Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There has been a lot of talk lately about SRP raising rates. To be honest, I undertsand rates do have to go up every now and then. However, this article is a little upsetting. Executives who work for SRP can have their children's college paid for in full by SRP! Some of these people are making six figures, why do they need such a high cost perk! It looks like the program has cost us $2.5 million!
If they are asking us for more money, shouldn't they use theirs more wisely and cut the excess?
That's a hell of a perk. The people swimming in piles of cash get free college for their kids? Meanwhile, the average poor person ("middle class" in the old days, I guess) is saddled with paying $50k+ for it, with no guarantee of a job that will cover the loan payments afterwards?
I understand that most salaried jobs have perks, and executives at varying levels have varying perks because they are "smart" and "talented" (i.e. they can read the reports and charts made by the interns and make the obvious decision from there, just like anyone off the street could), but wow.
It's the same thing with athletes, movie stars, musicians, basically anyone else who's rich - the richer you are, the more free stuff you get which you can actually afford millions of times over; while the poorer you are, the more you have to pay for everything. I don't get it. It makes not one lick of sense. But, I guess that's how our "free" economy is!
That's a hell of a perk. The people swimming in piles of cash get free college for their kids? Meanwhile, the average poor person ("middle class" in the old days, I guess) is saddled with paying $50k+ for it, with no guarantee of a job that will cover the loan payments afterwards?
I understand that most salaried jobs have perks, and executives at varying levels have varying perks because they are "smart" and "talented" (i.e. they can read the reports and charts made by the interns and make the obvious decision from there, just like anyone off the street could), but wow.
It's the same thing with athletes, movie stars, musicians, basically anyone else who's rich - the richer you are, the more free stuff you get which you can actually afford millions of times over; while the poorer you are, the more you have to pay for everything. I don't get it. It makes not one lick of sense. But, I guess that's how our "free" economy is!
Well, if you can't beat 'em....
100% true, it is these executives that decided to raise the rates, they are complaining the solar (they were pushing a few years ago) is cutting into their profit. If it were a private company, cutting back would happen before raising rates.
There has been a lot of talk lately about SRP raising rates. To be honest, I undertsand rates do have to go up every now and then. However, this article is a little upsetting. Executives who work for SRP can have their children's college paid for in full by SRP! Some of these people are making six figures, why do they need such a high cost perk! It looks like the program has cost us $2.5 million!
If they are asking us for more money, shouldn't they use theirs more wisely and cut the excess?
Hm. I think this is an interesting perspective. I don't really agree with the perspective of the original poster, but it seems that a lot of what someone brings to this discussion is going to be based on specific criteria. I will point out up front that I'm not connected to SRP in any way.
Let's start with some facts.
The article talks about 77 executives whose children received educational benefits over a 5-year period. The advocates are saying it cost $2.6 million total over those 5 years; let's say it's about $520,000 per year.
The compensation is capped at the cost of attendance at an Arizona public university, so it's not as though the executives are forcing the people to pay for a super-expensive education.
The proposed SRP increase is $110 million per year.
However, employee benefits are decoupled from the SRP increase. SRP claims that the increase is paying for a $1 billion natural gas generation facility. Is that reasonable or not? I don't know. However, the increase is not paying for the educational benefits - those would be paid no matter what (just as they already have been paid).
Or if you insist on claiming that the rate increase is paying for this particular perk (as I mentioned, that's not actually borne out by the facts), this educational perk would represent only about .5% of the increase ($520,000 out of $110 million). So instead of a 3.9% increase, SRP would be proposing a 3.4% increase.
Or just use straight numbers. Someone paying $300 a month would be paying $311.70 with the increase. If you accept the claim that this benefit is paid for by the increase, and this benefit was eliminated, that person would be paying $310.20. What will YOU do with your buck and a half?
And don't claim that isn't not the magnitude - the activists here are RELYING on people worrying about the magnitude when they talk about "millions" that turn out to be $2.6 million over 5 years, and turn it into a class warfare issue with those fat-cat executives and their perks, when we're talking about 77 executives who are limited to $10,000 in benefits per child per year.
At the same time, ask yourself why executives should be shut out of the educational reimbursements that SRP gives ALL of its employees. Presumably, the executives wouldn't be using educational benefits, so passing those along to their kids seems fairly reasonable.
And making the claim that they have different standards because they're a non-profit? That's opening up a whole honking can of worms, isn't it? Do we really want to start doing exhaustive oversight of every non-profit in Arizona to find out what benefits they give their executives?
See, I'd be a lot more interested in activism if someone said there was massive malfeasance, or SRP's rates were 30% higher than the standard utility rates in the southwest region, or SRP rates are being used to pay for those 77 executives to be flown to 3-month parties in Aruba. When someone starts conflating executive perks with lining their pockets on the back of the working people of Arizona, my eyes roll up in my head. Executives get benefits. Employees get benefits. People get benefits. What on earth makes one benefit ruinous and oppressive, and another acceptable? Apparently it's whether one is receiving the benefit or not.
The objective should be to make the case that SRP isn't doing the right thing with public money. Stick with that story.
SRP is a public non-profit, with elected board members. If people are really upset about this sort of thing, how about you make your case as objectively as possible, and see whether enough people agree that something needs to change? When people make an artificially inflammatory case, it shouldn't be surprising when people don't leap to put out the fire.
Hm. I think this is an interesting perspective. I don't really agree with the perspective of the original poster, but it seems that a lot of what someone brings to this discussion is going to be based on specific criteria. I will point out up front that I'm not connected to SRP in any way.
Let's start with some facts.
The article talks about 77 executives whose children received educational benefits over a 5-year period. The advocates are saying it cost $2.6 million total over those 5 years; let's say it's about $520,000 per year.
The compensation is capped at the cost of attendance at an Arizona public university, so it's not as though the executives are forcing the people to pay for a super-expensive education.
The proposed SRP increase is $110 million per year.
However, employee benefits are decoupled from the SRP increase. SRP claims that the increase is paying for a $1 billion natural gas generation facility. Is that reasonable or not? I don't know. However, the increase is not paying for the educational benefits - those would be paid no matter what (just as they already have been paid).
Or if you insist on claiming that the rate increase is paying for this particular perk (as I mentioned, that's not actually borne out by the facts), this educational perk would represent only about .5% of the increase ($520,000 out of $110 million). So instead of a 3.9% increase, SRP would be proposing a 3.4% increase.
Or just use straight numbers. Someone paying $300 a month would be paying $311.70 with the increase. If you accept the claim that this benefit is paid for by the increase, and this benefit was eliminated, that person would be paying $310.20. What will YOU do with your buck and a half?
And don't claim that isn't not the magnitude - the activists here are RELYING on people worrying about the magnitude when they talk about "millions" that turn out to be $2.6 million over 5 years, and turn it into a class warfare issue with those fat-cat executives and their perks, when we're talking about 77 executives who are limited to $10,000 in benefits per child per year.
At the same time, ask yourself why executives should be shut out of the educational reimbursements that SRP gives ALL of its employees. Presumably, the executives wouldn't be using educational benefits, so passing those along to their kids seems fairly reasonable.
And making the claim that they have different standards because they're a non-profit? That's opening up a whole honking can of worms, isn't it? Do we really want to start doing exhaustive oversight of every non-profit in Arizona to find out what benefits they give their executives?
See, I'd be a lot more interested in activism if someone said there was massive malfeasance, or SRP's rates were 30% higher than the standard utility rates in the southwest region, or SRP rates are being used to pay for those 77 executives to be flown to 3-month parties in Aruba. When someone starts conflating executive perks with lining their pockets on the back of the working people of Arizona, my eyes roll up in my head. Executives get benefits. Employees get benefits. People get benefits. What on earth makes one benefit ruinous and oppressive, and another acceptable? Apparently it's whether one is receiving the benefit or not.
The objective should be to make the case that SRP isn't doing the right thing with public money. Stick with that story.
SRP is a public non-profit, with elected board members. If people are really upset about this sort of thing, how about you make your case as objectively as possible, and see whether enough people agree that something needs to change? When people make an artificially inflammatory case, it shouldn't be surprising when people don't leap to put out the fire.
Are you suggesting the educational benefits afforded the executive's children is similar to that of the employees? It's not.
This has absolutely nothing to do with making things "right", "equal", "fair", or any of the other terms often lobbied around. This is simply a bunch of whiners doing what they do best - complaining that someone else has something more than they have, and throwing a temper tantrum like a spoiled child.
If it was REALLY about making things fair and equal, they would be pushing for everyone to be making $10/hour, with zero perks or benefits. But they're not - they're pushing for MORE! MORE! MORE! because they're just as greedy as those they accuse of such.
Are you suggesting the educational benefits afforded the executive's children is similar to that of the employees? It's not.
I don't know what the employee benefit is. If you would care to share, that might be helpful.
However, I'm suggesting that it is a parallel benefit that happens to represent more money at the executive level. Obviously I feel that it's a little overstated to go after a fairly small perk. Executives get benefits. If we want those benefits, we should work to become executives.
In the same way, a 401k benefit program that matches 3% of pay would match more pay for people making more money. If Sue the executive makes $100k, she will get $3k per year. If Joe the welder makes $50k, he will get $1,500. OMG, the executive is already flush with that fat paycheck, and now she gets DOUBLE the 401k benefit? And for those 77 execs, it adds up to MILLIONS for retirement. Someone call the Arizona Republic, stat!
That's why I believe this is really about activists trying to make it all about rich vs poor and workers vs management.
I know the employee compensation is very good over at SRP Health insurance is 0 out of pocket for employees I think it mirrors most government jobs like the post office. I work for APS and we only have an employee tuition reimbursement program that pays $5500 a year which has to be approved ahead of time by management. The program is very strict you have to be studying something in your field which you work in this is only for the employee not children. I find it strange that exec's who probably make 7 figures with bonus's are actually using this program to get back small amounts of money. Exec's usually have contracts that are private matter know one knows what they are getting exactly could be different. It is funny to hear SRP has a few skeletons in the closet newspaper is usually bashing my employer.
This has absolutely nothing to do with making things "right", "equal", "fair", or any of the other terms often lobbied around. This is simply a bunch of whiners doing what they do best - complaining that someone else has something more than they have, and throwing a temper tantrum like a spoiled child.
If it was REALLY about making things fair and equal, they would be pushing for everyone to be making $10/hour, with zero perks or benefits. But they're not - they're pushing for MORE! MORE! MORE! because they're just as greedy as those they accuse of such.
I think this is a little unfair, this wasn't the direction I was going at all with my argument. Utilities and government in general are not very capitalistic, they can get away with operating with a lot of waste. As a solar customer, SRP has confirmed I could see an increase of over $50 month (or $600 a year). That's a lot of money. Given the rates at APS, I could save $35 a month if I was an APS customer. There is no free market for utilities so it's not like I can switch.
Your assumption that I am envious of their "perks" is inaccurate. This is just one example, there could be other examples of where money is not being spent responsibly.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
