Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    July 22, 2011 8:00am-8:30am PDT

8:00 am
before it is a bit of a gamble in that respect. supervisor chu: with regards to the change, we saw a significant movement in overtime from 2008 until now. the difference, the previous requirement, that was in the reverse direction. we did not make it more restrictive. we actually increased the number of overtime hours could work -- that people could work. it seems that the reporting requirement and how personally getting exemptions for improving being onerous, people not wanting to have to go through that, can you explain that? >> my understanding -- i was not
8:01 am
here when that was implemented, was that it was widely deemed to be unachievable. it was basically ignored. it may well be that the biggest change was not only a tap with someone looking at it, but you have to do something about it and he would perhaps be publicly embarrassed if you did not deal with it. strong incentives for people to address over time. it became a real focus. we did not have the kind of study where we could implement it in stages. at 16% it would have been more difficult to manage. because it would be such a huge change for people. >> even 30% produced a restriction. supervisor chu: at the current proposal it is to drop the level from 30% to 20%, getting closer to that 16% level. when we have that level it was
8:02 am
widely regarded as unachievable and there was no enforcement. going from 30% to 20%, do you foresee any problems with it now being implemented will? -- implementable? is there a magic number? >> i do not think there is a magic number. we are concerned about being judicious in granting those. we do get a lot of pressure from apartments that need to get the work done. in areas like fire, where you have a 24/7 requirement for staffing, regardless of the cap they probably will have to give an exemption. that might be true for certain public health classifications because of the custodial care requirements.
8:03 am
i would hope that it continues to erode the use of overtime. i would venture that this has largely been done through reporting we can learn from what we did before. >> you spoke about who is in the incremental. taking a snapshot look at this and seeing how many people are exceeding the 20% level now, you said that there were individuals exceeding it. do you know the categories they were in? who would be captured in the additional change? >> the additional -- i see, who beat pickup at the 20% level, emergency communication, dispatchers, the district attorney's office, the court, recreation, and the airport.
8:04 am
yes. so, our minister has just advised me that when they look at the full year, it is about four times the amount. 60 people at the 30% level to 238. looking backwards. it might be that they did not have to work that much overtime. presumably the downward pressure of a reduced caps will change that. but i believe there are more people working overtime. i want to make sure that however it is implemented, we do not wind up with something that needs to be ignored as we have in the past. supervisor chu: when we talk about folks who have a number of exemptions that have been
8:05 am
issued above 30% at the moment, you said it was 54 the year? >> that was the number of people over the cap. there are a handful that did not get an exemption. at the sheriff's department particularly, we do not have real time information of how much overtime has been worked. if he works the next shift, will he be over? people sign up for it. it is very hard to manage that. with better systems we will have a better ability to track. supervisor chu: be anticipation of a 20% cap, will people be staying at the same behavior? we would expect it to go over 200?
8:06 am
>> yes. however, i would hope that there would be some downward pressure by the new cap. i am certain that there will be more exemptions. supervisor chu: i do not remember if the budget office or the controller can speak this, but major budget offices tend to be the mta and public safety, right? >> supervisors, the largest over time apartment in the city is the mta, accounting for approximately half of the overtime spending in the city. after that the largest, the top five or fire, police, public health, and the sheriff. five departments that account for approximately 85% of overtime spending in the city. supervisor chu: with regards to
8:07 am
the mta, this legislation would not necessarily the relevant to the mta? -- not necessarily be relevant to the mta, correct? >> they demanded certain resources, including overtime, whereas the human resources director is responsible for footing the exemptions on the non-mca directors. -- non-mta directors. supervisor mirkarimisupervisor o that a bit, mta. >> we are required to report to the controller on the difference [unintelligible] word to go through. supervisor chu: the ordinance applies that it is a matter of enforcement?
8:08 am
>> for the mta we have several classes that are exempt where station agents are given exemption as a class. looking at that level, we have 35 individuals that beat that level. the majority of them are operators or electrical workers. we are very concerned by the safety implications of that much overtime. unfortunately, the issue has
8:09 am
been presented under a myriad of reasons. because the service modeled presents vacancy issues and unlike safety staff, the attrition levels of operators, pcr's, those kinds of positions are city departments that we see. this note -- historical overtime has been in low standing. if we were to move from 30% to 20%, we would probably see four times the number. about 120, 130 individuals on that list.
8:10 am
the overtime budget is large. supervisor chu: it sounds similar to the chief's comments. if we were to implement this proposal, you would not necessarily expect to see an immediate reduction in overtime spending. you might see more people that would be exempted or more people that would be able -- that would be a waiver or distribution? >> yes. supervisor chiu: thank you, madame chair. i want to thank the staff on the council for the answers to these questions. have you seen any anecdotal evidence of excessive overtime leading to safety issues? as i said earlier today, when we have been the station agents
8:11 am
that have logged literally close to 39 extra hours every week for the entire first half of the fiscal year, that seems to be pretty significant. >> we looked, i know, a couple of years ago we did searches for studies on productivity and over time. there were general statements that basically declining productivity after a certain number of hours, we do not have any evidence. i think that it would make sense. it might make sense to consider -- and i would use the term safety sensitive -- there are certain jobs where a drop in productivity is not explained and you just have to have someone there. an example might be working overtime delivering food. if the person is a little late for the person forgets milk,
8:12 am
they can go back and get it. different from someone driving a large vehicle with many passengers. it might make sense to consider the people operating things like power tools, driving vehicles, i would view them differently from those who are trying to meet a deadline for the state. it would perhaps make sense to bear down a little bit and look at the kind of work we would be happy to provide a less by classification. -- provide by class less by classification. i certainly agree that for public safety and people involved in transit, if i can be
8:13 am
so bold, it makes sense to distribute, even if it is less overtime work, there is better distribution with significant safety benefits. supervisor chiu: i certainly agree with those comments. the three biggest users of overtime are the mta, transit, police department and fire, public safety. it seems to me that that should be a consideration. is it job classifications that will have much more significant impacts if something would go wrong? i know that we heard a presentation from one of your colleagues. we heard loud and clear that the mta has a history of really not being able to get a good hold of overtime. i think that we know what the
8:14 am
explanations have been for the past, but i have not gotten a clear sense of what the path is going forward in terms of putting a cap on these things. >> we are aware of the concerns raised by the committee members. you are correct. over time as recorded was a black box to drive over time. the service model and the level of vacancies available, what we are attempting to do pick is -- we recognize that the city business model will have to be amenable. it is good business sense to use overtime as a tool. we are not 24/7, quite, but we are fairly significant. we are attempting to break out of that blockbuster overtime and determine the appropriate level
8:15 am
for a system like ours. we agree that you could do a better job with overtime. we have not had significant levels of reporting with overtime. forcing overtime by facility, which we have never had before, drilling down into these issues, how much overtime is built into the schedules? with a new agreement in place, is their flexibility to revise the schedule so that over time is not a given built into the schedule? looking at the approval process, what is that effort? some initiatives that we are taking to address over time issues so that it is a more acceptable level, i think that building the schedule around
8:16 am
the agreement will make a significant difference for part- time operators. the fact that, for example, an electrician agreements, as we just negotiated with local 6, started from 8 to 5 on monday through friday. we renegotiated the contract so that we would not have to pay overtime. i think that you will see some changes in overtime. in terms of the levels in the departments, our goal is to go down by a 30% range.
8:17 am
supervisor chiu: 1 comment around the history of what we got here. in terms of providing an explanation, we set a recording requirement for folks working over 30%. hopefully there is a better culture of accountability where they are now accustomed to these exemptions. it is my hope that by going from 30% to 20%, i do not expect overtime to drop immediately, but i hope that the apartments, once they look at who is using overtime at higher levels, they can look for better ways to manage it. there are times when it is appropriate for overtime levels, but it is important for all of us to have some level of
8:18 am
transparency on this. this is why we have made the recommendations that we made. one last question for the controller. i know that you had a conversation with my staff about the variety of reports the office is to put together. i wanted to see if you have recommendations with streamlining to work together. >> we have a number of different requirements added over the years. every six months we produce one overtime report. the annual report was required on a different set of overtime requirements. most recently we have added monthly overtime requirements. the concept here was to provide
8:19 am
analytical recommendations that are not inherent in any of those. my request would be to give us more time to put together a comprehensive and streamlined recording requirements. not just another requirement based on those built up over the years. supervisor chiu: would one week be enough to provide information back to this committee? >> absolutely. supervisor wiener: 5 would be willing to put this item over for one week and consolidating some of the reporting requirements. supervisor mirkarimi: has there
8:20 am
been analysis on overtime and those who commit -- elected at the same time? >> in the last round of bargaining with public safety, including police and sheriff in particular, particularly we look that up to a certain maximum. frankly, we look at the negative effect. individuals, it was like a self fulfilling prophecy. basically, when you start on a cycle where giving someone extra work, it has an exponential
8:21 am
impact. it will be limited to 80 hours within one year. i do not know of that speech your question. that is the balance that we see. recently we attempted to finish medicare reporting on a deadline. so, for that it would be fine to get content. at a time when work is slower, there is no incremental cost to the city, it is only a productivity issue. 24/7 i would generally recommend smarter decisions to
8:22 am
pay off the overtime. ultimately you pay it out at a higher rate of pay. in the longer term it is a much more financially conserve -- financially conservative approach. supervisor mirkarimi: do any of these apartments have both? >> typically there is a choice. unlike the private sector, in the public sector you can have comp time in lieu of overtime. they can select a certain amount. supervisor mirkarimi: do you know the amount? >> at the moment i think it is -- steve, is it 40? 484 public safety. i think it is 244 non-public safety. reflecting the limits available.
8:23 am
we have negotiated below that. the sheriff and the police of lower. -- are lower. supervisor mirkarimi: we do not have any numbers as to where those are maxed out on comp time in correlation with overtime figures? >> i am wondering whether the system would report. certainly, we can run a report on how much -- the advance at the department level in the system, within the new system it will be. supervisor mirkarimi: it sounds like not. let's not now. -- >> not now. supervisor chu: thank you. can we go to the budget analysts report?
8:24 am
>> madam chair, members of the committee, we reported on page 5 that we do not anticipate a significant increase in costs associated with implementing this ordinance. although one time resources would be needed to pull in the necessary changes to provide the required reports, costs would be absorbed into the budget. the proposed ordinance to reduce overtime from 30% to 20% would create a significantly administrative burden for the mta, increasing the number of requests for chief executive officers to approve such requests. the overall dollars spent on overtime is determined mostly by transit operations and
8:25 am
enforcement management. they believe that it is required to provide the required services. mta will continue to use overtime to ensure levels of service. they are not confident that the reduction will result, as i understand this legislation, which is not necessarily the objective, which is to control over time, as i see at. they reported that if over time is capped at 20% rather than 30% of base salary of them over time be spread amongst a larger number of employees. additionally, if the current restrictions and required monthly reports with waiver processes are required as employees of for of the gaf, they discourage the use of
8:26 am
overtime, necessitating managers' pay attention as we consider approval of this resolution to be a policy matter for the board of supervisors. supervisor chu: thank you. thank you also to the sponsor for suggesting that we continue the item. i think it would be useful to see what other reporting other than my usual two. in terms of the time, we can look at it in terms of a number of different ways, giving it can in ways that help to address
8:27 am
that issue. whether or not it addresses the issue of overtime there are appropriate uses of overtime and some of the departments have attested to using overtime as being more expensive than a straight time employee. i think that the overtime is and supervisor chu: let's go to public comment -- i think that over time is. let's go to public comment. seeing no one, public comment is closed. supervisor chiu: i move that we continue this item for a week.
8:28 am
obviously the goal at the end of the day is to make sure that over time that we have is used well. and bringing them from 30% to discovering more folks using over and being the most efficient way to go at it. and given the past where we have had situations and i think they can continue to use that and that you can streamline
8:29 am
reporting we have been -- supervisor chu: we have a motion and a second. can we do that without objection? item #seven foul please. >> item number 7. -- item number seven, please. >> item number 7. motion approving and exercising the final option set forth in january 1, 2012, and this is an item carry forward and do not have a report with a budget analyst about this, but it