Budget workshop
A quick post to encourage everyone who did not watch the council meeting last night to catch a replay of it, specifically the budget workshop. Here are the replay times for OCAT Channel 10: 09/16- 3:00 p.m. & 9:00 p.m., 09/17- 9:00 a.m., 09/21- 7:00 p.m. Please keep in mind that the budget workshop started a little over three hours into the meeting.
I think it's imperative for everyone to be as informed as possible about the city's budget situation, and to contact members of the council to express your thoughts and opinions (and I don't just mean anonymous posts on various blogs). Every council member has his or her mailing address and phone number listed on the city's website, and everyone except Mayor Castle and Councilor Esslinger has a city email account. And please be civil - there's no benefit from rude, vulgar and mean-spirited comments - we should stick to the issues at hand. Thank you.
-Bryan
I think it's imperative for everyone to be as informed as possible about the city's budget situation, and to contact members of the council to express your thoughts and opinions (and I don't just mean anonymous posts on various blogs). Every council member has his or her mailing address and phone number listed on the city's website, and everyone except Mayor Castle and Councilor Esslinger has a city email account. And please be civil - there's no benefit from rude, vulgar and mean-spirited comments - we should stick to the issues at hand. Thank you.
-Bryan
posted by Bryan L. Bain at
9/14/2006 07:56:00 AM
![[ BadgerLink logo ]](http://www.badgerlink.net/images/bl_logo1.gif){kind=logo}
36 Comments:
In the category of Budget doubletalk, a question that begs to be answered:
Over the past two workshops, it was said that the two Meter Reader/Valve Turners spend only about half (20 hours a week) reading the city's water meters and the rest of the time is spent doing something else. Then what seemed like lunacy, it was said that due to lack of personnel, the fire hydrants have not been turned, or opened for testing, since the early 1990's.
Question: Are we using employees wisely or is this a systemic flaw and/or Managerial neglect by department heads/supervisors failing to oversee requirements, which are potentially putting the citizens at risk and the City of Oshkosh in a position of liability?
Now the city is wrestling with the problem of switching to a new system of meter reading to the tune of roughly 4.5 million dollars, and due to this change, these two meter readers will no longer be necessary and either eliminated or migrated to other duties. At the budget workshop last night, the City Manager suggested that the Public Works and Fire Departments will lose more personnel.
What bothers me is each year, the City Manager, along with each department head ask for funds from the citizens/taxpayers of Oshkosh in order for them to accomplish their jobs, but as we have now learned, some of these managers, even after receiving these funds, fail to enforce even the simplest of requirements to the job description for which they are hired and paid to do.
Not only does this city need leadership to make those difficult decisions, but we need those in positions of leadership/authority to reign in stupidity and enforce or fire those that choose not and/or fail to do their jobs.
By
Anonymous, at September 14, 2006 12:49 PM
Open Letter To All Council Members:
Council Members:
These are some random observations after watching the recent budget work shop –
1)I am appalled at the concept promoted by the Water Department Supervisor and approved and supported by the City Manager to re-classify two meter reader positions as “Valve Turners” when the new water meter system is installed. We allow for these two new positions and yet consider staff reductions in public service. That is simply wrong thinking.
When it originally asked whether the new system would lead to any employee downsizing, both the City Manager and City Water Supervisor said no. The two employees who current read meters would be re-classified to new positions as valve turners. The reasoning was that no one currently performs these duties and they would be crucial positions currently not performed by anyone in the water department.
In the follow-up meeting held last Tuesday, again the question was posed. This time further clarification was given that each of these two employees only read meter 20 hours each week. The other half of their week they perform other duties.
I am truly skeptical here. If the two positions in question only are required to be out checking meters for 20 hours each week, it would seem to me that on occasion, the other remaining 20 hours could have been used for valve turning and avoided the extreme jeopardy we are facing per the Managers comments.
My bottom line is I do not believe this. I think that when pushed to justify the two positions to be eliminated, the Manager then back-peddled and tried to sell you on the positions are used for other duties beyond meter reading.
2)When discussing staffing reductions, the number of 9 police positions
was the number offered. When pushed for more detailed information, it was discovered that some number like 6 of those 9 positions are not currently filled. Only 3 actual employees would be affected by the layoff.
This all seems a bit like the old “Shell game”.
When a number is offered as to positions affected by layoffs, most people would assume that employees currently hold those positions, not that they are open spots on a table of organization.
When dealing with layoffs, you’re considering peoples livelihoods! Accurate numbers need to be given.
I am apposed to any fee for garbage pick-up. I am apposed to any additional property tax in place of the fee. I feel there are countless areas in our City Departments to absorb cuts. I would also support layoffs and lesser services in some areas if required.
Specific areas for consideration –
1)Outsource all general janitorial duties.
2)Combine all vehicle maintenance duties to the central garage and run multiple shifts.
3)Eliminate the Forestry Dept and when needed, outsource these services.
4)Eliminate the City Sign Shop and outsource when needed.
5)Consider the sale of the Municipal Golf course.
6)Down size our bus fleet with smaller busses.
7)Reduce the service area and schedule of bus service.
8)Make all special events pay for police security (overtime) if needed.
9)Consider outfitting garbage trucks to be able to plow snow.
10)Look into the Sanitation Department employee scheduling and routes.
11)Consider a secretarial pool for City Hall general secretaries.
12)Evaluate whether parking meter maintenance and attendant labor is offset by revenue income. If not, consider eliminating parking meters altogether.
13)Offer incentives to those that pay bills by electronic methods verses at the bill collection area at City Hall.
14)Eliminate the 24/7 schedule on the complaint desk at OPD.
These are just a few ideas.
Without question, the most important factor is the current negotiation sessions with the various bargaining units representing city employees. The city negotiation team must be willing and able to put forth a stern demand to the bargaining units for dramatic wage and benefit concessions.
I would support taking an austere offer to arbitration and making my case to the arbitration body that the taxpayers in Oshkosh have set the tone to be far more frugal with wages and benefits for city employees.
Don't accept the easy way out and just pass the problem to the taxpayers with higher property taxes.
You must DEMAND that the City Manager and his Supervisors give you far more, well thought out options...options to reduce, eliminate or consolidate positions and services within the City Government.
People are truly upset at this entire series of events. We expect you as elected councilors to represent the taxpayers of this community, not the city staff and department administrators and bureaucrats. Please listen to us and demand cuts before you consider any added property taxes.
By
Anonymous, at September 15, 2006 9:46 AM
The city negotiation team must be willing and able to put forth a stern demand to the bargaining units for dramatic wage and benefit concessions.
WHAT DO YOU THINK HAS HAPPENED IN THE YEARS PAST? When others were seeing 3 and 4% raises what did the city employees get? Some years they didn't even get the cost of living raise. These employees have made concessions. They are city taxpayers and have families too.
The budget SHOULD NOT BE BALANCED on the BACKS OF THE EMPLOYEES!!
By
Anonymous, at September 15, 2006 1:19 PM
Getting 3 – 4% raises?? What area are you from?
Most of my friends haven’t received a raise in years…and by the way, their co-pay and employee cost of healthcare keeps increasing rapidly!
I for one am not living on a fixed income...I have a DECLINING income!
I was downsize a few years back and now make only a fraction of what I had previously earned.
THESE are the facts in the private sector. Union members have lived in a bubble for many years. But with news at Ford Motor Company and Banta Company just today, even you can see unions are no longer insulated in the private sector. Now, it is just the public sector unions that put the burden on their fellow middleclass taxpayers.
By
Anonymous, at September 15, 2006 1:50 PM
Governor Doyle signed this past summer approved raises for state employees 3 to 4 % over a 3 year period.
Did you go screaming to the BOE when they approved the raises for OADS admininstrators and OADS teachers???
City employees have also seem increased health premuims, increased co-pays and out of pocket charges for services not covered.
By
Anonymous, at September 15, 2006 2:57 PM
Let's look at some dollars and sense here.
IF the levy increase would be approved WHAT would bethe increase in cents be per thousand of assessed evaluation?
Did anyone catch those figures??? I seem to recall $7.86 to $8.14 About 28 cents????
$28 on a $100,000 house
versus
$120 garbage fee
Oh I "GET IT"
I vote to exceed the levy rate and get the tax deduction too COMMON SENSE
By
Anonymous, at September 15, 2006 3:13 PM
I pose this question, “Was the information presented in the City Manager budget proposal to the Common Council and public accurate, honest and in good faith?”
Reason for posing this question:
• The timing of this budget workshop and its proximity to the deadline of getting a referendum on November’s ballot to exceed the tax levy limit.
• Lack of any viable and thought out proposals for increasing efficiency within each department, other than what seem like an aggressive approach to just eliminate employees.
• What seemed like a deliberate attempt to “scare” the public by suggesting that each residence and/or business will have to fend for themselves with regards to disposal of their garbage.
• An almost harassing tactic to make the Common Council members aware that the city employees contract was up for renewal and for the city to expect at least a 1%, if not higher, increase in wages & benefits.
This was basically the thrust of the City Manager’s budget proposal to the citizens and Common Council of Oshkosh. Other than gross numbers and employee cuts, no real spending or savings information was provided, no explanations by any department as to what their department budget was, any justifications were presented, in short “no real ideas” were suggested.
According to the City Manager, as witnessed numerous times during the budget workshop, he states he gets his directions from the Common Council members. If this is the case, I have to question what the Common Council’s directions are to the City Manager, or should we question that the City Manager has exceeded his authority or maybe, has accumulated too much power?
One last question here: Why are citizens so eager to fork over their hard earned money, regardless of the amount, without asking the tough questions of those requesting it? We will bitch, moan and belly-ache about big oil raising gas prices 5 cents (something we can’t control), but then turn around without question and kindly open our wallets and purses and hand over “?” dollars to fix the failures of a few City leaders who are already paid handsomely to do the job of City management (something we can control).
We should demand open and honest proposals, ideas that help the city grow or even to remain as nice at it is, keep to a budget or even under would be nice once in a while, accuracy in the presentation of “bad news”, description of what went wrong, who was responsible, how the “bad news” effected the budget and suggestions of how to fix the problem so that it doesn’t happen again.
By
Anonymous, at September 15, 2006 6:52 PM
If this is true, it is totally unheard of in private industries here in Oshkosh. I personnally know of many friend and relatives that work in plants here in Oshkosh that don't have anywhere near this good of medical coverage.
I REFUSE to give anymore of my tax dollars to the city so they can sweeten this pot even more. MY healtcare coverage is NO WHERE NEAR this good and I haven't got a raise in 2 years and I'm NOT gonna give more of my tax dollars if this is real.
I found this on another web site.
Oshkosh City Employee Union
Local 796 - AFSCME, AFL-CIO
Rates Effective Pay Period 1, 2006
Medical Benefits:
Employee contributions for PPO
Effective January 1, 2006 employees will contribute 5% up to a maximum of $30 per month toward single; $45 per month towards dual and $55 per month towards a family premium equivalent.
Employee contributions for EPO
Effective January 1, 2006 employees will contribute 4% up to a maximum of $20 per month toward single; $40 per month towards dual and $50 per month towards a family premium equivalent.
BRYAN Can you please tell me if this info is accurate??
By
Anonymous, at September 15, 2006 8:54 PM
Wage freezes have been a common place the past 5 years in the private sector. We have also had sky rocketing health costs. City employees have been immune to wage cuts, freezes, or sky rocketing health costs. 5% with a cap is a steal for health insurance. You have also had consistant wage increases. We can not afford this to continue with the levy cap. I hope the council is willing to stand firm and go to arbitration if necessary. I also would like to see real cuts in the budget take place before we have any more fees or tax increases.
By
Anonymous, at September 15, 2006 9:01 PM
Public sector unions (City, County, School System) are a burden to the average American middleclass taxpayer.
Unlike like private corporations, we as taxpayers can't just close plants when we are at a point that we can no longer afford the high wages and GOLD PLATED benefit packages that the public sector union demands.
The average middleclass taxpayer is forced to pay even higher property taxes, and cut back personal spending in other areas. All this to reward the entitlement driven public sector union member with far better benefits.
Our City Council needs to understand that the average taxpayer in Oshkosh is not upper class. The average Oshkosh resident is actually a bit lower-middleclass compared to the rest of our sister cities in the Valley.
I will gladly support our Council if they produce a budget that calls for significant cuts in the overall compensation structure of our union and salaried employees.
If doing so requires the proposal to go to arbitration, so be it. Oshkosh is not a rich city, and the BENEFITS provided to the Union employees are already FAR above what most other residents receive. Wages are comparable in most areas, but higher in some...certainly not below average when compared to the Oshkosh private sector.
Public sector unions (City, County, School System) are a burden to the average American middleclass taxpayer.
By
Anonymous, at September 16, 2006 8:51 AM
Sept 15-- 3:13 Information from Eye on Oshkosh
"The impact of this higher levy on a taxpayer would be $.53 per $1000 of assessed valuation. This means that a home assessed at $100,000 would pay an additional $53 for city taxes to put sanitation back on the taxes and would also allow us to maintain our current services.
$53 DOLLARS TAX DEDUCTIBLE
SOUNDS LIKE A "GOOD" OPTION
By
Anonymous, at September 16, 2006 11:35 AM
During an online forum (April 2005) featuring the candidates for Mayor of Oshkosh, the following question was asked:
How do you propose controlling personnel costs, including salaries and fringe benefits, in city government?
Bill Castle’s response:
[“We can expect the costs of city government to keep rising. Employee costs including medical costs will continue to increase. We can not take the attitude that we are going to balance our budgets on our employees backs.”]
Paul Esslinger response:
[“The unions agreed to pay 5% of their premiums where they previously paid 3%. We also agreed to a 2.25%, 2.50%, and a 2.75% increase in the employees' salaries over three years respectively. This is the first time that the union employees received less that a 3% increase in their salary in a long time.
The thing that will need to be taken into consideration in the next contract negotiations is that the comparables (contracts that have been signed in communities around us) are over 3.0%. This is important because we must be close to what we offer our employees or the unions can go to court and claim that the city is not bargaining in good faith.
So, to sum it up, are hands are somewhat tied when it comes to salaries and benefits, however, we may have some leverage with more insurance concessions.”]
*******
If past statements reflect the current attitudes of the now, Mayor Castle and Council Member Esslinger, they have all but given in and are scared or feel threatened by the city employee union, thereby admitting that employee union has a strangle hold on the taxpayors of Oshkosh.
Council Member Bain, reading what your peers have stated, how do you propose controlling personnel costs, including salaries and fringe benefits, in city government?
By
Anonymous, at September 16, 2006 12:32 PM
Lets review...
Public Sector vs Private Sector Unions:
Public and private sector unions are two very different animals.
In the private sector there is a clear constraint on the demands unions can make do to competition between firms. In order to add members, unions naturally tend to make increasing demands on employers. However, if a union asks for too large a share of the economic pie, the company becomes uncompetitive and goes out of business or moves its operations elsewhere (ie: Banta moving some operations to China)
Not surprisingly, research has shown that the most successful private sector unions (i.e., those that last the longest, and over time add the most member) are not the ones that make the most extreme demands on employers.
In recent years, as the intensity of the competition faced by many firms increased, retaining talented people and maximizing their producivity have become even more critical to private sector companies' success. As a result, they have made important and wide ranging changes in their labor relations practices. Broadly speaking, this has involved a move away from a traditional model characterized by "distributive" bargaining (e.g., fighting over the distribution of the economic pie) and "compliance" based labor-management relations (e.g., "That's not in my contract").
The new model is based on more cooperative bargaining (focused as much on how to increase the size of the pie as how to divide it) and "commitment" based labor relations (i.e., where workers are committed to the survival of the company through productivity improvements, and management is committed to maintaining, through training, the future employability of the workers).
Overall, the evolution from one approach to the other has served American workers quite well -- over the last 75 years, real average hourly wages have steadily increased, while the average annual real rate of return on capital in the U.S. has remained more or less the same.
Underneath the surface, however, there has been more turmoil. Increased competition (due to globalization) and the widespread adoption of information and communication technologies has substantially widened the compensation gap between high and low wage workers. This has made higher-skilled workers more reluctant to join unions, and effectively sacrifice some of their potential compensation for the sake of higher compensation for their less skilled colleagues (one could also see this as yet another consequence of Americans becoming more individualistic rather than "all for one and one for all")
Collectively, these trends have caused the level of unionization in private sector companies to sharply decline in recent years.
The exact opposite has taken place in the public sector, where rates of union membership have actually been increasing.
However, as we said at the outset, public sector unions are very different animals than their private sector counterparts.
Let's start with the traditional bargain offered to public sector employees: you'll get lower compensation, but have better job security than if you took a comparable job in the private sector.
Today, that trade-off has mostly disappeared.
In aggregate terms, many public sector workers have now either pulled even or pulled ahead of their private sector counterparts.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (www.bls.gov), at the national level in 2001, the average private sector worker made $36,159 per year (not including the value of health insurance benefits), while the average public sector worker made $36,510.
Moreover, public sector wages were growing more than one percent per year faster than private sector wages.
Even more importantly, these figures don't include the value of the health care benefits received by public and private sector workers. And these are significant!
Finally, on top of these compensation advantages, state workers have more job security than their peers in the private sector. As we said, the traditional bargain no longer holds; public sector workers now have a much better deal than private sector workers!
One item for discussion starts with the growth of public sector unions, and the increasing demands they have made on public sector employers.
Unlike their counterparts in the private sector, public sector unions face much weaker contraints on the demands they can make.
In the private sector, increasingly intense competition makes it very hard for companies to simply raise their prices to pass on the cost of increased worker pay and benefits. These cost increases therefore reduce profits and the rate of return on shareholder's capital.
If union demands are too aggressive (that is, if the proposed cost increase would force too big a reduction in shareholder returns), the company will either be closed, sold, or move some of its operations to other locations with lower labor costs.
These constraints on union demands operate much more weakly in the public sector. Let's take a look at what happens there, starting with a union that demands a sharp increase in pay and benefits (or, alternatively, refuses an employer's request to make work rule changes that would substantially increase productivity).
Instead of confronting a company's shareholders with the prospect of lower returns, the public sector union's demand confronts the public with the need to raise taxes.
What alternatives do the taxpayers have? Compared to shareholders, taxpayers usually find it much more difficult to close or sell a public sector operation.
In some cases, the public sector is mandated by law to provide the service; in other cases, there are no competitors available to provide the same service if the public sector operation is closed. What about shifting the operation to another location, where labor costs are lower? Again, this option is far more restricted in the public sector, as many government organizations provide services that must be delivered in person (e.g., teaching, fire, police).
Therefore, this option is usually limited to centralizing the activities of certain functions (e.g., having multiple departments share common financial management, human resources, and information technology support services).
Moreover, not only are the alternatives to a price or tax increase more limited in the public sector, the leaders of public sector organizations are also much more reluctant than their private sector counterparts to make use of them.
Unlike the situation in the private sector (where unions usually have little or no ownership interest, and therefore power over company boards of directors), public sector unions can and do exert a high degree of power (via their impact on elections) on the very people negotiating with them on behalf of the taxpayers.
Think about it: how hard will a public official negotiate with a public sector union if he or she believes (rightly or wrongly) that the people across the table have a big impact on elections, and therefore on whether or not he or she will have a job after the next one?
In the world of academia, they call this "a soft budget constraint" or an "agency problem".
In the real world, where taxpayers are faced with the ever rising bills produced by this system, we call it a sweetheart deal (or worse, when we're not in polite company).
Taken together, all these factors create a situation in which public sector unions are much more likely than their private sector counterparts to (a) make aggressive demands on their employers, and (b) have those demands met.
The second explanation for the public sector wage premium is an interesting one. This view suggests that because it is harder to terminate employees for poor performance in the public sector than it is in the private sector, the former have less incentive to work hard when they are paid the same as their private sector counterparts.
Hence, to produce the same level of effort, you have to pay higher wages to the public sector employees (this also implies that the right level of public sector pay is the one that makes the public sector job turnover rate equal to the private sector average).
From this perspective, the difference between the average wage paid to private sector versus public sector employees is really a rough, but still useful estimate of comparative public sector inefficiency.
This is not a pretty picture, and it is one that we urgently need to correct.
By
Anonymous, at September 16, 2006 12:58 PM
The answer to your question regarding Castle and Esslinger may be found in a portion of the remarkably informative posting on private vs public unions.
The specific area that might apply is this:
"Could this be why our city unions have have been able to obtain the GOLD PLATED benefit package that they have...
"Think about it: how hard will a public official negotiate with a public sector union if he or she believes (rightly or wrongly) that the people across the table have a big impact on elections, and therefore on whether or not he or she will have a job after the next one?
In the world of academia, they call this "a soft budget constraint" or an "agency problem"."
Could all our elected and appointed officials negotiate in fear of how those in the unions might vote?
I'd certainly hope not, but it sounds plausable.
What say you Mr. Bain?
By
Anonymous, at September 16, 2006 3:26 PM
Could all our elected and appointed officials negotiate in fear of how those in the unions might vote?
NO NO NO
Negotiation Team for the City are the City Attorney and the Human Resources Manager.
Neither are Elected Officials!
By
Anonymous, at September 18, 2006 11:06 AM
the average private sector worker made $36,159 per year
while the average public sector worker made $36,510.
The difference of $351
A small price to pay for all the vulgar mean-spirited and rude comments city employees take from private citizens on a weekly basis.
By
Anonymous, at September 18, 2006 11:19 AM
11:19...You won't find any sweet healthcare deals like THIS in the private sector.
.................
Oshkosh City Employee Union
Local 796 - AFSCME, AFL-CIO
Rates Effective Pay Period 1, 2006
Medical Benefits:
Employee contributions for PPO
Effective January 1, 2006 employees will contribute 5% up to a maximum of $30 per month toward single; $45 per month towards dual and $55 per month towards a family premium equivalent.
Employee contributions for EPO
Effective January 1, 2006 employees will contribute 4% up to a maximum of $20 per month toward single; $40 per month towards dual and $50 per month towards a family premium equivalent.
..................
So...the difference is ALOT more than $351.00 sir!
By
Anonymous, at September 18, 2006 11:47 AM
Sorry 11:06. That doesn't hold water. The City Manager is the CEO of all City Departments.
City Council member are elected officials and they have hire/fire authority over the City Manager.
So...YA, this could make alot of sense.
"Think about it: how hard will a public official negotiate with a public sector union if he or she believes (rightly or wrongly) that the people across the table have a big impact on elections, and therefore on whether or not he or she will have a job after the next one?
In the world of academia, they call this "a soft budget constraint" or an "agency problem"."
Could all our elected and appointed officials negotiate in fear of how those in the unions might vote?
By
Anonymous, at September 18, 2006 11:51 AM
Anonymous said...
Last year Winnebago County considered a 1/2% sales tax and may to consider it again this year.
IF PASSED
What % of those dollars come back to the City of Oshkosh? Could those $$$ cover the loss of the garbage fee???
Would it be a better plan to enact a COUNTY sales tax for Everyone rather a referedum to exceed the levy limit which affects Property Owners only???
9/18/2006 11:51 AM
By
Anonymous, at September 18, 2006 11:56 AM
We agreed to a 2.25%, 2.50%, and a 2.75% increase in the employees' salaries over three years respectively.
This is the first time that the union employees received less that a 3% increase in their salary in a long time.
These were the CONCESSIONS last time so the city could balance their budget. Don't expect to balance the budget on the backs of the City employees again.
By
Anonymous, at September 18, 2006 12:03 PM
Last year Winnebago County considered a 1/2% sales tax and may to consider it again this year.
IF PASSED
What % of those dollars come back to the City of Oshkosh? Could those $$$ cover the loss of the garbage fee???
Would it be a better plan to enact a COUNTY sales tax for Everyone rather a referedum to exceed the levy limit which affects Property Owners only???
By
Anonymous, at September 18, 2006 12:11 PM
September 18, 2006 12:03 PM Said...
"Don't expect to balance the budget on the backs of the City employees again."
.................
Oshkosh City Employee Union
Local 796 - AFSCME, AFL-CIO
Rates Effective Pay Period 1, 2006
Medical Benefits:
Employee contributions for PPO
Effective January 1, 2006 employees will contribute 5% up to a maximum of $30 per month toward single; $45 per month towards dual and $55 per month towards a family premium equivalent.
Employee contributions for EPO
Effective January 1, 2006 employees will contribute 4% up to a maximum of $20 per month toward single; $40 per month towards dual and $50 per month towards a family premium equivalent.
..................
So you imply the City is balancing the budget ON YOUR BACK when they offer this type of healthcare package?
I guess the following statement is actually true.
Public sector unions (City, County, School System) are a burden to the average American middleclass taxpayer.
By
Anonymous, at September 18, 2006 12:27 PM
You have reviewed the so-called Medical Insurance? Have you reviewed the areas of non-coverage and additional OUT OF POCKET FEES?
PAY MORE GET LESS
Review the changes made by the city to balance a budget and saved the taxpayers. The City switched insurance coverage from the Affinity group to the Aurora group.
By
Anonymous, at September 18, 2006 1:38 PM
12:03
GOOD STARTING PLAN Let the negotiating begin!!!
By
Anonymous, at September 18, 2006 1:41 PM
City employees have no concept of what the private sector is paying for health insurance. I am all for city employees receiving a good wage. GIve them a small increase. It is the health insurance that is killing us. That is where the work needs to be done a contract time.
By
Anonymous, at September 18, 2006 2:17 PM
Why do you think they have no concept of the world around them?
Do you think they live under a rock?
Its all ONE contract health insurance and wages hours ALL ONE CONTRACT.
Go SCREAM at the insurance companies that are changing the FEES.
By
Anonymous, at September 18, 2006 3:30 PM
PRIVATE SECTOR UNION vs PUBLIC SECTOR UNION
Instead of confronting a company's shareholders with the prospect of lower returns, the public sector union's demand confronts the public with the need to raise taxes.
Unlike the situation in the private sector (where unions usually have little or no ownership interest, and therefore power over company boards of directors), public sector unions can and do exert a high degree of power (via their impact on elections) on the very people negotiating with them on behalf of the taxpayers.
Think about it: how hard will a public official negotiate with a public sector union if he or she believes (rightly or wrongly) that the people across the table have a big impact on elections, and therefore on whether or not he or she will have a job after the next one?
Taken together, all these factors create a situation in which public sector unions are much more likely than their private sector counterparts to (a) make aggressive demands on their employers, and (b) have those demands met.
Public sector unions (City, County, School System) are a burden to the average American middleclass taxpayer.
By
Anonymous, at September 18, 2006 4:50 PM
I believe that there should be a review of all City Departments and and examination of duplication of services. I find that the City Manager and the City Mayor are again using threats of cutting critical services (police and fire) if the garbage fee is dropped. This is ludicrous. I think a look should be made at "luxury" types of services, i.e. the book mobile, the golf course, the opera house, the number of employees in the "planning" department, forestry, privitize the convention center, etc....
By
Anonymous, at September 18, 2006 6:11 PM
It was reported on WOSH AM 1490 radio today that Wisconsin teachers have the 2nd - 3rd BEST benefit plan of all states in the United States.
Wisconsin teachers rank 26th in wages.
So...
We are about average with wages, BUT have a GOLD PLATED benefit plan for our teachers. 2nd or 3rd BEST IN THE NATION!!!!
I wonder how municiple employees would fair in a similar survey. Most-likely Oshkosh and Winnebago County would have results similar to the teachers unions.
Public sector unions (City, County, School System) are a burden to the average American middleclass taxpayer.
By
Anonymous, at September 18, 2006 7:31 PM
Did they site the source of this information?
You CANNOT depend on radio stations, newspapers, or any the media source to provide accurate information.
I am NOT saying this is false information just asking you to remember it's election season and a lot of slanted or false information floating thur the airways.
By
Anonymous, at September 19, 2006 11:18 AM
11:18..
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (www.bls.gov), at the national level in 2001, the average private sector worker made $36,159 per year (not including the value of health insurance benefits), while the average public sector worker made $36,510.
Moreover, public sector wages were growing more than one percent per year faster than private sector wages.
Even more importantly, these figures don't include the value of the health care benefits received by public and private sector workers. And these are significant!
Public sector unions (City, County, School System) are a burden to the average American middleclass taxpayer.
By
Anonymous, at September 19, 2006 11:49 AM
11:18..
WISTAX researchers noted that U.S. Census Bureau figures for 1999-2000 show Wisconsin school districts paid more than 35¢ in benefits for every dollar of instructional salaries.
That was the fifth-highest rate nationally.
In 2001-02, Wisconsin school districts paid an average of 96.9% of the premium for single health insurance coverage and 95.5% for family coverage, and virtually all of the cost of retirement benefits.
By
Anonymous, at September 19, 2006 11:57 AM
Note for next council elections...
Regarding who to vote for when their terms are up.
Scheuermann
Mattox
Tower
Castle
These four cast their votes tonight to in-effect give the council the ability to raise your property taxes by 2.3 million beyond state limits if a referendum passes.
Please remember their vote when it comes time for you to cast your vote!
BTW...Bryan. Thanks for doing the right thing. I will support you when your term is up.
By
Anonymous, at September 19, 2006 7:59 PM
Get REAL this guy is playing games. Bryan would have voted with the majority but he knew it would pass without his vote. Beware of wolves in sheeps clothing!!!
By
Anonymous, at September 20, 2006 7:09 AM
Scheuermann
Mattox
Tower
Castle
Thank You for having the Courage to Take a Stand on Making A Difficult Decision. Thank You for giving to Voters the Choice. We take encouragement that you will NOT shy away from the difficult decisions that will still have to be made!
By
Anonymous, at September 20, 2006 9:28 AM
I see four seats that will be occupied with new council members.
Vote the rascals out..
Castle...GONE!
Tower...HISTORY!
Mattox...OUTAHERE!
Scheuermann...ASTALAVISTA BABY!
By
Anonymous, at September 20, 2006 10:13 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home