McKinsey Consulting used to do a brisk business (don't know if they still do) of going into a corporation or organization and analyzing the tasks workers do, listing each activity and the number of hours per week.

They invariably found that there were a few hours each week (sometimes much more) doing non-productive and non-frontline tasks. Anyone who has sat through "the weekly meeting", undergone endless variations of "diversity training" or got circulated on interminable email lists knows the feeling.

McKinsey did it to reduce headcount, of course. But it could apply equally here.

Point is, the last half hour of every day is when people are most tired and least productive. I've noticed myself how if I take a Friday afternoon off, I can often step up the pace and get all my week's work done in 4.5 days. Workers paid by piece work can attest to the same phenomenon. I have this strange feeling that perhaps not all City employees are working flat out for 40 hours a week.

So we might not even notice any difference in output.

Second, pay for the last 2.5 hours per week is at one's highest marginal rate. So that 6.25% decrease in pay will probably reduce net pay by more like 5%. I suspect that most thinking staff would offer to cut their pay by 5% to save 6.25% of their colleagues from being fired. And in this case, the bonus is that they get to go home 1/2 hour early.

A better question would be this. How do the City even measure the performance of their staff? If they can't then how would anyone know what effect, if any, this will have?

There's no doubt that peole get tired toward the end of the day and that it's possible that some city workers aren't fully productive every one of their 40 hours. But cutting their work week by 2.5 hours won't suddenly make them more productive. Some workers can just cram more into less time, but others -- say, bus drivers, or nurses -- work shifts. You can't be more productive driving a bus and get 40 hours worth of driving done in 37.5, unless you give up safety. You can't cover a 40-hour shift in the emergency room in 37.5 hours. You can't staff a desk at a library for 40 hours in 37.5. So city services will offer less.

As for taxes, I've talked about this a lot. I think if city officials took a hard look a the entire way San Francisco is funded -- every tax, every fee, every source of revenue -- and then looked at all the options to make the tax system more fair and more progressive, and then looked at how to bring in some more money, people would accept it. The current structure is a mess, regressive, inflexible, unfair. Small businesses pay the same percentage tax as giant conglomerates. Sales taxes hit the poor harder than the rich. There are much better ways.

My first choice is a city income tax -- or rather, a tax on income earned in the city, which hits commuters, too. Income taxes are the most fair and progressive way of raising money for the public sector.

Hey Tim,

I have an idea, just ask everyone not to break the law and we can get rid of the police.

We would need to make people 'promise' not to break the law and save a mint on that.

What about all the people that don't work because the don't want to, where would we tax them?

Guest,

The City's (and the State's) deficit problem is so bad that we are no longer debating whether to implement cuts but only how we implement cuts.

So in that context, how would you cut costs by 6% if not in this way? Would you prefer to keep 40 hours a week and lose 6% of your colleagues?

Would you take a 6% cut in pay voluntarily but still work 40 hours?

Would you allow your health and pension benefits to be re-negotiated to be more sustainable?

And again, yes it is possible that you will now only be able to help 6% less folks. But presumably you will make sure those are the 6% whose needs are relatively the most modest, thereby ensuring that the most critical 94% still get attention.

The well ran dry and there are no longer any easy, pleasant options.

157K is still a lot of money. They should get the money only if it is clearly identified who is NOT going to get it as a result. Or what the extra source of revenue is.

Nobody is getting fired. the purpose of this is the exact opposite - to give everyone a 6% pay cut (for 6% less work, so not a cut in hourly pay) precisely so that nobody get fired. I thought that was obvious.

The Supes don't need to be involved with exactly where those cuts take place. That is an operational decision by the departmental managers of each service unit. Those managers make the same type of decisions every year depending on whether their budget is going up or down. That's their job.