The proposal would add more employees to the Public Employees Retirement Association Correctional Plan.
(Published Nov 12, 2013)
The Legislative Commission on Pensions and Retirement (LCPR), a 14-member panel made up of House and Senate members, met over a two-day period beginning Nov. 6 to discuss topics that may be considered by the Legislature in 2014. Among the topics was a bill introduced in the last session that would place 911 dispatchers, probation officers, and Hennepin County security guards in the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) Correctional Plan.
These employees are currently in the PERA Coordinated Plan, which is made up primarily of local government employees other than police officers and firefighters. The bill, HF 884 (Rep. Mike Nelson, DFL-Brooklyn Park)/SF 998 (Sen. Jeff Hayden, DFL-Minneapolis), was laid over for further consideration.
If enacted, the bill would change the normal age of retirement for this group of employees from 65 to 55. It would also reduce the employee contribution rate from 6.25 percent to 5.83 percent of salary, while increasing the employer contribution rate from 7.25 percent to 8.75 percent of salary.
Traditionally, membership in the Correctional Plan or the PERA Police and Fire Plan (PERA P&F) is limited to individuals with jobs that expose them to increased risk of physical injury and death. The employee groups advocating for the bill testified that work-related stress and exposure to hazards justifies moving this group of employees into the PERA Correctional Plan.
Employer representatives, including the League, testified against the bill, saying it would set precedent for more employee groups to seek more lucrative benefits, and would exacerbate pension-related budget pressures that have already been made worse by 2010 legislation aimed at stabilizing the PERA Coordinated Plan, and 2013 legislation that was passed to shore up the PERA P&F.
Members of the LCPR did not express obvious support for or opposition to the measure. Some members indicated they thought this might be more of a workplace issue than a retirement issue, and suggested employers should provide more resources to employees experiencing job-related stress.
The bill has not been scheduled for another hearing, but may come up for further discussion as the 2014 legislative session approaches.
-Source League of Minnesota Cities
If you watch this video of testimony at the Minnesota State Capital there's testimony from a Hennepin County Security Guard at the 32:45 time line. He states that security officers are the "first line of defense" and that their training is , "Equal to or surpassing law enforcement." and that they have a "patrol division that responds to car accidents" and terrorism.
Not to belittle this security guard, but the few times I've been down to Hennepin County the security guards were running a metal detector, like a TSA agent at the airport and an armed Sheriff's Deputy was at the ready if there was trouble.
My fear is that if the security guards are added to the Correctional Pension it will be weakened and the very reason for it's existence would be cheapened. Daily corrections officers are subject to assaults and sometimes death.
His testimony seemed a bit exaggerated to me. Those are the jobs many corrections officers take after retiring from the dangerous work.
The definition of the Correctional plan from the PERA site is:
"The Local Government Correctional Service Retirement Fund was created in 1999 for correctional officers serving in county and regional adult and juvenile corrections facilities. Participants must be responsible for the security, custody and control of the facilities and their inmates."
Security guards just don't seem to fit. Are our Unions selling us out and risking dumping us back into the Coordinated Plan? Thoughts?
HCMC Security Guards went into the plan over 10 years ago. Was the plan hurt? The largest threat to the pension plan is too many members going out on disability. Corrections professionals need that disability coverage, but like heath insurance, if too many members have to use that coverage, it will strain the system. Adding 911 dispatchers and probation/parole officers will spread out the risk, make the fund larger and better able to absorb disability pensions.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI do believe those HCMC security guards were added because they worked with the mentally ill inmates in the locked wards, so they met the "inmate contact" clause.
ReplyDeleteThere was a time when dispatchers were all police officers and sheriff's deputies. Dispatch was a place where officers could be assigned in a "light duty" status. The move to civilian dispatchers was done primarily as a cost saving measure with the belief that it did not have the dangers inherent with face to face contact and interaction with the public and emergency situations. Seems to be an acceleration toward everyone being so "stressed" and "damaged" regardless of their work situation that we will see more push toward earlier retirement. It can be done, but at what cost? California here we come...
ReplyDeleteIn 1998 when we were working on getting the Correctional Pension for us CO's Police and Fire worked against us. We got it by proving Corrections Officers have THE highest rate of on the job injures (workers comp) and the highest rate of assault of any public safety job. There was a requirement that we have 95% inmate contact AND we are essential employees. The average life expectancy of a CO is 59. Not a week goes by at Hennepin County that more than one of us is assaulted, hit, spit on, and/or piss and shit thrown at us...and being the Holiday Season, as essentials we work all of the holidays. We are a 365 day, 24 hour job. Not putting down what PO's do, but there is a much higher injury rate among CO's. If the standard is lowered and our pension, which is healthy, becomes a mini early retirement version of the Coordinated Plan by including non-essential groups,with no inmate contact we run the risk of being dumped back into the Coordinated Plan.
ReplyDelete