Posted on 02/09/2010 10:00:34 PM PST by nickcarraway
In an effort to take a bit of a project budget deficit next year of over half a billion dollars, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom is considering mass layoffs of city employees.
However, most of those laid off would be rehired. But they would have new contracts that call for two and a half fewer hours a week, or 37.5 hours.
The plan sounds similar to one instituted in France for all businesses in an effort to reduce unemployment and improve the high quality of French life.
That policy has proven controversial, and clearly, so will this one.
Not on the table are cuts to hours for employees who might end up simply racking up more overtime, such as police and firefighters.
Newsom does not need to involve the Board of Supervisors, but he does need to clear the move with city unions. The plan could save the city as much as $50 million overall.
Can’t twosome Newson just give them all a French kiss?
If they shifted City Hall to half time, would it do less harm?
Many employees are forbidden by contract from earning overtime. Instead, they earn compensatory time off that they can use at a later date. This way, they don't earn any more money in the year than was contracted by their standard salary.
Perhaps it is time to alter contracts for police and firefighters. Put them on a compensatory time earned basis for working longer than a standard workweek, while keeping their pay total for the year at a flat amount. The City can then hire additional workers as needed (on a temporary basis to fill the need, naturally).
The City pays out millions each year in overtime pay to police and firefighters. Some earn more than double their standard salary. The City is going broke keeping this practice going.
I don't see the overtime as being a budget buster. It allows you to surge when you need it, like the next time your dumb mayor invites the WTO to town.
The budget crusher is contracts that allow overtime to be used to calculate retirement pay. High three formulas that award people for cramming as much overtime as they can into their last three years can make a huge difference in retirement payout.
By cutting hours you save a little money but are still forking out benefits for a too many employees.
It’s hard with firefighting. There are set minimum staffing levels and specific job skills that must be maintained. You can’t sub out a rookie firefighter when a Captain or a paramedic needs a day off.
When someone uses comp time it’s usually at a slow time where the work is not missed. The comp time is earned at busy times when the work needs to be done. I was a City worker, and lost hundreds of hours of comp time because it’s use has to be approved, and only so many hours may be carried over from one year to the next year.
Overtime pay is a budget buster for the City. Any overtime pay has to be paid, in cash, unlike compensatory time which can be cleared from the books. And it is heavily abused. Overtime pay is often granted when it is not necessary. I knew cops who loved getting the overtime pay because it was easy money.
If it’s stupid enough it’s worth a try.
I have been working for some time on an idea to make short term layoffs and rehiring easier and more predictable. I like your thinking.
The City has already been going through almost 20 years of attempts to reduce employee totals. There have been several programs of early retirement offers and hiring freezes. These have failed due to politics and corruption. One program in the early 1990s gave out early retirements and laid off some employees. The rules were that the positions could not be refilled. The City went on a hiring binge shortly afterward.
A decade ago, the City gave out early retirements and laid off some employees. I was one of those employees taking an early retirement. Rules were that the positions could not be refilled. The work I was doing, was replaced by 3 other employees. The City did not save money by giving me the boot.
City Hall needs a major colon cleansing.
True, there are set minimum staffing levels. But I've been in fire stations and for the most part they are not busy. Some of them are downright fun to be in. I do agree about the specific job skills. One of my buddies specializes in cliff and sea rescues, not something any firefighter is trained to do.
Especially hard for paramedics, they are very specialized and overworked.
The problem is not the size of the paychecks but the cost of the unsustainable public sector pension plans.
Please...I have a weak stomach.
How about NO CONTRACTS? Work them when you need them, don't when you don't. Better yet, get rid of the majority of them since they don't really perform any productive function for the taxpayers.
CalPERS Expected To Report Losing Nearly One-Quarter Of Investment Portfolio [$56.8 B Loss]
LATimes | July 20th 2009, Marc Lifsher
FR Posted Tuesday, July 21, 2009 by Steelfish
CalPERS expected to report losing nearly one-quarter of investment portfolio The estimated $56.8-billion drop at the U.S.' largest pension fund, the second annual loss in a row, would have a huge effect on what state and local governments must shell out to support retirees. Reporting from Sacramento -- California's huge government pension fund is expected to report on Tuesday a whopping annual loss of an estimated $56.8 billion, almost a quarter of its investment portfolio.
The loss at the California Public Employees' Retirement System for the fiscal year ended June 30 is the second in a row for the country's largest fund. A year ago, CalPERS reported a $8.5-billion loss, as the severe recession began to take hold. The tremendous drop in value is expected to have a direct effect on the amount of money that the state and about 2,000 local governments and school districts must contribute in coming years to pay for pensions and healthcare for 1.6 million government workers, retirees and their families.
As income from the pension investments fall, the governments would have to make up the difference to meet the state's pension and healthcare obligations. In the fiscal year that ended a year ago, CalPERS' holdings in stocks, private equity, real estate and commodities positions were worth $239.2 billion. They fell to $182.4 billion on June 30, down 23.7%, according to daily postings on the fund's Internet site.
CalPERS hit a record-high balance of $247.7 billion on June 30, 2007, and it earned double-digit returns for the five fiscal years from 2002-03 to 2006-07. Without those kinds of flush years, CalPERS could have a difficult time getting the average annual return of 7.75% that its actuaries say it needs to meet obligations to retirees without drastically raising employer contributions. (Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
===================================================
11/29/09
California debt may be half a trillion dollars
Dan Walters, Sacramento Bee / FR Posted by SmithL
Just days before Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislators finalized a water package, including an $11.1 billion bond issue, state Treasurer Bill Lockyer warned them not to do it. California is already deeply in debt, Lockyer warned, has huge budget deficits and can't afford another big bond issue. "The days of blithely heaping more and more debt burden on the general fund are over – at least they should be," Lockyer said.
The earmark-laden bond issue, the package's single most controversial element, raises an interesting question: Just how deeply in debt are our state and local governments? The answer: No one knows for certain, since debt is scattered through myriad agencies in many forms, but well over a half-trillion dollars is a fair estimate.
Lockyer's warning pertained to the state's "general obligation debt," which currently stands at $59 billion, and there are an additional $50-plus billion in general obligation bonds that have not yet been sold.
The biggest chunks of debt, however, are the unfunded obligations for pensions and health care of retired public employees. (Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
=================================================
And these profligate pols expect the feds to bail them out with OUR tax dollars.
U.S. Military Serving as Chauffeurs, Babysitters for Pelosi Kids: Receipts Will Blow Your Mind
directorblue.blogspot.com | Doug Ross / FR Posted by Free ThinkerNY, 1/30/10
Meet the Pelosi family! Using FOIA requests, Judicial Watch uncovered thousands of pages of travel documents related to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's use of military aircraft. What hasn't been revealed so far is that military aircraft are being used to shuttle Pelosi's kids and grandkids between DC and San Francisco without any Congressional representatives even onboard!
Put simply, the United States Air Force is serving as a multi-billion dollar chauffeur- and baby-sitting service for Nancy Pelosi's kids and grandkids -- presumably because commercial travel is beneath the families of the autocrats. But this couldn't be a waste of resources because the U.S. military really isn't engaged in any other significant activities around the world.
Even if you assume that the Speaker's use of military jets for her personal travel is legitimate (a big "if" -- and here's an example of such a use), it would appear the Speaker is shipping her kids and grandkids across the country -- without any real Congressional delegation on board -- by using the military as a family shuttle service! (Excerpt) Read more at directorblue.blogspot.com
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.