Comments on: Agenda Review March 9 – Let the Exigency begin…

By: chuck

chuck — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 01:38:31 +0000

soon the govt will have to impose the same kind of painful cuts upon it s dependent class – medicade,
medicare.
Now SS is calling in its IOU s

By: thisjustin

thisjustin — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 16:04:02 +0000

When will government employees understand that the general population is having to deal with no raises, paying more into their retirement accts, and more for their health care. They cannot continue to have Cadillac benefits and 15 paid holidays when the common citizen doesn’t enjoy the same.
Raising a “ticket tax” is insane. Look at current consumer spending. People are not spending money, WHY? because they don’t have it, period!

By: Doug

Doug — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:46:48 +0000

When I took a pay cut at my work I was faced with a choice. Take it in stride or find a new job where I think I will get paid more. I took it in stride because I love where I work and I don’t think I’ll find another job right now that pays as well or treats me as well. All city employees have the same option laid before them. They can evaluate individually if they want to take there skills to another, more appreciative market. Or they can take it in stride.

I will say however that my employer did everything possible to cut costs before cutting pay and I would hope that is what Toledo is doing first too. That being said, however, personel are almost always the biggest cost.

By: John Meyer

John Meyer — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:29:44 +0000

Can the same thing not be said about the city and tax payers? When the 3/4 percent renewal came up they said they needed it for safety, though they immmediately cut saftey. They ask for conecessions from union yet for the citizens of Toledo they just tack on a new fee.

It is also not a good precedent to set… Were spending more than we can afford, add a fee on the tax payer.

Of course the difference between the two precedents is that going to the tax payer is an increase in revenue while asking for union concessions goes directly after the overspending as a cost cutting measure.

By: kc

kc — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 01:35:45 +0000

Dee Dee, you are correct, but you are also stating that there are still savings and that was all I meant. Thanks for the specifics though. And again, I will say these were negotiated years ago in lieu of raises, not last year. I have stated in many other posts that I don’t disagree with concessions, but by opening a contract that was just fairly settled six months ago, it is like opening up a can of worms. Say the unions agree to concessions again, and nine months from now when the city has financial problems again, they ask again. Should they just keep giving things up until there is nothing left? What if they give into the concessions and the city still decides to lay off? It is called a contract for a reason – they are agreed upon terms, and the city didn’t have to agree upon them. Every time there is a financial problem from here on out because of reckless spending, the city will now have the precedent to ask the unions for more or else…. It’s a very slippery slope.

By: jackie

jackie — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 22:30:39 +0000

DeeDee – you are right – all wages are subject to pensions and benefits no matter how those wages are earned. Also I am perplexed about the entertainment tax – entertainment comes out of excess income and the tax is really pennies on a dollar. This city is in financial crisis and we have to face up to this and fix the problem.

By: Patrick W

Patrick W — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 19:50:51 +0000

Private companies do not give raises when they are hurting. The city is hurting and should not be giving raises or pension pick ups. Being a city employee does not entitle you to get everything for free. Why should taxpayers give city employees a better situation than they themselves have? Local union leaders should accept these concessions. If the city goes into receivership then the city employees will get a much worse deal than what the city is currently offering.

By: DeeDee Liedel

DeeDee Liedel — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 19:01:41 +0000

kc – I think you are wrong on the pension pickup not costing Toledo more when OT is worked. As far as I know, state pensions (PERS, STRS, Police & Fire, etc.) are based on a % of wages, no matter how those wages are paid (comp, straight time, vacation, sick or OT). You get paid Y, % times Y gets put in to the pension program. So if the pension pickup costs Toledo 10% of wages, and this was in place of a 10% raise, there is no difference whether that money is going to the pension fund or the worker, it is still 10%.

Now, I will say, that the pension pickup may affect the city’s expenses with regard to other items which are based on wages paid: workers comp, unemployment (those two may be self-insured, so it may not be a factor), medicare portion of FICA (which I think government workers still pay in to.) Those are the three payroll-based expenses that a company typical runs in to in addition to wages. These may not have been affected because they are not based on pension payments, but on gross wages, so an increase in wages would cost more on these line items, whereas an increase in pension payments would not.

Now, the place that there was a ’savings’ when the city started picking up the pensions is that future raises were not based on the pensions. For example, if in year 1 there was a 10% raise, and in year 2 another 10%, then in year 3 another 10%, the total increase over three years is actually 33% not 30%. With the pension pickup, that 10% is not added to the base wages for inclusion in future raises, so that the 10% pension, then two years of 10% raises would equal a total of 31%, thus saving 2% (note, my figures are rounded and not reality, for ease of understanding; when you are dealing with $100+ million in payroll, 1 or 2% can really add to the bottom line).

By: zimmy

zimmy — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:36:58 +0000

not blaming unions – i blame the politicians and the arbitrators – but the employees are the beneficiaries. fair or not these financial problems need to be addressed. the system has to be flexible enough to handle systemic problems. in times of real income decreases (salaries are lower, benefits are lower – the wal-mart effect) and high unemployment we the public, we the taxpayers, can not afford to continue to pay our government employees as if nothing has shifted in the economy.

if we see the numbers on how raises would have affected the budget versus the pension pickup and lack of medical contributions then we could compare those numbers. otherwise i think it is conjecture but in either case circumstances require that we are able to adjust to what we can afford, what is appropriate, what makes sense.

By: kc

kc — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:53:47 +0000

#1 Patrick – City employees had their pensions picked up over multiple contracts in lieu of raises. Had they taken the raises instead, the city would be in a much bigger hole right now because they would be paying overtime on the raises, which they don’t do on the pension pickups. It’s not like they got both, and they city got off cheap when they did this instead. Now that they are broke, they are blaming the unions like they stole something they shouldn’t have.