Image provided by: SEIU Local 503; Salem, OR
About The Oregon state employee. (Salem, Oregon.) 1944-195? | View Entire Issue (Jan. 1, 1951)
4 upon separation at com pulsory re tire m ent age or th ereafter, as com puted by the retirem ent board in accordance w ith the unm odified or nonoptional plan is less th an $5.00 p er m onth shall be so notified in w riting by v th e re tirem ent board and w ithin 30 days a f ter the date of such notification may, by w ritten notificafio® to th e re tire m ent board, elect to receive as a cash refund in lieu of any and all re tire m ent allowance,, th e sum of his own’-het norm al contributions to the retirem ent fund plus an equal am ount c o n t r i b u t e by his Employer or em ployers to such fund, plus the sum of his own excess contributions. A m e m b e S w h o , on Ju ly 1, 1951, is ?drawing a service re tirem ent alowance of less than $5.00 per m onth in accordance w ith fke-' u n modified plan, m ay p rior to Ja n u a ry 1, 1952 arrange w ith the retirem en t board to receive as a cash refund in lieu of any and all fu rth e r retirem en t allowance the unused portion ofH jH own net norm al contributions to the retirem ent fund plus an equal am ount contributed by; his em ployer or em - ployers to such fund, ,pius any unused excess contributions rem aining to his credit.” This m easure M jg p ro v id e s lfor the w ithdraw al of exce lW p ntributions as follows: “Any m em ber other than one who is receiving a -retirem ent O lo w - ance, who has m ade ^ ^ r o rih uWWis to the retirem ent fund in excess of the am ount required to be m atched by his em ployer or em ployers, m ay , up on ap plication th erefo r to the re tire m cM board, receive a cash refund of such net excess contributions; provided, however, th at after Ju ly 1, 1952 no m em ber will be p erm itted to w ithdraw such excesis contribi^^K S if he is w ith in five years of e a rlie s ffs e rv i^ re tire m ent age.” Senate Bill 230 allows retu rn in g w ar veterans to reestablish doveragjj u n der the system b y depositing in a lump sum the am ount they w ould have contributed had they rem ained in the state service. The state w ill m atch that deposit. The rem aining b ills, (som e 14 of them ) are still in com m ittee. It is in connection w ith this p a rt of the OSEA legislative program th a t the w riter w ishes to publicly com m end the m em bers of th e S enate C om m ittee on L abor and In d u stries fo r th e o u ts|a n d - Imb they did on this group of proposed am endm ents to the re tire m en t law. It was not a pleasan t task to study and w eigh th e m erits of those proposed arnendm enf^ je a c h in som e degree 'im - B jrtant* to a group of public employees and com^ ^ u j w ith a program accept able to all. The OSEA ’is m indful of the insight a n d l t e ^ ^ ® ^ ™ show n by this com m ittee. The OSEA too, is g ra te fu l to S ena to r^ H itc h tw k . chairm an; Senator B rady, v ice-ch airm an and Senators M arsh, W ilson, Sm ith, ~ L inEWgeff-jgfand Lam port, th e in dividual m em bers of th e L abor . and In d u strie s’’ C om m ittee f i Bgfrth'eir in tere st in th e retirem en t program and the courtesy show n the OSEA R epresentative. The OSEA w ishes also, at this tim e to pay gfa re- spect to w j o | S e n ^ S lE n g d a h l who served- on this com m ittee u n tiljfrfiej tim e of his death. He w as a friend of OSEA, faith fu l and just. ^ ^ me m e m b e rs S w w ^ ^ ^ s ^ p p m h te d because the leg islatu re could not see its w ay clear to increase the m axim um salary lim it on whichgp p l em ployer w ould m atch. A n attem p t w as m ade by the Oregon E ducation Association, The A m erican F ed eratio n of State, C ounty and M unicipal Em ployees, A. F. of L., the C ity of P o rtlan d and OSEA to increase this m axim um to an 'am ount above $3000. The S enate L a bor and rh W s m ^ ^ H lo m m itt^ ^ ^ e ti the m axim um at $3600 b u t the W ays and M ea^^@ om m itt| | | ^ ould not concur, therefore the m axim um m atching; re - m a iiO a t $3000. A n o th er facto r e n te r ed in tM th i^ p u i ^ cm^aw^.ia^E>f the m easure. m I m s m em p ld i^ ^ ^ |w h d s ^ ^ a ia | aries w ere in thdffiffiO to $3600 b ra ck et opposed the increase, th e rB ^ ^ n bei'ng^ttiey could not stan d any fu r th er decrease in th e ir tak e-h o m e pay. The OSEA m e m b e r ^ |w m ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ are in the h ig h er b ra ck ets and who w f f |H B t o ^ S ^ ^ S K t h i s ; - . m axim um werdglyery m uch in the m inority. Ac tually a great nu m ^ ^ g o f B a le em p loyees who w ould receive the most benefit from such an am endm ent are not m em bers oftgOSEA. T he m ajo rity of the L aw and Legislation Com m i^ (G pntinued on P age 22)
