The Richman Initiative will cost firefighters, teachers, police officers and state workers millions to defeat. Political observers say that Richman and his supporters are well on their way to collecting the 694,354 signatures needed, by Jan. 10, 2008, to qualify the initiative for the June 2008 ballot.
The Public Employee Benefits Reform Act which many refer to, as the Richman Initiative, calls for dramatic reductions in pensions for all new employees and would cut health benefits for those who cannot work until age 65, punishing those who get sick or are injured before they retire. The initiative also calls for increasing the retirement age and lowering benefits for new state and local government employees hired after July 1, 2009.
For example, an employee who works 30 years and retires at age 60 would face a $10,000 reduction in annual pension, while getting no health benefits.
Having learned from his previous attempts to slash public employee pensions Richman is this time proposing that his initiative would only apply to state and local government workers hired after July 1, 2009. This forces public employees into a divisive two-tiered system, and would make it even more challenging to recruit state employees, firefighters, police officers, and teachers.
Let’s look for a moment at the people who serve the public.
The vast majority of state workers for example, make a lower middle-class to middle-class income. Contrary to popular belief they do not make a lot of money compared to the private sector. Most public employees understand that they could make significantly more money if they worked in the private sector; however, since many grew up believing in the concept of serving the community through public service they have opted to work in state government, or as a teacher, firefighter, or police officer. They understand that they will have a decent retirement, not a lavish one, when they retire, because they pay into their retirement system every month.
We all know that teachers deserve more pay than what they earn. I was quite surprised to learn from my mother-in-law, and sisters-in-law that they have to purchase supplies for school, since their schools do not provide all of the supplies needed for children. I realize I’m aging myself, but I don’t recall Ms. Chamberlin or Mr. Sousa having to purchase their supplies when I attended elementary school. This, on top of the long hours that they put in, for the love of children and learning…teachers do not need to be put in a position to defend their retirement. At a time California and the nation are facing a critical teacher shortage teachers should not have to fight to protect their retirement.
Then we have firefighters and police officers who put their lives on the line day in and day out. You mean to tell me that if they suffer a burn, or a critical injury that they are then going to be punished for having to take an early retirement?
Why should we punish the very people who do the hard work of serving our communities and our state?
According to the Sacramento Bee, Governor Schwarzenegger and the leaders of the Legislature appointed a bi-partisan commission early this year to study benefits and to propose long-term funding mechanisms for CalPERS. It would seem fiscally responsible for Richman to at least allow the bi-partisan commission to develop and propose solutions before subjecting public employees to yet another multimillion-dollar, divisive initiative campaign that’s going to require public employees to protect their retirement.
The Sacramento Bee further reported that the “crisis” [of CalPERS] is wildly overblown. New federal accounting standards simply require that anticipated retirement obligations be calculated and reported. California does not owe a nickel more for employee health care benefits today than it did before the accounting standards were adopted.
California’s Public Employee Retirement System (CalPERS) is, in fact, quite healthy thanks to a record of double-digit growth in investment gains. In the past 12 months, CalPERS’ investment portfolio grew by more than 19 percent, the highest in nine years, and double the assumed rate. Many pension plans will be 100 percent funded. For decades about 75 percent of the cost of benefits has been funded by return on investments – public agencies and employees pay the rest.
The Bee quoted State Controller John Chiang as saying that, “it was not a crisis 30 years ago, it was not a crisis yesterday and it is not a crisis today…and if we work toward a plan to pay this obligation in a reasoned manner it will not be a crisis 30 years from now.“
The Vanguard asks, why the attack on public employees? Why the attack when Richman is receiving his CA State Assembly Retirement? I’ve attempted to find out what his retirement will look like, but still haven’t found out what members of the Assembly receive for their retirement.
—Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald sitting in for Doug Paul Davis
I am disappointed, why would it only apply to new hires rather than all public employees?
I am disappointed, why would it only apply to new hires rather than all public employees?
I am disappointed, why would it only apply to new hires rather than all public employees?
I am disappointed, why would it only apply to new hires rather than all public employees?
I read this entire piece thinking, gee, this sounds like a press piece written by a hack for a public employees labor union, before I saw who wrote it. Enough said.
— Mike S.
I read this entire piece thinking, gee, this sounds like a press piece written by a hack for a public employees labor union, before I saw who wrote it. Enough said.
— Mike S.
I read this entire piece thinking, gee, this sounds like a press piece written by a hack for a public employees labor union, before I saw who wrote it. Enough said.
— Mike S.
I read this entire piece thinking, gee, this sounds like a press piece written by a hack for a public employees labor union, before I saw who wrote it. Enough said.
— Mike S.
So which parts do you disagree with Mr. Mike S?
So which parts do you disagree with Mr. Mike S?
So which parts do you disagree with Mr. Mike S?
So which parts do you disagree with Mr. Mike S?
Members of the Legislature do not have a pension program at all. See Proposition 140 of 1992 (I think).
Members of the Legislature do not have a pension program at all. See Proposition 140 of 1992 (I think).
Members of the Legislature do not have a pension program at all. See Proposition 140 of 1992 (I think).
Members of the Legislature do not have a pension program at all. See Proposition 140 of 1992 (I think).
Here is a more detailed description of the initiative, from the Sacramento Bee last June:
Initiative would take on pensions
New government employees would get less, at an older age.
By John Hill – Bee Capitol Bureau
Published 12:00 am PDT Friday, June 22, 2007
A foundation led by former Assemblyman Keith Richman filed an initiative Thursday that would slash California’s state and local government pension costs by offering a less generous retirement allowance to new employees and raising the age at which they qualify for full benefits.
“It’s not fair that people in the private sector are working well into their 60s and 70s to pay for extravagant pensions for public employees who can retire at 50 or 55,” said Richman, a former Republican Assemblyman from Northridge who is now president of the California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility.
The initiative, if it qualified for the ballot, would face stiff opposition from deep-pocketed public employee unions, which in 2005 fought off another attempt to scrap the current pension formula.
“I think it’s as serious as a heart attack,” said J.J. Jelincic, president of the California State Employees Association. “It’s part of a national agenda attacking defined benefit plans and the interests of working folks.”
Richman’s 2005 proposal would have scrapped the traditional pension plan for new employees in favor of a 401(k)-style retirement account subject to the ups and downs of investment funds.
This proposal preserves the traditional plan, which guarantees a certain payout in retirement years, but cuts the formula that determines pensions and extends the years an employee would have to work to get them.
Rank-and-file workers in the state’s current system, for instance, now get 2 percent of their highest pay multiplied by the number of years of service at the age of 55.
Under the initiative filed Thursday, workers who also qualify for Social Security would get only 1 percent for each year worked, and they would qualify for full benefits at the same age they become eligible for Social Security, 65 to 67.
Those who don’t qualify for Social Security would get 1.5 percent for each year worked.
Peace officers and firefighters would get 2.2 percent for each year worked at the age of 55. Currently, the state and many local governments pay peace officers and firefighters 3 percent and allow them to retire as early as age 50.
Another change would base the pension payout on the highest consecutive five years of pay, instead of the one year or three years now in use. That move would tend to reduce retirement allowances, because a five-year average is normally lower than the highest year of pay or a three-year average.
The proposal would forbid public agencies from “raiding” pension funds for other purposes, and require them to make full payments into the retirement systems even during good years when investment returns are high.
Richman said the initiative would not touch death and disability benefits. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger pulled the plug on the 2005 initiative after public employee unions waged a blistering campaign saying it would end death and disability benefits for fallen peace officers and others.
The new initiative would apply to state and local government workers hired after July 1, 2009.
“It doesn’t touch the benefits at all for current and retired workers,” Richman said. “We think it’s important to keep the promises that have been made to current employees and retirees.”
Richman said his plan would save state and local governments $500 billion over the next 30 years.
He declined to say where he expects to raise the money to gather signatures to qualify the initiative for the ballot.
Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear said the Governor’s Office had not yet looked at Richman’s proposal. He added, “We welcome all ideas to the table. This is obviously part of the public dialogue.”
But Dave Low, assistant director of governmental relations for the California School Employees Association, said that Schwarzenegger is unlikely to back a proposal that doesn’t take into account the work of a commission he formed to address public pensions, scheduled to come out with recommendations in January.
“It seems that Richman is way out ahead of the governor on this one,” said Low, one of the Legislature’s appointees to the commission. “Why not wait?”
Jelincic questioned the rationale for the initiative, saying that the state’s biggest pension system, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, is not severely underfunded.
If the initiative passed, governments that offered reduced retirement benefits would have to sweeten the pot for potential workers by raising pay, he said.
Richman, however, disputed the contention that government workers are paid less than their private sector counterparts and need better retirements as an incentive.
“Numerous studies over recent years have demonstrated that public employee salaries are higher than those in the private sector, and the benefits are much higher,” he said.
Here is a more detailed description of the initiative, from the Sacramento Bee last June:
Initiative would take on pensions
New government employees would get less, at an older age.
By John Hill – Bee Capitol Bureau
Published 12:00 am PDT Friday, June 22, 2007
A foundation led by former Assemblyman Keith Richman filed an initiative Thursday that would slash California’s state and local government pension costs by offering a less generous retirement allowance to new employees and raising the age at which they qualify for full benefits.
“It’s not fair that people in the private sector are working well into their 60s and 70s to pay for extravagant pensions for public employees who can retire at 50 or 55,” said Richman, a former Republican Assemblyman from Northridge who is now president of the California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility.
The initiative, if it qualified for the ballot, would face stiff opposition from deep-pocketed public employee unions, which in 2005 fought off another attempt to scrap the current pension formula.
“I think it’s as serious as a heart attack,” said J.J. Jelincic, president of the California State Employees Association. “It’s part of a national agenda attacking defined benefit plans and the interests of working folks.”
Richman’s 2005 proposal would have scrapped the traditional pension plan for new employees in favor of a 401(k)-style retirement account subject to the ups and downs of investment funds.
This proposal preserves the traditional plan, which guarantees a certain payout in retirement years, but cuts the formula that determines pensions and extends the years an employee would have to work to get them.
Rank-and-file workers in the state’s current system, for instance, now get 2 percent of their highest pay multiplied by the number of years of service at the age of 55.
Under the initiative filed Thursday, workers who also qualify for Social Security would get only 1 percent for each year worked, and they would qualify for full benefits at the same age they become eligible for Social Security, 65 to 67.
Those who don’t qualify for Social Security would get 1.5 percent for each year worked.
Peace officers and firefighters would get 2.2 percent for each year worked at the age of 55. Currently, the state and many local governments pay peace officers and firefighters 3 percent and allow them to retire as early as age 50.
Another change would base the pension payout on the highest consecutive five years of pay, instead of the one year or three years now in use. That move would tend to reduce retirement allowances, because a five-year average is normally lower than the highest year of pay or a three-year average.
The proposal would forbid public agencies from “raiding” pension funds for other purposes, and require them to make full payments into the retirement systems even during good years when investment returns are high.
Richman said the initiative would not touch death and disability benefits. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger pulled the plug on the 2005 initiative after public employee unions waged a blistering campaign saying it would end death and disability benefits for fallen peace officers and others.
The new initiative would apply to state and local government workers hired after July 1, 2009.
“It doesn’t touch the benefits at all for current and retired workers,” Richman said. “We think it’s important to keep the promises that have been made to current employees and retirees.”
Richman said his plan would save state and local governments $500 billion over the next 30 years.
He declined to say where he expects to raise the money to gather signatures to qualify the initiative for the ballot.
Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear said the Governor’s Office had not yet looked at Richman’s proposal. He added, “We welcome all ideas to the table. This is obviously part of the public dialogue.”
But Dave Low, assistant director of governmental relations for the California School Employees Association, said that Schwarzenegger is unlikely to back a proposal that doesn’t take into account the work of a commission he formed to address public pensions, scheduled to come out with recommendations in January.
“It seems that Richman is way out ahead of the governor on this one,” said Low, one of the Legislature’s appointees to the commission. “Why not wait?”
Jelincic questioned the rationale for the initiative, saying that the state’s biggest pension system, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, is not severely underfunded.
If the initiative passed, governments that offered reduced retirement benefits would have to sweeten the pot for potential workers by raising pay, he said.
Richman, however, disputed the contention that government workers are paid less than their private sector counterparts and need better retirements as an incentive.
“Numerous studies over recent years have demonstrated that public employee salaries are higher than those in the private sector, and the benefits are much higher,” he said.
Here is a more detailed description of the initiative, from the Sacramento Bee last June:
Initiative would take on pensions
New government employees would get less, at an older age.
By John Hill – Bee Capitol Bureau
Published 12:00 am PDT Friday, June 22, 2007
A foundation led by former Assemblyman Keith Richman filed an initiative Thursday that would slash California’s state and local government pension costs by offering a less generous retirement allowance to new employees and raising the age at which they qualify for full benefits.
“It’s not fair that people in the private sector are working well into their 60s and 70s to pay for extravagant pensions for public employees who can retire at 50 or 55,” said Richman, a former Republican Assemblyman from Northridge who is now president of the California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility.
The initiative, if it qualified for the ballot, would face stiff opposition from deep-pocketed public employee unions, which in 2005 fought off another attempt to scrap the current pension formula.
“I think it’s as serious as a heart attack,” said J.J. Jelincic, president of the California State Employees Association. “It’s part of a national agenda attacking defined benefit plans and the interests of working folks.”
Richman’s 2005 proposal would have scrapped the traditional pension plan for new employees in favor of a 401(k)-style retirement account subject to the ups and downs of investment funds.
This proposal preserves the traditional plan, which guarantees a certain payout in retirement years, but cuts the formula that determines pensions and extends the years an employee would have to work to get them.
Rank-and-file workers in the state’s current system, for instance, now get 2 percent of their highest pay multiplied by the number of years of service at the age of 55.
Under the initiative filed Thursday, workers who also qualify for Social Security would get only 1 percent for each year worked, and they would qualify for full benefits at the same age they become eligible for Social Security, 65 to 67.
Those who don’t qualify for Social Security would get 1.5 percent for each year worked.
Peace officers and firefighters would get 2.2 percent for each year worked at the age of 55. Currently, the state and many local governments pay peace officers and firefighters 3 percent and allow them to retire as early as age 50.
Another change would base the pension payout on the highest consecutive five years of pay, instead of the one year or three years now in use. That move would tend to reduce retirement allowances, because a five-year average is normally lower than the highest year of pay or a three-year average.
The proposal would forbid public agencies from “raiding” pension funds for other purposes, and require them to make full payments into the retirement systems even during good years when investment returns are high.
Richman said the initiative would not touch death and disability benefits. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger pulled the plug on the 2005 initiative after public employee unions waged a blistering campaign saying it would end death and disability benefits for fallen peace officers and others.
The new initiative would apply to state and local government workers hired after July 1, 2009.
“It doesn’t touch the benefits at all for current and retired workers,” Richman said. “We think it’s important to keep the promises that have been made to current employees and retirees.”
Richman said his plan would save state and local governments $500 billion over the next 30 years.
He declined to say where he expects to raise the money to gather signatures to qualify the initiative for the ballot.
Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear said the Governor’s Office had not yet looked at Richman’s proposal. He added, “We welcome all ideas to the table. This is obviously part of the public dialogue.”
But Dave Low, assistant director of governmental relations for the California School Employees Association, said that Schwarzenegger is unlikely to back a proposal that doesn’t take into account the work of a commission he formed to address public pensions, scheduled to come out with recommendations in January.
“It seems that Richman is way out ahead of the governor on this one,” said Low, one of the Legislature’s appointees to the commission. “Why not wait?”
Jelincic questioned the rationale for the initiative, saying that the state’s biggest pension system, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, is not severely underfunded.
If the initiative passed, governments that offered reduced retirement benefits would have to sweeten the pot for potential workers by raising pay, he said.
Richman, however, disputed the contention that government workers are paid less than their private sector counterparts and need better retirements as an incentive.
“Numerous studies over recent years have demonstrated that public employee salaries are higher than those in the private sector, and the benefits are much higher,” he said.
Here is a more detailed description of the initiative, from the Sacramento Bee last June:
Initiative would take on pensions
New government employees would get less, at an older age.
By John Hill – Bee Capitol Bureau
Published 12:00 am PDT Friday, June 22, 2007
A foundation led by former Assemblyman Keith Richman filed an initiative Thursday that would slash California’s state and local government pension costs by offering a less generous retirement allowance to new employees and raising the age at which they qualify for full benefits.
“It’s not fair that people in the private sector are working well into their 60s and 70s to pay for extravagant pensions for public employees who can retire at 50 or 55,” said Richman, a former Republican Assemblyman from Northridge who is now president of the California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility.
The initiative, if it qualified for the ballot, would face stiff opposition from deep-pocketed public employee unions, which in 2005 fought off another attempt to scrap the current pension formula.
“I think it’s as serious as a heart attack,” said J.J. Jelincic, president of the California State Employees Association. “It’s part of a national agenda attacking defined benefit plans and the interests of working folks.”
Richman’s 2005 proposal would have scrapped the traditional pension plan for new employees in favor of a 401(k)-style retirement account subject to the ups and downs of investment funds.
This proposal preserves the traditional plan, which guarantees a certain payout in retirement years, but cuts the formula that determines pensions and extends the years an employee would have to work to get them.
Rank-and-file workers in the state’s current system, for instance, now get 2 percent of their highest pay multiplied by the number of years of service at the age of 55.
Under the initiative filed Thursday, workers who also qualify for Social Security would get only 1 percent for each year worked, and they would qualify for full benefits at the same age they become eligible for Social Security, 65 to 67.
Those who don’t qualify for Social Security would get 1.5 percent for each year worked.
Peace officers and firefighters would get 2.2 percent for each year worked at the age of 55. Currently, the state and many local governments pay peace officers and firefighters 3 percent and allow them to retire as early as age 50.
Another change would base the pension payout on the highest consecutive five years of pay, instead of the one year or three years now in use. That move would tend to reduce retirement allowances, because a five-year average is normally lower than the highest year of pay or a three-year average.
The proposal would forbid public agencies from “raiding” pension funds for other purposes, and require them to make full payments into the retirement systems even during good years when investment returns are high.
Richman said the initiative would not touch death and disability benefits. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger pulled the plug on the 2005 initiative after public employee unions waged a blistering campaign saying it would end death and disability benefits for fallen peace officers and others.
The new initiative would apply to state and local government workers hired after July 1, 2009.
“It doesn’t touch the benefits at all for current and retired workers,” Richman said. “We think it’s important to keep the promises that have been made to current employees and retirees.”
Richman said his plan would save state and local governments $500 billion over the next 30 years.
He declined to say where he expects to raise the money to gather signatures to qualify the initiative for the ballot.
Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear said the Governor’s Office had not yet looked at Richman’s proposal. He added, “We welcome all ideas to the table. This is obviously part of the public dialogue.”
But Dave Low, assistant director of governmental relations for the California School Employees Association, said that Schwarzenegger is unlikely to back a proposal that doesn’t take into account the work of a commission he formed to address public pensions, scheduled to come out with recommendations in January.
“It seems that Richman is way out ahead of the governor on this one,” said Low, one of the Legislature’s appointees to the commission. “Why not wait?”
Jelincic questioned the rationale for the initiative, saying that the state’s biggest pension system, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, is not severely underfunded.
If the initiative passed, governments that offered reduced retirement benefits would have to sweeten the pot for potential workers by raising pay, he said.
Richman, however, disputed the contention that government workers are paid less than their private sector counterparts and need better retirements as an incentive.
“Numerous studies over recent years have demonstrated that public employee salaries are higher than those in the private sector, and the benefits are much higher,” he said.
“I am disappointed, why would it only apply to new hires rather than all public employees?”
Already hired employees were hired with the understanding of what their retirment would look like. If you worked for the gov for 29 years under the beleif (or contract?? promise?) that you would have your benefits be paid for untill you die and then it is changed or due to end at 65 well, umm..strike?..
I would imagine they would have some sort of legal obligation to follow through with what is promised. messy.
gov workers look for the stability of the job. Some or maybe many private jobs pay higher but you have to deal with issues like companies folding, oops don’t have the money to pay you, yada yada. Without the stabililty of important things like retirment and benefits well then people might not be so intersted in gov jobs.
great article!!!
“I am disappointed, why would it only apply to new hires rather than all public employees?”
Already hired employees were hired with the understanding of what their retirment would look like. If you worked for the gov for 29 years under the beleif (or contract?? promise?) that you would have your benefits be paid for untill you die and then it is changed or due to end at 65 well, umm..strike?..
I would imagine they would have some sort of legal obligation to follow through with what is promised. messy.
gov workers look for the stability of the job. Some or maybe many private jobs pay higher but you have to deal with issues like companies folding, oops don’t have the money to pay you, yada yada. Without the stabililty of important things like retirment and benefits well then people might not be so intersted in gov jobs.
great article!!!
“I am disappointed, why would it only apply to new hires rather than all public employees?”
Already hired employees were hired with the understanding of what their retirment would look like. If you worked for the gov for 29 years under the beleif (or contract?? promise?) that you would have your benefits be paid for untill you die and then it is changed or due to end at 65 well, umm..strike?..
I would imagine they would have some sort of legal obligation to follow through with what is promised. messy.
gov workers look for the stability of the job. Some or maybe many private jobs pay higher but you have to deal with issues like companies folding, oops don’t have the money to pay you, yada yada. Without the stabililty of important things like retirment and benefits well then people might not be so intersted in gov jobs.
great article!!!
“I am disappointed, why would it only apply to new hires rather than all public employees?”
Already hired employees were hired with the understanding of what their retirment would look like. If you worked for the gov for 29 years under the beleif (or contract?? promise?) that you would have your benefits be paid for untill you die and then it is changed or due to end at 65 well, umm..strike?..
I would imagine they would have some sort of legal obligation to follow through with what is promised. messy.
gov workers look for the stability of the job. Some or maybe many private jobs pay higher but you have to deal with issues like companies folding, oops don’t have the money to pay you, yada yada. Without the stabililty of important things like retirment and benefits well then people might not be so intersted in gov jobs.
great article!!!
Why only new hires? Because the SEIU, which is way too powerful, would it kill it in a second. This way, it may stand a chance.
I don’t think that pension reform is a bad idea at all, nor do I think it would hurt government workers – retiring at 55, and basing your retirement on your last year’s salary is crazy, and has resulted in people receiving salary hikes right before they retire.
I think there needs to be pension reform coupled with civil service reform – the current hiring system hampers departments from getting the most qualified people.
The basic problem with the current civil service system is that 85% of them are not high achievers, and the 15% that are able are overwhelmed and overworked.
Why only new hires? Because the SEIU, which is way too powerful, would it kill it in a second. This way, it may stand a chance.
I don’t think that pension reform is a bad idea at all, nor do I think it would hurt government workers – retiring at 55, and basing your retirement on your last year’s salary is crazy, and has resulted in people receiving salary hikes right before they retire.
I think there needs to be pension reform coupled with civil service reform – the current hiring system hampers departments from getting the most qualified people.
The basic problem with the current civil service system is that 85% of them are not high achievers, and the 15% that are able are overwhelmed and overworked.
Why only new hires? Because the SEIU, which is way too powerful, would it kill it in a second. This way, it may stand a chance.
I don’t think that pension reform is a bad idea at all, nor do I think it would hurt government workers – retiring at 55, and basing your retirement on your last year’s salary is crazy, and has resulted in people receiving salary hikes right before they retire.
I think there needs to be pension reform coupled with civil service reform – the current hiring system hampers departments from getting the most qualified people.
The basic problem with the current civil service system is that 85% of them are not high achievers, and the 15% that are able are overwhelmed and overworked.
Why only new hires? Because the SEIU, which is way too powerful, would it kill it in a second. This way, it may stand a chance.
I don’t think that pension reform is a bad idea at all, nor do I think it would hurt government workers – retiring at 55, and basing your retirement on your last year’s salary is crazy, and has resulted in people receiving salary hikes right before they retire.
I think there needs to be pension reform coupled with civil service reform – the current hiring system hampers departments from getting the most qualified people.
The basic problem with the current civil service system is that 85% of them are not high achievers, and the 15% that are able are overwhelmed and overworked.
Public employee unions and associations (including SEIU) are not supportive of the initiative, and are not supportive of the attack on new hires, because it discourages recruitment and retention of qualified employees.
This would also potentially have a negative impact on the services that they provide to the public, so I can understand why they would be opposed to it.
Public employee unions and associations (including SEIU) are not supportive of the initiative, and are not supportive of the attack on new hires, because it discourages recruitment and retention of qualified employees.
This would also potentially have a negative impact on the services that they provide to the public, so I can understand why they would be opposed to it.
Public employee unions and associations (including SEIU) are not supportive of the initiative, and are not supportive of the attack on new hires, because it discourages recruitment and retention of qualified employees.
This would also potentially have a negative impact on the services that they provide to the public, so I can understand why they would be opposed to it.
Public employee unions and associations (including SEIU) are not supportive of the initiative, and are not supportive of the attack on new hires, because it discourages recruitment and retention of qualified employees.
This would also potentially have a negative impact on the services that they provide to the public, so I can understand why they would be opposed to it.
I don’t know if I want police and fire department employees to be working to far into their senior years. Private employees don’t have to run into burning buildings or deal with crazed drug impaired criminals as a regular part of their work environment.
It was my understanding that retirement agreements with police and fire were reached by contract negotiation with their city of employment.
I think that this proposal should be looked at locally. Is this a good proposal for our local public employees? Or will it make it difficult to attract quality employees for Davis.
I don’t know if I want police and fire department employees to be working to far into their senior years. Private employees don’t have to run into burning buildings or deal with crazed drug impaired criminals as a regular part of their work environment.
It was my understanding that retirement agreements with police and fire were reached by contract negotiation with their city of employment.
I think that this proposal should be looked at locally. Is this a good proposal for our local public employees? Or will it make it difficult to attract quality employees for Davis.
I don’t know if I want police and fire department employees to be working to far into their senior years. Private employees don’t have to run into burning buildings or deal with crazed drug impaired criminals as a regular part of their work environment.
It was my understanding that retirement agreements with police and fire were reached by contract negotiation with their city of employment.
I think that this proposal should be looked at locally. Is this a good proposal for our local public employees? Or will it make it difficult to attract quality employees for Davis.
I don’t know if I want police and fire department employees to be working to far into their senior years. Private employees don’t have to run into burning buildings or deal with crazed drug impaired criminals as a regular part of their work environment.
It was my understanding that retirement agreements with police and fire were reached by contract negotiation with their city of employment.
I think that this proposal should be looked at locally. Is this a good proposal for our local public employees? Or will it make it difficult to attract quality employees for Davis.
What do you mean former assemblyman Richman is “at it again”? He was one of the more moderate members of the GOP caucus during his time in office.
What do you mean former assemblyman Richman is “at it again”? He was one of the more moderate members of the GOP caucus during his time in office.
What do you mean former assemblyman Richman is “at it again”? He was one of the more moderate members of the GOP caucus during his time in office.
What do you mean former assemblyman Richman is “at it again”? He was one of the more moderate members of the GOP caucus during his time in office.
Campaign Watcher 12:51 said:
“Private employees don’t have to run into burning buildings or deal with crazed drug impaired criminals as a regular part of their work environment.”
My former neighbor was a state employee and she worked with the CA Dept. of Corrections work in a dangerous environment. I believe that some health care workers and teachers work in some not-so-safe environments too.
Campaign Watcher 12:51 said:
“Private employees don’t have to run into burning buildings or deal with crazed drug impaired criminals as a regular part of their work environment.”
My former neighbor was a state employee and she worked with the CA Dept. of Corrections work in a dangerous environment. I believe that some health care workers and teachers work in some not-so-safe environments too.
Campaign Watcher 12:51 said:
“Private employees don’t have to run into burning buildings or deal with crazed drug impaired criminals as a regular part of their work environment.”
My former neighbor was a state employee and she worked with the CA Dept. of Corrections work in a dangerous environment. I believe that some health care workers and teachers work in some not-so-safe environments too.
Campaign Watcher 12:51 said:
“Private employees don’t have to run into burning buildings or deal with crazed drug impaired criminals as a regular part of their work environment.”
My former neighbor was a state employee and she worked with the CA Dept. of Corrections work in a dangerous environment. I believe that some health care workers and teachers work in some not-so-safe environments too.
This has nothing to do with reducing costs. It has to do with dismantling government; something Republicans have been wanting to do forever. If you make civil service jobs unattractive, you won’t be able to fill them with good people and in turn services will suffer and the Repugs will then cry about how the services need to be ‘privatized’. They have been at this for quite some time, by placing ill-prepared people in appointed positions (heckuva job, Brownie) and making work conditions unbearable for others.
Thos who enter public service take a pay cut from the private sector jobs they left, but do so not for the ‘stability’ (which there isn’t), but because of a desire to do something beneficial for society. This runs counter to Republican ideals of privatization.
Frankly, I really think this country is headed toward another civil war. It won’t be North and South this time, it will be Repugs and Democrats.
This has nothing to do with reducing costs. It has to do with dismantling government; something Republicans have been wanting to do forever. If you make civil service jobs unattractive, you won’t be able to fill them with good people and in turn services will suffer and the Repugs will then cry about how the services need to be ‘privatized’. They have been at this for quite some time, by placing ill-prepared people in appointed positions (heckuva job, Brownie) and making work conditions unbearable for others.
Thos who enter public service take a pay cut from the private sector jobs they left, but do so not for the ‘stability’ (which there isn’t), but because of a desire to do something beneficial for society. This runs counter to Republican ideals of privatization.
Frankly, I really think this country is headed toward another civil war. It won’t be North and South this time, it will be Repugs and Democrats.
This has nothing to do with reducing costs. It has to do with dismantling government; something Republicans have been wanting to do forever. If you make civil service jobs unattractive, you won’t be able to fill them with good people and in turn services will suffer and the Repugs will then cry about how the services need to be ‘privatized’. They have been at this for quite some time, by placing ill-prepared people in appointed positions (heckuva job, Brownie) and making work conditions unbearable for others.
Thos who enter public service take a pay cut from the private sector jobs they left, but do so not for the ‘stability’ (which there isn’t), but because of a desire to do something beneficial for society. This runs counter to Republican ideals of privatization.
Frankly, I really think this country is headed toward another civil war. It won’t be North and South this time, it will be Repugs and Democrats.
This has nothing to do with reducing costs. It has to do with dismantling government; something Republicans have been wanting to do forever. If you make civil service jobs unattractive, you won’t be able to fill them with good people and in turn services will suffer and the Repugs will then cry about how the services need to be ‘privatized’. They have been at this for quite some time, by placing ill-prepared people in appointed positions (heckuva job, Brownie) and making work conditions unbearable for others.
Thos who enter public service take a pay cut from the private sector jobs they left, but do so not for the ‘stability’ (which there isn’t), but because of a desire to do something beneficial for society. This runs counter to Republican ideals of privatization.
Frankly, I really think this country is headed toward another civil war. It won’t be North and South this time, it will be Repugs and Democrats.
Some technical clarifications:
Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald quotes from the Sac Bee:
The Sacramento Bee further reported that the “crisis” [of CalPERS] is wildly overblown. New federal accounting standards simply require that anticipated retirement obligations be calculated and reported. California does not owe a nickel more for employee health care benefits today than it did before the accounting standards were adopted.
(Cecilia doesn’t make it clear whether this quote was from a columnist, reporter, or person quoted by columnist or reporter).
My observation:
This quote really sidesteps the issue. The “new federal accounting standards”, more specifically, GASB 45, merely requires government entities to start calculating what it will cost to pay promised retiree health benefits after an employee retires. Of course it doesn’t “add a nickel more for employee health benefits” – its purpose is to force government entities to acknowledge the true costs of the obligations that we are incurring.
Then, Cecilia quotes the Bee quoting State Controller John Chiang as saying that, “it was not a crisis 30 years ago, it was not a crisis yesterday and it is not a crisis today…and if we work toward a plan to pay this obligation in a reasoned manner it will not be a crisis 30 years from now.”
That is, of course, the point. While we (whether we be citizens of the state, county, school district or city) don’t have to pay this money out today, we will have to pay it out in the future, and, if we don’t have a plan to “pay this obligation in a reasoned manner”, we will be creating a future nightmare.
In the case of the City of Davis, that means we will have to both fully fund our retiree health benefits going forward, and start paying off the approximately $42 million of unfunded retiree health benefits that we already owe.
Some technical clarifications:
Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald quotes from the Sac Bee:
The Sacramento Bee further reported that the “crisis” [of CalPERS] is wildly overblown. New federal accounting standards simply require that anticipated retirement obligations be calculated and reported. California does not owe a nickel more for employee health care benefits today than it did before the accounting standards were adopted.
(Cecilia doesn’t make it clear whether this quote was from a columnist, reporter, or person quoted by columnist or reporter).
My observation:
This quote really sidesteps the issue. The “new federal accounting standards”, more specifically, GASB 45, merely requires government entities to start calculating what it will cost to pay promised retiree health benefits after an employee retires. Of course it doesn’t “add a nickel more for employee health benefits” – its purpose is to force government entities to acknowledge the true costs of the obligations that we are incurring.
Then, Cecilia quotes the Bee quoting State Controller John Chiang as saying that, “it was not a crisis 30 years ago, it was not a crisis yesterday and it is not a crisis today…and if we work toward a plan to pay this obligation in a reasoned manner it will not be a crisis 30 years from now.”
That is, of course, the point. While we (whether we be citizens of the state, county, school district or city) don’t have to pay this money out today, we will have to pay it out in the future, and, if we don’t have a plan to “pay this obligation in a reasoned manner”, we will be creating a future nightmare.
In the case of the City of Davis, that means we will have to both fully fund our retiree health benefits going forward, and start paying off the approximately $42 million of unfunded retiree health benefits that we already owe.
Some technical clarifications:
Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald quotes from the Sac Bee:
The Sacramento Bee further reported that the “crisis” [of CalPERS] is wildly overblown. New federal accounting standards simply require that anticipated retirement obligations be calculated and reported. California does not owe a nickel more for employee health care benefits today than it did before the accounting standards were adopted.
(Cecilia doesn’t make it clear whether this quote was from a columnist, reporter, or person quoted by columnist or reporter).
My observation:
This quote really sidesteps the issue. The “new federal accounting standards”, more specifically, GASB 45, merely requires government entities to start calculating what it will cost to pay promised retiree health benefits after an employee retires. Of course it doesn’t “add a nickel more for employee health benefits” – its purpose is to force government entities to acknowledge the true costs of the obligations that we are incurring.
Then, Cecilia quotes the Bee quoting State Controller John Chiang as saying that, “it was not a crisis 30 years ago, it was not a crisis yesterday and it is not a crisis today…and if we work toward a plan to pay this obligation in a reasoned manner it will not be a crisis 30 years from now.”
That is, of course, the point. While we (whether we be citizens of the state, county, school district or city) don’t have to pay this money out today, we will have to pay it out in the future, and, if we don’t have a plan to “pay this obligation in a reasoned manner”, we will be creating a future nightmare.
In the case of the City of Davis, that means we will have to both fully fund our retiree health benefits going forward, and start paying off the approximately $42 million of unfunded retiree health benefits that we already owe.
Some technical clarifications:
Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald quotes from the Sac Bee:
The Sacramento Bee further reported that the “crisis” [of CalPERS] is wildly overblown. New federal accounting standards simply require that anticipated retirement obligations be calculated and reported. California does not owe a nickel more for employee health care benefits today than it did before the accounting standards were adopted.
(Cecilia doesn’t make it clear whether this quote was from a columnist, reporter, or person quoted by columnist or reporter).
My observation:
This quote really sidesteps the issue. The “new federal accounting standards”, more specifically, GASB 45, merely requires government entities to start calculating what it will cost to pay promised retiree health benefits after an employee retires. Of course it doesn’t “add a nickel more for employee health benefits” – its purpose is to force government entities to acknowledge the true costs of the obligations that we are incurring.
Then, Cecilia quotes the Bee quoting State Controller John Chiang as saying that, “it was not a crisis 30 years ago, it was not a crisis yesterday and it is not a crisis today…and if we work toward a plan to pay this obligation in a reasoned manner it will not be a crisis 30 years from now.”
That is, of course, the point. While we (whether we be citizens of the state, county, school district or city) don’t have to pay this money out today, we will have to pay it out in the future, and, if we don’t have a plan to “pay this obligation in a reasoned manner”, we will be creating a future nightmare.
In the case of the City of Davis, that means we will have to both fully fund our retiree health benefits going forward, and start paying off the approximately $42 million of unfunded retiree health benefits that we already owe.
public service is good said…
“Those who enter public service take a pay cut from the private sector jobs they left…”
I’d be curious about your source for that, since all the data I’ve seen indicates otherwise.
Anonymous said…
“What do you mean former assemblyman Richman is “at it again”? He was one of the more moderate members of the GOP caucus during his time in office.”
I agree. Richman was one of the few Republicans who would reach across the aisle to try to find common ground, especially on budget issues.
I think that the burgeoning benefits for future retirees are going to be a major issue for government at all levels. Obviously you can’t change contractual commitments to current employees.
public service is good said…
“Those who enter public service take a pay cut from the private sector jobs they left…”
I’d be curious about your source for that, since all the data I’ve seen indicates otherwise.
Anonymous said…
“What do you mean former assemblyman Richman is “at it again”? He was one of the more moderate members of the GOP caucus during his time in office.”
I agree. Richman was one of the few Republicans who would reach across the aisle to try to find common ground, especially on budget issues.
I think that the burgeoning benefits for future retirees are going to be a major issue for government at all levels. Obviously you can’t change contractual commitments to current employees.
public service is good said…
“Those who enter public service take a pay cut from the private sector jobs they left…”
I’d be curious about your source for that, since all the data I’ve seen indicates otherwise.
Anonymous said…
“What do you mean former assemblyman Richman is “at it again”? He was one of the more moderate members of the GOP caucus during his time in office.”
I agree. Richman was one of the few Republicans who would reach across the aisle to try to find common ground, especially on budget issues.
I think that the burgeoning benefits for future retirees are going to be a major issue for government at all levels. Obviously you can’t change contractual commitments to current employees.
public service is good said…
“Those who enter public service take a pay cut from the private sector jobs they left…”
I’d be curious about your source for that, since all the data I’ve seen indicates otherwise.
Anonymous said…
“What do you mean former assemblyman Richman is “at it again”? He was one of the more moderate members of the GOP caucus during his time in office.”
I agree. Richman was one of the few Republicans who would reach across the aisle to try to find common ground, especially on budget issues.
I think that the burgeoning benefits for future retirees are going to be a major issue for government at all levels. Obviously you can’t change contractual commitments to current employees.
Dear Public Service is Good-
The coming “civil war” should be pretty entertaining, probably a half-dozen civil servants will come out on their two-hour lunchbreaks to storm the bastille (provided their is adequate handicap access, it is a worksafe environment and they can charge overtime for it). The “Repugs” will simply outsource their counter-attack. The rest of us, who find labels sort of stupid, will watch with delight…
On the whole- anyone who genuinely believes that most public emplyees are their for the public good probably also believe in the Easter Bunny. Many public employees simply want ridiculously safe compensation regardless how they perform…
Dear Public Service is Good-
The coming “civil war” should be pretty entertaining, probably a half-dozen civil servants will come out on their two-hour lunchbreaks to storm the bastille (provided their is adequate handicap access, it is a worksafe environment and they can charge overtime for it). The “Repugs” will simply outsource their counter-attack. The rest of us, who find labels sort of stupid, will watch with delight…
On the whole- anyone who genuinely believes that most public emplyees are their for the public good probably also believe in the Easter Bunny. Many public employees simply want ridiculously safe compensation regardless how they perform…
Dear Public Service is Good-
The coming “civil war” should be pretty entertaining, probably a half-dozen civil servants will come out on their two-hour lunchbreaks to storm the bastille (provided their is adequate handicap access, it is a worksafe environment and they can charge overtime for it). The “Repugs” will simply outsource their counter-attack. The rest of us, who find labels sort of stupid, will watch with delight…
On the whole- anyone who genuinely believes that most public emplyees are their for the public good probably also believe in the Easter Bunny. Many public employees simply want ridiculously safe compensation regardless how they perform…
Dear Public Service is Good-
The coming “civil war” should be pretty entertaining, probably a half-dozen civil servants will come out on their two-hour lunchbreaks to storm the bastille (provided their is adequate handicap access, it is a worksafe environment and they can charge overtime for it). The “Repugs” will simply outsource their counter-attack. The rest of us, who find labels sort of stupid, will watch with delight…
On the whole- anyone who genuinely believes that most public emplyees are their for the public good probably also believe in the Easter Bunny. Many public employees simply want ridiculously safe compensation regardless how they perform…
“On the whole- anyone who genuinely believes that most public emplyees are there for the public good probably also believe in the Easter Bunny. Many public employees simply want ridiculously safe compensation regardless how they perform…”
I couldn’t have said it better myself! That’s my point – the vast majority of the civil service are unmotivated, which is why we need to reform state government.
This isn’t about Republicans trying to dismantle government – this is about Republicans (or any good government politician) trying to ensure that an organization is run efficiently – not really sure how you could disagree with that, unless you want your tax dollars wasted. I understand that liberals don’t mind paying taxes, but I did think they’d want them to be used wisely…?
“On the whole- anyone who genuinely believes that most public emplyees are there for the public good probably also believe in the Easter Bunny. Many public employees simply want ridiculously safe compensation regardless how they perform…”
I couldn’t have said it better myself! That’s my point – the vast majority of the civil service are unmotivated, which is why we need to reform state government.
This isn’t about Republicans trying to dismantle government – this is about Republicans (or any good government politician) trying to ensure that an organization is run efficiently – not really sure how you could disagree with that, unless you want your tax dollars wasted. I understand that liberals don’t mind paying taxes, but I did think they’d want them to be used wisely…?
“On the whole- anyone who genuinely believes that most public emplyees are there for the public good probably also believe in the Easter Bunny. Many public employees simply want ridiculously safe compensation regardless how they perform…”
I couldn’t have said it better myself! That’s my point – the vast majority of the civil service are unmotivated, which is why we need to reform state government.
This isn’t about Republicans trying to dismantle government – this is about Republicans (or any good government politician) trying to ensure that an organization is run efficiently – not really sure how you could disagree with that, unless you want your tax dollars wasted. I understand that liberals don’t mind paying taxes, but I did think they’d want them to be used wisely…?
“On the whole- anyone who genuinely believes that most public emplyees are there for the public good probably also believe in the Easter Bunny. Many public employees simply want ridiculously safe compensation regardless how they perform…”
I couldn’t have said it better myself! That’s my point – the vast majority of the civil service are unmotivated, which is why we need to reform state government.
This isn’t about Republicans trying to dismantle government – this is about Republicans (or any good government politician) trying to ensure that an organization is run efficiently – not really sure how you could disagree with that, unless you want your tax dollars wasted. I understand that liberals don’t mind paying taxes, but I did think they’d want them to be used wisely…?
Of course this is about Repubs trying to dismantle government. It’s always been about that. Why doesn’t he try to reform outrageous CEO salaries? Because they contribute cash to Repubs. And public employees? More likely to vote Democrat.
You think the civil war is about state workers? Hell, no. It’s a war of dollars, being fought by proxy by our candidates. And so far, the DNC is winning that war.
1-20-09.
Of course this is about Repubs trying to dismantle government. It’s always been about that. Why doesn’t he try to reform outrageous CEO salaries? Because they contribute cash to Repubs. And public employees? More likely to vote Democrat.
You think the civil war is about state workers? Hell, no. It’s a war of dollars, being fought by proxy by our candidates. And so far, the DNC is winning that war.
1-20-09.
Of course this is about Repubs trying to dismantle government. It’s always been about that. Why doesn’t he try to reform outrageous CEO salaries? Because they contribute cash to Repubs. And public employees? More likely to vote Democrat.
You think the civil war is about state workers? Hell, no. It’s a war of dollars, being fought by proxy by our candidates. And so far, the DNC is winning that war.
1-20-09.
Of course this is about Repubs trying to dismantle government. It’s always been about that. Why doesn’t he try to reform outrageous CEO salaries? Because they contribute cash to Repubs. And public employees? More likely to vote Democrat.
You think the civil war is about state workers? Hell, no. It’s a war of dollars, being fought by proxy by our candidates. And so far, the DNC is winning that war.
1-20-09.
Sue Greenwald finally has another issue besides no growth nimbyism, its city employees making too much money. I’m not surprised, in any other town she would be a republican.
As for state workers not caring about the quality of their work I don’t think you can make that generalization. I know some who like the security and the hours but do their jobs well and to the best of their ability.
Sue Greenwald finally has another issue besides no growth nimbyism, its city employees making too much money. I’m not surprised, in any other town she would be a republican.
As for state workers not caring about the quality of their work I don’t think you can make that generalization. I know some who like the security and the hours but do their jobs well and to the best of their ability.
Sue Greenwald finally has another issue besides no growth nimbyism, its city employees making too much money. I’m not surprised, in any other town she would be a republican.
As for state workers not caring about the quality of their work I don’t think you can make that generalization. I know some who like the security and the hours but do their jobs well and to the best of their ability.
Sue Greenwald finally has another issue besides no growth nimbyism, its city employees making too much money. I’m not surprised, in any other town she would be a republican.
As for state workers not caring about the quality of their work I don’t think you can make that generalization. I know some who like the security and the hours but do their jobs well and to the best of their ability.
Let me throw in some random facts as a state worker since the slew of opinion seems to be devoid of facts. State worker retirement is not based on your last year of compensation…it is based on the average of your last three years for most bargaining units. My statistics may be a little off, but the median salary of state workers (not cops, correctional officers, or firemen) is around $3,800 per month or around $46,000 per year. It’s a living wage, but it is probably below the Davis median. Most state workers are just like workers everywhere. We put up with all kinds of inept management, usually because the political appointees at the top don’t know what we do. We have some middle management that is doing a very good job and others not so good…just like the private sector. Veteran state workers are highly productive because we have learned how to do our jobs in SPITE of the red tape and the state’s desire to not get the job done. When we retire, we typically have 30 years in and we retire around age 60 which gives us a take home of about $2,700. I know retired office technicians (clerical workers) who take home around $1,900. These are the kind of people cretins like Keith Richman would like to kick around. Most of the opinions on this blog from people who think the Richman initiative is a good idea seem to have no facts, but plenty of opinion. Informed opinion will be gladly accepted.
Let me throw in some random facts as a state worker since the slew of opinion seems to be devoid of facts. State worker retirement is not based on your last year of compensation…it is based on the average of your last three years for most bargaining units. My statistics may be a little off, but the median salary of state workers (not cops, correctional officers, or firemen) is around $3,800 per month or around $46,000 per year. It’s a living wage, but it is probably below the Davis median. Most state workers are just like workers everywhere. We put up with all kinds of inept management, usually because the political appointees at the top don’t know what we do. We have some middle management that is doing a very good job and others not so good…just like the private sector. Veteran state workers are highly productive because we have learned how to do our jobs in SPITE of the red tape and the state’s desire to not get the job done. When we retire, we typically have 30 years in and we retire around age 60 which gives us a take home of about $2,700. I know retired office technicians (clerical workers) who take home around $1,900. These are the kind of people cretins like Keith Richman would like to kick around. Most of the opinions on this blog from people who think the Richman initiative is a good idea seem to have no facts, but plenty of opinion. Informed opinion will be gladly accepted.
Let me throw in some random facts as a state worker since the slew of opinion seems to be devoid of facts. State worker retirement is not based on your last year of compensation…it is based on the average of your last three years for most bargaining units. My statistics may be a little off, but the median salary of state workers (not cops, correctional officers, or firemen) is around $3,800 per month or around $46,000 per year. It’s a living wage, but it is probably below the Davis median. Most state workers are just like workers everywhere. We put up with all kinds of inept management, usually because the political appointees at the top don’t know what we do. We have some middle management that is doing a very good job and others not so good…just like the private sector. Veteran state workers are highly productive because we have learned how to do our jobs in SPITE of the red tape and the state’s desire to not get the job done. When we retire, we typically have 30 years in and we retire around age 60 which gives us a take home of about $2,700. I know retired office technicians (clerical workers) who take home around $1,900. These are the kind of people cretins like Keith Richman would like to kick around. Most of the opinions on this blog from people who think the Richman initiative is a good idea seem to have no facts, but plenty of opinion. Informed opinion will be gladly accepted.
Let me throw in some random facts as a state worker since the slew of opinion seems to be devoid of facts. State worker retirement is not based on your last year of compensation…it is based on the average of your last three years for most bargaining units. My statistics may be a little off, but the median salary of state workers (not cops, correctional officers, or firemen) is around $3,800 per month or around $46,000 per year. It’s a living wage, but it is probably below the Davis median. Most state workers are just like workers everywhere. We put up with all kinds of inept management, usually because the political appointees at the top don’t know what we do. We have some middle management that is doing a very good job and others not so good…just like the private sector. Veteran state workers are highly productive because we have learned how to do our jobs in SPITE of the red tape and the state’s desire to not get the job done. When we retire, we typically have 30 years in and we retire around age 60 which gives us a take home of about $2,700. I know retired office technicians (clerical workers) who take home around $1,900. These are the kind of people cretins like Keith Richman would like to kick around. Most of the opinions on this blog from people who think the Richman initiative is a good idea seem to have no facts, but plenty of opinion. Informed opinion will be gladly accepted.
I will add to what Dave Hart said, which makes good sense to me. Bottom line – gov’t employees need to be paid a fair wage with reasonable benefits to attract and keep qualified people. If gov’t spending is to be truly reformed, then the politicians at the top have to stop wasting taxpayers money, rather than using issues like cutting gov’t pensions to solve the results of their own mismanagement.
Perfect example is the Social Security System in the federal gov’t. It worked just fine until politicians kept raiding it to fix other problems. How many times do we see gov’t waste huge amounts of taxpayer dollars at the drop of a hat, then use existing pots of money from successful programs to cover up their own irresponsible fiscal behavior? And then what happens? Both successful and unsuccessful programs fail!
As for local gov’t, I notice that those folks who teach, police, and protect us from fire are paid a so-so wage, or even lower. However the top tiers are getting ridiculously high salaries that are not warranted. The excuse for this is always “we have to pay top administrative salaries to attract the best qualifed people”. Horse manure!
Tell that to Davesites after the latest school superintendent debacle – where one superintendent is being paid for doing nothing; another was hired to replace him because he was so incompetent; yet we are paying for both at the same time! The original nitwit superintendant was paid a whopping $240,000 per year, and couldn’t even manage to get an application for grant money in on time. It was a miracle we were able to fix his collosal goof (one of many I might add). The new superintendent was hired for $190,000. Even though we paid top dollar, clearly we did not get quality at all.
This sort of thing happens over and over again. Top level people are paid extremely high salaries; they are recruited from outside more often than not; and are not worth the money we pay them. Meanwhile the people who actually do the major share of the actual work – like teachers, police and fireman – receive wages that are just barely adequate. Does anyone else think this is a problem?
Local, state and federal gov’ts have got to stop being so fiscally irresponsible in spending money on outlandish crap, pay a decent wage to service providers, and stop giving administrators salaries they don’t deserve and the gov’t cannot afford. Don’t ask the taxpayer to put up with the nonsense of listening to excuses of politicians from both sides of the aisle why we have to “reform” Social Security or “reduce” basic pension programs while gov’ts spend money like there is no tomorrow. It’s disgusting!!!
And don’t even get me started on the stupid salaries given to CEO’s; Hollywood actors; sports stars and the like in the private sector (which very much affects the stock market and gov’t pensions). Good golly – the head of the NY Stock Exchange was given an $800 million golden parachute when he left. It was so obscene there was an investigation, but nothing ever came of it that I heard. Just as nothing much is going to be done about the outgoing superintendent in Davis who was a total screw-up – other than to reward him for his lousy job by buying out his contract.
The Davis City Council approved a $75,000 consultant fee to do a survey on the best use of our parks. The survey did not tell us one d__m thing we did not already know. This is the sort of expenditure that needs to be reformed – not the average Joe’s salary or pension. Stop wasting tax dollars on nonsense and administravie salaries that are through the roof. Pay the peons a decent wage and benefits package. Teachers start at $38,000 in Davis, but are paying $1,000 PER MONTH in health insurance. See anything wrong with this picture?
Forget politics. Do what everyone knows is right!
I will add to what Dave Hart said, which makes good sense to me. Bottom line – gov’t employees need to be paid a fair wage with reasonable benefits to attract and keep qualified people. If gov’t spending is to be truly reformed, then the politicians at the top have to stop wasting taxpayers money, rather than using issues like cutting gov’t pensions to solve the results of their own mismanagement.
Perfect example is the Social Security System in the federal gov’t. It worked just fine until politicians kept raiding it to fix other problems. How many times do we see gov’t waste huge amounts of taxpayer dollars at the drop of a hat, then use existing pots of money from successful programs to cover up their own irresponsible fiscal behavior? And then what happens? Both successful and unsuccessful programs fail!
As for local gov’t, I notice that those folks who teach, police, and protect us from fire are paid a so-so wage, or even lower. However the top tiers are getting ridiculously high salaries that are not warranted. The excuse for this is always “we have to pay top administrative salaries to attract the best qualifed people”. Horse manure!
Tell that to Davesites after the latest school superintendent debacle – where one superintendent is being paid for doing nothing; another was hired to replace him because he was so incompetent; yet we are paying for both at the same time! The original nitwit superintendant was paid a whopping $240,000 per year, and couldn’t even manage to get an application for grant money in on time. It was a miracle we were able to fix his collosal goof (one of many I might add). The new superintendent was hired for $190,000. Even though we paid top dollar, clearly we did not get quality at all.
This sort of thing happens over and over again. Top level people are paid extremely high salaries; they are recruited from outside more often than not; and are not worth the money we pay them. Meanwhile the people who actually do the major share of the actual work – like teachers, police and fireman – receive wages that are just barely adequate. Does anyone else think this is a problem?
Local, state and federal gov’ts have got to stop being so fiscally irresponsible in spending money on outlandish crap, pay a decent wage to service providers, and stop giving administrators salaries they don’t deserve and the gov’t cannot afford. Don’t ask the taxpayer to put up with the nonsense of listening to excuses of politicians from both sides of the aisle why we have to “reform” Social Security or “reduce” basic pension programs while gov’ts spend money like there is no tomorrow. It’s disgusting!!!
And don’t even get me started on the stupid salaries given to CEO’s; Hollywood actors; sports stars and the like in the private sector (which very much affects the stock market and gov’t pensions). Good golly – the head of the NY Stock Exchange was given an $800 million golden parachute when he left. It was so obscene there was an investigation, but nothing ever came of it that I heard. Just as nothing much is going to be done about the outgoing superintendent in Davis who was a total screw-up – other than to reward him for his lousy job by buying out his contract.
The Davis City Council approved a $75,000 consultant fee to do a survey on the best use of our parks. The survey did not tell us one d__m thing we did not already know. This is the sort of expenditure that needs to be reformed – not the average Joe’s salary or pension. Stop wasting tax dollars on nonsense and administravie salaries that are through the roof. Pay the peons a decent wage and benefits package. Teachers start at $38,000 in Davis, but are paying $1,000 PER MONTH in health insurance. See anything wrong with this picture?
Forget politics. Do what everyone knows is right!
I will add to what Dave Hart said, which makes good sense to me. Bottom line – gov’t employees need to be paid a fair wage with reasonable benefits to attract and keep qualified people. If gov’t spending is to be truly reformed, then the politicians at the top have to stop wasting taxpayers money, rather than using issues like cutting gov’t pensions to solve the results of their own mismanagement.
Perfect example is the Social Security System in the federal gov’t. It worked just fine until politicians kept raiding it to fix other problems. How many times do we see gov’t waste huge amounts of taxpayer dollars at the drop of a hat, then use existing pots of money from successful programs to cover up their own irresponsible fiscal behavior? And then what happens? Both successful and unsuccessful programs fail!
As for local gov’t, I notice that those folks who teach, police, and protect us from fire are paid a so-so wage, or even lower. However the top tiers are getting ridiculously high salaries that are not warranted. The excuse for this is always “we have to pay top administrative salaries to attract the best qualifed people”. Horse manure!
Tell that to Davesites after the latest school superintendent debacle – where one superintendent is being paid for doing nothing; another was hired to replace him because he was so incompetent; yet we are paying for both at the same time! The original nitwit superintendant was paid a whopping $240,000 per year, and couldn’t even manage to get an application for grant money in on time. It was a miracle we were able to fix his collosal goof (one of many I might add). The new superintendent was hired for $190,000. Even though we paid top dollar, clearly we did not get quality at all.
This sort of thing happens over and over again. Top level people are paid extremely high salaries; they are recruited from outside more often than not; and are not worth the money we pay them. Meanwhile the people who actually do the major share of the actual work – like teachers, police and fireman – receive wages that are just barely adequate. Does anyone else think this is a problem?
Local, state and federal gov’ts have got to stop being so fiscally irresponsible in spending money on outlandish crap, pay a decent wage to service providers, and stop giving administrators salaries they don’t deserve and the gov’t cannot afford. Don’t ask the taxpayer to put up with the nonsense of listening to excuses of politicians from both sides of the aisle why we have to “reform” Social Security or “reduce” basic pension programs while gov’ts spend money like there is no tomorrow. It’s disgusting!!!
And don’t even get me started on the stupid salaries given to CEO’s; Hollywood actors; sports stars and the like in the private sector (which very much affects the stock market and gov’t pensions). Good golly – the head of the NY Stock Exchange was given an $800 million golden parachute when he left. It was so obscene there was an investigation, but nothing ever came of it that I heard. Just as nothing much is going to be done about the outgoing superintendent in Davis who was a total screw-up – other than to reward him for his lousy job by buying out his contract.
The Davis City Council approved a $75,000 consultant fee to do a survey on the best use of our parks. The survey did not tell us one d__m thing we did not already know. This is the sort of expenditure that needs to be reformed – not the average Joe’s salary or pension. Stop wasting tax dollars on nonsense and administravie salaries that are through the roof. Pay the peons a decent wage and benefits package. Teachers start at $38,000 in Davis, but are paying $1,000 PER MONTH in health insurance. See anything wrong with this picture?
Forget politics. Do what everyone knows is right!
I will add to what Dave Hart said, which makes good sense to me. Bottom line – gov’t employees need to be paid a fair wage with reasonable benefits to attract and keep qualified people. If gov’t spending is to be truly reformed, then the politicians at the top have to stop wasting taxpayers money, rather than using issues like cutting gov’t pensions to solve the results of their own mismanagement.
Perfect example is the Social Security System in the federal gov’t. It worked just fine until politicians kept raiding it to fix other problems. How many times do we see gov’t waste huge amounts of taxpayer dollars at the drop of a hat, then use existing pots of money from successful programs to cover up their own irresponsible fiscal behavior? And then what happens? Both successful and unsuccessful programs fail!
As for local gov’t, I notice that those folks who teach, police, and protect us from fire are paid a so-so wage, or even lower. However the top tiers are getting ridiculously high salaries that are not warranted. The excuse for this is always “we have to pay top administrative salaries to attract the best qualifed people”. Horse manure!
Tell that to Davesites after the latest school superintendent debacle – where one superintendent is being paid for doing nothing; another was hired to replace him because he was so incompetent; yet we are paying for both at the same time! The original nitwit superintendant was paid a whopping $240,000 per year, and couldn’t even manage to get an application for grant money in on time. It was a miracle we were able to fix his collosal goof (one of many I might add). The new superintendent was hired for $190,000. Even though we paid top dollar, clearly we did not get quality at all.
This sort of thing happens over and over again. Top level people are paid extremely high salaries; they are recruited from outside more often than not; and are not worth the money we pay them. Meanwhile the people who actually do the major share of the actual work – like teachers, police and fireman – receive wages that are just barely adequate. Does anyone else think this is a problem?
Local, state and federal gov’ts have got to stop being so fiscally irresponsible in spending money on outlandish crap, pay a decent wage to service providers, and stop giving administrators salaries they don’t deserve and the gov’t cannot afford. Don’t ask the taxpayer to put up with the nonsense of listening to excuses of politicians from both sides of the aisle why we have to “reform” Social Security or “reduce” basic pension programs while gov’ts spend money like there is no tomorrow. It’s disgusting!!!
And don’t even get me started on the stupid salaries given to CEO’s; Hollywood actors; sports stars and the like in the private sector (which very much affects the stock market and gov’t pensions). Good golly – the head of the NY Stock Exchange was given an $800 million golden parachute when he left. It was so obscene there was an investigation, but nothing ever came of it that I heard. Just as nothing much is going to be done about the outgoing superintendent in Davis who was a total screw-up – other than to reward him for his lousy job by buying out his contract.
The Davis City Council approved a $75,000 consultant fee to do a survey on the best use of our parks. The survey did not tell us one d__m thing we did not already know. This is the sort of expenditure that needs to be reformed – not the average Joe’s salary or pension. Stop wasting tax dollars on nonsense and administravie salaries that are through the roof. Pay the peons a decent wage and benefits package. Teachers start at $38,000 in Davis, but are paying $1,000 PER MONTH in health insurance. See anything wrong with this picture?
Forget politics. Do what everyone knows is right!
Anonymous said…
What do you mean former assemblyman Richman is “at it again”? He was one of the more moderate members of the GOP caucus during his time in office. 11/12/07 1:18 PM
———————
Anonymous,
As a member of the Assembly Richman attempted to go after public employee pensions.
Now that he was defeated and is no longer in the Assembly he has his own foundation and he is “at it again” attempting to go after public employee pensions.
Anonymous said…
What do you mean former assemblyman Richman is “at it again”? He was one of the more moderate members of the GOP caucus during his time in office. 11/12/07 1:18 PM
———————
Anonymous,
As a member of the Assembly Richman attempted to go after public employee pensions.
Now that he was defeated and is no longer in the Assembly he has his own foundation and he is “at it again” attempting to go after public employee pensions.
Anonymous said…
What do you mean former assemblyman Richman is “at it again”? He was one of the more moderate members of the GOP caucus during his time in office. 11/12/07 1:18 PM
———————
Anonymous,
As a member of the Assembly Richman attempted to go after public employee pensions.
Now that he was defeated and is no longer in the Assembly he has his own foundation and he is “at it again” attempting to go after public employee pensions.
Anonymous said…
What do you mean former assemblyman Richman is “at it again”? He was one of the more moderate members of the GOP caucus during his time in office. 11/12/07 1:18 PM
———————
Anonymous,
As a member of the Assembly Richman attempted to go after public employee pensions.
Now that he was defeated and is no longer in the Assembly he has his own foundation and he is “at it again” attempting to go after public employee pensions.
Cecilia,
Very good article. Very thoughtful. Thank you!
Jeff Monroe-County Worker
Cecilia,
Very good article. Very thoughtful. Thank you!
Jeff Monroe-County Worker
Cecilia,
Very good article. Very thoughtful. Thank you!
Jeff Monroe-County Worker
Cecilia,
Very good article. Very thoughtful. Thank you!
Jeff Monroe-County Worker
I think one item was overlooked, Unions. Thanks to that clown grey davis, Unions have entered the picture for many state workers. They are stealing money from state employee’s who are FORCED under fair share to pay dues to the union.
These union thieves create more financial hardship for the low paid state worker and are almost nowhere to be found when a representation issue arises.
Another part of the problem with public employment.
I think one item was overlooked, Unions. Thanks to that clown grey davis, Unions have entered the picture for many state workers. They are stealing money from state employee’s who are FORCED under fair share to pay dues to the union.
These union thieves create more financial hardship for the low paid state worker and are almost nowhere to be found when a representation issue arises.
Another part of the problem with public employment.
I think one item was overlooked, Unions. Thanks to that clown grey davis, Unions have entered the picture for many state workers. They are stealing money from state employee’s who are FORCED under fair share to pay dues to the union.
These union thieves create more financial hardship for the low paid state worker and are almost nowhere to be found when a representation issue arises.
Another part of the problem with public employment.
I think one item was overlooked, Unions. Thanks to that clown grey davis, Unions have entered the picture for many state workers. They are stealing money from state employee’s who are FORCED under fair share to pay dues to the union.
These union thieves create more financial hardship for the low paid state worker and are almost nowhere to be found when a representation issue arises.
Another part of the problem with public employment.
Anonymous 9:50 PM,
You are wrong about unions.
I am a state worker and I am very glad that my union (that includes me, because I am a member and I am involved) is fighting for me and others to protect by job, retirement, and other benefits.
It’s people like you who only want a free ride and don’t want to even pay fair share fees at minimum to cover the costs of bargaining for our contracts.
Were you not paying attention during the last contract campaign? The governor’s negotiators (who work for an anti-public employee governor)
wanted to:
Take away 1 week without pay;
Take away two holidays;
Increase the cost of our co-pay for doctors visits to $50;
Increase the 80/20 health care coverage so we would have to pay 30 percent instead of 20%;
Increase the cost for ER visits to $75…and there was more.
It was only through the action and participation of state employees (who don’t just sit around and complain like you) that we had NO takeaways.
On top of all of that, we received a 3.5 percent pay increase last year, a 3.4 percent pay increase this year, and a $1,000 bonus and NO TAKE AWAYS.
You can whine about a $20 to $30 dues increase, but that is nothing compared to what we received.
I think that our union is doing a good job with state workers involvement.
If you would spend as much time getting involved and becoming a part of the solution then you might have a different perspective.
You and others should not be given a free ride.
Anonymous 9:50 PM,
You are wrong about unions.
I am a state worker and I am very glad that my union (that includes me, because I am a member and I am involved) is fighting for me and others to protect by job, retirement, and other benefits.
It’s people like you who only want a free ride and don’t want to even pay fair share fees at minimum to cover the costs of bargaining for our contracts.
Were you not paying attention during the last contract campaign? The governor’s negotiators (who work for an anti-public employee governor)
wanted to:
Take away 1 week without pay;
Take away two holidays;
Increase the cost of our co-pay for doctors visits to $50;
Increase the 80/20 health care coverage so we would have to pay 30 percent instead of 20%;
Increase the cost for ER visits to $75…and there was more.
It was only through the action and participation of state employees (who don’t just sit around and complain like you) that we had NO takeaways.
On top of all of that, we received a 3.5 percent pay increase last year, a 3.4 percent pay increase this year, and a $1,000 bonus and NO TAKE AWAYS.
You can whine about a $20 to $30 dues increase, but that is nothing compared to what we received.
I think that our union is doing a good job with state workers involvement.
If you would spend as much time getting involved and becoming a part of the solution then you might have a different perspective.
You and others should not be given a free ride.
Anonymous 9:50 PM,
You are wrong about unions.
I am a state worker and I am very glad that my union (that includes me, because I am a member and I am involved) is fighting for me and others to protect by job, retirement, and other benefits.
It’s people like you who only want a free ride and don’t want to even pay fair share fees at minimum to cover the costs of bargaining for our contracts.
Were you not paying attention during the last contract campaign? The governor’s negotiators (who work for an anti-public employee governor)
wanted to:
Take away 1 week without pay;
Take away two holidays;
Increase the cost of our co-pay for doctors visits to $50;
Increase the 80/20 health care coverage so we would have to pay 30 percent instead of 20%;
Increase the cost for ER visits to $75…and there was more.
It was only through the action and participation of state employees (who don’t just sit around and complain like you) that we had NO takeaways.
On top of all of that, we received a 3.5 percent pay increase last year, a 3.4 percent pay increase this year, and a $1,000 bonus and NO TAKE AWAYS.
You can whine about a $20 to $30 dues increase, but that is nothing compared to what we received.
I think that our union is doing a good job with state workers involvement.
If you would spend as much time getting involved and becoming a part of the solution then you might have a different perspective.
You and others should not be given a free ride.
Anonymous 9:50 PM,
You are wrong about unions.
I am a state worker and I am very glad that my union (that includes me, because I am a member and I am involved) is fighting for me and others to protect by job, retirement, and other benefits.
It’s people like you who only want a free ride and don’t want to even pay fair share fees at minimum to cover the costs of bargaining for our contracts.
Were you not paying attention during the last contract campaign? The governor’s negotiators (who work for an anti-public employee governor)
wanted to:
Take away 1 week without pay;
Take away two holidays;
Increase the cost of our co-pay for doctors visits to $50;
Increase the 80/20 health care coverage so we would have to pay 30 percent instead of 20%;
Increase the cost for ER visits to $75…and there was more.
It was only through the action and participation of state employees (who don’t just sit around and complain like you) that we had NO takeaways.
On top of all of that, we received a 3.5 percent pay increase last year, a 3.4 percent pay increase this year, and a $1,000 bonus and NO TAKE AWAYS.
You can whine about a $20 to $30 dues increase, but that is nothing compared to what we received.
I think that our union is doing a good job with state workers involvement.
If you would spend as much time getting involved and becoming a part of the solution then you might have a different perspective.
You and others should not be given a free ride.
I don’t work for the state or belong to your union nor do I get any benefits from the union. I’m glad you got all you did. I wonder who is paying for it?
I am against taking away current benefits but in favor of restructuring the packages new employees get. If they know the deal going in and still take the job, they should have no excuses.
I don’t work for the state or belong to your union nor do I get any benefits from the union. I’m glad you got all you did. I wonder who is paying for it?
I am against taking away current benefits but in favor of restructuring the packages new employees get. If they know the deal going in and still take the job, they should have no excuses.
I don’t work for the state or belong to your union nor do I get any benefits from the union. I’m glad you got all you did. I wonder who is paying for it?
I am against taking away current benefits but in favor of restructuring the packages new employees get. If they know the deal going in and still take the job, they should have no excuses.
I don’t work for the state or belong to your union nor do I get any benefits from the union. I’m glad you got all you did. I wonder who is paying for it?
I am against taking away current benefits but in favor of restructuring the packages new employees get. If they know the deal going in and still take the job, they should have no excuses.
Anonymous 7:24 –
Please do your research and get your facts straight before ranting about a subject that you may not be familiar with.
I am a state worker and I will answer your questions, or respond to your inaccurate statements.
You said: I don’t work for the state or belong to your union nor do I get any benefits from the union. I’m glad you got all you did. I wonder who is paying for it?
Response: We are paying for it. Those of us who are full dues paying members. Those that are not pay what is called a “Fair Share” fee. They should be paying this, or they would be getting more of something for nothing. Most of us don’t believe in a “free ride.”
You said: I am against taking away current benefits but in favor of restructuring the packages new employees get. If they know the deal going in and still take the job, they should have no excuses.”
Response: The person who posted as Public service is good 11/12/07 2:25 PM, said it best when they said, “This has nothing to do with reducing costs. It has to do with dismantling government; something Republicans have been wanting to do forever. If you make civil service jobs unattractive, you won’t be able to fill them with good people and in turn services will suffer and the Repugs will then cry about how the services need to be ‘privatized’.”
I couldn’t agree more. I appreciate that the union has been fighting to keep jobs from being privatized.
Privatization Costs Communities More. Some of the problems include:
* Contracting out frequently costs more, not less, than in-house services. When governments are considering contracting out, the real costs to the jurisdiction are not usually taken into account. For instance, it costs more to administer the contract and to monitor the results; it takes additional money to train and supervise contractor personnel; and the use of public equipment and facilities is often not included in the costs of the contracted services.
* Even if the cost of the contract appears cheaper, the amount paid may be higher as the contractor renegotiates because of cost over runs or loopholes in the contract. Contractors often “lowball” the original bid to obtain the first contract and later raise prices significantly.
Privatization Often Leads to Layoffs, Which Costs the Workers and the Community
* When a state or local government lays off employees because of contracting out, substantial costs are incurred including:
o Unemployment Compensation. The employer pays the entire cost of unemployment insurance benefits during the first 26 weeks of unemployment, and half the cost of extended benefits paid through week 39 of unemployment. Some laid-off workers may also qualify for public welfare programs.
o Loss of Tax Revenues. Layoffs reduce a jurisdiction’s tax revenues because people without jobs do not generally earn taxable income and don’t spend as much.
o In-House Employee Morale. One hard-to-calculate cost of layoffs is the effect on the morale of remaining public workers. The threat of job loss reduces productivity and represents another hidden cost of contracting out.
Privatization Often Jeopardizes High-Quality Services
* The contractor’s goal is to maximize profits, which often leads to cutting corners on service quality — perhaps hiring inexperienced, transient personnel at low wages, skimping on contract requirements, or providing inadequate supervision.
* In bidding or negotiating for professional services contracts, many firms emphasize the expertise of their staff. The problem is that these “experts” are often spread thin, so the work may actually be done by inexperienced “generalists” rather than by experts.
Don’t believe all of the rhetoric you hear from anti-public employee organizations or people, or anti-union people. It usually stems from those who are too lazy and want a “free ride,” or something for nothing.
I thank my union (SEIU) for all of the work they do!
Anonymous 7:24 –
Please do your research and get your facts straight before ranting about a subject that you may not be familiar with.
I am a state worker and I will answer your questions, or respond to your inaccurate statements.
You said: I don’t work for the state or belong to your union nor do I get any benefits from the union. I’m glad you got all you did. I wonder who is paying for it?
Response: We are paying for it. Those of us who are full dues paying members. Those that are not pay what is called a “Fair Share” fee. They should be paying this, or they would be getting more of something for nothing. Most of us don’t believe in a “free ride.”
You said: I am against taking away current benefits but in favor of restructuring the packages new employees get. If they know the deal going in and still take the job, they should have no excuses.”
Response: The person who posted as Public service is good 11/12/07 2:25 PM, said it best when they said, “This has nothing to do with reducing costs. It has to do with dismantling government; something Republicans have been wanting to do forever. If you make civil service jobs unattractive, you won’t be able to fill them with good people and in turn services will suffer and the Repugs will then cry about how the services need to be ‘privatized’.”
I couldn’t agree more. I appreciate that the union has been fighting to keep jobs from being privatized.
Privatization Costs Communities More. Some of the problems include:
* Contracting out frequently costs more, not less, than in-house services. When governments are considering contracting out, the real costs to the jurisdiction are not usually taken into account. For instance, it costs more to administer the contract and to monitor the results; it takes additional money to train and supervise contractor personnel; and the use of public equipment and facilities is often not included in the costs of the contracted services.
* Even if the cost of the contract appears cheaper, the amount paid may be higher as the contractor renegotiates because of cost over runs or loopholes in the contract. Contractors often “lowball” the original bid to obtain the first contract and later raise prices significantly.
Privatization Often Leads to Layoffs, Which Costs the Workers and the Community
* When a state or local government lays off employees because of contracting out, substantial costs are incurred including:
o Unemployment Compensation. The employer pays the entire cost of unemployment insurance benefits during the first 26 weeks of unemployment, and half the cost of extended benefits paid through week 39 of unemployment. Some laid-off workers may also qualify for public welfare programs.
o Loss of Tax Revenues. Layoffs reduce a jurisdiction’s tax revenues because people without jobs do not generally earn taxable income and don’t spend as much.
o In-House Employee Morale. One hard-to-calculate cost of layoffs is the effect on the morale of remaining public workers. The threat of job loss reduces productivity and represents another hidden cost of contracting out.
Privatization Often Jeopardizes High-Quality Services
* The contractor’s goal is to maximize profits, which often leads to cutting corners on service quality — perhaps hiring inexperienced, transient personnel at low wages, skimping on contract requirements, or providing inadequate supervision.
* In bidding or negotiating for professional services contracts, many firms emphasize the expertise of their staff. The problem is that these “experts” are often spread thin, so the work may actually be done by inexperienced “generalists” rather than by experts.
Don’t believe all of the rhetoric you hear from anti-public employee organizations or people, or anti-union people. It usually stems from those who are too lazy and want a “free ride,” or something for nothing.
I thank my union (SEIU) for all of the work they do!
Anonymous 7:24 –
Please do your research and get your facts straight before ranting about a subject that you may not be familiar with.
I am a state worker and I will answer your questions, or respond to your inaccurate statements.
You said: I don’t work for the state or belong to your union nor do I get any benefits from the union. I’m glad you got all you did. I wonder who is paying for it?
Response: We are paying for it. Those of us who are full dues paying members. Those that are not pay what is called a “Fair Share” fee. They should be paying this, or they would be getting more of something for nothing. Most of us don’t believe in a “free ride.”
You said: I am against taking away current benefits but in favor of restructuring the packages new employees get. If they know the deal going in and still take the job, they should have no excuses.”
Response: The person who posted as Public service is good 11/12/07 2:25 PM, said it best when they said, “This has nothing to do with reducing costs. It has to do with dismantling government; something Republicans have been wanting to do forever. If you make civil service jobs unattractive, you won’t be able to fill them with good people and in turn services will suffer and the Repugs will then cry about how the services need to be ‘privatized’.”
I couldn’t agree more. I appreciate that the union has been fighting to keep jobs from being privatized.
Privatization Costs Communities More. Some of the problems include:
* Contracting out frequently costs more, not less, than in-house services. When governments are considering contracting out, the real costs to the jurisdiction are not usually taken into account. For instance, it costs more to administer the contract and to monitor the results; it takes additional money to train and supervise contractor personnel; and the use of public equipment and facilities is often not included in the costs of the contracted services.
* Even if the cost of the contract appears cheaper, the amount paid may be higher as the contractor renegotiates because of cost over runs or loopholes in the contract. Contractors often “lowball” the original bid to obtain the first contract and later raise prices significantly.
Privatization Often Leads to Layoffs, Which Costs the Workers and the Community
* When a state or local government lays off employees because of contracting out, substantial costs are incurred including:
o Unemployment Compensation. The employer pays the entire cost of unemployment insurance benefits during the first 26 weeks of unemployment, and half the cost of extended benefits paid through week 39 of unemployment. Some laid-off workers may also qualify for public welfare programs.
o Loss of Tax Revenues. Layoffs reduce a jurisdiction’s tax revenues because people without jobs do not generally earn taxable income and don’t spend as much.
o In-House Employee Morale. One hard-to-calculate cost of layoffs is the effect on the morale of remaining public workers. The threat of job loss reduces productivity and represents another hidden cost of contracting out.
Privatization Often Jeopardizes High-Quality Services
* The contractor’s goal is to maximize profits, which often leads to cutting corners on service quality — perhaps hiring inexperienced, transient personnel at low wages, skimping on contract requirements, or providing inadequate supervision.
* In bidding or negotiating for professional services contracts, many firms emphasize the expertise of their staff. The problem is that these “experts” are often spread thin, so the work may actually be done by inexperienced “generalists” rather than by experts.
Don’t believe all of the rhetoric you hear from anti-public employee organizations or people, or anti-union people. It usually stems from those who are too lazy and want a “free ride,” or something for nothing.
I thank my union (SEIU) for all of the work they do!
Anonymous 7:24 –
Please do your research and get your facts straight before ranting about a subject that you may not be familiar with.
I am a state worker and I will answer your questions, or respond to your inaccurate statements.
You said: I don’t work for the state or belong to your union nor do I get any benefits from the union. I’m glad you got all you did. I wonder who is paying for it?
Response: We are paying for it. Those of us who are full dues paying members. Those that are not pay what is called a “Fair Share” fee. They should be paying this, or they would be getting more of something for nothing. Most of us don’t believe in a “free ride.”
You said: I am against taking away current benefits but in favor of restructuring the packages new employees get. If they know the deal going in and still take the job, they should have no excuses.”
Response: The person who posted as Public service is good 11/12/07 2:25 PM, said it best when they said, “This has nothing to do with reducing costs. It has to do with dismantling government; something Republicans have been wanting to do forever. If you make civil service jobs unattractive, you won’t be able to fill them with good people and in turn services will suffer and the Repugs will then cry about how the services need to be ‘privatized’.”
I couldn’t agree more. I appreciate that the union has been fighting to keep jobs from being privatized.
Privatization Costs Communities More. Some of the problems include:
* Contracting out frequently costs more, not less, than in-house services. When governments are considering contracting out, the real costs to the jurisdiction are not usually taken into account. For instance, it costs more to administer the contract and to monitor the results; it takes additional money to train and supervise contractor personnel; and the use of public equipment and facilities is often not included in the costs of the contracted services.
* Even if the cost of the contract appears cheaper, the amount paid may be higher as the contractor renegotiates because of cost over runs or loopholes in the contract. Contractors often “lowball” the original bid to obtain the first contract and later raise prices significantly.
Privatization Often Leads to Layoffs, Which Costs the Workers and the Community
* When a state or local government lays off employees because of contracting out, substantial costs are incurred including:
o Unemployment Compensation. The employer pays the entire cost of unemployment insurance benefits during the first 26 weeks of unemployment, and half the cost of extended benefits paid through week 39 of unemployment. Some laid-off workers may also qualify for public welfare programs.
o Loss of Tax Revenues. Layoffs reduce a jurisdiction’s tax revenues because people without jobs do not generally earn taxable income and don’t spend as much.
o In-House Employee Morale. One hard-to-calculate cost of layoffs is the effect on the morale of remaining public workers. The threat of job loss reduces productivity and represents another hidden cost of contracting out.
Privatization Often Jeopardizes High-Quality Services
* The contractor’s goal is to maximize profits, which often leads to cutting corners on service quality — perhaps hiring inexperienced, transient personnel at low wages, skimping on contract requirements, or providing inadequate supervision.
* In bidding or negotiating for professional services contracts, many firms emphasize the expertise of their staff. The problem is that these “experts” are often spread thin, so the work may actually be done by inexperienced “generalists” rather than by experts.
Don’t believe all of the rhetoric you hear from anti-public employee organizations or people, or anti-union people. It usually stems from those who are too lazy and want a “free ride,” or something for nothing.
I thank my union (SEIU) for all of the work they do!
State Worker Happy w/Union
First off, I was not ranting in my post at 7:24 pm, it seems you have the corner on that. I don’t need to get my facts straight because I was giving my opinion. That is allowable the last time I checked.
The question about who is paying for your $1000 bonus and 3 point whatever percent raise was rhetorical. Unless you are giving that money back to the State we all know who is paying for it. Yeah, the union workers, the non-union workers, and mainly the taxpayers of California.
I don’t care about the size of government; I want it to be efficient. If getting a quality job done with less people is the result of that, so be it.
Your bullet points may be true, I haven’t seen any reports to prove or refute your statements. You may be an ideal worker and I applaud you for that. My opinion stands, if new prospective workers don’t like the benefit package offered they don’t have to take the job!
State Worker Happy w/Union
First off, I was not ranting in my post at 7:24 pm, it seems you have the corner on that. I don’t need to get my facts straight because I was giving my opinion. That is allowable the last time I checked.
The question about who is paying for your $1000 bonus and 3 point whatever percent raise was rhetorical. Unless you are giving that money back to the State we all know who is paying for it. Yeah, the union workers, the non-union workers, and mainly the taxpayers of California.
I don’t care about the size of government; I want it to be efficient. If getting a quality job done with less people is the result of that, so be it.
Your bullet points may be true, I haven’t seen any reports to prove or refute your statements. You may be an ideal worker and I applaud you for that. My opinion stands, if new prospective workers don’t like the benefit package offered they don’t have to take the job!
State Worker Happy w/Union
First off, I was not ranting in my post at 7:24 pm, it seems you have the corner on that. I don’t need to get my facts straight because I was giving my opinion. That is allowable the last time I checked.
The question about who is paying for your $1000 bonus and 3 point whatever percent raise was rhetorical. Unless you are giving that money back to the State we all know who is paying for it. Yeah, the union workers, the non-union workers, and mainly the taxpayers of California.
I don’t care about the size of government; I want it to be efficient. If getting a quality job done with less people is the result of that, so be it.
Your bullet points may be true, I haven’t seen any reports to prove or refute your statements. You may be an ideal worker and I applaud you for that. My opinion stands, if new prospective workers don’t like the benefit package offered they don’t have to take the job!
State Worker Happy w/Union
First off, I was not ranting in my post at 7:24 pm, it seems you have the corner on that. I don’t need to get my facts straight because I was giving my opinion. That is allowable the last time I checked.
The question about who is paying for your $1000 bonus and 3 point whatever percent raise was rhetorical. Unless you are giving that money back to the State we all know who is paying for it. Yeah, the union workers, the non-union workers, and mainly the taxpayers of California.
I don’t care about the size of government; I want it to be efficient. If getting a quality job done with less people is the result of that, so be it.
Your bullet points may be true, I haven’t seen any reports to prove or refute your statements. You may be an ideal worker and I applaud you for that. My opinion stands, if new prospective workers don’t like the benefit package offered they don’t have to take the job!
Dear State Worker Happy w/Union,
A not so small problem with developing a two-tier retirement system or a two-tier anything is that it creates resentment between co-workers. The big issue is that when the number of members paying into the retirement system is reduced and public agencies aren’t paying as much in, it ultimately destabilizes the entire system: Fewer people are paying in and a greater percentage are taking benefits out just like what is beginning to happen with Social Security. You can see where that leads. This is intentional if you want to kill off defined benefit programs or Social Security. And it is all done under the guise of “personal responsibility” or “fiscal responsibility”.
Unionized employees have higher compensation overall. It’s not an accident. It is the burden of unions to fight not only for their own members, but for the rest of working people as well. Our unions set a standard that exerts upward pressure for others. When unions are hurt, all of us who work for a living (wage or salary) are hurt.
Yes, taxpayers are paying the bill. It has been part of the Republican Party agenda since RR to shift the tax burden from corporations and the wealthy on to the individual, middle income taxpayer. Just before Ronnie got into the White House, tax revenues for the State of California were roughly equal between five categories of taxes: Personal income, corporate income, property/real estate, fuel taxes and sales tax. Today about 55% of the state revenue is personal income! Corporate income tax revenue is less than 10% and corporate property tax is also much lower due to Proposition 13 inordinate benefit to corporations. The average homeowner’s taxes are based on an assessed evaluation in 2001 whereas most corporate property tax is based on a 1978 evaluation. Guess who’s making up the difference?
So, yes, it’s the taxpayers that pay for all this including those of us who work for the government. We pay taxes just like everyone else. And, like everyone else we’re tired of shouldering more than our share of the load. But when was the last time anyone suggested tax reform to rebalance the load onto those who truly can pay. You won’t hear it on TV or in the Enterprise Op-ed. Instead, we’ll get a diet of how greedy those public workers are. We need effective tax reform and we need to identify who is preventing that from happening.
Dear State Worker Happy w/Union,
A not so small problem with developing a two-tier retirement system or a two-tier anything is that it creates resentment between co-workers. The big issue is that when the number of members paying into the retirement system is reduced and public agencies aren’t paying as much in, it ultimately destabilizes the entire system: Fewer people are paying in and a greater percentage are taking benefits out just like what is beginning to happen with Social Security. You can see where that leads. This is intentional if you want to kill off defined benefit programs or Social Security. And it is all done under the guise of “personal responsibility” or “fiscal responsibility”.
Unionized employees have higher compensation overall. It’s not an accident. It is the burden of unions to fight not only for their own members, but for the rest of working people as well. Our unions set a standard that exerts upward pressure for others. When unions are hurt, all of us who work for a living (wage or salary) are hurt.
Yes, taxpayers are paying the bill. It has been part of the Republican Party agenda since RR to shift the tax burden from corporations and the wealthy on to the individual, middle income taxpayer. Just before Ronnie got into the White House, tax revenues for the State of California were roughly equal between five categories of taxes: Personal income, corporate income, property/real estate, fuel taxes and sales tax. Today about 55% of the state revenue is personal income! Corporate income tax revenue is less than 10% and corporate property tax is also much lower due to Proposition 13 inordinate benefit to corporations. The average homeowner’s taxes are based on an assessed evaluation in 2001 whereas most corporate property tax is based on a 1978 evaluation. Guess who’s making up the difference?
So, yes, it’s the taxpayers that pay for all this including those of us who work for the government. We pay taxes just like everyone else. And, like everyone else we’re tired of shouldering more than our share of the load. But when was the last time anyone suggested tax reform to rebalance the load onto those who truly can pay. You won’t hear it on TV or in the Enterprise Op-ed. Instead, we’ll get a diet of how greedy those public workers are. We need effective tax reform and we need to identify who is preventing that from happening.
Dear State Worker Happy w/Union,
A not so small problem with developing a two-tier retirement system or a two-tier anything is that it creates resentment between co-workers. The big issue is that when the number of members paying into the retirement system is reduced and public agencies aren’t paying as much in, it ultimately destabilizes the entire system: Fewer people are paying in and a greater percentage are taking benefits out just like what is beginning to happen with Social Security. You can see where that leads. This is intentional if you want to kill off defined benefit programs or Social Security. And it is all done under the guise of “personal responsibility” or “fiscal responsibility”.
Unionized employees have higher compensation overall. It’s not an accident. It is the burden of unions to fight not only for their own members, but for the rest of working people as well. Our unions set a standard that exerts upward pressure for others. When unions are hurt, all of us who work for a living (wage or salary) are hurt.
Yes, taxpayers are paying the bill. It has been part of the Republican Party agenda since RR to shift the tax burden from corporations and the wealthy on to the individual, middle income taxpayer. Just before Ronnie got into the White House, tax revenues for the State of California were roughly equal between five categories of taxes: Personal income, corporate income, property/real estate, fuel taxes and sales tax. Today about 55% of the state revenue is personal income! Corporate income tax revenue is less than 10% and corporate property tax is also much lower due to Proposition 13 inordinate benefit to corporations. The average homeowner’s taxes are based on an assessed evaluation in 2001 whereas most corporate property tax is based on a 1978 evaluation. Guess who’s making up the difference?
So, yes, it’s the taxpayers that pay for all this including those of us who work for the government. We pay taxes just like everyone else. And, like everyone else we’re tired of shouldering more than our share of the load. But when was the last time anyone suggested tax reform to rebalance the load onto those who truly can pay. You won’t hear it on TV or in the Enterprise Op-ed. Instead, we’ll get a diet of how greedy those public workers are. We need effective tax reform and we need to identify who is preventing that from happening.
Dear State Worker Happy w/Union,
A not so small problem with developing a two-tier retirement system or a two-tier anything is that it creates resentment between co-workers. The big issue is that when the number of members paying into the retirement system is reduced and public agencies aren’t paying as much in, it ultimately destabilizes the entire system: Fewer people are paying in and a greater percentage are taking benefits out just like what is beginning to happen with Social Security. You can see where that leads. This is intentional if you want to kill off defined benefit programs or Social Security. And it is all done under the guise of “personal responsibility” or “fiscal responsibility”.
Unionized employees have higher compensation overall. It’s not an accident. It is the burden of unions to fight not only for their own members, but for the rest of working people as well. Our unions set a standard that exerts upward pressure for others. When unions are hurt, all of us who work for a living (wage or salary) are hurt.
Yes, taxpayers are paying the bill. It has been part of the Republican Party agenda since RR to shift the tax burden from corporations and the wealthy on to the individual, middle income taxpayer. Just before Ronnie got into the White House, tax revenues for the State of California were roughly equal between five categories of taxes: Personal income, corporate income, property/real estate, fuel taxes and sales tax. Today about 55% of the state revenue is personal income! Corporate income tax revenue is less than 10% and corporate property tax is also much lower due to Proposition 13 inordinate benefit to corporations. The average homeowner’s taxes are based on an assessed evaluation in 2001 whereas most corporate property tax is based on a 1978 evaluation. Guess who’s making up the difference?
So, yes, it’s the taxpayers that pay for all this including those of us who work for the government. We pay taxes just like everyone else. And, like everyone else we’re tired of shouldering more than our share of the load. But when was the last time anyone suggested tax reform to rebalance the load onto those who truly can pay. You won’t hear it on TV or in the Enterprise Op-ed. Instead, we’ll get a diet of how greedy those public workers are. We need effective tax reform and we need to identify who is preventing that from happening.
To: Happy with Unions,
You assumed I am a State employee; WRONG. You are obviuosly highly opinionated about what you THINK unions do for you. You need to get another perspective and try not to believe everything you think.
I am not getting a free ride, it is you and your greedy union that is getting the free ride from the majority of taxpayers. On the other hand maybe you don’t have the capacity to see another point of view. On that note maybe it is best you work for the State.
To: Happy with Unions,
You assumed I am a State employee; WRONG. You are obviuosly highly opinionated about what you THINK unions do for you. You need to get another perspective and try not to believe everything you think.
I am not getting a free ride, it is you and your greedy union that is getting the free ride from the majority of taxpayers. On the other hand maybe you don’t have the capacity to see another point of view. On that note maybe it is best you work for the State.
To: Happy with Unions,
You assumed I am a State employee; WRONG. You are obviuosly highly opinionated about what you THINK unions do for you. You need to get another perspective and try not to believe everything you think.
I am not getting a free ride, it is you and your greedy union that is getting the free ride from the majority of taxpayers. On the other hand maybe you don’t have the capacity to see another point of view. On that note maybe it is best you work for the State.
To: Happy with Unions,
You assumed I am a State employee; WRONG. You are obviuosly highly opinionated about what you THINK unions do for you. You need to get another perspective and try not to believe everything you think.
I am not getting a free ride, it is you and your greedy union that is getting the free ride from the majority of taxpayers. On the other hand maybe you don’t have the capacity to see another point of view. On that note maybe it is best you work for the State.
Anonymous 11/15/07 10:04 PM –
You sound so bitter. Please, have some warm tea.
I find it ironic that you say I do not have the capacity to see another point of view and yet you fail to look in the mirror to see that you do not have that capacity.
I pointed out facts about the importance of unions for working people at all levels and you don’t seem to be able to stop pounding your key board long enough to become more educated about the work that unions have done for employees of the state and other municipalities.
And, to correct you once again, we are not getting a free ride. We pay dues and the dues pay for the benefits that are negotiated for us. It is an investment.
And one last correction, I too am a taxpayer just as other state employees are.
Next.
Anonymous 11/15/07 10:04 PM –
You sound so bitter. Please, have some warm tea.
I find it ironic that you say I do not have the capacity to see another point of view and yet you fail to look in the mirror to see that you do not have that capacity.
I pointed out facts about the importance of unions for working people at all levels and you don’t seem to be able to stop pounding your key board long enough to become more educated about the work that unions have done for employees of the state and other municipalities.
And, to correct you once again, we are not getting a free ride. We pay dues and the dues pay for the benefits that are negotiated for us. It is an investment.
And one last correction, I too am a taxpayer just as other state employees are.
Next.
Anonymous 11/15/07 10:04 PM –
You sound so bitter. Please, have some warm tea.
I find it ironic that you say I do not have the capacity to see another point of view and yet you fail to look in the mirror to see that you do not have that capacity.
I pointed out facts about the importance of unions for working people at all levels and you don’t seem to be able to stop pounding your key board long enough to become more educated about the work that unions have done for employees of the state and other municipalities.
And, to correct you once again, we are not getting a free ride. We pay dues and the dues pay for the benefits that are negotiated for us. It is an investment.
And one last correction, I too am a taxpayer just as other state employees are.
Next.
Anonymous 11/15/07 10:04 PM –
You sound so bitter. Please, have some warm tea.
I find it ironic that you say I do not have the capacity to see another point of view and yet you fail to look in the mirror to see that you do not have that capacity.
I pointed out facts about the importance of unions for working people at all levels and you don’t seem to be able to stop pounding your key board long enough to become more educated about the work that unions have done for employees of the state and other municipalities.
And, to correct you once again, we are not getting a free ride. We pay dues and the dues pay for the benefits that are negotiated for us. It is an investment.
And one last correction, I too am a taxpayer just as other state employees are.
Next.
Good article. Also interesting comments. I appreciate the fact that most of the comments were a lot more civil than in response to many other articles.
Good article. Also interesting comments. I appreciate the fact that most of the comments were a lot more civil than in response to many other articles.
Good article. Also interesting comments. I appreciate the fact that most of the comments were a lot more civil than in response to many other articles.
Good article. Also interesting comments. I appreciate the fact that most of the comments were a lot more civil than in response to many other articles.