The City of San Jose closed a $84 million dollar budget shortfall for the 2009-2010 fiscal year, which resulted in 13 city employees being laid off. However, these 13 former employees are first in line for job openings at the City should they become available. Also as a result of the balanced budget, 250 city employees moved into different departments and/or positions based on their seniority. For those 250 people involved in the “bumping,” it is a intricate process that is all about years or months of service that I will attempt to explain. Bumping is governed by the Civil Service Rules.
Example 1:
Steve has been a Maintenance Assistant for three years and Greg has been a Maintenance Assistant for 2.8 years—both work in the Parks Department. Steve’s position was eliminated in the budget; however, vacancies for a Maintenance Assistant exist in the Public Works Department. Steve will bump into Greg’s position and Greg would leave the Parks Department and be reassigned into a vacancy in the Public Works Department.
Example 2:
Pat has been an Analyst for one year and a Staff Technician for five years in the Department of Transportation. John has been a Staff Technician for five years in the IT department. Pat’s position is eliminated; there are no vacancies; and he is the least senior on the Analyst list, so he is bumped from Analyst. His prior job as a Staff Technician and six years of seniority overall will allow him to bump John, who only has five years of overall seniority. Now John must find someone else to bump.
Example 3:
Kathleen has been a Senior Analyst for three years and Dale has been an Analyst for two years. Kathleen’s position is eliminated; there are no vacancies; and she is the least senior on the Senior Analyst seniority list. Therefore, her three years of city-wide work will allow her to bump Dale. Now Dale must find someone to bump.
Just like the game of “musical chairs” there will be some who find a seat/job and others who do not.
This game of Musical Chairs occurs in all civil service organizations, since they are based on seniority rather than merit. The historical reasoning for this is so that civil servants do not become political pawns of elected officials. However, the caveat is that many good people can be let go just because they have not spent as much time in a job as others.
From my experience as a Councilmember, I can say that the overwhelming majority of people that work for the city do a great job and are dedicated to their work. With that said, there is that 5 percent of the city workforce that are non-performers.
I have worked with non performers in the private sector and eventually they get let go—especially as the business cycles ebb and flow. However, by civil servant rules it is difficult to get rid of non-performing employees to make room for those that may be harder working but have less seniority.
As a retired city employee I can tell you it is more like 10 percent that do not perform. Those who did not pull their weight made others work harder.
If, as you state, you sincerely believe that “the overwhelming majority of people that work for the city do a great job and are dedicated to their work”, you humiliate them on an almost weekly basis in this public forum? Those city workers have kept the roads and parks in your district in pretty nice shape, and there is seemingly always road improvements going on. The cops and firemen have also kept your district a pretty darn safe place too.
You need to curtail runaway growth of massive developments that are sucking the city dry of resources, not to mention using the precious water which will be even more of a scarcity in the near future. The cities population has grown by a couple hundred thousand in a relatively short time.
You need to figure out a way to attract new indutries into San Jose, especially alternative energy research and bio research, which is the way of the future and will generate money for the city.
PLO, the unfortunate thing about the 5% of non-performing employees is that they have a tendency to pollute the attitudes of the good employees. Something like “why should I work so hard when <insert name here> does nothing and gets the same rewards?” Happens in the private sector, too, but managers have more latitude in dealing with poor performers (not that they use it, but that’s another subject!).
Larry Stone has griped for years that he can’t get a performance based system past the unions.
Same with teachers.
There needs to be a way to get rid of dead weight in public employment.
How much would they have saved if they laid of 26?
Pierluigi,
How come the Council agreed to pay off a $300K loan for Attard’s condo? She earned over 160K a year! It seems to me that on that kind of salary, she could afford the payments herself! If she needed to live closer to San Jose, why didn’t she just RENT like other people do? Man, that money could have hired more Police Officers, or fixed some streets, or a thousand other things.
So what are you going to do? Everybody knows there are a number of poor performers in the city but they keep their jobs and get the same rewards as those who work hard (as #3 mentions.)
What’s your plan to fix this? We know the problem already—tell us the solution.
Pier,
I’m simply amazed that a shortfall approaching 10% of the budget was closed with only 13 layoffs. That is, in itself, a very telling fact regarding the long term waste and abuse of resources.
Equally sad, the act of putting many City employees on intermittent furlough – 1 to 3 days per month – had a major role in closing the budget gap. But we should all recognize that future Union Contracts will demand that such furloughs be ended, putting us back in same predicament at some point.
#8, Greg, can you say “reserves?”
Rather than address the systemic issues causing chronic budget gaps, the council elected to bet on an economic recovery to help bail them out next year.
Pat,
Having spent many years as a financial analyst, yes, I can say “reserves.” But please don’t be foolish – you can’t really believe that SJ had $80+ mil set aside in reserve accounts. Our spendthrift politicians and Unions would have spent every dime of that and more… get real!
12—Close is good enough on this blog. Most folks here don’t like to have their opinions burdened by facts anyway. Most bloggers here feel if they post it then it is true. The rest of us look elsewhere for accurate information—we don’t mind facts.
#6—and that was just her pied a terre, so she wouldn’t have to go back to her primary residence in SF on a daily basis. Poor Baby!
Here’s another way to save $$. I noted a quote in the Business Journal from the director of corporate outreach in SJ’s Office of Economic Development. What the hell is corporate outreach? I’d bet she makes mid-six figures and has a support staff. Dump the lot of them, along with other nice, but unaffordable depts. like Cultural Affairs, with 16 employees.
Yeah, and the city sought a $1million state grant to help fix up Tom McE’s favorite eyesore, and sinecure job for Judy Stabile—The Fallon House. Problem was, the requirements to get the $1million from the state cost the city an extra $2.3 million. Only a politician would spend $2.3 million EXTRA in order to get $1million.
That’s the kind of thinking we have here in S-Jay.
#10-Greg,
Amen!
“From my experience as a Councilmember, I can say that the overwhelming majority of people that work for the city do a great job and are dedicated to their work. With that said, there is that 5 percent of the city workforce that are non-performers.”
Though there may be some question regarding the percentage that “non-performers” constitute of the city’s workforce, what is beyond question is that while this undesirable fraction owes its existence to human imperfection, its continuing employment is almost wholly the work of those occupying the top rungs at city hall. Since we can’t do anything about the former, let’s not waste our time with them and focus instead on the latter, specifically on one seldom discussed consequence of that curse of the managerial mindset, Covering Your Ass.
First off, no one in city government wants these non-performers around. There is no powerful lobby dedicated to their interests; the unions that so often rush to their defense are in reality doing only that to which they are contractually bound, something that includes defending employee rights without regard to the individual in question.
As taxpayers we pay a fortune to that army of supervisors, managers, and department heads under whom works every single one of these non-performing city workers. Imagine if, instead of running our city, we were paying them to maintain our magnificent castle, and everywhere we looked we saw weeds spoiling the garden, chipped paint on the portico, leaky faucets in the guest room, etc.? Would we complain amongst ourselves about lazy workers, or would we call to account the head of castle maintenance, fully certain that, with proper supervision, management, and administration, there is no reason the workforce shouldn’t be able to provide us with the pristine castle we deserve?
I would ask the Mr. Oliverio this: When was the last time a supervisor, manager, or department head was demoted or fired for failing to hold accountable a non-performer for his/her continuing failure to perform, or that anyone in management did anything in an attempt to spare taxpayers the cost of a single disability fraud?
If comparisons with private industry are to be made when criticizing the workers then let’s apply that same measure to city management and hold it accountable for workforce problems (as would be done at Intel or Apple). Where is the evidence that the message from the top-down has been zero tolerance for non-performers and incompetents? How have department heads communicated their unqualified support for the managers and supervisors who must assume considerable risk (to their reputations, of harassment charges, EEOC complaint, etc.) in order to take action against the non-performers under their charge?
I suggest the only message ever transmitted from the top down at city hall has been to C-Y-A, and that no one above will take a risk that doesn’t directly benefit their careers. The underlying philosophy has long been to allow the budget to absorb poor performance and incompetence, a practice that, should it ever infest an organization in Mr. Oliverio’s private industry, would result in mass firings…
at the top.
Finfan,
I think one time – must have been about 20 years ago – an employee for the Dept. of Cultural Affairs was caught running a bookie business during work hours.
They didn’t fire or demote him but they made him stay after work and write 1000 times on the blackboard, “I will not run my bookie business during work hours.” It took him five hours to do so and his paycheck reflected five hours of overtime!
16 – The problem does not generally that of a supervisor, manager, or department head. It falls directly on the Council and the unions. Supervisors, etc. have their hands tied when trying to rid their department of a slacker. It is almost impossible to get rid of these people and if they do they usually aren’t cut loose from the City but find themselves another position within the City.
You want to help get rid of these folks? Pressure your councilmember to do something about it and let department heads actually run their departments and get rid of dead-wood. What do you think the chances are that will happen?
#13—is your Campbell park maintenance friend in a union? If so, which one is it? it’s SO VERY RARE to hear of a public employee taking ownership of her/his job reponsibilities.
#16 FF & #18DW: a couple of decades ago a HS wrestling coach & part time teacher in Fremont or Hayward was charged with sodomizing some of his wrestlers…for YEARS!!! The district commenced proceedings to terminate the coach. He sued the district. After a couple of years of legal wrangling, the district ran out of money to defend the suit and settled it. Despite dozens of letters from angry parents, this pervert was kept on the payroll, given a small closet to report to and sit in each day at full salary and benefits. Damn lawyers!!!!
Don’t Worry (#18),
Believe me, we are on the same page, and I wholeheartedly agree with you that the ultimate responsibility rests with the council (which is why I challenged Mr. Oliverio in my post). Absent the direction and support of a determined council I agree nothing will change, but it is all but impossible that the general public will ever generate the political pressure necessary to create that determination in the council as long as our top-tier city employees continue to behave like well-fed sheep.
As for the power of the unions, though they may be well-equipped with civil service protections, that power pales in comparison to the power they have purchased from our political leaders. We employ lousy public employees because we elect lousy leaders. That said, the notion that it is overly difficult to correct or terminate city employees is belied by the swiftness with which discipline and terminations are traditionally meted out for misconduct involving race prejudice or sexual harassment, two types of misconduct for which even the most cowardly of our politically-correct elected officials will have no trouble finding the requisite political will.
There are amongst the ranks of our city employees a great number whose jobs entail considerable risk to life and limb, and never have I seen evidence of police officers or firefighters backing down from the dangers of their duties. Now, I’m not so foolish as to believe this level of courage and dedication to be common amongst our managers and department heads, but wouldn’t it be nice (for us taxpayers as well as the city’s good workers) if we could hear from someone in their well-compensated ranks the least little bit of a squawk?
I remember several years ago, the city of San Jose lost $65,000,000 in bond investments. Later they recovered $6,000,000 as a result of negotiations. The city council promptly debated how to spend this recovered loss. I have never learned how to spend a loss but they must have known more than I did.
For most jobs that are advertised to hire people, there are minimum standards such as
a degree in engineering, business, H.S. diploma or other basic requirements. Since the city council spends “our” tax money, I believe that they should prove that they have some qualifications such as basic accounting class completion from a college,
be a legal citizen and others to be named later.
My numbers cited above may be a tad off but they are close.
The City of Campbell has parks that are cleaner and better maintained than San Jose’s. I talked to a maintenance guy at Edith Morley Park who told me that HE is responsible for that particular park. If something is wrong there- broken sprinklers- a bunch of trash- whatever, it is HIS responsibility to spot it and fix it. There’s no one else to blame. Unlike in San Jose, he’s not too likely to drive his truck across the lawn to empty the trash cans if he knows that he’s going to be the one who has to repair the ruts. It’s pretty obvious in looking around that he takes a lot of pride in his work because the place is immaculate, as are all the other Campbell parks.
Maybe the organizational structure of San Jose’s Parks Department could be altered in such a way that the guys felt more motivation to keep the parks nice. They’d have to work harder, but they’d probably feel better about themselves.
finfan,
My observation of the organizational structure of the Parks Department in Campbell may be relevant to your very accurate assessment.
By assigning specific duties to specific workers it is all but impossible for those workers’ supervisors to pretend that they can’t figure out who’s performing and who isn’t.
It may be that managers in San Jose deliberately structure their departments with overlapping duties, rotating schedules, etc., so as to relieve themselves of the troublesome ability to be able to figure out who’s working and who isn’t AND, most importantly, of then having the responsibility to do something about it.
I believe the City Manager not the Council has control over City employees. It is true that getting someone fired from the County or City is very difficult. Not just because of the Unions either. I’ve seen losers get in trouble for wrongdoing and they pull the race card, or some other card to try and smoke screen their bad behavior. And if you don’t think it works, you are crazy.
In our effort to protect workers from unfair exploitation, or abuse, we have gone way over board and created on hell of a tough maze of legal difficulties for ourselves. Law suites are the fear that hold employers hostage. Another area that needs a serious over haul!