Jerry Brown to Supreme Court: Hurry up and hear my pension law case

From: Sacramento Bee

Jerry Brown to Supreme Court: Hurry up and hear my pension law case

BY ADAM ASHTON

aashton@sacbee.com

July 17, 2018 11:52 AM

Updated July 17, 2018 01:21 PM\

Before he leaves office, Gov. Jerry Brown wants the state Supreme Court to resolve a lawsuit that could empower his successor to reduce or alter pension benefits for California public employees.

Brown’s office this month asked California Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye to accelerate the state Supreme Court’s consideration of a lawsuit that challenges a marquee law he signed six years ago restricting pension benefits for public employees hired after 2013.

Technically, the lawsuit seeks to undo only a small part of Brown’s Public Employee Pension Reform Act. It aims to restore a benefit the law canceled that had allowed public employees to buy “air time” — extra years of service that were credited to their pensions.

But both sides acknowledge the stakes are much higher. A win for Brown would put a dent in the so-called California Rule, the precedent that forbids public agencies from reducing pension benefits for current employees and retirees unless they provide additional compensation to offset the loss of income.

Brown is eager to break that precedent, which generally prevents cities and other public agencies from making even minor adjustments to pension plans even as their spending on retirement plans climbs.

“Vital city services are at risk, including the ability to fund police and fire protection,” the League of California Cities wrote in a brief supporting Brown. “Some cities have become insolvent and other cities are on the brink.”

In October, Brown’s office took the unusual step of replacing Attorney General Xavier Becerra in defending the law against the challenge from the union that represents Cal Fire firefighters, Cal Fire Local 2881.

“This move was animated in large part by Gov. Brown’s deep concern for the fiscal integrity and solvency of public pension systems throughout the state,” Rei Onishi, an attorney in Brown’s legal affairs office, wrote to the chief justice on July 6.

“As the end of Gov. Brown’s term draws closer, we respectfully urge the court to calendar this matter for argument as soon as practicable,” the letter continues.

Cantil-Sakauye’s office has not responded to a request for comment, and Brown’s office declined to elaborate on the letter.

It’s unclear how Brown’s successor will handle the lawsuit if it carries over to next year. California’s two largest systems, CalPERS and CalSTRS, each have about 70 percent of the assets they’d need to pay all of the benefits they owe, and leaders of both organizations worry that a recession could set them back further.

Democratic front-runner Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom assured public employee unions in endorsement meetings earlier this year that he would honor the California Rule even if it courts overturn it, according to a summary released by California Professional Firefighters.

Newsom “strongly believes changes in pension systems should be done with input and buy-in from workers and those who represent them — not something that is done unilaterally,” his spokesman Nathan Click told Bloomberg in February.

Republican John Cox has called the state’s public pension debt “critical.”

“Mr. Cox is closely watching the California Supreme Court’s future action on the Cal Fire Local 2881 vs. CalPERS, therefore it’s premature to speculate on any clarifications the court may make. That said, John Cox’s starting point is that California must keep the existing promises we have made, and set our public employee retirement programs on a course for future safety and soundness,” his campaign manager, Tim Rosales, said in a written statement.

The lawsuit, Cal Fire Local 2881 v. CalPERS, is one of two significant cases challenging Brown’s pension law that the State Supreme Court is expected to hear. The court is also receiving briefs for a case filed by the Alameda County Deputy Sheriff’s Association that argues Brown’s law illegally rescinded benefits to current employees.

Appeals courts sided with Brown in the Cal Fire union lawsuit but favored union arguments in the Alameda County case.

Brown at a news conferences this year said he anticipates that courts will uphold his law, void the California Rule and enable future leaders to adjust pension benefits.

“When the next recession comes around, the governor will have the option of considering pension cutbacks for the first time in a long time,” he said at a January news conference.

Gary Messing, an attorney representing the Cal Fire union, said Brown’s spending plan this year will help labor organizations prevail at the Supreme Court. Brown put the state on course to accumulate $16 billion in reserves by next July but did not commit additional money to paying down pension debts.

“CalPERS is doing better. The governor has $16 billion in reserve but hasn’t spent a nickel of that shoring up the retirement system. There has to be a necessity to change a vested benefit. I don’t see a necessity argument going well for the governor.”

The League of California Cities in February released a report that argued pension costs were becoming “unsustainable” for some local governments. About 10 percent of city leaders who responded to a league survey reported that they expect pension costs will consume about 20 percent of their budgets by 2024.

Unions counter that each city should work to solve its budget challenges on its own without upending the California Rule.

Under an umbrella group called Californians for Retirement Security, unions filed a brief in the Cal Fire lawsuit that said 42 public agencies last year reached agreements with labor organizations that required employees to kick in more money for their pensions. The brief also noted that state government’s spending on pensions has held steady between 1.6 percent and 2.2 percent of the state general fund since 2008.

“We also want the issue resolved,” said Dave Low, chairman of Californians for Retirement Security. “The courts have consistently ruled that an employer cannot impair the vested benefits of employees, unless an equal, offsetting benefit is provided. We strongly believe the Supreme Court will abide by the law and their own precedent, and not be unduly influenced by the governor.”

https://www.sacbee.com/article215029230.html

This is such an important article.

It’s great that Gov. Brown is anxious for the State Supreme Court to hear the CalFire v CalPERS case as soon as possible. The comment by the front-runner for governor, Gavin Newsom, however, declaring in advance that - no matter what the decision is - he would continue to “honor” the California Rule, is nothing short of alarming.

Newsom offers no explanation of how this would be done, but – if the State Supreme Court finds for CalPERS – his efforts to thwart that decision would cause years of litigation and could ultimately set us on a course of total insolvency.

The current inability to reduce pension benefits for current employees and retirees - unless additional compensation is provided to offset those reductions - is what got us into this mess in the first place.

Most politicians recognize this fact, but some are so beholden to public unions for campaign financing that they refuse to acknowledge the fiscal threat caused by the so-called California Rule.

It is blatantly a choice between personal ambition and concern for the taxpayers of California.

So, as we wait for the State Supreme Court’s decision in this critical case, we are also left wondering if a positive decision will provide a solution for the future or be challenged by a new governor. 

TELL SUPERVISORS: REBUFF MAPE'S DEMANDS. REPRESENT US!

TELL SUPERVISORS: REBUFF MAPE'S DEMANDS. REPRESENT US! The Marin Association of Public Employees (MAPE)* is going on strike to force Marin's Board of Supervisors to give them an 11% pay raise!  Their demands are excessive and lack accountability. Our supervisors vote on any contract.  Tell them to reject MAPE's demands.  And insist that Supervisors who have repeatedly accepted campaign money from MAPE -- Supervisors Katie Rice and Kate Sears -- recuse themselves from MAPE-related contract votes and negotiations.   Enough is Enough!  .    CLICK HERE TO SIGN THE PETITION  Please consider the following reasons for supporting this petition: Marin’s public employees are currently among the highest compensated employees in the entire U.S. (top 1%), even above (7.8% higher) San Francisco, where the cost of living is even greater than in Marin. MAPE’s demanded pay raise is not performance based. MAPE’s demanded pay raise is not need based.  The average Marin public employee makes $126,000 per year in total salary and pension and healthcare benefits. The average working adult in Marin makes $64,210.  MAPE salaries impact the County’s future pension and benefits liabilities. The County’s unfunded pension liabilities are already between $700 million and $1.2 billion (estimates vary). The only way the County will be able to meet the additional financial obligation resulting from MAPE's demands is by raising taxes and fees on Marin residents who, on average, earn less than County employees.  We, the undersigned, ask the Marin Board of Supervisors to reject the salary demands of the Marin Association of Public Employees. CLICK HERE TO SIGN THE PETITION     Learn More about MAPE's Attempt to Extort Marin Taxpayers *PLEASE NOTE: Police, fire, emergency responders and court employees are not members of MAPE and are not striking for salary increases. Many thanks to Community Venture Partners’ Bob Silvestri for research and advocacy on this issue, and for starting the petition.      Forward this email to your friends. Share on Social Media. Subscribe for alerts or donate at COSTMarin.org

Marin Association of Public Employees (MAPE) is going on strike to force the Marin Board of Supervisors to give them an 11% pay raise!

Dear Friends:

The Marin Association of Public Employees (MAPE) is going on strike to force the Marin Board of Supervisors to give them an 11% pay raise!  Their demands are unprecedented and without accountability. 

Please add your name to the growing number of Marin residents, who are asking the Marin Board of Supervisors to say “No” to MAPE’s demands.

Enough is enough!

CLICK HERE TO SIGN THE PETITION

Please consider the following reasons for supporting this petition:

• Marin’s public employees are currently among the highest compensated employees in the entire U.S. (top 1%), even higher (7.8% higher) than San Francisco, where the cost of living is higher than in Marin.

• MAPE’s demanded pay raise is not performance based.

• MAPE’s demanded pay raise is not need based. 

• The average Marin public employee makes $126,000 per year in total salary and pension and healthcare benefits. The average working adult in Marin makes $64,210. 

• MAPE salaries impact the County’s future pension and benefits liabilities. The County’s unfunded pension liabilities are already between $700 million and $1.2 billion (estimates vary). The only way the County will be able to meet this financial obligation is by raising taxes and fees.

We, the undersigned, ask the Marin Board of Supervisors to reject the salary demands of the Marin Association of Public Employees.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN THE PETITION

PLEASE NOTE: Police, fire, emergency responders and court employees are not members of MAPE and are not striking for salary increases.

Please forward this to others. Thank you.

If Marin County Workers strike on their "Free Friday" will the public even know?

MAPE’s attempt to extort Marin County taxpayers

Posted by: Bob Silvestri - June 24, 2018 - 5:40pm

The Marin Association of Public Employees (MAPE) has gone on strike against the County of Marin and is demanding enormous, guaranteed salary increases over the next three years – a total of 11 percent. Many are asking if this magnitude of increased pay is “fair” to Marin taxpayers. Well, fair is a subjective standard. What I’m wondering is if MAPE’s demands are even tethered to reality in any way, shape or form.

As a preface, I want readers to please understand that this article is not about our courts system’s employees or our Sheriff and fire departments or other public agencies that provide critical public services and who are generally delivering excellent levels of service. This is directed at MAPE’s members, who are the “rank and file” working in the various administrative departments at the Pink Palace.

The rationale for MAPE’s outsized demands are that Marin is such an expensive place to live. This is in spite of the fact that members of MAPE are presently among the highest compensated public “servants” in the country: in the top 1 percent nationwide and higher than those in San Francisco, where the cost of living and housing prices and rents are considerably higher than Marin.

As pointed out by Jody Morales of Citizens for Sustainable Pension Plans, according to Mary Hao, Marin County director of human resources

…research shows that 90 percent of MAPE-represented job qualifications have a pay range that is, on average, 7.8 percent above several other cities and counties, including San Francisco, San Mateo, Napa, Sonoma, Solano, Alameda and Contra Costa.

In addition, it has been reported by numerous sources that the combined salary and total benefits compensation packages for MAPE’s County employee members (salary, pension and healthcare benefits for life) are much higher than for comparable jobs in the private sector.

According the Transparent California

Nationwide, average local government wages were 10 percent below private-sector workers. In Marin County, however, local government received an average wage that was 13 percent above what Marin County private-sector workers earned.

More significantly, Marin County government workers also receive significantly higher non-wage benefits than the average private-sector worker. The average annual salary for a working adult in Marin is $64,210.[1] However, the average annual current salary for a MAPE member is $89,060.[2]

That’s a base salary that is 38.7 percent more than the average working person in Marin! And, on top of that, the average total compensation package for a MAPE member working for Marin County is currently over $126,000 per year! And, that doesn't even take into account that they get a guaranteed 2% to 3% cost of living increase (COLA) on their pension benefits, based on their salary, later on.

This considered, a reasonable person has to wonder on what basis is MAPE making these egregious demands to become, perhaps, the highest compensated public employees in the country.

Is it based on individual performance or excellence of services rendered? Is it based on a comparison to how much the average worker in the private sector (those who will pay for their increased salaries) makes for the same jobs? Is it based on actual cases of hardships or other objective data?

Or, is it simply, as we used to say, just highway robbery?

Attracting the best?

For decades, Marin County and all Marin cities have responded to criticism of their hiring practices and questionable salary and benefit packages for public employees, by regurgitating the same mantra: We have to offer the highest salaries and benefits to attract the best people. [3]

I think it’s time to challenge that assumption. So, let me ask you. When you go to the Marin County Civic Center to try to file a form, or to find some information from the Planning Department or the County Recorder’s Office or the Department of Public Works or any of the County administrative agencies, do you honestly come away feeling that your experience was the “best?”

Speaking only for myself, frankly, no, not even close, when compared to experiences in the private sector. So, let me turn the question around to MAPE members. If you want to be the highest paid public sector employees in the country, don't we, who pay your generous salaries and benefits, have the right to expect our "customer" experience to be the best in the country? And, until you demonstrate that, why should we agree to increase your compensation, when no company in the private sector would do the same?

Anyone who has ever started or run a successful business in the private sector knows that simply throwing money at people and hoping they do a good job never results in better overall performance, or more innovation or a better working environment. In fact, throwing money at people correlates pretty consistently with mismanagement, scandals and business failure.


The secret to attracting the best and the brightest is basically about being the best at what you do: providing the best products and services: being the place where everyone wishes they could get a job.

When you create that, when you demand that, ironically, what happens is that your resultant success allows you to pay and compensate your people really well.

A palace in tatters

In some ways, I can hardly blame County employees, considering the drab environment where they have to work. The Marin Civic Center may qualify as a “World Heritage Site,” but that’s about all it has going for it.

Don’t get me wrong, having spent most of my professional career as an architect and having been a lifelong fan of Frank Lloyd Wright, I appreciate the art of it all. But, let’s face it, the Civic Center in the context of the 21st century, is a total disaster: and I’m not just talking about the roof leaking.

The building is a dystopian mausoleum. The offices are cramped and design layouts are obsolete. The heating and ventilating systems are archaic: the air in the offices is stifling. The acoustics are terrible. The food service is horrendous. Electronics and lighting are totally inadequate or just plain awful.

The Board of Supervisors chambers may be the worst offender. Tucked away in the far corners of the upper most level, as far from the daily comings and goings of the public as possible, the low ceiling-ed public hearing room with its almost inaudible sound system constantly challenges occupants to stay awake.

This is not unimportant nitpicking. There has been a great deal of research done in the past few years showing that the quality or lack of quality of one’s workplace environment directly correlates with poorer performance and diminished mental and physical health. In a word, I find the whole place just plain depressing. It needs a major remodel.

But, I digress.

Making the same mistakes over and over

In the year leading up to the NASDAQ market crash of March of 2000 and the years leading up to the global, financial meltdown of 2008, Marin County and many other government bodies made the mistake of extrapolating conditions at the moment, ad infinitum. Everyone was overly optimistic and “What, me worry?” was the operative sentiment.

The results have been a disastrous drain on public funds ever since, leading to numerous municipal bankruptcies.

In both instances, elected leaders gave away the store in their negotiations with public employees, offering unsustainable salaries and pension benefits with unrealistic cost of living increases and retirement promises that have continued to consume greater and greater percentages of local government’s overall revenues.

Because of this, as the Citizens for Sustainable Pension Plans have so carefully documented, the future of pension costs does not look bright, even if all goes perfectly according to plan and the business cycle is magically repealed.

But, how likely is that?


While the stock market continues to make new highs and consumer sentiment rises, the telltale signs of recession again loom larger by the day and evidence that our economy is becoming more fragile, increase.

Stock market margin debt is at or near the highest it’s been in history (the market is rising on borrowed money more than on real investment). Forward-looking price to earnings ratios for the average equity are in an historically high range. Single family housing prices continue to rise and set new highs, but on rapidly decreasing volume of sales. The news is filled with stories of how unaffordable it is to live in the SF Bay area, while rents in San Francisco have actually been falling for more than 18 months.

Meanwhile, trade wars loom, interest rates are rising, new business formation continues to fall, the deferred costs of infrastructure maintenance continue to accumulate, tax cuts only help the wealthy, unfunded pension liabilities continue to rise and the anticipated returns on investment used by pension fund managers, required to make those huge pension payments, continue to remain ridiculously and unrealistically high.

I guess some people never learn, because from what I can see we’re about to do it again.

Why is it that historically, just at the moment we should be starting to be cautious, society tends to throw caution to the wind?

What to do

All things considered, here is my two cents on how the Marin Board of Supervisors should respond to MAPE’s demands.

So far, MAPE has demanded an 11 percent salary increase across the board over the next three years. The BOS came back with an offer of 7 percent. MAPE refused to even discuss it and went on strike.

Here is how the BOS should respond:

“As representatives of the taxpayers of Marin County and the stewards of the financial solvency of the County, our final offer to MAPE is this:

“Nothing. No raise in salary or benefits. Our original offer has been withdrawn.

“We suggest you all shine up your resumes and wish you all the best of luck finding a job out there in the real world, where you can have an equally low bar of performance and receive such enormous benefits and a lifetime of financial security.

“I’m sure there are thousands of young, college educated workers coming into the workforce, who would jump at the chance to work in beautiful Marin, to enjoy a six figure compensation package, and who will bring much needed energy and creativity and a fresh perspective on how government can better serve the public, who pays their wages.

“Thank you so much for your service. And, don’t let the screen door hit you in the butt on the way out.”

And, in case anyone thinks I've written what I have because I'm against unions, nothing could be further from the truth. I'm not against unions and a fair wage. What I'm against is as old as history itself: greed.


[1]http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/eab/socio_economic_files/2011/Marin.pdf

[2] Transparent California

[3] In my own town of Mill Valley, I’ve witnessed firsthand that this approach to hiring has only led to scandals, malfeasance, and an enormous waste of public resources.

Despite wages that rank in the top 1% nationwide, Marin union considers striking

Despite wages that rank in the top 1% nationwide, Marin union considers striking

by Robert Fellner


The average wage for Marin County local government workers is richer than what their peers in 99.8 percent of counties nationwide receive, according to new wage data released from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) last week.

In 2017, local government workers in Marin County received an average annual wage of $76,138 — which ranked 6th out of the 2,867 counties surveyed nationwide, and was 53 percent higher than the $49,712 received by local government workers nationally.

Remarkably, even after accounting for regional cost differences among the 50 states, Marin County local government workers’ average wage still ranked firmly within the top 1 percent of counties nationwide, placing 8th out of the 2,867 counties surveyed.

Accounting for regional cost differences was achieved by adjusting the nominal wages received by each state’s 2016 Regional Price Parity, as calculated and reported by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

For example, Marin County’s average was of $76,138 was reduced to $66,554 to account for average prices in California that were 14.4 percent above the national average, according to the BEA.

As indicated above, after a similar adjustment was made for all 2,867 counties nationwide, Marin County’s RPP-adjusted average wage for local government workers ranked 8th highest nationwide.

Government wages as % of private

In addition to outranking their local government peers in over 99 percent of counties nationwide, Marin County local government workers’ wages were significantly above average when measured against private-sector earnings.

Nationwide, average local government wages were 10 percent below private-sector workers. In Marin County, however, local government received an average wage that was 13 percent above what Marin County private-sector workers earned:



Similarly, while Marin County private-sector wages were 6 percent above private-sector wages nationally, Marin County local government workers’ wages were 34 percent higher than local government wages nationally:



Why government pay matters

Because employee compensation is by far the single largest category of government expenditures — accounting for nearly 70 percent of Marin County’s general fund budget — it is critical that taxpayers have complete and accurate information regarding the government pay packages that they are required to fund.

While the BLS data reflects all local government workers in Marin County and not just those employed by the County of Marin, it is nonetheless a strong indication that county wages are already at very competitive levels.

This is particularly true given the average $86,629 wage[1] received by County of Marin employees — excluding police and fire officers — was significantly above the $76,138 reported by the BLS for all local government workers in Marin County.

Beyond Wages

In addition to wages, compensation for Marin County employees includes employer-paid health and retirement benefits, paid leave, job security and retiree health benefits.

Because the terms of benefits vary by collective bargaining group, this analysis will focus solely on the Marin Association of Public Employees (MAPE)General Bargaining Unit, sometimes referred to as “rank-and-file” workers.

In addition to being Marin County’s largest bargaining group, an assessment of these workers overall compensation is particularly relevant given the union has called for a strike vote over allegedly insufficient pay.

Like all government workers, Marin County employees receive significantly greater levels of job security than their private-sector counterparts. Academic research has estimated the job security premium for California local government workers to be worth between 5 and 15 percent of wages.[2]

Marin County government workers also receive significantly richer amounts of all non-wage benefits than the average private-sector worker[3], as shown below:



Type of Compensation

Average Private Sector

Marin County Government

Marin County Government vs Private


Employer-Paid Retirement, as a Percent of Wages

5%

22%

+320%


Employer-Paid Share of Employee Medical Premium

$5,310

$12,011

+126%


Employer-Paid Share of Family Medical Premium

$12,840

$18,843

+47%


Paid Holidays

7

14

+100%


Annual Paid Sick Leave for 10+ year employees

8

12

+50%


Annual Paid Vacation Leave for 10-20 year employees

17

20

+18%


Annual Paid Vacation Leave for 20-30 year employees

20

25

+25%


The cause

Such outsized pay packages for California’s local government workers — and the burden they impose on the taxpayers who, on average, earn much less themselves — are the inevitable result of the state’s mandatory collective bargaining laws.

Because California state law forces local governments to bargain with a single government union, the union is able to wield this monopoly power to push labor costs well above market prices — a cost that is then passed on to captive taxpayers.

Adding insult to injury is the fact that these negotiations are done entirely in secret — ensuring that the taxpaying public is shut out of the process entirely.

Unsurprisingly, this arrangement has resulted in about $10 to $20 billion annually in added costs to California taxpayers, according to the most comprehensive study ever conducted on this issue by scholars at the Heritage Foundation.[4]

The current landscape is a result of the profound differences between unionization in the public and private sectors — which is why, historically, the idea of government unions was widely opposed by economists, policymakers and politicians on all sides of the ideological debate.

In addition to well documented opposition from traditionally pro-union policymakers such as President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, even labor unions themselves historically opposed the concept of unionizing government workers.[5]

For example, in 1955, AFL-CIO President George Meany said, “It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government.” Four years later, the AFL-CIO executive council passed a resolution declaring that, “In terms of accepted collective bargaining procedures, government workers have no right beyond the authority to petition Congress — a right available to every citizen.”[6]

So what changed?

As Geoffrey Lawrence and Cameron Belt document in The Rise of Government Unions: A review of public-sector unions and their impact on public policy, the shift towards favoring government unions didn’t occur because of any change in logic or analysis, but was simply the result of union bosses scrambling to find new dues-paying members in response to declining private-sector membership:

The American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) was the first labor organization to explicitly acknowledge these points and to begin a systematic effort to bring compulsory collective bargaining to state and local governments. “Industrial unions seem to be at the end of a line…as more and more plants are automated,” and craft union membership “is growing only slowly,” the organization observed. “In public employment, however, there is an expanding reservoir of workers.”

While the original labor movement was created to prevent the exploitation of workers by profit-hungry corporations, no such justification exists for unionization in the public sector, which has neither owners nor profits over which to negotiate.

And because the government is funded via taxation, it faces none of the cost restraints found in the for-profit private sector. Private employers, on the other hand, are only able to generate revenue to the extent that consumers voluntarily purchase their goods or services.

Governments, by contrast, can finance above-market compensation by simply taxing the public. Most problematic is that the elected officials who approve these labor contracts bear none of the cost. In fact, these elected officials are routinely rewarded for doing so, as the concentrated political support bestowed upon them by appreciative government unions far outweighs the cost of taxpayers’ dispersed frustration.

On this point, Lawrence and Belt observe that:

Instead of resisting union demands, politician-employers have a keen interest in encouraging unionization among government employees because they can use government unions as political machines to secure election.

Thus, mandatory collective bargaining in the public sector has led to the very one-sided, exploitative arrangement that private-sector unions were originally designed to prevent — albeit with organized labor wielding the power, and the taxpaying public at large left largely powerless.

Given such a lop-sided power dynamic, it is little surprise that California’s public unions continue to push for more, despite already receiving compensation packages that, on average, significantly exceed market levels.

Illustrating the point

Despite belonging to the top 1 percent of counties with the highest-paid local government workers nationwide, in addition to receiving benefits that dwarf private-sector levels, the Marin County union (MAPE) recently rejected an across-the-board 7 percent pay raise over the next three years, and is demanding 11 percent instead (3.5 percent in FY19, 4 percent in FY20 and 3.5 percent in FY21).

It is worth mentioning that these across-the-board raises are on top of average yearly step increases of nearly 5 percent, which are available to employees who receive a “meets standards” or above assessment in their annual performance review and have not already reached the fifth step maximum.

So an employee still working their way up the step pay ladder would receive annual wage increases of roughly 7 percent under the county’s offer, and 8 to 9 percent under MAPE’s counter-offer.

As this example shows, government unions are not in the business of securing fair wages for workers who are being underpaid by profit-hungry employers. Instead, the incentives are such that most unions have one simple, unchanging goal: More.

Indeed, this approach is precisely what drove public compensation so far above market levels to begin with.

This is why, despite already having one of the highest tax burdens in the nation, municipalities across the state are seeking to raise that burden even further. And because the vast majority of these tax hikes — sales tax and fees for public services — are regressive in nature, it is precisely California’s lower- and middle-income residents who will fare the worst.


[1] Marin County Employees’ Retirement Association
Actuarial Valuation Report as of June 30, 2017.

[2] Jason Richwine and Andrew Biggs, “Are California Public Employees Overpaid?” The Heritage Center for Data Analysis, March 17, 2011.

[3] Employee benefits data for private-sector workers in not available on a state level, and thus this analysis uses national data for private-sector workers’ paid leave data and Pacific regional data for retirement and health benefits.

[4] How Government Unions Affect State and Local Finances: An Empirical 50-State Review, The Heritage Foundation, April 26, 2016.

[5] Cameron Belt and Geoffrey Lawrence, The Rise of Government Unions: A review of public-sector unions and their impact on public policy, Nevada Policy Research Institute.

[6] Ibid.

Robert Fellner | June 11, 2018 at 7:45 am | Tags: Marin County | Categories: Blog | URL: https://wp.me/p5wvOj-J0

Stossel: Supreme Court Ruling May Crush Unions