Jerry Brown Confiscates 48,000 Cell Phones 738
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.'"
I'm not sold on this. (Score:2, Interesting)
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 last cell phone (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:Cool - a fiscal conservative (Score:4, Interesting)
Listening to him debate Meg Whitman, I was relieved that I felt both candidates would take the job seriously. I didn't think either would do a poor job, though there were some platform stances that I liked less from Jerry Brown. It was refreshing to feel that both candidates would be both driven and competent.
Re:So what about... (Score:5, 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. [latimes.com] 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.
Re:YRO? (Score:5, 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.
Re:Need a bigger knife (Score:2, Interesting)
How about better sex education programs, and eliminating "abstinence only" programs? People having kids can be directly attributed to two causes, lack of education and religion.
Re:Need a bigger knife (Score:4, Interesting)
No, I never said that. I only mentioned as a reason why those 50% might be on the dole.
Re:YRO? (Score:4, Interesting)
Speaking as one who has a government-issued Blackberry (county-level, not state, and required as I am in IT and have on-call shifts), I had to sign an agreement limiting personal use to "reasonable" volumes, and to pay any amount over the base bill that was triggered by such personal use. I have to do the same thing for my desk phone, and I get a listing every month of toll calls made from the desk phone.
I have a strict personal policy that splits home and personal lives with regard to employer resources. As such, I do not conduct personal business over employer phones or e-mail. Even my family doesn't have the work contact information -- that's what the personal cell phone is for. That makes it much easier to not have to deal with such things, as I can sign the bill each month and hand it back before the person handing it out leaves the room and not have to attach payment.
I realize that I am the exception. I have colleagues who make a call here and there, usually to let family know when they'll be home, and have to come up with anywhere from a few cents to a few dollars for the county every month. A few years ago, some secretary with a county-issued phone was found to be running up cell phone bills of several hundred dollars per month by spending 2000+ minutes on the phone. This happened back when the average plan was around 250 minutes. A lot of cell phones were taken away from users after that, though it wouldn't surprise me at all if it were still happening.
Re:Need a bigger knife (Score:5, Interesting)
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...
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...
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.
Actually the lesson was "starve the beast" (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:YRO? (Score:4, Interesting)
Your "taxophobic minority" is another person's "reasonable concern."
A large number of taxes that appear on the Oregon ballot are designed to divide and conquer. For example, "shall we raise taxes on beer?" The majority of people, not being beer drinkers, thinks this is just swell. "Shall we increase the cigarette tax?" Different majority, same result.
I've long had the opinion that anyone who proposes a tax (and I do mean "anyone") should be required to pay ten years of that tax (ok, maybe five) personally before it ever comes up for a vote, either as a ballot initiative or legislative vote. This would put a real quick stop to the attitude "it's ok to tax the other guy as long as I don't have to pay it, too.".
I'm even a full supporter of the idea that anyone who votes in favor of a tax has to be subject to that tax even if they don't participate in the actions being taxed. Maybe for two years.This would not only put further hurdles in the path of "let's tax the other guy" attitudes, it would put a real crimp in votes from college students who vote in favor of taxes to pay for things they like knowing they won't be around to pay the taxes when the bill comes due. It's really annoying to see all the campaigning for taxes that goes on on and around campus aimed at people everyone knows won't have to pay the tax if it passes.
Re:YRO? (Score:4, Interesting)
The shortfall is the amount by which the debt is increasing each year. The total debt was just under $90bn at June 2010 (source http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/publications/2010dar.pdf [ca.gov] Sect 2, p5, pdf page 13), and I guess it will be about $103bn now. That doesn't include pension liabilities, or municipal bonds. The unfunded pension liabilities on 1st July 2008 were $425bn and estimated to be $534bn the following year (source http://www.stanford.edu/group/siepr/cgi-bin/siepr/?q=/system/files/shared/GoingforBroke_pb.pdf [stanford.edu] p2). Who knows what the unfunded liability is now. I understand that municipal debt is around $400bn, but most of that is insured by federal government backed insurance companies so probably isn't relevant.
I don't think any of the billionaires you listed could afford to write a cheque for $25bn. They would need to sell their companies and other assets to raise the money.
Re:YRO? (Score:2, Interesting)
What makes you think the corporate firewall allows skype traffic?
And do you think P2P applications are allowed on a corporate network?
Re:YRO? (Score:4, Interesting)
It is embezzlement as well as tax fraud as consumer callers are taxed differently. But it's such a low level of theft most employers will ignore it. It's like taking stationary home. If you take one sheet of paper it's OK, if you take 10 reams it's not. There is no real guidance on where you draw the line.
When I worked in IT for, ironically, a cellular provider, the word came down from IT management that we no longer could use our company-issued cell phones for any personal calls. My manager then sent us an email, copied to the same upper management suits, that told us to turn off our cell phones at 5:00pm and put them in a drawer before we left, and not to turn them back on until 8:00 the next morning. When upper management realized that they had been trading a few minutes of extra airtime for, essentially, free after-hours on-call support, they quickly changed their policy.