Patch Provides: City Employee Wage, Benefits Cuts and Budget Reductions
You asked for it.
0
of
0
The status of city employee labor group negotiations and terms of current agreements.
Pdfs (3)
Pdfs
As requested by Patch readers, specifically hutch, here are the results of renegotiations of city employee contracts from FY 2010/2011 to 2011/12, which include base salary decreases and other provisions.
Also provided are a list of significant events pertaining to the city's finances since 2009 and a summary of budget reductions from FY 2008/2009 to FY 2011/12.
What do you think about the city employee contract renegotiations?
hutch
2:11 pm on Friday, January 27, 2012
Wow, thank you so much Camden.
Well the good news is that most of these contracts expire this year.
We already know the bad news.
Is the Tribune going to print this? haha, just kidding.
Gabriela Segovia-McGahan
10:30 am on Saturday, January 28, 2012
Thanks, Camden, for posting these. I was thinking about this as I was reading an article about pay caps for CSU Presidents: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/01/25/BA0O1MUALA.DTL
"limit salaries for new campus presidents and to consider economic realities before making salary offers."
It's really tough as a public servant to know that for the same quality and quantity of work, that the pay isn't as competitive as in the private industry. However,to offset the limiting salaries for line employees (in some cases, certain classifications don't even make livable wages) there is health coverage, paid time off, etc. When you're trying to decide whether utility bills or groceries get paid this month, it's hard to watch as the top dogs not only get more than livable wages, they're also getting housing allowances, transportation allowances, entertainment expense accounts, etc. So when the pay cuts are being considered, it needs to happen from the top down.
Back when furloughs were happening for CSU employees, I think it would have kept morale and productivity up if the furlough days were up to the employees so that they could offset the loss in income by finding second jobs. That wasn't possible with the preset furlough days.
It might not seem related to what's going on here but what I'm getting to is that both sides (employer/employee) need to work together to figure out what is mutually beneficial to both sides.
It's a really tough balance.
hutch
2:18 pm on Friday, January 27, 2012
I don't see 3.5 million in cuts. Do you? I don't see a million.
Can we at least put a moratorium on most overtime until we get this sorted out?
Now we go back to negotiations and demand 1% pay cuts for each $10,000 in income. Get rid of free health coverage for employee and dependents. And raise retirement age to 65 like the rest of us. That's just a start.
Holly Rios
2:46 pm on Friday, January 27, 2012
What a ridiculous comment...
hutch
3:47 pm on Friday, January 27, 2012
^ another city worker ^
Gabriela Segovia-McGahan
10:45 am on Saturday, January 28, 2012
Goodness! I should slow down and edit before I hit submit.
dot bolton
2:12 pm on Sunday, January 29, 2012
I am looking for the part that says city council pays for their own health benefits. what other part time job do you know of that pays benefits?
hutch
2:31 pm on Sunday, January 29, 2012
haha dot, no, we pay 100% of the Council's health insurance. Yes a part time job.
This is true for all full time workers too AND their dependents. I also believe this continues for life.
Mary J. Mazzei
5:28 pm on Sunday, January 29, 2012
Hey Hutch why don't you do more research into how much Pacifica employee's pay into retirementand health plans. I know for a fact that employees contribute (pay) to retirementand health coverage, they always have and will continue you to. Ask any city employee and they will more then likely tell you if you don't get snooty with them first. As to out sourcing the police, bad idea. The citizens will lose years of knowledge that each pacifica officer has. Remember a deputy makes more money then a pacifica seargent does. The sheriffs dept by there own negotiationsmust be the highest paid S.O. in the bay area...where will be the savings now or in the long run. The Sheriff will low ball the amount he can charge the city to get the contract.
Hutch you can do more research instead of placing all the budget wows on city employees.
hutch
5:55 pm on Sunday, January 29, 2012
Hi Mary, I didn't mention pensions here. I said health insurance. I believe the employees don't pay a cent for themselves or their dependents. I may be wrong but if you look at the amounts we're paying for employees health insurance it's over 1 million per year. You can see it here http://lgcr.sco.ca.gov/CompensationDetail.aspx?entity=City&id=11984161400&year=2010&GetCsu=False
Most people in the private sector do not get Health coverage like this. They must pay extra for dependents and pay large deductibles too. They also do not get coverage for life. They must go on Medicare at retirement.
Pensions are another issue we need to deal with after the wages and benefits. Employees being able to retire at 90% pay is bankrupting the State Calpers program.
I agree, the police should stay here. I think the threat of outsourcing Pacifica PD was just a scare tactic to get us to agree to more taxes and cut other services.
There's no reason to cut services or tax us even more. We have a payroll problem not a revenue problem. The city should have taken care of this years ago, but the fox has been in charge of the hen house. We need a separate citizen committee to negotiate with the unions. Take the council out of the equation.
Steve Sinai
1:47 pm on Monday, January 30, 2012
We have both a payroll and a revenue problem. Why must people think in terms of one or the other?
I agree with Hutch in that city employee pensions and benefits are overly generous when compared to what people in the private sector get these days.
We also have a revenue problem in the sense that the city is anti-business. We lose potential tax revenues when the local, no-growth hippie contingents like Pacificans for Sustainable Development and the Sierra Club fight every development project proposed in this town. Because of groups like this, we're talking about eliminating the police department altogether, rather than merely discussing what kinds of cuts we need to make to the PD.
hutch
2:02 pm on Monday, January 30, 2012
I agree Steve. And I want to make it clear that I respect and appreciate the hard work all our employees do. That includes police, fire and everyone. This is not personal and I don't think they have done one thing wrong. Shoot who wouldn't take money if it's thrown at them? I sure would. But the hard reality is that almost everyone has gotten their pay and benefits severely slashed in the past few years. It's hard on us all and we're asking that employees share the hardship that we taxpayers have had to deal with.
Been There
2:06 pm on Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Hutch when times were good in the private sector during the DOT.COM and HOUSING BOOM and public employees were making less then the counter parts in the private no one comes to any city and wants to give them more. In working in both sectors i have seen this first hand. Maybe you should get all the facts before you just send out things on blogs.
hutch
5:37 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Ha, we are getting the facts slowly . And it stinks. No thanks to anyone in the city or PD either. All they say is "do some research" "your wrong" but they don't supply any numbers.
Over 50 employees still making way over $100,000.
Police sergeant $153,998, $28,365
Police captain $144,748, $28,692
Police officer $122,185, $22,809
Police corporal $143,752, $24,690
Police sergeant $165,985, $28,620
Police sergeant $162,625, $28,903
Police officer $104,634, $22,064
Police sergeant $133,201, $27,125
Police corporal $145,555,
$23,747
Police systems specialist $110,674, $10,740
Police captain $168,402, $27,271
Police corporeal $128,424, $23,990
Police sergeant $132,626, $25,080
Police sergeant $157,592, $29,040
Police corporeal $129,950, $23,150
Public safety dispatcher $107,834, $7,525
Police corporeal $137,352, $24,895
Police officer $118,439, $22,107
Police officer $122,888, $22,446
Police officer $116,067, $20,486
Police officer $112,401, $20,389
Police corporeal $121,224, $21,266
Police officer $112,111, $19,886
Police officer $125,076, $21,212
Police officer $124,807, $20,112
Police officer $105,808, $18,843
Police officer $113,796, $18,988
hutch
5:38 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Police officer $112,339, $19,330
Police officer $113,543, $20,229
Police officer $112, 437, $17,446
Police sergeant $168,616, $28,638
Police captain $157,513, $34,042
Police sergeant $147,821, $29,040
Police chief $160,384, $34,734
Paramedic coordinator $172,389, $30,022
Fire Captain $133878, $22,138
Deputy fire chief $193,383, $32,871
Paramedic/engineer/EMT $108,426, $19,223
Paramedic/engineer/EMT $112,885, $18,850
Paramedic/engineer/EMT $122,374, $18,734
Paramedic/engineer/EMT $107,815, $16,835
Fire battalion chief $204,744, $12,084
Fire battalion chief $178,921, $24,973
Paramedic, engineer/EMT $101,305, $17,632
Paramedic/engineer/EMT $101,714, $18,865
Fire captain $136,825, $20,899
Fire captain $136,059, $22,183
Paramedic/engineer/EMT $101,388, $17,499
Fire battalion chief $185,387, $16,217
Fire captain $114,889, $20,483
Paramedic/engineer/EMT $113,042, $18,360
Paramedic/engineer/EMT $102,617, $18,402
Fire captain $127,480, $20,361
Paramedic/engineer/EMT $115,404, $18,321
hutch
5:38 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
Wastewater assistant superintendent $133,337, $22,206
Public Works supervisor $109,376, $10,814
Associate civil engineer $109,441, $19,544
Wastewater source control inspector $113,729, $10,2114
Associate planner $101,590, $17,202
Associate civil engineer $110,627, $19,544
Public works supervisor $111,689, $10,775
Field services manager $151,691, $24,209
Associate civil engineer $103396, $17,498
Public Works superintendent $126,897, $20,685
Wastewater plant manager $166,635, $24,503
Director of Planning/city planner $144,602, $25,967
Director wastewater/plant operator $140,638, $25,480
Wastewater collections manager $135,022, $23,864
Public works superintendent $162,209, $21,448
Wastewater operator II $107,715, $10,337
Wastewater operator III $142,945, $11,908
Associate civil engineer $109,518, $19,348
Director of Public Works/city engineer $167,920, $30,245
Wastewater operator III $160,704, $10,978
Wastewater operator II $135,616, $10,760
Wastewater laboratory tech $100,033, $8,863
Wastewater laboratory supervisor $112,680, $10,763
Fire captain $151,571, $21,726
Wastewater operator II $136,296, $11,149
Wastewater operator III $134,973, $9,993
City clerk/executive assistant $117,102/$19,033
Director of Parks, Beaches and Recreation $148,227, $27,119
hutch
5:41 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
The fire battalion chief is the highest paid city employee at $204,744 compensation and $12,084 in his pension.
He is followed by the deputy fire chief at $193,383, with $32,871 in his pension.
The city manager is the next highest wage earner at $192,077 compensation, $34,088 in his pension.
Courtesy of the Pacifica Tribune
hutch
5:42 pm on Thursday, February 2, 2012
And these numbers don't include the up to $16,000 each for health insurance.
hutch
8:14 am on Friday, February 3, 2012
Cat got your tongue?
So anyway I am very proud of the Tribune for doing these stories. Please encourage them to continue by writing letters and suggestions. Buy a paper and even a subscription if they keep it up.
I would like to see more information about how much each departments costs us and how it's increased over the years. Also how much exactly does each employee pay towards their health care premiums? And what are those pension numbers above? Is that how much the city contributed in 2011?
hutch
8:16 am on Friday, February 3, 2012
Or better yet call them to advertise your business.
hutch
8:50 pm on Friday, February 3, 2012
Hi Camden, Have you gathered and more info for us?
Camden Swita
2:39 am on Saturday, February 4, 2012
@hutch: yes. I'll post the answers to some of your questions tomorrow (city staff did not answer all as of yet). The city has yet to reply to my public records request regarding detailed pension information.
hutch
12:05 pm on Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Hi again Camden, how is that story coming?
Are you planning on doing one on the recall effort of Vreeland, DeJarnatt and Digre?
hutch
9:42 am on Saturday, February 4, 2012
Cool thanks Camden. You're da bomb!
Does the city have a certain amount of time to legally reply to such requests? Do you think they're stone walling you?
hutch
11:46 am on Saturday, February 4, 2012
stonewalling
hutch
11:02 am on Saturday, March 10, 2012
So three union contracts are expiring in June. Since our city is in a financial crisis we should be negotiating a major reduction in pay and benefits. If the unions refuse to go along we have a right to impose our final offer according to 3505.7. Impasse; implementation of last, best, and final offer http://www.perb.ca.gov/laws/statutes.asp
Camden, can you please talk to the city negotiators and find out what their plans are for reducing these contracts?