As Rich Rifkin pointed out in several columns leading up to the 2008 city council election, there is really only one group of public employees that was active in the council elections–the firefighters. Indeed in our examination of the Form 460 (Campaign Statements from the City Council Candidates), we find only a few very small contributions from city employees who are not firefighters. A Davis Police Officer and head of the Davis Police Officer Association made small contributions to incumbents Stephen Souza and Don Saylor, and the union itself made only a $100 contribution to candidate Sydney Vergis.
Compare that to the enormity of the contributions from the Davis Professional Firefighters Local 3494 and you see any influence is quickly dwarfed.
In the chart below you will see contributions by Local 3494 members cross-referenced with their 100K Club ranking. In the image below you only see top 20 members of the 100K Club. If you click on the link below you can see the entire list along with their city of residence. Thanks to Rich Rifkin for help with some of the data, along with yet another public records request from the city of Davis.
As we know however from the campaign, direct contributions are not the end of the story. Independent Expenditure Committees in Davis must report their activity in the California Form 496 and their committee is required to fill out Form 450. Unlike direct contributions, there is no limitation in terms of their spending activities. Thus as we know, the Davis Firefighters launched two different IEs in favor of their preferred candidates. According to their filing from May 12, 2008, the Davis Firefighters spent $6070.46 on the Print and Design of the brochure featured in the link above. For the entire six month period ending on June 30, 2008, they report $8245.63 which includes expenditures on a door hanger they report as $373.03 per candidate.
The combination of direct contributions and independent expenditures totals over $20,000 for the period. A reported spending that actually seems a bit on the low side.
Nevertheless, this expenditure is in fact unique for city employees in Davis. No other group of employees have organized in this manner to attempt to influence the city council election outcome. And from past elections, we know that this is not unique.
The question now comes to what exactly this influence buys the Davis Professional Firefighters. Here we revisit our findings from the 100K Club of Davis article.
As we see from these charts, the Davis Firefighters emerge as the “top dawgs” in terms of both base salary and salary plus overtime…
The first chart shows that the Davis Fire Department makes the highest average base salary of any Davis city department outpacing the City Manager’s Office by a good $15,000 and outpacing their fellow public safety department, the police, by over $20,000.
However, that advantage increases tremendously when overtime salaries are factored in. Even, given the fact that roughly 17% of the overtime salaries are reimbursed by the state of California, these statistics show that by far, the Davis Firefighters are the best paid workers in the city. And again, it is not even close.
Here you can see their overall slice of the pie, just looking at base salaries.
And what we discovered yesterday is that even with respect to other locales in the county, the city of Davis’ employee scales are skewed.
Where does that leave us? Unfortunately it leaves us right where we started–an unsustainable situation for the city of Davis where the rising cost of employee salaries are threatening to throw the city’s budget out of whack.
So we end this circle where we began–the Davis tax revenue has not kept up with the rising cost of employee salaries. We spent a good deal of time this spring talking about pensions–the cost of pensions for the city of Davis was just $900,000 in 2000-01, this year it’s almost $6 million. And the bubble of retirements with the current 3% at 50 arrangement have not hit yet.
What is the cost of these rising expenditures, one needs to look no further than the front page of yesterday’s Davis Enterprise for the answer. In there was an article about the inability to repair some of the Davis bikeways because the city lacks the funding. This by itself is a safety hazard. People talk about the fact that the fire department is responsible for protecting lives–there is no doubt that is true, even if the actual number of fires is fairly low compared to other service calls. However, as I have stated before it is unclear to me that we are less safe paying folks a strong wage of say $70,000 compared to a wage of $109K. It is less clear to me that we are more safe now, unable to pay for crucial road and other infrastructure repairs than we would be paying the firefighters a bit less, and keeping the overtime under control.
What the city calls unmet needs is really a budget deficit. It is a deficit between what the city needs to spend and what it can spend. And unmet needs are insidious. Failure to make repairs now, means more expensive repairs later. Failure to make repairs now means possible safety concerns down the line. The pattern here is quite clear. The residents of Davis who are concerned about taxation, need to watch this much more closely. The residents here concerned about quality of services need to watch this more closely as well. At some point, the city will need to figure out a way to finance this and it means taxation, development, and possibly cutback on services.
Stay tuned to future Vanguard articles as we explore other aspects of the city council finance records.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Ain’t that a fact said:
DPD- WOW! You have done it again. Thank you for digging into this and analyzing it. I hope our city leaders take note and keep our city out of the mess that Vallejo got into.
Ain’t that a fact said:
DPD- WOW! You have done it again. Thank you for digging into this and analyzing it. I hope our city leaders take note and keep our city out of the mess that Vallejo got into.
Ain’t that a fact said:
DPD- WOW! You have done it again. Thank you for digging into this and analyzing it. I hope our city leaders take note and keep our city out of the mess that Vallejo got into.
Ain’t that a fact said:
DPD- WOW! You have done it again. Thank you for digging into this and analyzing it. I hope our city leaders take note and keep our city out of the mess that Vallejo got into.
As I’ve said before, thank you for providing this information to your readers DPD. It’s available through public records request, but it helps that you provide a good analysis and comparison.
As a voter, taxpayer, and longtime resident of Davis I like to know where our tax dollars are being spent by those whom are elected to office.
Good work.
As I’ve said before, thank you for providing this information to your readers DPD. It’s available through public records request, but it helps that you provide a good analysis and comparison.
As a voter, taxpayer, and longtime resident of Davis I like to know where our tax dollars are being spent by those whom are elected to office.
Good work.
As I’ve said before, thank you for providing this information to your readers DPD. It’s available through public records request, but it helps that you provide a good analysis and comparison.
As a voter, taxpayer, and longtime resident of Davis I like to know where our tax dollars are being spent by those whom are elected to office.
Good work.
As I’ve said before, thank you for providing this information to your readers DPD. It’s available through public records request, but it helps that you provide a good analysis and comparison.
As a voter, taxpayer, and longtime resident of Davis I like to know where our tax dollars are being spent by those whom are elected to office.
Good work.
I just joined Friends of the Vanguard(check out homepage sidebar icon) with a modest contribution to help keep this blog going.It’s a good investment in our community’s future.
I just joined Friends of the Vanguard(check out homepage sidebar icon) with a modest contribution to help keep this blog going.It’s a good investment in our community’s future.
I just joined Friends of the Vanguard(check out homepage sidebar icon) with a modest contribution to help keep this blog going.It’s a good investment in our community’s future.
I just joined Friends of the Vanguard(check out homepage sidebar icon) with a modest contribution to help keep this blog going.It’s a good investment in our community’s future.
Wow! I’ve been real critical of a lot of the work you’ve done in the past David, but this is good reporting. Keep on the path of backing up assumptions with solid data.
C
Wow! I’ve been real critical of a lot of the work you’ve done in the past David, but this is good reporting. Keep on the path of backing up assumptions with solid data.
C
Wow! I’ve been real critical of a lot of the work you’ve done in the past David, but this is good reporting. Keep on the path of backing up assumptions with solid data.
C
Wow! I’ve been real critical of a lot of the work you’ve done in the past David, but this is good reporting. Keep on the path of backing up assumptions with solid data.
C
Just a clarification
The salary data (Fire versus Police) is not quite an apples to apples comparison. Fire has about 50 professionals and 4 clericals while Police has about 61 professionals and about 60 other people (clericals, parking ticket people etc). The clerical staff and others make less money than the professionals in both departments. Since Police has so many more “other” folks the average Police salary looks much lower than Fire. I assume the professional salaries are about the same.
Just a clarification
The salary data (Fire versus Police) is not quite an apples to apples comparison. Fire has about 50 professionals and 4 clericals while Police has about 61 professionals and about 60 other people (clericals, parking ticket people etc). The clerical staff and others make less money than the professionals in both departments. Since Police has so many more “other” folks the average Police salary looks much lower than Fire. I assume the professional salaries are about the same.
Just a clarification
The salary data (Fire versus Police) is not quite an apples to apples comparison. Fire has about 50 professionals and 4 clericals while Police has about 61 professionals and about 60 other people (clericals, parking ticket people etc). The clerical staff and others make less money than the professionals in both departments. Since Police has so many more “other” folks the average Police salary looks much lower than Fire. I assume the professional salaries are about the same.
Just a clarification
The salary data (Fire versus Police) is not quite an apples to apples comparison. Fire has about 50 professionals and 4 clericals while Police has about 61 professionals and about 60 other people (clericals, parking ticket people etc). The clerical staff and others make less money than the professionals in both departments. Since Police has so many more “other” folks the average Police salary looks much lower than Fire. I assume the professional salaries are about the same.
Thanks for the clarification, I’ll have to look at the numbers again.
Once again that’s why we have to look at multiple data measures.
The 100K data is instructive on this:
There are 38 firefighters among the 61 100K Club of Davis members compared to only 10 police officers.
Also the average firefighter salary with overtime is roughly $109K. There are only five Davis Police Officers who make more than the average firefighter. So I would say there is still a pretty broad gap between fire salaries and police salaries at least based on these measures.
Thanks for the clarification, I’ll have to look at the numbers again.
Once again that’s why we have to look at multiple data measures.
The 100K data is instructive on this:
There are 38 firefighters among the 61 100K Club of Davis members compared to only 10 police officers.
Also the average firefighter salary with overtime is roughly $109K. There are only five Davis Police Officers who make more than the average firefighter. So I would say there is still a pretty broad gap between fire salaries and police salaries at least based on these measures.
Thanks for the clarification, I’ll have to look at the numbers again.
Once again that’s why we have to look at multiple data measures.
The 100K data is instructive on this:
There are 38 firefighters among the 61 100K Club of Davis members compared to only 10 police officers.
Also the average firefighter salary with overtime is roughly $109K. There are only five Davis Police Officers who make more than the average firefighter. So I would say there is still a pretty broad gap between fire salaries and police salaries at least based on these measures.
Thanks for the clarification, I’ll have to look at the numbers again.
Once again that’s why we have to look at multiple data measures.
The 100K data is instructive on this:
There are 38 firefighters among the 61 100K Club of Davis members compared to only 10 police officers.
Also the average firefighter salary with overtime is roughly $109K. There are only five Davis Police Officers who make more than the average firefighter. So I would say there is still a pretty broad gap between fire salaries and police salaries at least based on these measures.
Thanks for boldy going where the Enterprise has failed to ever go!
Thanks for boldy going where the Enterprise has failed to ever go!
Thanks for boldy going where the Enterprise has failed to ever go!
Thanks for boldy going where the Enterprise has failed to ever go!
How can we go in reverse in terms of salaries for any city employee?
I think that we are stuck here. We’ve made a commitment to these employees that will be very difficult to change. The retirement benefits are only challenging because it is based on salaries that seem really high.
How can we go in reverse in terms of salaries for any city employee?
I think that we are stuck here. We’ve made a commitment to these employees that will be very difficult to change. The retirement benefits are only challenging because it is based on salaries that seem really high.
How can we go in reverse in terms of salaries for any city employee?
I think that we are stuck here. We’ve made a commitment to these employees that will be very difficult to change. The retirement benefits are only challenging because it is based on salaries that seem really high.
How can we go in reverse in terms of salaries for any city employee?
I think that we are stuck here. We’ve made a commitment to these employees that will be very difficult to change. The retirement benefits are only challenging because it is based on salaries that seem really high.
We’re stuck in the short term, the longer term is we slow down the rate of growth and allow inflation to catch up to the growth in salaries.
We’re stuck in the short term, the longer term is we slow down the rate of growth and allow inflation to catch up to the growth in salaries.
We’re stuck in the short term, the longer term is we slow down the rate of growth and allow inflation to catch up to the growth in salaries.
We’re stuck in the short term, the longer term is we slow down the rate of growth and allow inflation to catch up to the growth in salaries.
“How can we go in reverse in terms of salaries for any city employee?”
We cannot (and should not) reverse the salaries. But if, for those costing us (in salaries and benefits) more than $100,000 a year, we should freeze them for a few years.
The counter argument to this has always been a “keeping up with the Joneses” logic: that we need to pay these very high salaries in order to attract and keep the best people. I think there is merit at the heart of that contention.
However, it has gotten out of control, not just in Davis but in a lot of our neighboring cities. For example, the city managers in Woodland and West Sac are paid even more than our city manager. I assume that they got those lucrative deals under the same logic, and that threatens the fiscal health of many cities now in California.
So as long as we can attract some good candidates for job openings, we don’t need to continually increase the packages we are offering. When a firefighters job opens up, I am told we get 100 or more highly qualified applicants. That suggests to me that freezing our costs for say the next 4-5 years won’t cause a depletion in our ranks of good people.
“How can we go in reverse in terms of salaries for any city employee?”
We cannot (and should not) reverse the salaries. But if, for those costing us (in salaries and benefits) more than $100,000 a year, we should freeze them for a few years.
The counter argument to this has always been a “keeping up with the Joneses” logic: that we need to pay these very high salaries in order to attract and keep the best people. I think there is merit at the heart of that contention.
However, it has gotten out of control, not just in Davis but in a lot of our neighboring cities. For example, the city managers in Woodland and West Sac are paid even more than our city manager. I assume that they got those lucrative deals under the same logic, and that threatens the fiscal health of many cities now in California.
So as long as we can attract some good candidates for job openings, we don’t need to continually increase the packages we are offering. When a firefighters job opens up, I am told we get 100 or more highly qualified applicants. That suggests to me that freezing our costs for say the next 4-5 years won’t cause a depletion in our ranks of good people.
“How can we go in reverse in terms of salaries for any city employee?”
We cannot (and should not) reverse the salaries. But if, for those costing us (in salaries and benefits) more than $100,000 a year, we should freeze them for a few years.
The counter argument to this has always been a “keeping up with the Joneses” logic: that we need to pay these very high salaries in order to attract and keep the best people. I think there is merit at the heart of that contention.
However, it has gotten out of control, not just in Davis but in a lot of our neighboring cities. For example, the city managers in Woodland and West Sac are paid even more than our city manager. I assume that they got those lucrative deals under the same logic, and that threatens the fiscal health of many cities now in California.
So as long as we can attract some good candidates for job openings, we don’t need to continually increase the packages we are offering. When a firefighters job opens up, I am told we get 100 or more highly qualified applicants. That suggests to me that freezing our costs for say the next 4-5 years won’t cause a depletion in our ranks of good people.
“How can we go in reverse in terms of salaries for any city employee?”
We cannot (and should not) reverse the salaries. But if, for those costing us (in salaries and benefits) more than $100,000 a year, we should freeze them for a few years.
The counter argument to this has always been a “keeping up with the Joneses” logic: that we need to pay these very high salaries in order to attract and keep the best people. I think there is merit at the heart of that contention.
However, it has gotten out of control, not just in Davis but in a lot of our neighboring cities. For example, the city managers in Woodland and West Sac are paid even more than our city manager. I assume that they got those lucrative deals under the same logic, and that threatens the fiscal health of many cities now in California.
So as long as we can attract some good candidates for job openings, we don’t need to continually increase the packages we are offering. When a firefighters job opens up, I am told we get 100 or more highly qualified applicants. That suggests to me that freezing our costs for say the next 4-5 years won’t cause a depletion in our ranks of good people.
“I think that we are stuck here. We’ve made a commitment to these employees that will be very difficult to change. The retirement benefits are only challenging because it is based on salaries that seem really high.”
Where we are really stuck, as long as we have a pension system, is with the retirement deals.
We cannot legally reduce the 3% at 50 for current firefighters and cops or the 2.5% at 55 for all other current employees. Also, we cannot legally hire new personnel and give them a less lucrative PERS retirement package. In other words, a new firefighter has to get the 3% at 50 deal — we can’t give him 2% at 60 and grandfather in the other firefighters.
Less than a month ago, David Greenwald (DPD) pointed me to an article from a Monterey newspaper, where the city of Pacific Grove is trying to get out of this pension-burden mess. Their city council voted to let the citizens decide if all city employees should go off PERS pensions entirely, replacing them with 401K plans. As far as I could figure, this is not designed to save PG money right now or to lessen the amounts city employees will get. Instead, it is a way for the city of PG to control its long-term costs of retirement benefits. They would also be able to make adjustments with new employees.
There is much I don’t understand about what will happen in PG if this plan passes in November. However, if it does and it is not ruled illegal and it doesn’t bring about serious problems for PG, it is something I think we should consider in Davis down the road. It could allow us to control our costs better at some point.
“I think that we are stuck here. We’ve made a commitment to these employees that will be very difficult to change. The retirement benefits are only challenging because it is based on salaries that seem really high.”
Where we are really stuck, as long as we have a pension system, is with the retirement deals.
We cannot legally reduce the 3% at 50 for current firefighters and cops or the 2.5% at 55 for all other current employees. Also, we cannot legally hire new personnel and give them a less lucrative PERS retirement package. In other words, a new firefighter has to get the 3% at 50 deal — we can’t give him 2% at 60 and grandfather in the other firefighters.
Less than a month ago, David Greenwald (DPD) pointed me to an article from a Monterey newspaper, where the city of Pacific Grove is trying to get out of this pension-burden mess. Their city council voted to let the citizens decide if all city employees should go off PERS pensions entirely, replacing them with 401K plans. As far as I could figure, this is not designed to save PG money right now or to lessen the amounts city employees will get. Instead, it is a way for the city of PG to control its long-term costs of retirement benefits. They would also be able to make adjustments with new employees.
There is much I don’t understand about what will happen in PG if this plan passes in November. However, if it does and it is not ruled illegal and it doesn’t bring about serious problems for PG, it is something I think we should consider in Davis down the road. It could allow us to control our costs better at some point.
“I think that we are stuck here. We’ve made a commitment to these employees that will be very difficult to change. The retirement benefits are only challenging because it is based on salaries that seem really high.”
Where we are really stuck, as long as we have a pension system, is with the retirement deals.
We cannot legally reduce the 3% at 50 for current firefighters and cops or the 2.5% at 55 for all other current employees. Also, we cannot legally hire new personnel and give them a less lucrative PERS retirement package. In other words, a new firefighter has to get the 3% at 50 deal — we can’t give him 2% at 60 and grandfather in the other firefighters.
Less than a month ago, David Greenwald (DPD) pointed me to an article from a Monterey newspaper, where the city of Pacific Grove is trying to get out of this pension-burden mess. Their city council voted to let the citizens decide if all city employees should go off PERS pensions entirely, replacing them with 401K plans. As far as I could figure, this is not designed to save PG money right now or to lessen the amounts city employees will get. Instead, it is a way for the city of PG to control its long-term costs of retirement benefits. They would also be able to make adjustments with new employees.
There is much I don’t understand about what will happen in PG if this plan passes in November. However, if it does and it is not ruled illegal and it doesn’t bring about serious problems for PG, it is something I think we should consider in Davis down the road. It could allow us to control our costs better at some point.
“I think that we are stuck here. We’ve made a commitment to these employees that will be very difficult to change. The retirement benefits are only challenging because it is based on salaries that seem really high.”
Where we are really stuck, as long as we have a pension system, is with the retirement deals.
We cannot legally reduce the 3% at 50 for current firefighters and cops or the 2.5% at 55 for all other current employees. Also, we cannot legally hire new personnel and give them a less lucrative PERS retirement package. In other words, a new firefighter has to get the 3% at 50 deal — we can’t give him 2% at 60 and grandfather in the other firefighters.
Less than a month ago, David Greenwald (DPD) pointed me to an article from a Monterey newspaper, where the city of Pacific Grove is trying to get out of this pension-burden mess. Their city council voted to let the citizens decide if all city employees should go off PERS pensions entirely, replacing them with 401K plans. As far as I could figure, this is not designed to save PG money right now or to lessen the amounts city employees will get. Instead, it is a way for the city of PG to control its long-term costs of retirement benefits. They would also be able to make adjustments with new employees.
There is much I don’t understand about what will happen in PG if this plan passes in November. However, if it does and it is not ruled illegal and it doesn’t bring about serious problems for PG, it is something I think we should consider in Davis down the road. It could allow us to control our costs better at some point.
First, fire are paid higher than police.
Second, again, it would be much more meaningful to discuss total compensation rather than just salaries, because our benefits are much higher than benefits for other public agencies.
As long as we have sufficient qualified applicants for given positions, exact comparability of total compensation should not be that important.
University of California and Harvard have traditionally paid less than many other top universities, yet have been more than competitive in hiring. There is a great deal of variation in salaries among cities as there is among Universities. Like Harvard and U.C., like Davis is a good place work.
Other public agencies routinely have salary freezes when times are tough. The city never does. Our current management and public safety salaries are very comfortable. I agree with Rich Rifkin. We are dealing with the issue of raises, not roll-backs.
I should also ad that it was most unfortunate that the council voted to lower the retirement age to 55 for non-public safety employees. I argued against this for about five years, and ultimately lost.
A 55 year retirement age for non-manual workers is unnecessary and expensive, and is a permanent commitment, whether we can afford it or not. Other public agencies to not have this benefit.
We will be committed to this folly for about 75 years–until our youngest worker dies, probably at 100 by then. I don’t even know if human resources counted the huge increased medical insurance costs that retirement at 55 brings, since it leaves the city with an extra five years of full retiree medical payments, since, after medicare kicks in, the city only has to pay about half of retiree medical.
First, fire are paid higher than police.
Second, again, it would be much more meaningful to discuss total compensation rather than just salaries, because our benefits are much higher than benefits for other public agencies.
As long as we have sufficient qualified applicants for given positions, exact comparability of total compensation should not be that important.
University of California and Harvard have traditionally paid less than many other top universities, yet have been more than competitive in hiring. There is a great deal of variation in salaries among cities as there is among Universities. Like Harvard and U.C., like Davis is a good place work.
Other public agencies routinely have salary freezes when times are tough. The city never does. Our current management and public safety salaries are very comfortable. I agree with Rich Rifkin. We are dealing with the issue of raises, not roll-backs.
I should also ad that it was most unfortunate that the council voted to lower the retirement age to 55 for non-public safety employees. I argued against this for about five years, and ultimately lost.
A 55 year retirement age for non-manual workers is unnecessary and expensive, and is a permanent commitment, whether we can afford it or not. Other public agencies to not have this benefit.
We will be committed to this folly for about 75 years–until our youngest worker dies, probably at 100 by then. I don’t even know if human resources counted the huge increased medical insurance costs that retirement at 55 brings, since it leaves the city with an extra five years of full retiree medical payments, since, after medicare kicks in, the city only has to pay about half of retiree medical.
First, fire are paid higher than police.
Second, again, it would be much more meaningful to discuss total compensation rather than just salaries, because our benefits are much higher than benefits for other public agencies.
As long as we have sufficient qualified applicants for given positions, exact comparability of total compensation should not be that important.
University of California and Harvard have traditionally paid less than many other top universities, yet have been more than competitive in hiring. There is a great deal of variation in salaries among cities as there is among Universities. Like Harvard and U.C., like Davis is a good place work.
Other public agencies routinely have salary freezes when times are tough. The city never does. Our current management and public safety salaries are very comfortable. I agree with Rich Rifkin. We are dealing with the issue of raises, not roll-backs.
I should also ad that it was most unfortunate that the council voted to lower the retirement age to 55 for non-public safety employees. I argued against this for about five years, and ultimately lost.
A 55 year retirement age for non-manual workers is unnecessary and expensive, and is a permanent commitment, whether we can afford it or not. Other public agencies to not have this benefit.
We will be committed to this folly for about 75 years–until our youngest worker dies, probably at 100 by then. I don’t even know if human resources counted the huge increased medical insurance costs that retirement at 55 brings, since it leaves the city with an extra five years of full retiree medical payments, since, after medicare kicks in, the city only has to pay about half of retiree medical.
First, fire are paid higher than police.
Second, again, it would be much more meaningful to discuss total compensation rather than just salaries, because our benefits are much higher than benefits for other public agencies.
As long as we have sufficient qualified applicants for given positions, exact comparability of total compensation should not be that important.
University of California and Harvard have traditionally paid less than many other top universities, yet have been more than competitive in hiring. There is a great deal of variation in salaries among cities as there is among Universities. Like Harvard and U.C., like Davis is a good place work.
Other public agencies routinely have salary freezes when times are tough. The city never does. Our current management and public safety salaries are very comfortable. I agree with Rich Rifkin. We are dealing with the issue of raises, not roll-backs.
I should also ad that it was most unfortunate that the council voted to lower the retirement age to 55 for non-public safety employees. I argued against this for about five years, and ultimately lost.
A 55 year retirement age for non-manual workers is unnecessary and expensive, and is a permanent commitment, whether we can afford it or not. Other public agencies to not have this benefit.
We will be committed to this folly for about 75 years–until our youngest worker dies, probably at 100 by then. I don’t even know if human resources counted the huge increased medical insurance costs that retirement at 55 brings, since it leaves the city with an extra five years of full retiree medical payments, since, after medicare kicks in, the city only has to pay about half of retiree medical.
“I don’t even know if human resources counted the huge increased medical insurance costs that retirement at 55 brings, since it leaves the city with an extra five years of full retiree medical payments, since, after medicare kicks in, the city only has to pay about half of retiree medical.”
Retiree medical actually can be rolled back. Once each of the labor contracts concludes, the city can completely change the retiree medical benefit. Unlike with the pensions, we are not locked in on retiree medical.
I have a number of suggestions for what the new system should be. First among them is that the city should become determined to pay nothing for current employees’ retiree medical benefit before the current employees reach age 65. In other words, if someone retires next year* at age 52, we should not pay any of his retiree medical benefit until he is eligible for medicare. This would save a lot of money. The employee could still buy into the city’s medical insurance plan on his own.
Beside the money savings to the city in changing to my idea, there is a possible side benefit: it might give employees who are eligible to start drawing their pensions an incentive to stay on the job longer, and that would save the city money by not having to pay one person who is retired and another who is working.
As things now stand, if you are 50 or 55 and eligible for a $120,000 a year pension**, you would be harming your own economic interests to not retire. You could either loaf around for the next 45 years or you could probably find a high-paying job with another government agency and take in your 6-figure salary and your 6-figure pension. If you made that much money, you could qualify for Obama’s tax increase, all while calling yourself a “public servant.”
* An exception should be made for someone who becomes seriously disabled prior to age 65.
** A firefighter who makes $133,333.33 in his last year of work and started on the job at age 20 will get a pension of $120,000 a year ($10,000 a month) plus COLA adjustments for the rest of his life, even if he goes on to other jobs…. An office worker will get the same pension ($10K per month) starting at age 55 if she made $160,000 in her last year and began at age 25.
“I don’t even know if human resources counted the huge increased medical insurance costs that retirement at 55 brings, since it leaves the city with an extra five years of full retiree medical payments, since, after medicare kicks in, the city only has to pay about half of retiree medical.”
Retiree medical actually can be rolled back. Once each of the labor contracts concludes, the city can completely change the retiree medical benefit. Unlike with the pensions, we are not locked in on retiree medical.
I have a number of suggestions for what the new system should be. First among them is that the city should become determined to pay nothing for current employees’ retiree medical benefit before the current employees reach age 65. In other words, if someone retires next year* at age 52, we should not pay any of his retiree medical benefit until he is eligible for medicare. This would save a lot of money. The employee could still buy into the city’s medical insurance plan on his own.
Beside the money savings to the city in changing to my idea, there is a possible side benefit: it might give employees who are eligible to start drawing their pensions an incentive to stay on the job longer, and that would save the city money by not having to pay one person who is retired and another who is working.
As things now stand, if you are 50 or 55 and eligible for a $120,000 a year pension**, you would be harming your own economic interests to not retire. You could either loaf around for the next 45 years or you could probably find a high-paying job with another government agency and take in your 6-figure salary and your 6-figure pension. If you made that much money, you could qualify for Obama’s tax increase, all while calling yourself a “public servant.”
* An exception should be made for someone who becomes seriously disabled prior to age 65.
** A firefighter who makes $133,333.33 in his last year of work and started on the job at age 20 will get a pension of $120,000 a year ($10,000 a month) plus COLA adjustments for the rest of his life, even if he goes on to other jobs…. An office worker will get the same pension ($10K per month) starting at age 55 if she made $160,000 in her last year and began at age 25.
“I don’t even know if human resources counted the huge increased medical insurance costs that retirement at 55 brings, since it leaves the city with an extra five years of full retiree medical payments, since, after medicare kicks in, the city only has to pay about half of retiree medical.”
Retiree medical actually can be rolled back. Once each of the labor contracts concludes, the city can completely change the retiree medical benefit. Unlike with the pensions, we are not locked in on retiree medical.
I have a number of suggestions for what the new system should be. First among them is that the city should become determined to pay nothing for current employees’ retiree medical benefit before the current employees reach age 65. In other words, if someone retires next year* at age 52, we should not pay any of his retiree medical benefit until he is eligible for medicare. This would save a lot of money. The employee could still buy into the city’s medical insurance plan on his own.
Beside the money savings to the city in changing to my idea, there is a possible side benefit: it might give employees who are eligible to start drawing their pensions an incentive to stay on the job longer, and that would save the city money by not having to pay one person who is retired and another who is working.
As things now stand, if you are 50 or 55 and eligible for a $120,000 a year pension**, you would be harming your own economic interests to not retire. You could either loaf around for the next 45 years or you could probably find a high-paying job with another government agency and take in your 6-figure salary and your 6-figure pension. If you made that much money, you could qualify for Obama’s tax increase, all while calling yourself a “public servant.”
* An exception should be made for someone who becomes seriously disabled prior to age 65.
** A firefighter who makes $133,333.33 in his last year of work and started on the job at age 20 will get a pension of $120,000 a year ($10,000 a month) plus COLA adjustments for the rest of his life, even if he goes on to other jobs…. An office worker will get the same pension ($10K per month) starting at age 55 if she made $160,000 in her last year and began at age 25.
“I don’t even know if human resources counted the huge increased medical insurance costs that retirement at 55 brings, since it leaves the city with an extra five years of full retiree medical payments, since, after medicare kicks in, the city only has to pay about half of retiree medical.”
Retiree medical actually can be rolled back. Once each of the labor contracts concludes, the city can completely change the retiree medical benefit. Unlike with the pensions, we are not locked in on retiree medical.
I have a number of suggestions for what the new system should be. First among them is that the city should become determined to pay nothing for current employees’ retiree medical benefit before the current employees reach age 65. In other words, if someone retires next year* at age 52, we should not pay any of his retiree medical benefit until he is eligible for medicare. This would save a lot of money. The employee could still buy into the city’s medical insurance plan on his own.
Beside the money savings to the city in changing to my idea, there is a possible side benefit: it might give employees who are eligible to start drawing their pensions an incentive to stay on the job longer, and that would save the city money by not having to pay one person who is retired and another who is working.
As things now stand, if you are 50 or 55 and eligible for a $120,000 a year pension**, you would be harming your own economic interests to not retire. You could either loaf around for the next 45 years or you could probably find a high-paying job with another government agency and take in your 6-figure salary and your 6-figure pension. If you made that much money, you could qualify for Obama’s tax increase, all while calling yourself a “public servant.”
* An exception should be made for someone who becomes seriously disabled prior to age 65.
** A firefighter who makes $133,333.33 in his last year of work and started on the job at age 20 will get a pension of $120,000 a year ($10,000 a month) plus COLA adjustments for the rest of his life, even if he goes on to other jobs…. An office worker will get the same pension ($10K per month) starting at age 55 if she made $160,000 in her last year and began at age 25.
Freezing salaries sounds like a good idea. Just remember, if Davis were to go bankrupt, the judge gets to renegotiate all employee contracts, and the fire and police dept as well as the city would do well to remember this.
Freezing salaries sounds like a good idea. Just remember, if Davis were to go bankrupt, the judge gets to renegotiate all employee contracts, and the fire and police dept as well as the city would do well to remember this.
Freezing salaries sounds like a good idea. Just remember, if Davis were to go bankrupt, the judge gets to renegotiate all employee contracts, and the fire and police dept as well as the city would do well to remember this.
Freezing salaries sounds like a good idea. Just remember, if Davis were to go bankrupt, the judge gets to renegotiate all employee contracts, and the fire and police dept as well as the city would do well to remember this.
How about having the retired employee under 65 years old pay the equivalent of the Medicare portion as a co-payment for health insurance until they reach 65 when they would be fully covered?
How about having the retired employee under 65 years old pay the equivalent of the Medicare portion as a co-payment for health insurance until they reach 65 when they would be fully covered?
How about having the retired employee under 65 years old pay the equivalent of the Medicare portion as a co-payment for health insurance until they reach 65 when they would be fully covered?
How about having the retired employee under 65 years old pay the equivalent of the Medicare portion as a co-payment for health insurance until they reach 65 when they would be fully covered?
“if Davis were to go bankrupt, the judge gets to renegotiate all employee contracts, and the fire and police dept as well as the city would do well to remember this.”
Unless I am missing something, the city of Davis will not go bankrupt any time soon. If we do nothing soon to resolve the looming retiree medical crisis, the city could go bust in about 12 years. Long before that happens — in fact, in the next 12 months in most cases — our labor contracts will come up for renewal. Thus, the five members of the current council have to buckle down and do their best to represent the interests of the taxpayers in these negotiations. That is where the contracts, or at least the trajectory of the contracts, will change first.
What would in my opinion be a mistake — and one I think the council has made in the past — is to approach the negotiations with the labor unions as if it is the job of the council to make city workers as happy as possible. That is the job of the unions, and I applaud them for doing good work for their members. But the city council, in negotiations, ought to be adversarial (though not hostile) and try to first keep the interests of the people who are paying the bills in mind.
I think of this sort of thing much like a lawsuit. Even when a defense attorney thinks her client may be culpable, it is her job to get the best deal for him she can. I’d like to see our council approach its job that way.
“if Davis were to go bankrupt, the judge gets to renegotiate all employee contracts, and the fire and police dept as well as the city would do well to remember this.”
Unless I am missing something, the city of Davis will not go bankrupt any time soon. If we do nothing soon to resolve the looming retiree medical crisis, the city could go bust in about 12 years. Long before that happens — in fact, in the next 12 months in most cases — our labor contracts will come up for renewal. Thus, the five members of the current council have to buckle down and do their best to represent the interests of the taxpayers in these negotiations. That is where the contracts, or at least the trajectory of the contracts, will change first.
What would in my opinion be a mistake — and one I think the council has made in the past — is to approach the negotiations with the labor unions as if it is the job of the council to make city workers as happy as possible. That is the job of the unions, and I applaud them for doing good work for their members. But the city council, in negotiations, ought to be adversarial (though not hostile) and try to first keep the interests of the people who are paying the bills in mind.
I think of this sort of thing much like a lawsuit. Even when a defense attorney thinks her client may be culpable, it is her job to get the best deal for him she can. I’d like to see our council approach its job that way.
“if Davis were to go bankrupt, the judge gets to renegotiate all employee contracts, and the fire and police dept as well as the city would do well to remember this.”
Unless I am missing something, the city of Davis will not go bankrupt any time soon. If we do nothing soon to resolve the looming retiree medical crisis, the city could go bust in about 12 years. Long before that happens — in fact, in the next 12 months in most cases — our labor contracts will come up for renewal. Thus, the five members of the current council have to buckle down and do their best to represent the interests of the taxpayers in these negotiations. That is where the contracts, or at least the trajectory of the contracts, will change first.
What would in my opinion be a mistake — and one I think the council has made in the past — is to approach the negotiations with the labor unions as if it is the job of the council to make city workers as happy as possible. That is the job of the unions, and I applaud them for doing good work for their members. But the city council, in negotiations, ought to be adversarial (though not hostile) and try to first keep the interests of the people who are paying the bills in mind.
I think of this sort of thing much like a lawsuit. Even when a defense attorney thinks her client may be culpable, it is her job to get the best deal for him she can. I’d like to see our council approach its job that way.
“if Davis were to go bankrupt, the judge gets to renegotiate all employee contracts, and the fire and police dept as well as the city would do well to remember this.”
Unless I am missing something, the city of Davis will not go bankrupt any time soon. If we do nothing soon to resolve the looming retiree medical crisis, the city could go bust in about 12 years. Long before that happens — in fact, in the next 12 months in most cases — our labor contracts will come up for renewal. Thus, the five members of the current council have to buckle down and do their best to represent the interests of the taxpayers in these negotiations. That is where the contracts, or at least the trajectory of the contracts, will change first.
What would in my opinion be a mistake — and one I think the council has made in the past — is to approach the negotiations with the labor unions as if it is the job of the council to make city workers as happy as possible. That is the job of the unions, and I applaud them for doing good work for their members. But the city council, in negotiations, ought to be adversarial (though not hostile) and try to first keep the interests of the people who are paying the bills in mind.
I think of this sort of thing much like a lawsuit. Even when a defense attorney thinks her client may be culpable, it is her job to get the best deal for him she can. I’d like to see our council approach its job that way.
The council members are not negotiators and should not be trying to make employes happy by givng them a raise. They need to look at Davis’ ability to pay retirement, huge mangement salaries and lifetime benefits.
The city should hire a negotiator instead of just having the city attorney and council members.
The council members are not negotiators and should not be trying to make employes happy by givng them a raise. They need to look at Davis’ ability to pay retirement, huge mangement salaries and lifetime benefits.
The city should hire a negotiator instead of just having the city attorney and council members.
The council members are not negotiators and should not be trying to make employes happy by givng them a raise. They need to look at Davis’ ability to pay retirement, huge mangement salaries and lifetime benefits.
The city should hire a negotiator instead of just having the city attorney and council members.
The council members are not negotiators and should not be trying to make employes happy by givng them a raise. They need to look at Davis’ ability to pay retirement, huge mangement salaries and lifetime benefits.
The city should hire a negotiator instead of just having the city attorney and council members.
Lamar and Sue have been calling for a professional negotiator, but the council majority is irresponsible and will not allow it.
Lamar and Sue have been calling for a professional negotiator, but the council majority is irresponsible and will not allow it.
Lamar and Sue have been calling for a professional negotiator, but the council majority is irresponsible and will not allow it.
Lamar and Sue have been calling for a professional negotiator, but the council majority is irresponsible and will not allow it.