I'm a Ventura voter and former director of the Los Angeles Area Wage and Salary Survey. This consortium consisted of representatives from the city, county, school district, community college and a local state university. We were tasked with determining average increases for related jobs in the private sector. The results of our survey data were given to each of the city councils, county supervisors and board of education members as aids to their collective bargaining process.
As a result, I'm painfully familiar with what happens when management goes eyeball to eyeball with a public agency union over excessive demands for increased pay and/or benefits. If the management of the agency blinks and gives in to the union's demands, it becomes only a matter of time until draconian measures must be taken to return to financial sanity.
So I have to wonder whether the City of Ventura is headed for trouble by promising more to the police union than we taxpayers are able to handle. Where retirement benefits are concerned, I'm equally amazed that it is possible for a public employee to receive more money in retirement than that employee earned on the job. The standard for most defined benefit plans is typically between 70 percent to 80 percent of the employee's highest salary as appropriate retirement pay.
At some point, the above scenario will play out for the City of Ventura. The police union realizes this and is attacking Neal Andrews' re-election in a desperate attempt to stave off the inevitable.
In conclusion, if a private sector organization has a problem with its union, it can cease operating, move out of state or outsource its work to China. What option does the city or taxpayers of Ventura have?
-- Leo A. Jones, Ventura