<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSN2820979720080429">Don't blame the current CALPERS chief.</a> She only took over after things started going south. While I would like to think that these folks know more than most and didn't suffer any losses or less than the market has taken to date, I don't know if that is realistic. Some (then?) very well respected investment advisors I'm aware of doubled down on Fannie and Freddie after their first big tumble, at a point when a know-nothing like me would have bailed. Which I guess is a long way of saying I don't understand why you would have expected CALPERS to have a better result than Bear, Merrill, etc. I can understand <em>wanting</em> them to have a better result, but I don't know that it is reasonable to expect it.
I would also like to thank apcme for his understanding and support. I have been following this thread off and on (and two other related ones) when I have been able, and there were times I wondered if the rest of you wouldn't find it a better use of my skills and abilities as a public employee to simply drag a razor across my wrists. Imagine my surprise when reading this thread (or one of the other ones) at 3 a.m. while waiting for a large document to print (no fancy fast printers for us!) and learning that I basically sit on my butt all day looking out the window, moving only enough to empty the wallets of passers-by. (No, no one said that exactly, but is my interpretation that far off?). The vitriol put me in a funk for weeks.
From what I've read, it appears that people don't understand all the parts of the issues, and I blame the media for that because they have done a piss poor job by conflating many of the various issues into a lump. What do you mean by "state employees?" I ask because within the state, there are three branches of government (executive, legislative, and judicial), city and county governments, and special districts (e.g., water districts, vector control districts, redevelopment agencies), and other public entities such as the UCs and CSUs, among others. Within each of these, there are different levels of employees such as hourly vs. salary, represented vs. not, executive vs. managerial vs. supervisory vs. not, and the salaries and benefits for each of these is determined differently not just for the type of employee, but for whom they work. Not all public employees are union members. Executive and managerial employees cannot be union members (if everybody is ?labor,? who is ?management??), and some professionals might be, but not all are. Further, the agreements vary by bargaining unit, so what an employee of the City of Oakland gets is different from a represented UC employee, which is different from a County of Orange represented employee, which is different from a represented DMV employee, which is different from a CHP patrol officer, and so on.
If you run a search for "wimpy," you will see that I have explained this compensation scheme (in particular the retirement benefits) as "The Wimpy Rule," as in "I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today." Public entities pay less in salary for similar work and experience in exchange for making it up with better benefits. People talk about how the <em>unfunded</em> retirement promises of the various public entities will doom ?taxpayers.? Well, public employees are taxpayers, too, so if tax rates go up, they go up on us too. We don?t have some special public employee tax shield. Moreover, can someone explain to me how it is the employee?s fault that the various state, county, city, and special district governing bodies chose to not set aside sufficient money as they went along? Personally, I think that is the more responsible thing, but instead many chose to ?current fund? them (i.e., pay them as they became due) or engage in overly optimistic scenarios as to investment returns which would allow for a combination of ongoing set aside, investment return, and current funding. At this point, the public has received its end of the bargain ? the labor ? and it is an intangible that cannot be returned, so it hardly seems fair to take away a bargained and ?paid? for benefit. (Not to mention that the Contracts Clause of the US Constitution does not allow non-federal public entities to break their contracts with impunity.)
Somebody, somewhere brought up the retirement benefits of a retired Anaheim city manager. That is a local executive employee. His salary and benefits were set by the city counsel and were negotiated like the CEO of a private company. His retirement might be paid <em>through</em> CALPERS, but it is paid <em>by</em> the City of Anaheim. The "CEO" of my public entity made approximately $235K per year (after ~35 years with this entity). He managed an entity of ~1800 people across six sites. I don't know exactly what someone with similar experience and responsibility would command in the private sector, but I have no doubt that it would have been more than $235K per year. But in exchange for the lower than average pay "today," he got a retirement package "tomorrow" and some decent benefits. (Or as Steve Lopez would say "Cadillac benefits." But my question is, "Cadillac" compared to what?)
If these jobs are oh-so-cushy, I'm really curious why no one here bothered to get one when the public sector was hiring?
Oh wait, it's because they are not.
I took an ~33% pay cut to work in the public sector (really, more like 50% when you consider that I cannot earn a bonus like I used to). Roughly every three years I <em>might</em> get a cost of living increase. I got one last year, but that has now been erased (and more) by the deficit-induced pay cut. Being civil service, I have a small range of "merit" (i.e., performance) raise I can qualify for. (If you have been in the military or federal government, this scheme might be familiar to you.) And while I am happy to see that my superiors think enough of me to give me a greater than average merit increase, it speeds up the time in which I will cap my salary, when I hit the top of the range. I have a colleague who after working in her job for five years would only get a pay increase in the rare years COLAs were given. If she works there for 20 years, 10+ of them will be without a pay raise of any kind. She is one they would want to keep, too, because her work ethic and skills are both amazing, even though she no longer gets a raise.
"Well, you work less, so you've traded money for time." WRONG. I work harder now than I used to in the private sector. My schedule is more grueling and I have far less control over it because it is set by the public. The amount of work I have to do is determined by the greater and collective you, and y?all have decided to use my agency?s service more than ever. Oh, and I'm salaried, so no fat overtime for me. In another thread, somebody said, ?I hear government employees only work three to four hours a day.? I will readily admit that that is true for me ? when I work on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays (which is more often than not).
If making money is your #1 priority, working as public employee makes no sense. Even though I took a big pay cut for more work, I really like my job. I like the people I work with and the work is challenging and engaging. Those are qualities that are more important to me than money. (Money comes in around #3, 'cause I still have to make a living.) There were some jobs I had where I made really good money, but simply hated them because of the people and/or the work (which was so not challenging, I actually got dumber by the day from not using my brain).
Back in January, George Skelton was complaining that no one except public employees get Martin Luther King day off and that public employees should be compensated more like private employees. And if that is the route people want to go, fine by me. Give me a $60K to $80K raise, and allow me to earn bonuses. I can pretty much guess, however, that no one wants to pay the taxes to cover that.
I have a lot more I could share, but this is already too long. If anyone has questions, I?m happy to answer them to the extent I know the answer.
