Mr. Stogner this is AN OUTRAGE. Raises to law enforcement in this environment? There was supposed to be an effort to REDUCE these out of control salaries.

You just got my vote.

You would think this would be a newsworthy story. You know $150 M budget deficit cuts everywhere except the Sheriff's Deputies.

The media in San Mateo County thinks not.

Only one article in a source that does not have archives. no internet publication, equals very few people see the story.

Wake up San Mateo County

Those interested should consider attending the LWV Candidates Forum:

Wednesday, April 20, 7:00pm-8:30pm
San Mateo Main Library, Oak Room 55, West 3rd Avenue in San Mateo
Web Link

The fact is that ALL public employees are receiving pay and benefits which are well in excess of what the private sector marketplace provides. We have to both freeze public employee salaries AND move all public employees to a defined contribution benefit system. This will only happen IF citizens demand this change.

Peter:

Would love to see the charts you're referring to: "The fact is that ALL public employees are receiving pay and benefits which are well in excess of what the private sector marketplace provides."

"Fact"

"ALL"

"well in excess"

I could use that data to win an argument. Please post a link.

Can't wait to see it. With all the Scott Walkerism sweeping the country, I'm sure there must be some easy to read, apples to apples, chart out in the big wide googleworld, but I haven't found it yet.

So happy you have it and it allows you the knowledge to make a declarative like above. Please share.

Thanks!

I am always pleased to provide facts:
"Private industry employers spent an average of $27.75 per hour worked for total employee compensation in December 2010, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Wages and salaries averaged $19.64 per hour worked and accounted for 70.8 percent of these costs, while benefits averaged $8.11 and accounted for the remaining 29.2 percent. Total compensation costs for state and local government workers averaged $40.28 per hour worked in December 2010. Total employer compensation costs for civilian workers, which include private industry and state and local government workers, averaged $29.72 per hour worked in December 2010."

Web Link

Peter:

Awesome, thanks!! You're the best! I am pleased that you are so pleased with yourself!

That's national bls data, across all industry, so I guess "private sector" includes agriculture, food processing (chicken pluckers) and fast food vs firemen, policemen and city managers.

Wasn't really wanting to defend it by citing a farmworker in Bakersfield or Iowa, or a MickeyD clerk in Georgia with a sheriff in San Mateo County.

I was looking for apples-to-apples data. Preferably for Californians. Controlling for similar education, experience and job similarities.

Anyone find anything?

I'll keep looking.

An aside: when will this thread degrade into "remove collective bargaining"?

Sorry boys, my motive: to prove to someone close that education sorta counts, dontcha think?

I assume we don't want someone with chicken plucker qualifications carrying badges and guns.

Alfred - the private sector also includes toolmakers, bankers, store managers, executives, lawyers and doctors among others.

This is a classic case of you hecklers asking for facts and then dismissing whatever is provided.

I look forward to your 'better' data sets.

Good news, boys!! I found an example of the kind of quality study we can use!! Except it doesn't actually fit into the talking point.

Here's one, but it isn't local: Sean Hannity falsely claimed "Ohio Public Employees Earn More Than Private Employees".

Reality: "The research shows, however, that state and local government employees in Ohio are not overpaid. (When we refer to public employees, we are referring to state and local employees, not federal workers.) Comparisons controlling for education, experience, organizational size, gender, race, ethnicity, citizenship, and disability reveal that employees of state and local governments earn lower wages than comparable private sector employees. Average annual wages and salaries of full-time state and local public employees in Ohio are 5.9% lower than those of comparable private sector employees. However, some full-time public employees work fewer hours on average, particularly college-educated employees. When annual hours worked are factored in, full-time state and local employees earn 3.3% less in wages and salaries than similar private sector workers. Looking at total compensation (wages and nonwage benefits) Ohio public employees annually earn 6% less than comparable private sector employees and 3.5% less on an hourly basis than comparable private sector employees."

Peter: that's the kind of solid apples-to-apples info I'm looking for. Maybe even more specific, such as for firemen, running into buildings when others are running out.

Or smoke jumpers.

Surely we can find some great data to show those lazy bums are overpaid.

Anything, yet, boys?

Awww, Peter. I was a googlin' and a typin' while you called me a "classic".

Aren't you sweet?

Not so fast Mr. Newman. While the ANNUAL WAGES AND SALARIES of public sector workers in Ohio might be a few percentage points less than "comparable" private sector workers, this analysis is not taking into account the pension benefits.

Let's bring the example closer to home. In Atherton, a police officer makes $100K/year. No college education required, but let's just say that the average Silicon Valley college-educated engineer makes $100K also. Perhaps even a bit more (but I don't think so).

What this is not taking into account is the 90% pension benefits that kick in for the police officer after 30 years, but not for the engineer.

If you do actuarial calculations to figure out the present value of that future income stream (called "discounted cash flow") you will find that the present value of that future pension income stream puts the police officer well above the $100K engineer. I need to check the calculations, but my estimate is slight above $170K per year instead of $100K per year if the police officer is 10 years away from retirement.

You can't ignore the pension benefits as that is a critical part of both why California cannot economically sustain the current public sector pension benefit system, and I'm sure also a critical part of why many public sector employees such as police officers want the job. It's a great benefit, and is worth a lot of money.

Peter: Again, you're brilliant!

"the private sector also includes toolmakers, bankers, store managers, executives, lawyers and doctors"

Toolmakers - we still have those around, they aren't ALL in China, yet, are they?

Bankers - do ya really want to bring in wall street crooks into a discussion on labor?

Store managers, executives, lawyers and doctors - Last I looked, government employs all those too, under different headings. For example, the socialized medicine arm of the America healthcare system employs doctors and nurses. (the VA employs both, provides some of the best care out there, according to studies - I wonder if they are overpaid?)

But Peter, don't we always hear that we are in a SERVICE economy? Makes me want to ask more questions. Oh, wait, someone already has!

<comparing your BLS annual wages> "For example, do state governments employ large numbers of part-time workers as the private sector does in agriculture, fast food and retail? Do these type of part-time workers, included in the compensation data for the private sector, lower the overall averages? And is the average the right statistic, or would the median be a more useful and accurate representation of the data?"

I'll keep looking. There HAS to be good apples-to-apples data to support us against those lazy bums!

Alfred,

I'm just curious what are your thoughts about Don Horsley recusing himself on this vote?

That is what this thread is about, I know you would like to send it in a different direction.

"not so fast"

Thanks for your "estimate"!!! Great stuff, I'll look for data that includes total package.

New cops don't have degrees? Really?

Great job comparing coders with guys carrying badges. I'm sure those lazy bum deputies can't write a lick of html!

Wait a minute! Look what I found! Total compensation with benefits!! Dontcha luv the google!

You are awesome, Mr "not so fast"!!

" * Public and private workforces differ in important ways. For instance, jobs in the public sector require much more education on average than those in the private sector. Employees in state and local sectors are twice as likely as their private sector counterparts to have a college or advanced degree.
* Wages and salaries of state and local employees are lower than those for private sector workers with comparable earnings determinants (e.g., education). State employees typically earn 11 percent less; local workers earn 12 percent less.

* Over the last 20 years, the earnings for state and local employees have generally declined relative to comparable private sector employees. The pattern of declining relative compensation remains true in most of the large states we examined, although some state-level variation exists.
* Benefits (e.g., pensions) comprise a greater share of employee compensation in the public sector. State and local employees have lower total compensation than their private sector counterparts. On average, total compensation is 6.8 percent lower for state employees and 7.4 percent lower for local workers, compared with comparable private sector employees."

Oh, dear me, that data doesn't help us against those evil lazy bums, does it.

Still not apples to apples for San Mateo County though. I like your idea.

Let's just "estimate".

So creative!

Brilliant!

Micheal:

With all due respect to you and your candidacy... (we've met, I like you; heck, I've even sat/stood next to Peter at a number of meetings)

Okay, I had a little fun. My bad. But a point has to be made: facts count.

I usually avoid these rightie: "all public workers are bums" memes that float barely concealed, thinly veiled in these threads.

Yes, we need to do something.

What sent me off was a certain statement by a certain someone. Such finality and expertise in his declarative.

Except he's... nevermind.

"Fact"

"ALL"

"well in excess"

Lies, damn lies, statistics. Some of it doesn't even pass the smell test.

Michael: good luck in your quest.

methinks these posts are going to be history soon. too many facts to stay up long...

For any public official to grant ANY pay increase to employees while such a huge financial crisis is in play is irresponsible beyond belief. Every day, we can point to new evidence that public services are diminishing and in some cases disappearing. What are we paying our taxes for?

Wake up, folks. Our money is going into employee compensation, and as tax revenue declines because property values have declined and people are out of work, only the pot devoted to public services themselves is shrinking, not the one feeding employee costs.

Fire the supervisors at the next election. They've betrayed us.

The Sups are living in a Police State of their own creation--apparently it seemed like a good idea at the time

Terry Nagel explains in a letter to the Times about the 1% clause:
"I am amazed that our county supervisors have approved a new contract for deputy sheriffs that guarantee they will be paid 1 percent more than any other deputy sheriffs in the Bay Area for five years."
Amazing indeed, with a huge county deficit and nothing but red ink ahead. Time to get rid of these clueless elected officials who live "in the bubble."

Mark Patinkin: R.I.’s leaders need to face the music about money

01:00 AM EDT on Sunday, April 24, 2011

Sometimes a company in grave crisis turns for rescue to a new CEO who knows his job will be harsh and simple:

Slash.

And leave.

The assignment is to right a sinking ship with ruthless steps that will anger employees, unions and divisions, but to care more about the bottom line than being popular. That’s what happened when General Motors got an interim CEO to dig it out of bankruptcy a few years ago. He shut factories, dealerships and entire lines like Pontiac; he laid off thousands and began the process of curtailing pension promises; then got out of town.

I’m thinking about this as I consider those who won key executive posts in Rhode Island last November — Governor Chafee, Providence’s Mayor Taveras and mayors of other cities here.

They deserve the glory of victory, but six months later, it’s the morning after, and between budget deficits and unfunded pensions, the economic reality is so grim as to likely make those who lost feel relieved. They aren’t the ones in the hot seat.

For those who did win, this message is for you.

It’s too late to play the game of past politicians who cared more about votes than balancing budgets. The crises are too severe. We’ve run out of time to defer the hard decisions to another administration, or generation. Your job is akin to those CEOs brought in to be unpopular – to do what has to be done, knowing it could mean a brief reign. Your goal cannot be reelection, but instead, to save your realms from disaster. To do your jobs right, gentlemen, it may well mean you will be one-term public servants.

Do you have the stomach for it?

The decisions are simple — government has to cut back expenditures to live within its means. But it’s also complicated because there’s no way around cutbacks in the area of greatest costs: compensation and retirement promises to public employees. Yes, there are capital expenses that can be curtailed, operations that can be made more efficient, but you can’t balance the budget without going after personnel and entitlement costs.

I don’t envy you. It’s both a legal and moral challenge. Tens of thousands of workers have paid into pensions, and were guaranteed every dime.

That’s why most efforts so far have been easier steps, like reducing retirement packages to new employees. There are other moves to push the pension pay-out age to 65 and cut back on absurd cost-of-living increases that double pensions every 12 years or so.

But those alone won’t do it. There are thousands out there promised pensions equal to 80 percent of their highest salary years — packages double and triple what most in the private sector dream about.

One can say many public employees — especially those doing risky jobs like cops and firemen — deserve such pensions. Even I think they do. But sadly, we are past the point of talking about “deserve.” We’re in the realm of “afford.”

We can’t anymore.

So what do you do about it?

Well, for starters, public employees need to pay more into retirement funds. That may sound onerous, but it’s mathematically unavoidable.

And that’s not enough.

Let’s be brutally honest here: There will be a need for givebacks — or clawbacks — of retirement package promises already made.

Even saying that in a newspaper will likely bring crowds with torches outside my office, so I can only imagine what will happen when you who won office last November attempt the same thing legislatively.

But look at the numbers. Our state treasurer has said we need to find $7 billion or more to make current pension funds whole. There is no way to do that with gestures that save a few million here and there.

Some say states should go bankrupt as a legal means for dialing back current retirement promises. Others, like the governor of Wisconsin, have pushed through legislation to allow executives to make cutbacks unilaterally, without being stopped by collective bargaining.

Many vehemently disagree. They say it would breach an ethical obligation to promises made. They may even be right.

But it doesn’t matter. It’s a math problem. Either we balance the budgets and pensions funds, or they collapse and the workers lose anyway.

So that’s the job. The only way for Mr. Chafee, Mr. Taveras and others to do it is to know you could be a one-term governor, or mayor. But to fail will leave you with a legacy as the leader who didn’t act as the clock struck midnight, and history will hold you accountable.

Good luck.

We’re counting on you.

Turns out that this was an ILLEGAL action by the Board of Supervisors. CalPERS requires that such a vote NOT be done as a consent item.

Will the DA enforce the CalPERS policy?????

IF not, who will?????

Yeah let's have another criminal prosecution and investigation of a board vote that won't change anything except waste money and create ill will.

Peter Carpenter, police officers are human beings and are entitled to raises to meet cost of living increases. In case you haven't noticed there has been real inflation in the cost of gasoline, food and other essentials. This inflation was caused by the greed of the millionaire class of people [portion removed - avoid attacks on posters] who want all the wealth in the United States to flow to them and the financial crisis that was created by this.

Yes we all know that the percentage of wealth in this country controlled by the very richest people is the highest it's ever been.

The solution is not to imagine we can have people do life and death jobs for us for nothing. It's to create taxes at an appropriate level [portion removed] so we can make ends meet.

This very twisted view of who to punish for the financial crisis caused by the rich is attempting to interfere with the lives of solid officers in the county as well as cities such as your own city, Atherton. It's not right and will take people who aren't selfish or greedy, and can see the truth, to fix it.

Get Real:

it is you who needs to get real. I have seen my income fall 40% in the last 2 1/2 years while those in the public sector haven't taken paycuts, still have jobs while many don't, have fat unsustainable retirement packages and you say I shouldn't be upset that the county supes just granted the deputies a raise? Like I said, get real. Given my DECLINE in pay pardon me if I can't muster much pitty for the poor officers who need a raise to deal with cost of living increases. Boo hoo. They should try dealing with pay cuts and see what that's like. And if said officers are really struggling so much that a 3% raise is a huge must, they should try living within their means like the rest of us.

Seriously, you public sector folks need to pull your collective heads out and see how the private sector lives, then you might have a true vision of how good you have it. And that is advice from an ex-public employee.

Get Real - Making our elected officials follow the rules isn't about the issue involved but the fact that they choose to ignore the rules.
Imagine that this did not go challenged until years from now and THEN the pension change was retroactively invalidated because they failed to follow the correct process.

Peter, Can you explain the difference between a policy and a law?

If a law was broken,You bring up a great point. "Will the DA enforce the CalPERS policy?????"
Should the DA recuse himself if he was endorsed or accepted campaign contributions from one or more of the Supervisors. The Supervisors sign off of his entire budget could be another reason.

What role if any did the County Counsel play in this vote? They are there to advise and guide the Board of Supervisors on these issues.

It is the LAW:

Section 7507.2

(2) With regard to the Legislature, the future costs as determined by the actuary shall be made public at the policy and fiscal committee hearings to consider the adoption of any changes in public retirement plan benefits or other post employment benefits. The adoption of any benefit to which this section applies shall not be placed on a consent calendar.

[Post removed. Please focus on the topic, not other posters.]

[Post removed. Please focus on the topic, not other posters.]

[Post removed. Please focus on the topic, not other posters.]

Sick - please explain. I noted that a law was broken and provided the citation. What is so funny about that?? And what would you like to contribute to this topic since you are home sick?

Home Sick:

Why, thanks, very kind comments. Hope you recover quickly.

[Portion removed. Please focus on the topic, not other posters.]

Two different studies:

"Comparisons controlling for education, experience, organizational size, gender, race, ethnicity, citizenship, and disability reveal that employees of state and local governments earn lower wages than comparable private sector employees."

"* Wages and salaries of state and local employees are lower than those for private sector workers with comparable earnings determinants (e.g., education). State employees typically earn 11 percent less; local workers earn 12 percent less."

The conversation shifted after those were posted.

Home today sick: enjoy the show, and godspeed...

[Post removed. Please focus on the topic, not other posters.]

Home Sick Today,

Lets think about this for just a few moments.

San Mateo County has had a District Attorney for the last 28 years who refused to enforce the Brown Act Laws. We just had a Sheriff who was caught/detained and identified as a customer of Sex slaves run unopposed. We just elected a new District Attorney who ran unopposed. We just elected a Coroner who removed and kept an entire heart from a 23 year old man without telling the parents. He would not have told anybody if it were not for the mother calling him and asking the right question.

With all of this going on,You want to make fun of Peter for capitalizing some letters

Wake Up San Mateo County

[Post removed. Please focus on the topic, not other posters.]

Alfred - you have missed seeing and responding to a few posts after yours:

Such as :
Posted by Not so fast, a resident of the Atherton: other neighborhood, on Apr 21, 2011 at 10:57 am

Not so fast Mr. Newman. While the ANNUAL WAGES AND SALARIES of public sector workers in Ohio might be a few percentage points less than "comparable" private sector workers, this analysis is not taking into account the pension benefits.

Let's bring the example closer to home. In Atherton, a police officer makes $100K/year. No college education required, but let's just say that the average Silicon Valley college-educated engineer makes $100K also. Perhaps even a bit more (but I don't think so).

What this is not taking into account is the 90% pension benefits that kick in for the police officer after 30 years, but not for the engineer.

If you do actuarial calculations to figure out the present value of that future income stream (called "discounted cash flow") you will find that the present value of that future pension income stream puts the police officer well above the $100K engineer. I need to check the calculations, but my estimate is slight above $170K per year instead of $100K per year if the police officer is 10 years away from retirement.

You can't ignore the pension benefits as that is a critical part of both why California cannot economically sustain the current public sector pension benefit system, and I'm sure also a critical part of why many public sector employees such as police officers want the job. It's a great benefit, and is worth a lot of money."

[Post removed. Please focus on the topic, not other posters.]

[Post removed. Response to a post that was removed.]

San Mateo County Board of Supervisor April 12, 2011 Consent Agenda

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
The Deputy Sheriffs Association (DSA) and representatives of the County of San Mateo have met and conferred in good faith regarding wages, hours and other terms and conditions, have exchanged freely information, opinions and proposals and have endeavored to reach agreement on all matters relating to the employment conditions and employer-employee relations of such employees. This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is entered into pursuant to the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (Government Code Sections 3500 et seq) and has been jointly prepared by the parties. This MOU shall be presented to the County Board of Supervisors and, if appropriate, to the Civil Service Commission as the joint recommendations of the undersigned for salary and employee benefit adjustments for the period commencing January 9, 2011 through January 2, 2016.
Coverage - This Memorandum of Understanding for the Law Enforcement Unit shall be effective only for employees in the classifications of Deputy Sheriff, Deputy Sheriff Trainee, Sheriffs Correctional Officer and District Attorney Inspector.

Wow, Mr. Stogner

What a response to Home Sick. You've lost my support, too. But guess you don't care about my vote, either. I'll be sure to tell all my friends to read this thread.

Peter: you claim, in error, I didn't respond to the post you pasted:
"Posted by Not so fast, a resident of the Atherton: other neighborhood, on Apr 21, 2011 at 10:57 am

Not so fast Mr. Newman. While the ANNUAL WAGES AND SALARIES of public sector workers in Ohio might be a few percentage points less than "comparable" private sector workers, this analysis is not taking into account the pension benefits."

Your claim is in error. I responded with facts 14 minutes later, note the final point:

" * Public and private workforces differ in important ways. For instance, jobs in the public sector require much more education on average than those in the private sector. Employees in state and local sectors are twice as likely as their private sector counterparts to have a college or advanced degree.

* Wages and salaries of state and local employees are lower than those for private sector workers with comparable earnings determinants (e.g., education). State employees typically earn 11 percent less; local workers earn 12 percent less.

* Over the last 20 years, the earnings for state and local employees have generally declined relative to comparable private sector employees. The pattern of declining relative compensation remains true in most of the large states we examined, although some state-level variation exists.

* Benefits (e.g., pensions) comprise a greater share of employee compensation in the public sector. State and local employees have lower total compensation than their private sector counterparts. On average, total compensation is 6.8 percent lower for state employees and 7.4 percent lower for local workers, compared with comparable private sector employees."

------

re: the local APD example?

You end with fine words and theories, except your premise is off in the beginning.

"No college education required, but let's just say that the average Silicon Valley college-educated engineer makes $100K also. Perhaps even a bit more (but I don't think so)." Really, that's how you want to start your argument?

Comparing a coder with a guy who wears a vest? Words like "let's just say" "perhaps" "think" and then you're off into "discounted cash flow" trying to bolster your already faulty premise.

True, my initial response was funnier (he says, ever so humble):

"New cops don't have degrees? Really?

Great job comparing coders with guys carrying badges. I'm sure those lazy bum deputies can't write a lick of html!"

Local Resident,

Please do the more people who read this thread the better for everyone.

Dear Mr. Stogner,

I now see why you are all so confused on this website. I did respond to your comment about Peter and my response was 'yes.'

Alfred, you are the best and most sensible thing going here.

Mr. Stogner, good luck with you campaign and election. You will need it. But again, you have Peter's vote. That should be enough.

[Post removed.]