A key part of Gov. Brown’s 12-point pension plan, the only change quickly yielding sizable savings for struggling government employers, could have a serious legal problem.
Requiring current workers to pay an equal share of normal pension costs, a 50-50 split with employers, may not be allowed under court rulings many believe limit pension changes to new hires, which can take decades to yield savings.
The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office argued in a new report last week that employers cannot impose cost-saving pension cuts on current workers, unless that power is legally preserved on the date of hire or bargained later.
“Since increasing current employees’ contributions is one of the only ways to substantially decrease employer pension costs in the short run, the legal and practical challenges that we describe mean that the governor’s plan may fail in its goal to deliver noticeable short-term cost savings for many public employers,” said the report prepared by Jason Sisney, deputy legislative analyst.
The analyst suggested one of the “practical” challenges is that even if unions agree to reduce pension benefits, they generally feel “duty bound” to push for comparable offsetting benefits while trying to represent the best interests of their members.
“For example, many of the recent state employee agreements that increased employee contributions to their pensions included future pay increases roughly equivalent to the increase in the employee pension contributions,” the analyst said.
The new labor contracts increased the employee pension contribution for state workers to 8 to 11 percent of pay depending on the bargaining unit, up from 5 to 8 percent.
The increased contribution from workers allowed the state to lower its annual payment to the California Public Employees Retirement System by about $200 million last fiscal year and $400 million this year.
The savings slowed the growth in state worker pension costs, but were not enough for a reduction. The state payment to CalPERS this fiscal year is $3.5 billion, an increase of $200 million or more from last year.
Most of the new contracts also give new hires a lower pension. But this change, if it remains in future contracts, seems unlikely to yield much state savings until there is a significant turnover in the workforce, which may take years or decades.
The original 12-point plan proposed by the governor last March did not mention cost sharing. But the proposal for equal sharing of normal pension costs is the first point in the more complete plan issued last month.
“We do address existing employees by increasing their contribution rate,” Brown said at a news conference last month when asked if the plan applied only to new hires.
“One thing we know for sure, under constitutional law the employer can require higher contributions and that is the most immediate and the biggest change that will make our pension plans more solvent,” the governor said. “Other changes run into constitutional questions of whether they are permissible or not.”
The analyst respectfully disagreed with the governor and included a two-page summary of constitutional case law “that may protect many current and past public employees.”
The governor’s plan specifically mentions equal sharing between employer and employee of the pension “normal” cost, the contributions actuaries say are needed (with assumed investment earnings) to pay for pensions accrued in the current year.
The analyst said it’s unclear if there also would be equal sharing of the “unfunded liability,” the debt or shortfall in assets needed to pay for pensions promised current workers and retirees if the system is not fully funded.
CalPERS has been 60 to 70 percent funded in recent years. The CalPERS investment portfolio peaked at $260 billion in the fall of 2007, dropped to $160 billion in March 2009 and was $226 billion last week.
The analyst said for most state workers (miscellaneous Tier 1) the current normal cost is 14.4 percent of pay and the unfunded liability 10.4 percent of pay. The employee contribution is 8 percent.
So employees are paying more than half the normal cost, but only about a third of the total cost of 24.8 percent of pay. The other two-thirds is being paid by the taxpayer-supported state budget.
For the more generous pensions provided correctional officers and firefighters, said the analyst, the normal cost is 25.4 percent of pay, the unfunded liability 11.3 percent and the employee contribution 11 percent.
Retiree costs this year are about 5.5 percent of the $89 billion state general fund. But in local government, where personnel is a larger part of total spending, retirement costs are blamed in San Jose, San Diego and other areas for service cuts and layoffs.
Local government employees often have been making little or no contribution to their pensions. In some cases, the employer’s payment of the employee’s contribution is counted as part of the salary on which the pension is based.
A key principle in a pension reform plan issued last June by the League of California Cities is that “public pension costs should be shared by employees and employers (taxpayers).”
The League’s plan seems to agree with the Legislative Analyst’s view of requiring current workers to pay more for their pensions. One of 15 recommendations for state action is that employees be required to pay the CalPERS employee contribution.
“Courts have held that current and former local government employees have rights to the pensions promised them at hiring,” said the League plan. “As such, the following recommendations most likely would not pertain to former employees or the prospective benefits of current employees.”
The Little Hoover Commission and others have suggested that the courts should revisit the issue of whether pensions current workers earn for future service can be cut, while protecting benefits already earned through time on the job.
Voter approval of a pension initiative on the June ballot in San Diego is likely to trigger a court challenge. In addition to putting most new city hires in a 401(k)-style plan, the pay on which the pensions of current workers is based would be frozen for five years.
A pension reform group filed two versions of a statewide initiative last month that would require current workers to “pay more for their same benefits and for a share of unfunded liabilities.”
A suit filed last year by the city of San Diego reflects the Legislative Analyst’s view that current worker pension benefits can be cut if the employer preserved that right on the date of hire.
The city’s suit to force employees to share pension costs is based on a provision in the San Diego charter: “The city shall contribute annually an amount substantially equal to that required of the employees for normal retirement allowances, as certified by the actuary…”
Reporter Ed Mendel covered the Capitol in Sacramento for nearly three decades, most recently for the San Diego Union-Tribune. More stories are at https://calpensions.com/ Posted 14 Nov 11
Calpensions 
November 14, 2011 at 5:29 pm
Clearly, once agin, the constitutional proscription they refer to is the contracts clause. That’s that. End of story. But through collective barganing I am certain that the state can get some pretty good give back from current employees and I have no problem with them paying a bit more—- still a great deal for them!
November 14, 2011 at 6:37 pm
The constitution didn’t prevent 3 states from repudiating all their debts in 1841 through sovereign default. The significant detail is that most of that debt was to investors outside the US. Unclear whether any state residents of those states got stiffed…
A bigger picture remains… 401(k)’s are significantly more expensive than defined benefit plans, as long as the defined benefit plans are well managed. In particular, CalXXXX didn’t plan for market downturns. It is certainly true that a whole lot of this market downturn was caused by venal behavior by those on Wall Street, and much of it was illegal and unprosecuted by the US government.
But that money ain’t coming back. Anyone who thought (or thinks) that greed, graft, and corruption are not common on Wall Street has (or had) their head in the sand. You have to plan for it. Luckily, `twas ever thus, and careful investors price it in.
CalXXXX forgot to do that, perhaps because of the taxpayer safety net they perceived was there. And perhaps the only way to fix the problem is a California sovereign default.
November 14, 2011 at 7:42 pm
spension— I am not sure why you are not understanding me? I never said there is a Constitutional proscription against S Default—— got it?
I have repeatedly said that the contracts clause bars the congress (and via stare decisis other gov legislatures…) from naking LAWS that infringe on contracts— this is as I have said over and over relevant to the MANY other goofy scenarios floated by the tea baggy right to go after workers pensions, vis— legislativly ordained pension reform when it abrogates contractual rights.
There are many other reasons why we will not see Sov Default and I have explained that—- I hope you get it!
November 14, 2011 at 7:46 pm
I know I live in the poodle’s head but I am worried about him? Why hasn’t he come back out here with the case citation answer yet? Could this be just like his last legal prediction about the cops lawsuit?
November 14, 2011 at 9:31 pm
Sure, the reasons why California won’t undergo sovereign defaults are as strong as those why Argentina, Germany in the 1920’s, Greece now, etc didn’t want to go sovereign default.
November 14, 2011 at 9:31 pm
“The analyst said for most state workers (miscellaneous Tier 1) the current normal cost is 14.4 percent of pay and the unfunded liability 10.4 percent of pay. The employee contribution is 8 percent.
For the more generous pensions provided correctional officers and firefighters, said the analyst, the normal cost is 25.4 percent of pay, the unfunded liability 11.3 percent and the employee contribution 11 percent.”
If these numbers are correct then what pension add-ons do state workers have that driven normal cost to these levels. The normal cost for a 3@50 plan is is 9% for the employee and 16% for the employer. The normal cost can increase when additional benefits are provided but these normal cost numbers are ridiculous or an error.
In my city Misc. workers receive a 2.7%@55 formula, one year final compensation, employer pick-up of the employee contribution added to final year compensation for purposes of the pension calculations, and retroactive pension benefits. The employee cost is 8% (paid by the city/taxpayers), the normal cost is 10.1%, and the unfunded liability cost is 11.2%. How do state employees get to a normal cost of 14.4%?
Public safety has the same deal but their employee cost (paid by the city) is 9%, the normal cost is 17.3% and the unfunded liability cost is 14.1%. How does the state get to a normal cost of 25.4%?
Time to get behind the CPR ballot measure. If it requires a court ruling then so be it. The sooner the better.
November 14, 2011 at 10:14 pm
Teddy Steals says; Clearly, once agin, the constitutional proscription they refer to is the contracts clause.
Teddy Steals, will you PLEASE stop posting your total BS nonsense.
You have no clue about the law outside of your nurse training, so stop acting like you do. I am tired of spanking you, my paws hurt.
🙂
November 14, 2011 at 10:16 pm
“I have repeatedly said that the contracts clause bars the congress (and via stare decisis other gov legislatures…) from naking LAWS that infringe on contracts— ”
Teddy, what is “naking LAWS” mean???
November 14, 2011 at 10:17 pm
“spension— I am not sure why you are not understanding me? ”
spension has a brain, something you lack Teddy Steals.
November 14, 2011 at 10:55 pm
zzzzzzzzzz wow— brilliant comments poodle lol
November 15, 2011 at 12:22 am
I love it here, just like the OCR Watchdog 🙂
November 15, 2011 at 2:55 pm
I love it too…..cause it’s so easy to own you like I did over there….lol………..and….ah….that case cite??? No luck yet little fella?? ouuuuuuch!lolol
November 16, 2011 at 7:04 pm
To Captain… good questions. One thing to check is whether the same discount rates are in use, the same inflation adjustments and assumptions are being used, and if the same estimate of future salary increases are in place. Another variable is whether spouses can get the pension payments.
Another way to look at it… there are big uncertainties in all these computations. There is a certain hubris in thinking the normal cost can be computed accurately at all. Another way to go is… contribute 15% a year *no matter what*. The fluctuations in markets and inflation outsmart the best analysts. Then, don’t put that 15% a year in a DC plan, but put it in a DB plan, so that risks are reduced. Then offer the DB levels low enough that one avoids all the current anxiety and need for additional tax $ contributions.
Once upon a time the whole idea was to operate the DB system that way, with mostly employer contributions (so individuals couldn’t argue that they lost money if they, say, died at age 66 instead of at age 85… the money was never theirs in the first place!). This new drive toward DC and toward high employee contributions to DB plans vitiates the whole concept and benefit of the DB plan.
In my opinion the origin of the whole problem is DB benefits that were way too high given the contribution levels. Innumeracy and bowing to political forces overtook our pension systems. And so the baby (the spreading of risk in DB plans) is getting thrown out with the dirty bathwater (political increases in pension benefits that ignored the real numbers).
November 16, 2011 at 9:27 pm
As CalPERS has pointed out,50% of DB unfunded liabilities arise because in 1999,CalPERS assumed that salaries would increase 2.75% per year. In fact salaries increased more than twice that rate,pushing retirements off the chart. The practice of granting raises based on peer levels in other cities, is nothing but a puffing scheme, that has escalated gov. salaries and hence retirements off the chart. What ever happened to using the “market” to arrive at salaries?
November 17, 2011 at 12:55 am
The salary comparisons with peer groups at other cities, etc., IS the market mechanism, john. If people don’t thing they’re being sufficiently, they vote with their feet and seek employment at the organization paying the higher level.
That’s how all markets work, closed or open.
November 17, 2011 at 3:26 am
Teddy Steals, American Comedian Says;
Clearly, once agin, the constitutional proscription they refer to is the contracts clause. That’s that. End of story.
Oh Teddy, where does your GED brain get all of these one liners 🙂
November 17, 2011 at 3:28 am
Captain, the sponsors of the CPR initiative, are former legilative aides, who are already getting $100,000+ pensions, or in line, for such. They are not from unions, either. Maybe you should check those bios, to determine, if your side of the fence, is the side, for the middle class–unless you belong to the 1%.
November 17, 2011 at 3:29 am
The practice of granting raises based on peer levels in other cities, is nothing but a puffing scheme, that has escalated gov. salaries and hence retirements off the chart. What ever happened to using the “market” to arrive at salaries?
John Moore, you are wise beyond your years. Of course the “leap frog” increases are a scam, all gov employment today is a scam, how many GED employees do you know in the real world who can get a $161K salary and another $161K in benefits with a GED, like Richmond CA PD can???
November 17, 2011 at 3:30 am
Captain, the sponsors of the CPR initiative, are former legilative aides, who are already getting $100,000+ pensions, or in line, for such. They are not from unions, either.”
seesaw, the vast majority of the $100K pension club are the so called public safety pensions, I bet 90%+ of the $100K club are public safety.
November 17, 2011 at 3:32 am
“The salary comparisons with peer groups at other cities, etc., IS the market mechanism, john.”
No it is not Skippy, the MARKET rate is the rate at which qualifed applicants will work for the given job, for the GED cop that would be about $40-$50K and the applicant quality would be far higher than you and Teddy. For the firewhiner it would eb even less.
THAT is what the “market rate” is.
November 17, 2011 at 3:38 am
Quoting … “The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office argued in a new report last week that employers cannot impose cost-saving pension cuts on current workers, unless that power is legally preserved on the date of hire or bargained later.”
Maybe we seek opinion on such controversial issues by persons with no self-interest in a specific outcome. As State employees the staff of the Legislative Analyst’s Office participate in these same Plans and I’m quite sure do not want to increase there OWN pension contributions.
November 17, 2011 at 3:46 am
Poodle— The market for a cop is 40-50k? LOL— Guess you truly don’t understand the market. And…….ah…….where is that case cite that overcomes the contracts clause? Hmmmm…could it be that no such case in any jurisdiction exists? Or is this like your lawsuit prediction from last year? Bang– ouch! That was easy !!
November 17, 2011 at 3:51 am
Hey Steele …. Rev, Dr., Nurse ?
You (not Rex) are one sick puppy.
November 17, 2011 at 5:29 am
Rex, the $100,000 plus list consists of a majority of managers, not rank and file–a retiree drawing $100,000 in retirement would, normally, have to have been making a base salary, higher than that amount, at retirement. It stands to reason, that the majority, of those drawing the large pensions, are not from the rank and file–and were not union members, either. Of course, I would guess that, many of them, are from public safety. The few data lists, that I have viewed, do not list the job titles, of the recipients–just the names and employers. Have you seen documentation to back up your statement? If so, bring it on.
November 17, 2011 at 5:32 am
John Moore, I suspect that you are viewing salaries of high level employees, like City Managers and Dept. Heads. No rank and file got increases, like that, where I was employed. We received yearly increases, ranging from one to two-percent all through the 90’s, and up to 2008, when COLAS stopped, entirely.
November 17, 2011 at 5:40 am
TL, it is my understanding that the LAO is a non-partisan agency, that has nothing to do, with state employees. What the LAO is getting at, is that it is probably illegal, to impose higher pension contributions, on the employees, because such increases, have not been bargained, which is the legal process, in the public sector, in CA,. Public agencies from around the state have been negotiating higher employee pension payments for the past two years. The employees at my former entity have agreed to go from 3% to 8% of their salary, for their pension obligations.
November 17, 2011 at 6:31 am
Poodle— The market for a cop is 40-50k?
Teddy, you’re correct, 40-50k is TOO high in this market, $25K-$35K would work with a 22% U-6 UE rate in CA
Thank you
November 17, 2011 at 6:33 am
Rex, the $100,000 plus list consists of a majority of managers, not rank and file–a retiree drawing $100,000 in retirement would, normally, have to have been making a base salary, higher than that amount, at retirement.
Seesaw, if you take the $100K club, at least 80% of it are rank and file, entry level prublic safety employees, mainly FF, cops, CHP and prison guards.
November 17, 2011 at 6:54 am
Where is the documentation for your statistics, Rex? Post something, from an official, that verifys that 80% of the $100,000+ club consists of rank and file. Without the documentation, your words mean nothing.
November 17, 2011 at 2:47 pm
Poodle– Making up your stats…AGAIN? Yikes— this is alot like your lawsuit predictions isn’t it? Still waiting for you to cite me to the contracts case case…..little buddy!
November 17, 2011 at 4:19 pm
Teddy, I have only been wrong one time on the lawsuit predictions, and even I can’t be correct 100% of the time…….now back to baby sitting those pot smokers 🙂
November 17, 2011 at 4:20 pm
“Where is the documentation for your statistics, Rex? Post something, from an official, that verifys that 80% of the $100,000+ club consists of rank and file.”
I wrote CalTURDS this mornig, asking for the $100K stats, will report back once they come in 😛
You and Teddy are going to be eating humble pie.
November 17, 2011 at 6:56 pm
Your list must include the title of each member of the $100,000+ Club–otherwise you would have no proof, of your claim, that the majority of them are PS, rank and file.
November 17, 2011 at 7:13 pm
Seesaw, you can review the pensions iof the 1937 act systems, I think there are 20 or 23, and they publish the top pension paymnets and it is virtually 80% or more pyublic safety, I am trying to find a local pension system that I can link to.
Stay tuned……..
November 17, 2011 at 7:35 pm
Of course if is going to be made of of mostly public safety Rex–that segment makes up most of your public sector workers. Your claim is, that those in the Club, were rank and file, at the time of retirement. That is where the titles come in–without the titles, you have no proof. Its interesting that you now move from CalPERS to 37 Act. CAlPERS does not allow the egregious types of pension spiking that is allowed, with those county plans. (The OCR published a list of the top ten CalPERS earners, a couple weeks ago. Teri identified them as high level officials, CM’s, and Police Chiefs, et al, in their respective employing agencies.
November 17, 2011 at 10:42 pm
Poodle— WAIT— you were only wrong about the lawsuit one time????? OMG—– you posted every day for a year and a half a least 6 times a day that prediction! You can’t count that as one little buddy.
November 18, 2011 at 12:17 am
Of course if is going to be made of of mostly public safety Rex–that segment makes up most of your public sector workers. Your claim is, that those in the Club, were rank and file, at the time of retirement. That is where the titles come in–without the titles, you have no proof.
seesaw, ALL of public safey START out at the entry level.
Public Safety supervisory positions are not like going to Harvard MBA school and coming in as chief. So even if they are Sgt, Lt, Capt, and Cheifs they are still rank and file b/c thye started there.
I looked and have not foudn anything yet-I know this is out there, somewhere, I have seen it before……
November 18, 2011 at 12:19 am
Poodle— WAIT— you were only wrong about the lawsuit one time????? OMG—– you posted every day for a year and a half a least 6 times a day that prediction! You can’t count that as one little buddy.
teddy, teddy, Teddy, it was ONE prediction, ONE!!!!…It does not matter how many POSTS I made, it was only ONE prediction.
Come on, stop the spin lil buddy, I was only wrong one time, andyou know it, Name ONE other lawsuit I was wrong on, not out there 🙂
November 18, 2011 at 12:23 am
Oh man Poodle— I am embarased for you little guy—– you pontificated so much on that lawsuit that it probably counts for 20 predictions……color me sad Teddy
November 18, 2011 at 1:47 am
you pontificated so much on that lawsuit that it probably counts for 20 predictions
LOL….youre killing me lil yoday 🙂
November 18, 2011 at 2:09 am
Stop being ingenuous, Rex! Of course, most PS workers, just like other workers, start out in entry level jobs. Not all, make it, into the ranks, of management. The retirees getting the huge $100,000+ pensions are managers, and not rank and file; there are more workers retiring from the rank and file, than from management. We are talking about where the workers are when they retire–not where they started 20-30, years ago. You have been creating your own spin! You have stated that the majority of the $100,000 members, were rank and file–now prove it!
November 18, 2011 at 3:21 am
Poodle– I love watching you back pedal— makes you look so……….vulnerable……lol……mmmmmmmmmmmm
November 18, 2011 at 4:05 am
Rex has been so wrong, so many times, on so many things that watching him backpedal has become a spectator sport.
I’m still waiting for him to post his evidence that a non-supervisory Richmond California police officer earns $160k per year. Rex ignores evidence like the existing contract RPD has with that city, as well as anything else that fails to support his outlandish claim.
Let’s see some evidence for a change, Rex! Come on, boy…
Waiting….
November 18, 2011 at 5:37 am
I forgot to put the, “dis”, in front of the word. My apology to anyone who was confused.
November 18, 2011 at 6:17 am
Rex has been so wrong, so many times, on so many things that watching him backpedal has become a spectator sport.
😛
Stop being ingenuous, Rex!
😉
Poodle– I love watching you back pedal— makes you look so……….vulnerable……lol……mmmmmmmmmmmm
I feel the love, it is so STRONG today….hehehehehehe….
I am going to have to go over to http://www.calwatchdog.com and get some love over there….maybe OCO will watch my back from you public trough feeders!
🙂
November 18, 2011 at 6:20 am
I’m still waiting for him to post his evidence that a non-supervisory Richmond California police officer earns $160k per year.
Skippy, don’t even try to do the head fake on RPD again, I already posted up the base – $123K, plus the extra pay- $38K- $161K.
Don’t take my word for it-add it all up for yourself- if you can add percentages 😛
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentView.aspx?DID=4869
November 18, 2011 at 6:31 am
RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Police Officer
$123,108 Annual Salary
(Effective 7/1/2011)
AA, BA or Advanced POST – 2.5% to 7.5% max
Bilingual Pay – 2%
Longevity pay – 2% through 9%
Investigations assignment supplement – 5%
Shift Differential – 5% swing, 7.5% graveyard; 3 x 12 & 4 x 10 shifts
TOTAL ADD ON FOR EXTRA PAY= 31%
$123K+$38,163 [31%]= $161,271
Oppssss, forgot to add in the vacation and sick leave benefits….well, I will leave those out since they would add another 20% onto the total.
November 18, 2011 at 7:00 am
I just looked up Richmond PD, Rex. The base pay for an entry level police officer, effective 7/1/11, is $91,128. That is mighty high–northern CA. The salaries in So. CA are far lower.
November 18, 2011 at 2:56 pm
OH NO !! Is the poodle making up stats….again????? sad
November 20, 2011 at 11:31 pm
OK, for those who cannot read, or clikc on a link, here you go AGAIN;
RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Police Officer
$123,108 Annual Salary
(Effective 7/1/2011)
AA, BA or Advanced POST – 2.5% to 7.5% max
Bilingual Pay – 2%
Longevity pay – 2% through 9%
Investigations assignment supplement – 5%
Shift Differential – 5% swing, 7.5% graveyard; 3 x 12 & 4 x 10 shifts
TOTAL ADD ON FOR EXTRA PAY= 31%
$123K+$38,163 [31%]= $161,271
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentView.aspx?DID=4869
November 21, 2011 at 2:24 am
I just looked up Richmond PD, Rex. The base pay for an entry level police officer, effective 7/1/11, is $91,128. That is mighty high–northern CA. The salaries in So. CA are far lower.
Seesaw, the base pay of $91K is ONLY forthe first 6 months, then they get a $5K raise, and then at 12 months they get another $5K raise, and they will get $5K raises EVERY 6 monthds until they hit the top pay-at 3 yeasr. rinse, repeat, rinse repeat.
These are called “step” increases. They are autromatic as long as you are employed, they are NOT merit based. So once again your claim that the $91K is only for 6 months, out of a 30 year career=1/60th of their employment.
BTW- There are many smalled local PD’s start close to Richmond in So Cal…………but the point is this, you have a dork cop who is a HS grad at age 20.5 making more money than a medical doctor in the private sector, at age 20.5.
Come on seesaw, stop spinning and come clean, you and that dork Teddy Steal.
November 21, 2011 at 4:01 am
Richmond starts at 4k per month—
http://www.policejobsinfo.com/find-a-police-job/see-who-is-hiring/ca/richmond/
Bam, ouch, sleepy poodle! LOL
November 21, 2011 at 4:41 am
LOL…poor Teddy Dorkus, Teddy links to a third party hearsay updated once a decade website;
http://www.policejobsinfo.com/find-a-police-job/see-who-is-hiring/ca/richmond/
While I link DIRECTLY to RPD’s recruit page with the latest up tp date information.
http://www.policejobsinfo.com/find-a-police-job/see-who-is-hiring/ca/richmond/
Teddy, you must love abuse, and I almost feel bad destroying you like this.
BOOM!
No, wait…DOUBLE BOOM! BOOM!!
November 21, 2011 at 4:39 pm
poor poodle boi— he still continues to be unable to read with comprehension! OOOOOOOOOOOOuch !! LOL
November 21, 2011 at 4:40 pm
LOL— and can I expect that case site abrogating the contracts clause before the holiday??? LOL Oh my this is easy!
November 21, 2011 at 6:48 pm
Rex, this is from the Richmond site, so don’t call it, “spinning”. By the way, I think you meant to call those, raises, 5%, not 5K (by my calculation, these steps amount to 4%). Some cities, like my former employer, have not been giving the step raises, due to the economic troubles. At any rate, salary schedules are standard, in the public sector. Step raises are not automatic. Don’t you have a living to make, yourself:
City of Richmond
RPOA
Effective July 1, 2011
2.5% Increase
Job Class Title Range Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4
Police Officer Trainee 299 Base $4,000
Police Officer 300 Base $7,409 $7,747 $8,152 $8,546Job Class Title Range Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4
Police Officer Trainee 299 Base $4,000
Police Officer 300 Base $7,409 $7,747 $8,152 $8,546
November 21, 2011 at 6:52 pm
Just to add, Rex: I assume, from what I know, working in the public sector, that $4,000 trainee is going to work for at least one year, before he becomes a permanent employee. If he works out, it will be at least five years, before he gets to Step 4.
November 21, 2011 at 10:09 pm
seesaw, the trainee is the ACADEMY, who pays a GED dork $4K per month to go to school???? Once again, why do I need to spank you and Teddy so hard;
http://www.policejobsinfo.com/find-a-police-job/see-who-is-hiring/ca/richmond/
Educate yourself, and Teddy too!
November 21, 2011 at 10:10 pm
Step raises are every 6 months BTW!
😛
November 21, 2011 at 11:27 pm
Not where I worked! After the first six months, they are once a year, recommended by the supervisor, and not automatic. As, I already said, there have been no raises at all for the last two years. Stop being such a know-it-all. You can’t know one-tenth, of what there is to know, about any one public agency–unless you were an employee of that agency, yourself. As if there is anything, you could do, about Richmond’s salary schedules………………..
November 22, 2011 at 3:59 am
Wow Seesaw— seriously, why bother with the poodle— no offense meant to him, seriously, he just does not read all that well for comprehension. We have explained all this to him and either he honestly does not understand or frankly, God bless him, he can’t honestly get it. I know he has alot of passion for this subject…..but over the years he just name calls or reverts back to talking points when he is challenged and sort of nailed…. but thanks for trying to reach him! He is still a human being and worthy of the effort….I guess.
November 22, 2011 at 8:56 am
…but over the years he just name calls…
Teddy, you know I have spanked you day after day, wek after week, month after month-just admit it, I own you on this issue.
November 22, 2011 at 4:34 pm
lol poodle boi— you live in a doggie dream world! Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
November 22, 2011 at 11:32 pm
ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Teddy 😛
November 23, 2011 at 4:27 pm
are you a sleepy little troll? Bam– Ouch!!
November 23, 2011 at 6:00 pm
ZzzzzzzTeddy, wake me when youre done 😛
November 24, 2011 at 3:18 am
still in your head am I Poodle? LOL quick— type another one now– you’ll feel better! LOL weeeeeeeeeeeeeee
November 28, 2011 at 6:44 am
There is no good reason to raise taxes and fees when wage concessions are available. CA public employees wages must reflect California’s ability to pay, not what other munis are paying.