Hidden health care costs of Adachi’s pension reform measure

|
(63)

New information about the health care costs associated with a pension reform measure backed by Public Defender Jeff Adachi suggests that the highest cost burden would fall to parents at the lowest end of the pay scale.

An analysis of the Adachi measure estimates that city employees with two or more dependents could face monthly healthcare cost increases of $220 a month, which would bring their total monthly contributions to $448, $765, or $1,630, depending on the health care plan. Dental care would bring those costs up an additional $82 per month.

Rael & Letson, an actuary firm hired to calculate premium contributions, completed the analysis on behalf of the Public Employees Committee of the San Francisco Labor Council. The city has not done a formal analysis of employee contribution increases to date.

Rael & Letson’s report estimates that for employees with a single dependent, the monthly employee contribution would go up an additional $240 under Kaiser, $352 under Blue Shield, and $419 under the city plan -- bringing the total monthly contributions to $249, $473, and $1,098, respectively. Dental benefits would bring each of those costs up another $50 per month. That’s compared with current contribution levels of $8.84, $120, and $679 for employees in that category.

The analysis found that if approved, the policy change would result in “a relatively modest monthly out-of-pocket increase for Kaiser participants without dependents, but a significant shift in ... costs paid by employees enrolled in other plans ... especially those with employee + 1 dependent coverage. These increases could make covering dependents unaffordable for lower income employees.”
According to StateHealthFacts.org, a website run by the Kaiser Family Foundation, the average employee contribution to a family health insurance premium in the state of California amounted to about $290 per month in 2009.

Whether or not these proposed increases are manageable depends of course on an employee’s salary, whether or not they have assistance from a spouse or family members, and other personal circumstances. In the case of a single mother with two or more children at the lower end of the pay scale, the spike in health care costs could force some very difficult choices.

Meanwhile, an analysis of the pension reform measure written by the director of San Francisco’s Health Service System (HSS) at the request of the city’s Department of Elections suggests that the measure could jeopardize an estimated $23 million in federal funding that is expected to be awarded annually for the next four years under the new federal healthcare reform bill. HSS administers healthcare benefits to city employees.

A new program created under federal healthcare reform -- the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program (ERRP) -- is designed to ease employers’ financial burden of healthcare costs for retirees not eligible for Medicare. ERRP funds can be used reimburse 80 percent of claims between $15,000 and $90,000 for each retiree over 55 who isn’t eligible for Medicare. In San Francisco, this new federal subsidy amounts to an estimated $23 million annually over the next four years, which would be deposited into the city’s HSS trust fund and used to lower premium requirements.

The HSS memo warns that since Adachi’s measure proposes increasing employee healthcare contributions, “This proposed Charter amendment will therefore eliminate this anticipated subsidy of premium contributions not only for the City and County but also for City College and the Unified School District who are also employers within the San Francisco Health Service System."

The memo also points out that just $53 million out of the $83 million in savings that the Adachi measure is expected to generate will go into the city’s General Fund, because more than a third of employees work for non-General Fund supported departments.

“If this Charter amendment becomes law, the balance of the contributions required to fully fund the HSS benefits will ultimately have to shift to the employees,” according to the HSS memo. “This Charter amendment does not address the underlying factors that will continue to drive increases in the cost of providing healthcare benefits.”

The recession has brought a recent spate of finger pointing at public-sector workers, and some might consider sharp healthcare cost increases to be a worthwhile tradeoff when it comes to the anticipated savings. Yet the decision to take more money out of the pockets of working people comes with its own set of consequences, which might be felt most acutely at the individual level but will also have a ripple effect on a broader economic scale.

Gabriel Haaland, an organizer with SEIU Local 1021, told the Guardian he believes that Adachi’s measure has been misrepresented as a pension-reform measure and ought to be discussed in the context of health care. “It’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing,” he said. Haaland added that he thought the sharp contribution increases would lead to more people opting out of healthcare benefits altogether, which could in turn place more of a strain on the city’s public healthcare system.

We contacted Adachi for comments, and we’ll be sure to post his response if and when we receive it.

Comments

Yes, let's all accept as gospel the numbers provided by a private firm hired by organized labor or a memo written by a City/pubic employee- no bias there...

Who are the City employees who cannot pay these incremental increases in contributions to their health care (from 25% of dependent premiums to 50%) in the face of an $800 million structural deficit driven by said employee benefit costs? City janitors average annual compensation (wages and benefits) is about $75,000, City gardeners about $85,000. What does a SF private sector gardener earn whose City services are being cut and is now paying up to $6.00 an hour to park his care at a metered space...about $25,000...?

Posted by Seej on Aug. 04, 2010 @ 4:58 pm

Ha! Let's base this entire attack on workering families on a grand jury report that was written by the treasurer of the Adachi campaign. Hmmmmm, no conflict there at all is there.

And again, let's see some documentation of your claim that average janitor compensation of $75,000? Seej seems to forget that FACTS need a basis in reality . . . .

Posted by SF Local on Aug. 05, 2010 @ 11:01 am

"Yes, let's all accept as gospel the numbers provided by a private firm hired by organized labor or a memo written by a City/pubic employee- no bias there..."

Cute. Never mind billionaire contributor Michael Moritz, who, with the help of his equally philanthropic wife, handed over $150,000 to Adachi and Co.

That'll buy a few signatures.

Posted by Guest LD on Aug. 05, 2010 @ 7:16 pm

Sounds about right- there is no one out there interested in seeing City employees contribute more for their benefits right now...

Posted by Seej on Aug. 05, 2010 @ 8:18 pm

You people who do not work with a low salary should stop talking when you don't know how difficult it is to survive for employeesl that fall in this category. There is perception that City employees are getting great benefits but so are all you out there working in any company. They just come in different form. For those of us at the low end of the salary pool we do feel the pain this will cause us to survive in this poor economy. I barely make enough to pay my bills. The people that should be paying out to help with the problem this city face are the ones that make 6 figures. They don't have to live in a mansion or have nice cars.

Vote "NO" to this reform because the lower income City employees can't survive if we have to give more of what we are already giving from what little pay we are getting.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 10, 2010 @ 5:40 pm

If you ask this City worker if he'll pay extra for his health care in the face of City-Wide deficits, he will say "I'm gonna Have to" BUT, and there's a damn big BUT to this: What the hell is a $200k per year PUBLIC defender suggesting that his $30k and up fellow servants pay more of their earned income than him? You know Adachi, the Fat Cat Attorney with dozens of staffers, who Defends CRIMINALS at the cost of Tax Payers, you know, the criminals who rape, Rob, Jack, Murders Tax paying San Franciscans? I know he has political aspirations, I know he's been on PBS, BUT I also know he makes $200K per year (give or take a few grand) MR Fat Cat Public defender of criminals: Here is your new Measure: City Employees making OVER $100K per year will PAY for 100% of their retirement and health care costs. Justification? if it isn't obvious for the normal and level-headed San Franciscan who actually reads the papers, know how much each and every classification of Civil Servant makes simply by going on the sfgov.org website, and knows what the cost of living is in San francisco and the entire Bay area, a $40k-$70k per year worker will pay more of their actaulized income towards health and retirement. Fat BeuroCats like Adachi take part of their income, invest it in Mutual Funds, Separate 401k accounts and other investments, thus making them more money towards retirement. I can barely contribute $50 per paycheck for my deferred comp with all the bills I have to pay. Thus, Mr Adachi, change your measure or someone who doesn't mind a starting salary more than half of yours in this new era you wish to usher in will run against you...

Posted by Guest HelloU on Aug. 15, 2010 @ 1:46 pm

Uh.....dead wrong on Adachi:

1) The 200k Public Defender took a REAL PAY CUT in his wage not a faux "concession" in the form of TEMPORARY furlough days or a deferred raise (the preferred misdirection of police and fire) so is now making under $200k or $196,002...

2) Because of his own legislation, Mr. Adachi will go from paying $0 for his taxpayer subsidized pension to 9% of his wage rate or $18k more per year. Sounds like this "FAT CAT" is setting an example.

3) Mr. Adachi's role as a Public Defender is constitutionally mandated. If you are advocating shredding the Constitution, I am not sure where you go for that.

4) Is that what it has sadly come down to for you folks? "Adachi defends rapists" and you think this has the effect of getting you more votes...?

5) If you have an idea about City employees making over $100,000 paying proportionally more for their health care and pensions (in reality, Adachi's measure does not go far enough to address the City's $800 million structural deficit), then go out and collect 45,000 plus signatures from registered SF voters and get it on the ballot. I'd sign it. Good luck with taking on the police and fire unions with that one...

6) The average annual wages and benefits of a City gardener is $85,000 in the 2010-2011 budget (if you don't believe this, please call the Controller's Office tomorrow). A private sector gardener living in SF makes half that if he is lucky. Why should this private sector gardener pay more in fees/taxes ($6.00 an hour for parking meters now) and see his City services cut (public safety, public health, parks, street repair) to subsidize the pensions of City employees. Frankly, it makes no sense...

7) THANK YOU Jeff Adachi for being the ONLY ELECTED OFFICIAL in this City with the guts to take on the public employee unions that are gutting our General Fund.

Posted by Seej on Aug. 15, 2010 @ 6:28 pm

I think paying more into the retirement system is a good idea for city workers. It's fair and equitable because it's based on a percentage of salary. What is wrong is the health care reform. Why? Because it disproportionally hurts retirees and low paid workers with families. The price isn't based on salary. It won't hurt the unions that much. Why? Because it's part of collective bargaining. So what happens? Wages go up to compensate for the loss income. What's happening here is that citizens are tying the hands of their own elected mayor to bargain with the unions by eliminating health care as a bargaining tool. Not a good idea. You'll also piss off a lot the public safety and public health care employees. Get it? When the contract expires, there will no more wage concessions and your services will be cut. It's so easy to make angry people jealous. That's what billionaires do. The rich are getting much richer and turning into a very small group while the middle class is disappering. You won't get much out of this except a lot of disgruntled workers demanding higher wages to pay for their health care. I'd vote for it if the healt care part was stricken. Let's vote it down and then try again

Posted by Guest on Aug. 31, 2010 @ 2:23 pm

In private sector, we pay insurance premium for ourselves and dependents. We deposit to our own private retirement account. We work "hard" to get that $12/hour care giver versus almost double when you work in a city managed nursing home. Yet we pay what we have to pay. Do we like it ? No! but we manage somehow. You people gets paid more, you will manage. Stop complaining ! Good you still have jobs.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 04, 2010 @ 6:23 pm

Yes, the complaining is non-stop. Everyday it's a new invention (today is the ObamaCare pork story- "could jeopardize") as to why SF public employees, unlike public employees virtually everywhere else in the state, shouldn't contribute more for their own benefits. You would think some folks just don't read newspapers. Most of San Jose's 11 unions agreed to 10% cuts in wages and benefits, except for firefighters who were laid off for not doing so. AND this is in the face of an $800 million deficit driven by these employee benefit costs. No, SF employees get to live in an alternative universe....

Posted by Seej on Aug. 04, 2010 @ 6:59 pm

The private sector gets paid mroe than the public sector and that is a fact. You want to read about that fact?

Here are some FACTS:

Jobs in the public sector typically require more education than private sector positions. Thus, state and local employees are twice as likely to hold a college degree or higher as compared to private sector employees. Only 23% of private sector employees have completed college as compared to about 48% in the public sector.

Wages and salaries of state and local employees are lower than those for private sector employees with comparable earnings determinants such as education and work experience. State workers typically earn 11% less and local workers 12% less.

During the last 15 years, the pay gap has grown - earnings for state and local workers have generally declined relative to comparable private sector employees.

The pattern of declining relative earnings remains true in most of the large states examined in the study, although there does exist some state level variation.

Benefits make up a slightly larger share of compensation for the state and local sector. But even after accounting for the value of retirement, healthcare, and other benefits, state and local employees earn less than private sector counterparts. On average, total compensation is 6.8% lower for state employees and 7.4% lower for local employees than for comparable private sector employees.

Here is a whole study that outlines the difference: http://www.nirsonline.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=395

Posted by SF Local on Aug. 05, 2010 @ 11:04 am

Modern capitalism has avoided its responsibilities to its employees by eliminating defined benefit plans. All employees should have this kind of coverage.

To paraphrase Joe Hill, Guest, "Don't whine. Organize."

Posted by Guest on Aug. 05, 2010 @ 2:11 pm

Why does employing you mean that a business owner is required to provide you something other than a paycheck?

There may be a good reason out there for this sense of entitlement, so what is this reason?

Shouldn't I be entitled to free food, or at least candy from my employer?

Posted by matlock on Aug. 06, 2010 @ 1:39 pm

Your claims are utter bull crap! When I left Bofa to join the city in the same job, I was making 10% more than I made when I joined the city. The attraction was the benefits and the stability and having protection from petty, power driven lunatics who rose to upper management. After 8 years, I can say that the stability claim in the public sector was not true. Each year I've been a Public Sector employee, I've faced risks, that had nothing to do with my performance--but that could make me unemployed if someone in my class got laid off who had more seniority. As to the benefits, I'm paying a little less than I did for Blue Shield Medical Benefits--than I paid at Bofa (with the wife as a dependent), but again I was earning more when I paid those out each pay period. None of this takes into consideration the give backs that employees of the city provided when we went to the voters with the mayor in 2008 on Prop B. Also public service bashers don't give us credit for the additional 2 give backs that we conceded due to the budget mess that we didn't create! Again, that was to save jobs and city services Of course Jeff Adachi's figures never take Prop B into consideration and the disaster he claims is coming, uses math that predates all 3 of those concessions. He makes assumptions that show a growing workforce instead of a shrinking one. His numbers assume growing salary rates, verus the give backs that all but Muni has agreed to. I'm sick and tired of right wing yahoo's like Adachi slandering public sector employees so that he can rise to higher office. It would be one thing if this measure included politicians like him--but it doesn't!!!. I can't speak for all, but on short notice, I can work any shift on any day and that's a condition of employment. Also, if there is a disaster--I must report to work anywhere the city needs me. That wasn't the case in the private sector. There were rules that said I had to, but unlike public sector employment--that isn't written in to law where failure to comply is a crime. But go ahead and slam my benefits and after they are done with me--they will come for thee.

Posted by Ron on Aug. 11, 2010 @ 10:23 am

Or

"offspring environmental mitigation cost reassessment"

"Healthy dependent revaluation indexing"

"Love child cost recovery fee"

"reform based workers coverage dependent expansion cost multiplier"

Adachi needs to string some meaningless words together to give this the correct vernacular that will get the progressives out voting for this plan of his.

Posted by matlock on Aug. 04, 2010 @ 6:39 pm

Out here in the real world, those of us paying for our own health insurance are now paying around $400 a month (the cost has gone up 12% a year over the past decade.

Yes, the costs are out of control. But public-sector workers should not be immune from the burden, especially if the rest of us have to cover the costs for you.

Welcome to the real world, folks. We are paying upward to 20% of our income for health coverage these days.

Unfortunate, but true. Adachi's plan is going to make you cover some of your own costs now. And the money we save will go into Parks & Rec, schools, roads, and hospitals.

Posted by Barton on Aug. 04, 2010 @ 6:43 pm

Where does it say in the measure will fund park and schools and roads? Oh, yeah it doesn't!

If this passes you are sure going to be disappointed when Mayor Adachi hires a bunch of his cronies (such as his treasurer and hired grand jury member) to do nothing and gives millions away in pet projects in contracting out.

You think they should contract everything out including firefighters right? Maybe get some Blackwater hired guns from Iraq to take over city security. Halliburton can take over the Hetch Hetchy water system and start charging us for water by the glass. . . that will save us so much money won't it?

Posted by SFLocal on Aug. 05, 2010 @ 6:27 pm

The rest of us are all having to pay more of our pension and health costs as employers find they can no longer afford the costs. This has the advantage of giving us more control over our choices and our lives.

If this measure means City workers have to pay more of the true costs of their benefits, and the taxpayer has to pay less of it, then that is a reason to fully support it.

i'm happy to pay my health costs but not those of other people.

Posted by Folly on Aug. 04, 2010 @ 10:42 pm

Public sector employees, myself included, are absolutely willing to pitch-in, especially to save badly-needed jobs to help support our economy right now.

We are not well-served by the union bosses, Mayor, or Adachi --who make no distinction between the least and most able to pay.

Rebecca Bowe's story is right-on. I don't care who supplied the analysis. Regressive is regressive.

It is the cost of healthcare that is going through the roof, not retirement stipends.

Deal with pension-abuses where they exist. Ask why these AREN'T being fixed, but forcing working families off their healthcare plan is somehow okay. Patient-dumping may work for private insurers and City executives, but not the rest of us.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 05, 2010 @ 3:27 am

"...who make no distinction between the least and most able to pay..."

You know, you see this comment a lot. This City is now going ahead and installing 16,200 new parking meters (more to come of course) so that it can charge residents up to $6.00 an hour for parking- are those making less than $50,000 going to be able to pay lower parking meter rates? Of course not. As the City taxes us to death (whether it be higher tow charges, extended parking meter hours, sky high parking tickets), it doesn't give a hoot about whether you are "able to pay." Aren't all these tax increases to pay for exploding benefit costs "regressive?"...(Currently City employees pay 25% of health premiums regardless of income)...Why the sudden concern about regressivity (made up a word!) when no one cares when it comes to taxing residents to pay for these City employee benefits?

Posted by Seej on Aug. 05, 2010 @ 7:00 am

You have go to be kidding. The majority of city workers don't have the authority to install higher priced meters. Those are decisions made my the top level director and the mayor.

Posted by SF Local on Aug. 05, 2010 @ 10:57 am

Well- you missed larger my point (not that it is of critical importance)...When City officials raise taxes and fees on SF residents (parking meters, extending parking meter hours, tickets, parking garages, towing charges etc.) there is no talk that these are not progressive taxes- the tax is the same regardless of income.

But when the topic becomes City employees paying more for their benefits, City officials get religion on the notion of "progressiveness" i.e. Adachi's measure has more impact on the low paid employees than higher paid ones. Well, of course just like the increased taxes on SF residents do...

Posted by Seej on Aug. 05, 2010 @ 1:35 pm

The Adachi/Moritz measure is a fraud. Why would I believe the so called facts and figures presented by Venture Capitalists who see dollar signs in their futures or ideologs from the out-going Govenator's office? This measure could have put the funds into a lock-box for services but it didn't. This measure could have focused solely on pensions but it didn't. This is Right-Wing Republican economics that would pull more out of city workers pockets and lose revenue in the process for vital city services. It is right wing Republican hysteria masquerading as progressive reform. It is an overt attack on collective bargaining agreements and unions. It plays on voter anger at the economy and makes the words pension and health care benefits dirty words.

Pension reform must begin with the collective bargaining process not with self-appointed progressives backed by big money. This is not reform. It's a fraud.

Posted by Guest lucretiamott on Aug. 05, 2010 @ 7:10 am

"Pension reform must begin with the collective bargaining process not with self-appointed progressives backed by big money. This is not reform. It's a fraud."

You have been following the the MUNI bus driver negotiations right?

Posted by matlock on Aug. 05, 2010 @ 8:21 am

This stuff kills me:

"The Adachi/Moritz measure is a fraud. Why would I believe the so called facts and figures presented by Venture Capitalists who see dollar signs in their futures or ideologs from the out-going Govenator's office? This measure could have put the funds into a lock-box for services but it didn't. This measure could have focused solely on pensions but it didn't. This is Right-Wing Republican economics that would pull more out of city workers pockets and lose revenue in the process for vital city services. It is right wing Republican hysteria masquerading as progressive reform. (SPEAKING OF HYSTERIA) It is an overt attack on collective bargaining agreements and unions. It plays on voter anger at the economy and makes the words pension and health care benefits dirty words.

Pension reform must begin with the collective bargaining process not with self-appointed progressives backed by big money. This is not reform. It's a fraud."

...Yes, the collective bargaining that led us into this $800 million structural deficit mess- is the solution...?? Your friends in organized labor had plenty of time to put their own serious competing reform measure on the November ballot and chose not to. Instead, they showed great temerity by putting a minimalist Measure on the November ballot to tax people from out of town...

Posted by Seej on Aug. 05, 2010 @ 10:53 am

"the collective bargaining that led us into this $800 million structural deficit mess"

Wow. Assuming $800 million is accurate (where do you get these numbers dude?), you still ignore the fact that pension funds have taken a hit because of a once-in-a-generation recession. These investments are recovering and will continue to do so.

Nothing to do with collective bargaining.

Posted by Guest LD on Aug. 05, 2010 @ 7:28 pm

The problem with getting in disputes with you guys is you don't really know a lot about the topic- no crime in that....

"where do you get these numbers dude?"

The City Controller's office issued a three year out report on the deficit- it was projected at $787 million in three years.

"These investments are recovering and will continue to do so"

The CIty's actuary recommended the City take out 30% of its payroll from the general fund for employee pensions in 2014 and at the same time the CIty pension fund will still only be 68% funded in that year (anything below 80% is considered dicey); even with taking $500 million out of the general fund....

Posted by Seej on Aug. 05, 2010 @ 7:56 pm

"Projected" and "2014" are the key words here. If you look at projections from 2007 there were surpluses way into the future. Now projections are being made based on data from 2008/2209 which is the worst economic slump in recent history. What is not reflected in those figures is that fact that the stock markets are recovering and the investment returns are improving. CalPERS just released a report saying that retunrs were up $40-50 Billion from last year alone. I am sure a similar report is going to come out on the SF pension returns but Adachi and his cronies on the grand jury(just like Arnold and Meg Whitman) are using a low point in the market to justify this attack on working families.

Posted by SF Local on Aug. 06, 2010 @ 10:26 am

The unions pretty much should be paying the salaries of most of the board of supervisors.

The union "leadership" and its employees on the board try and push the envelope at every turn. In this symbiotic(or parasitic) relationship of public employee union bosses and the board results in; more social spending and endless programs, more mandates on business, and unions writing their own contracts.

The result of this lack government responsibility is more taxes and fees, higher costs for everyone and a city going broke on the fumes of good intentions with other peoples money.

Your bosses down at the union abetted this situation, their greed and entitlement to other people's money is now getting old with the average tax payer who sees no benefit in paying more and more for nothing, while being hectored by miserable idiots like John Avalos and Chris Daly.

Posted by matlock on Aug. 05, 2010 @ 11:37 am

How one can read a matlock post and come away with less knowledge.

Posted by Guest LD on Aug. 05, 2010 @ 7:51 pm

As you couldn't understand Seej's simple analogy.

Posted by matlock on Aug. 06, 2010 @ 12:07 pm

You wound me...

Posted by Guest LD on Aug. 06, 2010 @ 11:00 pm

Again, we hear squawking that this is a draconian measure.

Adachi's plan merely asks city workers to pay for some (not all) of their own pension and healthcare costs so that SF does not go bankrupt.

Even Matt Gonzalez supports it (is he a Republican right-wing stooge, too?). Anybody who looks closely at the numbers sees this step is needed in order to keep city programs functioning.

Look at it this way:

Without Adachi's measure, public-worker retirement/healthcare costs will rise by around $300 million next year (according to both Harvey Rose and the grand jury).

Meaning: $300 million more in cuts to Park & Rec, libraries, schools, patient healthcare services at SF General, etc., etc.

Your choice is:
(A) pass this proposition, or (B) see another $300 million cut in city services.

I'm chosing (A).

Posted by Barton on Aug. 05, 2010 @ 2:07 pm

Some of the attacks on Adachi have been surprisingly vicious.

Chris Daly made a motion to the board to cut some funding to the Public Defender's office.

That's a pretty low blow. Cut of funding to the poor and disenfranchised in order to keep the public sector pension-fed and pension-fat.

But, that's what this measure really boils down to. We either feed the pension fund or feed city services.

Posted by Barton on Aug. 05, 2010 @ 2:23 pm

Dear SF Local,

You quote stats from the National Institute on Retirement Security. This is a mouth-organ for public-sector unions nationwide.

The founding memgers are:
Council of Institutional Investors (ie. CALPERS)
National Association of State Retirement Administrators
National Council on Teacher Retirement

Also, you write that the grand jury report "was written by the treasurer of the Adachi campaign."

Wrong. He was one of 19 members.

Posted by Barton on Aug. 05, 2010 @ 2:37 pm

Barton- good posts in here. Well done.

Posted by Seej on Aug. 05, 2010 @ 5:24 pm

What a surprise Barton, Seej likes you lack of facts! Ha!

Posted by SFLocal on Aug. 05, 2010 @ 6:29 pm

Not really.

Posted by Guest LD on Aug. 05, 2010 @ 7:31 pm

Nice try Barton, there's a huge difference. The National Institute on Retirement Security and the Center for State and Government Excellence co-sponsored the study I sighted. The study itself was based on data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics and was written by professors who have PHD's and are experts in labor economics among other things.

Adachi's measure was funded by a billionaire and Arnold supporters who are marching in step with Meg Whitman's attacks on pensions. It is based on grand jury reports that were written by no one that could be considered an expert on pension issues or labor economics, but we do know that Adachi's campaign treasurer helped write the grand jury reports which is an obvious and serious conflict of interest. He obviously had motivation to make the Grand Jury report support the measure.

You and Seej can't take the fact that your facts just don't add up . . .

Posted by SFLocal on Aug. 05, 2010 @ 6:18 pm

Okay- I'll bite:

..."Adachi's measure was funded by a billionaire and Arnold supporters who are marching in step with Meg Whitman's attacks on pensions."

Well the state has a $500 billion unfunded pension liability and some see this as a problem - I understand you do not. Jerry Brown also supports pension reform and said so to the LA Times (please google) about a month ago. Jerry would probably be surprised to hear he is "attacking pensions." For the record, I and some 49,000 other registered San Francisco voters thank everyone who funded the initiative, the wealthy you mention and the not so wealthy...

"...It is based on grand jury reports that were written by no one that could be considered an expert on pension issues or labor economics..."

Adachi's charter amendment was posted on the web three months before the Grand Jury report was released to the public in late June. Yes, thankfully we have the BOS- expert on pension isses and labor economics. The 19 people who worked on that report volunteered a year of their lives to work on that report. If you bothered to look at the report you'd see that SFERS and the Controller's office provided all the numbers but they're probably not experts in pension issues or labor economics either I guess....

"...but we do know that Adachi's campaign treasurer helped write the grand jury reports which is an obvious and serious conflict of interest. He obviously had motivation to make the Grand Jury report support the measure...."

Both the City Attorney and the Civil Grand Jury judge, Judge McBride, said no conflict- but we'll take your legal call on it.

..."You and Seej can't take the fact that your facts just don't add up..."

Can't argue with an opinion...

Posted by Seej on Aug. 05, 2010 @ 8:16 pm

So, Harvey Rose (an auditor respected by the left), Matt Gonzalez (he of the Green Party), and the other 18 grand jury members were all paid off and bribed by the big & bad conservative cabal to lie about pensions?...

..whereas the public-sector employee think-tank wrote its report with its unbaised-colored glasses on.

I understand now.

Posted by Barton on Aug. 05, 2010 @ 7:27 pm

Literally. This Welch-born billionaire would hammer hard-working Americans by making them pay more -- in many cases double -- for health insurance. The land of opportunity can and should still deliver for regular people. Opposing Moritz and Adachi is patriotic.

Posted by Guest LD on Aug. 05, 2010 @ 7:42 pm

Every time I read another newspaper I think nothing will surprise me, and then I read another newspaper and I am surprised.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 06, 2010 @ 12:13 pm

Reading About Jerry Brown's proposal to reform State Pensions, he would prohibit spiking salaries that increase pensions with over-time. Spiking is not covered at all under Adachi. Brown acknowledges wanting to keep state pensions alive and healthy but not too costly for our current recession. He, in addition, wants to work with unions if adjustments to pensions costs are necessitated. He says nothing about the health care benefits of state workers.

So there are fundamental differences in the plans and the approach between Jerry Brown and Adachi. Adachi's plans are to slash the salaries of city workers by 9% and 10% for police and fire. His initiative will shift the costs of health insurance to workers who, when compared to the private sector, earn less. Adachi chose to by-pass the collective bargaining process altogether. Jerry Brown did not.

The only Gubenatorial candidate whose approach is similar to Adachi, is Queen Meg Whitman. So, a better comparison and fit is Whitman, not Brown. Queen Meg, like Arnold, slashes state workers salaries and illegally furloughs because he doesn't do face to face bargaining with workers. That would require making an effort.

Adachi=Whitman, in tone and approach to labor contracts and unions. But it is easy to ride voter anger during a recession and anti-government attitudes are surfacing all over the country, promoted by Tea-Party candidates, Republican ideologs and right-wing media.

Now, we have self-appointed and annointed Progressives backed by venture capitalists in San Francisco using the same strategy. That is why it is being pushed as "progressive" pension reform when it isn't. That is why it is being falsely labeled as saving our "services" when it does not contain any language that specifically uses the money for direct services. San Francisco voters like the words progressive, sustainable and reform. But if you read the measure, it is none of these.

Posted by Guest lucretiamott on Aug. 06, 2010 @ 12:34 pm

There's always healthy San Francisco.

Posted by matlock on Aug. 06, 2010 @ 1:29 pm

"Adachi's plans are to slash the salaries of city workers by 9% and 10% for police and fire.'

Not true.

No one's salary will be reduced. We are merely asking you to pay for some of your own bloated pension and healthcare entitlements. Yes, this will reduce your take-home pay. But it is not a salary reduction.

Posted by Barton on Aug. 06, 2010 @ 12:49 pm

Ok, so if you are forced to pay more for your reitrement and your kids healthcare coverage you are not taking home less money? The last time I checked if my dependant healthcare coverage costs went from $600 to $1200 a month I would have $600 less each month to pay for my mortage, put food on the table, and generally make ends meet.

Posted by SF Local on Aug. 06, 2010 @ 5:00 pm
So

If inflation goes up you are getting a pay cut? If you buy caviar instead of potato's you are getting a pay cut?

Posted by matlock on Aug. 08, 2010 @ 11:04 pm

"Potatoes" plural. "Potato's" possessive.

Posted by Guest LD on Aug. 09, 2010 @ 5:26 pm
Posted by matlock on Aug. 09, 2010 @ 6:05 pm