you retire, I thought you were supposed to get the benefits specified in the contract at the time you retire for the rest of your life no matter what?

[M' Ave 1,466]

But, when you retire, I thought you were supposed to get the benefits specified in the contract at the time you retire for the rest of your life no matter what?

I too was under this impression...

[JFLYNN 681]

Every week it seems the City Of White Plains is trying to screw their employees and now former employees. As wraftery, JFLYNN and other members of this forum can attest, in 1970, firefighter pay was next to nothing and benefits were the only real compensation as I'm glad the article reflects.

Really, how can they continue to be this unethical and keep getting away with it? They are going to end up paying even more in litigation costs...

http://www.lohud.com...tTvPmDjoRa/E%3D

Hey, het, easy now...I know I don't look that good, but I was 4 in 1970...

[x635 4,066]

Hey, het, easy now...I know I don't look that good, but I was 4 in 1970...

LOL, sorry, I didn't mean your age!.....I remember you had referenced something to this effect in the past where FF's took the jobs for the benefits which is why I thought of you.

[E58RET 24]

The contract you retired under should stand up in a court, no matter what the politicians want.!

[INIT915 1,119]

The contract you retired under should stand up in a court, no matter what the politicians want.!

Agreed. The case law on this subject backs up the retirees. WP doesn't really have a leg to stand on on this matter. They'll inevitably invest a ton of money is a case with extremely poor prospects for victory.

[gamewell45 258]

Agreed. The case law on this subject backs up the retirees. WP doesn't really have a leg to stand on on this matter. They'll inevitably invest a ton of money is a case with extremely poor prospects for victory.

Unless Public sector labor law (aka civil service) is much different from private sector, the employer has the right to determine the level of benefits and cost to the employee/retirees, unless there is a stipulation in the most current collective bargaining agreement between the parties that spells out what benefits and costs associated with may be charged.

In this particular case it may be possible that the employer and the union at the time of collective bargaining agreement was ratified, there was a "meeting of the minds" in which it was understood that the retirees as of a certain date would enjoy the current level of benefits at retirement as they maintained during active service. It may be what the retirees are banking their claims on and if there are contract negotiation notes sufficient to back up their claims, then they stand to prevail in court.

Obviously, The City of White Plains officials and/or their attorney's feel that this Isn't the case, however this is why we have the courts to settle important disputes like this one.

[INIT915 1,119]

Unless Public sector labor law (aka civil service) is much different from private sector, the employer has the right to determine the level of benefits and cost to the employee/retirees, unless there is a stipulation in the most current collective bargaining agreement between the parties that spells out what benefits and costs associated with may be charged.

In this particular case it may be possible that the employer and the union at the time of collective bargaining agreement was ratified, there was a "meeting of the minds" in which it was understood that the retirees as of a certain date would enjoy the current level of benefits at retirement as they maintained during active service. It may be what the retirees are banking their claims on and if there are contract negotiation notes sufficient to back up their claims, then they stand to prevail in court.

Obviously, The City of White Plains officials and/or their attorney's feel that this Isn't the case, however this is why we have the courts to settle important disputes like this one.

Well, the short answer is, public sector law is much different then private sector law.

[helicopper 1,050]

Agreed. The case law on this subject backs up the retirees. WP doesn't really have a leg to stand on on this matter. They'll inevitably invest a ton of money is a case with extremely poor prospects for victory.

INIT, do you have any references for the case law? It may not be popular and it may not be "fair" but White Plains is NOT the only community considering this and it would be great to have some extra ammunition to defend against it when the time comes.

[msm232 69]

I am not in favor of what White Plains is doing because I believe there is more to the story then just finances (ie.politics), but in tough times if everyone gives a little, then we can avoid what happened in Vallejo, CA

http://calpensions.com/2009/05/21/vallejo-bankruptcy-trend-or-lost-cause/

Stay Safe.

[helicopper 1,050]

If they can change the benefits of municipal employees who have been retired, perhaps they can also reduce (or eliminate) the tax breaks they've given developers who are reaping small fortunes in the city thanks to this "generosity". Let them pay their fair share of taxes instead of dumping on the homeowners and city workers.

[firecapt32 282]

I can tell you that in '72 when I came on the job--it was part of the interview--dont quote me but it went something like-- We know you will be working long hours--weekends---holidays-- and the pay isnt great but you will be part of the fire family and we always take care of our own even after you retire.

Chief Flynn that would make you 6 my how you have changed over the years

[PEMO3 523]

Public employees have what is called a defined benefit plan while private sector employees have a defined contribution plan. In effect, defined contribution plans draw a pension based on the dollar amount in the account i.e. a 401K and rarely include benefits. Public employees who pay into their pension plans, which is simply a way to appease the taxpayer into feeling they are not footing the bill, have a defined benefit plan which in effect states that they will get a set amount for life and set benefits for life. Most public employees rarely pay more than 30% of the actual contribution amount needed to fund the plan. This plan, refer to by many outside the public sector as the government employee golden parachute, was a trade off for the low wages, long hours and sub-standard conditions public employees dealt with. It was a suffer now to benefit late proposal many took when they signed on. While White Plains may have had a knee jerk reaction to "change" the existing benefits one only needs to look at the rest of the country to see states and cities scrambling to produce legislation that will only effect "new hires" since they recognize that when members joined the pension plans they entered a contract and while contracts can be broken through the courts, think about the ramifications. What judge in his right mind is going to set the precedent that can be used to change his own pension plan. Many states starting with NJ have recognized that the only option is to change things going forward and they are "stuck" with the plans that are in existence especially for current retirees.

An interesting site with info on public pensions is http://www1.divorcen...ml#full_article

Edited June 7, 2010 by PEMO3

[INIT915 1,119]

INIT, do you have any references for the case law? It may not be popular and it may not be "fair" but White Plains is NOT the only community considering this and it would be great to have some extra ammunition to defend against it when the time comes.

Sure Chris. Some easy reading is attached in the below cases. There are others, but these address the issue of Contracts entered into by the State generally.

ALLIED STRUCTURAL STEEL CO. v. SPANNAUS, 438 U.S. 234 (1978)

MASCIO v PUBL EMPLOYEES RET - 1998 FED App. 0328P (6th Cir.)

UNITED STATES TRUST CO. v. NEW JERSEY, 431 U.S. 1 (1977)

ASSOCIATION OF SURROGATES v. STATE OF NEW YORK, 79 N.Y.2d 39, 588 N.E.2d 51, 580 N.Y.S.2d 153 (1992).

[INIT915 1,119]

Many states starting with NJ have recognized that the only option is to change things going forward and they are "stuck" with the plans that are in existence especially for current retirees.

What you mention here is the situation New York has found itself in, which is what has brought about Tier V plans.

If anyone has doubt, just read the recent decision involving furloughs by Gov. Paterson. Pay special attention to the Judges comments on "likelihood of success on merits" and "sub. i - substantial contract impairment".

[JFLYNN 681]

I am not in favor of what White Plains is doing because I believe there is more to the story then just finances (ie.politics), but in tough times if everyone gives a little, then we can avoid what happened in Vallejo, CA

http://calpensions.c...-or-lost-cause/

Stay Safe.

What happened in Vallejo, CA??? After reading the article it seems nothing, yet, and the final outcome is unclear.

I'm not so sure that "in tough times, if everyone gives a little" isn't overly simplistic and maybe even naive....

[wraftery 1,275]

I can tell you that in '72 when I came on the job--it was part of the interview--dont quote me but it went something like-- We know you will be working long hours--weekends---holidays-- and the pay isnt great but you will be part of the fire family and we always take care of our own even after you retire.

Chief Flynn that would make you 6 my how you have changed over the years

I made sure that when I retired, I had a copy of the contract that I retired under. Not that I didn't trust anyone but I don't trust anyone in the future to honor the word of their predecessors.

And...Capt 32 used to be young like JFLYNN, but I wore him out coming to my jobs (and he loved it)

[msm232 69]

Chief, The point I was trying to make was not clear, the politicians and city councils have tough decisions to make, some for the wrong reasons, some for the right reasons. These decisions have serious consequences to everyone. Taxpayers and employees alike. I believe it is a two way street and everything can be negotiated. Could the Vallejo council, employees (unions) and taxpayers figured out something to stay off the bankruptcy? I believe that there are some smart people out there that could figured something other then what really happened. The whole thing sucks!!! It's pretty clear, the taxpayers are not getting any services, the city is in shambles, the employees who are left have had their pay and benefits cut or frozen and the whole thing is tied up in courts and maybe for years. The city may never recover.

You know who wins! The lawyers!!

Meanwhile, back in NY, 21 cops and firefighters are still out of work in White Plains. I believe this is just the tip of the iceberg for what is coming to a lot of towns, villages and cities in the area.

And YES, Chris 192, I do think all of those sweet heart real estate deals cut in White Plains over the last 10 years should be re-negotiated! What good for the goose, should also go for the gander.....

Stay safe.

[gamewell45 258]

Well, the short answer is, public sector law is much different then private sector law.

Can you provide a link to where i can read up on this particular section regarding benefits for retirees??

[gamewell45 258]

Sure Chris. Some easy reading is attached in the below cases. There are others, but these address the issue of Contracts entered into by the State generally.

ALLIED STRUCTURAL STEEL CO. v. SPANNAUS, 438 U.S. 234 (1978)

MASCIO v PUBL EMPLOYEES RET - 1998 FED App. 0328P (6th Cir.)

UNITED STATES TRUST CO. v. NEW JERSEY, 431 U.S. 1 (1977)

ASSOCIATION OF SURROGATES v. STATE OF NEW YORK, 79 N.Y.2d 39, 588 N.E.2d 51, 580 N.Y.S.2d 153 (1992).

I briefly read all four of these cases you cited and not one has anything to do with modification of employee benefits; one case you cited is private sector; another one deals with "double dipping"; another one deals with "payroll lag" and the final one deals with the ability of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to subsidize rail passenger transportation from revenues and reserves pledged as security for consolidated bonds issued by the Port Authority as far as a signed covenant goes.

I sure hope that the union does not cite these examples because if they do, they will have a very weak case and are wasting the members dues money. Hopefully the union can find more direct case law examples that deal more directly with the issue at hand.

[Bnechis 3,961]

I'm not so sure that "in tough times, if everyone gives a little" isn't overly simplistic and maybe even naive....

The problem is in good times the administration also wants us to "give a little". In past years when times were tough we were told if we worked with them, they would make it up to us..........still waiting.

[wraftery 1,275]

FYI By law, bargaining units (the unions) are not allowed to negotiate for persons who have retired,

Except for COLA, retirement packages are "written in stone"

It's like buying a house. Once you sign your mortgage, the mortgage company cannot change your contract because you now happen to be paying a lower interest than the national average. That's their problem.

[PEMO3 523]

FYI By law, bargaining units (the unions) are not allowed to negotiate for persons who have retired,

Except for COLA, retirement packages are "written in stone"

It's like buying a house. Once you sign your mortgage, the mortgage company cannot change your contract because you now happen to be paying a lower interest than the national average. That's their problem.

Very well said!!! Problem is simple: politicians feel since they make the rules they can break or change them at will. Look at the years of borrowing from Social Security and not paying back only to now get caught short. Seems like a man named Madoff used his investors money at will also and got caught short. Funny how the rules change for the rule makers.

Edited June 8, 2010 by PEMO3

[INIT915 1,119]

I briefly read all four of these cases you cited and not one has anything to do with modification of employee benefits; one case you cited is private sector; another one deals with "double dipping"; another one deals with "payroll lag" and the final one deals with the ability of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to subsidize rail passenger transportation from revenues and reserves pledged as security for consolidated bonds issued by the Port Authority as far as a signed covenant goes.

I sure hope that the union does not cite these examples because if they do, they will have a very weak case and are wasting the members dues money. Hopefully the union can find more direct case law examples that deal more directly with the issue at hand.

Well, not sure where you went to law school, but they have to do with Contracts they State entered into. That's what the White Plains case will rest on.

[INIT915 1,119]

Can you provide a link to where i can read up on this particular section regarding benefits for retirees??

Let's take them one at a time. (I italicized the key points, as many of the orders are lengthy.) And I'll reiterate, read the recent decision out of the N.D.N.Y. by Judge Kahn. I've provided the sections of interest in the recent post.

And I've listed the four cases in order of preeminence as they could address the instant case. By default, you could assume the recent NDNY case would replace US Trust v NJ, in prominence.

1. U.S. Trust V. N.J.

New York and New Jersey had established a Port Authority to enhance water-bound business between the two states. In 1974, the states repealed a 1962 bond agreement which limited the Authority to administer commercial and passenger railroad subsidies.The Court ruled the repeal violated the Constitution. Justice Blackmun argued that the states could have implemented a less drastic solution to encourage people to use commuter train services in lieu of driving their cars. (State leaders thought the increase in bridge fares that would occur with the agreement's repeal would cause this to occur.) Furthermore, since the need to facilitate mass transportation in the New York metropolitan area had been a concern long before 1962, the states could not justify their action as a response to unforeseen circumstances.

2. MASCIO v PUBL EMPLOYEES RET - 1998 FED App. 0328P (6th Cir.)

In its balancing of the four factors in the case at bar, the district court placed great weight on the circumstance that, as the court saw it, Judge Mascio had shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits of both his Bill of Attainder and Contract Clause claims. We find it unnecessary to address the Bill of Attainder Clause question, because it seems to us that the district court was clearly correct in its assessment of the likelihood that Judge Mascio would prevail on the Contract Clause issue.

The Contract Clause provides that "[n]o state shall . . . pass any . . . Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts." U.S. Const. art. I, § 10, cl.1. To prove a violation of this provision, a plaintiff must demonstrate that a "change in state law has `operated as a substantial impairment of a contractual relationship.'" General Motors Corp. v. Romein , 503 U.S. 181, 186 (1992) (quoting Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus , 438 U.S. 234, 244 (1978)). In deciding whether such a demonstration has been made, the court must ask whether "(1) a contract exists, (2) a change in law impairs that contract, and (3) the impairment is substantial." Linton v. Comm'r of Health & Environment , 65 F.3d 508, 518 (6th Cir. 1995), cert. denied , 517 U.S. 1155 (1996). If a contractual obligation is substantially impaired by the change in law, the court must further inquire whether the adjustment of the rights of the parties to the contractual relationship was reasonable and appropriate in the service of a legitimate and important public purpose. See Allied Structural Steel , 438 U.S. at 242 -44.

The retirement benefits of Ohio public employees vest, by statute, at the time when the retirement allowance or pension is granted by the public employees retirement board. Ohio Rev. Code § 145.561. The effect of this vested rights statute is "to make the engagement of public authorities to pay a pension, upon conditions fulfilled, a contractual obligation founded upon a valid consideration, giving to the pensioner a vested right in his pension which cannot afterwards be impaired or revoked." State ex rel. Cunat v. Trustees of Cleveland Police Relief & Pension Fund , 149 Ohio St. 477, 482, supplemented , 150 Ohio St. 377 (1948).

Judge Mascio's pension was fully vested as of October 1, 1996, the date on which he began receiving benefits. As of that date, in other words, Mascio had a contractual right to continued receipt of the benefits. Forfeiture of the benefits would obviously constitute a substantial impairment of this vested contract right. 1

The defendants argue that no impairment could occur unless, as of December 6, 1996, Mascio had a present right to receive both his pension and his judge's salary. We disagree. The newly enacted statute effected a forfeiture of pension benefits, not a forfeiture of salary. Although it is conceivable that under the new law Mascio could have continued to receive his pension benefits by resigning from the office to which he had been re-elected, his contractual right to the pension benefits was not conditioned on his giving up his judicial salary.

3. ALLIED STRUCTURAL STEEL CO. v. SPANNAUS, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MINNESOTA

If the Contract Clause is to retain any meaning at all, however, it must be understood to impose some limits upon the power of a State to abridge existing contractual relationships, even in the exercise of its otherwise legitimate police power. The existence and nature of those limits were clearly indicated in a series of cases in this Court arising from the efforts of the States to deal with the unprecedented emergencies brought on by the severe economic depression of the early 1930's.

4. ASSOCIATION OF SURROGATES v. STATE OF NEW YORK, 79 N.Y.2d 39, 588 N.E.2d 51, 580 N.Y.S.2d 153 (1992).

And in denying the certified question on appeal from the S.D.N.Y.:

The State Comptroller implemented the legislative direction by a "lag payroll": commencing November 7, 1990, affected employees were paid nine rather than 10 days' salary in each two-week pay period, for 10 periods. As a result, during the 1990-1991 fiscal year ending March 31, 1991, employees were paid for 50 rather than 52 weeks of work. Withheld amounts were to be repaid upon termination of employment at the employees' then rate of salary.

Plaintiffs are 11 labor organizations representing nonjudicial employees and 11 individual employees of the court system. Each of the labor organizations was a party to a collective bargaining agreement with the Unified Court System for the three-year period from April 1, 1988 to March 31, 1991. Each agreement provided that "Bi-weekly salaries will be computed on the basis of 10 working days."

Plaintiffs contend that the lag payroll violates the provision of their contracts that salaries will be computed on the basis of ten working days; that the legislation authorizing the lag payroll is an unconstitutional impairment of their contracts (US Const, art I, § 10); and that the law transgresses their Equal Protection and Due Process rights (US Const, XIV amdmt).

[wraftery 1,275]

I believe if White Plains is in any financial difficulty, it has to be due to mismanagement, not brcause of PD/FD retirees. It is a hub for business, shopping, entertainment, and so on. Its population increases tremendously during business (M-F 9to5) hours, and them the restaurant goers and bar crowd take over.

How could you blow that and then blame the retired cops and firemen.

[firecapt32 282]

Billy thats an easy question to answer---I have seen it many times over my firefighting/union career. They get first bite and have sharp teeth. We have to scramble--like WPFD is doing now to counter them. Someone told me long ago, that there are smart people on the other side and someone tells them---just do it we can litigate it later hmmm lawyers I believe. No matter what municipalities have deep pockets and we donot.

[FFLieu 70]

I'm sorry, but I am a firm believer in shared costs, meaning that everyone should pay at least something toward health insurance. If it costs me an extra $50 a check to subsidize my health insurance, and in the long run, I can alleviate some of the strain on my department and the taxpayers who support it, thereby potentially saving a job or jobs, then I am all for it. The private sector does it, and in this day and age, maybe the public sector should, too. We may have to foot some upfront costs, but in the long run, it might just be a better situation in the end.