Pension change advocates and labor leaders agree there has been a perfect storm to make pensions an unlikely topic of water cooler conversation. The average citizen has seen the value of his or her own 401(k) sink during the recession, while learning of pay and pension scandals in Bell (Los Angeles County) and elsewhere.
Pensions hit home
Meanwhile, taxpayers are seeing beloved public services slashed in part to pay the skyrocketing costs of pension and health care benefits.
"There's no bigger financial issue affecting state and local governments - nothing comes close. It's just drowning out all spending for everything everybody cares about," said David Crane, senior adviser for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and a contributor of $32,500 to the campaign for San Francisco's Prop. B.
Crane said that this year, for the first time in history, Californians are spending more on pension benefits than they're spending on higher education. They're now paying $6.5 billion in pension costs, and that figure will double in 5 1/2 years, he said.
"Citizens sort of get mad," he said. "They pay their taxes, and they get lower services, and that inflames passions."
Finding a target
Terry Brennand, senior government relations advocate for the state Service Employees International Union, said it's natural that during an economic downturn, politicians and voters will look for ways to cut spending, but he believes public employees have become the scapegoat unfairly.
Unions around the state have agreed to furlough days, pay cuts and other concessions to help bridge budget deficits. Brennand said unions are not averse to pension changes, but that those should be made over the bargaining table, too - not at the ballot box.
"Rather than vilify public employees, we ought to be looking at them as the single largest partner in solving the fiscal crises at the state and local level," he said.
A bellwether vote
Experts say that whatever happens this election - particularly in liberal, labor-friendly San Francisco - will determine whether more voters around the state and nation will face measures to curb pension costs.
"If public employee pension reform passes in San Francisco, it would pass anywhere in California, and it could pass anywhere in the United States," said Lanny Ebenstein, director of the California Center for Public Policy, a Santa Barbara nonprofit that has called for major pension change.
San Francisco's version is the most controversial and far-reaching of any on next week's ballots around California. Unlike the others, it would require current employees - not just future hires - to pay more for their pension and health care benefits.
The state's other pension measures are much smaller in scope. In Bakersfield, Measure D would lower pension benefits, but only for newly hired police officers and firefighters. Measure L in Menlo Park would lower benefits and raise the retirement age from 55 to 60 - but only for new hires outside the Police Department.
Redding voters are taking up two advisory-only measures regarding pension and health care contributions, while Pacific Grove (Monterey County) voters are deciding whether to cap the city's contribution to pensions.
Carlsbad (San Diego County) and Riverside voters will decide whether to give themselves the sole right to make pension changes for police and firefighters in the future. In San Jose, Measure V would change the way pensions are negotiated with police officers and firefighters, and Measure W would allow the city to provide lower pension benefits for new hires.
Big, small pensions
David Low, director of governmental relations for the California School Employees Association, said voters need to realize that media reports of six-figure pensions represent just a tiny fraction of workers' pensions around the state. He represents school janitors, secretaries, aides, cafeteria workers and bus drivers whose pensions average $1,134 a month.
"I don't think anybody begrudges a school secretary getting less than $1,200 a month," he said.
But Ebenstein said all voters have an incentive to approve pension changes.
"If you're a conservative and you want lower taxes or you're a liberal and you want more government programs, or you're a moderate who wants to have both, there's no reason to support the excessively high public employee benefits," he said.
| 
