A proposed wage cut? Are you on crack, Governator?

[AquaGyrl]

All,
Attached is some information in rebuttable to the Press Democrat's (and other newspapers) alarming statement about cutting state employee wages to the new federal minimum. While this information is in the public domain, it has not been widely published. In essence, John Chiang (State Controller/ shining star), has refused to acknowledge and, in fact, refused the governator's request to reduce pay - and for very good reason! If you, or a loved one, is a civil servant for the state then I encourage you to download and read the file I provided.

Despite what you may think, state employees are paid MUCH less than those in private enterprise. You think state benefits are good? Think again - state benefits compromise approx. 30% of an employees salary!!

During extreme budget crises... state employes are expected to work for no money - salaries are 'lent' to some with expectation of reimbursement (i.e., you work for free and we lend you your salary - but you have to pay it back).

Have at it!!!!

[MsTerry]

Does that mean I could have hired Arnold for $7.50 an hour?

All,
Attached is some information in rebuttable to the Press Democrat's (and other news papers) alarming statement about cutting state employee wages to the new federal minimum. While this information is in the public domain, it has not been widely published. In essence, John Chiang, shining star, has refused to acknowledge and, in fact, refused the governator's request to reduce pay - and for very good reason.! If you, or a loved one, is a civil servant for the State then I encourage you to download and read the file I provided.

Despite what you may think, state employees are paid MUCH less than those in private enterprise. You think state benefits are good? Think again - state benefits compromise approx. 30% of an employees salary!! Not 40, not 50, not even 75%!!

During extreme budget crises... state employes are expected to work for no money - salaries are 'lent' to some with complete expectation of reimbursement (i.e., you work for free and we lend you your salary - but you have to pay it back).

Have at it!!!!

[AquaGyrl]

No. But if you wanted to you could ask him for some of that crack he's been smoking!

Considering the State Controller's response, I think "Arnie" just publicly ruined his career as a governator/politician.

Does that mean I could have hired Arnold for $7.50 an hour?

[Sciguy]

I searched all over but could not find out who would be covered by this proposal for paying state employees minimum wage.

I am fully cynical enough to believe that no state employee earning luxurious, excessive salaries such as in excess of $80K (pick your favorite number) would be covered by this proposal. I assume it would only be the little people at the bottom who would be screwed.

I'm sure there are tens of thousands of state employees (UC Administrators for example) who are making in excess of $100 K or $ 200K (or MUCH more) for jobs that smart people of my acquaintance would do much better for reasonable, human salaries under $80K and be glad of the work. But politicians and their ilk cover each other's backs, making sure that their compensations are stratospheric. This happens when people decide their own salaries. Corporate officers provide another egregious example, as do congresspeople. I have long thought that political and administrative salaries should be set by a commission of twenty ordinary people who serve for six months or less and keep rotating to make bribing them difficult. I think we would have far fewer budget problems under that scenario.

Returning to the thread, I think it would make a lot more sense if instead of reducing salaries to minimum wage to save money, Arnold would put a cap on all salaries of let's say $40K and just stick to it. Legislators, lawyers, department heads, accountants, appointees etc. Take the California Integrated Waste Management Board, initially set up by Deukmejian to pay nine do-nothing pals $95K each and now up to about $110K I think. Their main job is meet occasionally to obstruct progressive change and protect the profits of the garbage industry yet they sail on, getting their fancy paychecks. What is your favorite example? How about the City Manager of bankrupt Oakland that was getting about $240K and was recently canned for illegal activities? The top heavy Oakland gang fought like tigers to hide their bloated salary levels but were forced to reveal them only after a FOIA request.

Not to worry. The top salary suckers will never have their fancy incomes threatened, only the small people at the bottom. But keep an eye out for the details of this proposed salary slash and watch who is actually threatened with the knife.

Paul Palmer

All,
Attached is some information in rebuttable to the Press Democrat's (and other newspapers) alarming statement about cutting state employee wages to the new federal minimum. While this information is in the public domain, it has not been widely published. In essence, John Chiang (State Controller/ shining star), has refused to acknowledge and, in fact, refused the governator's request to reduce pay - and for very good reason! If you, or a loved one, is a civil servant for the state then I encourage you to download and read the file I provided.

Despite what you may think, state employees are paid MUCH less than those in private enterprise. You think state benefits are good? Think again - state benefits compromise approx. 30% of an employees salary!!

During extreme budget crises... state employes are expected to work for no money - salaries are 'lent' to some with expectation of reimbursement (i.e., you work for free and we lend you your salary - but you have to pay it back).

Have at it!!!!

[lifequest]

Every governor likes to use state employees as a convenient whipping boy when there's budget problems. Most of the state budget expenses are mandated by various propositions or court orders (like prisons). But employee salaries and benefits are subject to cuts.

Governor Davis tried the same thing as Arnold a few years back and the State Controller refused to carry it out. Like Chiang warns, if the federal minimum wage issue goes to court and the state loses, it (and we) have to pay treble damages and interest on that too. Its just a cynical ploy and Arnold even admits it. Until we get rid of the two-thirds majority required to pass a budget, it remains hostage to extremist Republicans who won't allow any type of tax increase (even to eliminate the yacht sales tax exemption that their rich social buddies use). They will cave on higher fees which are tax increases but it mainly impacts the poor who they detest anyways.

If state employee salaries are capped at 40k, not only will it make replacing the droves retiring in the next few years impossible, a lot of professional employees will leave for greener pastures. If you look at the percentage of the state budget devoted to employee costs, its a tiny fraction. Our legislators are not only overpaid for what they do (or don't do), they get a per diem every day even if they don't travel - amounts to about $30-40,000 a year as if it were a second job. And they get nice leased vehicles.

My guess is that the budget this year will see lots of services taxed (sales tax on everything) and tinkering with credits and exemptions on the State tax return. And lots of fee increases. Then the idiots will declare victory and go back on vacation.

[Lenny]

Dear State Legislators:

Keep your current salaries and no more raises, ever.
No more per diem.
Meet only from January 2 to April 15.
Return to live where you represent, and under the laws you created.

[RichT]

https://www.sacbee.com/walters/story/1113305.html

Dan Walters provides some interesting insight into the inner workings (non-workings??) of our esteemed state leaders. This article points out that the state is nearing the taxation levels that led to the taxpayer revolt of Prop. 13.

[AquaGyrl]

I agree with you. But things are more complicated than you think. I mean, state finance is a "sticky widget" There are few black and whites related to state budget. Do You agree?

Dear State Legislators:

Keep your current salaries and no more raises, ever.
No more per diem.
Meet only from January 2 to April 15.
Return to live where you represent, and under the laws you created.

[AquaGyrl]

Paul, you are very off base in your comment. Very, very few State employees earn 65K per year. I know. I work for the Judicial Council and write proposals related to hiring employees and contractors for the state.

Your response is ridiculous and poorly informed. It's reactionary and negative. YOU, BTW, aren't sure of anything except your ego. You know nothing about the current situation of Cal State Employees, isn't it so? But you speak like a pitbull on PCP who's dying for a "kill." Spare us your uninformed dialog. You need to learn the facts before you make such insidious comments.

I searched all over but could not find out who would be covered by this proposal for paying state employees minimum wage.

I am fully cynical enough to believe that no state employee earning luxurious, excessive salaries such as in excess of $80K (pick your favorite number) would be covered by this proposal. I assume it would only be the little people at the bottom who would be screwed.

I'm sure there are tens of thousands of state employees (UC Administrators for example) who are making in excess of $100 K or $ 200K (or MUCH more) for jobs that smart people of my acquaintance would do much better for reasonable, human salaries under $80K and be glad of the work. But politicians and their ilk cover each other's backs, making sure that their compensations are stratospheric. This happens when people decide their own salaries. Corporate officers provide another egregious example, as do congresspeople. I have long thought that political and administrative salaries should be set by a commission of twenty ordinary people who serve for six months or less and keep rotating to make bribing them difficult. I think we would have far fewer budget problems under that scenario.

Returning to the thread, I think it would make a lot more sense if instead of reducing salaries to minimum wage to save money, Arnold would put a cap on all salaries of let's say $40K and just stick to it. Legislators, lawyers, department heads, accountants, appointees etc. Take the California Integrated Waste Management Board, initially set up by Deukmejian to pay nine do-nothing pals $95K each and now up to about $110K I think. Their main job is meet occasionally to obstruct progressive change and protect the profits of the garbage industry yet they sail on, getting their fancy paychecks. What is your favorite example? How about the City Manager of bankrupt Oakland that was getting about $240K and was recently canned for illegal activities? The top heavy Oakland gang fought like tigers to hide their bloated salary levels but were forced to reveal them only after a FOIA request.

Not to worry. The top salary suckers will never have their fancy incomes threatened, only the small people at the bottom. But keep an eye out for the details of this proposed salary slash and watch who is actually threatened with the knife.

Paul Palmer

[MsTerry]

No. But if you wanted to you could ask him for some of that crack he's been smoking!

Is it the same crack Mykil treated us all with?

[Sciguy]

Aquagirl, it's time you slipped off those swimming goggles and climbed out of the pool into the sun.

I said that I could not find out who would be covered by the minimum wage order. I still can't. Actually, as you must realize, that was tongue-in-cheek since it is quite obvious to me that the fat cats will never be asked to work for minimum wage. Only the rank and file little guys who can't afford the cuts.

You said that "very few" employees earn $65K a year. Neat! I never said how many, I just addressed the ones that do, and so you tried to fault me for claiming something I never claimed. Is that what you learn to do at the Judicial Council?

I said that the fat cats will fight like tigers to keep their salaries secret. I said that because there was a fight in Oakland a year or three back where the top officials fought to hide their astronomical salaries. Of course they put forward some slippery reason for secrecy but it is quite obvious what they really fear - that with the city in bankruptcy, taxpayers without jobs might bristle at salaries running $125K and up for police chiefs, dept. heads and the city manager. The ACLU and the Contra Costa Times had to get the Supreme Court to tell the backsliders that they had better front up the information or else. And even with the court's order, I still can't find the list on Google, though I saw it go by a while ago. Don't believe me? Here's the story:

Oakland's top-secret salaries
It refuses to reveal city workers' wages

San Francisco Chronicle

June 28, 2004
If you want to know how much Oakland's top officials earn, forget it. Same goes for the salaries of the city's 4,000 other employees, including cops, firefighters and maintenance workers.
We the people are paying all of them, but a new city policy allows officials to withhold salary information about public employees. The rule is based on legal precedent, but as a matter of public policy, it stinks.
Oakland's City Council voted behind closed doors this month to acquiesce to the demands of three employee unions that threatened to sue if the city released employee salaries to the public.
The Oakland Police Officers Association, the Service Employees International Union and a union that represents city clerical staff threatened to sue to block the disclosure of employee salaries if the city continued its open-government policies.
In doing so, the unions have placed a dark cloud over the city's Sunshine Ordinance, which is designed to shed more light on government activities.
Bob Valladon, president of the police officers union, has said that police officers' wages are "none of their business.''
None of whose business?
The union president could not be referring to the taxpayers who fund the department and pay his salary, could he?


...


The legal precedent flies in the face of the state's Public Records Act, and doesn't take into account problems associated with patronage and favoritism and a thousand other facts that are regularly gleaned or deduced from public salary records.
It is unfathomable that the salaries of bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., are a matter of public record, but California government workers require an additional level of protection.

For any city, county or state employee who is sensitive about the release of salary information, there is an alternative: Get a job in the private sector where such issues never come up.
As long as a public employee's wages -- particularly those of department heads and other top decision-makers -- are being paid by John Q. Public, that employee's position, salary and even performance should be an open book.

I suppose you will cavil that this is a city, not the state. That's right, but there is a state law requiring state salaries to be revealed so the psychology of the top earners is seen more clearly in the case of this city. Once again, I searched for state salary information and it is not easily found (not statistics, but salaries). However look at this data for the Oakland city manager (now under criminal indictment) and professors at UC ( I personally have no quibble with professors since they can claim real expertise but they are state employees making more than $65K)

Oakland's top nonelected official, Edgerly, who was appointed as city administrator in 2004 by then-Mayor Jerry Brown, will continue to earn her $260,000-a-year salary until she retires. She will collect a pension after retirement of more than $150,000 a year.
Edgerly faces possible criminal charges, city sources say, for showing up on an Oakland street June 7 and demanding to know why officers were towing the vehicle of a man she identified as her nephew, who works for the city as a parking meter repairman.
From: SF Chron, June 28, 2008

And:

TABLE 1
FACULTY--LADDER RANKS--PROFESSOR SERIES*
ACADEMIC YEAR
[Note: The table won't format properly on Wacco so I will just report that the list shows that professors' salaries range from $68,800 to $130,900 in 2005 going from Level 1 to Level 10]






Then I mentioned the Cal. Integrated Waste Mgt. Board as a useless board designed to give the governor appointees to whom he could initially pay $95K and a bit more by now. I know whereof I speak on this. Here is some proof for you:

On January 31, 2006, Schwarzenegger announced his intention to appoint Rosario Marin as secretary of the State and Consumer Services Agency, an agency which responsible for civil rights enforcement, consumer protection and the licensing of 2.3 million Californians in more than 230 different professions. The position has an annual salary of $131,412, and required her to resign her position from the Integrated Waste Management Board.


About Rosario Marin, From Wikipedia

Personally, I don't know anything about this appointee but I thought it might interest you to note that she is being paid $131K now. As for the post she had to give up, here, in another announcement, is what they are paid:

August 30, 1999
99-080
New Board Member Named To Waste Agency

SACRAMENTO—Linda Moulton-Patterson was sworn in today as the newest member of the California Integrated Waste Management Board, the State's primary recycling agency.

Moulton-Patterson will receive $100,548 annually, reflecting a 5 percent salary reduction as requested by Governor Davis. The position requires Senate confirmation.

That was nine years ago. I'm sure it's quite a bit more today. Pretty much what I claimed earlier, wouldn't you say?

I took note of what the president of UC is paid nowadays. I will spare you the breakdown of what this poor, overworked public servant is paid to do and just present the total:

Mark Yudof appointed next UC president

Date: 2008-04-16
From: https://www.universityofcalifornia.e.../article/17548

Mark G. Yudof, University of California incoming president, has been meeting with policy-makers in Sacramento, including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, as he prepares to take office June 16.
…

As UC president, Yudof will receive a compensation package valued at $828,000 in the 2008-09 year, compared to a current package estimated at $790,000 at the University of Texas. (These figures do not include standard retirement plan funding for future retirement benefits for university employees at both institutions.)

As you apparently failed to note, I never said there were thousands of officials making over $65K (to adopt your figure) just that there were many, identifiable ones and that they would not be asked to limp along on minimum wage.

The last part remains a guess, because no one is talking about who will be cut down to minimum wage. If you have that information, thru the Judicial Council or from anywhere, why don't you supply that information and show us all the data that proves my guess is wrong. Until then, stow the snide comments and name calling.

So Aquagyrl, are you as quick on the apologies as you are on the accusations? I'm waiting ...

Paul Palmer
PS: Apologies to readers for colors and fonts. I find it impossible to format these imported texts.

Paul, you are very off base in your comment. Very, very few State employees earn 65K per year. I know. I work for the Judicial Council and write proposals related to hiring employees and contractors for the state.

Your response is ridiculous and poorly informed. It's reactionary and negative. YOU, BTW, aren't sure of anything except your ego. You know nothing about the current situation of Cal State Employees, isn't it so? But you speak like a pitbull on PCP who's dying for a "kill." Spare us your uninformed dialog. You need to learn the facts before you make such insidious comments.

[Lenny]

Quote:
Lenny wrote:
Dear State Legislators:

Keep your current salaries and no more raises, ever.
No more per diem.
Meet only from January 2 to April 15.
Return to live where you represent, and under the laws you created.

I agree with you. But things are more complicated than you think. I mean, state finance is a "sticky widget" There are few black and whites related to state budget. Do You agree?

Things are more complicated than ANYONE can think through. What is offered here is a solution.
1. If those legislative critters meet only for 120 days, they can only do so much, therefore prioritizing becomes paramount, unlike current operations.
2. The per diem in total dollars is outrageous, so they will earn $35,000 per month they meet. Not a bad salary.
3. As they are exempt from the laws they pass when they are in session, they can live under the same laws while they earn money the way the rest of do during the year, then they will better understand the effects of such laws.
4. Attrition and attenuation will slowly restore balance to this government due to the practicality of what is proposed.
IOW, I agree with the ( H.L. Mencken or Will Rogers) gentleman, "The only time the American people are safe is when Congress is in recess".
Sacramento has too much time on it's hands and they simply "kick it" for too long. Let's get serious. And we won't EVEN talk of redistricting!

[Lorrie]

Is it the same crack Mykil treated us all with?

Ms Terry YOU CAN'T SMOKE THAT CRACK!!!

[MsTerry]

Lorrie, :bateyes: Mykil is smoking with ANY crack!

Ms Terry YOU CAN'T SMOKE THAT CRACK!!!

[Lorrie]

Lorrie, :bateyes: Mykil is smoking with ANY crack!

You quick witted little so an so!
YOU DO HAVE A POINT THERE!!

You know he's off on some adventure...