« How Will Board Vote? | Main | OC Blogosphere Reacts To Moorlach's Rescission Proposal »

July 20, 2007

Comments

jake

Moorlach should just shut his mouth and get to work. The county collects billions in property tax money every year. With the high price of homes the last couple of years many of us are paying thousands a year. I alone pay over 9k year.

All the money is sent to Sacramento where it it is divided up and a majority of it is given to L.A. and San Francisco Counties. We only get 17 cents for every dollar.

Just get our money back.

cold as ice

"And what exactly would have been the point of consulting with the AOCDS?"
Carre also predicted that many of those thinking of joining the sheriff's department, as well as many already within the department, may choose to go to one of the city forces. The majority of city police forces have the "three @ 50" benefit, he said.

The point I could see is that both the county and the city's have the same benefit, but the city's are not harassing their employees, while the County continues to do so. As in private, so it is in public, don't like the management, go someplace else for the same benefits. or better.

Bladerunner

Jubal---Ok, it's either constitutional or no. But the point here is that good labor-management practice would have been for Moorlach to turn this over to the staff and County Counsel and see if they agreed. The County(if they agreed with moorlachs lawyers that, "Ooops, we screwed up...we couldn't do that')could then contact the AOCDS and inform them of the findings and ask for their response. You may think AOCDS would have squeeled like a stuck pig but they might have a) come up with some legal analysis that came to a different conclusion then the lawyers Moorlach hired, b) they might have conceded the issue(agreed, not likely but possible) or c) they might have said " well, you may be right but we gave up asking for something else to help fund the retroactivity so lets discuss a way out of this.").

Under the above scenario, Moorlachs attorneys may not be right on the law. People and politicans occasionally lawyer shop so they can get a lawyer who will give them the answer they want to hear. This wasn't County Counsel or an outside firm hired by the Board---it was a lawyer hired by John who may well have chosen the firm because he knew he'd get an opinion he'd like.. What is the harm to have quietly reached out to AOCDS and listened to what their attorneys had to say? If it turns out not to be an open and shut case then maybe the County would decide this is not the way to go. if after reading AOCDS briefs the County thinks Moorlach's laawyers are right then they proceed to litigation and the Courts settle it. But at least they extended the courtesy of a heads up and an opportunity to change the County's mind to the employee unions. And if the unions realize they are in deep doo doo constitutionally, the stage is set for ending the retroactivity but working out an adjustment in the future to compensate for the lost benefit that was negotiated.

Instead, John and Chris did the in-your- face pants drop. I'm sure that got the anti-union crowd worked up into a lather but just reinforced the image that John and to a slightly lesser extent Chris aren't interested in good realtions with the employees. The rest of the Board should obtain additional reviews and get the employee's attorneys response before they take action on this matter. Thats doesn't prevent them from pursuing the litigation, it just ensures they will be acting prudently.

Go Moorlach!

Thanks to Rino's like Silva and Campbell, we are in this fine mess. They should have had their political careers put out of their misery years ago. Just think Jim Silva can now inflict damage on the statewide level!

Green Machine

I think BR has a point. It does not appear that John or Chris are interested in good relations with AOCDS. In John's case it's obvious why there's no love lost. AOCDS opposed his candidacy for Supervisor and both sides got personal. In Chris's case its probably a little more about finding a new office after he is termed out. Chris has little statewide appeal and his attachment to this endeavor would give him some statewide name recognition and possibly future support from wealthy contributors in the Republican Party.

AOCDS has been involved in a rather messy contact negotiation with the County. When they claim that the County hasn't acted in good faith they are referring to the County's conduct during negotiations. Several years back, peace officers often threatened to strike if they couldn't come to terms with a municipality. Or they declared a "blue flu" and called in sick (in large numbers). This practice is now illegal and they can no longer call for a strike or blue flu.

To balance out this situation, municipalities are required to bargain in good faith. That means negotiating in a fair and responsible manner. In AOCDS vs Orange County's case, they have negotiated for and agreed to several contract items. During subsequent meetings the County then arbitrarily rescinded previously agreed upon items. That pattern of conduct along with this "in your face" press conference continues to poison the negotiations and will eventually end up in a legal battle.

I suspect that Mr. Moorlach's legal foundation for voiding the retroactive benefits are rooted in conflicting laws that will eventually result in nothing more than a lot of press for him (and his junior partner Mr. Norby) and a mountain of legal costs for everyone else.

Green Blade

BR and Green Macnine,

AOCDS with Wayne Quint as its President and a few syncophants are the ones who are to blame for the way things are being handled now. Quint and quiver are nothing more but bullies who threaten and malign anyone who doesn't carry their water.

Now we finally have a Supervisor with the character to tell the truth and the courage to stand up for it and the poor little bullies aren't having their way anymore.

The truth is 3 @ 50 is BAD and UNFAIR to the taxpayers. NOBODY in the private sector comes anywhere close to paying that kind of retirement package and for good reason - it would force companies out of business because over time, they wouldn't be able to fund (pay for) those benefits and make a profit, let alone break even.

Special interest groups like AOCDS shouldn't be allowed at the feeding trough any time longer than to eat their fair share - not gorge themselves and expect others to pay the bill. And that's the best way to describe what 3@50 does. Public safety is a primary role of government and those who choose that for a career should be well-paid, not over paid.

The argument that some cities pay 3@50 so we should too, doesn't hold water. The ONLY reason SOME cities have passed this is because well-heeled, experienced union leadership have been very adept at buying off ambitious (or ignorant) city councilmembers who desire either re-election or higher office.
Every city in O.C. has part-time city councils. Most local electeds don't have a clue how to deal with full-time staff and the associations or unions that represent them. Therefore, cities are easier pickens than the county because you have less informed people paying attention.

3@50 is BAD and UNFAIR. Anyone reading this who lives in acity wih its own police and fire departments should determine if their city is paying 3@50 and if it is, they should mount a campaign on the back of this county effort to end the gross, excessive over-payment of tax dollars into the pockets of a select few at the great expense of not being able to pave roads, improve parks, remove graffiti, lower taxes... The NEEDS of the many (the public) outwheigh the WANTS of a few.

What about the Deputies that left in the last few years thinking that they would have 3% @ 50 until they die? This could possibly affect them, but obviously most of you don't really care.

Since I have been on the Sheriff's Dept. one Deputy died in a helicopter crash, one died when he was shot by another Deputy, one was murdered and two have been killed while riding their motorcycles. There have been numerous others that have been medically retired because of on duty injuries. I personally have had bones broke in my hand, my foot run over by a car and have been in two accidents that totaled the police vehicle and neither accident was my fault.

With what is going on now,, you would be crazy to start a career with the Sheriff's Dept.

Why is it that Moorlach is suggesting that we get 2% for the years prior to 2002? That is less that the old plan in which you had to work until 55 to retire and it is less that the 2.7 percent a secretary gets.

As it is we have worked without a contract for almost 10 months.

Green Blade

Poster at 10:54,

The number one reason anybody would be crazy to start a career with the Sheriff's Dept. is because Carona is the Sheriff.
Apart from that, thousands of Deputies have served in years past with sufficent retirement benefits prior to 3 at 50. It's simply excessive. Sorry sir, but no is out there forcing anyone to be a cop; it's a choice YOU made. The pay and benefits are great and the time off even better. Yes, the job has its hazards but it also has unparalleled benefits. I am tired of the all the hipe all the time that we need to raise taxes either for "the children" or for more "public safety." Learn to live within your means like the rest of us do and stop assuming that you have unrestricted access to my pocketbook anytime you'd like. If you don't like being a cop here, go somewhere else and whine.

A fair solution to paying cops and firefighters would be to adopt the military pension system: You get 50% of your pay after serving 20 years and 75% of your pay after serving 30. Anywhere in between is pro-rated. You don't see soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines whining do you? They knew what they signed up for and they accept it with all the hazards that come with the job.

Green Machine

Okay Blade, I'm game. If you want to compare us to the military then the county will have to provide free medical, free dental, a commissary to shop for food and a PX to shop for everything my heart desires at a significantly reduced rate and while I'm still on active duty, a house for my family and I.

Your argument is ludicrous. You're comparing apples to oranges...and yes, we took on the job knowing what dangers lied ahead. And we also entered into a contract with the county who agreed to pay us what they felt we were worth. So now the county doesn't like the terms of the contract and they can just void it? Thats great.

You say we knew what we were getting into when we took the job....you're right. But the county should be held to the same standard. They agreed to a contract and they should live up to it.

GB where in my posting am I whining? I am simply stating the facts. Where do I say that I am not living within my means? If I have to stay until 55 I will!!

I believe under the old retirement plan we got 2 1/2% at 55. Why wouldn't Moorloch propose that instead of 2% and why would he give secretaries 2.7% and us 2%.

The board of supervisors voted and approved 3% @ 50. Apparently you don't believe in the county honoring it's promises.

We gave up part of our pay raise in 2002 for the 3% @ 50. What should happen to that money? I have also been paying money for numerous years, so my medical is partly covered when I retire and now the county wants to up the cost of medical for the retirees.

If the county can't figure these things out before they come to agreements then maybe you should vote for someone that can? Maybe the county should get out of the retirement business and give each employee the amount of money the county contributes so we can invest it ourselves. My personal investments get a much better return than the money the county is holding for me.

The fact is the county makes money off of the money they hold for us. Do you think that the county's bankruptcy was the employees fault also?

Green Blade

GM,

I would be happy to vote for all of the same benefits the military receives IF you accept the same rate of pay..

You err greatly when you say "...And we also entered into a contract with the county who agreed to pay us what they felt we were worth." It wasn't the County; it was 3 of 5 Supervisors who voted for it. One of them is now an Assemblyman who was supported by your group (AOCDS)in exchange for his vote (Jim Silva), the second one was termed out (Tom Wilson) thank God, but he too was supported by your group in exchange for his vote. The last one, (Bill Campbell) will be gone next year and he too has been treated quite well by AOCDS in exchange for votes. Gee, what does that say? Forget about principals, just vote for everything favorable to a certain group and that's a good elected official worthy of AOCDS support?

The "County" never agreed to anything; a few self-serving politicians did and the rest of us are left responsible to pay for their poor vote. Sorry sir, but I refuse to give you unresricted access to my wallet - I have my own family to take care of with none of the benefits you have.

3@50 should be put on the ballot and THEN the "County" can decide if that's the best use of our tax dollars. Give us the opportunity to "agree on a contract."

Green Blade

Poster at 12:42,

I agree with your following comment:

"Maybe the county should get out of the retirement business and give each employee the amount of money the county contributes so we can invest it ourselves. My personal investments get a much better return than the money the county is holding for me."

The comments to this entry are closed.


Categories