Unions sue to block Adachi measure

|
(53)

Five city-employee labor unions have filed suit to stop  Public Defender Jeff Adachi‘s "Sustainable City Employees Benefits Reform Act" (or Prop. B) from making it onto  the November ballot.

The San Francisco Fire Fighters Local 798, International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers Local 21, Service Employees International Union Local 1021, the San Francisco Municipal Executives' Association, and the San Francisco Police Officers Association filed suit August 10.

In a press release, Adachi said the suit attempts to discredit the Civil Grand Jury, the Department of Elections, the City Attorney and the rights of over 77,000 San Franciscan’s who signed the petition and, of course, Adachi himself..  

“The law has very specific requirements that must be followed in order to receive the approval from the Department of Elections for a measure to qualify for the ballot,” Adachi observed. 
“The democratic process by which the Sustainable City Employees Benefits Reform Act was approved both by the City Attorney through granting title and summary to the petition and by the Department of Elections when the signatures of 49,178 San Francisco voters were verified and accepted,” Adachi continued. “We as Americans have the freedom afforded to us by the Constitution to have our choices heard at the ballot box and the taxpayers have the right to address how their tax dollars are spent in San Francisco without interference from special interest groups.”

Representatives from the unions filing suit have yet to return my calls, but I’ll update this post, when they get back to me on the Adachi amendment, which is shaping up to be the hottest political potato on the November ballot.

Comments

“The democratic process by which the Sustainable City Employees Benefits Reform Act was approved..."

Not engaging employee unions directly sounds undemocratic. As is accepting massive contributions from big business to buy signatures.

"... without interference from special interest groups.”

(Are you listening Michael Moritz?) I assume by "special interest group" Adachi is referring to the people who will be directly affected by his proposal. They also happen to be the people who keep this City running.

Posted by Guest LD on Aug. 11, 2010 @ 3:29 pm

"People who keep this city running" are you kidding me? In case you haven't noticed, San Francisco is running into the ground, why should the tax payer pay for such inept services?

If someone could point to one thing that is running "well" in this city, then please let me know, I'm all ears.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 16, 2010 @ 1:11 pm

Well, it's certainly not Adachi's dept. since the budget shows he is doing less work representing the criminally indigent while getting more city funding than ever. This while other depts. continue to cut.

By the way, I'm old enough to remember the 1950's when union densisty was at its highest, the top tax bracket was 91% and yet the economy was booming. Oh yeah, Howard Jarvis had not yet thought up Prop. 13. The real cause for the collapse of CA.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 17, 2010 @ 3:09 pm

What could be more democratic than a signature campaign that garned more support in a mere three weeks than the number of people who cast ballots in the June election?

When running scared, always resort to a lawsuit. In politics, that's the Hail Mary pass before losing the game.

It won't work.

Posted by Barton on Aug. 11, 2010 @ 3:56 pm

and dozens of other slogans don't last long when the progressives are on the short end of the stick.

Posted by matlock on Aug. 11, 2010 @ 4:13 pm

Look what happened w/ prop 8.

Posted by Guest LD on Aug. 13, 2010 @ 3:00 pm

So far the opponents of the measure have (a) attacked the civil grand jury; (b) attacked Adachi; (c) resorted to talking points ("it's about kids' healthcare"); (d) attacked the guy who helped fund the signature drive; (e) associated the measure with Meg Whitman; (f) apparently urged Pelosi to look into government contracts with the company of the guy who helped fund the measure; (g) tried to cut the public defender budget; and now (h) filed a lawsuit.

These tactics are petty and weak. They should debate the Charter Amendment on the merits. (Why are these pensions and benefits warranted? Why should City employees get guaranteed pension and benefits those in the private sector don't get? Why should City employees be able to retire so early? Most importantly, explain how the City is going to pay for these benefits and pensions without sucking the City dry.)

Whoever is advising the opponents should reconsider their actions because they make the unions look like bullies and are going to backfire by making even more people support the Amendment.

Posted by Patrick on Aug. 11, 2010 @ 4:52 pm

The unions look more pathetic every day...

Posted by Guest on Aug. 11, 2010 @ 5:40 pm

What about Chris Daly's attempt to cut funding to the Public Defender's Office?

An incredibly low blow. Attacking the needy and the most vulnerable, cutting off legal services to the poor, because Adachi isn't afraid to stand up to pension-fed and pension-fat city hall employees.

Posted by Barton on Aug. 11, 2010 @ 7:02 pm

"Vicious"? A "low blow"? "Pension-fed and pension-fat"?

Sounds like stuff from a pundit's mouth.

Does anyone have an original thought?

Posted by Guest LD on Aug. 11, 2010 @ 9:04 pm

accountable, board of supervisors that use strategies that empower all peoples to empower themselves with wellness mandates.

Posted by matlock on Aug. 12, 2010 @ 9:03 am

If you could provide substantive answers to the questions I posed three posts above, perhaps they would provide an original thought. So far, I haven't seen anyone answer them in any of the press or any of the discourse (so your answers could be original).

Posted by Patrick on Aug. 12, 2010 @ 10:04 am

Note to the uninitiated:

If you disagree with LD, you do not have an original thought. You are monkey-parroting what your handlers feed you.

Posted by Barton on Aug. 12, 2010 @ 6:14 am

The unions are all about misdirection. You'll note they do not dispute the pension or health care costs projected in the grand jury report because the numbers come from the Controller's office. Nor do they dare broach the topic of how exploding employee benefit costs should be funded- they'll slash away and avoid such topics at all costs...Looking at comments posted in major newspaper articles, I don't think they're fooling anyone...

Posted by Seej on Aug. 12, 2010 @ 7:55 am

Seej, Patrick, Barton, I disagree.

First, Patrick. Patrick really likes substantive answers. Fine. I quote:

"Why are these pensions and benefits warranted?" -- Because these pensions and benefits have been negotiated, agreed upon, funded, sustained, and codified in a legal contract. Remember, according to Adachi and Co., the "tsunami" is prediction at best. And a dubious one. Cheiron, grand juries, controllers and the like can only forecast numbers based on the worst economic downturn in a generation or two. That fact alone is cause for skepticism. Numbers can be purposed for lots of different agendas. SFGB recently wrote that the Adachi measure will cost taxpayers more in health care costs. Go figure.

"Why should City employees get guaranteed pension and benefits those in the private sector don't get?" -- Well, those in the private sector do get "guaranteed" benefits. Just ask any Goldman-Sachs executive. But, to answer your earnest question more fully, it is because City employees organized and cooperated as a group to win those benefits.

"Why should City employees be able to retire so early?" -- Why should any cop in the entire US retire after 20 years? Or fireman/woman for that matter? You tell me.

"Most importantly, explain how the City is going to pay for these benefits and pensions without sucking the City dry." -- Ugggh, when you preface something with "most importantly," you can pretty much assume that statement will mean the opposite. Look, the question here obviously revolves around broader budget issues. So, given that, pensions will not suck anything dry more than, say, corporations paying less payroll tax.

Seej: To you the numbers from the Controller's (capital "C"!) office are like the word of God. These predictions are predictably dire because they are based on a snapshot of pension funds from a moment in time that happens to be the worst economic slump in recent history. Right now corporate profits are up, 401K's, mutual funds, and pensions are recovering. The grand jury does not and can not take this into account. Personally, I choose to be an alarmist about, say, climate change rather than fiscal matters, the latter being fully under the control of people.

And Barton: You and I disagree, no doubt. But you have to do better than hollow slogans such as "pension-fed and pension-fat city hall employees," or worse, the "unsustainable tsunami trainwreck." Plain English, por favor.

Posted by Guest LD on Aug. 12, 2010 @ 7:30 pm

Dear Guest LD,
Thank you for addressing the questions posed. I will respond.

YOU: "Why are these pensions and benefits warranted?" -- Because these pensions and benefits have been negotiated, agreed upon, funded, sustained, and codified in a legal contract. "
Yes, I agree. Adachi's amendment will revise these codes in regard to future pension obligations. No one is going to have his pension pulled out from under his feet. We merely want to make public sector employees legally responsible for paying some of their own pension obligations.

YOU: " Cheiron, grand juries, controllers and the like can only forecast numbers based on the worst economic downturn in a generation or two."
I respectfully disagree. The controller's forecasts have little to do with the current recession. He wrote that the stock market will have to rise 15% a year just to meet CURRENT pension obligations. I don't think anyone expects the Dow Jones to triple over the next decade. The stock market had its big run from 1980-2010, and current public-sector pensions were negotiated based on a scenario that this rosy picture would continue forever. In short, you are the one with the rosy scenario. A realistic scenario demands pension reform now.

YOU: "SFGB recently wrote that the Adachi measure will cost taxpayers more in health care costs. Go figure."
You are referring to the federal stimulus package, which includes $23 million to cover healthcare costs in SF. First, the Public-Sector Unions believes this money is earmarked for itself, but this is not true. It is earmarked for San Francisco citizens one and all. The union wants the money for its own members. Second, this is a one-off gift. It will not be available next year, so our systemic pension problem will persist regardless.

YOU: "Why should City employees get guaranteed pension and benefits those in the private sector don't get?" -- Well, those in the private sector do get "guaranteed" benefits."
LD, you are referring to the union's defined-pension plans, which guarantee specified monthly benefits on retirement by a pre-determined formula. Very few people in the private sector are blessed with this little jewel. For most of us, your retirement payments depend on how investments are performing. Defined-pensions work fine when the economy stock market is rolling good. But those days are over. (see above about rosy scenario for 15% stock market growth needed). Your public-sector pre-determined formula requires us (the taxpayer) to raise your retirement pay 8% a year. Unsustainable. I know you don't like that word, but there ya go.

YOU: "Why should City employees be able to retire so early?" -- Why should any cop in the entire US retire after 20 years? Or fireman/woman for that matter? You tell me.
Totally agree. Why should SF public-sector workers, cops, and firemen, be able to retire on full pre-determined pensions as young as 55? UNSUSTAINABLE again (sorry-;)

YOU: "Look, the question here obviously revolves around broader budget issues. So, given that, pensions will not suck anything dry more than, say, corporations paying less payroll tax."
I agree, there are definitely broader issues here. But in the city of San Francisco, in the general fund stemming from tax revenues, the key issue regarding tax revenues, is how those revenues are spent. And the controller states that pension/retirement obligations will soon consume 30% of all tax revenues in San Francisco, thereby cutting funding to hospitals, Park & Rec, schools, and roads. I think this is a serious problem that needs addressing, and you should not be dismissing it as irrelevant and inconsequential.

YOU: "To you the numbers from the Controller's (capital "C"!) office are like the word of God. These predictions are predictably dire because they are based on a snapshot of pension funds from a moment in time that happens to be the worst economic slump in recent history."
You are wrong here. The controller's office did not make a worst-case scenario. Its scenario is realistic. The union has made the best-case, rosy scenario. The union believes that its defined-pension plan is sustainable, but this will require that the stock market rise 15% a year over the next decade. How best-case scenario can you possible get?

YOU: "Right now corporate profits are up, 401K's, mutual funds, and pensions are recovering."
You are channeling Ronald Reagan from the grave. You sound like a Chamber of Commerce Republican. Yes, the stock market rose in 2009, but the days of heady economic growth are long gone.

YOU: " Personally, I choose to be an alarmist about, say, climate change rather than fiscal matters, the latter being fully under the control of people."
Tell that to the 10% of Californians standing in unemployment lines and the 25% who are underemployed. "Fully under the control of people." Again, you sound Reagan-esque: "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps. You full control your own destiny."

YOU: "And Barton: You and I disagree, no doubt. But you have to do better than hollow slogans such as "pension-fed and pension-fat city hall employees," or worse, the "unsustainable tsunami trainwreck." Plain English, por favor."
Plain English: Si senor, Si uno no esta de acuerdo con ti, sea un bufo.
There it is. All in plain English.

In sum, you seem to assume that once our little recessionary blip is over, public-sector workers will be able to go back to getting 8% increases in pension/healthcare payments annually and retiring at age 55, with not a complaint from the public that pays your wages. But I can assure you that the days of rosy stock-market growth to fund your pension and tax revenues flowing freely into your lap are over.

Vote Yes on Prop B...

...if you want tax revenues to go to non-profits, parks, schools, public hospitals, and roads instead of getting sucked into defined-pension plans for city hall workers.

Posted by Barton on Aug. 13, 2010 @ 7:08 am

The idea that the Controller's office pension projections are the " worst case scenario" is laughable. Look at the appendix in the CGJ report. The projections are based on SIX consecutive years of a fixed payroll (already fire, seiu raises set to come) AND the projections assume the general fund share of pension costs is fixed at 60%. This fixed 60% makes no sense because pension costs are rising and employee contributions are fixed - a chronic problem Adachi is trying to fix....

Posted by Seej on Aug. 13, 2010 @ 7:58 am

Barton and Seej now freely admit the Adachi measure is based on projections. We're making some progress here. Good job guys.

Posted by Guest LD on Aug. 13, 2010 @ 9:13 am

What an asinine comment .... Go read Actuaries for Dummies or just take a second to ask yourself if you can tell me the dates when all current retirees and employees will die, and then we might not have to project ONE of several variables. Just stupid of you.

Posted by Jamie Whitaker on Aug. 13, 2010 @ 4:27 pm

Guest LD,

No, public-sector workers are ALREADY dipping into the general fund.

They are consuming funds that would otherwise have been given to non-profits, Park & Rec, hospitals, etc.

The situation is already dire. The controllers office believes that they will (realistically) only get worse.

Your projections are based on a rosey, best-case scenario.

Posted by Barton on Aug. 13, 2010 @ 9:25 am

Also, if you are right, if your rosy, best-case scenario proves to be correct...we can always go back to paying the lavish pensions.

But until then, we have to address this problem.

Posted by Barton on Aug. 13, 2010 @ 9:29 am

The more I read the comments, the more I realize that it's really about stopping the collective bargaining process and unions in the public sector. The unions gave back over 250 million in concessions to balance our current budget. We did that throught the collective bargaining process which Proposition B makes an end run around. As far as lavish goes, given the fact that public sector unions bargained for health care benefits and a pension plan rather than higher salaries that the private sector has, this was done through a process and a contract. Adachi could have made this temporary but he didn't. It is permanent. Budget projections change year to year. But even in good years, services have been cut along with take-aways from the workers themselves. Having worked as a city and county worker for 15 years, it has always fallen on us to give back.

It really isn't about saving the actural services that we provide, it is about breaking contracts and stopping collective bargaining by any means necessary in the public sector. The fact that a poison pill section was added that would freeze all salaries and benefits for 5 years for workers who wish to exercise their collective ability to take the measure to court is anothe disturbing trend in this bill.
The propostion to win at the polls is going to have to demonize the words pension, health care benefits, government workers and unions under the guise of pension reform.
Since Propostion B did not specifically indicate the money saved going directly into services, the money gets dumped into the general fund which can be used for any reason. That includes hiring more highly priced consults, more adminstrators, more out-sourcing of jobs to corporations and just about any project not connected directly to providing more services or maintaining safety net services for growning numbers of people.

In the end, it is really about destroying what labor has buildt over the years; good collective bargaining agreements with employers that include a decent wage with good benefits. And it is about destroying the labor movement that has made substantial gains especially in San Francisco, since the 1930's, where the only general strike in U.S. history happened.

Posted by Guest lucretiamott on Aug. 13, 2010 @ 10:58 am

Per Barton: "I agree, there are definitely broader issues here."

Wonderful. Then it would follow that singling out workers' unions is pure scapegoating. Politically they are a much easier target than corporations.

"But in the city of San Francisco, in the general fund stemming from tax revenues, the key issue regarding tax revenues, is how those revenues are spent. And the controller states that pension/retirement obligations will soon consume 30% of all tax revenues in San Francisco, thereby cutting funding to hospitals, Park & Rec, schools, and roads."

People like you frame the issue like this all day long. No one says the scenario is "rosey," but there can and should be an accommodation for both public services and public workers. The alleged future burden from employee benefits on SF's general fund will unlikely be the norm. You obviously choose to believe that the richest City in the richest country in the world cannot find a better solution than rolling back public services and employee benefits. It doesn't get more Reagan-esque than that.

"The stock market had its big run from 1980-2010, and current public-sector pensions were negotiated based on a scenario that this rosy picture would continue forever."

A tremendous oversimplification which also belies the double standard so often applied to employers and employees, which is that it is OK for the wealthy to increase their income exponentially but it is not OK for workers to negotiate for and secure a better life. Corporate profits this decade have hit record highs. Wages have stagnated since the 1970's. The income gap between rich and poor has exploded. And you're trying to tell me that a good pension and some health benefits are the cause of San Francisco's economic woes? And also that in essence financial markets should only benefit the wealthy? Who's the Republican?

The health care part of this proposition is a killer. No one can justify a 100% increase in payments for dependents. That is what will happen if this passes.

Vote negative on prop B.

Posted by Guest LD on Aug. 13, 2010 @ 11:22 am

Is so hilarious.

Take for example the cities mandated hangover pay.

The city mandated sick pay law backed by the unions and the cities progressives trumps individual employment contracts between employer and employee. It also trumps company policy, which people accept when they take a job, so the board and their union masters are changing already agreed upon policies. And get this, the law also trumps union contracts that do not explicitly state that the contract supersedes the cities law.

In this case the so called progressives and the public employee unions used their employees on the board of supervisors to cancel out sick pay and calling in sick rules in already negotiated contracts.

The hangover pay law requires that until the next negotiation the cities law supersedes the (get this) negotiated union contract. When the contract is renegotiated the union can decide not to negotiate the insertion of language around the cities law.

That is an incredible line of reasoning you have there considering the unions have repeatedly proven that getting their way, anyway they can is the most important factor in any deal.

The symbiotic relationship of; supervisor, union master, non profit complex shouter, servile Guardian cheer leading, special interest $$, and general all around progressive scheming and getting over makes your argument purely naked opportunism.

Getting your way anyway you can then calling for some form of fairness makes Saul Alinski cheer from the grave.

Posted by matlock on Aug. 13, 2010 @ 11:47 am

directed towards Guest lucretiamott chronic "but the contracts were negotiated" complaint.

Posted by matlock on Aug. 13, 2010 @ 12:17 pm

Cities minimum wage law also trumps union contracts, that law was also abetted by the unions that are now crying.

Your "negotiated contracts" argument is a fail, I'm sure if I looked around I could find all sorts of laws pushed by unions that trump negotiated contracts.

Next.

Posted by matlock on Aug. 13, 2010 @ 12:33 pm

Under my collective bargaining agreement I do not get paid for when I do not work, sick or not.

Your "hangover pay" argument is a fail.

Take a seat.

Posted by Guest LD on Aug. 13, 2010 @ 2:47 pm

That comment has no relation to the post.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 13, 2010 @ 2:51 pm

You add so much to the discussion. Can't wait for your next anonymous post.

Posted by Guest LD on Aug. 13, 2010 @ 3:07 pm

Proposition B will not stop collective bargaining. The city will still have to sit down with you each year and bargain in good faith.

It will not stop you from getting pay raises when times are good (or even fair).

It is merely asking you to cover some of your own pension costs so you do not keep dipping into the general fund and we do not have to keep seeing city services wither and wither and wither as a result.

Posted by Barton on Aug. 13, 2010 @ 1:20 pm

"Proposition B will not stop collective bargaining."

Remains to be seen, although lucretiamott's previous post raises an interesting question I'd like to see explored further. So it may or may not stop collective bargaining outright, but it apparently would "trump" collective bargaining. Not a lot of difference.

"It is merely asking you to cover some of your own pension costs..."

Such a nice proposition, "asking" for increased benefit contributions. Problem is, it would force an increase in contributions already taking place. Quite a different meaning from "ask."

Posted by Guest LD on Aug. 13, 2010 @ 3:17 pm

Were you for the city having its own minimum wage and sick pay laws? If so you didn't care about negotiated union contracts then, so why do you care now?

Just getting your way is all that is important here, no real principle is involved here, just having every situation work to your advantage without concern for past ranting.

Being a progressive is no different from being a born again Christian or any other true believer, its all about getting over.

Posted by matlock on Aug. 14, 2010 @ 3:47 am

An A-B comparison (do you support sick pay or union contracts?) doesn't prove or disprove anything. Whatever argument you think you had unravels after that:

"Being a progressive is no different from being a born again Christian or any other true believer, its all about getting over."

Praise the Lord.

Posted by Guest LD on Aug. 14, 2010 @ 9:27 am

...that you don't have any standards.

This whole thing about doing an end around negotiated contracts is all hot air.

I don't know why this is all so hard for you to understand, is it being a true believer that makes these simple comparisons so hard to understand? Are you willfully just posting these ridiculous obfuscations or do you just not get it?

Posted by matlock on Aug. 14, 2010 @ 10:09 am

"Are you willfully just posting these ridiculous obfuscations or do you just not get it?"

Ummm, I choose "C."

Posted by Guest LD on Aug. 14, 2010 @ 10:57 am

Yes, it will "force" public workers to pay for part of their own future pension obligations.

What is wrong with that? Paying for your own future pension costs. You and me and most everybody already does this. Why not public employees, too?

What's wrong with making public-sector employees pay the same costs (for their own future pensions) just like the rest of us already do?

Posted by Barton on Aug. 13, 2010 @ 5:34 pm

Barton-

...Common sense doesn't seem to go over very well around here...ha.

Posted by Seej on Aug. 13, 2010 @ 7:59 pm

What is wrong is that working families will be hammered by 100% -- in some cases more -- increases in health benefits for dependents. That will most definitely create unnecessary hardship for workers who have already "given back."

Cut enough peoples' benefits and you might see a ripple effect that could put more strain on the broader economy. People have less buying power, or worse, cannot afford the basics because their medical co-payments just shot past the moon.

Increased pension contributions equate to a pay cut. This is not a "competing narrative" or simply a matter of perspective. Is is what will happen if B passes. Good retirement benefits have taken the place of more money on the paycheck, again as the result of collective bargaining. Did the "rest of us" negotiate for a better retirement package at the expense of take-home pay? Probably not. Furthermore, there is nothing inherently wrong with a defined benefit plan (pension). It is what we as employees should strive for, not begrudge each other over.

Those familiar with "common sense" will recognize the immediate threat to a large number of San Franciscans in the form of the Adachi measure, as opposed to a questionable, theoretical scenario.

Posted by Guest LD on Aug. 14, 2010 @ 12:04 am

Public-sector workers currently pay $9 a month for full health benefits for them and all of their dependents that continues even after they retire as young as the age of 50 in some cases.

Sweet deal!

Posted by Barton on Aug. 14, 2010 @ 7:23 am

Which workers specifically pay $9? I'm inclined to think your statement is bogus as workers who currently pay 25% of dependents' health coverage most certainly pay much more than $9.

Are you positive these are full benefits? How many people, if any, retire at age 50? And even then, how many years of service have they accumulated?

Please provide a link or some other legitimate support for your statements.

Posted by Guest LD on Aug. 14, 2010 @ 9:14 am

Dear Guest LD,

Thank you for your inquiry. Here is my source:

Source SFGate:

"Catherine Dodd, director the city's Health Service System, noted in a memo dated Aug. 12 but circulated Friday that because Proposition B restricts how much the city can contribute toward health care, payments are expected to spike for employees and retirees wtih dependents.

An employee using the city's Kaiser Permanente plan for health insurance would see their montly payment go from zero to $9. With one dependent, the their monthly payment would rise from $9 to $249, the memo said."

$0 to $9!

A truly sweet deal. And these people are complaining?

Posted by Barton on Aug. 14, 2010 @ 7:11 pm

Barton says:

"Public-sector workers currently pay $9 a month for full health benefits for them and all of their dependents that continues even after they retire as young as the age of 50 in some cases."

This convoluted, botched splice of disparate numbers is false. According to the SF Chronicle piece Barton quotes two posts later, the current Kaiser payment for one employee with one dependent is $9. Not $9 for "all of their dependents." The SF Chronicle reference makes no mention of age 50 retirement. Did Barton just throw that it for good measure?

Barton, where is your evidence that "public-sector workers currently pay $9 a month for full health benefits for them and all of their dependents that continues even after they retire as young as the age of 50 in some cases"? That SF Chronicle piece provides insufficient evidence. I would like to see proof of an employee retiring at age 50 paying $9 a month with full coverage for him/herself plus all dependents.

Back to reality, if prop B passes, that same $9 plan for one employee with a single dependent will increase to $249. What's that, like, a 2,500% increase? That is for only one dependent. You can be sure this will price people out of SF, perhaps most of the Bay Area.

But that is of no concern to Jeff Adachi or Michael Moritz.

Posted by Guest LD on Aug. 15, 2010 @ 5:46 pm

"If prop B passes, that same $9 plan for one employee with a single dependent will increase to $249. What's that, like, a 2,500% increase? That is for only one dependent. You can be sure this will price people out of SF, perhaps most of the Bay Area.'

$0 to $9 is much more than a 2,500% increase. Its an ad infinitim increase.

Get real! Making an employee pay $9 a month for healthcare (I pay $400) is just sweat, sweat, sweat, sweat.

Making an employee with dependents pay $249 is still incredibly sweat.

Any employee in the private sector, or in other public sectors (my neighbor, a SFUSD teacher, pays $800 for her family) would absolutely love this arrangement.

Take off the rose-coloured glasses! Face reality!

Posted by Barton on Aug. 15, 2010 @ 9:32 pm

Don't you mean sweet? Unless you are dripping with sweat?
Genie

Posted by Guest Genie on Aug. 16, 2010 @ 12:55 am

You pay $400 for health insurance. Does that qualify you to dictate to workers bound to a collective bargaining agreement a pay increase in their health insurance? Absolutely not.

You are just some guy who misrepresents facts and can't spell.

Posted by Guest LD on Aug. 16, 2010 @ 5:42 am

Guest LD-

I appreciate your ongoing fire on this topic but your parroting this "bound to collective bargaining agreement" line of argument is specious.

Please read Prop B. The amendment honors all MOUs and CBA's currently in place with regard to dependent care (and dental) and applies ONLY to MOUs reached after the November 10 election. Therefore, it violates no collective bargaining agreement in this manner.

This is not the way I would have done it (you'll note police and fire abused this provision by extending their MOUs out to 2013 about 6 weeks ago) but this is how the amendment was written SPECIFICALLY to HONOR current collective bargaining agreements. As a City employee himself, I gather Adachi was probably pretty sensitive to this topic.

Seej

Posted by Seej on Aug. 16, 2010 @ 7:58 am

"The amendment honors all MOUs and CBA's currently in place with regard to dependent care (and dental) and applies ONLY to MOUs reached after the November 10 election. Therefore, it violates no collective bargaining agreement in this manner."

You must be a politician, Seej. You're saying that prop B will dictate the terms of employee benefits when a new contract agreement is reached after November 10. OK, fine. New contracts are negotiated all the time when you look at organized city workers as a whole. Everyone will have a new contract sometime in the near future after November 10. In the case of the police it will supposedly happen in 2013.

Whether on November 11 or six months or two years from then, Adachi and Moritz's prop B will violate collective bargaining.

My previous comments still stands. These questions on bargaining are not for voters to answer but rather for city workers directly involved.

Posted by Guest LD on Aug. 16, 2010 @ 3:55 pm

....when the city passed its hangover pay law, health insurance law, and minimum wage law around this union contract thing?

Somehow I doubt it, thus making your position ridiculous.

Posted by matlock on Aug. 16, 2010 @ 4:48 pm

Guest LD,

Yes, we agree here. You stated what I am saying.

Take the pension situation in 2014. Cheiron (the City's actuary) says the City employee pension fund will be 68% funded by 2014- this is dangerously low. Even with this underfunded status, the Controller is estimating the City will have to take $450 million (I believe the Controller is lowballing the number but that is another story) out of the general fund in that year- 2014- to fund employee pensions. This is nuts and tells me that collective bargaining doesn't work sometimes because benefits are being awarded by politicians without any funding mechanism in place...

(Or take City retiree health care, it's $4 billion underfunded. There will be no health care for younger employees down the road without major reforms.)

So what kind of pension reform did we get from the Mayor, the BOS, and labor? (We keep hearing Adachi is wrong because "we all need to work together on this.") We got Prop D passed in June which just increases contributions to 9% for new public safety hires. Cost savings from Prop D don't significantly materialize for 20 years but we have major problems now...Prop D just kicked the can down the road.

Sounds like you see collective bargaining as sacrosanct (no problem there) but I see collective bargaining as clearly not working. So the citizens of SF need to take the issue over...The pension problem is damaging to vital City services.

Posted by Seej on Aug. 16, 2010 @ 7:54 pm

You and I do not agree in the slightest.

Sure, let's "take the pension situation in 2014." Oh wait, we're in 2010. K. Let's consult the grand jury report. Hmmm, looks an awful lot like PR flak a-la some unnamed gubernatorial candidate/Republican extremist. And then there's that damned word again -- "estimating." One day it's $500 million, the next a billion. Now, according to your latest post, retiree health care is "$4 billion underfunded."

To boot: "There will be no health care for younger employees down the road without major reforms."

Says who? Moritz? Seej? Cheiron? Adachi? Gonzales? Fine. How about Economic Policy Institute? National Institute on Retirement Security? Newsom? Employee unions? One of them has to have a report in there that Seej and others can read somewhere. I suggest you read it.

This Adachi/Michael Moritz proposal is the furthest one can get from something genuinely benefiting the average citizen.

Posted by Guest LD on Aug. 17, 2010 @ 7:23 pm