Wednesday, January 9, 2013

Progress on employee salary reform in Pacifica


Letter to the Editor, submitted to the Pacifica Tribune last weekend"Did we hear city employee salaries are being reduced?"  by Bob Hutchinson
 
"Dear Editor, I saw the 2011 Pacifica city employee wages listed on the California State Controllers website:

Am I missing something? Weren't we told by Council that we had already made major cuts to compensation in 2011?   Well the State website says different: 

2011 
383 employees
$18,434,878 amount spent on total wages by this city
$491 amount spent on total wages per resident

2010
374 employees
$18,174,709 amount spent on total wages by this city
$450 amount spent on total wages per resident

It looks to me that we spent over $250,000 more on wages in 2011 than we did in 2010. I believe we were all told that huge cuts (over 1 million) had already been taken from the unions and negotiating further cuts would be too burdensome. Yes we were facing possible bankruptcy but we were told we would have to find the money via more cuts to service and increased fees and taxes.

We still have over 60 department heads, managers and other employees making well over $100,000 per year in wages and benefits, and over 15 executives making over $200,000. And they are still talking about taxing us more and giving us less.

In the mean time the city has been quietly negotiating new contracts with the unions.  Not a peep from the Tribune.  And how about the police outsourcing report that WE paid for? It's still being kept secret from us and council stopped pursuing outsourcing with no real explanation to Pacificans. 

Does the Tribune have any information on current union negotiations? How about the whole outsourcing fiasco? Can they cover some of this crap? We have a free press to help keep government honest. No wonder ours isn't."

Posted by Kathy Meeh

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

Geez, we are so screwed! Guess all those big cuts council and crew bragged about were future raises that were deferred and not cuts to current wages we're actually paying because we're still paying the same for about the same number of people. Didn't check the whole awfulreport but I notice several members of our stellar council appear to still be stuffing their pockets with cafeteria cash...even after saying they wouldn't. Pulled a Horsely there, didn't they? Gotta still be the highest paid council in the county don't you think? Guess that makes it hard to really crack down on city employee salaries and benies. Wouldn't want to be called a hypocrite, now would we? Incompetent and unethical is so much better. I mean we're talking about politicians here. Generally, a pretty dismal group. Guess the strategy is, we may go broke, but by gosh us city employees are going to get every dime we can before that happens. Is that a winner or what?

Anonymous said...

"Pulled a Horsley"
You should add that to the Urban Dictionary.

Anonymous said...

Did some Council members promise to not take pay or cafeteria cash and then turn around and break that promise? If so, that's definitely pulling a Horsley.

Anonymous said...

Why is Hutch complaining about local government salaries and pensions while defending Double-Dipping Don Horsley's yearly $215,000 pension and $120,000 supervisor's salary?

Hutch said...

Funny, if you go to the City website and click on "salary schedules" And login: guest103 / password: ca103

There are no salaries listed that I see. Only job descriptions from 1999.

More openness and transparency.

http://www.cityofpacifica.org/depts/hr/employee_information/salary_schedule/default.asp

If Pacifica wasn't mandated by the state to provide all salaries and benefits we would be totally in the dark.

Hutch said...

What Horsley did is legal. You can't blame him for doing something all of us would do. But it needs to be made illegal.

That's the difference although I doubt you can understand that.

Chris Porter said...

I have no position on Don's pension and salary discussion but why should it be illegal for him to take a salary and a pension from two completely different jobs that he spent years doing? Also, don't lots of County jobs allow employees to pay into their own pension dollars? Illegal for what reason...salary from current job and pension from previous thirty plus year job.

Anonymous said...

Jeez, what is it with you Horsley guys? If it's not ad hominem attacks, it's Straw Man arguments. NO ONE IS SAYING IT'S ILLEGAL. People are rightly upset that he promised something to get elected, and then completely reneged on that promise.

Kathy Meeh said...

Amusing yourself Anonymous 1:40 PM?

As you may know we've "been there" with this drawn-out Horsley conversation. Glad you found Wikipedia twice and your links are "neat", but you may not have read the most recent Pacifica Tribune, 1/8/13 article. The article explains the issue again, and includes quotes from Don Horsley, here's one:

"I signed a special waiver following my election that formalized my request not to receive a salary for my work as a Supervisor... That waiver expired on Nov. 10, 2012, and I have decided to begin accepting the same salary that all current elected members of the Board of Supervisors in San Mateo County receive."

I'm sure the issues for you are clear enough, but based upon your "fun" comments I've got to add: Eventually you'll "get it" or not.

Anonymous said...

That's what happened AFTER he was elected. Did he say "I will sign a special waiver that will expire on Nov. 10, 2012" during the election? No, he said he would not take a salary.

Sleazy at best; recall-worthy lying to the citizenry at worst.

Anonymous said...

He lied, and even his most addled apologists know it.

Anonymous said...

Incredibly, sleasy Don just keeps digging the hole deeper and deeper.
What started as just another example of a lying politician gets more revealing with every quote, every article. He should just shut up before somebody starts digging for the real story.

Anonymous said...

Chris Porter said... "why should it be illegal for him to take a salary and a pension"

Because Chris, in the real world that most of us (who don't live off tax dollars) WE can not take our full Social Security AND continue working making over 100K.

Double dipping is a major drain on cities, counties and the state. That's why lawmakers are taking steps to stop it.

Kathy Meeh said...

"WE can not take our full Social Security AND continue working making over 100K." Anonymous 8:11 AM.

Really, where is that law? Give us that link. Plenty of people who qualify for social security by age are are working, and taking their social security pension (and any other pensions).

In the public sector, "double dipping" is legal. So, a moral judgement from you is no reason for a public employee who qualifies not to take their earned pension, and their salary.

You could argue that social security pension is too little, and public sector pensions are too much. Fair argument, but that is not the "real world" (your words).

Anonymous said...

Ok Kathy here's your link.

You are not allowed to make over $40,080 on SSI otherwise you get your pension amount reduced. Since we in the private sector are forced to have SSI and government workers are the only ones allowed not to be in SSI and to have their own private (highly lucrative pension plan, shouldn't the rules be that same? You want to keep working fine, but your pension amount will be reduced.

I'll take my apology off the air.

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/retire2/whileworking.htm

"If you are under full retirement age for the entire year, we deduct $1 from your benefit payments for every $2 you earn above the annual limit."

"For 2013, that limit is $15,120."

"In the year you reach full retirement age, we deduct $1 in benefits for every $3 you earn above a different limit, but we only count earnings before the month you reach your full retirement age."

"If you will reach full retirement age in 2013, the limit on your earnings for the months before full retirement age is $40,080."

Kathy Meeh said...

Anonymous 9:51 AM, got your link, but sorry, I don't see that $100,000 limit anywhere. The link is talking about the retirement formula, and age of qualification.

Social security has much weaker pension benefits than the public sector. The social security formula is based upon 40% of lifetime earnings, with a cap and a target full retirement age.

Social security needs to be strengthened, whereas the public sector pension formulas and benefits need reform.

Information is good, and for that no apologies and no name calling are needed. You make a good point that public sector benefits have thrived. That has occurred during the past 30+ years. Private sector social security, and generally private sector employer benefits much less so.

But don't blame one public service employee for taking the benefits he is entitled to. That's the legal system. There has been some recent reform in these public employee pensions and benefits. And similar to the private sector, public employees do pay into the pension system.

From Jackson Lewis attorneys,9/4/12, an information article about State of CA public pension reform, "Changes to employee contributions": "Under the new law, all employees must begin making contributions towards pension benefits. New employees must pay 50% of the normal costs of pension benefits... For CalPERS agencies, the employee contribution is capped at 8% of salary for local miscellaneous members and 12% of salary for local police officers, local firefighters and county police officers." Also, see the new lower benefit retirement formula, first item.

Anonymous said...

You can start collecting SS before you reach full retirement age and still be working, but you reduce your SS benefits (as the link explains). However, if you have not been collecting SS when you reach 70, you have to start receiving your full benefit SS and you can keep working. At 70, you have to take SS and you can be making a billion dollars a year. This is what's wrong with SS.

Anonymous said...

Actually once you reach full retirement age for social security (66 for those born 1945-1954) you can make as much money as you want hile collecting social security and there is no reduction in your soc sec benefits. Quite a few people doing this. Some of them took benefits at 62 and others waited. There are earnings caps if you collect social security before full retirement age.

Anonymous said...

Kathy, if we're talking about working while collecting social security benefits there are caps on the amount you can earn each year prior to reaching full retirement age. Exceed the cap and SSA starts reducing your benefits. The cap for 2013 is $15,120. Once full retirment age is reached there is no such cap on earnings so if someone wants to work or needs to work they will receive full benefits regardless of how much they make. It's all on the SSA website.

Anonymous said...

And that my dears is why Social Security and Calpers are heading towards insolvency.

Kathy Meeh said...

"You can start collecting SS before you reach full retirement age and still be working, but you reduce your SS benefits.." Anonymous 9:51 AM, 1:03 PM, 2:42 PM.

Huh, you are correct! And well, that's cold. Several years ago, the earnings caps for people working from full retirement age was lifted, but clearly not for those younger than full retirement age (which keeps getting older). Thanks for your follow-up, I've got it now.

Think I'm blinded by an ongoing complaint about social security. (At the same time, social security is essential to the welfare of our society). FMV, the low "40% of lifetime earnings" payout at full benefit age should be increased. The 40% formula is inadequate, and realistically should be increase to something more like 60%-80%. And that means higher employee/employer contribution, and/or whatever works. Yet, Congress has not addressed this social security need, although their own public pensions are looking pretty good.

From New York Times/Business, 9/11/12. "According to the Social Security Administration, 23 percent of married couples and 46 percent of single people receive 90 percent or more of their income from Social Security. Furthermore, 53 percent of married couples and 74 percent of unmarried people receive half of their income or more from the program. Such statistics represent a group of people forever trying to make ends meet at a time when their health may be declining, their friends dying and their ability to do things not what it used to be. According to a report by AARP, the lobby for people older than 50, three out of five families headed by a retiree over 65 had no retirement savings."

People don't plan to be broke when they are older and retire, but for a variety of life reasons (including spent savings, and lower or no ability to work), broke often just happens. The NY Times article indicates 3 of 5 people (60%) head into retirement already broke, ouch!