Dear GGU Member,
Senate Bill 141 was defeated by the State House last night, but will come up again for reconsideration--maybe TODAY.
Here's how the House voted.
-----
Democrats -- Berkowitz, N; Cissna, N; Crawford, N; Croft, N; Foster, Y; Gara, N; Gardner, N; Gruenberg, N; Guttenberg, N; Joule, N; Kapsner, N; Kerttula N; Moses, Y; Salmon, N.
Republicans -- Anderson, N; Chenault, Y; Coghill, Y; Dahlstrom, N; Elkins, N; Gatto, N; Harris, N; Hawker, N; Holm, Y; Kelly, Y; Kohring, Y; Kott, N; LeDoux, N; Lynn, N; McGuire, Y; Meyer, Y; Neuman, Y; Olson, Y; Ramras, Y; Rokeberg, N; Samuels, Y; Seaton, Y; Thomas, Y; Stoltze, Y; Weyhrauch, N; Wilson, Y.
-----
If your Representative voted NO, please thank and urge him or her to CONTINUE TO VOTE NO on SB 141.
If your Representative voted YES, please urge him or her to VOTE NO on SB 141.
Contact your Representative via email by clicking on the link below.
http://www.afscmelocal52.org/pac/pom/sb141
Read the detailed description of SB 141 by clicking on the link below.
http://www.afscmelocal52.org/sb141
Time is short and the consequences are great.
Jim Duncan
Business Manager
-----
Talking Points for opposing SB 141
1) Independent study suggests that PERS funding is among the top third of all public employee retirement systems in the country. The need for drastic change is overstated and there is still time to craft a better solution.
2) Without competitive benefits, state service will be a revolving door and a lost investment in employees whose skills qualify them to work in the better paying private sector.
3) State employee/Teacher recruitment and retention of qualified individuals will become almost impossible in parts of Alaska where retirement benefits make the difference between coming and going.
4) Committed and career-minded Tier IV state employees risk the chance of outliving the benefits of a defined contribution plan.
5) Employees may tap their individual account for some or all of the accumulated benefit and be left with nothing for retirement.
6) The additional administrative cost of managing thousands of individual retirement accounts instead of one retirement plan is underestimated and reduces the perceived savings of switching to a defined contribution retirement system.
7) Paying for additional benefit products for state employees (life insurance, disability insurance, annuities) to compensate for shortcomings in SB 141 reduces the perceived savings of switching to a defined contribution retirement system.
8) PERS/TRS is not broken. PERS/TRS board recommendations haven’t been seriously considered. Many public employee and teachers associations have volunteered to improve the current retirement system.
