A judge this morning signed off on an agreement that prevents the city from reducing employee pay to offset rising pension costs until at least 2015.
The ruling by Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Patricia Lucas extends the agreement through July 1, 2015. Lucas upheld 12 of the 15 provisions approved by voters in 2012 through Measure B, but unions are appealing that ruling.
"Today's action extends the current agreement between the city and its bargaining units for another year, allowing more time for the legal process to come to resolution," Mayor Chuck Reed said in a statement. "It does not impact the more $20 million in annual savings the City is already receiving from the Measure B pension reforms. Those pension reform savings have allowed us to slowly begin restoring services to the public and slowly begin restoring pay to our employees.”
Though most of the measure was upheld, the court struck down key parts. It barred the city from demanding employees pay 16 percent more toward their pensions, arguing that it violated their vested rights, the conditions promised in their original labor contract.
Reed said the city got most of what it wanted and, though it can't reduce its pension contributions, it can knock down salaries to realize the savings of about $68 million a year.
The lawsuit was filed the day after Measure B won at the ballot with 70 percent of the votes and instigated multiple lawsuits.
Just this year, some councilmembers began talking about how the city should amend or revoke some of the changes brought about by Measure B. Don Rocha specifically asked the city to re-work its police disability pension rules, which the Police Officers Association (POA) blames for San Jose Police Department's retention problem.
“As the flaws in our pension reform effort become increasingly apparent, I hope that we will have the wisdom to acknowledge our own past mistakes,” said Rocha, one of the council majority who put Measure B before voters two years ago. “When I say we made mistakes, I don’t mean that the whole effort was a failure. … I do believe, though, that on some issues we landed in the wrong place.”
POA spokesman James Gonzales said today's ruling does nothing to address the problems that drive police recruits away from the city in the first place, however.
"This does nothing for new hires, for the second-tier officers coming in who don't have a vested pension and don't have a plan competitive with other agencies in the state," he told San Jose Inside.
He also called the city's delay in implementing portions of the measure an admission of its flaws.
"I think it’s a really big deal that the council is still going out every day and saying that we need to move forward with Measure B as it is, but then behind closed doors they signed an extension for a year," he said. "So on the one hand we’re grateful. But on the other, we're seeing this as a total admission that Measure B is flawed and has got to get fixed."
Correction: A previous version of this post incorrectly stated that employee pay could now be reduced based on Judge Lucas' ruling. San Jose Inside regrets the error.
“Reed said the city got most of what it wanted and, though it can’t reduce its pension contributions, it can knock down salaries…”
And as Reed continues to knock down salaries more and more positions will go unfilled and those that are left will look elsewhere for jobs.
good riddance
And when your time is up in office, it will good riddance to you, too “Tough Love”.
Thank you
Where do we go to vote for “Tough Love”?
Chuck puts another spin on Measure B, good luck in getting any qualified anybody for this city. Chuck, time to just crawl away. You have destroyed this city of a million with only under 800 police officer force. (not to mention fire and public employees) God bless us all if a major disaster happens again like the 89 quake.
And all the want to be mayors except for Cortese want to do the same.
Sorry, retired, but Chuck isn’t solely responsible. He was just one vote on the labor dominated city council during the Gonzales administration (Ron and Joe Guerra who lied to us about city hall and who brought us a huge increase in garbage rates) that approved unsustainable benefits that you guys who are only it for the paycheck took as a floor below which benefits could not go in hard times. Welcome to the real world, retired. Quit your bitching. Retired SJ employees still have it way better than most in the private sector.
“Reed said the city got most of what it wanted and, thougmh it can’t reduce its pension contributions, it can knock down salaries to realize the savings of about $68 million a year.”
That statement, alone, will be the cause of many more employees fleeing the city’s employ. No one is going to want to sit around and wait for their salary to be reduced, yet again. They will start looking elsewhere before that can happen. Just the threat of “knocking down” salaries will cause the mass exodus to continue. How many other key employees will leave? Every time they do, it weakens the city government structure. Long time experience is hard to find and retain. This city is circling the drain, for sure.
Every worker that leave lessens the city’s pension obligations and ends all future pension/benefit growth.for that worker.
The more the merrier.
OUTSOURCE their jobs. Pay TODAY for work done TODAY with ZERO costs deferred to spiral out of control later via these grossly excessive pension & benefit promises
Not sure you’ve noticed, but you need applicants, whether your outsource or you hire, and you have none.
Where are they going to go, San Diego, Stockton, Vallejo, or maybe Ventura County. I case you haven’t noticed leaving is an empty threat. All employers that have these unsustainable pay and benefits are going broke and will reduce the benefits or already have.
Shelby,
Maybe its time you look around. Employees are fleeing to Santa Clara, San Francisco, Fremont, Redwood City, San Carlos and yes even Oakland, not to mention other states. No one is applying for jobs with the City of San Jose. Those that are applying are also applying at other agencies and cities and are going to where the best offer is and its not San Jose. I suggest you start educating yourself and look at this video made by former City of San Jose budget director Bob Brownstein.
Really ?? How is it that every other city , district, municipality has been able to come to terms with there employees? “Empty Threat ” , Look around , the mass exodus is continuing . Jobs are leaving San Jose because of the increase in crime.
They are also going to different states. Just because they are leaving doesn’t mean they are staying in California.
Wait until CalPERS raises the employer contribution 50% over the next 5 years starting next year.
Casey,
Stick to bashing Rich Robinson if you want me to vote for your guy for sheriff. . “Tough Love” is right no matter how you try to spin it..
The City did outsource the Graffiti Abatement program and soon found that it spent the entire annual budgeted amount within a few months. Costs were out of control, but the City spun this to justify the overspending. A few years ago, the City spent many millions for about 10 contract workers at the wastewater treatment plant, spending much more than the actual fully loaded personnel cost, including those employees pension costs. Outsourcing is not always the silver bullet that you hear in council soundbites.
Another thing, you should be outraged by the City employees that are leaving, and the vacancies that are not being filled. The City gets the savings on vacant position, with reduced or no service is being provided to SJ taxpayers, yet you are still paying the same taxes for those reduced services. You should be asking why the City has placed $124.3M into reserves this year, over $31M more than last year. Why isn’t this being used for roads, libraries, and police services, the big three services that Council uses to tempt voters.
You should also be asking Mayor and Council that if funds were so tight, why did Council vote to forgive a $600k loan to Downtown College Prep on June 18, 2013. All DCP has to do to get this gift was to offer grades 10-12, which they already did at the time. Oh, and Rose Herrera’s son is the principal at that school…and she introduced the motion to forgive this loan, making this action an egregious conflict of interest.
And this Mayor and Council also voted to give ACE Charter School a $250K gift of City funds, in return for this school to make a conference room available to the public. No other public schools get funds from the City, why did these?
And you could not be more ignorant about assuming that the City’s pension obligation gets reduced if more employees leave. Current employees are needed to help by down the unfunded liability of those already retired, and those that are deferred vested. If employees leave, the City picks up the entire tab…resulting in increased costs…no savings.
…and you would be the first one to whine, moan and complain when you need help and can’t get it when you want it. Typical.
Negative , The city is still on the hook for what they have earned . AND the city is losing millions of dollars in training fees and experience that simply can not be replaced .
Good luck with trying to get these public Safety jobs out sourced , it simply can not happen . You seem like you got a lot of anger towards public safety………..feel free to apply
>The city is still on the hook for what they’ve earned.
Right again Mr. Disgusted. You finally get it.
So we can expect you to support Mayor Reed’s statewide pension reform plan so in the future neither San Jose nor any other city in California will be held hostage by employee unions’ extortive demands.
Another spin Mayor Reed “Begin restoring services to the public and slowly begin restoring pay to our employees”. Yeah its not really called restoring if you can’t keep up with the rate of loss.
Go to “Transparent California” if you want the “Truth” about how outrageous public compensation is today.
Well, maybe you can start treating and getting rid of your own human waste, strap on a weapon and secure your own home, put out your own fires, save your family members’ lives during any emergency, unclog/clean your own street sewer drains, buy books and make your own library at home, haul your own trash to the dump and pay the dump fee, watch your neighbor build a structure, without a permit or building inspection and it may just fall over on your house and there is nothing you can do about it. So much more that goes into running this city. If you want these services and you want experienced people to be able to handle doing them, you are going to have to pay them for their experience, education and expertise. As an analogy, lawyers charge $300-$400/hr, or more, for their services and they have 3 years of law school. They are experienced people who know how to do their jobs and take care of your needs. You want a GOOD lawyer, you pay the price, otherwise you can defend yourself. I wish it was possible to let everybody in this city fend for themselves for just 6 months. I think your tone would change.
The line will be long when people realize how good your job is even with Social Security and a 5% 401K.
City employees will not collect social security. And just where is that line you are talking about? Numerous positions have been open for the last 5 years.
They do now in San Diego they will soon in Ventura County. Soon all will to support the “Greed” of existing employees that refuse to take a little less to save Defined Benefit Retirements for all. San Jose must be keeping their positions a secret.
“San Jose must be keeping their positions a secret.”
No…they just can’t attract many qualified applicants. Not many people want to work for CSJ after they have learned how the employees are treated by the administration. Oh, and city employees do not get social security. The 457 plan (not 401) is optional with contributions made in total from salary. You talk big but your talk lets us know that you don’t know much about employment in the public sector. The more statements you make, the more it shows.
San Diego voted for pension reform the same time San Jose did. They went further, new employees now get Social Security and a 401K This will soon be the case in Ventura County. Public employees in San Jose should be happy voters didn’t go as far as many employers will be forced to go over the next 5 years. Social Security and a 401K are what in the future for public employees.
“Social Security and a 401K are what in the future for public employees.” It’s good enough for the private sector, but retired and his ilk want MORE.
Public employees have always enjoyed the benefit of the two-tier system in which everybody has to participate in Social Security except for them. Bring them into the system and we might start to see some resistance to the feds raiding social security to subsidize local and state governments.
Negative . San Diego was overturned just like San Jose’s measure B. Both were ruled “Unconstitutional” vested rights can not be changed unless they recieve something of equal or greater value .
“New hires ” receive Social Security and a 4.8% 401K because Greedy vested employees refused to take a little less.
San Jose employees do not and can not collect Social Security . Because they do not pay into it. what part of that don’t you understand . Everything that city workers receive is earned not given . in many cases , they received a bump in benefits in lieu of raises. “Greedy Employees” , indeed. they gave up 10% total compensation. they offered a proposal that would have saved the city $500 Million Dollars inside of 5 years. where any shortages would have come from the workers side. Not really the definition of Greed is it ?
What are you smoking ?? City workers offered a proposal that would have saved the City upwards of $500 Million Dollars , Guaranteed. Any shortages would have come from the workers side , Reed refused to even discuss it because he already knew that he was going to push his illegal measure B .
How is that ? when the city could only fill a Police Academy slotted for 60 with 29 candidates ( and a more than a few are on the way to other agencies)
Bemused,
You are wrong… The City of San Jose also does not want Social Security which is why Chuck Reed never proposed it. The reason is under Social Security the employer cannot take a “pension holiday” as they have done in the past. The employee is never allowed to take this pension holiday while the city has year after year after year. This is what has caused the un-funded liability. The employee has always paid his/her share.
Shelby, please describe the “little less” from vested employees you assert would’ve kept new hires off of the second tier. After hearing nothing but doomsday scenarios from the mayor ($650 million) and labor I’m surprised your “little less” option went unmentioned.
Of course, I understand that you may not want to answer if you’re just another partisan liar.