[camle]

well let’s see. this certainly is an inflammatory article, but what does it really tell us?
we don’t know how long these people have been at their jobs, nor what they do. we don’t know what the educational requirements are, nor how much continual training they must go through every now adn again.
we don’t know the qualifications to get hired, nor the conditions under which these people labor.

but we have our noses wiped with their salary as if that is the end-all-be-all of the jobs.

propaganda folks. don’t let it rile you up - that what it’s supposed to do.

[Squawk 8888]

I agree. Having worked in the public sector, I know that the pay and benefits for *most* jobs are better than what one would get in the private sector but (1) some of that is recompense for the kind of BS that one has to deal with and (2) the pay rates are not what costs the taxpayer a mint, it’s the work rules. Because of the way union contracts are negotiated, most cities have to hire 3-4 people to do the work of one person because of contractual restrictions on the way work gets assigned.

[businessprofessor]

The missing issue is the market for their skills. Since the purpose of a union is to stifle the market, we will never know the market for their skills. Market-driven wages would account for all advantages and disadvantages of public employment in this agency.

Salaries are not the real issue. Pensions and pre retirement health care are the real elephants in the room. California and many other states face crises over unfunded liabilities. The unfunded liabilities represent vast reservoirs of deferred compensation. It is not necessary to pay this large amount of deferred compensation to attract a competent workforce. Public employees should get the same deal that pervades the private sector: 401K and social security.

Californians need to support the California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility. This group will try to get an initiative on the ballot to raise the retirement age for defined benefit pensions.