Today’s Globe story on municipal health plans is a must-read. It’s quite long, but the short version is that cities and towns across the state are paying millions for guaranteed-for-life health benefits, even for middle-aged folks years away from retirement, and even for retirees who are eligible for Medicare (but who don’t take it because the muni benefits are better), and even when the recipients might have worked for the municipality only for a few years. And we wonder why cities and towns have to keep cutting services, laying off teachers, closing libraries, and hiking property taxes.
Also worth reading is today’s Herald story about bail fees going into court employees’ pockets.
The $40 fees are incurred by suspects who pay bail set by clerk magistrates and assistants after hours, when courts are closed. The fee goes straight to the judicial staffers – on top of their salaries of $84,000 to $110,000.
This, I’m afraid, is insane and should be stopped immediately. The defense is that these guys should be paid extra for working overtime. (From the article: “It’s ‘unrealistic to assume you should ask people to work beyond their normal hours of employment without any sort of compensation,’ said Keith E. McDonough, clerk magistrate in Lawrence District Court and vice president of the Association of Magistrates and Assistant Clerks.”) But of course, that begs the question of what these jobs actually entail. Seems to me that these jobs — which are way up there on the state government pay scale — should include, as part of their normal duties, sometimes being hauled into the courthouse at 3 in the morning to hold a bail hearing. You don’t want to do that? Don’t be a clerk magistrate. The Constitution doesn’t require that a job like that be only 9-5.
If anyone was still wondering why people are cynical about government around here, well, these stories (along with the probation story and the State Auditor story from earlier this week) are Exhibit A.
CNN doesn’t cover sessions of the Massachusetts House or Senate – the contract was allowed to lapse. So, unless you have broadband and know how to deal with “web streaming” there is no ability to watch. Those with even basic cable used to be able to keep track and watch. This was dropped when Sal DiMasi was speaker. I am told he didn’t like people knowing that there was no longer “real debate” on anything.
<
p>2. The Open Meeting Law (s) do not apply to the Massachusetts House, the Massachusetts Senate or executive agencies – just to local government. Beacon Hill passed laws to exempt itself from ALL Open Meetings Laws decades ago.
<
p>3. The State’s Freedom of Information Act doesn’t apply to the House or the Senate [federal may in some circumstances, but still!]
<
p>4. Fair Procurement/Open Procurement laws don’t apply to the State House or State Senate. That’s why DeLeo could pay Attorney Crane $300k+ with no bidding and no competition – just pick who he likes and pay what he pleases. And any hourly rate at all – in this case 6x and more what attorneys who represent poor kids are paid per hour.
<
p>OUCH across the Board. We need sunlight and air. We need accountable government, not consolidated power in three people. THAT is not what representative government is about – but then this state hasn’t taught civics in its schools for twenty years – maybe Massachusetts citizens don’t know what representative democracy is supposed to be?????
The contract with WGBH was becoming cost prohibitive and the equipment was nearly twenty five years old and needed to be replaced at the expense of the Commonwealth…furthermore WGBH did not run the coverage in real time – they ran the pre-recordings after prime time and early in the AM hours.
<
p>The House moved to webcasts with live streaming of House sesssions and also added webstreaming of committee hearings for the first time – which reached many more people than the WGBH coverage.
<
p>So it wasn’t because you were told thst DiMasi “didn’t like people knowing that there was no longer “real debate” on anything,” on the contrary he implemented the web program as a way to have more people see the House in session and it’s committees hearings.
…I at least sometimes saw live coverage on channel 44 during the afternoon.
when they had air time to fill…but it was not a set schedule.
when they had air time to fill…but it was not a set schedule.
I know what I saw. I know what I heard. And the folk I know in the projects and the retired folk do NOT have Broadband, most do NOT have internet and cannot watch “live streaming” at all. Basic cable reached far more people.
<
p>I used to sit in reps offices and watch live when I was there, when I was in the hospital or in rehab I watched live, too. It was not recast at weird times [maybe that was a second or third replay, who knows] it was LIVE.
<
p>And yes the equipment was old, not replaced, and allowed to break down. One of many services allowed to degrade.
<
p>Web casts are better than zero but no improvement in my opinion.
<
p>This type of common behavior is inexplicable. As a taxpayer it is outrageous. 8 years as a town planner and then lifetime health care (with an actuarial value in 7 figures)??? No wonder cities and towns are going broke.
<
p>Just remember, the Gordon Gekkos of the world aren’t the only ones who play with “Other Peoples’ Money”. And we won’t even get into the funding levels of the government pension systems (more honest appraisals of unfunded liabilities are out there in the $2 trillion range).
in the Globe piece, she didn’t go looking for this, merely took what benefits were available to her. I can’t say I blame here. OTOH, as a taxpayer, although not of Everett, I’m offended by the excuses given for benefits such as these. The last excuse I heard was that it was intended to protect public employees from job losses based solely on the change in political leadership. There is no acceptable reason for Debski to be given lifetime city subsidized health coverage as a result of 8 years of employment from the age of 42. At the most, I would accept a COBRA like extension of coverage for a very brief period of time until she could secure new employment and insurance, NO MORE. What does it take to end this practice and others like it, once and for all, including retroactively, and without any excuse of being grandfathered in? As taxpayers, we owe our municipal employees fair wages and benefits, and decent working conditions, no more, no less. They don’t deserve lifetime insurance on my dime. They don’t deserve sweetheart pension deals kicking in at youthful ages.
if this was some sneaky deal (the old special deal); instead this is standard operating procedure! A truly parallel universe between public and private sector.
<
p>Was wondering when the impact of GASB 45 was going to start opening eyes; when you see the City of Boston w/ a $5.7 billion unfunded health care liability (not pensions, just health insurance) maybe we can see where this problem arose.
Now all of a sudden, it seems BMG posters are offended that someone is getting health care for life. Isn’t that what she’s supposed to have? Aren’t taxpayers supposed to pay that $1,000,000 for her health care that actuarial tables predict we will pay? And aren’t taxpayers not only supposed to pay for every town’s former municipal workers, but also for all the bartenders and musicians and glassblowers and message therapists and poker payers and tattoo artists that live in every town, too?
<
p>I guess the point is that, since we are already half way there, giving unfair free insurance for life to public sector people, then we should just give it to everybody. It would make it a lot easier to negotiate with unions if cities didn’t have to provide them any better a plan than it provided it’s bums.
So remember to read the tedious stuff on Mass.Gov. I got the shock of my life in House One this year…
And then there is transportation reform.
<
p>
<
p>http://www.boston.com/news/loc…
<
p>As a former local public official I can tell you that the Open Meeting Law is a royal pain in the butt. Saying that I am glad it exists. Just another do as I say, not as I do example set by our state officials.
<
p>Thank God we did all those reforms.
Remeber all the rejoicing about how the Pike was abolished? How there was now a signle umbrella agency, a true DEPARTMENT of Transportation like exists in other states, to provide a streamlined and comprehensive agency?
<
p>Except it ISN’T an agency – it’s an authority. With a director, supervised by a board, appointed by the Governor, over which the Governor has no DIRECT authority but appoints the directors, gradually gaining controlm of the board…
<
p>Sound familiar? And didn’t THAT work out well before?
<
p>In fact, as a non-agency, MassDOT isn’t in the Governor’s budget.
<
p>The Pike wasn’t abolished – the Governor and Legislature just gave it a new name and sucked all the other transportation agencies in. And called it ‘reform’.
Was there no one from any of the employees unions contacted about their take on the issue? Did I miss a quote or a “we tried to contact”?
I don’t recall any of the positions mentioned being union jobs…or are even city planners now part of a union?
The main drive of the Globe the NyC puppeteers these days is “unions are bad, particularly the one in our own newsroom that is driving down the bottom line.”
<
p>A real journalist would have actually researched the story, comparing the monetary value of these benefits with the salary cut people take for working in the public sector. A real journalist would actually search for median and mean numbers, not a few cherry-picked examples. A real journalist would not reduce the other side of the story to a single paragraph after the jump, nor would they use subjective, incendiary language.
<
p>No, this idiot was assigned a story to prove how evil public-sector workers are (the current Globe Pulitzer drive — not the moron on page 2 who compares a principal defending privacy rights to the pedophile racket of Bernard Law), facts be damned.
8 years as city planner. Let’s even be generous and say that she was paid $150k per year, so total wages over that time through age 42 of $1.2 million. Why should that entail an additional 7 figure outlay at such a young age for health care alone? 42 ain’t exactly retirement age (but maybe in this state it is if you’re on the public payroll).
That single contract in that 1 of 351 Massachusetts municipalities is overly generous. So is the…one, two, three? other examples they found in this Commonwealth.
<
p>What is not correct is the journalist’s attempt to turn his cherry-picking into an indicative trend.
<
p>I certainly don’t have a problem with providing “retiree” health benefits. However, “retiree” doesn’t include someone leaving government employment at age 42.
<
p>Completely and utterly unsustainable, unless you want to double everyone’s property taxes (never mind the abysmal funding status of the pension plans).
One – State law allows for something. This cherry-picked article looked for municipalities that did it. These contracts are unsustainable, and I’m not sure why the people of this municipality went along with it.
<
p>Two – In most cases, municipality pensions are a problem because those same towns attempted a “rolling” system. Rather than investing up front and paying off people from their contributions and the interest therefrom, they tried to game the system. Like AIG, their playing on the cheap worked great until their poor decisions caught up with them, so now they want someone else to pay.
<
p>For example, those evil, fat teacher pensions. I’m paying for my own pension at this point — I’m getting zero dollars from the state. Don’t need any taxpayer money, and neither does anybody who came into teaching over the last five years. But nevertheless many Bay Staters want to steal from us the pensions we’ve been paying dearly for over the past several years. (This may be because they didn’t have the foresight to give 1/9 of their paycheck to a well-managed fund since they started work, and hate that other people have. Or it might be due to misleading articles like this one.)
is exactly that you are paying for them but the cities, towns and commonwealth aren’t kicking in the rest that is actuarially required (just look at the funding levels, which were very low even before the ’08 market meltdown). If you think that the employee contribution portion is going to provide real funding you’re sadly mistaken.
People who paid in at lower rates went in with the expectation that government would keep their word. They’re in trouble.
<
p>People who paid in at the higher rates established over the past 7 or so years are self-funded. My main worry is that the ignorant will direct my savings to those retiring now, bankrupt my pension, and declare it proof that government doesn’t work.
but that ain’t the way defined benefit plans work. People don’t “self fund” their benefit under a DB plan. To break it gently to you if you’re one of the later ones in, you’re paying higher amounts to support the earlier ones. Your worry is exactly what happens in operation (I’m a pension actuary in real life).
OTHO, the State still doesn’t have to cough up their share of that.
(Mass. Teachers’ Retirement Board)…and any pension system that is smartly managed.
…over the last 30 years, the argument that public sector people get paid less than private sector workers–and therefore deserve better bene’s-no longer holds true. Particularly when it comes to Clerk Magistrates, one of the biggest hack jobs in the state (life time appointments that requires so little heavy lifting that many stay on into their 70’s and 80’s instead of retiring)
And for every instyance like this there’s another 20 which lurk in the shadows.
<
p>I notice the usual suspects have NOT commented. (just like they ignore Charlie Rangel…).
<
p>I posted this morning about this
<
p>A side question/suggestion I had was…
<
p>
<
p>This of course is in addition to the screaming problem (typified by government service and rarely seen in the private sector) of outrageous side deals and abusive benefits.
<
p>Shame on ALL politicians that et this crap go on under their terms… SHAME! When a public official knows about things like this they either should do what they can to fix it or bring it to light for the public to know.
Why should I comment? What is this, a petition?
<
p>As for Rangel, go to Talking Points Memo here. They’re a mainstay of the liberal blogosphere. They do research and document stuff! They’re on the Rangel case! They’re better at it than I am!
<
p>Bonus points:
<
p>http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…
http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…
http://mydd.com/2010/2/25/brea…
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpoi…
Shouldn’t they be paid for the job, and not the hours ?
<
p>
I know plenty of folks who do software support. They’re salaried workers who have normal office hours but have to be on call after hours or over the weekend. If they get called, they get paid. It’s the same situation. It’s totally appropriate to pay people ‘hazard pay’ or the like for having to show up in the middle of the night, it happens all the time in the private sector, this isn’t unusual, it’s not outrageous, it’s standard operating procedure in the private sector.
<
p>Put another way, the headline of the diary could be “David outraged that employees are getting paid for every hour they work.”
Software support professionals on salary do not get paid extra for after-hours or weekend, that’s what “on salary” means. I think the question, in this case, is are they hourly or are they on salary.
<
p>Did you read the Herald piece? These are professionals who are already paid salaries of $84-110K. That’s “senior software developer” territory — well outside the range where anybody I’ve ever known gets paid extra for after-hours and weekend work. A developer who wants to get paid by the hour goes on contract, gives up benefits, and takes their chances. Most get the same hourly rate whether it’s after-hours, weekend, or anything else (yes, some shops will pay extra for being on a beeper).
<
p>Here are some specifics from the Herald piece:
<
p>Try working those numbers. The first bullet works out to an average $15K per year per person.
<
p>Every worker should get paid. Every worker should know what the requirements of the job are. If the salary is $84-110K, and the job requires working after-hours and weekends, that’s the deal — just as it is in the software world. If you don’t like working long hours, software development is not for you. It sounds as though if you don’t like working after-hours and weekends with people who need bail, then “clerk magistrate” or “assistant clerk magistrate” is not the job for you.
My husband is a senior support engineer for a multi-national software corporation. He may be a professional and technically salaried, but he IS paid OT for weekend work — and he just finished a weekend shift (all of which was done from the comfort of the den).
The question is whether these positions (and your husband’s) are “exempt” or “nonexempt” under government regulations.
<
p>Most “senior support engineer” positions are exempt. Your husband might be paid extra, but his employer is not required by law to do so.
It’s not about one’s status under the FLSA, it’s about whether this is standard practice in employment. In millions of workplaces, salaried workers are paid a little extra for working extra, so too in state government. This isn’t an issue. If you and your ‘reformers’ want to cut the pay of state employees because of budget cuts, then come out and say that.
If there is a call at 4:00 AM, they take it, they dial up, and they don’t get a penny more. Salary guys don’t get overtime at all.
It’s common practice, it should be universal. As to the software guys who get called at 4 am and take a call and don’t get a penny, right after they hang up they should call a union, because they’re getting screwed.
I’ve been one of those “software guys” since 1982. When somebody calls me at 4:00am, I answer. I know I wouldn’t get the call if it wasn’t needed. The man or woman making the call is just as unhappy as me about being up at that hour.
<
p>Nobody’s getting “screwed”, it comes with the territory. When the water breaks, an OB get’s called. It comes with the territory.
<
p>Unions are great for a lot of things. This is not one of them.
When an OB gets a call in the middle of the night, they get paid, you should too (and if your salary is north of $150K, I’d argue you already are).
<
p>You know why that doctor gets paid? They’re in the most powerful union in the country, it’s called the American Medical Association. It negotiates rates of pay with hospitals, the government and insurance. It sets admission levels at medical schools to limit the supply of workers. It makes sure that every time a doctor does anything, there’s a way to compensate them for it. Some might argue, that the doctors union has bankrupted our medical system – but to say that unions aren’t good at this, is laughable.
<
p>
if they start to realize that it isn’t actually James Bond material, and decide not to volunteer for beeper duty, they don’t get bonuses and get smaller raises. Whereas volunteering and handling the crashes and bugs and roll-outs at 2AM earns you a hefty bonus and raise. So it’s not exactly unappreciated and unrewarded, it certainly is.
Been one of “those people” for years… I have done my share of 2am and weekend work (along with late night and early mornings). While you are right that the extra work could get you a good raise or a good bonus, carrying the “beeper” (it is a blackberry now) has never been “optional”, if you don’t want to carry it you don’t take the job or you don’t last in the job very long. It is part of the job.
While no one likes being awakened at 3AM, handling bail on evenings and weekends is part of the job description. Judges don’t get paid extra for working nights and weekends (which they all do) — why should the clerk magistrates?
<
p>Two million bucks would have saved a number of jobs. Court clerks have been getting laid off right and left. As a result, it is taking longer for paperwork to be processed, raising expenses for litigants and delaying justice. This problem is compounded by the increasing numbers of pro se litigants in civil matters, who put a greater demand on the staff. If Mr. McDonough’s attitude is representative of the members of his organization, it strikes me as profoundly selfish.
Judge salary == regular time + expected “O.T.”
clerk mag base salary == regular time
clerk mag O.T. == $40 fee
<
p>Parsing out part of the total salary plus benefits and labeling it unfair is just. plain. foolish. You’ve got to look at the total salary and benefit package — base salary, OT, insurance, vacation/sick time, flex, parking, assorted other perks — in total.
<
p>
<
p>I’m not arguing that our city planner or clerk magistrate is being paid too much or not being paid too much. I have no idea what the right total compensation package is. I do know that you’ve got to look at the total compensation package and compare (sabutai nailed it).
Professionals are either “hourly” or “salaried”. The criteria is whether or not the worker has value to the employer when the worker is not behind the desk. As you say, it all depends on the contract. Software developers are usually on salary, and the employer generally owns everything they do, where ever they do it. Developers don’t get paid for great code they invent in the shower or while washing the dishes at home. They also don’t get paid when they come in Saturday and Sunday to finish the release that was supposed to go live Friday evening (they also can’t be docked for time they take off, no matter what the “vacation policy” or “sick day” policy says).
<
p>According to the article, these fees frequently amount to $15-$25K per position, on top of an $84-110K salary. That’s in the vicinity of 25%.
<
p>The part I have more problems with is that these are the same persons charged with setting the bail. If they set the bail high, and the suspect doesn’t make that bail, the worker doesn’t get their $40 fee. That means that they are rewarded for setting bail low — whatever crime the suspect is charged with. That sounds like a clear conflict of interest.
<
p>Frankly, the approach smacks of greased palms and wired-in corruption. I think it stinks. If these staffers want to be paid for these hours, then I think they should be put on hourly contracts, with overtime rates set by contract, and they should punch in and out just like every other hourly employee.
Salaried people receive X dollars per year to do job Y. Since neither of us know the job description of these clerks, we don’t know if working outside hours is part and parcel of job Y. You’re not arguing that if your boss started demanding that you come in at 11pm without warning or pattern, you’d think that was reasonable because you’re salaried, are you?
<
p>If responsibilities are added to job Y after agreement has been reached on X dollars for job Y, one of two things can happen:
<
p>You can just “Take it” because the guy who makes more money than you should control your life as s/he sees fit, or
You can stand up for your rights, within or without a union.
Your quibble is with the word. It’s a bit like arguing about the word ‘marriage’.
<
p>Their contract is:
$x for working y 40-hour weeks a year, and
$z for each non(M–F, 8-5) process
<
p>It’s a two pronged system, and it’s not the only instance in the public or the private world. This claim that there are only two possibilities isn’t just wrong, it’s wrong-headed.
<
p>Personally, I think it’s pretty elegant. It protects them from getting abused by “the system”, in at least as much as if they get abused, they get some compensation for it.
<
p>
<
p>Again, I’m not arguing that this is the salary or salary structure that is appropriate, and if your claim about them setting the bail and then getting $40 if they “set it well” is true, that’s a major problem.
Fair enough. Actually, I suspect it is something like arguing about the difference between “marriage” and “civil union” in a proposal to specifically, by statute, equate the legal consequences of each.
<
p>It sounds to me, from reading the Herald piece, as though the problem is that their contract does not include your “$z for each non(M–F, 8-5) process”. The song-and-dance about fees is, apparently, an attempt to hack around a broken contract.
<
p>I don’t necessarily have a problem with adjusting their contract to reflect higher pay for after-hours and weekend work, but I’d like to at least go through the exercise of seeing if similarly-qualified professionals are willing to do the extra time for the current $84-110K/year salary. I, and every developer I’ve know, have worked a LOT of late-nights and weekends for that money, and never demanded overtime.
<
p>It seems to me that:
<
p>a) The job description (I’m not sure it has to be “contract”, most professional salaried employees explicitly do not have employment contracts) should state the reality of the job, and if after-hours and weekend work is required, it should say so.
<
p>b) The state should see if similarly-qualified professionals are willing to work to that job description for $84-$110K/year before the compensation rate is raised to $99-140K/year.
<
p>I suspect you and I are in violent agreement here, actually.
<
p>Meanwhile, from the Herald story cited in the thread-starter (emphasis mine):
<
p>This sounds to me like it at least creates the appearance of a major problem.
95% of professionals in the private sector do not get paid OT. As a professional I would find it demeaning to be paid OT. At one of my first job interviews after college, the interviewer showed me the time clock that you had to punch in as an engineer. I thanked him very much and left.
I’m so sick of ‘professionals’ who are willing to hand over their labor over to their boss for nothing. It’s 2010, where’s the 30 or 20 hours workweek? We live in the richest country in the world, yet millions of workers get less than 2 weeks of vacation. You may be doing fine, great even, but your ethos ruins the world – literally ruins the world.
dpw managers – who stay up for days straight in the middle of a snow storm.
<
p>IT managers who stay up 24 hours to get your computer systems up in the morning.
<
p>software engineers who find a patch to a recent bug.
<
p>Presidents, all of them no matter what party – who are on call 24/7 and seem to age at 3 times the normal rate (maybe not a good example).
<
p>Researchers working in laboratories who just don’t pull the 9 to 5.
<
p>Not everyone wants these jobs, but you aren’t forced to take them.
<
p>Clerk magistrates are paid well, they should do the job. I bet you there are probably 5 million people in this state who would do it.
<
p>
and almost double that underemployed, I think there’s a better option than work harder and longer for less. You’re side is winning, so congratulations capitalism.
It’s funny to see the different values people place on their time, expertise, and effort.
What is it exactly that goes on at 3AM that absolutely cannot wait until a civilized hour the next day?
That means they need to be able to post bail at all hours of the day. It’s exactly because we’re civilized that this needs to happen.
next time you and a police officer have a misunderstanding at 1:20 am on your way home from a late movie with your partner and you end up in the clink, you’ll appreciate not waiting until a civilized hour the next day.
My town’s police station has them. I’m all for speedy and public trial, but I don’t think spending one night does that much violence to one’s rights. If someone wants to post bail during the wee hours there should be a way to handle it right at the station.
That’s why this system is in place. I believe the bail commissioners may actually go to the police station, not to the courthouse. But someone does have to show up to conduct the bail hearing.
The issue of the cost for health benefits to current and retired employees needs to be dealt with now otherwise they will continue to grow and consume an increasing bulk of municipal budgets necessitating reductions in other services.
<
p>How can anyone think it is cost effective or “fair” to pay an employee with over $1 million in life time health benefits for 8 years of work. This equates to $125,000 for each year worked in addition to all the salaries and benefits earned.
<
p>Brookline performed a study of the cost of their current and retired employees and concluded that if they did nothing by 2040 health benefits would consume the entire budget leaving nothing for any other budget items and no services. The study is here http://www.brooklinema.gov/ind…
<
p>Brookline also performed a 5 year plan that incorporates the savings that they would have by transitioning to the Commonwealth’s GIC plan. It shows a FY 2011 difference between GIC and non-GIC of $4.5 million. That is serious money which they can use to maintain other services.
<
p>However, we are all relying on our local elected officials to implement changes in these benefits. Unfortunately, they have not been willing to do so up to now. Perhaps it is an issue with political will power. Perhaps, being more cynical, it is that they receive these same benefits and are unwilling to cut them. Regardless, changes need to be made or we will all suffer.
<
p>This is an issue that does not get people engaged. It can be complicated and is not nearly as exciting as new schools, new libraries and other beneficial municipal projects. However, failure to address this issue now will quickly overwhelm budgets and all but eliminate the ability to do those nice projects and a whole lot more.
Fraud most often occurs when people think they deserve something. Here too the pocketing of fees.
<
p>Maybe this is an exchange program with Afghanistan on how to run the criminal justice system.
It’s perfectly reasonable for people to make differential pay for working overtime, evenings, or Sundays, for example, even for salaried employees if their contract or stated expectations indicate certain hours. Whatever it is should be codified, however.
<
p>Also, why is it in the private sector they say we need to pay obscene amounts to keep talent, but when the public sector gets generous for the same reason, as it should IMO, people howl?
A check, cash? Recorded by an of year 1099 or W-2 or nothing? Any taxes withheld? Any income derived reported? It would be embarrassing were the clerk magistrates nailed by the IRS…
Very much like our state legislators stipends.
At least that’s how I’ve been paid for differentials in my jobs.
..single payer healthcare. Get the entire insurance kit and kaboodle out the muni budgets.
<
p>As for the $40 fees, I think there is a conflict of interest if the magistrate gets the fee, but charging a suspect an after hours fee to pay court costs if he/she wants to be make bail outside of normal business hours does not seem unreasonable. The costs should include the pre-defined overtime of any court staffer.
If it’s so good why do public employees retirees refuse to sign up for it ?
Medicare (not medicaid, as you wrote, which is public assistance for low income folks) is a basic plan with standard fees. The “Cadillac” plans that only exist in government are what is NOT the norm.
<
p>To make matters worse, it is the retirees that are driving the costs through the friggin’ roof with geriatric care and end-of-life crisis care. If those costs are paid for by an indemnity plan that pays for absolutely every bell and whistle, it will make the overall cost insanely high.
<
p>Single payer (i.e. “Medicare for All”) would become substantially cheaper per person, and likely able to increase benefits, the second it started enrolling people who are not just the oldest and sickest citizens.
<
p>Enlarge the pool. Spread the risk. Costs come down. Benefits become easier to fund. Simple.
Let’s start by putting all of the public (state and muni) employees in a state pool with Medicaid / Commonwealth Care. Since they are so juiced politically, it will ensure the coverage is strong.
Mass Health, at least out here in the Berkshires, has better coverage than your typical HMO. I work with a bunch of the “working poor” folks who are on it and they say it is the most helpful thing that the state has ever done.
<
p>A 30 something female friend, who had not had health insurance for a decade until two years ago, finally went for her first “annual” in many years and was diagnosed with early stage (still very treatable) cervical cancer. She would likely be dying right now if it was not for Mass Health and the individual mandate.
I admit I was being snarky. But I was also actually describing my policy preference of a super-duper GIC to negotiate down provider and insurer rates. Medicaid does save lives and it does so in a more cost effective way than private insurance. Economies of scale calls for creating the largest pool you can find, which can then take on the BCBS-Partners unholy alliance.
<
p>Try making this change though… see what happens. Cue Bob Haynes in 3…. 2…. 1…..
Suffering from Olympics overload.
This story and post remind me of a certain relative of mine who is obsessed with how good MassHealth (Medicaid) is compared to Medicare and most private insurance. This person, not a dogmatic conservative, has no ideas about how to improve coverage for the majority, so just gets crazy about how unfair it is that poor people have good coverage.
The newspaper articles unfairly combined two different problems: issues of basic working conditions (such as out of control health care costs and pay for being called in after hours) and special deals for some public employees (retirement at 42 after 8 years?).
<
p>The fact that most private sector employees have to live with high copays and deductibles, paying a 30%+ share of the health insurance premium, and no retiree insurance outside of Medicare, not to mention being called to report to work in the middle of the night with no extra compensation, doesn’t make it right. Nor necessary nor acceptable.
<
p>One way workers have tried to change this is by organizing. Unionized workers be they public or private sector fight for a better deal. These benefits are more visible in the public sector because unions have lately been unsuccessful in the private sector.
<
p>We all could have affordable health insurance with good benefits regardless of where we work and whether we are retired. Unions and progressives fight for this. Some day we will succeed and it will be a national policy.
<
p>These issues should be separated from problems like sweet retirement deals for part-time politicians,and corrupt practices like hiring family members.
<
p>Let me try a few more:
<
p>”You don’t like being forced to work 80-hour weeks? If you don’t like it, don’t take this job”.
<
p>”You don’t like working in a workplace where your co-worker smokes at his desk? If you don’t like it, don’t take this job”.
<
p>”You don’t like being sexually harassed? You don’t like it, don’t take this job.”
<
p>Gee, seems like the “don’t take this job” argument can be used anywhere. Let’s get rid of all workplace laws, people can just “pick another job”, right?
<
p>I’m sorry, but I think that it is reasonable to pay someone when they get waken out of bed and told they have to report to work. Sure, some private jobs are like this, but why should the state take such a draconian approach? Because if they do, more private employers are going to use the “people working for the state don’t get paid for coming in at 3am, so neither should you” argument.
Understand the requirements of the job and deal with it. No you don’t deal with illegal behavior on the job. But the income level is high so are the responsibilities.
<
p>
<
p>
I can hardly wait for the president to punch in and out.
<
p>
We’re talking about millions of American workers in thousands of different jobs, and you pull POTUS? Surely there’s some latin words for such nonsense in a debate. A little help someone?
So people with families who do work 9-5 at the court house each day should be called out of bed at any hour of the day – drive (at their own expense) to a jail and process the bail of the the accused person and drive back home as part of their regular job?
<
p>I think compensation is fine and actually proper.
happens to fire chiefs, police chiefs and DPW managers all across the state. Or if you are in the private sector all sort of critical jobs.
there are dozens of firefighters, police officers, and DPW civil servants who do get paid the overtime.
the state is chock full of people with families who would be more than happy to accept a professional $84-110K/year position where they work 9-5 each day and frequently also work nights and weekends, as “part of their regular job.”
<
p>EVERY position in high-tech that says “frequent travel required” implies the same thing. As does every job description that includes phrases like:
<
p>I don’t often see eye-to-eye with roarkarchitect, but I have to say that he’s right on target with his comments here.
<
p>If the compensation has to be raised to fill the positions, than so be it — but let’s please find out how many similarly qualified professionals would jump at these positions at the current rates before we do so.
I could see if the costs are being incurred by the Commonwealth – but they are not.
The problem is, there is no option to refuse the “extra” work. It’s all or nothing. You can’t take $80k and refuse the “work your ass off anytime we tell you to”.
<
p>I’m with dhammer. As productivity increases historically, work time should go down. It’s going up, the 40 hour workweek is turning into the 50 hour workweek. You wonder why people aren’t civic-minded — they just don’t have the time to be.
That’s my point, though. So long as the job requirements are clear up front, and so long as the compensation is spelled out up front, the rest is between the candidate and the employer. The private sector is filled with such “all or nothing” positions. No employee of a startup is able to take the salary and refuse to work their ass off.
<
p>The “40 hour work week”, for professionals in all the fields I know anything about, has been gone since at least the 1970s. Ken Olsen famously distributed a memo in 1975 (or so) during a recession, when he was struggling to find a way to avoid layoffs for Digital. He announced a new policy — instead of layoffs, he requested each salaried employee to work 55 hours per week. The warm-hearted response, throughout the engineering organization, was typified by my own supervisor, who announced that — as per the order of the company president — we were each encouraged to cut back our hours to only 55 per week. Don joked that “we have to leave more for the manufacturing folks to do” (all of us worked hand-in-hand to support manufacturing).
<
p>I’m serious, this exchange exemplifies why so many voters are so pissed off. In the private sector, long hours and hard work have come along with high salary (and most voters view $84K+ salary as “high”) for several generations. When, in spite of that, private sector unemployment is at historic highs, these complaints about public sector employees being asked to do the same (especially when vital public services are being slashed for budgetary reasons) generate loud and well-deserved anger and resentment.
The story really hit a cord on both sides of the aisle.
<
p>BTW: I’ve heard the same story about DEC.
…yet in Western Europe 40 hours/week is an upper limit, their economy is in as good, if not better shape than ours, they have more time off, and workers are better paid.
<
p>Call me crazy, but I think that’s a good deal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S…
<
p>Europe has had the same unemployment problem we now have for decades.
You link to a disputed Wikipedia article that leads off with home ownership, then descends into median household income. This doesn’t even give traditional and suspect measures such as GDP and GNP, much less other measures such as life expectancy and self-reported happiness.
<
p>”Standard of living” is a catch-all term, and I suspect there may be people who would prefer to have lotsa stuff over free time. But you need a better source if you’re going to make a claim like that. (Internet research =! Wikipedia)
We are 9th – and the only countries that are in anyway equivalent to us are; Ireland (which I’m surprised), Holland and Sweden and Denmark. The other countries are way to small or have huge oil wealth (Norway).
<
p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L…
<
p>
You want to look at it cf’d with PPP to account for local inflation (see here). But again, you’re stating that quality of life is equal to income, which isn’t always the case. I can have an amazing income if I worked 20 hours a day. Is that a good quality of life.
<
p>PS: By now, Ireland has plunged, I’m sure. The economic hit is harder on them than the US.
I’m sure there income is down, but they really skyrocketed over the past 20 years.
But a lot of that was on EU “structural aid” which now goes toward the new Central European members. Ireland is also in a tough position: their economy is closely tied to that of the UK, even though it’s more in favor of Euro-integration than the UK.
I’m guessing you don’t follow international news, but even the Wikipedia article you cite links to this:
<
p>
<
p>There’s even more information in another linked article titled the 2008-2010 Irish financial crisis:
<
p>
But they were desperately poor until the past 20 years or so. But then they had their own real estate bubble.
<
p>
That data is both outdated and misleading.
Got a better data source. My experience is that Europeans have more free time but less income. The european job market is very regimented. You go to school to be a travel agent and that’s the only job you can every have. You have to go to the correct university or you will never get a top job in government or industry. Employers are very hesitant to take a chance on an employee, because it can take 5 or more years to get rid of them if they don’t work out. Different from the us.
<
p>
Where did you live that you had this experience?
i’ve lived in London and Budapest and have family in Germany. Your claim of “more free time less income” may have been true at one time, but has changed under the EU. They still have better vacation plans, but, like us, are under pressure to compete. My employees in London were paid at an equal rate to my employees in New York.
<
p>The very regimented job market has never been true in my experience. There’s definitely prestige associated with attending e.g. Oxford or Cambridge, but no different than Harvard or Yale.
<
p>I have heard stories of parents in LA and NYC stressing because their child didn’t get into the right pre-school…
<
p>None of which speaks to quality of life.
my experience was from staff in the US from Germany – that could be a German thing.
From your Wikipedia source:
<
p>
<
p>Emphasis mine.
These are often the second-highest paid people in the courthouse after the judges. They are often, though not always, attorneys and they are appointed, individually, by the Governor of the Commonwealth. Did I also mention this is a lifetime appointment? These are not staff-level folks pushing paper around.
<
p>Moreover, in state government, these are plum positions. $85-110k is quite high pay. Bureau Chiefs in the AGs office make around 110k; Division Chiefs make around 85k. And if you looked at the Suffolk DA’s Office, you can probably count on one hand the number of people who make this salary — and that’s before you’re talking about these extras.
<
p>I would also mention that these posts are often filled with politically juiced people — e.g., relatives of state reps — and that the job is not rocket science… but that’s almost besides the point.
Point is well taken. Also, as Brookline Tom points out, $84k is considered a high salary by most people.
<
p>There is a strong case to be made that people should get paid more for having to work nights and weekends. As several people have mentioned above, some get compensated through higher pay and expectations of bigger raises and bonuses. Others through differentials. There’s more than one way to do it.
<
p>However, I believe there are many salaried people who don’t get properly compensated for the extra time they have to put in and they should fight back.
<
p>Clerk magistrates may not be the best example of this, however.
this is the type of “red meat” story we Republicans are usually condemned for. Great job of bringing it out and letting everyone get mad and release some anger.
<
p>Will anything change… Democrats still control Beacon Hill… nah!
here
<
p>