Public pension debate is about values and priorities

Editorial by Roland Katz in the Marin Voice

The ongoing discussion of public employee pensions is currently focused on litigation before our state’s Supreme Court. It may come as a surprise, but I agree with Jody Morales (Marin Voice, March 8) that most observers expected the court’s recent decision in the Cal Fire case on air time to be a narrow one. We at Marin Association of Public Employees (MAPE) did.

We also anticipate the Supreme Court will address the broader legal question about public employees’ vested rights in cases pending before it. The court will most likely address the issue in a case arising in Alameda, Contra Costa and Merced counties. The Court of Appeal decision in that case, unlike the decision in the MAPE-Marin County Employees’ Retirement Association case, is thorough and well-reasoned.

Legal speculation aside, Ms. Morales cites a familiar trope that many who are anti-worker employ. She attacks public pensions and makes the case we can’t afford decent retirement pay for public servants. This regular refrain of pension critics is that pensions are responsible for local and state government not having enough money to fix our roads and other infrastructure.

This argument conveniently ignores the fact that the gas tax, the primary source of road funding, was frozen for a quarter of a century. Had it increased at 2 percent a year as property tax does under Proposition 13, the holy grail of the “anti-tax movement,” Ms. Morales and others would not be blaming pension costs for the neglect of our infrastructure.

Ms. Morales also employs another familiar tactic of opponents of workers. She cherry-picks one of the highest-compensated county employees, in this case a retired county administrator, in an attempt to shock the reader. What about those who are not, or were not so highly compensated? The office worker, the gardener, the custodian, the eligibility worker? Pensions for employees working today in those classifications who work a career (35-40 years) and retire between ages 62 and 65 will be in the range of $37,000 and $60,000 a year, and no Social Security.

Hardly a king’s ransom.

Opponents of public benefits also fail to account for the level of education required for many who go into public service. Librarians, who must have a master’s degree, would have an annual pension after a 35- to 40-year career in the $55,000 to $68,000 range. The pension for a licensed mental health practitioner with a master’s degree or doctorate who works a career with the county would be between $73,000 and $90,000. A social worker on the front lines of our community doing critical work may only see a pension of between $68,000 and $81,000.

Another group of workers never mentioned are Marin County employees who are part-time, working less than three-quarters time. What’s their county pension? A big whopping nothing. That’s right, unlike their counterparts in other Bay Area counties, they aren’t in the county pension plan (those who work half-time or more are in other county programs). Because Marin County is not in Social Security, unlike most of the other Bay Area counties, the county pays nothing for these employees’ retirement. Not one cent. All these employees have is the 7.5 percent of their salary they are required to pay, plus whatever it earns.

All of this is to say this debate is about values and priorities. Do we as Marin County community members value a strong middle class supported by vital public sector workers? Do we prioritize professionals who choose to make less in salaries so they can serve our communities with dignity?

Roland Katz is the executive director of the Marin Association of Public Employees, the union representing a majority of county of Marin employees.