

Jerry Brown strips cell phones from California state employees - Byliner
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/01/11/BA661H7E1T.DTL&tsp=1

======
patio11
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.

~~~
dasht
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?"

~~~
patio11
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."

~~~
dasht
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.

------
ghshephard
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.

------
TomOfTTB
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.

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

~~~
TomOfTTB
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.

------
sfphotoarts
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.

~~~
chc
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.)

------
ericksoa
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.

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

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

