Bain-Blog

Friday, August 24, 2007

July 31 FTF notes

The July 31 Fifth Tuesday Forum notes are available online.

The final Fifth Tuesday Forum of 2007 is scheduled for October 30th at 6:00 p.m. If you have a suggested location, please post it here or contact me.

-Bryan

posted by Bryan L. Bain at 8/24/2007 07:40:00 PM

16 Comments:

  • I find it interesting to read two somewhat polar opposite columns in the Sunday paper today.

    1) The Letter to the Editor about the Omachinski issue.
    2) The lead story about City Unions moving to arbitration.

    On one hand, you have a man with extraordinary fiscal responsibility, driven to “make tough decisions that maintain profitability for the company”. The shareholders demand better value, so he did what was needed to maintain “financial long-term success of the company” Additional costs of labor simply could not be passed on the consumer.

    Then we hear that several city unions have taken Oshkosh’s last offer to arbitration. It appears that these unions believe they deserve more than the contract that was approved by the police unions. These union members who already have 95% of their healthcare paid by Oshkosh property taxpayers feel that the wage increase they’ve been offered (on top of those extraordinary healthcare benefits) isn’t enough. They want more!

    So many people line up to support Mr. Omachinski and his position to cut jobs and do whatever it took to maintain profitability and shareholder value in a private corporation, yet when we taxpayers are funding healthcare and providing raises to our city workers that are well over and above what most of us obtain WE are called insensitive and uncaring. Something is terribly wrong with our labor system.

    I think laws need to be changed to level the playing field.

    Municipal union employees should not be held in higher regard than any other labor group. Jobs in the private sector are downsized and wages are re-organized on a regular basis. It’s often called “Supply and demand”. I’m fairly certain there would be a long line at city hall to fill some of these city union jobs just for the healthcare coverage without any wage increases at all. Supply and demand.

    Two polar opposite and troubling articles. More reason to believe there is much work to be done at city hall when our new manager comes aboard.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at September 02, 2007 10:56 AM  

  • Another excellent article in the paper today. Again discussing healthcare benefits.

    This paragraph is a snapshot of part of the problem:

    “Besides the cost, the current system is incredibly unfair. Anyone who works for the government (Oshkosh City Workers) gets health insurance as a benefit. People who cannot afford insurance pay, through their taxes, for the health insurance of government employees (Oshkosh City Workers).”

    This is exactly what has been mentioned on this and other blog sites so many times. The middle class blue collar worker who struggles to put food on his table and keep a roof over his families head may not be able to afford healthcare insurance for his family…yet thought his property taxes, he helps fund a healthcare plan that pays 95% of all costs associated with a city workers healthcare plan.

    The taxpayer can’t afford health insurance for his family, yet his taxes pay for a Cadillac healthcare plan for city workers.

    “It is the height of hypocrisy for politicians to tell the uninsured that they should set up Health Savings Accounts and use that money to pay for their insurance. First, they don't have any money to save and second, why should they have to buy their own insurance in addition to paying for their representative's? If we took away their insurance, I am sure they would find a way to cover everyone.”

    For more, read this excellent article:
    http://www.thenorthwestern.com/apps/
    pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070903/
    OSH06/709030375/1189

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at September 03, 2007 9:00 AM  

  • And how does this have ANYTHING to do with the issues discussed at the FTF? You are obsessing over this and you are posting this in inappropriate places. Please get help.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at September 03, 2007 9:19 AM  

  • I believe heathcare is an important issue. So do most Americans.

    I think when we deside if we need to change our form of government, healthcare benefits need focused attention.

    When we taxpayers are funding healthcare and providing raises to our city workers that are well over and above what most of us obtain WE are called insensitive and uncaring. That is just wrong!

    The article in the Northwestern today seems to agree.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at September 03, 2007 11:18 AM  

  • The meeting should be held where ALL interested in attending may do so. To those without transportation other than possibly during the daytime, the West side is not a possibility. The meetings should be taking place in the downtown area as this is where you will find the majority of pedestrians. Also, not all people walk after dark in or around the downtown area; women are particularly vulnerable when walking alone. I for one, never go beyond my own yard after dark in these areas. Thank you.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at September 05, 2007 2:21 PM  

  • I think the point is, if you're going to post one thing in one place, fine, but we don't need to read your cut-and-paste crap in every blog dealing with city politics.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at September 05, 2007 3:34 PM  

  • I'm free to post, you're free to read it or not.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at September 06, 2007 8:11 AM  

  • Another excellent and timely article appears in the Northwestern today. Ms. Langlois writes: “The people running our city are too close to the problems we have. Third party companies would not have the same problems. They look at all situations objectively.” Ms. Langlois presents an opinion that if not handled properly, neither the Manager option or the Mayor option may drive the true change needed in Oshkosh.

    While watching the Parks Board meeting last night, Mr. Stephany was whining about the lack of funds and the difficult position he is in because he was required to cut $45,000.00 from his operating budget. He further lamented that the “Goose Abatement” program would most-likely be halted due to the lack of money available.

    Here again we have the issue of affordability.

    Here is a budget breakdown-

    Our city budget for the 2007 calendar year is about $60,000,000.00. Of that sum, about 13% of it equates to about $7,800,000.00.

    That $7,800,000.00 covers every operational expense other than labor costs, to run our entire city for an entire year!!

    The remaining portion of the $60,000,000.00 budget is set aside to fund WAGES and BENEFITS to all city employees…union and non-union!!

    Of the $52,000,000.00 set aside for labor compensation, about $6,600,000.00 is earmarked to cover healthcare costs for our employees. The city taxpayers fund over $10,000.00 per employee to cover just healthcare costs. Taxpayers fund about 95% while the city employee contributes about 5%.

    We hear Department heads whine about lack of money as each try’s to grab a piece of that $7,800,000.00 pie, yet they ignore the FAR BIGGEST piece which is labor and benefit costs.

    We as property taxpayers are unable to provide the increasing taxes needed to maintain city services as our employees keep siphoning off funds for growing wages and benefits. The additional taxes desired may not reach the intended project, they may be earmarked for even further enhanced city worker benefits!

    Can our property taxpayers and rent payers afford to continue paying 95% of healthcare costs for city workers?

    Again, just taking a look at the healthcare area:

    About $6,600,000.00 is earmarked to cover healthcare costs for our employees. The city taxpayers fund over $10,000.00 per employee to cover just healthcare costs. Taxpayers fund about 95% while the city employee contributes about 5%.

    Can we as taxpayers continue to afford the services these employees offer at the level of wages and benefits they demand? I believe we can not!

    Furthermore, I believe as Ms. Langlois states:
    “The people running our city are too close to the problems we have. Third party companies would not have the same problems. They look at all situations objectively.”

    We need an objective look at our entire cost structure, which would focus on the greatest costs to the taxpayer, which are wages and benefits. I think comments like those made by Mr. Stephany just go to reinforce that maybe our Managers are too close to the problem and rather than tackle the tough job of managing labor costs, they choose to lament about goose poop.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at September 14, 2007 1:16 PM  

  • A workshop was held after a recent Council meeting regarding the inspections department after the last council meeting. There is no citizen participation at these meetings. It was of some's opinion that our Inspections Department has got some real problems, including in the way it responds or does not respond to neighborhood complaints. Another frustrating element is that in the manager/council form of government it is almost mpossible for the council to do anything. In our form of government, if the city manager does not effectively supervise the department heads, nothing happens. Nothing. In this form of government, the manager relies on the department heads for information, and that makes it much less likely that the manager will do anything to reign them in.

    If we had a full-time mayor with executive power, that mayor
    could be "put on notice" that if he does not fix the problems in the Inspections Department (along with Community Development, Parks, etc.), then he will be gone in the next election.

    This Council ran on an agenda of fighting for accountability in city hall. However, it would seem as long as we maintain this form of government we are not
    likely to make anything more than baby step progress (if that).

    I was surprised to hear of this as had thought the Council had more "power". I fear the "politics" of a Mayor but really don't we have that factor in operation now?

    Dept. heads and their protegees have been using the excuse of money and lack of staff for many years. Yet when contacted they state they WILL follow through and don't more often than not. I think for the most part these people are here to stay until they decide to leave. An interim Manager who may again become permanent will more than likely be chosen from within and it will be same ole, same ole....

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at September 15, 2007 10:14 AM  

  • Affordability-
    UAW and GM face the same issues our city faces with regard to rising labor wage and benefit costs. Here is an excerpt from a recent article:


    “David Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, said he believes there's little chance for a UAW strike. A short strike might not have much effect on GM but could backfire against the UAW if the public believes the union is asking for too much from a company that is struggling, Cole said.

    "They've got to be very careful of anything that could hurt their public image," he said.

    This year's contract talks are considered crucial to the survival of GM and its U.S.-based counterparts, Ford Motor Co . and Chrysler LLC.

    All three companies want to cut or eliminate what they say is about a $25-per-hour labor cost gap with their Japanese competitors. The gap, the companies say, is one reason why the Detroit Three collectively lost about $15 billion last year, forcing them to restructure by shedding workers and closing factories.

    The UAW is also fighting for its survival. The union represented 302,500 active workers during the last contract talks in 2003. This year, that number fell to 180,681.

    The central issue this year has been skyrocketing health care costs.”


    Skyrocketing health care costs.

    Sounds familiar. Healthcare benefits provided to Oshkosh City workers cost property tax payers about $6,600,000.00 each year. We property tax payers and rent payers fund 95% of city employee healthcare costs. I’d say that needs to change!

    An 80/20 ratio would be far more fair to the taxpayers.

    We as taxpayers cannot continue to fund 95% of healthcare costs. Our City needs many improvements. Paying such a high percentage of healthcare is siphoning money that could be used for many other community improvement projects.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at September 16, 2007 11:03 AM  

  • If you think paying for the city employees is too expensive, then your solution is to cut some of them. Don't ask them to take a cut in wages, don't ask them to pay for more of their health insurance. The answer is no. If you want something cut, cut the positions.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at September 17, 2007 12:51 PM  

  • Good point. We just may have to consider that option.

    By the way...what city department did you say you worked in?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at September 17, 2007 6:09 PM  

  • You are anonymous wanting to know where I work? I don't think so. Pretty much none of your business.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at September 17, 2007 10:25 PM  

  • Can you believe Paul Esslinger asked what the significance of Energy Star appliances meant in the council meeting last week? Is he for real?

    From the energystar.gov website:

    "ENERGY STAR is a joint program of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy helping us all save money and protect the environment through energy efficient products and practices.
    Results are already adding up. Americans, with the help of ENERGY STAR, saved enough energy in 2006 alone to avoid greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to those from 25 million cars — all while saving $14 billion on their utility bills."

    Kudos to the council for passing this resolution that will make the city more aware of energy conservation and savings. Shame on Paul Esslinger and Dennis McHugh for being ignortant to the benefits of energy conservation, and the importance of the city being a leader in this area.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at September 17, 2007 10:34 PM  

  • We as taxpayers cannot continue to fund 95% of healthcare costs for city employees. Our City needs many improvements. Paying such a high percentage of healthcare is siphoning money that could be used for many other community improvement projects.

    A plan that would fund 80% would be more in line with standard private sector employer/employee cost sharing.

    The 80/20 plan would provide very affordable healthcare and redistribute costs in a more equitable manner.

    The savings resulting would allow Oshkosh to fund many other needed projects...quality of living projects needed in Oshkosh.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at September 18, 2007 6:44 AM  

  • Sept. 18:

    "Qualify of Living projects needed in Oshkosh"

    You are so correct in that statement and I commend you for bringing it up! So many of us fall into the "forgotten people" category and as one, it's tough.

    I also agree that a larger employee portion insurance payment is in order. It's happening all over and the city should be no exception. I pay 30% of my income on health insurance premiums, out-of-pocket so of course this seems like a great compromise. I realize many people work for the benefits, often taking priority over the job. If one does the math, at least 20% isn't all that much; so cut back on some frills.... I can't gripe about what I have to pay and then turn around and pick up others with property taxes for I too once worked with benefits.

    Regarding the post re. Energy Star, I hadn't heard about that! Unbelievable but I think we'll see an exit out with next year with CC members named. How ironic that McHugh was a City Electrical Supervisor when it was decided to cut street lights, put them on dimmer lights, many in low income areas where ill ventured "activity" is most likely. This was to be cost effective! An electrician not knowing about Energy Star which has been around for a long time - hum... Even the appliance delivery people are well versed on this! By the way, it is a great cost saver; know that from experience. Hopefully if used by the city we the taxpayers will get a break on the savings and it doesn't end up in the antithesis of qualify of life projects....

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at September 18, 2007 8:37 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home