The Future of UC Retirement Benefits

As UC moves to this new arrangement, what protections in policy or institutional cultural can we expect? UC has a long-standing pattern that, when faced with layoffs, the first to be targetted are those between 55 and 60. In this new system, I can see even more opportunity to use targets to penalize those in later career stages.
Is there any thought to track these ageist patterns? Is there thought to eliminate pension penalties for forced retirements where employee is the wrong age?

I am 45 years old and have 22 years of service to the University, (29 if my years in the CAL temp pool counted towards years of service). I have a few questions:
1. Could I still retire at 50 with the same benefits and monthly amounts as appears in the current retirement calculators at “At Your Service”?
2. Will current employees be laid off in an effort to reduce the number of those who will be grandfathered in?
3.What kind of medical coverage can I expect If I retire at 50, at 55, or at 60 ?
4. I’m currently single. What benefits would a future spouse have should I retire at 50, at 55 or at 60?
5. In order for a future spouse to be eligible for medical coverage would I have to marry before I retire or does my marriage date matter?

Retiree Health Changes are UNFAIR!! I know people with less time and service then me that are Grandfathered in just because they are older then me. I missed Grandfathering by 2 years. Now I have to work 10 extra years in order to get my health insurance during retirement. When it comes time maybe I will need to think about working elsewhere. I’m already vested to receive a pension now.

The retiree healthcare should have been changed only to include new hires. I hope CNA fights it tooth and nail.

If we are hurting so bad financially why are we offering new benefits to the dependants of workers. I understand the health insurance is part of the law now but what about dental, legal and other insurances to dependants under age 26.

I am a career employee but am not contributing to UCRP. I want to contribute now. Please let me know how and what I need to do to contribute towards UCRP.

thank you.

I am 55 years old and plan on retiring at 60. I left the Univeristy of California vested with 10.66 years of service and currently work outside the system. Will I retain my original pension benefits or will I be under the new plan?

Gary Cinnamon

You will not be affected by the changes to the pension and retiree health insurance plans.

Kimberly Wheaton

If you read the information on this site, you can easily find the info that you want.

You are not affected by the changes in the pension and retiree health insurance plans. You have over 5 years of service and your age plus years of service adds to over 50.

You will have the benefits under the current system.

Retiree Health Care is not a vested benefit. It is expensive and unsustainable in its current form. Have you not been looking at what is happening, market-wide, with respect to paying for Retiree Health? The bottom line is, changes to that benefit are not fair or unfair. They do not owe us health care after we retire.

Everywhere we look, employees are expected to pay a larger share of their health care, through increased premiums, co-pays, and deductibles. This isn’t because the University or other employers are unfair or don’t like us. It is because we live longer and health insurance has gotten more expensive.

The proposal says that we will need to pay as much as 30% of our health care premiums. That is HUGE and generous. Look around the industry and you will see employers beginning to pay between 0-50% of retiree health care.

I’ve recently retired with 35 years service. I see that bankruptcy declarations are being studied for states with public employee pension problems. With the massive UCRS unfunded liability I’m worried about my pension’s future. Is it realistic to assume that UCRS pensions will be based on the available funds instead of the promised percentages? Is there a chance that the system will allow retired employee reconsider a cash out option if cuts in their retirement are made?

Cuts CANNOT be made in current retiree’s PENSION by law, except in the case of bankruptcy. However, HEALTH CARE is another matter. Health care is not a vested benefit or entitlement. Not very clear what current retirees can expect in future cost sharing. UCSD postings and charts only describe costs for future retirees. However, it appears that current retirees may or may not see an increase in their health insurance premium share, since the UCSD contribution is based on the MAXIMUM that they will pay. So, if a retiree’s health insurance company’s premium is less than that maximum, they will find that UCSD actually pays more than the current 86% of the retiree’s total premium; and correspondingly in the future down to the proposed 70% floor. This is true of Kaiser accounts.

To Crystal Harris and others, I am not arguing whether or not it is fair to cut the healthcare benefits. You are absolutely correct, UC can do whatever they want, to EVERYONE, equally. It is not fair that I have 10 years of service credit, but because of my age, will now get the same healthcare benefits at 65 instead of 50, while someone with 5 years of service credit did not just lose 15 years of benefits, all because this new ‘grandfather’ policy employs ageism. Besides being immoral, I believe it is also illegal according to our constitution.

The laws prohibit discriminatory practices in “hiring, promotions, assignments, termination, or any term, condition or privilege of employment.” Granted this law only applies to 40+ age, but its still the case for people 40 with 9 years of service credit being denied coverage when someone 45 with 5 years of service credit will be grandfathered in. Anyone know big law firms with deep pockets willing to stand up for people?