The state has $52.4 BILLION in dedicated funds, under the management of the state Investment Board, in addition to the $1 billion state surplus and the billions of dollars of local government surpluses. All of that money was taken coercively by the state from the workers who earned it. I assume that we are not proposing to use any of the dedicated funds to offset the MVET tax relief.

-- Art Rathjen (liberty@coastaccess.com), September 16, 1999

Answers

Well Art, I admit that I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about. I assume you're talking about the money that is taken out of state and local government employees' paychecks for their retirement. Am I right?

If that's the case, I do believe that it is possible for those workers to refuse to make contributions. So to say that they are being "coerced" is just a tad melodramatic don't you t

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), September 17, 1999.

Patrick Just to clear this point up. Members of LEOFF 1&2, PERS 1,2&3 cannot elect to back out of their retirement plan. Also I have checked with the city which I work in to see if I can take the money they spend on me for medical insurance, as for the last 3 years I have spent about $300 on medical bills. But they say that it is mandatory for everyone. The only way you can get out of one of the retirement programs is to quit working for the city, retire, or die. Not flaming, just providing info.

-- Ed (ed_bridges@yahoo.com), September 17, 1999.

Look at the percentages contributed toward retirement, and the union contracts of the government employees. Do you think local governments like paying into employee retirement funds, and do it for no better reason? These are negotiated benefits that are part of the compensation package proposed by the employee groups. The state has state-wide plans, in place of individual employer plans, at least in part so that government workers can move from one employer to another but retain the same retirement plan. As for medical insurance, most group insurance requires everyone to participate to avoid "adverse selection". That's when the health people opt out of the plan and only those with problems are insured. These group insurance programs are also part of the employment contract. If coersion is involved here, it is on the part of the employee unions who negotiate a contract for their members.

As for how this relates to I-695, I don't believe it does. Retirement funds are a contract obligation, and a ballot proposition can't invalidate such an obligation.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 19, 1999.

"Retirement funds are a contract obligation, and a ballot proposition can't invalidate such an obligation. "

Actually, it probably can, but I'll buy into your point that it certainly shouldn't.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 20, 1999.

Check the constitution. If an initiative did invalidate a contract obligation, it would be a basis to challenge the constitutionality of the initiative.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 20, 1999.

dbvz writes:

"Check the constitution. If an initiative did invalidate a contract obligation, it would be a basis to challenge the constitutionality of the initiative."

So can cops sue the state if they end up getting laid off after 695 passes? Assuming they have multi-year contracts.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 20, 1999.

BB:

Not for a layoff. Most contracts have an article about how an agency handles a reduction in staff, based on seniority in positions usually. The contract does not guarantee employment, so a layoff is not a contract violation. What it does in guarantee that those employed are provided with the wages, hours, and working conditions specified in the contract. You can't tamper with those without breaking the contract and ending up in court. That is why a layoff is much more likely as a solution to a budget shortage than a cut in everyones benefits or retirement.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 20, 1999.