Lately, San Jose’s political rhetoric has been hotter than its weather. Here are a few samples of comments by San Jose residents that were published by the Mercury News in recent days:
“With the resulting layoffs of 230 police and fire personnel looming, their (the unions’) motto needs to be revisited. Perhaps it should be modified to read, ‘To protect and preserve union power at the expense of public safety.’”
“Public and private workers increasingly live in separate economies…public employee unions have had a stranglehold on state and local elected officials for decades. This has to end, as the taxpayers are fed up and tapped out.”
“The government unions’ refusal to take a modest 10 percent cut in their already over-inflated compensation just shows how they see the rest of the private sector that actually pays for their opulent lifestyles. They see a two-tier system, which includes the “government class” and the “servants’ class.” The unions have already bankrupted several American industries. Apparently, they won’t be satisfied until they bankrupt America itself.”
Here’s one more from Nick Cochran of San Jose: “The city council must take steps now to place an initiative on the November ballot to amend the city charter to put the real authority to run the city’s affairs back where it belongs-in the hands of its duly elected officials.”
A November ballot initiative might be the only way that the people of San Jose can wrestle back control of their city from the entrenched interests. It’s almost funny…so few people (six elected officials) can direct such a huge percentage of the city’s budget towards compensation and benefits for roughly 6,500 people. Actually, it’s not funny at all. San Jose is a place where “public service” is spelled, “public serve-us.”
Really?? Do we even need public sector employee unions in the 21st century? Maybe a hundred years ago when oil and coal titans and auto moguls were running rampant over the average Joe Schmo worker who was pretty much alone and voiceless it made sense to have someone look out for Joe. But in today’s connected, digital world it is very plain to see what PUBLIC workers get in compenstation and benefits here and around the country.
So why even have public employee unions at all? They serve no purpose other than to incite bickering and tension between employer (the public) and the employee (your neighbor).
Fair and even compensation can be agreed upon in full view of the public (and sense it is public it has to be open for public viewing)and the expense of the union greed can be avoided as well as any political nonsense they are prone to get into.
Anything a union can accomplish can be ajudicated in full view – online. Lets put a measure on the Nov ballot to eliminate public employee unions and be done with this expensive nonsense.
> Really?? Do we even need public sector employee unions in the 21st century?
Public employee unions have become, in effect, a fourth branch of government.
A clear violation of “equal protection under the law” for the non-unionized public. Totally unconstitutional.
The public employee unions and their craven bought-and-paid for politicians desperately need a voter initiative smack-down.
I would also vote for jail time for union bosses and politicians, but that’s just me.
You didn’t think it could get any better?
It gets better.
“That’s why municipal employee unions are making a big-time push for legislation that would make bankruptcy more difficult.
The unions’ underlying motives are crystal clear. They fear a bankruptcy judge might rule that a city’s labor contracts, or even pension obligations, could be abrogated. They want to make municipal bankruptcy more difficult to discourage troubled local governments from resorting to it.”
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/bankruptcy-251355-bill-city.html
What is really not brought to light is that IF a private employee even has a pension (most do not anymore) they have no COLA as the public employees do.
So even if they have their paltry pension, inflation wipes it out…or has wiped it out I should say.
Also med benefits skyrocketing, private employees must pay for them even if they worked at the company for 30 years. Ours is at $1350 per month!
My sister who worked in government has free medical/dental for life.
I am not aware of any public employee that gets free medical/dental for life—at least not in SJ. Anybody have any factual information on this or is this just another SJI urban legend?
Pierluigi:
I have heard that anyone employed by either the city of SJ or the County of SC for ten years gets lifetime medical coverage. It is not free, but the copays are low.
What are the facts?
I’m not sure if SJ city employees receive medical benefits for life- perhaps you’re right- maybe it IS an SJI urban legend.
However here’s what the City’s own website says at http://www.sanjoseca.gov/retireehealthcare/ :
“The estimated unfunded retiree healthcare liability for the City of San Jose is currently estimated to be as high as $1.65 billion based on the most recent actuarial analyses.”
Considering that the unfunded healthcare liability of most of us in the private sector is ZERO since we fund our own healthcare out of our own pocket, would you not concede that we have a right to question why we are also forced to fund the healthcare of public sector workers who are already very well paid?
It’s true about the medical part, not sure about the dental. When I was a SJ city employee, there was playful talk among employees about working 15 years to get medical coverage for life, getting out and then starting your own business and still getting coverage. It was a while ago but I think the 15 yr/medical for life benefit is still there. Of course, not many people voluntarily do that because most city jobs are very easy.
I think it’s just ten years for SCC County employees.
Any city of San Jose employee with over 15 years of service gets free healthcare including their spouse/partner till they die. ( they do make co-payments for doctor visit) It used to be less then 15 years but was changed. Up till last year you could get lifetime healthcare by working at BART or VTA for only 5 years.
Gosh darn all these delusional right wingers. The’re ruining the country with their fabricated, hateful urban myths.
While public employees make a decent living, lets not lose sight of the fact we are spending billions, if not trillions, of dollars in Afghanistan and Iraq on a senseless war, which makes talk of pensions a drop in the bucket.
Anytime someone brings up a completely different topic, then tries to circle back…you realize they have no real perspective.
Humor makes anonymity fun.
I ranted in the past about anonymous postings but actually enjoy the humor in some of the psuedonymes.
And now for something completely different…
Good one…it still doesn’t change the fact that our nation is going broke spending billions in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is pertinent since this blog is about the spending of taxpayers money, so I don’t really see it as bringing up a different topic. Have a great day!
They get medical until 65 then go on medicade like everyone gets. Not life time. Again another lie from the city.
It is precisely this type of negative outlook toward union workers that has solidified my decision to vote no to any proposed wage concessions. Let an independent outside arbiter decide what the city can afford and if any concessions are asked by the arbiter I will abide. Until then, I am not going down without a fight and I will still continue to uphold my duties as professionally and efficiently as humanly possible. All while you spit in my general direction, demean my profession, devalue my worth and unravel the web of safety that is my brother firefighters and police officers.
City Worker:
You make some interesting points. First of all, we recognize that there are many hard working, dedicated city employees. What people resent (I believe) is the unions get automatic raises and guaranteed pensions levels in years when city revenues are down. Why are 6,500 people immune from market forces?
Also, city service levels have declined, and continue to decline. Our parks are lousy, our streets are a joke, and library hours are going to be trimmed yet again. So, people have a hard time understanding why they are paying into a “system” that is not working for them.
I, for one, would love to hear what solutions the city employees have to offer.
California has two kinds of municipalities – charter cities and general law cities. The only difference between them is that the charter cities can spell out some organizational details, rules and structure in their own voter approved charter while general law cities follow practices set by state code.
Council-manager forms of government are common in general law cities where a part-time council governs but is highly dependent on the professional staff (led by a city manager). Mayor is a ceremonial title handed around the table where everyone on the council usually get to take a turn at running the meetings.
Charter cities have this foundational document, and like the California Constitution, it allows initiatives and referendums to tinker with it.
For a charter amendment placed on the ballot in November ballot, per the elections code, the matter must receive a majority vote of the council (6 votes) at least 88 days before the election. Council has one, and only one meeting in the time frame scheduled for August 3rd after their recess.
The other choice for a charter amendment is by initiative where you publish in a local newspaper of record your intent to start circulating an initiative and submit the ballot language to the city attorney for review. Then you get signatures from registered voters in the city. If you get a certain amount (19,000 or so) it qualifies for the next regularly scheduled city election, which would be 2006. A higher amount of signatures would require the council to call a special election for the matter. I think the numbers are in the charter based on how many people voted in the last city wide election (5% or 8 %)
The City Charter has been amended many times, though not as often as the California State Contitution which is real mess at this point. Ironically, some of these amendments have clearly improved the business of city government (going to 10 council districts from the previous system of 5 at-large seats). Some seemed designed to serve narrow interests. Some even served to allow personal grudges to be vented such as Murphy Sabatino’s term limits initiative that ended several potential council member for life careers.
I know some people think long posts from me are annoying, but I believe they can just not read it if they don’t care about others opinions. Having said that and laid out all the above information, my opinion is that the charter is too important to rush our and change in the heat of the moment.
I concede that this may be a “perfect storm” of political tides to allow moderate or radical measures to pass, but as I’ve observed from past charter changes, we rarely get what’s promised and usually end up with new problems that no one thought about before the ballot measure was passed.
If this were a Sim game where I could play through alternatives without consequences, I’d be interested in pensions in terms of shifting costs towards the beneficiaries – but doing so gradually and predictably. Perhaps a target of a 50-50 split on pension contributions within 10 years. I’d also tinker with binding arbitration in terms of ability pay. I also don’t like the way arbitration works right now where the arbitrator can only choose from the last best offers of both sides and can’t split the difference or modify the offers on the table. We do need a system of arbitration though, since by law public safety is not allowed to strike (air traffic controller kind of situation) so there needs to be an alternative to being forced to either take the cities offer or work under the old, expired contract.
Maybe we could just outsource everything to Santa Clara & Sunnyvale, both of which cities run smoothly and efficiently.
“Tiny Maywood, Calif., laid off every single one of its city employees on Wednesday.
But that doesn’t mean the city is closing up shop. City Hall will still be open, as will Maywood’s park and recreation center. Police will continue to patrol the streets.
They just won’t be staffed by Maywood employees. The city can’t have any staff because it can’t get liability or worker’s compensation insurance for them. Maywood’s carrier, the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority, dropped it earlier this month in part because of several police-related claims.
Instead of declaring bankruptcy, Maywood officials decided to outsource all city functions. The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department will patrol the streets, while the neighboring city of Bell will cover other city functions, such as staffing City Hall.
Maywood already relies on contract workers and outsources many city services. The director of parks and recreation, for instance, is a contractor, and the city’s lights, landscaping and street sweeping are handled by private companies. Los Angeles County maintains the library and fire department.
Some of Maywood’s 96 employees—which include 41 police officers—will also continue as contract workers. Elected officials, such as the city council and the city clerk, will remain on the job in the 1.5-square-mile municipality, which has about 45,000 residents.
“Odds are residents will see the same faces as in years past, just under a different administrative process,” said Magdalena Prado, the city’s community relations director, who is a contract worker and is keeping her post.
Maywood is billing itself as the first American city to outsource all of its city services. In an odd twist, officials say it can provide even better services because the shift will help it save money and close a $450,000 shortfall in its $10 million general fund budget.
For instance, the contract with the sheriff’s department costs about half of the more than $7 million spent annually to maintain the Maywood police department, Prado said. And patrols will be increased.
“Our community will continue to receive quality services,” Mayor Ana Rosa Riso said in a statement. “Maywood’s streets will continue to be swept, our summer park programs will continue to operate and our waste will be collected and hauled as scheduled.”