California's public safety workforce isn't experiencing the staffing crisis that union representatives have claimed, according to a commentary published by Reason Foundation. The analysis examines workforce data to evaluate union arguments that a 2012 pension reform law created recruitment and retention problems severe enough to justify reversing key provisions through pending legislation. The report concludes that available evidence contradicts union claims and shows the state's public safety employees are actually staying in their jobs longer than ever before.
Turnover rates for California's state and local government workers averaged just 7.1% between 2016 and 2023, compared with a 20% national average, while voluntary quit rates—the metric most directly tied to retention—averaged roughly 3%. For Bargaining Unit 7, which covers many state law enforcement employees, turnover reached 7.5% in 2023 versus an 18.4% rate for noneducation public workers nationwide, with nearly half of all separations coming from retirements rather than quits or dismissals. Median tenure for California's state and local police officers, firefighters, correctional officers, detectives, and related public safety workers climbed from six years in 1983 to 13 years in 2024, while the same group nationwide saw median tenure rise only from seven to nine years. The share of California public safety employees with at least 15 years of tenure jumped from approximately 10% in 1996 to 47% in 2024, while those with nine or fewer years dropped from 65% to 42%. The number of sworn police officers per 1,000 residents stood at 1.98 in 2025, nearly matching the state's 1985-through-2025 average of 2.02.
The report finds that Assembly Bill 1383, which passed the House 70–2 and awaits Senate Appropriations Committee consideration, would immediately benefit only the oldest and highest-paid employees rather than addressing actual recruitment challenges. When agencies were surveyed in 2025 by the Public Policy Institute of California about their top four recruiting and hiring obstacles, "agency competition," "unqualified applicants," and "pay" ranked as the most-selected challenges, while "benefits" came in last, cited by only about one-fifth of respondents. The authors note that unions representing employees with many years of service may face pressure to prioritize pension enhancements over pay increases or improved working conditions, even though those policies align more closely with the recruitment problems agencies report and would more directly affect newer employees at greater risk of leaving.
The pension reform law at the center of the debate, the Public Employees' Pension Reform Act, has already saved the state more than $5 billion and is projected to save over $25 billion in the next decade by limiting benefit formulas, raising retirement ages, capping pensionable compensation, requiring employees to share pension costs, and restricting unfunded benefit increases. Reason Foundation's 30-year actuarial modeling estimates that AB 1383 would add $9.3 billion in employer pension costs under CalPERS' baseline investment-return path, rising to $14.5 billion through higher contributions and unfunded liabilities in a scenario incorporating typical recessions and market downturns, with approximately 86% of additional costs stemming from raising the cap on pensionable compensation. Even where genuine staffing problems exist, the report argues, policymakers should examine pay, job requirements, working conditions, hiring bureaucracy, and whether predetermined staffing targets reflect actual service demands rather than imposing billions in new pension costs based on workforce crisis claims that data don't support.
The report concludes that lawmakers shouldn't burden local governments and taxpayers with substantial new pension expenses when available evidence shows public safety employees are staying longer than at any point in recent history. Richer public pensions aren't the answer to recruitment challenges that agencies themselves attribute primarily to competition, unqualified applicants, and pay rather than retirement benefits.