4 ms·

That number, of course, is made up. The real paycheck for the scoopers is ~$71k: "As members of the city's "Poop Patrol," workers are entitled to $71,760 a yea

That number, of course, is made up. The real paycheck for the scoopers is ~$71k: "As members of the city's "Poop Patrol," workers are entitled to $71,760 a year, plus an additional $112,918 in benefits, such as healthcare and retirement savings, the San Francisco Chronicle reported." (https://www.businessinsider.com/san-francisco-poop-patrol-employees-make-184000-a-year-2018-8 https://www.businessinsider.com/san-francisco-poop-patrol-em...) Want to reduce that cost further? Nationalize health care and increase social security.

yowzadave 3y ago
I don’t understand—don’t benefits typically make up around 30% of all compensation in the US? Why are the insurance/retirement costs so high in this particular case?
- Rebelgecko 3y ago
  Depends on the job, but in my experience no, it's closer to 50%. In general, government jobs have even better insurance and retirement benefits than a "regular" job. CALPRS requires retirement contributions in the neighborhood of 30% of salary
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    If this is CalPERS, CalPERS is about 70% funded. Which means that a huge chunk of the $112k in "benefits" for these workers is actually being used to compensate for pension fund deficits for prior employees. In no actual way are these 'top-up' funds actually a benefit for the new pooper-scooper employees who are technically getting credited with the "benefit" as part of their total compensation. Among benefits I think only pensions are averaged across all employees in this way. Even health care insurance varies based on which of the insurance options an individual employee picks. And payroll taxes (social security, at least) cap out somewhere in the low 6 figures.
  - vlovich123 3y ago
    This is 160% though. Something is off.
lumost 3y ago
112k/yr for health insurance seems high. How large is the SF retirement benefit?
- extra88 3y ago
  As others have pointed out, it's likely the retirement portion is large but won't go to these particular employees when they retire. Instead, it's likely the city pension fund is underfunded for current retirees so extra for every current employee is budgeted to go into the fund to make up for it. Budgeting rules may also require that they allocate enough for each employee in case they all have families of 4 or larger when in fact many will have only one or two people in their household. Even though the amount over the salary was called "mandated benefits," it likely also includes non-benefit costs like payroll taxes. Even so, budgeting over 100% for non-salary costs per-employee is hard for me to get my head around; a bad pension situation seems like the most plausible expanation (or the original reporting [0] was wrong, they didn't show their work). [0] https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/Breed-inspects-streets-for-cleanup-on-the-q-t-13172569.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/Bree...
  - lumost 3y ago
    aye - the top line number seems indicative of something else at work. Perhaps the City budgeted the tools/services/equipment needs of these employees on a per employee basis? I could easily imagine a city employee in SF cleaning poop needs a not insubstantial amount of budget for waste disposal, cleaning equipment, hazard insurance etc.

yowzadave 3y ago

I don’t understand—don’t benefits typically make up around 30% of all compensation in the US? Why are the insurance/retirement costs so high in this particular case?

Rebelgecko 3y ago
Depends on the job, but in my experience no, it's closer to 50%. In general, government jobs have even better insurance and retirement benefits than a "regular" job. CALPRS requires retirement contributions in the neighborhood of 30% of salary
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  If this is CalPERS, CalPERS is about 70% funded. Which means that a huge chunk of the $112k in "benefits" for these workers is actually being used to compensate for pension fund deficits for prior employees. In no actual way are these 'top-up' funds actually a benefit for the new pooper-scooper employees who are technically getting credited with the "benefit" as part of their total compensation. Among benefits I think only pensions are averaged across all employees in this way. Even health care insurance varies based on which of the insurance options an individual employee picks. And payroll taxes (social security, at least) cap out somewhere in the low 6 figures.
- vlovich123 3y ago
  This is 160% though. Something is off.

lumost 3y ago

112k/yr for health insurance seems high. How large is the SF retirement benefit?

extra88 3y ago
As others have pointed out, it's likely the retirement portion is large but won't go to these particular employees when they retire. Instead, it's likely the city pension fund is underfunded for current retirees so extra for every current employee is budgeted to go into the fund to make up for it. Budgeting rules may also require that they allocate enough for each employee in case they all have families of 4 or larger when in fact many will have only one or two people in their household. Even though the amount over the salary was called "mandated benefits," it likely also includes non-benefit costs like payroll taxes. Even so, budgeting over 100% for non-salary costs per-employee is hard for me to get my head around; a bad pension situation seems like the most plausible expanation (or the original reporting [0] was wrong, they didn't show their work). [0] https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/Breed-inspects-streets-for-cleanup-on-the-q-t-13172569.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/Bree...
- lumost 3y ago
  aye - the top line number seems indicative of something else at work. Perhaps the City budgeted the tools/services/equipment needs of these employees on a per employee basis? I could easily imagine a city employee in SF cleaning poop needs a not insubstantial amount of budget for waste disposal, cleaning equipment, hazard insurance etc.