Vanguard Argues That Employees Have Been Lied To and the City is Correcting Past Errors –
In doing so they critically ignored the series of decisions made, in fact, by that very council that put us on a path toward fiscal crisis, including raising salaries to unprecedented levels and continuing the path of increasing retirement health and pensions beyond the levels funded.
Throughout the 2008 campaign, the incumbents Mr. Souza and Mr. Saylor argued that the city had a balanced budget with a 15 percent reserve, as evidence of fiscal responsibility.
Never mind the mounting list of unmet needs, at that time totaling about $16 million, never mind the $40 million unfunded liability for the city’s retiree medical benefits, and never mind the impending pension crisis.
The Davis Enterprise was only too happy to support the safe incumbents that supported their land use policies and opposed the dangerous rabble rousers who would rain on their parade.
Something changed by 2010, probably the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the realization that times had changed.
This weekend, the Davis Enterprise will come out in full support of the actions taken by the Davis City Council on Tuesday, where they pushed through, in a surprisingly tight and hard fought 3-2 vote, the first step toward fiscal stability.
They write, “The Davis City Council took a step forward last week toward reining in city personnel costs.”
“The goal is to use that money to address the elephant in the room — the huge unfunded liability of employee pension and retirement benefits,” the editorial continues, adding: “Those benefits were approved by an overly generous City Council when the economy was booming and life was rosy. Now, even though we can no longer afford these perks, taxpayers are saddled with paying 30-year veteran firefighters and police officers 90 percent of their highest salary when they retire at age 50.”
“Non-public-safety employees have a sweet deal, too: After 30 years’ service, they receive 75 percent of their highest salary when they retire at age 55,” they write.
And they continue, “Add lifetime — yes, lifetime — medical coverage for retirees, and we’re all wishing we were city of Davis employees.”
Here is the crux: “We’re willing to stand behind the majority’s approach, but only if they get serious about the long-term problem. Major work lies ahead in contract negotiations with the city’s labor unions. We expect the council to lengthen the retirement age for non-public safety workers to age 60, and eliminate lifetime health benefits.”
As those who read the Vanguard yesterday know, Matt Muller, the President of PASEA made a huge mistake in attempting to personalize this issue. It is not personal for me.
Rich Rifkin hit the nail on the head yesterday with a comment that expressed the fact that “on the one hand we have the workers and their reps, who are also workers who have their entire livelihood on the line; on the other hand we have concerned citizens and a few reporters for whom this sort of discussion is of great interest, but far from the most important question in their own personal lives.”
He adds, “From the former group you are apt to get some raw emotion and some heated rhetoric and very hurt feelings; on the other end you get people who are trying to solve a problem rationally, but are getting attacked with a lot of personal attacks from people they never meant to offend.”
People want to argue that that should not have been published, but I think it shows a number of things that are important to understand.
Nevertheless, I want to take this discussion in a different direction. Because in the end, I am not the bad guy, I am the messenger. I do not make the policy decisions, I talk about them and talk about what we should do.
I am the armchair quarterback, but I have been in the room for the last five years and I have been studying film and I know the playbook inside and out by now.
I understand the pain and the shock that City Employees must feel right now. In fact, they have been lied to for the last five years. Things are far worse than the city council, city manager, and their union leaders have led them to believe. Far worse.
The real numbers have been hidden and concealed from the public and the employees alike.
That had to change, and it does change with this new budget.
Even with the new council, the first rounds of the budget failed to incorporate real numbers and it failed to incorporate the express wishes of the council from both November and February workshops.
This both angered and frustrated Mayor Joe Krovoza, who pointed out on Tuesday that the council’s wishes were not reflected in the budget. It also angered the Mayor Pro Tem Rochelle Swanson, who demanded to see realistic numbers.
Paul Navazio, the finance director who is serving as Interim City Manager, sterilized the budget when he left out critical assumptions. Thus, in the out years of the budget he had a small surplus.
But the budget assumptions were completely unrealistic. They did not account for full funding for roads, despite the intention by the council to fully fund roads. They assumed a flat rate of salary for employees for the next five years, which is completely unrealistic. They assumed no increase in the pension costs. They assumed no change in health care rates. They assumed no downward revision of the PERS rate of return.
In short, it was a budget that was balanced on paper, much as the state’s is, that failed to incorporate probably about $7 million in likely additional costs. We are talking about 20% of the general fund unaccounted for in the budget.
No wonder the employees are shocked and angry. They have been lied to.
Unfortunately, the employees are taking it out on the messengers, who are telling the truth and being realistic.
We need to cut about $7 million from the budget over the next three to four years. And employees’ compensation and retirement accounts for 80% of the general fund. Do the math, folks.
You want to call me names, fine. That’s the truth.
As I laid out earlier this week, I think we can get there without crippling the rank and file workers. I understand that there may be salaries even within that group that are too high, and I am wanting to find ways to become more efficient.
Nevertheless, I still believe the core of the problem is at the top and not the bottom. Next week, I will show you what happened to salaries in the last decade.
But for now, here are my thoughts as laid out the other day. I believe, contrary to the position of the minority council members, that even outside of salary concessions, which I still believe are achievable despite the heated rhetoric, we can achieve structural savings this fiscal year.
First, we have cut a lot of programs through attrition without giving a lot of thought to function of the organization. That works fine for a short term downturn, but this is going to last for years now.
We need to prioritize our services and reorganize. That is a structural change as it changes the structure of government itself.
Second, Sue Greenwald was the one that pointed out that we are looking at $7 million that we need to cut by 2015, and unfortunately I do not know how we get there without at least some layoffs. I favor trying to minimize those layoffs, but it is incumbent upon the city employees to understand that between now and 2015, we have to find ways to save money and they are going to need to find ways to make concessions to save that money.
I do think we need to somehow clarify the notion that we have no control over whom we lay off.
On Tuesday night, Sue Greenwald made the point that layoffs have to be done according to seniority, that we cannot simply lay people off we do not like. That is partly true, but I think it loses site of the fact that within that framework we are able to reorganize, which means eliminate certain positions and possibly some classifications. So, while we cannot lay off specific employees, we can probably cut two planning positions, for instance, or eliminate a Deputy City Manager.
For instance, if we went from 4 to 3 on a fire engine, we would be laying off firefighters. We would then probably have to lay off the newest hires first, 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 lay off the younger firefighters. I think it is manageable if we get creative.
I also still favor a reduction in pay for the highest paid employees, those who are department heads and managers. The school district was able to publicly ask the teachers to take $1 million in concessions, so I fail to understand why the city cannot do the same.
Paul Navazio should volunteer tomorrow to take a 10% pay cut and ask his other department heads to follow suit.
With concessions by the top employees, along with a possible restructuring of the fire department, we could be as close to $1 million short of the $2.5 million goal without so much as breaking a sweat.
This is a tough road, no one likes having to do this, but it has to be done. The stakes are high. Imagine what $7 million in city services by 2015 will look like.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]I also still favor a reduction in pay for the highest paid employees, those who are department heads and managers. The school district was able to publicly ask the teachers to take $1 million in concessions, I fail to understand why the city cannot do the same.[/quote]Some clarifications… you recommend a 10% cut for city mgt/DH, in the same sentence you point out what teachers gave up (for 210-11 only, I believe)… the teachers also had less work days as a result… what was the % cut? 10%? What did school administrators (management take as a reduction to their previous salary (not counting forgoing increases)? 10%? What are teachers/administrators giving up in this new fiscal year? But, the good news is teachers, unlike local government workers, are guaranteed no layoffs. If I understand your recommendation correctly, you advocate all manager/DH’s take a permanent 10% reduction, no COLA for the next five years (previous articles/discussion at CC). You do not seem to disagree with the Enterprise editorial that the retirement age be raised, and post-retirement medical benefits be eliminated (even for those who do not qualify for medicare). For non-management city workers, it appears you concur with at least the last statement. Are there general, permanent salary reductions you recommend for those “rank & file”, in addition? It appears that for DJUSD “rank & file” or administrators/”mgt”, you recommend at least ‘status quo, or possibly enhancements. I don’t necessarily disagree with this, but I’m just trying to be clear on your recommendation.
David,
Where are you getting your numbers from? I would like to review them as well. Non safety employees get lifetime medical @ 55, only those hired before 1996 do. Employees hired after that year have to work until age 60. Also the retiree salary percentages infer that all employees were hired at age 20. That is simply not the case.
Preston; you may have a typo… the ‘rules’ for non-safety employees follow:
[quote]MEDICAL BENEFIT PREMIUMS FOR RETIREES
A. PERS Vesting Schedule Applied. Subject to final approval by all CITY employees classified as “miscellaneous” for retirement purposes, effective March 1, 2011, CITY and EMPLOYEES agree to implement CalPERS Retiree Medical Vesting for all current and new employees, and the CITY will set
contribution amounts based on the Kaiser – Bay Area 2011 rates.
To be eligible for any post-retirement health benefits, an employee must complete at least five (5) years of PERS-credited service with the City of Davis. Employees who retire from the City of Davis after meeting the service requirement stated above, and who have at least a total of ten (10) years of PERS-credited service, will receive a CITY contribution towards their post-retirement health benefits in accordance with the then-current PERS vesting schedule. For the parties’ convenience, the PERS vesting schedule is currently established as follows:
Total Credited Years Percent of Years of Service City Contribution
10 50%
11 55%
12 60%
13 65%
14 70%
15 75%
16 80%
17 85%
18 90%
19 95%
20 100%
Employees who have PERS-credited service through other agencies must complete at least five (5) years of service with the City of Davis and retire from the City of Davis to be eligible for postretirement
health benefits. However, once an employee has completed five (5) years of service with the City of Davis, their eligibility for post retirement health benefits will include all years of PERScredited service. Those employees who complete five (5) years of service with the City of Davis, but
who have less than 10 total years of PERS-credited service, will receive the PERS minimum contribution set forth in Government Code section 22893 as it may, from time to time, be amended.
B. Application to Those Who Retire Before January 1, 2015. City will work to minimize the effects of the vesting program described above in Section A on current employees (i.e. those hired on or before the implementation date of this MOU) by allowing employees who retire prior to January 1, 2015 to retire subject to the following:
1. For EMPLOYEES hired by the CITY before July 1, 1996, if such employee
retires from CITY service and is otherwise eligible for some CITY payment of health care premiums upon retirement per Section A above, the City will supplement the employee’s Section A health benefit up to the amount equal to 100% of the premium for the group health insurance plan available from Kaiser-Bay Area rates effective January 1, 2011 for an employee and two or more dependents sponsored by the CITY through Public Employees Retirement System.
2. For all EMPLOYEES hired by the CITY on and after July 1, 1996, if such
employee retires from CITY service and is otherwise eligible for some CITY payment of health care premiums upon retirement per Section A above:
(a) for the time period between the EMPLOYEE’s retirement and age 60, CITY shall pay the greater of either: (i) the employee’s benefit per Section A above or (ii) 50% of the actual premium for the group health insurance plan selected by the retiree not to exceed the PERS rate for Kaiser-Bay Area rates effective January 1, 2011 sufficient to provide coverage for an eligible employee with two or more dependents. The employee shall pay the balance.
(b) for the time period after the employee turns age 60, the CITY shall pay
the full cost of the actual group health insurance plan selected by the retiree not to exceed the PERS rate for Kaiser-Bay Area rates effective January 1, 2011 sufficient to provide coverage for an eligible employee with two or more dependents.
C. No Cash In Lieu. Retirees are not eligible for any cash in lieu of health benefits.[/quote]
These are the “facts”, not as simple as some posters would have others believe. There are a number of current city employees who do not qualify for Medicare, unless they have a spouse who is. Minimum PERS retirement age is 50, regardless of the bargaining group. Except for Public Safety employees, the employees do not maximize the “age factor” (2.5% for misc.) under age 55. Anyone who posits differently is either ill-informed or lying.
“If I understand your recommendation correctly, you advocate all manager/DH’s take a permanent 10% reduction, no COLA for the next five years (previous articles/discussion at CC). “
The five years question is a up in the air, if the economy improves, I’m not going to say say no cola.
“You do not seem to disagree with the Enterprise editorial that the retirement age be raised, and post-retirement medical benefits be eliminated (even for those who do not qualify for medicare).”
That one I have not decided on.
Thank you, David, for your clarification.
Thank you hp. I was trying to point out section B, #’s 1 and 2.
PRESTON: [i]”Non safety employees get lifetime medical @ 55, only those hired before 1996 do. Employees hired after that year have to work until age 60.”[/i]
Preston’s second sentence is incorrect. I will get to that below.
The actual date of distinction is July 1, 1996. I have not inquired as to this, but I suspect greater than 95% of the people who have retired from the City of Davis in the last 10 years started [i]in a PERS-affiliated agency[/i] before 7-1-96. I would also expect that the vast majority of non-safety retirees from the City of Davis for the next 15 years will have started [i]in a PERS-affiliated agency[/i] before 7-1-96.
As such, there has not yet been any distinction between the befores and afters, yet. Note that a 25-year-old in 1995 will not turn 55 until 2025.
Copying this from the PASEA contract, here is how the deal works for those hired prior to 7-1-96: [quote] 1. For EMPLOYEES hired by the CITY before July 1, 1996, if such employee retires from CITY service and is otherwise eligible for some CITY payment of health care premiums upon retirement per Section A above, the City will supplement the employee’s Section A health benefit up to the amount equal to [b]100% of the premium[/b] for the group health insurance plan available from [b]Kaiser-Bay Area rates effective January 1, 2011 for an employee and two or more dependents sponsored by the CITY through Public Employees Retirement System.[/b][/quote] I should note to David Greenwald that I told him yesterday this was for the Kaiser Family Plan-Sacramento. It seems I was mistaken. The Bay Area plans are significantly more expensive (around 12% more). It would make good sense to change this in the next contract to KFP-S from KFP-BA. Thank you, Preston, for alerting me to this.
Here is how the plan works for non-safety retirees hired since 7-1-96 from the PASEA contract: [qupte] 2. For all EMPLOYEES hired by the CITY on and after July 1, 1996, if such employee retires from CITY service and is otherwise eligible for some CITY payment of health care premiums upon retirement per Section A above:
(a) for the time period between the EMPLOYEE’s retirement and age 60, CITY shall pay the greater of either: (i) the employee’s benefit per Section A above or (ii) 50% of the actual premium for the group health insurance plan selected by the retiree not to exceed the PERS rate for Kaiser-Bay Area rates effective January 1, 2011 sufficient to provide coverage for an eligible employee with two or more dependents. The employee shall pay the balance.[/quote] So what PRESTON claimed above is not quite right. The language in the contract means that if a non-safety employee (hired after 7-1-96) retires at say age 57, the amount the City will contribute to his retiree medical is capped at 50% of the Kaiser Bay Area Family plan for 3 people. If he is single, half of KFP-BA will be 100% of his retiree medical. If he has a spouse but no eligible minors or no spouse and one child, half of KFP-BA will pay somewhere between 60% and 75% of his premium expense, depending on where he chooses to live and which medical plan he selects. [quote] (b) for the time period after the employee turns age 60, the CITY shall pay the full cost of the actual group health insurance plan selected by the retiree not to exceed the PERS rate for Kaiser-Bay Area rates effective January 1, 2011 sufficient to provide coverage for an eligible employee with two or more dependents. [/quote] So if a non-safety employee decides to retire before he is 60, he might or might not have to pay a small amount before his free, lifetime medical plan is guaranteed free for life from age 60 on.
[quote]So if a non-safety employee decides to retire before he is 60, he might or might not have to pay a small amount before his free, lifetime medical plan is guaranteed free for life from age 60 on. [/quote] For the great majority of the miscellaneous employees (but not those [b]not eligible[/b] for medicare) after the employee is eligible for Medicare @ age 65, the city only pays for the supplemental coverage (Medicare is the basic coverage). As much as Mr. Rifkin likes to cite the “lifetime coverage” aspect, that is what Medicare is. Not sure if there are some of the contributors who would like to see city employees [b]ineligible[/b] for ALL retiree medical, including Medicare. That in my opinion would just be mean.
HP: [i]” Minimum PERS retirement age is 50, regardless of the bargaining group.”[/i]
This is factually not correct. What happens all the time–and has been widely reported for the last 5-6 years–is that public safety employees will accumulate a great amount of unused sick leave and vacation leave, beginning around age 20 and continuing until they are in their mid-40s. At that point, with 26 or 28 years on the job, at age 46 or 47 or 48, they have been allowed to purchase 2-4 years of service credit, by trading in their unused sick leave and vacation leave. Those folks then qualify for full retirement (90% of their last salary) and retire younger than age 50. Whether they can or cannot do this, depends on their specific agency. But the practice is not uncommon across California. (I should note that I don’ know of any specific cases in Davis where this has happened.)
Also, HPierce neglects to mention an entire other category of under-50 retirements: disability retirees. They are, of course, not required to be anywhere near age 50, and most are not.
Of the 98 living Davis public-safety retirees, 35 of them have a “disability retirement.” The other 63 have a “service retirement.” There are two others, both dead, categorized as “death after retirement.” The latter two received benefits last year, which I suspect went to their living spouses.
Disability retirement is far less common for non-safety employees. Of the 235 living Davis non-safety retirees, only 5 have disability retirements, and none is under age 50.
HP: [i]”For the great majority of the miscellaneous employees after the employee is eligible for Medicare @ age 65, the city only pays for the supplemental coverage (Medicare is the basic coverage).”[/i]
This is true. And this is why I think the City should not begin paying any part of its retirees’ medical premiums until they reach age 65. That would reduce the City’s medical retiree debt by roughly 75%.
The ‘supplemental coverage’ that HPierce mentions is still not cheap. Medicare pays roughly $4,600 per year. The KFP-BA for 3 people costs around $18,000, this year. Assuming most 65-year-old couples don’t have a 22-year-old or younger chid at home, the cost of KFP-BA for 2 is $13,655.76. That means, once the retiree is 65 and on Medicare, the ‘supplemental’ costs the taxpayers of Davis more than $9,000.
[quote][b]This is factually not correct[/b]. What happens all the time–and has been widely reported for the last 5-6 years–is that public safety employees will accumulate a great amount of unused sick leave and vacation leave, beginning around age 20 and continuing until they are in their mid-40s. [/quote]You speak untruths, Mr. Rifkin, for the following reasons… a) I clearly was speaking of non-safety employees (can you read?); b) vacation leave (for non-safety) neither counts toward “age” nor years of service; sick leave accrual counts for “service time”, but not age; c) in the city of Davis, a non-safety employee may carry-over one year of vacation… sick leave may accumulate without limit.
Mr. Rifkin, you are entitled to your opinions, but you are not entitled to mis-truths.
I stand by what I wrote, do you?
For anyone who wants facts, rather than blather, try https://www.calpers.ca.gov/mss-pub/SearchController?viewpackage=action&PageId=SearchCatalog&package_code=7
I just copied this, and have not verified if this is a link that will work from the Vanguard site.
[quote]The ‘supplemental coverage’ that HPierce mentions is still not cheap. Medicare pays roughly $4,600 per year. The KFP-BA for 3 people costs around $18,000, this year. Assuming most 65-year-old couples don’t have a 22-year-old or younger chid at home, the cost of KFP-BA for 2 is $13,655.76. That means, once the retiree is 65 and on Medicare, the ‘supplemental’ costs the taxpayers of Davis more than $9,000. [/quote]Well, at least Mr. Rifkin is getting “closer” to truth telling… the current Kaiser supplement to medicare cost for ’employee + 1 dependent’ is just under $6800 per year. I can verify my sources, if anyone is interested (available thru the PERS website… anyone can verify my assertions. Mr. Rifkin appears to rely on his “credibility”. I’ll let everyone judge that for themselves.
Because the issues are so complicated, and not all the facts are known/crystal clear in anyone’s mind, it would seem to me the most sensible approach is to leave city staff (including Paul Navazio) to come up with some strategies on how to achieve the savings needed as laid out by the City Council. I think the Vanguard has certainly posited some thought provoking ideas, and certainly the city employees need to be given the chance to weigh in on the budget issue… all within the framework of what is contractually legal/possible.
This is going to be a difficult process, heartbreaking at times, frustrating, but ultimately I think some good tasting sausage can come out of a messy contentious process if everyone can agree the sausage needs to be made in the most economical manner possible… 🙂
HPierce: I am not going to bother to reply. You are letting your emotions get the best of you. Think Matt Muller, brother.
hpierce’s information and numbers are certainly closer to my experience in 25 years with municipal agencies and CalPers ! My formula was 2%@55 and I pay medical, vision and dental out of my benefit !
I think between the two of you (hpierce and Rifkin) it would be possible to come up with a summary of benefits. This is probably far more detail than most readers can absorb. The key questions I expect people will have will be:
— how do the current benefits compare to comparable private sector jobs?
— what cuts could be made to save the city taxpayers money and balance the budget with the lowest amount of layoffs?
— would the union accept those changes in lieu of layoffs?
— what would be the overall impact on current city employees?
I don’t agree with the Enterprise about the retiree health issue. Supplementary health benefits after medicare age are extremely important, especially to lower income workers with smaller pensions with which to pick up the difference. They are as fundamental to the benefits package as pensions themselves. I have no desire to eliminate pensions and retiree health; only to make them sustainable. That will require greater employee contribution in a fashion to be discussed at the bargaining table.
The point is that these benefits can be supported. We have options regarding reasonable reforms in our highly unusual cafeteria cash-out program, dependent health care contribution increases, increased pension contributions, etc. Many of these components of our benefits package are far more generous than those of other workers in the public sector, such as state workers.
Clearly, the city has given away too much over the last decade and a half of the great bubble economy, and we are going to have to readjust. We will have to negotiate how to go about this with the employees this year.
My issue is that, legally, this can only be done during this year’s labor negotiation process. We must meet and confer, and engage in good faith bargaining. That is the law. Thus, we can’t solve the most important issues in September. The focus should remain on this year’s labor contract negotiations.
I agree completely that we need more honest fiscal analyses. I believe I was the first one to point out the fiscal smoke and mirrors that the previous council majority encouraged and condoned, such as calling deficits “unmet needs”.
I don’t agree with the Enterprise about the retiree health issue. Supplementary health benefits after medicare age are extremely important, especially to lower income workers with smaller pensions with which to pick up the difference. They are as fundamental to the benefits package as pensions themselves. I have no desire to eliminate pensions and retiree health; only to make them sustainable. That will require greater employee contribution in a fashion to be discussed at the bargaining table.
The point is that these benefits can be supported. We have options regarding reasonable reforms in our highly unusual cafeteria cash-out program, dependent health care contribution increases, increased pension contributions, etc. Many of these components of our benefits package are far more generous than those of other workers in the public sector, such as state workers.
Clearly, the city has given away too much over the last decade and a half of the great bubble economy, and we are going to have to readjust. We will have to negotiate how to go about this with the employees this year.
My issue is that, legally, this can only be done during this year’s labor negotiation process. We must meet and confer, and engage in good faith bargaining. That is the law. Thus, we can’t solve the most important issues in September. The focus should remain on this year’s labor contract negotiations.
I agree completely that we need more honest fiscal analyses. I believe I was the first one to point out the fiscal smoke and mirrors that the previous council majority encouraged and condoned, such as calling deficits “unmet needs”.
[quote]The key questions I expect people will have will be:
— how do the current benefits compare to comparable private sector jobs? [i][b](1)[/b][/i]
— what cuts could be made to save the city taxpayers money and balance the budget with the lowest amount of layoffs?[b][u](2)[/u][/b]
— would the union accept those changes in lieu of layoffs?[b][u]3)[/u][/b]
— what would be the overall impact on current city employees?[b][u](4)[/u][/b] [/quote]
1)just benefits, or total compensation? The latter is probably more appropriate. What classification? A tree trimmer probably has the same salary/benefit structure (but not “rates”) whether public or private… “professional” employees may not have the same “structures” when you compare public & private… there is often profit sharing &/or 401(k) and SS contributions on the private side. Public employees have PERS. Only an unbiased accountant could do a meaningful comparison (if the private sector even shared all that info, which they typically do not, for many reasons, including competition). I would welcome the comparison. Mr. Rifkin questions my bias… but even if he didn’t, I’m not an accountant.
2) Salaries could be cut 0% for those under $45 K/yr (pick your threshold), and up to 75% for management… that might mean that a Department Head would earn less than a tree-trimmer. But it “could” be done.
3) Not sure, as I have never belonged to a union, and never will. For individual employees directing their negotiators (union or non-union), I would suspect that a low-seniority employee in a low-priority position would vote for a big reduction in salary for those who are more secure, in order to save what they have. I suspect a highly paid, long-tenured position would not be as likely to support that approach.
4) Depends on the employee. Probably no employee would do well if their job was eliminated. I suspect there are few who could take a 10-15% total comp hit without eliminating things like savings, CATV, mortgages, and the like. I know of some who might be able to take a 8-10% hit, if they stopped giving any money to charities
[quote]Probably no employee would do well if their job was eliminated. I suspect there are few who could take a 10-15% total comp hit without eliminating things like savings, CATV, mortgages, and the like. I know of some who might be able to take a 8-10% hit, if they stopped giving any money to charities[/quote]The take-home pay of University and state workers has gone down by that much. It hasn’t been fun for any of us.
Sue: “Clearly, the city has given away too much over the last decade and a half of the great bubble economy, and we are going to have to readjust. We will have to negotiate how to go about this with the employees this year.
My issue is that, legally, this can only be done during this year’s labor negotiation process. We must meet and confer, and engage in good faith bargaining. That is the law. Thus, we can’t solve the most important issues in September. The focus should remain on this year’s labor contract negotiations.”
this seems to me to be political speak for “yes I understand its a prolem, and yes we need to solve it, but I would rather put the problem off.”
[quote]this seems to me to be political speak for “yes I understand its a prolem, and yes we need to solve it, but I would rather put the problem off.” [/quote]Dead wrong, Elaine, and anyone who knows my voting history knows it.
I know what needs to be done, and I know what the law is. It can be done, but we have to obey the law.
Sorry, sue, but I am not Elaine. I will have to change my name so it is clear who is who.
if it can be done, then do it already.
[quote]if it can be done, then do it already — Musser[/quote]Musser, I have voted against contracts year after year that did not address the structural issues that need to be addressed. If this council wants to address those issues, we can, but we must do it legally and this means that we have no choice but to do it during the current year’s negotiations.
Rif, It is my opinion that you are interpreting the language of the contract incorrectly. Also Kaiser mandates that anyone who lives in Davis (Yolo County) pay the Bay area premium (already fought that and lost). I also believe that you were incorrect on total comp for employees as well (previous article). I think we should maybe check with the human resources dept. to get clarification on both the contracts and compensation. Hopefully they have it right.
According to the City Manager’s office the Council chooses the negotiator(s). As it happens there is apparently only one current negotiation for which they’ve (finally) hired an outside [i]professional[/i]. So the question becomes at what point will the City Council get enough of a clue to expand the duties of that firm to include all of our collective bargaining units?
Anything less just continues the poisoned atmosphere and high levels of mistrust on *both* sides of the table.
We should give council member Greenwald credit for voting against unsustainable pay and benefits before it became a fashionable stand. Too bad she couldn’t convince at least two colleagues of the logic of her position.
It’s all the more mysterious why she’s comfortable taking the losing side on the current effort to acknowledge and fix the problem. This is a time when compromising enough to become part of the majority would have put her on a team that’s ready to turn things around. And she would be better positioned to have influence over how the team makes change in the coming months.
Insisting that we have only one route (to convince unions to give up benefits during upcoming negotiations) makes it seem the tail is wagging the dog. No one is suggesting the city do anything illegal, so why imply that charge?
We can raise tax rates and/or we can reduce employee costs. Knowing the first is unlikely, calling on the city staff to suggest ways to cut costs seems smart; who knows better what are less important tasks and what the impacts would be of stopping them?
I fear Sue has come to enjoy her minority, contrarian role in Davis politics. Wouldn’t it be better to influence things now at the price of giving up the chance to claim, “I told you so,” down the road?
[quote]We can raise tax rates and/or we can reduce employee costs. Knowing the first is unlikely, calling on the city staff to suggest ways to cut costs seems smart; who knows better what are less important tasks and what the impacts would be of stopping them? [/quote]
Nicely said…
JustSaying: You might want to go back and read Rich Rifkin’s explanation in David Greenwald’s first article on this topic. He clearly explains why the most productive approach to needed reform is through our coming year’s labor negotiations.
The city can achieve our needed structural changes, but it can only be done through a legally defined process. As you say, I’ve been voting against unsustainable pay and benefits before it became a fashionable stand, and I guess that you will just have to trust me at this point in time. I understand how the system works.
[b]Sue:[/b] I’ve reread Rich’s posts on pursuing structural changes via labor negotiations. I agree this needs to happen, but why not proceed on both routes? I don’t see how that’s illegal.
If the staff participates as partners in finding savings, wouldn’t they be more likely to understand how giving up pay and benefits in labor negotiations is needed to complete the job? If you participate with the majority in their initial cost-cutting effort, wouldn’t you be more confident that they’d support your approach during the next union negotiations?