Author: freightwizard

OC Register: Public Overtime Pay Surges

Teri Sforza Staff Columnist, Orange County Register

Several California firefighters managed to triple their base salaries by working tons of overtime last year, according to competing data on city worker pay released Monday by the state controller and the California Policy Center.

The phenomenon of rocketing overtime, according to the reports, hit its apex in Richmond, where one city firefighter had base pay of $113,892 and overtime of $279,105. His total compensation in 2013, including the value of health and pension benefits: $508,893.

“The overtime certainly is insane,” said Robert Fellner, project manager for the conservative-leaning center’s project, Transparent California. “The system wasn’t designed to be most beneficial to the taxpayer, and it’s definitely being exploited. There are certainly ways to minimize that.”

The pattern was repeated statewide to varying degrees, with one local firefighter doubling his base pay with overtime. Huntington Beach Fire Captain Darren Newton had base pay of $110,866, overtime of $127,866 and total compensation (including other pay and benefits) of $361,382.

While Orange County cities have ranked high on best-paid lists in years past – former Buena Park City Manager Rick Warsinski was No. 1 in 2012, with total comp of $545,394 – they failed to crack the Top 60 this year, according to Transparent California.

Laguna Hills City Manager Bruce Channing was No. 1 in the county, with total pay and benefits worth $383,082. That put him at No. 62 statewide, out of nearly 215,000 workers.

The No. 1 spot belonged to Susan Loftus, then-city manager of San Mateo, with total comp of $567,106.

Her payout – as well as that of Warsinski and many others who landed atop the list – was bulked up by cashing out unused sick, vacation and other leave time that had accumulated over decades. The unused leave is paid out at the worker’s last, and usually highest, rate of pay, even if it was earned when the pay rate was much lower.

The Top 50 list includes several workers from recently bankrupt and financially struggling cities, including Vallejo and Mountain View.

But O.C.’s failure to crack the upper echelons may not reflect a sobering of local compensation packages as much as it reflects how much compensation is increasing elsewhere.

“There’s a very clear trend: Public pay continues to rise,” said Fellner of Transparent California. “Over the past 10 years in the private sector, there have been up years and down years and years of stagnation. People should ask why public sector employees are almost always seeing their pay go up, while the people who pay for them aren’t.”

Municipal workers counter that they have endured many cuts and job reductions since the recession, have forgone raises and are kicking in more for retirement and medical benefits than ever before. Indeed, the number of city positions reported to the controller dropped from 327,700 in 2009 to 279,000 last year.

The dueling city pay databases have slightly different takes on the information. While the state controller lists all city positions, but only by job title, and includes wages subject to Medicare taxes, Transparent California drops off workers who earn less than $25,000 a year, includes all wages and lists employee names, enraging some.

The controller’s data showed that cities paid total wages of $17.2 billion last year. They paid $2.2 billion for the required employer’s portion of retirement costs. In addition, they paid $375.6 million to cover their workers’ portion of retirement contributions, even as they’re asking workers to kick in more of that themselves.

City overtime pay totaled $1.37 billion, and lump-sum pay was $302.9 million.

The controller also posted pay data for about 332,000 county workers on Monday.

Former Sheriff’s Lt. Bill Hunt was officially the best-paid county government worker in California last year, with compensation of $1.25 million – even though he didn’t actually work for the county.

Hunt, you may recall, ran against then-Sheriff Mike Carona in 2006. Carona won, Hunt was demoted and endured what a judge later branded a campaign of retaliation and intimidation, with Carona’s conduct “egregious and despicable.” Hunt sued, and Orange County agreed to settle the case last year with reinstatement to his former rank and back pay.

That settlement amounted to a $742,153 lump payment, and retirement and health benefits payments of $510,388, according to the data.

The only other county earners in the million-dollar range in all of California were four contract physicians for Kern Medical Center.

See the controller’s new data for your city or county at publicpay.ca.gov. See Transparent California’s by-the-names data at transparentcalifornia.com.

Winning Family Action PAC Endorsed Candidates

Here is the full list of winning candidates endorsed by the Family Action PAC. Twenty-three out of the Thirty-Five candidates we endorsed, were successful in their races.
Tom McClintock, 4th Congressional District
Pat Bates, 36th Senate District
Young Kim, 65th Senate District
Don Wagner, 68th Senate District
Matt Harper, 74th Senate District
Bill Brough, 73rd Senate Distict
Kevin Haskins, OC Superior Court Judge
Jeff Ferguson, OC Superior Court Judge
Linda Lindholm, Trustee Area 5, OC Board of Education
Shawn Nelson for OC Supervisor, 4th District
Jim Righeimer for Costa Mesa City Coucil
Fred Whitaker for Orange City Council
Scott Peotter for Newport Beach City Council
Scott Voigts for Lake Forest City Council
Kevin Muldoon for Newport Beach City Council
John Collins for Fountain Valley City Council
Andrew Hamilton for Lake Forest City Council
Kerry Ferguson for San Juan Capistrano City Council
Pam Patterson for San Juan Capistrano City Council
Ed Sachs for Mission Viejo City Council
Jeff Lalloway for Irvine City Council
Derek Reeve for San Juan Capistrano City Council
Sandra Crandall for Fountain Valley Elementary School District Trustee

Family Action PAC Christmas Luncheon

Join all of us at the Family Action PAC for our annual Christmas Luncheon. The event will be held Tuesday,December 9th at noon. The event will take place at the Pacific Club in Newport Beach and will include a special guest speaker, Ed Ring of the California Policy Center, and the Red Tie Awards. Please RSVP by December 1st by emailing info@familyactionpac.org or by calling (949) 955-1191.

We hope to see you there!

Post- 2014 National Election Thoughts

by John Shu

 

Congratulations to all of our FAPAC members and friends who ran for election or re-election.  Regardless of the outcome, running for office requires much courage and principle.

 

The punditocracy has already covered the 2014 midterm elections in varying forms.  The essential point is that voters in “red,” “blue,” and “purple” states (1) voted against Democrat leadership, and (2) that Republicans hopefully will improve on the Democrats’ lackluster performance, especially on the economy.

 

There remain, however, three important points worth covering here:  (1) the President still retains extraordinary powers; (2) liberal Democrats are the ones who are racist, and (3) those who are pro-family and pro-1st Amendment must stay vigilant.

 

Republican Senators Must Be Wary Of President Obama’s Judicial Nominees

 

The president still retains appointment power to the U.S. Supreme Court and other Article III courts.  President Obama has flipped, for example, the U.S. Courts of Appeal for the DC and 4th Circuits from predominately “conservative” courts to now predominately “liberal” courts.  Sadly, judicial confirmation battles today are particularly nasty, mainly because since the Warren Court, the federal judiciary increasingly has become the final say over hot-button social issues (e.g. abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, et cetera), instead of leaving such issues to the legislatures.

 

Over the last 50 years, Democrat Supreme Court appointees generally have remained equally or more liberal compared to when they were first appointed.  Republican appointees, however, have either remained as conservative as they were, or became more liberal.  Examples include Justices John Paul Stevens (Ford), Sandra Day O’Connor (Reagan), Anthony Kennedy (Reagan), and David Souter (Bush 41).  Democrats also have been successful at blocking Republican nominations (e.g. Robert Bork (Reagan), Douglas Ginsburg (Reagan), Harriet Miers (Bush 43, and Clarence Thomas (Bush 41) barely made it through).  Justice Stephen Breyer (Clinton) sailed through his 1994 nomination and confirmation process, even though Republicans controlled the Senate.

 

Thus, any of President Obama’s judicial appointees over the next two years, particularly Supreme Court appointees, are likely to be confirmed despite a Republican-controlled Senate.  Sooner or later a full nine-justice bench must preside.  Moreover, while the major newspapers and broadcast networks have consistently cheered and encouraged a Democrat Senate to shoot down a Republican nominee, they will almost certainly accuse as “obstructionist” or worse any Republican Senatorial questioning of a Democrat nominee.

 

President Obama also retains the great power of executive order, and he has made clear his willingness to freely use that power.  Generally, while Senate Republicans may challenge certain executive orders in federal court as unconstitutional (e.g. overreach of executive authority), as a practical matter executive orders are difficult to stop because litigation generally requires at least a year of so in order to wind its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which might

even decide not to hear the case.

 

The Facts Show That Republicans Are More Pro-Minority Than Democrats

 

Even before the voting was over, liberals and Democrats jumped to the airwaves to falsely claim that Republicans swept the 2014 midterms because Republicans are (supposedly) racist and sexist.  Those arguments did not win in most jurisdictions, such as North Carolina and Colorado, but they were effective in other jurisdictions such as New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Virginia.  Congressman Charlie Rangel (D-NY13) even called Republicans “Dixiecrats,” conveniently ignoring the historical facts that Dixiecrats were Democrats who (1) retained Jim Crow laws, (2) supported segregation, (3) opposed interracial marriage, and (4) supported white supremacy.  After the 1948 election, in which Truman  defeated Dewey, the Dixiecrats re-joined the Democrat party.  Governor Dewey (R-NY) had, since FDR, supported civil rights legislation that many congressional Democrats violently opposed.

 

Congressman Rangel and his cronies would do well to remember that the first African-American U.S. Senator was Hiram Rhodes Revels (R-MS), who became a senator in 1870.  The second and third African-American U.S. Senators were also Republicans, Blanche Kelso Bruce (R-MS) in 1875 and Edward William Brooke, III (R-MA).  In the 2014 election, Tim Scott (R-SC) was the only African-American senator elected.

 

Even more telling, Democrat policies have been terrible for minorities.  For example, black and Latino economic growth, business opportunity, median wealth & wages, and employment numbers have steadily declined since February 2009.  Minority unemployment numbers, on the other hand, are sharply higher today compared to February 2009.  Overall, the GOP in 2014 did much better among blacks (12%), Latinos (36%), and Asians (50%) compared to 2012; their economic distress was a major factor in their 2014 voting patterns.

 

Pro-Family And Pro-1st Amendment Voters Must Stay Vigilant

 

While pro-family and pro-1st Amendment citizens should breathe a huge sigh of relief after last Tuesday, they should also remain vigilant because the Obama Administration and its congressional allies are likely to renew their political assaults on such citizens.  From nominating hostile judges to executing hostile executive orders to unfairly criticizing pro-family and pro-1st Amendment positions from “the bully pulpit,” the Obama Administration still commands the biggest stage in the world.  Because Senate Republicans do not have 60 seats, Senate Democrats will still be able to stall and filibuster anything they want.  Furthermore, even if congressional Republicans advance legislation over Democrat obstruction to end marriage penalties in government benefits or expand tax credits for children, for example, President Obama may choose to veto.

 

Even worse, the Obama Administration will very likely continue to stonewall congressional investigations into its IRS’s highly questionable, narrowly targeted, unfair and almost certainly illegal treatment of pro-family and pro-1st Amendment, among other, non-profit tax-exempt organizations.

 

 

John Shu is an attorney in Newport Beach, CA and author of the Law & Public Policy column.  He worked for President George H.W. Bush and President George W. Bush, and clerked for Judge Paul Roney, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.

 

 

Announcement: Fall 2014 Endorsements

FEDERAL OFFICE

United States House Of Representatives
  • Tom McClintock, 4th Congressional District

STATE OFFICE

California Constitutional Offices
  • Ted Gaines, candidate for CA State Insurance Commissioner
State Senate
  • Janet Nguyen, 34th State Senate District
  • Pat Bates, 36th Senate District
State Assembly
  • Rob McCoy, 44th Assembly District
  • Young Kim, 65th Assembly District
  • Don Wagner, 68th Assembly District
  • Matt Harper, 74th Assembly District
  • Bill Brough, 73rd Assembly District

COUNTY OFFICE OFFICE

  • Allan Mansoor, Orange County Supervisor 2nd District
  • Robert Ming, Orange County Supervisor, 5th District
  • Kevin Haskins, Orange County Superior Court Judge
  • Jeff Ferguson, Orange County Superior Court Judge
  • David Ellis for Municipal Water District of Orange County, 5th District
  • Shawn Nelson for OC Supervisor, 4th District

LOCAL OFFICE

City Council
  • Scott Peotter for Newport Beach District, 6th District
  • Lee Ramos for Costa Mesa City Council
  • Jim Righeimer for Costa Mesa City Counci
  • Fred Whitaker for Orange City Council
  • Scott Voigts for Lake Forest City Council
  • Kevin Muldoon for Newport Beach City Council
  • John Collin for Fountain Valley City Council (Reelection)
  • Ray Grangoff for Orange City Council
  • Andrew Hamilton for Lake Forest City Council
  • Rhonda Rearden- Mission Viejo City Council
  • Kerry Ferguson for San Juan Capistrano City Council
  • Pam Patterson for San Juan Capistrano City Council
  • Ed Sachs for Mission Viejo City Council
  • Jeff Lalloway for Irvine City Council
  • Derek Reeve San Juan Capistrano City Council

School Board

  • Sandra Crandall for Fountain Valley Elementary School District Trustee
  • David Yang for Tustin Unified School District
  • Ellen Addonizio for Capistrano Unified School District
  • Craig Alexander for Capistrano Unified School District
  • Julie Collier for Capistrano Unified School District

The Hobby Lobby Decision:Separating Truth From Fiction

 

Introduction

 

On June 30, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Burwell, et al. v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp., et al., commonly referred to as “Hobby Lobby.” In short, the Court ruled that the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services’ 2011 regulations mandating insurance coverage of abortifacient contraception, promulgated under the 2010 Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”), violated closely-held corporations’ Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (“RFRA”) statutory rights.

 

Although Obamacare’s statutory language required most companies with 50 or more employees to provide health insurance which covered “women’s preventive care and screenings,” the statutory language did not specify contraceptives, let alone abortifacients.  HHS, specifically the Health Resources & Services Administration, self-determined that the law mandated all FDA-approved contraceptive methods and sterilization procedures.  The HHS regulations mandated that the affected companies provide insurance coverage for 20 different contraceptive methods or face severe financial penalties. Four of those contraceptive methods, Plan B, Ella, and 2 types of Intra-Uterine Devices (IUDs) are abortifacient and violated the strong and sincere religious beliefs of Hobby Lobby’s and Conestoga Wood’s owners. The owners clearly stated that it was their strong and sincere belief to provide good health-care coverage to their employees, and already covered the remaining 16 non-abortifacient contraceptive methods.  Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the primary dissenting opinion.

 

Sadly, almost immediately after Justice Ginsburg read her dissent from the bench, certain special interest groups, politicians, and so-called “legal analysts” (who in reality did not understand the law) began spreading mis- and dis-information about the decision and its ramifications. For example, they incorrectly claimed that the decision was part of the Republican party’s and “religious fanatics’ ”  “War on Women,” and that the case enabled employers to “take away women’s birth control” and “control women’s health and women’s rights.” The New York Times even incorrectly editorialized that Hobby Lobby permitted “owners of closely held, for-profit companies an unprecedented right to impose their religious views on employees.”  Democrat politicians such as Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) claimed that the government needed to fill the “contraceptive coverage gap” for women, and Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said that “women’s lives are not determined by virtue of five white men … this Hobby Lobby decision is outrageous and we are going to do something about it.” Senator Reid apparently did not realize that Justice Clarence Thomas, who voted with the majority and has been on the bench for more than 20 years, is African-American, not white.

 

The truth is that Hobby Lobby does not permit corporations nor corporate owners to impose their religious views on anyone, does not deny nor prevent any woman from accessing or obtaining contraception or insurance coverage for contraception, and does not create a “contraceptive coverage gap.”  Hobby Lobby was not a First Amendment nor a constitutional case; it was a statutory interpretation case. The precise question the Court considered was not about birth control or women’s rights; it was whether, under RFRA, the government had a less-restrictive means of accomplishing its goal of providing insurance coverage for women’s contraception rather than forcing all affected companies to provide insurance policies that directly covered the four abortifacient contraceptive drugs and devices which contravened strong and sincerely-held religious beliefs.

 

Company Backgrounds

 

David and Barbara Green and their three children own and run Hobby Lobby, based in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and an affiliated business, Mardel, which is a Christian bookstore. Norman and Elizabeth Hahn and their three sons own and operate Conestoga Wood Specialties, based in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, which manufactures wood doors and components for kitchens, bathrooms, and furniture. All three companies are closely-held, family-owned, family-run, non-public corporations.  Hobby Lobby self-insured its health-care coverage.  No one ever doubted the strength and sincerity of the Hahns and the Greens religious beliefs. For example, the Greens testified, without challenge, that their religious beliefs include treating their employees well, which they practice by offering good health-care coverage, start employees at nearly twice the federal minimum-wage, reduce operating hours to promote family time, and other benefits.  The uncontested record showed that Hobby Lobby closes on Sundays and plays Christian music in its retail stores. Hobby Lobby provides employees with free access to chaplains, spiritual counseling, and religiously-themed financial advice. The company refuses to sell shot glasses, refuses to allow its trucks to be used to haul alcohol (thus voluntarily turning down easy profit), and declined $3.3 million to lease one of its empty buildings to a liquor store.

 

RFRA Legislative Background And Standard

 

In 1993, President Bill Clinton, a liberal Democrat, along with a Democrat House of Representatives and a Democrat Senate, signed RFRA into law.  Then-Congressman Chuck Schumer (D-NY), now a powerful liberal senator, sponsored RFRA in the House on March 11, 1993, which passed it via unanimous voice vote.  The late Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), one of the most liberal senators at the time, introduced the bill in the Senate, which passed it with a 97-3 vote.  Then-Senator Joe Biden (D-DE), now Vice President, and then-Senator John Kerry (D-MA), now U.S. Secretary of State, voted in favor of RFRA, as did Senator Reid.  The ACLU also strongly supported RFRA’s passage.

 

President Clinton and the Democrat Congress passed RFRA in response to Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), which held that generally applicable laws unrelated to religion could still restrict Americans’ religious rights.  In fact, both liberal and conservative politicians claimed that Employment Division made it *too* easy for the government to burden the free exercise of religion.  Thus, when President Clinton signed RFRA into law, he said, “What this law basically says is that the government should be held to a very high level of proof before it interferes with someone’s free exercise of religion,” and that “[o]ur laws and institutions should not impede or hinder, but rather should protect and preserve fundamental religious liberties.”

 

RFRA prohibits the federal government from imposing “substantial burdens” on a person’s, including corporate persons, free exercise of religion unless the federal government uses the “least restrictive” means of serving a “compelling government interest.”  RFRA provides an exception when (1) the “substantial burden” is necessary for the “furtherance of a compelling government interest” and (2) that the “substantial burden” is the “least restrictive” way or method to further the specific government interest.

 

It is unclear as to whether HHS considered RFRA when it issued its 2011 regulations at issue in Hobby Lobby. What is clear is that whenever an administrative regulation (e.g., the HHS mandate) conflicts with an already-existing law (e.g., RFRA), the law trumps.

 

Short Case Analysis

 

The Supreme Court recognized that Hobby Lobby alone faced penalties of approximately $1.3 million per day, or almost $475 million per year, if it did not fully comply with the HHS contraceptive mandate.  The Obama Administration conceded that Hobby Lobby faced a “substantial burden” under RFRA:  the owners had to choose between violating their religious beliefs or paying $475 million per year, which would have effectively killed the company.

 

The Court, for purposes of the case, simply assumed that requiring contraceptive insurance coverage was a “compelling government interest.”  It also noted, however, that “the least-restrictive-means standard is exceptionally demanding.”  The Court found that HHS’s heavy-handed mandate was not the least-restrictive means; rather, the Obama Administration had several options to achieve its contraceptive insurance coverage goal while simultaneously exempting conscientious religious objectors under RFRA.

 

For example, the Obama Administration could have paid for the contraceptives or contraceptive coverage directly.  Or, it could have extended to Hobby Lobby the same accommodation it offered to religious non-profits, which essentially requires insurers, and not the company or religious non-profit, to cover the costs.  It could have even subsidized the insurers for the costs.  The Obama Administration essentially reduced its “compelling government interest” to merely a question of who pays for government-mandated contraception.  Government-mandated funding is rarely, if ever, the least-restrictive method, if only because the government can always choose to fund or subsidize its own mandates.

 

What Does It Mean, And What Happens Now?

 

Hobby Lobby clarified RFRA’s protections, and the Court clearly stated that its ruling was “very specific.”  It does not give all corporations carte blanche in avoiding all “compelling government interests.”  For example, it is unclear if publicly-traded corporations with diverse shareholder religious beliefs would qualify for RFRA protection.

 

In this midterm election season, the Obama Administration and its congressional allies are already moving swiftly.  HHS already issued draft regulations for both for-profit and non-profit entities, “Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act,” available at http://tinyurl.com/mrzkv2z, and http://tinyurl.com/ozwep9g, and Senator Murray introduced S.2578, the “Protect Women’s Health From Corporate Interference Act of 2014,” which would modify RFRA and also overrule Hobby Lobby.  Congress has always had the power to exclude any legislation from RFRA protection.  For example, Congress could have stated in Obamacare’s statutory language that it and its regulations were not subject to RFRA protection.  Thus, Congress still retains the final word on when it wishes to permit or exclude religious exemptions, within constitutional boundaries.

 

John Shu is an attorney and U.S. Supreme Court expert and author of the Law & Public Policy Column.  Mr. Shu served both President George H.W. Bush and President George W. Bush, and clerked for Judge Paul H. Roney, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

Harris v. Quinn: An Important Limitation On Forced Unionization

By Craig P. Alexander, Esq.

On Monday, June 30, 2014 the United State Supreme Court issued its ruling in the important case of Harris v. Quinn. While the case is limited in its ruling and scope, it is a critical one where the Court boxed in the ever expansionist reach of government employee unions.

Background:

Mrs. Pamela Harris is the mother of a severely disabled adult son who needs constant care due to his disabilities.  A federal Medicaid program funds many state run programs that provides financial assistance by paying caregivers for these individuals who reside at home rather than in a more expensive nursing care facility.  Most often it is a family member who is providing this care and who is being paid to do so under this program.  The State of Illinois has such a program and by law declared these caregivers to be state employees but without any right to benefits, not subject to any control as to their time, place or methods of provision of care services (and provides that the caregiver is solely responsible to and is an at will employee of the customer (the disabled person)) and the State is immune from any liability to the disabled customer for any home caregivers negligence or intentional conduct.

In 2003, first by executive order then legislation, the caregivers were forced to join a union, the SEIU, and pay dues, which the State withheld from their Medicaid payments.  Mrs. Harris and others challenged this forced unionization via this case.  She lost at the federal trial court and intermediate appeals court levels with those courts relying on a past U.S.S.C. court case Abood v. Detroit Bd. Of Ed. 431 U.S. 209 (1977).  The Supreme Court, noting the importance of the factual situation described above, ruled in Mrs. Harris favor.

Limited Ruling:

The Court (Justice Alito) performed a detailed analysis of the reasoning behind the Abood case, which upheld the unionization of full time government employees (there teachers) who were directly the employees of the Board of Education.   Justice Alito and the rest of the majority found that full time direct state employees are vastly different factually to what I would call akin to in-home independent contractors and limited the extent of the Abood ruling to full time direct government employees.  Further to extend the finding in Abood upholding required union membership (or agency fee paying) to this situation was a reach to far.  The Court stated:

“If we allowed Abood to be extended to those who are not full-fledged public employees, it would be hard to see just where to draw the line, and we therefore confine Abood’s reach to full-fledged state employees.”

Once the Court found the holding in Abood was not controlling in this situation, it then did an analysis of the facts of this situation under “generally applicable First Amendment standards.”  Relying on cases like Knox v. Service Employees 567 U.S. ___ , 132 S. Ct. 2277 (2012), the Court ruled that the justification of preventing “free riders” benefiting from union negotiations for its members applying to those not paying for union dues / expenses, did not apply in the context of the Harris facts (in-home workers as described above).

Once again, the Court noted several significant differences between the regular full time government employee and the in-home caregivers the Illinois statute attempted to force unionization upon.   For example, one justification cited by the unions is “labor peace” in not having conflicting unions vying for membership in the same union shop locations.  The Court noted that in-home caregivers are not in one place but always in the customers’ homes (which are often the caregivers homes’ as well).  Space does not permit me to go through all of the Court’s reasoning here.  The Court ordered that union dues and agency fees can no longer be withheld from a home caregivers’ Medicaid payments if they object.

Implications from this Ruling:

1. The Court effectively blocked forced government unionization of recipients of funds under government programs like Medicaid where the person receiving the payments is not a true “government” worker where the state agency controls the time, method and means of employment.   This is especially true where the legislature declares the “employee” is not entitled to any typical government employee benefits like pension rights.  The Court was very specific about the limited nature of the “employment” between the State of Illinois and the home caregiver.

2. The Harris decision is not banning forced union membership (or agency payments to a union by those who do not join the union) for traditional full time government workers such as public school teachers, CHP officers, firefighters, etc.   This is not a “right to work” decision for all government employees.

3. However, a close reading of the Harris majority’s analysis of the Abood decision notes the current majority’s concerns that the policy and practical implications of Abood’s approval of closed shop laws for government employees.  Thus the majority justices may be open to a challenge from a more traditional full time government employee.

4. Elections matter – the Harris decision and the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby case (both critically important First Amendment cases decided on the same day) were five to four votes that included the swing vote of Justice Kennedy.  All of the four “liberal” justices voted in the dissent to uphold the forced unionization of the home caregivers in Harris (and to deny religious expression as argued in the Hobby Lobby case).  Thus the outcomes of the elections in the fall for control of the U.S. Senate and the White House in 2016 are critical as the make up of the Court could be the deciding factor on these important issues one way or another in the near future.

To read the Court’s opinion go to: (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/11-681_j426.pdf).

Craig P. Alexander, Esq. is an attorney at law whose office is in Dana Point, CA.  Craig has been a member of the California Bar Association since December 1987 and he practices law in the areas of insurance coverage, construction defects, general business litigation and civil litigation.  Craig is a former elected member of the Orange County Republican Central Committee and a form Vice President with the California Republican Assembly.  Craig and his wife Pam enjoy long walks on the beach especially if that beach is located in Hawaii!  He can be reached at cpalexander@cox.net

July 17th Event: Luncheon Featuring Mia Love

Join the Lincoln Club of Orange County Thursday, July 17, 2014 to hear from Congressional Candidate Mia Love of Utah.

Mia graduated from the University of Hartford with a degree in fine arts. She found faith. Then she found Jason. And then she found herself in Utah ready to give back. Mia served two terms on the city council of Saratoga Springs, one of Utah’s fastest growing cities. As city councilwoman and eventually Mayor, Mia led the city through a period of 1700% population growth in a decade. Under her leadership, the city was able to successfully navigate the drastic transition from agricultural fields to a booming residential community. For more information, click here!

This lunch is Thursday, July 17th, Noon at the Pacific Club (4100 MacArthur Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92660). The luncheon cost is $100. An exclusive reception with Mia Love is also available at 11 a.m. with a donation of $1,000. Don’t miss out; to RSVP today, register with Lincoln Club on-line here.

To register or to find out more information, please click on any of the relevant links. For email inquiries, please contact us at events@familyactionpac.org.

Public Employee Pay And Pensions – A Lot More There Than You Knew!

By Craig P. Alexander, Esq.

Many of you reading this were supporters of Proposition 32 in 2012 which, unfortunately, lost at the polls after the public employee unions outspent our side to defeat this reform of campaign finance regarding unions and corporations taking of their member’s dues for political purposes.   One of the chief architects of the Prop. 32 initiative and campaign is our longtime friend Mark Bucher, Esq.  Not one to withdraw from the fight for fiscal sanity in California or to just accept defeat, Mark joined with others to start the California Policy Center.  One of CPC’s missions is to inform citizens of California of the dangers of unfunded pension liabilities and the huge power of government employee unions over our state and local governments.

An important effort of the CPC (http://californiapolicycenter.org/) is the Transparent California project (http://transparentcalifornia.com/) .  Want to know the compensation of a particular government employee?  Want to know what the average salary and benefits of a particular city or county or special district employees are?  California law provides that the compensation of public employees is public record and members of the public (you and I) are entitled to obtain this information.  Mark and the CPC volunteers and staff have been making public records requests to many cities, counties and special districts under the California Public Records Act Request statutes and obtaining that information.  Because the law (the California Government code and court decisions on that) is so strongly in favor of disclosure, the CPC has been having great success in obtaining this information.  And since it is public record, you can find this information at the Transpartentcalifornia.com web site.

You will be unhappily surprised to find out how, in many, many instances, you are paying “your” public employees both now and when they retire –on the taxpayers’ dime – far more than you might imagine.  From the sampling I have taken, it would appear that there are hundreds of thousands of hard working public employees who will retire with solid but not extravagant retirement salaries and benefits.  However, there are and will be many thousands of retired public employees who will be in what I and others are calling the $100,000 plus club!  And that is only their salary – that does not include health care benefits.

Let me give you some examples:  The South Coast Water District (which covers most of Dana Point and part of San Clemente and South Laguna Beach) had 84 full time employees in 2012.  The average base salary for all 84 full time employees was $79,337.05 and the average pension costs were $13,424 per employee.  The average total compensation for those same 84 employees was $118,743.10.  However, at the SCWD there are 14 employees who are in the $100,000 plus club and their averages are quite different.  The average base salary for the lucky 14 was $132,692.07 and the average pension costs for these management employees was $22,755.00.  The total average compensation was $194,740!

Over at the Orange County Fire Authority the problem is on a much larger scale.  For 2012 there were approximately 1,518 full and part time employees.  Even counting all of the part time employees, the average base salary was $69,634.26.  The average employer paid pension cost was $40,447.12 per employee.  Average per employee health care cost:  $11,351.71.  The average per employee for total compensation was $159,676.99.

But jump to the $100K club at the OCFA and you find there were 285 persons at the OCFA with base salary take home pay (before taxes) of over $100,000.00.  The average base salary for members of the 2012 $100K club was $118,564.58.  The average employer share of these 285 employee’s pensions:  $65,860.82.  The average health care costs in 2012 were $15,282.39.  And the total compensation average for these lucky $100+ club member employees was $260,447.23.

All of these compensation figures do NOT include future payout requirements for retiree costs, especially retire health care costs which, logically, should only rise as retirees grow older needing more health care.

Of course the fundamental problem with all of these defined benefit plans is you and I, the taxpayers, are on the hook for each and every penny of the retirement pay and benefits.  Rather than the public employee having either a say in how their retirement funds are invested (like an IRA or a 401k) or any risk for their good or bad investment choices, the invoice for any shortfalls (including bad investment decisions by “retirement boards”) is on us the taxpayers.

It is hoped that as more of the voting public actually are able to and do look up the particular cost per employee and overall for each public entity, the voters will be alarmed and take corrective action before it is too late.  This has already begun to happen.  In the City of Sierra Madre the City Council placed on the ballot a measure for the citizens to pay an additional tax to support increases in salaries and benefits for firefighters.  Of course the council members tried to sell this additional tax as necessary to keep good firefighters on the force.  However, local citizens, using the Transparent California web page discovered that the city paid health care costs were in excess of many of the citizens’ annual salaries!  When this “uncomfortable” and “inconvenient” fact came to light, the measure was defeated at the polls by voters who said enough is enough!

I encourage you to go to the Transparent California web site (http://transparentcalifornia.com/) and check out the site and find out what some of your publically employed friends receive in salary and benefits.   You might find the answers eye opening and prompt you to have a serious conversation with your locally elected officials – because this problem exists at the local level not just in Sacramento.

Craig P. Alexander, Esq. is an attorney at law whose office is in Dana Point, CA.  Craig has been a member of the California Bar Association since December 1987 and he practices law in the areas of insurance coverage, construction defects, general business litigation and civil litigation.  Craig is a former elected member of the Orange County Republican Central Committee and a form Vice President with the California Republican Assembly.  Craig and his wife Pam enjoy long walks on the beach especially if that beach is located in Hawaii!  He can be reached at cpalexander@cox.net