2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber language law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

The practical effect of the measure in my business is that coupled with City of Portland and Multnomah County special taxes over the last few years and constant double digit increases in the cost of employee health care (15% this year) and a down economy we have been unable to raise prices and have had increased tax overhead. This year we had to offer the hourly staff an option, health care or a 2% raise. We left certain positions unfilled as they became vacant so avoided layoffs. We outsourced the work done by those in the vacant positions. That is something we resisted for ten years but had finally to give in. Those jobs went out of Portland and out of Oregon. We had to put these measures in place before the vote because we have to assume the measures will pass. The thought that this is only a tax increase on high wage earners or on "big corporations" is sophistry. The bite comes out of the middle class worker, like it or not. It has to. That is where the money is. The question for the middle class worker is "Do you want your employer to distribute the burden or do you want the State to do it?" The employer is likely the better choice so I favor the measure.

posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context

Some things seldom mentioned in the PERS discussion:

1. PERS contributions are employee salaries in one for or another. Those who talk about lowering the employer contribution are talking about lowering police, fire and public employee salaries.

2. The PERS Fund is money that belongs to the employees and retirees. It is supposed to be managed as a trust fund and invested prudently for the maximum gain. It is not. Over the years it has been used by the Treasurer and the Legislature as the State "piggy bank" to provide funding for public buildings, to rescue Oregon icons in trouble like Fred Meyer and to support "socially responsible investing" at below market returns. The Oregon Legislature has stolen from the SAIF Fund and stolen from the Veterans Home Loan Fund. Should what it has done with PERS be a surprise? Any reform should plan the PERS money with a private institutional trustee, not the State.

3. Local governments have no choice, neither do public employees. PERS has over the years forced out all alternative public employee retirement plans. State law requires PERS for police and fire and PERS or equal for all others. The "or equal" formula applies only to plans already in place when PERS was adopted and is skewed in farvor of PERS. I was forced out of a very attractive Standard Insurance and into a less generous PERS plan by the State.

4. The various accounting games played by local governments were approved by the Secretary of State and known to the Legislature.

posted 3 years, 6 months ago
view in context