The Future of UC Retirement Benefits

“create an account” with upstream doesn’t respond…i fill it out, then hit “create and account” and nothing happens.

Please be sure to check the box just above ‘create an account’ that asks if you agree to the terms of use and privacy policy. Unless you check that box, UStream will not create the account. Hope that helps. Please let us know if you continue to run into problems setting up your account.

How long will the Webinar be?

Will the buyout still be available for those approaching retirement in the coming year?

Has UCOP officially responded to the dissenting statement by the staff and senate members? It seems to me that, in the absence of a serious engagement with the report and its proposal, this is very much something that is being imposed “from above” and will most certainly set us on the path to mediocrity since many are already jumping ship.

What did the task force recommend for the management retirement program?

Has UCOP officially responded to the dissenting statement by the staff and senate members?

Why is there no representative from the minority report on the panel?

Please will someone from UCOP or UCRP have an emailed announcement sent out re. the town hall date/time change? It was sheer luck that I noticed it in the Berkeleyan, that I usually don’t have time to read. People have busy schedules, the more (direct) notice, the better.

Please will someone from UCRP arrange to have the date/time change of the web town hall meeting emailed out systemwide? Going to be a lot of annoyed, busy people who didn’t happen to leaf through the online Berkeleyan otherwise.

Both the dissenting statement and a response from several UC administrators is posted on this website, under the Task Force Information tab. Click on Task Force Report, and you will see a list of items, including the dissenting statement and a response to it.

With the risk of sounding déclassé, I have to say this “event” is bound to be a load of baloney.

What is being done to restore social security benefits rightfully earned that were “take aways” due to the preceived “double dipping”?

Since the UCOP standard is Explorer 7 it seems that OP employees are discouraged from trying to interactively participate in the discussion on Friday.

The UCOP standard is Explorer 7 – it seems that requirements to use Explorer 8 eliminates OP employees from interactively participating in the discussion.

Please attempt to create an account first, we believe we have resolved the IE7 issue with UStream. We want as many people as possible to have the opportunity to participate.

Is social security going to be there when I retire?

Is this where we submit a question for tomorrow?
Are we required to submit questions in advance?

Is there any chance of pay raises in 2010. If so, how much? Thanks.

Is there any change to the retirement calculation chart(years of service, age = x%)? If so, when would a new chart take effect? How would the new chart affect current employees real close to retirement(those employees currently over 55)?

Will there be a recorded record of the town hall so those of us who cannot get away can hear the information?

I was going to create an “ustream” account when I noticed that the sign-up website doesn’t have “https://” (secure/encripted protocol).. Is this same to do then when it’s going accross the internet? I’ll create an account but probably a generic one just to see the town hall meeting.

I see I’m asked to “Please be respectful” when I leave a comment.
I request that Mark Yudof, Nathan Brostrom, Peter Taylor Dwaine Duckett, Lawrence Pitts and the UC Regents, including Richard Blum and Arnold Schwarzenegger “Please be respectful” to low-income UC workers and refrain from handing us a de facto salary cut by increasing our retirement “contributions.” We’re already hurting.

When was the last time you were anxious about where your child’s next meal was coming from?

I request that Mark Yudof, Nathan Brostrom, Peter Taylor Dwaine Duckett, Lawrence Pitts and the UC Regents, including Richard Blum and Arnold Schwarzenegger “Please be respectful” to low-income UC workers and refrain from handing us a de facto salary cut by increasing our retirement “contributions.” We’re already hurting.

When was the last time you were anxious about where your child’s next meal was coming from?

Where do we submit questions? I registered on ustream.tv, but http://www.ustream.tv/ucevents website doesn’t have a place to submit questions.

I think the town hall meeting should have been presented in three sections/sessions. The first for current employees, the second for retires, and the last regarding new hires.

During the 9/24/10 UCOP web cast, Dwaine Duckett, VP of HR, was very clear in stating that the eventual minimum contribution that will be required of employees who wished to stay in the current UCRP structure would NOT be capped in any way, and that the anticipated minimum contribution would be 7%. While many current employees will opt to manage that 7% reduction in take home pay to be able to stay with the current UCRP structure, consider how you will respond if UCOP/UC Regents raises that number to 12%, 18%, 27%, 42%. At some point, we will have no option by to move over to one of the tiered systems, forfeiting retirement benefits that many of us have already earned by virtue of our years of service. I suspect that this is the UCOP plan – to raise that mandatory contribution rate until sufficient numbers of now-current employees “voluntarily” switch over to the tiered system. Such a tactic is probably legally defensible, and hence considered viable by UCOP. Before the Regents vote on this, a firm cap – even if it’s 15 or 20%, needs to be set. By insisting that UCOP set a cap on employee contributions, we’ll force the abandonment of this underhanded plan, and have the current ambiguity replaced by an honest and forthright assessment/acknowledgment of what sacrifice will really be required to keep our retirement plan viable.

While I find the concurrent announcement that the highest paid UC employees will be getting a substantial addition to their personal retirement benefit as reprehensible and offensive as anyone else among us, the UCOP leadership would be wise to publicly quantify the actual percentage of our new mandatory contribution which is necessary to support this added liability to the UCRP. It is probably actually quite small. I think we’d be better served – as a group of low/moderate income UC employees – to focus on insisting that a cap be placed on the mandatory contribution level that we will be facing in the future.

We in the university system have been getting along for quite a while, and see this as a cut in pay, any of us who have been here long enough will rember making payments into the retirement system. These funds didn’t magically appear, they were paid for by us old timmers and when the economy was in better shape, we were able to stop making these payments. This isn’t a new thing, and hopefully the times are getting better!

All of the Task Force recommendations involve increased cost and/or reduced benefits for employees, with one glaring exception. As I understand it, the Task Force recommends increasing the maximum salary on which guaranteed UCRS benefits are calculated for a small (about 250 employees) but rapidly growing cohort of highest compensated employees from $245,000 to $360,000 (an IRS rule). Such employees are apparently currently reimbursed for such “overage” from “non-qualified” University funds, but not from the underfunded UCRS and perhaps without any guarantee of continuation. (See recommendations 10 & 11 on p. 16 of the Executive Summary – emanating directly from the Steering Committee directly, and not from any of its work groups (!); and explained in some detail on p.31.) There is a “fairness” rationale for making this change that is not entirely off-the-wall (employees hired before July 1, 1994 are covered by the higher federal limit), but which falls on its face when one recognizes that the same steering committee proposes “unfairly” offering employees hired after July 1, 2113 a completely different set of pension benefits from current employees — in effect creating an invidious situation exactly parallel to the one their recommendations would “cure”. In any event, this is certainly not the time to increase guaranteed retirement/health benefits for anyone, let alone the 250 or so highest paid employees of the University, while simultaneously cutting them for everyone else. Gentlemen, have you no shame?

During the onsite visits over the last year, and idea has been mentioned by panelists which they have called the Doctrine of Vesting. This appears to refer to the notion that benefits earned will not, or even cannot, be taken away. Problem is, the Doctrine is not able to be found anywhere in printed form, either as part of the formal basis for UCRS or even just as a concept explained. Could you please put this Doctrine of Vesting on the record?

Is there a recorded version of this event somewhere online?

———-
Blueprint Project Black Edition

I tried to watch this online when it first came out. But I couldn’t register at http://www.ustream.tv/login-signup for some reason. Is there a streamed version I can watched online?
______________
ulysse nardin

At some point, we will have no option by to move over to one of the tiered systems, forfeiting retirement benefits that many of us have already earned by virtue of our years of service. I suspect that this is the UCOP plan – to raise that mandatory contribution rate until sufficient numbers of now-current employees “voluntarily” switch over to the tiered system. Such a tactic is probably legally defensible, and hence considered viable by UCOP. ipad 2 keyboard

I don’t think it has too much benefits. All depends on the conditions.

I also needed a recorded version. Anyone has ideas where we can find it online?

—————-

ipad 2 dock

I request that Mark Yudof, Nathan Brostrom, Peter Taylor Dwaine Duckett, Lawrence Pitts and the UC Regents, including Richard Blum and Arnold Schwarzenegger “Please be respectful” to low-income UC workers and refrain from handing us a de facto salary cut by increasing our retirement “contributions.” We’re already hurting.

I tried to watch this online when it first came out. But I couldn’t register at http://www.ustream.tv/login-signup for some reason. Is there a streamed version I can watched online?
______________
ulysse nardin

Here is a link to the recording of the town hall: http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/9789931