Tag Archives: eric garcetti

Victims don’t buy “It’s only a misdemeanor” LA City Attorneys Speak Out

Posted on by

In my experience, people normally only care or learn about the vast work we do when they are the direct recipients of it, when someone is breaking in your house, you call our 911 Operators (PSR’s), who Dispatch our Police Officers, who arrest the suspects our Detention Officers maintain custody of, Evidence is collected & processed by our Criminalist, booked by our Property Officers, and finally prosecuted by the fine men and women of the LA City Attorney’s Office.

Van Nuys Courthouse

Putting any of them on Furloughs still sound like a good idea Eric Garcetti Or Mayor Pension Reform?  I wonder if the LA Daily News will have the courage to Publish this.

 

Below is a letter from a very intelligent City Attorney, that was widely circulated, her message is clear. LA City Workers.com Supports our hard working LA City Attorney’s

Dear Mr. Orlov,

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to discuss with you the misconception voiced by a City  “aide” that the City Attorney would not be using evidence available from sexual assault kits because “they prosecute misdemeanor crimes.” Over the course of my thirty five year career with the Office of the City Attorney I have often heard, “It’s only a misdemeanor.”  There appears to be no clear understanding of, or appreciation for, what constitutes a misdemeanor in Los Angeles, a city which has suffered from an incredible devaluation of crime over the years.

When you mention misdemeanor crimes, you may conjure visions of barking dogs and spitting on the sidewalk.  Rarely do you think of gang crimes, sexual assault, or abuse of children.  Too often in Los Angeles, residential burglaries become trespassing, rapes become sexual batteries and attempted murders are charged as assaults with deadly weapons.  The vast majority of domestic violence cases are charged as misdemeanors.  In fact, each year thousands of felony arrests are referred to the City Attorney’s Office for prosecution as misdemeanors. Clearly, these should not be the crimes that become casualties of the uninformed.

You asked for statistics indicating the serious nature of the crimes prosecuted by the City Attorney.  I have compiled the following numbers for the year 2010 from our Criminal Case Management System and Family Violence Operations Database:

  • Penal Code Section 243 et. seq. (Sexual Battery) 83
  • Penal Code Section 261 et. seq. (Child Sexual Abuse) 146
  • Penal Code 286.5 (Sexual Assault of Animals) 3
  • Penal Code Section 273.5 (Spousal Abuse) 2456, All Domestic Violence cases 3522
  • Penal Code Sections 12020 et. seq.,  417 et. seq.) (Weapons cases, including gang member enhancements)  576
  • Penal Code Section 171.5 (b) (Weapons at an Airport) 9
  • Penal Code Section 192 (Manslaughter, including Vehicular) 18
  • Penal Code Section 242, et. seq., (Battery) 1912 , including 48 with serious bodily injury and 654 committed on a live-in or significant other.  Please note that some sexual assaults may be filed as simple battery.
  • Penal Code Section 245 (Assault with a Deadly Weapon) 429
  • Penal Code Section 422 et. seq. (Criminal Threats, including gang member enhancements) 411
  • Penal Code Section 459 (Burglary) 454
  • Penal Code section 487 et. seq. (Grand Theft) 572
  • Penal Code Section 529-530 (Identity Theft) 109
  • Penal Code Section 597 et. seq. (Cruelty to Animals) 121
  • Vehicle Code Section 10851(a) et. seq. (Driving a Stolen Vehicle, Vehicle Tampering, gang enhancements) 303
  • Vehicle Code Section 23152a et. seq. (DUI) 13,228 , including 68 with injury

I have not included the thousands of offenses which are straightforward misdemeanors such as petty theft, prostitution, vehicular crimes, violations of  restraining orders and gang injunctions and the entire Los Angeles Municipal Code.  Nor have I noted the significant Business and Professions Code Section 17200 cases handled by our Criminal Division, most recently the multi-million dollar case against Deutsche Bank.  I do not want the exclusion of these cases to diminish in any way the impact that their prosecution has on the quality of life for the citizens of our neighborhoods.

As to the assertion that the City Attorney’s Office was not included in a press conference regarding the elimination of the sexual assault kit backlog because we are not  involved in the issue, nothing could be further from the truth. Years ago when then Deputy Chief Charlie Beck formed an advisory group to study the Sexual Assault/DNA backlog issue, Assistant City Attorney Sue Frauens was included.  In large part this was due to the fact that she had previously represented this office on the County Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee’s Subcommittee on DNA where she took an active role in drafting DNA Expungement Procedures.  Obviously, our participation has been long term and significant.

In closing, I appreciate the opportunity to provide you with statistics which clearly show the major public safety responsibilities of the Office of the City Attorney.  It has long been my belief that government, among its many important obligations to the people it serves, has one obligation that stands above all others – that is the obligation to keep citizens safe in their homes, their schools and in their work environments.  The failure to recognize the critical contributions of  Los Angeles City Attorneys in this effort, whether by the imposition of devastating budget cuts or crippling furloughs, threatens this most crucial of obligations.  I hope that, as you indicated in our prior conversation, you will pass this information to those who, unlike yourself, do not fully comprehend the good work of the Office of the City Attorney which continues year after year, administration after administration.

——————

 

Public Safety says enough is enough! Overwhelming Rejection of LA Mayors Contract

Posted on by

Los Angeles City Workers Public Safety professionals voted to Reject a deal by LA Mayor Villaraigosa last night.

In the strongest message yet to city leaders the overwhelming majority of public safety professionals rejected the proposed offer and chose to keep the contract they currently have.

Employees are entitled to retain their current contract, the voters elected the Mayor and City Council so they could plan a budget to provide services they pay taxes for.

Not this time!

Your elected leaders have decided the best way to solve this budget crisis is by attacking the Sworn men and women of the LAPD, the Los Angeles Fire Department and members of certain mous coincidentally these members the Mayor intends to furlough do more than just fill potholes, they are the difference between life and death.

LA City Workers have saved Billions for the city, only to be met by these same politicians the very next year with their hand out again telling workers to give more and raising the threat level used to achieve concessions.

Enough is enough, tax break after tax break, fee waiver after fee waiver, waste waste waste. Our residents deserve better then this. Fiscal irresponsibility year after year is no excuse to blame the hard working men and women that continue to provide services under adverse conditions. Residents spoke loudly and clearly that they wanted the services you keep taking away from them to fund your pet projects.

Let’s take a solid look at the 42 furlough days the Mayor and Eric Garcetti are proposing.

The following employees are at risk of furloughs which puts the tax paying citizens at risk.

Airport Security Officers

Airport Security Officers are responsible for LAX, Van Nuys, and Ontario Airports in securing the facility, preventing terrorist attacks, performing bomb inspections, vehicle inspections and maintaining order along with Airport Police.

Los Angeles International Airport has been the subject of numerous potential terrorist attacks, LAX is the fifth busiest airport in the world, with direct flights to North America, Latin America, Europe, Asia, Oceania and the Middle East. LAX is the 2nd busiest airport in the United States In 2007, 61,895,548 passengers traveled through LAX.

In the year 2000, Al-Qaeda attempted to bomb LAX during the millennium holiday. Ahmed Ressam was captured in Port Angeles, Washington, with a cache of explosives in the trunk of his rented car.He subsequently admits he planned to bomb Los Angeles International Airport on December 31, 1999

Securing one of the nations busiest airports and ensuring the safety of millions is a job performed by classifications the Mayor Can Not afford to Furlough without crippling Airport Operations and inviting a terrorist attack.

Thousands of people will avoid flying out of an International airport that has advertised it’s lack of security, Airport Police are to understaffed to pick up the duties of furloughed employees while paying Airport Police Overtime would cost much more than honoring the valid contract these employees currently have.

Will LAWA notify the Airlines that operate out of LAX that security may be compromised due to mandated furloughs by the Mayor, or will they stand up and inform him that as a proprietary department they will manage the Airport the way they need to.

Detention Officers

Detention officers take custody of millions of prisoners a year for the LAPD, they have several facility’s to hold prisoners one of those is the New Metropolitan Detention Center.

Detention officers are Civilian members of the Los Angeles Police Department, taking Sworn Police Officers out of the field off of patrol duties to cover for civilians results in:

  • Lower Police Officer Safety
  • Higher Response Times
  • Higher Crime
  • Reduction in Public Safety
  • Higher cost to the City

Furloughs Simply don’t work out for civilian members of the LAPD as they hurt public safety, crush officer morale, and make the citizens of LA suffer needlessly.

Police Service Representatives [PSR] / 911 Operators

PSR’s are the very first people to handle every single 911 call in a city of 5 million people, they technically are the first person in the public safety chain that dispatches the Los Angeles Police Department.

They handle ALL 911 calls, Non-Emergency calls, Radio Dispatching and requests for service for the entire Police department.

In Los Angeles with a majority population being Hispanic, it is shocking to see the increased time it took to answer 911 calls for Spanish Speakers, due to Furloughs on one particular day last month only 3, yes 3 Spanish speaking PSR’s were on duty.

Police Service reps have a high turnover rate due to the very stressful nature of their duties, we are so very fortunate to have a highly dedicated staff to answer the calls we make when we need Police or Fire Emergency services.

Without Police Service Representatives, Los Angeles would be in a crisis of immeasurable proportion, with a reduced number of Police Service Reps due to Furloughs Taxpayers are placed in a very dire predicament, one small earthquake or one civil disturbance would leave the Communications centers overwhelmed and nobody can do the job of a psr BUT a psr, Sworn officers can not simply step in to replace them.

City Attorneys

What more needs to be said about a group of highly skilled attorneys that take a huge pay-cut serving the public? How about they prosecute criminals every day of the year?

I couldn’t sum it up better then the City Attorney himself, “Moreover, as our prosecutors protect and serve our communities from threats to public health and safety posed by criminals, our litigators serve and protect other City departments so those entities can continue delivering City services, including police and fire protection. Without the City Attorney’s Office providing the public safety, legal and risk management services mandated under the provisions of the City Charter, no City services whatsoever could long be provided and public safety would soon be greatly diminished.”

Traffic Officers

Traffic Officers issue parking citations and make sure the roads remain free and passable, and direct traffic around hazardous situations or assist LAPD and other departments in traffic control. Without them vehicles would block lanes intended to remain clear during rush hour traffic, and the city would lose millions in revenue from the lack of citations issued.

Nobody likes to get a parking ticket, but if it helps reduce congestion and saves other city services, how good of an idea is it to furlough them?

LA City Workers, It’s not about us as employees.

We are members of the community as well and we care about the quality of life in Los Angeles, until we can all demand more from our council we will continue to be left wondering how we mismanaged 7 Billion dollars.

That’s $7,000,000,000.00, I think they need to take a second look.


 

Bargaining Team Without a Bargain, Unanimous approval not so much

Posted on by

By Dan Mariscal

Bargaining Team Without a Bargain

The whole point and principle to electing, seating and supporting a bargaining team is so that the process of negotiating and agreeing to employment terms, with your employer, is done by the members, for the members. Better known as collective bargaining. On this, lies the groundwork and foundation for all public and private union existence. If that’s not what we, as union members, are fighting for in Wisconsin, and everywhere else it has come under attack, than we are being hypocritical….or worse….we’re being taken for “a ride” by our union leadership.

I’ve just come from a group discussion, not comprised of “selected” members, but of very concerned rank and file members of several bargaining units, Departments and/or Bureaus mostly represented by the Coalition of City Unions. And, yes, there was also a member of the 721 LA/OC bargaining team, who was present at the bargaining team meeting where these proposals were first disclosed.
At our rank and file meeting, a number of concerns were raised about this “deal” and I’d like to share them, with all of us …..without a “selective invitation.

The way things are done tells us a lot about what’s being done.

Our “elected” bargaining team did not negotiate or bargain anything, on our behalf. They were summoned together for the sole purpose of informing them what was already formulated by City Leadership and Coalition Union Staff, without any meaningful input, independent discussion, deliberation or scrutiny by our “bargaining team”. The City Leadership and Coalition Union Staff, gave a power point presentation, emphasizing “no more furloughs”, to a captive audience (bargaining team), fed the captive audience food and then held a “vote”.   There was no deliberation in private among the bargaining team members, no group caucus, no time to do any research, independently crunch the numbers and also conducted under the watchful eye of the “minders”; Eric “I want to be Mayor and need this deal to pass, Julie” Garcetti and Miguel “I want to be known as the union buster” Santana. There is no point to having a bargaining team, if all that they’re there for is to assist in a “dog and pony show”. That is not collective bargaining, that is a collective railroading and that says a great deal about this “deal”.

The “Bums Rush” syndrome.

Those of us who have been on a negotiating team, or bargaining team, are familiar with the process of reaching a negotiated settlement. You just don’t come to one meeting and take an up or down vote on a single proposal issued by City management. There is a process of defining the issues, proposals and counter proposals, caucusing in private, doing independent research and even some debate and deliberating among the bargaining team as to pro’s and con’s of what’s on the table, and long and short term effects of how these proposals, if implemented as intended, will effect the general membership. Either way, it does not consist of only one meeting.

So, why the rush? Its not that hard to figure out, if you’ve been paying attention to what’s going on at City Hall. It’s all about timing. There’s a couple of things at play here, one being the Mayor needs to leave City Hall with some kind of legacy, or “accomplishment” so he can vie for a higher office and keep his political career alive. Another is the fact that Mr. Garcetti is running for Mayor and he needs to point to a “significant accomplishment” as City Council President, to the press and the voters. Another point is that Miguel Santana needs to get his budget document in by April 18, 2011. These are political reasons, not practical ones.

For us, there is no rush. As well, there shouldn’t be. If this were a “legitimate contractual” offer, then we should have ample time to debate, discuss and scrutinize this “proposal”. Also, that fact that our fiscal year doesn’t end until June 30, 2011 calls into question the “urgency” of this vote that is being rammed down our collective throats. As we have experienced before, highlighted summaries of the proposal abound, but the details (actual text) have to be hunted and flushed out. And as we have also experienced, the devil is in the details.  The “headlines” of our past concessionary campaign in 2009, were that we would “avoid layoffs and furloughs”, remember? Of course we all know how that worked out…..don’t we?

Keep in mind that the same steady drone of threats of layoffs and furloughs is what held our members in a state of panic and anxiety. The official-looking budgetary documents that were being spewed out by the CAO, spun by our union staff and were being swallowed by the members….hook, line and sinker. The first clue should have been the constantly changing number of layoffs that were being threatened; 500, 700, 1000…1900 at one point, and rumors were circulating that as much as 4,000 would be “subject” to layoffs.

As it turned out the use of “fear” was very successful, and the “deal” was ratified by the members. As we all know, that deal didn’t save us; hundreds were laid off anyway and the idea of “shared sacrifice” turned out to be a sham, as only 10,897 were furloughed. As a result, our membership was divided up by Department, further divided by Bureaus, and further divided up even more within bargaining units. We pay our union to keep us unified, not to assist in our division and further our weakness.

These are the consequences of not independently and fully debating and/or discussing proposals. This is what happens when our “bargaining process” is by-passed or not fully and properly implemented. I’m not blaming our bargaining team, for what happened in 2009. Let me be clear on this. But, if our bargaining team has been “together” since 2006, and it’s now 2011, they should have a good deal of experience behind them, at this point. We should all learn from our experiences…that should be part of life. To allow ourselves to be Bum Rushed into another debacle, would be a disservice to our membership. Period.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice….

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to arrive at the conclusion that you’ve been hornswoggled. As in the “Peanuts” cartoon characters, Lucy always seems successful at persuading poor Charlie Brown to try a field goal attempt. Each time managing to rationalize why Charlie Brown should trust her to hold the ball in place, and each time snatching the ball away at the last second, leaving poor Charlie Brown to fall right on his keester, while Lucy gloats in her power of persuasion.  As in our present situation, we’re being asked to “trust” the same people that broke our last agreement. The irony is that, we haven’t even finished litigating the last “breech of contract”, and now we’re being asked to ratify a new one.

Let’s not fool ourselves here, or at least allow ourselves to be fooled by others, there are trust issues involved here; as well there should be. This makes the actual text of the language all the more important. Will there be a clause, in the “new” proposal that will give up our pending litigation? They did it to EAA, with little or minimal effort. We don’t know if that’s going to be on the actual text. And we need to know. It should be clear and simple that unless this text is disclosed in a timely manner, there should be a NO vote.

While we may not be able to take our “team” to another City, we can and should continue to litigate the current breaches to the full extent of the law. There going to do what they want to anyway, why make it easy for them?

As for talk of decertification; I’ve heard it, too. While I don’t advocate decertification, or unions raiding each others membership, I have been asked, frequently, about decertification. In fact, very frequently. I’ve explained the certification process pursuant to the ERB’s Rules and Regulations and have used the “acquisition” of MOU’s 8 & 17, as an example. But that’s as far as I go, on that subject.

The problem I have is that I don’t have an answer to their frustration. Sadly, the Union itself, and its lackadaisical manner of representation and ignoring members demands, seems to be fueling this subject. If the Union would like to hear positive comments from the majority of its members, then they will have to demonstrate transparency, accountability and responsibility. Not to the union staff’s satisfaction, but to the members’ satisfaction. The members who pay dues have a right to expect this, whether or not they show up at every possible union meeting. That’s just plain common sense and respect.

Why a Three Year Contract?

As an experienced union negotiator should know, when in bad times; you negotiate for a short term contract. When in good times, you negotiate for longer terms. Point in reference; the 2007-20012 Contract. This was for an unprecedented 5 years and was for over an 18% raise. The one prior to this 2007-2012 contract was for about 2-3 years and totaled no more than about 3%.

This 2007-2012 contract has been steadily eroded and degraded since our union was changed to SEIU Local 721. Has anyone noticed?  Whose idea was this current proposal? Our bargaining team submitted no proposal. In fact they weren’t even in on the actual deal making.

If you’ve been listening to the news, reading the paper, it shows that, slowly but surely, the economic slump has hit bottom and the recovery has begun. [CAO:The City’s revenue would also increase even more if we could just nail down these pesky unsworn civilian employees to a lowball 3-year contract. Besides, if we can hornswoggle these civilian employees the City could leverage this into a lowball contract for the Fire and Police.]
A three-year contract is just too long for the position that we’re in now. This is not in our best interests.

Getting Involved in Our Union

This would be great, if only our union would start putting the dates of all the various relevant meetings on the 721 Website Calendar. More times than not, you won’t find them on there. And on top of that, if you do happen to find out about them, they could be canceled the night before. It’s like our union, doesn’t want us to be more involved. Getting involved is no easy task, and the present situation only discourages members from getting involved. Don’t they want to “face the music”?

Although there are those that feel that there will be consequences of cosmic proportions if the proposals are not ratified, the evidence just doesn’t support this. The evidence supports a more uncertain outcome. We already know what happened to the last contract that we ratified and there is just no evidence that any nuclear event is on the horizon, if this proposal is voted down. What we can expect is more layoff threats, more furlough threats and the sound of genuine panic in the voices of the union staff.

Let me offer Exhibit A.

Last Wednesday March 23, 2011 Miguel Santana told the City Council, that he “found” $50 Million dollars, which shaved down the current deficit…..by over 90%! Pretty lucky find, right? Wrong. Luck had nothing do with it, and if you buy that, I’ve got some stock in the Golden Gate Bridge that you’ll really find interesting. Which brings us to the real strategy at play here.

The Carrot and the Stick

The carrot is a nice fact juicy tidbit showcased in bright lights and bold type; NO MORE FURLOUGHS! I have to admit that this does sound promising…doesn’t it? But wait, there’s some very small print towards the bottom:  Only if you quickly agree to an, including by not limited to, 11% contribution to your retirement, step raise deferrals, conditional cash OT and whatever else we insert in this contract that you may or may not see.

Dan Mariscal Has been a union steward, member of bargaining teams, union activist, and leader of numerous employee grievances gaining members the protections and wages they deserved for over a decade.



Coalition of City Unions Makes Consessions Again New Contract

Posted on by

Yes, I know here we are again, again.

Seemingly every year the Coalition of City Unions gives back members benifits to the CAO and Mayor after threats of layoffs and furloughs and tsunamis and whatever else they can pull out of their….

Not to be outdone, the Coalition and SEIU have brought us yet a new contract, and more years of slavery to a union who has not once said anything but how much when Eric Garcetti or Miguel Santana come calling.

Unlike the rest of modern society, we give when we have a fully valid contract in place.

EAA can at least claim they had no choice SEIU actually went looking to make givebacks.

This is the latest in the givebacks we have come to expect from SEIU & the Coalition.

 

Coalition Of City Unions Concessions March 24 

2011
Proposed Contract Amendments, Charts, Facts, Lacers. Givebacks Part IV

 

 

 

New Concession Agreement Highlights

 

Contract Facts & Highlights

 

 

Ø This proposal will be rushed for a vote and immediate implementation is required to prevent any legal challenges.

 

Ø NO legally binding contract language has been made available.

 

Ø City Charter takes precedence.

 

Ø Nearly doubles how much the city takes out of your paycheck for retirement from 6% to 11%

 

Ø Removes furloughs for the few remaining classifications on furloughs 4 Days remaining in current fiscal year. (Street Services Removal Pending)

 

 

 

 

Ø Makes exact same claim as last several broken contracts of No Furloughs & massive layoffs if no vote threatened again.

 

 

Ø Mandatory Furloughs Renamed to Holiday Shutdown 4 per year scheduled in December.

 

 

Ø End Cash Overtime All Time Booked CTO Till July 01, 2014

 

 

Ø No Step Increases in pay for employees below Top Step till July 01,2012

 

Remember Los Angeles City Controller Wendy Gruel was quoted as saying, “Furloughs reduce services while achieving no employee benefits costs savings”

 

Let’s review the last few years history.

10/20/2010 Bob Schoonover President, SEIU 721

“But the changes proposed by the city go much farther: raising the retirement age from 55 to 60, reducing annual increases in pension payments and contributing 2% to retiree health care.”

 

8/12/2010 SEIU721 Action Center

City Budget Update: Protecting City Workers’ Health Benefits

Here are answers to some questions you might be asking.

 

What did CAO Miguel Santana propose for city workers?

Here are the changes Santana is trying to impose on city workers:

Increase HMO office visit co-payments from $10 to $20

Increase the emergency room visit co-payment from $50 to $100

Eliminate the $7.50 per pay period Flex Credit; and,

Establish a uniform, 30-day supply, prescription drug co-payment structure for all plans ($10 Generic, $20 brand name on Formulary, and $40 brand name off Formulary).

Will SEIU and the Coalition of LA City Unions accept this proposal?

Absolutely not. The benefit changes Santana seeks could end up costing the City more than they save. The new federal health care reform act grandfathers large benefit plans as long as no substantial changes are made to the plan. If enacted, Santana’s proposal would jeopardize LA’s grandfather status and risk triggering costly benefit mandates required by the federal law.

Didn’t most members of the Engineers & Architects Assn. (EAA) recently reject a similar proposal to pass additional health costs onto City employees?

Unfortunately, EAA, apparently working with City officials, has decided to ignore its members vote and is conducting another mail ballot vote on the same contract proposal. Coalition members continue to be alarmed that another city union would collaborate with the CAO to drive down the quality of benefits for all city workers.

 

7/28/2010 SEIU721 Action Center – Via Email

“We Need Your Help to End LA City Furloughs “

“On July 1, 2010, the City of Los Angeles adopted a budget that imposed 26 furlough days on many SEIU Local 721 members. Our agreement with the City of Los Angeles prohibits the unilateral implementation of furloughs for any SEIU Local 721 member represented by the Coalition of LA City Unions during the current fiscal year 2010-11. SEIU 721 and other Coalition of LA City Union members across the city are filing group grievances to help end these service cuts. ”

 

2/18/2010 SEIU 721 Action Center – It’s Time for Leadership, not Layoff Threats

“Dear SEIU 721 Members,

Today, the City Council voted 9-3 to authorize the elimination of up to 4,000 civilian, police and fire employees. After July 1, that could include SEIU 721 members at our parks, animal shelters, yards, golf courses, zoo and across the city. “

Bob Schoonover
SEIU 721 President

 

2/12/2010  Update SEIU Action Center Email

“LA City workers will attend budget deliberations in full force on Tuesday, Feb. 16, and Wednesday, Feb. 17, to provide a voice of reason to Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s latest call to lay off more than 3,000 employees.”

 

10/23/2009 SEIU 721 and the Coalition Ratify Early Retirement and Coalition Agreements

 

SEIU 721 and four of the other Coalition unions made their voices heard by ratifying the agreements that move forward with early retirements instead of massive layoffs and preserve hard-won protections against furloughs and layoffs for the rest of this fiscal year and next…

Now long-time workers can retire with dignity, protecting those beginning their careers with the City who were especially vulnerable to layoffs.

This agreement puts the City and Coalition members in the best position possible going forward in this tough economy by giving the City long-term, structural savings of $267 million next year and over $2 billion in the next five years; by securing the pension system; and by keeping the Coalition engaged in monitoring the City’s budget and finances.

 

The City Council is expected to take its second vote on the ERIP and Tentative Agreement on Friday, October 30. Sign up for ERIP now! It’s anticipated that the 45 day window period for ERIP will open shortly after the Council’s 2nd vote. Don’t wait to retire! The ERIP ordinance establishes waiting lists. Workers eligible for ERIP are encouraged to get on the list right away.  All provisions of the Tentative Agreement will take effect immediately. That includes the 3.5 hours off each pay period.

 

 

10/19/2009  “LA City Members: Remember to Vote for Your Future “SEIU Local Action Center –  “If the members of SEIU 721 and the Coalition of LA City Unions vote no, the City will proceed with its plan to layoff between 926 and 3,000 workers; and implement between 26 and 43 furlough days; through the end of this fiscal year. For next year, the City will lose over $200 million in savings they would gain from the ERIP. They will have to make up that savings with more layoffs and furloughs.”

10/09/2009  SEIU Local Action Center “See how the Coalition Agreement will affect your bottom-line” Three Scenarios, Three Different Impacts: Your Choice No matter how you vote there will be an immediate impact.

If you vote NO, then according to the CAO on October 5 it could mean up to 43 furlough days of Coalition members this year in combination with up to 3,000 layoffs. This would mean a 20.9% cut in your paycheck for the rest of the year.

If you vote NO the City is moving forward with layoff lists and furlough plans for the Mayor’s previously announced immediate implementation of 26 furlough days and 926 layoffs. Even under this plan your paycheck for the rest of the year would be cut by 10.4%.

 

If you vote YES to the Coalition Agreement, your paycheck would be cut only 4.4% for the rest of the year (or only a 2.9% cut from your annual salary).

10/2/2009 The Choice is Yours Today the Coalition of LA City Unions and the CAO finalized language for the Amended Letter of Agreement which Coalition members will vote on in the coming weeks. The Bargaining Teams for every Coalition union recommend a Yes vote on the agreement.

So there are now two very different plans for addressing this year’s budget crisis taking parallel tracks through the City. The choice between them is yours:

  • The Mayor’s plan of 926 immediate layoffs, and furloughs cutting 208 hours of work for those remaining–leaving everyone in a much worse position next year.
  • Our plan centered around early retirements, with concessions including 59.5 hours of work cut this fiscal year, plus ongoing savings to put us in a much better position for the future
  • Better Way Agreement: This only amends the previously ratified “Better Way for LA” Agreement, maintaining protections against layoffs and furloughs this year and next through deferring raises for two years; plus the added 1.75% cash payments on November 1, 2011 and November 1, 2012, and the extra 1.75% Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) on July 1, 2013.
  • Coalition negotiators found ways to temporarily bridge the $78 million budget gap, while impacting workers and services as little as possible:
    • $24.6 million from postponing the first ERIP cash payment until next fiscal year.
    • $34.0 million in accounting adjustments and delaying some payments:
      • Deferring sick leave payout for those who’ve earned over 800 sick hours to August 2010

§  Only $19 million of the $78 million bridge is in real cuts of 59.5 hours of work only through the end of this fiscal year–significantly less than the 208 hours cut under the Mayor’s plan.

Do not fall for critics who call these items major givebacks. There are real concessions here, but by agreement they are one-time adjustments, for this fiscal year only, and the majority are only delays that will be repaid. In all, the plan costs workers much less than the alternative plan, and puts us in a significantly better position to prevent more drastic cuts next year and in the future.

September 23, 2009

Fellow LA workers: “Together we’re all facing a big choice, between two very different paths for our City and our membership:

§  Immediate massive layoffs and 26 furlough days in nine months, or

  • No layoffs and no furloughs, voluntary early retirements (ERIP) for 2,400 people, plus a package of small concessions and payments put off to next fiscal year.

What it means if we vote no on the new agreement:

  • It means approximately a 13% pay cut, though we’d get about a 5% raise back, so that’s about a net 8% cut.
  • For more than 900 people on the layoff list it’s a 100% cut.

We all have to remember, these payments we’d put off to the next fiscal year and these small concessions all go away at the end of this fiscal year, which is the last day of June, 2010.

Bob Schoonover  Heavy Duty Equipment Mechanic, City of Los Angeles  President, SEIU Local 721”

 

 

7/22/2009 Bob Schoonover  City Workers in Solidarity Overwhelmingly Ratify the Better Way for LA to Save City Services

“I wanted to tell you that all of our hard work on a Better Way for LA has paid off. City workers represented by SEIU 721 and the five other unions in the Coalition of LA City Unions voted to preserve services for City residents, as well as job and wage security for ourselves and our co-workers, to see our City through this crisis to better times.     This agreement is the product of more than a year of hard work. It saves the services we proudly provide every day. It averts mandatory furloughs that would have cut our wages by 10%; it averts layoffs, and provides early retirement incentives for some of our most dedicated long-term City workers. It helps our younger workers continue to support their families and build lasting careers with the City. It guarantees that all Coalition members will maintain a solid, reliable income through this economic downturn. It helps keep our City working without the shock of massive layoffs.” Bob Schoonover

06/19/2009

Julie Butcher 7:38 PM – June 19, 2009 ”This week I, along with Cheryl Parisi of AFSCME, Daniel Villao of the Building and Construction Trades, Victor Gordo of LIUNA 777, Carlos Rubio of the Teamsters and Lance Bedolla of the Operating Engineers have met with the Mayor, the Mayor’s staff, the Executive Employee Relations Committee (EERC), interim City Administrative Officer Ray Ciranna and Chief Legislative Analyst Gerry Miller to discuss a detailed framework that would prevent mandatory furloughs and layoffs and provide early retirement incentives for those who have given decades of service to the City.
 We’re working around the clock today, and will continue through the weekend if necessary. Our goal is for the Executive Employee Relations Committee (EERC) to authorize a package on Tuesday morning so it can come before SEIU and Coalition bargaining teams that afternoon. Additionally, the Los Angeles City Employees’ Retirement System (LACERS) will meet on Monday to discuss a City proposal regarding early retirement incentives.”

 

 

Pension Changes

Ø Defined benefit based on formula:

Final Compensation x Service Credit x 2.16%

 

Ø 2.16% factor has not changed since 1975

 

 

Current Pension 

System

 Proposed Additional Pension Deduction With  ERIP Penalty Total 

Deductions*
-6% of salary -4% of salary -1% of salary -11% of salary
*Retirement Deductions are made Bi-weekly so the loss is felt twice a month.

 

 

 

LAFD Current Members Civilians Current
Eligibility requirements for full retirement allowance:
A minimum 50% pension at age 50 with 20 years service and maximum  90% pension with 33 years service; 

 

 Age 55 or older with at least 30 years of City Service 

Age 60 or older with at least 10 years of Continuous Service

100% of Final Compensation Requires approximately 46.3 years of City Service
• Required employee contributions of 8% or 9% of salary with 

NO contributions for retiree health benefits; and

 

 Currently  6% 

Erip Penalty increases to 7%
• A pension based on the single highest year salary • A pension based on single highest year salary

 

 

 

Contract Modifications – Deferrals

Effective 

Date

 Original Provision Givebacks  2011
4/11 N/A -2% Pension
7/11 

 2.25 % + 0.25% 

2.25% - 2.0% = 0.25%
11/11 

 1.75 %  Cash 

 

 0.00%
1/12 

 2.75 % 0.00%
7/12 

 4.0%  

2.25%+1.75%=4.0%

 2.25%*
11/12 

 1.75 %  Cash 0.00%
1/13 

 2.75 % 0.00%
7/13 

 Contract Expired 1.75%* COLA
1/14 Contract Expired 5.5%**Highly Unlikely
Total 11.75% Permanent                + 3% Ca$h 9.5%

 

 

 

 

 

 

LACERS FACTS

Who is Eligible for a LACERS Health Plan?

 

You may participate in a LACERS health plan if you receive a monthly retirement allowance, a continuance or a survivorship allowance from LACERS.

 

Ex-spouses and ex-state registered domestic partners being paid their community property interest in a retired member’s benefits are not eligible.

 

Eligible Dependents

Your dependents may receive coverage under a LACERS health plan.

Eligible dependents include your:

  1. Spouse
  2. Domestic Partner (your partnership must be registered with LACERS or state registered)
  3. Dependent unmarried children under age 19
  4. Dependent unmarried children under age 25 who are full-time students in an accredited college, university, or vocational school
  5. Disabled dependent children unable to engage in any gainful employment because of their mental or physical disability (the disability must occur prior to age 19 or if a ful-time student prior to age 25)
  6. Grandchildren – If you or your spouse/domestic partner are the legal guardians or have legal custody of your grandchild; of if your grandchild is the child of a dependent child as defined in (c) (d) or (e) above.

 

Dependent children include:

  1. A child born to you
  2. Your legally-adopted child
  3. Your step-child living with you in a parent-child relationship
  4. A child of whom you have legal custody or are the legal guardian, and you provide principal financial support for that child
  5. Your domestic partner’s child

When I retire, will my spouse/domestic partner also get a retirement check?
An eligible spouse or qualified domestic partner will receive a minimum of 50% continuance upon your death. Your spouse must be married to you at least one year prior to your effective date of retirement, on the date of retirement, and at time of death. For your qualified domestic partner to receive this benefit, you must have an affidavit of qualified domestic partnership on file at LACERS at least one year prior to your effective date of retirement which must still be in effect on the date of your retirement and at time of death.