But Barrett said that loss would not influence his consideration of a state employees' lawsuit to block the end of a program that allows the state's 25,000 workers to trade unused sick leave for post-retirement medical coverage.
And, apparently, it didn't.
Barrett rejected the Utah Public Employees Association's request for a court order delaying implementation of the new law and dismissed all of the union's claims against the state Thursday.
"I do recognize [the new policy] will affect all state employees in different ways and may very well create a hardship for many," the judge said in a ruling from the bench. "I'm very sympathetic. I feel bad. But I can't let that determine how I'm going to rule."
Although he received more than 600 e-mails from state employees, the judge said it would be inappropriate to read them.
Barrett's decision likely will set off another wave of retirement announcements at the Capitol. Workers have until next Thursday to decide whether to retire to preserve their medical benefits. As of Oct. 31, nearly 490 state employees had retired, compared to 364 in all of last year.
The employee association said it will appeal Barrett's ruling to the Utah Supreme Court.
"We're concerned that this is the green light. The courts won't support the employees. And legislators can just take what they want," said Larry Evans, UPEA president and a state probation and parole officer. "We need to exhaust all the options available to us."
In February, Utah lawmakers changed employees' benefits package, phasing out a policy that allows workers to trade eight hours of unused sick leave for one month of post-retirement medical benefits. Starting Jan. 1, the new law requires employees to invest 25 percent of the value of their stored sick leave in a 401K. The remaining sick leave will be converted into a medical savings account based on an employees' salary at retirement. Many longtime state workers could lose years of promised medical benefits.
Legislators insisted cutting off the benefit was necessary to save taxpayers the liability for ballooning health care costs for retired workers. Estimates of the future bill range from $240 million to more than $800 million. Lawmakers also worried new government accounting rules requiring the disclosure of those estimates could endanger the state's AAA bond rating.
Last May, the union sued to stop the law from taking effect. The association represents about one-fourth of the 25,000 state workers. Attorneys for UPEA argued the legislation violated state workers' rights, in essence breaking a contract for benefits. Five individual state employees sought monetary damages for their lost medical coverage.
Point by point, Barrett brushed aside the employees' arguments. He said UPEA could not prove the harm to employees would outweigh the damage to the state or go against the public interest - both requirements for an injunction.
The judge also rejected all of the union's claims for a more extensive court review of the law. Barrett said employees do not have a contract for the benefits until they retire. And, because employees still get to choose when they retire, the new law does not violate their constitutional rights.
Finally, Barrett agreed with state attorneys that the union had no right to sue on behalf of state workers because UPEA could not prove the law would affect all state workers in the same way.
In the end, Barrett said, lawmakers operated within their authority when they changed the benefit policy. Blocking its effective date would undermine the Legislature's role in state government, he added.
"The Legislature has an interest in addressing the long-term impact of this issue," Barrett said. "Binding the Legislature and depriving it of control of its future budgets is of primary concern."
The sponsor of the 2005 legislation, Santa Clara Republican Rep. Dave Clark, welcomed Thursday's ruling. "I am truly sorry for the impact this has had on state employees. I wish there were some alternative," Clark said. But, "we have a responsibility in managing the state finances as well as managing state statutes."
State employees have until next Thursday to decide whether to retire this year and trade their unused sick leave for medical benefits or keep working and risk losing months of coverage. Robert Anderson, a 24-year veteran of state government, could lose six years of post-retirement medical benefits - equivalent to $26,000. Still the 58-year-old health department manager figures he will keep working.
"I might as well stay and ride it out and see what happens," Anderson said.
walsh@sltrib.com
Heading for the exits
* State employee retirements have increased dramatically this year as lawmakers moved to reduce health-care benefits.
* 486 workers retired through October, a 33 percent jump from last year.
* Retirements are projected to top 585 employees by year's end - representing a 60 percent increase.
- Source: State Human Resources and the Utah Public Employees Association
See WORKERS, B3
