If you are skeptical, then I suggest you follow the various references to the statutes being amended and already in place and tied to the bill, and also to the various Oregon Administrative rules promulgated and approved in the wake of SB 1049. There is NOTHING sinister about this bill. It is primarily to make employERS aware of the circumstances under which the SB 1049 statutes apply, and why.
Tuesday, January 26, 2021
Stay For Free
There has been some discussion on the inter webs about the recently introduced SB 111 in the 2021 session of the Oregon Legislature. People have been misinterpreting this bill, who it applies to (and doesn't), and what its purpose is. I'm not going to even try to explain the bill because it doesn't need anyone's attention. The bill, introduced on behalf of PERS itself, is nothing more than a "housecleaning" bill, designed to clarify and more fully enunciate the applicability of the special circumstances passed in 2019 (SB 1049) that allows certain retirees to return to work without hourly limitations between 2020 and 2024. This bill does NOT affect anyone already retired and still working; it is effective after it passes the legislature and ONLY applies to a very tiny subset of workers who take "early retirement" (i.e. before the earliest date they can receive unreduced benefits from PERS - 58 for Tier 1, 60 for Tier 2, 65 for OPSRP, or 30+ years of service regardless of age, plus the P&F different full retirement ages.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
The bill more concerning is SB446 (Knopp strikes again).
While concerning, this bill is the same as bills introduced by Knopp and friends in 2017 and 2019. The previous analyses of similar bills have shown that the savings to employers are nominal. I’m more concerned by the intervention language related to the litigation of the bill than the language of the bill itself.
Speaking of 2021 legislative bills, as someone who seems precient in understanding the leg's intention, what do you make of HB2875 to ask PERB to study the retirement system and report to leg committee by Sept, 2022? Is this "study" intended to provide a basis for the next significant PERS modifications in the 2023 session? Any thoughts are appreciated
HB 2875 is so vague as to defy intent. It literally provides no suggestions as to “what” to study, “why” the system needs studying, and “what” the findings might be used for. In fact, PERS’ own internal studies always give the agency high marks for transparency, and for paying retirees the right amount at the right time. To me, this is like a kindergartner asking for a study of why the sky is blue. Unless this bill is fleshed out with more intent, I expect it to die a quick death.
Post a Comment