Original post made
on Mar 22, 2013
This story contains 49 words.
If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have
Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.
If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account,
to get your online account activated.
" the city's spending on employee benefits jumped by 8 percent between 2011 and 2012, canceling out the city's 3 percent decrease in salary expenditures and leaving the overall spending on employee compensation mostly flat."
Shouldn't this be the objective? As benefit costs increase, the number of employees must decrease to compensate.
Thank you for your in-depth article about the tension between the City of Palo Alto and its employees represented by labor unions. The story of Palo Alto is being echoed throughout the country.
While I believe your intention was to present a balanced appraisal of this tension, I find that your words and indeed the words of most reporting on this issue to be biased.
To represent attempts by either side in a negotiation as "reform" suggests that proposed changes are meant to improve a situation, a judgment that may reflect the opinion of one party but not the other. Let us remember that in all of the negotiated benefits packages so roundly being criticized of late, that these contracts were agreed to by both our elected representatives and the representatives of employees.
The rising cost of healthcare and the economic recession were not the result of labor unions. The consensus of opinion is that these conditions are the results of political and financial mismanagement and chicanery, and the the responsible parties have in large measure not only gone unpunished, but in fact have benefited from the subsequent government bailouts and financial instability.
My point is that both the City and its employees are both victims and participants in the current situation and that "reform" is the incorrect word to apply to what should be done to address the problem. We were all sold a bill of goods by Wall Street, and many of use happily bought it. Caveat emptor. And yet let us focus on the larger, system issues of "reform" that focus on culprits, not victims, and instead use words such as "solidarity" to express how management and employees move forward together to address mutual financial interests and work to bring accountability to the system that did not work for them but rather against them.
Maybe city manager Keene should focus his concerns about salaries on his own "shadow organization" of personal friends he has hired as senior managers earning six figure incomes.