It has been a long and at times difficult road that Councilmember Lamar Heystek has taken en route to the first step towards a $13 per hour living wage for city employees and city contracted employees.
Some of the same Councilmembers, specifically Stephen Souza and Don Saylor, who praised the persistence and patience of Councilmember Heystek on Tuesday night, had put up roadblocks in the past toward achieving a living wage ordinance.
In Councilmember Lamar Heystek’s second meeting on the Davis City Council, on August 1, 2006, he brought up the issue of having a living wage for all businesses in Davis larger than 50 employees. The Council led then by Don Saylor and Stephen Souza voted by a 3-2 margin not to agendize the item for discussion. Instead they encouraged Councilmember Heystek to bring the item back as a Councilmember item–which meant it would not have staff prepared remarks or a recommendation. When Councilmember Heystek did this back in September 19, 2006, he was excoriated by both Councilmembers Souza and Saylor for “playing politics.”
Councilmember Don Saylor was particularly vicious in his criticism:
“There’s just a number of questions about this,” Councilman Don Saylor said. “To bring it up as a discussion is appropriate. To bring it up as a full-blown ordinance for a first reading, that’s not talking about policy, that’s talking about politics in a lead-up to an election.”
It was thus not without irony that Don Saylor remarked on Tuesday night, that this was how he preferred to have the item brought up–with a full staff report that weighed in on how other cities have dealt with living wage ordinances, what the pay rates for such an ordinance might be, and the overall cost to the city in terms of increased wages.
Bill Camp from the Sacramento Central Labor Council and Guy Rinfrow from the United Healthcare Workers both came forward during public comment to press for a living wage.
Don Saylor had first requested a special study to be commissioned on the impact to the city budget and business, but the labor leaders rejected this as a delay tactic. It was in many ways, akin to punting on first down.
Again it was Lamar Heystek who took the lead and spoke passionately about the need for people to be able to afford to live in Davis on what they are earning. In particular, he looked toward at minimum paying people what they could afford to pay if they received affordable housing in Davis. Our pay scale at present does not even pay that amount to the workers earning the lowest wages.
The point was brought up that the City of Davis was pressing UC Davis to bring its food service workers in house, yet how can the city have standing to complain about UC tactics, if they themselves do not practice what they preach.
There was strong consensus on council to bring back a living wage ordinance, with a full economic impact report, for discussion and approval by the summer.
Meanwhile, the council had to determine what to do with two outsourced contracts to landscaping and janitorial services.
Councilmember Don Saylor moved that we approve the contract for another year and then once the living wage ordinance was in place, they could sign a new contract when this one expired. However, this motion did not appear to have support.
Once again Lamar Heystek passionately said that he could not in good conscience agree to an outsourced contract that did not pay living wage. He pushed for the contract to contain a minimum of $13.11 per hour. For a time it appeared that this might be the consensus of three Councilmembers.
However, then Don Saylor moved for a substitute that would expire at the end of the calendar year and thus not extend the contract beyond this year.
One could see that Councilmember Stephen Souza was conflicted on this. Both Councilmember Saylor and Assistant City Manager Paul Navazio pushed him on the item, particularly with their view that the city had not yet done an impact study to see the economic impact of a $13.11 wage. This pressure eventually got to Councilmember Stephen Souza and he joined Saylor and Mayor Pro Tem Asmundson to pass the contract extension by a 3-2 vote. Mayor Sue Greenwald remained firmly with Councilmember Heystek in opposition to any contract extension that did not carry with it a living wage provision.
It seemed clear that Councilmember Saylor thought he was going to get full council consensus, but Heystek and Greenwald remained adamant in their convictions. The same could not be said for Stephen Souza who eventually caved under the pressure of his colleague.
However, this setback should not overlook the great progress made on the issue of living wage. But it is not enough to merely implement it for city contracts. The city of Davis should ensure that employees of large businesses–not the small business that has a handful of employees–but the large businesses that can afford to pay a bit more in salary so that people can afford to live in Davis are paid a living wage.
We are always talking about affordable housing and providing housing for people of moderate means and yet we usually only deal on that side of the equation and never look toward the wages side of the equation. The information that came from this discussion was sobering. Our lowest wage earners for the city do not make enough even to live in affordable housing projects. That simply cannot continue.
Many of these workers live outside of Davis and have to commute 20 to 25 miles to get to work. Thus, the lack of a living wage is not merely an economic issue, but it is also an environmental issue. The amount of carbon emissions and gas consumed indicates that our wage policies in Davis are a detriment to the environment and efforts at curbing global warming.
Were it not for the vision and tenacity of Lamar Heystek, this issue would not even be on the radar. He has exhibited true leadership on this issue that has earned the respect even of those colleagues who have opposed him from the start.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
A “Living Wage” only means fewer entry-level jobs for the same dollars. A minimum wage is meant to set a floor for many positions which otherwise might be paid only a token stipend or nothing at all. Many of the recipients are not heads of household but rather dependent children who haven’t made the transition yet to their own homes. By creating a “Living Wage” you eliminate the flexibility of the employer for creating entry-level positions for people who have no skills, and thus aren’t really worth a whole lot per hour. Anyone who gets past their entry-level positions are free to pursue other positions that have better pay. By boosting this minimum to something as high as suggested means that lots of people with no skills will have no opportunity to work at all.
You cannot dictate adequate lifestyles for all through fiat.
A “Living Wage” only means fewer entry-level jobs for the same dollars. A minimum wage is meant to set a floor for many positions which otherwise might be paid only a token stipend or nothing at all. Many of the recipients are not heads of household but rather dependent children who haven’t made the transition yet to their own homes. By creating a “Living Wage” you eliminate the flexibility of the employer for creating entry-level positions for people who have no skills, and thus aren’t really worth a whole lot per hour. Anyone who gets past their entry-level positions are free to pursue other positions that have better pay. By boosting this minimum to something as high as suggested means that lots of people with no skills will have no opportunity to work at all.
You cannot dictate adequate lifestyles for all through fiat.
A “Living Wage” only means fewer entry-level jobs for the same dollars. A minimum wage is meant to set a floor for many positions which otherwise might be paid only a token stipend or nothing at all. Many of the recipients are not heads of household but rather dependent children who haven’t made the transition yet to their own homes. By creating a “Living Wage” you eliminate the flexibility of the employer for creating entry-level positions for people who have no skills, and thus aren’t really worth a whole lot per hour. Anyone who gets past their entry-level positions are free to pursue other positions that have better pay. By boosting this minimum to something as high as suggested means that lots of people with no skills will have no opportunity to work at all.
You cannot dictate adequate lifestyles for all through fiat.
A “Living Wage” only means fewer entry-level jobs for the same dollars. A minimum wage is meant to set a floor for many positions which otherwise might be paid only a token stipend or nothing at all. Many of the recipients are not heads of household but rather dependent children who haven’t made the transition yet to their own homes. By creating a “Living Wage” you eliminate the flexibility of the employer for creating entry-level positions for people who have no skills, and thus aren’t really worth a whole lot per hour. Anyone who gets past their entry-level positions are free to pursue other positions that have better pay. By boosting this minimum to something as high as suggested means that lots of people with no skills will have no opportunity to work at all.
You cannot dictate adequate lifestyles for all through fiat.
The City is already talking about how it will need to increase taxes to keep its budget balanced. If the City adopts a living wage ordinance, this will only exacerbate the problem. The City pays a good salary as is…this is just plain dumb.
The City is already talking about how it will need to increase taxes to keep its budget balanced. If the City adopts a living wage ordinance, this will only exacerbate the problem. The City pays a good salary as is…this is just plain dumb.
The City is already talking about how it will need to increase taxes to keep its budget balanced. If the City adopts a living wage ordinance, this will only exacerbate the problem. The City pays a good salary as is…this is just plain dumb.
The City is already talking about how it will need to increase taxes to keep its budget balanced. If the City adopts a living wage ordinance, this will only exacerbate the problem. The City pays a good salary as is…this is just plain dumb.
anonymous 9:15 AM says:
The City pays a good salary as is…this is just plain dumb.
How is a salary that doesn’t allow City workers to even afford the most affordable housing in the City of Davis’ own affordable housing program “a good salary”? The Council should be thanked for beginning to addressing this disparity.
I know it’s easy for those of us who already make a living wage to ignore those who don’t, or to pretend that the problem doesn’t even exist.
anonymous 9:15 AM says:
The City pays a good salary as is…this is just plain dumb.
How is a salary that doesn’t allow City workers to even afford the most affordable housing in the City of Davis’ own affordable housing program “a good salary”? The Council should be thanked for beginning to addressing this disparity.
I know it’s easy for those of us who already make a living wage to ignore those who don’t, or to pretend that the problem doesn’t even exist.
anonymous 9:15 AM says:
The City pays a good salary as is…this is just plain dumb.
How is a salary that doesn’t allow City workers to even afford the most affordable housing in the City of Davis’ own affordable housing program “a good salary”? The Council should be thanked for beginning to addressing this disparity.
I know it’s easy for those of us who already make a living wage to ignore those who don’t, or to pretend that the problem doesn’t even exist.
anonymous 9:15 AM says:
The City pays a good salary as is…this is just plain dumb.
How is a salary that doesn’t allow City workers to even afford the most affordable housing in the City of Davis’ own affordable housing program “a good salary”? The Council should be thanked for beginning to addressing this disparity.
I know it’s easy for those of us who already make a living wage to ignore those who don’t, or to pretend that the problem doesn’t even exist.
Anonymous 9:15am – Yes, the city does pay a good “salary” but not a good “wage.” There is a difference.
The good “salary” is paid to the city manager and department heads, lead management and supervisory positions. There is a reason why those who earn a per hour “wage” cannot afford to live in Davis.
At this time this only impacts city contract workers and a small percentage at that. Currently, the lowest paid contract workers get paid less than the lowest paid city workers. This is not right.
Anonymous 9:15am – Yes, the city does pay a good “salary” but not a good “wage.” There is a difference.
The good “salary” is paid to the city manager and department heads, lead management and supervisory positions. There is a reason why those who earn a per hour “wage” cannot afford to live in Davis.
At this time this only impacts city contract workers and a small percentage at that. Currently, the lowest paid contract workers get paid less than the lowest paid city workers. This is not right.
Anonymous 9:15am – Yes, the city does pay a good “salary” but not a good “wage.” There is a difference.
The good “salary” is paid to the city manager and department heads, lead management and supervisory positions. There is a reason why those who earn a per hour “wage” cannot afford to live in Davis.
At this time this only impacts city contract workers and a small percentage at that. Currently, the lowest paid contract workers get paid less than the lowest paid city workers. This is not right.
Anonymous 9:15am – Yes, the city does pay a good “salary” but not a good “wage.” There is a difference.
The good “salary” is paid to the city manager and department heads, lead management and supervisory positions. There is a reason why those who earn a per hour “wage” cannot afford to live in Davis.
At this time this only impacts city contract workers and a small percentage at that. Currently, the lowest paid contract workers get paid less than the lowest paid city workers. This is not right.
I support the living wage in theory.
There’s nothing wrong with wanting everyone to be able to make more $. But in practice, the city can simply rob Jack to pay Jill. Or it can lay off Jack to pay Jill’s benefits.
So Jack’s living wage will become $0/per hour.
Lamar is well intentioned, but I think it is one of those things that paves the road to hell.
Second, let’s not beat around the bush. This “living wage” ordinance is nothing more than an attempt to do an end-run around Target, in spite of it winning. I maintain that this is him trying to do what he couldn’t get done at the ballot box. I think Lamar should shut up and accept the fact that a slight majority of Davisites wanted a big-box store.
I support the living wage in theory.
There’s nothing wrong with wanting everyone to be able to make more $. But in practice, the city can simply rob Jack to pay Jill. Or it can lay off Jack to pay Jill’s benefits.
So Jack’s living wage will become $0/per hour.
Lamar is well intentioned, but I think it is one of those things that paves the road to hell.
Second, let’s not beat around the bush. This “living wage” ordinance is nothing more than an attempt to do an end-run around Target, in spite of it winning. I maintain that this is him trying to do what he couldn’t get done at the ballot box. I think Lamar should shut up and accept the fact that a slight majority of Davisites wanted a big-box store.
I support the living wage in theory.
There’s nothing wrong with wanting everyone to be able to make more $. But in practice, the city can simply rob Jack to pay Jill. Or it can lay off Jack to pay Jill’s benefits.
So Jack’s living wage will become $0/per hour.
Lamar is well intentioned, but I think it is one of those things that paves the road to hell.
Second, let’s not beat around the bush. This “living wage” ordinance is nothing more than an attempt to do an end-run around Target, in spite of it winning. I maintain that this is him trying to do what he couldn’t get done at the ballot box. I think Lamar should shut up and accept the fact that a slight majority of Davisites wanted a big-box store.
I support the living wage in theory.
There’s nothing wrong with wanting everyone to be able to make more $. But in practice, the city can simply rob Jack to pay Jill. Or it can lay off Jack to pay Jill’s benefits.
So Jack’s living wage will become $0/per hour.
Lamar is well intentioned, but I think it is one of those things that paves the road to hell.
Second, let’s not beat around the bush. This “living wage” ordinance is nothing more than an attempt to do an end-run around Target, in spite of it winning. I maintain that this is him trying to do what he couldn’t get done at the ballot box. I think Lamar should shut up and accept the fact that a slight majority of Davisites wanted a big-box store.
Except that this proposal only deals with City Contracts and has nothing to do with Target, that would have to be a future ordinance and discussion.
Except that this proposal only deals with City Contracts and has nothing to do with Target, that would have to be a future ordinance and discussion.
Except that this proposal only deals with City Contracts and has nothing to do with Target, that would have to be a future ordinance and discussion.
Except that this proposal only deals with City Contracts and has nothing to do with Target, that would have to be a future ordinance and discussion.
I agree DPD. Except it is a precursor to Target. And the living wage idea came right off the heels of the Target campaign. Lamar is backtracking because he doesn’t want to make it look like he is picking on Target and big-box, but we all know that measure K is what precipitated this in the first place. Lamar even started this by saying it was about large retailers but that didn’t sound good so he’s modifying his position. But his ultimate goal is Target’s head on a post, and we all know it.
I agree DPD. Except it is a precursor to Target. And the living wage idea came right off the heels of the Target campaign. Lamar is backtracking because he doesn’t want to make it look like he is picking on Target and big-box, but we all know that measure K is what precipitated this in the first place. Lamar even started this by saying it was about large retailers but that didn’t sound good so he’s modifying his position. But his ultimate goal is Target’s head on a post, and we all know it.
I agree DPD. Except it is a precursor to Target. And the living wage idea came right off the heels of the Target campaign. Lamar is backtracking because he doesn’t want to make it look like he is picking on Target and big-box, but we all know that measure K is what precipitated this in the first place. Lamar even started this by saying it was about large retailers but that didn’t sound good so he’s modifying his position. But his ultimate goal is Target’s head on a post, and we all know it.
I agree DPD. Except it is a precursor to Target. And the living wage idea came right off the heels of the Target campaign. Lamar is backtracking because he doesn’t want to make it look like he is picking on Target and big-box, but we all know that measure K is what precipitated this in the first place. Lamar even started this by saying it was about large retailers but that didn’t sound good so he’s modifying his position. But his ultimate goal is Target’s head on a post, and we all know it.
Lamar first brought it up in August of 2006, he wanted it agendized, the council majority refused.
Instead they urged him to bring it back as a councilmember’s item. He did this as the soonest opportunity in September and was attacked for it.
They rejected it at that point.
So then Lamar decided at the very least they could pass a living wage for city workers and city contracted workers.
That’s where we are now.
Lamar first brought it up in August of 2006, he wanted it agendized, the council majority refused.
Instead they urged him to bring it back as a councilmember’s item. He did this as the soonest opportunity in September and was attacked for it.
They rejected it at that point.
So then Lamar decided at the very least they could pass a living wage for city workers and city contracted workers.
That’s where we are now.
Lamar first brought it up in August of 2006, he wanted it agendized, the council majority refused.
Instead they urged him to bring it back as a councilmember’s item. He did this as the soonest opportunity in September and was attacked for it.
They rejected it at that point.
So then Lamar decided at the very least they could pass a living wage for city workers and city contracted workers.
That’s where we are now.
Lamar first brought it up in August of 2006, he wanted it agendized, the council majority refused.
Instead they urged him to bring it back as a councilmember’s item. He did this as the soonest opportunity in September and was attacked for it.
They rejected it at that point.
So then Lamar decided at the very least they could pass a living wage for city workers and city contracted workers.
That’s where we are now.
Lamar is not backtracking. He’s being pragmatic. He’s pushing for some kind of living wage ordinance that stands a chance of being passed by this current city council. And from what I’ve seen, he’s doing a damn good job at it.
Lamar is not backtracking. He’s being pragmatic. He’s pushing for some kind of living wage ordinance that stands a chance of being passed by this current city council. And from what I’ve seen, he’s doing a damn good job at it.
Lamar is not backtracking. He’s being pragmatic. He’s pushing for some kind of living wage ordinance that stands a chance of being passed by this current city council. And from what I’ve seen, he’s doing a damn good job at it.
Lamar is not backtracking. He’s being pragmatic. He’s pushing for some kind of living wage ordinance that stands a chance of being passed by this current city council. And from what I’ve seen, he’s doing a damn good job at it.
If something good were to come out of Measure K, this might be it.
If something good were to come out of Measure K, this might be it.
If something good were to come out of Measure K, this might be it.
If something good were to come out of Measure K, this might be it.
Lamar specifically said he wanted to impose a living wage on large retailers while the Target campaign was ongoing. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure it out.
As far as the living wage goes, be careful what you wish for.
Lamar specifically said he wanted to impose a living wage on large retailers while the Target campaign was ongoing. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure it out.
As far as the living wage goes, be careful what you wish for.
Lamar specifically said he wanted to impose a living wage on large retailers while the Target campaign was ongoing. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure it out.
As far as the living wage goes, be careful what you wish for.
Lamar specifically said he wanted to impose a living wage on large retailers while the Target campaign was ongoing. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure it out.
As far as the living wage goes, be careful what you wish for.
Fighting for a living wage for city workers is the right thing to do. At this point, an “external” living wage is another issue and will be discussed separately.
I would not assail anyone’s motivations to improve the lot of those who work for the taxpayers of Davis. Don’t try to kill the message by killing the messenger.
Fighting for a living wage for city workers is the right thing to do. At this point, an “external” living wage is another issue and will be discussed separately.
I would not assail anyone’s motivations to improve the lot of those who work for the taxpayers of Davis. Don’t try to kill the message by killing the messenger.
Fighting for a living wage for city workers is the right thing to do. At this point, an “external” living wage is another issue and will be discussed separately.
I would not assail anyone’s motivations to improve the lot of those who work for the taxpayers of Davis. Don’t try to kill the message by killing the messenger.
Fighting for a living wage for city workers is the right thing to do. At this point, an “external” living wage is another issue and will be discussed separately.
I would not assail anyone’s motivations to improve the lot of those who work for the taxpayers of Davis. Don’t try to kill the message by killing the messenger.
strange that there is so much opposition to a living wage for the lowest paid city employees and city contracted employees when the city has provided some of the most generous pension benefits as any governmental entity in the state
apparently, that’s not to be very significant, even though it will be much more expensive than this proposal
not unusual to see opposition, though, both the city and the university have always had a faction of elitist people who believe that the lowest paid among us should be subjected to the race to the bottom associated with market competition, while they have their own salaries and benefits determined by guild like arrangements and “salary surveys”
after all, that’s one of the privileges associated with the attainment of power within a governmental bureaucrary or a UC campus, the right to have your salary and benefits determined by reference to something other than the ruthlessnes of the labor market
–Richard Estes
strange that there is so much opposition to a living wage for the lowest paid city employees and city contracted employees when the city has provided some of the most generous pension benefits as any governmental entity in the state
apparently, that’s not to be very significant, even though it will be much more expensive than this proposal
not unusual to see opposition, though, both the city and the university have always had a faction of elitist people who believe that the lowest paid among us should be subjected to the race to the bottom associated with market competition, while they have their own salaries and benefits determined by guild like arrangements and “salary surveys”
after all, that’s one of the privileges associated with the attainment of power within a governmental bureaucrary or a UC campus, the right to have your salary and benefits determined by reference to something other than the ruthlessnes of the labor market
–Richard Estes
strange that there is so much opposition to a living wage for the lowest paid city employees and city contracted employees when the city has provided some of the most generous pension benefits as any governmental entity in the state
apparently, that’s not to be very significant, even though it will be much more expensive than this proposal
not unusual to see opposition, though, both the city and the university have always had a faction of elitist people who believe that the lowest paid among us should be subjected to the race to the bottom associated with market competition, while they have their own salaries and benefits determined by guild like arrangements and “salary surveys”
after all, that’s one of the privileges associated with the attainment of power within a governmental bureaucrary or a UC campus, the right to have your salary and benefits determined by reference to something other than the ruthlessnes of the labor market
–Richard Estes
strange that there is so much opposition to a living wage for the lowest paid city employees and city contracted employees when the city has provided some of the most generous pension benefits as any governmental entity in the state
apparently, that’s not to be very significant, even though it will be much more expensive than this proposal
not unusual to see opposition, though, both the city and the university have always had a faction of elitist people who believe that the lowest paid among us should be subjected to the race to the bottom associated with market competition, while they have their own salaries and benefits determined by guild like arrangements and “salary surveys”
after all, that’s one of the privileges associated with the attainment of power within a governmental bureaucrary or a UC campus, the right to have your salary and benefits determined by reference to something other than the ruthlessnes of the labor market
–Richard Estes
Aww…Davis’ hypocrisies are alive and well. A progressive, liberal, Democratic town fighting a living wage ordinance – but of course the eternal caveat is that elitism trumps all of that.
Aww…Davis’ hypocrisies are alive and well. A progressive, liberal, Democratic town fighting a living wage ordinance – but of course the eternal caveat is that elitism trumps all of that.
Aww…Davis’ hypocrisies are alive and well. A progressive, liberal, Democratic town fighting a living wage ordinance – but of course the eternal caveat is that elitism trumps all of that.
Aww…Davis’ hypocrisies are alive and well. A progressive, liberal, Democratic town fighting a living wage ordinance – but of course the eternal caveat is that elitism trumps all of that.
It has been my experience after living in several cities during the last 25 years, that towns/cities/states become more liberal and progressive as the wealth level increases, and more conservative if the economic times get worse. Thisd could easily lead you to two conclusions (1) that conservative economic policies generally increase overall wealth (although I would not argue that this occurs equally for everyone) and (2) given the school and city budget situations, Davis economics are clearly on the decline. A few years of more conservative policies will improve the overall economic situation, then we will return to the more pleasant situation of deciding how the wealth should be divided.
It has been my experience after living in several cities during the last 25 years, that towns/cities/states become more liberal and progressive as the wealth level increases, and more conservative if the economic times get worse. Thisd could easily lead you to two conclusions (1) that conservative economic policies generally increase overall wealth (although I would not argue that this occurs equally for everyone) and (2) given the school and city budget situations, Davis economics are clearly on the decline. A few years of more conservative policies will improve the overall economic situation, then we will return to the more pleasant situation of deciding how the wealth should be divided.
It has been my experience after living in several cities during the last 25 years, that towns/cities/states become more liberal and progressive as the wealth level increases, and more conservative if the economic times get worse. Thisd could easily lead you to two conclusions (1) that conservative economic policies generally increase overall wealth (although I would not argue that this occurs equally for everyone) and (2) given the school and city budget situations, Davis economics are clearly on the decline. A few years of more conservative policies will improve the overall economic situation, then we will return to the more pleasant situation of deciding how the wealth should be divided.
It has been my experience after living in several cities during the last 25 years, that towns/cities/states become more liberal and progressive as the wealth level increases, and more conservative if the economic times get worse. Thisd could easily lead you to two conclusions (1) that conservative economic policies generally increase overall wealth (although I would not argue that this occurs equally for everyone) and (2) given the school and city budget situations, Davis economics are clearly on the decline. A few years of more conservative policies will improve the overall economic situation, then we will return to the more pleasant situation of deciding how the wealth should be divided.
The most important thing to understand about this “living wage” is that it probably affects no current city workers — they all* are already compensated more than this — and likely no* contract workers, including the people employed by companies like GP Landscape and Coast Lanscape, which do some of the parks maintenance in Davis.
I oppose Lamar’s policy. However, it’s hard to get excited one way or the other about something which has so little effect.
What I think ought to be done in conjunction with this, to make it fair to the taxpayers, is to say if the living wage ever increases the cost of government services, the increased burden ought to fall exclusively on higher paid city workers.
* I don’t know for a fact that it will affect no city workers or no contract workers. That is just a guess, based on what I know we pay city workers and what our terms are for contract work.
The most important thing to understand about this “living wage” is that it probably affects no current city workers — they all* are already compensated more than this — and likely no* contract workers, including the people employed by companies like GP Landscape and Coast Lanscape, which do some of the parks maintenance in Davis.
I oppose Lamar’s policy. However, it’s hard to get excited one way or the other about something which has so little effect.
What I think ought to be done in conjunction with this, to make it fair to the taxpayers, is to say if the living wage ever increases the cost of government services, the increased burden ought to fall exclusively on higher paid city workers.
* I don’t know for a fact that it will affect no city workers or no contract workers. That is just a guess, based on what I know we pay city workers and what our terms are for contract work.
The most important thing to understand about this “living wage” is that it probably affects no current city workers — they all* are already compensated more than this — and likely no* contract workers, including the people employed by companies like GP Landscape and Coast Lanscape, which do some of the parks maintenance in Davis.
I oppose Lamar’s policy. However, it’s hard to get excited one way or the other about something which has so little effect.
What I think ought to be done in conjunction with this, to make it fair to the taxpayers, is to say if the living wage ever increases the cost of government services, the increased burden ought to fall exclusively on higher paid city workers.
* I don’t know for a fact that it will affect no city workers or no contract workers. That is just a guess, based on what I know we pay city workers and what our terms are for contract work.
The most important thing to understand about this “living wage” is that it probably affects no current city workers — they all* are already compensated more than this — and likely no* contract workers, including the people employed by companies like GP Landscape and Coast Lanscape, which do some of the parks maintenance in Davis.
I oppose Lamar’s policy. However, it’s hard to get excited one way or the other about something which has so little effect.
What I think ought to be done in conjunction with this, to make it fair to the taxpayers, is to say if the living wage ever increases the cost of government services, the increased burden ought to fall exclusively on higher paid city workers.
* I don’t know for a fact that it will affect no city workers or no contract workers. That is just a guess, based on what I know we pay city workers and what our terms are for contract work.
I have no idea about rental rates, but North Davis Elementary is a Title 1 school (based on students qualified for free and reduced lunches).
I have no idea about rental rates, but North Davis Elementary is a Title 1 school (based on students qualified for free and reduced lunches).
I have no idea about rental rates, but North Davis Elementary is a Title 1 school (based on students qualified for free and reduced lunches).
I have no idea about rental rates, but North Davis Elementary is a Title 1 school (based on students qualified for free and reduced lunches).
I agree with the DARKSIDE. Lamar has his eye on the TARGET STORE. Lamar,like DPD’s wife, is a union organizer. Dpd stated that this is also an environmental issue; people driving 20 to 25 miles to work. How many people?? What is the impact in numbers? Another atatement thrown out there by dpd for a reaction? “No proof”, no numbers?
Who paid for the affordable housing in the first place? Is it taxpayer financed? How high do you want your taxes to go? How many other issues are more pressing for ALL the people in the city of Davis?
Lamar is talking about a very small number of people that are working for private contractors. Why does’nt the city hire private contractors that pay their employee’s Lamar’s vision living wage?
Unfortunately liberal bleeding heart cities like davis buy this kind of venue from people like Lamar. So the question is still, What is a Living Wage and what is Lamar really after?
I agree with the DARKSIDE. Lamar has his eye on the TARGET STORE. Lamar,like DPD’s wife, is a union organizer. Dpd stated that this is also an environmental issue; people driving 20 to 25 miles to work. How many people?? What is the impact in numbers? Another atatement thrown out there by dpd for a reaction? “No proof”, no numbers?
Who paid for the affordable housing in the first place? Is it taxpayer financed? How high do you want your taxes to go? How many other issues are more pressing for ALL the people in the city of Davis?
Lamar is talking about a very small number of people that are working for private contractors. Why does’nt the city hire private contractors that pay their employee’s Lamar’s vision living wage?
Unfortunately liberal bleeding heart cities like davis buy this kind of venue from people like Lamar. So the question is still, What is a Living Wage and what is Lamar really after?
I agree with the DARKSIDE. Lamar has his eye on the TARGET STORE. Lamar,like DPD’s wife, is a union organizer. Dpd stated that this is also an environmental issue; people driving 20 to 25 miles to work. How many people?? What is the impact in numbers? Another atatement thrown out there by dpd for a reaction? “No proof”, no numbers?
Who paid for the affordable housing in the first place? Is it taxpayer financed? How high do you want your taxes to go? How many other issues are more pressing for ALL the people in the city of Davis?
Lamar is talking about a very small number of people that are working for private contractors. Why does’nt the city hire private contractors that pay their employee’s Lamar’s vision living wage?
Unfortunately liberal bleeding heart cities like davis buy this kind of venue from people like Lamar. So the question is still, What is a Living Wage and what is Lamar really after?
I agree with the DARKSIDE. Lamar has his eye on the TARGET STORE. Lamar,like DPD’s wife, is a union organizer. Dpd stated that this is also an environmental issue; people driving 20 to 25 miles to work. How many people?? What is the impact in numbers? Another atatement thrown out there by dpd for a reaction? “No proof”, no numbers?
Who paid for the affordable housing in the first place? Is it taxpayer financed? How high do you want your taxes to go? How many other issues are more pressing for ALL the people in the city of Davis?
Lamar is talking about a very small number of people that are working for private contractors. Why does’nt the city hire private contractors that pay their employee’s Lamar’s vision living wage?
Unfortunately liberal bleeding heart cities like davis buy this kind of venue from people like Lamar. So the question is still, What is a Living Wage and what is Lamar really after?
“Lamar,like DPD’s wife, is a union organizer.”
No he is not, he works for the county.
Nor was he ever a union organizer. He was a shop steward when he worked for safeway, that is not a union organizer either though.
“Lamar,like DPD’s wife, is a union organizer.”
No he is not, he works for the county.
Nor was he ever a union organizer. He was a shop steward when he worked for safeway, that is not a union organizer either though.
“Lamar,like DPD’s wife, is a union organizer.”
No he is not, he works for the county.
Nor was he ever a union organizer. He was a shop steward when he worked for safeway, that is not a union organizer either though.
“Lamar,like DPD’s wife, is a union organizer.”
No he is not, he works for the county.
Nor was he ever a union organizer. He was a shop steward when he worked for safeway, that is not a union organizer either though.
“What I think ought to be done in conjunction with this, to make it fair to the taxpayers, is to say if the living wage ever increases the cost of government services, the increased burden ought to fall exclusively on higher paid city workers.”
What in the world does Mr. Rifkin mean? The increased burden of costs ought to somehow be passed on to higher paid workers? How? In reduced salaries, benefit schedules, or frozen wages? Why would you reward one group of employees by penalizing another? Isn’t that simply going to pit groups against one another? How long do you think you could keep management in place with such a system? Mr. Rifkin often cites his background as an economist. This is certainly breaking ground on new economic theory!
“What I think ought to be done in conjunction with this, to make it fair to the taxpayers, is to say if the living wage ever increases the cost of government services, the increased burden ought to fall exclusively on higher paid city workers.”
What in the world does Mr. Rifkin mean? The increased burden of costs ought to somehow be passed on to higher paid workers? How? In reduced salaries, benefit schedules, or frozen wages? Why would you reward one group of employees by penalizing another? Isn’t that simply going to pit groups against one another? How long do you think you could keep management in place with such a system? Mr. Rifkin often cites his background as an economist. This is certainly breaking ground on new economic theory!
“What I think ought to be done in conjunction with this, to make it fair to the taxpayers, is to say if the living wage ever increases the cost of government services, the increased burden ought to fall exclusively on higher paid city workers.”
What in the world does Mr. Rifkin mean? The increased burden of costs ought to somehow be passed on to higher paid workers? How? In reduced salaries, benefit schedules, or frozen wages? Why would you reward one group of employees by penalizing another? Isn’t that simply going to pit groups against one another? How long do you think you could keep management in place with such a system? Mr. Rifkin often cites his background as an economist. This is certainly breaking ground on new economic theory!
“What I think ought to be done in conjunction with this, to make it fair to the taxpayers, is to say if the living wage ever increases the cost of government services, the increased burden ought to fall exclusively on higher paid city workers.”
What in the world does Mr. Rifkin mean? The increased burden of costs ought to somehow be passed on to higher paid workers? How? In reduced salaries, benefit schedules, or frozen wages? Why would you reward one group of employees by penalizing another? Isn’t that simply going to pit groups against one another? How long do you think you could keep management in place with such a system? Mr. Rifkin often cites his background as an economist. This is certainly breaking ground on new economic theory!
Actually it’s an old theory. One that did not and will not work. It is socialism like in communist states.
Actually it’s an old theory. One that did not and will not work. It is socialism like in communist states.
Actually it’s an old theory. One that did not and will not work. It is socialism like in communist states.
Actually it’s an old theory. One that did not and will not work. It is socialism like in communist states.
What in the world does Mr. Rifkin mean? The increased burden of costs ought to somehow be passed on to higher paid workers? How? In reduced salaries, benefit schedules, or frozen wages?”
Yes, in reduced salaries and benefits. I’m not sure how many employees of the City of Davis now cost the taxpayers $100,000 a year or more. I would guess there are roughly 250 of them. The average (non-officer) firefighter costs the City $150,000 in wages and benefits alone. So if the City wants to increase the pay to a handful of workers, take the money from its overpaid managers, supervisors and firefighters.
If Lamar’s proposal costs $250,000 a year, that money has to come from somewhere else. Rather than increase taxes again, it makes more sense to me to take $1,000 off the top from the 250 highest paid city employees.
“Why would you reward one group of employees by penalizing another?”
First, I would not have voted in favor of Lamar’s “living wage.” My belief is that we hire members of the city council to negotiate the best deals possible for the taxpayers and voters. But if we are going to unnecessarily make it more expensive to employ the low-end of our labor force, then the money should come from what we pay the rest of the labor force, by way of negotiation (when labor contracts expire).
“Isn’t that simply going to pit groups against one another?”
Yes. That is just what is happening now, by the way. When the firefighters get huge increases every time their contract is up, they are taking money out of the pockets of all other city workers. Same thing when we pay huge 6-figure salaries to supervisors and department heads. It’s not as if the City of Davis can expand its pie. There is only so much money. So when you give more to one group or one cause or one person, you are taking money away from somewhere or someone else.
“How long do you think you could keep management in place with such a system?”
If the City ultimately is overpaying its low-end workers — as I said before, I don’t think this new ordinance will really make much difference — then the answer is, “not very long.” It is bad management practice to be overly generous to labor demands. That is just what happened in Vallejo, where the unions had too much sway with their city council.
However, because we are overpaying a lot of our workers at the higher end, there is room to trim some of that fat.
One thing we do with retirement benefits which ought to stop is this: There is a city share and a worker share that goes into PERS to fund each worker’s retirement. It is supposed to be 50-50. However, in many cases (including the fire department), the City of Davis pays 100% of the cost. That is, they cover what was supposed to be the workers’ share. We don’t do that for lower-end city workers. We should stop doing it for those at the high end of the pay and benefits schedule.
Another area where the City of Davis could save money is if it asked city employees — particularly those with higher salaries — if they could help fund the cost of their retiree medical benefits. As things now stand, the city pays 100% of this lifetime benefit for all city retirees (who worked at least 5 years for Davis). Not one penny has been set aside to cover this extremely large looming liability. If we don’t want to go bankrupt, something must change. And the change I suggest is start by asking the higher paid city workers (including managers and supervisors) to contribute half the cost to fund this liability by way of a deduction from their paychecks.
“Mr. Rifkin often cites his background as an economist. This is certainly breaking ground on new economic theory!”
Little did I know that asking a government body to be fiscally responsible is breaking ground on new economic theory.
What in the world does Mr. Rifkin mean? The increased burden of costs ought to somehow be passed on to higher paid workers? How? In reduced salaries, benefit schedules, or frozen wages?”
Yes, in reduced salaries and benefits. I’m not sure how many employees of the City of Davis now cost the taxpayers $100,000 a year or more. I would guess there are roughly 250 of them. The average (non-officer) firefighter costs the City $150,000 in wages and benefits alone. So if the City wants to increase the pay to a handful of workers, take the money from its overpaid managers, supervisors and firefighters.
If Lamar’s proposal costs $250,000 a year, that money has to come from somewhere else. Rather than increase taxes again, it makes more sense to me to take $1,000 off the top from the 250 highest paid city employees.
“Why would you reward one group of employees by penalizing another?”
First, I would not have voted in favor of Lamar’s “living wage.” My belief is that we hire members of the city council to negotiate the best deals possible for the taxpayers and voters. But if we are going to unnecessarily make it more expensive to employ the low-end of our labor force, then the money should come from what we pay the rest of the labor force, by way of negotiation (when labor contracts expire).
“Isn’t that simply going to pit groups against one another?”
Yes. That is just what is happening now, by the way. When the firefighters get huge increases every time their contract is up, they are taking money out of the pockets of all other city workers. Same thing when we pay huge 6-figure salaries to supervisors and department heads. It’s not as if the City of Davis can expand its pie. There is only so much money. So when you give more to one group or one cause or one person, you are taking money away from somewhere or someone else.
“How long do you think you could keep management in place with such a system?”
If the City ultimately is overpaying its low-end workers — as I said before, I don’t think this new ordinance will really make much difference — then the answer is, “not very long.” It is bad management practice to be overly generous to labor demands. That is just what happened in Vallejo, where the unions had too much sway with their city council.
However, because we are overpaying a lot of our workers at the higher end, there is room to trim some of that fat.
One thing we do with retirement benefits which ought to stop is this: There is a city share and a worker share that goes into PERS to fund each worker’s retirement. It is supposed to be 50-50. However, in many cases (including the fire department), the City of Davis pays 100% of the cost. That is, they cover what was supposed to be the workers’ share. We don’t do that for lower-end city workers. We should stop doing it for those at the high end of the pay and benefits schedule.
Another area where the City of Davis could save money is if it asked city employees — particularly those with higher salaries — if they could help fund the cost of their retiree medical benefits. As things now stand, the city pays 100% of this lifetime benefit for all city retirees (who worked at least 5 years for Davis). Not one penny has been set aside to cover this extremely large looming liability. If we don’t want to go bankrupt, something must change. And the change I suggest is start by asking the higher paid city workers (including managers and supervisors) to contribute half the cost to fund this liability by way of a deduction from their paychecks.
“Mr. Rifkin often cites his background as an economist. This is certainly breaking ground on new economic theory!”
Little did I know that asking a government body to be fiscally responsible is breaking ground on new economic theory.
What in the world does Mr. Rifkin mean? The increased burden of costs ought to somehow be passed on to higher paid workers? How? In reduced salaries, benefit schedules, or frozen wages?”
Yes, in reduced salaries and benefits. I’m not sure how many employees of the City of Davis now cost the taxpayers $100,000 a year or more. I would guess there are roughly 250 of them. The average (non-officer) firefighter costs the City $150,000 in wages and benefits alone. So if the City wants to increase the pay to a handful of workers, take the money from its overpaid managers, supervisors and firefighters.
If Lamar’s proposal costs $250,000 a year, that money has to come from somewhere else. Rather than increase taxes again, it makes more sense to me to take $1,000 off the top from the 250 highest paid city employees.
“Why would you reward one group of employees by penalizing another?”
First, I would not have voted in favor of Lamar’s “living wage.” My belief is that we hire members of the city council to negotiate the best deals possible for the taxpayers and voters. But if we are going to unnecessarily make it more expensive to employ the low-end of our labor force, then the money should come from what we pay the rest of the labor force, by way of negotiation (when labor contracts expire).
“Isn’t that simply going to pit groups against one another?”
Yes. That is just what is happening now, by the way. When the firefighters get huge increases every time their contract is up, they are taking money out of the pockets of all other city workers. Same thing when we pay huge 6-figure salaries to supervisors and department heads. It’s not as if the City of Davis can expand its pie. There is only so much money. So when you give more to one group or one cause or one person, you are taking money away from somewhere or someone else.
“How long do you think you could keep management in place with such a system?”
If the City ultimately is overpaying its low-end workers — as I said before, I don’t think this new ordinance will really make much difference — then the answer is, “not very long.” It is bad management practice to be overly generous to labor demands. That is just what happened in Vallejo, where the unions had too much sway with their city council.
However, because we are overpaying a lot of our workers at the higher end, there is room to trim some of that fat.
One thing we do with retirement benefits which ought to stop is this: There is a city share and a worker share that goes into PERS to fund each worker’s retirement. It is supposed to be 50-50. However, in many cases (including the fire department), the City of Davis pays 100% of the cost. That is, they cover what was supposed to be the workers’ share. We don’t do that for lower-end city workers. We should stop doing it for those at the high end of the pay and benefits schedule.
Another area where the City of Davis could save money is if it asked city employees — particularly those with higher salaries — if they could help fund the cost of their retiree medical benefits. As things now stand, the city pays 100% of this lifetime benefit for all city retirees (who worked at least 5 years for Davis). Not one penny has been set aside to cover this extremely large looming liability. If we don’t want to go bankrupt, something must change. And the change I suggest is start by asking the higher paid city workers (including managers and supervisors) to contribute half the cost to fund this liability by way of a deduction from their paychecks.
“Mr. Rifkin often cites his background as an economist. This is certainly breaking ground on new economic theory!”
Little did I know that asking a government body to be fiscally responsible is breaking ground on new economic theory.
What in the world does Mr. Rifkin mean? The increased burden of costs ought to somehow be passed on to higher paid workers? How? In reduced salaries, benefit schedules, or frozen wages?”
Yes, in reduced salaries and benefits. I’m not sure how many employees of the City of Davis now cost the taxpayers $100,000 a year or more. I would guess there are roughly 250 of them. The average (non-officer) firefighter costs the City $150,000 in wages and benefits alone. So if the City wants to increase the pay to a handful of workers, take the money from its overpaid managers, supervisors and firefighters.
If Lamar’s proposal costs $250,000 a year, that money has to come from somewhere else. Rather than increase taxes again, it makes more sense to me to take $1,000 off the top from the 250 highest paid city employees.
“Why would you reward one group of employees by penalizing another?”
First, I would not have voted in favor of Lamar’s “living wage.” My belief is that we hire members of the city council to negotiate the best deals possible for the taxpayers and voters. But if we are going to unnecessarily make it more expensive to employ the low-end of our labor force, then the money should come from what we pay the rest of the labor force, by way of negotiation (when labor contracts expire).
“Isn’t that simply going to pit groups against one another?”
Yes. That is just what is happening now, by the way. When the firefighters get huge increases every time their contract is up, they are taking money out of the pockets of all other city workers. Same thing when we pay huge 6-figure salaries to supervisors and department heads. It’s not as if the City of Davis can expand its pie. There is only so much money. So when you give more to one group or one cause or one person, you are taking money away from somewhere or someone else.
“How long do you think you could keep management in place with such a system?”
If the City ultimately is overpaying its low-end workers — as I said before, I don’t think this new ordinance will really make much difference — then the answer is, “not very long.” It is bad management practice to be overly generous to labor demands. That is just what happened in Vallejo, where the unions had too much sway with their city council.
However, because we are overpaying a lot of our workers at the higher end, there is room to trim some of that fat.
One thing we do with retirement benefits which ought to stop is this: There is a city share and a worker share that goes into PERS to fund each worker’s retirement. It is supposed to be 50-50. However, in many cases (including the fire department), the City of Davis pays 100% of the cost. That is, they cover what was supposed to be the workers’ share. We don’t do that for lower-end city workers. We should stop doing it for those at the high end of the pay and benefits schedule.
Another area where the City of Davis could save money is if it asked city employees — particularly those with higher salaries — if they could help fund the cost of their retiree medical benefits. As things now stand, the city pays 100% of this lifetime benefit for all city retirees (who worked at least 5 years for Davis). Not one penny has been set aside to cover this extremely large looming liability. If we don’t want to go bankrupt, something must change. And the change I suggest is start by asking the higher paid city workers (including managers and supervisors) to contribute half the cost to fund this liability by way of a deduction from their paychecks.
“Mr. Rifkin often cites his background as an economist. This is certainly breaking ground on new economic theory!”
Little did I know that asking a government body to be fiscally responsible is breaking ground on new economic theory.
Thank you Mr. Rifkin for the generosity of your replies. If we lived in a bubble cut off from the rest of the world some of it would even make sense, but the reality is that Davis exists in a context and must compete with other organizations for employees, particularly those with high levels of skill, mgt. expertise or specific training (police/fire). Taking from those employees will only create a “brain drain” as they leave to take jobs in surrounding communities that pay more. Where would that get you?
You also said “it’s not as if Davis can expand its pie.” But you and I both know that is wrong. Davis is well able to expand its size of the pie. The fact that it chooses not to by constraining land use and making the conduct of business within the city limits onerous does not detract from the sheer simplistic realization that it could choose to change. It could choose to actively court new businesses that would bring in higher payrolls, pay higher property tax on improved properties and increase the sales tax. Arguably, this would also have a concomitant impact on demand for public services but if much of it were done on infill sites, etc. it would be huge plus for the City hus expanding the pie.
I’ve gone on for too long already, but your notion that giving more to some means you are already taking away from other is not factual. It’s a far different dynamic to establish a pay scale where everyone can see how wages/benefits relate to specific positions and people freely choose to participate in that system by applying for and taking a job than it is to take a person’s existing resources and re-allocated them elsewhere. In the end that would probably only ensure that over time fewer and fewer low end jobs would be created because the upper echelon which makes those decisions, albeit blessed by the Council, would see no need to increase the competition for resources.
Finally the fact that Davis has unfunded liabilities does not make it unique. Every local govt. in the State is in the same position. It’s clear that a locale by locale decision is not going to rectify the situation. The problem is too large and too expensive for a piecemeal approach to what is clearly a huge problem.
Thank you again for your thoughts.
Thank you Mr. Rifkin for the generosity of your replies. If we lived in a bubble cut off from the rest of the world some of it would even make sense, but the reality is that Davis exists in a context and must compete with other organizations for employees, particularly those with high levels of skill, mgt. expertise or specific training (police/fire). Taking from those employees will only create a “brain drain” as they leave to take jobs in surrounding communities that pay more. Where would that get you?
You also said “it’s not as if Davis can expand its pie.” But you and I both know that is wrong. Davis is well able to expand its size of the pie. The fact that it chooses not to by constraining land use and making the conduct of business within the city limits onerous does not detract from the sheer simplistic realization that it could choose to change. It could choose to actively court new businesses that would bring in higher payrolls, pay higher property tax on improved properties and increase the sales tax. Arguably, this would also have a concomitant impact on demand for public services but if much of it were done on infill sites, etc. it would be huge plus for the City hus expanding the pie.
I’ve gone on for too long already, but your notion that giving more to some means you are already taking away from other is not factual. It’s a far different dynamic to establish a pay scale where everyone can see how wages/benefits relate to specific positions and people freely choose to participate in that system by applying for and taking a job than it is to take a person’s existing resources and re-allocated them elsewhere. In the end that would probably only ensure that over time fewer and fewer low end jobs would be created because the upper echelon which makes those decisions, albeit blessed by the Council, would see no need to increase the competition for resources.
Finally the fact that Davis has unfunded liabilities does not make it unique. Every local govt. in the State is in the same position. It’s clear that a locale by locale decision is not going to rectify the situation. The problem is too large and too expensive for a piecemeal approach to what is clearly a huge problem.
Thank you again for your thoughts.
Thank you Mr. Rifkin for the generosity of your replies. If we lived in a bubble cut off from the rest of the world some of it would even make sense, but the reality is that Davis exists in a context and must compete with other organizations for employees, particularly those with high levels of skill, mgt. expertise or specific training (police/fire). Taking from those employees will only create a “brain drain” as they leave to take jobs in surrounding communities that pay more. Where would that get you?
You also said “it’s not as if Davis can expand its pie.” But you and I both know that is wrong. Davis is well able to expand its size of the pie. The fact that it chooses not to by constraining land use and making the conduct of business within the city limits onerous does not detract from the sheer simplistic realization that it could choose to change. It could choose to actively court new businesses that would bring in higher payrolls, pay higher property tax on improved properties and increase the sales tax. Arguably, this would also have a concomitant impact on demand for public services but if much of it were done on infill sites, etc. it would be huge plus for the City hus expanding the pie.
I’ve gone on for too long already, but your notion that giving more to some means you are already taking away from other is not factual. It’s a far different dynamic to establish a pay scale where everyone can see how wages/benefits relate to specific positions and people freely choose to participate in that system by applying for and taking a job than it is to take a person’s existing resources and re-allocated them elsewhere. In the end that would probably only ensure that over time fewer and fewer low end jobs would be created because the upper echelon which makes those decisions, albeit blessed by the Council, would see no need to increase the competition for resources.
Finally the fact that Davis has unfunded liabilities does not make it unique. Every local govt. in the State is in the same position. It’s clear that a locale by locale decision is not going to rectify the situation. The problem is too large and too expensive for a piecemeal approach to what is clearly a huge problem.
Thank you again for your thoughts.
Thank you Mr. Rifkin for the generosity of your replies. If we lived in a bubble cut off from the rest of the world some of it would even make sense, but the reality is that Davis exists in a context and must compete with other organizations for employees, particularly those with high levels of skill, mgt. expertise or specific training (police/fire). Taking from those employees will only create a “brain drain” as they leave to take jobs in surrounding communities that pay more. Where would that get you?
You also said “it’s not as if Davis can expand its pie.” But you and I both know that is wrong. Davis is well able to expand its size of the pie. The fact that it chooses not to by constraining land use and making the conduct of business within the city limits onerous does not detract from the sheer simplistic realization that it could choose to change. It could choose to actively court new businesses that would bring in higher payrolls, pay higher property tax on improved properties and increase the sales tax. Arguably, this would also have a concomitant impact on demand for public services but if much of it were done on infill sites, etc. it would be huge plus for the City hus expanding the pie.
I’ve gone on for too long already, but your notion that giving more to some means you are already taking away from other is not factual. It’s a far different dynamic to establish a pay scale where everyone can see how wages/benefits relate to specific positions and people freely choose to participate in that system by applying for and taking a job than it is to take a person’s existing resources and re-allocated them elsewhere. In the end that would probably only ensure that over time fewer and fewer low end jobs would be created because the upper echelon which makes those decisions, albeit blessed by the Council, would see no need to increase the competition for resources.
Finally the fact that Davis has unfunded liabilities does not make it unique. Every local govt. in the State is in the same position. It’s clear that a locale by locale decision is not going to rectify the situation. The problem is too large and too expensive for a piecemeal approach to what is clearly a huge problem.
Thank you again for your thoughts.
Thank you Mr. Rifkin for the generosity of your replies. If we lived in a bubble cut off from the rest of the world some of it would even make sense, but the reality is that Davis exists in a context and must compete with other organizations for employees, particularly those with high levels of skill, mgt. expertise or specific training (police/fire). Taking from those employees will only create a “brain drain” as they leave to take jobs in surrounding communities that pay more. Where would that get you?
You also said “it’s not as if Davis can expand its pie.” But you and I both know that is wrong. Davis is well able to expand its size of the pie. The fact that it chooses not to by constraining land use and making the conduct of business within the city limits onerous does not detract from the sheer simplistic realization that it could choose to change. It could choose to actively court new businesses that would bring in higher payrolls, pay higher property tax on improved properties and increase the sales tax. Arguably, this would also have a concomitant impact on demand for public services but if much of it were done on infill sites, etc. it would be huge plus for the City hus expanding the pie.
I’ve gone on for too long already, but your notion that giving more to some means you are already taking away from other is not factual. It’s a far different dynamic to establish a pay scale where everyone can see how wages/benefits relate to specific positions and people freely choose to participate in that system by applying for and taking a job than it is to take a person’s existing resources and re-allocated them elsewhere. In the end that would probably only ensure that over time fewer and fewer low end jobs would be created because the upper echelon which makes those decisions, albeit blessed by the Council, would see no need to increase the competition for resources.
Finally the fact that Davis has unfunded liabilities does not make it unique. Every local govt. in the State is in the same position. It’s clear that a locale by locale decision is not going to rectify the situation. The problem is too large and too expensive for a piecemeal approach to what is clearly a huge problem.
Thank you again for your thoughts.
“If we lived in a bubble cut off from the rest of the world some of it would even make sense, but the reality is that Davis exists in a context and must compete with other organizations for employees, particularly those with high levels of skill, mgt. expertise or specific training (police/fire).”
It is true that if we offered submarket wages and benefits, we would either lose the people we now have or fail to attract new candidates. However, I don’t think the labor market is so tight for any of these positions, including highly skilled jobs like city manager, that we would face an exodus if we slightly reduced the compensation we are offering. Keep in mind, I am not suggesting we reduce the total cost of the package of the Parks Director from $220,000 a year to $110,000. I am talking about reducing it to $219,000. As such, your dire scenario of employee flight is not likely.
When it comes to line positions in the fire department, it is my understanding that we reject 9 qualified candidates for every 1 we hire. That tells me we are probably overpaying, now.
“Taking from those employees will only create a “brain drain” as they leave to take jobs in surrounding communities that pay more. Where would that get you?”
There will always be some other city which can afford to pay more than Davis. Some employees here will leave for other higher paying jobs. What we need to be mindful of, though, is that we don’t need to match what every other town is willing to pay. West Sac massively overpays its city manager. We don’t need to pay as much. Why not? Because when that job becomes available in Davis, we have plenty of inhouse talent willing to move up, as well as plenty of workers from smaller cities willing to move here. It is not the case that the talent pool for bureaucratic positions is smaller than the demand. If it were, the number of applicants would not always be so large for each opening.
“You also said ‘it’s not as if Davis can expand its pie.’ But you and I both know that is wrong. Davis is well able to expand its size of the pie. The fact that it chooses not to by constraining land use and making the conduct of business within the city limits onerous does not detract from the sheer simplistic realization that it could choose to change.”
Okay, Davis could grow larger in that respect. However, you should know that if we add residential population, that DOES NOT pencil out for the City of Davis. What I mean by that is that the new tax revenues would not cover the cost of adding new cops, firefighters, parks maintenance workers and other necessary city employees. The reason it does not pencil out is twofold: 1) we are paying our city employees (in salaries and benefits too much) and 2) the state and school districts take too large a share of our property tax monies. So blithely suggesting that growth would “expand the pie” is incorrect.
“It could choose to actively court new businesses that would bring in higher payrolls, pay higher property tax on improved properties and increase the sales tax.”
Agreed. However, there is opposition to that among the existing population and the existing businesses which fear new competition. Sue Greenwald has suggested we ought to be attracting more R&D type businesses, as they have the best net affect on city coffers. I am not against this. But I don’t see any of these R&D businesses clamoring to come here.
“I’ve gone on for too long already, but your notion that giving more to some means you are already taking away from other is not factual.”
It certainly is in the short-term. That’s all I was talking about. And in the short to middle-term, the city is going to be having shrinking revenues, due to the state budget crisis.
So the question rises, where do we get the money to pay “the living wage,” if we don’t magically expand our pie? That is assuming the proposed ordinance actually affects anyone.
“If we lived in a bubble cut off from the rest of the world some of it would even make sense, but the reality is that Davis exists in a context and must compete with other organizations for employees, particularly those with high levels of skill, mgt. expertise or specific training (police/fire).”
It is true that if we offered submarket wages and benefits, we would either lose the people we now have or fail to attract new candidates. However, I don’t think the labor market is so tight for any of these positions, including highly skilled jobs like city manager, that we would face an exodus if we slightly reduced the compensation we are offering. Keep in mind, I am not suggesting we reduce the total cost of the package of the Parks Director from $220,000 a year to $110,000. I am talking about reducing it to $219,000. As such, your dire scenario of employee flight is not likely.
When it comes to line positions in the fire department, it is my understanding that we reject 9 qualified candidates for every 1 we hire. That tells me we are probably overpaying, now.
“Taking from those employees will only create a “brain drain” as they leave to take jobs in surrounding communities that pay more. Where would that get you?”
There will always be some other city which can afford to pay more than Davis. Some employees here will leave for other higher paying jobs. What we need to be mindful of, though, is that we don’t need to match what every other town is willing to pay. West Sac massively overpays its city manager. We don’t need to pay as much. Why not? Because when that job becomes available in Davis, we have plenty of inhouse talent willing to move up, as well as plenty of workers from smaller cities willing to move here. It is not the case that the talent pool for bureaucratic positions is smaller than the demand. If it were, the number of applicants would not always be so large for each opening.
“You also said ‘it’s not as if Davis can expand its pie.’ But you and I both know that is wrong. Davis is well able to expand its size of the pie. The fact that it chooses not to by constraining land use and making the conduct of business within the city limits onerous does not detract from the sheer simplistic realization that it could choose to change.”
Okay, Davis could grow larger in that respect. However, you should know that if we add residential population, that DOES NOT pencil out for the City of Davis. What I mean by that is that the new tax revenues would not cover the cost of adding new cops, firefighters, parks maintenance workers and other necessary city employees. The reason it does not pencil out is twofold: 1) we are paying our city employees (in salaries and benefits too much) and 2) the state and school districts take too large a share of our property tax monies. So blithely suggesting that growth would “expand the pie” is incorrect.
“It could choose to actively court new businesses that would bring in higher payrolls, pay higher property tax on improved properties and increase the sales tax.”
Agreed. However, there is opposition to that among the existing population and the existing businesses which fear new competition. Sue Greenwald has suggested we ought to be attracting more R&D type businesses, as they have the best net affect on city coffers. I am not against this. But I don’t see any of these R&D businesses clamoring to come here.
“I’ve gone on for too long already, but your notion that giving more to some means you are already taking away from other is not factual.”
It certainly is in the short-term. That’s all I was talking about. And in the short to middle-term, the city is going to be having shrinking revenues, due to the state budget crisis.
So the question rises, where do we get the money to pay “the living wage,” if we don’t magically expand our pie? That is assuming the proposed ordinance actually affects anyone.
“If we lived in a bubble cut off from the rest of the world some of it would even make sense, but the reality is that Davis exists in a context and must compete with other organizations for employees, particularly those with high levels of skill, mgt. expertise or specific training (police/fire).”
It is true that if we offered submarket wages and benefits, we would either lose the people we now have or fail to attract new candidates. However, I don’t think the labor market is so tight for any of these positions, including highly skilled jobs like city manager, that we would face an exodus if we slightly reduced the compensation we are offering. Keep in mind, I am not suggesting we reduce the total cost of the package of the Parks Director from $220,000 a year to $110,000. I am talking about reducing it to $219,000. As such, your dire scenario of employee flight is not likely.
When it comes to line positions in the fire department, it is my understanding that we reject 9 qualified candidates for every 1 we hire. That tells me we are probably overpaying, now.
“Taking from those employees will only create a “brain drain” as they leave to take jobs in surrounding communities that pay more. Where would that get you?”
There will always be some other city which can afford to pay more than Davis. Some employees here will leave for other higher paying jobs. What we need to be mindful of, though, is that we don’t need to match what every other town is willing to pay. West Sac massively overpays its city manager. We don’t need to pay as much. Why not? Because when that job becomes available in Davis, we have plenty of inhouse talent willing to move up, as well as plenty of workers from smaller cities willing to move here. It is not the case that the talent pool for bureaucratic positions is smaller than the demand. If it were, the number of applicants would not always be so large for each opening.
“You also said ‘it’s not as if Davis can expand its pie.’ But you and I both know that is wrong. Davis is well able to expand its size of the pie. The fact that it chooses not to by constraining land use and making the conduct of business within the city limits onerous does not detract from the sheer simplistic realization that it could choose to change.”
Okay, Davis could grow larger in that respect. However, you should know that if we add residential population, that DOES NOT pencil out for the City of Davis. What I mean by that is that the new tax revenues would not cover the cost of adding new cops, firefighters, parks maintenance workers and other necessary city employees. The reason it does not pencil out is twofold: 1) we are paying our city employees (in salaries and benefits too much) and 2) the state and school districts take too large a share of our property tax monies. So blithely suggesting that growth would “expand the pie” is incorrect.
“It could choose to actively court new businesses that would bring in higher payrolls, pay higher property tax on improved properties and increase the sales tax.”
Agreed. However, there is opposition to that among the existing population and the existing businesses which fear new competition. Sue Greenwald has suggested we ought to be attracting more R&D type businesses, as they have the best net affect on city coffers. I am not against this. But I don’t see any of these R&D businesses clamoring to come here.
“I’ve gone on for too long already, but your notion that giving more to some means you are already taking away from other is not factual.”
It certainly is in the short-term. That’s all I was talking about. And in the short to middle-term, the city is going to be having shrinking revenues, due to the state budget crisis.
So the question rises, where do we get the money to pay “the living wage,” if we don’t magically expand our pie? That is assuming the proposed ordinance actually affects anyone.
“If we lived in a bubble cut off from the rest of the world some of it would even make sense, but the reality is that Davis exists in a context and must compete with other organizations for employees, particularly those with high levels of skill, mgt. expertise or specific training (police/fire).”
It is true that if we offered submarket wages and benefits, we would either lose the people we now have or fail to attract new candidates. However, I don’t think the labor market is so tight for any of these positions, including highly skilled jobs like city manager, that we would face an exodus if we slightly reduced the compensation we are offering. Keep in mind, I am not suggesting we reduce the total cost of the package of the Parks Director from $220,000 a year to $110,000. I am talking about reducing it to $219,000. As such, your dire scenario of employee flight is not likely.
When it comes to line positions in the fire department, it is my understanding that we reject 9 qualified candidates for every 1 we hire. That tells me we are probably overpaying, now.
“Taking from those employees will only create a “brain drain” as they leave to take jobs in surrounding communities that pay more. Where would that get you?”
There will always be some other city which can afford to pay more than Davis. Some employees here will leave for other higher paying jobs. What we need to be mindful of, though, is that we don’t need to match what every other town is willing to pay. West Sac massively overpays its city manager. We don’t need to pay as much. Why not? Because when that job becomes available in Davis, we have plenty of inhouse talent willing to move up, as well as plenty of workers from smaller cities willing to move here. It is not the case that the talent pool for bureaucratic positions is smaller than the demand. If it were, the number of applicants would not always be so large for each opening.
“You also said ‘it’s not as if Davis can expand its pie.’ But you and I both know that is wrong. Davis is well able to expand its size of the pie. The fact that it chooses not to by constraining land use and making the conduct of business within the city limits onerous does not detract from the sheer simplistic realization that it could choose to change.”
Okay, Davis could grow larger in that respect. However, you should know that if we add residential population, that DOES NOT pencil out for the City of Davis. What I mean by that is that the new tax revenues would not cover the cost of adding new cops, firefighters, parks maintenance workers and other necessary city employees. The reason it does not pencil out is twofold: 1) we are paying our city employees (in salaries and benefits too much) and 2) the state and school districts take too large a share of our property tax monies. So blithely suggesting that growth would “expand the pie” is incorrect.
“It could choose to actively court new businesses that would bring in higher payrolls, pay higher property tax on improved properties and increase the sales tax.”
Agreed. However, there is opposition to that among the existing population and the existing businesses which fear new competition. Sue Greenwald has suggested we ought to be attracting more R&D type businesses, as they have the best net affect on city coffers. I am not against this. But I don’t see any of these R&D businesses clamoring to come here.
“I’ve gone on for too long already, but your notion that giving more to some means you are already taking away from other is not factual.”
It certainly is in the short-term. That’s all I was talking about. And in the short to middle-term, the city is going to be having shrinking revenues, due to the state budget crisis.
So the question rises, where do we get the money to pay “the living wage,” if we don’t magically expand our pie? That is assuming the proposed ordinance actually affects anyone.
Mr. Rifkin said: “There will always be some other city which can afford to pay more than Davis. Some employees here will leave for other higher paying jobs. What we need to be mindful of, though, is that we don’t need to match what every other town is willing to pay. West Sac massively overpays its city manager. We don’t need to pay as much. Why not? Because when that job becomes available in Davis, we have plenty of inhouse talent willing to move up, as well as plenty of workers from smaller cities willing to move here. It is not the case that the talent pool for bureaucratic positions is smaller than the demand. If it were, the number of applicants would not always be so large for each opening.”
Of course you need to match what other cities pay. It’s known as the competitive market and it exists, yes, even for city managers. Are you aware that the City, as do the other cities, use “benchmark comparisons” to determine how they rank in terms of pay with neighboring or similar sized cities? This enables them to stave off competition from other municipalities. Then you assert that “West Sac massively overpays its city manager.” What is your evidence? West Sac is one of the most successful municipalities in the region, and is much healthier economically than Davis. Is this entirely due to City Mgr.? Probably not but your political assertions as to who is overpaid is not supported by factual evidence. The notion that the “talent pool” is not smaller than the demand is only true in gross numbers. For Davis to be a premier City it must have the ability to attract top-rank people. Those people can pick and choose. Your assertion that none of that matters is simply not realistic. As is your notion that “there are plenty of people from smaller cities willing to move here.” This is blatantly false. Davis is the highest priced real estate market in the region. People cannot simply move here. It’s cost prohibitive as evidenced by the fact that the current city mgr. cannot afford to live here. Once again you assume facts not in evidence.
Mr. Rifkin said: “However, you should know that if we add residential population, that does not pencil out for the City of Davis. What I mean by that is that the new tax revenues would not cover the cost of adding new cops, firefighters, parks maintenance workers and other necessary city employees. The reason it does not pencil out is twofold: 1) we are paying our city employees (in salaries and benefits too much) and 2) the state and school districts take too large a share of our property tax monies. So blithely suggesting that growth would “expand the pie” is incorrect.”
I never proposed growing the resident population. To the contrary, I pointed out that Davis could choose to grow its ECONOMY by actively recruiting new businesses. You immediately, in true Davis fashion, assumed this to mean residential growth and then factored the increase in revenue from that growth to be “property taxes.” But property taxes would only be a portion of that revenue growth. The impact of increased payroll, sales and other taxes would also increase. You create what is known in logic as a “false dilemma” when you respond in the way that you do. You are also incorrect in assuming that there are not firms knocking on the door to get in to Davis. The reason that they do not come in greater numbers is the lack of properly zoned land with infrastructure and the City’s attenuated planning and political processes.
To conclude you also neglect to mention the impact on morale that reducing mgt. salaries to compensate employees on the lower end would have. This is principally because you do not value public employees highly and seem to treat such notions as ephemera. But they are real. Soon enough you would have a disillusioned, unmotivated work force.
It’s easy to be glib when proposing to reduce someone else’s salary. Indeed the council is glib about the impact the livable wage would on the community and the economy. But it’s more practical and sensible to remember that the economy and the workplace are both dynamic areas given to complex inter-relationships that impact and affect one another in subtle but often important ways. For Davis to succeed it needs to be mindful of those dynamics and to recognize that growing its own economy is far more important and will better serve everyone in the community than passing bureaucratic measures like the “living wage” ordinance.
Thanks.
Mr. Rifkin said: “There will always be some other city which can afford to pay more than Davis. Some employees here will leave for other higher paying jobs. What we need to be mindful of, though, is that we don’t need to match what every other town is willing to pay. West Sac massively overpays its city manager. We don’t need to pay as much. Why not? Because when that job becomes available in Davis, we have plenty of inhouse talent willing to move up, as well as plenty of workers from smaller cities willing to move here. It is not the case that the talent pool for bureaucratic positions is smaller than the demand. If it were, the number of applicants would not always be so large for each opening.”
Of course you need to match what other cities pay. It’s known as the competitive market and it exists, yes, even for city managers. Are you aware that the City, as do the other cities, use “benchmark comparisons” to determine how they rank in terms of pay with neighboring or similar sized cities? This enables them to stave off competition from other municipalities. Then you assert that “West Sac massively overpays its city manager.” What is your evidence? West Sac is one of the most successful municipalities in the region, and is much healthier economically than Davis. Is this entirely due to City Mgr.? Probably not but your political assertions as to who is overpaid is not supported by factual evidence. The notion that the “talent pool” is not smaller than the demand is only true in gross numbers. For Davis to be a premier City it must have the ability to attract top-rank people. Those people can pick and choose. Your assertion that none of that matters is simply not realistic. As is your notion that “there are plenty of people from smaller cities willing to move here.” This is blatantly false. Davis is the highest priced real estate market in the region. People cannot simply move here. It’s cost prohibitive as evidenced by the fact that the current city mgr. cannot afford to live here. Once again you assume facts not in evidence.
Mr. Rifkin said: “However, you should know that if we add residential population, that does not pencil out for the City of Davis. What I mean by that is that the new tax revenues would not cover the cost of adding new cops, firefighters, parks maintenance workers and other necessary city employees. The reason it does not pencil out is twofold: 1) we are paying our city employees (in salaries and benefits too much) and 2) the state and school districts take too large a share of our property tax monies. So blithely suggesting that growth would “expand the pie” is incorrect.”
I never proposed growing the resident population. To the contrary, I pointed out that Davis could choose to grow its ECONOMY by actively recruiting new businesses. You immediately, in true Davis fashion, assumed this to mean residential growth and then factored the increase in revenue from that growth to be “property taxes.” But property taxes would only be a portion of that revenue growth. The impact of increased payroll, sales and other taxes would also increase. You create what is known in logic as a “false dilemma” when you respond in the way that you do. You are also incorrect in assuming that there are not firms knocking on the door to get in to Davis. The reason that they do not come in greater numbers is the lack of properly zoned land with infrastructure and the City’s attenuated planning and political processes.
To conclude you also neglect to mention the impact on morale that reducing mgt. salaries to compensate employees on the lower end would have. This is principally because you do not value public employees highly and seem to treat such notions as ephemera. But they are real. Soon enough you would have a disillusioned, unmotivated work force.
It’s easy to be glib when proposing to reduce someone else’s salary. Indeed the council is glib about the impact the livable wage would on the community and the economy. But it’s more practical and sensible to remember that the economy and the workplace are both dynamic areas given to complex inter-relationships that impact and affect one another in subtle but often important ways. For Davis to succeed it needs to be mindful of those dynamics and to recognize that growing its own economy is far more important and will better serve everyone in the community than passing bureaucratic measures like the “living wage” ordinance.
Thanks.
Mr. Rifkin said: “There will always be some other city which can afford to pay more than Davis. Some employees here will leave for other higher paying jobs. What we need to be mindful of, though, is that we don’t need to match what every other town is willing to pay. West Sac massively overpays its city manager. We don’t need to pay as much. Why not? Because when that job becomes available in Davis, we have plenty of inhouse talent willing to move up, as well as plenty of workers from smaller cities willing to move here. It is not the case that the talent pool for bureaucratic positions is smaller than the demand. If it were, the number of applicants would not always be so large for each opening.”
Of course you need to match what other cities pay. It’s known as the competitive market and it exists, yes, even for city managers. Are you aware that the City, as do the other cities, use “benchmark comparisons” to determine how they rank in terms of pay with neighboring or similar sized cities? This enables them to stave off competition from other municipalities. Then you assert that “West Sac massively overpays its city manager.” What is your evidence? West Sac is one of the most successful municipalities in the region, and is much healthier economically than Davis. Is this entirely due to City Mgr.? Probably not but your political assertions as to who is overpaid is not supported by factual evidence. The notion that the “talent pool” is not smaller than the demand is only true in gross numbers. For Davis to be a premier City it must have the ability to attract top-rank people. Those people can pick and choose. Your assertion that none of that matters is simply not realistic. As is your notion that “there are plenty of people from smaller cities willing to move here.” This is blatantly false. Davis is the highest priced real estate market in the region. People cannot simply move here. It’s cost prohibitive as evidenced by the fact that the current city mgr. cannot afford to live here. Once again you assume facts not in evidence.
Mr. Rifkin said: “However, you should know that if we add residential population, that does not pencil out for the City of Davis. What I mean by that is that the new tax revenues would not cover the cost of adding new cops, firefighters, parks maintenance workers and other necessary city employees. The reason it does not pencil out is twofold: 1) we are paying our city employees (in salaries and benefits too much) and 2) the state and school districts take too large a share of our property tax monies. So blithely suggesting that growth would “expand the pie” is incorrect.”
I never proposed growing the resident population. To the contrary, I pointed out that Davis could choose to grow its ECONOMY by actively recruiting new businesses. You immediately, in true Davis fashion, assumed this to mean residential growth and then factored the increase in revenue from that growth to be “property taxes.” But property taxes would only be a portion of that revenue growth. The impact of increased payroll, sales and other taxes would also increase. You create what is known in logic as a “false dilemma” when you respond in the way that you do. You are also incorrect in assuming that there are not firms knocking on the door to get in to Davis. The reason that they do not come in greater numbers is the lack of properly zoned land with infrastructure and the City’s attenuated planning and political processes.
To conclude you also neglect to mention the impact on morale that reducing mgt. salaries to compensate employees on the lower end would have. This is principally because you do not value public employees highly and seem to treat such notions as ephemera. But they are real. Soon enough you would have a disillusioned, unmotivated work force.
It’s easy to be glib when proposing to reduce someone else’s salary. Indeed the council is glib about the impact the livable wage would on the community and the economy. But it’s more practical and sensible to remember that the economy and the workplace are both dynamic areas given to complex inter-relationships that impact and affect one another in subtle but often important ways. For Davis to succeed it needs to be mindful of those dynamics and to recognize that growing its own economy is far more important and will better serve everyone in the community than passing bureaucratic measures like the “living wage” ordinance.
Thanks.
Mr. Rifkin said: “There will always be some other city which can afford to pay more than Davis. Some employees here will leave for other higher paying jobs. What we need to be mindful of, though, is that we don’t need to match what every other town is willing to pay. West Sac massively overpays its city manager. We don’t need to pay as much. Why not? Because when that job becomes available in Davis, we have plenty of inhouse talent willing to move up, as well as plenty of workers from smaller cities willing to move here. It is not the case that the talent pool for bureaucratic positions is smaller than the demand. If it were, the number of applicants would not always be so large for each opening.”
Of course you need to match what other cities pay. It’s known as the competitive market and it exists, yes, even for city managers. Are you aware that the City, as do the other cities, use “benchmark comparisons” to determine how they rank in terms of pay with neighboring or similar sized cities? This enables them to stave off competition from other municipalities. Then you assert that “West Sac massively overpays its city manager.” What is your evidence? West Sac is one of the most successful municipalities in the region, and is much healthier economically than Davis. Is this entirely due to City Mgr.? Probably not but your political assertions as to who is overpaid is not supported by factual evidence. The notion that the “talent pool” is not smaller than the demand is only true in gross numbers. For Davis to be a premier City it must have the ability to attract top-rank people. Those people can pick and choose. Your assertion that none of that matters is simply not realistic. As is your notion that “there are plenty of people from smaller cities willing to move here.” This is blatantly false. Davis is the highest priced real estate market in the region. People cannot simply move here. It’s cost prohibitive as evidenced by the fact that the current city mgr. cannot afford to live here. Once again you assume facts not in evidence.
Mr. Rifkin said: “However, you should know that if we add residential population, that does not pencil out for the City of Davis. What I mean by that is that the new tax revenues would not cover the cost of adding new cops, firefighters, parks maintenance workers and other necessary city employees. The reason it does not pencil out is twofold: 1) we are paying our city employees (in salaries and benefits too much) and 2) the state and school districts take too large a share of our property tax monies. So blithely suggesting that growth would “expand the pie” is incorrect.”
I never proposed growing the resident population. To the contrary, I pointed out that Davis could choose to grow its ECONOMY by actively recruiting new businesses. You immediately, in true Davis fashion, assumed this to mean residential growth and then factored the increase in revenue from that growth to be “property taxes.” But property taxes would only be a portion of that revenue growth. The impact of increased payroll, sales and other taxes would also increase. You create what is known in logic as a “false dilemma” when you respond in the way that you do. You are also incorrect in assuming that there are not firms knocking on the door to get in to Davis. The reason that they do not come in greater numbers is the lack of properly zoned land with infrastructure and the City’s attenuated planning and political processes.
To conclude you also neglect to mention the impact on morale that reducing mgt. salaries to compensate employees on the lower end would have. This is principally because you do not value public employees highly and seem to treat such notions as ephemera. But they are real. Soon enough you would have a disillusioned, unmotivated work force.
It’s easy to be glib when proposing to reduce someone else’s salary. Indeed the council is glib about the impact the livable wage would on the community and the economy. But it’s more practical and sensible to remember that the economy and the workplace are both dynamic areas given to complex inter-relationships that impact and affect one another in subtle but often important ways. For Davis to succeed it needs to be mindful of those dynamics and to recognize that growing its own economy is far more important and will better serve everyone in the community than passing bureaucratic measures like the “living wage” ordinance.
Thanks.
To the above. GREAT RESPONSE!
To the anon who said Lamar is not a union organizer:
A shop steward for a union is an organizer and a representative for the union. No matter what you think, Lamar is a union rep. He wants to force his ideologies on the city and taxpayers.
To the above. GREAT RESPONSE!
To the anon who said Lamar is not a union organizer:
A shop steward for a union is an organizer and a representative for the union. No matter what you think, Lamar is a union rep. He wants to force his ideologies on the city and taxpayers.
To the above. GREAT RESPONSE!
To the anon who said Lamar is not a union organizer:
A shop steward for a union is an organizer and a representative for the union. No matter what you think, Lamar is a union rep. He wants to force his ideologies on the city and taxpayers.
To the above. GREAT RESPONSE!
To the anon who said Lamar is not a union organizer:
A shop steward for a union is an organizer and a representative for the union. No matter what you think, Lamar is a union rep. He wants to force his ideologies on the city and taxpayers.
A shop steward is actually an employee and a member of the union. An organizer is an individual who works for the union rather than is a member of the union.
A shop steward is actually an employee and a member of the union. An organizer is an individual who works for the union rather than is a member of the union.
A shop steward is actually an employee and a member of the union. An organizer is an individual who works for the union rather than is a member of the union.
A shop steward is actually an employee and a member of the union. An organizer is an individual who works for the union rather than is a member of the union.
To the Above,
Thanks for the double speak. Nice try to convince people that lamar is not a union rep. Lamar wants to force his union views on the taxpayers in spite of your thin excuses for his activities.
All union organizers or reps who are involved with public employee recruitment are leeches on the taxpayer. Lamar is a union rep and or organizer and you know it.
To the Above,
Thanks for the double speak. Nice try to convince people that lamar is not a union rep. Lamar wants to force his union views on the taxpayers in spite of your thin excuses for his activities.
All union organizers or reps who are involved with public employee recruitment are leeches on the taxpayer. Lamar is a union rep and or organizer and you know it.
To the Above,
Thanks for the double speak. Nice try to convince people that lamar is not a union rep. Lamar wants to force his union views on the taxpayers in spite of your thin excuses for his activities.
All union organizers or reps who are involved with public employee recruitment are leeches on the taxpayer. Lamar is a union rep and or organizer and you know it.
To the Above,
Thanks for the double speak. Nice try to convince people that lamar is not a union rep. Lamar wants to force his union views on the taxpayers in spite of your thin excuses for his activities.
All union organizers or reps who are involved with public employee recruitment are leeches on the taxpayer. Lamar is a union rep and or organizer and you know it.
Lamar is a union supporter. He worked a steward when he worked for Safeway. But at this point works for a non-profit and on the city council. He is not a union organizer nor is a union rep.
Lamar is a union supporter. He worked a steward when he worked for Safeway. But at this point works for a non-profit and on the city council. He is not a union organizer nor is a union rep.
Lamar is a union supporter. He worked a steward when he worked for Safeway. But at this point works for a non-profit and on the city council. He is not a union organizer nor is a union rep.
Lamar is a union supporter. He worked a steward when he worked for Safeway. But at this point works for a non-profit and on the city council. He is not a union organizer nor is a union rep.