Should Public Sector Felons Convicted of Job-Related Felonies Still Get Pensions? (Los Angeles: insurance, crime)

[SportyandMisty]

Should Public Sector Felons Convicted of Job-Related Felonies Still Get Pensions?

Contra Costa Fire Capt. Jon Wilmot stole hundreds of items from county firehouses, everything from tools and toilet paper to binoculars and chain saws.

Los Angeles County Fire Capt. Tod Hipsher while on duty ran an illegal bookmaking operation and directed the physical intimidation of clients who failed to pay their gambling debts.

Wilmot and Hipsher, who worked, respectively, for 27 and more than 30 years, each pleaded guilty to felonies. The question now is whether they can keep their full pensions.

Their cases provide the first legal tests of a controversial provision in Gov. Jerry Brown’s 2012 statewide pension changes. Under the law, workers convicted of job-related felonies lose pension benefits from the time they start committing their crimes.

Borenstein: Should felons keep their full public pensions?

[Finper]

Very interesting.... Why are they not in jail?? prop 47 perhaps?? Can't wait to see how this turn out..

[shooting4life]

They should, you wouldn't take someone's 401k away if they committed a felony. You can fine the person as part of their crime and they will have to pay said fine, but you cannot strip away an earned benefit. Same as how your social security benefits continue on while you are in jail. Your spouse of children will still receive them and when you are rewarded you still get to collect.

[MakeCaliforniaGreatAgain]

Absolutely not! Only Californians would even consider something so ridiculous.

[DriveNotCommute]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

They should, you wouldn't take someone's 401k away if they committed a felony. You can fine the person as part of their crime and they will have to pay said fine, but you cannot strip away an earned benefit. Same as how your social security benefits continue on while you are in jail. Your spouse of children will still receive them and when you are rewarded you still get to collect.

I think this is a very good point that people should seriously consider.

After thinking about it a while, I would ask isn't it true that people working in a position as a public servant are in a unique role of having a large amount of trust placed on them? They are therefore subject to a higher standard. Many public positions are positions of access and power requiring greater responsibility than a private position would. Hence proportionally harsher punishment would be justified.

In our case, OP's article states that they only lose the benefits starting from the point they began committing their crimes anyway. So these people are still going to get the benefits that they earned while still delivering (presumably) honest work, they don't lose it all.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by DriveNotCommute

I think this is a very good point that people should seriously consider.

After thinking about it a while, I would ask isn't it true that people working in a position as a public servant are in a unique role of having a large amount of trust placed on them? They are therefore subject to a higher standard. Many public positions are positions of access and power requiring greater responsibility than a private position would. Hence proportionally harsher punishment would be justified.

In our case, OP's article states that they only lose the benefits starting from the point they began committing their crimes anyway. So these people are still going to get the benefits that they earned while still delivering (presumably) honest work, they don't lose it all.

The vast majority of government work doesn't have a large amount of trust placed in them.



Confiscated earned benefit is not right. Just like if you caught someone stealing money from the cash drawer you still have to pay them their full pay check up until they have been discharged. Same as if someone does a VTO program at work but doesn't work the full year while taking all the time off. They would be required to pay back the time they used but the employer cannot hold funds from last pay check.

[Curmudgeon]

As a state retiree I believe their contributions to the pension fund should be returned but not a penny more nor any medical or other benefits. That should be the cost of betraying the public trust!

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

As a state retiree I believe their contributions to the pension fund should be returned but not a penny more nor any medical or other benefits. That should be the cost of betraying the public trust!

That is a good idea. They should not be paid by those they betrayed. Yes the family my suffer, but it his fault. Just like a drunk driver in an accident will not be covered by his insurance and his family will suffer. Choices have repercussions.

Other such employees hearing about that would hopefully think twice.

[LuvSouthOC]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

As a state retiree I believe their contributions to the pension fund should be returned but not a penny more nor any medical or other benefits. That should be the cost of betraying the public trust!

I tend to agree with this. However, how can this be done retroactively? Ok, for new employees, yes.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

I tend to agree with this. However, how can this be done retroactively? Ok, for new employees, yes.

It would have to be written into the union contracts with the state, counties and municipalities as well as in the CalPERS and CalSTRS policies. It would only apply going forward.