A horrible mistake is being made by We Are One, IEA, IFT, etc.
Everyone wants to seem reasonable and present a reasonable public image. The danger is in offering what seems reasonable while the offer itself has unintended disastrous consequences.
4. With a guarantee that the state would pay its portion, the members who are reliant on the pension systems for their retirement security, would offer to help the state by paying more even though they have contributed their portion over the years. (This increase may differ for the various pension plans.)
This is a successful, common, legal trap used by lawyers for over a decade. Once a retiree accepts a different pension plan, no matter how minor the change, the one providing the pension is legally recognized as having the right to alter the new pension plan in any way it deems necessary. All past plans are null and void. Courts have decided on this repeatedly.
Even offering to have retirees pay more could be used in court to prove the desire of retirees to have a new pension agreement due to what they themselves deem an excessive financial claim.
The full explanation and legal references are available for your reading in Retirement Heist by Ellen E. Schultz.
Excerpt from page 170: To enhance their chances of success… (employers) started to use a strategy outlined by (various) managers: creeping take-aways. This involves taking small steps – increase premiums a small amount, or perhaps start changing premiums in the future… Then, a few years later, the (employer) cuts benefits in a big way, saying the retirees’ prior lack of legal action signaled tacit agreement that the (employer) could change the plan.
PLEASE LET THOSE WHO NEGOTIATE KNOW THE HISTORY OF THIS SUCCESSFUL PENSION DESTROYING TACTIC. PLEASE PASS THIS ON.
– Ken Previti