 |
 |
By KEVIN McCALLUM
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
Santa Rosa firefighters have agreed to begin contributing to their pension costs in exchange for raises this year and next and a one-year contract extension.
The tentative deal, one of several to be considered by the City Council next week, is likely to spark heated debate between council members who say it provides needed financial savings to the city and others who are against giving employees raises.
City Manager Kathy Millison called the tentative agreement a “reasonable compromise” given that the firefighters have a contract through the middle of 2012 and didn’t need to give up anything.
They could have demanded 6 percent raises due them by contract, but instead agreed to help the city achieve its goals of saving money and beginning the process of pension overhaul, she said.
“When you look at the kind of savings that come out of this for the city in order to manage through the next two years, it was just too important to give up,” Millison said.
Total savings from the concessions are estimated to be $944,000 this year and nearly $1.2 million next year, according to the city.
It calls for paying firefighters a 3.5 percent salary increase this year, and deferring the 2.5 percent increase until next year. Both had previously been deferred to help the city through its ongoing fiscal struggles. Of the 3.5 percent raise, 3 percent will be used to partially offset the city’s pension costs.
That leaves a ½ percent gain for firefighters.
The following year, the 2.5 percent raise would kick in, but in a similar fashion, 2 percent of it would be used to further offset the city’s payments to the state Public Employee Retirement System, which have been soaring in recent years.
The contributions are cumulative, so by then firefighters would be paying 5 percent of their salaries to PERS. The future pension payments also increase because they will be based on salaries that will be 5 percent higher.
Currently firefighters do not contribute any portion of pay into their pension costs, which equal about a third of their pay.
In addition, Santa Rosa Firefighters IAFF Local 1401, which has 123 members, has agreed to immediately begin discussions for lowering pension benefits for new firefighters, referred to as a “second-tier” similar to the one the city has been working for years to establish for regular workers, so far unsuccessfully.
Councilman John Sawyer said he’s uncomfortable granting any raises in this fiscal environment, but noted that it was far better than the alternative of paying an additional 6 percent. He said the benefits of the pension changes seem to offset the downsides to the city.
“I was willing to consider another year of these savings that were offered in the spirit of pension reform,” he said.
But Councilman Gary Wysocky said the arrangement fails to address the “continuous rise in compensation costs by one of the largest unions in the city.”
“When it comes right down to it, it’s a raise and an extension,” Wysocky said.
He said the council shouldn’t be so quick to praise firefighters for paying 3 percent of salary toward their retirement when the city is giving them money to do it with, he said.
Fran Elm, director of human resources, said the item was “very controversial” among councilmembers. “They see the savings and yet they’re having a real hard time with the contract extension,” Elm said.
Until the firefighters’ negotiations, the city had been taking a hard line with its employee groups against multiyear contracts in an effort to get all contracts up for renegotiation at the same time, 2012.
None of the other contracts headed to the council on Tuesday include an extension, but then again, none promise such significant savings.
One-year savings from the four other groups — maintenance workers, utilities operators, police dispatchers and technicians, and public safety managers — range from $29,000 for the public safety managers to $300,000 for the maintenance workers.
Measures agreed to by these groups include furloughs, forgoing raises, paying higher health care costs and allowing provisions to prevent “spiking” of pensions.
The dispatchers and police technicians agreed to both a two-tier system for pension and an anti-spiking provision that uses a three-year average to calculate the salary upon which a pension is based, instead of the highest year.
The 440-member Santa Rosa City Employees Association is expected to vote on a proposal next week, The contract for the city’s 142 sworn police officers isn’t up until next year after a one-year contract extension was granted last year. The city has not been in concession discussions with police, Millison said.
The agreement heading to the council next week would save the city a total of $1.6 million in the budget year that began July 1. When the $515,000 worth of concessions from middle managers approved by the council last week are added, the total rises to $2.1 million.
Millison had assumed $1 million in savings to the city’s general fund from concessions for the current budget cycle.
The general fund savings to date, assuming council approval of the five concession packages next week, would total $1.6 million.
“This is step in the right direction,” Sawyer said. “It makes sense financially and also philosophically as we move forward.”
Subscribe by Email
Follow us on Twitter
Vowel – I am a commercial plumber with a decent company. Sure we went through bad times, but is you want to refer to the 90s, I was working with a high school education only, criminal background, and still my pay ($50-60/hr) was almost 20-30$/hour more than my public safety friend. Times that by 40 hrs a week (not including OT) and I could easily put that away for my 401K and any other beni’s. You make it sound like the job is so easy to get. Take a class at the local JC and your hired? No….you’ve met the minimal requirements. I did attempt this route once and gave up applying places because of the competition of HIGHLY skilled people with time in Cal Fire, volunteer experience, paramedic certifications, degrees, etc. It aint that easy. It was much easier landing my job.
If public safety wages and benefits were cut by 40%, there would still be a line around the block to apply for a 10 day a month gig with all your tools and equipment paid for, 50K a year and a comfy retirement.
We can give the savings to our military, as they get shot at every day.
Hopefully, the end is in sight for public employee unions nationwide.
A clearer conflict of interest and recipe for corruption and collusion could not be imagined.
John… you don’t think six figures (includes OT), full medical bennies, and 90% of your salary at 50 to 55 years old is plush? Please. I want your job.
I’ve heard it argued that pay for public safety during the so called boom times was considered to be on the low side and that these people took these jobs for the security instead of the high salary. Poppycock. In the 90′s, when the economy was booming, public safety members could still get the better part of six figures without a college degree. All that was needed was a high school diploma and a six month basic police or fire academy, both of which are offered through the JC right here in town. Name another profession that offered remuneration at that level for entry level trainees with no formal education or experience.
I won’t argue that we should reduce all public safety to minimum wage. That’s nonsense as well. They place themselves in harms way on a regular basis and have relatively high on the job injury rates as compared to most other professions. They should be fairly compensated for their efforts.
However, six figures is excessive particularly when coupled with full medical bennies and the not to be had in the private sector retirements.
The real issue here is the cost of those PERS retirements. They’re simply not sustainable. These unfunded liabilities have hundreds if not thousands of municipalities teetering on the verge of insolvency.
If a 401K with 5% matching funds is good enough for the rest of us, it should be good enough for public safety.
So, all of you that do think public safety gets the plush package, come up with some solutions on how things should be? When times are great and the economy is booming should they earn more or continue to get their middle class pay? When times are bad should they take cuts or continue to get middle class pay?
But I can remember when times were great, and the economy was flowing, public safety salary was considered low compared to the private sector bonuses and commisions, no complaints then….funny. Now that the economy is poor people see pulic safety as living like kings.
Should they be like the private sector and get commision and bonusses based on the amount of work they do? On the amount of fires they put out, lives they save or crooks they catch?
A couple firefighters live in my neighborhood and I have a friend who is a police officer. They have basic cars, basic houses, and go on basic vacations…nothing fancy. I can’t believe people make them out to earn some super rich corporate executive lifestyle.
Political parties are like unions: They do the absolute minimum to keep constituents happy while doing everything they can to raise money and hold on to power.
This pretty much sums up our problems!
@Juvenal.
We’re not missing the point at all.
Their wages are outlandish, their ability to retire in their 50′s with 90% of highest year’s pay is preposterous and the fact that they pay nothing into their retirement is obscene.
Our “anything to get re-elected” politicians foisted this unsustainable debt on us due to the political muscle of government employee unions.
The whole thing was rigged starting the day government employees were allowed to unionize starting in New York in 1958 when the mayor realized this would be a great move to get reelected. JFK in 1962 allowed federal employees to unionize and the tsunami was on.
Here’s a little history for you to read about how we became servants to public employee unions:
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/miarticle.htm?id=6868
We need to stop making this about whether a group of city employees are good people, or providing a valuable service. They are providing a valuable service and deserve our respect, even if we cannot continue to pay them what we once did. Any time you decrease someone pay they will see this as a lack of respect, and it’s going to be a tense situation, but we don’t need to make the situation worse by continually saying how little respect we have for them.
COLA, once I asked the City Manager, if the COLA would result in the lowering of the salary, if the COL went down, and he assured me that it would!
And now I have a bridge across a river.
the trouble is that the public, yes, the public, actually believes that they should get a raise, of some sort, each and every year.
And this is why the City Council did these things.
I have told the City Council that they should never have a COLA for future years, but they listen to me , like they listen to John Jenkel.
How the CC hopes to hear what the public wants, and not just hear the stakeholders, when they limit the comments to the CC to three minutes on any subject, although the AG has put limits on that by saying that the right to petition in the Constitution might require the CC to allow more time where the article being discussed would have a personal effect on the presenter.
You are allowed 3 minutes to talk on the budget! Fantastic.
but,
@John – They dont care? Thats a stretch. I cannot tell you how many public venues I have been at where an off duty firefighter or police officer has helped in an emergency. They weren’t getting paid for it. Why don’t you go to a community where there are just volunteer fire depts and tell them “they don’t care”. Why don’t you ASK a public safety member if they have ever worked as a volunteer? They do care, and I am sure that if you were lying hurt in the street and there was a public safety worker (or any public worker) in plain clothes off duty, they would help. I would know… It’s not only for the decent salary and benifits, it’s because they DO care.
@gaj
“How many of you out there contribute exactly zero to your own retirement fund?”
GAJ and others completely miss the point. If the City pays a firefighter’s portion of retirement, that was IN LIEU OF A WAGE INCREASE.
The ONLY fair way to compare firefighters to others is in terms of TOTAL COMPENSATION. If they are overpaid in total compensation, then a competent City negotiator should address that at the bargaining table.
My understanding is that if the parties reach impasse, what is reasonable in TOTAL COMPENSATION is referred to a panel of arbitrators, who must choose the MOST REASONABLE between the parties’ final positions. “Reasonable” includes not only comparative total compensation but the employer’s ability to pay.
@ Fiscal Conservative
“One thing is for sure. Government needs to continue cutting budgets and burdens on business.”
I hope having public employees extinguish fires which may ignite at places of business will not be too much of a burden for you.
It would seem the prudent thing to do would be to have the City hire a tough, hard line contract negotiator to do the contract negotiation so that the City is not taken advantage of again. The negotiations, based upon past history, seem to be a total mismatch. This does not seem like a good deal for the City, the City employees, the citizens, or anybody outside of the firefighters union. I urge the Council to reject this and demand a better “giveback” from the firefighters-or outsource the jobs. This is not the path to sustainability.
This issue is not just a local issue. Pension reform is heard everywhere these days.
Naturally, it strikes a nerve with those affected. But seriously, how many middle class, tax paying citizens earn over 100k a year?
Public employees who think they have job security must wake up to economic reality. Most who take public jobs think they are immune to job loss. That is a common trait of government workers.
But taxes from us pay public workers and it is our job to decide what we can pay them. Leaving the job of pension enforcement in the hands of pension beneficiaries is putting a fox in the hen house literally. We need oversight by citizens not council members or others who receive public pensions.
A ballot initiative to rewrite the rules for the economic realities of today deserves serious debate.
We must balance our needs with our pocketbooks. The screaming will not stop by those in the public sector. But that is expected. New taxes will not satisfy the people. A balanced budget and reduction in expense is the answer.
And this is why Im glad I dont live in Santa Rosa. Everyone is suffering from the economy and these guys dont care. I really doubt they are here to serve the community.
@GAJ – SR non-safety employees pay 8% towards retirement. In addition, they gave up another 8% in salary to get the better retirement. That is where the 16% figure comes from. For non-safety, the City is kicking in around 13% towards retirement, as far as I can tell.
.
SR safety employees are not currently paying anything towards retirement, because the City felt it was cheaper to pay the employee portion in addition to the City portion rather than give them raises. From what I can tell, the City is paying around 21% for safety retirement, which includes that employee portion.
.
This current deal gives Fire a 6% raise over two years, but the employees will now be paying 5% towards retirement, lowering what the City pays by that same amount.
My concern is that this was not enough of a consession.
It’s not often I agree with Councilman Gary Wysocky, but I agree with his statement- “The Council shouldn’t be so quick to praise Firefighters for paying 3% of salary tward retirement(unfunded pension liability) when the city is giving them the money to do it with”.
Looking around the Country, many public unions are not doing as well with their negotiations.
In business circles this is being called the public sector colapse. I think at the end of the day we will see legislation that will end the burden of the union defined benifit program and the liability of taxpayers paying for lost investments.
One thing is for sure. Government needs to continue cutting budgets and burdens on business.
Overall, I commend both the city and the firefighters for not ignoring the problem.
If indeed other City Workers are contributing 16% towards their own retirement then so should the firefighters.
But, again, if most city workers kick in 16% what does the City kick in, another 16%?
Even a dollar for dollar match is way too generous…and unheard of for the taxpayers who bear the burden.
And to those claiming critics want all City employees to be reduced to “minimum wage,” why even bother posting.
Not one person has suggested such a ridiculous thing.
Public Safety is a giant vacuum cleaner sucking up an increasingly larger share of funds to the detriment of everything else.
The ones who should be MOST concerned are public employees outside of Public Safety who will be the first sacrificial lambs.
@GAJ – maybe in the private sector an employer can only kick in 5% max to a 401k (to keep it non-taxable), but there is nothing stopping them from setting up a separate pension that they contribute more to.
“Total savings from the concessions are estimated to be $944,000 this year and nearly $1.2 million next year, according to the city.”
.
I’m not clear how they get to these numbers. In the first year, fire gets in effect a .5% raise instead of 6%, so the City should be saving 5.5%. Next year, fire gets another .5% raise, so the net savings to the City should drop to 5%. So how does the City save more money the second year?
.
So, most other units are giving up pay, at least temporarily, and paying more for a lesser helath plan, while fire gets a raise, more retirement and a contract extension. My question – what happens when the City does a salary survey and finds that SR fire is better compensated than the comparable cities? will fire get a pay cut at that point? Is that why fire wanted the contract extension?
@M&H,
For sure, not all public employees receive the same benefit package. Still, your comparison of your retirement plan to Social Security overlooks a large difference.
Even the least generous public employee plan accrues a pension of about 2% per year worked. For full career employees that yields a pension of 70% or more, while Social Security is unlikely to pay more than 25% of final salary, except for the lowest paid workers.
And we know that many public employees retire with pensions well above 70%.
@M & H we shouldn’t look to the private sector as the ideal when it comes to retirement planning. Most people in the private sector do not have enough in their 401K, and will see a large drop in their standard of living when/if they retire.
But it doesn’t really matter what is happening the private sector, public pensions need to be sustainable. The current system has huge cost increases during times when the city is least able to afford it, in a recession. Increasing liability that balloon during times when your income is down is a recipe for bankruptcy. I have nothing but respect for the firefighters and city employees in general, but in the long run the current system will be good for no one.
That being said I’m not sure the city can really pass up this deal, they have a 6% pay raise coming to them if no deal is struck, atleast this improves the situation for the short term.
Why should public employees have to pay a higher percentage of their wages towards pension than private sector employees? Public pensions do NOT equal a 401 K…the latter being a voluntary payroll deductions. I am a public employee that pays the required 8% of my salary towards pension – very similar to what the private sector pays towards Social Security (which I pay nothing towards – nor do I get it upon retirement).
For that matter. Take a look at the City’s short term disability plan. Most public employees don’t pay into State short term disability and therefore don’t get those benefits. While most women in California can go out on maternity for 6 to 12 paid weeks of leave, public employees are required to use their accumulated sick/vacation time, or take time off without pay.
Nothing is ever going to be equal – but the scale really isn’t that tilted.
@the hammer
So are you implying that city workers are stupid? I can assure you were not as a matter of fact most are very well educated even that guy in the street with the jackhammer.
So all of you love to come on here and bash the workers for all they have and for all that you dont but if i recall correctly the city hired quite a few people some years back and where were you? Oh thats right the private sector was booming wasnt it? I can surely understand why you wouldnt wanna go to work for the city when you could have been doing the same job in the private sector for twice what you could make working for the city with less requirements as far as licenses and such. I’m reminded of the tale of the grasshopper and the ant when i read most posts. I think to myself why should i be punished because i gave up higher wages for security since these jobs were open to all and i got one. As for retirements most employees in the city of santa rosa pay 16% towards there retirement i know the pension reform folks will try to make you believe this isnt so but it is, We also pay a very healthy chunk for our medical. If you dont believe furloughs are a pay cut your kidding yourself because my check begs to differ. Things will get better they always do but you should really check yourself when it comes to beating up on people who made a wise choice and work hard for you everyday. The irony is no matter how much you complain about us we care about our jobs and how this city looks and the shape of repair its in and we will continue to work hard to keep it nice and to make you happy you live here.
@GAJ
It’s all well and good to say “reject the proposal and play hardball…” but right or wrong the firefighters have a labor agreement that says they get 6%.
Rejecting the proposal means the City has to honor the contract and give the firefighters the 6% raise, with NO pension contributions.
I agree that public safety must contribute to their retirement, and it should be at least 9%, not the proposed 5%.
@bill
You do get to vote – for the council members. Take a minute to see who votes for what and make sure you don’t vote for them in the next council election.
And don’t vote for tax measures that propose support more public safety programs and then move the money elsewhere!
If you continue to vote for tax measures and council members “owned” by public safety unions, what do you expect?
The City of Santa Rosa sorely needs to get it’s public safety programs and costs under control. It would help if the PD did it’s job and quit regurgitating “savings” numbers spouted by politicians, but rather looked at the budgets and reported the real increased costs to the bottom line.
Where will it stop Bill? Tell them where to live? I guess you intend to run them out of this county with a low wage. They can all commute in from Mendocio and Lake county right? They can work her but not live here. The are you going after the corporations? Vote a law that says they can only make minimum wage. Then all your costs will go down, right? Hey, you can just vote justice and equality for all by voting in a law that makes everyone make the same pay. Great idea. It works well in other counties that tried it. Of course it would apply to you. You would be just a little bit more equal than the rest. Remember, your hard earned money pays the wages of every employee of every business you patronize. Where will you stop with your voting? Don’t let those private companies get away with paying too much. Force them down like they were low life public employees…. Go get ‘em Tiger.
The bottom line here is that pensions for public workers are not getting the benefit of a public vote to determine what the public wants to give its employees.
What has happened here is too little too late and the prospects of increased revenue in the coming years is bleak.
We need a public referendum to determine what we want to pay these employees put on the ballot.
To be fair, someone needs to break out the employer/employee salary, pension and benefit costs by these categories for both city and county government:
safety vs. non-safety jobs
staff vs. management jobs
elected officials vs. all other employees
I think you’ll find most public employees pay a ton for pension and health benefits. That’s certainly true for County government. If it’s not true for the City, then take them on with my support.
With those numbers, the Council can fairly and openly decide what changes would be both sustainable and equitable.
Want your emergency services provided by the lowest bidder? Hey, contract out all government services and see what it costs you down the line.
There’s no doubt that these are bad times, and that concessions from labor groups are required. I think they’re making those concessions, though you may not think they’re enough.
But a 30-year public employee has worked through many downturns in the economy, and the usual result is they wind up making less or paying more. Only a true alarmist would make long-term decisions based on very short-term “trends.” Unless you honestly think that the economy is never going to get better.
Again: every job lost and every disposable dollar lost will hurt local business and hinder economic recovery.
In what fairy land do you not have to contribute to your own pension? I mean, are these people for real?
Absolutely no raises for anyone in the City of Santa Rosa. If anything, pay cuts are in order. I’ll say it again for the stupid, “Same Job, Less Pay”. There’s no other solution to economic problem at hand.
Sounds like sour, jealous grapes. Firefighters and cops make good money. They have good benifits.
If you don’t like it, that’s tough. That is a fact. They earn it, they negotiated for it, they get it. All because you don’t rate them that high on the pay scale, it doesn’t matter one bit. These are the facts. The same 6 people in the posts gripe about it. No one else is listening. They are amused, but not swayed. Get over your jealousy. They have a better deal, deal with that.
Wallstreet’s got nothing on IAFF Local 1401
@GAJ,
Well said. At first I bought the line city leaders offered to everyone: they were locked into a contract written when times were better. Not much to do but be happy at wringing a few token concessions from those oh-so cooperative unions. But then I find out they keep extending the contract and postponing the day of reckoning.
If the old saw about the public getting the government they deserved ever rang true, today is it.
How many of you out there contribute exactly zero to your own retirement fund?
If you’re in a 401k plan, (the norm for the private sector), the maximum your employer can contribute is 5% of your pay depending on your plan structure…and you would have to contribute at least the same amount to get that maximum amount.
Firefighters face no such restrictions as you can see from this quote from the article:
“Currently firefighters do not contribute any portion of pay into their pension costs, which equal about a third of their pay.”
To say the current situation is untenable is a huge understatement.
To suggest the “new” concessions by firefighters are “enough” is ludicrous.
I say the City should reject the proposal and play hardball when the contract expires.
What I mean by that is that firefighters should be required to pay at least 2/3 of their retirement costs.
In my case I paid the full cost until the last ten years of working when I was happy that my employer ponied up 4% to my 15%.
The token concessions discussed in the article are laughable.
The first step to end this ongoing crisis is for the council to stop extending the existing contract! It’s well past time the taxpayers got a new contract.
I appreciate that public employees aren’t anxious to write a new contract. It won’t be as good as past contracts. Nor, obviously, do city leaders want to face the issue. But then, why did they run for office?
If the word sham doesn’t come quickly to mind here it’s probably because the word scam sounds better. Why is it that only Wysocky gets it?
This is not complicated, especially if reelection isn’t one’s sole goal in life. The city can’t be sustained with a public payroll at two-thirds of the general fund. Kicking the can down the highway brings only discredit to all who participate in this non-solution.