Out of curiosity, are you saying the average municipal salary is 26,000/yr? I'm not sure that's right, at least according to the quick and dirty math I did from the city's CAFR.
My numbers were based on memory and were slightly off, but not by much. Tom Ferrick did an analysis of Philadelphia's budget in 1960 versus today: Philadelphia 1960 | Its Our City | WHYY
The first number is from 1960, the second is from the '08-'09 budget
City Employees 27,448 | 24,585
Avg Salary - City Employee $ 27,219 | $ 28,822
Avg Benefit Cost $ 4,825 | $ 36,997
As you can see, the average wage has effectively decreased over time due to inflation, but of course the health/pension costs have increased more than seven fold.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillyRunner
By my calculations, that means there are just over 11,000 employees involved in the provision of police, fire, and sanitation services, leaving some 17,400 employees doing everything else, including ~2,400 "General management and support" personnel.
If you factor in Prison and courts as generally "Law Enforcement" related (which is a provision of police services), the number increases by about 4500. Even disregarding the differences in our total employee statistic, this makes it close to even.
My numbers were based on memory and were slightly off, but not by much. Tom Ferrick did an analysis of Philadelphia's budget in 1960 versus today: Philadelphia 1960 | Its Our City | WHYY
The first number is from 1960, the second is from the '08-'09 budget
City Employees 27,448 | 24,585 Avg Salary - City Employee $ 27,219 | $ 28,822
Avg Benefit Cost $ 4,825 | $ 36,997
As you can see, the average wage has effectively decreased over time due to inflation, but of course the health/pension costs have increased more than seven fold.
Hmmm.
Which makes me wonder ...
Is the reason for this is that, if you trade small pay raises for large pension increases, does that mayor pretty much balance his union contract budget on the backs of future mayors?
So has there been any clarity on the definition of freezing pension benefits for current employees? The city's finance director (I think) made a statement that the city's interpretation was that employees could still accrue years of service, the pension board just couldn't change the rate per year. I've heard diferent things from the state.
While it's a good idea, isn't it balancing the pension issues on the backs of newer employees (say those who have worked for the city for 5 years)? They're pension is frozen at 10% of their current salary, even if they work for the city for another 20 years? Do we change the regs to allow them to stop making contributions or switch to the new plan? Does that make the fund even more under-funded?
I'm thinking it's starting to sound like social security where the y'ungins are paying and paying and paying with little chance of ever seeing their contributions back.
Are you dense? The FOP trots out families who have suffered a loss. Just to work on everyone's emotions.
Just know that the FOP didn't trot anybody out there. Those families volunteered their time to put a face on the situation. All the politicians out there see are what they want to see. They have to be made to see the faces of those people whom their political based bull**** games affect. These are some of the same politicians who pour out alligator tears at a cop funeral and talk about the benefits they deserve for giving all and then spit on the officer's grave with their true actions a few months later.
Can someone post a factual list of what the city actually counts to get the total of fringe benefits per employee?? Ferrick only lists health, pension and disability in his article
Just know that the FOP didn't trot anybody out there. Those families volunteered their time to put a face on the situation. All the politicians out there see are what they want to see. They have to be made to see the faces of those people whom their political based bull**** games affect. These are some of the same politicians who pour out alligator tears at a cop funeral and talk about the benefits they deserve for giving all and then spit on the officer's grave with their true actions a few months later.
that's a bit over the top. Pensions are but one facet of city employment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valley Twin
While it's a good idea, isn't it balancing the pension issues on the backs of newer employees (say those who have worked for the city for 5 years)? They're pension is frozen at 10% of their current salary, even if they work for the city for another 20 years? Do we change the regs to allow them to stop making contributions or switch to the new plan? Does that make the fund even more under-funded?
I'm thinking it's starting to sound like social security where the y'ungins are paying and paying and paying with little chance of ever seeing their contributions back.
You're probably right but that's also the most likely scenario. there are few new employees than retired or close to retirement and people don't feel bad for them. In San Juan, PR where pensions are worse, that's exactly what happened. they have to help support the pension system but are not eligible and receive a 401k. The 401k parts is fine, but supporting the pension system hurts. Of course, at least the problem is no longer getting worse and eventually they will have paid it off. In the long run I'd like to see pensions eliminated and salaries increased. In the short run, banning pension increases for underfunded plans seems like common sense. If you can't fund current promises, how will you fund future promises?
__________________
"It has shown me that everything is illuminated in the light of the past"
Jonathan Safran Foer
Just know that the FOP didn't trot anybody out there. Those families volunteered their time to put a face on the situation. All the politicians out there see are what they want to see. They have to be made to see the faces of those people whom their political based bull**** games affect. These are some of the same politicians who pour out alligator tears at a cop funeral and talk about the benefits they deserve for giving all and then spit on the officer's grave with their true actions a few months later.
Hmmm... I can't quite see how trying to bolster the city's long-term fiscal health is tantamount to "spit[ting] on the officer's grave". Nutter (and, in theory, our sad excuse of a City Council) have an obligation to the entire city and to the taxpayers who fund the city government.
I suppose one thing that confuses me about the FOP's protests: if being a police officer is truly a noble sacrifice (and occasionally entails the ultimate sacrifice), then an officer's willingness to do that job and do it well shouldn't be predicated on what kind of retirement or survivor's package (s)he or his/her spouse receives. If the job did not provide sufficient pay and benefits to attract candidates, then the city would need to enhance them. That's how labor markets work. But, unless someone can point to data showing otherwise, I don't think the issue we have is with not being able to attract new officers. Rather, the issue seems to be with how we afford them, given the pay and benefits they receive.
Many workers in private industries are suffering through a tough job environment, and the city's budget is feeling the pinch of the difficult economy. It is simply illogical for municipal employees (including police officers and fire fighters) to presume that their pay and benefits should somehow be insulated from these difficulties. Ultimately, if the city's government cannot find a way to limit its spending to a level that is commensurate with the city's generally meager resources, then the tax burden that has been (and will be) required to support that government will continue to eat away at the city's tax base.
In other news, it appears that the House and Senate leadership are talking.
Quote:
Representatives of the House Democratic majority and the Senate Republican majority are discussing possible changes to the pension provisions.
Compromise, perhaps? As this thread and others show, I'm not much of a prognosticator; but I would guess that a compromise would mean that either the freeze on current benefits or the effectively-mandated switch to a defined contribution plan will go. (Alternatively, the Senate Republicans might just give up on the pension amendments entirely in exchange for a concession on the state budget negotiations.)
Labor will target lawmakers who vote for pension bill
"People who vote for H.B. 1828 need to be on notice. They're on our hit list," Bill George, president of Pennsylvania AFL-CIO, told workers at the rally.
"Coming from South Philadelphia, I know a little bit about hit lists," said Rep. Bill Keller, D-Philadelphia. "The hit list you do not want to be on is Bill George's hit list."
The next step is to bring out the Shanksville 9/11 victims and people who are missing limbs and homeless vets in wheelchairs hooked up to dialysis machines.
Basically, do everything to distract the public about the City's unsustainable cost structure.
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4702 Threats and other improper influence in official and political matters
Quote:
(a) Offenses defined.--A person commits an offense if he:
(1) threatens unlawful harm to any person with intent to influence his decision, opinion, recommendation, vote or other exercise of discretion as a public servant, party official or voter;
(2) threatens unlawful harm to any public servant with intent to influence his decision, opinion, recommendation, vote or other exercise of discretion in a judicial or administrative proceeding; or
(3) threatens unlawful harm to any public servant or party official with intent to influence him to violate his known legal duty.
Perhaps, though, Bill George and Bill Keller were speaking metaphorically about hit lists...
Threats from organized labor of a "hit list" of anyone who votes for HR 1828.
On a positive note, it seems the Pittsburgh issue is resolved; that may win some votes in the Western part of the state. This is from the Pittsburgh Tribune:
By Brad Bumsted
STATE CAPITOL REPORTER
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Buzz up!
HARRISBURG — A labor leader threatened Tuesday to compile a "hit list" of lawmakers who would be targeted for defeat if they support pension legislation that unions say would destroy collective bargaining.
As hundreds of police, firefighters and other municipal workers rallied yesterday at the Capitol urging defeat of House Bill 1828, legislative leaders scrambled to draft a compromise measure that House members can consider when they vote Thursday.
"People who vote for H.B. 1828 need to be on notice. They're on our hit list," Bill George, president of Pennsylvania AFL-CIO, told workers at the rally.
"Coming from South Philadelphia, I know a little bit about hit lists," said Rep. Bill Keller, D-Philadelphia. "The hit list you do not want to be on is Bill George's hit list."
An effort is under way to strike a compromise on statewide pension legislation, which would balance concerns raised by organized labor and provide relief for underfunded municipal pension systems, lawmakers said.
"It's my understanding the four caucuses are working on amendment," said Sen. Jay Costa, D-Forest Hills, referring to leaders of both parties in the House and Senate.
The amendment would include a two-year exemption from state takeover for Pittsburgh, said Costa, ranking Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee.
"We've got everybody trying to get together on a consensus document," said Johnna Pro, spokeswoman for House Appropriations Committee Chairman Dwight Evans, D-Philadelphia.
The bill proposes an extra 1 percent sales tax in Philadelphia to help it address fiscal problems. The measure also would place pension funds with less than half the assets needed to cover liabilities under the Pennsylvania Municipal Retirement System. In its present form, the bill is "dead in the House," said Rep. Dan Frankel, D-Squirrel Hill.
Joe King, president of International Association of Fire Fighters Local No. 1 in Pittsburgh, said Pennsylvania voters four decades ago gave police and firefighters the right of collective bargaining.
"This takes away those rights. That's what's wrong," King said.
The legislation would freeze benefits and allow defined contribution plans for new pension members.
"The question: 'Is there some middle ground?'" Frankel said. "There might be some softening of the provisions for organized labor."
The House approved the bill in July as fiscal relief for Philadelphia. Two weeks ago, the Senate amended the measure to include statewide reform of municipal pension systems.
The Pittsburgh exemption "is pretty well resolved," Frankel said. "The question is all the pension-reform language in the Senate amendment."
"Everybody's gong to have to give a little bit — including organized labor," Frankel said.
Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter is poised to lay off thousands of city workers — including police officers — if the sales tax isn't approved. His supporters fear the Senate might not approve the bill if the Senate amendment is stripped from the measure.
"We do not believe H.B. 1828 can pass in the Senate without including pension reforms," said Erik Arneson, spokesman for Senate Republicans. "... Any change to that compromise will require careful analysis by the Senate, and may result in substantial delays, additional amendments, or even non-passage of the bill."
Basically, do everything to distract the public about the City's unsustainable cost structure.
Nutter is doing all he can I'm sure to remind the House about the unsustainable cost structure. What gets said to the public means little at this point.
There are other shopping corridors besides those in Center City, such as Chestnut Hill, where nearby suburban shopping malls are far closer. And offer 6% sales tax. Retailers are worried.
__________________ In amore e in guerra tutto e lecito.
There are other shopping corridors besides those in Center City, such as Chestnut Hill, where nearby suburban shopping malls are far closer. And offer 6% sales tax. Retailers are worried.
I'm guessing that sales taxes in Philly will end up having a regressive effect, as people with cars and money will be shopping beyond the reach of the tax.
I'm guessing that sales taxes in Philly will end up having a regressive effect, as people with cars and money will be shopping beyond the reach of the tax.
Studies show the elasticity of a sales tax is 1:1. In other words, for every 1% you raise the tax, you get 1% less than expected.
Since we are raising the sales tax 14%, we will most likely only collect 86% of the expected revenue.
This would have more of an impact for those IN the burbs that come shop into the city, No?
I can tell say for myself I for one will not be going to the burbs to save the extra 1%. Is just not that big of a saving difference...
There are other shopping corridors besides those in Center City, such as Chestnut Hill, where nearby suburban shopping malls are far closer. And offer 6% sales tax. Retailers are worried.
