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.'"
First off, this was covered in every news outlet in the country, yesterday. Second, what the fuck does this have to do with anyone's rights online?
He's just nibbling at the edges. He should reduce cell phone usage by killing whole agencies.
My day job got me a cell phone. It is cheaper than the landline I used to have, and it's much more useful, as it also lets me keep up on email and meetings.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
What about those people who aren't required to be in touch 24 hours a day, 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? 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?
And working in IT, I know the costs of support from your IT team will go up if you want them to support a smorgasborg of client phones, each with their own OS and needing to sync their contacts with their email addresses, being able to have the support they would have had on a standard company phone. Standardization is so unbelievably helpful, you have no idea.
I get it if you want to cut back people's work phone plans, and you want to stem the problem from inflating, but simply taking the phones back has got to be one of the silliest things I've heard of.
hang on, I know Arnie's left office but surely I haven't slipped back in some timewarp to the 70s?
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/deadkennedys/californiauberalles.html
obviously they missed the verse about restricting communications :)
Finally budget cuts that start at the top... what a concept!!!!
"Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
Is this guy some sort of libertarian or pre-reagan-republican or something?
Good call. There a lot of other expenses that can be cut as well, but this is one piece of the puzzle. I hate it when there's always "bigger fish to fry". That's called ignoring problems. As with many things in life there's no magic bullet to cure the problem, but this is a good start. It's worse to keep looking for that silver bullet and stagnate while the problem stays the same or gets worse.
The unfortunate thing is those who need cell phones to effectively do their job will likely have theirs taken away. Welcome to the yuppie culture where a cell phone is a status symbol and not a tool.
Early termination fees may be more than $20 million....
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
What about them? Should they be forced to go back to the office to make and receive calls? What about the extra mileage? What if the office doesn't have a landline (some don't!) It's not like they can find a pay phone somewhere.
God save the Bees!
And now i have to pay to have a cell phone? I think i'm going to make a few long distance call while i still can.
And why not require "executives" to provide themselves with phones at their own expense? They'll have them anyway.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
He runs the State of California, which owns (or is paying for) the phones. Sounds like he's saying "I want my phones back." Confiscating makes it sound like he's taking people's own property away from them.
rooooar
Just cancel the plan. Let them keep the phone if they want to start their own plan. The phone is already paid for and it's not like they are going to get much re-selling the phone. In addition, for everyone that keeps the phone, the state gets the benefit without paying for it. Besides, a company issued phone is pretty standard for anyone that might have to come in on the weekend. Pretty much every IT job, every management job. every lawyer, every doctor need a phone. I bet the state of California has lot of management, law, and IT jobs that need the phone.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Close your eyes, can't happen here
Big Bro' on white horse is near
The hippies won't come back you say
Mellow out or you will pay
Mellow out or you will pay!
"He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
cheaper or not, taxpayers don't need to be paying for a DMV clerk's cell phone. There are a few that it makes sense for, people in upper management positions, emergency response chain members, or project leaders that need to be reached off-hours and on-site, etc, but that's a very small percentage of the crowd.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Some states use stipends. They don't provide cell phones to state employees, they say, "Look, here's 40 bucks a month. Use this to pay for work related calls on your personal cell phone." It's much cheaper and everyone is happy.
The last time I had a cell phone was when I worked as the Unix admin for a 911 call center. It had all the GIS ani/ali GIS remote scada + traffic light control, + radio bells and whistles. They paid for the cell (and pager) and when I was on call I had to carry it 24/7. I did not use it for personal calls, except when I was on vacation, and then I would reimburse them for any calls I made. Cell phones are more convenient than pay phones (and surprisingly, less expensive than pay phones which have gone up a lot), but I genuinely try to avoid using them if I can (remember, I'm building a linux kernel on the other monitor as I type this), because cell phones are damned expensive. I might know craploads about technology (before studying computer science in university, I went to college for two years studying electronics engineering --it was only a 2 year course), but I'm also cheap. Cell phones are a lot more expensive than a corded home phone. Likewise, wireless television is a lot less expensive than corded television (and the content is about as good, and with digital, the picture is actually better than cable or satellite... hey you scoffers, read that again and listen up: the over the air picture quality of digital TV is better than what the 1960's technology of cable and satellite can provide, and it all has to do with compression and bandwidth). Cell phones are an excellent way to cut costs. My kernel build: 2.6.37-git8 is done. Keep in mind what I said about cell phones, and about TV. Some of you are likely paying way too much.
So you have a $60-80k a year employee, but its we wont pay $30 a month to be able to reach them if we need some information or a decision made?
But in the town I live in, we paid $400k for new boutique street signs, $180k on a roadside "beautification project" that didnt beautify anything, we're going in for $1.2M on a new park that nobody will use (there are 12 other parks within a mile or two, and most of those are unused), and a $20M highway expansion to add a car pool lane that nobody will be driving in during rush hour, while the remaining lanes will be jammed full.
In short, we're worrying about mouse droppings when theres elephant crap all over the place.
So who pays the early termination fees?
He is taking government paid for phones. More than likely they already have land lines in all offices anyway, used for everything from calls to faxes to internet in some cases.
He is just trying to put some sense back into what the government is funding, and a cell phone is a luxury in many departments. It certainly is not a requirement of someone who rarely if ever leaves their office. He is going after vehicles next which is another good step. He should also go after traveling expenses and the like, nuke any employee conventions, and similar until they get their finances in order. The hard area where he will have to play in is compensation and retirement benefits that state employees have in California. That is where the real abuse is.
Should be interesting, a hero of the left can probably do things Arnie could not. I bet if Arnie did this there would screams in every California paper out there about how mean he was, if not racist.
When you can't pay your bills you have to make cuts. Every penny counts. This is why Congress is such a mess, they seem to think its okay to ignore "this cost" and "that cost" because they are so small. Well, get enough small expenses out and it will add up.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
also lots people in the field as well.
Such a tiny amount to close a multibillion dollar budget number. If even 25% of those employees use the phones effectively, then it will increase costs or lower quality of service.
There are probably $5 million to $10 million of real savings there- the rest will have a cell phone again in a year because it turns out the job requires one.
It's a good start-- but i hope they find some real meat.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
you don't much sports on OTA TV you need pay tv for that.
1960's?
CSN HD looks real good and that not on free tv.
I'm not a State of Calif employee, but I would _LOVE_ it for my megacorp employer to take my issued cell phone away. Then I wouldn't have to handle out-of-hours calls! For free (I'm exempt staff). I'd just get a pers cellphone for ~$15/mo.
All this instant connectivity is a race to the bottom. Employer funded competition between employees. Expectations get raised but must inevitably disappoint. There are only a few things that really benefit from instant reactivity, and you already know them.
the ab0ve is far It's best to try of aal legitimate 'YES' TO ANY over to yet another lubrication. You
A libertarian would have the state declare bankruptcy
Ok, declare bankruptcy. Now what? State bond rates *skyrocket* It turns out that would be the first of maybe 25-35 dominos where States would have no choice but to declare bankruptcy.
And then there's all those pesky retirees that hold State bonds because of their perceived security that you've just made near penniless. How do you think that's going to play out?
and nullify the state employee union's contract and pensions.
Ok, done. Now what? How does the daily uninteresting work of running government get done? Who are you going to hire? Probably the people you just fired because they're the only ones that know anything. Now what? They reorganize. Ohh, but there's the false promise of contracting the work out. Ask some of the regular slashdotters in the Military Industrial Complex how well that works. Hint: it doesn't shhh!
I know, I know, I don't 'understand.' Or, it doesn't have to work that way. Well, it does work that way. Libertarian ideals are being sold as a solution to every government problem when in fact, they accelerate the rate of corruption.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
How did people do their jobs before cellphones? Bring back pagers and walkie-talkies!
Why that word...oh right more clicks.
In what sane universe does it take six months to return a cell phone?
Dude, where's my packet?
In so many organizations, I've seen cellphones as a perk given to management while the proles are given pagers for their 24/7 on-call servitude.
Bring back the pagers for ALL! Walkie-talkies, too!
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
Maybe the suede denim secret police be used to collect the phones?
If it's determined that they don't really need to be able to get in touch with these employees, why not just lay the employee off? It seems absurd to be looking at a few hundred dollars a year in cell phone contracts compared to tens of thousands a year in salary.
He's cutting the wrong way. He should be eliminating all the PBX systems and giving everyone a Motorola Atrix type device instead. It take/makes calls, send/receive email, converts to desktop/laptop, and plugs into projector/TV for multimedia presentations.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
Grats, you ran a story on government trying to save money.
How does this affect my "rights online"?
why, back in the day, when I was a sysadmin, they didn't let me take my hammer and stylus home, I had to carve all my clay tablets at work.
the upside is, these guys now are AWAY FROM THE OFFICE !!! when they are away from the office. a lovely thing, more should try it.
the downside is, they have to use their own minutes. and hard to see what the downside is, frankly.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Of course everybody will want to keep the pet agency that benefits them or their political leaning.
"and providing alternative, less costly solutions to the services provided."
That's just an assumption of yours. The first order of business is to determine whether those services are necessary in the first place. The state got along without most of them for most of its existence. The state is close to bankruptcy now, so any agency should have to pass a pretty high bar of absolute necessity in order to have its service even continue to exist.
If it is anything like some federal agencies, the blackberry is seen as a status symbol. Look, I'm important enough to be needed at anytime... most really aren't that important. I declined one when I switched offices but there are people (non-IT or managers) with blackberries. Waste of money.
70 per month implies 3,360,000 per month or 40 million per year.
I'll take their cell phones and make them frown!
I'm sure quite a few people will look forward to this. However, I do find it ridiculous the state was paying for everything. I don't know of many companies that will buy their employees the phone and pay for their monthly contracts. Where I work its $10 a month, that's it. You buy your own phone. I am on call 24/7. If I got over my $10 I can bill it out so long as I attach a copy of the call and cost where I went over.
I just use a prepaid plan, and I end up spending exactly $10 a month.
Here I thought the YRO angle was that CA State employees were being freed of the onus of having to carry a State-owned tracking device.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
I agree with you.
This is such a "mood piece". It's the classic power of multiples. Saving $36/month per person is peanuts. It reeks of an Elephant in the Room effect. It's the same kind of thing as skipping the jimmies off an ice cream sundae. Let them keep the phones, but then just look for an equal and opposite $40 million being spent on something silly. Or something.
Actually, why not just make a film as a fundraiser? Don't films always clear $40 million in profits lately?
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Read more news if that's news to you.
Every government department should be closed for six months every five years or so. If nothing really bad happens, it stays closed and the people get to look for a real job.
You just wouldn't believe how much money is wasted on running useless government departments. Since the beginning of time governments have always got bigger, never smaller. Follow the logic: There IS a tipping point where the taxpayers can't get enough money together to pay for all this. Just before that tipping point they're giving up almost all their money so some government workers can sit on their asses all day pretending to look busy.
The fat needs to be trimmed long before we get to this point. The only problem is that people in power don't have any problem spending other people's money, e.g. the guy who thought every government worker should have a free cell phone.
No sig today...
Offer compensation for them to use their cell phones, just like in any company, you have to prove (with detail of bills) that each call (usually for long distance) was placed for business purposes, not the 25 million calls a day to your home, or some relative in a far off place, then they could use their own phones for what ever they need, just like in most companies, with sales people, they want to give out there own cell number and not a company number...that way you can get to them 24/7....sales usually works like that.
the US debt figures are scary to say the least. The whole financial system we live in basically values money as debt. The money in your wallet is representative of someone owing someone else.
...and now that expense is being put onto the worker. Whether or not you need one is irrelevant. It's like a car: Sure, you it's not mentioned in the job description, but good luck getting hired if you don't have one.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
That's at least half a million a month for service on those 48k phones, if they managed to get an amazing $10/m deal. Pretty insane when you think about it.
And I'll add to it that McDonald's donesn't pay for training, you do. In the form of your tax dollars. McDonald's gets massive tax breaks for all that 'training', which in turn pay for it. Socialism for the right, capitalism for the poor.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Sports is the only good reason to pay for cable/satellite TV these days. While I enjoy those Sunday morning marathons on History Channel when I'm at my mom's place, I get by with an OTA antenna just fine at home. She, on the other hand, is a fan of the local pro/college football and pro basketball teams, and many of the games are on "super basic" cable and not OTA.
But that's not an inherent problem with ATSC. If anything, it was picture quality problems with NTSC that enabled pay TV to become important enough that sports games moved off the OTA networks.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Businesses certainly don't provide every employee a cell phone, only those that it makes sense to have one. Not a government expert, but assume there are employees that do need them, and for others it is just a perk. The only problem is sorting out which is which.
I applaud taxpayers not paying for the cell service of these individuals. But why make them give back the phones? They are worth far more to the current phone holders as individuals than they would be to the state. Let them keep the phones and use them to signup for their own plans. Good timing for Verizon though now that they are offering the iphone.
My SO's a lawyer for the State of California. When a prison guard tries to turn a water skiing accident into a disability retirement she's the one who has to stop him. She's in court every-other day, negotiating settlements, and has to call clients (State agencies like the Board of Prisons) for clearance to accept an offer from the other side. Until two years ago no cell phone was provided. Some State lawyers used their own phones, without reimbursement. Others, to make a point, excused themselves from court in order to use the payphone (and a State-provided calling card) down the hall, while the judge and everybody else in the courtroom (most of them State employees) sat idle. I don't think the courtroom lawyers are on the list to give up their phones; rather, I'm posting this to make the point that the State isn't, or at least hasn't always been, sensible in its IT spending.
BTW, on the topic of State salaries and bennies, in the professional ranks at least State employees are woefully underpaid. My SO could double her salary next week by taking any of several standing offers in private practice (the firms that help those prison guards get their State-funded early retirements.) She likes the predictability of State work, but no way will her pension equal what she'd earn from investing the difference between her salary and what she'd earn outside over a 20-year career. But for someone with a high-school education the State might be better than industry, especially as jobs equivalent to prison guard (or DMV clerk) have seen dropping salaries in the private sector. We shouldn't forget, though, that public employees often chose those paths 20 years ago at a time when they were choosing a more reliable job at a lower salary. It turns out that since then many low-paying jobs have moved overseas, putting downward pressure on the pay rates at those that remain. They made what turns out to have been a smart choice; others, less risk-adverse, didn't.
so long as they're on the handouts I know they're not really trying
Let me guess: you're the kind of person who would look at a binder of three hundred "we went with another candidate" letters, after someone has been making ten job contacts a week for over six months, and ask "why didn't this person start his or her own business three months ago?". Not everybody has both the skills and the personality to be an entrepreneur.
A lot of people seem to think hiring contractors is a way to save money, when it is exactly the opposite. When companies look for ways to save money, contractors are the first to go. Why? Because the position contractors work, will be getting paid the same. Not less. This is before their company tacks on their profits for the business itself. Then tacks on more costs to cover that employees benefits. They are never hired for less, because the set wage has already been set over decades of these jobs being done. You use contracts for short-term jobs that allow you flexibility in hours and time. Actual positions are much much cheaper to be hired directly.
Worked out fine, since Marie is not the originator of this quote.
A different Marie is thought to have been the originator.
How do you get around the simple fact that abstinence works 100% every time it is used?
It didn't work for Joe and Mary Christ,* two Jews living in Nazareth back in the single digits BC. Before Mary lost her virginity, they had a boy named Josh, who became known to the Greeks and Romans as Jesus. But on second thought, considering significant figures, you're probably right.
* Changed for comic effect.
This other article also from 2007, suggests that 76% of Americans own a computer. Have we reached a tipping point where an employer might expect you to provide your own computer? Exceptions will be made for those jobs that require unusual usage, but what about the office manager or secretary who only reads and writes emails ? Odds are he already has a computer. Should your employer (in this case the State of CA) be expected to pay the base price of the computer and internet access? I am not passing judgment on anyone with a company issued computer, just posing some academic questions.
So yeah, if your employer requires you to use a tool to perform any aspect of your job then the employer absolutely should be expected to provide you with that tool.
In practice, this can't happen for a few reasons.
Actually, it can't happen, even in theory, for exactly one reason: while there is a provision of federal bankruptcy code that applies to bankruptcy of municipalities (Chapter 9, which was adopted during the Great Depression, prior to which creditors only recourse were proceedings to compel the municipality to raise taxes to pay off the debt) there is no legal provision in the US under which a State can declare bankruptcy.
The US bankruptcy code (Title 11 of the United States Code) specifically excludes coverage of governmental units other than "municipalities" (which include agencies and instrumentalities of states, but note states as such.)
Now, conceivably, every individual State agency could enter into Chapter 9 bankruptcy simultaneously, but in addition to the administrative nightmare that would create, its not clear that even that could acheive the effect you are looking for given the Section 903 limits on the power of the court as relates to State law in Chapter 9 proceedings.
I'm not sure I'd call being elected the Mayor of Oakland "winning".
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
In chicago the sports where on pay UHF before we got cable all over the area.
piracy and cable killed pay UHF also the UHF pay channels where not 24/7 and areas like Detroit started after sports game started so you missed the start of games.
It's a good start-- but i hope they find some real meat.
The things that you see reported that are being implemented now -- this cellphone takeback, Brown returning most of the funds allocated for the gubernatorial transition to the State treasury rather than spending them, etc., are all the things that are within the Governor's direct control. The "real meat" is in the the Governor's proposed budget which requires action by the legislature (and, for those things that Brown has proposed, also action by the voters). An overview of can be found in the Introduction.
Posession of an ounce or less is now an infraction (like a parking ticket) and $100 fine. No jail time, no trial unless you really want to fight it which would probably be a waste of time. I assume you just mail the ticket in with a check.
That's $100 anytime a cop sees somebody with a small ammount of pot, and decides he needs to help the state.
Note, I don't see that as ideal. It certainly does nothing to take profits away from gangs who posess much larger ammounts. It's a start though. BTW, this was signed by outgoing governor Schwarzenegger, shortly before his term ended. AFAIK, prior to that it was a misdemeanor with a larger fine and court time. The court time was probably costing the state money.
If you really care about smoking pot, you're already a prop 215 holder (doc, I've got this headache...) anyway.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
I really am glad that I am a believer that VoIP will change some of this but in the mean time I am now on a very simple business phone plan....here is a cell phone, I, as your employer have given you this for work purposes. Each month you will receive a detailed bill. Please highlight your personal expenditures and make payment to the human resources department. This has resulted in me spending about 15 minutes per month editing my bill. I'm happy I didn't have to get into a contract and buy a phone. My employer is happy because they are providing me with a perk but not getting taken for a ride. Seems fair to me.
Wrong lesson, my friend. The voters of California need to learn that you can't do stupid shit like slashing the state's income (Prop 13, for those of you with a memory or an interest in history) and expect the same level of service.
Actually the lesson was "starve the beast". Taxpayers in California figured out that politicians will *not* exercise self control, that they primarily view state spending as a vehicle to reward political supporters and garner additional supporters. That the only way to constrain politicians is to limit the amount of money they have available.
What you ignore is that there is also tremendous wasteful spending along side vital services. The politician's countermove to reduced budgets is not to cut the waste or excess but to cut vital services as a political gambit and/or retaliation. Politicians want to manufacture a crisis in order to have their spending restored or left alone. Basically the politicians layoff police, firefighters and teachers to manufacture outcry rather than reduce administrators and overhead and stop vanity projects as the voters desire.
California is not facing a reduction of vital services due to prop 13, it is due to political brinkmanship. The politicians believe they can make the voters blink first.
shhh dont tell anybody, but governments just add all sorts of FEES, when they can't raise taxes.
... That for every $1 the government raises in increased taxes, they'll spend an additional $1.10.
My employer gives me an unlimited cell phone. They pay for it, that's the deal. They can call me on it whenever they want. I can call Swaziland eleven times a day if I feel like doing so. That cost them X amount of dollars, both of us feel like I'm just getting paid X amount of dollars more every month. If my employer stops paying for my cell phone. It save them a few bucks, but over thousands of employees, it's absolutely no different than cutting pay by that much a month. It will cost them workers, reduce their ability to retain employees, it's a small cut in pay. Not really much of a story. Certainly not some big win for the taxpayers, more than likely not some big hit for the employees, but probably a stupid grandstanding play by the Governor.
I'm willing to bet that paying for these employees cell phones was seen as more valuable to the employees than it actually cost the state, therefore it was cheaper than paying however much more cash they would see as the same benefit, over time, and large enough numbers the quality of the workforce in question will decrease by the fifty-some dollars a month per person the state is saving. So basically the whole story is a big fat "yawn" hidden pay cut. Not your rights online, not a sea change, just dumb grandstanding by an aging dork.
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/eco_tot_tax_bur-total-tax-burden-per-capita
What "liberals" just don't get is that raising taxes does not necessarily mean raising revenue. California doesn't have revenue problem, it has a spending problem.
No Inflation Taxation without Representation
Why order an exclusive collection and return? Why not offer the current user the option to buy? Make some money on the purchase, and save the cost associated with collecting and processing all those phones.
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
Freely signed = we will all walk out at the same time and destroy your business.
Really, I'm not trying to be clever with my signature.
Los Angeles County
Beginning Teacher Salary $38,861
Mid-Range Teacher Salary $62,040
Highest Teacher Salary $84,246
San Diego County
Beginning Teacher Salary $35,384
Mid-Range Teacher Salary $57,092
Highest Teacher Salary $73,480
Orange County
Beginning Teacher Salary $46,238
Mid-Range Teacher Salary $75,989
Highest Teacher Salary $89,821
http://www.acethecset.com/blog1/california-teachers-salary/
What were you doing wrong to be looking at $25-50K?