Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />I <br /> <br />! <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />i <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />is patently unnecessary. If the United States <br />Supreme Court determines that such legislation is <br />constitutional and that Congress finds it necessary <br />to adopt some sort of national legislation in this <br />area, we believe the best alternative would be to <br />extend the provision of the National Labor Rela- <br />tions Act to cover public employers and employees <br />in those states that do not have existing labor <br />legislatibn, allowing states the opportunity to <br />establish their own laws as the need arises. <br /> <br />IV-$. Proposed Federal Pension Legislation (B) <br /> <br /> The State of Minnesota through its legislature <br />has demonstrated a continuing concern over the <br />past two decades for the security of public em- <br />ployee retirement funds. Standards have been <br />adopted requiring full funding and steps have <br />been taken to strengthen management responsi- <br />bility and reporting to employees. Moreover, a <br />permanent commission has been established by <br />the legislature to study and analyze public re- <br />tirement funds and advise the legislature on ap- <br />propriate steps. Adequate controls and standards <br />exist in Minnesota to safeguard the interest of the <br />participants in public employee retirement funds. <br />For these reasons, the League recommends that <br />any proposed national controls and standards per- <br />rain only to matters of funding and should be de- <br />signed to exclude public funds such as those in <br />Minnesota where adequate safeguards are present. <br /> <br />IV-9. Taxation of PERA Contributions (A) <br /> <br /> For several years, litigation has been pending in <br />federal courts to consider whether employee con- <br />tributions to PERA and similar public pension <br />systems should be subject to federal income tax <br />laws during the year in which they are contributed <br />to the system, as opposed to the year in which the <br />employee actually receives the benefit. To our <br />knowledge, no similar litigation is pending regard- <br />lng the applicability of the state income tax. <br /> <br /> It may be argued that the individual employee <br />does not have the use of the contributions which <br />he makes to PERA in the year in which they are <br />contributed and therefore, the contributions <br />should not be subject to either state or federal <br />income taxation, but should be excluded from the <br />employee's gross income. Rather, it may be argued <br />that the contributions should not be taxed until <br />the benefits are actually received. Such a position <br />would be consistent with the way in which the <br />municipal contributions to the employees' pen- <br />sions are taxed. <br /> <br />-19- <br /> <br /> Therefore, the League recommends that the <br />PERA and state income tax laws be amended as <br />follows: <br /> <br />Employee deductions to PERA and similar <br />employee pension systems should be deducted <br />from the employee's gross income and other <br />deferred compensation plans presently per- <br />mitted by law and not subjected to state income <br />taxation during the year contributed to PERAo <br /> <br />IV-10. Veterans Preference (B) <br /> <br /> In 1975, the legislature adopted a uniform <br />veterans' preference ]aw for state and local govern- <br />ment which modified preference in employment <br />and promotion; in 1977, the legislature terminated <br />veterans' preference for persons who enter mili- <br />tary service after 1976. The League supports these <br />modifications and believes that these provisions <br />should not be amended further. Veterans should <br />continue to be protected against unjust dismissals, <br />but when a veteran's employment is terminated, <br />and he or she does not request a hearing within <br />ten days or when an impartial hearing body deter- <br />mines that the dismissal was for just cause, the <br />law should not require that the veteran receive <br />compensation for any period when services were <br />not actually performed. Further, the law should <br />make it clear that the petition procedure is an <br />alternative to local administrative hearings. <br /> <br />IV-11. Volunteer Ambulance Retirement Sys- <br />tems (C) <br /> <br /> Proposals to integrate ambulance and rescue <br />volunteers not part of local volunteer fire depart- <br />ments into the program for retirement for volun- <br />teer firefighters have met rejection from organiza- <br />tions of volunteer firefighters. Creation of another <br />system of local relief is not in the best interest of <br />the state, its political subdivisions, or its taxpayers, <br />especially in view of recent federal tax legislation <br />which now provides an efficient, simple and inex- <br />pensive means of providing retirement benefits to <br />ambulance and other volunteers. Therefore, the <br />League opposes any legislation authorizing crea- <br />tion of volunteer ambulance relief associations. <br /> <br /> In addition, the League urges the creation of <br />a state money purchase retirement plan for volun- <br />teers only. <br /> <br />IV-12. Social Security (C) <br /> <br />Many public employees in Minnesota are covered <br /> <br /> <br />