Nutter Grants A Big Pay Raise for City Workers Starting Today

[bootsywannabe]

I do not think a 2.5% raise for city patronage employees is reasonable, especially since they just got a raise in 2009. Many folks in the private sector and elsewhere haven't gotten raises in a very long time. We've gotten extra duties, and had to work harder to keep our jobs in a recession as many others have lost their jobs. And in light of the large increases in real estate taxes (2 hikes, of 30% total, and much more looming), as well as the increase in the sales tax (during a recession), and the teeny tiny maybe reduction in wage taxes, BPT, NPT, etc., I especially do not support raises for City Employees, unless they are real standouts performance-wise. Is this clear to you now Thoth you twit?

[govtstatistic]

I guess this makes up for the 2% tax increase for all workers ( city and otherwise )(across the board) due to take effect jan 1 2013.
link was provided in another thread

[five apples]

I think the big story here is that new employees will be moved into a 401k type plan which is very good for the city going forward. A 2.5% raise is not much at all and considering they now have to contribute more to health and retirement, probably means for many a pay decrease. The Unions need to get realistic at some point, I don't even understand why they would still want to be tied to a pension that just might not be there in the future.

[toxigal]

I do not think a 2.5% raise for city patronage employees is reasonable, especially since they just got a raise in 2009. Many folks in the private sector and elsewhere haven't gotten raises in a very long time. We've gotten extra duties, and had to work harder to keep our jobs in a recession as many others have lost their jobs. And in light of the large increases in real estate taxes (2 hikes, of 30% total, and much more looming), as well as the increase in the sales tax (during a recession), and the teeny tiny maybe reduction in wage taxes, BPT, NPT, etc., I especially do not support raises for City Employees, unless they are real standouts performance-wise. Is this clear to you now Thoth you twit?

"WHAAAAAA, I haven't gotten a raise in a few years so nobody else should either." maybe you have just chosen the wrong career path. i've gotten lovely raises every year since i started my job in 2008. nice bonuses too.

hey, i know, you should go work for the city! then you'd be getting a pay raise.

[thoth]

I do not think a 2.5% raise for city patronage employees is reasonable, especially since they just got a raise in 2009. Many folks in the private sector and elsewhere haven't gotten raises in a very long time. We've gotten extra duties, and had to work harder to keep our jobs in a recession as many others have lost their jobs. And in light of the large increases in real estate taxes (2 hikes, of 30% total, and much more looming), as well as the increase in the sales tax (during a recession), and the teeny tiny maybe reduction in wage taxes, BPT, NPT, etc., I especially do not support raises for City Employees, unless they are real standouts performance-wise. Is this clear to you now Thoth you twit?

A miniscule yearly raise that is offset by health care costs and pension reform is far from the most outrageous administrative move the city has made in recent memory. You do understand that those tax increases are vainly trying to pay for spiraling healthcare and pension costs right? Sorry if you haven't been able to get a sub-1% raise two or three times in five years, I guess that explains your agitated state.

[bootsywannabe]

Let's see, 5500 patronage workers at 100K average annual compensation equals 5.5 x 10(8). That's 550 million dollars a year bud. We can easily cut half our patronage workers, and half our existing civil service and particularly union employees. That's real savings. That's the kind of cuts the private sector has seen during the Obama recession. How about our pork barrel city government sees similar cuts now, instead of jacking our taxes up yet again while cutting services.

[thoth]

okay so we're back to the assumption that the entire non-union workforce at the City of Philadelphia is comprised of patronage workers.

Let's see, 5500 patronage workers at 100K average annual compensation equals 5.5 x 10(8). That's 550 million dollars a year bud. We can easily cut half our patronage workers, and half our existing civil service and particularly union employees. That's real savings. That's the kind of cuts the private sector has seen during the Obama recession. How about our pork barrel city government sees similar cuts now, instead of jacking our taxes up yet again while cutting services.

[toxigal]

okay so we're back to the assumption that the entire non-union workforce at the City of Philadelphia is comprised of patronage workers.

I suspect bootsy does not understand the concept of patronage employee.

[thoth]

I suspect bootsy does not understand the concept of patronage employee.

patronage employee = any city employee

It's the same logic he used elsewhere. that because some part of the city is verifiably corrupt, the rest of the city must be corrupt as well. Therefore any action that does not result in the total dismantling of the city government is futile and a waste of money.

That is almost a factual statement. However, even though I got out of working with the city because of frustrations with the bureaucracy, I've spent enough time within city departments to know that as much as people like to run city workers through the wringer, the vast majority are not shiftless political appointees.

[bootsywannabe]

okay so we're back to the assumption that the entire non-union workforce at the City of Philadelphia is comprised of patronage workers.

That's a ridiculous assumption, and I certainly never leaped to that conclusion, whereas you somehow would like to make it seem that I did.

Do we need 5500 political patronage positions. How many civil service positions are there? How many union positions are there?

There are many positions that could be cut, and this would save us 100s of millions of dollars.

Much better to do this than to give City employees raises, and raise taxes.

As I understand your argument, (a) you do not like me, (b) you have no other opinion, (c) you think it's OK to give raises to City employees when our City is broke, and our City government keeps raising taxes.

What is your proposal oh enlightened one?

[OffenseTaken]

That's a ridiculous assumption, and I certainly never leaped to that conclusion, whereas you somehow would like to make it seem that I did.

MAYOR NUTTER ANNOUNCES COMPENSATION/BENEFITS REFORM PACKAGE FOR 5,500 CITY EMPLOYEES « City of Philadelphia's News & Alerts

2.5% extra for 5500 bull**** patronage jobs, some savings

Bootsy, you're on the right track. Patronage? HUGE problem in this city. This is just not an consequence of that, as has been demonstrated more than once in this forum.

You don't want to raise pitchforks every time you read "city workers" and "pay raise" in the same sentence, and to hell with the details, because then when real corruption comes along, people will just say "it must be no big deal, 'cuz that guy is going nuts again." I don't want you to lose credibility, because what you say about patronage per se is exactly right.

[thoth]

You literally just implied, again, that there are 5500 patronage employees at the city, which is roughly the number of non-union city workers as stated up thread and in the linked article. Immediately before that you said that you never claimed all non-union city workers were patronage employees. Well, where did you get the "5500 patronage employee" number from? Then you admitted you didn't really know how many patronage employees there were, nor did you know how many union employees there were. Are you having a stroke?

I've stated my opinion repeatedly and consistently. I think the small pay increase and re***gered benefit package introduced to non-union employees is fair as it will likely be close to revenue neutral in the long run through pension and benefit savings. I believe it was an attempt to set a precedent for union negotiations, and one that ought to be adopted or forced upon the unions to deal with the real problem at hand, which is spiraling pension and benefit costs. Not slight increase in cash the minority of non-union workers who are also patronage employees will see.

That's a ridiculous assumption, and I certainly never leaped to that conclusion, whereas you somehow would like to make it seem that I did.

Do we need 5500 political patronage positions. How many civil service positions are there? How many union positions are there?

There are many positions that could be cut, and this would save us 100s of millions of dollars.

Much better to do this than to give City employees raises, and raise taxes.

As I understand your argument, (a) you do not like me, (b) you have no other opinion, (c) you think it's OK to give raises to City employees when our City is broke, and our City government keeps raising taxes.

What is your proposal oh enlightened one?

[ShoshTrvls]

I do not think a 2.5% raise for city patronage employees is reasonable, especially since they just got a raise in 2009. Many folks in the private sector and elsewhere haven't gotten raises in a very long time. We've gotten extra duties, and had to work harder to keep our jobs in a recession as many others have lost their jobs. And in light of the large increases in real estate taxes (2 hikes, of 30% total, and much more looming), as well as the increase in the sales tax (during a recession), and the teeny tiny maybe reduction in wage taxes, BPT, NPT, etc., I especially do not support raises for City Employees, unless they are real standouts performance-wise. Is this clear to you now Thoth you twit?

Do you think the city's workers are in any different position? Most live in the city and shop in the city, so they will also be hit by the tax increases.