Pensions frozen in Detroit

**BankruptcyGuy** · January-06-14, 01:13 PM

Non-uniform employees only.

As predicted, replaced with a 401[[k)-style plan [[403[[b), I believe.)

Nothing in the Michigan Constitution prohibits such a move by the EM.

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...text|FRONTPAGE

**Det_ard** · January-06-14, 05:31 PM

About time. Actually, 20 years too late.

**scottn55** · January-06-14, 05:33 PM

Pretty much everything in Detroit is frozen right now...

**DetroiterOnTheWestCoast** · January-06-14, 06:06 PM

"City employees who were not already vested in the retirement system “shall not be entitled” to pension benefits, according to the order."

From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...#ixzz2pf8VyZN8

So current employees who have been accruing benefits but are not yet vested have no retirement benefits at all to show from their years of service

**Cincinnati_Kid** · January-06-14, 06:15 PM

Originally Posted by scottn55

Pretty much everything in Detroit is frozen right now...

Well played...

**Gistok** · January-06-14, 06:28 PM

Originally Posted by DetroiterOnTheWestCoast

"City employees who were not already vested in the retirement system “shall not be entitled” to pension benefits, according to the order."

From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...#ixzz2pf8VyZN8

So current employees who have been accruing benefits but are not yet vested have no retirement benefits at all to show from their years of service

I'm sure that of the 5,658 current employees in the Pension System that is frozen... a portion of those are not yet vested. However, I wouldn't come to the same conclusion that you did, just yet... until this has been hammered out completely.

**Zacha341** · January-06-14, 06:38 PM

^^^^ I wonder what the time frame is for vestment? 10 years. Perhaps I missed it in the article.

**BankruptcyGuy** · January-06-14, 06:43 PM

I believe it is 8 years for GRS.

Now the News is reporting that Orr "temporarily halted" the pension freeze. I think he is showing whomever is mediating what he can do without anyone else's agreement. That establishes the baseline. If the unions want more, they're going to have to give something up, I'd imagine.

I don't know what the negotiating posture will be for the retirees [[again, it's GRS only). What do they have to offer? [[P.S. this is why you don't challenge the eligibility they way they did.)

**Zacha341** · January-06-14, 06:51 PM

^^^ The comments section for the article is pretty intense.

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · January-06-14, 06:51 PM

Originally Posted by scottn55

Pretty much everything in Detroit is frozen right now...

Curses! When I saw this thread I was going to make that joke! I guess I was on thin ice with that...

**Chicago48** · January-06-14, 09:06 PM

Originally Posted by scottn55

Pretty much everything in Detroit is frozen right now...

The latest Boeing settled contract does the same as this does. Freezes the benefits and starts a 401K plan.

I interpret this to mean that their old pension is still in place, it just won't accrue any interest.

**Novine** · January-07-14, 06:33 PM

If Orr closes the pension plan, the big question will be whether the bankruptcy process allows the city to get away from making future contributions for current members. If not, this move will likely increase the city's pension costs significantly over the next 10 years.

**corktownyuppie** · January-07-14, 07:19 PM

Originally Posted by Novine

If Orr closes the pension plan, the big question will be whether the bankruptcy process allows the city to get away from making future contributions for current members. If not, this move will likely increase the city's pension costs significantly over the next 10 years.

I agree. However, I will add that by closing the pension plan, they could treat future contributions as "one-time, capital" expenses that could be paid when due but whose costs can be spread out over 30 years.

If they can find some bankruptcy financing with the State's help, that is.

**Wesley Mouch** · January-07-14, 07:24 PM

Originally Posted by Gistok

I'm sure that of the 5,658 current employees in the Pension System that is frozen... a portion of those are not yet vested. However, I wouldn't come to the same conclusion that you did, just yet... until this has been hammered out completely.

Agreed. I'm be careful about exactly what 'accrued' means. My uninformed guess is that your pension isn't an 'accured' benefit until you are 'vested'. But I know that I don't know.

But regardless, those who are not yet vested in their pensions may be the losers here. Maybe they can go after their pension trustees for their past practice of paying out extra money to retirees. That really seems like a dirty trick.

Me, I actually have inherited money in my pocked from a GRS retiree who got a windfall years ago. Good for me. Bad for future retirees. Trustworthy trustees would have been a good idea. Take that all you who want to blame Wall Street. You can really blame me. I got the cash.

**eno** · January-07-14, 08:47 PM

Originally Posted by Zacha341

^^^^ I wonder what the time frame is for vestment? 10 years. Perhaps I missed it in the article.

From the GRS web page: You may elect a service retirement if you have at least 30 years of credited service; or, if hired after January 1, 1996, 30 years of service and 55 years of age; or, if you are age 60 or older and have at least 10 years of credited service; or, if you are age 65 or older and have at least 8 years of credited service. An actuarially reduced service retirement benefit may be elected at any age with 25 or more years of service.

**DetroiterOnTheWestCoast** · January-07-14, 10:01 PM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

Agreed. I'm be careful about exactly what 'accrued' means. My uninformed guess is that your pension isn't an 'accured' benefit until you are 'vested'. But I know that I don't know.

But regardless, those who are not yet vested in their pensions may be the losers here. Maybe they can go after their pension trustees for their past practice of paying out extra money to retirees. That really seems like a dirty trick.

Me, I actually have inherited money in my pocked from a GRS retiree who got a windfall years ago. Good for me. Bad for future retirees. Trustworthy trustees would have been a good idea. Take that all you who want to blame Wall Street. You can really blame me. I got the cash.

No, accruals and vesting are totally different. You start accruing benefits as soon as you enter a plan, even if you might not vest in the accruals until years later.

**Wesley Mouch** · January-08-14, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by DetroiterOnTheWestCoast

No, accruals and vesting are totally different. You start accruing benefits as soon as you enter a plan, even if you might not vest in the accruals until years later.

Yes, you are right. In most cases, your pension is calculated from day one -- but you have no rights to it until you are 'vested'. Until then you have no rights. When the State Constitution says 'accrued benefits' -- I don't think these are covered.

Is there a distinction between legal accrual and practical accrual. And that you don't really accrue legally until you are vested. But I'm ready to be corrected.