Send this story Print this story

Adjust text size

Uploaded: Wednesday, August 19, 2009, 9:56 AM

Battling websites show city, union differences  

by Sue Dremann
Palo Alto Weekly Staff

Posted by Web friend, a resident of another community, on Aug 19, 2009 at 10:25 am

Since it wasn't referenced in the article, here's the URL for the Palo Alto "See-It" website:

Web Link

Posted by Jon, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Aug 19, 2009 at 10:44 am

The City needs to do a much better job of controlling costs and that includes benefits. The healthcare burden alone could cause serious financial damage. If every other organization in the US is having to control costs, I don't see why Palo Alto should be immune. Outsourcing more would be one way to start....

Posted by Oldtimer, a resident of another community, on Aug 19, 2009 at 10:56 am

It's interesting to see how City management continues to beat up on SEIU employees while denying thier own failures: The continuing "money pit" of the SAP database and the Enron settlement. When SEIU is forced to strike won't Palo Altans be surprised when their hot tubs turn into cold plunges and the nurses at Stanford have to roll their patients up the road to El Camino Hospital?

Posted by readmoreclosely, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Aug 19, 2009 at 12:59 pm

Someone needs to check their accounting. There is an assumption that the City is flush with cash reserves. ISF reserves include capitalized equipment, among other things. It's not all cash.

Posted by What's wrong with this picture?, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Aug 19, 2009 at 1:38 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Posted by SEIU City Staffer, a resident of another community, on Aug 19, 2009 at 1:55 pm

I don't know the truth about where the money is, but I do no this: the City is in the process of scaring off a lot of committed and talented staff right now, forcing retirements and forcing the SEIU to a strike because of unreasonable cuts to our healthcare and retirement. Most City workers, both management and SEIU, deeply care about this community and are willing to make all sorts of compromises to get us through this hard time ~ but we're not willing to be taken advantage of. Many of us have worked here for years when we could have taken higher paying jobs in the private sector ~ for two reasons:

1. We are doing work we believe in.

2. The benefits.

Palo Altans ~ if you want to maintain the level of service you're getting now with your utilities, trees and streets, if you or your kids use Mitchell Park, or the Junior Museum, or a Library, or any other City facility or park, if you have had good experiences interacting with your City staff and if you think that they should have healthcare coverage, then it's time to support them by contacting your City Council.

Posted by What's wrong with this picture?, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Aug 19, 2009 at 3:25 pm

Let's find out who's right. Cut the benefits and see whether you can get a higher paying job in the private sector.

Posted by Mike, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Aug 19, 2009 at 3:37 pm

This claimed extraordinary level of commitment and skill does not seem to translate to any extra value for the citizens. I see no execution above the ordinary in most cases, and below in some. If I expect to get average service, then I would expect we should pay average compensation as well.

Posted by Retired Staffer, a resident of another community, on Aug 19, 2009 at 3:50 pm

One of the hidden costs to the community is the "defection" of highly-skilled people to other agencies such as Turlock Irrigation District, Modesto Irrigation District, Sacramento MUD, etc. The commute is shorter for them and the compensation is equal to or greater than Palo Alto's unless management comes to it's senses. This includes benefits. The cost to train replacements and the inefficiencies of high turnover aren't revealed in the budget. For example, it costs about $6,000 to train an equipment operator. Why should he or she stay in Palo Alto if they can do better elsewhere and have a shorter commute to boot?

Posted by Kate, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Aug 19, 2009 at 5:20 pm

Stanford Hospital employees including the nurses have nothing to do with the City of Palo Alto. They are not paid by the City of Palo Alto. Enough of these scare tactics.

Posted by Anna, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Aug 19, 2009 at 5:50 pm

The level of benefit cuts being protested by the SEIU is laughably tiny. Even if the City were to get all it wants in the way of benefit cuts in the current contract negotiations, the SEIU (and management for that matter) would have benefit levels that are wildly luxurious by any standards except those in the unreal world of government employment ... and more importantly, these benefits still are unaffordable and will have to be pared down further in future years.

I hope the SEIU strikes. They'll get scant public support in this environment, and a strike might be a big opportunity to outsource a lot of the city's work to private firms as mentioned above - giving the city finances a long term boost.

Posted by Quality, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Aug 19, 2009 at 5:58 pm

Quality service by city employees?

Hardly... When I have called about problems I have talked with people who did not know, or got voice mail because the employee was absent. The streets are in laughable shape... The employees I have dealt with are NOT courteous very often. Finally, speaking of parks, such as Mitchell Park, one thing I have often seen there over the years, is a parked City owned public works/utilities vehicle, in a nice shady spot, with an employee soundly asleep in the driver's seat...

Posted by Old Blue, a resident of another community, on Aug 19, 2009 at 9:38 pm

WATCH OUT: when Yale and the SEIU were in negotiations, the SEIU set up a website (yaleinsider.org - now mercifully gone) that was rife with half-truths, mis-statements, rumor, innuendo, and extrapolation designed to embarrass the university. It was some of the most shameful propagandizing I've ever seen and I fear that tone is coming to Palo Alto sooner or later.

The whole episode turned a lot of people off to the SEIU and their bully tactics.

Posted by Mike H., a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Aug 19, 2009 at 9:44 pm

How much are all these slick websites costing? 'Strong financial management'? 'Progress Needed'.

Posted by bill, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Aug 19, 2009 at 10:33 pm

Quality. As a responsible citizen get the number of the city truck, the time of day and the location. Get a witness if you can. Report this immediately to the City Manager - I fear the Utility Dept. manager will be afraid to confront the employees.

If you can take a picture with your cell phone or a camera, so much the better.

Posted by Lee Thé, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Aug 20, 2009 at 11:19 am

Traditionally, those who entered civil service traded job security for income. But over the years, locally, regionally, and nationally, civil service unions figured out how to game the system. Today civil service employees get, on average, 43% more total compensation than comparable private sector employees--and still enjoy lifetime security that their employers--we taxpayers--can only dream of.

At the same time, employee compensation has come to take up a greater and greater part of the budget. City negotiators take the path of least resistance and take on unfunded liabilities for future pensions that we'll never be able to pay unless we suspend all city services and simply turn over all our taxes to pay city employee retirees' pensions.

I notice city employees on this thread threaten that quality employees will go to work for other cities if we don't ante up.

I'm willing to put this to the test. Let them strike. Let us fire them all and put all their jobs on Craig's List at private sector wages, in an economy with upwards of 10% unemployment.

What would you bet that we'd have good, qualified people lined up around the block for these jobs?

Posted by Glenn Roberts, a resident of another community, on Aug 20, 2009 at 11:26 am

To "Quality " and "Bill" -

I am the Public Works Director for the City and as such am responsible for oversight of the City fleet. Please do follow up on such allegations and get me specifics as to the vehicle number, time of day, etc. As "Bill" says, a picture would be even better. I can then refer the information to the appropriate Department. We can and have disciplined employees for such issues if they are factually correct and documented. Is it possible that the employee was on their lunch hour?

You can contact me at 650 329-2325 or glenn.roberts@cityofpaloalto.org

Thank you for following up with specific documentation.

Posted by Anna, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Aug 20, 2009 at 11:27 am

I'm with Lee The. Let them strike... and then give their jobs to people who will appreciate the opportunity.

The purpose of city government isn't to provide the highest possible compensation and cushy retirements to its employees. Rather the government's purpose is to provide services, infrastructure and ammentities to residents in the most efficient way possible.

Outsourcing as many city services as possible - with bidders competing for the jobs - seems like the way to go to me.

Posted by Lineman for the City, a resident of another community, on Aug 20, 2009 at 8:24 pm

I also encourage getting the ruck number and time. Take into consideration that Mitchell Park has a lot of parking. When a city crew is looking for someplace to eat lunch it's a logical spot. Would you rather they sit in your front yard? That City employee may have woke up at 3:00 that morning to make it to the van pool. A power nap on his lunch while sitting in his truck seems pretty reasonable.

Streets: Go drive around some of your neighboring cities. To say our streets are laughable is laughable.

Service: I'm in the electric department. Take a look at the City Auditor's report. Who had the lowest amount of outages in the cities listed? One guess....Palo Alto. Who had the shortest average outage duration....Palo Alto. Check the section on rates. Citizens are getting better service for less money.

We am a civil servant but some of you on this thread seem to think we're just plain servants. Before someone once again posts "If you don't like it here, go find another job". I've worked here for 12 years and have many friends who are residents and local business owners. Plus, I work in a great department. Would I do this job for less money and benefits? No!!

How dare Anna say that a 10% cut in pay is "laughably tiny". Tell that to one of the many single moms barely getting by now. Or the wife with a husband who is one of the 10% unemployed. As I said here before, we made a choice years ago. We knew we weren't going to get rich working as civil servants. We aren't going to get stock options or bonuses. When we leave we aren't going to get a big severance package. The ladder to climb is very short and takes a long time. We traded all that for decent benefits and retirement.

Lee:

Once an employee retires he's paid by CalPERS. The employee is off the Cities books. The City and employee pay in while the employee is still working. So the future retiree pension issue is a mute point.

SEIU doesn't want to strike. In the past three contacts they have traded away benefits that have saved the City millions. It's time to draw a line in the sand.

Posted by Lineman for the City, a resident of another community, on Aug 20, 2009 at 8:33 pm

Lee, I meant "moot point"

I also meant "We are civil servants" not "We am..."

I wish the forum had an edit feature.

Posted by Nick L. Dime, a resident of the Professorville neighborhood, on Aug 20, 2009 at 9:50 pm

From the article:

"City leaders launched their website, which tracks the progress of city goals -- a sort of report card -- with the intention of improving transparency and accountability"

That sounds to me like letting the fox guard the henhouse. Isn't that why we have newspapers? I would trust the papers to keep track of the city government a lot more than an entity that has much to loose if things go badly.

As for the SEIU, everybody else is tightening their belt in these tough times. Why should the union members be any different? Are they better than everyone else? They should just be glad they have jobs at all. A lot of people in Silicon Valley don't. Claims that the union is being forced to strike are ludicrous. Nobody is forcing them to do anything. If a strike happens, it is because the unionistas *chose* to strike.

Palo Alto city government seriously needs to get expenditures under control. Jon has a good idea. Why not outsource some of the city functions to private contractors? Contractors do not go on strike, work hard, do a good job and would reduce the burden on the taxpayers all at the same time.

Posted by Anna, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Aug 21, 2009 at 2:37 am

"How dare Anna say that a 10% cut in pay is "laughably tiny"."

Which 10% pay cut is that? I would love it if the city had the courage to push for a 10% pay cut in the SEIU contract negotiations. Unfortunately, they're not. They're not pushing for any wage cuts. The city is asking that employees pick up a slightly larger portion of their (heretofore TOTALLY FREE) medical costs, and some lesser benefit cuts. Ten percent? If only.

"Once an employee retires he's paid by CalPERS. The employee is off the Cities books. The City and employee pay in while the employee is still working. So the future retiree pension issue is a mute point."

Lineman and others have brought this up before. It is totally false. Calpers administers Palo Alto's (and other cities') pensions. If the money contributed by the cities to Calpers on behalf of SEIU members is insufficient to pay pension obligations of Lineman and his SEIU brethren, the cities are responsible for the difference. CalPers funds have declined considerably during the current market bust. And cities - including Palo Alto - are being dunned for some of the shortfall already. If the incredibly optimistic assumptions CalPers is operating under do not come true (and if the risky investment schemes they're perpetrating go bust), these supplemental payments from the cities will rise precipitously in the near future.

Posted by Brian Wilson, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Aug 21, 2009 at 7:08 am

Thought the news story was about the two different websites introduced?, one by the city management and the other by a city employee group. Print media sells the story as "battling" websites, I guess if two groups have different financial information regarding city issues or different views on specifics they are "battling". City offcials tout their website as goverment transparency, but forgot to tell us that they outsourced almost $77,000 of residents tax dollars to Canadians to run their site. Oh well, so much for keeping those outsourced dollars local.The other "battling" website run by an employee group cost residents $0. The city manager says we should make sure that "representations of the city's finances are really accurate and are made by financial experts." I think all would agree, when can these experts get started?

Posted by Lineman for the City, a resident of another community, on Aug 21, 2009 at 8:14 am

Brian,

Thanks for bringing this back on topic. So many of these threads turn into employee bashing.

I'm going to post some facts about CalPERS:

Follow the link:Web Link

CalPERS has just given the agencies enrolled it it's PPO a two month premium vacation. Actually they're reducing the premium to one cent for record keeping. That's a 16.7% reduction this year for all current and retired employees.

CalPers uses a 15 year smoothing formula. This averages the years of double digit gains with the current year. I can't find it now but there's a line in the City's budget that states the PERS rate increase was less than the City forecast and budgeted for.

"And cities - including Palo Alto - are being dunned for some of the shortfall already." I would like some proof of that statement. PERS funds have bounced back to $191,200,000,000. It's funds are secure. Even in these time public agencies rates are stable.

Anna, how do you know the City isn't asking for any pay cuts? I know for a fact they are. The cumulative proposed cuts add up to 8-10%. You state our medical cost are "TOTALLY FREE", I disagree. If you look historically at our pay, we bargain for less the median pay for local cities. I hope this doesn't come as a shock. We accept less pay to compensate for the health benefits. So they aren't TOTALLY FREE.

Posted by Anna, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Aug 21, 2009 at 9:19 am

Lineman continues to spout nonsense about CalPers that just isn't true.

Consider here: Web Link

"A top official with the California Public Employment Retirement System finally conceded last week what observers of state and local government finances have been saying for years: California's public employee pension costs are "unsustainable.""

Or here:

"“I don’t want to sugarcoat anything,” Seeling said as he neared the end of his comments. “We are facing decades without significant turnarounds in assets, decades of — what I, my personal words, nobody else’s — unsustainable pension costs of between 25 percent of pay for a miscellaneous plan and 40 to 50 percent of pay for a safety plan (police and firefighters) … unsustainable pension costs. We’ve got to find some other solutions.”Web Link

Or here:Web Link

Calpers currently is saying it can get out of its problems if it gets 8% return on its assets over 20 years AND employer (that is "city of Palo Alto", e.g.) contributions increase by 4% per year.

Anyone who knows anything about the market knows the first assumption is totally unrealistic. And if you know math, you see that pension contributions will quickly eat up most of the city's budget: also unrealistic.

Every analysis done shows that public sector employees out-earn private sector employees by 30 to 40 percent. Lineman's assertion that he doesn't get free health care even though he pays nothing for it because he accepted lower pay therefor is risible.

Posted by Lineman for the City, a resident of another community, on Aug 21, 2009 at 10:39 am

Anna,

Thanks for the links, I'll look into them.

One big thing I found.

Your quote:

"Calpers currently is saying it can get out of its problems if it gets 8% return on its assets over 20 years AND employer (that is "city of Palo Alto", e.g.) contributions increase by 4% per year."

The link says:

At a fund meeting last month, Chief Investment Officer Joseph Dear told CalPERS' board the fund could be fully funded in 15 years if it posts annual returns of more than 8.0 percent and contributions grow by more than 4.0 percent.

Why have you changed the quote from 15 years to 20 years and from 4% to 4% per year?

Changing the numbers doesn't help your credibility.

Posted by Morris, a resident of the Evergreen Park neighborhood, on Aug 22, 2009 at 12:30 pm

The SEIU WEB-site is pretty funny. It is full of half-truths, and no insight into the problems of city management. It is pretty clear that the SEIU point-of-view is: "how much money you got in the General Fund? We'll take it all."

The country in now bankrupt for decades to come. Some of the reasons can be laid at the feet of the never ending demands of labor unions.

This web-site does nothing except provide more evidence of how irresponsible labor unions are .. and how the time is coming that the US is going to have to outlaw these organizations.

Posted by Taxpayer, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Aug 22, 2009 at 1:41 pm

The SEIU website is trying to influence events for their own benefit, not provide us with accurate information.

To ban labor unions would be to ban freedom of assembly. We should outlaw that cherished freedom? A better solution would be for the City of Palo Alto to finally grow some cojones and stand up to union greed. If SEIU strikes, so what? Bring in replacement workers.

Someone in a previous post stated "Once an employee retires he's paid by CalPERS. The employee is off the Cities books. The City and employee pay in while the employee is still working. So the future retiree pension issue is a mute point."

True, but that is totally missing the point. They city (aka the long-suffering taxpayers) had to foot the bill for lavish benefits up front instead of after a SEIU employee retires. Whether the taxpayers pay before or after an employee retire is irrelevant. The people still have make do with less so SEIU can have more.

Does that sound fair to you?

Posted by Morris, a resident of the Evergreen Park neighborhood, on Aug 22, 2009 at 6:51 pm

> Once an employee retires he's paid by CalPERS

This has been hashed out in other threads, but the statement is not completely true. It is true that CalPERS issues the checks, but if it has not made enough money from manipulating the funds at its disposal, then the employers-of-record (governmental agencies where the retirees worked) will have additional payments to make each year that CalPERS needs to make up for its mismanagement. In those cases, the retiree is "back on the books", at least on a year-to-year basis.

Posted by Outside Observer, a resident of another community, on Aug 22, 2009 at 9:24 pm

Morris,

What you fail to mention is Pete Wilson raiding PERS funds to balance the budget, and all the "boom" years when no Cal PERS employers paid anything (but the employees did).

Give Pete Wilson's theft back to PERS. Have the employers put away their retirement savings for a rainy day, and there would be no issue with PERS despite the economic downturn.

Sorry, PERS pensioners have paid for the folly of the Cal state government before. Now, justifiably, its your turn.

Posted by Anna, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Aug 23, 2009 at 12:04 am

There is much pure nonsense spouted here about CalPers and the solvency of Calpers funds.

The simple fact is that CalPers has been underfunded for years. Neither the contributions of employers or the (scant) employee payments have ever been enough to cover the promised payments. Neither do any so called pension raids, or alleged accounting subterfuge account for the deficiencies. Politicians, under union pressure, have increased promised future benefits without putting in the money to pay for them. That's what politicians do. It's put us in a big hole now.

Palo Alto and other CalPers employers will be on the hook for the inevitable deficiencies. If current politicians don't find the courage to end this giveaway, the problem will be so much worse - even insurmountable (as the city of Vallejo, for example has already found out.)

There is no defensible argument for continuing to provide defined benefit pensions to ordinary government workers like most SEIU members.

Let them strike.

Posted by Dave, a resident of another community, on Aug 23, 2009 at 10:13 pm

No lets REALLY do things right. Cut some jobs, and see if any of those people get ANY job in the private sector.

Posted by Dave, a resident of another community, on Aug 23, 2009 at 10:16 pm

Just a thought... I made the effort to pay my bills in person during the 11 years I lived in PA.

Is some of the good service the SEIU is talking about the employees who stand there talking over the weekend's events while lines form in the lobby of city hall?

no thanks, let them strike

Posted by Never happened to me, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Aug 23, 2009 at 10:46 pm

I also pay my utility bill at city hall all the time, and have never had to wait while employees talk. It may have happened to you once but it does not happen as you describe it. Your anger is spilling over on to several threads. Please try to stick to the facts.

Posted by Jennifer J, a resident of the Evergreen Park neighborhood, on Aug 24, 2009 at 2:37 pm

It's interesting that the website reveals pockets of inefficiency. For example, click the San Francisquito Creek JPA link and it's the most obtuse thing I've ever seen. Given their the JPA's history of lack of transparency and hiring practices (i.e. family hiring family) this is more of the same.

Posted by Thankful, a resident of another community, on Aug 26, 2009 at 9:32 am

I am thankful for my job.

I am thankful for my health.

I am thankful for my benefits.

I am thankful 15 years ago I had foresight to invest in my future and took a pay cut to receive the benefits I now have.

I am thankful that while private industry was doing excellent financially, I had my job with lower-than-private-industry salary.

While the economy was booming, most of us City workers were sitting back saying, “Wow did you just see how much (X-Named Private Companies) they are giving as bonuses and incentives?” Nobody wanted our jobs then. Now that the economy is bad, private industry folks want my job? Do you REALLY want my job? You will get benefits paid in full (extremely thankful for that). You will get $57,000 a year (ok, I rounded up to prevent embarrassment.). You will be given a workload where you may not be able to take a break all day for several days except for lunch (my mistake for being a dedicated employee). BUT, will you be as dedicated to the citizens as I am even though I (we) do not live in Palo Alto? Yes folks, all that and more for $57K a year. For an occasional THANK YOU from citizens I help and the benefits, I will ride out this storm.

Taking any of my $57K/year is mean-spirited and wrong. You are taking not only from me, you are jeopardizing my ability to continue to pay for my child’s college fees (which have risen 15% over the past two semesters). You are asking me to deny my children the only real chance they will have for a prosperous future and to be productive contributors to society. I would NEVER do that to you.

Oh and the half-truths mentioned above about the SEIU website, those half-truths are based on confirmed information from City of Palo Alto.

Respectfully submitted,

Thankful to be a public servant for Palo Alto residents.

Posted by Opus, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Aug 26, 2009 at 11:20 am

Dave,

We're all sorry you dislike Palo Alto so much. Please accept our sincere condolences.

Posted by SpaceCowboy, a resident of another community, on Sep 22, 2009 at 11:32 pm

One note ... I believe that in actuality, Calpers employees contribute more to their pension than their employer ... 11% vs. 10% over time (Google the Lockyer report, et. al.) Public entities in trouble today, can look back to the time when they made cognizant choices to defer contributions because of Calpers investment successes. If you want to blame someone, blame the city council members, supervisors, etc. Only they could have taken the short cut of trying to fund something WITH NOTHING. Only they could believe that the bubble wouldn't burst.Just because someone offered them subprime pension contribution relief, didn't mean they should have been so fiscally irresponsible as to accept it. They knew that they were responsible to make up any contributions not covered by the investment income. Now they, just like so many homeowners, are upside down. You cannot blame the employees for that. If you want to blame them, do so after you string up your elected officials in the town square along with half of your many whiners.

For such a rich community, you sound like a bunch of chiselers. I'll bet you want someone else to pay for your roads, bridges, trains, schools, etc. Get a life

Posted by Bruce, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Sep 23, 2009 at 11:36 am

A one-day SEIU strike saves the City $281,000; sounds good to me. Why not change the City schedule back to 8-5, Monday thru Friday like every other employer in the area, then furlough non-emergency personnel every other Friday (which they have trained Palo Alto citizens to tolerate) and save 26 times $281,000 or $7.3 million annually.

The most important compensation changes must be in the formulas for City employee retirement pay and retirement health benefits, emergency and non-emergency personnel alike, union and non-union alike. Our City cannot afford to keep paying exorbitant retirement benefits. In this worst recession since the Depression, the community is solidly behind you, Mr. City Manager, now is the time to make a stand.

Moreover, come November 3, I will vote for any Council candidate who stands up to the unions and requires a roll-back of retirement benefit formulas that will save the City at least $4 million annually. I will NOT vote for any Council candidate who accepts any union endorsement, funds and/or volunteer help during this election.

Anybody know which Council candidates are cozying up to the unions? Huge conflict of interest.