Some thought an appeal of a court ruling blocking a key part of a San Jose pension reform could lead to a high court review of the “California rule,” an issue in an initiative ballot summary issued last week by Attorney General Kamala Harris. But dropping an appeal of the Superior Court ruling is part of a settlement of union suits against the voter-approved pension reform that could soon be implemented by court action
School workers at a labor rally in Bakersfield. (Photo: Richard Thornton, Shutterstock)A union coalition contends that a proposed initiative is being falsely portrayed as only a potential cut in pensions for new employees, when in fact it could cut or eliminate pensions earned by current employees for work done in the future. One of the initiative authors, former San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed, disagrees with the union reading of the proposal. But it’s a key pension reform issue that could lead to another disputed initiative title and summary.
A freeway approach to the San Jose city limit. (Photo: Visions of America)Calpensions: An appeal of a San Jose pension reform ruling that could cause the state Supreme Court to revisit “vested rights” may be halted by a settlement with unions, if candidates aligned with the policies of Mayor Chuck Reed are defeated next month. Labor unions opposed to the pension reform are backing a candidate for mayor to replace Reed and three candidates for open city council seats, more than enough to shift the power balance.
The reason, Reed says, is that the Attorney General used the word “eliminate” in describing his proposal to end the vested benefit rights of public employees. “This is the only recourse we have to correct something that is inaccurate and misleading,” said Reed of the Attorney General’s description of his measure. But Reed has a problem: He and his allies used the same word he’s criticizing the Attorney General for using – “eliminate” – when detailing his ballot measure.