New SEIU contract to raise Palo Alto workers' pension, health care contributions Palo Alto Issues, posted by Editor, Palo Alto Online, on Jul 18, 2012 at 7:19 pm
Employees in Palo Alto's largest labor union will have to start paying a greater share of the city's pension and health care costs under a new contract that the City Council is scheduled to adopt Monday night. Related stories:
[Web Link Pensions: Palo Alto's ticking time bomb]
[Web Link State investments take a bite out of local budgets]
Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, July 18, 2012, 5:34 PM
Posted by Liberty, a resident of the University South neighborhood, on Jul 18, 2012 at 7:19 pm
The article makes it sound like the City is not paying anything towards pensions. It should mention that the city still pays the CalPERS employer contribution, which changes year to year but i think is around 20% of salary.
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton, on Jul 18, 2012 at 7:29 pm Peter Carpenter is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
If you want the citizens more involved in compensation and benefit decisions then have the city council adopt the same policy as the MPFPD Board did:
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MENLO PARK FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT ADOPTING A POLICY REGARDING DISTRIBUTION
OF PROPOSED COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS
WHEREAS, in accordance with the policy of promoting prompt public access to government records, the California Public Records Act broadly defines public records (Gov. Code Section 6252, subdivision (3)) and the exceptions to disclosing public records under the California Public Records Act are narrow; and
WHEREAS, the Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code Sections 54950 through 54963, enacted into law in 1953, requires open meetings of local agencies “to curb misuse of the democratic process by secret legislation of public bodies”; and
WHEREAS, the Ralph M. Brown Act “…reflects a legislative determination that ‘public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business,’ and an intent ‘that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly’ (Gov. Code Section 54950); and
WHEREAS, the Ralph M. Brown Act and the California Public Records Act require the District to conduct its business in a transparent manner; and
WHEREAS, the Board, as duly elected representatives of the citizens within the District, in conformance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and the California Public Records Act, is committed to providing the District’s citizens with information considered by the Board in making its decisions; and
WHEREAS, the Board believes due to the importance of proposed collective bargaining agreements with the District employee labor representatives, that these proposed agreements should be made available to the citizens of the District in sufficient time prior to the Board’s adoption of the proposed agreements so as to allow for adequate review and comment by the public prior to final Board action.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the Menlo Park Fire Protection District does hereby move that any proposed collectively bargained labor agreement between the District and designated District employee representatives shall be made publicly available at least fifteen (15) calendar days before the meeting at which the agreement will be acted on by the Board.
PASSED AND ADOPTED as a resolution of the Board of Directors of the Menlo Park Fire Protection District at the Regular Meeting held on the 16th day of December 2008
Posted by Former City employee, a resident of another community, on Jul 18, 2012 at 9:48 pm
If you think you can get by on these take home wages minus the new contributions to Heath and retirement feel free to apply. This is a link to the City's job openings page. I doubt you are qualified nor could get by on the low pay.
Posted by John, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jul 19, 2012 at 12:23 pm
The article discusses costs of the pension and health plans. But it doesn't address the fundamental issue of how the benefits are determined; a function of the performance of the pension fund or a function of predetermined fixed amounts. Does your reporter know if that discussion is on the table?
Posted by David Pepperdine, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jul 19, 2012 at 1:40 pm
Staff will always say they're paid too little. Ever heard of anyone complaining they get paid too much?
Salary is a matter of supply of available candidates and demand for their services. If you don't like the wages, get another job or get re-trained. If the employer can't afford your salary, they have to find another candidate.
When you add up all the benefits, IMHO city employees are over-compensated. Vastly. Why should they be paid (salary+benefits) greater than the private sector? Palo Alto has the highest debt per person of any city in the Bay Area. The pension liabilities are staggering.
Posted by lazlo, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jul 19, 2012 at 10:00 pm
...now if we could only get the ballooning and skyrocketing salary and benefits of Palo Alto city management under control. HR Director Ms. Shen rakes in $300,000 in salary and benefits. These yearly six digit salary and benefit packages are unsustainable and are a ticking time bomb. Palo Alto City Manager Keene rakes in more than $500,000 with taxpayers buying his family a nice house in Palo Alto, paying his property taxes, gym expenses, auto allowance, paid health and dental benefits for his family, over two months of paid vacation time every year, and much much more. With over 100 managers earning benefit packages up to and exceeding $100,000 plus salary, the real ticking time bomb of unsustainable ballooning and skyrocketing costs are city management related. Why do city management personel need to be paid salary/benefit packages equal to or more than the President of the United States?
Posted by Separation Needed, a resident of another community, on Jul 19, 2012 at 10:09 pm
This is a class issue. Salary group making less than $75K a year should not be part of this argument. Employees making $75K+ a year need to be looked at. Someone making $45K salary and $12K is paying for these new cuts worst than those who are making $9+ salary and $12k in benefits and to boot - management benefits that others no longer have including tuition reimbursement, conference/vacation reimbursement option, etc.
Let us all pay our fair share at all levels. Thank you. From a city worker, single parent with dependents and paying for education.
Posted by neighbor, a resident of the Greenmeadow neighborhood, on Jul 20, 2012 at 10:52 am
@former city employee -- the pay for the children's theater position, requiring only a bachelor's degree is more than CSU professors make (with Ph.D.s and often post-doctoral training) with 10-20 years experience and tenure. Looking at the salary schedule, underpaid is not how I would describe it (at any level).
Posted by jardins, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jul 20, 2012 at 12:27 pm
In total agreement with your points, Lazlo.
I think the whole process of hiring for city management needs to be examined--by an impartial outsider to Palo Alto. I've read the Palo Alto Municipal Code and it seems to grant the city manager full control over the management positions he sees necessary to create. If that is so, it is ridiculous--and undemocratic, given that it is taxpayers' money that's funding such appointments.
I'd surely welcome hearing from others who read that Code--is my interpretation of it correct?
I think you'll see that CSU professors will make quite a bit more than the Children's Theater position. That's if they only work the academic year. If they work a 12 month year they will make a lot more.
The CSU librarians make more than the CT job as the director of education:
Posted by Resident and Employee, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jul 28, 2012 at 1:35 pm
To "Separation Needed" the posts of the SEIU employees wages do not then deduct the current loss of holidays, healthcare and pension contributions by the employee,
Why do the lowest paid employees group continue to take the hit when the weekly reports salaries for the exhorbitant management group pay and retirement?
The jobs currently posted by human resources reflect Management Positions and Police. The listings do not distinguish union group in the cover post. The library position is SEIU.
SEIU: ...the SEIU employees now service: multiple library, art center, theatre, zoo, recreation centers; parks that are not funded by the users. Those "extras" are the cost of running a "quality of life" city.
MANAGEMENT JOB OPPORTUNITIES: Why have we been paying exorbitant salaries for unqualified workers?
Look at the requirements for the Management Specialist.
Are we about to hire another "friend" or associate?
Why are we hiring additional management computer personnel at huge salaries when we already have the positions to cover those duties?
As long as the WEEKLY is a puppet for the city management we will continue to get press releases as news and inadequate evaluation of city performance, the budget, union groups, and pay levels.