Pension Promises

Imagine dedicating yourself to a lifelong career with the understanding that the old adage, “hard work pays off” will apply upon your retirement. In light of the effect the Detroit bankruptcy case may have on city retiree pensions, that adage falls far short of the truth. These lifelong employees also took less pay in return for the promise of decent benefits, which included pensions.

Despite the fact that pensions of public employees are protected under the Michigan Constitution as a “contractual obligation,” U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Steven Rhodes recently firefighter gearruled that pensions of city retirees can legally be cut in Detroit’s bankruptcy reorganization plan. Rhodes ruled that federal bankruptcy code allows cities that are bankrupt to cancel contracts, and that federal law preempts the state Constitution. This leaves the 33,000 retired city workers, more than a third of whom are retired police officers and firefighters, with much to worry about. Some that receive the average annual income of $19,000 could see their income slashed to $9,000 as a result of this ruling; an inarguably life-changing amount of money.

Why should retirees who fulfilled their obligations to the city be forced to absorb the brunt of faulty financial decisions they had no part in? A recent internal investigation revealed that the city’s pension systems were mismanaged and heavily invested in real estate, exceeding a required 10% cap of total investments. Losses connected to the funds’ real-estate holdings likely exceeded $73 million and contributed greatly to the current circumstances.

Judge Rhodes said that although he finds pension cuts are a legal option, he won’t necessarily agree to pension cuts in the city’s final reorganization plan unless the entire plan is fair and equitable. Let’s hope when it comes time for this decision to be made, it will be based on what is “fair and equitable” to the tens of thousands of retired workers who dedicated their careers to serving the public, and are now potential victims in a series of poor decisions that were out of their control.

Unmarried Couple Trend Raises Vulnerability Issues

cohabitation-agreementLiving as an unmarried couple can leave you vulnerable in states that don’t honor domestic partnership agreements or civil unions. If you’re living with a domestic partner and are unmarried, you are part of a growing trend in the United States.

There were 7.7 million households with unmarried couples in 2010, growing more than 40% in just one decade, and about four times faster than the overall household population.[i] As of June 2013, seven states and Washington D.C. recognize domestic partnership agreements under state law.[ii] Michigan is not included in this list, though domestic partnerships are recognized on the municipal level in Ann Arbor.

Since laws relating to property ownership, divorce, and inheritance rights don’t apply to unmarried couples in Michigan, there are steps you can take to ensure your legal and financial preferences are protected. Some steps to consider include:

  • writing a will to ensure that your partner gets your property when you die
  • sign paternity statements to ensure that a father’s parental rights are preserved
  • create a cohabitation agreement with your partner to avoid court battles over financial support, child custody issues, dividing property, etc. if the relationship ends

Although people over the age of 65 constitute a small portion of unmarried partners, the trend is evident in that age group as well. Living together without marriage enables seniors to avoid joint liability for debts, especially for long-term care or medical bills, and to qualify individually for public benefits, such as Medicaid, without affecting the other partner’s resources.

Did you know?…The U.S. Census Bureau first began counting the number of unmarried partners in 1990 to better understand the number of residents in committed domestic partnerships.


[i] http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-14.pdf

[ii] http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/civil-unions-and-domestic-partnership-statutes.aspx

R.I.P. O’s and G’s

RIPOsGs10-18-13

If your attorney said to you, “We’re going to trial,” but pronounced it as, ”We’re goin  ta  trial,” it wouldn’t inspire confidence. Even if you failed to catch the offhanded dropping of the G and the O, you would still sense a casual, even lazy, manner and might wonder if your case was being taken seriously.

The decline of proper diction in our speech today is a symptom of the increasing lack of etiquette and the casualness with which we treat each other. The neglectful way the letters O and G are treated at the end of certain words is part of a trend.

Out of respect to you, and to the legal profession, there is an obligation to speak clearly and correctly.  It surprises me to hear people, especially those in broadcast media and other professions, dropping O’s and G’s as if it’s part of proper dialect. Formal education, or lack there of, is no excuse. Peter Jennings, legendary news anchor and multiple Emmy winner, fully enunciated his words despite being a high school dropout.

Yes, there’s a time and place for relaxing the rules a bit: family pizza night, a sports bar or a rock concert. Creative expression in language is also an important component of the Arts. As the former attorney to many Motown artists, I wouldn’t want to hear Eddie Kendricks sing “Keep on Truckin’” any other way.

Use your judgement, and then put some effort into your enunciation. Bring back the O’s and G’s in your speech, and save the lazy slang for your down time. Or for artistic license, as Eddie Kendricks did:

The Small Print ( you can’t see )

Have you noticed the fine print at the bottom of your screen at the end of television commercials? It appears so quickly that even a twelve-year-old speed reader, with 20/20 vision, can’t see it. Offers for dollar-a-day life insurance, ridiculously low car payments and the like, disclose restrictive conditions to their offer in that fine print.

Then there is the disclaimer. This is an advertiser’s attempt to disavow any responsibility should you be harmed by using their product, or by imitating something you saw in their commercial.

Although Federal Trade Commission guidelines state that disclosures and disclaimers be “clearly and conspicuously” displayed, this is rarely enforced, with the exception of political ads or health-related claims. Which is why advertisers generally tag on a quick sprint of fine print at the end of their commercials, leaving consumers in the dust.

Advertisers argue that it takes expensive airtime to comply with FTC guidelines, but the creative minds behind this entertaining commercial for Mercedes-Benz® prove it can be done. Watch now: