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.
Posted in reply to the post by 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.