It was not supposed to end this way, or at least so we thought. In the end, perhaps the voters really had had enough. In June of 2010, the Council majority met for the final time, their legacy an uncertain one at best, punctuated by the failed Covell Village, a booming structural deficit, looming unfunded liabilities and of course the fight between Ruth Asmundson and Sue Greenwald caught on film.
Every member of that council will be gone from public office except for Don Saylor, who serves on the Board of Supervisors in Woodland.
That fight was the subject of this campaign’s most memorable moment, when Sue Greenwald was the subject of the attack mailer which cited her bad behavior, and while the flier purported to support Stephen Souza, his inclusion on it may have doomed him.
We may never know if the true intent was really to take out both members of the council. Jon Li equivocated on that point, and James Burchill seemingly had little reason to take Stephen Souza out.
That moment aside, the voters, the few who showed, probably those paying the most attention for the last few years, decided it was time to start fresh.
As we have been writing for some time now, the issues that we face right now are monumental. The looming structural deficit, fixing unfunded liabilities, retiree health, pensions, cafeteria cash-outs and funding Davis’ flagging roadways, are all crucial issues.
Having an honest discussion on water, that will continue until we have perhaps another heated election in November, will be of paramount importance.
But as we noted on Sunday, this election really was not about the issues, it was about the personalities. It may have been that Lucas Frerichs and Brett Lee seemed like better personalities to lead us through these troubled times.
The Vanguard caught up with Mayor Joe Krovoza, fresh from his return from Spain, just in time to see the beginning of monumental change for Davis.
On Wednesday morning, he was reflective and appreciative of the long service that Sue Greenwald and Stephen Souza gave to the community.
Mayor Krovoza said, “Thank you to Sue Greenwald and Stephen Souza for their years of service on the Council. They both possess valuable insights on what makes Davis unique and so very livable. I hope to continue to draw on their knowledge.”
Measure D’s resounding passage assures Davis will not have to find another $1.35 million for its budget.
“Measure D’s passage shows once again the value our community places on the commons that bring us all together. Thank you to the Measure D campaign team led by Alan Pryor, Travie Westlund and Charlie Russell, the Chamber of Commerce, our employee groups, and all of the council candidates for bringing us such a strong margin of victory,” the Mayor said.
He congratulated his new colleagues and the return of Dan Wolk and wrote, “I believe that securing a sustainable budget long-term, and driving down cost for our future water supply, are the paramount issues. All of the candidates were united on these goals.”
He went on to say, “The challenge for any campaign is getting out the vote. We want to know our council in Davis, and the first-time runners certainly accomplished this. The narrow margins from the 2-5 positions demonstrate the difficulty of the final decision for the electorate, and perhaps the challenge incumbents face in making difficult decisions meeting after meeting.”
And concluded, “Standing for election before the community is humbling and empowering. I know everyone looks forward to getting to work soon.”
When we spoke to Brett Lee, he told us that fixing the problems with council meetings would trump even the budget in things that needed to be fixed.
He bristled at the notion that Davis had elected a bunch of “nice men.”
Instead, he called himself and his new colleagues professionals, who could work together through their differences.
We tried not to make this about negative issues, but there were times when the previous councils were simply not professional. At one point Stephen Souza shouted that he was the decider. Sue Greenwald would often make demands and shout to be heard.
There were times when critical portions of the community were ignored while other portions were heard a bit too much.
At one point, Stephen Souza created scenarios to try to make himself mayor, arguing that he deserved this, in terms that suggested this was about the good of the one, not the good of the community.
The community grew tired of this constant battle. Some councilmembers figured it out by simply retiring, others moved on, and those who did not ultimately were defeated in the polls.
The last year after Dan Wolk emerged on the council, we saw a remarkably new dynamic – less contention, more work, less bickering, a higher level of professionalism.
It was a credit to Dan Wolk that the tone of the council shifted in February of 2011 when he was seated on it. Mr. Wolk showed he could be a unifier and earned the very strong first place finish.
It was not always easy for him. He had to cast a tough deciding vote on the budget last June, holding firm in a hot room of 150 angry city employees.
And while at times Dan Wolk did not always cast the tough vote, now we know he will not be called on to do so that often. He has a council that can work together on the problems facing the community. They can compromise, they can approach new ideas with a sense of collaborative spirit.
The five members of the Davis City Council who will be seated next month face a daunting task. They have to fix the problems that have gone unresolved, either through omission or commission, for the last eight to ten years.
We had a council majority that did not reflect the community’s view on land use and development, and subsequently saw two Measure J votes result in resounding defeat.
We had a council majority willing to cover up public records of misconduct rather than shine a light on them and fix the problem.
We had a council majority that buried its collective head in the sand even as it became increasingly clear that our system of compensation was unsustainable. They had an early opportunity in 2009 to put us on the right track, both through a budget and an MOU process, and woefully failed to solve these problems.
Because of these failures, the task at hand in 2012 is far steeper. At the end of this month, before the new council can even meet, the city will have to pass a budget and, theoretically at least, deal with its expiring MOUs.
The latter point figures to be an epic battle that will likely spill into the new term with new councilmembers eager to take on the challenge.
What know that the stakes are high; we now know who will be tasked to take on this challenge.
On Tuesday night, it was a night for cheers and a night for tears. In the coming weeks we will honor the achievements of the outgoing councilmembers and look forward to the new services of incoming councilmembers.
The results of Tuesday’s election have sent shock waves through the community. The city government will never be the same and that is a good thing.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]On Tuesday night, it was a night for cheers and a night for tears. In the coming weeks we will honor the achievements of the outgoing councilmembers and look forward to the new services of incoming councilmembers.[/quote]
Well said! As I said, it was anyone’s race to win or lose. There were five excellent candidates…
How long does the honeymoon typically last?
Is this more evidence of general voter anger at the incumbents for our fiscal mess? I’m a little surprised that Sue was not re-elected on this basis. She was the strongest voice for reforming city employee compensation and pensions. It seems that she did not get much credit for taking a stand on this and also the water project. Also, what happened to her base? My thinking is sign-gate might have been the last straw following Ruth-gate.
Jeff – No she wasn’t. She was by far the loudest voice for labor concessions, but rancor isn’t strength. In a particularly dubious op-ed in the Davis Enterprise, she practically telegraphed bad faith in negotiations to the city bargaining groups. What was probably worse was the amount of time spent ranting at people responsible for the budget and responsible for negotiations.
David Greenwald and Don Shor have cast all of this as style instead of substance. But sometimes you can’t separate them. If you ride roughshod over an issue, then that becomes the issue.
Brett Lee has sort-of suggested that he’s Greenwald’s ideological successor with regard to the city budget. In principle, that could be fine, because sure, the city needs to save money. I just hope that he understands the need to strike the cue ball properly, instead of slamming it over the bumper and tearing the felt.
Lastly, since Sue Greenwald lost, I will say that even though I disagree at all levels on one too many major issues, she is at least a sincere person who truly cares about Davis and has worked hard over the years. Some of what did not make sense for a member of the city council could be much more reasonable for an advocate speaking to the city council.
I don’t know what the Vanguard’s readership numbers are… but I have to feel those of us who read it are a much better informed electorate than otherwise would be the case. Thanks to David’s thorough covering of Davis politics in general, budget, project and development issues, we citizens have more tools and information to make voting decisions.
David’s covering of the DACHA debacle, Fire union activity and water project/rate procedures were all first rate. All this information and each council member’s positions and reactions to these issues helped me decide on which candidates to vote for.
I will put my meager money where my mouth is in support of the Vanguard. Thanks David.
“Thank you to Sue Greenwald and Stephen Souza for their years of service on the Council. They both possess valuable insights on what makes Davis unique and so very livable. I hope to continue to draw on their knowledge.”
These two indeed have earned our gratitude for their exceptional dedication to our community. This cannot be a great job to do for as long as they have served. The euphoria of winning cannot make up for the personal pain of being rejected–even by only a small percentage of the people (those who voted) to whom these folks have dedicated so much of their lives and efforts.
The long hours of council meetings that irritate some of us are a way of life for our council members. Added to this are the many other meetings, hearings, study periods, etc. that must make the job overwhelming and nearly unbearable sometimes. Why do we expect them to do it in the face of such disagreement and seeming lack of appreciation from those of us row whom they serve and suffer.
At least, now, they’ll get some time for themselves. Thank you, Sue and Stephen, for all you’ve done for us for so long!
First of all, Congratulations to Davis for making a bold decision to entrust the complex decisions facing the council and the city to these three energetic and seemingly dedicated people . (I’d add “young”,but that would imply ageism, when envy is more accurate .;>)/
Jeff-I’m a bit surprised as well that Sue wasn’t returned . I think the absence of contrition over “sign-gate” may have been a factor . Some of the younger voters I spoke with told me they were tired of the “drama” with Sue, maybe that was the major issue for many .
David-Good job, as always ! Carry on .
“…those of us for whom they serve and suffer.”
[quote]I don’t know what the Vanguard’s readership numbers are… but I have to feel those of us who read it are a much better informed electorate than otherwise would be the case. Thanks to David’s thorough covering of Davis politics in general, budget, project and development issues, we citizens have more tools and information to make voting decisions. [/quote]
Well said! I always learn a great deal from the Vanguard…
[quote]Mayor Krovoza: “Thank you to Sue Greenwald and Stephen Souza for their years of service on the Council. They both possess valuable insights on what makes Davis unique and so very livable. I hope to continue to draw on their knowledge.”
JustSaying: These two indeed have earned our gratitude for their exceptional dedication to our community. This cannot be a great job to do for as long as they have served. The euphoria of winning cannot make up for the personal pain of being rejected–even by only a small percentage of the people (those who voted) to whom these folks have dedicated so much of their lives and efforts. [/quote]
I have a feeling both Steve Souza and Sue Greenwald will continue to dedicate their time and efforts to this city that they both care about deeply…
Take note city council members – citizens want change in the public pension system. Look at this from the WSJ, concerning San Jose, CA
[i]A vote to overhaul city pensions in San Jose could bolster efforts by municipal officials across California and the U.S. to curb soaring retirement costs.
Voters in this city of about 950,000 approved a ballot measure Tuesday that requires city workers to either contribute significantly more to their pensions or to accept more modest benefits. The measure was backed by 69% of voters, according to the website of the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters.[/i]
Make it priority 1 of your agenda to make significant progress with this issue!
I agree with Adam.
Also, the heart of the public employee union movement just stopped beating as Wisconsin voters failed to recall Scott Walker. Interestingly, at exit polls, 38% of Wisconsin voters that claimed to be union workers support Walker. Although not differentiated, it is assumed that these were mostly private-sector union workers. This spells trouble for the public unions as they have previously been served with unified union support.
I have good friends and family members that have worked in, are currently working in, the unionized public sector. All of them seem to understand the problem, but all of them see their situation as requiring protection because of the sanctity of prior commitments made. The problem with this view is that we are already way over-committed. Also, this view is a privileged view that nobody in the private sector has the right or power to expect. Compensation levels and benefit levels are always variable in the private sector. Stuff happens and standards must change. There are no guarantees and no free lunches.
How do you get someone that has worked for 30 years and plans to retire after 40 years of service at age 62 with 92% of her pay and 100% of her healthcare (this is a UCD admin employee friend), that she will instead have to work until age 67 and have retirement compensation and healthcare benefits equaling something like 50-70% and she will have to contribute to her 401k to make up the difference? One way is to explain it: even this level of retirement benefit would far exceed the norms for the private sector where defined benefits are a lost relic of the past.
Something else for Davis’s liberal progressives to consider: while the city is drowning in debt and unfunded pension commitments, there is less opportunity to control the agenda for saving the world. For example, city voters will not have the patients to consider plastic bag bans, etc. while Rome is burning in a mountain of smoldering debt. For the sake of their agenda, liberal progressives should get behind the need to reform our public sector pay and benefits. If Davis can get its fiscal house in order, conservatives will have less control of the narrative and we can have new toad tunnels at every street, and reusable grocery bags galore!
[i]”Thank you to Sue Greenwald and Stephen Souza for their years of service on the Council.”[/i]
I second this. Sue’s courage to fight for what she believes is right, and to work extremely hard to uncover the truth, even when she had to ruffle a lot of feathers and take a lot of grief in so doing, defines her terms on the Council. Hopefully, others will take up her mantle.
And as a city commissioner, I want to pay special thanks for Stephen’s dedicated work as the Council liaison to the Davis Historical Resources Commission. Despite his full time work schedule and all of the other work he had to do as a member of the City Council, including a lot of meetings with community leaders and in small committees, Stephen time after time attended our sometimes long (2.5 to 3 hours) HRMC meetings. (No previous Council liaisons ever showed up.) Whenever it was necessary, Stephen helped us with procedural questions. His knowledge and intelligent approach was helpful. And I also liked the fact that, while balancing other community goals and values, Stephen (long before he became our liaison) had a strong voting record as a member of the City Council in helping to preserve and promote Davis history. I cannot imagine anyone who follows ever doing a better job as the liaison to the HRMC.
Stockton just announced plans to declare bankruptcy in three weeks, the radio news just noted.
And Bam! The layoffs hit!
Yes, public employees have a different level of benefits than private sector employees do. Public sector employees also provide a different level of service. They take an oath to uphold laws and protect the citizens. They show up at 3am to fix the broken water main so you might take your morning shower. They wade through your filth to clear the sewer lines. They make sure that when it rains it doesn’t flood your house. They hang in buckets over busy streets to fix the traffic signal so your kid gets to school safely. Yes they were given compensation that may be unsustainable, but it is the desk jockey that approved this, so they could piggy back off the package, that is to blame. It is the elected official that signed off on the deals fault.
Just watch, now that Measure D has passed, and the city has its money, services will be cut. People will loose their jobs, and families will suffer, all to pay for the screw ups of others that shall never carry the burden of their greedy, short sided, idiocracy.
preston: Well said. I agree with most of this, except maybe the insinuations that folks in the private sector do not also do much of this same work. The elected officials screwed it up and the rest of us have to pay the price… some more than others unfortunately. It has worked the same way in many other industries where the managers made bad decisions and the employees and stockholders paid the price. When a person is the decision-maker at the top of the pyramid, he has responsibility for all beneath him… and some just seem to ignore this fact.
[quote]except maybe the insinuations that folks in the private sector do not also do much of this same work.[/quote]My experience is that Mr Boone is correct, to a point… an employee in the private sector has no/little reservations in proposing things that will benefit their clients w/o any consideration for the public.
I am a little bit more irritated each time I see the argument that people are paid more in the public sector than in the private sector. The argument is based on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which only looks at wages and medical/pension/vacation benefits, and not any kind of non-wage income. It does not say anything about royalties, investment income, stock options, income from running your own business, consulting fees, etc. The BLS also uses a broad survey that largely misses the salaries of the rare professions in the top 1%, much less, what the top 1% make from non-wage income. If you count all forms of income, not just wages and benefits, then average income in the private sector is more than average income in the public sector.
A good example is Susan Desmond-Hellman. She made $8.4 million in 2007 as an executive at Genentech, most of it from company stock. As Chancellor at UCSF, she makes $440K or so. She would have to work for 19 years as UCSF chancellor to make as much money as she made in one year in the private sector. Heck, at Genentech, she made a lot more than all 10 UC chancellors and President Yudof put together. Where is her $8.4 million in the BLS data? Nowhere. Which leads half-knowledgeable people to shake their heads about how much public employees like Desmond-Hellman make compared to the supposedly frugal private sector.
So, one major reason that public sector employees look like they make more is simply that their income is more equal. Another reason is that public sector workers are better educated on average. If you adjust for the level of education, then most of the wage difference disappears even at the median that the BLS surveys. If median city employees in Davis went private, they’d probably have above-median private salaries because they have good resumes, again not even counting the off chance that they would see huge non-wage income.
It also hints at what can happen if a city government squeezes its payroll too much. What can happen is that the remaining public skeleton crew doesn’t have the skills to do all of the needed work. So a larger fraction of the budget goes to contractors and consultants, who make who knows how much in wage and non-wage income. Which perversely works as a political solution. Instead resenting transparent public salaries, a lot of voters are less agitated by consultant incomes that they never learn.
[i]”My experience is that Mr Boone is correct, to a point… an employee in the private sector has no/little reservations in proposing things that will benefit their clients w/o any consideration for the public.”[/i]
The clients ARE the public. Of COURSE employees in the private sector propose things that benefit the client… hence they benefit the public. And in many cases the services provided to the public are higher-value and with greater customer service. Competition does that. Since the private sector company will lose market share and eventually go out of business as their clients (the public) gravitate to the provider of the highest value and higher customer service, employees are the private sector are naturally motivated to do more with less. The natural motivations in the public sector are generally exactly the opposite because publc-sector business hold the monopoly.
[i]”I am a little bit more irritated each time I see the argument that people are paid more in the public sector than in the private sector.”[/i]
Greg, you can cite a few examples of highly compensated individuals in the private sector to quell your irritation, but facts are facts. Comparing pubic-sector and private-sector professionals at all level, the public sector total compensation is significantly higher. The wages have grown to exceed what is paid in the private sector and the benefits have grown considerably higher.
It is simple to understand the difference using a single life annuity calculator. ([url]http://www.immediateannuities.com[/url] )
Let’s take a fireman that begins his career at age 21. He retires at age 50 (applying 12 months of unused sick leave). His wage compensation at time of retirement (including his generous overtime earning for his job where he is being paid to sleep) is $120,000 per year. 90% of that is $9000 per month.
So, to determine the value of this benefit for some like-compensation employee in the private sector that wants to retire at age 50, we determine the cost of a single life annuity purchased at age 50 that would pay $9000 per month until death. The cost of that benefit is about $2.5 million. Now we need to add his healthcare paid for until death. Let’s say the cost of that is a conservative $2000 per month. That is another $475 thousand.
Now, let’s not forget, this guy was making excess coin while he was working. You and I both know that a line of qualified applicants would form several blocks long if his job became available at 2/3 the pay and half the benefits.
When compared to the private sector, public sector workers are provided substantially more paid holidays, paid sick days and paid vacation days. They enjoy significant more job security… achieved from both, union extortion and the lack of competition. What is the value of all this stuff?
You might still be irritated by all this Greg, but then you are only getting irritated with the facts. Of course there are examples of high wage earners in the private sector; but they are de minimis points used only to evoke some irrational response of class anger. Very few private sector employees hit it big with stock options.
Global competition has caused the private sector to have to tighten its belt; learn to do more with less. The growing gap between higher public-sector lower private-sector pay and benefits is at least partially explained by a global cost of human resources leveling. Public sector business is largely insulated from that since it holds the monopoly as a service provider. In business areas where it competes, evidence of lower service value and inefficiency are endemic (e.g., the US Post Office compared to UPS and FedEx). However, the other driver to public-sector worker compensation largess is the public employee unions. The first step in bringing government spending back to sustainable reality is to eliminate the public employee unions.
[i]The growing gap between higher public-sector lower private-sector pay and benefits is at least partially explained by a global cost of human resources leveling.[/i]
This was awkwardly written. I should have said:
The growing gap between higher public-sector lower private-sector pay and benefits is at least partially explained by a global wage-leveling for human resources.
The point here is that high-wage countries like the US are less able to compete with low-wage countries like China. As global wages are leveled (i.e., US wages decrease, and China wages increase) we will better compete with outsourced manufacturing and service jobs.
[i]Greg, you can cite a few examples of highly compensated individuals in the private sector to quell your irritation, but facts are facts.[/i]
Right, Jeff, it’s those few examples, as in, almost everyone in the top 1%. It’s the whole point! The top 1% receive 20% of the income in America, well more than all public sector workers put together. If you pick a random person, yes, these examples are rare, but if you pick a random dollar and see who earned it, it’s not rare at all.
The public sector is getting it in the head because it doesn’t have the extreme income inequality of the private sector. Otherwise it would not have been possible for Desmond-Hellman to take a 95% pay cut, and only then, for the first time, have people accuse her of getting paid too much.
Greg, I don’t get your argument here. I think you are comparing sunflower seeds and watermelons.
There have always been a wealthiest 1% and they have always earned more wealth than we have paid the public sector. Other than class-anger arguments, what does the wealth of richest Americans have to do with what we are paying employees working in the public sector? Last I checked, money was not just laying around on the floor to be collected and distributed to people based on some class-favored schedule. You have to go out and produce something of value to trade for money you can accumulate personal wealth. You cannot control wealth until it is earned. That is the fundamental problems with the collectivist worldview. If they could figure out a way to enslave producers like a dairy farmer does his cows, then there would be a never-ending supply of the milk of human kindness they could flow through their egalitarian impulses to the needy masses. The problem here is that the hard-earned money being extracted from a shrinking population of producers that is used to pay for the value provided from the public sector is WAY out of sync with what commensurate value costs in the private markets.
This week I have been strategizing with my partner for a possible business move that will require a significant capital investment and include risks for failure. If I take this risk and fail, then I will be more closely aligned with your politically-correct economic class. However, if I succeed I will likely be rewarded and I might be more closely aligned with the wealthy 1% that you demonize. However, if I succeed I will also need to hire about 10-20 additional employees. And guess what… all of those 10-20 additional employees will be paid market rates in pay and benefits for their respective role in my company. And guess what else… all of them will be happy to have a great job working for a great company even though they would be paid substantially less and have far fewer benefits than the brainwashed-entitled employees of the bloated and inefficient public sector.
Greg, you and others working in the public sector may not FEEL overpaid, but it is clear that you are when compared to the private sector and measured against the condition of our state and local budgets. Your job security alone justifies that you be paid less than what commensurate workers in the private sector make… because few if any of them enjoy ANY job security.
[i]I think you are comparing sunflower seeds and watermelons.[/i]
That’s because I am. The sunflower seeds in the public sector are a little bigger than the sunflower seeds in the private sector, because in the private sector, a lot of the water goes to watermelons.
The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was to convince people he didn’t exist.
I feel that we have lost target on what precipitated this current economic crisis. High public sector compensation didn’t cause tens of thousands of people to lose their homes. I don’t know when, how, or why, but somehow the focus of our anger and frustration has turn onto our public servants, when we should be flogging the bankers who raped our finances, and then gave themselves a million dollar bonus for a job well done.
Seriously. Can anyone tell me why we are upset that someone can retire making their full $50,000 a year salary, when some bastard whose “high risk” loans, and flat out fraudulent financial paperwork, caused so many families to lose their houses, gives himself a bonus larger than what a lot of us will make in a lifetime?
[quote] The problem here is that the hard-earned money being extracted from a shrinking population of producers that is used to pay for the value provided from the public sector is WAY out of sync with what commensurate value costs in the private markets. [/quote]
Can you give a cost comparison.
If you are viewing the tax payer as a “producer”, and the public sector as the “provider”, you must also remember that the public sector is producing while providing. So if a public sector worker make $50,000, and pays $10,000 in taxes he has produced for his own provisions.
[i]”I feel that we have lost target on what precipitated this current economic crisis. High public sector compensation didn’t cause tens of thousands of people to lose their homes.”[/i]
Nice deflection preston. These two issues have nothing to do with each other except that the Great Recession opened everyone’s eyes to the problems with Democrats in office giving away the store to the public employee unions.
[i]”If you are viewing the tax payer as a “producer”, and the public sector as the “provider”, you must also remember that the public sector is producing while providing.”[/i]
Isn’t that a hoot!? The government takes a chunk of earned wealth from private-sector workers to use to pay public-sector workers and then taxes a chunk of that earned wealth to pay other public-sector workers while taking a chunk of that earned wealth to pay other public-sector workers… and so on. I feel like I am peering into an infinity mirror. This is very inefficient model. Why don’t we NOT tax the public-sector workers and just reduce their pay equal to their tax bill? Then we could get rid of all the excess government workers employed in this multi-dimensional tax-taking / tax-giving scheme. Think of the money we would save, and the producers would retain more of their earnings so they could invest in business and create more private-sector jobs that pay taxes.
Me: [i]”The problem here is that the hard-earned money being extracted from a shrinking population of producers that is used to pay for the value provided from the public sector is WAY out of sync with what commensurate value costs in the private markets.”[/i]
preston: [i]”Can you give a cost comparison.”[/i]
Mine was a poorly constructed sentence. The point I was making here is that the unit cost of service for the public sector far exceed the same in the private sector for most labor roles.
For example, this from Salary.com for a senior accountant in Berkeley:
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscjeff/accountant4.jpg [/img]
Now here is a similar job opening for UC Berkeley: [url]https://hrw-vip-prod.is.berkeley.edu/psp/JOBSPROD/EMPLOYEE/HRMS/c/HRS_HRAM.HRS_CE.GBL?Page=HRS_CE_JOB_DTL&Action=A&JobOpeningId=13670&SiteId=1&PostingSeq=1[/url]
Let’s compare…
The median salary per Salary.com is $84,519. The salary range of the UC Berkeley job is $100,000 – $120,000. So, let’s assume $110,000.
As if that wasn’t bad enough, next we get to the benefits. The total value of benefits for the Salary.com job is $37,248.
For the UC Berkeley job:
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscjeff/UCBben.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscjeff/UCBret.jpg[/img]
40% of $110,000 is $44,000
So just from this comparison the public-sector employee is making $154,000 in gross compensation compared to the private sector-employee making $121,767.
But this is only part of the story because of other public-sector benefits not included in the government’s calculation of benefits. What is the value of the extra job security from union protection, the lack of competition and a funding mechanism that reaches deeper into tax-payer pockets instead of requiring lay-offs. And what about the value of a defined-benefit pension where risk is born by the taxpayer and not the empoloyee?
And to top it off, look at this list of extra goodies available to the poor public-sector senior accountant:
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscjeff/UCBother.jpg[/img]
I’m sorry, but this stuff makes me angry every time I look at it.