For me this comes just over a week after both criticizing the Sacramento Bee for their lack of coverage, their lack of understanding of Davis politics, questioning whether they should even be making an endorsement in this race.
I was both correct and it turns out incorrect in my read on the Sacramento Bee. I figured that the Sacramento Bee would support the pro-growth elements in the race and look little beyond that.
The Sacramento Bee does indeed support pro-growth policies as they acknowledge in their editorial:
“While we remain in agreement with the pro-growth candidates on issues of housing and development, the public in Davis has made its views clear.”
At the same time, they seem surprisingly conciliatory to the community having a say in its own land use policies, which is a striking departure for a paper that thought the idea that Davis would vote Covell Village and Target was ludicrous.
Instead, the Bee looks past those issues and towards on big issue: the firefighters.
“Meanwhile, other important issues have emerged: city finances and the influence of public employee unions, and race relations and the police department.”
The Bee has seen the damage to city finances that out of control wages and pensions to city employees can do.
They continue:
“Davis firefighters are among the top campaign contributors to pro-growth candidates, a dangerous sign. The firefighters’ contract expires next year. Given the current housing slump and the lack of a retail base in Davis to generate sales taxes, it is important that this city hold the line in the next round of bargaining.”
The firefighters–their wages and their attempt to influence the outcome of the election–become the top issue for the Bee rather than development.
I remain no less surprised today than I did yesterday.
They claim they narrowly chose Don Saylor over Stephen Souza:
“Of the three pro-growth candidates on the ballot, we narrowly chose Saylor over Souza. Souza is hard working but has a testy personality that has contributed to the incivility at council meetings. Saylor is more steady and has wider experience.”
Finally they encourage the slow-growth candidates to follow through on their promise for infill development:
“The slow-growth candidates we’ve endorsed all say they are committed to infill development. It is essential that they follow through on that commitment. Davis is a city that has priced out its working-class citizens. Whoever is elected must make a better commitment to build affordable housing for people who work in Davis.”
Given the Bee’s views on Davis and Davis’ growth policy this was a huge surprise. But the firefighters involvement in this race has really changed the dynamics here.
Full text of the endorsement:
This year, as in previous Davis City Council elections, growth and housing (or the lack of both) are major issues.
The city had a showdown on growth with its 2005 vote on Covell Village, a proposed housing development, which this page supported as did four of five members of the City Council. Despite that support, the citizens of Davis rejected Covell Village.
This election pits moderate pro-growth candidates who supported Covell Village against slow-growth candidates who did not.
On the pro-growth side are incumbents Don Saylor and Stephen Souza, and challenger Sydney Vergis. On the slow-growth side are Davis Mayor Sue Greenwald and challengers Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald (no relation to the mayor) and Rob Roy.
While we remain in agreement with the pro-growth candidates on issues of housing and development, the public in Davis has made its views clear. Meanwhile, other important issues have emerged: city finances and the influence of public employee unions, and race relations and the police department. On the basis of their positions on those issues, we endorse Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald and Sue Greenwald.
A UC Davis graduate and longtime student and city activist, Escamilla-Greenwald is the former head of the Davis Human Relations Commission. In that capacity she was instrumental in exposing legitimate concerns from African American and Latino residents of a strong perception of police bias. Her efforts led to the resignation of the city’s former police chief and the hiring of an ombudsman to handle citizen complaints. Even though she is a labor representative in her professional life, Escamilla-Greenwald has been forthright in her concerns about the generous pay raises and retirement benefits given to Davis firefighters that threaten city finances.
Greenwald was also a strong supporter of police reform. As a member of the council she has been a forceful and vocal opponent of overly generous firefighter pay raises and retirement benefits. As a result she has not gotten the firefighters union endorsement or their contributions.
Davis firefighters are among the top campaign contributors to pro-growth candidates, a dangerous sign. The firefighters’ contract expires next year. Given the current housing slump and the lack of a retail base in Davis to generate sales taxes, it is important that this city hold the line in the next round of bargaining. Greenwald can be counted on to resist union pressure.
Roy declined to sit for an endorsement interview with The Bee, so we have no way to evaluate his qualifications.
Of the three pro-growth candidates on the ballot, we narrowly chose Saylor over Souza. Souza is hard working but has a testy personality that has contributed to the incivility at council meetings. Saylor is more steady and has wider experience.
The slow-growth candidates we’ve endorsed all say they are committed to infill development. It is essential that they follow through on that commitment. Davis is a city that has priced out its working-class citizens. Whoever is elected must make a better commitment to build affordable housing for people who work in Davis.
Do you know who was on the Bee endorsement committee? Hudson Sangree?
Do you know who was on the Bee endorsement committee? Hudson Sangree?
Do you know who was on the Bee endorsement committee? Hudson Sangree?
Do you know who was on the Bee endorsement committee? Hudson Sangree?
I daydream of a future when an all-powerful librarian’s union will sway a city election… 😉
I daydream of a future when an all-powerful librarian’s union will sway a city election… 😉
I daydream of a future when an all-powerful librarian’s union will sway a city election… 😉
I daydream of a future when an all-powerful librarian’s union will sway a city election… 😉
Stuart Leavenworth and Ginger Rutland
Stuart Leavenworth and Ginger Rutland
Stuart Leavenworth and Ginger Rutland
Stuart Leavenworth and Ginger Rutland
“Doug Paul Davis said…
Stuart Leavenworth and Ginger Rutland”
Are they Davis residents?
“Doug Paul Davis said…
Stuart Leavenworth and Ginger Rutland”
Are they Davis residents?
“Doug Paul Davis said…
Stuart Leavenworth and Ginger Rutland”
Are they Davis residents?
“Doug Paul Davis said…
Stuart Leavenworth and Ginger Rutland”
Are they Davis residents?
No they are Sacramento Bee editors.
No they are Sacramento Bee editors.
No they are Sacramento Bee editors.
No they are Sacramento Bee editors.
Well, for once the Bee got it (mostly) right!
Well, for once the Bee got it (mostly) right!
Well, for once the Bee got it (mostly) right!
Well, for once the Bee got it (mostly) right!
Thank goodness that the Bee has selected candidates for their union-busting reputations 😉
Thank goodness that the Bee has selected candidates for their union-busting reputations 😉
Thank goodness that the Bee has selected candidates for their union-busting reputations 😉
Thank goodness that the Bee has selected candidates for their union-busting reputations 😉
DPD,
I think it’s nice that you shill for your wife but until candidates come out and publically make big noise and promises to UCD employees about finding solutions to housing issues, I consider them non-solutions and therefore not worth voting for.
DPD,
I think it’s nice that you shill for your wife but until candidates come out and publically make big noise and promises to UCD employees about finding solutions to housing issues, I consider them non-solutions and therefore not worth voting for.
DPD,
I think it’s nice that you shill for your wife but until candidates come out and publically make big noise and promises to UCD employees about finding solutions to housing issues, I consider them non-solutions and therefore not worth voting for.
DPD,
I think it’s nice that you shill for your wife but until candidates come out and publically make big noise and promises to UCD employees about finding solutions to housing issues, I consider them non-solutions and therefore not worth voting for.
Deflationary Jane – watch your tone. It is rather ugly. I’m sure you could have found another word than “shill” – how about support, back up, advocate for, campaign for, love.
Deflationary Jane – watch your tone. It is rather ugly. I’m sure you could have found another word than “shill” – how about support, back up, advocate for, campaign for, love.
Deflationary Jane – watch your tone. It is rather ugly. I’m sure you could have found another word than “shill” – how about support, back up, advocate for, campaign for, love.
Deflationary Jane – watch your tone. It is rather ugly. I’m sure you could have found another word than “shill” – how about support, back up, advocate for, campaign for, love.
“the slow growth candidates say that they are committed to infill development”….
let’s just hope that if they win, they actually attempt to deliver on their “infill” housing campaign promises, as talk is cheap…
“the slow growth candidates say that they are committed to infill development”….
let’s just hope that if they win, they actually attempt to deliver on their “infill” housing campaign promises, as talk is cheap…
“the slow growth candidates say that they are committed to infill development”….
let’s just hope that if they win, they actually attempt to deliver on their “infill” housing campaign promises, as talk is cheap…
“the slow growth candidates say that they are committed to infill development”….
let’s just hope that if they win, they actually attempt to deliver on their “infill” housing campaign promises, as talk is cheap…
this isn;t surprising at al. the bee, as a generally conservative paper, has identified “overpaid public employees” as a problem that needs solving, and the cause for the fiscal crisis of california cities (vallejo is held up as the standard case).
not the state budget imbalance caused by decades of tax cuts and underfunding that raids from communities, not prop 13, not the 2/3 rule for passing budgets and raising taxes, not the bankruptcy of the low density sprawl model as a way of getting short term developer fees (but locking in greater long term infrastructure costs), but rather just that old right wing chestnut of the overpaid public employee.
there’s a fiscal crisis, and the bee, like many other conservative interests, wants to fix blame anywhere other than on the post-1970s conservative model for california government.
since the progressives in davis tend towards a small government, low tax model, the bee has decided that it’s necessary to sacrifice the growth issue for the tactical importance of reining in public employee salaries and pensions, and that new council majority would be a way to get that accomplished. after all, the real estate bust (and imminent credit crunch) will make growth pretty much a no-go anyways. they have to pick their battles.
it’s not surprising if you look at politics as more than just stable ideological factions, but rather as coalitions of interests.
now aside from this, i happen to think cecilia is a fantastic candidate. but that’s my read for why the bee switched factions.
this isn;t surprising at al. the bee, as a generally conservative paper, has identified “overpaid public employees” as a problem that needs solving, and the cause for the fiscal crisis of california cities (vallejo is held up as the standard case).
not the state budget imbalance caused by decades of tax cuts and underfunding that raids from communities, not prop 13, not the 2/3 rule for passing budgets and raising taxes, not the bankruptcy of the low density sprawl model as a way of getting short term developer fees (but locking in greater long term infrastructure costs), but rather just that old right wing chestnut of the overpaid public employee.
there’s a fiscal crisis, and the bee, like many other conservative interests, wants to fix blame anywhere other than on the post-1970s conservative model for california government.
since the progressives in davis tend towards a small government, low tax model, the bee has decided that it’s necessary to sacrifice the growth issue for the tactical importance of reining in public employee salaries and pensions, and that new council majority would be a way to get that accomplished. after all, the real estate bust (and imminent credit crunch) will make growth pretty much a no-go anyways. they have to pick their battles.
it’s not surprising if you look at politics as more than just stable ideological factions, but rather as coalitions of interests.
now aside from this, i happen to think cecilia is a fantastic candidate. but that’s my read for why the bee switched factions.
this isn;t surprising at al. the bee, as a generally conservative paper, has identified “overpaid public employees” as a problem that needs solving, and the cause for the fiscal crisis of california cities (vallejo is held up as the standard case).
not the state budget imbalance caused by decades of tax cuts and underfunding that raids from communities, not prop 13, not the 2/3 rule for passing budgets and raising taxes, not the bankruptcy of the low density sprawl model as a way of getting short term developer fees (but locking in greater long term infrastructure costs), but rather just that old right wing chestnut of the overpaid public employee.
there’s a fiscal crisis, and the bee, like many other conservative interests, wants to fix blame anywhere other than on the post-1970s conservative model for california government.
since the progressives in davis tend towards a small government, low tax model, the bee has decided that it’s necessary to sacrifice the growth issue for the tactical importance of reining in public employee salaries and pensions, and that new council majority would be a way to get that accomplished. after all, the real estate bust (and imminent credit crunch) will make growth pretty much a no-go anyways. they have to pick their battles.
it’s not surprising if you look at politics as more than just stable ideological factions, but rather as coalitions of interests.
now aside from this, i happen to think cecilia is a fantastic candidate. but that’s my read for why the bee switched factions.
this isn;t surprising at al. the bee, as a generally conservative paper, has identified “overpaid public employees” as a problem that needs solving, and the cause for the fiscal crisis of california cities (vallejo is held up as the standard case).
not the state budget imbalance caused by decades of tax cuts and underfunding that raids from communities, not prop 13, not the 2/3 rule for passing budgets and raising taxes, not the bankruptcy of the low density sprawl model as a way of getting short term developer fees (but locking in greater long term infrastructure costs), but rather just that old right wing chestnut of the overpaid public employee.
there’s a fiscal crisis, and the bee, like many other conservative interests, wants to fix blame anywhere other than on the post-1970s conservative model for california government.
since the progressives in davis tend towards a small government, low tax model, the bee has decided that it’s necessary to sacrifice the growth issue for the tactical importance of reining in public employee salaries and pensions, and that new council majority would be a way to get that accomplished. after all, the real estate bust (and imminent credit crunch) will make growth pretty much a no-go anyways. they have to pick their battles.
it’s not surprising if you look at politics as more than just stable ideological factions, but rather as coalitions of interests.
now aside from this, i happen to think cecilia is a fantastic candidate. but that’s my read for why the bee switched factions.
Wu Ming: thanks for saving me a lot of time by saying exactly what I would have said, but better
–Richard Estes
Wu Ming: thanks for saving me a lot of time by saying exactly what I would have said, but better
–Richard Estes
Wu Ming: thanks for saving me a lot of time by saying exactly what I would have said, but better
–Richard Estes
Wu Ming: thanks for saving me a lot of time by saying exactly what I would have said, but better
–Richard Estes
This puts Cecilia (the SEIU public employee representative) in the awkward position as the one carrying the anti-labor union banner. I expect serious divisions in organized labor (Sac Central Labor Council and others) resulting in her willingness to throw one group of public employees under the bus to benefit her own political ambition. Democrats should also be concerned about one of their own turning against a key constituency.
Will she renounce the Bee endorsement? I doubt it. I bet she puts it on a doorhanger!
This puts Cecilia (the SEIU public employee representative) in the awkward position as the one carrying the anti-labor union banner. I expect serious divisions in organized labor (Sac Central Labor Council and others) resulting in her willingness to throw one group of public employees under the bus to benefit her own political ambition. Democrats should also be concerned about one of their own turning against a key constituency.
Will she renounce the Bee endorsement? I doubt it. I bet she puts it on a doorhanger!
This puts Cecilia (the SEIU public employee representative) in the awkward position as the one carrying the anti-labor union banner. I expect serious divisions in organized labor (Sac Central Labor Council and others) resulting in her willingness to throw one group of public employees under the bus to benefit her own political ambition. Democrats should also be concerned about one of their own turning against a key constituency.
Will she renounce the Bee endorsement? I doubt it. I bet she puts it on a doorhanger!
This puts Cecilia (the SEIU public employee representative) in the awkward position as the one carrying the anti-labor union banner. I expect serious divisions in organized labor (Sac Central Labor Council and others) resulting in her willingness to throw one group of public employees under the bus to benefit her own political ambition. Democrats should also be concerned about one of their own turning against a key constituency.
Will she renounce the Bee endorsement? I doubt it. I bet she puts it on a doorhanger!
This puts Cecilia (the SEIU public employee representative) in the awkward position as the one carrying the anti-labor union banner. I expect serious divisions in organized labor (Sac Central Labor Council and others) resulting in her willingness to throw one group of public employees under the bus to benefit her own political ambition.
Right. Like the way that it has hurt Kevin Johnson in Sacramento, where most of labor, including the Central Labor Council, is behind him even though he privatized Sacramento High School and has a record of using non-union labor????
–Richard Estes
This puts Cecilia (the SEIU public employee representative) in the awkward position as the one carrying the anti-labor union banner. I expect serious divisions in organized labor (Sac Central Labor Council and others) resulting in her willingness to throw one group of public employees under the bus to benefit her own political ambition.
Right. Like the way that it has hurt Kevin Johnson in Sacramento, where most of labor, including the Central Labor Council, is behind him even though he privatized Sacramento High School and has a record of using non-union labor????
–Richard Estes
This puts Cecilia (the SEIU public employee representative) in the awkward position as the one carrying the anti-labor union banner. I expect serious divisions in organized labor (Sac Central Labor Council and others) resulting in her willingness to throw one group of public employees under the bus to benefit her own political ambition.
Right. Like the way that it has hurt Kevin Johnson in Sacramento, where most of labor, including the Central Labor Council, is behind him even though he privatized Sacramento High School and has a record of using non-union labor????
–Richard Estes
This puts Cecilia (the SEIU public employee representative) in the awkward position as the one carrying the anti-labor union banner. I expect serious divisions in organized labor (Sac Central Labor Council and others) resulting in her willingness to throw one group of public employees under the bus to benefit her own political ambition.
Right. Like the way that it has hurt Kevin Johnson in Sacramento, where most of labor, including the Central Labor Council, is behind him even though he privatized Sacramento High School and has a record of using non-union labor????
–Richard Estes
At a certain point, when firefighters are making management level compensation and demanding more, it is, unfortunately coming out of the paychecks of lower paid workers and ultimately younger workers.
In fact, the firefighers’ strongest advocate, Steve Souza, has strongly advocated for a two-tier benefits structure, whereby younger firefighters newly hired come in with much lower pension benefits.
What could be less progressive than giving our upcoming generation of younger workers lower compensation for life for the same job?
At the Davis Enterprise group interview, in fact, Steve actually suggested 2% at 60 for newly hired firefighters, rather than the 3% at 50 that firefighters currently receive.
Similarly, during our living wage discussion, I made a motion that we include the living wage in our budget, and the motion failed 3-2, with Saylor and Souza, who are supported by the firefighters, voting against the motion. The living wage is not a part of tonight’s “balanced budget”.
I think we all have to face facts and acknowledge that in times of a contracting economy, continuing to increase our firefighter total compensation is unprogressive and anti-worker.
Point of information:
Starting this July, full step one firefighter’s total compensation will be $142,700/year plus overtime and our nine fire captains will receive a total compensation of $165,731 plus overtime (which averaged $28,934 each captain 2006/2007).
At a certain point, when firefighters are making management level compensation and demanding more, it is, unfortunately coming out of the paychecks of lower paid workers and ultimately younger workers.
In fact, the firefighers’ strongest advocate, Steve Souza, has strongly advocated for a two-tier benefits structure, whereby younger firefighters newly hired come in with much lower pension benefits.
What could be less progressive than giving our upcoming generation of younger workers lower compensation for life for the same job?
At the Davis Enterprise group interview, in fact, Steve actually suggested 2% at 60 for newly hired firefighters, rather than the 3% at 50 that firefighters currently receive.
Similarly, during our living wage discussion, I made a motion that we include the living wage in our budget, and the motion failed 3-2, with Saylor and Souza, who are supported by the firefighters, voting against the motion. The living wage is not a part of tonight’s “balanced budget”.
I think we all have to face facts and acknowledge that in times of a contracting economy, continuing to increase our firefighter total compensation is unprogressive and anti-worker.
Point of information:
Starting this July, full step one firefighter’s total compensation will be $142,700/year plus overtime and our nine fire captains will receive a total compensation of $165,731 plus overtime (which averaged $28,934 each captain 2006/2007).
At a certain point, when firefighters are making management level compensation and demanding more, it is, unfortunately coming out of the paychecks of lower paid workers and ultimately younger workers.
In fact, the firefighers’ strongest advocate, Steve Souza, has strongly advocated for a two-tier benefits structure, whereby younger firefighters newly hired come in with much lower pension benefits.
What could be less progressive than giving our upcoming generation of younger workers lower compensation for life for the same job?
At the Davis Enterprise group interview, in fact, Steve actually suggested 2% at 60 for newly hired firefighters, rather than the 3% at 50 that firefighters currently receive.
Similarly, during our living wage discussion, I made a motion that we include the living wage in our budget, and the motion failed 3-2, with Saylor and Souza, who are supported by the firefighters, voting against the motion. The living wage is not a part of tonight’s “balanced budget”.
I think we all have to face facts and acknowledge that in times of a contracting economy, continuing to increase our firefighter total compensation is unprogressive and anti-worker.
Point of information:
Starting this July, full step one firefighter’s total compensation will be $142,700/year plus overtime and our nine fire captains will receive a total compensation of $165,731 plus overtime (which averaged $28,934 each captain 2006/2007).
At a certain point, when firefighters are making management level compensation and demanding more, it is, unfortunately coming out of the paychecks of lower paid workers and ultimately younger workers.
In fact, the firefighers’ strongest advocate, Steve Souza, has strongly advocated for a two-tier benefits structure, whereby younger firefighters newly hired come in with much lower pension benefits.
What could be less progressive than giving our upcoming generation of younger workers lower compensation for life for the same job?
At the Davis Enterprise group interview, in fact, Steve actually suggested 2% at 60 for newly hired firefighters, rather than the 3% at 50 that firefighters currently receive.
Similarly, during our living wage discussion, I made a motion that we include the living wage in our budget, and the motion failed 3-2, with Saylor and Souza, who are supported by the firefighters, voting against the motion. The living wage is not a part of tonight’s “balanced budget”.
I think we all have to face facts and acknowledge that in times of a contracting economy, continuing to increase our firefighter total compensation is unprogressive and anti-worker.
Point of information:
Starting this July, full step one firefighter’s total compensation will be $142,700/year plus overtime and our nine fire captains will receive a total compensation of $165,731 plus overtime (which averaged $28,934 each captain 2006/2007).
When is someone going to come out and say that the person who deserves the credit for making this issue of Davis overpaying the firemen and firewomen is Richard Rifkin, the columnist for the Davis Enterprise. He doesn’t write every day like Doug Paul Davis, but he has been singular in bringing to light this issue. I am an employee of the City and all of the people I talk with are worried about the budget problems. I have never met Mr. Rifkin, but the employees of the City are grateful he is exposing what the firemen are doing to the budget. Calling that anti-labor is not true. I make one-fourth as much as a fireman, with much less retirement benefits, and I will probably have to take a pay cut or lose my job when the budget cuts come. How is giving my raises and retirement to the firemen fair?
When is someone going to come out and say that the person who deserves the credit for making this issue of Davis overpaying the firemen and firewomen is Richard Rifkin, the columnist for the Davis Enterprise. He doesn’t write every day like Doug Paul Davis, but he has been singular in bringing to light this issue. I am an employee of the City and all of the people I talk with are worried about the budget problems. I have never met Mr. Rifkin, but the employees of the City are grateful he is exposing what the firemen are doing to the budget. Calling that anti-labor is not true. I make one-fourth as much as a fireman, with much less retirement benefits, and I will probably have to take a pay cut or lose my job when the budget cuts come. How is giving my raises and retirement to the firemen fair?
When is someone going to come out and say that the person who deserves the credit for making this issue of Davis overpaying the firemen and firewomen is Richard Rifkin, the columnist for the Davis Enterprise. He doesn’t write every day like Doug Paul Davis, but he has been singular in bringing to light this issue. I am an employee of the City and all of the people I talk with are worried about the budget problems. I have never met Mr. Rifkin, but the employees of the City are grateful he is exposing what the firemen are doing to the budget. Calling that anti-labor is not true. I make one-fourth as much as a fireman, with much less retirement benefits, and I will probably have to take a pay cut or lose my job when the budget cuts come. How is giving my raises and retirement to the firemen fair?
When is someone going to come out and say that the person who deserves the credit for making this issue of Davis overpaying the firemen and firewomen is Richard Rifkin, the columnist for the Davis Enterprise. He doesn’t write every day like Doug Paul Davis, but he has been singular in bringing to light this issue. I am an employee of the City and all of the people I talk with are worried about the budget problems. I have never met Mr. Rifkin, but the employees of the City are grateful he is exposing what the firemen are doing to the budget. Calling that anti-labor is not true. I make one-fourth as much as a fireman, with much less retirement benefits, and I will probably have to take a pay cut or lose my job when the budget cuts come. How is giving my raises and retirement to the firemen fair?
Hmmmm. According to Sue she will be the stronger advocate for protecting higher pensions in the future! I think the Bee would be disappointed to learn the Greenwald sisters can’t deliver on their anti-union agenda, although it is highly unlikely they will both be elected and would ever have the opportunity. This is what happens when you speak to different people with forked tongue. It all catches up with you in the end.
Hmmmm. According to Sue she will be the stronger advocate for protecting higher pensions in the future! I think the Bee would be disappointed to learn the Greenwald sisters can’t deliver on their anti-union agenda, although it is highly unlikely they will both be elected and would ever have the opportunity. This is what happens when you speak to different people with forked tongue. It all catches up with you in the end.
Hmmmm. According to Sue she will be the stronger advocate for protecting higher pensions in the future! I think the Bee would be disappointed to learn the Greenwald sisters can’t deliver on their anti-union agenda, although it is highly unlikely they will both be elected and would ever have the opportunity. This is what happens when you speak to different people with forked tongue. It all catches up with you in the end.
Hmmmm. According to Sue she will be the stronger advocate for protecting higher pensions in the future! I think the Bee would be disappointed to learn the Greenwald sisters can’t deliver on their anti-union agenda, although it is highly unlikely they will both be elected and would ever have the opportunity. This is what happens when you speak to different people with forked tongue. It all catches up with you in the end.
anonymous 11:31 you ask some good questions, so I thought I would take this opportunity to respond before I head out again.
anonymous 11:31 said:
“This puts Cecilia (the SEIU public employee representative) in the awkward position as the one carrying the anti-labor union banner.”
Cecilia says:
I am a Labor Union Representative representing employees in 53 agencies. I’m proud of the work I do on a daily basis advocating for good working conditions, and rights and respect for all employees in the workplace.
Recognizing and discussing the fact that the city of Davis cannot afford to carry a 3% at 50 pension benefit, which is an unsustainable pension benefit, is not carrying the “anti-labor” union banner.
It’s being honest and forthright with the voters and taxpayers of our city.
It’s recognizing that the average employee who works for the city of Davis will suffer as a result of those working at the higher end of the pay scale that continue to get lucrative salary increases and benefits.
Dave Hart, the President of CSEA (California State Employees Association) represents over 141,000 retired and active employees of the state of California, and is affiliated with SEIU.
In a recent Vanguard blog posting he stated, “3% at 50 is in my opinion an unsustainable pension benefit. It threatens to undermine the pension system for everyone else in public service.”
Dave Hart goes on to say:
“What does it cost to create an equivalent to the 3% at 50 benefit? Assuming our firefighter begins her career at age 25 and retires at 50, she will be entitled to 75% of her ending salary. She would have to put away about $2,500 per month, every month, for her entire career to create a fund average a return of 7% annually that could pay out 75% of her final salary of $140,000 reliably for another 25 to 30 years. Now I assume that our firefighters are participating in financing their retirement by putting a percentage of their salary toward the fund. I also assume there is some medical benefit as part of their retirement. That adds a significantly greater load to the system.
My point is that someone has to put away a lot of money to guarantee those benefits. Since it is tax money in the case of public employees, it is a legitimate subject of politics. Traditionally, public employees have not been on the upper end of compensation even when considering the benefits package. The significantly lower salary compensation was mitigated by good benefits. What we seem to be witnessing now is a push at the upper limits by safety employees of what can be considered reasonable compared to the retirement systems for teachers and other miscellaneous public employees, not to mention private sector workers who may have nothing except Social Security.”
I agree with him. We have to look at the whole picture and how it is going to impact other employees and our city’s finances overall, or we run the risk of having the same problem that Vallejo had.
Anonymous also said:
“I expect serious divisions in organized labor (Sac Central Labor Council and others) resulting in her willingness to throw one group of public employees under the bus to benefit her own political ambition. Democrats should also be concerned about one of their own turning against a key constituency.”
Cecilia says:
“I don’t expect any division in organized labor. Throughout my career I have fought for the rights, respect and working conditions of employees. I have a very good record that speaks for itself. I have received many wonderful endorsements from many good people in our community as well as great labor organizations and they too are concerned about negotiating smart, fiscally sound contracts as opposed to “giving away the bank.”
As a matter of fact, giving one group lucrative salaries while not considering the impact on others is seen by many as “throwing one group of employees under the bus” to benefit another group of employees.
After all, if the city is broke “the bus” will not be running at all.
Anonymous asks, “Will she renounce the Bee endorsement? I doubt it. I bet she puts it on a doorhanger”
Cecilia says:
“I am proud of the Sacramento Bee endorsement. I feel honored to have received it.”
If anyone has any further questions, please don’t hesitate to call me on my cell phone (530) 400-2511, or email me at
ceciliaforcitycouncil@yahoo.com
I thank anonymous for asking these important questions and giving me an opportunity to respond.
Now, off to walk precincts.
anonymous 11:31 you ask some good questions, so I thought I would take this opportunity to respond before I head out again.
anonymous 11:31 said:
“This puts Cecilia (the SEIU public employee representative) in the awkward position as the one carrying the anti-labor union banner.”
Cecilia says:
I am a Labor Union Representative representing employees in 53 agencies. I’m proud of the work I do on a daily basis advocating for good working conditions, and rights and respect for all employees in the workplace.
Recognizing and discussing the fact that the city of Davis cannot afford to carry a 3% at 50 pension benefit, which is an unsustainable pension benefit, is not carrying the “anti-labor” union banner.
It’s being honest and forthright with the voters and taxpayers of our city.
It’s recognizing that the average employee who works for the city of Davis will suffer as a result of those working at the higher end of the pay scale that continue to get lucrative salary increases and benefits.
Dave Hart, the President of CSEA (California State Employees Association) represents over 141,000 retired and active employees of the state of California, and is affiliated with SEIU.
In a recent Vanguard blog posting he stated, “3% at 50 is in my opinion an unsustainable pension benefit. It threatens to undermine the pension system for everyone else in public service.”
Dave Hart goes on to say:
“What does it cost to create an equivalent to the 3% at 50 benefit? Assuming our firefighter begins her career at age 25 and retires at 50, she will be entitled to 75% of her ending salary. She would have to put away about $2,500 per month, every month, for her entire career to create a fund average a return of 7% annually that could pay out 75% of her final salary of $140,000 reliably for another 25 to 30 years. Now I assume that our firefighters are participating in financing their retirement by putting a percentage of their salary toward the fund. I also assume there is some medical benefit as part of their retirement. That adds a significantly greater load to the system.
My point is that someone has to put away a lot of money to guarantee those benefits. Since it is tax money in the case of public employees, it is a legitimate subject of politics. Traditionally, public employees have not been on the upper end of compensation even when considering the benefits package. The significantly lower salary compensation was mitigated by good benefits. What we seem to be witnessing now is a push at the upper limits by safety employees of what can be considered reasonable compared to the retirement systems for teachers and other miscellaneous public employees, not to mention private sector workers who may have nothing except Social Security.”
I agree with him. We have to look at the whole picture and how it is going to impact other employees and our city’s finances overall, or we run the risk of having the same problem that Vallejo had.
Anonymous also said:
“I expect serious divisions in organized labor (Sac Central Labor Council and others) resulting in her willingness to throw one group of public employees under the bus to benefit her own political ambition. Democrats should also be concerned about one of their own turning against a key constituency.”
Cecilia says:
“I don’t expect any division in organized labor. Throughout my career I have fought for the rights, respect and working conditions of employees. I have a very good record that speaks for itself. I have received many wonderful endorsements from many good people in our community as well as great labor organizations and they too are concerned about negotiating smart, fiscally sound contracts as opposed to “giving away the bank.”
As a matter of fact, giving one group lucrative salaries while not considering the impact on others is seen by many as “throwing one group of employees under the bus” to benefit another group of employees.
After all, if the city is broke “the bus” will not be running at all.
Anonymous asks, “Will she renounce the Bee endorsement? I doubt it. I bet she puts it on a doorhanger”
Cecilia says:
“I am proud of the Sacramento Bee endorsement. I feel honored to have received it.”
If anyone has any further questions, please don’t hesitate to call me on my cell phone (530) 400-2511, or email me at
ceciliaforcitycouncil@yahoo.com
I thank anonymous for asking these important questions and giving me an opportunity to respond.
Now, off to walk precincts.
anonymous 11:31 you ask some good questions, so I thought I would take this opportunity to respond before I head out again.
anonymous 11:31 said:
“This puts Cecilia (the SEIU public employee representative) in the awkward position as the one carrying the anti-labor union banner.”
Cecilia says:
I am a Labor Union Representative representing employees in 53 agencies. I’m proud of the work I do on a daily basis advocating for good working conditions, and rights and respect for all employees in the workplace.
Recognizing and discussing the fact that the city of Davis cannot afford to carry a 3% at 50 pension benefit, which is an unsustainable pension benefit, is not carrying the “anti-labor” union banner.
It’s being honest and forthright with the voters and taxpayers of our city.
It’s recognizing that the average employee who works for the city of Davis will suffer as a result of those working at the higher end of the pay scale that continue to get lucrative salary increases and benefits.
Dave Hart, the President of CSEA (California State Employees Association) represents over 141,000 retired and active employees of the state of California, and is affiliated with SEIU.
In a recent Vanguard blog posting he stated, “3% at 50 is in my opinion an unsustainable pension benefit. It threatens to undermine the pension system for everyone else in public service.”
Dave Hart goes on to say:
“What does it cost to create an equivalent to the 3% at 50 benefit? Assuming our firefighter begins her career at age 25 and retires at 50, she will be entitled to 75% of her ending salary. She would have to put away about $2,500 per month, every month, for her entire career to create a fund average a return of 7% annually that could pay out 75% of her final salary of $140,000 reliably for another 25 to 30 years. Now I assume that our firefighters are participating in financing their retirement by putting a percentage of their salary toward the fund. I also assume there is some medical benefit as part of their retirement. That adds a significantly greater load to the system.
My point is that someone has to put away a lot of money to guarantee those benefits. Since it is tax money in the case of public employees, it is a legitimate subject of politics. Traditionally, public employees have not been on the upper end of compensation even when considering the benefits package. The significantly lower salary compensation was mitigated by good benefits. What we seem to be witnessing now is a push at the upper limits by safety employees of what can be considered reasonable compared to the retirement systems for teachers and other miscellaneous public employees, not to mention private sector workers who may have nothing except Social Security.”
I agree with him. We have to look at the whole picture and how it is going to impact other employees and our city’s finances overall, or we run the risk of having the same problem that Vallejo had.
Anonymous also said:
“I expect serious divisions in organized labor (Sac Central Labor Council and others) resulting in her willingness to throw one group of public employees under the bus to benefit her own political ambition. Democrats should also be concerned about one of their own turning against a key constituency.”
Cecilia says:
“I don’t expect any division in organized labor. Throughout my career I have fought for the rights, respect and working conditions of employees. I have a very good record that speaks for itself. I have received many wonderful endorsements from many good people in our community as well as great labor organizations and they too are concerned about negotiating smart, fiscally sound contracts as opposed to “giving away the bank.”
As a matter of fact, giving one group lucrative salaries while not considering the impact on others is seen by many as “throwing one group of employees under the bus” to benefit another group of employees.
After all, if the city is broke “the bus” will not be running at all.
Anonymous asks, “Will she renounce the Bee endorsement? I doubt it. I bet she puts it on a doorhanger”
Cecilia says:
“I am proud of the Sacramento Bee endorsement. I feel honored to have received it.”
If anyone has any further questions, please don’t hesitate to call me on my cell phone (530) 400-2511, or email me at
ceciliaforcitycouncil@yahoo.com
I thank anonymous for asking these important questions and giving me an opportunity to respond.
Now, off to walk precincts.
anonymous 11:31 you ask some good questions, so I thought I would take this opportunity to respond before I head out again.
anonymous 11:31 said:
“This puts Cecilia (the SEIU public employee representative) in the awkward position as the one carrying the anti-labor union banner.”
Cecilia says:
I am a Labor Union Representative representing employees in 53 agencies. I’m proud of the work I do on a daily basis advocating for good working conditions, and rights and respect for all employees in the workplace.
Recognizing and discussing the fact that the city of Davis cannot afford to carry a 3% at 50 pension benefit, which is an unsustainable pension benefit, is not carrying the “anti-labor” union banner.
It’s being honest and forthright with the voters and taxpayers of our city.
It’s recognizing that the average employee who works for the city of Davis will suffer as a result of those working at the higher end of the pay scale that continue to get lucrative salary increases and benefits.
Dave Hart, the President of CSEA (California State Employees Association) represents over 141,000 retired and active employees of the state of California, and is affiliated with SEIU.
In a recent Vanguard blog posting he stated, “3% at 50 is in my opinion an unsustainable pension benefit. It threatens to undermine the pension system for everyone else in public service.”
Dave Hart goes on to say:
“What does it cost to create an equivalent to the 3% at 50 benefit? Assuming our firefighter begins her career at age 25 and retires at 50, she will be entitled to 75% of her ending salary. She would have to put away about $2,500 per month, every month, for her entire career to create a fund average a return of 7% annually that could pay out 75% of her final salary of $140,000 reliably for another 25 to 30 years. Now I assume that our firefighters are participating in financing their retirement by putting a percentage of their salary toward the fund. I also assume there is some medical benefit as part of their retirement. That adds a significantly greater load to the system.
My point is that someone has to put away a lot of money to guarantee those benefits. Since it is tax money in the case of public employees, it is a legitimate subject of politics. Traditionally, public employees have not been on the upper end of compensation even when considering the benefits package. The significantly lower salary compensation was mitigated by good benefits. What we seem to be witnessing now is a push at the upper limits by safety employees of what can be considered reasonable compared to the retirement systems for teachers and other miscellaneous public employees, not to mention private sector workers who may have nothing except Social Security.”
I agree with him. We have to look at the whole picture and how it is going to impact other employees and our city’s finances overall, or we run the risk of having the same problem that Vallejo had.
Anonymous also said:
“I expect serious divisions in organized labor (Sac Central Labor Council and others) resulting in her willingness to throw one group of public employees under the bus to benefit her own political ambition. Democrats should also be concerned about one of their own turning against a key constituency.”
Cecilia says:
“I don’t expect any division in organized labor. Throughout my career I have fought for the rights, respect and working conditions of employees. I have a very good record that speaks for itself. I have received many wonderful endorsements from many good people in our community as well as great labor organizations and they too are concerned about negotiating smart, fiscally sound contracts as opposed to “giving away the bank.”
As a matter of fact, giving one group lucrative salaries while not considering the impact on others is seen by many as “throwing one group of employees under the bus” to benefit another group of employees.
After all, if the city is broke “the bus” will not be running at all.
Anonymous asks, “Will she renounce the Bee endorsement? I doubt it. I bet she puts it on a doorhanger”
Cecilia says:
“I am proud of the Sacramento Bee endorsement. I feel honored to have received it.”
If anyone has any further questions, please don’t hesitate to call me on my cell phone (530) 400-2511, or email me at
ceciliaforcitycouncil@yahoo.com
I thank anonymous for asking these important questions and giving me an opportunity to respond.
Now, off to walk precincts.
m.e. 1:05, You are correct. Rich Rifkin first, and then DPD – Thank you both!
m.e. 1:05, You are correct. Rich Rifkin first, and then DPD – Thank you both!
m.e. 1:05, You are correct. Rich Rifkin first, and then DPD – Thank you both!
m.e. 1:05, You are correct. Rich Rifkin first, and then DPD – Thank you both!
wu ming said:
“since the progressives in davis tend towards a small government, low tax model, the bee has decided
that it’s necessary to sacrifice the growth issue for the tactical importance of reining in public employee salaries and pensions, and that new council majority would be a way to get that accomplished. after all, the real estate bust (and imminent credit crunch) will make growth pretty much a no-go anyways. they have to pick their battles.”
Wu-Ming’s analysis of the Bee’s rationale for their endorsement of Cecilia, Sue and Don seems plausible to me. However, regardless of the Bee’s reasons they are absolutely correct about Davis voters need for their will to be respected regarding growth and housing. The Bee is also right, that Davis requires a leadership that will insist on its financial soundness and make the hard decisions to avoid a fiscal disaster. I am certainly overjoyed that the Bee switched their strategy and endorsed Cecilia. They did the right thing
this time. Thanks to Ginger Rutland and Stuart Leavenworth
wu ming said:
“since the progressives in davis tend towards a small government, low tax model, the bee has decided
that it’s necessary to sacrifice the growth issue for the tactical importance of reining in public employee salaries and pensions, and that new council majority would be a way to get that accomplished. after all, the real estate bust (and imminent credit crunch) will make growth pretty much a no-go anyways. they have to pick their battles.”
Wu-Ming’s analysis of the Bee’s rationale for their endorsement of Cecilia, Sue and Don seems plausible to me. However, regardless of the Bee’s reasons they are absolutely correct about Davis voters need for their will to be respected regarding growth and housing. The Bee is also right, that Davis requires a leadership that will insist on its financial soundness and make the hard decisions to avoid a fiscal disaster. I am certainly overjoyed that the Bee switched their strategy and endorsed Cecilia. They did the right thing
this time. Thanks to Ginger Rutland and Stuart Leavenworth
wu ming said:
“since the progressives in davis tend towards a small government, low tax model, the bee has decided
that it’s necessary to sacrifice the growth issue for the tactical importance of reining in public employee salaries and pensions, and that new council majority would be a way to get that accomplished. after all, the real estate bust (and imminent credit crunch) will make growth pretty much a no-go anyways. they have to pick their battles.”
Wu-Ming’s analysis of the Bee’s rationale for their endorsement of Cecilia, Sue and Don seems plausible to me. However, regardless of the Bee’s reasons they are absolutely correct about Davis voters need for their will to be respected regarding growth and housing. The Bee is also right, that Davis requires a leadership that will insist on its financial soundness and make the hard decisions to avoid a fiscal disaster. I am certainly overjoyed that the Bee switched their strategy and endorsed Cecilia. They did the right thing
this time. Thanks to Ginger Rutland and Stuart Leavenworth
wu ming said:
“since the progressives in davis tend towards a small government, low tax model, the bee has decided
that it’s necessary to sacrifice the growth issue for the tactical importance of reining in public employee salaries and pensions, and that new council majority would be a way to get that accomplished. after all, the real estate bust (and imminent credit crunch) will make growth pretty much a no-go anyways. they have to pick their battles.”
Wu-Ming’s analysis of the Bee’s rationale for their endorsement of Cecilia, Sue and Don seems plausible to me. However, regardless of the Bee’s reasons they are absolutely correct about Davis voters need for their will to be respected regarding growth and housing. The Bee is also right, that Davis requires a leadership that will insist on its financial soundness and make the hard decisions to avoid a fiscal disaster. I am certainly overjoyed that the Bee switched their strategy and endorsed Cecilia. They did the right thing
this time. Thanks to Ginger Rutland and Stuart Leavenworth
wow, it’s pretty hot/dry for walking precincts, cecilia. remember to take some water with you. this week’s going to get pretty unpleasant on the weather front.
getting back to the topic at hand, i would point out that just because the bee might endorse based on a general anti-union bent does not in any way mean that the person that they endorse shares that political orientation. to conflate the two is lazy, IMO.
wow, it’s pretty hot/dry for walking precincts, cecilia. remember to take some water with you. this week’s going to get pretty unpleasant on the weather front.
getting back to the topic at hand, i would point out that just because the bee might endorse based on a general anti-union bent does not in any way mean that the person that they endorse shares that political orientation. to conflate the two is lazy, IMO.
wow, it’s pretty hot/dry for walking precincts, cecilia. remember to take some water with you. this week’s going to get pretty unpleasant on the weather front.
getting back to the topic at hand, i would point out that just because the bee might endorse based on a general anti-union bent does not in any way mean that the person that they endorse shares that political orientation. to conflate the two is lazy, IMO.
wow, it’s pretty hot/dry for walking precincts, cecilia. remember to take some water with you. this week’s going to get pretty unpleasant on the weather front.
getting back to the topic at hand, i would point out that just because the bee might endorse based on a general anti-union bent does not in any way mean that the person that they endorse shares that political orientation. to conflate the two is lazy, IMO.
Excellent comment by ME.
BTW, someone told me Stuart Leavenworth is a Davis resident.
Excellent comment by ME.
BTW, someone told me Stuart Leavenworth is a Davis resident.
Excellent comment by ME.
BTW, someone told me Stuart Leavenworth is a Davis resident.
Excellent comment by ME.
BTW, someone told me Stuart Leavenworth is a Davis resident.
Go Cecilia!
Go Cecilia!
Go Cecilia!
Go Cecilia!
Anonymous said…
Hmmmm. According to Sue she will be the stronger advocate for protecting higher pensions in the future! I think the Bee would be disappointed to learn the Greenwald sisters can’t deliver on their anti-union agenda, although it is highly unlikely they will both be elected and would ever have the opportunity. This is what happens when you speak to different people with forked tongue. It all catches up with you in the end.
5/13/08 1:14 PM
Apparently, anonymous has some reading comprehension difficulties. It is irrefutable that the generous salary and benefit increases provided to firefighters, police and correctional officers have been to the detriment of workers, unionized or not, in other areas of employment. In effect, they have resulted in a 2-tiered labor movement, a privileged one in workers in the area defined as public safety receive generous compensation packages and less risk of job loss, and one that lacks such privileges, one that includes workers like teachers, social workers, clerical staff, graduate students, park rangers, emergency responders, basically, the remainder of the labor force.
Sue is on the right side of this issue. A true progressive politics cannot assume the existence of a pie of benefits of unlimited size, one where you can just give the unions what they want in every instance. Rather, progressives must, instead, make difficult decisions as to the how the pie should be apportioned so that all workers are treated as fairly as possible.
Sue is trying to do this, as hard as it is, as much as we might argue as to the particular means to do so. It requires looking at the fairness of how different types of workers are paid, and a willingness to resist requiring future generations of employees to pay for benefits received by employees today.
Sue (and apparently Cecelia, too) is willing to confront this difficult problem, Saylor and Souza are not. Some people are appear to be so desperate to try to get Sue defeated that they are willing to associate themselves with a pretty disreputable position on this subject, at least one that can’t in any sense of the term be considered progressive.
–Richard Estes
Anonymous said…
Hmmmm. According to Sue she will be the stronger advocate for protecting higher pensions in the future! I think the Bee would be disappointed to learn the Greenwald sisters can’t deliver on their anti-union agenda, although it is highly unlikely they will both be elected and would ever have the opportunity. This is what happens when you speak to different people with forked tongue. It all catches up with you in the end.
5/13/08 1:14 PM
Apparently, anonymous has some reading comprehension difficulties. It is irrefutable that the generous salary and benefit increases provided to firefighters, police and correctional officers have been to the detriment of workers, unionized or not, in other areas of employment. In effect, they have resulted in a 2-tiered labor movement, a privileged one in workers in the area defined as public safety receive generous compensation packages and less risk of job loss, and one that lacks such privileges, one that includes workers like teachers, social workers, clerical staff, graduate students, park rangers, emergency responders, basically, the remainder of the labor force.
Sue is on the right side of this issue. A true progressive politics cannot assume the existence of a pie of benefits of unlimited size, one where you can just give the unions what they want in every instance. Rather, progressives must, instead, make difficult decisions as to the how the pie should be apportioned so that all workers are treated as fairly as possible.
Sue is trying to do this, as hard as it is, as much as we might argue as to the particular means to do so. It requires looking at the fairness of how different types of workers are paid, and a willingness to resist requiring future generations of employees to pay for benefits received by employees today.
Sue (and apparently Cecelia, too) is willing to confront this difficult problem, Saylor and Souza are not. Some people are appear to be so desperate to try to get Sue defeated that they are willing to associate themselves with a pretty disreputable position on this subject, at least one that can’t in any sense of the term be considered progressive.
–Richard Estes
Anonymous said…
Hmmmm. According to Sue she will be the stronger advocate for protecting higher pensions in the future! I think the Bee would be disappointed to learn the Greenwald sisters can’t deliver on their anti-union agenda, although it is highly unlikely they will both be elected and would ever have the opportunity. This is what happens when you speak to different people with forked tongue. It all catches up with you in the end.
5/13/08 1:14 PM
Apparently, anonymous has some reading comprehension difficulties. It is irrefutable that the generous salary and benefit increases provided to firefighters, police and correctional officers have been to the detriment of workers, unionized or not, in other areas of employment. In effect, they have resulted in a 2-tiered labor movement, a privileged one in workers in the area defined as public safety receive generous compensation packages and less risk of job loss, and one that lacks such privileges, one that includes workers like teachers, social workers, clerical staff, graduate students, park rangers, emergency responders, basically, the remainder of the labor force.
Sue is on the right side of this issue. A true progressive politics cannot assume the existence of a pie of benefits of unlimited size, one where you can just give the unions what they want in every instance. Rather, progressives must, instead, make difficult decisions as to the how the pie should be apportioned so that all workers are treated as fairly as possible.
Sue is trying to do this, as hard as it is, as much as we might argue as to the particular means to do so. It requires looking at the fairness of how different types of workers are paid, and a willingness to resist requiring future generations of employees to pay for benefits received by employees today.
Sue (and apparently Cecelia, too) is willing to confront this difficult problem, Saylor and Souza are not. Some people are appear to be so desperate to try to get Sue defeated that they are willing to associate themselves with a pretty disreputable position on this subject, at least one that can’t in any sense of the term be considered progressive.
–Richard Estes
Anonymous said…
Hmmmm. According to Sue she will be the stronger advocate for protecting higher pensions in the future! I think the Bee would be disappointed to learn the Greenwald sisters can’t deliver on their anti-union agenda, although it is highly unlikely they will both be elected and would ever have the opportunity. This is what happens when you speak to different people with forked tongue. It all catches up with you in the end.
5/13/08 1:14 PM
Apparently, anonymous has some reading comprehension difficulties. It is irrefutable that the generous salary and benefit increases provided to firefighters, police and correctional officers have been to the detriment of workers, unionized or not, in other areas of employment. In effect, they have resulted in a 2-tiered labor movement, a privileged one in workers in the area defined as public safety receive generous compensation packages and less risk of job loss, and one that lacks such privileges, one that includes workers like teachers, social workers, clerical staff, graduate students, park rangers, emergency responders, basically, the remainder of the labor force.
Sue is on the right side of this issue. A true progressive politics cannot assume the existence of a pie of benefits of unlimited size, one where you can just give the unions what they want in every instance. Rather, progressives must, instead, make difficult decisions as to the how the pie should be apportioned so that all workers are treated as fairly as possible.
Sue is trying to do this, as hard as it is, as much as we might argue as to the particular means to do so. It requires looking at the fairness of how different types of workers are paid, and a willingness to resist requiring future generations of employees to pay for benefits received by employees today.
Sue (and apparently Cecelia, too) is willing to confront this difficult problem, Saylor and Souza are not. Some people are appear to be so desperate to try to get Sue defeated that they are willing to associate themselves with a pretty disreputable position on this subject, at least one that can’t in any sense of the term be considered progressive.
–Richard Estes
Sue Greenwald said:
“At a certain point, when firefighters are making management level compensation and demanding more, it is, unfortunately coming out of the paychecks of lower paid workers and ultimately younger workers.
In fact, the firefighers’ strongest advocate, Steve Souza, has strongly advocated for a two-tier benefits structure, whereby younger firefighters newly hired come in with much lower pension benefits.
What could be less progressive than giving our upcoming generation of younger workers lower compensation for life for the same job?
At the Davis Enterprise group interview, in fact, Steve actually suggested 2% at 60 for newly hired firefighters, rather than the 3% at 50 that firefighters currently receive.
Similarly, during our living wage discussion, I made a motion that we include the living wage in our budget, and the motion failed 3-2, with Saylor and Souza, who are supported by the firefighters, voting against the motion. The living wage is not a part of tonight’s “balanced budget”.
I think we all have to face facts and acknowledge that in times of a contracting economy, continuing to increase our firefighter total compensation is unprogressive and anti-worker.
Point of information:
Starting this July, full step one firefighter’s total compensation will be $142,700/year plus overtime and our nine fire captains will receive a total compensation of $165,731 plus overtime (which averaged $28,934 each captain 2006/2007).”
I agree.
Sue Greenwald said:
“At a certain point, when firefighters are making management level compensation and demanding more, it is, unfortunately coming out of the paychecks of lower paid workers and ultimately younger workers.
In fact, the firefighers’ strongest advocate, Steve Souza, has strongly advocated for a two-tier benefits structure, whereby younger firefighters newly hired come in with much lower pension benefits.
What could be less progressive than giving our upcoming generation of younger workers lower compensation for life for the same job?
At the Davis Enterprise group interview, in fact, Steve actually suggested 2% at 60 for newly hired firefighters, rather than the 3% at 50 that firefighters currently receive.
Similarly, during our living wage discussion, I made a motion that we include the living wage in our budget, and the motion failed 3-2, with Saylor and Souza, who are supported by the firefighters, voting against the motion. The living wage is not a part of tonight’s “balanced budget”.
I think we all have to face facts and acknowledge that in times of a contracting economy, continuing to increase our firefighter total compensation is unprogressive and anti-worker.
Point of information:
Starting this July, full step one firefighter’s total compensation will be $142,700/year plus overtime and our nine fire captains will receive a total compensation of $165,731 plus overtime (which averaged $28,934 each captain 2006/2007).”
I agree.
Sue Greenwald said:
“At a certain point, when firefighters are making management level compensation and demanding more, it is, unfortunately coming out of the paychecks of lower paid workers and ultimately younger workers.
In fact, the firefighers’ strongest advocate, Steve Souza, has strongly advocated for a two-tier benefits structure, whereby younger firefighters newly hired come in with much lower pension benefits.
What could be less progressive than giving our upcoming generation of younger workers lower compensation for life for the same job?
At the Davis Enterprise group interview, in fact, Steve actually suggested 2% at 60 for newly hired firefighters, rather than the 3% at 50 that firefighters currently receive.
Similarly, during our living wage discussion, I made a motion that we include the living wage in our budget, and the motion failed 3-2, with Saylor and Souza, who are supported by the firefighters, voting against the motion. The living wage is not a part of tonight’s “balanced budget”.
I think we all have to face facts and acknowledge that in times of a contracting economy, continuing to increase our firefighter total compensation is unprogressive and anti-worker.
Point of information:
Starting this July, full step one firefighter’s total compensation will be $142,700/year plus overtime and our nine fire captains will receive a total compensation of $165,731 plus overtime (which averaged $28,934 each captain 2006/2007).”
I agree.
Sue Greenwald said:
“At a certain point, when firefighters are making management level compensation and demanding more, it is, unfortunately coming out of the paychecks of lower paid workers and ultimately younger workers.
In fact, the firefighers’ strongest advocate, Steve Souza, has strongly advocated for a two-tier benefits structure, whereby younger firefighters newly hired come in with much lower pension benefits.
What could be less progressive than giving our upcoming generation of younger workers lower compensation for life for the same job?
At the Davis Enterprise group interview, in fact, Steve actually suggested 2% at 60 for newly hired firefighters, rather than the 3% at 50 that firefighters currently receive.
Similarly, during our living wage discussion, I made a motion that we include the living wage in our budget, and the motion failed 3-2, with Saylor and Souza, who are supported by the firefighters, voting against the motion. The living wage is not a part of tonight’s “balanced budget”.
I think we all have to face facts and acknowledge that in times of a contracting economy, continuing to increase our firefighter total compensation is unprogressive and anti-worker.
Point of information:
Starting this July, full step one firefighter’s total compensation will be $142,700/year plus overtime and our nine fire captains will receive a total compensation of $165,731 plus overtime (which averaged $28,934 each captain 2006/2007).”
I agree.
The Sacramento Bee got it ALMOST right. Sue and Cecelia are by far the best candidates currently running for city council, and for reasons that each clearly outlines in her comments, this should be very apparent. But Don Saylor was a miss. He can not be counted on to reign in these exorbitant retirement packages. In fact, given his track record plus the thousands of dollars that the Firefighters’ union has given to his campaign, I’d suggest he’ll probably come down strongly on the wrong side of this issue.
If you want a fiscally responsible city government, with fair and just pay and benefits for city employees, I’d strongly recommend adding Rob Roy’s name to Sue’s and Cecelia’s when you fill our your ballots!
The Sacramento Bee got it ALMOST right. Sue and Cecelia are by far the best candidates currently running for city council, and for reasons that each clearly outlines in her comments, this should be very apparent. But Don Saylor was a miss. He can not be counted on to reign in these exorbitant retirement packages. In fact, given his track record plus the thousands of dollars that the Firefighters’ union has given to his campaign, I’d suggest he’ll probably come down strongly on the wrong side of this issue.
If you want a fiscally responsible city government, with fair and just pay and benefits for city employees, I’d strongly recommend adding Rob Roy’s name to Sue’s and Cecelia’s when you fill our your ballots!
The Sacramento Bee got it ALMOST right. Sue and Cecelia are by far the best candidates currently running for city council, and for reasons that each clearly outlines in her comments, this should be very apparent. But Don Saylor was a miss. He can not be counted on to reign in these exorbitant retirement packages. In fact, given his track record plus the thousands of dollars that the Firefighters’ union has given to his campaign, I’d suggest he’ll probably come down strongly on the wrong side of this issue.
If you want a fiscally responsible city government, with fair and just pay and benefits for city employees, I’d strongly recommend adding Rob Roy’s name to Sue’s and Cecelia’s when you fill our your ballots!
The Sacramento Bee got it ALMOST right. Sue and Cecelia are by far the best candidates currently running for city council, and for reasons that each clearly outlines in her comments, this should be very apparent. But Don Saylor was a miss. He can not be counted on to reign in these exorbitant retirement packages. In fact, given his track record plus the thousands of dollars that the Firefighters’ union has given to his campaign, I’d suggest he’ll probably come down strongly on the wrong side of this issue.
If you want a fiscally responsible city government, with fair and just pay and benefits for city employees, I’d strongly recommend adding Rob Roy’s name to Sue’s and Cecelia’s when you fill our your ballots!
hello,
I think the Rob, Sue, Cecilia RSCy (pronounced risky) axis are strong on measure J and that is good. Much needed voter input considering the garbage with Covell Villiage. I applaud RSKY on this one, plus the voters.
I think the V, Saylor, Souza VSS axis are strong on measure K, and that is good. Measure K recieved a plurality of the vote, and that means more likely than not many voters supported K and J.
THey understand slow growth, but they also understand badly needed tax revenue for the city is not generated by solar panels and infill development.
I like the voters. Listen to them!
hello,
I think the Rob, Sue, Cecilia RSCy (pronounced risky) axis are strong on measure J and that is good. Much needed voter input considering the garbage with Covell Villiage. I applaud RSKY on this one, plus the voters.
I think the V, Saylor, Souza VSS axis are strong on measure K, and that is good. Measure K recieved a plurality of the vote, and that means more likely than not many voters supported K and J.
THey understand slow growth, but they also understand badly needed tax revenue for the city is not generated by solar panels and infill development.
I like the voters. Listen to them!
hello,
I think the Rob, Sue, Cecilia RSCy (pronounced risky) axis are strong on measure J and that is good. Much needed voter input considering the garbage with Covell Villiage. I applaud RSKY on this one, plus the voters.
I think the V, Saylor, Souza VSS axis are strong on measure K, and that is good. Measure K recieved a plurality of the vote, and that means more likely than not many voters supported K and J.
THey understand slow growth, but they also understand badly needed tax revenue for the city is not generated by solar panels and infill development.
I like the voters. Listen to them!
hello,
I think the Rob, Sue, Cecilia RSCy (pronounced risky) axis are strong on measure J and that is good. Much needed voter input considering the garbage with Covell Villiage. I applaud RSKY on this one, plus the voters.
I think the V, Saylor, Souza VSS axis are strong on measure K, and that is good. Measure K recieved a plurality of the vote, and that means more likely than not many voters supported K and J.
THey understand slow growth, but they also understand badly needed tax revenue for the city is not generated by solar panels and infill development.
I like the voters. Listen to them!
I wonder if Provenza and Yamada, who are also endorsed by the Davis Firefighters, share the same feelings about public safety employee pensions? Or do they respect the fact that firefighters risk their lives for us and sometimes burn alive in the line of duty?
Will Provenza and Yamada distance themselves from Sue G and Cecilia E-G?
Will the Firefighters decide to ditch Provenza and Yamada and focus on the city council? I would if I were them.
Very interesting dynamics now amid the Yamdada/Provenza/Greenwalds axis and how they handle public safety employees.
Is it OK to dump on cops and firefighters at the city level, but stay loyal to them at the county and state level? A new kind of political expediency emergency is emerging. Labor should be concerned. Once you go down this path you create a lot more division. Teachers (CTA) vs. school janitors (CSEA)? IHHS workers vs. county employees? It goes on and on.
Labor needs to stick together. Cecilia’s position, as a labor representative, is naive, self-serving, detrimental to the broader labor movement. Sue Greenwald as always been anti-labor so her position doesn’t surprise me.
I think the solid labor ticket is now:
Souza – Saylor – Roy
I wonder if Provenza and Yamada, who are also endorsed by the Davis Firefighters, share the same feelings about public safety employee pensions? Or do they respect the fact that firefighters risk their lives for us and sometimes burn alive in the line of duty?
Will Provenza and Yamada distance themselves from Sue G and Cecilia E-G?
Will the Firefighters decide to ditch Provenza and Yamada and focus on the city council? I would if I were them.
Very interesting dynamics now amid the Yamdada/Provenza/Greenwalds axis and how they handle public safety employees.
Is it OK to dump on cops and firefighters at the city level, but stay loyal to them at the county and state level? A new kind of political expediency emergency is emerging. Labor should be concerned. Once you go down this path you create a lot more division. Teachers (CTA) vs. school janitors (CSEA)? IHHS workers vs. county employees? It goes on and on.
Labor needs to stick together. Cecilia’s position, as a labor representative, is naive, self-serving, detrimental to the broader labor movement. Sue Greenwald as always been anti-labor so her position doesn’t surprise me.
I think the solid labor ticket is now:
Souza – Saylor – Roy
I wonder if Provenza and Yamada, who are also endorsed by the Davis Firefighters, share the same feelings about public safety employee pensions? Or do they respect the fact that firefighters risk their lives for us and sometimes burn alive in the line of duty?
Will Provenza and Yamada distance themselves from Sue G and Cecilia E-G?
Will the Firefighters decide to ditch Provenza and Yamada and focus on the city council? I would if I were them.
Very interesting dynamics now amid the Yamdada/Provenza/Greenwalds axis and how they handle public safety employees.
Is it OK to dump on cops and firefighters at the city level, but stay loyal to them at the county and state level? A new kind of political expediency emergency is emerging. Labor should be concerned. Once you go down this path you create a lot more division. Teachers (CTA) vs. school janitors (CSEA)? IHHS workers vs. county employees? It goes on and on.
Labor needs to stick together. Cecilia’s position, as a labor representative, is naive, self-serving, detrimental to the broader labor movement. Sue Greenwald as always been anti-labor so her position doesn’t surprise me.
I think the solid labor ticket is now:
Souza – Saylor – Roy
I wonder if Provenza and Yamada, who are also endorsed by the Davis Firefighters, share the same feelings about public safety employee pensions? Or do they respect the fact that firefighters risk their lives for us and sometimes burn alive in the line of duty?
Will Provenza and Yamada distance themselves from Sue G and Cecilia E-G?
Will the Firefighters decide to ditch Provenza and Yamada and focus on the city council? I would if I were them.
Very interesting dynamics now amid the Yamdada/Provenza/Greenwalds axis and how they handle public safety employees.
Is it OK to dump on cops and firefighters at the city level, but stay loyal to them at the county and state level? A new kind of political expediency emergency is emerging. Labor should be concerned. Once you go down this path you create a lot more division. Teachers (CTA) vs. school janitors (CSEA)? IHHS workers vs. county employees? It goes on and on.
Labor needs to stick together. Cecilia’s position, as a labor representative, is naive, self-serving, detrimental to the broader labor movement. Sue Greenwald as always been anti-labor so her position doesn’t surprise me.
I think the solid labor ticket is now:
Souza – Saylor – Roy
This is too funny! People were attacking Cecilia for being a shill for labor and now you are accusing her of being anti-labor?
Maybe you were wrong all along. I believe Cecilia is just simply a person who makes good decisions based on good policy issues.
What will you say about those who bankrupt our city with all of the pay hikes and benefits they are giving away during these challenging fiscal times?
Thank you Sue and Cecilia for doing the right thing. We need leaders who are not going to lead us down the wrong path.
Read the following from Vallejo –
After nearly five hours, the Vallejo City Council voted unanimously late Tuesday night to file Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection.
The city faces a $16 million deficit in the 2008-2009 budget starting July 1 and unsuccessfully negotiated with its police, firefighter and electrical workers unions for contract concessions through 2012. Public safety salaries comprise 74 percent of the city’s general fund budget.
SLIDESHOW: Vallejo In The News
<A TARGET=”_blank” HREF=”http://ad.doubleclick.net/click%3Bh=v8/36c0/3/0/%2a/i%3B164666641%3B1-0%3B0%3B22890695%3B4307-300/250%3B26346734/26364588/1%3B%3B%7Eokv%3D%3Bkw%3Dpolitics+square%3Bcomp%3Dfalse%3Bad%3Dtrue%3Bpgtype%3Ddetail%3Btile%3D3%3Bsz%3D300x250%3B%7Eaopt%3D0/ff/64c/ff%3B%7Efdr%3D167268640%3B0-0%3B0%3B12661644%3B4307-300/250%3B24215809/24233662/1%3B%3B%7Eokv%3D%3Bkw%3Dpolitics+square%3Bcomp%3Dfalse%3Bad%3Dtrue%3Bpgtype%3Ddetail%3Btile%3D3%3Bsz%3D300x250%3B%7Eaopt%3D2/0/64c/0%3B%7Esscs%3D%3fhttps://www.lowermybills.com/servlet/LMBServlet?the_action=NavigateHomeLoansAdRedirect&sourceid=22890695-164666641-26364588″><IMG SRC=”http://m1.2mdn.net/1420759/lmb_lre_MenuLnOptHulaGirlVidTxtRedHdENPRR15s_Fed1Q2_0408_300x250.gif” BORDER=0></A>
Most of Tuesday night’s 30 speakers urged the council to file bankruptcy so the city can restructure its finances.
John Riley, president of the International Association of Firefighters, said he is disappointed by the 7-0 vote to file bankruptcy.
“I think it was premature. I don’t think they exhausted all their options,” Riley said.
Riley said an independent auditing firm disputes the city’s numbers supporting the decision to file bankruptcy. He called for an independent state audit.
The council and several speakers said the city simply will have no money on July 1 and cannot tell its employees to come to work because there is no money to pay them.
Councilwoman Stephanie Gomes, an ardent supporter of the city’s filing for bankruptcy, said, “I want to make sure the City Council is in charge of this city and not those who comprise 80 percent of our general fund.”
Countering the assertion that bankruptcy would tarnish the city’s image, Gomes said, “Who wants to move to a city that can’t address its problems?”
Mayor Osby Davis said bankruptcy would be “a long, hard, difficult process.”
“We will rise out of this darkness and we will shine again,” Davis said.
Davis said he believes the city should honor its contracts with the unions, but he was persuaded the city can’t pay its debts at this time.
“It’s time to do something different. I wish there was another way. I will support this resolution and I don’t want anyone clapping for me. It’s something I must do as the mayor of this city.”
Council members noted the city can still negotiate with its unions on long-term contracts and if that is successful, the city can “pull the plug on bankruptcy.”
Vallejo joins a small number of municipalities that have declared bankruptcy should officials decide it’s their only option.
Orange County declared bankruptcy in the 1990s after then-Treasurer Robert L. Citron borrowed hundreds of millions of dollars while speculating in high-risk securities investments that depended on low interest rates.
The county lost $1.64 billion.
Desert Hot Springs also filed for bankruptcy in 2001.
This is too funny! People were attacking Cecilia for being a shill for labor and now you are accusing her of being anti-labor?
Maybe you were wrong all along. I believe Cecilia is just simply a person who makes good decisions based on good policy issues.
What will you say about those who bankrupt our city with all of the pay hikes and benefits they are giving away during these challenging fiscal times?
Thank you Sue and Cecilia for doing the right thing. We need leaders who are not going to lead us down the wrong path.
Read the following from Vallejo –
After nearly five hours, the Vallejo City Council voted unanimously late Tuesday night to file Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection.
The city faces a $16 million deficit in the 2008-2009 budget starting July 1 and unsuccessfully negotiated with its police, firefighter and electrical workers unions for contract concessions through 2012. Public safety salaries comprise 74 percent of the city’s general fund budget.
SLIDESHOW: Vallejo In The News
<A TARGET=”_blank” HREF=”http://ad.doubleclick.net/click%3Bh=v8/36c0/3/0/%2a/i%3B164666641%3B1-0%3B0%3B22890695%3B4307-300/250%3B26346734/26364588/1%3B%3B%7Eokv%3D%3Bkw%3Dpolitics+square%3Bcomp%3Dfalse%3Bad%3Dtrue%3Bpgtype%3Ddetail%3Btile%3D3%3Bsz%3D300x250%3B%7Eaopt%3D0/ff/64c/ff%3B%7Efdr%3D167268640%3B0-0%3B0%3B12661644%3B4307-300/250%3B24215809/24233662/1%3B%3B%7Eokv%3D%3Bkw%3Dpolitics+square%3Bcomp%3Dfalse%3Bad%3Dtrue%3Bpgtype%3Ddetail%3Btile%3D3%3Bsz%3D300x250%3B%7Eaopt%3D2/0/64c/0%3B%7Esscs%3D%3fhttps://www.lowermybills.com/servlet/LMBServlet?the_action=NavigateHomeLoansAdRedirect&sourceid=22890695-164666641-26364588″><IMG SRC=”http://m1.2mdn.net/1420759/lmb_lre_MenuLnOptHulaGirlVidTxtRedHdENPRR15s_Fed1Q2_0408_300x250.gif” BORDER=0></A>
Most of Tuesday night’s 30 speakers urged the council to file bankruptcy so the city can restructure its finances.
John Riley, president of the International Association of Firefighters, said he is disappointed by the 7-0 vote to file bankruptcy.
“I think it was premature. I don’t think they exhausted all their options,” Riley said.
Riley said an independent auditing firm disputes the city’s numbers supporting the decision to file bankruptcy. He called for an independent state audit.
The council and several speakers said the city simply will have no money on July 1 and cannot tell its employees to come to work because there is no money to pay them.
Councilwoman Stephanie Gomes, an ardent supporter of the city’s filing for bankruptcy, said, “I want to make sure the City Council is in charge of this city and not those who comprise 80 percent of our general fund.”
Countering the assertion that bankruptcy would tarnish the city’s image, Gomes said, “Who wants to move to a city that can’t address its problems?”
Mayor Osby Davis said bankruptcy would be “a long, hard, difficult process.”
“We will rise out of this darkness and we will shine again,” Davis said.
Davis said he believes the city should honor its contracts with the unions, but he was persuaded the city can’t pay its debts at this time.
“It’s time to do something different. I wish there was another way. I will support this resolution and I don’t want anyone clapping for me. It’s something I must do as the mayor of this city.”
Council members noted the city can still negotiate with its unions on long-term contracts and if that is successful, the city can “pull the plug on bankruptcy.”
Vallejo joins a small number of municipalities that have declared bankruptcy should officials decide it’s their only option.
Orange County declared bankruptcy in the 1990s after then-Treasurer Robert L. Citron borrowed hundreds of millions of dollars while speculating in high-risk securities investments that depended on low interest rates.
The county lost $1.64 billion.
Desert Hot Springs also filed for bankruptcy in 2001.
This is too funny! People were attacking Cecilia for being a shill for labor and now you are accusing her of being anti-labor?
Maybe you were wrong all along. I believe Cecilia is just simply a person who makes good decisions based on good policy issues.
What will you say about those who bankrupt our city with all of the pay hikes and benefits they are giving away during these challenging fiscal times?
Thank you Sue and Cecilia for doing the right thing. We need leaders who are not going to lead us down the wrong path.
Read the following from Vallejo –
After nearly five hours, the Vallejo City Council voted unanimously late Tuesday night to file Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection.
The city faces a $16 million deficit in the 2008-2009 budget starting July 1 and unsuccessfully negotiated with its police, firefighter and electrical workers unions for contract concessions through 2012. Public safety salaries comprise 74 percent of the city’s general fund budget.
SLIDESHOW: Vallejo In The News
<A TARGET=”_blank” HREF=”http://ad.doubleclick.net/click%3Bh=v8/36c0/3/0/%2a/i%3B164666641%3B1-0%3B0%3B22890695%3B4307-300/250%3B26346734/26364588/1%3B%3B%7Eokv%3D%3Bkw%3Dpolitics+square%3Bcomp%3Dfalse%3Bad%3Dtrue%3Bpgtype%3Ddetail%3Btile%3D3%3Bsz%3D300x250%3B%7Eaopt%3D0/ff/64c/ff%3B%7Efdr%3D167268640%3B0-0%3B0%3B12661644%3B4307-300/250%3B24215809/24233662/1%3B%3B%7Eokv%3D%3Bkw%3Dpolitics+square%3Bcomp%3Dfalse%3Bad%3Dtrue%3Bpgtype%3Ddetail%3Btile%3D3%3Bsz%3D300x250%3B%7Eaopt%3D2/0/64c/0%3B%7Esscs%3D%3fhttps://www.lowermybills.com/servlet/LMBServlet?the_action=NavigateHomeLoansAdRedirect&sourceid=22890695-164666641-26364588″><IMG SRC=”http://m1.2mdn.net/1420759/lmb_lre_MenuLnOptHulaGirlVidTxtRedHdENPRR15s_Fed1Q2_0408_300x250.gif” BORDER=0></A>
Most of Tuesday night’s 30 speakers urged the council to file bankruptcy so the city can restructure its finances.
John Riley, president of the International Association of Firefighters, said he is disappointed by the 7-0 vote to file bankruptcy.
“I think it was premature. I don’t think they exhausted all their options,” Riley said.
Riley said an independent auditing firm disputes the city’s numbers supporting the decision to file bankruptcy. He called for an independent state audit.
The council and several speakers said the city simply will have no money on July 1 and cannot tell its employees to come to work because there is no money to pay them.
Councilwoman Stephanie Gomes, an ardent supporter of the city’s filing for bankruptcy, said, “I want to make sure the City Council is in charge of this city and not those who comprise 80 percent of our general fund.”
Countering the assertion that bankruptcy would tarnish the city’s image, Gomes said, “Who wants to move to a city that can’t address its problems?”
Mayor Osby Davis said bankruptcy would be “a long, hard, difficult process.”
“We will rise out of this darkness and we will shine again,” Davis said.
Davis said he believes the city should honor its contracts with the unions, but he was persuaded the city can’t pay its debts at this time.
“It’s time to do something different. I wish there was another way. I will support this resolution and I don’t want anyone clapping for me. It’s something I must do as the mayor of this city.”
Council members noted the city can still negotiate with its unions on long-term contracts and if that is successful, the city can “pull the plug on bankruptcy.”
Vallejo joins a small number of municipalities that have declared bankruptcy should officials decide it’s their only option.
Orange County declared bankruptcy in the 1990s after then-Treasurer Robert L. Citron borrowed hundreds of millions of dollars while speculating in high-risk securities investments that depended on low interest rates.
The county lost $1.64 billion.
Desert Hot Springs also filed for bankruptcy in 2001.
This is too funny! People were attacking Cecilia for being a shill for labor and now you are accusing her of being anti-labor?
Maybe you were wrong all along. I believe Cecilia is just simply a person who makes good decisions based on good policy issues.
What will you say about those who bankrupt our city with all of the pay hikes and benefits they are giving away during these challenging fiscal times?
Thank you Sue and Cecilia for doing the right thing. We need leaders who are not going to lead us down the wrong path.
Read the following from Vallejo –
After nearly five hours, the Vallejo City Council voted unanimously late Tuesday night to file Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection.
The city faces a $16 million deficit in the 2008-2009 budget starting July 1 and unsuccessfully negotiated with its police, firefighter and electrical workers unions for contract concessions through 2012. Public safety salaries comprise 74 percent of the city’s general fund budget.
SLIDESHOW: Vallejo In The News
<A TARGET=”_blank” HREF=”http://ad.doubleclick.net/click%3Bh=v8/36c0/3/0/%2a/i%3B164666641%3B1-0%3B0%3B22890695%3B4307-300/250%3B26346734/26364588/1%3B%3B%7Eokv%3D%3Bkw%3Dpolitics+square%3Bcomp%3Dfalse%3Bad%3Dtrue%3Bpgtype%3Ddetail%3Btile%3D3%3Bsz%3D300x250%3B%7Eaopt%3D0/ff/64c/ff%3B%7Efdr%3D167268640%3B0-0%3B0%3B12661644%3B4307-300/250%3B24215809/24233662/1%3B%3B%7Eokv%3D%3Bkw%3Dpolitics+square%3Bcomp%3Dfalse%3Bad%3Dtrue%3Bpgtype%3Ddetail%3Btile%3D3%3Bsz%3D300x250%3B%7Eaopt%3D2/0/64c/0%3B%7Esscs%3D%3fhttps://www.lowermybills.com/servlet/LMBServlet?the_action=NavigateHomeLoansAdRedirect&sourceid=22890695-164666641-26364588″><IMG SRC=”http://m1.2mdn.net/1420759/lmb_lre_MenuLnOptHulaGirlVidTxtRedHdENPRR15s_Fed1Q2_0408_300x250.gif” BORDER=0></A>
Most of Tuesday night’s 30 speakers urged the council to file bankruptcy so the city can restructure its finances.
John Riley, president of the International Association of Firefighters, said he is disappointed by the 7-0 vote to file bankruptcy.
“I think it was premature. I don’t think they exhausted all their options,” Riley said.
Riley said an independent auditing firm disputes the city’s numbers supporting the decision to file bankruptcy. He called for an independent state audit.
The council and several speakers said the city simply will have no money on July 1 and cannot tell its employees to come to work because there is no money to pay them.
Councilwoman Stephanie Gomes, an ardent supporter of the city’s filing for bankruptcy, said, “I want to make sure the City Council is in charge of this city and not those who comprise 80 percent of our general fund.”
Countering the assertion that bankruptcy would tarnish the city’s image, Gomes said, “Who wants to move to a city that can’t address its problems?”
Mayor Osby Davis said bankruptcy would be “a long, hard, difficult process.”
“We will rise out of this darkness and we will shine again,” Davis said.
Davis said he believes the city should honor its contracts with the unions, but he was persuaded the city can’t pay its debts at this time.
“It’s time to do something different. I wish there was another way. I will support this resolution and I don’t want anyone clapping for me. It’s something I must do as the mayor of this city.”
Council members noted the city can still negotiate with its unions on long-term contracts and if that is successful, the city can “pull the plug on bankruptcy.”
Vallejo joins a small number of municipalities that have declared bankruptcy should officials decide it’s their only option.
Orange County declared bankruptcy in the 1990s after then-Treasurer Robert L. Citron borrowed hundreds of millions of dollars while speculating in high-risk securities investments that depended on low interest rates.
The county lost $1.64 billion.
Desert Hot Springs also filed for bankruptcy in 2001.
walking precincts at 1:20 in the afternoon on a Tuesday? who is home? 🙂
walking precincts at 1:20 in the afternoon on a Tuesday? who is home? 🙂
walking precincts at 1:20 in the afternoon on a Tuesday? who is home? 🙂
walking precincts at 1:20 in the afternoon on a Tuesday? who is home? 🙂
The firefighters endorsed Sue in 2004, correct?
Also, I think she has voted for nearly every pay and benefit increase that the firefighters have asked for. Correct, Sue?
Why do some assume that she is going to hammer them for the next contract? She won’t.
The firefighters endorsed Sue in 2004, correct?
Also, I think she has voted for nearly every pay and benefit increase that the firefighters have asked for. Correct, Sue?
Why do some assume that she is going to hammer them for the next contract? She won’t.
The firefighters endorsed Sue in 2004, correct?
Also, I think she has voted for nearly every pay and benefit increase that the firefighters have asked for. Correct, Sue?
Why do some assume that she is going to hammer them for the next contract? She won’t.
The firefighters endorsed Sue in 2004, correct?
Also, I think she has voted for nearly every pay and benefit increase that the firefighters have asked for. Correct, Sue?
Why do some assume that she is going to hammer them for the next contract? She won’t.
“Also, I think she has voted for nearly every pay and benefit increase that the firefighters have asked for. Correct, Sue?”
Actually I’m pretty sure she voted AGAINST about all them at least in the last two years.
“Also, I think she has voted for nearly every pay and benefit increase that the firefighters have asked for. Correct, Sue?”
Actually I’m pretty sure she voted AGAINST about all them at least in the last two years.
“Also, I think she has voted for nearly every pay and benefit increase that the firefighters have asked for. Correct, Sue?”
Actually I’m pretty sure she voted AGAINST about all them at least in the last two years.
“Also, I think she has voted for nearly every pay and benefit increase that the firefighters have asked for. Correct, Sue?”
Actually I’m pretty sure she voted AGAINST about all them at least in the last two years.
one of the nice things about the bee and enterprise giving different “blocs” of endorsements is that it breaks up the whole assumption that there is only one way to vote in this (or any) election.
lots of ways to want to push the council, depending on the criteria you use to pick your three.
one of the nice things about the bee and enterprise giving different “blocs” of endorsements is that it breaks up the whole assumption that there is only one way to vote in this (or any) election.
lots of ways to want to push the council, depending on the criteria you use to pick your three.
one of the nice things about the bee and enterprise giving different “blocs” of endorsements is that it breaks up the whole assumption that there is only one way to vote in this (or any) election.
lots of ways to want to push the council, depending on the criteria you use to pick your three.
one of the nice things about the bee and enterprise giving different “blocs” of endorsements is that it breaks up the whole assumption that there is only one way to vote in this (or any) election.
lots of ways to want to push the council, depending on the criteria you use to pick your three.
Teachers, our pensions are at the low end 1.4% at 55 working up to 2.4% at 62. Why do firefighters and cops get so much more? Could it be that teaching is a profession historically dominated by women while women in firefighting is a relatively new phenomenon.
Still I don’t begrudge public safety workers, who work under high stress, their compensation.
Once again the so called progressives show that they are not progressive at all and that they want to roll back wages and benefits for working people. A truly progressive position would be that everyone should make good wages that allows them to own a home and live in the community they serve. If that means raising taxes so be it.
Sue Greenwald doesn’t want to pay firefighters a salary that would qualify them for a mortgage in Davis, the town they serve. She keeps repeating how much it costs the city to support each firefighter. What she doesn’t say or doesn’t know is that it takes that kind of pay scale to live and own a home in Davis. Of course her policies have contributed to the high cost of ownership in Davis. So what is progressive about Sue Greenwald?
Teachers, our pensions are at the low end 1.4% at 55 working up to 2.4% at 62. Why do firefighters and cops get so much more? Could it be that teaching is a profession historically dominated by women while women in firefighting is a relatively new phenomenon.
Still I don’t begrudge public safety workers, who work under high stress, their compensation.
Once again the so called progressives show that they are not progressive at all and that they want to roll back wages and benefits for working people. A truly progressive position would be that everyone should make good wages that allows them to own a home and live in the community they serve. If that means raising taxes so be it.
Sue Greenwald doesn’t want to pay firefighters a salary that would qualify them for a mortgage in Davis, the town they serve. She keeps repeating how much it costs the city to support each firefighter. What she doesn’t say or doesn’t know is that it takes that kind of pay scale to live and own a home in Davis. Of course her policies have contributed to the high cost of ownership in Davis. So what is progressive about Sue Greenwald?
Teachers, our pensions are at the low end 1.4% at 55 working up to 2.4% at 62. Why do firefighters and cops get so much more? Could it be that teaching is a profession historically dominated by women while women in firefighting is a relatively new phenomenon.
Still I don’t begrudge public safety workers, who work under high stress, their compensation.
Once again the so called progressives show that they are not progressive at all and that they want to roll back wages and benefits for working people. A truly progressive position would be that everyone should make good wages that allows them to own a home and live in the community they serve. If that means raising taxes so be it.
Sue Greenwald doesn’t want to pay firefighters a salary that would qualify them for a mortgage in Davis, the town they serve. She keeps repeating how much it costs the city to support each firefighter. What she doesn’t say or doesn’t know is that it takes that kind of pay scale to live and own a home in Davis. Of course her policies have contributed to the high cost of ownership in Davis. So what is progressive about Sue Greenwald?
Teachers, our pensions are at the low end 1.4% at 55 working up to 2.4% at 62. Why do firefighters and cops get so much more? Could it be that teaching is a profession historically dominated by women while women in firefighting is a relatively new phenomenon.
Still I don’t begrudge public safety workers, who work under high stress, their compensation.
Once again the so called progressives show that they are not progressive at all and that they want to roll back wages and benefits for working people. A truly progressive position would be that everyone should make good wages that allows them to own a home and live in the community they serve. If that means raising taxes so be it.
Sue Greenwald doesn’t want to pay firefighters a salary that would qualify them for a mortgage in Davis, the town they serve. She keeps repeating how much it costs the city to support each firefighter. What she doesn’t say or doesn’t know is that it takes that kind of pay scale to live and own a home in Davis. Of course her policies have contributed to the high cost of ownership in Davis. So what is progressive about Sue Greenwald?
What’s really going on Upton is that high wage earners are taking up a larger and larger portion of the budget with their salaries and benefits. Why is Sue progressive? Because she understands that taking wages from the lower paid workers to pay for the higher paid workers is not good policy. 3% at 50 is not sustainable. Especially when it’s 3% of 150K.
What’s really going on Upton is that high wage earners are taking up a larger and larger portion of the budget with their salaries and benefits. Why is Sue progressive? Because she understands that taking wages from the lower paid workers to pay for the higher paid workers is not good policy. 3% at 50 is not sustainable. Especially when it’s 3% of 150K.
What’s really going on Upton is that high wage earners are taking up a larger and larger portion of the budget with their salaries and benefits. Why is Sue progressive? Because she understands that taking wages from the lower paid workers to pay for the higher paid workers is not good policy. 3% at 50 is not sustainable. Especially when it’s 3% of 150K.
What’s really going on Upton is that high wage earners are taking up a larger and larger portion of the budget with their salaries and benefits. Why is Sue progressive? Because she understands that taking wages from the lower paid workers to pay for the higher paid workers is not good policy. 3% at 50 is not sustainable. Especially when it’s 3% of 150K.
Why do some people automatically equate fiscal responsibility and not bankrupting the city as being anti labor, or anti public safety?
How about pro public safety = making tuff decisions and being fiscally responsible?
Why do some people automatically equate fiscal responsibility and not bankrupting the city as being anti labor, or anti public safety?
How about pro public safety = making tuff decisions and being fiscally responsible?
Why do some people automatically equate fiscal responsibility and not bankrupting the city as being anti labor, or anti public safety?
How about pro public safety = making tuff decisions and being fiscally responsible?
Why do some people automatically equate fiscal responsibility and not bankrupting the city as being anti labor, or anti public safety?
How about pro public safety = making tuff decisions and being fiscally responsible?
So let’s bring up the wages of those making less by raising taxes on those that have more. That would be progressive. Most people have lost ground financially under Bush so the solution isn’t to punish the working class public servents and have them lose economic power. Remember a 150,000 a year income doesn’t even qualify you for a $600,000 mortgage. So Sue doesn’t want to pay what it costs for firefighters to live in Davis. For all this talk about preserving the quality of life you so called progressives sure fall short when it comes time to pay for it.
So let’s bring up the wages of those making less by raising taxes on those that have more. That would be progressive. Most people have lost ground financially under Bush so the solution isn’t to punish the working class public servents and have them lose economic power. Remember a 150,000 a year income doesn’t even qualify you for a $600,000 mortgage. So Sue doesn’t want to pay what it costs for firefighters to live in Davis. For all this talk about preserving the quality of life you so called progressives sure fall short when it comes time to pay for it.
So let’s bring up the wages of those making less by raising taxes on those that have more. That would be progressive. Most people have lost ground financially under Bush so the solution isn’t to punish the working class public servents and have them lose economic power. Remember a 150,000 a year income doesn’t even qualify you for a $600,000 mortgage. So Sue doesn’t want to pay what it costs for firefighters to live in Davis. For all this talk about preserving the quality of life you so called progressives sure fall short when it comes time to pay for it.
So let’s bring up the wages of those making less by raising taxes on those that have more. That would be progressive. Most people have lost ground financially under Bush so the solution isn’t to punish the working class public servents and have them lose economic power. Remember a 150,000 a year income doesn’t even qualify you for a $600,000 mortgage. So Sue doesn’t want to pay what it costs for firefighters to live in Davis. For all this talk about preserving the quality of life you so called progressives sure fall short when it comes time to pay for it.
It is beyond belief to me that candidates for City Council are running against their own employees. All this talk about police and fire unions and not one person has commented on the fact that they are not the largest employee groups in the city. That honor belongs to Parks and Rec., a highly unusual organizational configuration for a city where police are generally the most populous unit. So continue flailing away at the police and fire unions to make political hay while the largest department slips by. What a joke. Sad, but what a joke. I have no respect for someone who runs for elective office by attacking the employees regardless of which unit they are in.
It is beyond belief to me that candidates for City Council are running against their own employees. All this talk about police and fire unions and not one person has commented on the fact that they are not the largest employee groups in the city. That honor belongs to Parks and Rec., a highly unusual organizational configuration for a city where police are generally the most populous unit. So continue flailing away at the police and fire unions to make political hay while the largest department slips by. What a joke. Sad, but what a joke. I have no respect for someone who runs for elective office by attacking the employees regardless of which unit they are in.
It is beyond belief to me that candidates for City Council are running against their own employees. All this talk about police and fire unions and not one person has commented on the fact that they are not the largest employee groups in the city. That honor belongs to Parks and Rec., a highly unusual organizational configuration for a city where police are generally the most populous unit. So continue flailing away at the police and fire unions to make political hay while the largest department slips by. What a joke. Sad, but what a joke. I have no respect for someone who runs for elective office by attacking the employees regardless of which unit they are in.
It is beyond belief to me that candidates for City Council are running against their own employees. All this talk about police and fire unions and not one person has commented on the fact that they are not the largest employee groups in the city. That honor belongs to Parks and Rec., a highly unusual organizational configuration for a city where police are generally the most populous unit. So continue flailing away at the police and fire unions to make political hay while the largest department slips by. What a joke. Sad, but what a joke. I have no respect for someone who runs for elective office by attacking the employees regardless of which unit they are in.
“So let’s bring up the wages of those making less by raising taxes on those that have more. That would be progressive. Most people have lost ground financially under Bush so the solution isn’t to punish the working class public servents and have them lose economic power.”
Isn’t that exactly what we are talking about? If the city runs out of money–which they will under the current scheme–look at what is happening in Vallejo–everyone is making less money. EVERYONE. Plus guess what, the taxpayers are paying MORE money.
“So let’s bring up the wages of those making less by raising taxes on those that have more. That would be progressive. Most people have lost ground financially under Bush so the solution isn’t to punish the working class public servents and have them lose economic power.”
Isn’t that exactly what we are talking about? If the city runs out of money–which they will under the current scheme–look at what is happening in Vallejo–everyone is making less money. EVERYONE. Plus guess what, the taxpayers are paying MORE money.
“So let’s bring up the wages of those making less by raising taxes on those that have more. That would be progressive. Most people have lost ground financially under Bush so the solution isn’t to punish the working class public servents and have them lose economic power.”
Isn’t that exactly what we are talking about? If the city runs out of money–which they will under the current scheme–look at what is happening in Vallejo–everyone is making less money. EVERYONE. Plus guess what, the taxpayers are paying MORE money.
“So let’s bring up the wages of those making less by raising taxes on those that have more. That would be progressive. Most people have lost ground financially under Bush so the solution isn’t to punish the working class public servents and have them lose economic power.”
Isn’t that exactly what we are talking about? If the city runs out of money–which they will under the current scheme–look at what is happening in Vallejo–everyone is making less money. EVERYONE. Plus guess what, the taxpayers are paying MORE money.
Let’s be clear. Nobody ever mentioned police. They don’t get paid as much as firefighters. They carry guns. There is a big difference.
By the way teachers should be paid more. They do important work and are often paid too litle.
Let’s be clear. Nobody ever mentioned police. They don’t get paid as much as firefighters. They carry guns. There is a big difference.
By the way teachers should be paid more. They do important work and are often paid too litle.
Let’s be clear. Nobody ever mentioned police. They don’t get paid as much as firefighters. They carry guns. There is a big difference.
By the way teachers should be paid more. They do important work and are often paid too litle.
Let’s be clear. Nobody ever mentioned police. They don’t get paid as much as firefighters. They carry guns. There is a big difference.
By the way teachers should be paid more. They do important work and are often paid too litle.
Still I don’t begrudge public safety workers, who work under high stress, their compensation.
You should.
There have been studies over the years that have shown that police and fire work is less stressful and less dangerous than a number of other lesser compensated professions.
Also, the pie for these benefit packages is not unlimited, it comes out of the salaries and benefits for other types of workers that are less privileged.
But, hey, the use of right wing talking points about why police, fire and correctional officers should be paid substantially more than other people is apparently no problem if it serves the purpose of attacking Sue and Cecilia.
Still I don’t begrudge public safety workers, who work under high stress, their compensation.
You should.
There have been studies over the years that have shown that police and fire work is less stressful and less dangerous than a number of other lesser compensated professions.
Also, the pie for these benefit packages is not unlimited, it comes out of the salaries and benefits for other types of workers that are less privileged.
But, hey, the use of right wing talking points about why police, fire and correctional officers should be paid substantially more than other people is apparently no problem if it serves the purpose of attacking Sue and Cecilia.
Still I don’t begrudge public safety workers, who work under high stress, their compensation.
You should.
There have been studies over the years that have shown that police and fire work is less stressful and less dangerous than a number of other lesser compensated professions.
Also, the pie for these benefit packages is not unlimited, it comes out of the salaries and benefits for other types of workers that are less privileged.
But, hey, the use of right wing talking points about why police, fire and correctional officers should be paid substantially more than other people is apparently no problem if it serves the purpose of attacking Sue and Cecilia.
Still I don’t begrudge public safety workers, who work under high stress, their compensation.
You should.
There have been studies over the years that have shown that police and fire work is less stressful and less dangerous than a number of other lesser compensated professions.
Also, the pie for these benefit packages is not unlimited, it comes out of the salaries and benefits for other types of workers that are less privileged.
But, hey, the use of right wing talking points about why police, fire and correctional officers should be paid substantially more than other people is apparently no problem if it serves the purpose of attacking Sue and Cecilia.
Who was attacking Cecilia? I wasn’t. Why is saying that people should make more money a right wing talking point? Instead of bringing the cops and firefighters down I want to bring everyone else up. If you need to tax those struggling Davis homeowners more to do it so what. If you can afford the prices to live in Davis an enjoy the precious quality of life here you should be willing to pay for it. Sue Greenwald wants to preserve the quality of life in Davis but doesn’t want to pay for it. She is symptomatic of the problem all California faces, that people want the services but don’t want to pay the taxes. What is progressive about that?
Who was attacking Cecilia? I wasn’t. Why is saying that people should make more money a right wing talking point? Instead of bringing the cops and firefighters down I want to bring everyone else up. If you need to tax those struggling Davis homeowners more to do it so what. If you can afford the prices to live in Davis an enjoy the precious quality of life here you should be willing to pay for it. Sue Greenwald wants to preserve the quality of life in Davis but doesn’t want to pay for it. She is symptomatic of the problem all California faces, that people want the services but don’t want to pay the taxes. What is progressive about that?
Who was attacking Cecilia? I wasn’t. Why is saying that people should make more money a right wing talking point? Instead of bringing the cops and firefighters down I want to bring everyone else up. If you need to tax those struggling Davis homeowners more to do it so what. If you can afford the prices to live in Davis an enjoy the precious quality of life here you should be willing to pay for it. Sue Greenwald wants to preserve the quality of life in Davis but doesn’t want to pay for it. She is symptomatic of the problem all California faces, that people want the services but don’t want to pay the taxes. What is progressive about that?
Who was attacking Cecilia? I wasn’t. Why is saying that people should make more money a right wing talking point? Instead of bringing the cops and firefighters down I want to bring everyone else up. If you need to tax those struggling Davis homeowners more to do it so what. If you can afford the prices to live in Davis an enjoy the precious quality of life here you should be willing to pay for it. Sue Greenwald wants to preserve the quality of life in Davis but doesn’t want to pay for it. She is symptomatic of the problem all California faces, that people want the services but don’t want to pay the taxes. What is progressive about that?
Why is saying that people should make more money a right wing talking point? Instead of bringing the cops and firefighters down I want to bring everyone else up. If you need to tax those struggling Davis homeowners more to do it so what.
this is pure fantasy in the current CA legal environment related to the adoption of taxes, not to mention a budget deficit in the range of 10-20B dollars
here’s an equally plausible alternative: maybe Sue and Don can go to the next OPEC meeting and persuade Vladimir, Hugo and the House of Saud to pay for your proposal
–Richard Estes
Why is saying that people should make more money a right wing talking point? Instead of bringing the cops and firefighters down I want to bring everyone else up. If you need to tax those struggling Davis homeowners more to do it so what.
this is pure fantasy in the current CA legal environment related to the adoption of taxes, not to mention a budget deficit in the range of 10-20B dollars
here’s an equally plausible alternative: maybe Sue and Don can go to the next OPEC meeting and persuade Vladimir, Hugo and the House of Saud to pay for your proposal
–Richard Estes
Why is saying that people should make more money a right wing talking point? Instead of bringing the cops and firefighters down I want to bring everyone else up. If you need to tax those struggling Davis homeowners more to do it so what.
this is pure fantasy in the current CA legal environment related to the adoption of taxes, not to mention a budget deficit in the range of 10-20B dollars
here’s an equally plausible alternative: maybe Sue and Don can go to the next OPEC meeting and persuade Vladimir, Hugo and the House of Saud to pay for your proposal
–Richard Estes
Why is saying that people should make more money a right wing talking point? Instead of bringing the cops and firefighters down I want to bring everyone else up. If you need to tax those struggling Davis homeowners more to do it so what.
this is pure fantasy in the current CA legal environment related to the adoption of taxes, not to mention a budget deficit in the range of 10-20B dollars
here’s an equally plausible alternative: maybe Sue and Don can go to the next OPEC meeting and persuade Vladimir, Hugo and the House of Saud to pay for your proposal
–Richard Estes
When I call 911 when my wife has a heart attack or my house is burning down I want the best trained, prepared and fit person to respond, not some out of shape lazy office worker. I don’t mind paying more for firefighters and less for clerks and lawnmowers. It’s a competitive market. If we lower their pay and benefits they’ll go to other cities and we’ll be left with the rejects.
If the other city employees want better salaries then they can bargain for them, or they can try and become firefighters or cops. Undercutting your fellow workers is stupid. Cecilia should know better. Sue is a typical university elitist who has no respect for working people or students. How about requiring UC faculty to teach more than one class? How about the ridiculous salaries and benefits of the UC administrators. Sue says nothing about them, but takes cheap shots against our firefighters and cops.
When I call 911 when my wife has a heart attack or my house is burning down I want the best trained, prepared and fit person to respond, not some out of shape lazy office worker. I don’t mind paying more for firefighters and less for clerks and lawnmowers. It’s a competitive market. If we lower their pay and benefits they’ll go to other cities and we’ll be left with the rejects.
If the other city employees want better salaries then they can bargain for them, or they can try and become firefighters or cops. Undercutting your fellow workers is stupid. Cecilia should know better. Sue is a typical university elitist who has no respect for working people or students. How about requiring UC faculty to teach more than one class? How about the ridiculous salaries and benefits of the UC administrators. Sue says nothing about them, but takes cheap shots against our firefighters and cops.
When I call 911 when my wife has a heart attack or my house is burning down I want the best trained, prepared and fit person to respond, not some out of shape lazy office worker. I don’t mind paying more for firefighters and less for clerks and lawnmowers. It’s a competitive market. If we lower their pay and benefits they’ll go to other cities and we’ll be left with the rejects.
If the other city employees want better salaries then they can bargain for them, or they can try and become firefighters or cops. Undercutting your fellow workers is stupid. Cecilia should know better. Sue is a typical university elitist who has no respect for working people or students. How about requiring UC faculty to teach more than one class? How about the ridiculous salaries and benefits of the UC administrators. Sue says nothing about them, but takes cheap shots against our firefighters and cops.
When I call 911 when my wife has a heart attack or my house is burning down I want the best trained, prepared and fit person to respond, not some out of shape lazy office worker. I don’t mind paying more for firefighters and less for clerks and lawnmowers. It’s a competitive market. If we lower their pay and benefits they’ll go to other cities and we’ll be left with the rejects.
If the other city employees want better salaries then they can bargain for them, or they can try and become firefighters or cops. Undercutting your fellow workers is stupid. Cecilia should know better. Sue is a typical university elitist who has no respect for working people or students. How about requiring UC faculty to teach more than one class? How about the ridiculous salaries and benefits of the UC administrators. Sue says nothing about them, but takes cheap shots against our firefighters and cops.
Everyone respects firefighters. That’s not the issue.
The question is sustainability. All you have to do is look to Vallejo–when the system fails, everyone is hurt. It is only responsible wage and benefits scales that are sustainable.
Cecilia and Sue are protecting the wages of other employees and the money of the taxpayers by being fiscally responsible.
BTW, competitiveness? Have you seen the wages we are talking about? Have you read the articles from across the state about the problems with other cities. This is a statewide issue as much as it a local issue, but like many it begins at home.
I never thought I would say this, but I’m voting for Cecilia and Sue.
Everyone respects firefighters. That’s not the issue.
The question is sustainability. All you have to do is look to Vallejo–when the system fails, everyone is hurt. It is only responsible wage and benefits scales that are sustainable.
Cecilia and Sue are protecting the wages of other employees and the money of the taxpayers by being fiscally responsible.
BTW, competitiveness? Have you seen the wages we are talking about? Have you read the articles from across the state about the problems with other cities. This is a statewide issue as much as it a local issue, but like many it begins at home.
I never thought I would say this, but I’m voting for Cecilia and Sue.
Everyone respects firefighters. That’s not the issue.
The question is sustainability. All you have to do is look to Vallejo–when the system fails, everyone is hurt. It is only responsible wage and benefits scales that are sustainable.
Cecilia and Sue are protecting the wages of other employees and the money of the taxpayers by being fiscally responsible.
BTW, competitiveness? Have you seen the wages we are talking about? Have you read the articles from across the state about the problems with other cities. This is a statewide issue as much as it a local issue, but like many it begins at home.
I never thought I would say this, but I’m voting for Cecilia and Sue.
Everyone respects firefighters. That’s not the issue.
The question is sustainability. All you have to do is look to Vallejo–when the system fails, everyone is hurt. It is only responsible wage and benefits scales that are sustainable.
Cecilia and Sue are protecting the wages of other employees and the money of the taxpayers by being fiscally responsible.
BTW, competitiveness? Have you seen the wages we are talking about? Have you read the articles from across the state about the problems with other cities. This is a statewide issue as much as it a local issue, but like many it begins at home.
I never thought I would say this, but I’m voting for Cecilia and Sue.
Vallejo is a different story. Our firefighters are not paid more than our neighboring cities. And the pension issue, 3% at 50 is state law. I don’t hear Mariko or Christopher wanting to change that. If we lower our benefits, why would a firefighter choose Davis over Vacaville or Sacramento? Your are making a phoney bogeyman out of this issue. Our firefighters are not to blame for our city’s budget problem, which is not severe anyway. Doing something to increase sales tax revenue would be far more effective than waging a phony war against our public safety employees.
Vallejo is a different story. Our firefighters are not paid more than our neighboring cities. And the pension issue, 3% at 50 is state law. I don’t hear Mariko or Christopher wanting to change that. If we lower our benefits, why would a firefighter choose Davis over Vacaville or Sacramento? Your are making a phoney bogeyman out of this issue. Our firefighters are not to blame for our city’s budget problem, which is not severe anyway. Doing something to increase sales tax revenue would be far more effective than waging a phony war against our public safety employees.
Vallejo is a different story. Our firefighters are not paid more than our neighboring cities. And the pension issue, 3% at 50 is state law. I don’t hear Mariko or Christopher wanting to change that. If we lower our benefits, why would a firefighter choose Davis over Vacaville or Sacramento? Your are making a phoney bogeyman out of this issue. Our firefighters are not to blame for our city’s budget problem, which is not severe anyway. Doing something to increase sales tax revenue would be far more effective than waging a phony war against our public safety employees.
Vallejo is a different story. Our firefighters are not paid more than our neighboring cities. And the pension issue, 3% at 50 is state law. I don’t hear Mariko or Christopher wanting to change that. If we lower our benefits, why would a firefighter choose Davis over Vacaville or Sacramento? Your are making a phoney bogeyman out of this issue. Our firefighters are not to blame for our city’s budget problem, which is not severe anyway. Doing something to increase sales tax revenue would be far more effective than waging a phony war against our public safety employees.
It is not state law.
http://www.porac.org/3percent@50.html
There is a component to it, but it is not mandated. I don’t think we’re in danger of not being competitive if we reform our plan that was adopted in 2000.
It is not state law.
http://www.porac.org/3percent@50.html
There is a component to it, but it is not mandated. I don’t think we’re in danger of not being competitive if we reform our plan that was adopted in 2000.
It is not state law.
http://www.porac.org/3percent@50.html
There is a component to it, but it is not mandated. I don’t think we’re in danger of not being competitive if we reform our plan that was adopted in 2000.
It is not state law.
http://www.porac.org/3percent@50.html
There is a component to it, but it is not mandated. I don’t think we’re in danger of not being competitive if we reform our plan that was adopted in 2000.
When I call 911 when my wife has a heart attack or my house is burning down I want the best trained, prepared and fit person to respond, not some out of shape lazy office worker. I don’t mind paying more for firefighters and less for clerks and lawnmowers. It’s a competitive market. If we lower their pay and benefits they’ll go to other cities and we’ll be left with the rejects.
If the other city employees want better salaries then they can bargain for them, or they can try and become firefighters or cops. Undercutting your fellow workers is stupid. Cecilia should know better. Sue is a typical university elitist who has no respect for working people or students. How about requiring UC faculty to teach more than one class? How about the ridiculous salaries and benefits of the UC administrators. Sue says nothing about them, but takes cheap shots against our firefighters and cops.
Okay, I’ll bite. When the living wage came up for inclusion in the budget of the city of Davis, what was the position of the Davis firefighters?
I heard that they oppposed it, and that several of them appeared at the meeting to make sure the council members knew they were opposed.
If so, not very supportive of those other workers, were they?
–Richard Estes
When I call 911 when my wife has a heart attack or my house is burning down I want the best trained, prepared and fit person to respond, not some out of shape lazy office worker. I don’t mind paying more for firefighters and less for clerks and lawnmowers. It’s a competitive market. If we lower their pay and benefits they’ll go to other cities and we’ll be left with the rejects.
If the other city employees want better salaries then they can bargain for them, or they can try and become firefighters or cops. Undercutting your fellow workers is stupid. Cecilia should know better. Sue is a typical university elitist who has no respect for working people or students. How about requiring UC faculty to teach more than one class? How about the ridiculous salaries and benefits of the UC administrators. Sue says nothing about them, but takes cheap shots against our firefighters and cops.
Okay, I’ll bite. When the living wage came up for inclusion in the budget of the city of Davis, what was the position of the Davis firefighters?
I heard that they oppposed it, and that several of them appeared at the meeting to make sure the council members knew they were opposed.
If so, not very supportive of those other workers, were they?
–Richard Estes
When I call 911 when my wife has a heart attack or my house is burning down I want the best trained, prepared and fit person to respond, not some out of shape lazy office worker. I don’t mind paying more for firefighters and less for clerks and lawnmowers. It’s a competitive market. If we lower their pay and benefits they’ll go to other cities and we’ll be left with the rejects.
If the other city employees want better salaries then they can bargain for them, or they can try and become firefighters or cops. Undercutting your fellow workers is stupid. Cecilia should know better. Sue is a typical university elitist who has no respect for working people or students. How about requiring UC faculty to teach more than one class? How about the ridiculous salaries and benefits of the UC administrators. Sue says nothing about them, but takes cheap shots against our firefighters and cops.
Okay, I’ll bite. When the living wage came up for inclusion in the budget of the city of Davis, what was the position of the Davis firefighters?
I heard that they oppposed it, and that several of them appeared at the meeting to make sure the council members knew they were opposed.
If so, not very supportive of those other workers, were they?
–Richard Estes
When I call 911 when my wife has a heart attack or my house is burning down I want the best trained, prepared and fit person to respond, not some out of shape lazy office worker. I don’t mind paying more for firefighters and less for clerks and lawnmowers. It’s a competitive market. If we lower their pay and benefits they’ll go to other cities and we’ll be left with the rejects.
If the other city employees want better salaries then they can bargain for them, or they can try and become firefighters or cops. Undercutting your fellow workers is stupid. Cecilia should know better. Sue is a typical university elitist who has no respect for working people or students. How about requiring UC faculty to teach more than one class? How about the ridiculous salaries and benefits of the UC administrators. Sue says nothing about them, but takes cheap shots against our firefighters and cops.
Okay, I’ll bite. When the living wage came up for inclusion in the budget of the city of Davis, what was the position of the Davis firefighters?
I heard that they oppposed it, and that several of them appeared at the meeting to make sure the council members knew they were opposed.
If so, not very supportive of those other workers, were they?
–Richard Estes
Nobody is forging a war against firefighters, so please stop whining. It’s a matter of making sure that our city is in good shape before we start giving out more than what we have.
10% of calls are fire related. Read Rifkin’s article. It’s good and to the point.
Nobody is forging a war against firefighters, so please stop whining. It’s a matter of making sure that our city is in good shape before we start giving out more than what we have.
10% of calls are fire related. Read Rifkin’s article. It’s good and to the point.
Nobody is forging a war against firefighters, so please stop whining. It’s a matter of making sure that our city is in good shape before we start giving out more than what we have.
10% of calls are fire related. Read Rifkin’s article. It’s good and to the point.
Nobody is forging a war against firefighters, so please stop whining. It’s a matter of making sure that our city is in good shape before we start giving out more than what we have.
10% of calls are fire related. Read Rifkin’s article. It’s good and to the point.
Respect Firefighters – You should know that there is a HUGE waiting list for firefighters in Davis. Over 100 according to the Mayor’s comments during a council meeting.
They are doing well.
Don’t confuse fiscal responsibility with not supporting them. Everyone supports them.
This reminds me of those who say that being opposed to the war means not supporting our troops.
In both cases people are wrong. Please stick to the issue at hand and don’t distort the truth.
Respect Firefighters – You should know that there is a HUGE waiting list for firefighters in Davis. Over 100 according to the Mayor’s comments during a council meeting.
They are doing well.
Don’t confuse fiscal responsibility with not supporting them. Everyone supports them.
This reminds me of those who say that being opposed to the war means not supporting our troops.
In both cases people are wrong. Please stick to the issue at hand and don’t distort the truth.
Respect Firefighters – You should know that there is a HUGE waiting list for firefighters in Davis. Over 100 according to the Mayor’s comments during a council meeting.
They are doing well.
Don’t confuse fiscal responsibility with not supporting them. Everyone supports them.
This reminds me of those who say that being opposed to the war means not supporting our troops.
In both cases people are wrong. Please stick to the issue at hand and don’t distort the truth.
Respect Firefighters – You should know that there is a HUGE waiting list for firefighters in Davis. Over 100 according to the Mayor’s comments during a council meeting.
They are doing well.
Don’t confuse fiscal responsibility with not supporting them. Everyone supports them.
This reminds me of those who say that being opposed to the war means not supporting our troops.
In both cases people are wrong. Please stick to the issue at hand and don’t distort the truth.
Ahhh, everyone likes and respects firefighters and, of course, no one is criticizing them…oh no!
How funny. No, instead let’s make this dogpile into “sustainability” and “fiscal responsiblity.”
Let’s call this for what it is: a series of well-orchestrated attacks on a union that does not support the same candidates that this blog does. A select group of council candidates who were not endorsed by the fire fighters are using the fig leaf of city deficits to try and turn the fight to their advantage.
So next time you need help call a “sustainability advocate” or a “fiscal responsiblity zealot.” I’m sure they’ll come running.
You people are a hoot.
Ahhh, everyone likes and respects firefighters and, of course, no one is criticizing them…oh no!
How funny. No, instead let’s make this dogpile into “sustainability” and “fiscal responsiblity.”
Let’s call this for what it is: a series of well-orchestrated attacks on a union that does not support the same candidates that this blog does. A select group of council candidates who were not endorsed by the fire fighters are using the fig leaf of city deficits to try and turn the fight to their advantage.
So next time you need help call a “sustainability advocate” or a “fiscal responsiblity zealot.” I’m sure they’ll come running.
You people are a hoot.
Ahhh, everyone likes and respects firefighters and, of course, no one is criticizing them…oh no!
How funny. No, instead let’s make this dogpile into “sustainability” and “fiscal responsiblity.”
Let’s call this for what it is: a series of well-orchestrated attacks on a union that does not support the same candidates that this blog does. A select group of council candidates who were not endorsed by the fire fighters are using the fig leaf of city deficits to try and turn the fight to their advantage.
So next time you need help call a “sustainability advocate” or a “fiscal responsiblity zealot.” I’m sure they’ll come running.
You people are a hoot.
Ahhh, everyone likes and respects firefighters and, of course, no one is criticizing them…oh no!
How funny. No, instead let’s make this dogpile into “sustainability” and “fiscal responsiblity.”
Let’s call this for what it is: a series of well-orchestrated attacks on a union that does not support the same candidates that this blog does. A select group of council candidates who were not endorsed by the fire fighters are using the fig leaf of city deficits to try and turn the fight to their advantage.
So next time you need help call a “sustainability advocate” or a “fiscal responsiblity zealot.” I’m sure they’ll come running.
You people are a hoot.
anonymous – someone said it best earlier, don’t confuse doing the right thing with not supporting the firefighters. this is absolutely, absolutely silly.
police officers carry guns and they don’t get these hefty salaries and benefits.
anonymous – someone said it best earlier, don’t confuse doing the right thing with not supporting the firefighters. this is absolutely, absolutely silly.
police officers carry guns and they don’t get these hefty salaries and benefits.
anonymous – someone said it best earlier, don’t confuse doing the right thing with not supporting the firefighters. this is absolutely, absolutely silly.
police officers carry guns and they don’t get these hefty salaries and benefits.
anonymous – someone said it best earlier, don’t confuse doing the right thing with not supporting the firefighters. this is absolutely, absolutely silly.
police officers carry guns and they don’t get these hefty salaries and benefits.
Its funny that Sue Greenwald uses the applicant pool to argue that firefighters are overpaid. I guess she implies that supply and demand should apply to wages. Of course it is a regional market for workers so these people will go elsewhere if they are not happy. If is funny that she seems to believe in supply and demand for wages but not for houses. How selective an application of the laws of economics.
Its funny that Sue Greenwald uses the applicant pool to argue that firefighters are overpaid. I guess she implies that supply and demand should apply to wages. Of course it is a regional market for workers so these people will go elsewhere if they are not happy. If is funny that she seems to believe in supply and demand for wages but not for houses. How selective an application of the laws of economics.
Its funny that Sue Greenwald uses the applicant pool to argue that firefighters are overpaid. I guess she implies that supply and demand should apply to wages. Of course it is a regional market for workers so these people will go elsewhere if they are not happy. If is funny that she seems to believe in supply and demand for wages but not for houses. How selective an application of the laws of economics.
Its funny that Sue Greenwald uses the applicant pool to argue that firefighters are overpaid. I guess she implies that supply and demand should apply to wages. Of course it is a regional market for workers so these people will go elsewhere if they are not happy. If is funny that she seems to believe in supply and demand for wages but not for houses. How selective an application of the laws of economics.
FireFighters are overpaid. They also respond to many calls un-necessarily and with 2 large gas guzzling vehicles, when one would suffice.
City cops respond to a lot more calls that are far more dangerous and do it with far fewer personnel.
Perhaps someone could explain the difference.
FireFighters are overpaid. They also respond to many calls un-necessarily and with 2 large gas guzzling vehicles, when one would suffice.
City cops respond to a lot more calls that are far more dangerous and do it with far fewer personnel.
Perhaps someone could explain the difference.
FireFighters are overpaid. They also respond to many calls un-necessarily and with 2 large gas guzzling vehicles, when one would suffice.
City cops respond to a lot more calls that are far more dangerous and do it with far fewer personnel.
Perhaps someone could explain the difference.
FireFighters are overpaid. They also respond to many calls un-necessarily and with 2 large gas guzzling vehicles, when one would suffice.
City cops respond to a lot more calls that are far more dangerous and do it with far fewer personnel.
Perhaps someone could explain the difference.
I agree with the BEE endorsement,
Sue Greewald, Don Saylor and Eileen Samitz.
I agree with the BEE endorsement,
Sue Greewald, Don Saylor and Eileen Samitz.
I agree with the BEE endorsement,
Sue Greewald, Don Saylor and Eileen Samitz.
I agree with the BEE endorsement,
Sue Greewald, Don Saylor and Eileen Samitz.