Useless.
This agreement with the unions representing active employees only does nothing to take away retired workers rights to sue over the COLA's, Medicare changes or anything else. Nothing.

Posted by: Tommy Cranston at May 30, 2012 7:22 PM

How so Tommy?

Posted by: Max D at May 30, 2012 8:20 PM

Tommy:

Below from the WPRI report:

"The negotiated settlement between Taveras, public-safety retirees and Providence's three major unions - Local 1033, police and fire"

It looks like it would apply both to current workers and retirees. Where are you seeing otherwise?

Posted by: Monique at May 30, 2012 10:41 PM

Tommy is correct. The unions can only bargain on behalf of future retirees. Current retirees, particularly those receiving 5-6% COLAs and disability pensions, are the vast majority of the problem.

Posted by: Dan at May 31, 2012 7:54 AM

... so why are we announcing a tentative agreement when the largest participant might not be on board?

Another question. What does "on board" look like? 51% of retirees? Super-majority of 80%? If less than 100% does the trick, will courts rule against dissenting individual retirees if they sue?

Posted by: Monique at May 31, 2012 8:07 AM

The retirees hired Joe Penza to represent them so they were at the table. My guess is the unions footed the bill even though he was working on the retirees behalf. The same thing occurred a few years back when Smithfield tried to change the healthcare for retirees. The union picked up the tab and they also settled.

Posted by: Max D at May 31, 2012 8:53 AM

The article mentions that the retirees were represented in creation of this deal...

The proposed agreement between the Taveras administration, the three unions and the Providence Retired Police and Firefighters' Association came after Superior Court Judge Sarah Taft-Carter ordered the sides into mediation in a suit over Medicare changes enacted unilaterally last year...

Since retirees are not legally represented by their former unions, they are expected to form a class - similar to the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit - to vote on whether to approve the proposed changes, a source said. Those who decline to accept the deal would have the right to sue on their own, but their actions would not affect the broader settlement, the source said. The others will file friendly lawsuits in support of the deal.

There could be a problem with incentive structure here -- what's the reason not to sue, if you still get the same deal everyone else does, if you sue and lose. But remember, even the man-god receiver in Central Falls chose a negotiated settlement that included retirees rather than seeing a lawsuit through.

Posted by: Andrew at May 31, 2012 9:05 AM

Id be very surprised if any individuals sought to litigate this on their own, or as a small body. It would be very expensive. These replies just go to show, it would take nothing short of these folks never getting a dime in pension payments to make some of you happy. I get its an us vs. them mentality around here but are we not capable of giving credit where credit is due?

Posted by: Rich at May 31, 2012 12:05 PM

The media reports clearly state that the retirees were represented by counsel in the Medicare litigation and then Judge Taft Carter ordered the current unions to join the negotiations and the deal was worked out from there.

If this works, it will be American history in the making and Providence will be a national model for saving a capital city from bankruptcy.

Posted by: ProvLawyer at May 31, 2012 12:57 PM

"The article mentions that the retirees were represented in creation of this deal"

"they are expected to form a class"

Thank you - that's better.

We should note that this is not a done deal because all of the individuals in the various unions and retiree organizations have yet to express their opinion on the proposal by voting.

Back to the original objection that occurred to me when I first heard about this resolution: it doesn't address the excessive, bordering on obscene, pensions that some retirees are receiving. To be specific, no pension should exceed the amount of the retiree's wages (already juiced by o.t.) while s/he was working. It's absurd and completely unjustified.

Posted by: Monique at May 31, 2012 1:53 PM

"Id be very surprised if any individuals sought to litigate this on their own"

Prepare to be surprised.

Posted by: Tommy Cranston at May 31, 2012 5:07 PM

Monique:

[[[ "...it doesn't address the excessive, bordering on obscene, pensions that some retirees are receiving. To be specific, no pension should exceed the amount of the retiree's wages (already juiced by o.t.) while s/he was working." ]]]

You're right in that it doesn't address the excessive (and yes, obscene) pensions. I wish it could have, but they'll never go away.

However, you're assertion that anything regarding the pensions (the old calculations or the proposed calculations) are "already juiced by o.t." is simply wrong. Overtime has never been, and will never be, calculated as part of the calculation for a base pension in Providence.

Posted by: Tom Kenney at May 31, 2012 11:21 PM

There is a near 100% certainty this will end up in court and the retirees will probably win. The city shouldn't make corrupt promises it can't keep. Having said that, the pensions are objectively unsustainable so the victory will just end everyone up in bankruptcy court.

Posted by: Dan at May 31, 2012 11:43 PM

Why is everyone so afraid of a city bankruptcy? It could be the best thing for the city. Both Robert Flanders and Gary Sasse have spoken of its potential benefits. Today's bankrupcty, handled properly, could do long-term wonders for Providence.

Posted by: Bill at June 1, 2012 10:31 PM