Denver's sick leave scandal

Posted by mrfxx on March 16, 2008 at 3:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I love how unnamed gutless wonders like the writer of this Op Ed piece are allowed to be published in this section, while "Letters to the Editor" authors must at least be named.

First, most folks in government service - federal, state or local - are paid less than in the private sector, but frequently take those jobs based on the benefits package. The author is suggesting that those benefits be taken away too. It is especially nasty that the author mentions UAL, which (while giving lump sum cash payments to upper management on their retirement) first underfunded their fixed pension plan - then foisted the payment plan on the US taxpayers via the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation - which promptly reduced those pension payments by at least 33% (some retirees had their pension payments reduced by 60%). By the way - thanks to the tax codes, etc - the Feds are at least partly responsible for that underfunding. It is quite possible that if the PBGC becomes insolvent (which it technically already was in 2003 because of dumping of pension plans by companies declaring bankruptcy), both current and future retirees will be left without pensions altogether, except for Social Security - also under attack by many. I do suspect that if the rules were changed so that upper management "felt the pain" as well, somehow, these corporations would magically find the money to fund pension plans. Instead, as of 2003, pension plans (both dumped & still in place) have been underfunded by more than $350 billion.

Second, whether in private industry or in the public sector, it is standard practice to compensate an employee who retires or is laid off for unused accrued vacation time for at least that year. Many companies have a "use it or lose it" vacation policy which does not allow an employee to roll over unused vacation from year to year, but at least the current year's accrued vacation is normally paid out - as it should be. Perhaps the author would prefer retirees to give notice equal to their accrued vacation time, then go on vacation, instead of training their replacements.

Finally, perhaps the author would prefer something similar to the Federal Civil Service plan, which allows all unused sick time to be "rolled" from year to year until retirement (sick time can also be donated to someone who has a catastrophic illness - I'm sure the author would like to see that stopped too), then, instead of receiving a cash payout for the unused sick time, the retiree is given service credit for their retirement benefits. An example is the case of my mother, who (despite having borne 5 children & having a couple of minor surgeries during her 30+ years in Civil Service) used so little sick time that she was given credit for 2 additional years of service. Of course, that did raise her retirement pay slightly (about 6% I believe) for the almost 30 years she lived after retirement - maybe a lump sum payment would have been cheaper.

Posted by Earl on March 16, 2008 at 7:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

there is one really big difference between government pay and benefits and the private sector, the private sector has to earn money to pay its employees and the government just raises taxes.
it would be nice if there was a government program that produced income rather than all government being a consumer of tax moneys.

Posted by mytwosense on March 16, 2008 at 7:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Getting compensated for unused sick and vacation days is not a perk, it is fair return to the employee for their time spent on the job. And many companies DO practice this, as well. Should those companies emulate others' who don't, and if so, why?

I am disappointed in the Rocky Mountain News' anti-worker position on this issue.

Posted by p_myers661 on March 16, 2008 at 8:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

A good compromise seems available here. Present stored sick leave and vacations remain the same. In the future, No more than two years of additional sick leave may be stored. If an employee doesn't use the additional sick leave in a fiscal year, that employee receives a check for the difference between the amount owed and the two new weeks allowed. Same for vacation time. The employee gets the benefit and the government doesn't have to pay out the time at the final pay rate as opposed to the pay rate the worker is making. Workers can then save this money, and pay taxes on it, until they retire. No benefits will be lost and the government can change the rules for the new employees unless the newly added "union benefits" make the situation worse. A friend used to go to work sick and tell me he was saving a day's pay at the highest rate he would ever make. He retired with 8 months of sick leave and a lot of vacation pay. Gave him an extra year and an extra 60 dollars a month in pension benefits. He'd bought years of service in a program that I remember but not well. End story was that he got about 200 dollars a month more when he retired.

I really think that we should find those with large amounts of sick leave and vacation pay saved up and put them in charge of changes. They know the system and have proved their ability to save money and think ahead.

Posted by alcambell_9 on March 16, 2008 at 10:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't feel sorry for government employees who are arguing to keep their perks like sick leave payed for by our tax money, while small businesses who pay ever increasing taxes and overhead costs are having to drop the vastly more important health insurance plans our employees relied on as an hedge against economic devastation if they got sick.

Why is it fair for small business to pay for government workers health insurance when they can't afford it for their own employees. Never mind the sick leave and vacation time that is allowed to pile up to millions of dollars for government workers retirement which we also have to pay for, and also can't afford to give to their own employees.

Govenment employees and the leaders of their causes are delusional if they think We the People are going to continue paying for their perks when we can't afford them for ourselves or our employees. What this amounts to is a feudal system wherein the serfs, us, pay for the nobility's,government employees, wants through ever increasing taxes while we suffer economic devastation and going whithout any relief from those we pay taxes to.

Posted by JYP3500 on March 16, 2008 at 3:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Some of the above responses are clearly from govt bureaucrats, who believe being paid for unused sick days is an “entitlement”. As a taxpayer, I say ridiculous.

I just retired after 22 years from a fortune 100 company and had over 200 unused sick days. I received nothing for them and I’m OK with that. They were given to me as an insurance policy, to be used if I ever got sick and had to take a short-term or long-term disability. I’ve never heard of a corporation paying employees for this. Unused vacation time, yes. But not unused sick time.

Several years ago, I was shocked to learn about Wellington Webb and his cronies gorging themselves at the taxpayer’s money trough. This makes me angry as a taxpayer. The state & fed govt bureaucrats already have great benefits, including a job for life, no matter what their job performance is like. Enough is enough!

Posted by seeingeyeseesall on March 16, 2008 at 7:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This seems a common practice - I worked for a while for the State of Florida 25 years ago and it was policy there, then. Considering the State paid about half what the private sector did for the same work (which is why I left) the benefits package had to be better....

Posted by Castle on March 16, 2008 at 10:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I worked for a large municipal fire dept. in CA for 30 years, 1970-2000. We had unlimited accumulation of sick leave, if you didn't use it, it went in the bank. Upon retirement we were payed for one half of our unused sick leave. That was a benifit to not only the employee, but to the city also. I had 2700 hours on the books and it was good when I had to use about 800 hrs for some non-job related surgery, so when i retired I had about 1900 hrs on the books and was paid for 950 hrs. Yes a nice chunk of when you retire. It also benifited the city, because when I or anyone else took off sick, whe had to be replaced by an overtime person. so for my day it cost 2.5 hours of pay to replace me. If I didn't abuse my sick leave and use it as I earned it, I got a nice check and the city ended up saving money. That also why we were given time on duty to "work out" in the gym that each station had. A healty, in shape employee dosen't use as much sick time.

If city's and gov'ts want to keep taking away pay and benifits to there employees, the quality of the employees they do hire will go down as the benifits do.

Posted by ModerateBob on March 16, 2008 at 11:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Particularly scurrilous is the Rocky's use of the word "Scandal" in the title. There is NOTHING scandalous about this practice, even though the Rocky doesn't agree with it. "Scandal" would imply that someone was doing something against policy and getting away with it. "Scandal" would imply that money was being paid out to those who didn't earn it under the policy. None of that appears to be the case here.
Rocky editors, If you dislike a policy, just say so, but it behooves you to use appropriate titles. Without doing so, you're just another supermarket tabloid.

Posted by ConcernedinAurora on March 16, 2008 at 11:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Your right it's horrible that these government workers get any benifit. They should be making min. wage and paying for their own health care too cause by god others are. I'm sure if we make them do this we will have qualified people doing the job of protecting us cause god knows people are beating down the door for the police/fire jobs all ready. That's why cities have had to resort to bonuses just to get people to apply. You get what you pay for people, wake up.

Posted by p_myers661 on March 17, 2008 at 7:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

We aren't talking about Police or Fire workers. We are talking about clerks and other workers who would make about two dollars over minimum wage with few or no benefits in the private sector. Now, thanks to our Governor, we have added the additional complication of a union to preserve benefits and increase them.

Benefits are not the center of the problem, the quality of the work produced by these workers is. Government workers are promoted based on time of service. Workers at the DMV are a great example. The joke is that their motto is, "We don't care 'cause we don't have to." They are neither rewarded nor punished for the lowest level of work required. Our DMV office is fantastic. They had 3 workers there when I went to replace the handicap hang tag stolen from our car. I noted that the average wait between people being called up was about 4 minutes. (What can I say, I'm a numbers freak.)One worker was doing a great job. She handled the papers well and made a few trips to gather forms or other things and finished right at the average 4 minutes most of the time. Another worker took about 7 minutes per client. She would get the papers she needed one by one and there was a delay between the time one person left and another one was called. Last clerk was amazing. People were greeted with a smile and she had a set of folders with most of the papers she needed. She made only one trip for the six people she took care of while I was watching. Her average time was two minutes. She typed fast and called the next people as soon as the ones already helped stood up.
The fast worker cannot receive a bonus, pay raise or promotion until those hired before she was hired have received the pay raise etc.
Few private companies would survive with such burdens on their productivity.
This guarantee of job security is the crux of the anger. Most government employees can plan for lifetime employment If they lose their job, they get paid for those days of sick leave and vacation at their current pay level.

Posted by mytwosense on March 17, 2008 at 8:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

JYP: "I just retired after 22 years from a fortune 100 company and had over 200 unused sick days. I received nothing for them and I’m OK with that. "

Well, that was just plain stupid on your part. What were you trying to prove? You could have used that time to spend with your family.

Your silly choice to flush your money and time down the drain does not validate other workers' receiving the same zero compensation in return you did.

Posted by JYP3500 on March 17, 2008 at 8:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

mytwosense: sorry I wasn't clearer. The company policy was to not reimburse anyone for unused sick time. I had no choice in the matter, but was OK with the company's philsophy. As I said, accumulation of sick time was an insurance policy, not an entitlement to be paid for it.

Posted by bropous on March 17, 2008 at 8:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You want to know why the DMV folks are so slow, bitter, or not really oriented to customer service? EVer stop and think for a moment how these people are treated? If a customer forgets their insurance, it's the clerk's fault. If the rules changed since the last time the customer got their plates, it's the clerk's fault. A citizen has to wait for an interpreter to come help the illegal who is in front of him in line? It's the clerk's fault.

I say, the deal on sick pay is the deal they signed up for, and keeping that deal is part of the trust between employer and employee. You want to change the rules? Fine, push for a change in the work rules for anyone hired after today, and you see how the influx of people who want to work as persistently maligned public servants dwindles to a trickle.

Know why the one lady had it down in two minutes? She's probably new, give her a while to be hammered mercilessly by the very people she is there to serve. You'll see her dragged right down, as well. Oh, and in Denver, you do get merit increases for doing a good job...and don't get your raises if you are not. Enough with the snap judgments from the government worker-haters out there. Get some facts prior to opining.

Posted by stuckiniowa on March 17, 2008 at 9:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The bottom line is that there should be an expectation that the government work as or more efficiently as the best corporations. Business is responsible for operating within a budget -- unfortunately we don't hold the government to that same standard.

Posted by just_me on March 17, 2008 at 10:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Just a couple of things to ponder...
1. How many city employees show up to work sick just to save that sick day? How many city employees is that person going to make sick by showing up sick? I don't know and have never seen a study on the issue. I would believe however that this does occur, just as it occurs when an employee at a private company shows up to work because their company doesn't offer any sick leave.
2. If they were to change the "horse midstream" how many maxed out employees would suddenly become sick all at the same time so as to use the sick time accumulated?
3. There are companies that combine sick and vacation time....It is your time earned use it as you will.

Posted by mytwosense on March 17, 2008 at 11:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

stuckiniowa: "The bottom line is that there should be an expectation that the government work as or more efficiently as the best corporations."

First of all the government isn't a business, which operates with a sole eye towards increased profits. The government's "job" is to serve the citizens of this country. Yes, operating within a budget is critical to this purpose, however, paying employees for unpaid sick and vacation days is likely accounted into those budgets.

What's more, many of the "best" corporations do offer the exact same policy.

Posted by fraudcop37 on March 17, 2008 at 6:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The Rocky had a story in todays (3-17) paper about the Denver Police Department and a report that said that they are doing a pretty good job in policing themselves. Reading the story gives me the distinct impression that Rocky Editors are saying to themselves about now "Damn those reports that shine a good light on anything DPD does". It makes me wonder if someone near the top at the Rocky maybe has an ax to grind with DPD.

It seems to me that the Rocky wants to demand excellence from its Police Officers and Fire Fighters without having to put out any money to achieve this same excellence.

The Rocky editors seem to have a problem with the terms EARNED BENEFIT. The impression they are trying to make is that these payouts of EARNED sick leave and vacation benefits are some under the table payouts. There is nothing sneaky about the payouts. They were benefits AGREED to by the city in contract negotiations with the Police and Fire Departments for decades.

The Rocky would like to forget that in years past, when the Police and Fire Department had to go to the voters for pay raises they got them everytime the issue came up.

The public values its police department and fire fighters, even if the editors at a newspaper do not.

If it was up to the Rocky, Dedicated employees of the City and County of Denver Public Safety would get a gold watch and a kick to the curb at retirement.

Posted by Lowtaxequalsfreedom on March 17, 2008 at 11:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The Municipality I live in grants comp time. So any time an employee works over 40 hours he/she accrues vacation time. This really adds up. The real question is this, why do you not complete your job in 40 hours? Should we hire a part time to supplement your workload or better yet why not replace you with a more productive individual?

This is the difficulty of operating a not for profit. There is no good way to set productivity standards and there is no good way to set salaries. No competition, no price mechanism and no profit incentive. The city council is the only defense and that is no defense at all.

Do some research and you will learn that most government budgets go to staff and very little goes to capital upkeep and improvements.

Flame suit zipped.

Posted by ModerateBob on March 18, 2008 at 9:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Lowtax: Could it be that employees can't get their job done in 40 hours, because overboard, over-the-top anti-tax, anti-government zealots (such as yourself, apparently) have hamstrung municipal budgets to the point that many towns are understaffed? Could it be that the person who is working the extra time is ALREADY doing the job of 1.5, or 2 people? There is always a consequence to "doing more with less". That's also why a part-time person isn't hired to help out. This is not something limited to government jobs. If you think private businesses aren't faced with the same dilemma (pay OT/Comp time vs hiring another person) you're a fool. Not only do most government budgets go to staff, so do most private industry budgets.
As for the accumulation of comp-time as an unfunded liability, where I work, we must use comp-time in 60 days. If it's not used, we're paid for the OT. That is a smart way to deal with it. Unfortunately, under-staffing usually precludes even taking the comp-time.

Posted by fraudcop37 on March 18, 2008 at 1:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Apparantly Lowtax seems to think that Police Work and Fighting Fires is a 9-5 job. So, in her line of thinking if the fire is not out during your normal working shift, you just clock out and go home? The homicide victim is left for the next day? Managers in a government may be on a 9-5 shift but the workers who do all the work certainly are not. The city budget only allows the hiring of a certain amount of employees. The city spends alot of money training those employees to do their jobs to the best of their ability. When the services of those skilled employees are needed and your pool of those people has been exhausted what do you do? You pay those people overtime. No one works for free.
Moderatebob is right.

Posted by archerelk on March 19, 2008 at 6:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

hi lets start with tell the whole story most csa employees without a contract start at less than comparable wages to priviate industry and the reason is the job stabilty and benafits package the city has. Some work 2 jobs and overtime to offset the pay cut for the first 3 or 4 years like i did.And it takes abot 10 years to get to were you can be close to wage compareable then you get a 2% raise that is consumed by a incress in health inshurance.Most work 20 to 30 years the sick pay at the end is a average of that is equal to about 3 or 4 months wages 4 divided by 240 equals about1.5% this is put in there retirement account and for the majority it will not be much more than 18,000 dollars a small price to pay for 20 years of loyal service no scandal there

Posted by Lowtaxequalsfreedom on March 21, 2008 at 2:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Apples to apple government employees get paid more and do less work than the private sector counter part. Finding honest comparisons is nearly impossible because most government work has no competition, price mechanism or productivity standards. Very little customer feedback as well. Hard to compare don't you think?.

What about all the days the firemen sit around and watch movies?

I do agree most Government employees work 2 jobs. The second private sector job is usually worked while getting paid for the first public sector job.

Moderate Bob change your name to Liberal Bob.

Posted by archerelk on March 23, 2008 at 8:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wrong wrong wrong My work is compared against it all the time And when you work a night shift and work wensday to saturday 2nd jobs are what you do if you start at "A" step.No matter were you work you will have a few give the rest a bad name and 9 times out of 10 they will be taken care of unless your the owners son and your dad did the job interview and the son was hired for tax brake. Everywere i have worked it the last 30 years i have had to pull my own wieght private and goverment go on a deployment for 9 months and work 7days a week 16 hour days non stop and get 1200.00 for a month do the math.Do that for 5 years and then talk it ranks right up there with stacking small hay bales all summer in 100deg weather from day light to dark but if it is your job you do it

Posted by fraudcop37 on March 25, 2008 at 11:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Poor Lowtax. Has not a clue. The reason that the firefighters are at the firehouses is so that they can respond to any emergency, usually within 4 minutes. Not having the firefighters at the houses, would result in having them called in from home, jobs or shopping. Then someone has to go to the firehouse and pick up the truck, then drive to wherever they are needed. All of this wasting valuable time. Time that some people in need of their services don't have. Firefighters usually don't sit around watching TV all that much. They are training, taking care of equipment, cleaning the firehouse and alot more that I don't know about because I am a retired police officer, not a firefighter. They also handle walk in calls all the time, usually for first aid type of things.

Instead of bitching about benefits EARNED by our first responders, get off your butt and go see what they do. Go to your nearest firehouse and talk to the firefighters. Call your nearest police substation. Ask about citizen ride alongs. They do them everyday.
They welcome the opportunity for citizens to see what police officers do and why they do it.

Sitting in your cubicle, with no benefits because your employer considers you as expendible office equipment is hardly grounds to complain about EARNED benefits of our city employees. If you don't like the benefits where you are, CHANGE JOBS.

Posted by archerelk on March 26, 2008 at 8:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bravo bravo fraudcop37 my mom had 2 strokes in a 2 week period and both times i bet the fire and ambulance crew was there in less than 3 min's a while later i bumped into the chief of there station and personaly asked him to pass on my thanks and apprecation.Think about the thousands of run's that they go on were not one thank you is given.Yes it is there job and they are paid but they do put there neck on the line every day ever run into a burning building that is there job and when the phone rings they do it.the same goes for the police officers they get a call about some one causing trouble of some sort and wanting to fight the world and there job is to sovle everyones problem and the next thing you know the whole familys mad because there loved one is being detained when your getting a traffic ticket the last person you want to see is a police officer. but when some one is kicking in your back door at 2 am that policeman is priceless.THANKS FOR A JOB WELL DONE