Originally Posted by JohnnyD (Post 762704)

Everyone forgets the strange coincidence of the increased drug problems and crime after the Mansfield Depot was built. Lots of trash came into town with that place.

Originally Posted by sokinwet (Post 763950)

"What they are looking for is about 1.5 million in somewhat painless concessions from the teachers union and town employees. either that or a lot of them will lose their jobs. Kind of a no-brainer."

From a public employee perspective. Why should public employees shoulder the financial burden for the whole community? They teach your kids, provide public safety, repair your streets....all things demanded by the "general public"; yet the general public doesn't want to pay for it....just ask your town employees to take the hit. How many of you would voluntarily reduce your pay, give back negotiated contract provisions and health benefits , take a furlough, etc. if your employer promised to give the $$ savings to your town?

Originally Posted by likwid (Post 763931)

Bwaaaah.
You could buy craploads of drugs downtown long before the depot was even thought of.

Originally Posted by JohnnyD (Post 763965)

I'm sure you're right. The difference was the people supplying the drugs. A whole different "culture" came into town with the Depot. And there is no denying the correlation of the Depot and increased crime along with residual trash that came into the schools.

Originally Posted by JohnnyD (Post 763965)

I'm sure you're right. The difference was the people supplying the drugs. A whole different "culture" came into town with the Depot. And there is no denying the correlation of the Depot and increased crime along with residual trash that came into the schools.

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 763957)

There are many instances of private sector businesses that ask for and get concessions from employees in order to survive. Private sector employees are probably more vulnerable in this respect because their companies can actually go out of business, whereas municipalities don't depend on profitable income, but the taxes imposed on the private sector. So long as there is a private sector to tax, the public sector will exist.

Originally Posted by likwid (Post 764018)

So tell me, which 'culture' is this?
Trash is trash man, no matter what 'culture' its from. Get over blaming one 'culture' over another.

Originally Posted by sokinwet (Post 764028)

Totally agree with your 1st point DB; things are tough for "everyone"...including municipal employee's. A couple of points to consider in your private sector arguement. The "widget co." sells a bunch of widgets to consumers, makes a profit & hires a few employees. Things are lookin good...until the widget market dries up, then with less "demand", less $$ is coming in and something has to give. Maybe it's the co. or the employees that take the hit, regardless it's the reduced demand for the product that causes the problem and it's not really feasible to pass the costs on to the consumer due to decreased demand.

Reduced demand is one scenario. The private business offers a specific product for which demand wanes. The business must cut back or fold. The Public sector, as it grows to a complex offering of services, can impose "demands" which not every tax payer wants, needs, agrees with, or ever uses. Once upon a time it was illegal for public sector employees to strike. That was tested when friendly judges were in place, and voila, what was clearly illegal magically became OK. Public sector unions were formed and the ills that plagued the private sector and brought industries to their knees, now filtered into government. Services, especially for those who don't support them through tax donations, became a "demand" in plush times when they seemed affordable, and, voila, that which is encouraged, grows.

Another scenario is the effect of competition in the private sector. Private companies can suffer not only from the loss of demand, but from the inability to compete. The public sector is a monopoly and can dictate not only what is "demanded", but the quality and price. This often leads to not only providing services that the majority of taxpayers don't use, but to providing services at reduced efficiency and quality, and, since there is no alternative, at higher costs. It is a sorry phenomenon that government employees are now on aggregate at the high end in salaries and benefits for similar work.

The situation for municipal government isn't the same; generally the demand for services increases, especially in a growing community (Mansfield?) that sees lots of residential development...more kids in schools, more roads to plow, etc.

If the demand increases due to a growing community of tax-payers, which also includes more jobs and businesses to accomodate them, there should be enough money to cover costs due to the greater influx of revenue. Of course, if the growth is of the non-tax-contributing kind, and if "demands" were created for services to such growth, you have the reverse of private sector solution. You do pass the cost of your loss of revenue to the paying customer and call it his fair share.

Municipal gov.is not a "profit making" enterprise, it's business is to provide public services at cost. The revenue coming into municipalities is severly impacted by the economy; less state aid coming in & reduced RE tax revenues due to delinquencies resulting from the poor economy, etc. However, municipalities are required by law to submit a balanced budget every year, so with 2 1/2 limitations and reduced revenues there are only so many options. Municipal governments responsibility is to operate as efficiently as possible while meeting the needs of residents, but beyond that when costs exceed revenues who should pay. It's either cut services, make public employees absorb the losses or everyone pays their fair share. Having just gone through the "budget battle" I can tell you that fat in municipal budgets is a thing of the past and the projections for the next fiscal year are worse. If you knew how many municipalities are close to "going out of business" you'd be shocked. It's time for tough "responsible" decisions on everyones part...I'm just glad I drive a 4WD truck and my kid is out of school!

Originally Posted by JohnnyD (Post 764032)

It's not a racial thing, if you're implying that. A bit of that 'big city' attitude came to town along with the completion of those projects - increased crime, increased drugs.

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 764150)

So is the answer to pass the higher "costs" (public employee rising pay and benefits) to a dwindling tax base? Is the fair share solely the responsibility of tax payers to see their take home pay reduced so that public employees don't have to suffer that fate?

Originally Posted by sokinwet (Post 764187)

First, your perception of the current municipal finance situation in most communities is not based on the reality currently on the ground. As you may have surmised, I work in municipal gov't in one of the largest S.S. communities and have daily interaction with most of the surrounding communities. Here's a summary of the "public employee rising pay & benefits" we've had in the past few years...no COLA for 5 years running, increase in our H.C.plan costs, change in our H.C.plan to the state GIC program (to save the community/residents $), increase in our new GIC plan cost twice in 6 months, furloughs ranging from 1/3 weeks and layoffs in the coming year in virtually every dept. I think we've done our part, yet every week we hear the same BS you're preaching .

[COLOR="Navy"]Your community may be different, but here are some reports from the Bureau of Labor Statistics as of December 2009:

Comparison of State and Local benefits to that of the private sector between 2001 and 2009:

The public sector bennies rose 4 times as much as in the private sector, especially since 2004.

As of December of 2009 the cost of Health Care is:
$4.45/hour for the public sector
$3.19/hour for the private sector

Cost for retirement"
$3.19/hour for the public sector
.92 cents/hour for the private sector

Average combined wage packages:
$39.83/hour for public sector ($26.24 in wages/$13.60 in bennies)
$27.49/hour for private sec. ($19.95 wages/$8.05 bennies)

Percent of increase in employer costs between 2000 & 2009:
State & Local--9.8% increase in costs
Private sector--6.9% increas in costs

Average employment rate between 2007-2009
Government--3% avg. unemployment
Private--7.9% (more than twice Govt.)

Just like the private employer, residents (the "ultimate" boss) must decide their priorities. If the employer wants to keep making wigets the costs of running a business must be paid, and decisions must be made on the best way to keep the business running. If residents want to maintain "their" level of services, costs have to be paid or decisions have to be made. If residents feel that they're not getting what they pay for, I agree with you, the changes have to come from the employee side; but if the service provided is good the only fair solution is to share the hit across the board. As I said before, governments job is to provided services "to you" as efficiently as it can, beyond that you only get what you pay for. You want to pay your employees $15 an hr.....you get $15 an hr. employees....and before long the widgets will be made in China and when you call your city clerks office you'll be speaking long distance to someone with an Indian accent.

Originally Posted by striperman36 (Post 764190)

what if I don't want all the 'services'?
or to continue to pay benefits for life for those that have worked there, and which are unfunded at time of agreement?

And your analogy about widgets is the way the private sector works.
This state has lost almost 17,000 IT jobs in locally run businesses, guess where they went? Actually the hiring 'over there' was almost triple
40-50K new jobs. My raises over the last 5 years hasn't even matched your COLA , I have had my pay cut twice and yes I've had to take furloughs, actually extended ones with no benefits or income.

Come join the 'private sector' you'll see the real world.

Originally Posted by likwid (Post 764404)

3/4 of those IT jobs were in Burlington. Half of them went out of business or were bought and shipped offshore. The execs got rich and the workers lost jobs.

TI is long gone from the industrial park, hell they sold the Attleboro campus years ago.

Originally Posted by mosholu (Post 764708)

In all the commotion regarding the big banks and Wall Street the fact that they have moved thousands of jobs off shore never gets any play. Yet the management were paid a large bonus on the "improved results" which partially came from moving jobs overseas. When the bailout came I was hoping that there would be some noise about having a commitment to bring some of that back to the US I guess it is too small an issue in the scheme of things. The bank I used to work at had well over a thousand employees in Bangalore and if you talk to the senior it people they would tell you they savings were insignificant but nobody wanted to tell the emperor that he had no clothes.