Incredible. Just lay them all off. Only a government body would consider retiring someone as a way to save money rather than just laying them all off. Welcome to the real world government employees.

Hmmm, is it really better to pay them to not work than to pay them to work??

Look at the airline industry. When times got tough, jobs were cut and retirement packages slashed to almost worthless. Yet here is a city that can't bring itself to do the right thing by taxpayers, some of whom perhaps once worked for the airline industry.

Just let them go.

Only the government figures they save money by paying early retirement. Pay these 33 staffers off - give them overly generous retirement pay - and then let them go and double dip. Why not have them sign an agreement that says any income they make comes back to the city. If they're 'retired' then they should not be double dipping. Unbelievable - just keep stiffing the taxpayers. MV council should think of contracting out a number of services like San Carlos and others are doing - or cutting back all employees' salaries by 10% like San Jose is doing. Where's the leadership? Retirement pay is one of the biggest elements of the city budget - and it's only getting worse. It's time to bite the bullet and fix it - rather than making the taxpayer fund overstaffed, overpaid city workers.

Quit complaining and go apply

MV taxpayers: If you don't agree with what YOUR city is doing with YOUR tax dollars, talk to your elected officals. If they don't respond to your fiscal concerns, vote for future candidates that will.

Just a microcosm of the state and national governments.

Folks govt has almost zero incentive to be efficient (no competition) and maximum incentive to grow

I see a lot of commons from people that really don't know how a layoff process works. It works from the bottom up. Meaning the new employees that would be with us for several years would be laid off first. Yes, you save money that way but then when the senior person decides to retiree with their benifits they been working for 20 years then they get to go out the door and the city has to fill those positions and it doubles their cost because they just laid off those people already; therefore, you save thousands by having the senior person leave early with the incintive and you don't have to fill the bottom person. So think about the big picture because the city manager already has.

The bottom line problem is union contracts. Our government is being bullied into accepting these terms, and now we're stuck. What we really need is a lawyer to sue the unions under the racketeering laws so that all level of government can be free from these contracts that are holding us down. It does not make economic sense to pay government employee market salary rate, and provide life time pension. To make matter worst, many of these retired government workers are back out in the job market taking away another job that another individual without the pension income.

Hey concerned taxpayer poster, that 10% is going to hurt us city workers and the residents of san jose if it goes thur. I am already the working poor.

The councilmembers that the tax paying residents vote for are the ones that approve the union contracts. Go talk to your councilmembers and make sure you vote. Stop complaining on MV Voice, does nothing.

The math on this is very straight foward.

As an example you lay off 33 employees who make for example $40K anually for a savings of $1320K or for $200K you can reduce your work force by 33 employees who after mutltiple years of service average $60k for a savings of $1980K which nets out a savings of over $400k year on year.

The more senior employess are going to retire in the future any how at the same retirement cost or more

The ongoing costs of keeping the less senior employees will be less year on year than the alternative.

From my perspective, I am going to talk to and exercise my vote perogative on the council members who don't support this action.

Consider this: in these tough economic times MV has spent close to $20 MILLION on land at Moffett and 101; close to $2 MILLION on a church on Escuela Ave; close to $10 MILLION on a new fire station by Shoreline park; and now $200,000 on high speed rail consultants? We're talking well over $30 MILLION DOLLARS on nonessential items. If this doesn't outrage you I don't know what will. Think about where the real problem lies before you bash city employees. Mountain View's "leadership" wants the citizens to believe it's Union contracts breaking the bank but in reality it's irresponsible spending and backwards priorities at City Hall. Don't believe the hype!