Earlier today I read a comment for moderation that requested a piece on the budget. Although that would be a good topic, I think that there are more pressing issues that should be addressed.
In today's ONW, we find an article that points to 5 of the public unions going to arbitration rather than take the offer from the city. There were 3 of the eight that agreed to the terms offered near the end of 2006 but the other 5 opted to ride it out and work without a contract. After waiting nearly 6 months after talks stalled, the city opted to work with an arbitrator and get some closure to this issue. The reason for the stall? The unions didn't like the offer of 2.25% the first year and 2.75% for the second and third year. They want 3% for all three years to keep up with the increase in insurance.
Sorry, but give me a break. Who do they think really pays for the insurance? The taxpayer does. If there is an increase, they can pay a fair share of that increase. I think that we (the taxpayers) pay enough of the insurance without having to pony up more on yearly increases because they want to keep up with the insurance.
Now before anyone goes nuts about me being "anti-labor", I will mention that I am a member of a union myself. The difference is that I accept what I get in an annual cost of living increase without pissing and moaning about it. My union won't go after Congress if they don't approve a large enough increase... We just take it and move on.
Now, the union has every right to take this to arbitration and get what is decided. But was it really necessary over less than a percent each year? Sometimes we need to step back and use some common sense and realize that we are in tight financial times. The city cannot offer to one union more than they gave other unions... what would they think? I guarantee that they wouldn't be the first to sign next time.
Now my position with the city unions may have cost me the election. It also could have been my big mouth. Either way, I am not a candidate anymore and I can speak my mind. It says loud and clear that we need to use common sense and stop trying to squeeze blood out of a turnip. The city offered what it can afford. If that isn't enough, try the private sector and see what you can get...
Enough for now... Happy Labor Day to all. (Ironic, isn't it?)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
53 comments:
Let the city employee bashing begin!
Happy Labor Day indeed Mr. Monte!
The difference between you and the city unions is that the city unions are greedy and you are not!
The council is wise to not give in to the unions. Not because they may win or lose in arbitration, but because there will be in-fighting between the city unions.
The police are already upset that the other unions are asking for more and if an arbitrator gives the other unions more, there will be even more infighting.
I can see now why the council had the courage to give the middle finger to the rest of the unions.
Good job council!
Hopefully the arbitrator will see through the greed and side with the city.
Shame on the union that wouldn't settle! Happy Labor Day unions.
What you fail to mention again, is that there is a flipside to this coin. Clearly the unions have already given up some things in other areas. You are right; you probably lost the election because you opened your big mouth without ALL the facts then, as you are now. Enjoy your Labor Day weekend.
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
City employee healthcare coverage is a topic one poster does not want discussed. He would rather it be left in the shadows, not talked about. I believe his fear is that as more Oshkosh taxpayers become aware of the benefit structure in place with city employees, and they weight those benefits against the benefits provided by their employer, they become angry.
Articles published recently begin to shed light on the healthcare discrepancy not only in Oshkosh, but throughout the county.
http://www.postcrescent.com/_apps/
pbcs.dll/article?AID=/_20070902/
APC03/709020540/1888
http://www.thenorthwestern.com/apps/
_pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070903/
_OSH06/709030375/1189
Why should people who cannot afford to cover their own families with a decent healthcare package continue to pay more property taxes to afford city employees 3% wage increases on top of 95% taxpayer funded healthcare?
The civil service employees should not exist in a "bubble". They need to experience reality just as the rest of everyday working class Oshkosh taxpayers do!
9:07, 11:29 - Ha, Copy & Paste Dude is back! A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Ahhhh, another day, another opportunity to bash city employees.
Kent,
Did you ever stop to think the issues at hand might be more than money? Do you know what the city's offer was to all of the unions? Do you know what the police settled for, besides money? Were there any changes in health care, or vacation, or sick leave, that might have made other unions balk at the city's offer?
It goes way deeper than the money they offered. You're right--less than one percent isn't much. Which makes me think it is something more than the pay raise that has raised the hackles of the unions.
One union leader said something about the pay raise. He doesn't speak for the other unions, and each bargains separately. He is not a voice for the entire city workforce, so don't use his words to categorize all of the poeple who work for the city.
One other thing, Kent. You mention "I am not a candidate anymore and I can speak your mind." What were you holding back during your campaign? Were you paying people lip service to try to get their vote? Now you're sharing your true feelings with us. What was it you were sharing while on the campaign trail?
I am aware that there MAY be other aspects of the contract that are holding it up. But the article only mentions the pay aspect and that leads one to conclude that it is the major factor of the stand off.
As for my campaign, I had a solution that would satisfy both the city employee AND the Oshkosh taxpayer. I had mentioned it several times in the past and can again if you so desire.
As for my comment about speaking my mind... I don't have to "sugar coat" anything. I can say it like it is and not worry about being "misunderstood" like what so often happened during the campaign. If someone wants to read my comments as negative towards public employees, they can. But NONE of this is a shot on them. The union speaks for the workers. That doesn't mean that the workers necessarily agree with what is being said. Some of these workers are homeowners too and pay taxes just like the rest of us. There are also those that represent those workers that live OUTSIDE the city and are only focused on their benefit and nothing else.
The biggest portion of the contract is benefits. Those benefits can LEGALLY be changed to satisfy the workers AND the city.
The city and the union need to agree on them or find common ground before this can end.
Come on, Kent. It's the Northwestern. They made the story about money because they are looking to sensationalize any story they can get their hands on. If the issue was a health care choice, or a change in vacation time, or something like that, the ONW wouldn't have cared one bit. But they got, at least with you, the response they were after-- an angry constituency that will make noise about the issue. That's why it was made out to be solely a money issue.
So, feel free to set the record straight. If you don't like the ONW coverage of the issue, then you can use the forum that I have provided to set the record straight.
I will say this though, any posting under anonymous moniker will be far less credible than if you sign your name and make the information verifiable.
You can like my opinion or not. I don't have any information beyond the press to base my opinion on. If you have further or more accurate information, feel free to send it to me and it could change my mind.
Here is the issue to be discussed:
Most of us have employer sponsored healthcare coverage. Most of us currently pay about 20% for the coverage; our employers pay the remaining 80%.
As the cost of healthcare continues to soar, we as a society no doubt need to demand our elected officials intercede and stop this run-away train…but until such time as that happens, we all face these rising costs.
Most corporations public or private have addressed the rising cost of healthcare by passing along costs to their employees. Private sector employees are not insulated from these rising costs either. Most private sector unions have made significant concessions related to healthcare costs. Union members are aware that if costs continue to spiral out of control, they may very well loose their jobs as the cost of healthcare coupled with the overall benefit package makes the product they produce uncompetitive.
It is in the public sector that the problems still exist with regard to healthcare cost sharing.
Public sector employees are funded by taxpayers. Historically, property taxes are raised to provide additional funding for wages and benefits to those in public sector jobs. These jobs seem insulated from the reality most union and non-union private sector employees are faced with regarding healthcare costs.
Unfortunately, middle to lower middleclass people are generally thought of as Oshkosh residents. These are the people who pay Oshkosh property taxes.
Town of Algoma is where you'll find the middle to upper middleclass people residing. These township residents do not pay Oshkosh property taxes; the taxes that fund wages and benefits City employees.
If you look at some of the largest corporations in Wisconsin, you will find that in some cases, the healthcare plans provided to their employees are very often much weaker than those provided to pubic sector employees.
Taxpayers fund public sector employee wage and benefit packages.
Corporations and business owners fund private sector employees wage and benefit packages.
Taxpayers are not an un-ending source of funding. Public sector employees need to realize that in many cases throughout our State and Nation many workers can no longer afford healthcare coverage for their families…yet through property taxes and increased rent, they fund a very high percentage of public sector employee healthcare costs. In Oshkosh, that percentage is about 95%. Oshkosh property taxpayers pay about 95% of the entire cost, and the employee pays about 5%. Most private sector programs are in the 80%-20% range.
Furthermore, public sector employees assume that on top of these extremely favorable healthcare costs, they should continue to receive 2.5% - 3% wage increases.
If these were private sector jobs, corporations would simply shut the doors and move the business.
I applaud our City Council for the decision to take our wage and benefit package offer to arbitration. That stance is the first step to show that given the constraints of laws currently in-place, we recognize that we can not continue to pass these costs on to the property taxpayer without a fight.
This is not about bashing any employees. It is simply about the ability of Oshkosh taxpayers to afford the cost of services offered.
This is not personal; it is all about the costs of services rendered.
"The biggest portion of the contract is benefits."
Can you elaborate on this? I would think the biggest part would be the wages....I hope we're not paying more in fringe benefits than we are actual salary.
Sorry, I meant that it is usually the biggest Road Block to the contract.
As is the case with this one. The unions want a 3% increase each year to keep up with the rising cost of the insurance so that they don't have to fund any increases themselves.
You're funded by taxpayer money, Kent. Please tell us the raise you got this past year. What percentage was it?
My increase for 2007 was 1.81% and 2.83% for 2006. Health insurance only went up a few dollars a month but it is a low rate Consumer Driven Health Plan called Definity Health. The plan is designed to remain low cost with higher deductables. I chose it because I have a secondary plan provided by my Army Disability. The other health plan increases were from 10% to 60% (yes, that is 60%) over the last 2 years.
Don't think that because I am a Federal Employee that I have it made. Things are drastically changing throughout the DoD and Civil Service.
Like I said before... I get what I get. What good would it do to complain about it. My raise is decided each year by Congress. If they don't want to give, then I just have to make adjustments.
"State of Wisconsin employees took a 0% increase this year and have to pay a larger percentage for health insurance; in other words they took a pay cut in terms of take home. I do believe that all but one of the current Council received endorsements from AFSME. I'm not sure if there was any financing that went with that but typically that's the "deal". Any pay etc. increase should be consistent and a 2.25-2.75% nowadays is nothing to sneeze at! These arbitration proceedings will be costly and take up time, both of which could be used for pressing matters."
Kent,
Is the statement above incorrect?
No the statement is NOT correct.
Keep in mind that the State of Wisconsin is broken up into many different sections that will be negotiated independant of one another. There are dozens of unions and ALL of them received an increase.
Even the non-represented employees received at least 2%.
If there is any state employee didn't receive a raise, please let me know. Otherwise, I would say that they are full of it.
Which council person didn't recieve an endorsement from the unions?
I would say there are two people on this council that didn't recieve an endorsement. The two Conservatives: Dennis McHugh and Paul Esslinger.
They're the only ones with the BALLS to stand up for what's right.
7:02, You would be wrong! McHugh was a union member throughout his time working for our city even after he became a superviser. Esslinger has received several union endorsements when he has run for local elections. Conservatives seem to be able to court unions too. Even our web master is a union member.
Although McHugh was a longtime member of the union, he was not endorsed by them when he ran for council. Esslingers recent endorsements only came from the Fox Valley UAW not the Winnebago County Labor Council. It is extremely unlikely that those unions will back a conservative. They are looking for the rubber stamp approvals and gold plates to get into office. I was interviewed by them and quickly dismissed when I didn't buy into the high raises and continued health coverage. They didn't even want to hear my ideas of saving the taxpayer money while continuing the level of benefits.
I will add that those are the folks (public unions) that are GUARANTEED to vote. The UAW may show up for Presidential elections, but not so much for local elections. Winning or losing is not hinged on that endorsement. There are some that won without it and lost with it. But they do remain a large number of voters.
You are so correct Kent.
According to the City Manager, the 2006 cost to Oshkosh Taxpayers for employee healthcare insurance totals $6,599,146.08.
$6,599,146.08!!!! That's almost $11,000.00 per city employee! ON TOP of their already significant wage!
I am totally certain that when you commented "I was interviewed by them and quickly dismissed when I didn't buy into the high raises and continued health coverage." You were.
These people want to hear no options. They want no plan "B". All they want is taxpayers to cover the vast majority of their healthcare costs, and get nice raises on top of that.
These people are not looking out for the taxpayers best interest, it's all ME ME with them.
I'm so impressed that this council took the offers to arbitration. Finally this group had the balls to challenge to entitlement group that runs City government organized labor.
Guaranteed it is a tough battle because the entire 600+ city workers will go to the polls and elect people who will do things for their benefit. We need to change that. Voters need to be constantly reminded of this.
The answer is to start eliminating jobs and services. Maybe then they will get it
Well, I'm a union member that works in the real world and I'm getting sick and tired of having to pay for increases in city union workers. I'm all for union people making more, but we have to look at where these city union workers are.
They make VERY good money and get 95% of their insurance paid for them! I make $15,000-$20,000 less per year for a comperable job, work my butt off and have to pay 25% of my insurance and have a $2,000 deductable.
City union workers are giving the rest of the union base a bad name!
Every time I'm talking to people and they hear that I'm a union person they think that I make a lot of money. I tell them that I work in the private sector not the public sector.
Kent,
Your memory is no better than your reasoning. When Paul Esslinger ran for mayor the first time, he campaigned as the working-class hero versus the union-busting employer Bill Castel. This gained him several union endorsements including the fire fighters. When McHugh worked for the city, he took all those gold-plated benfits you complain about now. Dennis even kept his union protection after he moved into management. You enjoy better wages, health care and pension benefits as a federal employee than any comparable city worker. You seem less conservative than you are confused.
9:34, what jobs do you want eliminated? I said the before. Everyone makes the threats, but no one ponies up when it comes to the jobs, and therefore services, they want cut. Start listing them!
10:21 You are a union member as much as I am Tinkerbell. Just more city employee bashing on the Monte blog.
Anonymous 2:35,
I said RECENT. Not 2 years ago. Paul didn't receive the Labor Council endorsement when he ran for Mayor last year. Nor did he have it when he ran for council re-elect the year before. What endorsements he had 3 years ago is more or less irrelevant because of age. Either way, if what you say is true, they chose him as lesser of two evils.
As for the "city employee bashing" comments that keep surfacing. I don't have anything against the hard working individuals that work for our City. I have a problem with Greedy Union representation. The ones that go in with their hand out and aren't willing to negotiate are the ones that I have a problem with.
2.25% is a gift. When the City Manager first proposed the budget, he proposed a 1% increase. Yes, I said 1%. So anything more than that is a gift.
The city union folk are always seen with their palms to the sky.
As we've taken the negotiation to arbitration, I assume there must be a majority of council members who agree that the union position is unacceptable.
This is a step in the right direction of halting run-away costs for employee labor costs!
To have Oshkosh taxpayers fund employee healthcare insurance at 95% is insane. The total cost to the taxpayer in 2006 totaled $6,599,146.08. That is about $11,000.00 per city employee, JUST FOR HEATHCARE COVERAGE!
As the Northwestern suggested, it's all about affordability. City employee labor is becoming unaffordable to the Oshkosh property tax payer.
9:34, said, "what jobs do you want eliminated? I said the before. Everyone makes the threats, but no one ponies up when it comes to the jobs, and therefore services, they want cut. Start listing them!"
This is the odd thing. This person, (who likely is a city union employee) is eagerly willing to through his fellow union workers job "under the bus" no pun intended.
We often hear from the union about what positions do you want eliminated. They are so very quick to put that out there as a way of tackling this problem. They are quickly willing to sacrifice their union brothers jobs to save their own job. They do this and then call us "Union bashers"
We propose a far more friendly approach. No jobs lost, no city employees out of work. A far more friendly approach and certainly not bashing.
We propose that all city employees have a greater participation in healthcare cost sharing.
Currently we have employees paying 5% while we taxpayers fund 95%.
If city workers would contribute a more reasonable 20%, all jobs could be maintained. Furthermore, consistent and moderate wage increases would also be affordable.
You see, this is simply about affordability. As the Northwestern article suggested, Oshkosh taxpayers cannot continue to fund city employee labor at the current rate. The services they provide are becoming unaffordable.
I suggest we choose a far more city employee friendly approach and rather they eliminating jobs, have all existing employees participate more in cost sharing.
Kent,
Federal taxes take up 60% of public revenue while all local governments account for 20%. It follows that if I want to reduce my tax burden, I should focus on your wages and benfits along with that of the other 2.9 million employees of the federal government rather than city workers. Cut-and-paste guy could turn his attention to social security which takes almost 8% of my income.
I personally don't envy the compensation of any public employee and there are very few public services I would want to see cut or reduced in quality. 2.25% isn't a gift. It is less than inflation and not up to the cost of living. It is time for one government worker to stop bashing the others. You live in a glass house.
Anonymous 2:04,
You say I live in a glass house. I think I should educate you on what you are writing.
You say that the Federal Government should reduce costs. Sure, I could agree. However, we are at war so I really don't see that this is practical at this time.
Next, I need to tell you that our office is slotted to hold 20 personnel. We have 12. So even if we did reduce, it would be slots that are budgeted but not funded.
Third, I am a Manager, just promoted 2 months ago. I no longer would be on the "chopping block" with the lowest seniority. Therefore, I do not live in a glass house.
If there were to be cuts in my agency (which there are currently taking place) it is done in the form of attrition and offers of early retirement. Every once and a while they will force relocation on someone in order to balance staffing. Very seldom is someone fired or forced out because of mandatory cuts.
As I mentioned in the last paragraph, we are being reduced. Our CMO (based in Chicago) needs to be reduced by 18 personnel before the end of the fiscal year. They have offered early retirement without penalty to those that would like to go early. There is also a similar office to mine in Texas that houses 3 times the Quality staff for a contractor that produces half of the trucks that OTC does. We may see some of that staff get relocated to fill our 3 empty slots and allow us to perform our workload more efficiently. That will most likely take years, so we aren't holding our breath.
As for the 2.25%. Cry me a river. Did you miss the post that I mentioned the last TWO cost of living increases that were 1.8% and 2.8%? I thought so. Those weren't "keeping up with the cost of inflation" either. I doubt that the former contract (for the city employees) allowed for such low increases.
As for my wages, that is no secret. But if you want to know what it is, look it up. I make around $20,000 yearly less than my civilian counterpart. So I don't think that I am a drain on your pocketbook. But if you feel differently write to your Congress or Senate representative who make quite a bit more than me and are allowed to vote for their own raises.
Thanks for your input and allowing me to set the record straight. I would be happy to answer any other questions that you may have regarding Federal employment.
Have a nice day.
Kent, will you please voluntarily take a 5% gross pay cut. I would like that done in an effort to reduce my taxes. Please have some consideration for us hard working blue collar types that pay your salary. You are feeding at the trough of government and I think you need to push away from that gravy train. Have a nice day.
“Kent Monte said...
My increase for 2007 was 1.81% and 2.83% for 2006. Health insurance only went up a few dollars a month but it is a low rate Consumer Driven Health Plan called Definity Health. The plan is designed to remain low cost with higher deductables. I chose it because I have a secondary plan provided by my Army Disability. The other health plan increases were from 10% to 60% (yes, that is 60%) over the last 2 years.”
It sound to me as though the Federal Plan requires far more cost sharing than the Oshkosh City plan does. Oshkosh taxpayers fund 95% of healthcare costs for city employees. It appears that the plan Kent describes has a more balanced employee/taxpayer ratio.
In addition to that 95% taxpayer funded healthcare plan, SOME city employees also want 3% wage increases.(The Police Department settled for less already)
You are correct again. I pay 25% of my health insurance premiums.
I will add that the "SOME" employees that you mention may only be the ones that are representing the union. We don't know what the membership wants unless we hear from them directly.
What the workers want and what the union goes after is two entirely different things.
I don't think city employees are going to want to take anything less than the 3% they are after. Over and over and over again they hear 'do more...do more...do more.' Their workload continues to increase, and yet they are balked at when asking for money comesurate with the work they do, as compared to other cities that pay the same.
So your offer to save their jobs if they just make the concession isn't appealing. Again, I say, cut the positions you want cut. Don't ask them to take less than what other comparable city employees make. And be willing to accept service level changes, cause that would get your message across.
Kent, your blog has turned into a bashing contest between you and your other poster. Why not just get on the phone with each other and bash away? You are the recipient of the negotiations done on your behalf and you appear too ignorant to recognize that. Enjoy feeding at the government trough as you bash other government employees. You certainly must be filled with much hate.
Anonymous 7:41: I would be happy to allow you a comparison of other communities and adjust the wages as necessary to mirror them. I think you will be surprised what you find. I recall a discussion on bus drivers a while back that had our drivers making $5/hour more than most of our neighboring communities. I would imagine that there are a few of the jobs that would pay more and I would accept that. Also, you shouldn't use Sheboygan. They are currently in financial trouble and are looking at fees to balance their budget because they gave away too much. As for the "do more" arguement, it doesn't hold water either. Unions cover that base in the contract and limit the amount of "additional" work that is allowed without compensation. If you think that they are forced to do more without pay, your out of your mind. It is nice to know that you are so concerned about city employees without being one yourself. Ironic that your opinion was different in the past. You sure would have thought that 3% was too much a couple of years ago. Now you think that 2.25% isn't enough.
Anonymous 8:38: I don't see the bashing that you do. Obviously you are taking this personally. This is not personal. It is a civil discussion and it seems that I am taking the biggest beating. I am a public employee and I accept a certain level of criticism regarding my compensation package. BUT make no mistake, it also allows for comparison between my pay/benefits and those that the city gets. Currently, there is no comparison. They, by far, have a better package than most Federal Employees. Perhaps the playing field should be leveled and we wouldn't need to have these discussions. Even better yet, the unions should allow for communication and agreement so that when one union agrees to a new contract, the others couldn't ask for more. It isn't fair to those that did theirs in a timely manner.
I know some firefighters. I also know several police officers. I have told them that I wouldn't want their jobs for DOUBLE what they make. It is a dangerous and mostly thankless job. I think they deserve more, that has never been questioned. It is a matter of being able to PAY more that the city is faced with.
And as a comparison... a poster pointed out earlier that the police officers came to an agreement already and I think that the city should remain consistant with all the contracts and not give favor to one union or another.
7:41-So you'd rather have some of your fellow city workers fired rather than have all city employees share more than the current 5% they pay for health insurance?
Seems your the heartless one posting on these blogs to me.
I'm a taxpayer and I understand how important keeping a job is. I'd rather sacrifice some and keep all my fellow workers employed.
After all, I doubt many if any companies at all in the Oshkosh area pay 95% of their employees health insurance.
Seems like a wonderful compromise to have the employee share more of the cost and maintain all the jobs. That is a much more employee friendly approach!
Kent, you can wish and wish all you want but try establishing yourself in reality. All the unions operate separately and your wishing will not change anything. Will you please take that wage cut to help us poor taxpayers? I am beginning to wonder if this is just a matter of you being jealous of some life choices and now want to drag others down with you.
If the city should hold true to each union, and only offer one package for each city employee group, then there should only be one union in the city, shouldn't there? Try to get city employees to agree to that!
The 'do more' argument most certainly is pertinent in this case. That's what bargaining a contract is for! Unions use increased workload as a footing to try to get more money. I know one city union leader said different, but I believe most unions use their workload as leverage for justifying wage increases. Cost of living plays into it, but it isn't the driving force.
Lastly, Kent, I think you're missing the point. City workers aren't going to make concessions. They just aren't. So to control costs, it's time for the city to cut services. The city council is going to be faced with personnel (and service) cuts come November. Wollangk even indicated so. So we, as citizens, need to form arguments for what should stay and what should go. (May I remind you Wollangk opined police and fire should not be immune from the chopping block this time around....scary, isn't it?)
Kent,
My heart bleads after reading all the trials and tribulations of a federal government superviser. Now I understand why you deserve a 2%+ pay increase over two years while our police and firemen who put their lives on the line for us every day should accept a gift of 1%. The same goes for those greedy city employees who pick up our trash, drive the buses, clean the streets, etc. Say hello to everyone at the water cooler, push those files, avoid paper cuts and don't spend all your money in one place.
Kent,
Did you ever notice clear thinking people like you tend not to bash anyone, yet we get accused of bashing city employees at each and every turn...however the people that accuse us of "bashing" are really the only bashers posting on the blogs.
As you clearly pointed out:
Federal Government employees pay 25% of their healthcare costs.
City Government employees pay 5% of their healthcare costs
This compensation topic was supported by a story the Northwestern recently ran; an editiorial discussing the affordability of labor in Oshkosh.
A quote from that article:
“Frugal cities like Oshkosh get a colder shoulder than others when the state legislature freezes their revenues yet allows all-powerful arbitrators to break deadlocks over public contracts negotiations with little to no consideration whether or not employer-cities can afford unions' demands.”
"...little to no consideration whether or not employer-cities can afford unions' demands.”
This is the crux of the problem. Can Oshkosh continue to afford the cost of city employee labor?
Can Oshkosh afford to continue paying 95% of employee heathcare cost? According to the City Manager, the 2006 cost to Oshkosh Taxpayers for employee healthcare insurance totals $6,599,146.08!
On top of all that, can Oshkosh afford to provide 3% wage increases to city employees?
These are all real questions, and questions that affect each and every property taxpayer or rent payer in Oshkosh.
11:43, why don't you use your clear thinking to do something more useful than constantly repeating your tired ideas while trashing city employees?
If you are really concerned about health care equity you could use your time to promote the state senate's Healthy Wisconsin plan. Healthy Wisconsin would create 13,000 new jobs and $1 billion in new business activity in addtion to covering all state residents. The plan will provide all businesses and their employees with the healthcare coverage they need at a cost for many companies below what they are paying now for healthcare insurance. The plan promises to make Wisconsin businesses more competitive and ultimately make Wisconsin an attractive place to do business.
So, there you are! Go cut and paste away.
Most city employees are represented by one of many unions.
-Oshkosh Professional Police Officers Association.
-Oshkosh Fire Department Chief Officers.
-Oshkosh Clerical,Paraprofessional Union Local 796-B, AFL-CIO
-Oshkosh City Employee Union Local 796, AFSCME, AFL-CIO
…just to name a few.
3:56, as a union leader I'm certain you know this, but others might not.
Our city budget for the 2007 calendar year is about $60,000,000.00. Of that sum, we see the city administration justify about 13% of it during the workshop sessions. That 13% 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. 87% of the entire budget covers wages and benefits. That 87% equates to about $52,000,000.00.
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%.
Heathcare in the nation needs overhaul.
Lets start at home! Lets promote a greater percentage of cost sharing between our city employees and our city property tax payers.
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.
1:17 AMEN
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.
Independent Thoughts has observed that the popular local discussion board Questioning Everything, Always has closed shop. This is a pity because QEA often had very lengthy discussions on local matters involving a variety of people. So to fill the void, I've decided to attempt on a trial basis to offer the same service here at the Chief.
Here's how it'll work:
I'll maintain a link just below The Chief's header that will lead readers to a discussion area pertaining to a pertinent local issue. Readers and potential commentators won't have to scroll down or anything -- the link will be located just the right of the main blog thread and will always be the first item displayed on the "sidebar." The topic will change as circumstances dictate, meaning according to news events or the rhythm of the conversation.
Suggestions for improvement will always welcome. Please use the comment section of this post to make any recommendations. The most pressing issue right now is a name. What should this little forum be called? I'd like to think that the collective brain power of the Oshkosh online community can come up with something better than OshKonversation.
At the moment I have very few plans to "edit" the conversation thread on a regular basis. I may skim over the dialog from time to time, but this will be on no fixed interval. So everyone's on their own. It's just not something I enjoy doing. Plus, I'm kind of interested in seeing what a "Lord of the Flies" internet atmosphere looks like. All of this will change if the discussion becomes abusive. I do not mind filthy language, so long as it is not directed at specific individuals (fellow commentators or otherwise). Racist and/or bigoted language will not be tolerated. Again, I do not plan on monitoring the discussion religiously so I will hope users will maintain a sense of decorum and etiquette.
This will be an experiment. We'll see how it works.
You can find out more here.
Yipeeeeeee, another useless blog starting up. Probably Cheryl disguising herself with another blog.
Lets call the new blog "same as the old blog"
No, it isn't Cheryl. But it is someone who posts regularly on her site (at least used to before the traffic decreased).
It is another blog along the same lines as questioning. It will be the same point of view and politics. The only difference is that it requires log in to post.
I don't think I will recommend this new site. I certainly will not put a link on mine. I allowed the first one just to give it a chance with the link that they posted above.
Post a Comment