Is there really a fiscal emergency?
Is it as bad as he claims?
Is the Mayors’ reason for rejecting the Early Retirement Incentive Program reasonable?
Can the Mayor be elected Governor without union support?
What do you think?
Is there really a fiscal emergency?
Is it as bad as he claims?
Is the Mayors’ reason for rejecting the Early Retirement Incentive Program reasonable?
Can the Mayor be elected Governor without union support?
What do you think?
Villaraigosa criticizes decision to cut LAPD hiring
But Councilman Bill Rosendahl, a police expansion advocate who cast the tie-breaking vote, says he felt a need to end the ’smoke and mirrors’ in the city’s budget.
By Phil Willon and David Zahniser
May 15, 2009
Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa on Thursday criticized three City Council members who voted to cut police hiring, accusing them of “devastating public safety” while preserving pet projects in their council districts.
The council’s Budget and Finance Committee on Wednesday voted 3 to 2 to halt Villaraigosa’s effort to add 1,000 officers to the Los Angeles Police Department — a top priority of his administration — as part of its effort to eliminate a $530-million shortfall.
“These steps are simply unacceptable,” he said. “They send a message that the security of our families and our homes is . . . no longer a top priority.”
The mayor said the cuts, if approved by the full council, would betray a promise that money from higher trash fees approved by voters would be used to hire more officers.
The budget committee voted to halt the police hiring plan after its top policy analyst said that the city could be forced to lay off an additional 1,200 civilian city workers if the LAPD expansion continues. Those job cuts would be necessary on top of 800 other layoffs and 26 furlough days.
Councilman Bill Rosendahl, who has been a strong advocate for the mayor’s LAPD expansion, provided the tie-breaking vote on the police hiring freeze, describing it as the toughest vote of his career. He said he felt a need to end the “smoke and mirrors” in the budget.
“What put me over the top was, where are we going to get the money to run the city?” said Rosendahl, whose district includes L.A.’s coastal communities. “I don’t want to lay off 1,200 workers, and I don’t want to furlough people 40 days. We need basic city services, and we don’t need to fire all these people.”
Rosendahl was joined in his vote by Councilmen Bernard C. Parks and Greig Smith. Two steadfast Villaraigosa allies — council members Wendy Greuel and Jose Huizar — voted against the LAPD cut.
Police Chief William J. Bratton, in an interview with KNX-AM (1070), called the vote “shortsighted and dangerous.”
Bratton accused the three councilmen of misleading the public on the severity of the proposed cut to the LAPD — particularly in Rosendahl’s district.
“Within a couple of months I’ll be pulling out of each of his police stations, because of the lack of hiring, about 25 to 30 officers,” he said. “So people on the Westside I’m sure are going to be very happy to hear about the councilman’s vote to reduce their already short-staffed stations.”
Villaraigosa said the LAPD expansion plan could be financed by privatizing the city’s parking garages and parking meters. Council members have resisted efforts to privatize those assets, which produce revenue that stays in each member’s district for parking projects, and doubt that such complicated agreements could be finalized in time to generate money for this year’s budget.
“Obviously, what was more important was protecting parking facilities in districts than to protect firefighters and cops,” Villaraigosa said of the council members’ objections. “That’s what is so galling about what happened here.”
Smith called the mayor’s comments “insulting.” Parking meter revenue is used to purchase and maintain meters, as well as build additional parking facilities in the city, he said.
Smith also dismissed the mayor’s assertion that the police hiring freeze would lead to an increase in crime, which is at its lowest level in decades.
Hiring an additional 1,000 officers has been one of Villaraigosa’s top policy objectives since he took office in 2005. So far, he has added 750 officers, for a total of 9,883.
A hiring freeze would nearly wipe out those gains, since about 520 officers leave through normal attrition every year and would not be replaced, Villaraigosa said.
phil.willon@latimes.com
david.zahniser@latimes.com
L.A. City Council OKs job cuts and unpaid leave
L.A. Budget
Unionized L.A. city workers rally outside City Hall on Monday.
Spending plan imposes layoffs and furloughs to make up for the city’s expected $530-million shortfall in 2009-10. But new revenue will help prevent police hiring freeze.
By Phil Willon
10:16 PM PDT, May 18, 2009
Saying Los Angeles’ financial troubles are grave and expected to grow far worse in the years ahead, the City Council on Monday approved widespread layoffs and furloughs for city workers but set aside enough money to back away from a proposal to freeze police hiring.
The severity of the cuts remains in flux, however, as city officials and public employee unions continue to negotiate possible salary and benefit concessions that could save the city more than $230 million.
But with no agreement in place and a June 1 deadline to pass a balanced budget, the council approved a $7.05-billion spending plan that will force cuts at practically every city agency.
To make up for the city’s expected $530-million shortfall in 2009-2010, public library and swimming pool hours likely will be reduced, sidewalks won’t be repaired and left-turn signals will be installed at fewer intersections.
The budget also imposes 800 city worker layoffs, on top of 400 layoffs approved by the council earlier this month. It also requires many of the remaining civilian employees to take 26 unpaid furlough days. The entire city workforce numbers about 50,000.
The council was able to find more than $26 million to avoid imposing a hiring freeze at the Los Angeles Police Department. The council’s budget committee last week recommended halting Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s police hiring program, a move that would have prevented the LAPD from replacing the roughly 520 officers who leave through normal attrition during a typical year.
Council President Eric Garcetti said 480 replacement officers would be paid for by an unexpected $22-million increase in property tax revenue and a $4-million reimbursement to the city from the U.S. Department of Justice.
Garcetti, a Navy Reserve officer who returned from a training mission to help address the police hiring issue, also took a not-too-subtle swipe at Police Chief William J. Bratton, who last week threatened to pull officers out of Councilman Bill Rosendahl’s district after his budget committee vote to freeze police hiring.
“There is no room or space for that . . . in this city,” Garcetti said. “No mayor, no council member, no chief, nobody, has a monopoly on fiscal prudence.”
The mayor had proposed expanding the LAPD to 10,000 officers by the end of summer, and that goal now appears unlikely to be met, although that could change by year’s end if the city receives federal stimulus money for police hiring. But the mayor praised the council’s efforts to find funding to keep the department near its current staffing level.
“Public safety is the first responsibility of city government and the core service we provide. It is fundamental to our success as a city,” Villaraigosa said in a statement released Monday evening. “Over the past four years, we have made remarkable gains — marked by falling crime rates, gang violence on the retreat and safer neighborhoods — and we cannot afford to take a step back on public safety.”
Villaraigosa suffered a setback on his proposal to auction off the city’s parking meters and six garages to private investors, a plan modeled after long-term leases in Chicago that raised more than $1.7 billion.
Villaraigosa’s proposed budget included $80 million from the deal, and his advisors predicted L.A. could pocket a windfall more in the neighborhood of $1 billion. Council members said they were uncertain the plan could generate revenue in time to include it in next year’s budget. But members approved $500,000 to hire financial advisors to study and possibly structure those proposed transactions in the months ahead.
Scores of unionized city employees crammed into the council chambers when the budget hearing began at 10 a.m., most pleading with the council to find alternatives to layoffs.
“You’re not just laying people off, you’re shattering lives,” city traffic Officer Gordon McCullough, 53, told the council.
With the rising price of gasoline, food and other everyday expenses, it’s getting tougher and tougher for many employees to get by, McCullough said.
“There are people who are one paycheck away from landing on the streets,” McCullough said. “It’s easy to say, ‘Let’s lay people off.’ It’s hard to work to make government more efficient.”
Councilwoman Wendy Greuel said the cuts approved by the council were difficult because they would affect families and neighborhoods throughout the city, but they were necessary: “If we didn’t make these difficult decisions now, it would be even worse next year.”
Villaraigosa has said he may be forced to lay off up to 3,000 workers if the unions do not agree to major concessions, including a possible salary freeze, buyouts, furloughs or paying higher costs for health and pension benefits.
The L.A. Coalition of Unions, which represents 22,000 city employees, is pushing for an early retirement package that would be offered to workers who are within five years of retirement. Aides to the mayor, however, said that would overburden the city’s underfunded pension systems.
The city’s top budget analyst predicts that L.A. could face a $1-billion budget shortfall in 2010-2011, and one even larger the year after, because of investment losses in the pension systems. By law, the city is obligated to keep the pension systems solvent.
The Los Angeles City Employees’ Retirement System and the Los Angeles Fire and Police Pensions are expected to suffer combined investment losses of 25% in the current budget year and to have flat returns in the next year.
By 2014, the city’s annual contributions to the two pension funds could grow to $2 billion.
phil.willon@latimes.com
Please Post
Well SEIU and every other union has basically been pushed to there
limit, early retirement has been replaced with a nearly 20% pay cut.
What job actions are left? Will people continue to work above
classification?
Will City workers continue to help City Hall operate without
recognizing the sacrifices we make?
Will the Union decide to save a few at the expense of many? Can we
trust our leaders to fight for those of us who stay?
I propose SEIU and other city labor bargaining units Immediately file
a Grievance with the ERB to Prohibit working above ones
classification, STOP this practice IMMEDIATELY, temporary training
position is code for leaving positions empty the time is now. Do not
allow the city to continue to operate saving billions only to dump
it’s workers and furlough them clearly the Los Angeles Police
Department is the chosen one who will continue to be catered to.
If action is not taken swiftly we will be left out to dry.Clearly we
will not stand for concessions, layoffs are inevitable in my
department alone 14 workers in one classification alone will be let
go. 26 days off amounts to over a months salary gone. There is no way
many of us will be able to meet our financial obligations.
As for job actions the only event I can see is the Los Angeles
Marathon to ask employees to refuse the overtime assignments,
considering the financial obligations of many that may be to much to
ask, but it is the highest profile event in the coming future city
workers could refuse to work.
Please consider everything I have laid out as many employees feel the
same way.
Early retirement should continue to be pursued for those workers who
have come before us in an attempt to save them form the misery of
staying aboard this sinking ship.
If ever there was a time to call in all of the favors our union dues
and PAC dollars have bought us with all the state and federal
officials we have ever had elected, Now is the time! What good exactly
are our affiliations with National labor if they will not pay off when
we need them?
Please take notice the employees left behind will not forget labors
actions in these trying times hopefully we will be able to stick
together through this but at it’s core we expect representation to
actually work and fight for us in these tough times, if our unions
fail us we may be forced to explore other representation options.
Maybe it is time to seek assistance from the Los Angeles Police
Protective league and some bargaining advice from them because they
seem to consistently negotiate the best for it’s members.
In Solidarity,
PMC
City of Los Angeles
Assembly approves bankruptcy bill
By Bee Capitol Bureau
Published: Wednesday, Jun. 3, 2009 – 1:41 pm
The Assembly today approved a union-backed bill that would prohibit cities and counties from filing for bankruptcy without state approval.
Assembly Bill 155 by Assemblyman Tony Mendoza, D-Artesia, cleared the lower house on a 43-16 vote and now heads to the Senate. It would require local governments to get approval from the California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission before filing bankruptcy.
Unions want the state to weigh in on bankruptcies because the filings could void union contracts cities and counties have with workers. Mendoza’s measure is opposed by local officials, who say it is an intrusion on local governments’ autonomy.
L.A. mayor and council weighing retirement option for reducing city’s workforce
Hoping to avoid layoffs and furloughs, a new plan would cut pay raises for two years to employees and offer retirement to some.
By David Zahniser
June 23, 2009
Looking to avoid the need for layoffs and furloughs, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and the City Council are weighing a plan to offer early retirement to thousands of city workers, some of whom would receive an incentive of at least $15,000 to leave.
As it attempts to close a $530 million budget gap, the mayor’s bargaining team hopes to reduce the workforce by 2,400 while giving no pay increases for most civilian employees in the next two years, according to several sources familiar with the confidential salary talks.
Once that two-year period is over, however, those same workers would receive six pay increases between July 1, 2011, and Jan 1, 2014, ranging from 2.25% to 4%, most of them delayed from their current contract, according to a draft proposal obtained by The Times. Those workers also would receive an extra cash payout equal to 1.75% of their salaries in 2012 and 2013.
The proposal represents a shift from the council’s decision earlier this month to pursue employee furloughs, which would have forced thousands of workers to take every other Friday off without pay.
Behind closed doors, the city’s Executive Employee Relations Committee — a panel composed of Villaraigosa and four council members — has been negotiating an early retirement plan with the Coalition of L.A. City Unions, which represents roughly 22,000 municipal workers.
The committee is scheduled to meet again today and could forward the plan to the coalition for a vote.
A report submitted to the committee last week said the early retirement plan could cost taxpayers up to $78.5 million to cover the sick pay, vacation pay and cash incentives that would be owed to 2,425 departing workers.
That figure does not include additional pension payments that those workers would receive.
Councilman Bernard C. Parks, who also serves on the committee, would not discuss specifics of the proposal, but voiced fears that the city would not be able to cover the increased pension cost of workers who retire before they are eligible.
“I don’t think [the pension system] can afford it,” he said.
Villaraigosa also would not discuss details, but signaled that additional payments by city workers toward the pension system could cover the cost of early retirement. “What I said from the beginning was, it’s going to be fully paid for,” he said.
To encourage older workers to leave, the city would increase its contribution to the pension fund for workers who were hired before 1983. Furthermore, those who stay would see their own annual pension contribution increased from 6% to 6.75% in July 2011, coinciding with their first raise in two years.
Union representatives met Monday afternoon to discuss the early retirement plan with acting City Administrative Officer Ray Ciranna. A representative of the labor coalition also would not characterize the talks.
“Our number one goal throughout these negotiations has been to preserve city services to the greatest extent possible given the economic climate and protect the city workers that we represent,” said coalition spokeswoman Barbara Maynard.
The draft proposal obtained by The Times would offer early retirement to workers who are as many as five years away from retiring. The pact would not apply to police officers, firefighters and employees of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.
Although Villaraigosa has repeatedly called for “shared sacrifice” by city workers, the draft proposal acknowledges that those who work in parks, libraries and other nonpublic safety roles will likely be asked to absorb a bigger financial hit.
Any early retirement plan would need to be approved by the council and ratified by members of the affected unions.
To ensure that the proposal saves the city money, Villaraigosa and the council would have to ensure that they do not replace many of the departing workers.
No more than a third of the 2,400 employees could be replaced over the next five years, according to the plan.
Behind the scenes, union leaders also have been trying to secure a written promise from the city’s negotiators that no furloughs or layoffs will occur in the next two years.
david.zahniser@latimes.com
Barbara Maynard, Coalition Of City Unions, is interviewed by NBC on the furlough plan.
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/City_Workers_Protest_Furloughs_Los_Angeles.html
Business group presses L.A. City Council for details on early-retirement proposal
As Los Angeles leaders discuss a deal that would let about 2,400 city employees retire up to five years early, the Chamber of Commerce and financial analysts say more details should be made public.
By David Zahniser and Phil Willon
June 25, 2009
Two days before the Los Angeles City Council is expected to vote on an early retirement package for thousands of workers, the city’s largest business organization warned the proposal would contribute to a “massively unfunded and unsustainable” pension liability.
The Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce sent Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and the City Council a letter demanding that taxpayers receive more information on the financial consequences of the proposed five-year labor agreement with the Coalition of L.A. City Unions, which represents 22,000 workers.
hamber president Gary Toebben warned in the letter that the agreement is poised to “deliver the kind of short-term political gain and long-term financial pain that has contributed to California’s fiscal implosion.”
“When city residents and businesses are struggling to live within their means, taxpayers deserve a detailed analysis of the future financial ramifications of this proposed agreement,” he wrote.
Council President Eric Garcetti said the package is still being crafted. Garcetti also said that during negotiations, he had seen estimates showing that the cost of the plan would be covered by additional pension contributions from the employees who would remain. “People should not jump the gun with analysis that says this is bad,” he said.
City officials are planning a closed-door council meeting at 8:30 a.m. Friday to review the proposed agreement with leaders of the labor coalition. If an agreement is not reached, city officials could proceed with plans to lay off 1,200 workers and shut down many city services every other Friday.
Councilwoman Wendy Greuel called the plan the “quickest, most humane, most cost-effective way” to reduce the size of the city’s workforce. “We have always indicated that any plan that comes forward must pay for itself,” she said.
The deal would delay pay raises for two years for the coalition’s members, then give six increases between July 2011 and January 2014, as well as two cash payouts.
To reduce the city’s salary costs, officials hope to provide early retirement to roughly 2,400 workers, some of whom would otherwise be up to five years away from eligibility. Some employees also would receive cash incentives to leave.
To help pay for the cost of the agreement, workers hired before 1983 would immediately be required to pay a larger pension contribution. Other workers would see their pension contribution increase from 6% to 6.75% in July 2011, according to a draft proposal.
“This is the best deal we’re going to get for both sides, and I think everybody knows that,” said Bob Schoonover, president of Service Employees International Union Local 721, which belongs to the coalition.
For months, the city’s financial analysts have warned that retirement costs could swamp the two main pension systems — the Los Angeles City Employees’ Retirement System and the L.A. Fire and Police Pensions — starting in fiscal year 2010-2011.
With both funds experiencing large financial losses last year, the city’s required contribution is expected to increase annually from approximately $660 million next year to more than $1.6 billion by 2013-2014 — or more than a third of the city’s discretionary budget, according to a May 12 analysis by Acting City Administrative Officer Ray Ciranna. That increase “far exceeds any projected revenue growth” and is not sustainable, Ciranna wrote.
Sally Choi, who heads the City Employees’ Retirement System, said the city is required by law to complete an actuarial analysis of the early retirement plan. Choi said she has not seen such an analysis. “I’ve only seen what’s been reported through the unions and in the papers,” she said
Once the council votes on the agreement, it would need to be approved by the labor coalition’s 22,000 members. Changes to the city’s pension benefits also require a vote from active members of the City Employees’ Retirement System.
david.zahniser@latimes.com
phil.willon@latimes.com
Recent press releases quote City Councilmen indicating that there will still be lay offs and furloughs.
The proposal approved this past Tuesday by the joint combined Bargaining Teams of the City of Los Angeles Coalition of City of L.A.Unions has been tendered to the City executive administration for its approval.
Once the City executive administration signs off on the proposal submitted by the Coalition of City of L.A. Unions, each union in the coalition will submit the proposed agreement to each and every member of its respective union for ratification.
If all of the unions in the Coalition ratify the proposed agreement it will then go to City Hall for the approval of the elected officers of the City Council and Mayor.
In the event all goes according to schedule, there will be no pay raises for two years, however there will be no lay offs or furloughs. The workers will pay for the enhanced retirement one time offer. The City of Los Angeles will stand to save significant costs and reduce the budget deficit, maintain a high standard of service to its citizens, foster the legacy of a strident work force and continue to be one of the most dynamic metropolitan municipalities on this planet, let alone, this great country of ours.
Quid pro quo.
Any work unit represented by the following Labor organizations have made concessions, freezing wage increases and will incur a slight increase in their retirement contribution to compensate for the enhanced retirement offer:
AFSCME Council 36
SEIU 721
L.A./Orange County Building & Construction Trades Council
International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOI) Local 501
International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 911
Laborers International Union (LIUNA) Local 777
Please note. There are other details and this is an informal overview of the contract renegotiations taking place as I write and you read. The City and the respective unions are literally working around the clock.
I am just attempting to clarify and reassure everyone what it is that is at stake as the new fiscal year approaches.
Rafe
–
SEIU Local 721 Reformers is an email address attempting to share information with SEIU Local Members, Stewards, Officers, Staff and Officials.
ANY email that is sent to seiulocal721reformers@gmail.com will be forwarded to every subscriber of this email address.
Rafael “Rafe” Garcia, City of Los Angeles Steward, 2007 Bargaining Team Member and 2008 SEIU International Convention Delegate is the custodian of this email address.
cityoflosangelesseiumembers.com is another web site for more information and interaction among SEIU Local 721 members who wish to make SEIU a membership driven Union.
We, you and all the rest of us have the best interests of the rank and file members, over 80,000 strong.
* Group name: SEIULOCAL721REFORMERS
* Blog: http://seiulocal721reformers.blogspot.com
* Group home page: http://groups.google.com/group/seiulocal721reformers
* Group email address: seiulocal721reformers@googlegroups.com
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
LA city officials near deal with unions to close budget gap
By Rick Orlov Staff Writer
Posted: 06/24/2009 05:26:30 PM PDT
Los Angeles city officials said Wednesday they are close to an agreement with city unions that would cover nearly half of the $530 million shortfall the city is facing this year.
The City Council also approved plans Wednesday to borrow $1.1 billion against future tax revenue – the largest it has ever borrowed in this way – to cover short-term costs.
The labor agreement would call for workers covered by the Coalition of City Unions to forego a cost of living raise for up to two years and increase their contributions to the pension system to pay for an early retirement program.
Council President Eric Garcetti said there will still be layoffs and furloughs in the future although exact numbers were not available.
“There is still some number crunching that has to be done,” Garcetti said. “But it is difficult to imagine a year in which we do not have layoffs and furloughs.”
He said work was continuing to determine which employees would be laid off.
Negotiations are still being finalized, officials said, but both sides have agreed to the main principles and they hope to finish by Friday June 26 to submit the plan to the council.
Garcetti said it is possible the full City Council will consider the proposal by Friday and then wait for the different city unions to vote on the plan.
City officials hope to reach an agreement soon to set the stage for other unions, as the city’s new $7.01 billion budget goes into effect July 1 2009.
It includes an early retirement provision that, based on documents sent out by different union leaders, would offer incentives to workers to retire early and include back payments to cover unpaid vacation time and sick leave of up to $78 million.
Councilman Bernard Parks, however, said the question is how it will impact pension system costs. “It’s a matter of whether we can afford this,” Parks said.
Garcetti said he was hopeful, however, because city unions recognize the city’s financial problems and the effort to avoid layoffs. Union officials said about 150 coalition members unanimously approved the proposal and are prepared to submit it to their members once the City Council signs off on it.
The coalition represents about 22,000 of the city’s 40,000 workers. “The coalition leadership is recommending this agreement, because it will keep services like libraries and park programs functioning, especially at this time when summer school has been cut and we’re seeing more children than ever,” said Roy Stone, president of the Librarians’ Guild.
“It will mean that libraries can stay open on their regular days to provide summer reading clubs, story time, and other youth programs.”
The plan, however, does not cover the 10,000 members of the Engineer and Architects Association who also have an existing contract or the discussions with the police and fire unions.
But the proposal drew criticism from the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce.
Gary Toebben, chief executive of the business group, said it needs more study.
“I request that the mayor and City Council provide the public with a five-year economic analysis of the impact that the proposed city labor agreement will have on the city’s budget and taxpayers prior to Council consideration,” Toebben wrote.
“For taxpayers, the proposed agreement outlined earlier this week does not appear to fulfill the promise of `shared sacrifice’ in a difficult economy. Instead, it appears poised to deliver the kind of short-term political gain and long-term financial pain that has contributed to California’s fiscal implosion.”
Toebben said his concern is what the package will do to the city’s pension costs, which already are expected to exceed $1 billion in two years.
Garcetti estimated the proposal would cover more than $200 million of the projected $530 million shortfall the city is facing this year.
Related to that, the council is in the process of reviewing layoff lists of workers. City officials said the list is now at 76. The city also is looking at mandatory furlough days, which would shut down city services two days a month.
As for the loan, a practice done every year, it is the largest the city has ever taken against the tax revenue it is expected to receive this year.
The biggest portion includes an advance payment to the pension systems to reduce the overall cost the city will face this year.
As part of the loan, the city will be asked for the first time to undergo a cash flow “stress test” to make sure it can pay back the loan.
rick.orlov@dailynews.com
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
City near agreement with unions Posted by Rick Orlov on June 25, 2009 6:10 AM |
Los Angeles city officials said Wednesday they are close to an agreement with city unions that would cover nearly half of the $530 million shortfall the city is facing this year. Daily News.
The City Council also approved plans Wednesday to borrow $1.1 billion against future tax revenue – the largest it has ever borrowed in this way – to cover short-term costs.
The labor agreement would call for workers covered by the Coalition of City Unions to forego a cost of living raise for up to two years and increase their contributions to the pension system to pay for an early retirement program.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-me-la-budget25-2009jun25,0,1596972.story
Los Angeles Times June 25 2009
L.A. City Council approves early retirement plan despite opposition
The proposal also calls for postponing raises for thousands of workers to balance the budget without layoffs or closing City Hall twice a month. But one union threatens a court challenge.
By David Zahniser and Maeve Reston
5:42 PM PDT, June 26, 2009
The Los Angeles City Council voted Friday to move ahead with a plan to give early retirement to 2,400 employees while postponing raises for thousands of others, hoping to balance the budget without laying off workers or closing City Hall two days a month.
The council unanimously forwarded the proposal to the Coalition of L.A. City Unions for a ratification vote by its 22,000 members, saying that it would free up much-needed money over the next two years.
“We can’t afford not to do it,” Councilwoman Janice Hahn said after a closed-door meeting that lasted nearly four hours.
Before the council even cast its vote, a representative of another union said his members probably would file a court challenge to the early retirement proposal, a copy of which has not been released by city officials.
“The [plan] that they’re proposing is not legal,” said Bob Aquino, executive director of the Engineers and Architects Assn., which represents roughly 7,800 city workers and is not part of the coalition.
He accused the council of excluding some unions from its early retirement talks. And he warned that the council has not been provided with a legally required actuarial study that would spell out the long-term cost of the plan to the city’s pension system, which is projected to consume an increasingly large share of the city budget over the next five years.
The proposed labor pact sent to the council Friday applies to civilian workers, including those who provide such services as trash pickup, park maintenance and library operations. Negotiations are still under way for police officers, firefighters and other unions.
Aquino’s warning echoed comments made two days ago by Gary Toebben, president and chief executive of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce. Toebben called on the mayor and the council to release the information showing the five-year impact of the early retirement plan.”It is important that this information now be shared with the citizens of Los Angeles,” he said.
Coalition representatives did not immediately respond to requests for comment. But Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said in a statement after the vote that the union pact would save more than $500 million over the next two years by delaying raises and reducing the size of the workforce.
Villaraigosa insisted that workers would cover the “net cost” of the early retirements, sparing the pension system from a new burden.
Under the plan, workers hired before 1983 would see their pension contribution hiked to 6% from a range of 2% to 4%. Other city employees would see their contributions increase from 6% of their pay to 6.75% in July 2011.
Council members said they would receive an updated actuarial study within two weeks, in time for a final, public vote on the labor pact.
Councilman Bernard C. Parks, who voted for the early retirement concept, said he was reserving final judgment until he sees the long-term cost of the union agreement.
“The council has a vote later to decide whether [to] accept it or not,” he said.
Early retirement also will require a vote from members of the city’s primary pension fund, the Los Angeles City Employees’ Retirement System.
Councilman Richard Alarcon said the plan would be less painful for the public than a furlough plan, which would force workers to take 26 unpaid days off in the coming year.
“We’re doing our best to save city services,” he said.
The proposed agreement with the Coalition of L.A. City Unions is designed to dramatically reduce the possibility of layoffs and avoid furloughs, which would force the city to shut some city offices every other Friday.
Under the proposal, the coalition’s 22,000 members would not receive raises for two years. Once that period is over, however, those workers would receive six raises between July 2011 and January 2014 — the equivalent of an 18.8% raise — plus two extra cash payouts.
To reduce the city’s payroll costs, the city would offer early retirement to workers who are as many as five years away from being eligible for retirement. To entice them to leave, the city would offer some workers cash payouts and enough years of service to qualify for retirement ahead of schedule.
City officials have been increasingly anxious about the rising costs of retirement benefits at its two pension systems — one covering public safety workers, the other for civilian employees.
A May report from the city’s top financial advisor warned that the city’s required pension contribution — money that would otherwise be used to pay for basic services — could jump from approximately $660 million next year to more than $1.6 billion by 2013-14.
That increase “far exceeds any projected revenue growth” and is not sustainable, acting City Administrative Officer Ray Ciranna wrote.
david.zahniser@latimes.com
maeve.reston@latimies.com
Dear Stewards,
The unanimous approval by the City Council of Los Angeles to adopt the proposed wage freeze combined with an early retirement package instead of furloughs and layoffs is a testimony of the L.A. Union Coalitions’ contribution to the continued successful operation of the City of Los Angeles and of its’ own mettle.
Don’t you think that Governor Schwarzenegger, the California Senate and State Assembly, wish they had a knight in shining armor come riding in to Sacramento and rescue them right about now?
Many factors came into play to make the L.A. Union Coalitions adoptive strategy a success. And of course, the members still have to ratify the historical measure taken by the City Council today. However, it’s my opinion, that Labor is such a formidable player in the political arena, which made it possible for the Coalition to play such an important part in today’s City Council decision.
And so, I ask all of you Stewards, to take a moment with your co-workers, and point out to them, how, in the 1990’s Mayor Riordan wanted to privatize waste management (trash pick up) and SEIU 347 garnered the support of the City Council to prevent contracting out our jobs and an erosion of civil service jobs.
And point out to your co-workers how the L.A. Coalition of Unions today, proposed a workable alternative to furloughs and layoffs.
The political will demonstrated and exercised by the L.A. Coalition of Unions would not have been possible without the weight and leverage of Labor’s political strength which is fed by the members contributions to COPE.
So, please, go back to the work place and garner a %100 participation by all workers at the work site to participate and make a regularly scheduled contribution to COPE. When everything is honk dory, wage gains are made and health benefits are maintained, no one is concerned. However, when things are otherwise, and we need a voice to address the members concerns or an ear to hear the members concerns, we, the members have to come from a position of leverage and strength. It’s not about buying anything or anyone but rather having the ability to campaign, support an effort, a cause, a platform or a candidate who have the best interests of the community and members at large.
In Solidarity
Rafe
Rafe, are you sure?
Beware of the continued loss of buying power due to frozen wages and and false promises made by the Mayor & CAO. Can you be sure of what they’ve promised you in the future with the Mutual Commitment language in place?
If Labor is such a formidable player in the political arena, wouldn’t better terms have been negotiated? Maybe with the Coalition promising that the Council members would be opposed in the future elections would get their attention.
CE [caace1@gmail.com]
MAYOR ANTONIO R. VILLARAIGOSA
City of Los Angeles
URGENT MEDIA ADVISORY
June 26, 2009
CONTACT:
Matt Szabo
(213) 978-0741
CITY, UNION LEADERS COME TOGETHER TO SAVE JOBS AND PRESERVE SERVICES
Landmark agreement will save $500 million over two years without layoffs through
early retirements and raise deferrals
LOS ANGELES – Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, City Councilmembers, representatives
from the Coalition of City Unions and City workers will announce a landmark
agreement to save $500 million over two years without layoffs or major service
reductions TODAY, at 3:30 PM, June 26, 2009, Mayor’s Press Conference Room, City
Hall, 200 N. Spring St., Los Angeles, 90012.
The agreement, approved today by City Council and now pending ratification by
City workers, will save the City more than $500 million over the next two years,
primarily through a retirement incentive program and a delay in scheduled pay
raises. Workers will cover the net cost of the early retirements, ensuring the
program will not burden the pension system.
Summary of Key Provisions
Agreement on Layoffs and Furloughs
The City agrees not to move forward with a furlough plan for Coalition members.
The City agrees not to layoff Coalition members, except as a last resort after
working with the Coalition to explore every reasonable option.
Deferral of Wage Adjustments
Coalition members would defer all raises and cost of living adjustments for two
years. The contractually set adjustments will go into effect two years after
originally scheduled, with the contracts extended from June 30, 2012 to June 30,
2014.
By 2014, wages will reach the levels originally set in the contract for 2012
with the City saving $342 million in payroll over two years. In exchange for
extending the contract two years, workers will receive an additional 1.75% raise
in the final year and two cash payments averaging $1,300.
Early Retirement Incentive Program
An early retirement incentive program will be implemented, extending incentives
to those already eligible to retire and to those within five years of
retirement. The goal of the program will be to encourage 2,400 workers to retire
out of City service, lowering payroll costs by nearly $200 million. Workers will
increase their contribution to the pension system to cover the net cost of the
early retirement incentive program
CE, I have tried to stay out of the silliness, but I am driven to make a comment.
While the City cant print money, they do have total control over the revenue estimates. Being involved in Real Estate I can tell you while the price of houses are down the rate of purchase (house sales) is way up and is projected to, in this buyers market, continue. As housing sales increase there is usually an increase in property tax and more importantly in the short term transfer tax. What would the revenue stream assumptions when the budget numbers were formulated and what is the real data showing today. I would not trust the City for the answer as they have a vested interest in low balling the estimate to convince the unions to settle for less and then when the new contracts are locked in, finding money as the revenue figures improve. And no I do not believe in conspiracies as a rule: Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, the U.S. government did not crash airlines into the twin towers and the government is not hiding little green men at Area 51.
But in the realm of public administration, I field in which some knowledge (earned an advanced degree in a program that trains you will to be a city manager), it is a reasonable assumption that the CAO, Mayor and Council of City of Los Angeles would look to every strategy to obtain an advantage. My God the City may lie! I am shocked, but remember the Mayor was wearing no wedding ring at one time because he had lost weight, wink, wink. I had a conversation with a former negotiator from the CAOs office that in times past negotiated a contract with a union where the union left money on the table. He convicted them to settle the contract for less money that he was authorized to give the union. This is the job of the CAOs office, to get the best deal at the least cost from the unions. So again, why do you accept at face value the estimates of the City?
Also, Rafe is assuming that furloughs and layoffs are a certainty. All of the unions agree that the City has no legal standing to furlough workers and as for layoffs and will go to court on the issue. The number has gone from 400 to 78. I know for a fact that the proprietary departments had unfilled positions, fully funded in the FY 09-10 budgets that could have been filled by transfers. There were 4 in my small office alone and some of the work contracted out could have been done via agreements with other department, something that the harbor has done in the past. Why does Rafe assume that layoffs will occur just because the City says they will? The City is not private industry who can hire and fire at will. The City must justify that they either do not have the work of the money. Give what the City contracting levels are today, you cannot tell me that we need to layoff anyone because we do not have the money. Just because the City says so does not may it fact? The charters requires a 1022 analysis for contracting out if the unions challenge the contract by asking for meet and confer, something EAA routinely does. This is why at the harbor department a deal is usually reached to avoid a rigorous 1022 to either add staff because contracting indicates a shortage of staff, transfer technology and knowledge as part of the contract or have work brought back for staff to perform. In the past we have even negotiated send work to Publ! ic Works employees. So why the utter belief in what the City says must be true? In my twenty plus years it is amazing who ready city employees are ready to believe anything the City tells them. I think I ask my psychologist friend if there is some unusual dynamic that make some of the workers susceptible to whatever the City say rather than thinking for themselves.
Cheers CE and keep up the debate.
fdhagner@earthlink.net
Hagner’s right, call management’s bluff. If the City is so poor let them declare bankruptcy and liquidate their assets to pay their creditors. It’s what everyone else in America contemplates when their income goes into crisis.
J Kim [lacityworker@yahoo.com]
lets start with the elimination of any city personal who take a vehicle home some go as far as Southern Riverside $$$ ???
also stop the mayor from using the city Helicopter to take him near home & then have a police officer as his personal driver take him home! or any place as a mater of fact
this no doubt was some scheme devised by him and Ex Chief Bratten also he needed a bomb proof auto B. S.
wake up fellow Citizens of L.A.!!!!!!!!!!
EX Mayor Jame;s Hawn used a motor pool employee and that old ford Explorer to take him around!! & let’s stop the flight’s of fancy all over the world on some trumped up mission for the good of L.A. what has happened from the outings on the city’s dollar
we are still a sinking ship ( and the Band Played on )
these people are not Royalty!! stop them from these Practices as they some times act like they are War lords
this is not some fife dome in the middle east then stop furnishing them with expensive autos to drive they should all be given a smart car to drive since they think they are such intellectual geniuses??
then what about those fire fighters who enjoy a country club existence and the police who seem to spend a good part of there shift hanging out near the station Ya We need more of them
if they are truly hero’s step up to the plate and take a pay cut
roll back all the pensions to the same as the lower eschelon personal get Max Of 80% for almost 40 years of service not (90% for 30 yrs of service ) the behind the sceans who make it possible for you to do your jobs with out too much difficulty and how much is wasted on those 24 hr days of overtime ?
put them on a 8 hr Day like most other people who work just as hard unless there is truly a emergency that would require them to be at work
not so made up time for those who should have been at work
Also why are they allowed to have there own public relations people spouting there exploits Which by the way they are paid to do Its your Job!!! and lastly the most important money savings is to cut any ones salary who makes $100,00 or more by 25 % they are not worth any more Where are they going to go?? who wants any of them ??
for over $100,00 I think wery few would find any employment
And now the mayor who never misses a photo shot is wasting time to get his pre-madona self on TV once again claiming its for L.A.’s good stop the beauratic waste he’s only looking for the next Tax payer funded Job in the state run system
Our real I.D. With Held to stop any petty City official from retaliating under the guise of layoff or furlow