Adachi crosses the line

|
(87)

Former Mayor Willie Brown and Public Defender Jeff Adachi – author of Prop. B, which would require city employees to pay more for their pension and health care costs – yesterday crossed a union picket line at Le Méridien, which is being boycotted by hotel workers with Unite-Here Local 2, to attend a fundraiser for the measure.

San Francisco Labor Council President Tim Paulson called it “such an outrageous thing in San Francisco.” Even Sup. Sean Elsbernd, perhaps the most conservative member of the Board of Supervisor, was shocked today when told of Adachi's crossing the line, saying he would have never done so. Local 2 spokesperson Riddhi Mehta told us, “It shows their true colors. By no means are they for working families.”

Adachi has been public enemy number one of local labor leaders since he authored the measure with little input from unions or other public officials, and Paulson said this action was emblematic of Adachi's hostility to unions, adding that it was even more surprising to see Brown, a longtime ally of unions, supporting the measure and crossing the line.

“It was not unexpected for Jeff Adachi, with the way he's been acting lately, not caring about labor, but it was a little surprising for Willie Brown considering his career and record,” Paulson said.

Adachi told the Guardian that he was unaware at the time that it was a Local 2 picket line. “The honest truth is that when I got there, I thought it was a protest against Prop. B,” Adachi said. Yet he also that even if he had know, “I still would have went to the event.”

“I completely support the workers' right to strike, but at the same time, I am on a mission to save the city $120 million a year,” Adachi told us. “The resources that the opponents are pouring into this are completely unreal.”

La Merdien has been on the Local 2 boycott list for several months, and both Paulson and Mehta said the picket was independent of Prop. B, although some SEIU members did show up with signs criticizing the measure. As for scheduling future fundraisers at other boycotted hotels, Adachi told us, “I'll be more mindful of that.”

Comments

Ah yes, those "working families" with guaranteed pensions and lifetime healthcare. Real working families don't get that or the $130,000 a year City employees average.

Here are some of the AVERAGE wages and benefits earned in the current 2010-2011 budget:

Nurses $174,000

Fire $158,000

Police $155,000

Gardeners $86,000

Janitors $74,000

You folks are fooling no one...and please call the Controller's office on Monday to verify.

Posted by CJ Flowers on Sep. 17, 2010 @ 4:38 pm

I'm a nurse at SF General and I can assure you that those numbers do not reflect my paychecks/benefits or those of my peers.

Posted by Guest I <3 SF General on Sep. 21, 2010 @ 3:50 pm

I can assure you the number is correct. (It includes benefit costs which would not show up on a paycheck. Benefit costs are enormous which is the genesis of Prop B). Feel free to call the Controller's office. Phone: (415) 554-7500.

Posted by CJ Flowers on Sep. 21, 2010 @ 5:30 pm

Checked it. You're wrong. That's not an average for nurses employed by the City, nor an average for nurses citywide. Run your numbers again.

Posted by Michael Treece on Sep. 24, 2010 @ 8:57 am

Nurse at SF General "assures you (the reported wages) do not reflect her paycheck/benefits or those of her peers," but didn't offer better numbers. Does she actually make more than what was reported?

Posted by Guest on Sep. 24, 2010 @ 1:08 pm

A City Gardener's salary tops out at most $59,000. That's a fact. I would be happy to show you my pay stubs.
The Laborer's Union Local 261 stepped and took 12 furlough days this year and we plan to take more. Our pay rate has been frozen forever.
We expect to pay in more to our pensions as well. But for god's sakes man -
you want my family's health care to jump 50% overnight. Thanks.
I can barely support my wife and daughter in this town.
Are you aware of the cost of living in San Francisco?
I am from S.F. and can barely afford to stay here.
I am proud to be the front line of cleaning up our parks and streets - but why don't you show up and clean a heroin den or two, some homeless camps and then cut my health care.
Why can't you help take care of the people who take care of our City?
I hope you see the real picture for people who are earning a modest salary in this town.

Posted by Dylan on Sep. 26, 2010 @ 9:29 am

I'm a CCSF worker and I only make 51,000 a year I'm a front line worker, maybe nurses,fire,police and other administrator make more than 3 figures a year and they can afford higher health insurance, but I don't even think this prop B includes them, the front line workers are the ones that had been hit really hard with all this cuts and on top of that they still want to take more from us,what are we going to take home.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 27, 2010 @ 1:42 pm

Adachi and Brown crossed the Local 2 picket line at a hotel. Local 2 does not represent City Employees, it represents hotel workers. They have been trying to get a contract to save their own healthcare coverage.

Of course Prop B should that Adachi doesn't care about anyone's healthcare coverage(except for his own which won't be affected by Prop B). Prop B will double the cost of dependent healthcare for city employees including public school teachers. I don't know how a school teacher is going to be able to afford $5000 a year in healthcare costs but Prop B is going to make that happen if it passes. I guess SF General Hospital will be getting more public employees in the emergency room as patients.

And CJ your salary's for city workers are wrong, no doubt supplied by the Prop B campaign to

Posted by sflocal on Sep. 18, 2010 @ 9:39 am

run jeff, run. finally, a leader with a backbone, brains and a fearless demeanor who challenges the 'sacred cow' of municipal entitlements. how do i contribute to his mayoral race? without reform, san francisco will become greece within 10 years.
do the math.

Posted by stopyourwhiningnow on Sep. 18, 2010 @ 11:38 am

Adachi had better run.

-marc

Posted by marcos on Sep. 22, 2010 @ 7:47 am

You do know, then, that your leader with a backbone makes $198,000 a year and his job and benefits are NOT effected by Prop B? How much of a backbone does it take to push for a Proposition that he himself will be exempt from? Sure he comes off looking like a hero, but he -- as a City employee -- will not make the same sacrifice he is demanding other City employees make.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 22, 2010 @ 5:25 pm

i do know this, and that is where the fearless demeanor comes in. take a larger view on this. unless we get a handle on these pension indulgence, we can kiss most of the city services now being cut to goodbye status. who else in this city, enjoying their own countdown to comfy retirement, has the guts to make the challenge? debate this on the fiscal merits or lack thereof. if adachi can't stand the heat, he'll wither away. i don't see that happening anytime soon.
198k is a pittance compared to his worth. nate ford, at twice that, is moving on before muni collapses completely with a 'wave of the hand'.
once we do become athens 2018, we'll see who sticks around to defend this place.
i trust your own backbone is in good shape, mr. or mrs. GUEST!

sywn

Posted by stopyourwhiningnow on Sep. 23, 2010 @ 10:20 am

We do have a handle on the pension problem, as Newsom negotiated pension contributions almost as large as Prop B during the last contract negotiations.

All the City had to do was ask.

This is not about cutting costs, this is about a billionaire speculator making a political statement with a his money

-marc

Posted by marcos on Sep. 23, 2010 @ 11:15 am

Yup, join us and no free lunch on the taxpayer, city workers are bankrupting us.

About time they had to pay in.

Posted by I Know on Sep. 18, 2010 @ 11:58 am

Since when are San Francisco's public workers the enemy? They make the city run, they've saved the city $250 M dollars in concessions, they contribute and will contribute more to their pensions; these are the same people who help you everyday.If anything, Prop B is a flawed measure put forward by people who don't give a damn about working people, and who have shifted the blame from the banksters and greedy insurance companies to the people who can least afford it. Wake up and fight back to lift everyone up, because if we don't all work together, we will be ground up and spit out by corporate hucksters and their politician pals, whose only real interest is power...for themselves. The hell with you and me. And don't kid yourself, once their done with city workers, they're coming after the rest of us.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 19, 2010 @ 5:22 pm

Prop B helps working people in the private sector. (Janitors in the real world don't earn $86,000.) If the City's highly paid employees don't contribute more for their benefits, then working families who receive no such benefits such as guaranteed pensions will see their City services cut and taxes/fees rise. That's a fact- $ has to come from somewhere. The cost of City employee benefits are rising $850 million over the next five years (and that's the Controller's notoriously lowball estimate). The issus is not complicated actually...

Posted by CJ Flowers on Sep. 19, 2010 @ 8:48 pm

CF Flowers
You keep on giving the wrong figures for how much City workers earn. A city janitor does not make $80K a year. These misinformation tactics used by Adachi and the Prop B campaign show that they are trying to dupe San Francisco voters into voting for something for all the wrong reasons. Prop B is about cutting peoples healthcare plain and simple.

Posted by sflocal on Sep. 20, 2010 @ 7:44 am

My bad- $83,000 for a City janitor average wages and benefits in current 2010-2011 budget. I wrote $86,000.

You know the City has a Sunshine Law. All this info is availble to the public through the Controller's office. If you are truly interested in the topic, I would recommend you call the Controller's office: Phone: (415) 554-7500

Posted by CJ Flowers on Sep. 20, 2010 @ 9:21 am

When asked about a statistic that showed most U.S. voters didn't support suffrage, Carrie Catt Chapman, President of the National American Suffrage Association, in 1916 said the above quote. I was particularly astounded that the average nurse earns $174,000. If that is the case, as a nurse practitioner, I'm way underpaid after 15 years of service with no significant over-time to show for it, working full-time, 5 days a week and no night time differential. Is that salary posted somewhere and what is the job description? Does that include over-time pay?

But as Carrie Chapman said, "Figures don't lie, but liers figure".

Posted by Guest lucretiamott on Sep. 20, 2010 @ 10:31 am

The $174,000 is from the City Controller's office. It includes benefits. Not certain if it includes overtime but I think it does as nurse OT is probably budgeted. City employees are well paid and should contribute more for their benefits as outlined in Prop B.

Posted by CJ Flowers on Sep. 20, 2010 @ 11:18 am

I'm a nurse, I work for the city... where do I go to pick up that paycheck???
No where close to reality. And once again, if prop B passes, I can't afford $1100 in health for my kids. Can you?

Posted by Guest on Sep. 21, 2010 @ 2:22 pm

I luv the way City employees react in shock to what they are actually paid. Proves the point. Benefits are very costly and City employees should contribute more.

Posted by CJ Flowers on Sep. 21, 2010 @ 3:27 pm

If they were actually paid them you might have a point.

Next time you pull numbers out of your derriere, at least wash them before posting them.

Posted by Michael Treece on Sep. 24, 2010 @ 9:00 am

Absolutely horrible that public employees are paid a salary that approximates the cost of living.

We've got to put an end to such outrages and ensure that all workers are paid much less than the cost of living so that they have to go into hock to survive.

What our economy needs now are massive wage cram downs so that demand is quenched and the economy never recovers. Wall Street is hurting, people.

If billionaire speculators like Michael Moritz paid CJ Flowers to say just the opposite, he's gladly sing for his supper. I bet Flowers is making a living wage for his "services."

-marc

Posted by marcos on Sep. 22, 2010 @ 7:50 am

Well said, marc.

Posted by Greg on Sep. 22, 2010 @ 8:14 am

CJ Flowers is refuses to see there are real people affected by the healthcare component of this Prop. My husband's school's janitor lives in the Tenderloin, I wonder what she is doing with all that extra money? I mean, making $86,000 year, after tenderloin rent, she should still have a good $6K for spending. I wonder why she wears shoes from Payless?

These are facts for teachers: a family of three pays $680 for Kaiser, $950/month for Blue Shield. Teachers, who will be affected even though they do not have a city pension plan, will see their family premium contributions increase from $628 to $750 for Kaiser to over $1K for Blue Shield HMOs. This is DOUBLE the average amount private sector employees pay for family coverage, according to this 2009 study by UC www.irle.berkeley.edu/cwed/wp/healthbenefits10.pdf.

Also recent national study shows that the average employee contribution for health care is 30% of the premium. "For family coverage, workers are paying an average of $3,997, up $482 from last year, while employers are paying an average of $9,773, down $87, according to the survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/02/AR201009...

My "entitled" family ALREADY pays $8160/year more than DOUBLE the national average.

I also noticed the Prop B site doesn't even have one Q on the FAQ about health care. Poorly worded proposition, mean-spirited, and it makes no dinstinction between top earners and those at the bottom of the pay scale.

CJ, I think you are either paid by Adachi, or mad that your employer does not provide coverage/benefits. This is a real problem in this country, but not the fault of public employers/employees. All workers should have health care -- fight for your right to have it affordably and try to take it away from others who do have it.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 22, 2010 @ 2:35 pm

Janitors earn $74,000 which I posted correctly at the top, incorrectly responding to a subsequent post. That's City janitors not SFUSD janitors. You seem to be conflating the two. I posted no info for SFUSD.

Speaking of corrections:

You posted a family of three pays $680 for Kaiser - not correct. For teachers (assuming participating in HSS) a family of three currently pays $229 for Kaiser and $546 for Blue Shield. Both premiums would go up $220 a month under Prop B. HSS has posted this info.

The City's health care sytem in currently $4 billion underfunded and the liability is growing at $300 million a year. Seems employees will be contributing more sooner or later. I don't blame anyone for not wanting to pay more, who would.

Serious question: My undertanding is SFUSD teachers are "volunteering" into HSS. So if Prop B passes and the SFUSD believes the new rates are too high - wouldn't they just opt out? As you stated, teachers are not in the pension system.

Posted by CJ FLowers on Sep. 22, 2010 @ 3:20 pm

Then why is $680 deducted from my husband's pay check? Prop B's propaganda lists health care benefits for the City workers with the highest benefits, but only states in a footnote that not all unions have the same deal. TEACHERS ARE INCLUDED IN YOUR ATTACK CAMPAIGN AND WE DO NOT HAVE CITY PENSIONS OR THE SAME BENEFITS. I PAY ALREADY PAY $680 A MONTH AND HAD TO SWITCH TO KAISER TO GET THAT LOW. CHECK IT OUT ON THE UESFD WEBSITE.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 22, 2010 @ 4:08 pm

I would also assume that District janitors will be included. This is why Prop B is SERIOUSLY FLAWED. You use figures for the highest paid workers, but don't realize it includes all the related workers and unions and not all of them have the same deal. Teachers don't "opt in" to HSS. They have pretty lame health care benefits when compared to my informal survey of friends in the private sector as well as those national studies I quoted. You WILL create collateral damage that WILL hurt working families but just don't want to see it. Re-craft a proposition that will not hurt working families. It could have been done.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 22, 2010 @ 4:13 pm

Here is the link to the $229 (employee plus two dependents) for Kaiser and $449 under Prop B as provided by the City (page 5):

http://www.myhss.org/downloads/board/regular_meetings/2010/RM_081210_201...

Can't explain your $680 under Kaiser if you are participating in the City HSS/contradictsCity memo linked.

Peace.

Posted by CJFLowers on Sep. 22, 2010 @ 5:17 pm

I understand where you got the figures. My point to you and the public is that all City-related employees will be affected and not all of them pay the amounts shown in the document you posted. Footnote number 1 in Appendix One of the document you linked says: "Specific employee contribution rates vary depending on an employee’s union contract." For teachers, the $229=$628. (Earlier typo of $680) Under Prop B, $628 becomes $750. Prop B proponents do not want anyone to know this fact, because these numbers are actually higher than private sector counterparts. Prop B includes school district employees. In an earlier post, I "conflated" city janitors and school janitors, because prop B conflates them--no distinction will be made.

http://www.myhss.org/

Shows the different classifications of employees, then medical rate info is available for each type as a downloadable PDF. And before you get angry about the seemingly low amounts of some of the numbers, many of the classifications in SFUSD are bi-weekly payments. UESFD certificated reflects teachers and is on the last page:

http://www.myhss.org/downloads/forms_guides/2010_2011_GuideSFUSD.pdf

As for peace, I might have that if I wasn't going to be undeservedly punished by an angry mob, fueled by incomplete and manipulated information.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 22, 2010 @ 7:18 pm

Okay- I may have learned something here. I will look into this (no reason to believe your figures are not correct). It looks like I understated your base by a lot but also overstated your monthly premium increase under Prop B. What I would like to understand is why SFUSD "volunteers" into HSS especially if your Kaiser rate is a lot higher than the City employee average. So if Prop B passed, and SFUSD didn't like the new rates why wouldn't SFUSD just opt out of HSS and skirt Prop B impact...??

Posted by CJFLowers on Sep. 22, 2010 @ 8:12 pm

"So if Prop B passed, and SFUSD didn't like the new rates why wouldn't SFUSD just opt out of HSS and skirt Prop B impact...??"

I don't know if it's an option. I wonder why we have the worst deal out of everyone. Seems like if they could or cared, they should have left ages ago. I can only imagine the bureaucratic nightmare doing something like that would cause, and I would guess it would take years to make that kind of change.

We really should all gang up on the health care companies instead of fighting each other. Are rates are high now, but when our family had Blue Shield, our premium contributions went up by $150/month each year for 4 years. I actually lost access to my doctors at UCSF because of some deal between the doctors and Blue Shield. But they have us stuck because health care is treated like a commodity, but with only an illusion of consumer choice.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 22, 2010 @ 10:11 pm

CJ, you apparently have ill sentiments for public employees. If you so easily throw out figures earned by public employees, say, how much do you earn? After taxes, is it enough to pay for medical and dental copays, retirement, tuition for you and your kids, rent/mortgage, daycare? Are they decent take-home pays, so much that you can afford to own at least 2 cars, or decent enough that you can eat out every night with your family and foot the bill completely? Am I safe to say that you are one of the few well-blessed citizens of SF? A lot of city employees have been laid off, have given up at least 10% of their wages in the last 5 years, have accepted a wage freeze for at least 3 years to save their coworker’s jobs, shouldered 7.5% of retirement contribution at no cost to you, the taxpayer. Have you turned on your faucet in the morning expecting a gush of water yet not a drop? Have you walked by the Mission bay and said, hmm, I wanna live here…if I can afford it yet it’s free for some people. Have you called SFPD/SFFD and no one showed up? Have you gone to SF gen and you were turned away because you can’t afford to have medical insurance? CJ, the services remain, they don’t stop no matter what the employees receive or not. The figures are available to you because of public policies, same irrational public policy that will decide what you can and cannot afford to pay for healthcare. Would you like the public to decide that for you?

Posted by Guest on Sep. 24, 2010 @ 4:55 pm

CJ's figures about city employees' salaries are correct. I've seen numbers from the Controller's office that substantiate the numbers. "CJ" probably posted the figures because Ammiano's article talked about the salaries of working families.

And your attack on "CJ" is misplaced. If he's working in the private sector, his salary, benefits, etc. (whatever they are) are not paid by taxpayers. He probably pays a lot more for his healthcare than anyone in the public sector pays for theirs. Public employees are reaping salaries and benefits that the private sector doesn't get but which the taxpayers have to pay for.

The City has a simple math problem. It's made promises that it can't afford. It would be great to shower excessive benefits on everyone, but the reality is the City can't afford to do that and things are only projected to get worse.

I am a little surprised more City employees don't support the Adachi measure. If you pay attention to the news and the City's budget, the revenue stream has run dry and unfunded liabilities are increasing. No employee is going to be in a good place if the pension fund's liabilities exceeds its assets and supposedly guaranteed benefits go away. (Last I checked, public pension are not insured like private pensions, so City's get driven to bankruptcy. See Vallejo.) What happens if that pension you were banking on doesn't materialize? Moreover, if the City's loses its ability to pay for its healthcare obligations people will have NO healthcare. Better to pay a little more and try and keep the system sustainable, because it's not sustainable in its current form.

Posted by The Commish on Sep. 24, 2010 @ 7:50 pm

According to the study posted earlier, private sector employees only pay 30% on average for their health care. Some City employees already pay 40% of their premiums. I informally polled friends in banking, shipping, finance, tech and they all pay less than us by a few hundred dollars. So where is the evidence private sector employees pay more for health care? I can't find any evidence to support it. I only found evidence to support the fact that if prop B passes, city workers will pay MORE.

CJ Flowers is not always correct. He had the audacity to tell me how much I pay for healthcare, which was incorrect. He uses parrots the Prop B soundbites, which don't tell the whole story. Family care for teachers = $628 a month, lowest option, not $229.

City employees don't support it because of the health care component, and because they were not consulted or brought to the table.

Posted by Laddie on Sep. 25, 2010 @ 5:20 pm

Per FLowers on nurses' earnings: "The $174,000 is from the City Controller's office. It includes benefits."

Bennies are probably lumped into corresponding earnings figures for janitors etc. as well. So with that in mind and considering how health care rises (unjustifiably) at 10% or more year after year, why go after nurses, gardeners, janitors and the like?

The insurance companies and (yes I'll say it) "downtown" interests are off the agenda. That ought to change. Adachi and Moritz's prop B is an attack on workers, pure and simple.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 22, 2010 @ 3:53 pm

Jeez- I posted at the top for all employee classes that the figures include "wages and benefits." Yes, benefits paid to City employees cost a small fortune- that is the whole point of Prop B.

Posted by CJFLowers on Sep. 22, 2010 @ 5:13 pm

That is not "exactly" what you posted. You said something like employee "a" EARNS "x" amount. Problem is benefits are not earnings, yet you lump in the value of benefits w/ salary/wage for effect.

Prop B supporters get their knickers in a big ol' bunch if you say that increased pensions contributions amount to a cut in take home pay. Yet you peddle numbers disguised as earnings which really includes benefits.

You cannot have it both ways.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 23, 2010 @ 5:52 pm

First post on this thread:

"Here are some of the AVERAGE wages and benefits earned in the current 2010-2011 budget..."

Don't know how I can be any clearer? I have concluded if you want to have a rational discussion about whether Prop B is good public policy best not to get into it with those directly impacted...

Peace

Posted by CJ FLowers on Sep. 24, 2010 @ 9:17 am

A City Gardener's salary tops out at most $59,000. That's what I make after 15 years of service.
Laborer's Local 261 has made concessions to help the City.
I personally got 12 furlough days, we are not taking raises and we will put more toward our pensions - we expect to.
We are exposed to surreal hazards daily to keep our parks safe for you. Help keep me and my family safe.

Vote NO on Prop. B!
Thank you!
-Your City Gardener

Posted by Dylan on Sep. 26, 2010 @ 10:01 am

These seem like fair wages to me. I dont begrudge a fair wage just because i dont get one myself.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 22, 2010 @ 8:58 pm

The actual point is these are the factual "working families" referenced in the editorial we are commenting on (..."nurses, firefighters, custodians, and gardeners") and voters will decide whether or not they can afford to pay more for their benefits whose costs are leading to significant cuts in vital City services...

Posted by CJFLowers on Sep. 22, 2010 @ 9:34 pm

Thank you. I think that's really the issue here.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 23, 2010 @ 4:49 am

I'm a nurse at SFGH and make about 62,000 a year. I also work my ass off there. Where are some of these figures you're getting? I just gave up 7.5 % of my salary approximately three months ago and am now being asked to give another 7-10% more. This is San Francisco, not Cedar Rapids, Iowa. The cost of living here is significantly higher. You're distorting the salaries people are making big-time. Can you afford to give up 20% of your monthly income right now? I'm sick of hearing about how angry people are with City employees because they had a hard time with a clerk at the DMV; look around at how many other people help run this city!

Posted by Guest on Sep. 23, 2010 @ 4:47 am

"Where are some of these figures you're getting?"

City Controller's office.

Posted by CJFLowers on Sep. 23, 2010 @ 11:30 am

...hopefully you'll be able to stay on your computer for the rest of your tired life,not needing any services from anyone...your shortsighted, myopic perception will surely create a dynamic, that years from now you'll claim no responsibility in creating...just wait...

Posted by rondd5 on Sep. 23, 2010 @ 3:30 pm

Oh goodness- I'll take one last shot at this...

This is a discussion about public policy and how best to pay for rising benefit costs. This is not a discussion as to whether City services and the employees who provide them are a valuable contribution to the commnunity- of course they are.

Currently the City spends $800 plus million a year on health and pension benefits (I know- "your numbers are wrong!") and according to the Controller's estimates this cost is doubling to $1.6 billion plus by 2015 (and the Controller's office always underestimates everything -scary). So the question is- WHERE IS THIS MONEY GOING TO COME FROM TO PAY FOR THIS? Prop B doesn't even come close to covering this benefit cost increase in full. (The current estimate is Prop B saves $121 million a year although the original estimate was higher.)

Obviously most here are City employees. They don't want to pay more for the benefits- who would? Residents on the other hand, do not want to see further cuts in vital CIty services as the City is already a mess. (Ever seen the condition of the streets arond here?) So many residents believe City employees should contribute more for their excellent benefits since benefits are the primary driver of rising City operational costs.

Most City employees don't live in San Francisco so many don't share the concerns about cuts in vital City services as San Francisco residents. We do not have congruent interests here. But let's not pretend this debate is about anything else...

Posted by CJFLowers on Sep. 24, 2010 @ 10:20 am

At least one commenter here (the teacher's wife) ME--we live here in the city, as many do. I think the figure on the Bay Citizen was about half do, and the ones that do live here tend to be on the lower end of the pay scale. So to say employees don't care about cutting city services is another sweeping generalization.

I don't see how voters can decide "if city employees can afford to pay more for their benefits." How would any of you even know? If your "salary" figures included benefits (the $174 for a nurse for example, although my nurse friend makes a lot less than that at General, including her benefits) it doesn't illustrate to the voter how much take-home pay someone has. And like any mob-incited action, it never takes the time to find a solution that is fair and protects those who need it. Take-home pay for nine-year teacher with a masters degree, after paying for Teacher's pension fund, taxes & insurance is about $3300. Sure sounds enough to live on for a single person, but NOT a family. Childcare alone is $1040 for pre-school, and that is on the lower end of the options out there. We also support an aging parent. And I know others in the District who are not as well off as us. You don't know ANYTHING about individual situations, and are crafting "policy" based on generalizations. (It was clear you didn't even know that different employees have different contribution rates.) The way Adachi and supporters have gone about this is just awful, relying on selective information and inciting anger. Yes, there is a budget problem, but you are deluded if you think you are some kind of hero protecting the innocent, with this proposed solution.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 24, 2010 @ 12:55 pm

CJ, you apparently have ill sentiments for public employees. If you so easily throw out figures earned by public employees, say, how much do you earn? After taxes, is it enough to pay for medical and dental copays, retirement, tuition for you and your kids, rent/mortgage, daycare? Are they decent take-home pays, so much that you can afford to own at least 2 cars, or decent enough that you can eat out every night with your family and foot the bill completely? Am I safe to say that you are one of the few well-blessed citizens of SF? A lot of city employees have been laid off, have given up at least 10% of their wages in the last 5 years, have accepted a wage freeze for at least 3 years to save their coworker’s jobs, shouldered 7.5% of retirement contribution at no cost to you, the taxpayer. Have you turned on your faucet in the morning expecting a gush of water yet not a drop? Have you walked by the Mission bay and said, hmm, I wanna live here…if I can afford it yet it’s 'free' for some people. Have you called SFPD/SFFD and no one showed up? Have you gone to SF Gen and you were turned away because you can afford to have medical insurance? CJ, the services remain, they don’t stop no matter what the employees receive or not. The figures are available to you because of public policies, same irrational public policy that will decide what you can and cannot afford to pay for healthcare and retirement. Would you like the public to decide that for you?

Posted by Guest on Sep. 24, 2010 @ 4:47 pm

Also from this author