Jerry Brown strips cell phones from California state employees | Hacker News Reader

Jerry Brown strips cell phones from California state employees

sfgate.com

17 pointsByliner16 comments

I appreciate cosmetic improvements as much as the next guy, but my cynical bastard side thinks that cell phones are cheap and ostentatious (because real people actually pay for them) and pension/health benefits that are systematically looting the Californian pocket are expensive and stealthy (because we have convinced ourselves that no one needs to know the cost of these things).

$34 will pay the deferred benefits of, e.g., a California teacher for maybe a few hours if that.

This is Jerry setting a tone familiar to people who look at history. Last time he was governor, he ordered the sale of the Governer's mansion (to this day, governors must provide their own housing). He did not use the state's limo service but, rather, drove himself in a modest car.

This time around ... although it his own campaign money, not state money that pays for the inauguration ... he served hot dogs at the inauguration party rather than a fancy meal.

These are, in a way, theatrical gestures but they are neither empty gestures or pure pandering to the public.

They aren't empty because, for example, saving $20M on the state's cell phone bill won't balance the budget, but it is a hefty chunk of change.

They aren't pandering to the public because, as much as anything, the symbolism here is addressed inward on state government. If the governor is doing lots of stuff like this cutting at the top, then on down the hierarchy it becomes potentially embarrassing and career risking for high level civil servants and appointees not to follow in the same spirit. In other words, Jerry's gesture here helps to create a new political weapon: embarrassing someone that is choosing to protect rather than cut dubious perks. (Additionally, this circumstance makes it easier for lower-ranking bosses to cut discretionary perks that they control without invoking a riot among staff.)

Finally, this kind of thing is critical armor against the reverse political attack. In this case, for example, the unions can't get in his face and say "How can you expect us to cut salaries or benefits when your own staff and others are wasting state money on stuff like cell phones?"

I will apologize for my lack of faith when he makes meaningful cuts in benefits for unionized state employees, or starts cutting headcount. Let's call it 5% and add the proviso "and cutting future increases doesn't count, and cutting a buck today in return for a buck every week for forever doesn't count."

I don't think you have anything to apologize for. I think your concerns are valid. I was just filling in some detail about what conventional wisdom says Brown is doing with moves like this.

This is nice to say and I don't disagree with the sentiment but people need to get real. The unions are the democratic base. No one denies that. A Democrat can't govern without their support and they aren't going to budge on pension/health benefits. So any reform in that area is a non-starter. Even if Jerry Brown wanted to do it there's no way the legislature would support him on it.

I'm not attacking him by saying that. I'm stating what I believe is the fact. He can't force the unions to do anything and they aren't going to give ground willingly. So it's simply beyond his power to do no matter how badly he might want to.

You are right, but I think public opinion is turning steadily against unions: you can see it everywhere, from the rage against teachers' unions in places like Washington D.C., to the disillusionment of private-sector union members with public-sector unions in NJ. People are realising that they have been had, what with our leaders giving away generous benefits to unionised employees during the good times.

Surely when it comes to government-sized budgets, it's about tweaking an old proverb: look after the millions and the billions will look after themselves.

Many employees these days at (mature) companies only make their work cell phone number available in the company listing - so, if they need to be reached after hours, or in an emergency, the company provides them with a cell phone.

On the flip side, little things like cell phones, coffee machines, free water, laptop refreshes every three years - these are the things that Government Jobs are notorious for stripping away and making those jobs much less attractive to star performers. It's kind of like a spectrum, with Facebook/Google on one side, and Government positions on the other.

This doesn't have as much to do with cell phones as it does with Jerry Brown's need to cut something. In other words I think he knows a lot of positions need cell phones but I think he also knows most people have personal phones they'll use if their work one is taken away. Since most people won't quit their job over the loss of a cell phone. So it's an easy cut to make (albeit an unfair one in many ways)

Sadly many of the union contracts specify employees be provided a cell phone so he's only going to get so far with this.

Read the article - he's not proposing to do away with state-issued phones altogether.

Read my comment - I specifically said "Sadly many of the union contracts specify employees be provided a cell phone so he's only going to get so far with this."

The order is simply too broad for him to have taken time to evaluate each position and decide who does and does not need a cell phone. Given that I will bet you all the money I have the cell phones he's taking away are the non-union employees and the ones who are getting to keep them are union employees.

I'd have thought that the state would have more bargaining power to get a monthly cost substantially down from $34/month. Then again, I don't see why I need to pay for these people's cell phones. Jobs that require constant communications, like emergency services already have alternative systems in place. its just convenient for many other employees to have a cell phones.

IIRC, California state entities actually have a lot of legal shackles on their bargaining powers. (I can't remember the specifics, but this is what I've heard from state school employees tasked with purchasing equipment.)

Now if we could simultaneously make him governor of Illinois and do the same thing. Over here we are about to donate 2% of everyone's pay to one of the most corrupt state governments in the world, without any meaningful cuts at all.

This is almost cause to speculate that California may eventually become solvent without additional bailouts.

$20 million saved in a year does not a balanced budget make.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com