Slashdot Mirror


Jerry Brown Confiscates 48,000 Cell Phones

Hugh Pickens writes "The Sacramento Bee reports that California Governor Jerry Brown, in his first executive order since taking office, has ordered the collection and return of 48,000 state government-paid cell phones — half of those now in use — by June 1. 'It is difficult for me to believe that 40 percent of all state employees must be equipped with taxpayer-funded cell phones,' says Brown in a written statement. 'Some state employees, including department and agency executives who are required to be in touch 24 hours a day and seven days a week, may need cell phones, but the current number of phones out there is astounding.' Brown's cell phone order directs state agency and department heads to retrieve the cell phones and the governor says he plans to continue reducing cell phone usage in months ahead. 'In the face of a multi-billion dollar budget deficit, a cell phone may not seem like a big expense,' adds Brown. 'But spending $20 million, and perhaps far more than that, on cell phones can't be justified.'"

3 of 738 comments (clear)

  1. Re:So what about... by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 4, Interesting

    but perhaps the 8 working hours they do each day, are they going to have to use their personal cell phone? Are you going to cover those minutes? Would it be cheaper?

    Well, let's try a thought experiment...

    The LA Times reports that the average phone bill for government employees is $36 per month. I pay $40 per month for 450 minutes, or about 9 cents per minute. So if the government has to reimburse me more than 400 minutes in a month, it's worth it for them to give me a cell phone.

    Remember that forty percent of government employees have taxpayer funded cell phones. I have a really hard time believing that 40% of employees of the state of California need to be on call 24/7 or are out of the office that often.

    I use my personal cell phone for work. I give my employer a copy of the bill and highlight the calls that were work related and they write me a check. Even with personal calls, though, I have never gone over my 450 minutes of talk time even with company minutes added in. So in my case, it's definitely cheaper for my employer to compensate me for the time rather than pay for a cell phone.

    The phones are already paid for if they were in use by the employees. You couldn't have just put in an order to NOT get new cell phones?

    I'll agree that doing this is grandstanding. The deadline for this is actually in six months, when a new cellphone contract is to be set up, so it's not like Jerry Brown is walking through offices today and saying, "You! Give me that cellphone!" But, come June, 48,000 people who had government cellphones will be losing them.

  2. Re:YRO? by Moryath · · Score: 4, Interesting

    For some offices, this makes sense.

    For other offices, it's fuckwitted crap.

    In my office, we switched from having office phones to spending the money on a cell allowance, with the understanding (written contract actually) that the allowance was compensation for using our personal cell phones as the office line.

    Then, a government "budget cut craze" had them cut the number of cell allowances... AND nobody got their office line back. So we all share one line and it's a colossal fucking mess.

  3. Re:Need a bigger knife by eepok · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So very THIS. Look at what it takes to become a teacher today.

    Cost of public 4-year education from a UC = $120,000
    Cost of graduate program in education = $40,000
    Cost of teaching credential program and follow-up clear-credentialing = $15,000
    Cost of all tests and college/program applications from SAT to the end of credentialing = $2,500

    By the time you're fully competent and qualified to teach in California, you...

    ... are 27 years old
    ... are $180,000 in the hole in debt (hoping for *some* kind of debt-forgiveness without having to teach in Compton)
    ... have moved at least 3 times (expecting to move yet again to whichever district will hire you)
    ... are without any investments
    ... are without any retirement
    ... are in a market where there are so many cutbacks that you'll be lucky to get a 75% appointment
    ... are looking at $25,000 take-home for your first three years and a final salary of ~$50,000 take home 15 years later if you're teaching the right classes

    And this isn't artificial "you don't really need that..." stuff. California wants "highly qualified" teachers. That's been interpreted to means 4-year degree, "majored in the subject they teach" and/or "proving equivalent competence", and credentialing. If you actually want to be a GOOD teacher (not just qualified) from day 1, you're likely to seek out an MA, too.

    After all that... here's what you can look forward to...

    ... paying out of pocket for student supplies
    ... lowered pay
    ... the imminent end of tenure
    ... severely reduced benefits
    ... severely reduced pension
    ... pressure to leave teaching so they can hire someone younger and cheaper
    ... proxy anti-union hate
    ... evaluations based on numbers that aren't directly related to your own performance
    ... 10-hour days and the myth of the "free" summer during which you're taking classes and/or training

    People who shoot their mouths off about "over-paid" teachers, evil unions, and the need to privatize are just stroking their own ignorance. It blows me away how people are still trying to become teachers in this climate... I just recently gave up. It just costs too much money and time. I'd never have the chance to own a home. I continue to work in education, but my hopes at actually becoming a teacher have been shot.