Why are employers are missing out on retirement support?

Pensions are a hot topic at the moment, not to mention something of a source of panic. The government’s flagship auto-enrolment scheme is being rolled out, defined benefits schemes are dwindling, and us Brits can’t move for being reminded that if we’re not saving for our pension, we really should be, and even if we are it’s still not likely to be enough.

Wages are still fairly stagnant in the wake of the economic crisis; assets are not worth what they used to be in those golden pre-recession days, and we are panicking about how we are going to keep afloat financially after leaving work. That’s if we ever do get to leave work - with the abolition of the default retirement age, and bleak pension prospects, it’s not a surprise we are all concerned that we’ll simply have to work until we drop.

Pensions panic

Indeed, research has revealed that more than half of employees in Britain are concerned about their retirement planning. It is little surprise that with the rising cost of care and soaring rates of inflation (which affect retirees more than most), 53 per cent of the country’s workforce are wondering how they are going to cope in the post-employment wilderness.

What’s more, it seems that we are right to be worried about our retirement finances - according to the research, some 11 million UK employees are failing to save up enough for retirement.

Employers failing to offer pensions advice

Who should we turn to for retirement advice then? Our employers would probably be the first answer that springs to mind, and yet it seems that many businesses are failing when it comes to providing support for workers about questions surrounding pensions and retirement.

Almost three-quarters of those surveyed claimed that their employer offers no advice when it comes to money management. What’s more, some 64 per cent of businesses currently fail to offer any tailored retirement support.

Indeed, of those lucky employees that do receive retirement support from their employer, a massive 70 per cent find it useful.

Employee engagement

Many businesses are now realising the importance of employee engagement. While it is not something that can necessarily be defined or quantified, it is the thing that makes us look forward to going into the office; we invest ourselves in the company and in our working relationships. Naturally, we are driven to produce our best work and be a credit to the company. According to the research, 65 per cent of companies are keen to improve employee engagement.

So, 70 per cent of workers who do receive retirement support are finding it useful, and 64 per cent of companies are failing to offer such an employee benefit - there seems to be an opportunity for 64 per cent of companies to invest in their employees and offer company pension schemes among other benefits to show they care.

The coalition’s pension’s reform is proving to be a challenge for companies. Feel free to hint and nudge your employers as I am sure this will help speed the process, but have patients too. It is a long process and they will need to source expertise for this.

About the Author

Phoebe Landon on behalf of Thomsons Online Benefits; they are experienced in flexible benefits scheme design, pensions and employee communication, our team of highly experienced consultants develop innovative programmes with clients that maximise the value of their reward spend.

Has this inspired you to discuss HR?  Leave your comments here.

*****

Discuss HR is that HR blog brought to you by the people of Human Resources UK, the HR LinkedIn group with 11,000+ members dedicated to the world of HR.

*****

Any source

It's really about what didn't happen

By Jamey Dunn

The big stories on the last day of the spring legislative session were the things that did not get done.

Both chambers adjourned without sending to the governor’s desk Senate Bill 10, which would have legalized same-sex marriage, or comprehensive changes to public employee pensions. (For more on same-sex marriage, see this blog from Meredith Colias.) A gaming bill fell apart. (See blog here.) A bill to gradually shift future pension costs to universities and community colleges, which the institutions agreed to, could not even find enough support to pass in the Senate.

“Obviously this is a session where we have not enjoyed great success. That’s very obvious,” House Speaker Michael Madigan said during his annual end-of-session closing floor speech. “However, that does not mean that we are going to walk away from our responsibility.”

Madigan and Senate President John Cullerton each dug in behind their own legislation to change the pension systems for public employees. Madigan’s Senate Bill 1 was soundly rejected by the Senate Thursday, and the House did not take a vote on Cullerton’s SB 2404. Supporters of Cullerton’s plan say that model, which offers employees a choice in their benefits reduction, is constitutional. They argue that Madigan’s plan, which would unilaterally cut benefits, is not. Backers of SB 1 say Cullerton’s plan would not save enough to stabilize the pension systems, which have an estimated $100 billion unfunded liability.

“The state needs [pension reform], and we failed. And I’m not proud of myself,” Sen. Daniel Biss, who sponsored SB 1, said after the Senate adjourned this evening. “Here’s what could happen: We could not do anything until October, or we could sit down and talk. I feel like both options are inadequate.” Biss added: “People are going to be cynical about talks. ... They’d be fools not to be.” But he said that talks would be better than doing nothing at all.

Moody’s Investor Services issued a warning earlier Friday that if Illinois did not pass pension reform before the end of the legislative session, state government may face another credit downgrade. Illinois already has the lowest Moody’s bond rating of any state in the nation. “We shouldn’t be worried about whether or not Moody’s is going to downgrade us; we should worry about how hard they’re going to laugh at us,” said House Minority Leader Tom Cross. Cross said on the House floor that “the only thing on the financial side that we needed to do is pensions,” and it didn’t get accomplished.

Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno said she thought some “good stuff” was accomplished this session, including a compromise on concealed carry of firearms and the passage of hydraulic fracturing regulations. “But I really believe that every positive thing is absolutely overshadowed by the catastrophic failure to accomplish pension reform,” she said.

There was plenty of finger pointing to go around once it became apparent that the General Assembly was going home well before the midnight adjournment deadline without passing a pension bill. Cross said to Madigan during his floor speech: “When you want to get something done, you always find a way to get it done.” Madigan refused to talk to reporters as he left the House floor.

“The governor is going to bring Squeezy [the pension python] out again tomorrow because you guys couldn’t figure out how to communicate with the super majority of the same party on the other side of the building,” said Palatine Democratic Sen. Matt Murphy in reference to the cartoon mascot Quinn adopted to try to bring public attention to the pension problem. “We have not seen the governor. He has not done his job,” said Rep. Jack Franks, a Democrat from Marengo. Franks said Quinn should immediately call a special session on pensions.

But the last pension special session Quinn called produced nothing but bad press. Instead, the governor has instead called for a meeting with the legislative leaders next week. “I will not stop fighting until pension reform is the law of the land. But as I said in my budget address, I cannot act alone. If I could issue an executive order to resolve the pension crisis, I would. And I would have done it a long time ago. “Today, Moody’s issued another warning to legislators that Illinois’ credit rating would soon be downgraded — again — if they did not act on pension reform. Downgrades hurt our economy, waste taxpayer money and shortchange the education of our children,” Quinn said in a written statement. “Yet every time Illinois is downgraded — legislators leave Springfield without getting the job done.”

Cullerton was less in a mood to throw stones. “It’s not because we didn’t try. There’s no blame to go around. It just people have different positions, and it’s difficult to get 30 votes on it,” he said after the Senate adjourned. “You can’t criticize the governor for not passing a bill on to the governor’s desk.”

Madigan said Thursday after his bill failed in the Senate that Cullerton had shown a “lack of leadership.” But Cullerton, whose bill is backed by public employee unions, said he could not force his members' hands. “I can’t order people to vote for bills that they clearly don’t want to vote for,” he said. He noted that the unions had lobbied heavily against Madigan’s bill.

“We applaud Senate President John Cullerton and the strong, bipartisan majority of state senators who voted for responsible, constitutional and comprehensive pension legislation — Senate Bill 2404,” the We Are One Union Coalition said in a written statement released after adjournment. “President Cullerton called House Speaker Michael Madigan's bill, which could not garner majority support in the Senate. Now the speaker should show true leadership and call SB 2404. A bipartisan majority of House members and Illinois citizens have been demanding a vote for weeks. It is the democratic thing to do.” Cullerton said he thinks his bill would have the votes in the House to pass, but a spokesman for Madigan said Thursday that he thinks there is no interest in the House for taking a vote on the bill.

For all the doom and gloom over the lack of pension legislation, Madigan ended his floor speech on a positive note. “I don’t think that we should take our lack of success today as a reason to give up.” Any source

Getting the auto-enrolment pension scheme right

Welcome to Discuss HR, the HR blog written by Human Resources UK. 

The next instalment of our guest blogger series sees Kate Kennett discussing how to implement a correct auto-enrolment process.  (Ed Scrivener)

Getting the auto-enrolment pension scheme right

By now many large companies would have had the task of enrolling their employees into the government pension scheme. For companies still awaiting their start date, navigating the auto-enrolment pension scheme doesn’t need to be complicated, take the time to plan for implementation and on-going management.

The first step for planning and successfully implementing your auto enrolment pension scheme, is to find out when your company “staging” or start date is and which employees are eligible. The staging date is determined by the company PAYE size as of the 1st of April 2012. All employees that are over the age of 22, within the state pension age and earning above the tax free allowance (£9,440 for 2013-2014) must be enrolled by the allocated start date.

If your company already offers a pension scheme you must assess whether the existing pension complies with the auto-enrolment requirements. If the current company pension solution does meet the requirements of the Government pension scheme, employees must be informed of this in writing two months prior to the start date. Eligible employees that may have previously decided not to contribute to the company pension solution will still need to be enrolled, even if they wish to opt out at a later date.

Companies that do not currently offer a pension scheme, or offers a scheme that does not meet the auto-enrolment requirements, will need to find a pension provider that will be able to meet their needs.. This may be a good opportunity for companies to look at offering a more comprehensive and competitive employee benefits package alongside their pension scheme.

According to pensions minister Steve Webb, auto-enrolment has a “chance of being the government policy that succeeds and is popular” however in order for it to be successful employers need to ensure that employees don’t opt out of the pension scheme. Employers that make the pension scheme more attractive, whilst offsetting costs will help to create a competitive employee package.

Forward thinking companies will look to increase the pension scheme contributions, going beyond the compliance minimum. Not only will these companies offer a competitive pension package, but will help to put the company in good stead for when the pension contributions reach a steady state minimum of 4% contribution from the employee, 3% from the employer and a 1% tax relief in October 2018.

Providing comprehensive communications regarding auto-enrolment is a requirement and vital to ensure employees don’t opt out. Prior to the pension scheme, the number of employees contributing in to company pension in the UK was the lowest seen since the 1950s. Many employees may never have contributed to a pension before and so it is important to communicate both the costs and benefits of safeguarding their future in retirement.

About the author

Kate Kennett is a social media manager writing on behalf of Enrich Benefits.

*****

Discuss HR is the HR blog written by members of Human Resources UK, the 10,000 member strong LinkedIn group dedicated to the HR professionals in the UK.  Discuss HR is published twice weekly and looks to take an insightful, informative and sometimes irreverent view on the world of HR – all with the purpose of generating a discussion.

*****

If you would like to be a guest writer for Discuss HR, you can find more information here.  Our next guest writer week is the week commencing 26^th August.

Any source

Senate approves pension changes for teachers

By Jamey Dunn

The Illinois Senate rejected a comprehensive pension proposal today, opting instead to approve benefit changes that would apply only to teachers.

Senate Bill 35, which is similar to legislation being considered in the House, received bipartisan support but fell seven votes shy of the majority needed to pass. The bill would:

• Allow cost of living adjustments [COLAs] on only the first $25,000 of a retiree’s pension, or on only $20,000 for those who receive Social Security benefits. COLAs would not kick in until a retiree turns 67 or five years after retirement, whichever comes first. 
• Increase the retirement age for employees younger than age 46. Employees from age 40 to 45 would see a one-year increase, employees 35 to 39 would see a three-year increase and employees 34 and younger would see a five-year increase. 
• Limit the amount of pensionable income to the Social Security wage base, which will be $113,700 in 2013, or the employee's current salary, whichever is greater. 
• Guarantee that the state make required annual payments to the pension systems. 

Sponsor Sen. Daniel Biss, a Democrat from Evanston, said the proposal would cut the state’s required pension payment by about $2 billion, reduce the unfunded liability by almost $30 billion and reduce total payments by about $150 billion. The unfunded pension liability is currently estimated at $96 billion.

Opponents argued that the bill clearly violates the pension protection in the state’s Constitution but that for the state to uphold other constitutional obligations, such as funding education and ensuring public safety, the state must be allowed to reduce retiree benefits.

But Biss said:  “Article XIII Section 5 [the pension protection] is not the only part of the Illinois Constitution. The preamble of the Constitution says explicitly the whole point of the document is to provide for the health, safety and welfare of the people; to eliminate poverty and inequality; to ensure legal, social and economic justice.”

Chicago Democratic Sen. Kwame Raoul said the language in the Constitution regarding pensions is clear. “You really don’t have to be a lawyer to read the plain language of Article XIII [which describes membership in a public retirement system as] a ‘contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired.’ It’s plain English. Read Article XIII, please read it.” He said that if Biss’ plan were approved, it would be tossed out by the courts, and lawmakers would be forced to revisit the issue. “We can’t ignore it. We can’t just say we ... think that the court is going to look at this unambiguous language and say, ‘Oh well, um, we think the exigency of the circumstance gives us the opportunity to say, 'Oh, the heck with Article XII.’ The court is not going to do that,” he said. “In order to kind of do that, they would have to kind of conclude that this is our only option. They would have to conclude that this is an emergency, and this is the only thing we can do. ... and that’s not our only option. There’s several bills that have been introduced. They will be of record. The court will not ignore that.”

Biss said he does not think that cutting benefits is fair, but he said it is necessary to get the system and the state on stable footing. “The argument that we’ve all heard may many times is that the employees, of whom we are asking a very real sacrifice in this bill, have done nothing wrong. And they haven’t. That they have made every payment. And they have. That they were made a promise. And they were. ... I have never used the word fair when talking about this because they were made a promise and it isn’t fair.” But Biss said his proposal would “enable us out of the ashes of that failure, to build a system going forward that we can truly afford and to build a state going forward that we can all be proud of.”

Republicans who spoke in favor of the plan agreed with Biss. “We all know what a vexing problem this is. And no matter what we do, it’s going to be painful to someone,” said Minority Leader Christine Radogno. “We have a lot of great ideas here, but I think at this moment, this is the best, most comprehensive plan that we’ve seen to date, that tries to treat everyone fairly.” A dozen Republicans and 11 Democrats voted in favor of the bill. Radogno said she was disappointed with the outcome.

However, Rep. Elaine Nekritz, who is sponsoring similar legislation in the House, said that she was not discouraged because the vote was somewhat close. “For a bill that is as challenging as that bill, I was not that upset about the roll call.”

The Senate did approve SB 1, which would only to apply teachers who are currently working. But Senate President John Cullerton, who sponsors the bill, said that bill is only the first part of a package of reforms he plans to propose. “The pension clause states that membership in the state pension system is an enforceable and contractual right. I believe that means that benefits cannot be changed unless the legislature offers public employees and retirees a choice and the opportunity to consider and accept that offer,” Cullerton said in a prepared statement after the proposal passed. No Republicans voted in favor of the bill. “I also acknowledge that there are other interpretations of the pension clause and various ways to structure a reform bill. While it’s our job to pass a bill that addresses this crisis, it will be up to the courts to rule on the constitutionality of the legislation. In an effort to capture the maximum amount of savings for the state, I have agreed to sponsor a package of reforms. We addressed part of that package today.”

Under SB1, current teachers would be offered a choice. They could opt to give up their compounded-interest cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) for access to the state’s health plan and access to a cash balance retirement plan in addition to their current benefits. Employees who opted to keep their COLAs would have their pensionable salaries frozen, so no future raises could be considered for benefits. Cullerton said he removed retired teachers and those who have already given notice that they plan to retire, because most would not opt to reduce their COLAs. So, he said, including them would not produce substantial savings. “We’ve reached a crossroads. We’ve had enough debate on these issues. Now it’s time to pass a bill,” Cullerton said on the Senate floor.

Republicans said Cullerton’s bill is not comprehensive and would not save enough money. “If we’re going to do it, let’s do it. Sen. Biss’ bill saves us seven times more money than this,” said Palatine Republican Sen. Matt Murphy.

While he said leaving retirees out of any pensions deal would be a positive step, Dan Montgomery, president of the Illinois Federation of Teachers, said SB1 is unconstitutional. “It’s a positive that they took retired teachers out. That’s true. They should take retirees out of every system [changes]; we’ve said that for a long time. Not only [because] of the constitutional reasons but out of fairness. ... That’s a good thing that they did that. But the bill still is unconstitutional, and the impact on active teachers we still believe should fail in the courts.”

Nekritz said that the Senate passing SB 1 would likely not have any immediate effect on the House, which has been considering several pension provisions individually on floor votes. “I can’t imagine that this will change the program that we’re on in the short run,” she said. “The Senate is going down its path and the House is going down its path, and at some point, we will need to reconcile them. But I don’t think it is that time yet.” Any source

House approves pension changes

By Jamey Dunn and Meredith Colias

The Illinois House approved two changes to the public employee pension system, but supporters of pension reform say there is still work to be done to reach a comprehensive solution.

Over the past few weeks, the House took several test votes on various amendments that contained pension changes. Today, the chamber passed two bills and sent them over to the Senate, which is having its own debate over the constitutionality of proposals to cut benefits for state workers and retirees. A Senate committee approved two other pension bills yesterday.

The House passed House Bill 1154, which caps the amount of salary that will be considered for pension benefits. The bill would limit the amount of pensionable income to the Social Security wage base, which is $113,700 in 2013, or the employee's current salary, whichever is greater. HB 1166 also passed. The proposal would increase the retirement age for employees younger than 46. Employees from 40 to 45 would see a one-year increase, employees 35 to 39 would see a three-year increase and employees 34 and younger would see a five-year increase.

Republicans supported both measures, but House Minority Leader Tom Cross said he was concerned about the process of passing proposals individually instead of approving a comprehensive plan. “This is for all practical purposes, legislating by multiple choice. What I find troublesome about this process is that this is perhaps the biggest issue that has ever faced the ILGA from a financial perspective, and there’s no road map that’s been laid out for where we’re going,” Cross said on the House floor. “I hope that we’re not setting the stage where we’re sending a series of different bills to the Supreme Court, and not in one big package, which I think could cause a lot of mischief for this issue and this problem.” Cross voted in favor of both bills.

But Northbrook Democratic Rep. Elaine Nekritz said that the standard ways of getting legislation passed just aren’t working for pension changes. “Working this bill in a traditional way, we really have not been able to come up with a solution. I’ve served on pension task forces, and I was a member of the governor’s pensions working group last year, [I] sat through meetings with the leaders and stakeholder on this,” she said. “And all those very traditional kind of processes and the kinds of things that we actually kind of complain about here, where the leaders come together and [make] a solution and then put it on the members’ desks, those traditional processes have not worked. And so I think it really is important that we try to do something different and find out what members will support.”

Union leaders maintain that all the proposals the House is considering, and the two approved by the Senate committee yesterday, are unconstitutional. “We believe that the best approach to constitutionality is by negotiating with the stakeholders,” said John Cameron, political director for the American Federation of State Local and Municipal Employees Council 31.

Nekrtiz and Cross are co-sponsoring a comprehensive bill, HB 3441. Both of the bill’s the House passed today are components of the plan, and a House committee approved HB 3441 after today’s floor votes on the other two bills.

Nekritz played down the importance of committee votes on pension proposals before the hearing. “While the Senate has gotten those bills out of committee, I don’t know where that’s going to end up on the floor. We’ve done that numerous times in the House here, to the point where I think the pensions committee is a little tired of taking testimony on the same thing.” Nekritz said that today’s floor votes were not the hardest part of the plan to get passed. Proposed reductions to the cost of living adjustments given annually to retirees are another piece of her and Cross' plan. Such changes are controversial but would also produce the most overall savings. “I still think we have to put the whole package together in a way that hands the Supreme Court one piece of legislation to consider and hands the Senate one piece of legislation to consider.”

Nekritz said of today’s votes, “These are important milestones along the way, but they’re not the final package.” Any source

Senate still far from an agreement on pensions

By Jamey Dunn 

An Illinois Senate panel today approved two pension reform plans while the House continued to debate gun control issues. The constitutionality of both pension bills was argued from all sides during the hearing, which lasted more than three hours. But as the debate continued, one thing became clear: Supporters of pension changes are still a long way from having a plan that can pass in both chambers.

Sen. Daniel Biss, an Evanston Democrat, presented Senate Bill 35, which is the Senate version of a bill that was introduced with bipartisan support in the House last month. The legislation would:

•  Increase public employee contributions by 2 percent of their salaries. The increase would phase in over two years.
• Allow cost of living adjustments (COLAs) on only the first $25,000 of a retiree’s pension, or on only $20,000 for those who receive Social Security benefits. COLAs would not kick in until a retiree turns 67 or five years after retirement, whichever comes first.
•  Increase the retirement age for employees younger than age 46. Employees from 40 to 45 would see a one-year increase, employees 35 to 39 would see a three-year increase, and employees 34 and younger would see a five-year increase.
• Limit the amount of pensionable income to the Social Security wage base, which will be $113,700 in 2013, or the employee's current salary, whichever is greater.
• Guarantee that the state make required annual payments to the pension systems.

The measure has the backing of the Civic Federation, a nonpartisan think tank in Chicago. “We believe it is a comprehensive and bipartisan pension reform proposal that would help the state of Illinois greatly. By any reasonable assessment, the state of Illinois is in an extraordinary financial crisis. The primary driver of this crisis is the state’s inability to pay for its huge and growing pensions cost,” said Laurence Msall, president of the Civic Federation.

Supporters of the bill say that the dire state of Illinois pensions systems, which are about 40 percent funded, justifies a move the reduce current workers' benefits to stabilize the system. The state Constitution protects the benefits from being “diminished or impaired.” They argued that the alternative to reducing benefits would be insolvency and an inability of the state to pay out future benefits.

Mark Rosen, a professor at Chicago Kent School of Law, said that for the argument to hold up, the state would have to prove that “there is a sufficiently important reason to justify” reducing benefits and that the reductions only go as far as needed to address the problem. “It doesn’t mean all of a sudden, it’s ordinary politics and that pension matters are just subject to ordinary horse trading. There has to be a very careful balancing of the Constitution promise ... against the very substantial problem that is being remedied.”

Senate President John Cullerton disagrees with this argument. He has his own proposal, SB 1, which the committee also approved. Cullerton believes that some consideration must be given to workers for any reduction in their benefits. SB 1 contains similar language to Biss’ bill. But it also has a proposal that passed in the Senate would have asked employees to choose between their compounded-interest cost-of-living adjustments or access to a retiree health care plan. Cullerton calls this second piece a Plan B to be considered by the Supreme Court if it finds the first portion unconstitutional. Cullerton has pitched the idea as a way to avoid having to revisit the issue at a later date. “We’re trying to pass the bill. But with the possibility that Part A would [be] declared unconstitutional, we have the backup already passed and already in front of the court. If we were to just pass Part A, or if Sen. Biss’ bill passes and it’s challenged as it undoubtedly will [be], and a year later the court throws it out, then we have to come back to the legislature, try to fashion another remedy, pass that bill if we could. That would be challenged, and we’d have another year in court.”

But opponents say SB 1 would not create enough savings and that the cost of employee health care is too much of an unknown. Cullerton said the measure would not guarantee that the state would pay future health care costs; the option being offered to workers is merely guaranteed access to the state’s group health insurance plan. Supporters of SB 35 say that SB 1 would muddy the legal argument behind their proposal. “We can’t let politics dictate this. We have to solve a problem but only go as far as necessary to solve the problem, and when you put them both in the same bill and one saves $28 billion off the unfunded liability and the other one saves $11 [billion], I would say under that construct that Plan A can’t survive because on its face, it looks like we’ve gone further than we need to," said Northbrook Democratic Rep. Elaine Nekritz. She is sponsoring the House plan that is the same as Biss' bill. She plans to present the proposal to a House committee tomorrow.

Union officials believe that both plans are unconstitutional. “What we have are questions of funding. The state takes in money. It spends money. What we’re witnessing is a change in fundamental priorities in how the state spends its money, ”said John Stevens, a lawyer advising the We Are One Coalition. He said that the pension clause was added to the 1970 Illinois Constitution to protect benefits at a time when they system was funded at level similar to what it is now. “Under Illinois law, it is not appropriate to diminish benefits” without engaging in bargaining with public employee unions. Stevens said the consideration in Cullerton’s bill is a false choice that does not offer workers something in exchange for a reduction in retirement benefits. “In either case, you’re giving up something on both sides of the equation. You do not get something for something,” he said.

More Republicans on the committee voted in favor of SB 35. Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno was the only Republican to vote in favor of SB 1. But she cautioned that she did not know whether she would support the bill if it were called for a floor vote. Several senators on both sides of the aisle said that they also did not yet know how they would vote on either bill if faced with the decisions on the floor. “Clearly, there’s a lot of disagreement. I learned a lot today. Some things that I didn’t know,” Radogno said. “It makes sense to me to advance both of these measures so that we can get further input. This is not the final action, but this kind of discussion starts to narrow the field of what we’re talking about.”

 Biss said that there is still work to do. “It’s a hugely difficult, hugely complicated — ethically complicated, legal, complicated, mathematically complicated, economically complicated problem. So there’s different views, and we’re just going to work through it until we can all get to a bill” that can pass in the legislature, be signed by Gov. Pat Quinn and upheld by the courts. He said he is not expecting a floor vote on either proposal when the Senate is back in session Thursday. “It’s unclear at this point. My guess ... is they will not [be called for a floor vote tomorrow.] But a lot of discussion still has to happen."

Meanwhile, the House continued its long slog of taking test votes on gun control proposals. The House rejected a proposal that would have required Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) Card applicants to get a psychiatric evaluation as part of the application process. An amendment that contains a proposal that would require gun owners to report lost or stolen guns was approved. However, no legislation was passed out of the chamber.

The House has been taking these test votes on pension provisions and gun control proposals for the last few weeks under a process dubbed “Weekly Order of Business” . Republicans have refused to vote on several of the amendments, calling the process a game. “Five hundred adults last year killed in the city of Chicago, and we just spent three weeks, every Tuesday of the last three weeks, playing some political game, I guess, with no direction of solving any of the problems associated with that. I don’t know if it’s politics. I don’t know what it is,” House Minority Leader Tom Cross said during today’s debate on the House floor. “But I would argue, and I think most people in this chamber would agree, that 500 people being killed may be one of the biggest issues facing the city of Chicago and the state of Illinois that we have.”

Cross said Democrats refuse to consider Republican ideas. “They’re not all 'get tough on crime.' Some of them are -- some issues dealing with mental health; some legislation dealing with how to deal with conflict; social, emotional learning; funding; some comprehensive well-thought-out approaches.” Any source

House to take another shot at pension reform tomorrow

By Jamey Dunn

Supporters of pension reform in the House say they are still hopeful that the chamber can approve a plan before the current legislative session ends on Wednesday.

A House committee is scheduled to take up Senate Bill 1673 at noon tomorrow. Northbrook Democratic Rep. Elaine Nekritz said the bill scheduled for a hearing tomorrow would be similar to the plan that legislative leaders were negotiating over the weekend. The plan would:

• Freeze cost of living adjustments (COLAs) for six years. 
• Increase employee contributions by 2 percent of salary. 
• Phase in contribution increases over two years. 
• Cap pensionable salary at the salary employees are earning when the bill goes onto effect or the Social Security wage base, whichever is more. 
• Include a guarantee that the state makes its annual required contribution to the pension systems. 

Once the cost of living increase returns, it would only apply to the first $25,000 of retirement incomes and would not be awarded until employees turn 67. A controversial cost shift, which would require schools outside of Chicago, universities and community colleges to eventually pick up the full employer cost for employee pensions, has been temporarily set aside in an attempt to clear the way for the passage of this plan.

Nekritz said the bill she plans to present tomorrow may have some “tweaks” as House leadership continues to try to hammer out a deal. She refused to predict the odds of getting the bill approved in the House and Senate but she said she thought it could clear a committee vote tomorrow. “This has been so fragile at every step along the way that if we can get it through committee, great. And then if we can get it off the floor, great. But I think we’re still making our way through all that.”

Senate President John Cullerton has made it clear that he believes employees must be offered consideration for the reduction of their benefits. He supports a plan that would ask employees to choose between keeping their state subsidized health care or losing their compounded interest rate COLAs. Employees that chose to keep their compounded COLAs would also see their pensionable salaries frozen at the current level.

However, Rep. Daniel Biss, an Evanston Democrat, said the argument can be made that the public policy benefit of keeping the pension systems soluble outweighs the constitutional protection of retirees' benefits. “I think it’s important that the General Assembly speak with one voice about how big a solution is needed. Otherwise, we’ll muddy the question before the courts,” he said. Union officials blasted lawmakers today for leaving them out of negotiations over the proposal currently on the table. “We are extremely disappointed that Governor Quinn and legislative leaders have shut out the voices of workers and retirees in their latest talks on pension legislation. Instead, once again, Illinois politicians are preparing to use unconstitutional schemes to ruin the retirement security of hundreds of thousands of Illinoisans while ignoring the state's revenue problem,” said a statement from the We Are One Coalition. The group has already threatened a lawsuit if the proposal is approved and signed into law. “If the General Assembly rams through last-minute legislation that violates the Illinois Constitution, we are prepared to sue to protect the hard-earned benefits of teachers, caregivers, corrections officers, university employees and others.”

Nekritz said that House members working on the issue have met with union leaders. “We’ve met with labor. I would characterize it as an impasse. And so we’ve met, but I think that we’re not likely to come to any agreement.”

The Senate is not in session, but Cullerton did tell members that the chamber could return on Tuesday to take up any legislation the House might pass. When asked if the uncertainty of a Senate return has complicated efforts to put votes on the bill in the House, Nekritz said, “There isn’t any aspect of this that doesn’t complicate it right now.” Any source

Democrats set aside potential roadblock to pension reform

By Jamey Dunn 

Democratic leaders in Illinois have agreed to table a controversial component of pension reform proposals, potentially opening the door for a renewed push when the House returns for its lame-duck session.

Gov. Pat Quinn announced today that he and House Speaker Michael Madigan are willing to back off the so-called cost shift,which has been a sticking point in negotiations. “He indicated that he was willing to defer any discussion on the cost shift regarding pension reform until a later date,” Quinn said of a recent conversation with Madigan. He said Democrats are not abandoning the idea; they are simply acknowledging that it was holding up progress on pension reform.

There are several versions of the cost shift. but they all would produce the same result: public schools outside of Chicago, universities and community colleges would eventually pick up the tab for their employees’ pensions. Chicago Public Schools currently pays for most of the employer costs of its workers’ retirement, and legislators from the city argued that it is unfair that the rest of the state does not. Also, they said school districts need to have some skin in the game because they now set the benefits that state government ends up paying. Under the proposal that was up for consideration, the state would be responsible for the state’s estimated $96 billion unfunded liability and schools would take over the future costs gradually over several years. But Republicans and some downstate Democrats say the shift would increase local property taxes because schools would not be able to afford the cost. The also say they are concerned that if the pension investment funds do not perform as expected, schools could be on the hook for future unfunded liability.

 Quinn called the willingness to set aside the shift a “major step forward” in negotiations. “I think we’re on the eve of collaboration where people of good faith of both parties — Democrat and Republican, House and Senate — come together and do what has to be done for the common good,” Quinn told reporters in Wheaton today. He encouraged members of the General Assembly to look to the hard-fought compromise that was recently struck in Congress over the fiscal cliff. “I think we saw in Washington [D.C.] with the debate over the fiscal cliff that people, in order to solve a problem, oftentimes have to make reasonable compromises, make changes in their original position in order to get an outcome that benefits the public. It was bipartisan in Washington the other night, and it’s going to have to be bipartisan in Illinois in the next few days.”

Quinn shared few details about the reform plan that is currently being negotiated with legislative leadership from both parties. “We’ve been working on this really pretty feverishly over the last several weeks,” he said. “There were some breakthroughs concessions and compromises, and that’s sort of how it is in life, you know. You’ve got to sometimes concede this or that for the time being at least and move forward.” However, he did say that workers could expect to see their contributions increase and their Cost of Living Adjustments decrease under the proposal. He also said he is confident that it will survive a constitutional challenge. “It’s a very carefully balanced plan.”

Northbrook Democratic Rep. Elaine Nekritz said that the plan would likely be inserted into Senate Bill 1673, which is scheduled for a hearing on Monday morning. Negotiations are continuing over the weekend, and Nekritz is optimistic. “I think the momentum is continuing to build,” she said. Nekritz added that she thinks it is possible to get a plan approved before the new legislative session begins next week. While Nekritz is encouraged by the new development on pension reform, she said that she thinks a compromise on the cost shift is not out of reach. “I still think that the cost shift is the right policy goal. I feel that very strongly,” she said. “I still think we could have found a middle ground on the cost shift.” Setting that issue aside, she said, “was not my decision.”

Republicans are also speaking positively about the newest plan for tackling pension reform. “Not everyone agrees with all the nuances. We don’t know the numbers yet for the bills, but my gut is telling me this is moving in a really significant direction in regards to getting this thing shored up once and for all,” said Rep. Darlene Senger, a Naperville Republican. She said she hopes that both chambers can approve it. “We’ve got a new set of legislators coming in, and it’s a complicated process. And to start this over again is really not necessary. We know what we need to do.”

Republican House Leader Tom Cross said that leaders will continue to talk through the weekend, and a measure that House leadership from both parties agree on could emerge by Sunday or Monday. The House is scheduled to return for its lame-duck session on Sunday. Cross cautioned, “I don’t bet on pension reform anymore because I have lost that bet in the past.” But he said he is “cautiously optimistic.” Cross said that if the legislature can pass a bill that substantially reduces employee benefits, and therefore reduces the cost of their retirement that would be passed on to schools, Republicans might be open to revisiting talks about a cost shift. “A strong benefits package reform bill diminishes in a lot of ways the potential damage that a cost shift presents.”Any source

New pension proposals emerge but still no clear solution

By Jamey Dunn

As a special legislative session on pension reforms draws near, one lawmaker has filed new legislation that she hopes will move negotiations forward.

Rep. Elaine Nekrtiz, who serves on a General Assembly pension reform working committee, introduced House Bill 6209 and House Bill 6210.

Gov. Pat Quinn called a special session for August 17. The Illinois House was already scheduled to be in session that day to decide the fate of Chicago Democratic Rep. Derrick Smith, who is accused of taking a bribe. A House disciplinary committee recommended that Smith be kicked out of his seat. Lawmakers plan to take that issue up for a floor vote. But Quinn also wants them to tackle pension reform, and he has called the Senate back on the same day in an effort to push the issue.

Nekritz’s bills are similar to Senate Bill 1673, a proposal she backed at the end of the spring session. Employees would have a choice of either giving up the compounding cost of living adjustments [COLAs] they receive after retirement or sacrificing their state subsidized retiree health care.

Republicans balked at SB 1673 because it would have required school districts, community colleges and universities to pay for their employees’ pension benefits. At present, those entities only pay part a portion of the cost, while the state picks up the bulk of the expense. Republicans said that such a shift would result in layoffs and increased property taxes. They dubbed the provision a “poison pill” that made them unable to support the underlying changes. Democrats say that the cost shift would require school districts to consider pension costs when offering raises. Chicago lawmakers also argue that it is unfair that the city covers the bulk of pension costs for its teachers while the state picks up most of the tab for suburban and downstate districts.

Nekritz’s new plan, House Bill 6209, would shift the cost more gradually than SB 1673. Under the new plan, schools would pay .6 percent of payroll in Fiscal Year 2014, with the cost stepping up by .6 percent each fiscal year through FY 2024. After that time, the cost would step up by .5 percent. The amount schools would have to pay would increase until they had taken over the entire employer cost for retiree benefits. “The concept of the longer phase-in on the cost shift was the results of negotiations, and it never has made its way into bill form,” said Nekritz, a Northbrook Democrat.  

The Senate dodged the cost shift issue by passing HB 1447 on the last day of regular session. The bill only applies to state employees and members of the General Assembly, leaving out teachers and university employees. Nekritz said that HB 6210, which would apply to teachers and university employees, could be a “companion” bill to HB 1447. HB6210 also contains the more gradual cost shift.

But both of Nekritz’s bills would require more than one day of session to pass through both legislative chambers in their current forms, and she is not expecting lawmakers to be in session for multiple days next week. “I think the likelihood of us staying over the weekend is not high.” Both of the bills also have an immediate effective date, which means they would require a three-fifths majority to pass in 2012. It is unlikely that proponents would be able to drum up such support on a controversial issue this close to the November general election.

Nekritz said her intent in presenting the bills was instead to push forward the conversation about pension reform. “The goal is to put this down and say: 'This is the latest thinking. How can we move ahead?'” However, the language in her legislation could be moved into a vehicle bill, which would allow for passage in a single day, and the effective dates also could be changed.

Quinn supports both of Nekrtiz’s bills. “The governor continues to feel that pension reform should be resolved as soon as possible. The governor feels that that there can be no more delay on an issue that is costing taxpayers $12.6 million a day and putting the state at risk of a future downgrade. That’s why he is calling the legislature back for a special session on pension reform, which will give them the opportunity to vote on this critical issue,” Brooke Anderson, a Quinn spokeswoman, said in a prepared statement.

House Minority Leader Tom Cross has reservations about even a gradual cost shift. The Teachers Retirement System may reduce its expected rate of return on investments, which could increase the system’s unfunded liability. A statement from Sara Wojcicki Jimenez said Republicans are concerned that if a change occurred, school districts and colleges would on the hook for a lot more than what is currently being discussed. “The bottom line is that a pension cost shift is exactly that — a cost shift, not reform. We remain in total support of comprehensive pension reform of our pension systems. We have been and are willing to work with the other legislators and the governor to come up with a comprehensive solution as soon as possible,” she said. Jimenez said that the pension working group plans to hold more discussion this week.

However, union officials say they have not been included in negotiations. “We had hoped that the failure of the various unfair bills introduced in the spring would provide an opening for our union coalition to once again sit down with legislative leaders, and particularly the governor, to get serious about solving this problem cooperatively. That hasn’t happened. There have been no such meetings,” said Anders Lindall, spokesman for the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees, Council 31.

Lindall said these new bills would have negative effects on employees that are similar to the proposal considered at the end of the regular session. “The general concept is to force workers and retirees to choose between losing their health insurance and future pensionable compensation or seeing their COLA gutted. The cost-of-living adjustment is the provision that allows retirees on fixed income to keep pace with rising costs.” He said that unions are “willing to be part of a pension solution that is negotiated collaboratively.” However, Lindall said, “We are strongly opposed to any legislation that’s unfair and unconstitutional in putting practically the entire burden of the pension debt on the backs of employees, and in this case, [current] retirees.”Any source

Legislative leaders plan to put off pension talks

By Jamey Dunn

Legislative leaders are taking a break from their work on pension reform.

Republicans and Democrats have deadlocked of the issue of shifting pension costs to school districts, universities and community colleges. Republicans say that such a shift would result in increased property taxes. Democrats say that schools, which determine the salary that their employees' pensions are based on, should pay retirement costs instead of setting the pay and passing the pension bill off to the state.

They point to the fact that Chicago pays most of the cost for its teachers’ pensions. Quinn argued that a very gradual shift, over as many as 15 years, could be absorbed by schools without property tax increases. Republicans say that such a shift should be looked at in the overall context of school funding issues and is not necessary to enact pension reform that would begin to address the state’s estimated $85 billion unfunded liability.

Leaders have reportedly decided to take a five-week break from talks to study the cost shift and school funding issues.

Gov. Pat Quinn, who previously called for a bill to be approved by then end of June, urged them not to drag their feet. “I’m impatient with that. I don’t think politics should be what decides this issue,’ Quinn told reporters in Chicago today. “I’m pushing as hard as I can on [this] issue. I did it over and over again today, yesterday, and I’ll do it tomorrow, and I’ll do it every day to alert those who are in the legislation this is not something that you can run in place on. This is a time for action.”

Quinn was vague on the odds of the state experiencing a bond rating downgrade in the meantime. If rating agencies downgrade the state’s credit rating, it could cost more to borrow. Supporters of pension reform have used the specter of a potential downgrade to try and push action on pension reform. “I think there are some good things we have done this year ... so I think the credit [rating] agencies will recognize that,” Quinn said, referring to Medicaid reforms and state budget cuts. However, bond rating agencies have pointed to the state’s underfunded pension system as a possible reason for another downgrade. “Those are good things, but having said that, as long as this pension issue remains out there and not acted upon by the General Assembly ... as long as that is out there, it’s certainly going to affect the decision on our credit rating,” Quinn said.Any source

Quinn wants pension reform in June

By Jamey Dunn

Gov. Pat Quinn said today that he would like to see pension reform legislation approved by the end of June.

“We have to sign a budget by the end of the month. I’d like to also sign pension reform," Quinn said today at a Chicago news conference. 

During the regularly scheduled legislative session, which ended Thursday, lawmakers were unable to agree on a plan that could find the needed support to pass in both chambers. Quinn and the four legislative leaders vowed to work out a proposal that they think can pass and return to Springfield over the summer. Quinn said today that he and the leaders are using the next few weeks to gather information. "We need actuaries and accountants and all kinds of experts to help us out here."

He said the group is focusing in on the concept of a cost shift, which would require school districts, universities and community colleges to take over all of some of the retirement costs of their employees. He said they are getting information from local districts, such as budget information and how much they currently pay toward employee retirement cots, to determine how different ideas might affect districts. “People can have different opinions, but you can’t have a different set of facts. We want to have a common set of facts.”

Republicans opposed the cost shift proposed by Democrats, which would have required school districts to eventually take on all future retirement costs for their employees. They argued that such a plan would result in property tax increases across the state. House Minority Leader Tom Cross pitched the idea of having schools pick up the retirement costs associated with any raises given to employees in their final years on the job. He did not call his legislation for a floor vote because he said it did not have the support to pass.

Senate President John Cullerton called for passing a plan that makes changes to retirement benefits for state employees and the General Assembly. The Senate has already approved such legislation, and the plan is free from the controversy of the cost shift. Cullerton said lawmakers should go ahead and pass what they can agree on now, and then revisit changes to the retirement systems for teachers and university employees when a compromise can be reached. "If we pass a bill in a bipartisan fashion that deals with 25 percent of [the pension shortfall] as soon as possible, it would go a long way toward showing the [bond] rating agencies that we are getting serious about this," Cullerton told the Springfield State Journal-Register.

But Quinn seemed unhappy with a piecemeal approach. “We’ve got a lot of ideas out there. I think it’s very important to understand that this issue cannot be delayed. It cannot be a partial solution,” he said today. Quinn said his office received a memo from the bond rating agency Standard & Poor’s that said the group was reviewing the state’s newly passed budget and watching to see what action is taken on pension reform. Rating agencies have threatened to downgrade the state’s credit rating if changes to the pension system are not made. A downgrade could mean that it would cost the state more to borrow.

Quinn also predicted that any proposal that does not ask schools to take on some of the responsibility for retirement costs could not pass in the General Assembly. “We can do this. We’re very close. We’ve agreed on many principles. We have one principle that we agree on, but we have to agree on the implementation of that principle. And we can do this if we work together.” He said that he and the legislative leaders plan to meet again in two weeks.Any source

House minority leader says Republicans are ready to pass pension reform

By Jamey Dunn

House Minority Leader Tom Cross said today that he has the Republican votes needed to pass a plan to reduce pension benefits for most state employees, but a teachers' union claims there is not enough support  from lawmakers to pass the legislation.

Cross said he and House Speaker Michael Madigan agreed that each of them would find 30 votes for  Senate Bill 512 within their respective caucuses. The two House leaders have partnered on pension reform talks that took place while the legislature was out for the summer. Cross said today that he has the votes on the Republican side. “We’ve got our votes ready to go. The bill itself is still being finalized. It’s a very complicated bill, so it should be ready this week.”

Cross said it is up to Madigan whether the bill is called for a vote when lawmakers return in November for the last week of the veto session. “We want to have a bill ready, and we want to be prepared on our side, and that’s what we’re doing.”

He added: “This is a priority. We need to do it.”

Cross' legislation would allow employees to keep all the benefits they previously earned. Under the bill, they would have to opt to pay more for their benefits, choose to participate in a reduced-benefit plan that was enacted for employees hired after Jan. 1 of this year or move into a plan similar to a 401(k).

Steve Brown, Madigan’s spokesperson, said Democrats are waiting to see Cross’ changes to the bill. “An accurate view of the situation from our side is the Cross staff has said there is another amendment to the bill. … That’s where we’ve been all week.” ” Brown said once lawmakers get a chance to see the review, Democratic leadership will begin polling them to see if there are enough votes to pass the bill.

The Illinois Education Association issued a response today saying that members of House leadership have told the organization that there are not enough legislators willing to vote in favor of Cross' bill. Jim Reed, director of government relations for the IEA, said in a video statement on the group’s website that claims that there is enough support to pass the bill are “false” statements. Reed said the group has been told by legislators that “really nothing has changed since last spring.” The House held a hearing on SB 512 during the the spring legislative session, but Cross acknowledged then that it lacked the support to needed pass on a full floor vote. Union officials say pension benefits are protected by the state Constitution, and plans such as SB 512 are unconstitutional. Senate President John Cullerton has said that he agrees that such changes are unconstitutional. However, if the bill is approved in the House, Cullerton said he would allow it to come up for a vote in his chamber.

The House today passed a different bill from Cross, House Bill 3813, meant to prevent pension fraud and double-dipping cases. The bill was rushed through the legislature after the Chicago Tribune reported on Chicago unions officials collecting both city and union pensions. The paper also uncovered two union officials who served as substitute teachers for one day each and then counted their years working for the union toward state pensions. Cross said such abuses have helped solidify support behind broader pension reforms. “We’re going to do what we can — and I think others will, too — in saying that those days are over, and we can’t go forward. We can’t afford it. Plus, it’s just wrong.”

Cross said Quinn backs HB 3813 and that it has a good chance of passing in the Senate.

“Earlier this week, at the start of session,” said a prepared statement from Quinn’s office. “Governor Quinn urged lawmakers to address flagrant abuses of the pension system. The governor wholeheartedly supports the pension abuse reforms that passed today and is very interested in pension reform moving forward but has always noted that any changes to the pension system should be within the bounds of the Constitution. Governor Quinn looks forward to reviewing legislation once it arrives on his desk.”Any source

Accessory to Further

Accessory to Further
By Michael – Louis Ingram
BASN/FRO
 
“An NFL player who played 10 years in the league gets a pension of $2500 a month; yet in Major League Baseball, that same player over a similar period receives $10,000 a month (in spite of the fact pro football makes more money).We didn’t know we were going to live this long – everyone told us we would all be dead by age 55, and these guys that are out here, -- they’re hurting. And rather than address it, the NFLPA does things to defame and further diminish these men…”
-          Jane Arnett, wife of former NFL player “Jaguar Jon” Arnett, co- founder of the Retired Professional Athletes Association (RPAA), an advocacy group for ex-players.
 
In a few hours from now a handful of young men will have their names called in front of the grand stage at Radio City Music Hall in New York City; and an audience of millions of cable and satellite television viewers will see approximately 60 or so of these cats become millionaires -- literally overnight.
The National Football League presents this transformation every year in an orchestrated production called the NFL Draft, replete with pomp and fanfare as the next wave of gridiron gladiators are put out in public display before the masses.
It wasn’t that long ago where there were no bells and whistles, or continuous coverage or fantasy geeks to masturbate on statistics and create a cottage industry based on…potential.
   
 
Jane Arnett is someone who also believes in potential. As co – founder of the Retired Professional Athletes Association (RPAA), her goal is to help bring back dignity to those who labored for thousands so a few could make billions. “You know, we’re seeing an event – and that’s what it’s become, an event,” says Arnett. “The NFL Draft will call these young men and change their lives with relative ease; but they are so difficult in allowing some of the same men whose names were called long ago to reacquire their sense of self and bring quality of life back to their spirits.”  
As with these new millionaires, many of the retired heroes who are directly responsible for the Draft becoming Fat City for these kids came from the same talent pool; from schools like Penn State & Michigan; universities like Washington and Southern California; small schools like Occidental & Kutztown State; and historically Black colleges & universities like Grambling, Morgan State, and Florida A&M.
From the meager bonus dollars that may have bought a car or put down a payment on a house in the 1950s, 1960s or 1970s, the size of the contract and bonus money awarded to the first selection in this year’s 2009 NFL Draft will exceed the $28.1 million awarded to these same retired players, who won the amount in a class action suit – against their own union last year.
Apparently these words – “class action suit” are significantly diluted and remade as abomination in the aftermath of the ruling; there has been anything but class shown on the part of NFLPA/Players, Inc. counsel in paying out the cash; their stalling actions and vindictive attempts at appeal smack more of greedy family members waiting for an old relative to die so they can do whatever suits their own selfish interests with his remains, rather than have that uncle or grandfather live out the rest of his days with dignity.
And as a Matthew Stafford or a Jason Smith gets to put their “John Henry” on that first contract, the other side of the NFL’s mouth will scream bloody murder about being broke. Broke? How broke can you be when the first team on the clock, the Detroit Lions, who haven’t won a regular season game all last season have spent money on changing their logo?
Never mind the millions they will spend on improving the Lions; this is a team that in spite of going 0 – 16 all year (how do you make a highlight Yearbook film out of that?) are still worth far more than their Motor City counterparts:
 
According to numbers by Forbes.com, the Tigers, who did compete in a recent World Series, are worth $239 million; the Pistons, who have recent NBA championships to their credit, are worth $363 million; and the Detroit Red Wings, a perennial winner, a team and organization so dominant in the NHL hierarchy, they have earned the nickname “Hockeytown,” are worth three times less ($303 million) than the 0 – 16 Lions, who are worth $917 million.
Y’all didn’t hear me – I said $917 million. And Detroit (24th on the NFL value pole) is not even the lowest ranked team; that distinction belongs to the Minnesota Vikings, who are worth “only” $839 million dollars – in spite of being a playoff team last year!
You call that broke???
And the Lions that helped make that money were men like Bobby Layne, Charlie Sanders, Yale Lary, Patrick Studstill, Lem Barney, Joe Schmidt, Dick “Night Train” Lane, Altie Taylor, Darris McCord, Greg Landry, Mel Farr, Roger Brown, Alex Karras, Billy Sims – and Wayne Walker. 
Arnett, wife of Jon Arnett, a 10 year NFL veteran who played with the Los Angeles Rams and Chicago Bears, formed RPAA in large part after seeing the plight of former players whose bodies, once young and strong have betrayed them with the ravages of time and scars on the gridiron. “All these players are very prideful, and are only asking for what they’ve earned; or at the very least, a chance to again earn some revenue and feel relevant again,” says Arnett. “But whenever we have sought to help out a player with a chance for work or to make a public appearance, the League is insistent in clamping down on what specifics allow for any affiliation – and it stinks.
“As the wife of a former player it is a struggle for many spouses and loved ones to handle the challenges of being with someone who they have to be caretaker, provider and often breadwinner because of circumstances due to ongoing medical, physical and emotional stresses which can tear couples and families apart.”
Given the amount of revenue garnered by advertising on the part of ESPN, the NFL Network and all other League – connected apparatus, the idea of continuing to maintain a hard line approach to men who only want their fair share remains a mystery to the most logical of minds.
 
Bernie Parrish, former Cleveland Browns defensive back and architect of the successful class action suit, when asked if the delaying tactics on the part of NFLPA were tantamount to them being an accessory to the murder of many players, replied, “I definitely feel that way. I’m in my early seventies, and many of my peers died off much earlier than they should have.
“The average lifespan for players has been hovering in the low - to – mid fifties, and the pain of enduring long – term issues of drug addiction, injuries, lack of proper medical care because of insurance companies not allowing for disability claims brings us back to where we started – the NFLPA’s violating their fiduciary duty – that means they stole our money; but they have ultimately taken more from us then that.
“The mantra has long been, ‘delay, deny, and hope we die’ – and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out this is what NFLPA has decided on as their modus operandi for showing their thanks to the men who built this League,” Parrish said.
The actions and inactions that have brought these factions to this point seem to have clearly defined the roles of the principals:
 
(“Heroes & Villians” – lyrics by Brian Wilson & Van Dyke Parks, performed by the Beach Boys)
I’ve been in this town so long that back in the city
I’ve been taken for lost and gone
And unknown for a long long time

Fell in love years ago
With an innocent girl
From the Spanish and Indian home
Home of the heroes and villains

Once at night Catillian squared the fight
And she was right in the rain of the bullets that eventually brought her down
But she’s still dancing in the night
Unafraid of what a dude’ll do in a town full of heroes and villains

Heroes and Villains; just see what you’ve done

Heroes and Villains; just see what you’ve done

Stand or fall I know there
Shall be peace in the valley
And its all an affair
Of my life with the heroes and villains

My children were raised
You know they suddenly rise
They started slow long ago
Head to toe healthy, wealthy and wise

I’ve been in this town so long
So long to the city
I’m fit with the stuff
To ride in the rough
And sunny down snuff I’m alright
By the heroes and

Heroes and Villains
Just see what you’ve done

Heroes and Villains
Just see what you’ve done
 
mike@footballreportersonline.com
 
 

Chancellor of Exchequer's nightmares. Pension solutions

Today's Times (UK) has articles that The Free Lunch has solutions for:
Lloyds of London: The UK government is getting worried about offshoring of London-based insurers due to high corporation tax (zero in Bermuda). The long term solution from The Free Lunch is to reduce such taxes to zero and increase taxes on land value. There would be no escape if a business has any sort of land ownership.

Pensions: This problem is not getting any smaller, read Graham Sergeant's story which goes back to PM Jim Callaghan in the 1960's. The Free Lunch champions a Cititizen's Royalty payment for everyone. It would be a monthly universal payment for all citizens: children and adults. Not only would a basic pension be guaranteed for all but companies would be able to concentrate on creating wealth instead of becoming bogged down by pension liabilities (see also the page 49 article on companies hiding their pension deficits). Sergeant's article points out the follies that governments create as they devise bad solutions. Read The Free Lunch for ideas from the classical economists 200 years ago that would make the economy work more efficiently and other features that would bring more wealth and freedom for all.
See http://www.the-free-lunch.com/ for more.Any source