SJ measure B looks like a narrow win coming up for the anti-union pensions. Just another indication of public's opposition to union's ... added to the Wisconsin recall loss of the GOP gov that restricted unions there.
What I really don't understand though is how voters (through its elected city government) can reneg on past contractual agreements for which consideration was already exchanged... i.e. unions gave up wage increases in exchange for improved pension / health care benefits... city got the near term benefits in lower outlays in exchange for ligher outlays later in pension / health care benefits. That the city gov't now say's they (the city gov) fucked up in that exchange is water under the bridge for which voter's are obligated to pay... since it was the voters representative govt that approved the near term for far term exchange.
It would seem to me that the city (voters/taxpayers) are obliged to pay as previously agreed on pensions and health care payments and if that forces govt to either raise city taxes or cut services then thats the trade-off they implicitely made way back when they made the deal to trade near term outlays for long term ones.
If this is allowed to stand after the legal case is finally settled it says that contracts of city with its employees have no means of being enforced if the city decides it doesnt want to uphold its contractuaual obligation... and by extension then no city contract with any public or private party is enforceable, and by futher extension, then no contract is enforceable. I'll be blown away if courts decide measure B's conditions regarding past contract agreements on past & current existing pensions and health care agreements can now be unilaterally changed to the citys economic benefit at the expense of its agreements with employees.
What bothers me even more though is that the city decided to use current voters to optionally reneg what past voters (by their representative govt) already decided and were obligated (by contracts) to uphold AND which they already received the intended benefits of!. There's got to be something missing --- why / how is it even legal at all to offer voter's an option to reneg on past done deals that they've voted to contract with and for which they've already received the agreed exchange of consideration.