Dysfunction Junction
Twice in the last five days city emergency crews have been out on River Mill Road working in the dark to repair underground utilities. Their appearance, which I hadn't seen at all in the previous 10 years, comes a few weeks after city workers dug up parts of many lawns while "upgrading" water valves in preparation for the unwanted sidewalks that we will soon be getting.
I guess it could just be a coincidence that the emergency repairs were required after the city set out to make some improvements. But I can't help but see these incidents as emblematic of how our local government operates--and a warning that it's always possible to make a bad situation worse.
Consider the Common Council and its deliberations of what to do about the city manager. A former mayor, the Northwestern and numerous individuals have already registered their amazement about how things have unfolded, with a duly elected Council member, Bryan Bain, disqualified somehow from taking part. What in the world is going on?
Well one theory holds that City Attorney Warren Kraft has rigged the process in favor of his boss the city manager by recommending a lawyer who would find a way to derail any effort to get rid of Richard Wollangk.
Another theory, or part of the same theory referenced above, is that one or more Council members are having second thoughts about the wisdom of firing the city manager. Whatever his deficiencies, he has done what he was told to do. It's really the fault of this and previous Councils for not doing a better job of articulating what he needs to do and making him do it.
The city staffers who have drawn the ire of Council members are some of the department heads. If Wollangk were to agree to dump a couple of them, then he might garner enough support to hang on. (With Bain out of the voting picture for the moment, a tie vote is a likely outcome, and that would keep Wollangk in his post.)
There aren't good alternatives here. Give Wollangk his walking papers, and watch city initiatives and planning grind to a halt just in time for budget season. A national search for a successor (and nasty arguments about paying more money to attract a more dynamic personality) would waste some more time and help keep redevelopment efforts from moving ahead.
Or the Council could take a deep breath and emerge from its secret sessions to announce that the city doesn't need new faces at City Hall, just new attitudes. (From the recent sidewalk discussion, we know that a majority of Council members has the ability to keep straight faces while talking nonsense out of both sides of their mouths. So don't doubt that this could happen.)
Clearly what the Common Council needs to do next is ... change the subject. Maybe it could identify some more streets without sidewalks and make that the focus of attention.
Is a new form of government needed, maybe an elected mayor with veto power or one who presides over a group of alderpersons elected ward by ward? I don't really think so.
What needs to happen is that the city has to find a way to enlarge its tax base. Plain and simple. Everything else is just a distraction.
It ain't sidewalks. It ain't smoking. It's taxing cottonwood trees (only kidding).
Granted--enlarging the tax base isn't a trivial task. If it were easy to do, it would have already been done.
But appointing an economic development commission or hiring a new city manager and offloading the task to someone else won't work either.
The Council was elected to provide the city with leadership. A first step is to define clearly the desired outcome, and the second step is to establish benchmarks and intermediate goals. The third step is to start working in that direction.
Time's a-wasting, here in Dysfunction Junction.
I guess it could just be a coincidence that the emergency repairs were required after the city set out to make some improvements. But I can't help but see these incidents as emblematic of how our local government operates--and a warning that it's always possible to make a bad situation worse.
Consider the Common Council and its deliberations of what to do about the city manager. A former mayor, the Northwestern and numerous individuals have already registered their amazement about how things have unfolded, with a duly elected Council member, Bryan Bain, disqualified somehow from taking part. What in the world is going on?
Well one theory holds that City Attorney Warren Kraft has rigged the process in favor of his boss the city manager by recommending a lawyer who would find a way to derail any effort to get rid of Richard Wollangk.
Another theory, or part of the same theory referenced above, is that one or more Council members are having second thoughts about the wisdom of firing the city manager. Whatever his deficiencies, he has done what he was told to do. It's really the fault of this and previous Councils for not doing a better job of articulating what he needs to do and making him do it.
The city staffers who have drawn the ire of Council members are some of the department heads. If Wollangk were to agree to dump a couple of them, then he might garner enough support to hang on. (With Bain out of the voting picture for the moment, a tie vote is a likely outcome, and that would keep Wollangk in his post.)
There aren't good alternatives here. Give Wollangk his walking papers, and watch city initiatives and planning grind to a halt just in time for budget season. A national search for a successor (and nasty arguments about paying more money to attract a more dynamic personality) would waste some more time and help keep redevelopment efforts from moving ahead.
Or the Council could take a deep breath and emerge from its secret sessions to announce that the city doesn't need new faces at City Hall, just new attitudes. (From the recent sidewalk discussion, we know that a majority of Council members has the ability to keep straight faces while talking nonsense out of both sides of their mouths. So don't doubt that this could happen.)
Clearly what the Common Council needs to do next is ... change the subject. Maybe it could identify some more streets without sidewalks and make that the focus of attention.
Is a new form of government needed, maybe an elected mayor with veto power or one who presides over a group of alderpersons elected ward by ward? I don't really think so.
What needs to happen is that the city has to find a way to enlarge its tax base. Plain and simple. Everything else is just a distraction.
It ain't sidewalks. It ain't smoking. It's taxing cottonwood trees (only kidding).
Granted--enlarging the tax base isn't a trivial task. If it were easy to do, it would have already been done.
But appointing an economic development commission or hiring a new city manager and offloading the task to someone else won't work either.
The Council was elected to provide the city with leadership. A first step is to define clearly the desired outcome, and the second step is to establish benchmarks and intermediate goals. The third step is to start working in that direction.
Time's a-wasting, here in Dysfunction Junction.
posted by Miles Maguire at 9:45 AM
139 Comments:
Sadly, I have to agree and am not very optimistic about the possibility of the city's attention refocusing on the real issues at hand. The nuances of redevelopment are ungodly divisive in this town. A successful redevelopment project in this city will mean that someone -- be they from town or elsewhere -- will make some money and there seems to be no greater sin in Oshkosh public life than success.
These distractions are far easier narratives to wrap people's minds around. It has a villain, it has a martyr, it has what appears to be a clear cut injustice -- and it means we don't have to look at many of the harsh economic realities that are only compounded each day that the city chooses to stand idly.
Part of this problem has been the "if you build it, they will come' strategy that hasn't gotten us anywhere (see 100 N. Main -- sure, the apts. are mostly rented, but the street level retail space is as empty as the day it opened). What we should seriously consider doing is begin aggressively courting growing businesses from out of town and/or state that are looking to expand, selling the city to them based on what their needs are, and then teaming up with developers to accommodate those needs in exchange for a long term commitment to the city.
That will be a difficult process that not everyone will be able to participate in -- it will actually take expertise rather than self-righteous indignation, something there seems to be no end of in town right now. It will also require that the public invest a good deal of trust in the people chosen to carry this mission out, something that is not likely to happen given the current squabbling.
We're not just loosing time debate things of a lesser priority, we're also actively weakening the council's or the (next) manager's ability to do anything. If we could have a legitimate conversation about what the role of the city manager should be in the future -- that would be productive. But that's not what's happening here and it's truthfully embarrassing.
Miles - you simply are filled with hate because Paul Esslinger listened to an average citizen living in a modest neighborhood who asked him to look into why modest neighborhoods were required to have sidewalks, but wealthy neighborhoods somehow could circumvent the system.
I'd say Paul was doing the right thing...and so did Frank, Dennis and Tony. It took 4 votes.
You are really in rage of Frank because you never thought he would vote that way...but he did! Frank is showing he has the kahones to do this job. No special interests for him. He and Paul even voted the same on the smoking question. It failed 5-2, but Frank voted with Paul even though it wasn't the way the entitled folks would want him to cast his vote. We have a great council!!
Go ahead and continue to whine. Your walks will be installed soon!
BTW...I'm thinking Frank will be the key vote on the Manager issue also. I think just as he joined Dennis, Tony and Paul on the sidewalks, he will also join them on a vote to oust Wollangk. Frank is gaining GREAT respect from the average base of Oshkosh taxpayers. Didn't think I'd be saying that, but his voting record really tells the tale!!
Hopefully Bryan can be brought back into the fold and make it a 5-2 vote. We all know how King and B. Tower will vote. They seem to now be in the minority.
If you think Tony is going to vote to get rid of the city manager, you may want to consider his statement on a recent appearance on "Eye on Oshkosh" where he said he was willing to give Richard another chance.
Does not sound to me like he is ready to vote to oust Wollangk. I do not think he wants to be accountable for that vote.
Without haven't heard Palmerii's comment on "Eye on Oshkosh" myself, let me hope that he did not mean that he was willing to give the city manager another chance based on his performance while Palmeri has been on the council. That has only been a couple of month's; and, frankly, if the manager got a second chance from every new council member that was elected he would actually be racking dozens of "second" chances.
Again, just going on what 9:52 is saying, Palmeri must base his decision on the manager's job performance throughout his entire tenure, not just what has occurred since Palmeri took his seat on the council. Otherwise nothing would ever get done.
Maybe Tony said what he did (if what 9:52 says is true) because he didn't want to publicly slam Dick and end up like Bryan. Smart move Tony!
Could be, but then does that statement make him biased so he should be removed from deliberations just like Brian? He did state he was willing to give Wollangk another chance.
Sounds like he has already made up his mind. According to the attorney, that would make him biased wouldn't it? He should probably leave the meetings also.
I thought about the possibility of a head fake from Palmeri, 12:16, and if it were from any other person I would think that would be the case. But Palmeri's best attribute as a public official is his genuineness. I never get the impression that he doesn't believe what he's saying -- no matter how wrong I think he may be.
Like I said earlier, I didn't catch the "Eye on Oshkosh" segment, so I can't make a good informed opinion on what was said; but I'd much rather have Palmeri be wrong than to start having to parse his words.
Are you sure it does not take 5 votes to remove the city manager. I believe it is a percentage of the council and not the simple majority.
I believe it is 2/3 of the council.
Want to change the subject?
How about questioning whether the city is going to pursue the personal guarantees on the 100 Main Street TIF?
jb I completely agree with your 1:16 comment. As far as the part of: ". . . What we should seriously consider doing is begin aggressively courting growing businesses from out of town . . ." you were right on!!!! We cannot count on current Oshkosh businesses to expand rapidly enough to do the job especially in light of some apparently not wanting to do business (See http://independent--thoughts.blogspot.com/2007/08/oshkosh-area-businesses-need-to-help.html). I hope we can start courting other businesses and grow Oshkosh.
We do aggressively court business. And so does every other community in the U.S.! Take a look at our city government and OASD. Both are in dissaray. Why would a business want to take a chance on Oshkosh? There is alot of competition out there. What do we have to offer that others do not?
I have to disagree with the ‘aggressive’ part of your assessment, 9:21.
Yes, there are attempts to court businesses, like the New North, but this is a regional effort and a passive one at that. It’s a step in the right direction, but – let’s face it – it’s going to take more than a fancy brochure and web site to get people to think about starting up a business here.
Two things need to happen in Oshkosh that to my knowledge are not currently happening. The first is that we need actually start aggressively courting existing businesses. And this is what I mean by that:
There needs to be someone – in my estimation this should be one of the jobs of the city manager – who conducts extensive research on growing businesses nationwide with an eye to their growth potential and the possibility of the company being a good fit in the community. Once a few prospects are identified someone then approaches the company – and I mean literally cold calling them if necessary – and says, “Hey, we’ve noticed you’re looking to expand … why not expand here in Oshkosh?” Then begin a negotiation with an aim to bringing them here, making accommodations to expedite their move here in return for a long term commitment to the community.
This will undoubtedly be a long, labor-intensive process that will require someone with a skill set that includes development, business, shameless cheerleading and schmoozing. We’re going to need someone who can sell ice to Eskimos, and if one person can’t do it all by him or her self, then it should become a team effort by various leaders of the community. (Each sales pitch will be different, of course, depending on the business, but I’d imagine a common theme would be pointing out that Oshkosh is home to the third largest public university in the state, where between 1000-2000 young, skilled kids graduate every year.)
This person should literally get on a plane and meet with the company, get to know the important people in the leadership and then coax them into visiting town. He or she should give them a tour of the city, the schools, take them to dinner, play golf with them – the whole nine yards. They should leave Oshkosh thinking this place is paradise.
I’ve never heard of that being done. And if it has been done or is currently being done, the results aren’t impressive.
The second point I think the more difficult of the two. This would be developing home-grown businesses. The largest employers in the city of Oshkosh tend to be manufacturers who make things for people all over the nation/world. After these guys business mostly offer goods and services to people here in town or in the area. We need to find people who want to run a 21st century business that caters to the world from Oshkosh. I mean biotech, financial services (think Wausau Insurance), computer programming, etc. This won’t be easy either, but it’ll be critical to fostering an environment that encourages economic growth. There are some things being done in this regard right now, but more can be done.
Of course we’re competing with other cities and those guys have plenty to offer too, you don’t dwell on the negatives when you’re trying to sell something. City government maybe a mess right now, but it will resolve itself one way or another within the election cycle. We need to think strategically. If city government is uncomfortable, unwilling, or unable to be a part of this process voters should not elect them to leadership positions.
So- jb are you going to run for council or apply for the city manager position should it become open? (I say this in all seriousness). You seem to have a real handle on what this town needs and it sure needs someone who knows what is needed to lead it.
I totally agree with JB. The fact is we are not getting the bang for our buck from the City Manager or his Staff. They seem to be coasting and trying to fly under the radar until retirement.
Oshkosh deserves better. We lag far behind our neighbors to the North and South.
Lets clean house at City Hall and get a real LEADER as City Manager.
I’m flattered at the suggestion, Q., but at the end of the day I think I'm just too introverted to be able to do either job successfully according to the standards that I’ve laid out for the position. There’s simply not enough P.T. Barnum in me to pull that off.
This will become especially important given the additional problems the council and manager will face in the not so distant future. The sandwich board-wearing doomsday crier in me tends to think that there will likely be a recession sometime in the next 18 months. This is in no way the fault of the city leadership, but it will mean a whole new ball game that they will have to contend with. If a recession does happen development in Oshkosh will become exponentially more difficult to accomplish – fewer businesses will be likely to expand or start, and securing the financing for new building projects will also be a pain.
That means there could be the potential that several riverside development projects, including the Marion-Pearl Street district and the Pioneer Inn area, could lay undeveloped for several years to come. That would not be good for city tax revenues, job creation and economic growth in Oshkosh. I would much rather be wrong about this prediction, of course, but all this means that it would be wise for the leadership to start preparing for a rough future.
I actually think they’re capable of that – at least individually. Right now I think there’s a lot of talent and potential on the common council. Each of the members really does embody a certain sliver of the city to an extent. That’s a great thing so far as representation is concerned, but it has its draw backs – and one of those is occurring right now. I get the distinct feeling that a few of the members of the council believe they were elected for one reason or another and now they have to deliver to their constituency.
That’s fine. I’m entirely cool with that. I understand a bit how politics works … but there’s a time and a place for everything. Right now, I think the council is extremely unfocused – if Oshkosh is a cart then there a seven different horses trying to pull it in seven different directions. What I think needs to be made perfectly clear – and in no uncertain terms – is that development is this city’s number one priority and all other issues will have to take a backseat for the moment.
This doesn’t mean day-to-day council work has to grind to a screeching halt – liquor licenses and zoning variances can still be approved as they arrive at the attention of the council.
But a lot of other issues are dependent on what the development areas turn out to look like. For example, I don’t think we can honestly expect to see a comprehensive school district realignment plan until we know if the redevelopment areas will be residential or commercial. If the former, who will be living there: more students and young, single folks without kids, or starter homes for young families or someone else? If it’s commercial property, what kind of jobs will people be working there – high-paying, career track employment or something else? And regardless of what the answer to that is where will these people be living – close to work, or will they be commuting in from Winneconne et al.? Without answers to these and dozens of other related questions, I wouldn’t expect an adequate long-term solution to the redistricting problem any time soon.
The city’s leadership doesn’t necessarily need another person in their midst to start beating this drum – but they desperately need to start hearing this drum being beaten from the voters themselves. When the rhythm gets loud enough, someone will stand up to the occasion, be they a long-standing member of the leadership or someone new.
A lot of times in politics – and especially in Oshkosh – people will look at an elected body like the common council, find the one person on it who they think most resembles themselves and then stay almost slavishly devoted to that one person. Everyone does this at some time or another – I’ve been just as guilty of it, too, but the result is that that voters do more heavy lifting for their adopted official than the official does for them – and that, my friends, is not the way it should be.
So why not try it the other way around, for once? If the din of people saying we need redevelopment in this city is loud enough, you will see action.
So here’s my proposal – mostly outlined in the previous posts above and elsewhere. If you like it, then run with it – tell a neighbor, tell a friend, go forth and preach the gospel that unless this city makes a genuine commitment to redevelop itself, it risks long-term economic, social, and cultural stagnation.
If you need to hear more – just turn the Bat Signal on – I’d be more than happy to carry on.
If you’re in a position to do something about it (and I have a feeling our elected officials probably do a bit more blog reading than they’d like to admit), it’s yours. Make it your own. Go nuts. I 'm much more interested in seeing something get done than seeing what it's like to do your job.
JB,
I'm interested in your prediction-
"This will become especially important given the additional problems the council and manager will face in the not so distant future. The sandwich board-wearing doomsday crier in me tends to think that there will likely be a recession sometime in the next 18 months. This is in no way the fault of the city leadership, but it will mean a whole new ball game that they will have to contend with. If a recession does happen development in Oshkosh will become exponentially more difficult to accomplish – fewer businesses will be likely to expand or start, and securing the financing for new building projects will also be a pain."
Can you please expand on the recession you mention will occur in the next 18 months? I'd like to hear a little more of what your thoughts are regarding that.
Thanks in advance.
Let me first say that I’m probably in the minority opinion on this one (for what it’s worth), but the Cliff’s Notes version of this song and dance is that volatility in the housing and money markets will make the lives of people who live and die on credit or loans very difficult. That’s everyone from the private equity firm manager who needs to borrow tens of millions of dollars to buyout a company to the guy who uses one credit card to pay off another. It’ll be something of a credit reckoning that will force people and businesses to reassess just what kind of financial footing they stand on and I’m afraid that’s not something a lot of folks are ready to do and will likely result in a decrease in domestic consumer spending, a lot of which has been based on some form of borrowing of late.
Most people would say that any expectations of a recession are indicative of a Malthusian pessimism, that the market will “correct” itself soon enough. They could be right. But there hasn’t been a recession since the early 1990s (some people don’t count the economic discord that followed the dot com fizzle and 9/11 as a “real” recession) and there are those who would argue that we’re due.
The reason the “we’re due” line of thinking strikes me as a little more substantial than it may seem at first is that for about 20 years now the financial services sector has been developing or increasingly utilizing new institutions and methods that have made a lot of money for a lot of people. Some of these methods, like sub-prime loans, have turned out to be not as stable as they probably looked on paper not long ago – and I’d be willing to wager that there are a few other schemes out there that we just haven’t heard of yet that will suffer a similar fate.
Maybe this all happens … maybe it doesn’t, but one of the things I was hinting at, which I suppose I should just come out and say, is that if the city decides to put someone in charge of aggressively reaching out to out-of-town interests, this person will have a very difficult time ahead of them, so it would probably be a wise investment of time and resources to find a sort of “business ambassador” with the capability and motivation to get the job done correctly, even under harsher than normal economic circumstances.
Hope that helps.
8:35 -- if you're still interested, I'll putting together a sort of "mix tape" of economic news on (what I hope will be) a daily basis for the next we weeks at my own blog -- prepare for shameless self-promotion:
http://foxtrot-echo.blogspot.com
The idea of a possible recession has actually been something of an intellectual curiosity that's captured much of my attention of late and I've doing a lot of reading on the topic, so I may as well share it with anyone who is interested or who can add additional insight
I'm not going to try to synthesize anything or add additional commentary, just pass info ad opinions along.
Congratulations to all 7 council members for unanimously agreeing to drive the change at City Hall. By your actions today, you’ve set the tone for progressive change to our City government. You have made it clear, in no uncertain terms; City Hall will not be conducting “business as usual”.
Your next task will be to select the next Oshkosh City Manager. Although no one disagrees that Mr. Wollangk was not deeply committed to Oshkosh, many would agree his leadership and managerial style was not in the best interests of the taxpayer. We now hope you approach Mr. Wollangks replacement in a systematic approach, and attempt to identify a strong willed, proven city planner and leader who will be able to take the change you’ve started this evening and drive it throughout the entire city administration.
Although it was undoubtedly a difficult task, you’ve all served your City well today.
I think Frank Tower is doing a fantastic job in his role of Mayor. First he was the final vote to fix a discrepancy in how sidewalks are installed. Now he as the Mayor is pushing to make a change in city hall and the way it runs. Many people say Wollank was put in his job by the good ol boys network. Well I think the good old boys thought they had a lap dog with Frank Tower, but he’s showing they don’t! Way to go Frank. You rate really high marks in my book.
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.
Furthermore, all city workers should read this article, and then on this Labor Day weekend, be glad for what they have and be more sensitive to the fact that “Big Corporations” aren’t paying their wages and benefits, mostly blue collar Oshkosh (not Town of Algoma) taxpayers are!
http://www.postcrescent.com/
apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/
20070902/APC03/709020540/1888
4:50 I see you have been posting the same garbage on multiple sites. One has already deleted it because it was not on topic. Get some mental health help.
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.
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!
9:12 Copy and Paste Dude is back!!!!!
11:25 - Try bettering yourself through education, then get a job, then you will be able to "afford" healthcare.
11:25 AM - The comments of a likely city employee upset that people want to have a dialog about the benefit package we the taxpayers fund.
Truth is, if he is a city employee, he doesn't need to worry about affording a wonderful healthcare plan because WE the property tax payers pay it for him!
Mr. Omachinski has been heralded as an executive just doing his job. A job, which required him to choose between company profitability and local jobs. The free market system could no longer support the cost of goods created by Oshkosh B'Gosh local labor. Manufacturing was moved offshore so the corporation could compete.
We can't offshore services provided by city employees. But the resulting escalating expectations of labor towards those that pay them would never fly in a corporate setting.
Just as corporations can't continue to compete with sky-rocketing labor costs, taxpayers can't continue to fund things like 95% healthcare coverage for city labor when they themselves are unable to afford healthcare for their own families.
Those, the city workers that are in the position to receive these benefits seem to want to stifle this discussion. They want these benefits to fly under the radar screen of the average taxpayer.
Article such as
http://www.thenorthwestern.com/apps/
pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070903/
OSH06/709030375/1189
Bring to focus the healthcare crisis is America, and furthermore focus on how the working - middleclass taxpayer is hurting.
11:25 sounds like a miserable person that did not get the education he should have when he should have and now blames others for his lot in life. He certainly has an axe to grind with the City of Oshkosh employees. I wonder how long it will be before he brings back his favorite saying . . . "gold plated benefits"! Sad excuse for a human being.
9:48 says:
“11:25 sounds like a miserable person that did not get the education he should have when he should have and now blames others for his lot in life. He certainly has an axe to grind with the City of Oshkosh employees. I wonder how long it will be before he brings back his favorite saying…”gold plated benefits”! Sad excuse for a human being.”
Well 9:48, I’d like you to take a moment of you time to read another excellent article published in the Northwestern today. Please read:
http://www.thenorthwestern.com/
apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/
20070904/OSH06/709040368/1189
Some specific comments in that article you should pay attention to as you call me a “Sad excuse for a human being.”
Your attempt to belittle people with a differing opinion from yours seems to fit this comment from the article:
“They oppose consideration of different points of view, leave no room for discussion and discourage people from voicing disagreements with their conclusions.”
Another comment from that article seems to fit your profile:
"Unless you agree with us, your voice doesn't matter."
I have no axe to grind with City Employees.
My problem is with a benefit package that provides city taxpayer funded healthcare benefits. The ratio of 95% paid by the property taxpayer and 5% paid by the city employee is simply not in line with other average middleclass Oshkosh taxpayers plans.
Something needs to be done to curb this. Rising healthcare costs are a primary concern for all Americans.
Many Oshkosh taxpayers can not afford healthcare for their own families, yet through their property taxes, they fund 95% if city employee coverage. To any common sense human being this is and obvious inequity.
I certainly applaud our City Council for their stand in contract negotiations. I am pleased to see that after many attempts for compromise, when faced with an unreasonable demand, the Council did not flinch and chose arbitration. This may be the first step in setting a new course for managing the run-away healthcare costs born by the property tax payer.
Furthermore, I expect that a new Manager or Strong Mayor may pay much more attention to this one extremely costly part of the overall city budget.
7:05 I see your blog hijacking skills are strong again today. Copy and Pasting is so boring. Time for me to go to work. You just keep bashing those city employees while you sit at home today . . . collecting benefits! By the way, who is paying for those benefits? Oh ya, ME!
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 unions 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.
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.
8:07 Why do you insist on Copying and Pasting? Is someone paying you by the word? You go blog to blog in an attempt to bash city employees, and then play the victim when other posters have had enough of your nastiness. Be nice, enjoy the city services you receive, and stop stabbing city employees in the back every chance you get.
This is not at all about bashing any employees. Most of them are very hard workers. And...most tax payers are also hard workers.
The reason you see similar comments posted on various sites is simply the word of this needs to get out among a wide segment of the Oshkosh population.
We can't let this fly under the radar screen as it really affects so very many people...really everyone in Oshkosh who pays property tax or rent.
The entire issue is simply about the ability of Oshkosh taxpayers to afford the cost of services offered.
Have the services offered by city employees become too costly for Oshkosh taxpayers to afford? Can taxpayers afford to provide 3% wage increases on top of funding 95% of employees healthcare?
What will become of the arbitration now in progress?
Will the results of the arbitration ruling effect the relation between the police union and others?
Will our new City Manager or "Strong" Mayor have any influence, one way or another on these costs?
What tack will our new city executive take? Hard line or let sleeping dogs lie?
All interesting and yet unanswered questions.
Can't let it fly under the radar???? Give me a break. It's been in the news and yo've made certain to plaster it everywhere -- on any blog that will allow your repetitive drivel. perhaps you're more upset that more taxpayers aren't pounding their fists and screaming at the top of their lungs like you are. If you're so concerned about this, go to a council meeting and express your complaints face to face to the council. I suspect you don't want to do that because we'll see who you really are and your jig will be up. Better yet, contact reps in Madison. They're the ones who make the laws you're also frustrated with.
Heres and interesting statistic for you:
According to the City Manager, the 2006 cost to Oshkosh Taxpayers for employee healthcare insurance totals $6,599,146.08.
That is JUST the cost to us property taxpayers for city employee HEALTHCARE COVERAGE.
I can see why people like 3:20 don't want this type of info to get out. They want to somehow dismiss this huge sum of money as if it were unimportant.
I'm simply outraged at the cost to all of us taxpayers.
As the Northwestern said today:
"Can the city of Oshkosh truly afford the 3 percent annual hikes those five labor unions seek?
Doesn't really matter, according to current mediation and arbitration rules. The arbitrator will decide. Budget freezes and affordability really aren't factors.
That has to change."
That has to change.
3:20 said:
"...go to a council meeting and express your complaints face to face to the council. I suspect you don't want to do that because we'll see who you really are and your jig will be up."
"we'll see who you really are"
That almost sounds like some kind of threat. But then again threating is not uncommon for some greaseball union people I guess. Your type give labor unions a bad name.
The Northwestern’s Editorial this morning stated:
“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.”
http://www.thenorthwestern.com/
apps/pbcs.dll/articleID=/
20070907/OSH06/709070414/1189
This is exactly what needs to be fought for. AFFORDABILITY.
This is not at all about bashing any employees. Most of them are very hard workers. And...most tax payers are also hard workers.
We can't let this fly under the radar screen as it really affects so very many people...really everyone in Oshkosh who pays property tax or rent.
The entire issue is simply about the ability of Oshkosh taxpayers to afford the cost of services offered.
Have the services offered by city employees become too costly for Oshkosh taxpayers to afford? Can taxpayers afford to provide 3% wage increases on top of funding 95% of employees healthcare?
What will become of the arbitration now in progress?
We need to take back control of negotiations. Property taxpayers are not an endless trough of money to be tapped into at each and every contract renewal period.
I personally thank the Oshkosh Common Council for not simply rubber stamping contract approval and taking this issue to arbitration. We need to send a clear signal to the city employees that the residents, property taxpayers, renters and voters in Oshkosh have a finite tolerance for the cost of labor to provide city services.
No threat at all 6:42PM. You just don't want poeple to know who you are is all, especially after making all the comments you have about city employees taking advantage of taxpayers. So cynical are you that you presume I am a card carrying member of a union. You couldn't be more wrong. there are plenty of us who have no connection to a union at all bt at the same time do not have the same worries and problems with the wages and benefots city workers get. Again, you don't want people to know who you are, especially since we'd probably all too easily recognize you. Spin it any way you want. You have a problem with city workers and you're angry because you can't do anything about it and more people aren't mad about it like you are.
Excellent comments and perspective from a blue collar union employee and Oshkosh property tax payer:
"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.
Sep 8, 2007 10:21:00 AM"
Those comments posted by anonymous 9:15 PM are not only taken from another anonymous posting on Kent Monte's blog, they sound just like Kent Monte himself. He is a union member who works in the private sector (Oshkosh Truck) even though his employer is the federal government (you and I). He is one who coined the phrase "gold-plated" benefits and he likes to use the word "bash" any time someone disagrees with a position taken by he or his friends.
On the other side of the coin, I am not a union member but I take no homage with the salry or benefits the city workers receive. That opinion may change with future contracts but at present I am satisfied. Those couple people who keep copying and pasting the same messages all over the blogosphere are just unhappy individuals who probably can't better themselves so they want to take from others who have bettered themselves in some fashion. Instead of practicing the "art" of copy and paste, they should go back to school and learn a trade or skill where they, too, can become employed in a position where good money and benefits are provided.
9:15 zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
10:20 AM
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Federal Government employees pay 25% of their healthcare costs.
City Government employees pay 5% of their healthcare costs
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.
OK Kent, whatever you say.
12:42-
Thank you for finally appreciating the common sense solution proposed.
Why toss the baby out with the bath water??
Better everyone maintains a job and shares in the cost of benefits provided. Simple and logical.
While I'm sure 1:04 believes themselves to be highly clever, if they have any intelligence at all they would realize it was a tongue in cheek comment that was made by 12:42. These anonymous messages are the exact same thing Kent continues to shout from his pathetic pulpit. He is a hypocrite who wants and expects city workers to take a pay cut or reduce their benefits, but he is unwilling to do the same. He was asked on his own blog to take a voluntary 5% pay cut to make things easier on blue collar workers. He never answered the question but keeps singing the same ole tune. He's fooling no one with his message of hypocrisy nor his anonymity.
As a city union leader 2:53 has every right to fight for greater benefits for his crew, we however need to look out for the welfare of the entire Oshkosh property taxpayer base.
It was 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.
If city workers aren't going to make concessions, it's time for the city to cut jobs. The city council is going to be faced with personnel cuts come November. Wollangk even indicated so. Wollangk mentioned police and fire should not be immune from the chopping block this time around....scary, isn't it? Wollangk the protector of city jobs suggesting nothing, job cut wise, should be off the table.
Seems to me the union would want to protect jobs and adjust cost sharing so all the employees could remain employed, but if they choose to eliminate their membership, I guess we may have no choice!
So sad.
6:44, 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.
6:44 You make assumptions from the very start of your rambling comment. Please engage your brain PRIOR to typing. There are many jobs out there, you should be able to find one . . . you can do it . . . go better yourself.
8:37 as a union representative, it is your duty to support your position; I understand that.
I’m happy to hear that you are concerned about the healthcare crisis is America. Yes it is a crisis.
Many people in Oshkosh and throughout the nation have no healthcare or are faced with unaffordable healthcare plans. Some of Wisconsin’s very largest corporations now have plans that are far more inferior to those provided by taxpayers to public sector unions.
In the private sector rising healthcare costs are passed on to the employee as healthcare costs are contributing to making labor costs uncompetitive.
We as taxpayers are being squeezed by our employers to pay more of our own healthcare of risk losing coverage. On top of that, we are faced with a property tax system that provides healthcare coverage to city employees that is 95% funded by the taxpayer.
Anyone can clearly see that continuing to provide healthcare coverage at the current rate, along with providing wage increases is making the cost of city labor unaffordable to the average taxpayer.
So given that, how do we provide tax relief for the property taxpayer or rent payer in Oshkosh?
We can ask the city employee to increase their share of the cost of healthcare. In most private industry, the employee pays 20% and the employer pays 80%. We’ve heard that the federal government plan requires the employee to pay 25% while the remaining 75% is paid through federal taxes. You can quite quickly see that the city of Oshkosh plan which requires the employee to pay 5% and the property taxpayer or rent payer to pay 95% is out of balance.
Requiring city employees to provide their fair share of healthcare costs is not something we need to be ashamed of. Our City employees see the plight of many city taxpayers and understand that many are struggling to provide quality healthcare to their own families, much less pay for 95% of their coverage.
I am proud that our City Council has taken the necessary steps to take the current proposal to arbitration. It sends a message that Oshkosh taxpayers have reached the end of their ability to pay, and that the current negotiation session, as the Oshkosh Northwestern reported, makes city employee healthcare unaffordable for the Oshkosh property taxpayer or rent payer.
10:23 - How many union leaders do you think there are on this blog? You have an obsession with bringing down people that have worked to support their families. Their spouses and children deserve to be able to fulfill the American Dream and you should stop bashing them for the choices they made in life as compared to your choices.
10:23 said - "You have an obsession with bringing down people that have worked to support their families."
Show me where I've bashed a city employee. I've stated countless times that city employees are extremely valuable, and so are the men and women working to provide the property taxes that pay them.
"Their spouses and children deserve to be able to fulfill the American Dream..."
Oshkosh property tax payers also desire the same consideration. Asking city employees to pay their fair share is putting no greater hardship on them than what the property taxpayer or rent payers face.
"...and you should stop bashing them for the choices they made in life as compared to your choices."
I've not bashed any city employee and continue to make the point this is not about "bashing" anyone; it is about affordability.
The current level of healthcare costs coupled with wage increases is making city services unaffordable to the average Oshkosh taxpayer.
This is nothing personal, it is simple economics.
11:09 Have you any idea what Passive Aggressive means? You are a very nasty person and your constant assertions that the employees of our city are not deserving of what they bargained for is mean-spirited. I suspect if you were gainfully employed, your view would be different.
12:58 you keep making this personel which it is not. It is simply an economic issue.
The current level of healthcare costs (95% taxpayer funded)coupled with wage increases is making city services unaffordable to the average Oshkosh taxpayer.
I'm sure you can understand the concept of affordability and cost vs benefit.
Here is a budget breakdown for your review:
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%.
Can our property taxpayers and rent payers afford to continue paying 95% of healthcare costs for city workers?
12:58 -- I bet the person you're talking about is gainfully employed but still resentful that his union wouldn't or couldn't bargain for the same deal the city workers have. His message is very similar to what we heard at election time the last 2 years. I'd also bet it's the same message we'll hear from Paul Essligner when he runs again in April.
And 2:53 PM, that breaks down to exactly how much per $1000 of property valuation? Let's be completely honest about how much or how little this is really costing each property owner shall we, instead of using the scare tactics of big numbers?
3:26...You must suscribe to the "butter burger" concept I see.
Well it can't get much more simple than this then:
Federal Government employees pay 25% of their healthcare costs.
Most private corporations employees pay 20% of their healthcare costs.
City Government employees pay 5% of their healthcare costs.
Can our property taxpayers and rent payers afford to continue paying 95% of healthcare costs for city workers?
With the levy freeze and Oshkosh voters strong message last year that they want no new taxes, if city employees don’t agree to participate in a more fair and balanced contribution to their healthcare, I wonder how many employees jobs will not be filled or even worse, cut? I’d hate to think of any city employee losing their job just because a few other fellow workers wouldn’t help out by paying a bit more for their healthcare plan. I don't think it's too much to ask the workers to pay something more like 20% rather than the 5% they pay now.
4:20 and 4:27 talk a good game and have proven their skill at regurgitating the same old lines. Now try giving us an honest answer to an honest question. I'll ask it again. How much per $1,000 of property valuation is the insurance benefit for cty employees costing Oshkosh property owners? Here's another number I'd like to see you give us. Since you want them to pay 20% of their premiums instead of the 5% they're currently paying, please tell us exactly how much per $1,000 of property valuation that 15% difference in their premiums is costing us. When you do the math and present it for everyone to see, I think you'll understand why few more than you is continually worked up by this.
Speaking of dysfunction, how about that crazy Paul Esslinger at tonight's council meeting? He was downright rude and indignant with our city manager. It looks like he figures since Richard is on his way out he can be as rude and snotty as he wants. The fact of the matter is Wollangk and the public works director were absolutely right in how roundabouts are introduced to communities. Esslinger wanted to do things ass-backwards -- which must be a distant relative of approaching things with a negative attitude. Esslinger wanted a public workshop on roundabouts before voting on something, so the public could have input on whether or not we want roundabouts. In the first place the roundabotu at Murdock was already approved. And in the second place, Esslinger's always talking about how he and his fellow councilors were elected to make decisions for the public. So why get input from the public on something that, in most cases, is coming to the Oshkosh community by the DOT's authority alone. The DOT has also said it will do public meetings to educate the public on roundabouts. If Paul Esslinger doesn't get the concept he might want to rethink his ability to make decisions for us (believe me, plenty of voters already are) or he could go to Neenah and try out one of theirs.
He also didn't read the document very well that discussed mayors' initiatives for sustainability. In the first place it said the city would "strive" to do certain things, not that it would do each one of those things. The other thing is he said he didn't know what the one goal related to Energy Star products meant. Paul needs to get out from behind his computer more often and check out some appliance stores. Most products out there these days are Energy Star products and ahve a nice little emblem on them saying so. While they cost a little more up front they save money in the longrun. Such simple concepts and yet they escape this so-called seasoned councilman. Wow!!!
5:57,
If the difference between 5% and 20% seems so insignificant to you, why do you fight so hard to maintain that we taxpayers contribute to the entire difference?
If you really believe that the money isn't much, cough it up and help out the other tax payers that struggle to pay their own healthcare insurance.
In our 2007 Oshkosh city budget, 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%.
Some posters are masking the wage and benefit issue with emotion.
The equation is simply economics. It really has nothing to do if people do or do not “deserve” a specific benefit; it is about the ability to finance the costs associated with that benefit.
In the business world, if pressures brought about by share-holder expectations are such that higher profits are demanded, the corporation must find a way to increase the profitability by producing more goods, selling at a higher margin, lowering expenses…or a combination of the three.
The results of these pressures often affect labor wages and benefits. Labor compensation is held in check or rolled back. If labor does not agree to these accommodations, plants are closed or relocated to areas more favorable to meeting these economic demands.
City government is also and economic engine. The labor associated with performing work desired by city residents comes with a cost. If labor wants additional compensation the city must find a way to increase the tax levy funded by a larger tax base or requiring greater taxes from the existing base…or a combination of the two.
Oshkosh property tax payers as a whole clearly do not wish to pay more property taxes or have any desire to fund common taxable services with user fees.
On November 7, 2006, Oshkosh voter’s overwhelming went to the polls and made their collective feelings known.
By overwhelming margins, they voted a resounding:
YES (Set the garbage tax at zero)
NO (No additional tax levy)
Unless Oshkosh creates a greater tax base, additional wage and benefit increases by labor unions will be met with resistance by current property tax payers.
At the current tax base, it appears Oshkosh can no longer support the ever increasing wages and benefits demanded by the represented labor unions.
The Oshkosh City Council has shown strength and understanding of this concept as they have been unable to persuade many labor bargaining teams of this matter and therefore moved the matter to arbitration. This is a distinct signal to Oshkosh City organized labor that the taxpayers, and those that represent them have reached the limit of their ability to pay…City labor is no longer affordable!
Here is the actual 2004-2006 contract with one of the unions which again highlights the very small out-of-pocket expense to the city employee.
As healthcare costs continue to rise, this type of contract is unaffordable to the property taxpayers and rent payers in Oshkosh.
2004-2005-2006
Contract
Oshkosh Professional Employees Union
Local 796-C, AFSCME, AFL-CIO
Article VII
Medical Benefits Plan
The Employer shall provide health coverage to a level of benefits available to employees under the City of Oshkosh Medical Benefits Plan Master Plan Document(s) effective January 1, 2004. The Employer agrees not to reduce the benefits during the life of the contract. Changes in the participation of health care providers listed on any preferred provider list shall not be viewed as a reduction in benefits.
(Note: This paragraph is effective from 1/1/04 through 5/31/04 at which time it will be deleted from the contract. The City will continue to provide a PPO. The plan will have a $250.00 (single) and $500.00 (dual and family) deductible. Employees will pay 3% up to a monthly maximum of single - $15.00; dual $30.00 and family - $45.00 towards the cost of the single, dual or family plan premium equivalent.)
Effective June 1, 2004, the city will implement a dual choice health plan; a PPO and an EPO.
Employee contributions for PPO
Effective June 1, 2004, employees will contribute 4% up to a maximum of $20 per month toward single; $35 per month towards dual and $50 per month towards the family premium equivalent.
Effective January 1, 2005, employees will contribute 5% up to a maximum of $25 per month toward single; $40 per month towards dual and $55 per month towards the family premium equivalent.
Effective January 1, 2006, employees will contribute 5% up to a maximum of $30 per month toward single; $45 per month towards dual and $60 per month towards the family premium equivalent.
Employee contributions for EPO
Effective June 1, 2004, employees will contribute 3% up to a maximum of $15 per month toward single; $25 per month towards dual and $30 per month towards the family premium equivalent.
Effective January 1, 2005, employees will contribute 4% up to a maximum of $20 per month toward single; $35 per month towards dual and $50 per month towards the family premium equivalent.
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 the family premium equivalent.
The City may, from time to time, change the medical benefit plan administrators, PPO provider, or method of funding for healthcare coverage if it elects to do so. At least 30 days advance notice of any change in the medical benefit plan administrator, PPO provider or method of funding shall be provided to the Union. Whenever the City is considering any of these changes, the Union may provide input into the decision. This input is limited to advisory only and will not affect the City’s responsibility to select a provider or administrator.
So 6:43 AM, you still refuse to answer the question huh? To those just entering the discussion or perhaps lost among the copy and paste mantra of 1 or 2 keyboard happy individuals, here's what was asked:
"How much per $1,000 of property valuation is the insurance benefit for cty employees costing Oshkosh property owners? Here's another number I'd like to see you give us. Since you want them to pay 20% of their premiums instead of the 5% they're currently paying, please tell us exactly how much per $1,000 of property valuation that 15% difference in their premiums is costing us. When you do the math and present it for everyone to see, I think you'll understand why few more than you is continually worked up by this."
I think that's a reasonable request. The copy and paste person says it's not an attack on city workers, but rather a matter of simple economics. Well, show us those simple numbers. You've been asked 3 times now and you outright refuse to answer except to turn the questions around and put your own spin on things. That doesn't fly. As was said before, the number is probably so insignificant per property owner that to post it would only show why not too many people are worked up about this matter. You're probably too embarrassed to print the answer. I would be too if I were you. And your continued refusal to answer the questions only strengthens the opposition's argument. way to go copy and paste dude You're 1 hell of a debater.
It certainly appears we have a council that is concerned about wage and benefit affordability. If the council had no problems with the city workers proposal, they would have approved it…however they did not.
In fact they felt strongly enough about the fact that the request was unaffordable to the property taxpayer of rent payer that they chose to take the issue to arbitration. That is not frequently done in city labor negotiations.
It is fair to say, base on the outcome of last Novembers referendum question where the citizens of Oshkosh were asked if they wanted to allow the council to increase taxes beyond the levy limit, no new taxes are desired. This referendum tax increase question received a resounding NO by voters.
Oshkosh property taxpayer of rent payers are clearly at the limit of what they feel they can afford. Continuing to pay 95% of city workers healthcare and faced with rising healthcare costs in the future, is simply unaffordable to them.
When did this come to the council for any approval? IN fact, according to the ONW the city itself made the decision to take the matter to arbitration based on equity with respect to what the other unions had agreed to in their contracts. Stop giving credit to a council that has done nothing in any contract negotiations and since councilors are not part of the negotiation process, never will.
According to the City Manager, the 2006 cost to Oshkosh Taxpayers for employee healthcare insurance totals $6,599,146.08.
Checking the City website, the total City Budget for 2006 is $59,856,035.00.
Just the healthcare component accounts for 11.03% of the entire city operating budget! 11.03% of all Oshkosh yearly operating expenses just to pay for city employee healthcare!
Thank God we finally had the desision to take this to arbitration and fight for the taxpayers best interest!
Following is a rough estimate of the cost of health care on our taxes. For each $20,000 you can eliminate from the city budget, it is worth about 1 cent on the total city tax rate (or 5 cents per $100,000).
In the example of health care costs being about $6,600,000, that amounts to $3.30 on the total rate. So, if you could eliminate an additional 15%, that would reduce the tax rate by about 50 cents.
One of the council members should be able to provide more accurate information.
Can you imagine all the huge quality of life improvements that could be made in Oshkosh with that money! Or better yet just give it back to me as a taxpayer!!!!
And on top of that, the city workers would only be paying what most of us aready pay for health insurance. I think its a good idea to change that if we could.
I don’t know how they figure that but the way I look at it if we pay $6,600,000.00 for worker health insurance and we pay 95% of the cost, if we wanted them to pay 20% and we’d pay the other 80% I figure the city would save about $990,000.00 a year. That’s a lot of money in savings. Almost a million dollars!
Well 12:09 PM, thanks for the info. I am not too concerned about saving a measly 50 cents. Might this be why too many people aren't screaming about the same things you are? I bet so.
1:00, Here is what you could do with your tax dollars. Spend all the idle time you waste as a web weasel promoting a health care plan like Healthy Wisconsin that we might all benefit from (see below). Oshkosh might really be a better place if we all had health care security.
Healthy Wisconsin
Your Choice. Your Plan.
How does the plan help Wisconsin businesses and families?
Cost stability and predictability helps businesses with financial planning – no more double-digit premium increases.
No hassling with insurance companies.
Less employee turnover.
Healthier employees are more productive and have fewer sick days.
Levels the playing field among businesses in Wisconsin.
Money businesses save on health care can be used to increase salaries and create more jobs.
The benefits are the same benefits that legislators have, with added mental health parity and preventive dental for children.
Lowers state and local property taxes by $1 billion and provides for property tax relief for homeowners and businesses.
Plan Overview
Reins in costs through streamlined administration and delivering the right kind of care at the right time in the right setting.
Focuses on preventive care and chronic disease care.
Requires everyone to pay their fair share.
Levels the playing field among competing businesses.
Restores the doctor-patient relationship.
How It Works
All Wisconsin residents and employees under age 65 are covered.
Participants choose their own doctor, and their own network.
Employees pay 4 percent of Social Security wages through a payroll deduction. An employee earning the average Wisconsin salary will pay $140 monthly.
Businesses will pay approximately 10.5 percent of Social Security wages per employee, or $370 monthly for the average salary.
There is a $300 per person deductible and a $600 family deductible.
Co-pays
$20 co-pay per non-preventive doctor’s visit.
$20 co-pay per emergency room visit.
$60 co-pay if the emergency room visit is deemed inappropriate.
Unions can bargain or employers can pay for benefits not covered by the plan, including dental, vision, or long-term care, as well as any employee charges, including the 4% employee share.
Prescription Drugs
Pharmacy Benefits Manager will be used.
Co-pays: $5 generic drugs, $15 brand name formulary drugs, $40 brand name non-formulary drugs.
There is no cost sharing for preventive care (e.g, annual physicals).
There is no cost sharing for chronic disease management, as long as you are following a plan designed by you and your physician.
There is no cost sharing for children under the age of 18.
A fee-for-service option is available statewide.
This is a public-private partnership.
1:44 (#1) so your saying the entire budget impact is a savings of almost $1,000,000.00 by altering the healthcare preimum sharing from 95% taxpayer/5% employee to 80% taxpayer/20% employee?
If that is correct, that is a huge savings! Think of what we could do. Hire more Police Officers. Fix more streets. All sorts of quality of life projects. And maybe give some back to us taxpayers too!
Council if you're listening lets get on this!!!
To 1:44 PM. That would be 50 cents per $1000 of assessed valuation. So, if you house was valued at $100,000, that would be a $50.00 savings, not 50 cents.
$50.00 per year for a $100,000.00 home is alot of "Butter Burgers"!!
Thanks for doing the math on that question.
Looks like the city union healthcare thing is a problem like the Northwestern said.
Yup, that's a whole $2 and change every month on a $100,000, less if you own less (and many do). Hardly anything that's going to banrupt anyone. This could be why too many people aren't angry about it.
6:31 Ok we know where you're coming from. First it was:
"I am not too concerned about saving a measly 50 cents. Might this be why too many people aren't screaming about the same things you are?"
Then when you found out your calculations were wrong you said:
"$2 and change every month on a $100,000, less if you own less (and many do). Hardly anything that's going to banrupt anyone. This could be why too many people aren't angry about it."
I'm sure if the number was $100 or $200 you'd find a way to dismiss it. Thats your job as a union leader.
Too bad that $50.00 is a weeks worth of groceries to many struggling people. Too bad that $50.00 is a tank or gas to drive to work for some people. Too bad that $50.00 is new winter cloths for the kids for some people.
You don't get it, and you don't want to get it so I'm not talking to you, I'm speaking to the others that might be reading this blog.
If we as a city pay $6,600,000.00 for worker health insurance and we pay 95% of the cost, if we wanted them to pay 20% and we’d pay the other 80% I figure the city would save about $990,000.00 a year.
That’s a lot of money in savings. Almost a million dollars!
Approximately a combined $1,000,000.00 in savings per year. That is a significant amount of money!
The entire issue is simply about the ability of Oshkosh taxpayers to afford the cost of services offered.
The services offered by city employees seem to have become too costly for Oshkosh taxpayers to afford.
Taxpayers can not continue to afford to provide 3% wage increases on top of funding 95% of employees healthcare.
We need to have our city employees contribute to a great portion of cost sharing. Rather than the 5% they courrently contribute, they should contribute about 20% like most every other person does. That is fair and will save our city about $1,000,000.00 per year!
And what you don't want to and will never get is there are laws in place that if you don't like, you need to work toward change. Unions have bargained in good faith for twhat their members have. I agree that a aa few dollars isn't going to make or break too many people.
If this is really such a big thing, why are more people not out there expressing outrage about it? Why do more people not go to the polls on election day? It's just not the point of contention for most like you wish it was. That's the reality of things.
10:00 if the money is as insignificant as you keep suggesting it is, then I'm sure the city employees wouldn't mind pitching in a little more..would they? Why are you making such a fuss? Only a few bucks. Why would the city workers mind?
Clearly you have missed the concept of bargaining in good faith. I shant continue trying to educate on something you refuse to understand. There is none so blind as he who will not see. Surely you were the inspiration for this age old saying.
12:44 so you switch gears again. First it was the mil rate for homeowners until that was not a favorable outcome for your position.
Then it was the "small" cost to the taxpayer, until that idea was turned around and if you had to give it up it turns out to be a large cost.
You keep flip-flopping because you have no footing to stand on when the spin is removed and you are left with the fact that:
Oshkosh property taxpayers and rent payers can not afford to continue paying 95% of healthcare costs for city workers!
We property tax payers and rent payers end up paying $6,600,000.00 for worker health insurance (95% of the total cost).
If city workers would pay a more fair share, such as 20% and the taxpayers would fund the other 80% I figure the city would save about $990,000.00 a year.
Almost a MILLION DOLLARS SAVED!
Wrong, I have maintained all along the cost is pretty small per homeowner and that is probably why too many people aren't up in arms over it like you. Try reading instead of espousing the same old same old to every comment made. You'll look smarter.
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.
Copy and paster: blah blah blah blah blah blah. Any record can be played too much. Yours is not only scratchy. It's warped, too.
4:07 your debate skills are extraordinary, a true asset to organized labor! I can now understand why you hold a leadership position.
And we can see why you don't 10:10.
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.
Copy and paste dude needs to get a life.
We as taxpayers cannot continue to fund 95% of city employee 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.
Copy and paste dude still needs to get a life.
All web site owners should just remove copy & paste man's repititous diatribes. Some have already done this. let him start his own site for worthless rants. Maybe he will stop wasting space voluntarilly if we all just agree to take up a collection to pay for his health care and some sensitivity training.
Obviously the "basher" has no worthwhile comments to counter the fact that healthcare costs are soaring and Oshkosh property taxpayers are funding 95% of those healthcare costs for city employees. Furthermore those costs total about $6,600,000.00 in total taxpayer dollars each year.
And finally in the day and age when we scratch to find enough money to eliminate the goose problem in our city parks, a huge disproportionate portion of our taxes are earmarked for extraordinary employee benefits when they could be used for a variety of city improvement projects.
Asking the city employees to pay 20% rather than 5% is asking no more than many large Oshkosh corporate employers ask their employees.
An 80/20 plan would compensate city employees very well for their healthcare costs and allow Oshkosh to increase services and projects that would benefit all Oshkosh Taxpayers.
9:47 feels threatened and wants to quell comments and data surrounding the city employee healthcare cost crisis in Oshkosh.
As a union leader he would rather the taxpayers have little or no information, so they can continue to have the healthcare funding fly under the radar screen.
Word is getting out. People are becoming aware. City government is at a cross roads and will be changing. Many of the department heads that have attempted to insulate this and other very costly taxpayer’s issues may be in a similar situation as our City Manager.
The Union Leader has cause for concern. The days of status quo negotiations may have come to an end.
Cut & Paste Man imagines that he is a self-contained social movement when he writes multiple responses to an unrelated topic on a blog. He also fantasizes that he knows who is answering him. Clearly he is in need of mental health care. We should all ask the city council or county board if something can't be done with public money to relieve his pain.
Hey Union guy if you'd keep yur pie whole shut maybe cut and paste wouldn't be riding your ass so much.
Your a dumbass to keep taunting that guy. He keeps rubbing your nose in his facts.
Now I see why the guy is so envious of city employees! His academic performance was not appropriate for making a living as demonstrated by his spelling: "keep yur pie whole"
Asking the city employees to pay 20% rather than 5% is asking no more than many other large Oshkosh corporate employers ask their employees.
An 80/20 plan would compensate city employees very well for their healthcare costs and allow Oshkosh to increase services and projects that would benefit all Oshkosh Taxpayers.
We all know it isn't true, but city workers look greedy by demanding that hardworking taxpayers fund an unrealistic share of their healthcare costs.
This greedy behavior has a negative effect on taxpayers perception of the city worker.
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.
Copy and paste dude keeps showing us what an idiot he is. He's just mad because people have never cared too much about the level of benefits given to city workers and with all his ranting and raving they care even less. Boo hoo!!! Maybe Miles should follow the path of others and start deleting his crap, especially since it's off topic anyway and does nothing to inspire any meaningful discussion. Let copy and paste dude keep posting it on the one blog that thrives on such meaningless drivel - Kent Monte's.
When you can't support your position with statistics, you need to cut off the conversation.
If I were in your position Mr. Union Leader, I'd want conversation about my organizations benefits halted as well.
Your current healthcare package is clearly not in line with the majority of other large businesses in the area.
The cost of providing the package is placing a burden on the taxpayer.
Tax dollars are being siphoned off that could be used for many other community improvement projects.
I doubt that Oshkosh can continue to afford to pay $6,600,000.00 each year to pay 95% of the costs for city employees.
A far more equitable plan, that would be fair to the employee and taxpayer alike would be a 80/20 plan. The current 95/5 plan is hurting our City.
Lalalalalalalalala, no one is listening to you, city employee hater. What a sad and miserable life you lead that you only know 1 thing to speak about. Ever hear of the expression "get a life?" Why not try it? You'll be happier.
If the health care benefits weren't being paid for with taxes, the city would not have that money, so the projects you think would get done, probably wouldn't, especially since you'd (11:42) then be bitching about money for that.
Regarding comments that information about compensation packages is not newsworthy. I’d remind you that we have two very important events occurring that may impact future compensation negotiations:
1) Arbitration. Our city officials have elected to take the last offer to arbitration. They must feel that what the union demands are more than Oshkosh can afford. So under the current laws, the city has very limited options, and one of those options is to take the offers to an Arbitrator for a final decision. More often than not, these decisions do not favor the property taxpayer, but at least it sets the tone with the unions involved, that the city is concerned about run-away labor and benefit costs and will do whatever it can to minimize the impact of increases to the taxpayer. I commend our Council for taking this position.
2) Our method of city governance may change. At the very least we will have a new City Manager. It is a widely held belief that Mr. Wollangk was too tolerant of his Department Manager Staff. A new Manager will likely evaluate the entire staff and likely make some staff changes. These changes will have a trickle down effect on our employees. I would suggest that new Managers will be required to hold their specific department employees to higher standards and be more accountable for the cost vs benefit ratio assigned to each department. This is also a good thing for Oshkosh taxpayers.
So, I remain hopeful that we will make some meaningful changes and that the result of these changes will be a better cost sharing ratio between our employees and those that pay their wages…the property tax payers and rent payers living in Oshkosh.
The comments were that most people do not appear to share the same concerns you and/or copy and paste dude do. That much should be obvious to everyone by now.
"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.
First, I'm well aware that labor unions did exist here and there before Karl Marx came along, but I specifically referred to "the rise of the labor union movement," which came into its own during the late 1800s and early 1900s, after the publication of Marx's economic theories.
Second, I did not claim that unions were exclusively responsible for labor violence. But the "massacres" Mr. Nordlander cited, in which striking workers were killed, also included incidents in which strikers rioted, destroyed property and killed workers who did not want to honor the strike.
The National Right to Work Committee has reported that, since 1975, more than 200 people have been killed by labor union violence. The victims were people who wanted to work, rather than strike. They were murdered by thugs who wanted to strike, rather than work.
Finally, I'd like to point out that there is legislation before Congress that would prevent workers from using a secret-ballot election on whether to unionize, thus taking away one of the fundamental principles of democracy.
Instead, a "card check" process would require a worker to publicly sign or not sign a union card. This would leave workers open to intimidation by union organizers and retaliation for not agreeing to sign the card.
Showing himself to be a compliant stooge of Big Labor, Rep. Steve Kagen supports this despicable legislation. Please remember that the next time you go to the polls.
Brian Farmer
"For better or worse labor unions were never democratic and never will be. Labor unions were built upon socialists."
Lets look at 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 (but not always: municipal trash collection has frequently been closed and replaced by private sector contractors).
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.
Looked at another way, in the face of a projected state budget deficit taxpayers have no realistic alternative but to demand cuts in spending, which may well include cutting the number and/or pay of public sector employees. But in the current economic environment, families and private sector companies make these tough decisions every day.
Why can't the public sector unions see that the taxpayer goose they have squeezed for so long simply cannot keep producing golden eggs for them?
Further increases in public sector pay and healthcare benefits will only worsen an already bad situation. In other words, for the public sector unions to demand more at this point, and to aggressively use their political power to obtain it, would be short-sighted and self-destructive to the city of Oshkosh.
Wow! A lot of city employee bashing is going on in this blog. Time to go elsewhere.
The info 7:53 posts makes a ton of sense. I think I understand more about this now than I did ever before
Interesting to note that since this discussion hasn't been occuring on the "Questioning Everything" blog, there has been no posting on that site, and in fact now, the site is gone!
http://questioning-questioning.blogspot.com/
Looks like at least this city employee healthcare discussion creates site activity for the blog owner.
Thanks for allowing the conversation Miles!
It's interesting to see how one person can have such a negative affect on the community! The one person that states he thanks the blog administrator for allowing this "discussion" is most assuredly the same dope that copies and pastes his drivel everywhere he can. I see another blog simply deletes his posts assumingly because he cannot stay on topic. This person has not done anything positive.
1:18 I thought you had enough of the truth and were gone to a new blog site? Good to have you back anyway!
Actually 10:45 there was quite a bit of discussion that, thankfully, was not related to this tired out subject you are addicted to discussing. I am wondering if there might be a 12-step program for you so you can enjoy life a bit more. On the subject of Questioning's blog, it is a shame it is gone. The administrator had other options besides taking the blog down. It will be a loss.
Does anyone know the time table for the Arbitration?
Even though I'm fairly sure the result won't favor us taxpayers, I'd like to know when the desision is expected.
4:47 I am assuming by your comment: . . . "I'm fairly sure the result won't favor us taxpayers" . . . you believe the city was not meeting the unions half-way. Otherwise one would assume the city would win in arbitration. Hmmm, interesting that you think the unions gave in more than the city's demands on them.
We must be making headway if we're receiving comments like are posted on:
http://independent--thoughts.blogspot.com
Excellent to see that the message is spreading!
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.
The Conspiracy Against the Taxpayers-
By Steven Malanga
For 50 years, public unions, health-care lobbyists, and social-services advocacy groups have doggedly been amassing power in state capitols and city halls, using their influence to inflate pay and benefits for their workers and to boost government spending. The bill for that influence is now coming due, and it is overwhelming state and local budgets.
A sample item:
Unions have also convinced Americans that teachers are underpaid, when they now take home considerably better pay packages on average than professional workers in the private sector. The federal government’s national compensation survey estimates that local public school districts pay teachers an average of $47.97 per hour in total compensation, including $12.39 per hour in benefits—figures that far outstrip not only what private school teachers earn, but also the average of what all professional workers earn in private business, a category that includes engineers, architects, computer scientists, lawyers, and journalists.
In California, the governor and a union-friendly state legislature passed a series of bills that swelled the number of state employees who could claim disability retirement benefits and also expanded the number of ailments automatically classed as job-related to include HIV, tuberculosis, and lower-back pain. The flood of new disability claims will cost the state’s retirement system some $465 million over five years, much of which will come out of taxpayers’ pockets.
The budgetary excess has prompted the stirrings of America’s newest tax revolt, as overburdened taxpayers grope for ways to curb the often automatic expansion of state and local government and to reduce the power of public unions.
The tidal wave of local government spending that produced this crisis built up as tax revenues poured into state and municipal coffers during the 1990s boom. State tax collections rose by 86 percent, or about $250 billion, from 1990 through 2001, while local property-tax collections soared by $90 billion, or 60 percent, during a period when inflation increased by a mere 30 percent. Rather than give surpluses back to taxpayers, government went on a spree, lavishing opulent pensions on employees and expanding politically popular health and education programs.
Unions and social-services groups were perfectly positioned to funnel this flood of surplus tax revenues into their pockets rather than back to the taxpayers.
Starting with virtually no representation in the public sector 50 years ago, unions have relentlessly organized workers, so that in some states as many as 60 to 70 percent of public employees now are members. As a result, these unions wield huge clout at the ballot box, and union dues give them vast resources to sway public opinion and influence legislation.
Gradually, public unions have aligned with local social-services and health-care groups that federal (and later, state and local) government began funding heavily during the War on Poverty of the 1960s and early 1970s—creating a new class of organization that lives off government money.
The prime budget buster has been the outlandish wage and benefits packages of public employees.
Contractually guaranteed, they are untouchable even during economic slowdowns. Public-employee unions have so successfully used their political muscle that whereas public-sector compensation once lagged the private sector, now the reverse is true.
Astonishingly, the average state and local government employee now collects 46 percent more in total compensation (salary plus benefits) than the average private-sector employee, according to the nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute.
Wages average a hefty 37 percent higher in the public sector, but the differences in benefits are even more dramatic.
Local governments pay 128 percent more, on average, than private employers to finance workers’ health-care benefits, and 162 percent more on retirement benefits.
The public unions could only achieve this reversal because government is a monopoly, exempt from marketplace discipline. Competition can punish private companies that give away the store to employees or that perform ineffectively—driving the most profligate or inefficient out of business—but government is perpetual regardless of how it performs, and public unions have succeeded over the years in layering new perks and benefits on top of previous collective-bargaining gains that rarely get rolled back, even in tough times.
I have no idea what progress you think you're making, 7:37. All you've done is drive away an outlet where you could have posted messages if you knew how to do it in a responsible, mature manner. There's certainly nothing posted on the site you referenced that helps your cause or shows you're making headway. Just the opposite.
The fact that there are those who feel threatened enough to put a high amount of pressure to suppress pro-taxpayer information, by definition means that results are being made!
If that faction would not care about the information provided, they would just ignore it.
7:44, you've been preaching about this in a virtual unsuppressed manner for more than a year and most people still don't care about the benefits the city employees are getting. I don't know how you gather from that that you're making progress but as was already noted, you've drive away anotehr outlet where you could have gotten your message out, if you knew how to do it responsibly. You've proven that you don't. You're the classic little girl who cried wolf and people are tired of hearing your message and tuning it out. Way to go. You are your own worst enemy.
Awash in contributions from the unions and agencies whose pay they set, the gerrymandered state legislatures and one-party city halls that hand out such largesse are well insulated from voter retribution. Thus taxpayers wind up being nicked by a thousand small benefits piled upon one another year after year.
The buildup of two benefits in particular—pensions and health care—is now producing major budget disasters nationwide.
State and local governments used tax surpluses and the 1990s stock-market rise to gold-plate pension programs, with disastrous effect once the stock boom ended. By 2003, state and local pension funds had accumulated over $250 billion in unfunded liabilities, reports the National Association of State Retirement Administrators, leaving taxpayers on the hook.
The pensions for which taxpayers must now foot the bill far outshine what many of those same taxpayers in the private sector receive.
As one example, a 62-year-old state employee who retires after 25 years gets 50 percent more in yearly pension payments than an employee retiring with the same salary from the Campbell Soup plant, (a Fortune 500 company), according to the Asbury Park Press. In addition, the state employee receives free health insurance for life to supplement Medicare, while full health benefits for private-sector retirees are now rare.
In one west coast state, a public employee with 30 years of service can retire at 55 with 60 percent of his salary, and public-safety workers can get 90 percent of their salary at age 50. By contrast to these rich payouts, the small (and shrinking) number of private firms that still provide “defined benefit” pension plans—instead of the now-common “defined contribution” plans that transfer all risk to the worker—pay on average 45 percent after 30 years of service.
Retired public employees in many states also get cost-of-living adjustments to their pensions, which those private-sector workers who still have defined benefit plans rarely enjoy. In Illinois, for instance, where pension payments increase by 3 percent each year—faster than the rate of inflation for most of the last decade—an employee who retired ten years ago with a monthly pension of $4,000 would now be collecting $5,400 a month.
Benefit features unheard of in the private sector drive up government pension packages still further.
In New York and Oregon, public employees who contribute their own money to retirement plans get a guaranteed rate of return that is often far beyond what the market provides, and taxpayers must make up the difference.
In Oregon, the return is 8 percent annually—about double what safe investments like treasury bonds provide today.
Rich health-care benefits have also added to a growing cost differential between the public and private sector.
The federal government’s National Compensation Survey estimates that 60 percent of state and local employees have dental coverage, compared with 36 percent of private-sector workers, while 43 percent of local government workers have vision care included in their health plans, versus just 22 percent of the private workers.
More than 95 percent of state and local employees get paid sick leave, but just 58 percent in the private sector do.
Yet even with states facing fiscal ruin, legislators continue to pour out new pension kickers and health benefits.
Though union leaders defend these porcine compensation packages by claiming that they help private workers by preventing a private-sector race to the bottom on wages and benefits, high public-sector pay is partly responsible for holding down private wages.
Rhode Island is an especially telling example. The state ranks fourth in average pay in the public sector but only 23rd in average private-sector wages, according to the Rhode Island Public Expenditure Council. To cover its high public-sector employee costs, Rhode Island has consistently raised taxes, giving it the sixth-highest total state and local tax burden in the country, including one of the highest corporate tax rates and sky-high property taxes.
Those high taxes drain investment capital out of private-sector firms, making it harder for them to finance improvements that boost productivity, which is what in turn allows private-employee wages to rise. Rhode Island businesses have among the lowest rates of investment capital per employee in the country—30 percent below the national average. Thus, the more the state enriches public workers, the further its private workers, who pay public-sector salaries, fall behind. Rhode Island should serve as a cautionary tale for other states: it has one of the highest rates of unionization in the public sector—62 percent, compared with 37 percent nationally.
In this environment, public-sector retirees have become the haves and private retirees the new have-nots.
Yet public employees increasingly display a sense of entitlement about their rich benefits and pensions. Though the average public school teacher now retires at 59, and teachers work fewer months per year than private employees, attempts to raise teachers’ retirement age to something closer to that of private-sector workers produce ominous warnings about shortages: “The idea of teaching until they are 66 makes many of our teachers wonder whether they want to be in this profession,” a teachers’ union lobbyist in Minnesota whined during a battle over pensions.
When the teachers’ union whines, the state “politicals” snap to attention. Thanks to union-friendly legislation that requires public school teachers to become members or pay dues even if they don’t join, the size and wealth of teachers’ unions have made them fiercely intimidating lobbying and electoral forces almost everywhere.
The Wisconsin teachers’ union plunked down a state-high $1.5 million for lobbying in Wisconsin’s a recent legislative session, while Minnesota’s union was number two in its state, spending nearly $1 million.
By relentlessly repeating that mean-spirited taxpayers shortchange America’s kids, teachers’ unions and education bureaucrats, with help from PTAs, have helped spread the myth that public schools are under funded.
An Educational Testing Services poll found that nearly half of Americans think that the schools spend on average just $5,000 per pupil a year—half the real amount.
Unions have also convinced Americans that teachers are underpaid, when they now take home considerably better pay packages on average than professional workers in the private sector. The federal government’s national compensation survey estimates that local public school districts pay teachers an average of $47.97 per hour in total compensation, including $12.39 per hour in benefits—figures that far outstrip not only what private school teachers earn, but also the average of what all professional workers earn in private business, a category that includes engineers, architects, computer scientists, lawyers, and journalists.
Teachers’ unions use their power over state lawmakers to smother cost-saving reform ideas in their cradle.
Municipalities have largely asked taxpayers to finance this spending through local property taxes. Since 1980, property-tax collections in the U.S have increased more than fourfold, from $65 billion to about $275 billion—“only” a doubling after accounting for inflation.
The battle against these taxpayer initiatives are brutal. The extraordinary resources that public-sector interests can now bring to such a fight illustrate how even in places where citizens have direct access to the ballot box, reform won’t be easy.
Public-sector forces have spent the last 40 years gathering power and organizing effectively. The next year or so will show whether tax revolts at the local level are still possible in America and whether taxpayers can be the masters of the public servants they support.
Steven Malanga
Thousands of United Auto Workers walked off the job at General Motors plants around the country Monday in the first nationwide strike against the U.S. auto industry since 1976.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/
id/20920334/site/newsweek/
site/newsweek/
Who Should Pay for Health Benefits?
The costs of providing health-care insurance have risen 78 percent this decade, according to a study by the Kaiser Family Foundation and Hewitt Associates.
Private industry has said that they and the consumers are no longer able to pay the cost of rapidly rising healthcare.
Our public sector unions, somehow, continue to believe that the property taxpayer and rent payers are still able to fund 95% of their healthcare costs.
This can’t continue! Our public sector employees must share a larger percentage of the healthcare cost. 80/20 would seem to be fair. 95/5 is clearly robbing the taxpayer!
The Dubious Claim of a Public Worker Gravy Train
Prompted by a recent report by the Wisconsin Taxpayer Alliance (WTA), Jo Egelhoff of FoxPolitics.net got on the topic of public sector vs. private sector compensation in Wisconsin.
According to the WTA report, average public sector benefits are 50.1 percent greater than the average cost of benefits found in the private sector in the state. This, Egelhoff concludes, is a sign that public sector workers are on a "gravy train" in Wisconsin.
Such a conclusion, however, doesn't tell the whole picture.
For starters, simply comparing "average" benefits packages misses a key point, which is that not all private sector packages are worse than their public sector counterparts. To be sure, a number of top executives in the private sector ride a pretty nice gravy train of their own when it comes to benefits.
And I'm not mentioning that as a "gotcha," but rather as a means for pointing out a fundamental difference between benefits in the public sector and benefits in the private sector.
As a relatively low-level administrative employee at UWM, I get paid a heck of a lot less than the chancellor (and justifiably so); but, in spite of the salary difference, I still get the exact same health care package as he gets, and so does every receptionist on campus, every custodian on campus, every full-time food service worker on campus, etc. That's not something you could say about top executives and lower-level employees at too many private sector corporations, particularly ones that come close to the size of UWM.
Just to clarify, I'm not trying to make the point here that private corporations should need to give the same benefits packages to all employees -- that's an entirely different discussion -- but rather my point is that while a wide gap has developed in much of the private sector when it comes to your position and the benefits you receive, the public sector has opted to keep everyone in largely the same boat when it comes to benefits, which is a big reason why "the average" cost of benefits for the public sector is so much higher than the private sector.
But even more fundamental than that is the issue of total compensation -- that is, benefits plus salary.
Jo addresses the issue of salary in her post, citing some average salary figures from 2005 that were included in the WTA report along with some figures crafted by the conservative Maine Heritage Policy Center (MHPC). Both suggest that even when you factor in salary, Wisconsin public sector employees are still making out better than employees in the private sector.
But, really, you don't need the WTA or the MHPC to relay the total compensation figures for Wisconsin -- the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) publishes those figures on its website for everyone to see, and it even breaks it down by industry and individual county.
Using the BEA data, we can see that total compensation for the private sector in Wisconsin grew 17.6 percent between 2001 and 2005, while total compensation for the public sector grew 18.7 percent in the same period.
And, if you look at the data prior to 2001, when the economy was still kicking in high gear between 1998-2000, private sector compensation grew at 12.1% in Wisconsin while public sector compensation only grew at 9.7 percent. And if you take out the big recession years of 2001 and 2002, and just look at the last three, private sector compensation again outpaces public sector compensation in Wisconsin, 9.1 percent to 6.8 percent.
But, of course, these macro-analyses are complicated because -- although we can see in the BEA data that total private sector employment increased by 7.5 percent between 1998 and 2005, while total public sector employment jumped 6.7 percent in the same period -- that data doesn't tell us what type of jobs exist in each sector or what type are being created and, as a result, driving compensation increases.
Indeed, just as an example, it seems likely that the private sector includes more minimum wage positions than the public sector (think fast food, retail, etc.). And, even beyond wages, the lowest paid positions in the public sector are still receiving excellent benefits packages, just like the higher ups, while it's a pretty safe assumption that those minimum wage workers at places like Dairy Queen or ShopKo aren't getting much of anything in terms of benefits, especially in comparison to the management at their respective companies.
When that's factored into the aggregate -- thereby increasing the "average" compensation for public workers and decreasing it for private workers -- does it necessarily mean that all or even most public sector workers are riding a gravy train?
All in all, there always should be an eye towards how the public sector is being compensated. But using aggregate data to create alarm about a so-called special gravy train for an entire sector of workers is more problematic than it can be made to appear, particularly considering that aggregate data, in and of itself, isn't even all that alarming.
The city employees in Oshkosh don't appear to be lagging behind in any wage or benefit area. Some would call it a Gravy Train, others would not, but this is an accurate example of city wages and benefits:
Oshkosh City Employee Union
Local 796 - AFSCME, AFL-CIO
Rates Effective Pay Period 1, 2006
Vacations:
1 year of service = 2 weeks vacation
7 years of service = 3 weeks vacation
12 years of service = 4 weeks vacation
20 years of service = 5 weeks vacation
25 years of service = 5 weeks + 1 day vacation
Sick Leave:
1 day of sick leave for each month of service.
Holidays:
12 paid days per year.
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.
Retirement Fund:
The Employer shall pay the employees mandatory contribution to the fund, up to 6.5% of the employee’s gross wage.
Longevity Plan:
The following longevity plan is in effect-
$2.77 bi weekly after 5 years of service
$5.54 bi weekly after 10 years of service
$9.23 bi weekly after 15 years of service
$12.92 bi weekly after 20 years of service
WAGES…………………
Clerk Dispatcher - $15.79 - $16.66 per hour
Shop Laborer - $18.05 - $18.67 per hour
Transit Operator - $18.05 - $18.67 per hour
Service Technician - $18.05 - $18.67 per hour
Sanitation Operator - $18.42 - $19.15 per hour
Groundskeeper - $18.42 - $19.15 per hour
Zoo Specialist - $18.42 - $19.15 per hour
Traffic Painter - $18.42 - $19.15 per hour
Maint. Shop Worker - $18.42 - $19.15 per hour
Sewage Plant Maint Worker - $18.42 - $19.15 per hour
Street Maint Worker - $18.48 - $19.49 per hour
Parks Maint Worker - $18.48 - $19.49 per hour
Utility Operator - $18.99 - $19.65 per hour
Park Trades Tech - $18.99 - $19.65 per hour
Arborist - $18.99 - $19.65 per hour
Water Maint Worker II - $18.81 - $19.79 per hour
Park Maint Leadperson - $18.81 - $19.79 per hour
Traffic Painter II - $19.06 - $20.05 per hour
Water Meter Reader Service - $19.06 - $20.05 per hour
Equip Oper III - $19.06 - $20.05 per hour
Solids Plant Oper - $19.06 - $20.27 per hour
Parks Maint Tech - $19.06 - $20.27 per hour
Solids Plant Oper - $19.06 - $20.27 per hour
Sewerage Plant Oper - $19.48 - $20.66 per hour
Filtration Plant Oper - $19.48 - $20.66 per hour
Equip Mechanic - $19.48 - $20.91 per hour
Transit Mechanic - $19.48 - $20.91 per hour
Welder - $19.48 - $20.91 per hour
Lead Mechanic - $19.79 - $21.32 per hour
Mechanic III - $19.48 - $20.91 per hour
Electrician Ii - $21.10 - $23.03 per hour
And please remember, property taxpayers and rent payers fund 95% of healthcare costs for city employees on top of these benefits.
What a snooze copy and paste dud(e) has become. He's going to have the opposite effect of what he wants. He wants to get his message out to people but all he's doing is driving people away. Time to stick with a blog that has more interesting information posted on it than copy and paster's crap.
So the UAW is on strike and the city union guys just think us taxpayers should keep forking over the bucks to pay there health insurance. Heres a idea, why don't you guys strike cause theres a bunch of people that would do your job for just some of those benies. I'd volunteer to pay 20% to get that load of stuff you guys are getting.
7:50, Knock yourself out. There are several job openings posted on the city's web site. You can even apply for city manager now. However, I doubt you qualify for any of them. They all require good oral and communications skills. Most of them also require technical skills, prefessional knowledge and a degree. You can't get money or benefits for nothing.
So...then how do you explain you as a city employee with no spelling skills then?
"They all require good oral and communications skills. Most of them also require technical skills, prefessional knowledge and a degree. You can't get money or benefits for nothing."
prefessional???
It appears you aren't "prefessional" then are you.
I read with great interest that the Police Department is moving to a new method of policing Oshkosh. Actually new is an incorrect term for the program as they are actually reverting back to a fixed beat concept.
Rather than have a bunch of cops rotating throughout Oshkosh, we will now have a set group who will always be responsive to specific areas in Oshkosh. They will be responsible to patrol there district and become aware of what people need in their assigned area. As they are dedicated to this geographic area, the notion is that they will have a better buy-in for the success and well being of these residents.
As I look at this new plan, all I can conclude is that the Police are actually changing to an “Aldermanic” method of policing Oshkosh. No longer is the “cop at large” appropriate to meet the cities needs. We now need to have cops who get to know, and are advocated for very specific areas in Oshkosh.
I say if it works for the OPD, it can work for the rest of the city. Time to give the Mayor – Alderman form of government a chance, the city cops did it and I think everyone thinks it’s a great idea!
As the front page of the Northwestern points out, Mr. Kraft is just another in a line of Oshkosh employees who together make the term "Dysfunction Junction" appropriate for Oshkosh city government.
"Open records law causes a problem," Kraft responded. "Anything you collect as part of your supervisory role is generally subject to public inspection. All we need to have are costs related to TIF expenses."
The Oshkosh City Attorney thinks keeping the public informed of the use of their taxes is a problem.
I think we need to fire our city attorney.
Cheryl Hentz writes an interesting article in the latest edition of Marketplace Magazine.
Survey says…Regional employers trend towards consumer-directed health plans.
“ For the last 10 years or so, employers in the United States have been wrestling with huge increases in their portion of health care costs – double digit increases in some cases. Recent figures show health care costs increasing at 3 to 4 times the Consumer Price Index, depending on one’s business. The biggest challenge for most businesses is finding a way not just to maintain insurance costs, but to find ways to level off the increases.
“Employers have reached a breaking point…”
“They have also begun shifting more of the burden of cost to the employees. This is being done directly through higher premiums and indirectly through changes in plan designs that raise deductibles or out-of-pocket costs”
“David Wegge, president of Intellectual Marketing LLC of Green Bay, says according to research his firm has done for Nicolet Bank – which conducts quarterly surveys with businesses in Northeast Wisconsin – about 50 percent of the employers surveyed felt that employees should be paying more than what they are, a number that some may think would have been higher”
“But they’ve shifted a lot to employees already and many may feel there’s only so much they can shift to them,” Wegge says.
In Oshkosh city government, we need to begin shifting some of this rising healthcare cost to our employees. Currently our employees only absorb 5% of healthcare costs. We property tax payers fund 95%.
In the private sector, as you’ve read, employers are shifting that rising cost to employees and are managing costs by a reasonable cost sharing percentage. Many larger employers in the Valley share healthcare costs with their employees at a 80/20 ratio.
The 95/5 ratio of Oshkosh city government and city employees is a huge burden to the taxpayers and is totally out of line with what is occurring with other employers in the Valley.
If you want to present a completely accurate picture, you CAN NOT compare public sector to private sector. So consider this:
What does QUID PRO QUO mean? Quid pro quo is part of a state law that says when bargaining with governmental employees, if you take something away from them, you must provide something equal in return. If you want to require employees to pay more for their health insurance, they must receive something of equal value in return--wages, more time off, improved pension benefits, or the like.
Why is quid pro quo important? If people like Mr. Cut and Paste were running the city, he would have it so that all employees would take cut after cut after cut and end up with substandard wages and benefits.
Quid pro quo works both ways. Years ago, city employees maintained their benefit package in lieu of a pay increase. Now Cut and Paste thinks the healthcare benefits afforded to city employees is too generous, but he's not interested in the fact that city employees GAVE SOMETHING UP to keep what they had. What will he offer in return for changing the benefit plan? Nothing!
Public sector unions are in place to guard against people like Cut and Paste. The laws are archaic or unfair, they are there to protect governmental employees and the services they provide.
You can put any type of spin you want on it, Cut and Paste, but the fact remains that the laws are there to protect the people who provide services for you.
Cut and Paste, you make your arguments that city taxpayers can't afford the city employees anymore. Let's look at it this way.
The State will impose a levy limit sometime in the near future. It will probably be in the area of about 2%, meaning the city can raise its taxes about 2% over last year. It doesn't matter how much the city pays for health insurance for its employees, what the wages are, the number of people it hires or fires, or anything else in the operating budget. The bottom line is, the city is going to raise you taxes the amount allowed by the levy limit.
So your argument is moot. All the complaining about city employees, your charge that employees' demands are outrageous and unfair, your statement that public unions are coercive, and on and on, really is not pertinent.
It doesn't matter how contracts are settled, whether or not they go to arbitration, or even if the city would decide to pay 100% of benefits of city employees. THE TAX LEVY IS GOING TO INCREASE ABOUT 2%.
Which really paints a fair picture of you. You're not concerned about the fiscal implications on city taxpayers. The fact is, there aren't any. You're jeasous, or mad, or frustrated, that hard working city employees have a benefits package better than yours, and you complain about it.
That's what this is all really about. If you don't like the taxes you have to pay, you can either tell your elected officials some services should be cut, or move to the Town of Algoma or another area code.
The union guy thats always posting seem to want to toss his friends and co-workers "under the bus" rather than have across the board heathcare adjustments.
He often says he's willing to eliminate his co-workers when he asks to name which services we would like cut.
Well here's a start along that thought pattern.
I think there are several areas where service could be cut and adjusted. We have 680 employees in our city. I find it hard to believe we couldn’t make a 2% overall job reduction and not feel any influence at all from a service standpoint. 2% overall would be 14 jobs. 14 jobs at an average of $50,000.00 per year wages and benefits is $700,000.00. That is no small change!
If you take an average city employee making $19.00 per hour x 2,080 hours each years = $39,520.00 + about $10,000.00 in healthcare benefits = $49,520.00. There are more than just healthcare benefits, but I haven’t even listed those.
I’d say a 2% job reduction goal is certainly achievable.
Now where do we get the 14 jobs?
Let’s look at the Parks Department, Forestry, Central Garage, City Hall, Sanitation,Street Department. We could take a hard look at the Inspections Department as they have been under fire anyway due to poor customer service. Then there’s the Transit Department, perhaps alter and consolidate bus routes.
Public Works is also a place to investigate.
Any good Manager could reduce a 680 employee staff by 2%.
I'd rather have everyones healthcare adjusted to a more fair 80/20 rather than the current 95/5, but if the union would rather cut jobs, those are some good places to start.
oh...and by the way, his comment
"or move to the Town of Algoma or another area code."
Well lets see, if everyone moved to the townships, just who would pay his wages and healthcare?? Humm. Better be careful what you wish for.
Cut and Paste is redundant, redundant, redundant. Did I mention he's also redudant?
He's so busy clogging up blogs it's no one he can't find a job with benefits or union representation that satisfy him.
Cut and Paste has repeatedly made comments like:
"Our new City Manager must act as a leader and advocate of those he serves, the taxpayers. His first priority is not to be “best buddies” with the city employees he supervises. A professional skilled Manager will know the difference between business and friendship."
Cut and Paste needs more than just a little education but one must allow for baby steps if one expects a bby to learn. Here's today's lesson: The city manager has little to do when bargaining contracts with city employees. The personnel dept uses direction from the city council to bargain different aspects of contracts for city workers. And if either side feels the other is not offering a fair package, either can file for arbitration. A 'hard line' by the city manager Cut and Paste wants to put up on a pedestal really doesn't mean anything. The city or the unions can bypass that hard line with arbitration if they feel the city manager is being impractical.
But Cut and Paste doesn't want you to know that.
Cut and Paste...one question for you. How come, as there are 8 different bargaining units within the city, do you ONLY cut and paste wage and benefits from one union over and over? We don't hear anything from the other bargaining units. Why not?
Last but certainly not least, the threat that if everyone moved to the townships or another area code there'd be no one left to pay the union guy's wages is nothing short of asinine. First it inaccurately presumes a position or union membership that does not exist. Second, clearly not everyone will leave the city for the "greener pastures" of town life. Cut and Paste dude and a few "friends" are the only ones complaining at the top of their lungs. I suspect that's adding to his angst. Relax Cut and Paster, and enjoy the weekend.
People aren't going to move en masse from the city to townships. No one really cares about this issue but Mr. Cut and Paste. I think we can afford to lose his tax dollars. Good riddance.
The guy You call Cut & Paste is not a jerk like you make him out to be. I've been reading here and a few other places and all he really wants is the City Union to change the healthcare payouts. He doen't call you names or really even say you guys are overpaid, all he says is that the we taxpayers pay to much of your healthcare. I think hes right and that you guys are doing nothing but trying to bully him and shut him up. I think Oshkosh is great and I got no complaints about the services I get but the more I see you rag on him for just asking you guys to anti-up a little more and pay more into your health insurance, the more I loose respect for you guys.
Ahhh, 9:53 you ARE the Cut & Paste Dude. You don't kid anyone. Go home now.
Post a Comment
<< Home