While ringleader Bobby Weist of the Davis Firefighters sat on the sideline at this meeting, several other heads of unions and bargaining groups stepped up.
When Matt Muller, the President of PASEA (Program, Administrative and Support Employees Association) spoke, he specifically mentioned the Vanguard, stating that some people “go as far as to claim that we are massively overpaid, as according to one registrant of a local blog.”
On the contrary, while it is true that there are some readers who have stated that, the Vanguard has long maintained that most city employees are not overpaid and our target has always been on the upper tier – the firefighters, the Department heads, and those in the management bargaining unit.
In fact, I have never used the term “overpaid” to describe a city employee. What I have argued is that we were overly generous with our MOUs in the middle part of the last decade, in particular the 38% pay increase the firefighters received. On the other hand, the police officers received just a 20% pay increase over that same four-year period, and most other employees less than that.
On Tuesday, Mayor Joe Krovoza followed up his comments from last week to the Vanguard, stating that staff and council should collaboratively work to identify $2.5 million in personnel or other savings. He urged close collaboration with employees arguing that it needed to be “as progressive as possible,” meaning the higher paid employees taking the bigger hit. He wanted to see minimal effect on lower level employees and to seek to minimize service reductions to community.
Mayor Krovoza emphasized that point to the Vanguard, “There are paths that hold the promise of minimal staff and service disruptions. I am confident of that.”
He added, “I will make every effort to preserve the positions of our rank and file staff. These are often the people on the front line of serving our citizens, and so if we want to maintain service to our citizens, we shouldn’t be looking there for cuts.”
As I stated last week, “The rank and file are not the problems.”
We still have a long and difficult path to go here, but I firmly believe that we can achieve most of that cost savings through reorganization of the fire department and a continued call for the leaders of this city to lead by example.
Moving from 4 to 3 person firefighter crews likely saves this city at least a million dollars. Will a CityGate report that is due out later in the summer call for those kinds of personnel cuts? Will the council follow through?
Our analysis of the salaries of those who are either Department Heads, Management Employees, or non-unionized public safety employees suggests that with a modest five-percent cut, the city could save between $150,000 and $285,000 on salaries to employees in these groups.
With a more realistic ten-percent cut, the city could save between $300,000 and $570,000 on salaries, depending on which employees the city wants to include in the cuts.
Between 2007 and 2010, salaries for these employees actually increased, despite the MOU that was supposed to fix city budget problems.
These are the leaders in this city and they need to step up first and make a sacrifice, lead by example. The issue of a ten-percent cut to managers was brought up by several city employee speakers on Tuesday night, and I agree and I have been talking about that for some time, most specifically and concretely on June 2.
When I see PASEA and DCEA (Davis City Employees Association) getting up there, I have nothing but sympathy for those employees. They are not getting $100,000 salaries. They are not retiring at the age of 50 receiving 3% of their final income for each year they work.
I was disappointed that Councilmember Sue Greenwald decided to delay what she knows this city needs to do. But she is correct that this budget likely does not solve the structural problems in this community unless, and that is a big unless, city employees are willing to step up in the middle of their contract and renegotiate.
However as President of DCEA David Owen points out, “If you want any chance to make this happen, you have to establish a relationship that involves respect and trust in both directions.”
If the words of Mr. Owen show anything, even during budget negotiations this is going to be a difficult task. Mr. Owen related the fact that the city is looking at establishing a second-tier for pensions.
Unfortunately, the city-hired negotiator failed to copy edit his written proposal and so he suggested a 3% at 60 pension for the second tier, which the workers would have jumped at, only to inform them that it was a typo.
“That does not build respect nor trust between us,” Mr. Owen stated. “In the last two MOUs we signed with you, you haven’t lived up to the full extent of the MOU. The first time you told us if you don’t like it, sue us. The second time you imposed on us and we sued you.”
Mr. Owen went on to request that at their next negotiation meeting that at least one city councilmember, if not two, sit in on the negotiations. He said, “It ensures us that we are hearing from your negotiator [what] you have authorized him to say. And it ensures you that you have heard our position on the different topics without filtration.”
I agree that we are most likely going to have to wait for the next round of MOUs before starting to solve those problems. What this budget does is first shore up the flagging funding for infrastructure as well as putting real city resources towards increased costs of pension, as well as fully funding Other Post Employee Benefits.
Councilmember Stephen Souza argued that we are halfway there toward fixing OPEB. He is partly correct, in that we have put half of the annual funding into place. But Mayor Krovoza is more correct when he said while it is true that we are “halfway there,” halfway there means halfway to putting the funding in place so that in 30 years we have fully-funded retiree health.
It was disappointing that neither Mr. Souza nor Ms. Greenwald followed through on the path that they supported back on June 14 to move us toward fiscal stability.
There also seems to be a lack of recognition on the part of the city employees, and indeed some of the council, that the $2.5 million is the tip of the iceberg.
As Councilmember Greenwald pointed out back in the unfunded liabilities workshop, we are really looking at about a $7 million dollar gap between current city spending on pensions and OPEB and what we will have to pay by 2015. As such, the $2.5 million only takes us about a third of the way there.
We can see how painful just the first step has been, and I do not want to yet ponder what the future will hold here. At the same, I think we must prepare for what appears, at least now, to be the trajectory that we are on.
Look no further than road maintenance. We were in the City Manager’s budget going to spend about $150,000 on roads this year and then hope to build into future budgets the costs of road repair. Even at $800,000 we were falling behind and accruing a huge stack of unmet needs. At $150,000 we were heading for $20 million in unmet road needs, which would have been comparable to the unfunded health liability.
We could not wait another year to put that money into the budget. Mr. Souza said correctly that the contracts would not be met until Spring 2012. That may be true, but with his plan, we would be looking at Spring 2013. And that probably costs the city at least another million in deferred maintenance cost. That’s at least another city employee right there.
While I agree that these cuts are scary, they are huge, they are real, I also believe that Joe Krovoza is correct when he says, “We are digging a hole for this community that is going to make it harder to get there.” he argued.
“There is nothing I want more than to build a stronger Davis,” the Mayor said, arguing that we “need to start making tough decisions.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
DG: [i]I have never used the term overpaid to describe a city employee[/i].
Correct. Your preferred method is to lump anyone who draws a ‘City of Davis’ paycheck into the ‘city employee’ basket.
[i]”If you want any chance to make this happen, you have to establish a relationship that involves respect and trust in both directions.”[/i]
Verifying the City has indeed poisoned the well, and considers collective bargaining a blood sport.
“Your preferred method is to lump anyone who draws a ‘City of Davis’ paycheck into the ‘city employee’ basket.”
I have re-read this a number of times, I have no idea what you are trying to say.
[quote]our [b]rank and file staff[/b]. These are often the [b]people on the front line of serving our citizens[/b], and so if we want to maintain service to our citizens, we shouldn’t be looking there for cuts.[/quote]Please define your understanding of these terms… what is meant by “rank & file” staff? What constitutes “being on the front line”?
Understand that these are Joe Krovoza’s terms. I view at anyone below a management position, ie not a department head and not in the management bargaining unit. A union member. However, because of the budget issues, the firefighters are also not included in that category despite the fact that they are indeed union members and not managers. Being on the front line means working directly with the public.
[i] I have no idea what you are trying to say.[/i]
You usually don’t differentiate, or make clear, who or what group you’re writing about. Too many global references to ‘city employees’ in too many commentaries.
[quote]Being on the front line means working directly with the public. [/quote]So, you are saying that ‘managers’ have less contact with the public than union members?
Less direct contact in terms of the provision of services than rank and file workers who happen to be union members.
I seem to recall (vaguely) an article a year or two ago in the Vanguard on Davis City salaries which had tree trimmers making $68,000 plus benefits. I may have the exact figures wrong but the gist was that many Davis City workers are very well paid compared to their private counterparts. It might be worth rerunning some of that article again–it was one of the better Vanguard articles I’ve read.
DG: I don’t think you should run away from this–I suspect some Davis workers are indeed quite overpaid–others may be fairly paid and probably some are underpaid (e.g., City Council members imho).
It may not be PC to say it, but lets present the data and see. I don’t think talking about “rank and file” vs “management” is that useful, nor do I think its necessarily true that the upper echelons are overpaid compared to mid or lower level workers.
Are we getting our money’s worth? Where can we trim and still maintain City services while also trying to be fair to City employees.
Dr. Wu, I found the article from January of last year, it was an article comparing teacher salaries and total comp to city employees. I should point out that tree trimmers do not make $68,000 in salary plus benefits, they make $77,000 in total comp. I’m supportive of finding ways to save money and I’m with you on presenting the data and examining.
“I should point out that tree trimmers do not make $68,000 in salary plus benefits, they make $77,000 in total comp.”
same thing. it is excessive.
HPierce: are you Matt Muller?
[i]”I should point out that tree trimmers do not make $68,000 in salary plus benefits, they make $77,000 in total comp.”[/i]
Here is my calculation of the total comp for a Tree Trimmer II for 2011-12:
Salary — $53,030.61 (This includes a 3% raise, starting tomorrow.)
PERS — $13,797.50
Health care — $19,768.80
Retiree Medical — $17,791.92
Life Insurance — $4,896.00
LT Disability — $2,448.00
Survivor Benefits — $24.00
Medicare — $768.94
[u]Worker’s Comp — $1,812.50[/u]
[b] Total Labor Cost — $114,338.28[/b]
Note that I include nearly $18,000 for his retiree medical benefits. That is currently the amount of debt the City is taking on per year for each employee who will retire with the City.
[quote]Mr. Owen went on to request that at their next negotiation meeting that at least one city councilmember, if not two, sit in on the negotiations. He said, “It ensures us that we are hearing from your negotiator [what] you have authorized him to say. And it ensures you that you have heard our position on the different topics without filtration.”[/quote]
I thought this was an outstanding suggestion, and one I hope the City Council will seriously consider. I just don’t know if it permitted legally, because I don’t know enough about how collective bargaining works.
[quote]It may not be PC to say it, but lets present the data and see. I don’t think talking about “rank and file” vs “management” is that useful, nor do I think its necessarily true that the upper echelons are overpaid compared to mid or lower level workers.[/quote]
Well said!
[i]same thing. it is excessive.
[/i]
Compared to what?
53K = $25/hour. You could not get a tree service to contract for the city at a lower hourly rate than that if you want certified, licensed, insured arborists. You DO want certified, licensed, insured arborists who keep up their professional certification via continuing education and maintain appropriate insurance and bonding.
The question is whether you could get a private tree service that meets minimum professional standards to provide tree maintenance for the $50/hour that Rich’s total compensation works out to at a 2080 hour work year.
I have little doubt that Davis needs more than one full-time arborist. I suspect there are industry standards as to how many hours of labor are involved in maintaining an urban tree population.
Don, let me state first that the base salary number seems quite low to me. Trimming trees not only takes a lot of training, but it is physically very demanding and dangerous. I would imagine that a private contractor pays a hefty workman’s comp bill for his tree trimmers. I should also add that we paid something like $300 for one hour of tree trimming a couple of years ago. There were two men, who came with a lot of equipment, including a truck and a mulching thing. They worked very hard and very fast.
[i]”The question is whether you could get a private tree service that meets minimum professional standards to provide tree maintenance for the $50/hour that Rich’s total compensation works out to at a 2080 hour work year.”[/i]
52 weeks @ 40 hours/wk = 2080
Minus 4 weeks paid vacation @ 40 hrs/wk = (160)
[u]Minus 3 weeks paid holidays @ 40 hrs/wk = (120)[/u]
Hours on the clock per year = 1,800
$114,000 divided by 1,800 = $63.33/hr.
How long do they have to work to get 4 weeks paid vacation per year? I assume that also varies by contract.
Just for comparison, I don’t consider the hourly wage to be based on “hours on the clock” for a FTE. It is for 2080 hours. Private companies usually give some paid vacation and sick leave, probably 1 – 2 weeks per year.
What are the qualifications for tree trimmer 2? (The tree in my front lawn was killed by excessive tree trimming by the City, by the way.) How does it compare to the private sector including our very generous benefits? Are they working 40 hours a week or could the City hire people to do the work on a seasonal basis for less?
Rich’s back of the envelope calculation indicates that tree trimmers are indeed expensive, at least when one considers benefits.
I don’t mean to beat up on tree trimmers (except the one who killed the tree in my front yard) but these are the questions we need to ask. The City is not running an employment service, though I do think we have obligations to current employees.
I’m quite sure there is room for substantial savings if we start looking. When money is flush no one worries about efficiency. Now money is tight and its time to start thinking.
[quote]It was disappointing that neither Mr. Souza nor Ms. Greenwald followed through on the path that they supported back on June 14 to move us toward fiscal stability.— David Greenwald[/quote]This is sheer nonsense, David. As Rich Rifkin pointed out yesterday, the path that you pushed is folly. It doesn’t result in the structural savings that we need.
I am amazed that you cannot see this after Rich Rifkin pointed out so clearly why the Krovoza/Swanson approach was misguided.
You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.
Yet, David, you were calling for us to pay more for our already high-paid city manager position to get a “really good” city manager — as if such a magical being exists and as if one could determine that in a few hours of interviews in an era when people are too afraid of lawsuits to ever give negative recommendations.
I agree that we need greater cuts from the higher paid employees than the lower; that is what the University did and it is the right thing to do.
Yet the Krovoza/Swanson budget forces layoffs, which have to be done according to seniority, which means that the lowest paid workers will be hit the hardest, since there is no harder “hit” than being laid off.
The only way to achieve fair compensation adjustments is at the bargaining table this year. How can we do that if we have already taken our cuts in layoffs?
Your policies do not match your rhetoric, David Greenwald.
[i]”How long do they have to work to get 4 weeks paid vacation per year?[/i]
It’s after 6 years. After 20 years they max out at 5.6 weeks of paid vacation. The reason I chose 4 weeks for my example is I have a feeling that, because that job is so physically demanding, most city tree trimmers 2’s are 32 years old or younger. That assumption may be wrong. It’s just my best guess. But if I am more-less right, I think they move on to a supervisorial role in the parks department.
[i]I assume that also varies by contract.”[/i]
No. All of the misc. employee contracts are uniform in that regard, I believe.
Below is the vacation days “earned” schedule:
Yrs — Vac. days — Weeks
1 — 15 days — 3 weeks
2 — 15 days — 3 weeks
3 — 15 days — 3 weeks
4 — 17 days — 3.2 weeks
5 — 17 days — 3.2 weeks
6 — 20 days — 4 weeks
7 — 20 days — 4 weeks
8 — 20 days — 4 weeks
9 — 20 days — 4 weeks
10 — 20 days — 4 weeks
11 — 23 days — 4.6 weeks
12 — 24 days — 4.8 weeks
13 — 25 days — 5 weeks
14 — 26 days — 5.2 weeks
15 — 27 days — 5.4 weeks
16 — 28 days — 5.6 weeks
[i]”Private companies usually give some paid vacation and sick leave, probably 1 – 2 weeks per year.”[/i]
I would guess there are 3 types of private companies in the tree trimming business:
A. Large landscape maintenance companies which pay high wages and high benefits (though not nearly as high as government benefits). Those types of companies probably pay [i]more[/i] in base wages per hour to their experienced tree trimmers. Some of them, though not all, probably give their employees at most 2 weeks of paid vacation and one week (5 days) of paid holidays; and they will likely not fire their employees when they call in sick.
B. Small companies with only a handful of employees. I doubt such companies give any paid vacation to their tree trimmer employees or any other benefits. They pay them on a dollars per hour worked and that is it. They probably pay a similar wage per hour as the larger companies. I doubt they pay for vacations, sick days or holidays. They fire people who call in sick too often.
C. Small companies with no employees. That is, two or three guys who own the company and do all the work themselves. They get no vacation pay or sick leave or any other benefits. They just pocket whatever they make from their clients.
I see we are riffing on tree trimmers again. What is it that you have against these employees. The three tree trimmers the city employs take home less than what the city tree contractor does ($201,729). Plus the employees will show up at 3am to clear the tree blocking the road, or stay late during a storm, and use the proper precautions to prevent further damage or danger to public safety. These are people with families, families they leave behind to serve this city at all hours Plus the will clearly and understandably answer the public’s questions. They have all gone through background checks. They are held to a higher standard, a standard that they took an oath to maintain. So shouldn’t someone held to a higher standard receive greater compensation?
Thanks, preston. I think the City of Davis tree crew is outstanding. Well-managed trees are an asset; poorly maintained trees are a liability capable of causing property damage and injury. I was unaware of the distribution of costs between public and private arborists.
To get the discussion back to the basics, the key question debated at council on Tuesday was: [quote]How we are going to balance needed structural reforms such as employee’s contributions to pension and health with appropriate position reductions if those changes are to take place in the middle of the last year of our labor contracts, rather at the end of that year?[/quote]
Sue: I assume by reopening the contracts. If they aren’t, then layoffs are the only option. If they are reopened, then fewer layoffs could occur if concessions are made. I don’t know what alternative there is, and I don’t know how the time frame that was debated at the council meeting makes much difference ultimately.
PRESTON: [i]”I see we are riffing on tree trimmers again. What is it that you have [b]against[/b] these employees.”[/i]
I just re-read all of the comments regarding tree trimmers. Other than Dr. Wu’s comment about them killing his tree, there is not a single comment above “against” the tree trimmers. I hate straw man arguments like that. Is it out of bounds to discuss what a fair wage is? To discuss what is or is not excessive compensation? Is just having such a discussion deemed by city employees to be a personal attack against them?
I think it is perfectly fine for Bobbie Weist and the other syndicated laborers to speak out, to let the public and the council know their feelings on issues of the budget, their wages, their benefits, their weeks and weeks of paid time off. That is all fine. But it is bogus to come back at those who are trying to preserve city services within the confines of the revenues of the City of Davis by attacking them with the false charge that simply raising a question about costs and benefits is anti-labor or makes the questioner “against” the tree trimmers.
Why so defensive Rif? Just saying that the same job classification came under scrutiny a few times before. Why not WWTP Senior Operator? Or Child Care Coordinator? Or Electrician? Or Information Systems Administrative Manager? Let’s compare what equivalent jobs in the private sector make for these positions.
And no I don’t think it is out of bounds to discuss a fair wage. That is why I mentioned the higher standard these employees are held to, because I feel that the wage the get is fair. By the way, while on the topic of fair wage, how much do you make?
By the way thanks for making my “against” in bold letters. It makes my comment seem more angry, like you are portraying it.
[i]”Why so defensive Rif? Just saying that the same job classification came under scrutiny a few times before.”[/i]
That is not true. You implied very clearly that anyone who questions the costs and benefits of tree trimmers is “against” them: [quote]What is it that you have [b]against[/b] these employees.”[/quote] [i]” Why not WWTP Senior Operator? Or Child Care Coordinator? Or Electrician? Or Information Systems Administrative Manager?”[/i] Speaking for myself, I never raised the issue of tree trimmers or other specific jobs. I merely tried to add to the ongoing discussion about costs and benefits, which is perfectly reasonable at a time when the general fund budget is being discussed and about 80% of the general fund expenditures go to labor costs.
Yet your post at 6:34 PM calls out everyone for discussing the question by you claiming that having a discussion makes you “against” someone. That is an unfair jab.
I won’t ask why you are being defensive: I think it is patently clear what you are defending.
It might be interesting to see comparisons of various employee categories, but I don’t know that the city manager is likely to propose privatizing city services to any significant degree. As I’ve suggested before, it could be useful to have an outside analyst review how the city provides services and propose structural changes in how business is done. Someone would have to assess the costs and benefits of privatization, which would be the main purpose of such comparisons.
I doubt if there is time to review and act on major changes before the contracts come up (other than the firefighter 4/3 change that has been proposed). As far as I can see, the present choice is between pay reductions, benefit reductions, and layoffs.
“Rif,
Again, thanks for the bold [b]”against”[b]for making your argument seem to carry more weight. For some reason you seem to take my comments personally. Being that this an opinion blog, I was expressing my opinion of what I had read. I have an idea. Why don’t we go to the Parks Dept, (1818 Fifth St.) and ask the tree trimmers if they feel these comments were a attack on them. I have a feeling they would take it the same way I did.
And now my clarification.
For anyone who wasn’t attacking or “[b]against[b]”, the tree trimmers, I am sorry that I didn’t make myself more clear. What I was, and am, trying to say is that maybe we should look into other positions’ fair compensation as well. Especially those positions that don’t respond to call out at all hours of the day, in any weather. This job classification is not over compensated IMHO.
Don,
Public Works and FD just went through this review that you speak of. The city easily spent over $100,000 to have these reviews done. (Would’ve been nice to spend this on the roads.) The city has yet to receive (or release) the results of these.
On an other subject from the article, the DCEA and city had a bargaining mtg today. I wonder if any council members attended………”
[i]The question is whether you could get a private tree service that meets minimum professional standards to provide tree maintenance for the $50/hour that Rich’s total compensation works out to at a 2080 hour work year. [/i]
Don – a private tree service hourly or job charges include equipment and profit. Rich’s numbers, are for labor only. I am very confident that private tree companies are not carrying 114K in labor costs for a full time Tree Trimmer II, who would be a high school educated (at best) employee with some moderate training and experience.
[i]Here is my calculation of the total comp for a Tree Trimmer II for 2011-12:
Salary — $53,030.61 (This includes a 3% raise, starting tomorrow.)
PERS — $13,797.50
Health care — $19,768.80
Retiree Medical — $17,791.92
Life Insurance — $4,896.00
LT Disability — $2,448.00
Survivor Benefits — $24.00
Medicare — $768.94
Worker’s Comp — $1,812.50
Total Labor Cost — $114,338.28 [/i]
These numbers, if correct, are not just excessive as Elaine comments, they are offensive. The salary alone is well above the male median earnings rate for Davis (27K) or California (41k). I would suspect there to be a very long list of applicants for any openings in the Tree Trimmer II job description, even at half the current compensation rate. Shame on Davis.
Most private companies calculate benefits at approximately 30% of salaried compensation. Tree Trimmer II is more than 100%, according to the numbers provided by Rich.
[i]Don,
Public Works and FD just went through this review that you speak of. The city easily spent over $100,000 to have these reviews done. (Would’ve been nice to spend this on the roads.) The city has yet to receive (or release) the results of these. [/i]
While Preston has a point about spending money on roads, it ls clear that Davis needs to expend some serious effort on compensation costs, for all jobs. Davis could easily pay for such a survey by adjusting the Tree Trimmer II guys to a reasonable market comp.
Well said Sue.
Given the constant threat of lawsuits, it is damn hard these days to vet new employment candidates even in the private sector. The public sector is a mess this way. I have a friend who is a manager working for UCD. She was told by HR that she HAD to interview some person who had worked for UCD, then left for some reason, and was back in the job pool. The interview raised concerns and my friend contacted the employee’s previous manager who explained that the employee had a paper phobia and other psychological problems and had been on permanent disability. Given that my friend was hiring for an admin position that pushed paper all day, she contacted HR with her concerns and both managers almost lost their jobs because they had both discussed an employee’s private medical issues.
These days I can’t even get old colleagues to provide more than a confirmation of employment for new job candidates.
The lawyers seem to have won something, but I’m not sure what it is.
Rich: [i]”$114,000 divided by 1,800 = $63.33/hr”[/i]
Don: [i]”I don’t consider the hourly wage to be based on “hours on the clock” for a FTE. It is for 2080 hours”[/i]
The treatment for vacation is tricky because it is booked as a liabilty when given, but the only real expense incurred is if additional labor must be paid for to replace the vacationing employee. Coworkers tend to cover for each other, so the real cost of vacation, holiday and sick leave time is contained in the cost of the entire number of FTEs required to cover the work.
The way I would do this is use 2080 to determine the gross hourly rate for all employment expenses, but less vacation, holiday and sick leave pay. And then calculate the value of these three things and add them back to get to total gross compensation from a job valuation perspective.
For example,
$114,000 / 2080 = $54.81 per hour.
$54.81 * 160 = $8,770 (value of 4 weeks vacation)
$54.81 * 112 = $6,139 (value of 14 paid holidays)
$54.81 * 58 = $3,096 (value of 7 days of sick leave taken)
So the hourly rate would be $54.81 but the total gross compensation I would present to the employee would be $132,005. The additional $18,005 is a percent of additional labor that had to be hired to cover their leave.
Related to this, one way to reduce labor expense is to cut the number of vacation days, holiday days and sick leave days, and use the additional FTE hours made available to reduce the size of the workforce without impacting services.
Another idea is to look at changing job roles and assignments to reduce the number of hourly versus salaried employees, and give the salaried employees more work. The public sector seems to love the hourly employee. Conversely, most professional positions and paraprofessional positions in the private sector are salaried and these employees work 9-10 hours days and weekends when necessary at no greater cost to the employer other than maybe slightly higher recruiting costs for employee turnover. I can talk about the value of greater employee turnover another time.
By the way… I think $54.81 per hour, and $132,005 of gross compensation value to the employee per year is obscene for a tree trimmer. A certified arborist maybe, but not a tree trimmer. It is clearly the cost of the benefits that is the problem. I have a professional employee (with a college degree and six years of experience in her field) that makes $25 per hour, works full time, gets what I would consider top-shelf benefits… and her total compensation value is less than $75,000.
Sue,
I very much disagree with you. There are several ways it leads to possible structural savings even outside of concessions which I still believe are achievable. For one thing, we need reorganization and I am hopeful we can get some through this process.
Second, as you pointed out in November, we are looking at $7 million at least in cuts by 2015, how do we get there without at least some layoffs?
Third, the marginal costs of a new city manager over what we are paying the current one would have little to know impact on the current budget. Nevertheless, as I told one of your colleagues this week, there is no way that you can pay a new city manager more than you are paying the current one without creating a huge political mess for yourself. I disagree that we can’t know who might be a good city manager, but I do agree that we cannot pay them more than we paid Emlen/ Navazio.
I do think we need to somehow clarify the notion that we have no control over who we layoff. You say “which have to be done according to seniority” and yet we can reorganize which suggests that we can layoff or eliminate classifications of employees, we just cannot layoff specific employees. I believe. For instance, if we went from 4 to 3 on an Engine, we would be laying off firefighters. We would then probably have to layoff the newest hires first there, but we still are laying off firefighters in that move rather than tree trimmers. That would then require us to get creative to get the older firefighters to retire rather than having to layoff the younger firefighters. I think it is manageable if we get creative.
The other question that I’m trying to figure is how the school district was able to create a budget last year asking for concessions from teachers, $1 million, and you guys cannot call on concessions from your department heads and managers. I still think an easy half million in savings is found there. And yes, lowering the top wages is part of the structural change that we need, in addition to changes in retirement.
[quote]Here is my calculation of the total comp for a Tree Trimmer II for 2011-12:
Salary — $53,030.61 (This includes a 3% raise, starting tomorrow.)
PERS — $13,797.50
Health care — $19,768.80
Retiree Medical — $17,791.92
Life Insurance — $4,896.00
LT Disability — $2,448.00
Survivor Benefits — $24.00
Medicare — $768.94
Worker’s Comp — $1,812.50
Total Labor Cost — $114,338.28
These numbers, if correct, are not just excessive as Elaine comments, they are offensive. The salary alone is well above the male median earnings rate for Davis (27K) or California (41k). I would suspect there to be a very long list of applicants for any openings in the Tree Trimmer II job description, even at half the current compensation rate. Shame on Davis.[/quote]
Adam (and Rich): Thanks for the analysis. We are not picking on tree trimmers, but we are saying that Davis wages and benefits need to be examined carefully. Please don’t tell me that everyone has to have a six figure wages/benefits package to receive a fair wage. that is an insult to the vast majority of people in Davis who make far less and many of whom have not received raises in years.
And what are the qualifications of tree trimmers?
We need to look at these issues in detail if we are to avoid the layoffs that all of us would like to prevent. I think we all need to see Tuesday’s vote as the beginning of a process. Please lets have a rational debate.
The don’t think the numbers are correct. First Tree trimmers are in DCEA which was umposed upon, no 3% bump. Employee pays for a portion of PERS, pays for life insurance, disablity, survivor and medicare. These are all deductions from the salary.
[quote]Sue: I assume by reopening the contracts. If they aren’t, then layoffs are the only option. If they are reopened, then fewer layoffs could occur if concessions are made. I don’t know what alternative there is, and I don’t know how the time frame that was debated at the council meeting makes much difference ultimately.[/quote]
Nicely said.
To dmg: Nice analysis of how we might make significant changes sooner than later…
From the MOU for PASEA:
[i]ARTICLE XIV
DURATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
The CITY reserves the right to open up the AGREEMENT to and to meet and confer regarding the AGREEMENT if the State of California takes away more than one million dollars in revenue from the CITY.[/i]
The final paragraph authorizes either party to re-open on or after Jan 2012.
To Neutral: Thanks for the specifics!
To Neutral: Not sure about the analysis of Jan 2012 date. It is basic contract law that if both sides choose to alter a contract, as long as they both mutually agree, the contract can be changed at any time. So I don’t believe this agreement would preclude the city and the bargaining groups from opening contract talks prior to January 2012.
I guess the question is whether the unions would agree to open contract talks early, or would prefer to allow layoffs to occur. I think the ball is really in their court.
[i]”The other question that I’m trying to figure is how the school district was able to create a budget last year asking for concessions from teachers, $1 million, and you guys cannot call on concessions from your department heads and managers. I still think an easy half million in savings is found there. And yes, lowering the top wages is part of the structural change that we need, in addition to changes in retirement.”[/i]
Cutting pay and benefits in lieu of layoffs to balance a budget is a tricky thing to manage from an employee performance perspective. Ideally both are considered as necessary tools. Layoffs are critical too, because without them employees often don’t connect the financial realities to their job security. It is a psychological challenge for anyone to stay motivating and positive after having pay and benefits reduced. It takes strong leadership to take away pay and benefits while motivating employees to continue to work as hard or harder. A littel job security fear can be some gas in the tank.
I would like to see all public sector jobs go through a mark-to-market assessment incorporating their private sector equivalents. This should be a new basis for all collective bargaining assuming we cannot get rid of the damn unions.
Also, some turnover is generally a good thing… bringing in new blood and creative energy. Most organizations should consider a 10-15% turnover rate as healthy. Anything more or less should be considered a management challenge to change.