Send this story Print this story

Adjust text size

Uploaded: Friday, July 31, 2009, 9:55 AM

Palo Alto sees spiking costs of retiree benefits
The city's liability went up by $27.5 million in two years, new actuarial study shows

by Gennady Sheyner
Palo Alto Online Staff

Posted by health care reform now!, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jul 31, 2009 at 10:37 am

Our current health insurance system is broken. National health insurance reform will make health care costs more fair and more predictable for employees, retirees, and employers.

Posted by Carol Gilbert, a resident of the University South neighborhood, on Jul 31, 2009 at 11:01 am

This is absolute madness. The City Manager and current city council MUST address this and bring all future encumbrances into line with private sector jobs and NOW.

Posted by what are they thinking?, a resident of the Professorville neighborhood, on Jul 31, 2009 at 11:30 am

I worked for a hospital for 20 years and have no health care benefits from them. How can the city offer such lucrative benefits after only 5 years of service and 50 years of age. And I moved here partly because I thought this was an intelligent, visionary and well run city. The more I read about Palo Alto the more I shake my head over the way this city is run.

Posted by Stop raiding utilities funds, a resident of the Fairmeadow neighborhood, on Jul 31, 2009 at 11:37 am

There they go again - using money from the Utilities enterprise funds to pay for general city expenses.

Single payer health care won't alleviate this.

Posted by Question, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jul 31, 2009 at 12:10 pm

Who would not retire the day after their 50th birthday with only 5 years of service if they are guaranteed to get their health care covered by the city for the rest of their life? Now, they can go on to any job with or without health care coverage knowing that our stupid city is going to take care of them forever after.

This is just unbelievable.

Posted by stretch, a resident of another community, on Jul 31, 2009 at 1:08 pm

For a while now, the policy has been that the employee must work for the City for 20 years to get full medical benefits. Before that change, people were retiring from PG&E and other places w/o such good benefits, working for five years, then retiring with full bennies from the City. Dumb City! Now is the time for making even more changes, and the union will fight to the death to prevent it, even though it will probably lead to more and more contracting out of work to get around having to pay benefits at all. Dumb union!

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jul 31, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Walter_E_Wallis is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online

The city should stop hiring for brilliance and, for a change, opt for competence.

Posted by Toady, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jul 31, 2009 at 3:20 pm

No kidding.

This has nothing to do with health benefits, per se. It has everything with bending over for the unions.

Posted by bankruptcy, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Jul 31, 2009 at 4:01 pm

Yeah, this is just insane. Benefits should at least be pro rated based on a retirement age of 67 with the full amount requiring at least 30 years work. Palo Alto shouldn't be subsidizing health care for workers in other companies.

The current system is just broken.

Posted by city worker, a resident of another community, on Jul 31, 2009 at 4:13 pm

Of course staff expenses are a high %, the City is providing services performed by people. There is a lot of room for improvement of managing this City that does not need to attack the staff that has worked for the City for many years.

City MANAGEMENT (e.g., Frank Benest, Carl Yeats) made THE 2.7% @ age 55 retirement package a requirement of the last SEIU negotiations for the last contract and said it was not an option not to take it. It was shoved down our throats and our healthcare was cut last negotiations as a result. Last negotiations SEIU was not asking for additional retirement and wanted only to preserve their current benefits.

SEIU has offered a furlough (equivalent of 1% salary decrease) and waiver of tuition reimbursement as a first year concession. This is equal to $1.5 M which is what SEIU was asked, by the City Manager, to contribute. SEIU came up with the savings but now the City Manager wants more, but only wants more from SEIU.

Historically, some of the benefits negotiated with SEIU are then applied to the MANAGEMENT group so for the last SEIU contract MANAGEMENT essentially negotiated a better retirement package for THEMSELVES because CERTAIN MANAGERS (e.g., Benest, Yeats) were retiring.

Don't blame SEIU workers, that mow lawns, review plans for zoning ordinances and staff the community centers for the mismanagement of the City. City management pisses away lots of money on unnecessary things like $22M SAP packages, website overhauls, and other outrageously priced contract services that MANAGERS should be performing as part of their regular job, has poor administrative practices because "that's the way we've always done it" and more. When CITY MANAGEMENT starts managing and cleans it own house administratively then we can see where the next fixes should come from.

There are very few residents working for the City now. Why do you think that is? Because you could make more money in the private sector!

There are lots of job openings now and the people being hired now are not from PA. I doubt Palo Altans are applying because the wages would not support their rent or mortgage.

The only people retiring with big paychecks from the city are MANAGERS, not SEIU. Oh, and by the way, those MANAGERS with big retirement paychecks are hired back to work for the City as consultants!!!! Double-dipping is alive and well in Palo Alto thanks to City MANAGEMENT.

Posted by Jay, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jul 31, 2009 at 4:30 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Posted by Dave, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Jul 31, 2009 at 4:30 pm

I think what city worker says about MANAGERS is likely true. Their pension and health benefits also are way out of wack, and should be altered along with the SEIU package.

What the city workers get both in current benefits and in retirement is simply unaffordable. The poster mentioned tuition reimbursement. Some city workers also get "shoe allowances" As I understand it, the current proposal is to ask SEIU members to pay 20 percent of their retiree health benefits.

This simply doesn't seem unreasonable to me... or I would guess to anyone not working in the public sector in California. In fact, I would think we could stand to see a lot more adjustments to the compensation and benefit system that is threatening the future of our city.

Posted by bankruptcy, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Jul 31, 2009 at 4:38 pm

It doesn't matter about how/where the money is spent. It's just plain stupid to pay people life-long medical benefits after working for *ONLY FIVE YEARS*!

Posted by the watcher, a resident of another community, on Jul 31, 2009 at 4:42 pm

I so agree with the "city worker" on the following statement that he/she posted:

"The only people retiring with big paychecks from the city are MANAGERS, not SEIU. Oh, and by the way, those MANAGERS with big retirement paychecks are hired back to work for the City as consultants!!!! Double-dipping is alive and well in Palo Alto thanks to City MANAGEMENT."

Especially the return of MANAGERS and former employees who win favor by patronage based on blood-line or friendship. They return as contracted employees flagging a sign of a nepotistical salaried individual with questionable qualifications for the assigned contractual job.

When will these contracted jobs be audited under a title for the public to view as far as total monies spent, as well how many hours have been spent on each job and the names of the contracted persons (via the last ten years).

Makes one wanna go "hmmmmm," and wonder why this information is withheld from the public eyes.

Posted by Outside Observer, a resident of another community, on Jul 31, 2009 at 5:30 pm

Watcher,

You saved me the effort of commenting on the decades long practice of hiring back "connected" managers after they retire.

Sure wish the Weekly or one of the other papers would do a public records request about it.

I think your "Hmmmmm" would turn into community outrage, not just on the costs, but when they see some of the recently retired disgraced managers have benefited from this practice.

(Sorry, I can't say the names, or this post will get censored. It would be against TS rules. I can't say, but the Weekly can if they get the records)

Posted by Toady, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jul 31, 2009 at 7:32 pm

Typical of unions to blame management. That's like saying don't worry about the burning house -- the fire is smaller than a big forest fire.

Whatever.

Face it -- your benefits packages are way out of whack with what the real world offers. And, as a taxpayer, like a shareholder of a public company, I have a right to question how my money is being spent.

It's time to move everyone on the public payroll onto what everyone else has -- a 401(k)-based program. If we have to increase salaries to be "fair," then that's fine. At least we'll have current budget visibility rather than just pushing the problem to the future.

Visibility now!

Posted by Ruby, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Jul 31, 2009 at 8:33 pm

Let's have immediate full disclosure about the status of the irrevocable trust. The City needs to conduct an independent financial analysis of its pension accounts to determine their financial viability. This is important b/c of the recent PERS independent financial analysis by Morgan Stanley which flagged several critical deficiencies in the system. Other comments about the hiring back of former managers are spot on. And has there been an independent legal opinion about transferring utility funds for pension obligations?

There's only so much money and only so much the City can ask of its citizens and businesses. The City should take actions comparable to what has been done in the private sector (which pays for City salaries) and reduce comp and benefits for both represented employees and management. It's time to get real.

Posted by Brian Wilson, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jul 31, 2009 at 11:15 pm

Isn't it interesting that that the city would put out a press release stating non-factional or irreverent employee cost numbers to local print media during labor negotiations! According to non-management employee contracts, employees hired after 2005 must have 10 years service before being eligible for 50% of city approved 2nd best health care and will receive a 5% increase up to 20 years service. Currently, there are only 727 retired employees dating back to the incorporation of the city in 1894. Many of those are on Medicare as their primary medical with the city accountable as the secondary provider. The city recently chose to put their retirement trust fund into a CalPERS risky stock portfolio and now are crying because they lost money. Blame their stockbrokers and not the employees. The city manager considers past employee benefits as a liability and not a commitment of services rendered. How unfortunate! Perhaps that is why he eliminated the employee appreciation picnic in the first six months of service with the city. City officials are baffled as to why the sudden increase in retirements, (really?), thereby increasing the citys "liability" in retirement costs. If you're in a position of leadership and complain that your employees are overpaid and over compensated, sooner or later employees get tired of your rants and leave. If you are hired into a city organization with the obligation to motivate employees and you revel in announcing your "the glass is half empty" philosophies, the employees becomes disenchanted and leave. Don't blame the employees, blame the source. It is unfortunate that the city is losing valuable long term employees who served our community with distinguished service. Print media and the city manager bemoan the fact that 11 non-management employees retired in June. No word on the equal number of managers retiring in the same period. Instead of printing the "city line' as fact, maybe it would benefit the local media to actually research information forwarded by an organiztion prior to printing it. Good luck!

Posted by Lineman for Palo Alto, a resident of another community, on Aug 1, 2009 at 8:54 am

bankruptcy:

Have you been following along with regards to the five year medical vesting? It's no longer a benefit!!!!

what are they thinking:

You chose to work for a hospital with no health care. I was offered three jobs at the same time. The offer from Palo Alto paid less than the other two but had a better package in the long term. what's so difficult to understand about the fact that we make less $$$ in exchange for better benefits?

The 2.7% @ 55 issue:

It's spot on about executive staff wanting the formula more than SEIU. SEIU tried to pull it off the table because Management wanted too much in exchange for the benefit. Management did say we aren't leaving the table until SEIU gets it. Because they'll get it next.

Toady:

thanks for the "bending over" offer. We're not interested but don't judge either.

health care reform now:

Couldn't agree more. The system is broken. My question is, Where is all the money going? Costs are skyrocketing but everyone is crying their hurting. I may not be a financial expert but a ton of money is going into the system, so where is it coming out? Just curious, how many of the residents own stock in pharmaceutical companies that are complaining about our health care costs?

Times are tough right now. A large number of employees make less than $60k/year. They are being asked to take a 10% total pay cut. That's a lot when our CM got a standing "O" for giving up 5% of a possible bonus.

Posted by We've had enough, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Aug 1, 2009 at 9:28 am

Dear Civil Servants in California (and elsewhere):

TAXPAYERS ... LISTEN UP & PROTEST, PROTEST, PROTEST ... NOW !!!!!!

We've had enough .... and we're no going to take it anymore.

No more funding for Civil Servant pensions, and no more funding for Civil Servant retiree healthcare.

What EXISTING funds can buy is fine ... BUT NO MORE !

Civil Servants ... Join the rest of us going broke. AT least we'll slow down OUR going broke due to paying for YOU!

Posted by pat, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Aug 1, 2009 at 10:30 am

Brian Wilson wrote, “If you're in a position of leadership and complain that your employees are overpaid and over compensated, sooner or later employees get tired of your rants and leave.”

Perhaps that’s the idea.

Re managers benefiting as much or more than union members, read Diana Diamond’s 7/30 Daily Post column. Unfortunately, it’s not online, but definitely worth searching for.

I can’t quote the article or my post will be deleted for “possible copyright infringement.” But the gist of it is that those who supposedly negotiate for us, the residents, stand to benefit if the unions get what they want.

City managers on the negotiating team may have been union members themselves. If the unions get higher pay and benefits, employee morale will be higher and the managers will be seen as good guys. And whatever increases the union gets will trickle up to management.

So where’s the motivation for management negotiators to draw a hard line?

Diamond names the city managers currently on the negotiating team, who have been appointed by the city council. She also presents several ideas on how to change the system to give residents more input.

Re managers getting hired back: It’s no secret that the city recycles the so-called Fab 400. The same people always appear on commissions, boards, etc.

With an election coming up, we should all demand to know the candidates’ positions on union demands. It will be a miracle if any of them say anything against the unions. In addition to donating to candidates’ campaigns, unions put feet on the street to help their candidates win. They have tremendous power and not just in Palo Alto.

Posted by bankruptcy, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Aug 1, 2009 at 11:14 am

Lineman, read what it says! "The city -- which pays health benefits for employees who retire on or after the age of 50 and have five years of service"

That's right, life-long medical benefits for 5 YEARS of service. What a crock!

Posted by anonymous, a resident of another community, on Aug 1, 2009 at 12:03 pm

The five year deal is NOT TRUE... retirees need to have 20 years of service with the city to qualify for the full retiree medical benefit.

Posted by Darwin, a resident of another community, on Aug 1, 2009 at 12:05 pm

One of the big reasons Palo Alto was forced to go with 2.7@55 is because that's what the majority of the cities in the Bay Area pay. The best people will overlook Palo Alto if neigboring cities offer better perks. Furthermore, almost every other Bay Area city has very similar benefits, Palo Alto is just one of the first to go through with labour negotiations during this current economic crisis.

I do agree that 5 years for lifetime medical is ridiculous. Apparently the city and union agreed with this too, because their last contract negotion upped that number to 20 years. Something that a lot of other cities do not yet do.

Posted by reality check, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Aug 1, 2009 at 12:44 pm

When I hear "all the other cities do it" so we have to do the same, it reminds me of my kids saying all the other kids do it. This is ridiculous. California is going down the tubes in part due to this kind of thinking. Mainly government officials have to learn to live within a budget like the rest of us. So "all the other cities" need to tighten their belts too. Instead they want to tax us more and more.

Posted by Darwin, a resident of another community, on Aug 1, 2009 at 1:01 pm

Reality Check-

Where were you when the economy was good then? That's when these agreements were made. Yes, it does sound similar to kids whining about things other people have.

But there is this double edged sword that goes on here. I constantly see people writing about how the city should be run like the private sector, or the private sector doesn't offer this, etc etc

But you know what? Competitive benefits are ALSO something from the private sector. If you're offered two jobs, one paying 100k and the other paying 90k and they're both in the same area, which are you going to take?

It's not rocket science kids, it's the way things work. And only getting tough on city workers when the economy is bad is rather immature.

Posted by city worker, a resident of another community, on Aug 1, 2009 at 1:14 pm

Private sector pays into Social Security, city employees pay into PERS for retirement and don't get Social Security benefits.

City employees do have a deferred compensation plan they can contribute to- it is called a 457 plan. It's the public sector equiv to a 401k.

However, no public sector organization ever matches the 457 contribution like the private sector does for 401k (or did and will return to in the future as a way to entice).

Posted by resident, a resident of the Charleston Meadows neighborhood, on Aug 1, 2009 at 2:33 pm

I am 62 years old and unable to work because of my health . I can stop working and take s.s.But will not get medicare till I will be 66 years old. So I have to work for health care insurance. And on taxes I pay city of p.a. retirees and their spouses will have health insurance even they retire at age 50. Very nice. we need to change our constitution. No more unions. They are distroing the country.Protest .

Posted by Darwin, a resident of another community, on Aug 1, 2009 at 3:33 pm

Resident-

You need to read more thoroughly. No one can retire at 50. Furthermore, the people who are retiring at 55 are nowhere near a full pension at 2.7% per year. If you do the math, that means that someone has to work over 37 years as an employee of Palo Alto to receive a full pension.

Posted by MY LORD, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Aug 1, 2009 at 4:46 pm

Quoting "Resident" ..."You need to read more thoroughly. No one can retire at 50. Furthermore, the people who are retiring at 55 are nowhere near a full pension at 2.7% per year. If you do the math, that means that someone has to work over 37 years as an employee of Palo Alto to receive a full pension."

Looks like you calculated the 37 as the number of years to reach (at 2.7%/yr) 100% of salary at retirement..... and then had the gall to present this as something OTHER THAN an EXTRAORDINARY pension.

As someone working in the Private Sector where RARELY does anyone get even 50% of final pay (and NEVER gets a post retirement COLA)........

Posted by retire retread politicians, a resident of the Monroe Park neighborhood, on Aug 1, 2009 at 8:54 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Posted by Outside Observer, a resident of another community, on Aug 1, 2009 at 9:51 pm

For all the discussion of City employee benefits here, I think there is one point that all can agree upon.

While the City benefits are excessive compared to private industry now, that wasn't the case 50 years ago. They may be an anachronism now, but the larger question that should be asked is why benefits on this level are no longer available in the private sector?

I could go on about the reasons I think for this change toward a 3rd world standard, but I'll let all of you ponder on it.

Yes, the benefits City, and government employees in general get are an anachronism, and therein lies the real problem that most younger workers don't even have a frame of reference for.

When people acknowledge that the standard of living in America has been reduced exponentially over the last 50 years, Maybe then they take action and this whole argument of "private sector" benefits will become a moot point.

For the younger workers in their 30's. Do you have, or can you ever expect to have the standard of living that your parents have?

When you can answer that question "yes", government workers benefits will be a non-issue.

Posted by stretch, a resident of another community, on Aug 1, 2009 at 10:55 pm

Once again (and for people like "bankruptcy", who cannot follow the thread): it USED to be that one could retire after five years at age 50 and get full medical benefits. The City changed that to 20 years.

Unions are just as greedy and self-serving as Management (I've been on both sides).

If you look closely, you'll see that managers are not the only people hired back as consultants/temporary help. There have been plenty of former union employees, say, inspecting street work or doing office work. Check it out before ranting and raving about "nepotism".

sheesh.

And, hey, Pat - management doesn't care to be seen as good guys to the union people, and they don't negotiate for residents - they do it to keep a balance so the City can keep running! Give and take. When one gets too strong, there has to be a correction of some sort.

Whoever was wondering why more residents don't work for the City, get real! It became evident a long time ago that no one could afford to buy in Palo Alto on a City salary. And no resident paying a huge mortgage is going to take a City job. What a joke! It was easy for management to get rid of the long-ago benefit of half off utilities for City workers who lived in Palo Alto, because hardly anyone could take advantage of it! Oh, yeah - so good luck in getting City workers there in an emergency. They have to drive from Modesto and Tracy.

Posted by Reform is needed, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Aug 2, 2009 at 7:48 am

Outside Observer, you hit the the nail on the head. For years, private sector has not stepped up to the plate to fund post-retirement benefits. Private sector's reliance on 401(k) plans, social security and medicare will not cut it. The asset value of most 401(k)'s has evaporated and long term projections for Social Security and Medicare are dismal. Clinton and now Obama's efforts at heath care reform demonstrated the layers of structural barriers and special interests involved. Sure, there are problems with the public sector's Calpers model as well, but over the years it has outperformed most private pension funds, social security and medicare.

It seems to me that public sector employees have made a deliberate choice to accept lower salaries in exchange for better long term benefits. This has been the long standing trade off of public sector vs. private. The community has benefitted through long term salary savings.

Palo Alto (and other Peninsula cities) are doing their share of solving the massive post-retirement problem. It's now time for private sector to step up to the plate too.

Posted by Toady, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Aug 2, 2009 at 8:37 am

Wrong. It's not the private sector's responsibility to "fund" retirement -- it's an *individual* responsibility. You know all those stories about retirees 401(k) evaporating? Well, duh, at that age, you aren't supposed to be that heavy into stocks. In fact, if they were properly allocated into bonds, they would be way up.

But of course, it was all those boomers that spent all their money away, and they were trying to catch up to make up for past idiocy. Sorry boomers, you guys screwed up, and we X'ers are tired of your self-centeredness and now we have to pay for your retirement?

Ridiculous.

Posted by pat, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Aug 2, 2009 at 9:21 am

Stretch wrote, “It became evident a long time ago that no one could afford to buy in Palo Alto on a City salary. … They have to drive from Modesto and Tracy.”

Serious question: Does anyone have real data on where city employees live? How many live in Palo Alto? How many live within a 10 mile, 25 mile … radius? This info should not be hard to get.

Go to any private company and find out how many people live in the same city where they work.

I’m tired of hearing extreme statements without any data to back them up.

BTW, there are many Palo Alto residents who earn a lot less than city employees.

Posted by James Hoosac, a resident of the Green Acres neighborhood, on Aug 2, 2009 at 1:51 pm

Wait a minute. Does anyone know the number of years this obligation spreads over? Is it $129M over ten years, twenty years, etc.? It doesn't seem to be that the City needs to come up with that much money in a short time frame (1-3 years).

Of course this snowball is going to grow. It's $129M today and probably double that in several years.

Posted by bankruptcy, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Aug 2, 2009 at 4:37 pm

"The five year deal is NOT TRUE... retirees need to have 20 years of service with the city to qualify for the full retiree medical benefit."

How may times do I have to tell to read the article. It's five years. Get your head out of the trough. This just makes me sick.

Posted by Tim, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Aug 2, 2009 at 9:23 pm

To bankruptcy,

How many do they have to tell you! IT IS TWENTY YEARS!!!!

Go to the HR Dept at City Hall and check it out. Do some fact finding instead of sitting on your big bottom at your computer or in front of your trough.

Posted by Able, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Aug 2, 2009 at 10:31 pm

Five years, Ten Years, Twenty Years. Who cares? How many private sector retirees get free medical care for life upon retirement. Even if it's 20 years, a person could start working for the city at 25, retire at 45 and have "free" health care the rest of his or her life.

Nobody gets that kind of benefit except government workers. We can't afford it.

Posted by Nora Charles, a resident of Stanford, on Aug 3, 2009 at 4:11 am

Toady,

Your generalization of baby boomers is as absurd as my claiming that Gen X is, say, lazy, self-absorbed, and unaware. People of all ages make foolish mistakes financially, and otherwise. And no, you will not pay for our retirement pensions; it is our social security you will pay for, as my generation pays for the generation before us, and so on.

Posted by James Hoosac, a resident of the Green Acres neighborhood, on Aug 3, 2009 at 10:25 am

Folks,

City employee salaries are public data.

Please go to Web Link to download the pdf file and read yourself. You can then make up your own mind as to if the salaries, plus pension and healthcare benefits, are justified.

Posted by Toady, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Aug 3, 2009 at 10:58 am

"And no, you will not pay for our retirement pensions"

Social security is not a pension. It was never designed to be the sole source of income for retirees. If you're relying on it for 100% of your income, you're in for a rude awakening.

By the way, we already are paying into your retirement. Federal bailout money comes from where? Propping up companies to make sure they don't go bankrupt to keep stock prices floaty?

Posted by stretch, a resident of another community, on Aug 3, 2009 at 5:38 pm

Dear Pat,

As for the "extreme statements with no data to back it up", I was the one who plotted the City workers by residence on a map about 10 years ago to keep in the EOC (that's emergency operating center). I know where everybody lives (lived) and how long it would take them to get to Palo Alto in an emergency - IF they could get there at all.

The City furnished commuter vans for rental by workers who live in the valley (Manteca, Tracy, Patterson, etc.)and had to raise the amount of time needed for standby personnel to get to Palo Alto because not enough of them live in PA or even close!

Maybe you should ask a few workers when you see them out in the street or parks and see what kind of commute they have. Better yet - ask them why they don't live in town and stand back for the wave of laughter that's sure to follow.

And, Able: one more time - it's 20 years at FIFTY.

Posted by Able, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Aug 3, 2009 at 6:28 pm

"And, Able: one more time - it's 20 years at FIFTY."

Thanks for clearing that up. If the guy retires at 50, rather than 45, that means we'll only be on the hook for his health care for 35 years instead of 40. Do you think that should make taxpayers feel significantly better about the state of the city's financial future??

My point was that NOBODY in the private sector gets these kinds of benefits. And that Free Health Care for life, whether it starts at 45, 50, 55 or 60 is unaffordable for Palo Alto - as it already is for San Jose and other cities. We need major reform of pension and benefit for city workers.

Posted by pat, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Aug 3, 2009 at 7:12 pm

Dear Stretch,

Where can I find the map (or data) about where workers live?

Has the map been updated in the last 10 years?

How many people have to get to the city in an emergency?

Which cities in the Bay Area have all emergency personnel living within the city limits?

Thanks.

Posted by bankruptcy, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Aug 4, 2009 at 10:10 am

"Go to the HR Dept at City Hall and check it out. Do some fact finding instead of sitting on your big bottom at your computer or in front of your trough."

What is it with the inability of SIEU beneficiaries to comprehend what they read?

The article clearly states this as does the compensation plan. You only need 5 years of service in Palo Alto to qualify for medical benefits.

That's it! 5 years working for Palo Alto is all that is required!

It's disgusting to think that we'll be paying bonds to cover medical benefits for people that just pop in and laze about for 5 years!

Posted by Do your research, a resident of another community, on Aug 4, 2009 at 10:37 am

Dear bankruptcy:

Have you ever thought that the article might not be entirely correct? All one has do do is go to the City website and open the actual SEIU contract. If you had done that you would discover that anyone who retires after January 1, 2005 has to work a minimum of 20 years to get 100% medical in retirement. For your convenience I copied the language below.

You're welcome.

Health Benefit Vesting For Future Retirees Effective January 1, 2005

The CalPERS vesting schedule set forth in Government Code section 22893 will apply to all SEIU employees hired on or after January 1, 2005. Under this law, an employee is eligible for 50% of the specified employer health premium contribution after ten years of service credit, provided at least five of those years were performed at the City of Palo Alto. After ten years of service credit, each additional year of service credit will increase the employer contribution percentage by 5% until, at 20 years’ service credit, the employee will be eligible upon retirement for 100% of the specified employer contribution. However, the maximum contribution for family members will be 90% of the specified employer contribution. The City of Palo Alto's health premium contribution will be the minimum contribution set by CalPERS under section 22893 based on a weighted average of available health plan premiums.

Posted by Oldtimer, a resident of another community, on Aug 4, 2009 at 11:02 am

OK folks, stop sniping. Here are the facts:

Police and Fire retire at 50 with a factor of 3%. That's the backbreaker that's baked into state law by initiative and can't be changed by Council. This is what drove Vallejo into bankruptcy.

SEIU and management retire at 55 with a factor of 2.7%. The restricted medical benefit is earned by those who were HIRED after January 1, 2005. Those who were hired before that date get full vesting after 5 years of service.

Posted by bankruptcy, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Aug 6, 2009 at 1:08 pm

You even copied and pasted it and you still can't comprehend how long they need to work in Palo Alto to get it. Unbelievable!