Public Employees’ Retirement System: contracting agencies: exclusion from membership.
By prohibiting the ability of public agencies to exclude certain groups of employees from PERS through contract amendments, AB 2967 solidifies the framework under which employees attain retirement benefits. This legislative change would have significant implications for a range of public sector workers, ensuring that both newly hired and existing employees are uniformly granted access to retirement benefits designed under PERL. The bill specifies that these provisions apply to contracts that are entered into, amended, or extended on or after January 1, 2021, thereby putting an immediate impact on municipal and local governmental practices concerning retirement inclusivity.
Assembly Bill 2967, introduced by O'Donnell, seeks to amend the Public Employees Retirement Law (PERL) by addressing how public agencies manage employee membership in the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS). This bill specifically targets the exclusions that public agencies can apply to their employees with respect to PERS membership. The proposed changes aim to ensure that if a public agency opts to include its employees in PERS, it cannot selectively exclude groups of employees from membership based on contract amendments, except under specified circumstances. This measure aims to reinforce the concept that participation in PERS should be compulsory for all employees covered by a contract.
The sentiment surrounding AB 2967 appears to be overwhelmingly supportive, as it is seen as a necessary adjustment to reinforce the benefits eligibility of public employees across the board. Stakeholders, including labor groups and employee advocacy organizations, likely perceive this bill as a safeguard against practices that could lead to inequities in retirement benefits. Conversely, some opposition may arise from fiscal conservatives who argue that expanding PERS membership could lead to increased costs for public agencies.
Some notable points of contention involve discussions on fiscal implications for public agencies, including potential budgetary constraints and the obligations associated with providing defined benefits to all employees. Detractors from the bill might raise concerns about the rigidity of such mandates, emphasizing a need for flexibility in managing employee contracts. Overall, the proposed amendments could shift the dynamics of how public agencies approach retirement systems, raising questions regarding future funding and administrative challenges.