Showing posts with label Govt. Unions: 2007 articles. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Govt. Unions: 2007 articles. Show all posts

March 16, 2008

Want to know what state employees make? We did

Well this was too good to pass up. Now we hope this will enlighten the public about where their tax dollars are going. We need databases like this for county and city employees as well as well as a database to tell us how much they will cost us when they retire at 50 with full health care at 90% of their pay. Here is the link to the database. Thank you Sacramento Bee! We need more papers like you.

Public Editor: Public is public and there is just no hiding that
By Armando Acuña -
Published 12:00 am PDT Sunday, March 16, 2008

The fallout from The Bee's decision to post a searchable-by-name database of state worker salaries at sacbee.com continued last week, dominating reader feedback for a second time.

There were, however, a few new twists that weren't apparent in the initial days after the database and the accompanying story about state salaries were published March 4.

While the overall tenor of response from state workers remains critical – though the number of complaints has significantly declined – an increasing number of state employees and just plain citizens say they support the paper's decision to create the database.

And it's more clear than ever that, overwhelmingly, almost every negative response has come from state workers, their spouses or relatives.

The number of complaints from regular folks to my office literally can be counted on one hand.

Meanwhile, the total page views at sacbee.com/statepay have reached about 4 million.

There was also some news as the paper's editors responded to reader requests for database changes.

Added were categories for searches by pay range, job title and agency.

As explained in an editor's note published last Tuesday, you can now "see who makes the most in a department, the pay for everyone in that department with a certain job title, and the number of workers there who make over $100,000 – or under $30,000."

This is an important addition, in my opinion, as it helps satisfy a legitimate complaint that it was difficult to compare and analyze inequities in state salaries on a large scale using the original database.

In addition, new links were added to state worker salary databases in other states, to a searchable database for federal employees and to national data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics comparing public- and private-sector salaries.

These were all things readers asked for, yet many missed the editor's note about the changes, judging from some of my e-mail.

The paper also has added legislative employee salaries to the database.

In case you were unaware, there was also a protest by about 100 state workers, who picketed in front of The Bee on Wednesday. The protest was organized by one of the public employee unions.

And speaking of the unions, one reader sent a copy of an online newsletter from a unit of the California State University Employees Union. The newsletter tells employees concerned about the database who to complain to at The Bee, including my office.

The newsletter concludes, however, with this: "On the positive side, this should help with researching those equity issues."

It then provides links to The Bee's database and state salary story.

I agree with them. It is one of the positive parts of having the searchable database.

A relatively small but growing number of readers – a few dozen as opposed to hundreds of critical state workers – have sent e-mails or left phone messages supporting the paper's efforts.

Several have been highly critical of the complaining state employees, saying The Bee should also include all benefits – such as retirement contributions, health care, vacations, etc. – to more accurately show total compensation and better compare public- vs. private-sector pay and benefits.

Some want to know whether the paper will expand its database to include the salaries of county, city and public school employees. The answer is yes, though full implementation may take awhile.

A number of responses have come from former and current state workers.

"All of the dust-up over printing state worker names and salaries is a tempest in a tea cup as far as I'm concerned," wrote a reader from Elk Grove. "From 1984 to December 2004, I worked as a staff employee for the Assembly and then for the Senate. About two times a year, a local weekly paper (Capitol Weekly) ran the names, positions and salaries of all California legislative employees. No problem.

"We were – and are – being paid with tax money and our names, positions and salaries were and are public data. We found these printings to be of great interest to see who was being paid what. A real education!"

Wrote a woman who works for CalEPA:

"Please don't paint all state workers with the same brush. I have worked for the state for years and did not complain or comment on the salary database because I think my employers should know how much they pay me," she said in her e-mail. "I work for the taxpayers of California and they are all free to know anything about the work they pay me to do."

A woman from Elverta, who said she's read the paper for 45 years, e-mailed to say, "I feel The Bee's intention in making the information more readily accessible to the public is in the community's best interests."

I've excluded the names of these readers to shield them from some of the vitriol and name-calling directed at me by some of those vehemently opposed to the database that might come their way if they were identified.

It comes with my territory, not theirs.

As this situation continues to play itself out, it's apparent some state employees don't understand, as I tried to explain last week, that an important role of the newspaper is to gather and disseminate public information. That includes making it easier for people to find and use public information.

Last Wednesday, a woman said in her e-mail that she and her husband are state workers. She said they were angry at the paper for, among other things, making public information public.

"The Bee states this (salary database) is public information, then erroneously concludes that since it is public, the public should know."

I will let that speak for itself.


Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA
A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™

click here to receive LAAG posts by email

December 31, 2007

The Never Ending Story

This story just keeps repeating itself over and over. Of course the falling tax revenues will really be a double whammy for 2008 and 2009 after hears of inflated real estate values which is really going to hit the county the worst as they are the ones who get their hands on that money first. When will the voters hold politician accountable for these actions? Better yet when will we stop them from taking these actions in the first place as they seem unable to muster the will the say no to the unions? If we do not stop the runaway spending on government union employees and silly pork projects that are 3x over budget before they start, there will be hell to pay in the next 10 years. We have yet to see what direct effect this will have on Lakewood but we suspect the same pattern of activity. This "never ending story" will have an end sooner rather than later unfortunately and it will not be a good one. And just like the bursting of the housing bubble it may start and spread much quicker than you think and will also spread much deeper into areas you would not expect, just like the sub-prime mortgage debacle (which we still dont know the full extent of).

Pols engaged in much selective perception in 2007
Article Last Updated: 12/30/2007 10:28:21 PM PST
http://www.dailynews.com/opinions/ci_7844487

If the unremarkable year of 2007 becomes known for anything around Los Angeles, it may be for the irresponsibility of public figures.

That doesn't necessarily mean the many actors who chose to act illegally and foolishly - that's pretty much a standard every year - but the selective perception of local and state governments when it came to looming problems.

The state

At the state level, legislators and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger ignored what anyone could have foreseen - that the housing crisis would put a severe squeeze on future revenues from property taxes.

But instead of anticipating the downturn in fortunes, Schwarzenegger and legislative Democrats blithely passed a spending plan for 2007-2008 that painted a rosy financial picture. They even predicted a $4 billion reserve that would never be possible.

The real news rolled out just weeks ago, when the reserve was adjusted to a $14 billion deficit, a fiscal emergency declared and a special session of the Legislature called to sort out the financial mess. Never mind that it was a mess created by ignoring what anyone could see.

The city

The lack of foresight demonstrated by Los Angeles city officials will also contribute greatly to establishing 2007 as something best forgotten. Like state politicians, Los Angeles' mayor and City Council failed to adequately plan for the financial future despite clear warning signs.

First, there was the phone tax. The longtime tax had been challenged in court and was likely to be ruled illegal, thus ending an annual $280 million revenue stream, long before city officials suddenly leapt into action with an "emergency" ballot initiative for the February primary election.

Yet even with the fate of those many millions in the balance, city leaders signed off on a 23 percent wage increase for the nation's highest-paid work force over the next five years, not even counting the numerous annual "step" increases for most employees. City officials justified the raises by saying the city could afford them, and the employees deserved them.

But just weeks later they suddenly realized that there was a $300 million deficit looming and they would have to start cutting back services.

And what if voters fail to open their wallets again to support the City Hall money pit by passing the new and expanded phone tax? Prepare for cuts to service - not to the size of the bureaucracy or paychecks, and certainly not to the lavish pay of politicians, their perks or staffs. It will come in the form of hiring fewer cops to protect the public despite promising that higher trash fees would pay for them.

The county

Los Angeles County officials may have not gotten into the same budget mess as the state and the city - not yet, anyhow - but they are also not off the hook for making decisions that will have financial implications down the road.

Property tax revenues collected countywide soared to $4.6 billion in the past five years due to the hot real-estate market. County supervisors happily spent the money on creating an even bigger budget with pay raises, bonuses, pension and health-benefits improvements for the 100,000 county employees.

But when the full brunt of the cooling housing market - plus all those foreclosed properties not paying taxes in the next few months - hits, the county may well be committed to its higher spending plan but with far less revenue.

Things are only looking bleaker for the economy next year. The housing downturn is predicted to slow revenue growth to only 1.3 percent in 2008, though financial commitments to employee contracts are much higher. And if there's a recession, well, things will go from bad to worse quickly. But because of this year of irresponsible financial choices, the city, the county and the state will be in a money bind.

And guess who they will turn to in an effort to bail them out - again?

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA
A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™

click here to receive LAAG posts by email

November 10, 2007

The Party's Over Folks

Unless you have been living in a cave over the last month you know we are headed for both inflation AND a recession. This was likely triggered by the sub prime mortgage melt down. Of course it does not help that the dollar is tanking, oil is rising to counteract the falling dollar and China realizes they are holding half of the debt of the entire US. But this is no worry for Government employees. Full speed ahead on the Titanic. Poblem is that when the Titanic goes down only Govt. employees will get lifeboats. Taxpayers will have to go down with the ship. Like the article says below, the slow people, those that only Oprah or entertainment TV (the lowest denominator voter) is starting to at least as questions about the pension issue.

Sutter debates public pensions Its controversial move to boost its benefits echoes statewide fight

By John Hill, Sacramento Bee, September 3, 2007

Sutter County may be a little off the beaten track, but it finds itself at the center of a statewide debate over whether local governments have granted extravagant pensions to public employees.

Three years ago, the Sutter County Board of Supervisors sweetened pensions for county workers, arguing that generous retirements would help the county recruit and retain workers.

The move was controversial from the start, with one prominent local official, Auditor-Controller Robert Stark, objecting that he and the public were given no chance to comment on the dramatic change.

Three years later — this June — the county grand jury called the decision "flawed" and laid out the fiscal consequences. The county’s pension plan had gone from being $38 million in the black in 2000 to $36 million in the red five years later.

"This has gone on all over," said Keith Richman, a former assemblyman behind a proposed initiative to scale back government pension costs by offering a less generous retirement to new state and local employees.

Organizers have not yet started gathering signatures for the initiative, which they hope to put on the November 2008 ballot.

"The fundamental problem is that more and more of government budgets are going to pay for retirement costs, whether you’re talking about the state or local governments," Richman said. "The money is not going to pay for other services like education or health care or public safety."

Public-employee unions counter that the state retirement system is sound, and that if the state and local governments roll back pensions, they will have to compensate by increasing salaries.

Sutter County officials defend their 2004 decision as a sensible way to maintain a qualified work force. They deny that it plunged county finances into a crisis.

"Our pensions are in great shape," said Larry Munger, a lifelong Sutter County resident who ran a market for 22 years and became a county supervisor in 1995.

Munger said he is not worried about the $36 million "unfunded liability" mentioned in the grand jury report.

"You buy a house, you’ve got an unfunded liability," he said.

The controversy, he said, has been kept alive by malcontents who have other bones to pick with the county. Munger said his constituents aren’t worried about pensions but are "sick and tired" of the critics.

Government pensions became a hot topic across California four years ago as state and local governments struggled to meet pension obligations in the midst of a fiscal crisis. The state and many local governments boosted pension benefits during the dot-com boom, when investment returns soared for the California Public Employees’ Retirement System.

Then the stock market tanked, even as the richer benefits kicked in.

In 2005, public-employee unions fought off Richman’s earlier attempt to cut costs by replacing the traditional pension system, which guarantees a set retirement income, with 401(k)- style accounts for new workers. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger scrapped the initiative after the unions waged a campaign saying it would cut off death and disability benefits for fallen peace officers.

Late last year, Schwarzenegger formed a 12-member commission to come up with a new proposal for dealing with pension costs. The commission is scheduled to issue its report by the end of the year.

In the meantime, local governments across the state have continued to struggle with pension costs. County grand juries and others have criticized the generosity of the benefits and how decisions were made.

Sutter County, Sacramento’s neighbor to the north and home to some 91,000 residents, increased pension benefits in 2004, after the pinch had already been felt in other jurisdictions.

Government pensions are based on a percentage of a worker’s highest annual salary multiplied by the number of years served.

In January 2004, the Board of Supervisors agreed to give rank-and-file county workers 2.7 percent of highest annual salary for each year on the job at the age of 55. That was a substantial increase from 2 percent. That August, safety employees got 3 percent at age 50.

The grand jury report faulted the Board of Supervisors for failing to consult with Stark, the auditor-controller, as required by its own rules.

Citizens got to comment only after the pension hike was a "done deal," the report concluded.

Some of the biggest beneficiaries were in upper management, the same officials who negotiated the deal, the grand jury found.

"The grand jury is not implying that these changes were engineered to primarily benefit those responsible for making them," the report states. "However, if that was their intent, they could not have designed a better process for leaving that impression."

Even though the pension hikes were meant to recruit and retain a county work force, critics say, just the opposite has happened, as workers with richer retirement prospects have headed for the door.

"I defy you to find any pension expert who says that allowing people to retire younger with more money encourages them to stay," Stark said.

The pension payments, meanwhile, take away from other pressing needs, critics say. Busy roads have not been resurfaced for years, said Wade Arnold, who describes himself as a "concerned citizen." The museum and the arts council have seen their budgets cut, he said.

The county’s backlog on maintaining roads is about $50 million, said Robert Mackensen, president of the Sutter County Taxpayers Association.

But Supervisor Jim Whiteaker said the critics are crying wolf.

"We’re very frugal and very conservative in allocating money, and we thought it was justified for our employees," he said.

Since the change, Whiteaker said, the county has filled 19 deputy sheriff positions that had been vacant.

Supervisor Munger dismissed the complaint that the public didn’t have a say. The pension concessions were made in contract negotiations with public employee unions, he said, and those meetings are never open to the public.

But critics say that the public is angry. Mackensen, of the taxpayers association, said he gets stopped on the street or the grocery store and told to keep up the good work.

The pensions can’t be rolled back without approval from public-employee unions. But they can be changed for newly hired workers.

"I think there’s hope because I think the public is waking up," Stark said. "This issue has been in the public’s eye for three years now up here, and that’s practically unheard of for something that for many people is an esoteric thing."


Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA
A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™




October 27, 2007

"We want what they have..."

This article is a follow up to this prior article

The firefighters make a good point. We want to get paid what all other public employees get paid as far as pensions. What they fail to point out is that this is the basis of the problem we are in today. Each govt. employee just keeps pointing to the next higher salary at another city and starts a bidding war. A bidding war not using private dollars of companies but taxpayer dollars taken from private employees paychecks.

Govt. employees salaries and pensions have no corollary in the private sector. Maybe they did at one point in time but no longer. With the demise of unions in the private sector and the opposing rise of public employees unions, the disparate result in pensions is staggering. The other problem of course is that politicians who set these salaries, pensions and benefits (dont forget the generous life time healthcare) are spineless wimps who only want to get re-elected and are glad to sell voters down the river and saddle them with huge tax liabilities in the future to fund these giveaways which will only increase as time goes on. The public employee unions are also shrewd politicos themselves, as Arnold Schwarzenegger found out two years ago. Quite frankly its easier to do a snow job on the sucker taxpayer/voters as most are asleep at the switch. Most of these pension and salary giveaways are claimed to be public but in reality are cloaked in secrecy.

Government employees fail to realize that its called "public service" for a reason. Now it has become the new ruling elite. The employer of last resort is now offers the most sought after union jobs in the country. Meanwhile the private sectors wages, benefits and pensions has been ravaged by the Bush tax policies and years of mergers and corporate raiding by venture capitalists. Govt. employees also fail to realize that all their pensions and benefits come from the taxpayers and are guaranteed against all market risks by the taxpayers (unlike in the private sector) Everything in govt. work is guaranteed in a sense. In the private sector if a business fails or fails to gain marketshare or sales the salaries and pensions fail as well. Not so in govt. There is no shrinking or "rightsizing" in govt. Only growth and only increases of everything all the time year after year.

So here is the real question. Do we bring public pensions and benefits in line with the private sector or do we try yo bring the private sector up to the govt. level and usher in full blown socialism?

Guest Commentary: Firefighters just want same treatment
By RED BLUFF FIREFIGHTERS- Special to the DN
Article Last Updated: 10/27/2007 08:28:08 AM PDT

For three years, the only statements from city representatives simply included, "it is not a financial issue, but a philosophical issue" and "The City Council is not interested." The firefighters now finally have some new information for the first time in three years with the City Council's media release. The City Council states that they do not negotiate in the press, but with their document they are, in fact, doing so by implying that an agreement may be reached if the retirement issue is set aside by the Union. The Red Bluff Firefighters Association is not a "Union," and it is simply the nine full time personnel assembled as a bargaining unit. There are no ties to organized labor.

After more than three years of patience, the Red Bluff Firefighters have found that there was no interest by the City Council for fair treatment. With no other alternative, and with overwhelming public encouragement, a petition was developed. A salary survey which was confirmed by the Human Resources Department of the City of Red Bluff using cities confirmed by the Council's consultant, Koff and Associates, and a salary survey conducted by the City of Oroville, both of which were available in the stacks of information at the petition signing sites and which are also posted on our Web site. In addition, the check stubs of a top step fire captain, the position listed on the salary surveys, were and still are available for review, simply contact Larry Snell.

1. Top step captain hourly rate is $17.73 which matches the City of Red Bluff's 7/1/07 salary schedule available at City Hall. As with other departments our size, the City of Red Bluff regularly calls its firefighters back for training and emergency calls. Your firefighters invest many more hours than most other professionals do.

2. In 2002, the firefighters and the City Council reached an agreement on a new work schedule that greatly enhanced our service to the community, and placed us on 24-hour shifts which equaled an instant 40 percent increase in work hours. Previous to this, the firefighters worked a standard 40-hour work week as most people do. It is interesting to note, that although our work hours increased by 40 percent, as a group, we are barely a few percentage points ahead of other bargaining units that did not increase their work hours at all. Therefore, we feel that it is unfair that the City Council states that the firefighters earned the highest salary increases, which completely ignores the notable increase in work hours.

3. Contrary to what the City Council may have implied, the firefighters are not the only group whose retirement is paid in full. In fact, every city employee enjoys this benefit. We are curious why the City Council seems to imply that this is exclusive to the firefighters.

4. PERS retirement schedules and service credits are similar for all city employees and approved by City Council action. The retirement contract is between the state CALPERS system and the City of Red Bluff, not the employees.

5. The City Council already approved and awarded this option of 3 percent at 50 retirement to approximately 30 police officers. Nine firefighters simply request the same option. The vast majority of fire departments on the city's survey list already provide this benefit to their personnel.

6. The police had the same retirement plan as the firefighters have now (2 percent at 50). The City Council awarded the police this exact same increased 3 percent at 50 retirement.

7. The City Council would like you to believe that the 3 percent at 50 retirement plan that we are asking for costs $190,000 per firefighter to obtain. The City Council neglected to share the 30-year time frame in their media release. The City Council also states that it will have to incur debt to finance this retirement proposal. First, the cost of the 3 percent at 50 plan is roughly $6,000 per firefighter per year, plain and simple. Why does the City Council object to this plan for nine firefighters when 30 police officers were awarded this same package several years ago? We are only asking for the same benefit that has already been granted to our hard-working police officers, nothing more.

8. The firefighters had no choice, but to reject the poor offers provided recently by the City Council. Cost of living increases of each year were not even adequately covered by these proposals and the City Council completely ignored the issue of the salary disparity between ours and other like fire departments.

Improved health insurance? The firefighters simply wish to obtain the same less expensive health insurance already awarded to the police. This less expensive insurance is simply a cheaper premium that would save the firefighters at least $400 a month in out of pocket expense. This costs the city nothing more and we ask why they have refused this.

The City Council states, "While our hearts may want to reach an agreement with this group of dedicated and valuable employees, our heads and sound judgment do not see this as a financially sound course of action." If that is the case, were they not using their heads or using financially sound judgment when the City Council awarded, by vote, the very same retirement and cheaper health insurance to the Red Bluff Police?

The firefighters are taxpayers also and appreciate sound management practices, in fact, the firefighters take great pride in, and care for millions of dollars of fire related equipment and buildings.

Contrary to what the City Council may imply, the firefighters have maintained an open mind about negotiations. The fact still remains, however, that the firefighter's salary is 40 percent below average, as confirmed by the City's Human Resources Department, using the comparable cities developed by the City Council's own consulting firm, Koff and Associates. The firefighters did not compile the cities used. The City Council also awarded 30 police officers the exact same less expensive health insurance and the exact same 3 percent at 50 retirement that the firefighters seek.

Your firefighters still simply wish to be treated fairly.

The Red Bluff Firefighters are: "A" crew: Domenic Catona, captain; Dave Carr, engineer; Matthew Shobash, engineer; "B" crew: Larry Snell, captain; Fred Agundes, engineer, John Campbell, engineer, "C" crew: Vern Raglin, captain, Brian Smalley, engineer, Jimmy Heinle, engineer.

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA
A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™




October 25, 2007

LASD discourages independent oversight

Some of these quotes below are classic, especially those from the LASD union spokesman. Most "reviewed law enforcement agencies in the nation"...oh please. Given the few things that have leaked out about LASD and that are on this website, (this one for example) LAAG supports any effort to take the LASD review process away from its union and place it in the hands of taxpayer entities that are truly independent. Now the question is how "independent" will "The Office of Independent Review" remain. LAAG is always a little suspicious of an entity that sucks up still more tax dollars and needs to use the word "independent" in its name. You can read more on the "The Office of Independent Review" here and also contact them directly from that site.


http://www.latimes.com/news/local/orange/la-me-audit25oct25,1,7934644.story?coll=la-editions-orange
From the Los Angeles Times
Report lauds work of Sheriff's Department monitor
The Office of Independent Review, which looks into misconduct allegations, is fair and necessary, according to a county review.
By Stuart Pfeifer
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

October 25, 2007

The Office of Independent Review, which oversees investigations into alleged misconduct by Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies, does a good job of making sure internal investigations and discipline are fair and has increased public confidence in the department, according to a report by the county executive.

The Board of Supervisors ordered the review last month after agreeing to spend more than $3 million to fund the unit for the next three years. The office is staffed by civil rights attorneys who consult with internal affairs investigators and make recommendations about discipline and training.

Supervisors sought the review at the request of the union that represents sheriff's deputies. Steve Remige, president of the Assn. for Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriffs, had told supervisors that he thought the department was already well monitored and that the money it spends on the review team could be better used to hire additional deputies.

The county report, released this week, concluded that the oversight group provides a valuable service to the county, including reducing liability to potential civil lawsuits by recommending training for deputies and by ensuring that deputies who violate policy are appropriately disciplined.

"By having the OIR monitor the department's actions, LASD personnel are more cognizant to follow departmental policy," according to the report by county Chief Executive Officer William T. Fujioka.

Michael Gennaco, chief attorney for the Office of Independent Review, said he believed the report accurately reflected the role his office plays in the sheriff's discipline and training process.

"I'm pleased to see that the CEO's office has reported that we actually make a difference," he said. "The most important thing we do in my view is actually keep investigations and departmental decisions on discipline honest, and when they're not we have the ability to tell the public that they're not."

Among its duties, Gennaco's office reviews lawsuits filed against the department and produces reports, available online at www.laoir.com, about the outcomes of investigations into alleged misconduct by deputies in the nation's largest sheriff's department.

"OIR's involvement gives the public confidence knowing that the LASD investigation is being monitored. The OIR's ability to be objective and impartial gives the review process more credibility," Fujioka's report says. "The idea that the department will cover up or hide essential facts from the case will have less significance when the OIR is involved to ensure the integrity of the investigation."

Sheriff Lee Baca launched the Office of Independent Review in 2001. The report "is a complete vindication of my desire to have transparency and to strengthen public trust of the Sheriff's Department," Baca said Wednesday.

Remige said he was not swayed by the report. He said the department already was one of the most reviewed law enforcement agencies in the nation, with an internal affairs bureau, a criminal internal affairs bureau, a county ombudsman, district attorney's office reviews of uses of force and semiannual reports by Merrick Bobb, an attorney who monitors the department for the Board of Supervisors.

"It's another layer of oversight that personally I don't think we need," Remige said.

stuart.pfeifer@latimes.com

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA
A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™




October 12, 2007

2,002 die in police custody in 3 years

This article below is an interesting companion story to an earlier one we did here. Note the next to last paragraph in the article below.


2,002 die in police custody in 3 years
By Hope Yen, Associated Press
Article Launched: 10/11/2007 08:37:02 PM PDT

WASHINGTON - More than 2,000 criminal suspects died in police custody over a three-year period, half of them killed by officers as they scuffled or attempted to flee, the government said Thursday.

The study by the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics is the first nationwide compilation of the reasons behind arrest- related deaths in the wake of high-profile police assaults or killings involving Abner Louima and Amadou Diallo in New York in the late 1990s.

The review found 55 percent of the 2,002 arrest-related deaths from 2003 through 2005 were due to homicide by state and local law enforcement officers. Alcohol and drug intoxication caused 13 percent of the deaths, followed by suicides at 12 percent, accidental injury at 7 percent and illness or natural causes, 6 percent. The causes of the deaths for the remaining 7 percent were unknown.

The highly populated states of California, Texas and Florida led the pack for both police killings and overall arrest-related deaths. Georgia, Maryland and Montana were not included in the study because they did not submit data.

Most of those who died in custody were men (96 percent) between the ages of 18 and 44 (77 percent). Approximately 44 percent were white; 32 percent black; 20 percent Hispanic; and 4 percent were of other or multiple races.

"Keep in mind we have 2,000 deaths out of almost 40 million arrests over three years, so that tells you by their nature they are very unusual cases," said Christopher J. Mumola, who wrote the study.

"Still, they do need to be looked at to determine whether police training can be better or practices can be better," he said.

State laws and police department policy typically let officers use deadly force to defend themselves or others from the threat of death or serious injury. Deadly force also is allowed to prevent the escape of a suspect in a violent felony who poses an immediate threat to others.

The Justice Department study released Thursday suggests that most of the police killings would be considered justified, although it does not make that final determination. About 80 percent of the cases involved criminal suspects who reportedly brandished a weapon "to threaten or assault" the arresting officers.

Another 17 percent involved suspects who allegedly grabbed, hit or fought with police. More than one-third of the police killings, or about 36 percent, involved a suspect who tried to flee or otherwise escape arrest.

The report was compiled at the request of Congress in 2000 after the 1997 struggle between New York police and Louima, a black security guard who left the precinct house bleeding after officers jammed a broken broomstick into his mouth and rectum. A few years later, two police shootings of unarmed black men followed, including Diallo, who was shot 41 times after he reached into his pocket for a wallet.

Since then, following police sensitivity training, New York has seen a few killings involving suspects and officers, including last year's shooting of Sean Bell, an unarmed black bridegroom-to-be whom police say they believed was reaching for a gun.

Other findings:

Among law enforcement, 380 officers were killed in the line of duty over the three-year period and 174,760 were reportedly assaulted, according to FBI data. Most of the deaths were accidental (221), while 159 were homicides.

Blacks were disproportionately represented in arrest-related deaths due to alcohol or drug intoxication (41 percent vs. 33 percent for whites); accidental injury (42 percent vs. 37 percent for whites); and unknown causes (46 percent vs. 39 percent for whites)

On the Net

Bureau of Justice Statistics: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA
A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™




September 3, 2007

public employee union membership up 106.4 percent.

There are a few facts the writer fails to point out. As for unions in the private sector the issue is unions trying to get their share of company profits in good times. The problem is when bad times happen the union costs stay high. Also when people start making over 70k a year and have 3x the health benefits as non union people its time to wake up and stop living in the early 1900's. Child labor and sweat shops now only exist legally in third world countries. Unions have outlived their true mission/usefulness and from the union members we have spoken to feel that their non-public unions are selling out to business owners anyway.

As for public employee unions, the solution is simple. They should be illegal and are the result of years of gutless politicians with no vision as to the effects of future tax liabilities they have placed on their grandchildren. There is a reason public employee union are growing. Its not need. Its greed. The bolded sections of the article are good reading. The rest is mostly pandering to private sector unions. Whats funny is even the pro private sector union member and leader realizes that public employee unions are out of control in terms of costs and influence.

Henry column: Unions, negotiations the American way
By LOIS HENRY, staff columnist | Saturday, Sep 1 2007
http://www.bakersfield.com/102/story/226422.html

Cover your ears. I'm about to commit Kern County heresy.

Labor unions are not the devil's spawn.

Unions have helped improve working conditions and wages for countless Americans in all walks of life.

Without unions, average workers would not enjoy the benefits of middle class life -- safe working conditions, health insurance, retirement, livable wages -- that most of us now take for granted.

Union members turn right around and spend those livable wages on (gasp!) living. Their money is pumped back into the community through mortgages, shoes, groceries, car payments, cell phones, dance lessons, home decorating -- did I mention shoes? -- and so on and so on. Why those socialist fiends!

No one bats a capitalistic eyelash when industry strives to get the best price for its products.

In fact, right here in Kern County there are several industry cooperatives that band together for just that purpose. Calcot and the Independent Oil Producer's Agency are two that come to mind. Cotton growers and oil producers pay dues to those associations that then help market the products for the best prices.

This is how Calcot touts its services on its Web site:

"If Calcot did not exist, cotton growers would have a far more difficult time getting a fair price for their crop, since they would be at the mercy of independent buyers."

Workers' products are their time and their skills. Unions help get a better price for both.

What could be more American than that?

And while many bemoan the political power some labor unions wield, it surely isn't more than that of say Castle & Cooke, Chevron, ConAgra, or, I don't know, Halliburton.

For those who want to limit labor unions' access to politicians (and we all know campaign contributions = access) I say, fine. Do it. But be fair and curtail industry just the same.

Yes, I know some union members don't want their dues supporting political causes or candidates espoused by the union leadership. Well, I don't want the money I spend on frozen broccoli or gasoline to go to some political causes or candidates either, but realistically, I don't have much control over that.

In the interest of full disclosure, I was the vice president of the Bakersfield Newspaper Guild, Local 202, here at The Californian for several years. Ten years ago, I moved into management and have, on several occasions, been at odds with that same union.

I've seen both sides and I don't believe unions are the enemy.

I was interested to see that despite national trends, unions are not on their deathbeds here in candy-apple red Kern County.

While membership has been declining steady across the country, down from 20.1 percent in 1983 to 12 percent in 2006, to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, it's up locally.

Between 1996 and 2006, overall union membership in the Bakersfield metropolitan statistical area increased 82 percent, according to the Current Population Survey, a joint report put out by the U.S. Census Bureau and Bureau of Labor Statistics. During that same time frame, the total number of employees increased by 28.3 percent.

Though there was a healthy increase in union membership in the private sector, 56.8 percent, the majority of the increase was driven by public employee union membership, a whopping 106.4 percent.

That's a reflection of a similar whopping increase in public employment overall, 70.4 percent versus 18.2 percent in the private sector. That's another story.

Those numbers mean some public employee unions have gained strength and the scales have tipped heavily, perhaps too heavily, in their favor, especially in terms of benefits.

Kern County officials acknowledged to The Californian several years ago that it is cheaper to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in overtime to firefighters rather than hire much-needed extra hands largely because of the lucrative benefits firefighters enjoy. (This, by the way, is just one of the many reasons it's important for public employee salaries to be open to the public, as was recently affirmed by the California Supreme Court.) Not to mention all the municipalities now facing enormous unfunded liabilities because of generous retirement benefits promised to a variety of public employee unions in recent years.

Who's to blame for that? The unions? Or public officials who forgot to bring their backbone to the bargaining table and act on behalf of all their constituents, not just the few with potentially powerful campaign endorsements? But that's what negotiation is all about.

Happy Labor Day.

Lois Henry's column appears every Wednesday and Sunday. Comment on this column at http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/noholdsbarred or e-mail her at lhenry@bakersfield.com or call her at 395-7373.

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA
A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™




August 11, 2007

The charade continues...

Well the information is in. The Bureau of Labor statistics just released its most dangerous occupations list for 2006. And guess what (big surprise) firefighters and law enforcement are not even in the top 20 (have not been for years). So the next time a cop or fireman tells you their job is dangerous and that the big pay scale for only a High School diploma is justified and they need to retire at 50 (at 100% of their highest years pay) just give them this study published by their government pals over at the Bureau of Labor statistics.

Just look at a summary of the report above in the two charts below from the report (click on the charts to enlarge them):





Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA
A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™




March 29, 2007

Union facts web page

click here to read about the firefighters union.


click here to read about the police union.

February 28, 2007

TSA Union

Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 10:50:20 -0800
To: Senator@boxer.senate.gov, "U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer" , Adolfo_Bailon@boxer.senate.gov, Leannah_Bradley@boxer.senate.gov, Joy_Freiberg@boxer.senate.gov, Corey_Jackson@boxer.senate.gov, Brian_McLafferty@boxer.senate.gov, Aaron_Rosenthal@boxer.senate.gov, Gina_Semenza@boxer.senate.gov, Eram_Siddiqui@boxer.senate.gov, Kate_Simon@boxer.senate.gov, Judith_Vasquez@boxer.senate.gov, senator@feinstein.senate.gov, richard_harper@feinstein.senate.gov, mark_karesh@feinstein.senate.gov, "U.S. Congresswoman Linda Sanchez" , bill.grady@mail.house.gov, lauren.ross@mail.house.gov, iram.hasan@mail.house.gov, john.brodtke@mail.house.gov, clint.carte@mail.house.gov, romulo.rivera@mail.house.gov, karen.minatelli@mail.house.gov, rachel.potucek@mail.house.gov
From: updates@LAAG.us
Subject: Sept. 11 anti terrorism bill and the TSA union issue

Dear Senators Boxer and Feinstein and Representative Sanchez:

I dont agree with 90% of what Bush does however I do agree with his threatened veto on the Sept. 11 anti terrorism bill over the TSA union issue (see story below). There has been almost no media coverage of this provision (typical). That sort of a provision (almost as bad as an "ear mark") does not belong in this bill as it is anti taxpayer (as all public employees unions always are). For more on that issue and how public employee unions are causing the public pension system to collapse see www.LAAG.us and http://www.pensiontsunami.com/ Also unionization will have no effect on passenger safety and arguments could be made that it could decrease safety for taxpayers and only increase benefits to TSA employees. Quite frankly the screeners never should have become federal employees to begin with. It was slipped in while voters were in a state of hysteria (just like we over-reacted on Iraq) Federal requirements should have been put in place for private screeners. Federalizing thousands of jobs was a giant mistake and quite frankly the job TSA has done so far has been abysmal, especially with all the stories on the hundreds of missing uniforms. Surely that would be something that the Union would help them on. You loose a uniform you get fired. Union would prevent that. VOTE NO ON PUBLIC EMPLOYEE UNIONS AND BAILOUTS! Just because the federal govt. is infested with other unions is no reason to keep piling them on. This type of "give everyone the same sweetheart deal" thinking is what has led to our current pension and federal wage inflation problems. Search for "pensions" here

LAAG.us
Lakewood CA 90712

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WASHINGTON (AP)--U.S. President George W. Bush probably would veto a Sept. 11 antiterrorism bill if it includes a Democratic-sponsored provision to let federal airport screeners unionize, a Republican senator said Tuesday.

"The president's message on the bill is going to come out tomorrow. I think that it will contain a veto threat on the TSA collective bargaining position," Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said, referring to the Transportation Security Administration.

Collins said Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told her of the impending veto threat.

A White House spokesman didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

Such a veto threat would be an effort to flex Bush's political muscle with the new, Democratic-led Congress on the old battleground of labor rights. It also could throw an obstacle into talks over how to debate and pass the recommendations of the Sept. 11 Commission.

For now, senators are eager to follow the House and pass a bill enacting the commission's recommendations to tighten the nation's security. The House bill also includes a provision that would let TSA screeners bargain collectively.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky had reached a tentative agreement Tuesday to conduct the debate over the next 10 days without the distraction of Iraq.

The sense of urgency on the 9/11 recommendations was conveyed to both leaders in a letter Tuesday from families of those killed in the terrorist attacks on that day in 2001.

"This legislation is far too important to be politicized by...controversial amendments and debate, particularly those relating to Iraq," wrote Carol Ashley and Mary Fetchet of the Voices of September 11th.

Reid and McConnell said the Iraq debate would wait for next month, after passage of the 9/11 bill. The arrangement would allow the Senate to debate legislation bolstering antiterrorism security measures on railroads and airlines without being distracted by the furor over President Bush's buildup of troops in Iraq.

"We have got to finish this bill," Reid said as he opened the Senate session. He read parts of a letter from relatives of people killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks asking the Senate to consider the legislation "without complications regarding Iraq."

Even minus an Iraq debate, provisions in the antiterrorism bill or planned amendments make the legislation contentious.

The administration vigorously opposes a measure that would give TSA screeners the same collective bargaining and whistleblower rights held by most other federal employees. The White House also opposes an amendment that would let states delay adopting standardized drivers' licenses.

Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman of Connecticut said screeners have been denied the most basic employee protections since joining the federal payroll after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Collins said Chertoff delivered a staunch defense of the administration's position during the GOP caucus' weekly policy lunch Tuesday. She said she nonetheless plans to try to attach an amendment that would delay requirements for states to adopt national drivers license standards.

Many states have complained about the cost of the program, and civil libertarians are concerned about privacy issues.

Other measures in the bill would improve rail and aviation security, provide funds for state and local emergency communications systems, improve intelligence sharing between federal, state and local officials, and expand a visa waiver benefit for favored countries.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Screening for Unions
February 21, 2007; Wall Street Journal Page A16
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117202953048414561.html

Democrats figure they owe Big Labor for helping them take Congress, and now comes the payback. Tucked away in House and Senate bills that purport to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission is a provision that the Commission most assuredly did not recommend: collective bargaining rights for the Transportation Safety Administration's 43,000 airport screeners.

Congress created TSA in 2001 without union rights on common sense grounds that the agency overseeing airport security was more like the Defense Department than, say, Agriculture. Unionization, with its myriad work rules, would make it harder for the executive branch to hire, fire, train and reassign workers to best meet changing terrorist threats.

Democrats haven't stopped trying to overturn that decision, and in 2002 they forced a showdown with President Bush over union rights as part of creating the Department of Homeland Security. Mr. Bush opposed the effort by Senate Democrats who were then in the majority, and the dispute helped the GOP gain Senate seats that November. This may explain why Democrats are now trying to unionize TSA sotto voce, under the cover of 9/11 Commission "reforms," and so far the press corps has barely noticed.

The Bush Administration has caught on, however, and opposes the change in TSA rules. Democrats are betting the White House won't have the nerve to veto an otherwise popular, if ill-understood, bill over this single provision. Our guess is that if Mr. Bush did veto such a bill, he'd find public sympathy for an argument that he was protecting a vital national security function from being corrupted by union politics.