The editorial board of this newspaper recently warned that Assembly Bill 1383 is a “slippery slope” toward another California pension crisis. It’s a dramatic claim. But when you look at what the bill actually does, the comparison falls apart.
AB 1383 does not repeal the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013, or PEPRA. It does not provide retroactive pension increases or give public employees a blank check. It makes prospective changes to California’s pension system for public employees while retaining important PEPRA safeguards.
That distinction matters.
The editorial argues that AB 1383 is unnecessary because California’s public safety workforce had a 7.7% turnover rate in 2023, compared with 7.4% across the broader public workforce. But statewide turnover statistics do not tell the whole story of recruiting and retaining firefighters.
Firefighters aren’t simply another position on a government spreadsheet. They spend decades preparing for and responding to structure fires, medical emergencies, wildfires and other disasters. When experienced firefighters leave, departments lose years of training, institutional knowledge and experience that can be critical when lives are on the line.
The editorial also characterizes AB 1383 as a way for highly compensated public employees to receive an even better deal. But reducing a career in the fire service to a salary or pension figure ignores what those benefits are intended to recognize: decades of physically demanding, dangerous work, with a high risk of cancer.
The question isn’t whether firefighters are paid “well.” It is whether California has a retirement system that can help attract and retain qualified people willing to spend their careers doing this work.
AB 1383 recognizes that reality without abandoning fiscal responsibility.
The bill is prospective, meaning changes apply to future service rather than rewriting benefits employees have already earned. The 3% at 55 formula is subject to collective bargaining rather than automatically imposed and the 50/50 cost-sharing requirement remains intact, meaning employees continue to pay at least half of the normal cost to their pension.
Those are safeguards—not a pension free-for-all.
And the cost of maintaining a fire service isn’t limited to salaries and pensions. When experienced firefighters are injured or forced to leave the job, departments can face workers’ comp costs, vacancies and overtime to fill critical staffing gaps to maintain around-the-clock emergency coverage. The question shouldn’t simply be what it costs to retain experienced firefighters—it should also be what it costs when we don’t.
Public safety is itself a public service. A retirement system that helps California recruit and retain experienced firefighters is an investment in the communities those firefighters protect.
PEPRA was enacted to address legitimate concerns about pension sustainability. AB 1383 does not erase those reforms. It makes targeted, prospective changes for a profession with unique demands and risks.
AB 1383 deserves to be evaluated on what it actually does—not predictions of a hypothetical “pension tsunami.”
California doesn’t have to choose between fiscal responsibility and a strong fire service. We can—and should—have both. AB 1383 can help us achieve that.
Matt Goodenough is president of the El Segundo Firefighter’s Association