 |
 |
By KEVIN McCALLUM
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
Santa Rosa firefighters have negotiated a deal calling for them to begin paying for a portion of their pension costs in exchange for raises and a one-year contract extension.
The members of Santa Rosa Firefighters IAFF Local 1401 approved the contract changes following voting Thursday, according to Jack Thomas, president of the 123-member union. He did not release a breakdown of the results.
The vote sends the issue to the City Council on Tuesday, where it is likely to get vastly different receptions from council members.
Councilman Scott Bartley on Friday joined colleague John Sawyer in expressing measured support for the changes.
“I don’t think it’s a great deal, but I don’t think it’s a bad deal,” Bartley said, characterizing it as an important step toward needed pension changes.
Meanwhile, Councilwoman Susan Gorin on Friday echoed some of the concerns expressed by Councilman Gary Wysocky.
Gorin opposes extending the contract because she feels it would make it harder for the council to enact serious pension overhaul.
“This action ties the hands of the council in the future,” Gorin said. “It’s kicking the can down the road yet again.”
Firefighters are in the final year of a six-year contract. In response to the city’s financial challenges, they twice have deferred raises due under that contract, one for 3.5 percent, another for 2.5 percent.
They could have refused to defer those raises further, and taken a 6 percent raise for the current fiscal year, which began July 1. That would have cost the city an additional $1.2 million.
Instead, they struck a tentative deal with city officials that saves the city $944,000 this year and $1.2 million next. It calls for firefighters to get the 3.5 percent raise this year, with 3 percent of it dedicated to reducing the city’s share of their pension costs, which have been soaring in recent years. The following year, they would get 2.5 percent raises, with 2 percent going for the same purpose.
The result would be a 1 percent increase in their take-home pay, and 5 percent going to reduce the city’s contributions to the California Public Employees Retirement System.
The city would continue to pay, as it has for years, the firefighters’ portion of pension contributions, known as Employer-Paid Member Contributions. The cost of EPMC, as it is known, equals 9 percent of salary, plus an additional related costs equal to nearly 3 percent of salary.
This means that firefighters do not make any contributions to their pensions from their current pay.
But they argue that they gave up raises equal to 9 percent long ago to get the city to pick up their share of pension costs.
Eliminating EPMC is one of many state-wide pension reform options being debated in Sacramento to limit taxpayers’ exposure to rising pension costs.
To protect firefighters in the event that occurs, the contract extension contains language that calls for them to get additional raises to cover those costs. Thus, the city has agreed in the tentative contract extension that if it is banned from paying the firefighters’ share of pension costs, it will give firefighters a 4.5-percent raise to help them cover those costs. It also agrees that 4.5 percent of the 5 percent firefighters will be contributing to the city’s share of pension costs will be redirected to cover the remainder of the employees’ 9 percent share.
The result: firefighters have ensured they won’t have to pay to cover those costs.
Gorin said the clause about EPMC show that firefighters are looking at statewide trends and trying to figure out how best to navigate a changing pension landscape.
“That’s sophisticated. That’s smart,” Gorin said.
But it’s another reason, in her mind, why the deal is a bad one for the city. One of the reasons the city has been pushing so hard for one-year contracts is because of uncertainty how state-wide pension overhaul will affect the city even one year from now, let alone two.
It also throws the city’s strategy of aligning all the contracts so they can be renegotiated at the same time into “chaos.”
But Bartley sees more upside than down to the deal. While the extension gives him “some heartburn,” the short- and long-term cost savings are too good to pass up, he said.
One key benefit is the agreement to open discussions about establishing a second tier of lower pensions for new workers.
That could prove a significant savings given that 10 to 15 employees are expected to retire in the coming year, he said.
The alternative is to reject the offer, give firefighters 6 percent raises, and then hope next year the city can get a better deal.
“I’m just not comfortable taking a big fat gamble when you’re looking at those kinds of savings,” Bartley said.
Subscribe by Email
Follow us on Twitter
@ Jack…. or better yet here is a good photo op of them. They seem very bored.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYVgZ9v3TYY
LBR,
Are you saying these additional specialties shouldn’t be compensated or just not factored into retirement? Most of the ones you cited are not PERSable.
It is definitely cheaper to have fewer employees and just pay overtime. That also leads to higher burnout, more injuries, and greater liability risk. But, what the heck, work ‘em all to the bone and then complain about how much overtime there is! That makes a lot of sense.
If all these irate people want to do more than bitch and moan about the Mayor’s secret deal with the cops and how it’s playing our with your tax dollars then you should show up at City Hall today when the “Sweetheart Deal” they made at the last election gets signed. There’s a lot of hot air on this board but I doubt any of you will show up to City Hall to call out Mayor Olivares and Jake Ours and Scott Bartley.
@From Way Back – Their base salary may top out at $86,000, but they get lots of specialty pays (bilingual, SWAT, motorcycle, etc) that do count towards retirement and puts many over the 100k amount. Overtime turns out to be cheaper than hiring more employees, since the City doesn’t need to pay any additonal bennies
I just checked SR City website. Cops top out at $86,000 year. Overtime will put anyone over $100K if it is available. There would be absolutely no overtime if they hired enough cops and firefighters. They don’t, so the overtime is built into the budget and does not county towards retirement. Who is taking advantage of whom? $100K makes headline, even if it a BS twist of facts. They will run with it.
Just a simple observation for the Press Democrat staff.
You posted a photo with this article that shows a fire and a fireman in the foreground.
Thats just not the usual photo opportunity.
Far better to post a photo with this story showing firemen hanging around the firehouse and usually washing their fire trucks out of boredom.
If public safety gave up raises in exchange for for no pension contributions in the past negotiations, how come so many are now earning over $100k per year? The argument that they gave up anything is spurious, the bottom line is they are over-paid for the job, and the benefits are ludicrously generous. Outlaw Public Employee Unions now, and stop the rot in our society.
Here is a reality check. Not that facts will change anyones mind. I retired a long time ago. Before the 3% at 50. But I did vote on the contract in 1991 for the Santa Rosa Police Officers Association voted to not take a raise for 3 years and the city agreed, over 3 years, to pick up 3% of the 9% CalPERS contribution for each year of no raise. The process is called negotiations. The POA gove something up to get something in return. The city not only did not have to give raises, but the percentage of future raises were less because of the deal. Nothing exists that wa not bargained for and things given up to achieve. Yes, 3% @50 is not sustainable. But don’t try to solve a problem in a year that took 10 years to come to be.
Yes, let’s outlaw all unions and bring about a total corporatist state. Worked well for bella Italia.
While the State is nearly flat broke, and unemployment is at an all-time high, thanks to Prez Obama,
our “heroes” are getting pay raises and even bigger pension benefits???
California = LIBERAL PATHETIC STATE!
By the way, people.
Bankruptcy is not the answer for any of the cities within Sonoma County nor for the County itself.
There isn’t a need for that.
What is needed is for the so called “leaders” (i.e. elected reps ) to get it through their thick heads that the public isn’t supportive of public safety staff that is allowed to retire at nearly 100% of their highest wage at age 50.
I even know a woman who “retired” from the County after working a mere 11 years and she got full medical for life and a monthly check… for the rest of her life.
Do any of you know a private sector worker such as a mechanic, waitress, salesman, landscaper, or other occupation that is given a lifetime pension and medical for working just eleven years? No. Of course not. Government is out of control.
How many fires do we have any more?
I agree. NOT many.
Notice that the public safety employee who routinely posts on this board always chants about “responses” or “dispatches” rather than actual events.
One of his most recent and total LIES was that bomb squad of Sonoma County had been sent out something like once weekly the previous year. Of course, he didn’t mention that the actual bomb count discovered was zero. He only spoke of dispatches. So, too, today as he chants that fire dispatches are in the thousands. Most of those are merely first responder events where they beat the ambulance by only minutes at best and nothing at all to do with fires.
The idea that public safety staff within Sonoma County (and elsewhere across California) has been able to avoid paying into their own retirement programs is just disgusting.
I have no sympathy for them nor any politician who attempts to stand up for their union contracts that are so overly generous.
In other news, by the way, California is about to take another economic hit as Cisco Systems is speaking of 5,000 lay offs. Those are middle to well paying jobs. So much for the “improving California economy” and the hoped for tax revenue to support the sham state budget.
Mmaybe Santa Rosa’s police and firefighters don’t have it that good. Things could be better. For example:
“July 08, 2011|By BRIAN CALLE
It pays well to wash your motorcycle if you are a cop in Newport Beach, where officers who patrol on motor bikes are paid an additional six hours of overtime every month simply for giving their cycles a wash. The special compensation equates to, on average, about a 5 percent pay hike for motorcycle officers, or about $5,600 a year in additional monies, according to an analysis of city documents and interviews with key city staff.”
http://articles.ocregister.com/2011-07-08/news/29756643_1_motorcycle-police-officer-motor-officers
@Lily
“How many burning houses or buildings do we have anymore.”
Hardly any. So few, in fact, that typing the word “fire” into the PD’s search feature yields more than 26,000 responses. Oh sure, not every one is a “fire,” and not every one is a house or building fire.
The unions have no power without the politicians YOU keep electing again and again and again. You are getting what YOU voted for. Making excuses and shifting the blame does not withstand critical scrutiny. Even the STATE law which would force binding arbitration isn’t an excuse because the arbitrator cannot compel the politicians to spend more than they possibly have.
The only people to blame here are the leaders YOU voted into office. Stop voting these same leaders back into office when it is abundantly clear they are incompetent. The flaming liberals of Sonoma County can’t legitimately complain. The repetition of the same excuses proves you have no new ideas.
Stop spending so much. Restrict expenditures to ONLY those things ONLY the government can provide. Problem solved.
Electing a leader that could make such a hard decision…? Literally impossible in Sonoma County because of prevalence of liberals and liberalism. Keep hating and resenting your police and firefighters. That always works doesn’t it?
These Unions are destroying the country , small town , by small town. And they are doing it with corruption, just ask Gray Davis. I wonder what he did with all his money?
How many burning houses or buildings do we have anymore. I live by a fire station that is closed half of the time. The other half the fireman are chasing ambulances,not fighting fires. How much does that cost us every time the truck leaves the station? Why should everyone else be expected to either get no raise for several years or not get a raise at all. The conservative in the article is the one who praised the deal, the one who was elected by saying he would be creating jobs.He has done nothing to create anything in a positve direction and fights the members who actual are trying to make the necessary changes to our budget. Did the city council get raises? Did county supervisors? How about the congress and the senate-state and federal? What do all of their pensions and health benefits give to each of them. We have huge problems brought on by the excessive spending of Ronald Reagan, who tripled the national debt we are battling now. If he did that to the federal government, just look back and remember what he did to this state.Then Ol George W took all the state funds we would have received and gave them to Halliburton,KBR,Bechtol and Koch Brothers to mention a few. Wysocky,VasDupre and Gorin are the 3 council members that should be trusted with the daunting task of getting us back on a course we can live with. They do not make the false claims that Ours and Bartley made just to get elected by special interest money that got them to City Hall. We have to have leaders who will fight for us and not the Chamber of Commerce interests
Karla; the city leaders can pay for the wages of the fire (and police) departments because they are getting the money from all the non-safety workers. (Police and) Fire workers have not given up anything since the downturn of the economy. The citizens of Santa Rosa are to blame though, they gave them both binding arbitration several years ago. And although I’m with you on having more conservative leadership, this year’s shameful act is being done by the more conservative members of the council. But we can’t forget it has been done fore several of the past years by the more liberal members. We in Santa Rosa, the state of California and this Country, need a law that keeps corporations, groups and unions away of those looking to be elected. That’s the only way they will represent the people instead of their special interests.
What is conspicuously lacking in this article is the actual amount of money involved. I think that, if firefighter’s pay scales were represented here, we might well be shocked to see that these already exorbitant salaries are receiving substantial increases when the economy in general is suffering.
These firefighters have actuarial casualty rates comparable to those of construction workers, for example, not front line marines. People who work in the roofing trade suffer much higher casualties, though most are, of course, currently out of work.
Let’s remember that it can be a quiet, cozy life in the ole fire station.
I knew a firefighter in L.A. who claimed the most important qualification for the work was simply “Can they cook?”
How did they become some kind of social elite, who just naturally deserve more than most people?
They give the impression they’re not really part of the community, but exist in their own private fortress of privelege.
It takes hard times to get people to wake up. If we have less money then we have to spend less.
We must realize that those we have elected to govern are not the ones to control their own paychecks. We must give that job to someone who will not benefit from pensions.
A complete rethink is in order for how we pay our public servants.
We cannot afford to continue as we have in the past.
@ Karla Sofen
You’re right, the Firefighters are just getting as much they can for as little as they can. THAT IS the American way!
But there are NO politicians immune to the influence of the Unions “D” or “R” and CERTAINLY none capable of winning an election in CA.
I think it’s very naive to think that anyone is going to get elected, realize all the perks & goodies that come with the job & then tell the Unions “go ahead & support the other guy”. They might as well just not run for re-election. (as if!)
The ONLY way this growing problem will be solved is bankruptcy. The ONLY way it’s going to STAY solved is if we ban Public Employee Unions completely.
Yes it would be nice of we could just re-negotiate the contracts but that’s just not going to happen. People don’t pay Union dues to have their Unions negotiate less pay & benefits.
@Karla
Just for the record it’s the “progressives” who are willing to get serious about the problem with over compensating public safety employees, and the “pro-business” group that is unable to do so. Also the contract that the firefighters have now was negotiated when the pro-business group held the majority.
Up in Smoke – I think there are many professions that have seen raises as proven in the PD article not long ago.
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20110704/BUSINESS/110709802
I dont think its fair to require public safety to follow pay cuts with the industries that happen to be taking the brunt of the downturn.
As far as I’m concerned the unions have no business in the public sector. If the Government is so great, why the need to protect the workers wages and rights?
If the Government had dealt with pensions and salaries of public workers, this wouldn’t be up for discussion now. How can the salaries of the private sector pay the salary and pensions of an ever growing Government, who’s officials and staffers wages are in the triple digits? That alone doesn’t make sense.
I realize the pensions and wages have to be dealt with, but why start with our guys who are in the line of fire daily? Why our Firefighters and Cops? Why is it those who make the “tough decisions” are willing to place the safety of their constituents at risk by sacrificing the wages of the fire and police departments rather than chipping at their salaries and pensions? I thought it was suppose to be an honor to serve your Nation and your fellow American’s?
I’m not a numbers person, but what I read in this article is an illusion of getting something done. Eventually drastic measures are going to have to happen and the common nonsense is going to have to step back for a reality check. Nothing is for free….
@KSofen,
You nailed it. The city has lamented that it’s been locked into expensive labor contracts for about 3 years now. Yet, after a token concession or two, it’s extended virtually every contract at least once.
Unless the people of Santa Rosa regain control of escalating labor costs, they need to be prepared for significant cuts to city services . . . or to pay higher taxes.
Anyone’s labor is worth whatever someone will agree to pay for it. I’m not sure why the anger is directed at the firefighters when it is our city leaders who agreed to pay this who are at fault. If they can’t afford a certain wage, they should not pay it. It is our elected leaders who are to blame for spending too much.
But you flaming liberals keep electing the same group of poor leaders again and again regardless of their level of incompetence. Will nothing convince you to elect more conservative leaders? Don’t you want someone strong enough to say no? To cut spending? To cut taxes.
You get the leadership you deserve Sonoma County. You voted for it again and again and again and again. Voters of Sonoma County: IT’S YOUR FAULT.
Firefighters have crucified themselves by their greed and their union dominance of politicans. The have a very sweet deal and they do not want to compromise it in anyway.
There is an old saying in labor negotiations, “give them the sleeves out of your vest,” and that is just what the firefighters have done to the Santa Rosa city council. A 3.5% and a 2.5% salary increase in this economy while many who are lucky enough to have a job are seeing no raises and can’t remember when they last received a raise. In fact, their wages have probably been cut.
If the city started recruiting for firefighters at a beginning wage level 30% less than the current wage level, they couldn’t handle the applicant pool. The number of applicants for the firefighter position is almost unlimited because of the wages, hours and working conditions.
It is too bad the council is in the back pocket of the fire union and will remain there until the city is bankrupted and unable to pay the pensions and wages. One day the council will wake up and say “what happened????”
When their wages were being jacked up it was always because “other municipalities are doing it and we must stay competitive.”
Well, here’s what other municipalities are doing now:
“Contra Costa firefighters ratified a two-year contract extension Tuesday night that will require union members to waive pay raises and take pay cuts to avoid temporary and permanent fire station closures.
Firefighters will forgo 5 percent raises due during the 2011-12 fiscal year under a contract that would have expired in June 2012.
They will also take 5 percent pay cuts and begin discussions with the county about modifications to their pensions beginning July 1, 2012, said Vince Wells, president of United Professional Firefighters of Contra Costa, Local 1230.”
http://www.contracostatimes.com/contra-costa-county/ci_18332041?source=rss
According to the agreement being hammered out, (San Joes) firefighters would agree to a 10 percent wage cut, “inclusive of health care concessions,” for two fiscal years: 2011-2012 and 2012-2013. The aforementioned “health care concessions” are a significant component of the document, and include a rise in co-pay costs.
http://www.sanjoseinside.com/news/entries/03_02_11_firefighters_union_concessions/
It’s unfortunate that the firefighters are taking the heat (no pun intended) that they are for their pay and benefits.
The firefighters were one of the first employee groups to make concessions when the city asked. They deferred pay raises back then in the hopes that the economy would improve by the time they came due. Well it didn’t, so here they are holding a political hot potato. On the one hand, they’re due a raise under contract. They know what the city’s financial picture looks like, so they know it wouldn’t be right to just take the raise outright. So, they agree to talk with the city to come up with some sort of compromise.
On the other hand, they know their history and they know that they gave up well over 9% in pay raises 15 years ago or so in order to have the city make their contributions to their retirements, even though it is cheaper for the city to pay into the retirement account than it would be to have their salaries be that much higher, since it would raise their overtime rates, incentive percentages, etc. Knowing that they basically “bought” the EPMC benefit, they’re not going to turn around and give it away for free. Even so, they sell it for a considerably discounted rate (when you do the math dollar for dollar since they’ve had the benefit).
They agree to a second-tier retirement package to work out the long-term problem, and they also work out a deal that protects their interests but also saves the city A MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR in the meantime.
And for this we’re crucifying them?
Outlaw Public Employee Unions NOW!