The sick leave payout perk was something that the current City Council inherited from a prior council. Although once considered a nice perk, if the city continues this trend without any change it will continue further on a downward spiral of spending money it does not have. If the City froze all sick leave payouts today, it would still have an outstanding liability of $80 million. That is the same amount of money for the predicted budget deficit for 2012-2013. If sick leave was simply eliminated, then that $80 million goes to zero. If sick leave was phased out over a series of years, then the amount paid out would be more than zero and less than $80 million. The longer the phase-out period, the closer to $80 million. The shorter the pay-out period, the closer it goes towards zero.
What we do know is that last year alone the city paid out $14.8 million in sick leave.
Although a prior council allowed for the sick leave payout to be what it is today, I don’t think sick leave payouts are something the city should continue. Instead, I support a “use it or lose it” system like the private sector. Last year, the council imposed the elimination of sick leave for four of the 11 unions effective January 2012. However, seven unions still have it and among those seven, police and fire sick leave status may ultimately be settled by arbitration. Some feel that sick leave payouts are a vested right, while others say that isn’t since it is compensation and not a pension.
I am open to a phase out approach, but not for everyone. There will be some employees who choose retirement by Jan. 31, 2012, who qualify for the 3 percent bump via the COLA (cost of living adjustment) and having their pension based on salary before the 10 percent compensation reduction. Some of those who retire in January may also be doing so since they are worried about sick leave payouts being completely eliminated.
If an employer wants to retain a skilled subset of workers that may leave, and one of those levers is determined to be sick leave, then perhaps instead of elimination the employer should offer a phase out over 4-5 years to that specific subset of workers. However, it must certainly be for police since losing veteran officers with special skill set could be a setback. (I would suggest police negotiate on sick leave payouts separately, based on their own value proposition.) For non-police positions, the city should possibly cap the amount at $40,000, as opposed to some of the well-known payouts that approach $300,000.
Another alternative is to freeze the accrual and pay the sick leave over years instead of all at once. The new retiree gets the entire amount and less of a tax hit for a large payout. The city gets the benefit of paying back with inflated dollars over, let’s say, 10 years.
Some positions in the city have many applicants for few positions. If people in those positions choose to retire then they can be replaced more easily. And those newly hired can be on a new benefit structure. Ideally, that new benefit structure is a 401K, but at minimum it’s a reduced pension. I feel a reduced pension is still more generous than a 401K.
Approximately, 450,000 veterans are returning from the war and will be looking for work. Veteran’s getting hired as a fire fighter, for example, would cover any gap within that department of potential retirements. In addition, it would be a substantial raise compared to the military pay. Some of those same veterans may find other positions in the city attractive. We can lament over the current condition or we can anticipate and plan for the next wave.
You still mad over being caught stealing signs?
I guess everyone with the exception of the police department does not have a skilled workforce and losing veteran employees in other departments would not matter.
Im sure some of the veterans could work for the police department too.
Why doesn’t the city manager lead by example and give up her sick leave pay?
Pierluigi,
How much do you make as an advisor to different High Tech Companies? You cannot tell me all your income comes from City Council. How much is your expense report? What is your total package the city pays out to you? (Travel,food, entertainment etc.) Lets get into the Perks of a Council person!
“The sick leave payout perk was something that the current City Council inherited from a prior council.”
It was also “inherited” by the employees. For years the employees negotiated with he City for better pay, and were countered with increased benefits. Now these benefits are are being attacked (sick leave buyout and pensions). A contract is a contract, employees were not required to give back 10% or offer a new retirement system- but they did. In fact, the City Council rebuffed the alternative PERS program that PO enjoys, which could have saved hundreds of millions.
First, I must note—what a cop out—“inherited from a prior council”—hasn’t the mayor and many of the members been on those “prior councils.”
Now to substance: In theory limiting sick leave pay out is a good idea. However, in addition to losing qualified people early because of it is only one consideration. It is short sighted to simply say the liability will be reduced by eliminating or phasing it out. There are current costs that will be increased. If a use it or lose it policy is implemented, it will be used. Employees are smarter than losing it. With any position that cannot sit vacant, dispatch, fire, police, etc. that means that the City will have to pay overtime to have someone staff that position. Thus, the City needs to factor in the increased cost of the “lose it” policy to calculate the true savings. Only once all of the cost/benefits are analyzed can such a proposal be properly analyzed. As it stands now, the “savings” stated in the article are highly inflated.
Your “theory” is correct.
The “sick leave policy” is constructed to “save money” and does save money due to a “sliding scale” for pay-outs that prevents the abuse of sick time you aptly stated.
The maximum pay-out is based on 1200 hours @ a rate of 75% of the pay scale at retirement. You may contact the Office of Employee Relations for the complete background.
The use of “prior councils” by his Honor, CM Oliverio is unfortunate due to his vote to reinstate
872.9870 hours of sick time to the City Manager.
The 872.9870 hours of sick time was earned at the rate of an assistant city manager (and possibly lower pay grades). She left the city to work for Los Gatos in 2001.
Six years later (2007), she was hired by San Jose as the city manager and the 872.9870 hours of sick time that were reinstated are now “redeemable” at the pay scale of the city manager.
Since 2007, the city manager has accrued sick time hours beyond the 1200 sick time hours maximum.
You, and everyone else who reads this, should type “Resolution 73799” into the “Google search box”. This resolution is the employment contract of the city manager with the City of San Jose.
Notice the members of the “prior council” who voted for the conditions stated therein. As to the members of the “prior council” who are still in our midst today, they are; Constant, Liccardo, Nyguen, Oliverio, Pyle and Reed (a.k.a. “The Gang of Six”).
The city manager’s sick time hours buy-out is currently, slightly over $104,000.
It is of interest to note, without the 872.9870 of sick time hours that CM Oliverio and his cohorts “gifted” the city manager; the total sick time hours accrued by the city manager from the date of hire (2007) to the present would be 50% of the pay scale of the city manager times the number of sick time hours (which is currently less than 400 hours).
Personally, the city manager is entitled to every penny that her employment contract affords her without discussion or prejudice.
In my opinion, what is really needed in the “ballot measure language” proposed for the December 6th “Declaration of Fiscal Emergency” is an efficient and expeditious methodology to rid the public of; incompetent Council members including a Mayor and to eliminate the Office of the City Manager in its entirety; for they are all “responsible for the fiscal emergency” that plagues us all.
David S. Wall (Tuesday,11.29.11)
Mr. Wall thank you for this.
WOW!. Sounds like the 1% are alive and well on the top floors of City Hall.
Absolutely , Beautifully stated!
Wow……450,000 soldiers available to do fire fighting in San Jose……the funny thing is they would get hired and then layed off the next year due to budget cuts….Once the evil pension excuse is long gone….What are you going to blame mismanagement of taxpayers funds on??? Puppies??? San Jose should be renamed…..Stockton-West….Thanks P.O. you are the best!!!! P.S. What is Deb Figone going to make on her sick time buy-out???
For once I kind of agree with you. Use it or lose it! If I were a current employee I would use all my sick time on holidays when most public safety employees are denied time off if you do not have seniority to bid months in advance. This would force the city to justify if they were really sick. (per contract)
In addition, I would burn all my sick time for however period I have left before I retire. The city gives us almost 100 hours of sick time per year. Most dedicated employees do not need this much in case of a major medical problem, that is the reason most try to build up a bank of sick time.
Most employees save sick time in case maybe a family member, child has a major injury, sickness to deal with so they can take time of and still get paid. I suggest you bargain to reduce the amount of sick time you give them.
Most employees do not abuse sick time but to bank it for 30 years and then say sorry is just wrong. I like your idea of paying it out over a set time period instead of a one time cash out.
There are numerous ways to correct this issue, get it done. This is also why you will see numerous officers and the Chief of Police walk away from the job instead of losing this pay out. Deb and Chuck will reach their goal of a 800 officer department for the city of San Jose.
I quote,
“The sick leave payout perk was something that the current City Council inherited from a prior council.”
Gee, seems Chuck was on those pervious councils that approved these contracts. I will agree something needs to be done. But I think you will see numerous public safety officers leave in January 2012 to afford this lose of banked time including the COP.
Remember, all city services close on holidays except for police, fire and dispatchers and a few employees who are on call for emergencies.
Most of these individuals cannot get holiday days off or any other day due to lack of personnel or seniority so all they can do is use sick time. I am not talking just about holidays but even a day in the middle of the week. They bid for vacation 6 months in advance and yet they may be denied a day during their bid. Are they suppose to come back to one day in the middle of their vacation to work?
Work it out before you call for a fiscal emergency! I appreciate that you are on track on an important issue. Hopefully the new POA President will work with you.
The POA has been working with them, it’s Pier and the rest of the city hall cronies who won’t negotiate! Know your facts dude!!
yes there will be a lot of vets returning but why come to San Jose when for the most part there is a freeze on hiring. They want a a job now, not 5-10 years down the road.
God Bless our men and women in uniform! You have served us well and only deserve the best. Unfortunately it is not here in San Jose!
I find it interesting PLO that you are concerned about “veteran” officers leaving with your comment “However, it must certainly be for police since losing veteran officers with special skill set could be a setback.” I seem to recall just a few short weeks ago you complaining about how layoffs at the SJPD were going to remove fit young progressive modern officers. You hypothesized about using the evaluation system in order to get rid of veteran officers in favor of brand new (read cheap) rookies.
The reality is that all PD officers bring something of value to the table regardless of their time and grade. This is what always made the PD such a shining star in public safety nationwide. Between new and old the overall quality of the organization was superb. This is no longer as you have already destroyed the SJPD’s once fine reputation causing young officers to be laid off and those that weren’t have and are actively seeking employment elsewhere. You then proceeded to destroy morale and threaten pay/benefits to cause older “veteran” officers to also flee the sinking ship. The SJPD is losing offices of every tenure on a weekly basis. Laid off officers are declining to return and the rest are being lured away by better agencies that recognize talent and appreciate their skills.
Has reality finally set in? Are you starting to see the consequences of Reed’s slash and burn approach to budget handling? You have nearly removed every positive and valid reason to be a SJPD member and I hate to break it to you but you are closing the barn door after all the horses have fled.
As for the veteran idea, I would love to see more military veterans fill the ranks of the SJFD and the SJPD. However, not every veteran qualifies and they have to go through the same rigorous testing as anyone else. We should encourage them to apply but again, you will have to overcome the damaged reputation that public safety and civil service now has with the City of San Jose. San Jose is no longer known as a organization to work for and is the bottom of the barrel in Santa Clara County thanks to your city council and city manager. Any veteran worth their salt won’t come anywhere near San Jose to work.
Hiring veterans is a great idea but like many ideas it is the details than matter
Does San Jose have a policy that gives veterans credit for military service and can buy into retirement pan for those military years ?
If so, than there would not be as much saving as you propose if city had to match or more the veterans retirement contribution
Agree cut sick leave payout and the other political paybacks that former Mayors and Councils gave for labor’s campaign support that taxpayers and city should not have to pay
Residents expected Mayor and Council to play political games but not city government managers and City Managers who sworn duty it is to look out for public good, city government and residents but because they personally benefited and THEY knew that once granted excessive benefits, sick leave payouts and millionaire retirements could not be legally taken back
Did past or current city administration managers as group, City Attorneys or City Managers do their city legally required duty, NO when it was to their financial benefit they said nothing to residents or taxpayers BUT still expected to be paid excessive excessive benefits, sick leave payouts, automatic 3% COLA increases and retirements
Disgusting absolutely disgusting and should be punished or fired
Past and present Council and city administrations have mismanage city finances and wasted millions taxes for political purposes for years
So WHY are city employees surprised that majority voters and taxpayers are angry, feel taken advantage of and ripped off by city government and City Manager who’s job it was to look out for city and residents
City Manager and employees did not do what was in public good but took advantage of taxpayers who have to now pay more taxes and fees to pay off multimillionaire city management and public safety retirees while getting less city services and less safe city
Let current employees use it or lose it over next 3-4 years Limit payout to lesser of 25% last year base salary or maximum total payout of $40,000
earning rate of sick leave benefit is defined by labor laws,not arbitrarily by neither city management staff, nor negotiators nor by arm-twisting unions. City negotiators chose to define payout terms they considered lucrative for City. To allow for their desired terms, City should have banked money in anticipation of payout, instead of going on a 12+ year ever $ increasing spending spree. If the City is today in dire straits to live up to its contractually negotiated terms, where is it finding money to pay off obligations made by RDA, using General Fund on the one hand yet claiming employee compensation to be the primary drain to the General Fund. How can council sell land to Lew at an $18MILLION loss and call this a win-win? How, in all honesty, can Council claim that $ for this stupid baseball stadium came from special funds (RDA) yet when it comes to pay RDA debt, $ is conveniently drawn from General Fund? Shouldn’t RDA obligations be paid from special RDA funds? How is it $ can be restricted in use when it comes to spending for pet projects, but when it comes to paying back for obligations incurred by the same ambitious greedy agent (RDA), money is drawn from the General Fund? Council wants its cake and wants to eat it too. Do they honestly believe we are too stupid to see through their lies? Obviously, they have effectively pulled the wool over San Jose residents’ eyes!!
Pierre you are so out of touch. How bout all the money the city saved on the front end by this “perk”? Im so sick of all you cowards up in the glass tower its makes me want to puke! The city chose to not hire enough cops. The city chose to not pay for overtime. The city chose to not give pay raises (yes pay raises were not given out while the usual suspect whiners were making great wages) *whiners out there crying sour grapes you know who you are. Truly pathetic. Yes this supposed perk was not just given out as a gift. Pier you havent even been working or around this city long enough to know the first thing you speak about. You are a total disgrace! Yes the city saved millions on the front end but once the bill comes due and its payback you wnat to cry foul. Screw you !!! you are a punk!!!
Will Deb walk away with her comp time and other perks or are these separate from the rest of us
City manager got to her max of comp time in record pace. Due the math, WAY quicker that the average employee. Love to see her vacation and sick time buyout and what it is going to cost the city. Will top managers lose this buy out as well. Seems a few have already jumped off the sinking ship.
SJI you have the resources, break down all the top city managers, mayor and council (Comp/sick/vacation). Would love to see this before a fiscal emergency is called.
PO are you listening? Print these results and we can talk about transparency!
Just give us a city website, is this not public information. Seems you release salaries of all the other city employees!
Please don’t overlook how much the Taxpayers paid the City Manager in the form of deferred compensation 401k.
PO
you need to look in the mirror before you get on your council table and cry for reform!
Bring something to the table that is realistic. Don’t put blame on past Chuck’s city councils. Who wants to work here anymore unless you sit at the round table (AKA city council).
Face up to the fact you want a ballot measure so you can say it was the will of the voters because you know what you are trying to do is illegal and you will lose in court. You know the city is hiding millions of dollars as usual.
Why are we funding RDA out of the city budget? Who sits on this round table? YOU
The city is not hiring! I love are men and women in uniform, but they will not wear on here.
PO you are so out of touch with reality.. maybe if you spent more time trying to be a council person and not writing articles maybe the city could really negetiate with the unions.. chuck and council wanted this ballot measure so bad they pretended to have negotiations with unions to be compliant with the laws so they could take this to voters…..HA HA the joke is on you PO and the rest of the council… give up your $650 a month car allowance and get council out of CALPERS, give up the 2% home loans for executives,council and executives have way to many perks….. cant wait until end of 2012 when most of the current MORONS(council) will be termed out…
Are you people on the 18th floor going to be surprised when you see how many experienced people will be bailing in December and then again in June. The City is getting ready to implode. I also think it is quite unfair for the City to take away the sick leave payout from some employees, while others get to keep theirs. I think current employees should be able to use their sick time hours toward their service credit hours so they can retire 2-3 months earlier. It’s just wrong to take away the hours they have already earned. Really wrong. Use it or lose it policy should be the new policy but what current employees already have earned should not be touched.
Here’s the essence of the employees’ and their unions’ demand to continue the “Sick Leave Payout”.
Dear City of San Jose,
You’re a model employer and have generously offered me a certain number of paid sick days. I’ll gladly take it. But I sense an opportunity to take advantage of your generosity and shake you down for more. If you don’t promise to pay me extra I’ll stay home and pretend to be sick for the exact number of sick days you’re offering me. Whaddya gonna do about THAT suckas?
Signed,
Conscientous, Dutiful Public Servant
John Galt you are a dumbface . anything that the City “generously offered” was part of the package that was used to get the best qualified applicants for city jobs.there is no extra pay as you call it .it is that employees have earned. There are many things that city could’ve and should’ve done to reduce sick leave payouts . They have chosen not to , just another in a long list of things to give the appearance of “greedy employees”. These city employees are what made this a ONCE proud City , we are now a joke of a City.
Mr. Galt:
I don’t get the union angle in regards to your comment. PO stated he would like to see it like the “private sector” and what you described is like the private sector. If you offer a “use it or loose” policy then I think a majority of people will use it. Union or Non-union.
Agree?
First of all the unions were not the entity that came up with the sick leave buyout idea to begin with. It was actually the city who wanted to offer a motive for employees not calling in sick so they could avoid hiring adequate staff. Second, many employees while not happy to lose the payout know that the city cannot dissolve the sick leave and therefore they will still have it on the books. What would you suggest that a city employee do with that sick leave that they sacrificed for years to obtain? Perhaps you think every city employee is so dedicated to you the citizen that they would just give it up? Maybe city employees should also just work for free. Or perhaps they should accept a sick leave buyout and then write you a personal check.
Wake up and smell the coffee John, the accumulation of sick leave based on a promise of a payout is no different than you putting a percentage of your paycheck into a savings account. You sacrifice now for a benefit later. You wouldn’t want the bank to change the rules 30 years later and just take your savings and use it to make up for bad decisions on the part of the bank board of directors.
He always talks out of his butt.
I’m not suggesting that the City reneg on it’s obligation to pony up the sick leave payout to those who have already earned it. People should honor their committments- employers as well as employees. If we could trust the employees to honor their committment to show up for work when they are able then the City never would have needed to offer this ‘incentive’ and we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.
I just think we should do away with this system going forward and trust the employees to do the right thing. And if they don’t and instead choose to max out their days off, at least the City will be forced to cover that cost real time and not defer it to the next crop of politicians.
People should “Honor their Commitments”. Now thats Funny , you should be having this conversation with the Dishonorable Chuck Reed , just look at what he is trying to do to City Employees. The Employees have fulfilled their half of the bargain , it is the City who is trying to weasel out of their commitment , in sick leave ,in Pay , in pension reform . No One is saying that reform isnt needed . it just doesnt have to be taken to the Ballot box. This alone will end up costing City Residents Millions of Dollars that could have been used else where. This City would have you beleive that it tried its best to negotiate in good faith.Nothing could be further from the truth. they began negotiations with the intent of going to the voters and let it be known. their entire energy was spent on quickly denying offers made in good faith, offers that would have saved this sinkhole of a city $500 million dollars inside of 5 years. the City NEVER even looked at the proposal. Does that sound like someone who is trying to honor commitments or like someone is trying to weasel out
Officer D,
You’ll get no argument from me that the City recklessly spends our money in unnumerable ways- and Chuck Reed has never been a paragon of fiscal responsibility.
Your examples #s1-6 are near the top of my list too and I’ll agree that if the City was more responsible in these areas then #7 might not be a point of contention.
But it’s #7- pension reform- that is the topic of many of these discussions including this one, and I do sincerely believe that it is right, necessary, and fair that public employee benefits be reined in. However, I’m enough of a realist to acknowledge that it would be foolish to pursue certain aspects of pension reform if we knew beyond doubt that they’d be shot down by the courts. I’ve been shocked and disappointed before by decisions handed down by our liberal courts. Labor issues are generally championed by Democrats and so it would not be a surprise if our courts tended to be very sympathetic toward them.
Either way, I think it does no harm to state our minds on these matters of opinion. If we feel intimidated out of stating our opinions since we think we’re not entitled to hold them because they might be contrary to that of some judge somewhere then we really have lost our freedom of expression and our individuality.
By the way, I did read your compromise proposal and you may be pleased to know that the same idea had occurred to me as a compromise. So maybe that means it’s a good idea and maybe I’d be pleased if it was adopted. But I’d still rather do away with SLP altogether and I’d still argue for that.
JG
John, you and I have had this discussion, and you acknowledged several months ago that you had no specific facts or information to back up your assertion that sick time was abused in the past and that this is the reason why the city established it’s sick time buyout program.
In point of fact, when it was offered to the POA, it was a cost-cutting measure and a means of reducing the number of officers who would have to be hired over the long haul as well as an alternative to offering a pay raise some decades ago.
If the city wanted to give the officers a pay raise in lieu of the sick time buyout going forward, some might go for it. But, this also means that the City will have to absorb the cost of hiring more officers in order to offset the use of sick time (for whatever reason)
But, here’s the conundrum in which the city now finds itself: attempting to police the city with right around 1100 officers is purely insane. Pretty much everyone but San Jose knows this, which is why the national average ratio of officers to citizens is about 1.7:1000. Having cut back public safety staffing to its current level and having engaged in Mayor Reeds campaign of deception and demonization has severely damaged the City’s ability to recruit and retain new officers. In point of fact, many officers who were laid off back in July have refused to accept their old positions and many of those who have accepted their old positions continue to look for employment elsewhere. Even more astonishingly, extremely senior officers also look for employment elsewhere, moving to agencies as far away as in Washington.
And, while City Hall continues to point the finger at pensions and benefits as the cause of the City’s financial woes, the truth of the matter is that it is the decisions of the Mayor, the City Manager, and (statistically) the majority of those on the Council who are to blame – primarily in their reckless programs and irresponsible spending habits.
It isn’t that employee costs are the sole cause of the City’s precarious financial position, it is simply that taking away or reducing wages, pensions and benefits (by being deceitful and engaging in a campaign of disinformation and demonization and using the class warfare model of ‘reform’) is, by far, the easier approach to solving the problems than is engaging in meaningful program and spending reform.
So, without further ado, let’s look at the things the City would need to do in order to look and act like a responsible governing entity:
1. Give up on the Stadium deal. I don’t even know where to begin when describing how flawed this endeavor is. Suffice it to say that the A’s don’t appear to offer a net financial benefit to Oakland, are unlikely to do so in San Jose, and, if it was such a great money-making proposition, then the A’s owner, Lew Wolff would probably we willing to make that investment himself. Instead, what you have is the City absorbing the cost of buying properties, and establishing infrastructure and then selling them at a loss to the A’s.
2. Stop shelling out money for the Hayes Mansion, Mexican Heritage Plaza and various money-losing golf courses. If these ventures could be made to be profitable, then the Market could find a way to do so. The City shouldn’t be the source of life support for these ventures in perpetuity.
3. Stop converting commercially zoned properties to residential.
4. Stop allowing BMR housing to be constructed in San Jose
5. Stop paying grants out of the General Fund.
6. Stop paying RDA obligations out of the General Fund.
7. Stop pursuing an illegal pension reform proposal in which the vast majority of cost-cutting measures have been found to be illegal in other judicial decisions.
I am sure there are many other changes which could be made which would make the city both stronger and a more responsible employer. These were a handful of examples I came up with off the top of my head.
ever hear of Bell california ?
I wonder do you tell the fire guys you think they are worthless and lazy that they do nothing for the city of san jose. I wonder why you love the cops so much ????? If only we all knew why or do we ????????????????????? would a picture help?
you arrogant idiots consume over 10 million dollars of the cities budget each year if you cut out your spending in a few years the city would save as much as Reeds ballot measure?
I have a serious question PO do you think a city that cannot pay its bills should spend $100,000,000 on a ballpark? give away land to billionaires? How long before you investment shows a profit it started at 1.7 million a year profit now its down to 1.5 million but the time its built it will be $5 dollars a year. I have another great idea we move City hall into the substation and sell of the new City hall to someone with money. That dome would be a great spot for a medical marijuana grow !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Then you could smoke some more of that silly plant and come of with some truly great ideas ! did BS just call you a punk hahahahahhaa… i bet thats not the only thing he calls you.
Believe Me, Pier may love the police, but the police HATE Pier. They cant stand that weisel!
It was the BS imposter who called him a punk.
It is so funny to me that everyone can see thru your B.S. .Pierre you truely are pathetic.wy dont you go to trade school and try to learn something? word on the streets is you were better as a bartender than as a councilman , but you really have no business doing either because of your subpar performance. beat it loser!
Why is it the x city manager and city attorney both wrote to the council advising them that a ballot measure to change the city charter would be illegal and yet you still plan to go down that road and have already set aside millions in general funds to pay for the court fight?
no wonder we are going under, just look at the pay that the city manager makes and all those in her office. I suggest you look up the council, etc. to see why we have a problem. Don’t blame this on public safety.
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/salary/
Note to above (im?)poster: that pseudonym is already taken on this site (though I capitalize the M).
Awhile back, I proposed to PLO a hybrid approach to dealing with the sick leave buyout which addressed the major concerns with the way it presently is administered. Although I believe maintaining the buyout in some iteration is crucial for public safety – especially given the way our rolls have been gutted – this hybrid approach could be implemented for all employee classifications.
In the first place, it is important to realize that the sick time buyout was negotiated years ago and proposed by the city. At the time it was perceived to be a cost-cutting measure as it allowed the city to get away with hiring fewer employees for a given classification. Since fewer sick man-hours would be used in any given year.
This would have been well and good but for the fact that the city seems to have difficulty with the notion of fiscal responsibility. Under this system, the smart thing for the city to have done would be to set aside the dollar value for the number of sick hours accumulated annually by each employee. Simply saving the money and allowing it to accumulate interest would mitigate the long-term cost to the city of maintaining the benefit. Understand: this is an obligation the city is all too aware it must fulfill and one which the city wanted as it presented a real tangible benefit to the city, with a side benefit to employees.
My idea for tweaking the benefit is this: allow employees to accumulate a given number of hours – say 320 – which becomes capped. With the first check of each new year, any hours in excess of that cap are paid out at 100% of the employees current rate of pay.
In this way, the benefit to both the city and the employee is maintained but you wouldn’t see the huge sick time buyout payments when the employee retires – likely at a much higher rate of pay than when they were first hired.
With this issue – as with most of the other issues to do with employee pay and benefits – a reasonable solution is entirely possible, one which represents a form of compromise, rather than the sort of draconian measures Mayor Reed and his supporters seem to advocate. A solution like this helps both employer and employee and doesn’t alienate employees in the way they currently have been.
Very well stated Officer D . If only the clowns running this City (into the Ground) . would open their eyes and their Minds , many things could be accomplished. Personally Im not going to hold my breath , This Mayor(dishonorable) and clown court (City Council) have already shown their hand . they have no intention of even attempting to negotiate fairly with city employees . They will push their ILLEGAL Ballot Measure and cost the residents of San Jose Millions of dollars in the process of going thru the Courts only to be soundly defeated. got no money for employees , even though the city has a AAA credit rating ( over 2 BILLION DOLLARS in reserve) and is giving Millions of dollars in real estate to a Bilionaire. one of Chuckies many Disceptions
You have to realize that the general public doesn’t want to see any kind of sick leave payout at all. We are in an environment now where the private sector wants complete parity with the public worker in all aspects, including use it or lose it sick leave. They want the public worker to take pay cuts, suffer layoffs, lose benefits, and all the other downsides of private sector work. However, when the boom times come once again, the private sector people will of course quickly forget how things are now. They will recoup all of the losses they are suffering, pay will rise, benefits will return and life will be good again.
Conversely, the city worker will have to fight tooth and nail with the city management to try and regain lost pay and benefits taken away by an envious public. The city will drag their feet as long as possible doling out crumbs with each contract giving up as little as they can get away with. By the time the public worker catches up to the private sector employee again, the private sector peaks and starts the downhill slide all over.
You see, the public worker environment always lags considerably behind the private sector. How do we know this? History repeats itself and we are right now in that exact cycle. A simple review of the last 50 years would show this to be true. But, the public has major ADD when it comes to public workers once their wallet gets fat. The private sector pays little attention to government and its employees when they are rolling in dough.
So, while your proposal makes some sense, it will not fly in the current environment filled with jealousy over public workers existing contracts. Once the citizenry coerces their politicians into slashing public worker pay and benefits to the bone, they will quickly become distracted by some other issue leaving public workers struggling to catch up once again. A sick leave buyout in any form won’t gain any support from the public until their own situations exceed that of the public worker.
If the “flaw” in Od’s suggestion is that the public doesn’t want any type of sick leave buy out then so be it.
As long as the public accepts the flaws that exist with the private sectors “use it or lose it” system then we are all good. Please consider dear citizen working in the private sector that no one really cares when you phone it in to got to the beach and as a result you don’t meet some report/project deadline. When police/fire take that much needed mental health day or don’t come to work because of a “vision problem” (just couldn’t see going to work today…) you might wait a while after calling 911.
Please be empathetic and understanding when you or your loved one suffers or worse and your first reaction is to berate the cops or firefighters and blame them for your plight. Accept the supervisors explanation that the police or fire house was understaffed when you needed them most because of the new normal: use it or loose it….
p.s.I have more than 1600 hours on the books that is more 160 days you WILL be paying me to stay home!
I just wish more San Jose residents would read the info on this site. Maybe the BS that Reed and Deb Fig were shoveling would not be taken for gospel and more people would start asking for proof. It’s great to be at the top so you can bend the rules to benefit yourself and your cronies. Reed, what’s your agenda anyway? They don’t put a mayor’s name on a ballpark, especially a mayor that has brought a city from riches to rags. Stop blaming others and take responsibility for the deterioration of the city. However, at the rate your going and the mismanagement of the pot clubs you can probably get your name plastered on one of those proud establishments. And Pierre, your track record speaks for its self, what in Gods name are you doing in politics. You have no clue or one idea you can call your own. Shut your mouth and stop embarrassing yourself. You live in Willow Glen throwing your lame ideas around from the house your parents probably purchased for you, and you think you’re a city councilmen. What a disgrace to this once proud city. The same goes for you, P. Constant! You call yourself a Retired Police officer?! You are an embarrassment and a disgrace to the honor and the badge that the SJPD wears. Someday why don’t you discuss with the residents of SJ the benefits you received from this once fine city that is now circling the drain. I am totally amazed that an individual that was a direct recipient of some of the hard fought benefits, that took more years to obtain then you had on the job, is trying to strip city employees of these benefits you have taken. I guess what is even more amazing then that is that you can look yourself in the mirror. San Jose residents, please, start asking questions.
thats just the kind of “Two Face” “Whats in it for me” “Tree Sloth”kind of guy that Pete Constant is
In order to receive the sick leave payout, don’t you have to have a certain amount of years on the job AND a certain number of accrued hours to qualify? They don’t just give it to every officer that retires/leaves?
The general rule for a sick leave payout is 50% @ rate of pay for hours 0-399, 60% for 400-799hrs and 75% for 800 with a cap at 1200. Police and Fire are 100% pay with no cap which is why you see the $100,000 payouts for Police and Fire in high level positions with 20 plus years.
The payout is not automatic; you must have 15yrs city service to be eligible and retire to receive the payout. There are some exceptions such as 10yrs if retiring with a disability or if employed 15 plus years but had not reached retirement age (most employees at 55, you would be eligible for a deferred vestment and could receive your retirement and sick leave payout when you reach 55.
Most higher management are jumping ship so they don’t lose their payout, have their retirements changed from highest 1yr to 3yrs as proposed on the reform ballot measure in March.
If you were Chief Moore with 25+ service years and a pending sick leave payout of 200,00o plus lose it to stay another 5 yrs. Hell no! I’m sure that the Council will (if they haven’t already) start having exceptions to the sick leave payout for higher management kept intact through Closed Session.
City librarian Judith Light just announced their retirement for March as well as a deputy director in Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. Sure their will be more between now and April 1st before the 3% cola ends.
The Sick leave buyout REQUIRES a minimum of 20 years of city service for police and fire fighters. City employees in the less stressful “federated” plan only have to work 15 years to get the buyout
From the Police MOA:
31.2.5 Payout shall be determined as follows:
31.2.5.1 If a full-time employee at the time of his/her retirement or death has earned, unused sick leave hours, he/she shall be paid the equivalent of a specified percent of his/her hourly rate of pay at the time of retirement, termination or death,
whichever comes first, multiplied by the total number of his/her accumulated and unused hours of sick leave as of the date of his/her retirement or death.
Less than 400 hours: Hours accumulated x 50%
of final hourly rate or,
400 – 799 hours: Hours accumulated x 60%
of final hourly rate or,
800 – 1200 hours: Hours accumulated x 75%
of final hourly rate.
31.2.5.2 If a full-time employee at the time of his/her service retirement has between 800 and 1,200 hours of unused sick leave, at the employee’s request he/she shall be paid hours accumulated X 80% of final hourly rate.
31.2.5.3 If a full-time employee at the time of is/her service retirement or upon the employee’s death has 1,200 hours or greater of earned unused sick leave, he/she, or his/her estate, shall be paid a sum of money equal to 100% percent of his/her hourly rate at the time of his/her death or service retirement, whichever is earlier, multiplied by the
total number of his/her accumulated and unused hours of sick leave as of the date of his/her death or retirement. If, after retirement, the employee switches from service to disability retirement, the employee shall repay to the City the difference in sick leave payout between service and disability retirement (e.g. 100% service, 75% disability ….
Thank you answer man for your thorough post. I knew there were stipulations, however, neither PLO or any of the other posters seemed to mention that. Facts like the ones you posted seemed to be misplaced when it comes to speeches/diatribes by the mayor, city council, or mercury news.
Just anon 4 now
do you have a link for the Supreme Court ruling quoted above? It should be posted to allow all employees retiring next and future years losing out on sick leave payout to use said reference in filing lawsuits against this greedy ungrateful employer
I believe it is referring to Harryman v. Roseburg Fire Dist. (1966).
My prior post was pulled from an Appellate Court Decision where by the plantiffs were two employees of a bank that was bought out by Wells Fargo. They worked for 20 years and accumulated sick time. If I’m reading it correctly, they lost the case due to the wording of the contract they had. At one point it is quoted, “The question of when a benefit is earned or vested will vary in each case depending on the terms of the contract and the nature of the promised benefit.”
I think the City employees have at least one leg to stand on. Here is the link.
http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A134168.htm
PLO – are your tapered sweat pants and excessive hair gel cutting off the blood supply to your brain? And John Galt, did you write your drivel before or after your MENSA application was rejected? Guess what, you betcha your Willow Glen A** that if you even try to touch the sick leave that I’ve earned, I’m calling in sick to work if I have so much as the hiccups. I’ve busted my a** for years, worked holidays and weekends to serve the taxpayers at the expense of my family and you want to now mess with me? Good luck with that, let me know how that works out for you! I will continue to work an honest day’s work for and honest day’s pay, but any loyalty that I have to the city of San Jose beyond that, has been completely diminished by this mayor, city council and city manager. If you don’t hold up your end of the bargain (labor contract), then why should I hold up mine? See you in court!
I have lost all loyalty and dedication. It has become just a job. I go to work, do my job and get my day over. Just biding my time until I can get out.
I don’t work for the City Counsel or Mayor; I work for the residents of San Jose. Because of that, I will continue to do my best. That said, the City’s desire to renege on their promises would be just like my deciding to work only thirty hours per week for my paycheck instead of forty. And there’s clearly no way that would fly…
Check out the famous Supreme Court opinion from Marbury vs Madison regarding vested rights from 1803:
http://supreme.justia.com/us/5/137/case.html
I heard that PLO is “dating” a cop that is why he has been voting and in favor of helping PD out and voting against other city departments. I’m not joking. Is this true PLO?
An employee’s right to an employment benefit vests when that employee has satisfied all conditions precedent to eligibility for the benefit under the employer’s policy. Accordingly, if an employment contract promises the employee a cash allowance for accumulated sick leave upon termination of employment, the right to that cash vests the moment that the sick leave accrues. In that case, the Supreme Court held that the employer could not deprive the plaintiff of a “cash on termination” allowance for accumulated sick leave, despite the fact that it had revoked the policy providing for that allowance before the employee was terminated, because the plaintiff had accepted and commenced employment upon the assumption that the allowance was part of his compensation, and it had thereby become a term of his employment contract.
From a letter to Gov. Brown from Mayor Reed (9/14/11) partial
Dear Governor Brown:
On behalf of the City of San Jose, I respectfully request that you sign SBX1 8- the Redevelopment Agency budget trailer clean-up bill. This bill is of particular importance to San Jose because it amends ABX1 26 to enable redevelopment agencies to extend letters of credit during the freeze period imposed by the legislation and the Supreme Court’s stay.
The San Jose Redevelopment Agency has $93 million in variable rate subordinate bonds secured by tax increment that are supported by Letters of Credit and Reimbursement Agreements with JP Morgan Chase Bank that expire on November 25, 2100. If the Letters of Credit cannot be extended , the Agency will be in default, resulting in a $200 million impact on the Agency’s finances and a $175 million impact to the City.
There is no cost to the State to approve SBX1 8, but there is a huge penalty to San Jose if you do not approve the legislation. I urge you to support and sign SBX1 8. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Chuck Reed
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/mayor/news/letters/2011/RDACleanUpLanguage_09142011.pdf
http://www.bondbuyer.com/issues/120_189/jerry-brown-san-jose-rda-vr-bond-default-1031627-1.html
“The sick leave payout perk was something that the current City Council inherited from a prior council.”
I was here when the city proposed this policy in lieu of pay raises. The perk was not only to the employees, but also to the city that has been able to staff a police department with half the number of officers of other comparable cities. This has saved the city millions and millions of dollars over the years not paid to salaries, benefits, or overtime. I have personally many, many times dragged myself in to work that midnite shift feeling like crap and knowing that I was going to either freeze my ass off or get soaked to the bone, and deal with some raging drunk idiot covered in puke and urine. I kept my end of the contract and I would appreciate it if my employer did the same. Also Pier, maybe a use it or lose it program makes sense for some professions, but as an officer many of us have debilitating injuries which show up after many years on the job, and by building up some sick time we can take some time off to recuperate from major injury or illness. It tends to be the pencil pushers that build up huge amounts of sick time, not patrol grunts.