Councilcritters vote themselves a nice raise (Boston: how much, neighborhoods, wage)

[WestieWhitie]

Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade

City employees get raises of 1.5-2% every year.


Also there's this..

https://www.boston.com/news/local-ne...wu-councilors/

These pay increases are higher than those proposed by Wu in August. The mayor suggested raising her annual salary to $230,000 (now $250,000) and the councilors’ annual salary to $115,000 (now $125,000).

I still think 20% is too high though

Homie, they’re more or less doing what you do on C-D, outside of your actual paid hustle. Do you think you deserve $125K/year for having a few arguments online every now and then?

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by lrfox

Yes, there are always going to be complaints when taxpayer funded positions see an increase in salary. But the justification for those salary increases is harder to sell to the public in the midst of record inflation. Especially when your platform (the Mayor and many of the Counselors) is that you are "of the people." I generally don't mind standard salary increases (and don't think the actual amounts are all that problematic all things considered), but I'm disappointed with the timing of this - it seems out of touch and contradictory to a lot of what we've heard from those involved. I think there are a lot of people who feel similarly.

Fair enough, but I'll say for myself, and I'm sure many others are like this, when facing high inflation, well over 4% (which this raise basically comes out to), it's not egregious. In fact, it really isn't a raise. When I was in a position where I'd get 3% increases a year (glad that's over), it wasn't a "raise", it was a COLA. In real dollars I wasn't gaining anything. If we look at 2018, and then at 2023 or later, when I think this will go into effect (may be wrong on that), will that 20% actually be a raise, or same or similar real dollar levels? High infation periods are really the time when higher COLAs should make sense. Sure, it can be a feedback loop, but there is only so much you can do there. I think it actually does a disservice to call it a raise if the resulting real dollars stay stable. I'm not sure if that's the case, here, in particular.

[msRB311]

Originally Posted by WestieWhitie

Homie, they’re more or less doing what you do on C-D, outside of your actual paid hustle. Do you think you deserve $125K/year for having a few arguments online every now and then?

Truth lol.

[msRB311]

Some people don't get a raise. People who work for the state don't get one every year

[mdovell]

I think it depends with the city council if that is a full time position or part time. I know of city councilors in other cities that might make 10-15K but it's really more part time.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by msRB311

Some people don't get a raise. People who work for the state don't get one every year

Almost all do. When the contracts for MOSES, NAGE, AFSCME, etc lapsed, and they didn't get cost of living increases, the next contracts addressed those missed years and they got lump sum retroactive pay for them. Management doesn't, but that's relatively small number of positions, comparatively.

[BostonBornMassMade]

Originally Posted by WestieWhitie

Homie, they’re more or less doing what you do on C-D, outside of your actual paid hustle. Do you think you deserve $125K/year for having a few arguments online every now and then?

I deserve at least 125k tolerating a huge troll, yes. I’m doing the lords work for the hood of the internet and for the Boston region.!

A city councilor in Boston is supposed to be a full time job unlike a city councilor in Baltimore or Hartford where it’s meant to be part time. They attend events all year long, right legistalition, actively work participate the city budget, draw redistricting plans, and have to deal with insane people showing up at their events and houses. They can even decide who’s going to lead the city as mayor in the case the mayor is unable to lead. Boston City Council has far more power and responsibility and visibility than in days past. And they want it that way. So I don’t think they’re too overpaid but the optics of that raise is just crazy. Especially given their inability to act professionally right now. I don’t really feel they were underpaid at 103k.

I don’t know why they didn’t stick with Wus recommendation of 230k and 115k but they should have.

[massnative71]

I'd like to hear more about their accomplishments. Or is this Wu's way of saying the current gene pool serves as proof that compensation needs to be increased to attract better talent? Money shouldn't be the primary motivation for one to serve their community, but...

[msRB311]

Originally Posted by timberline742

Almost all do. When the contracts for MOSES, NAGE, AFSCME, etc lapsed, and they didn't get cost of living increases, the next contracts addressed those missed years and they got lump sum retroactive pay for them. Management doesn't, but that's relatively small number of positions, comparatively.

I know people who work for the state who had years they didn't get raises. They were making 6 figures so they didn't go hungry but still. I can see why people don't bother working for these entities anymore. But then city counselors somehow get a 20% raise.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by msRB311

I know people who work for the state who had years they didn't get raises. They were making 6 figures so they didn't go hungry but still. I can see why people don't bother working for these entities anymore. But then city counselors somehow get a 20% raise.

They were likely management classifications, which I mentioned. Managers can go many years without raises. The rank and file might not get the annual COLA adjustments in the year at hand, but get the pay retroactively once their contracts are signed and then the legistlature funds them. So, as I think I already explained, not getting a raise within a year doesn't mean you aren't getting the raise, its just delayed.

I think many of the Commonwealth unions are in this position now since they found Baker so hard to deal with so they're waiting for the next administration to negotiate, and therefore the workers won't receive a raise for the next fiscal year. They will get that raise a year or so later (retroactive pay), depending on how long negotiations and funding takes.