Town Square

Post a New Topic

In an odd move, city imposes raises on union

Original post made on Jun 25, 2013

Palo Alto on Monday night overhauled the salaries of more than 200 city workers, though for more than 40 of them the pay increases arrive as a bittersweet treat.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Tuesday, June 25, 2013, 12:46 AM

Comments (23)

Posted by common sense, a resident of Midtown
on Jun 25, 2013 at 2:20 am

Unfortunately there was not a reform in pay practices - ie. pay for performance.

The key quote "I think that we expect more than median performance out of our group of employees," Keene said. "So I think being at the median now -- certainly we shouldn't be at a lower point than that."

In certain areas, such as the police, I think they have above median performance in solving some crimes, especially with the cut backs they've had to endure.

In other areas, such as public works with the Mitchell Park Library project stalled, the clear cutting of trees on California Ave. I don't think expectations have been met.

And the Community Development Department - it's been years, and still no resolution to downtown parking; the fiasco with the Maybell Ave rezoning, and the Arastradero lane changes, I certainly would say it's way below expectations.

Parks & Recreation - having navigated a change in field allocations, and keeping the parks in good shape - better than expectations.


Posted by Josh, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 25, 2013 at 6:35 am

Raises are ok. It's these out of control pension costs that need to be cut. Do the math: employees retiring at age 55 with 90% of their pay (for life) is what the city needs to get under control.


Posted by Wayne Martin, a resident of Fairmeadow
on Jun 25, 2013 at 7:26 am

Missing from this article, and from the Council's understanding of the linkage between salaries and pensions, which should be seen as "deferred income", is that public sector employees will all be paid millions after their retirement.

Using a COLA of only 2%, public sector retirees receive the following payouts:

Total Pension Payouts
Pension
$100K--10-Years: $1.1M | 20-Years: $2.5M | 30-Years: $4.1M
$150K--10-Years: $1.7M | 20-Years: $3.4M | 30-Years: $6.2M
$200K--10-Years: $2.2M | 20-Years: $5.0M | 30-Years: $8.3M

Police and Fire Department employees are routinely drawing over $100K salaries in the larger cities, with pensions as much as 90% of their high salary (or more). Within a decade, it's hard not to expect some public safety employees to routinely be paid more than $300K/year. Other municipal employees' pensions can be as much as 82% (or more) of their exit salaries. In another decade, or so, the public sector will totally bankrupt the private sector with their pension demands.

The City of Palo Alto still seems to have its head in the sand, when it comes to classifying pensions as "deferred salary". Until there is recognition that pensions are not a "gift"—but linked to salaries, our country will continue to spiral towards national bankruptcy. What good is "democracy"—when all we do with it is wreck the state?


Posted by musical, a resident of Palo Verde
on Jun 25, 2013 at 7:35 am

Just imagine how high they'd be without Prop 13 . . .


Posted by Michael wilder, a resident of Midtown
on Jun 25, 2013 at 8:16 am

Who cares what other towns are paying 'comparable' employees, the county is full of unemployed 'professional' people who would do these jobs for half the money and probably in half the time since they are accustomed to the knock down drag out competitive world of real business, where you either do it right and under budget or they 'Fire' you on the spot. No union whining, padded over time, overpaid exorbitant benefits, fat severances, saved sick time, personal days, holidays, vacation days. In real life you're just 'out the door.'
City employees are not public servants, they are the Masters and looters of the city and the country. thanks to the unions and cowardly, stupid, ambitious local politicians, this will only get worse. Government employees must be paid LESS than the community average - in exchange for the stability, low stress, simple minded jobs they do. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Posted by Baffling loyalty to unions. Wake up, young folks!, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 25, 2013 at 10:30 am

Retiring before 65 is ridiculous. Who gets to do that any more? And why? People are healthier as they age and living longer. Move up the retirement age! My generation is going to have work longer. Make the inevitable change now and share the wealth.

The younger city workers are being fleeced by their older colleagues. I don't really understand their loyalty to the unions that seem to advocate most effectively for the most senior employees.

The unions are really disfunctional. Younger members need to get active and revamp the system to create more sustainable practises.


Posted by David Pepperdine, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 25, 2013 at 11:02 am

Unions suck the life blood out of our economy.
Just look at the Teamsters.
And the only thing that sucks more? The asleep-at-the-switch City Council.


Posted by FrankF, a resident of Ventura
on Jun 25, 2013 at 11:07 am

FrankF is a registered user.

This county is not "full of unemployed 'professional' people who would do these jobs for half the money..." There is a boom going on here (just check out housing prices).

I don't mind paying a good salary for top people. I do fear the pensions - they are a temptation for the city to under fund, they put us in the position of wishing retirees to die early (not good for either).

In my opinion we should move to a defined contribution scheme like 401k or 403b - let the city have a generous match to make up for the loss of the pension. But this is going to be a big problem for us.

It's in the interest of the City employees too - as they can much more flexibility moving around in their careers and don't get stuck in a position where they hate their job but need to stay for another few years.


Posted by 35 year resident, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Jun 25, 2013 at 11:18 am

Michael Wilder has it exactly right. There are hundreds of unemployed professionals who could do these jobs for less than what we are "rewarding" these overpaid, union (and non-union) bloodsuckers. Staffing could be reduced by 20% and still be efficient. Too many managers and assistant managers for small groups of workers. Not an efficient way to run an organization.

We need to vote OUT the "lifer" council members and get some people with the guts to just say NO. The city manager can go too. Get someone with experience at half the cost and STOP comparing earnings with other communities. If they want to leave for greener pastures, let them go.

When will we wake up?


Posted by resident, a resident of Barron Park
on Jun 25, 2013 at 11:41 am

Spot on ..Michael Wilder


Posted by Joe, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 25, 2013 at 11:44 am

> I don't mind paying a good salary for top people.

What is a good salary? More than a similar job would pay in the private sector?

And how does any resident know how good public sector employees are--since their work records are secret?


Posted by Here we go again, the late 90's all over, a resident of Green Acres
on Jun 25, 2013 at 1:36 pm

Nothing ever changes. The same reason for increasing salaries was given during the dot com craze, and look where it got us with out of control municipal spending on salaries, benefits, and pensions. Is this council, and others around the nation trying to say that the recession is over? I think not...It's all a bubble, beginning with housing all over again, and unemployment is not really going down, people have just stopped looking for work due to the lack of opportunity in certain sectors - tech of course is doing very well, but only for the engineers.


Posted by Sue, a resident of another community
on Jun 25, 2013 at 2:08 pm

City of San Jose raised the minimum age of retirement for employees to 65, including firefighters and police. Also, the maximum pension is now 65% instead of 90% of their yearly paid. Other cities should follow. This is reasonable and needed.


Posted by jake, a resident of Community Center
on Jun 25, 2013 at 3:09 pm

But look! The city sends trucks of workers trimming the trees twice within the last 12 months. Silent is Golden


Posted by If Only, a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Jun 25, 2013 at 5:02 pm

My husband would LOVE to retire before age 70, but due to the high copay the health insurance companies levy on some life-saving medications and IV infusions, he cannot do so--without using up our savings and retirement funds.

COLAs are useless, not enough to help, just enough to raise you into a higher tax bracket where you lose it anyway.

Whatever happened to merit raises only?


Posted by John, a resident of Mountain View
on Jun 25, 2013 at 6:55 pm

You voted in the "lifer" politicians in the last election, so look for more of the same. Maybell, density, development traffic.
All we get is hot air while the public employees go to the bank.


Posted by @taxpayer, a resident of Midtown
on Jun 25, 2013 at 11:02 pm

What is going on! We struggle and pay for public employees. Here is a quote from a relevant recent article in SJ Mercury. Everyone should read it to see where your taxes are going:

"Not only did the county administrator rack up $462,000 in gross pay last year, and not only did taxpayers contribute an additional $118,000 to her retirement plan, they also picked up the bill for something Muranishi was supposed to pay: the $43,000 "employee" contribution to her pension.

It's called the "pension pickup" -- and like a rich uncle picking up the tab at a big family dinner, Bay Area taxpayers footed the bill for more than $221 million last year for the employee share of 63,000 public workers' pension contributions."

Web Link


Posted by Wayne Martin, a resident of Fairmeadow
on Jun 26, 2013 at 7:20 am

There are a growing number of public officials who are now making over $300K a year. In Alameda, the County Supervisors have seemingly lost their minds, and authorized a salary/benefits/perks that must end up costing the County's taxpayers over $600,000/year.

I updated my spreadsheet to reflect $300K and $400K per year initial pensions:

----------Total Pension Payouts-------------

Pension
$300K--10-Years: $3.3M | 20-Years: $8.6M | 30-Years: $12.4M
$400K--10-Years: $4.5M | 20-Years: $9.9M | 30-Years: $16.5M

Assuming that the Alameda County Executive retires at 30 years, with an initial pension of $400K (or more), this individual will be likely paid more than $17M during her retirement years!

This is simply insane.

And this story is just very tip of the tip of the iceberg.


Posted by resident, a resident of Barron Park
on Jun 26, 2013 at 11:27 am

Given how most people vote for pro union politicians, against prop 32, against any commonsense reform, against their own or even larger interests of society..I am not optimistic. Unions have gamed the elections and politicians are beholden to them and so the cycle continues. We are ruled by the local, state and fed governments. Private citizens that do not work for the public sector or have a unionized job are at the bottom of this totem pole, just there to feed the system. People in CA don't even realize they are voting against their own children!! Young people wake up.


Posted by resident, a resident of Barron Park
on Jun 26, 2013 at 11:56 am

Given our very short-sighted capitalistic private businesses, that also want all this immigration reform, and a govt. that just wants more tax revenues regardless of how they get it..young people(citizens) will just be left fighting for cashier jobs, sales jobs or work for the govt. or go on the dole. Sorry to be so bleak..but any thinking person would see the truth of it...why don't the young people see it? Maybe they are not taught to think critically on purpose by our state schools, however great they claim to be.


Posted by John, a resident of Mountain View
on Jun 26, 2013 at 7:43 pm

So true, someone is going to have to pay for the $400,000 yearly pensions. Its the future private workforce. They are underfunded by a long shot.
It is truly insane.
But you are right, the public unions have gamed the elections.
Wasn't prop 30 for the schools? And who were demonstrating for their share of the pie? Public employees! And they got it.


Posted by paco, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Jun 27, 2013 at 5:31 pm

How odd that the palo alto media is befuddled as to the reason why the City Council and City Manager would "impose" a 3% raise on middle management employees (the highest paid city employees). As City Manager Keene and the City Council are well aware, senior management contracts require that their salary and benefits be "adjusted and aligned " to reflect the 3% increase in lower managements increase in salary and compensation. Pretty sneaky! In effect, City Manager Keene has given himself and his shadow organization of managers a 3% or more raise! The City Manager will now have a salary, compensation, and benefit package equal to or greater than the President of the United States. WOW! His salary and benefits alone are $375,000 and on top of that, he receives undeclared benefits of a furnished house bought and paid for by Palo Alto residents, all property taxes owed on that property paid for by residents, remodeling of his city bought house compliments of city taxpayers, car allowance, gym fees, and the list continues on and on.... What a pity!


Posted by snow, a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Jul 1, 2013 at 8:07 pm

public employees, armed with a high school diploma and nepotism, get all these benefits:

*highest salaries,
*fully paid insurance,
*insane retirements
*paid sick leave and vacation time
*four day work weeks

people in the private sector would be happy to just pick one of these items, but they get all of them and the psuedo-private sector doesn't even bat an eye


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Indian street food and ... bitcoins?
By Elena Kadvany | 4 comments | 3,152 views

Most Seniors do not Need Senior Housing But Could Benefit from other Choice to Remain in Palo Alto
By Steve Levy | 31 comments | 1,430 views

"The Galapagos Affair: Satan Came to Eden"
By Anita Felicelli | 0 comments | 1,133 views

I Spy
By Cheryl Bac | 4 comments | 980 views

The Cinderella ride
By Sally Torbey | 10 comments | 787 views