San Francisco Labor Council Executive Director Tim Paulson. File photo by Luke Thomas.
By Rod Ciferri
July 15, 2010
Public Defender Jeff Adachi’s proposal for city employees to contribute 1.5 to 2.5 percent more into their pensions and to pay more of their healthcare costs, has elicited howls of anger by “labor” who slam it as anti “worker.”
Critics, such as San Francisco Labor Council Executive Director Tim Paulson, say Adachi’s proposal “attacks” the “lowest paid workers.”
The “left” weeps for the loss of “progressives” such as Adachi and Matt Gonzalez whom they perceive as abandoning the people and joining the ranks of the downtown elite.
“How can this be?” they cry.
How, indeed.
I know both Adachi and Gonzalez and would be shocked if they had become anti-worker. I set out to gather facts to see if it is true.
For starters, who is “labor?”
In the context of Adachi’s proposal, “labor” is the organization of city employees purportedly represented by a centralized spokesperson (Paulson).
The city employees who comprise “labor” number approximately 27,000 workers.
Of those 27,000 city employees, approximately 9,000 have incomes of $100,000 or more.
Furthermore, the average income per capita of “labor” is approximately $93,000.
In contrast, who is the “worker?”
There are approximately 470,000 workers in San Francisco (including city employees).
The average income per capita of all workers in San Francisco – with the much higher city employee salaries factored in – is approximately $46,000.
“Labor” comprises approximately 6 percent of all workers in San Francisco.
“Labor” earns approximately twice as much as the average San Francisco worker.
Consequently, “labor” is the elite of workers in San Francisco.
So, why is such an elite purporting to speak for all workers? Why does the “left” believe that elite represents all workers?
If these statistics are true, the “labor” elite cannot be allowed to spin a proposal requiring greater contribution to their pensions as “anti-worker.”
The other 94 percent of the working population of San Francisco won’t allow “labor” to exploit them at the expense of city services they rely on.
I welcome comments correcting any mistaken statistics I may have relied upon above.
Rod Ciferri is a lawyer in New York State who resides in California.
Attorney Rod Ciferri
The Hunger Site
August 11, 2010 at 6:07 pm
Of course, the article in The Nation said the same thing, however some commenters have tried to debunk that study by claiming that it was funded by a front group for public employees. That’s why I was excited to see Paul Krugman weighing in on this. To quote the study from the Center for Economic and Policy Research:
“The problem with these analyses is that state and local government workers have much higher levels of formal education and are older (and therefore generally more experienced) than workers in the private sector. When state and local government employees are compared to private-sector workers with similar characteristics, state and local workers actually earn 4 percent LESS, on average, than their private-sector counterparts.” (caps are mine)
Here’s the link for that study:
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/wage-penalty-state-local-gov-employees/
And here’s the link to the other study that was mentioned in The Nation:
http://www.nirsonline.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=395&Itemid=48
For what it’s worth, yet another study by Professor Jeffrey H. Keefe of the Rutgers University School of Management and Labor Relations found that total compensation for private and public sector workers in New Jersey is about equal — that is, their salaries are lower but the benefits are better, so it evens out. I imagine the same is true for California public workers (still researching this) — that is, they either earn less than or about equal to private sector workers, even with benefits. Either way, they clearly do *not* represent an “elite” nor “a new privileged class of workers” as the Mad Hatter tea partiers would have it.
Here’s the link for the Rutgers study:
http://media.nj.com/ledgerupdates_impact/other/nj-public-private-compensation.pdf
You may want to consider the company you keep when you start attacking unionized workers. As Amy Traub concluded in her piece in The Nation, “…it’s a short step from lambasting public workers to rejecting the very idea of public goods and services—and of government itself. With the nation still reeling from the harm caused by underregulated markets, conservatives are using city and state budget crises to call for across-the-board privatization, entrusting unaccountable private companies with an ever greater share of the public good. At the same time, the myth of the overpaid public employee is being used to undermine a range of progressive priorities, from financial reform to job creation bills like the Local Jobs for America Act, which would boost the economy by preserving public services and public sector jobs. It’s time for progressives to fight back and confront the falsehood.”
Well, it’s been fun… Ciao bello!
August 10, 2010 at 6:22 pm
Rod, Rod, Rod!! Did you happen to catch yesterday’s editorial in the NY Times by Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman? (“Schoolteachers Driving Cadillacs”) Remember what I said?:
“Could it be that public workers are held to a higher standard in general? That would certainly go to the merits — that is to say, if public workers generally have higher qualifications, more years of experience, etc. (If these “elite” jobs are the ones everyone is coveting, the city can afford to be choosy, no?)”
Well, it turns out that I was right! Krugman cites a study by John Schmitt of the Center for Economic and Policy Research which shows that public workers on average are better educated, older and have more experience than their counterparts in the private-sector. And that’s not all. Krugman took a look at the overall picture for state and local spending, and found that “a few percent either way in workers’ compensation would not make a big difference to state and local spending. This is a phony issue.
Of course, so were the welfare queens.”
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/schoolteachers-driving-cadillacs/
July 29, 2010 at 3:35 pm
Rod says:
I wonder whether supporting Smart Reform is a smart political move as well. I guess only time will tell.
From the responses here — mostly negative — clearly such support is a political risk.
I say:
Well Rod, I’m glad you concede that SR might be a smart political move. From the responses I’m seeing in other forums, it’s appears to be a winner. I suspect that Adachi and Gonzalez knew full well that it would be, and that this initiative is part of their strategy to win. Sadly, it won’t be the first nor the last time that politicians have exploited the fears and resentments of the voters to ascend to power. Check out this article in The Nation (“War on Public Workers” by Amy Traub, July 5, 2010):
“This decades-old assault on government employees has acquired new potency at a time of widespread economic suffering and populist rage. But the attacks have little basis in reality. A recent study by the Center for State and Local Government Excellence and the National Institute on Retirement Security finds that when such factors as education and work experience are accounted for, state and local employees earn 11 to 12 percent less than comparable private sector workers. Even when public employees’ relatively decent pensions and health coverage are included, their total compensation still lags behind workers in private industry.A separate analysis by the Center for Housing Policy finds that despite recent declines in home prices, police officers and elementary school teachers still don’t earn enough to buy a typical house in two out of five metro areas. Firefighters and librarians are unable to afford the median home in the New York, Los Angeles and Chicago metro areas. Nationwide, a school bus driver’s wage isn’t enough to pay rent on a standard two-bedroom apartment.
[…]
The lavish lifestyle of public workers is a myth, but the right-wing mythmakers know it’s a powerful talking point. By attacking public workers, they can demonize ‘big labor’ and “big government” at the same time, while deflecting attention from the more logical target of Middle America’s rage: the irresponsible Wall Street traders, whose risky, high-profit business practices brought down the economy, and the lax regulators who let them get away with it.
At its heart, the scapegoating of public employees is an insidious way to divide public and private sector workers who share many of the same interests. The Manhattan Institute’s Nicole Gelinas, for example, cynically argues that cutting pensions for transit employees is an act of ‘pure social justice’ because it might spare minimum-wage workers higher subway fares. *Absent is any disussion of raising the minimum wage or of more progressive means of funding the transit system.* Low-wage workers aren’t Gelinas’s real concern; they’re just a rhetorical device in her assault on public employees.”
http://www.thenation.com/article/war-public-workers
July 28, 2010 at 6:13 pm
Rod says:
Ah, zee franshh. I never met a French person I didn’t like. Love ‘em — even the odd Frenchman hurling insults at me! I once dated a French woman who came to New York at the age of 18 because some French guy who lived there for a time (and couldn’t make it) said “you’ll never make it.” She didn’t just make it — she kicked ass! Anyway, we had a falling out…personal thing…my fault. You see, us Italians do enjoy a good dispute as well.
digo yo:
Ha! Well, we should get along famously then. Come to think of it, I never met an Italian person I didn’t like. And if there’s a fallout , it should be spectacular, considering our respective blood lines.
{I dont’ have a lot of time today, so I’ll skip to your last statement. }
I agree. Wait till you see that blog. More like the government forcing bankers to spend the money already. It’s coming.
digo yo:
Most mysterious! Yeah, they’re giving away the store, and you’re worried about public employees? When and where can I look forward to this blog? Dig this:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/07/23/us_pay_czar
I should have time to joust with you tomorrow…
July 27, 2010 at 7:39 pm
Lisa:
Lisa said:
Goodness, Rod, how am I ever going to get through if you keep pouncing on my answers so fast? Ay!
I say:
Oops, I did it again!
Lisa said:
I can see that I’ve ruffled your feathers a bit
I say:
Yup.
Lisa said:
I get it from my dad and from the French half of my family who love nothing more than a good dispute.
I say:
Ah, zee franshh. I never met a French person I didn’t like. Love ’em — even the odd Frenchman hurling insults at me! I once dated a French woman who came to New York at the age of 18 because some French guy who lived there for a time (and couldn’t make it) said “you’ll never make it.” She didn’t just make it — she kicked ass! Anyway, we had a falling out…personal thing…my fault. You see, us Italians do enjoy a good dispute as well.
Lisa Said:
It would be better if you take what I say as conjecture or just a gut feeling
I say:
I don’t begrudge you speaking your gut feeling. I did it too, in these comments, when I speculated that perhaps city employees make more income across all job categories than non-city employees. I just wanted to make sure you didn’t have some statistics or something I should be looking at that would make me change my position on the issue.
Lisa said:
I’ll tell you my wildest conjecture about what’s really motivating this campaign, but I’ll save it for last.
I say:
Mysterious.
Lisa said:
I do have trouble with your use of the word “elite”, which seems likely to prejudice people due to its negative connotations.
I say:
Yeah, I guess that one really set off some hypnotic triggers.
I suppose I could have used the definition of the word “elite” in making my argument, instead of neatly wrapping my idea in such a tiny yet explosive word.
Lisa said:
Unfortunately, it has already resulted in a negative backlash towards city workers, which I find disturbing.
I say:
I agree.
Lisa said:
I think is very unfair and unfortunate.
I said:
Me too. City employees should not bear the brunt of anger over the economic malaise in general. Maybe that malaise can be lessened for more than six percent of the working population if the city employees take some of the pension and health care burden off the city coffers.
Lisa said:
That said, I have to take issue with your contention that the inequities have been more than corrected. I have met workers like Esme, both the public and private sector, who are still fighting for better working conditions.
I say:
I’m not saying working conditions cannot be better. They should be — for all workers.
Lisa said:
And what about all those nonprofit workers. I could tell you a story about that since my ex-husband used to worked for a nonprofit organization in SF that was partly funded by city monies. He was a union worker, too, but the pay was really pitiful.
I say:
Yes, I suspect most non-profit employees make peanuts compared to what some of their peers are making in both city and private employment.
Lisa said:
the federal government is more interested in warmongering and bailing out the Wall Street speculators than spending money on education, health care, and other social programs (or in aiding the states) .
I say:
I agree. Wait till you see that blog. More like the government forcing bankers to spend the money already. It’s coming.
July 27, 2010 at 5:05 pm
Continuing on…
Rod says:
because of the average income numbers, I suspect that they [city workers] make way more income than their counter parts in the unrepresented private sector.
Of course, I am still waiting for someone to show me numbers that prove that is not the case. If you have any please post them here.
my response:
Rod, it is *not* up to city workers nor their defenders to prove that they are innocent of the charge you’re leveling at them. You’re the one making the allegation that public workers constitute a separate, elite class, distinct from other workers. All we really need to do is show that an ordinary, sensible person could have a reasonable doubt about the stats you’re flinging around. And I think that any reasonable person would have ample room to doubt a math-challenged lawyer using nebulous and misleading stats to make a case against city workers.
The statistics from the comptroller’s office that you found in the paper are so lacking in any kind of specificity as to be laughable. As Chris Daly pointed out, there’s no indication of the distribution of salaries across the bargaining units (nor across sectors, for that matter). So right there, a reason for doubt. And I pointed out the difficulty in determining the average salary for comparable jobs in the private and public sector workers where the job requirements may be vastly different. I gave you an example: Teachers in the public school system are required to be credentialed, which is not necessarily the case for private school instructors. Could it be that public workers are held to a higher standard in general? That would certainly go to the merits — that is to say, if public workers generally have higher qualifications, more years of experience, etc. (If these “elite” jobs are the ones everyone is coveting, the city can afford to be choosy, no?) I didn’t find the answer to this, but it does give rise to a doubt in me. Then Harold Brown asked if you are including minimum-wage earning nonprofit workers among these so-called “elite” workers. You didn’t answer him. The fact is, your stats don’t tell us much, do they?
Even so, I did do an online search for statistics that would make more sense, and haven’t been able to come up with them so far. (Marc may be right that this type of analysis hasn’t been done yet.) Before you crow about this, keep in mind that this doesn’t necessarily prove you’re right. And answer me this: how are we supposed to stipulate an *average* or even a median salary without knowing the variables that govern employment for comparable jobs in each sector? It just doesn’t make sense.
So, a few of us have come up with good reasons to be skeptical of your stats. Rod, I’d say you need a better analysis than the one you’ve provided so far. It’s not up to us to come up with it for you, since you’re making the argument. Our task is to show where your reasoning is faulty or open to doubt. The hilarious thing is that you even admit that you are math challenged! Don’t you think a reasonable person would have cause for doubt, knowing you don’t understand basic statistics? Sorry, but you haven’t proven your case, counselor.
(forgive me, Rod, I don’t mean to make fun of you, but I think it’s fair to raise this issue is you’re going to attack city workers.)
Rod says:
As to Esme, you make my point more eloquently than I could ever do. You describe her life as an unrepresented worker. It is those unrepresented workers that support “labor”. In addition to her considerable burdens of paying for her life, she had to contribute through her taxes to the salaries, benefits and pension funds of the represented city workers. Maybe a small amount of that money (1.5-2.5% of it) could have been used to aid folks in the position that she used to be in herself. Maybe it will in the future — if Adachi’s proposal passes.
[…]
She made a quantum leap, and good for her. For the benefit of the other 94% of workers, that she used to be one of, I hope she thinks back on what it used to like for her and how Adachi’s proposal might help those that are now in the situation she fortunately escaped.
my response:
Seriously, Rod? You’re referring here to someone who makes in the range of $40000 to $50,000 a year. That’s hardly a windfall, especially in a city like San Francisco. And I just found out that Jeff Adachi brings home a whopping $180,000 a year (correct me if I’m wrong). So, is he one of those “elites” you’re talking about? Imagine this eminent man calling a city janitor “elite”! Not to pick on Jeff Adachi…he seems like a very nice person (if you separate the man from the politician.) Why recently, he got truly ecstatic over a parking meter that was broken, saving him a few extra bucks when he nabbed the spot (saw it on twitter). Oh la la…imagine how Esme would feel if the same thing happened to her? Why, he makes her salary several times over!
Now, you will probably tell me that a janitor in the private sector makes half of what Esme brings home. Yes, but is that is that her fault? As others have pointed out, public sector employees have been able to keep up with the cost of living (for the most part), precisely because they are unionized. Meanwhile, workers in the private sector have fallen far behind because their interests are poorly represented. Is that what you want for workers as a whole? Because, trust me, if salaries and benefits go down the toilet for public workers, you can bet that salaries in the private sector won’t be far behind. (you think that corporations aren’t going to take a page from this? think again.) By protecting the rights of public sector workers, you are protecting the rights of ALL workers. That’s the bottom line.
July 26, 2010 at 5:06 pm
Goodness, Rod, how am I ever going to get through if you keep pouncing on my answers so fast? Ay! Sorry for the delayed response…I spent the weekend on the road between Humboldt County and the bay area (moving house), so I had to let this slide. I can’t respond to your every comeback, but I’d like to address a few of the statements you have made. (You’re not getting off that easily, hombre 😉
Rob says:
I’m simply describing a condition that exists, using facts available to me. While the condition I describe may be troubling to some people, their responding in anger and personal attacks upon me (or anyone else) will not help finding a solution to the problem.
My response:
Well Rod, I can see that I’ve ruffled your feathers a bit, so let me just say that you seem like a nice person and you’re a talented artist. I don’t know you, so I don’t have anything against you at all. But I do apologize for my sarcasm…bad habit. I get it from my dad and from the French half of my family who love nothing more than a good dispute. Please don’t take it personally…even if I used the word “you”, I am actually referring to the master minds behind the Smart Reform campaign. (I should have been clearer.) Mea culpa.
It would be better if you take what I say as conjecture or just a gut feeling based on my personal experience and knowledge, which is limited, to be sure. However, we all have narratives that help us make sense of what’s going on. And sometimes have to look past what politicians say publicly and figure out what they’re really up to. I don’t pretend to read minds, but I’m allowed to make an educated guess, aren’t I? That’s all I’m doing here. My goodness, I haven’t even told you my most outlandish theory for fear you would say, “My God, that’s quite a stretch, Lisa!” Just for fun, I’ll tell you my wildest conjecture about what’s really motivating this campaign, but I’ll save it for last.
Rod says:
In fact, accusing me of demagoguery where none exists in my piece, only illustrates that I have been fair minded and respectful in raising this issue.
A demagogue is defined as: “A leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace.”
I think my article was rather dry and dispassionate in tone. However, it clearly has elicited emotional responses and revealed deeply held prejudices.
While such emotions and prejudices came to respond to my article, I was only trying to reasonably discuss the issue. I find “impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace” to be in conflict with a reasonable discussion of the issue. Therefore, I did not do so in my article.
My response:
Yes, you have been respectful for the most part. I’ll give you that…and thank you! I do have trouble with your use of the word “elite”, which seems likely to prejudice people due to its negative connotations. According to my dictionary, the word refers to: 1) The choice or best of anything considered collectively, as a group or class of persons; 2) Persons of the highest class; 3) A group of persons exercising the major share of authority or influence within the larger group.
I believe that no. 1 comes closest to your meaning. Your claim is that public workers are getting the choicest salaries and benefits when compared to private sector workers. That seems pretty straightforward. However, I think we have a tendency to regard “elites” as a class of people who are out of touch with the struggles of ordinary, working folks.
I believe this word is being used to prejudice the voters against public workers. In fact, you don’t necessarily need to use highly emotional rhetoric to influence the perceptions of the masses. I have observed coolly analytical types whip up negative stereotypes about immigrants through coded messaging (e.g. the word “anchor baby” really sticks in my craw). I’m not accusing you of being a demagogue…I’m just saying that the language could be used by someone that way. The rhetoric coming out of the Adachi camp is just what I would expect from pols who want to win by cashing in on the resentment of the private sector workers. Unfortunately, it has already resulted in a negative backlash towards city workers, which I find disturbing. I think is very unfair and unfortunate.
The problem is, we tend think of elites as wealthy or influential types. Is that a fair characterization of public workers? Hardly. These folks are working harder than ever under increased workloads and the general reduction of staffs. And they didn’t create this problem. They are victims of it, just like the rest of us. The fact is, the state is going broke because the federal government is more interested in warmongering and bailing out the Wall Street speculators than spending money on education, health care, and other social programs (or in aiding the states) . So, the states have been raiding funds designated for cities, counties and school districts. As a consequence, the cities have had to cut the few remaining programs to the bone. Now, the cities are going after public employees because it’s the only remaining source of revenue.
Public workers are no more responsible for this problem than any other group of workers. They are certainly not on the same level with the elite CEO’s and management class who are enjoying outlandish bonuses and golden parachutes. Besides, when the city entered into labor contracts, they were incurring an obligation. A pension is not a gift…it is deferred compensation, which is earned as part of a benefit package. I do think these benefits could be renegotiated, but city workers need to be included in the process. I think that’s only fair.
Rod says:
Also, as a “son of unionists”, I must point out my family became unionists to correct an inequity. My great grandmother joined the Lady’s Garment Workers Union not long after the sweatshop conditions of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory were revealed after it burned down.
That inequity has been more than corrected and has now swung in the other direction. I’m carrying on that tradition of fairness, while “labor” is using the same rhetoric (representing the “lowest paid workers”) that they were using when they actually did represent the lowest paid workers.
Those days are over, and fairness requires acknowledgment of that fact.
My reponse:
Sounds like your family has a really interesting history. If you weren’t a friend of Matt Gonzalez, I would probably enjoy schmoozing with you about that. {Disclosure: I blogged for Matt on the topic of immigration at AIOTB, but we had a falling out over a personal matter.}
I once dated a UFW lawyer while volunteering for the United Farm Workers Union as a student at CAL. He was a great storyteller.
That said, I have to take issue with your contention that the inequities have been more than corrected. I have met workers like Esme, both the public and private sector, who are still fighting for better working conditions. And what about all those nonprofit workers. I could tell you a story about that since my ex-husband used to worked for a nonprofit organization in SF that was partly funded by city monies. He was a union worker, too, but the pay was really pitiful.
Alas, my time in the lab is up…I will have to continue this tomorrow
July 24, 2010 at 11:36 am
Lisa said:
Rod, I don’t pretend to know your motives.
I say:
You saying “You are hoping to create” and “you are trying to paint” sure sounds to me like you pretend to know my motives.
Lisa says:
But does anyone seriously believe that Gonzalez got involved in this debate over a little remark on Facebook? Or that Adachi has no intention whatever of running for mayor if Smart Reform is successful? As political analyst David Latterman said, “I’m just too cynical to think he’s doing this at face value. He’s up to something.”
I say:
It doesn’t make much sense for someone who is looking to obtain public employment (mayor) to support a policy that may result in a smaller paycheck. Or does it? In Adachi’s case, it will affect him as long as he’s Public Defender. In Matt’s case, if he becomes mayor. Maybe they just support it because it’s a good idea. I guess you dismiss that possibility as naive.
Lisa says:
Childlike, as in simplistic or naive? Well, I agree with you there. Let’s see…I guess your simple equation boils down to this: city + worker = “elite”.
I say:
Maybe it is naive. If only someone can present an argument with facts to show me why, I would admit it.
Simplistic? Possibly, but, you present it too simplistically (city + worker = “elite”). More like: average city employee’s salary – average non-city employees salary = more than average non-city employee makes in a year = elite of the city workforce.
Lisa said:
Listen, I spent a couple of years debating restrictionists on the issue of immigration reform, and your argument has an oddly familiar ring to me. The restrictionists claim that they don’t have any problem with immigrants, just those who come here “illegally”. The argument sounds plausible until you stop to consider what they are actually saying. They claim that immigrants are only coming here to feed at the public trough, and are single-handedly responsible for the breakdown of social services like health care and education or what have you. And before you know it, they are painting all immigrants and Latin@s with the same wide brush. To listen to them, you would think that that the option to“press 2 for Spanish” represents the breakdown of civilization in the U.S.
I say:
Wow, that’s quite a stretch, Lisa.
Lisa said:
when you characterize an entire group as an “elite”
I say:
I’m characterizing a group that amounts to merely 6% of the total workforce and makes over twice as much as the other 94% as elite. My dictionary defines “elite” as “a small and privileged group”. 6% = small. More than twice the salary as the other 94% = privileged.
Lisa said:
You’re saying that this is a group to be feared, and that because of them, the city and public services are destined for ruin. I’m already hearing rhetoric from folks that demonizes city workers in various forums from the Chronicle to FCJ.
I say:
Please go over my article again and point out to me where I say “labor” is to be “feared”. I couldn’t find that part. Maybe its in the same article that refers to Marc Soloman’s elusive “20%” statistic.
Further, I wrote one article on this issue (above) and I’ve only commented on the issue here in this thread. I can tell you for a fact that I’m not the one “demonizing” city workers. I cannot and will not take responsibility for anyone else’s thoughts; the respective authors own those and they are responsible for them.
Lisa said:
So, I think a much more useful distinction is between the managing class and truly elite workers like police and fireman and the working class, whether in the public or private sector. Divide and conquer strategies usually emanate from the former. It’s sad to see workers turning against each other in these hard economic times. There ought to be a way that we can all work together to solve this problem.
I say:
That would make a fine blog article. Mine was confined to taking “labor” to task for claiming they represent the lowest paid workers. Such falsehood by “labor” is not only a divide and conquer tactic, but it’s based on a lie to begin with.
Lisa said:
Anyway, the difficulty I have with your argument, Rod, is that you’re trying to lump low-level city workers in with management and the highest-paid workers like police and firefighters (the true elites).
I say:
No, I’m comparing the average city employee to the average non-city employee. In that sense, the people you refer to are already “lumped” together.
Lisa Said:
Again, the devil is in the details. You need to find out the job requirements for comparable jobs in the public and private sector, then consider things like skill level, experience and education that are required in each sector.
I say:
Hmm, logical fallacy — argument from authority without any authority to back it up. I guess I could just trust you to know that devil who you believe resides “in the details”. I’d rather have you just lay out the details here. Since it is beyond the scope of my article, that’s your job, not mine. I’d be really curious to see what the numbers show in that regard. You just saying it is so is no more authoritative than my suspicions in that regard.
Lisa said:
There are too many variables to consider.
I say:
Please post the numbers here. I can’t wait for you to prove how “simplistic” and “naive” my article was. If you can show me numbers that do so, I’ll be more than happy to admit I was wrong.
Lisa said:
If you’ve ever taken a statistics course, that’s one of the first things you learn.
I say:
No, I specifically avoided that class (too much math). However, if you know what I would learn if I had taken that class, you must have taken statistics.
Feel free to post some here that invalidate my argument.
Lisa said:
So, I think you are either really bad at math
I say:
Maybe I am. I’m waiting for someone to prove it with numbers. Saying things like averages are “skewed”, just doesn’t cut it — especially coming from someone who took statistics.
Lisa said:
Ah, you’re right, it’s much too easy to beat up on the lawyers. All those negative stereotypes about your profession make you an easy target. Far better to go after the city’s gardeners, custodians, nursing assistants, and low-level clerks. This is the true “elite”.
I say:
It is you who have said it.
Lisa said:
You got your figures from the newspaper, not a budget analyst.
I say:
The figures were from the City Controller’s Office via the Chronicle.
As far as I know, the Controller is the authority on these numbers, and any budget analyst would be using those numbers to make an analysis.
If you don’t like the source, or believe the Chronicle misquoted the Controller, just say so.
Lisa said:
That’s not what I’m seeing in comments directed at city workers since you and your friends Gonzalez and Adachi came up with this argument that all city worker somehow represent an “elite”. It’s kind of disturbing to see how everyone is bashing public workers, which include nursing assistants, clerks, janitors, gardeners, nursing assistants, teachers and librarians, etc. – that is, the folks without whom the city could not function.
I say:
I am not responsible for how people respond to my argument. Only they are responsible for their emotions. Again, the “elite” contention is in regard to the average city employee making more than twice as much as the average non-city employee. I didn’t talk about specific job categories at all. Don’t blame me for “everyone” who you think are “bashing public workers, which include nursing assistants, clerks, janitors, gardeners, nursing assistants, teachers and librarians, etc.” — take it up with them personally; only they are responsible for their respective comments.
Lisa said:
Sure, if you succeed in branding all city workers as the enemy.
I say:
You’re sure doing a fine job making pretend I am. Maybe I’m just saying they have to do their part to help fix a difficult financial situation in SF that affects them, as well as the other 94% of the workers.
Lisa said:
The maddening thing is that low-level workers are the ones making all the concessions, while the managing class, police and firefighters are being shielded by the mayor and downtown interests. But that’s not the fault of the majority of public workers.
I say:
Well, then, the non-maddening thing is, Adachi’s proposal will ensure the highest paid city employees will have to make concessions.
July 23, 2010 at 5:11 pm
Rod, I don’t pretend to know your motives. But does anyone seriously believe that Gonzalez got involved in this debate over a little remark on Facebook? Or that Adachi has no intention whatever of running for mayor if Smart Reform is successful? As political analyst David Latterman said, “I’m just too cynical to think he’s doing this at face value. He’s up to something.” I guess I’m a bit cynical myself. But then so is the average person when it comes to lawyers and politicians. Hmmm…why is that?
Rod said:
Frankly, I am at a loss to understand how my argument is disingenuous (defined as “not straightforward, crafty.” I thought it was simple and straightforward (almost childlike “2 + 2 = 4”).
Lisa responds:
Childlike, as in simplistic or naive? Well, I agree with you there. Let’s see…I guess your simple equation boils down to this: city + worker = “elite”. Perhaps you don’t intend to scapegoat this group, but isn’t that the effect of what you’re doing? Listen, I spent a couple of years debating restrictionists on the issue of immigration reform, and your argument has an oddly familiar ring to me. The restrictionists claim that they don’t have any problem with immigrants, just those who come here “illegally”. The argument sounds plausible until you stop to consider what they are actually saying. They claim that immigrants are only coming here to feed at the public trough, and are single-handedly responsible for the breakdown of social services like health care and education or what have you. And before you know it, they are painting all immigrants and Latin@s with the same wide brush. To listen to them, you would think that that the option to“press 2 for Spanish” represents the breakdown of civilization in the U.S.
Now, I’m not saying you’re doing anything nearly as despicable, but when you characterize an entire group as an “elite”, doesn’t it amount to the same thing. You’re saying that this is a group to be feared, and that because of them, the city and public services are destined for ruin. I’m already hearing rhetoric from folks that demonizes city workers in various forums from the Chronicle to FCJ. And so, this raises a red flag for me. So, I think a much more useful distinction is between the managing class and truly elite workers like police and fireman and the working class, whether in the public or private sector. Divide and conquer strategies usually emanate from the former. It’s sad to see workers turning against each other in these hard economic times. There ought to be a way that we can all work together to solve this problem.
Anyway, the difficulty I have with your argument, Rod, is that you’re trying to lump low-level city workers in with management and the highest-paid workers like police and firefighters (the true elites). Certainly, the pension system needs to reforming, but not on the backs of the low-level city workers. If the measure had been written in a progressive way, you’d see management, police, etc., taking the biggest hit while the low-level workers would remain largely untouched. But that’s not the way it’s written.
The devil is in the details. For instance, a janitor employed by the city of SF can make up to $50,000 tops (correct me if I’m wrong), while the average manager makes several times as much. Yet, you somehow think that you can combine their disparate salaries and come up with a meaningful *average* (pay) for a city worker that isn’t skewed. I happen to agree with Marc that *average* is rather meaningless statistic. If you’ve ever taken a statistics course, that’s one of the first things you learn. So, I think you are either really bad at math or you’re being disingenuous. Well, you’ve conceded that your skill at math is not good. Point taken.
Rod says:
Perhaps it is your imagining of what my motive is for making the argument that you find disingenuous. My motive is clearly stated in the article. I wanted to stop “labor” from making pretend it represents the lowest paid workers. No more, no less.
Lisa responds:
Ah, you’re right, it’s much too easy to beat up on the lawyers. All those negative stereotypes about your profession make you an easy target. Far better to go after the city’s gardeners, custodians, nursing assistants, and low-level clerks. This is the true “elite”.
Rod says:
Furthermore, I don’t have to “create a distinction between public and private sector employees”. Until someone comes up with statistics countering the one’s I’ve posted, that distinction in income disparity between the two already exists.
I am not the one who created it — I just shined a light on it.
Lisa responds :
You don’t have meaningful statistics that have been broken down by an analyst nor any kind of meaningful comparison here. You got your figures from the newspaper, not a budget analyst. Again, the devil is in the details. You need to find out the job requirements for comparable jobs in the public and private sector, then consider things like skill level, experience and education that are required in each sector. Take public school teachers, for example. In the public sector, they are required be credentialed, which is not always the case for private school instructors. So, even if you are comparing the salaries of city workers to those with comparable jobs in the private sector, you’re not going to obtain a meaningful result without breaking it down. There are too many variables to consider. So, the notion of an *average* salary is a meaningless fiction, without knowing precisely what you’re referring to.
Rod says:
When dealing with politics, one is dealing with the collective, not the individual. The issues have necessarily been framed in the collective. The possibility that certain individuals fall outside that collective does not invalidate an argument which is based on numbers describing that collective (like mine). That’s why I used “averages”. Surely, the highest paid city employee is more “elite” than the lowest paid city employee. However, I was not setting out to describe distinctions within “labor”. I was describing the distinctions between “labor” and the rest of workers in the city.
Lisa responds:
See response above.
Rod says:
Again, you are hung up on what you imagine my motives are here. I think I’ve made it clear what my motive is — and it’s not whipping up fear and resentment.
Lisa responds:
That’s not what I’m seeing in comments directed at city workers since you and your friends Gonzalez and Adachi came up with this argument that all city worker somehow represent an “elite”. It’s kind of disturbing to see how everyone is bashing public workers, which include nursing assistants, clerks, janitors, gardeners, nursing assistants, teachers and librarians, etc. – that is, the folks without whom the city could not function.
Rod says:
Again, I think you will find that a sufficient amount of the 94% of the city workforce that are not city employees will pass Adachi’s proposal because they are already on the bandwagon.
Lisa responds:
Sure, if you succeed in branding all city workers as the enemy. I have a feeling that tide may turn when people understand what’s at stake for all workers.
Rod says:
I’m only describing a condition that exists. Those making slippery slope arguments, purporting to know some nefarious motive I may have or asserting Adachi’s proposal will hurt the lowest paid workers in the city are the ones who are “whipping up fear and resentment”, not me.
Lisa responds:
I would say a “slippery slope argument” goes more like this:
“I am convinced that we face some dire economic circumstances if this isn’t dealt with now.”—Jeff Adachi
This presupposes that Adachi’s proposal is the only possible remedy to stave off certain disaster. In fact, there have been a number of remedies proposed, and city workers have been working together with elected officials to make needed concessions. The maddening thing is that low-level workers are the ones making all the concessions, while the managing class, police and firefighters are being shielded by the mayor and downtown interests. But that’s not the fault of the majority of public workers.
This feels one long interrogatory, and I’ve had a hectic week. I’ll have to continue this tomorrow.
July 22, 2010 at 10:36 am
Lisa said:
I rather like your collages, Rod
I say:
Thank you! I love the fact that some like it and some don’t (Marc Soloman).
Lisa said:
I find your argument disingenuous.
I say:
You are the second person to say this. Frankly, I am at a loss to understand how my argument is disingenuous (defined as “not straightforward, crafty.”) I thought it was simple and straightforward (almost childlike “2+2=4”).
Lisa says:
You are hoping to create a distinction between public and private sector employees that sticks in people’s minds.
I say:
Perhaps it is your imagining of what my motive is for making the argument that you find disingenuous. My motive is clearly stated in the article. I wanted to stop “labor” from making pretend it represents the lowest paid workers. No more, no less.
Furthermore, I don’t have to “create a distinction between public and private sector employees”. Until someone comes up with statistics countering the one’s I’ve posted, that distinction in income disparity between the two already exists.
I am not the one who created it — I just shined a light on it.
Lisa said:
So, in a rather cynical ploy, you are trying to paint all public employees as an “elite”.
I say:
When dealing with politics, one is dealing with the collective, not the individual. The issues have necessarily been framed in the collective. The possibility that certain individuals fall outside that collective does not invalidate an argument which is based on numbers describing that collective (like mine). That’s why I used “averages”. Surely, the highest paid city employee is more “elite” than the lowest paid city employee. However, I was not setting out to describe distinctions within “labor”. I was describing the distinctions between “labor” and the rest of workers in the city.
Lisa says:
If you can whip up enough fear and resentment towards these folks, then you can get folks to jump on the so-called Smart Reform bandwagon.
I say:
Again, you are hung up on what you imagine my motives are here. I think I’ve made it clear what my motive is — and it’s not whipping up fear and resentment.
Again, I think you will find that a sufficient amount of the 94% of the city workforce that are not city employees will pass Adachi’s proposal because they are already on the bandwagon.
I’m only describing a condition that exists. Those making slippery slope arguments, purporting to know some nefarious motive I may have or asserting Adachi’s proposal will hurt the lowest paid workers in the city are the ones who are “whipping up fear and resentment”, not me.
Lisa said:
This is rhetoric more worthy of a demagogue than the son of unionists.
I say:
I’m simply describing a condition that exists, using facts available to me.
While the condition I describe may be troubling to some people, their responding in anger and personal attacks upon me (or anyone else) will not help finding a solution to the problem.
In fact, accusing me of demagoguery where none exists in my piece, only illustrates that I have been fair minded and respectful in raising this issue. A demagogue is defined as: “A leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace.”
I think my article was rather dry and dispassionate in tone. However, it clearly has elicited emotional responses and revealed deeply held prejudices.
While such emotions and prejudices came to respond to my article, I was only trying to reasonably discuss the issue. I find “impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace” to be in conflict with a reasonable discussion of the issue. Therefore, I did not do so in my article.
Also, as a “son of unionists”, I must point out my family became unionists to correct an inequity. My great grandmother joined the Lady’s Garment Workers Union not long after the sweatshop conditions of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory were revealed after it burned down.
That inequity has been more than corrected and has now swung in the other direction. I’m carrying on that tradition of fairness, while “labor” is using the same rhetoric (representing the “lowest paid workers”) that they were using when they actually did represent the lowest paid workers.
Those days are over, and fairness requires acknowledgment of that fact.
Lisa said:
Let’s not forget that public employees include teachers, health workers, custodians, etc, and they are not so different from the rest of us.
I say:
I haven’t forgot that, and, because of the average income numbers, I suspect that they make way more income than their counter parts in the unrepresented private sector.
Of course, I am still waiting for someone to show me numbers that prove that is not the case. If you have any please post them here.
As to Esme, you make my point more eloquently than I could ever do. You describe her life as an unrepresented worker. It is those unrepresented workers that support “labor”. In addition to her considerable burdens of paying for her life, she had to contribute through her taxes to the salaries, benefits and pension funds of the represented city workers. Maybe a small amount of that money (1.5-2.5% of it) could have been used to aid folks in the position that she used to be in herself. Maybe it will in the future — if Adachi’s proposal passes.
Lisa said:
In retaliation, her employer threatened to bring in contract workers and fire the organizers.
I say:
Sadly, that often happens. Fortunately, there are attorneys out there who will work to right that wrong (like Gonzalez).
Lisa says:
To make a long story short, Esme went on to become a U.S citizen and landed a job as a janitor with the city of SF. As a consequence, she was able to move out of the Tenderloin and into a decent apartment. And now she can afford health care for her children and pay for child care while she’s at work. In short, this job has allowed her to support herself and to live a life of dignity.
I say:
She made a quantum leap, and good for her. For the benefit of the other 94% of workers, that she used to be one of, I hope she thinks back on what it used to like for her and how Adachi’s proposal might help those that are now in the situation she fortunately escaped.
Lisa said:
I think the question in the back of our minds is whether Smart Reform is just a smart move to advance Adachi or Gonzalez’ political career.
I say:
I wonder whether supporting Smart Reform is a smart political move as well. I guess only time will tell.
From the responses here — mostly negative — clearly such support is a political risk.
I admire Adachi and Gonzalez for taking such a risk, when the established politicians have indicated they won’t touch it with a ten foot pole.
Then, again, none of those politicians would have left the Democrat party on the eve of an election in protest of the inequitable practices of the Democrat party.
Lisa said:
The voters might like to put that question to these pols directly.
I say:
You have every right to go ahead and ask them, and, of course, the definitive statement of the voters will come when the proposal is voted on.
Lisa said:
Why is Mat hiding behind you, anyway?
I say:
I don’t think anyone who leaves the Democrat party on the eve of an election is fearful enough to have to hide behind anyone, especially not me.
I’m trying to figure out why you think he’s hiding behind me since he went out there in public to support Adachi’s proposal from the beginning.
I can tell you he’s very busy making employers (both public and private) pay for retaliating against their workers (like Esme in your example above) for doing the right thing.
Lisa said:
did he put you up to this?
I say:
No. Clearly, Matt has already given and defended his position on this issue. How much more he wants say about this issue is up to him.
I took it upon myself to write this article because I felt Adachi and Gonzalez were unfairly attacked for defending the little guy by an organization that wrongly pretends to represent the little guy but doesn’t. Thus, this article was born.
Lisa said:
why be afraid?
I say:
I won’t speak for Gonzalez. However, I will say he strikes me as one of those truly rare persons who is not afraid of anything.
Lisa said:
Step up to the plate, hombre!
I say:
As I said before, I think he already stepped up to the plate when he declared in a public forum that he supported Adachi’s proposal.
Any further inquiry should be directed to him.
I’m the only one who needs to step up to the plate to defend my own writing.
July 21, 2010 at 6:28 pm
I rather like your collages, Rod, however I find your argument disingenuous. You are hoping to create a distinction between public and private sector employees that sticks in people’s minds. So, in a rather cynical ploy, you are trying to paint all public employees as an “elite”. If you can whip up enough fear and resentment towards these folks, then you can get folks to jump on the so-called Smart Reform bandwagon. This is rhetoric more worthy of a demagogue than the son of unionists.
Let’s not forget that public employees include teachers, health workers, custodians, etc, and they are not so different from the rest of us. They are just trying to get by and pay their rent in one of the most expensive cities in the U.S.
Let me tell you a story about a janitor who managed to land one of these city jobs, and what it has meant for her life. I’ll call her Esme (not her real name). Esme worked for many years cleaning offices in the financial district and in other parts. She was on call and was forced to leave her school-age daughters alone in the middle of the night to go to work. (Can you understand what it is like to live on a minimum wage, which doesn’t even cover the cost of a sitter? How about going out in the middle of the night as a woman alone when you live in the Tenderloin?)
The conditions she worked under were pretty deplorable, including a lack of benefits and numerous health and safety violations. Esme was undocumented at the time, so she was afraid to complain for fear of losing her job or being deported. But when some of the workers began organizing for better conditions, Esme joined them. In retaliation, her employer threatened to bring in contract workers and fire the organizers. To make a long story short, Esme went on to become a U.S citizen and landed a job as a janitor with the city of SF. As a consequence, she was able to move out of the Tenderloin and into a decent apartment. And now she can afford health care for her children and pay for child care while she’s at work. In short, this job has allowed her to support herself and to live a life of dignity.
I think the question in the back of our minds is whether Smart Reform is just a smart move to advance Adachi or Gonzalez’ political career. The voters might like to put that question to these pols directly. Why is Mat hiding behind you, anyway? (did he put you up to this?) He’s obviously out there reading this…why be afraid? Step up to the plate, hombre!
July 20, 2010 at 7:37 pm
True, assuming the Adachi proposal is a wrong–and I’m still listening and trying to make up my mind about this. But, practically speaking, my guess is that people who felt hit’n run by the Labor Council re Lennar in BVHP aren’t going to be sympathetic to calls to defend labor against the Adachi initiative.
I myself would be more inclined to sympathize, and vote, with them on this if they hadn’t declared their own interests to be coincident with forces I perceive as fundamentally destructive within the City and beyond.
July 20, 2010 at 6:50 pm
Yes Ann, it stinks. But two wrongs don’t make a right. I don’t want to stick it to the workers and their families because their representatives decided to get in bed with Lennar. That won’t change their relationship with Lennar. All it will do is accelerate the race to the bottom.
July 20, 2010 at 1:54 pm
@Greg: I’ll agree to that:
“The problem is that private sector elites make HUNDREDS of times what their workers make, thereby impoverishing private sector workers by stealing the profits of their labor. That, and a set of tax priorities that is totally out of whack.”
But, since you’re asking us to take a broader spectrum look at this, don’t you think the Labor Council’s engagement on behalf of Lennar’s development project in BVHP makes an issue of their interest in social justice beyond their own?
July 20, 2010 at 11:07 am
Marc,
We can always count on you to do some good sleuthing work.
And yes, the associations with some of the sponsors of the initiative are certainly relevant! That’s why i asked.
As for the argument itself, in a nutshell it sums up to this:
private sector workers don’t get as much, so we should level the playing field.
That’s the big picture when you sift through all the bickering about numbers. And it’s an argument that I fundamentally disagree with on a deep, philosophical level.
Yes, it’s true that public sector workers are doing better. Public sector unions are strong, while organized labor is weak or nonexistent in the private sector.
But the solution is NOT to attack public sector unions, playing on people’s base emotions of envy and dividing the working classes. The solution is to lift ALL boats by creating the conditions where organized labor can thrive in ALL sectors.
What’s choking the taxpayers is NOT that some of their fellow workers make a living wage, get decent pensions, and health benefits that every human being should be entitled to. Buying into that kind of thinking gets us absolutely NOWHERE.
The problem is that private sector elites make HUNDREDS of times what their workers make, thereby impoverishing private sector workers by stealing the profits of their labor. That, and a set of tax priorities that is totally out of whack. We give cops and jails and the war machine everything they want, along with socializing the losses of private investors, and then we say that there’s nothing left for health care and pensions! Buying into that priority set is insane. It is just SICK.
Let’s address the real causes of people’s pain, rather than playing divide and conquer games between different sectors of workers.
And BTW, I say this as a private sector worker who has never worked in a government job, nor has anyone in their family working for a government job, nor has ever done any contract labor with the public sector.
July 19, 2010 at 10:57 pm
I’m having a hard time staying with a lot of detail here, but globally, it’s very hard for me to feel much sympathy for the Labor Council after they pushed so hard for the Lennar development in the HP shipyard last week.
Lennar’s reckless building and predatory lending all over California, the U.S. and beyond, even as far away as Australia and South Africa, played a big role in triggering the global meltdown that left so many in such dire straits here in the city, and in the state, the U.S., and abroad.
I know this is a little odd, but I find it physically painful to perceive anything in isolation rather than relation, so that’s a large part of what I perceive when anyone brings the Labor Council to my attention.
July 19, 2010 at 12:06 pm
marc,
In the interest of keeping a good thread alive, I’ve reconsidered my previous postings and offer the following.
I am an attorney authorized to practice law in New York State.
Unlike California, the New York Legislature does not require attorneys be members of the New York State Bar Association — a purely voluntary association.
If you searched for me on their website, it’s no surprise that you didn’t find me because I am not a member.
I am however a member in good standing with the New York Bar, the collective of attorneys authorized by their respective Appellate Divisions to practice law in New York State.
If you go to http://www.nycourts.gov/attorneys/, click on “attorney directory”, and enter my name, you will find me listed with no history of discipline or complaints by any former clients.
I am married to an artist who makes and sells work professionally. I have also done art with Matt Gonzalez and others (including my 3 year old) mostly as a recreational activity. However, I do appreciate the attention you’ve given my work. By the way, if you fancy anything you saw, I will offer it to you at a good price.
I have worked for many years in the commercial construction industry (as a laborer), and come from a family that has always been supportive of labor unions.
My father completed a career as a Union Bricklayer and his father held three Union books (carpenter, bricklayer and laborer). Furthermore, my mother’s father was a truck driver and member of the Teamsters Union. Finally, my grandmother, her sister and great grandmother on my mother’s side, were also Union members (Seamstress).
Therefore, I too appreciate the history of organized labor and believe our country is better for it.
Nevertheless, I respect Gonzalez and Jeff Adachi enough to know that these guys would not drink the kool-aid as Tim Paulson alleged. Anything they stand and fight for is worth a second look in my humble opinion.
For that reason I set out to determine who is labor? And why all the name calling?
What I found was disturbing because it suggested a widening disparity between a relatively small group of represented workers (who I have come to call an elite) and a relatively large group of unrepresented workers who make far less than the workers that want their benefits paid by them.
I was not proud to have reached this conclusion, but I presented my findings with the hopes others might find statistics that would cause me to reconsider.
You raised an apparently strong argument when you said city employees only make 20% more than non city employees, citing the article my blog linked to as your source.
However, I could not find those numbers in that article — or anywhere else for that matter.
I’ve asked you to show me where you saw that statistic, but you choose instead to ignore my call for you to substantiate your “facts”.
You also said a “median” would be more appropriate than an “average” which may or may not be true. However, the income number you used, $72,000, was a household median to compare against the average yearly income for a city worker $93,000.
How many income earners are there in a city household? Two? Is it one and a half?
Obviously the average income of a single worker in the city will be much lower than the $72,000 median income of a city household.
Also, when I used the average city worker salary for statistical purposes, I purposefully left in the municipal wages, although it would have been more accurate to take them out. If I had taken them out, it would have resulted in an even lower number that the $46,000 I cited.
That is the problem. Workers making an average of $93,000 want workers making an average of $46,000 to pay for benefits at a time critical city services are being cut.
That doesn’t sound fair to me.
Respond in good faith, otherwise you are conceding that the problem I’ve identified is in fact a legitimate problem.
July 18, 2010 at 6:47 pm
@rciferri, you’re not substantiating the sources cited in your HTML collage, so I decided to check on your background, since nobody had heard of you before.
You’ve declined to contest any challenges raised to your piece. You don’t get to just make a statement, place it next to a link and get to claim that your assertions are sourced. That makes you intellectually dishonest. Given the collage company that you keep, now it is clear why.
-marc
July 18, 2010 at 4:12 pm
To Greg Kamin:
Feel free to pursue “who is Rod Ciferri” in another blog article; it is off topic here.
I’m still waiting for someone to debate the issues I raised on the merits. If you have anything to contribute to that, I’m waiting.
July 18, 2010 at 4:05 pm
Marc:
On the subject of collage art, thank you for the free advertising of my work.
However, if you want to continue to discuss it, you should start a new blog.
It is WAY off topic here.
July 18, 2010 at 4:00 pm
To Marc:
Although I could immediately address all you have said in your latest post, I hope you understand I cannot waste my time responding to those who have no desire to debate on the merits. In particular, it would be useless for me, and for any readers, to base a debate on numbers that are made up out of thin air.
I suspect you have done that since you have not responded to my request that you show where in the article I posted it says that city employees make only 20% more than non city employees. You may recall you asserted the article contained such a statistic in your previous post.
If you do not post the specific language, or admit you made it up, I cannot continue to engage you on this subject.
July 18, 2010 at 2:38 pm
@greg kamin, I did not see the author listed as a member of the NY State Bar Association in a quick search…
One nexus I did identify is in aimless pastiche, editing, cutting and pasting the work of others and calling it your own art:
http://sfcollagecollective.wordpress.com/category/rod-ciferri/
and
http://sfcollagecollective.wordpress.com/category/matt-gonzalez/
don’t forget
http://sfcollagecollective.wordpress.com/category/jim-dorenkott/
as well as:
http://sfcollagecollective.wordpress.com/category/david-sloane/
here’s your real creativity:
http://sfcollagecollective.wordpress.com/category/winston-smith/
to paraphrase Karen Finley, “Is this art, brother?”
-marc
July 18, 2010 at 11:38 am
Good discussion, but the very title of the article begs a question that has gone largely unanswered.
Since the article asks, who is “labor” and who appointed them spokesperson for all workers?… then I really want to know who Mr. Ciferi is, and who is he speaking for?
I mean, what interest does a New York State attorney have in the San Francisco pension debate? Does he work for one of the parties? Does he have a financial interest in the outcome?
Logical question, don’t you think?
July 18, 2010 at 9:01 am
rciferri, average is a misleading statistic. It has no meaning because it does not accurately describe conditions. It is a number, that’s it.
You are going to need to call out the relevant paragraphs of the citations you make, because I read the source material and did not see the numbers you cite.
The fact that others have not done the statistical work required to accurately paint the picture of how income is distributed in San Francisco. You’d think that close association with fellow collagist Gonzalez would have informed your thinking on issues of social justice and equity, but friendship trumps values. Again.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06075.html
Median household income, 2008 $73,127 $61,017
This is the number that best describes income distribution. It means that one half of San Franciscans make more than $73,127 and half make less.
The Census doesn’t even publish an average income statistic because it is so meaningless. Using non representative statistics as if they were authoritative is intellectually dishonest. Either qualify the lack of conformity of the statistics at hand to reality or don’t use them.
That these statistics come from the Hearst Chronicle should speak for itself as to their politicization.
Labor is fucked because they are still riding on the gains made by others decades ago, most of whom are dead. They have remained the rock of stability in wages amidst a draining sea of job instability since Reagan. It is not that they are so good at negotiating, rather that the rest of us are so bad, and that they had little time to help us as we were losing ground and they were not.
That we are paying labor’s salary from largely dwindling taxpayer incomes does not make things any easier for them. But not all incomes in San Francisco are dwindling, and it is those individuals who should be made to pay for city services.
The right wing solution to this is to shield those with rising incomes against paying their fair share by instigating amongst those with dwindling incomes a jealous rage against those who are the perennial target of those in support of corporate dominance, like venture capitalist Moritz who funded Jeff’s excellent adventure. Their solution to falling wages, pensions and health care is to drive them all down further.
The progressive solution is to unite working folks towards identifying solutions to health care, pension and wage insecurity rather than to pursue strategies that divide us for petty tactical advantage.
The progressive solution is to not enshrine in the Charter every economic equity deal renegotiated favorably for business during the trough in the economic cycle.
Thanks to our late friend Joe Lynn, the Ethics Commission now requires sig gathering operations to disclose contributions. Michael Moritz and his partner donated around $250K to the effort. He also gave to Max Baucus who killed the public health care option in the Obamacare Health Insurance Corporate Welfare Act of 2010.
The elite in this picture are the politicians and their corporate patrons. Labor gave them an opening through its miscalculation of position over the past 30 years. To give aid and comfort to those true elites in yanking down of the last remaining bastion of job security and good pay in the tanking economy reeks of the demonization weak as if they were powerful that we’d seen historically during periods of the rise of fascism.
This is not about pensions, it is an exercise in hostility towards families of all compositions by pricing access to dependent health care out of range for most. It is also about intellectual honesty, not collage postings citing Newsom’s controller and the SF Chronicle for straight shooting economic analysis.
Y’all gotta daince with them what brung y’all, as they say in Texas.
They don’t call them boots shit kickers for nought, and y’all sure are stepping through piles of it.
-marc
July 16, 2010 at 12:53 pm
I agree with Patrick and Rc3PO-
It’s just nuts for Mr. Daly to criticize Mr. Adachi for actually putting forth a proposal to address a TITANIC problem. The thing that kills me is that Adachi’s proposal only addresses about 20% of the City’s $800 million structural deficit – my goodness what crazy things are people going to say when the full $800 million is addressed?
I also agree having read the Civil Grand Jury report, that is unconscionable that the City is not enforcing the cost sharing provisions of Prop H passed in 2002. EVERYONE SHOULD READ THE CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT. The recent police and fire MOU extension to June 30, 2013 of a 7.5% pension contribution runs the cost to date to the general fund of Prop H non-compliance to about $100,000,000…
July 16, 2010 at 12:18 pm
Harold Brown said: “do 9,000 people paid by the City make 100k plus benefits or is the actual number less than half that?”
9,487 city workers make over $100,000. The $100,000 includes overtime pay, but not benefits (pensions and health care).
July 16, 2010 at 12:02 pm
Chris Daly said: “Labor itself couldn’t do a better job to justify its accomplishments than Ciferri does in this column.”
They have been quite effective, as the income disparity between the average city employee and the average non city employee attests.
Chris Daly said: “Organized labor exists to improve the conditions and livelihoods of those that do the work.”
“Labor”, as used in the context of my article, exists to make sure 6% of the San Francisco workforce makes an average of twice as much as the other 94% of the San Francisco workforce.
Chris Daly said: “But it is Mr. Ciferri’s lack of attention to detail, like differences across bargaining units and political distinctions within Labor where his argument (and Mr. Adachi’s Charter Amendment) fall apart.”
Feel free to post any details that show my argument that city employees are not the lowest paid workers in San Francisco is wrong.
Chris Daly said: “the end result, we’ll be robbing janitors to give to top-level managers and some of the highest paid police officers and firefighters anywhere.”
This slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. Nonetheless, I say there is no evidence of that happening. In fact, I suspect city employed janitors make more money than their non city employed counterparts. If this is not true, please feel free to post your source here.
Chris Daly said: “Or perhaps we could just answer Mr. Ciferri’s leading question and end it there– the workers who benefit from their unions collective power choose their leaders.”
Those workers comprise 6% of the San Francisco workforce and make an average of twice as much income than the other leaderless 94% of the San Francisco workforce. That 94% elected their Board of Supervisors to assert their collective power to protect them from an elite special interest group that is taking far too much of the public pie.
July 16, 2010 at 11:38 am
chris12bb said: “I am not sure your numbers help your cause in fact it seems cynical.”
The numbers speak for themselves.
chris12bb said: “You don’t account for out liners which throw off any average, or prove there are no out liners.”
I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “outliners”. Average is average. Average just is — there is nothing to “throw off”. However, I should point out, if I had taken city employee salaries out of the per capita employee income numbers, it would have proven the income disparity between the average city employee and the average non city employee is actually greater than what I stated in my article.
chris12bb said: “It seems using this average is a little disingenuous.”
What is really disingenuous is “labor” purporting to represent the lowest paid workers in San Francisco and asserting that Adachi’s proposal will hurt those workers.
July 16, 2010 at 11:23 am
To Marc:
First off, I really dig the picture of you with the torches.
Marc said: “I guess it would be too much to expect for the writer to ‘do the math’ on what this means as to the distribution of incomes across the city workforce. Perhaps a more informative approach would be to consider statistical tools like ‘median’ instead of ‘average?'”
It would be too much to ask (I admit — I’m not so great at math), but thank you for responding to my solicitation for feedback regarding the statistics. If you are a math wiz, please feel free to crunch “median” numbers and post your findings here.
Mark said: “If you think that the solution to declining wages and benefits in the aggregate is to reduce wages and benefits, then please, come out and say that.”
If I thought it was important to say this, I would have said it.
Mark said: “‘Labor’ earns approximately twice as much as the average San Francisco worker. The story claimed that it was 20% more.”
None of the stories my article links to say average city employee salaries are 20% more than those of other San Francisco workers, much less the one linked to that part of my article. However, consistent with my solicitation of comments regarding the statistics, if you have a source to such a percentage, please feel free to post it here. Otherwise, the City Controller’s Office, Bureau of Census and simple math (my favorite kind) show city employees make twice as much on average than the other San Francisco workers.
Mark said: “The lions share of the salary increases were put into place over the past eight years when the Municipal Executives Association, Municipal Attorney’s Association, Police Officers Association, Local 21 tech geeks and Firefighters all receiving significant pay boosts.”
That may be true, however, the average pay of city employees is still $93,000. If you can show that number is actually lower than what the City Controller’s Office has stated, please feel free to post it here.
Mark said: “My question here is who appointed yet another collage making attorney to take out their rage against organized labor by treating the lowest paid city workers who have already negotiated most of what Adachi is posturing for the same as the highest paid workers who have been lavished with raises?”
I’m not sure if this comment is actually addressed to me, because, although I do make collages, I’m not enraged about anything. If it is addressed to me, I have this to say: A worker in San Francisco making the highest minimum wage in the country, working eight hours a day, five days a week for all 52 weeks of the year makes less than $19,000 annually (of course, there may be undocumented alien workers making even less than this). Are you saying there are city employees that make less than that? If you are, please feel free to post your source of that information here. If you are not, stop exploiting the lowest paid workers in San Francisco for the benefit of the elite city workers by asserting the lowest paid workers are “labor” (city employees).
Mark said: “Yes, labor is fucked.”
I disagree. Their efforts were highly effective and have resulted in city employees becoming the elite of the San Francisco workforce. However, they should hang their heads in shame for exploiting the true lowest paid workers in San Francisco in an effort to secure their elite status by making pretend they represent the lowest paid workers rather than doing what they should be doing: defending the merits of their workers. Maybe city employees are so great they really should earn more than twice as much as non city employees. If so, I welcome such a debate on the merits, and also point out that such an elite workforce can always bring their talents to the private sector if they dislike Adachi’s proposal so much and think they can get better pay and benefits there.
Mark said: “That is no excuse to team up with venture capitalists to gang rape all working people.”
It’s one thing slinging irrelevant hyperbole to get your point across, however, it’s quite another to accuse Adachi and his supporters of such a heinous crime. Again, if you have any evidence to back up such an outrageous claim, please feel free to post it here. If not, you owe me, Adachi and Gonzalez an apology and retraction of this remark.
Mark said: “The FBI could not sabotage progressive politics this effectively as these white collar professional attorneys are ostensibly on behalf of blue collar workers.”
True progressives do not support an elite special interest group at the expense of 94% of everyone else who earn half as much as that elite group.
Finally, you may want to consider that I personally know “white collar professional attorneys” who make less than some of the blue collar city employees you are talking about.
July 16, 2010 at 10:07 am
Chris Daly,
If you actually cared about controlling pension costs and reigning in police and fire, you would have gotten the board of supervisors to enforce Prop H. Prop H was passed by voters and tasks the City with executing a cost-sharing agreement if the City’s contribution rate ever exceeds 0%. Since 2004, City has been paying above 0% and no cost sharing agreement has been arranged.
You have no standing to criticize Adachi whose plan will restore $170 million. Be a leader and hold police and fire accountable.
rC-3PO
July 16, 2010 at 8:00 am
C’mon, Patrick, just because the BTC managed to dominate on HPSY redevelopment does not mean that all of labor, middle income families and their kids need to be punished.
And Chris, the progressive coalition is solid. It is Adachi and Gonzalez who are the outliers. They are trying to spoil the progressive labor coalition the same way that they insisted on spoiling the Democrats in 2000, 2004 and 2008.
The assumption here is that if they can’t have their way, then they’re going to pull the crap that the far left did in Germany in the early 30s, frustrated with the SPD, the left destabilized them under the assumption that if the right wing won, the left and middle would see things their way. That worked out somewhat differently back then as it would here should that strategy prevail.
No, Adachi and Gonzalez are blasting progressives with conservative fire during supervisorial elections for reasons that have nothing to do with the policies ostensibly at hand.
-marc
July 16, 2010 at 7:31 am
Supervisor Daly, you mention that downtown financiers, police and fire are running circles around Adachi without explaining what you mean. The reality is Adachi is at least making an effort to control pension costs where the Board of Supervisors (aside from Elsbernd) haven’t exactly shown leadership in the area. I think everyone agrees that pension and benefit costs have become unsustainable and are sucking money away from programs that progressives care about. To date, all I’ve seen the Supervisors support is proposition D, which is nibbling around the edges of the problem at best. You folks are left to propose revenue measures where the voters think that money is just going to pay to cover the costs of increased benefits for City workers. Adachi’s effort may not be perfect, but it’s a good start.
If you think the system is slanted in favor of police and fire, why not take the lead in making sure Prop H (2002) is enforced? That measure increased pension benefits for police and fire, but required material cost sharing by police and fire if the City’s contribution increased. According to the Civil Grand Jury report, police and fire are reaping millions in increased benefits and there isn’t any material cost sharing going on. Voters were sold a bill of goods and, according to the CGJ, the City won’t even enforce the law the voters passed.
July 16, 2010 at 6:20 am
Gimme some numbers,
I thought that over half of the ‘City’ workers who get a paycheck were employees of non-profits who in some instances were actually making below minimum wage. That would mean that the 100k class (the 1/3rd of which you speak) is 3-4,000 strong and not 13,000. Or, do 9,000 people paid by the City make 100k plus benefits or is the actual number less than half that?
Dontrelle Willis for D-6 supe!
h.
July 15, 2010 at 9:33 pm
Paulson is a cactus league Andy Stern wannabe. The only ‘labor’ he represents are those who have a vested interest in securing their sinecures and not pissing off the bosses by jeopardizing the rewards they hope to reap when they are to old to cut the mustard anymore. Sophie has set the standard. Enola must be re-mortified, embarrassed and ashamed at how her good name and deeds have been misappropriated by a profligate offspring, in collusion with the massa’s, for her own pecuniary advantage, at the expense of her.’people’ and neighbors. But then she is just a pawn in their game; the masters make the rules, for the wise men and the fools, it’s all right Ma, I’m only bleeding.
Please, if you dont really have a clue or care about the issues here, at least stay neutral. Don’t be duped and deceived, again, by the multi-million dollar campaigns of deceit and disinformation that entities like Lennar and PGE mount in order to divide and conquer.
With a ‘”Friend of Labor” like Paulson, a “Representative of the People” like Maxwell, a miscreant Mayor like Newsom, and a BOS that only has 3 ‘progressives’ left standing – we the people don’t need any more enemies, or fair weather friends, trimming their sails to the prevailing breeze.
Just another 2c.
July 15, 2010 at 6:48 pm
The question remains, if the numbers in the charter are the problem, why didn’t Adachi sponsor a measure that would have subjected ALL salaries, pensions, and benefits to collective bargaining?
July 15, 2010 at 1:46 pm
There’s no doubt I’ve had my scrapes with Paulson and the Labor Council (this Tuesday, for example.) But Labor itself couldn’t do a better job to justify its accomplishments than Ciferri does in this column.
Organized labor exists to improve the conditions and livelihoods of those that do the work.
But it is Mr. Ciferri’s lack of attention to detail, like differences across bargaining units and political distinctions within Labor where his argument (and Mr. Adachi’s Charter Amendment) fall apart. If the events of Tuesday are any indication, the downtown financiers (and their sacred cows in the management classes, police, and fire) are never going to be on the hook for their increased pension and health costs. Nope, they are running circles around Mr. Adachi and, unfortunately, the now divided progressive movement. Instead, unions who regularly challenge the Mayor and the power structure like SEIU (who just helped qualify a progressive revenue measure for November) will be stung. The end result, we’ll be robbing janitors to give to top-level managers and some of the highest paid police officers and firefighters anywhere.
Or perhaps we could just answer Mr. Ciferri’s leading question and end it there– the workers who benefit from their unions collective power choose their leaders.
July 15, 2010 at 1:24 pm
I am not sure your numbers help your cause in fact it seems cynical.
You don’t account for out liners which throw off any average, or prove there are no out liners.
Just looking at the numbers it appears (although hard to prove) that there are a few very highly paid City Employees that are driving up the “average” City wage.
9000 out of 27,000 earn > $100000, yet the average income is approx $93000. It seems using this average is a little disingenuous.
July 15, 2010 at 12:48 pm
“Of those 27,000 city employees, approximately 9,000 have incomes of $100 thousand or more.
Furthermore, the average income per capita of “labor” is approximately $93 thousand.”
I guess it would be too much to expect for the writer to “do the math” on what this means as to the distribution of incomes across the city workforce. Perhaps a more informative approach would be to consider statistical tools like “median” instead of “average?”
If you think that the solution to declining wages and benefits in the aggregate is to reduce wages and benefits, then please, come out and say that.
‘ “Labor” earns approximately twice as much as the average San Francisco worker. ‘
The story claimed that it was 20% more.
The lions share of the salary increases were put into place over the past eight years when the Municipal Executives Association, Municipal Attorney’s Association, Police Officers Association, Local 21 tech geeks and Firefighters all receiving significant pay boosts.
My question here is who appointed yet another collage making attorney to take out their rage against organized labor by treating the lowest paid city workers who have already negotiated most of what Adachi is posturing for the same as the highest paid workers who have been lavished with raises?
Yes, labor is fucked, but that is no excuse to team up with venture capitalists to gang rape all working people by lowering the bar even further and putting access to health insurance further out of reach for middle class families.
The FBI could not sabotage progressive politics this effectively as these white collar professional attorneys are ostensibly on behalf of blue collar workers.
-marc