Newton: How L.A.'s shortfall adds up

PoliticsBusinessFinancePublic EmployeesBudgets and BudgetingUnemployment and LayoffsJobs and Workplace

As Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa works to bring the city's finances under control, he's made some laudable moves, but his actions today are constrained by two decisions from earlier in his tenure that limit his options.

The first came in late 2007, when the mayor and other city leaders approved a five-year package with the coalition of unions representing most civilian city workers that promised 5% raises each year.

The second was in response to the economic downturn that blew up the assumption that the city could afford those raises. When revenues suddenly declined, the city had to cut labor costs, and Villaraigosa and other city leaders tried to minimize the impact of cutbacks by shifting city workers from jobs paid for by the general fund into those that are supported by their own revenue streams — sanitation, for instance.

Today, the combined effect of the raises and the shifting of employees out of general fund jobs hamstrings the city's attempt to close its staggering budget shortfall, a $220-million to $250-million hole that Paul Krekorian, the council's Budget and Finance chairman, calls "maybe the most daunting budget challenge since the Great Depression."

The two decisions at first glance seem unrelated. One was a simple benefits package of the type routinely negotiated by the mayor and leaders of the City Council. Those negotiations invariably are shaped by politics. City unions help elect the mayor and council members and expect to be repaid when it's time to cut the deal on salaries. In 2007, for instance, the raises — and the city's willingness to commit to a five-year deal — suggest that the elected officials were catering to organized labor.

That might have been fine, if the city's revenue projections had held true. A year later, however, the bottom fell out of the tax base as the national economy took its 2008 nose-dive in the waning months of the Bush administration. As a result, while the city's salary expenditure line continued to rise, the revenue line that once accompanied it veered sharply downward. To this day, the city suffers from its largesse in 2007.

Which brings us to the second of the fateful decisions. This one was equally defensible on its own terms. As they confronted the increasingly strained budget brought on by the recession, city officials looked for ways to lighten the burden on the general fund without simply casting employees aside — creating hardship for them and their families and contributing to an economy awash in unemployed workers. One way to do that was to move workers into vacant positions at the city proprietary departments or specially funded operations.

As a result, the workforce in those operations has grown or held steady while the general fund workforce has been sharply reduced. As of today, more city employees work in special fund units than are paid by the general fund.

And that, in turn, creates a new political problem. One way out of the current morass would be to persuade city workers to give up the raises promised them in 2007. Employees might well be willing to do so to save their jobs. The trouble is that only general fund employees are under any threat of layoffs because the special fund workers are paid for by the money their operations generate — sanitation fees, for example. Because fees collected by the city for specific services must be used to pay for those services, the city can't simply grab sanitation fees and put them in the general fund. And because the bulk of city employees now work in such "safe" jobs, it's hard to imagine that the city can persuade a majority of its workers to give up their raises.

As Miguel Santana, the city's chief administrative officer, ruefully acknowledged last week, "The politics don't add up."

It's possible that the unions could bail out the city, that workers in one department would give up raises to protect workers in another. But city workers are understandably tired of being vilified for Los Angeles' troubles, and they justifiably feel entitled to the raises they were promised. If they refuse to shoulder the burden of this shortfall, layoffs will come, as they have before, but they won't be felt equally across departments.

Villaraigosa has a talented team assigned to the budget, and in the past he has proved willing to make difficult choices and alienate old friends in order to respond to a crisis. He's to be commended for that, but no one should forget that though the mayor is not to blame for the national economy, his decisions helped create this problem for Los Angeles.

Jim Newton’s column appears Mondays. His latest book is "Eisenhower: The White House Years." Reach him at jim.newton@latimes.com or follow him on Twitter: @newton_jim.

 

Copyright © 2014, Los Angeles Times
Related Content
PoliticsBusinessFinancePublic EmployeesBudgets and BudgetingUnemployment and LayoffsJobs and Workplace
  • Metro shouldn't play the name game
    Metro shouldn't play the name game

    How should Los Angeles say “thanks” to long-serving politicians who have done the people's business through good times and bad? When a fruit basket just isn't enough, the honorarium of choice for L.A. County supervisors and other local elected officials has been to have...

  • Los Angeles leaves the flat-roof society
    Los Angeles leaves the flat-roof society

    Think of the nation’s most impressive skylines. New York City has Art Deco points atop the Empire State and Chrysler buildings and the spire capping the new One World Trade Center tower. Besides the soaring Willis Tower (formerly known as the Sears tower), Chicago’s skyscrapers...

  • Why so many injury claims from L.A. public safety workers?
    Why so many injury claims from L.A. public safety workers?

    Los Angeles' police and firefighters take paid injury leave at significantly higher rates than public safety employees elsewhere in California. Why? Is it more strenuous or stressful to work in the city of Los Angeles, compared with L.A. County or Long Beach? Does the city have an older...

  • How to kill hotel jobs in L.A.
    How to kill hotel jobs in L.A.

    Last week, members of the Los Angeles City Council voted to increase the minimum wage for hotel workers within the city to $15.37 per hour by next year. Why? You'd have to ask them.

  • Why is Mayor Garcetti polishing the soda industry's image?
    Why is Mayor Garcetti polishing the soda industry's image?

    To hear Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti’s office tell it, the city is being honored with a wonderful new health initiative brought to it by the soda industry. The details are unclear from the press release but this is all part of the Alliance for a Healthier Generation, an alliance...

  • Problems in L.A. County Sheriff's Department run deep
    Problems in L.A. County Sheriff's Department run deep

    Despite the assertion to the contrary by Sheriff John Scott, the sentencing Tuesday and likely imprisonment of six sworn Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies, sergeants and lieutenants does not reflect merely the actions of a "few" bad actors. The punishments do not remove the...

  • Why single out L.A. hotel workers for a wage boost?
    Why single out L.A. hotel workers for a wage boost?

    The Los Angeles City Council is, again, trying to rush through a proposal to establish a special $15.37-an-hour minimum wage just for hotel workers. A committee hearing has been scheduled for Tuesday and a full council vote is expected the following day, even though three reports from...

  • Why mandating higher minimum wage isn't best way to address poverty
    Why mandating higher minimum wage isn't best way to address poverty

    Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, among other city and state officials across the country, have recently proposed raising the minimum wage well beyond the current state-mandated levels of $9 an hour in California and $8.25 in Illinois. And public opinion polls...

Comments
Loading