Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

AnyRound5042 t1_j5ushhe wrote

Reply to comment by unevendistriubtionaf in Boston police account for $31 million of city legal payouts since 2020, including $16 million for wrongfully convicted man - The Boston Globe by TouchDownBurrito

I'm saying when the police lose these suits it should come out of the pension fund. See how fast they clean up their act.

28

SkiingAway t1_j5vdgu2 wrote

If by "clean up their act" you mean "the police win a large state/federal lawsuit against the city easily", yes, that is what would happen.

I am no great advocate for the police, but these kinds of statements are incredibly dumb.

You may take the individual pension of an individual cop if you get a conviction for them committing a serious crime while on the job. That is basically it.

The pension fund is money the government has set aside (and employees may have contributed to) and invested to pay for the retirement benefits it has promised workers as part of their employment contracts. The pension fund exists to make it easier for the government to pay out the benefits it legally owes to individuals.

You can't go back and retroactively change the benefits that you promised someone, any more than your employer can go back and change how much it paid you last year.

Wipe out the entire pension fund....the only thing that changes, short of the city declaring bankruptcy, is that Boston taxes are about to skyrocket - Boston's still legally obligated to pay out those benefits and now there's no financial cushion for it. This is also why when the market is doing terribly you'll see officials start adjusting budgets to make larger payments into the pension system - Boston is on the hook for those benefits whether the market performs as expected or not.

11

usfunca t1_j5vgg61 wrote

Not if when it's setup, or renegotiated that "payments made to settle legitimate claims against the BPD bla bla bla are paid from the BPD pension pool." It's all about the contract. Obviously you can't just unilaterally decide to do it now, but to OPs point, if it was setup that way in the beginning, I'd bet police would think twice before stitching people up.

−2

jojenns t1_j5w2fjj wrote

A. No union in their right mind would agree to such asinine terms. B. The police dont have their own individual pension fund they contribute to the same fund as other city employees.

2

Haltopen t1_j5yoj2q wrote

Maybe cut them off from it entirely then. Pensions are for people who deserve them

−1

jojenns t1_j5ypfiw wrote

Every working American deserves a pension/retirement you are just talking nonsense suggesting cutting them off.

2

SkiingAway t1_j5ylthv wrote

The pension fund can be $0.00, the amount of money Boston owes it's retirees has not changed.

Beyond that, I doubt there is any scheme you can come up with to try to implement what you're dreaming of that would pass a court. An employee signing a contract doesn't make illegal provisions valid.

There's a lot you can't do with compensation, and "taking money you've already paid away from one worker because of the actions of another" is usually right up at the top of that list, no matter how you want to phrase it.

As a basic example: Employee 1 crashes a company truck. Maybe he runs some people over in the process. Company is out $1m. Can the company come back and say to the other employees + former employees with retirement accounts "we're going to need each of you to return $10,000 from what we've paid you in the past to pay for it?" - obviously not, it's the company's problem. If they've got a strong enough case they can maybe sue Employee 1 for negligence although that probably won't come up with $1m.

But nothing they can write into their employment contract can force people who had nothing to do with it to pay for the company's problem.

The city of Boston is the "company" here.

1

Bunzilla t1_j5vqv1m wrote

I mean, sure. But why even bother arguing that if it’s not at all possible.

0

LivingMemento t1_j5v34dq wrote

This is the only solution to our policing problems.
Having taxpayers (or shareholders in private sector) pay for the wrongdoing only encourages more wrongdoing.

2

jojenns t1_j5vg878 wrote

If your company were to be sued for something you had no involvement in would you like it deducted from your pension fund as well or?

−2

joshhw t1_j5vseu7 wrote

Are the police now considered a business?

5

jojenns t1_j5vuhiu wrote

Yes its a business the entire city is with employees, health care plans, schedules, supervisors, the whole ball of wax oh and a pension plan for its employees.

4

AnyRound5042 t1_j5vzk56 wrote

Well I don't kill people for money so it's kind of a moot point isn't it

5

jojenns t1_j5w6atp wrote

Nonsense smoke screen aside just answer the question. if your employer was sued would you be ok with the settlement money to come out of your pension/401K?

−2

AnyRound5042 t1_j5w7fru wrote

its not a nonsense smokescreen actually its getting at the heart of the problem here. my company disposes of hazardous material, if i pulled a BPD and just dumped it in some guys backyard giving that entire family various diseases then i would not expect the tax payers to cover for me. luckily for new england residents hazardous materials have tons of regulations and oversight, unlike the police.

6

jojenns t1_j5wejim wrote

Its definitely a nonsense smokescreen. BPD’s job is not to kill people as you stated. An astronomically low percentage of the time it happens and an astronomically high amount of time it is justified. The police also do have oversight. How’s this you even elect the people who oversee them. But again getting back to the core of the question…if some other folks at your company are illegally dumping somewhere and the EPA fines your company a million dollars . You’d be ok with paying the fines out of your pension/401K correct?

−1