| Posted By |
Message |
stinger
LIF Adult
Member since 11/11 4971 total posts
Name:
|
Constitutional Convention
If i am only seeing people saying vote no why is this even an issue?
|
Posted 10/8/17 8:31 PM  |
| |
|
Long Island Weddings
Long Island's Largest Bridal Resource |
|
|
Constitutional Convention
If you don’t vote, on the ballot your no vote is counted as an automatic yes and the pensions of mta and cops are at steak (extra in the funds) for improvements that are already built into your taxes.
|
| Posted 10/8/17 8:49 PM |
| |
|
Pumpkin1
LIF Adult
Member since 12/05 3715 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Constitutional Convention
This "vote no" campaign is run by the municipal unions to raise awareness and, unfortunately, spread their narritive about the effects of a potential constitutional convention. A lot of it is speculative and, quite frankly, probably not true.
|
| Posted 10/8/17 9:07 PM |
| |
|
Jacksmommy
My love muffin!
Member since 1/07 5819 total posts
Name:
Liz
|
Re: Constitutional Convention
I would like to respond to both the above posters. First, it is NOT true that if you don't vote no,it is an automatic yes! However, to reopen the constitution would cost the taxpayers an exorbitant amount of money. It is not cost effective to do so.
|
| Posted 10/9/17 5:22 AM |
| |
|
evrythng4areason
And then there were 4
Member since 1/10 5224 total posts
Name:
Kayla
|
Constitutional Convention
Could someone fully explain to me what this is all about? It's difficult to google bc of the name.
|
| Posted 10/9/17 7:32 AM |
| |
|
ali120206
2 Boys
Member since 7/06 17795 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Constitutional Convention
Posted by TwinMommyToBoys
If you don’t vote, on the ballot your no vote is counted as an automatic yes and the pensions of mta and cops are at steak (extra in the funds) for improvements that are already built into your taxes.
That isn't true - it's not counted as an automatic yes but, it isn't counted as a no either.
All government employees pensions are at stake if the convention is approved, not just MTA and cops (firemen, teachers, etc).
Basically - if it is approve, we are going to appoint (and our taxes are going to pay for) people to review the constitution and make changes. The constitutional convention comes up for a vote every 20 years (this was interesting to me since I thought it was requested).
This website kind of summarizes why it's not wanted in the easiest to read format (from what I've found).
link
|
| Posted 10/9/17 8:00 AM |
| |
|
mommy2be716
LIF Adult
Member since 1/16 2921 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Constitutional Convention
Posted by ali120206
Posted by TwinMommyToBoys
If you don’t vote, on the ballot your no vote is counted as an automatic yes and the pensions of mta and cops are at steak (extra in the funds) for improvements that are already built into your taxes.
That isn't true - it's not counted as an automatic yes but, it isn't counted as a no either.
All government employees pensions are at stake if the convention is approved, not just MTA and cops (firemen, teachers, etc).
Basically - if it is approve, we are going to appoint (and our taxes are going to pay for) people to review the constitution and make changes. The constitutional convention comes up for a vote every 20 years (this was interesting to me since I thought it was requested).
This website kind of summarizes why it's not wanted in the easiest to read format (from what I've found).
link
this. If I knew my pension would be taken away from me, I would have chosen a career that would have paid alot more than my teacher salary.
|
| Posted 10/9/17 9:51 AM |
| |
|
muffaboo
LIF Adult
Member since 12/10 3797 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Constitutional Convention
It's not just about pensions of union workers. It's workmen's comp, right to free public education, environmental protections, judicial election procedures, etc.
Oh, and it would cost taxpayers millions and millions of dollars. I've been told HUNDREDS of millions, based on the last constitutional convention in 1967 that cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars.
|
| Posted 10/9/17 10:07 AM |
| |
|
MC09
arrrghhh!!!!
Member since 2/09 5674 total posts
Name:
Me speaks pirate!
|
Re: Constitutional Convention
How can they just take people's pensions away? I mean if you've been contributing to your pension how can they just take it away?
|
| Posted 10/9/17 10:28 AM |
| |
|
NervousNell
Just another chapter in life..
Member since 11/09 54921 total posts
Name:
..being a mommy and being a wife!
|
Re: Constitutional Convention
Posted by MC09
How can they just take people's pensions away? I mean if you've been contributing to your pension how can they just take it away?
That's my question too. And if you took a job 20 years ago with the agreement it would have a pension of X amount after X number of years, how can they just say- yeah forget it, we'll take it now.
I don't fully understand that either.
I feel like there must be more to it.
|
| Posted 10/9/17 10:36 AM |
| |
|
MC09
arrrghhh!!!!
Member since 2/09 5674 total posts
Name:
Me speaks pirate!
|
Re: Constitutional Convention
Posted by NervousNell
Posted by MC09
How can they just take people's pensions away? I mean if you've been contributing to your pension how can they just take it away?
That's my question too. And if you took a job 20 years ago with the agreement it would have a pension of X amount after X number of years, how can they just say- yeah forget it, we'll take it now.
I don't fully understand that either.
I feel like there must be more to it.
Exactly. How does that even happen? And how would it effect past and future pensioned employees? So strange that this would even be up for a vote.
And why would people even want to vote yes? I'd say there's nothing to worry about but after what we've recently experienced I'd say anything is possible.
|
| Posted 10/9/17 10:49 AM |
| |
|
GoldenRod
10 years on LIF!
Member since 11/06 26792 total posts
Name:
Shawn
|
Re: Constitutional Convention
Posted by NervousNell
Posted by MC09
How can they just take people's pensions away? I mean if you've been contributing to your pension how can they just take it away?
That's my question too. And if you took a job 20 years ago with the agreement it would have a pension of X amount after X number of years, how can they just say- yeah forget it, we'll take it now.
I don't fully understand that either.
I feel like there must be more to it.
I don't work for a government agency, so I'm not sure if it's different, but my company stopped our pensions several years ago. They just stopped the accrual process, and locked us into a fixed value.
Pensions increase in value based on time served, and most pensions pay out as long as the employee is alive. For us, we lost all of those benefits.
|
| Posted 10/9/17 10:51 AM |
| |
|
LuckyStar
LIF Adult
Member since 7/14 7274 total posts
Name:
|
Constitutional Convention
If a convention is held it doesn't mean anyone is losing their pension. It means it can potentially be voted on to make changes to pensions.....and a million other things, good and bad.
There is a lot of good that can come of a convention, too and a lot of people are for it. I would definitely read up on it if you're interested and would veer away from biased sources like the CSEA website posted above.
|
| Posted 10/9/17 11:17 AM |
| |
|
LuckyStar
LIF Adult
Member since 7/14 7274 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Constitutional Convention
Posted by MC09
Posted by NervousNell
Posted by MC09
How can they just take people's pensions away? I mean if you've been contributing to your pension how can they just take it away?
That's my question too. And if you took a job 20 years ago with the agreement it would have a pension of X amount after X number of years, how can they just say- yeah forget it, we'll take it now.
I don't fully understand that either.
I feel like there must be more to it.
Exactly. How does that even happen? And how would it effect past and future pensioned employees? So strange that this would even be up for a vote.
And why would people even want to vote yes? I'd say there's nothing to worry about but after what we've recently experienced I'd say anything is possible.
For those who are voting no, I think there's a lot to worry about. You don't see it on LI because it's largely conservative, public employees who live here. It's a different story in the city and other parts of the state. Polls are showing there are more people for it than against it.
|
| Posted 10/9/17 11:22 AM |
| |
|
GoldenRod
10 years on LIF!
Member since 11/06 26792 total posts
Name:
Shawn
|
Re: Constitutional Convention
http://www.rockinst.org/observations/galie/2017-08-09_galie.aspx
...
A Convention Could Not Reduce the Pensions of Current Employees and Retirees
The most irresponsible assertion being perpetrated by convention opponents is that the pensions of existing and retired public employees could “vanish” if a constitutional convention were to be held. This is patently false. Existing public employee and retiree pensions are protected by both federal and state law.
The U.S. Constitution has a provision known as the Contract Clause, which prohibits states from doing precisely what is feared — retroactively changing the terms of existing contracts. It provides:
No State shall ... make any ... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.
Ever since the Constitutional Convention of 1938 made public pensions contractual, the rights of each public employee have vested on the date he or she entered the system, and any impairment of those rights through elimination of pension, reduction of benefits, or unfavorable changes in the way cost of living adjustments are calculated would violate the U.S. Constitution.
Other states with similar constitutional provisions that have attempted to change the existing terms of their public employee pension programs through legislation have been routinely rebuffed by courts applying the Contract Clause. A 2013 Illinois statute that halted automatic cost of living increases for retirees, raised the retirement age for current employees, and capped the salary used in determining benefit amounts was held unconstitutional by a unanimous Illinois Supreme Court. Multiple Arizona laws adopted in 2011 that increased employee contribution rates for existing employees and altered the formula for calculating cost of living adjustments were found unconstitutional by a series of different courts.
In addition to violating the Contract Clause of the national Constitution, any attempt by a constitutional convention to retroactively reduce benefits to retirees or to adjust accrued benefits to current employees would almost certainly run afoul of the state constitution — either the due process clause, the takings clause, or the pension provision in effect when every current and retired public employee entered the system. Even if a convention were inclined to eliminate the nonimpairment provision of the state constitution, such a change would apply only to employees hired after the effective date of the change; it could not bind existing employees whose rights already have been fixed.
...
|
| Posted 10/9/17 11:32 AM |
| |
|
GoldenRod
10 years on LIF!
Member since 11/06 26792 total posts
Name:
Shawn
|
Re: Constitutional Convention
I think the biggest issue is that trust in politicians is at an all-time low, and everyone assumes that all politicians are only in it to help themselves, and harm the middle class.
With this mindset, the voters (perceived) options are 1) Keep everything as-is, and at least we won't lose anything 2) Vote yes, and lose a lot of what we currently have.
There needs to be trust in the government to expect them to make the NY Constitution better for the average person.
|
| Posted 10/9/17 11:37 AM |
| |
|
Jacksmommy
My love muffin!
Member since 1/07 5819 total posts
Name:
Liz
|
Re: Constitutional Convention
Changes can be made via amendments. It's been don't over 200 times since 1957 which was the last convention. No need for an entire. Convention.
|
| Posted 10/9/17 11:43 AM |
| |
|
|
|
Re: Constitutional Convention
Posted by GoldenRod
http://www.rockinst.org/observations/galie/2017-08-09_galie.aspx
...
A Convention Could Not Reduce the Pensions of Current Employees and Retirees
The most irresponsible assertion being perpetrated by convention opponents is that the pensions of existing and retired public employees could “vanish” if a constitutional convention were to be held. This is patently false. Existing public employee and retiree pensions are protected by both federal and state law.
The U.S. Constitution has a provision known as the Contract Clause, which prohibits states from doing precisely what is feared — retroactively changing the terms of existing contracts. It provides:
No State shall ... make any ... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.
Ever since the Constitutional Convention of 1938 made public pensions contractual, the rights of each public employee have vested on the date he or she entered the system, and any impairment of those rights through elimination of pension, reduction of benefits, or unfavorable changes in the way cost of living adjustments are calculated would violate the U.S. Constitution.
Other states with similar constitutional provisions that have attempted to change the existing terms of their public employee pension programs through legislation have been routinely rebuffed by courts applying the Contract Clause. A 2013 Illinois statute that halted automatic cost of living increases for retirees, raised the retirement age for current employees, and capped the salary used in determining benefit amounts was held unconstitutional by a unanimous Illinois Supreme Court. Multiple Arizona laws adopted in 2011 that increased employee contribution rates for existing employees and altered the formula for calculating cost of living adjustments were found unconstitutional by a series of different courts.
In addition to violating the Contract Clause of the national Constitution, any attempt by a constitutional convention to retroactively reduce benefits to retirees or to adjust accrued benefits to current employees would almost certainly run afoul of the state constitution — either the due process clause, the takings clause, or the pension provision in effect when every current and retired public employee entered the system. Even if a convention were inclined to eliminate the nonimpairment provision of the state constitution, such a change would apply only to employees hired after the effective date of the change; it could not bind existing employees whose rights already have been fixed.
...
Thank you for sharing this. It amazes me how people just run with false information. i plan to vote YES for the change because there are more positives than negatives. The changes will help spur NY courts into the modern era (there are so many ridiculous rules right now that dont make sense in terms of how we litigate cases in 2017) plus allow NY to implement new politices designed to get oir state back on track with modern infrastructure changes, climate/environmental regulations and so on. Overall, I feel its way overdue.
|
| Posted 10/9/17 11:56 AM |
| |
|
abcdefghi
LIF Adolescent
Member since 5/13 685 total posts
Name:
|
Constitutional Convention
Can teachers lose their pensions? how does it affect them?
Message edited 10/9/2017 2:30:19 PM.
|
| Posted 10/9/17 2:30 PM |
| |
|
|
|
Re: Constitutional Convention
Posted by abcdefghi
Can teachers lose their pensions? how does it affect them?
No effect because the NYS Constitution doesnt afford them a right to pensions in the 1st place.
See below:
Collective bargaining. Many people would be surprised to learn that collective bargaining on the part of public-sector employees is not even guaranteed by the state constitution. That’s correct: although the state constitution protects the rights of employees to organize and collectively bargain, it contains no reciprocal obligation on the part of government employers to negotiate with worker organizations. Rather, collective bargaining for public employees is protected only by the Taylor Law, a legislative enactment that could be undone through the legislative process (single passage by a majority of both houses and approval by the governor). So in the case of collective bargaining, there is not even a constitutional right to take away.[1]
Pension benefits. The New York constitution makes public employee pension benefits contractual and protects them from impairment. In treating pensions as contracts between the state and the employee, as opposed to matters of legislative grace, New York’s position on this matter resembles six other states.[2] Unlike some states that only protect accrued benefits, New York’s provision protects both accrued and future benefits.
The most irresponsible assertion being perpetrated by convention opponents is that the pensions of existing and retired public employees could “vanish” if a constitutional convention were to be held. This is patently false. Existing public employee and retiree pensions are protected by both federal and state law.
http://www.rockinst.org/observations/galie/2017-08-09_galie.aspx
Message edited 10/9/2017 5:08:24 PM.
|
| Posted 10/9/17 5:01 PM |
| |
|
ali120206
2 Boys
Member since 7/06 17795 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Constitutional Convention
Posted by EclecticEsq10810
Posted by abcdefghi
Can teachers lose their pensions? how does it affect them?
No effect because the NYS Constitution doesnt afford them a right to pensions in the 1st place.
See below:
Collective bargaining. Many people would be surprised to learn that collective bargaining on the part of public-sector employees is not even guaranteed by the state constitution. That’s correct: although the state constitution protects the rights of employees to organize and collectively bargain, it contains no reciprocal obligation on the part of government employers to negotiate with worker organizations. Rather, collective bargaining for public employees is protected only by the Taylor Law, a legislative enactment that could be undone through the legislative process (single passage by a majority of both houses and approval by the governor). So in the case of collective bargaining, there is not even a constitutional right to take away.[1]
Pension benefits. The New York constitution makes public employee pension benefits contractual and protects them from impairment. In treating pensions as contracts between the state and the employee, as opposed to matters of legislative grace, New York’s position on this matter resembles six other states.[2] Unlike some states that only protect accrued benefits, New York’s provision protects both accrued and future benefits.
The most irresponsible assertion being perpetrated by convention opponents is that the pensions of existing and retired public employees could “vanish” if a constitutional convention were to be held. This is patently false. Existing public employee and retiree pensions are protected by both federal and state law.
http://www.rockinst.org/observations/galie/2017-08-09_galie.aspx
But that provision could go away if the constitutional convention is approved - since the constitution could be changed...
It also could impact civil service protections.
|
| Posted 10/9/17 5:11 PM |
| |
|
|
|
Re: Constitutional Convention
Posted by ali120206
Posted by EclecticEsq10810
Posted by abcdefghi
Can teachers lose their pensions? how does it affect them?
No effect because the NYS Constitution doesnt afford them a right to pensions in the 1st place.
See below:
Collective bargaining. Many people would be surprised to learn that collective bargaining on the part of public-sector employees is not even guaranteed by the state constitution. That’s correct: although the state constitution protects the rights of employees to organize and collectively bargain, it contains no reciprocal obligation on the part of government employers to negotiate with worker organizations. Rather, collective bargaining for public employees is protected only by the Taylor Law, a legislative enactment that could be undone through the legislative process (single passage by a majority of both houses and approval by the governor). So in the case of collective bargaining, there is not even a constitutional right to take away.[1]
Pension benefits. The New York constitution makes public employee pension benefits contractual and protects them from impairment. In treating pensions as contracts between the state and the employee, as opposed to matters of legislative grace, New York’s position on this matter resembles six other states.[2] Unlike some states that only protect accrued benefits, New York’s provision protects both accrued and future benefits.
The most irresponsible assertion being perpetrated by convention opponents is that the pensions of existing and retired public employees could “vanish” if a constitutional convention were to be held. This is patently false. Existing public employee and retiree pensions are protected by both federal and state law.
http://www.rockinst.org/observations/galie/2017-08-09_galie.aspx
But that provision could go away if the constitutional convention is approved - since the constitution could be changed...
It also could impact civil service protections.
Read the whole article please. Your fears are baseless. Revocation of any benefits of Union membership would be unconstitutional under Federal law and would be political suicide for any politician that would attempt to even try.
|
| Posted 10/9/17 5:14 PM |
| |
|
BabySurprise
LIF Adolescent
Member since 9/13 556 total posts
Name:
Me
|
Re: Constitutional Convention
Posted by abcdefghi
Can teachers lose their pensions? how does it affect them?
We are being told that we can lose our pensions. Even retired people could lose the pensions they draw now! Police, fire, all public workers could lose them.
|
| Posted 10/9/17 5:18 PM |
| |
|
Pumpkin1
LIF Adult
Member since 12/05 3715 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Constitutional Convention
Posted by BabySurprise
Posted by abcdefghi
Can teachers lose their pensions? how does it affect them?
We are being told that we can lose our pensions. Even retired people could lose the pensions they draw now! Police, fire, all public workers could lose them.
Why not ask your union for support for this conclusion?
|
| Posted 10/9/17 5:32 PM |
| |
|
CookiePuss
Cake from Outer Space!
Member since 5/05 14021 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Constitutional Convention
Posted by Pumpkin1
This "vote no" campaign is run by the municipal unions to raise awareness and, unfortunately, spread their narritive about the effects of a potential constitutional convention. A lot of it is speculative and, quite frankly, probably not true.
This...it's really important to go and read about it and look at as much information as you can.
|
| Posted 10/10/17 9:52 AM |
| |
|
