Mayor Villaraigosa is crowing about the recently approved proposal offered by the city to the EAA.
I think it’s more like eating crow.
Let’s see, the EAA members will now cover 5% of their health premiums; the contribution was zero.
The co-pay will go from $10 to $20 per visit.
What’s there to cheer about unless you are a union member or a politician who depends on the unions for support?
Here are some facts: A 2008 survey of the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicated that employees contributed an average of 19% for single coverage and 29% for family coverage in the private sector. In the public sector, it was 10% and 27%, respectively. I don’t believe the rates have changed significantly; if anything, they have probably increased.
Regardless of which sector you compare the EAA to, its members got one hell of a deal.
Just imagine – the mayor wants to use the EAA agreement as a model for negotiations with the Coalition of City Unions.
Such sacrifice. To paraphrase Winston Churchill: never in the field of labor negotiations has so little been sacrificed by so few to the detriment of so many.
This concession is what Mayor Villaraigosa had the gall to hail as “unprecedented.”
Using the mayor’s own numbers, the annual cost of employee health care is supposed to increase by $153 million over the next five years. Assuming all unions agree to a 5% contribution, it still means the taxpayers will bear $145 million of the increase. That’s not much to cheer about.
Maybe the mayor and CAO Santana should have looked to the State of Washington before negotiating the softball contract with the EAA.
Governor Chris Gregoire wants state employees to pay 26%. They currently pay 12%.
The negotiations will be brutal, but at least Washington is driving a hard bargain and not rolling over as Villaraigosa is. In any event, Washington state employees will be paying considerably more than Los Angeles city employees.
It makes you wonder why City Hall bothers to negotiate.
EAA member’s furlough days have been reduced from 26 to 10. Where are the savings?
You are correct. Any savings would have been offset. It’s worth noting the mayor did not mention that.
This won’t be the last time I’ll cover this agreement.
Paul, don’t forget the rest the Mayor’s negotiation – higher pay by reducing the amount of furlough days. I am sure that did not get past you. How many more of these unprecdented deals can the taxpayer afford?
My first inclination was to mention that, but I decided I wanted to focus on the contribution rate as compared to the national average and the specific rates in the state of Washington. I will return to the subject later and pencil out the overall cost impact.
In a nutshell, though, I can’t see where this deal lowered the deficit.
I’m sorry but did you actually say “higher” pay. The last time I checked 10 furlough days resulted in “lower” pay. Add to that a deal that not only includes 5% contributed to health care and cuts to several incentive pays, you end up with a 10% pay cut for each member of EAA. We also took a pay cut last year of 26 furlough days per EAA member. Just exactly what more do you want from us? I work hard every day for the city and spend a lot of time trying to make up the productivity lost by cutting our time and pay by 10%. Comparison studies show that not only do private sector employees get paid significantly more for the same level of work but that the gap is increasing. Yes, private employees do pay more for health care benefits but they have larger paychecks as well. You have a city council and mayor who control everything to do with the budget and still you decide that the city’s economic crisis is the fault of city employees. Your arrogance amazes me! By the way, how much of a pay decrease did you agree to last year and this year Miss Oberg and Mr. Hatfield? Wait, I’ll bet you also are complaining about city services being cut back. Please tell me your plan for increasing services while laying off city employees. You have plenty of complaints I see, Mr. Hatfield, but I don’t see any solutions being presented by you (certainly no intelligent solutions).
You are indeed living in a world of delusion.
City pay stacks up very well- probably better than most of the private sector. We’ve seen the salaries, so don’t feed us the line about being underpaid. When you factor in benefits, you are living the good life, even with furlough days.
As far as my “pay,” I am self-employed and revenue has declined. That’s more than you need to know. People in the private sector are taking cuts far more than your “sacrifice” of 10%.
As far as solutions, I’ve offered them as have others: pay more for your generous pensions and health benefits (5% is nothing).
The problems the city is facing is largely due to unsustainable compensation and benefits. Your pay and benefits have forced the city into tapping reserves that should only be used for emergencies, such as natural disasters.
So don’t be in denial – you feel as if you are entitled to special treatment. No one else is, so join the crowd.
Talk about delusional. You, Paul Hatfield, are in a state of unrecoverable delusion. It also sounds like you are suspiciously jealous because you don’t have a decent deal. I agree with Jack Humphreville. It isn’t the fault of the city workers that they signed a contract offered to them by the city. You sound like a small minded, petty individual and it is obvious that you are way too petty to ever admit when you are wrong. Oh yeah, by the way, maybe you should think about researching a topic before you speak about it and show your complete ignorance. If you did research it, then you are guilty of an even worse act – deciding to pick and choose the “facts” that you want to use and discard the ones that don’t support your argument. Either way, you are certainly not an individual who can report information in an unbiased fashion. I pity you.
I am touched by your pity.
I did not discard any facts. Even the BLS data supports my conclusion.
Does your medical plan include counseling?
It is not the fault of the City workers, but City workers have been the fortunate beneficiaries of the pay and benefit increases extorted from City Hall through the use of massive campaign contributions by the municipal unions.
They are at least willing accomplices. Most of them.
This is a no win siutation for everybody, or at least most everybody.
We are all going to pay the price.
City workers wil be laid off or furloughed. Benefits will be cut back or eliminated, like post retirement medical benefits.
Citizens will have fewer services as money needs to pay for the unfunded pension plans and to pay for our deteriorating infrastructure. Citizens will get nailed with tax or fee increases.
And City Hal and the union leaders will live happily ever after.
I think that most people forgot to realized that the reason why the City’s general fund is almost gone is because of the two major department is causing it. Fire and Police and you have to look at the pensions of these employees who are already retired at 55 even though they have not put in a lot of service. Not to mention Bernard Parks pension of $24k a month while getting a salary as a Councilman.
Police and Fire are protected by the Mayor, Bernard Parks, and most of the Council members…
The rest of the civilian work force are not. Lastly, The salary and benefits now are being compared to BLS because the figures now appears that we the city workers are making more now after the private sector fires 20 million workers. 10 years ago, you can’t even compare private industry salary against government workers. Even now, I have four cousins in the computer programming area and they all make more than what the city pay. The BLS is now complete and accurate.
I think one can always find certain occupations that pay better in the private sector. Of course, some positions cannot be compared,
I recall reviewing BLS stats from 2006 that pointed to virtual wage parity between private and public in most comparable occupations.
The wages are not as off as the benfits are. City employees are light years ahead when it comes to premiums.
Police & Fire are grossly over compensated, and unless we get reform in that area, the rest of the employees, who also require reform, are chicken feed by comparison.
While I sympathize with fire and police employees, we have reached a point where we cannot continue to prop up their health and retirement plans. While that may seem unfair to our valued and admired guardians, it is equally unfair to ask taxpayers to fork over more of their diminishing paychecks to cover the costs of maintaining unsustainable programs.
The economy will not recover in the traditional sense to which we have all grown accoustomed. We are in for years of stagnation and slow growth. Everyone, including fire and police, have to learn to do with less.
I focused on the EAA deal in this article because its contract was a done deal. Police and fire benefit reform will require charter reform to some extent.
[…] the city’s EAA deal requiring employees to pay the overwhelming rate of 5% of the cost of health premiums was laughable, […]