Senate approves pension overhaul

Bill would cut benefits for future state workers

September 16, 2011|By Mark Arsenault and Noah Bierman, Globe Staff

The Massachusetts Senate passed legislation yesterday that would make public employees work longer for less benefits in an effort to shrink an estimated $20 billion unfunded liability in the state pension system.

The bill, which cleared the Senate by a vote of 24 to 10, is designed to save the pension system $5 billion over 30 years by reducing the benefits of public employees hired after Jan. 1.

The proposal heads next to the House, where Speaker Robert A. DeLeo has not yet set a date for debate and a vote.

Senator Katherine Clark, a Melrose Democrat who is cochairwoman of the Joint Committee on Public Service, insisted that the proposed cuts are necessary to ensure that the plan remains solvent for the next generation of public employees.

“This is not the beginning of dismantling what we have,’’ she said at the outset of debate yesterday. “It is crafted to protect what we have.’’

Reducing the benefits of unionized workers has traditionally been a tough sell in labor-friendly Massachusetts, and supporters of the overhaul acknowledged during the four hours of debate that the bill is unpopular with organized labor, a major constituency of the Democratic Party.

“This is not the kind of legislation that’s going to win somebody a popularity contest, but frankly the responsibility is ours,’’ said Senator Stephen M. Brewer, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee and a Democrat from Barre.

He said that, unlike pension changes passed in other states, the Massachusetts cuts would not affect current employees,

“What we are doing is not Wisconsin,’’ said Brewer, a reference to a rollback of union rights in that state pushed by Governor Scott Walker, a Republican. The changes which provoked waves of protest and prompted recall efforts against several state senators.

The Massachusetts proposal would raise the minimum retirement age for most public employees from 55 to 60 and would bump up the retirement age for maximum benefits from 65 to 67. It would also change the way benefits are calculated, basing them on a worker’s top five years of earnings, rather than the top three years, as is currently the practice.

Opponents of the legislation said yesterday that it is unfair to push the burden of reducing a deficit onto future employees.

“We’re saying that down the road, because we don’t know them, that they get penalized,’’ said Senator Steven Tolman, a Brighton Democrat expected to become the new president of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO in an uncontested election next month. “We have a problem; I’m just not sure we have the right fix.’’

Advertisement
Advertisement
|
|
|
|