Public Defender Jeff Adachi. FIle photo by Luke Thomas.
From SF Smart Reform
August 11, 2010
In an effort to stop San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi‘s Sustainable City Employees Benefits Reform Act from getting on the November ballot, several city employee labor unions have filed a lawsuit. The suit, filed on August 10 by San Francisco Fire Fighters, Local 798, International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers, Local 21, Service Employees International Union, Local 1021, the San Francisco Municipal Executives’ Association, and the San Francisco Police Officers Association attempts to discredit the Civil Grand Jury, the Department of Elections, the City Attorney and the rights over 77,000 San Franciscan’s who signed the petition and Adachi.
“The law has very specific requirements that must be followed in order to receive the approval from the Department of Elections for a measure to qualify for the ballot,” said Adachi. “The democratic process by which The Sustainable City Employees Benefits Reform Act was approved both by the City Attorney through granting title and summary to the petition and by the Department of Elections when the signatures of 49,178 San Francisco voters were verified and accepted. We as Americans have the freedom afforded to us by the Constitution to have our choices heard at the ballot box and the taxpayers have the right to address how their tax dollars are spent in San Francisco without interference from special interest groups.”
The lawsuit filed by the unions attacks the credibility of the Civil Grand Jury, the ability of the people of San Francisco who signed the petition to read, the City Attorney for granting title and summary to the measure, the rights of the voters to request that city employees pay into their own pensions and the right of the people of San Francisco to be informed of labor union bargaining agreements that direct taxpayer money towards employees rather than the preservation of city services and jobs.
On July 6, Adachi submitted over 77,000 signatures, well over the 46,000 required, for an initiative to qualify for the ballot. The Department of Elections qualified the measure for the November ballot on August 2. If the measure is approved by voters in November it will save $170 million by requiring employees to contribute 9% into their own pensions, which will include elected officials, and police and fire to contribute 10% . SF Smart Reform will maintain 100% medical coverage for all employees and allow a 50-50 shared provision for dependent healthcare.
The Hunger Site
August 13, 2010 at 9:21 am
Hey marc, I’m a Nurse, not a Doctor, didn’t take no Hippocratic Oath. Besides there’s nothing in it that would preclude me from speaking my mind and telling truth as I see it. Sticks and stones…….
PS. How are your tomatoes doing this year, coons got ’em again. I’m starting to get a little ripening but we need more sun godamnit.
August 12, 2010 at 6:18 pm
I do not support the Adachi initiative, however I think that it is foolish to engage in retaliatory tactics like litigation, cutting the defender’s budget, mudslinging, etc. Such tactics will only succeed in pissing folks off and polarizing the electorate even further. It’s bad strategy. I think it makes far more sense to spend the time and resources to educate the voters, and trust that San Franciscans are open minded enough to weigh all the arguments and come to a wise decision once they understand what’s at stake, and not just for public employees. Like it or not, it is up to us to make that case.
I say this because I see that this debate is becoming very devisive issue, so I think it might be good time to step back and think about the best way to get our message across. In order to do this, we are going to have to reach out to workers in the private sector and show what’s at stake for them if this measure passes.
I think it would help to have some perspective. What we are seeing now is happening on a global scale to workers in both the public and the private sector. In Greece, public workers went on strike last spring to protest the austerity measure that were rammed down their throats, and they were joined by their brothers and sisters working in the private sector. All over Europe, public and private-sector workers have joined together in strikes and work stoppages. They are demanding, rightfully, that those who caused the crisis should be the ones to suffer the cuts, rather than being the ones to gett bailed out. Unfortuantely, what is happening is what always happens. Those with the most wealth and power reap the profit while the struggling workers are left to shoulder the costs.
Why is that “the Greeks get it”, as Chris Hedges says, and we don’t? Why aren’t we making alliances with private sector workers to help them win the battle for union representation that would lead to greater security and better wages? To that end, we need to be supporting unions, not underminding them. One way to do that is to join together to push for progressive taxes on the wealthy, pass the Employee Free Choice Act, and repeal the anti-union Taft Hartley law. We need to show how we are stepping up to the plate for ALL workers, not just those in the public sector. And clearly demonstrate how going after the only workers who are still unionized is bad policy for all workers.
Sometimes the “enemy” is not actually the person on the other side of the issue but ourselves, especially when give in to our fears and go into battle mode. If we do that, we will all be the losers in the end. So, I think we need to reach out to our brothers and sisters in the private sector and show how supporting unionized workers helps them too. Just a reminder that respectful discourse is more likely to win hearts and minds of the voters than all the litigation, vitriol and retaliatory measures. In all likelihood, the measure will survive this court challenge and will be on the ballot in November. So, like it or not, it is up to us to make our case. We need to do a much better job of this. Just saying.
August 12, 2010 at 2:15 pm
Dependent health care coverage and city funded retirement benefits were not negotiated recently in backdoor deals.
These had been in place since before forever and at one time were a staple of employment in the US during the 20th century.
Those such as billionaire speculator Moritz have successfully driven down wages and benefits in the private sector to nil and are now poised to visit their same handiwork onto the public sector.
This is an opportunity to continue off of that cliff to a Dickensian future, or we can pull back and contemplate progressive solutions to these problems.
The choice is yours: billionaire speculators or progressives, what are your values?
-marc
August 12, 2010 at 10:22 am
San Francisco is now and always has been a union city dating back to at least 1902, when Abe “Boss” Ruef picked Eugene Schmitz to run for mayor on the Union Labor Party ticket. Too many San Francisco politicians are beholden to the labor vote resulting in behind-closed-door sweetheart contracts for city employees. Hopefully, a public debate over the merits of SF Smart Reform will shed some long overdue light on the escalation of labor costs and the unfair financial burden it places on San Francisco’s fiscal health. Let the debate begin.
August 12, 2010 at 8:24 am
Who needs “progressives” who align with speculative billionaires?
-marc
August 12, 2010 at 8:17 am
So called “pension reform” is becoming popular with conservatives. Rather than focus on loop-holes for Corporations who pay little in state or local taxes or stopping extending tax breaks for the extremely wealthy (Bush tax breaks for the merry rich), conservatives focus on making workers in the public and private sector pay more for the things that their unions fought for, pensions, good wages and benefits, like health insurance. But, just because ad populum arguments backed up by highly paid consultants and advertising campaigns doesn’t make something right. As to the Grand Jury report, facts can be mis-used and mis-intrepreted. The biggest battle for safe-staff nursing ratios was how to use statistics and then, manipulate the conclusions. Having RN’s at the bedside, in paper after paper, saw better outcomes with adequate staff ratios. But, conservative groups came to different conclusions, largely based on not enough nurses and not enough trained nurses to justify ratios. Therefore, ratios can’t happen, because we can’t find RN’s anywhere. Those who have been fighting safe-ratios often point to the costs of having a trained nurse vs. an aide. Are RN staff nursing ratios sustainable? Are staff nursing ratios sustainable at SFGH? Conservatives, would argue, no.
This report scares people into believing the only way to to justify pension benefits and continuing to pay for a workers health insurance is to put the costs on the workers and save the services too. It blames unions and workers for our economic hard times. But one could easily argue that to keep pensions and benefits for workers afloat one needs to increase local revenue, like a modest hotel tax, to add in revenue. It is the conclusions to the problem, a problem facing every city in California, by the way that is the issue.
Conservatives will put the burden on the middle class rather than raise revenue to support jobs and benefits. The “pension tsunami”, fear mongering at it’s best, places our decline in revenues for local city services on our out of control pensions and health care benefits, which are being blamed for why we have no money.
What about the fact that conservatives, like out going Governor, you know who, robbed Peter to pay Paul, last year, to balance the state budget by taking our money?
Unions are mobilizing to fight this in the court or at the ballot box. The fact that supporters of the bill ignore the fact that it does not put the money saved into services directly and penalizes workers should they exercise their right to challenge the legality of their ability to collective bargaining if it should pass without changing this poison pill section of the measure, should send a chill up the spine of people who belief in organized labor.
The fact that the treasurer of Proposition B used his capacity on the Grand Jury to issue this report is another part of the legal challenge.
I will also add, without generating revenue the services themselves are unsustainable at the present rate. City workers have given back 250 million dollars to help keep the jobs and services alive last year, while Moritz/Adachi were planning to take more out of our pockets with this badly crafted proposition. The real issue at stake is whether city services should be paid for by the workers themselves who actually do the work or through raising needed revenue that all cities, including San Francisco need.
The only thing specious is the proposition itself and the slick advertising campaign used to qualify it for the ballot.
When I looked at the pictures of the Adachi “kick-off” campaign documented very well on “Fog City Journal” what stuck me was the lack of people except for Jeff and the media. THe room looked pretty empty. A picture of some nice , base-ball hats stacked on the table, told me a lot. They were empty. But who needs volunteers when you’ve got millionaires and slick advertising to back you up.
August 12, 2010 at 8:03 am
Hey Patrick, when are you going to remember your Hippocratic Oath as a nurse to “do no harm” to others health?
-marc
August 12, 2010 at 7:52 am
Hey ‘Sflocal’.
When are you gonna find the cojones to come out from behind your mask and put your money where your mouth is ?. Until you do so your opinions have less substance and relevance than a sheet of Charmin.
August 12, 2010 at 7:26 am
The Grand Jury is comprised almost exclusively of of older white people which make up a minority of San Francisco’s population. These geezers claim that the major problem concerning cyclists in San Francisco is that we don’t obey the law, not autos speeding through the City oblivious to cyclists and pedestrians. If those are the values you want to base your proposal on, then own that.
The bulk of savings from Prop B would come from lowering the City’s ability to cover health insurance for dependents, even if the economy ever picks up in the future and the City needs to compete with a vibrant private sector for talent.
Did the Civil Grand Jury assert that health insurance subsidies for dependents was too high, or did Adachi and his billionaire buddies, also in support of Sit/Lie, like Michael Moritz, just put that one in for fun?
What line item on the economic analysis of this measure contains dependents who can no longer afford health insurance and get sick?
-marc
August 12, 2010 at 6:23 am
The opposition to SF Smart Reform avoids the elephant in the room, i.e., the Grand Jury Report, “Pensions Beyond Our Ability to Pay,” which shows how out-of-wack San Francisco Employees’ Retirement System is. I assume opponents agree with the report or they would have picked it apart by now. The merits or demerits of SF Smart Reform should be argued during the election, not in a specious lawsuit, which will be thrown out in due course.
August 12, 2010 at 4:59 am
Proposition B will not save the services. The money from will be placed into the general fund and can be used to hire consultants, out-source jobs or hire more administrators. It, like “Care not Cash” is deceptive in that there is nothing in this measure that puts the money directly into services.
In addition, if passed, the measure if legally challenged by any group, would put a 5 year freeze on all salaries and put any change up for a vote. It would nullify collective bargaining agreements by this “poison pill” so that no union could bargain with our employer over wages or improvements in our contracts. If, for example, the employer decided due to deficits, that the safe staffing ratio for nurses, is too expensive it could decide to bypass that state law, and hire non-RN’s at the hospital and put that up to the voters to decide if they want an RN at the bedside vs. an aide.
Last year, city and county workers gave back 250 million in concessions to get up through tough economic times.
Propostion B is deceptive and as Randy Shaw said a “Fraud”
August 11, 2010 at 5:12 pm
Patrick-
Thanks for your comments. Yes, this is about putting the needs of the City first and foremost, not organized labor representing City employees – most of whom don’t even live in the City and don’t care if the cost of their benefits gut the general fund…
Yes, and let’s talk about all the money organized labor has to waste on frivolous lawsuits like this one…
Labor can only sling mud because they are allergic to math, the math of the cost of employee benefits…
August 11, 2010 at 3:18 pm
The City can’t afford the pensions and benefits it’s paying City employees. The unions won’t debate the Charter Amendment on the merits and instead are resorting to (i) attacking the grand jury report (which is based on city controller and retirement board data); (ii) attacking Adachi and calling him a tax dodger; (iii) filing lawsuits; (iv) trying to cut the public defender’s budget; and (v) using talking points like “healthcare for kids.” These tactics are unconvincing and transparent.
The Charter Amendment isn’t about “healthcare for kids.” City Employees get dependent coverage that private workers don’t get and the City can’t afford.
Who cares who funded it? Labor unions are rich–they can afford to hire law firms to file lawsuits and have hired a PR agency–so why didn’t they fund their own signature drive?
We need to put the City, not its unions, first. The unions’ actions are going to help pass the measure because citizens are sick of their tactics.
August 11, 2010 at 1:12 pm
Let’s hope that Adachi’s misguided measure to deny working families healthcare gets thrown out in court or voted out at the ballot. The fact that his campaign treasurer was also on the grand jury that created the report Adachi used to justify his measure is bad enough. The fact that a billionare funded Adachi to pay $5 a signature to get his measure qualified on the ballot makes this even more suspect. Finally the fact that Adachi and his supporters use outdated and in accurate data and information to justify this attempt to make healthcare for kids unaffordable is really the lowest level of a politican stooping to the lowest level to set up a run for mayor.