Mansfield politics

[sokinwet]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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?

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 .
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.

[striperman36]

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.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by striperman36

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.

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.

[striperman36]

Originally Posted by likwid

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.

tell me about it, silicon valley east is in Bangalore now

[mosholu]

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.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by mosholu

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.

Mosh - please answer the following for me -
You have $10,000 to invest and want to put it into the banking sector. Bank A is locally owned and operated, employees only a US workforce, is not technolgy focused and doesnt offer a lot of innovative ideas but it is relatively profitable and stable.
Bank B is aggressive, and is looking to lead the sector, invests in new technology and is all about cutting costs, do more with less. They outsource tons of work but have the latest and greatest products and technology. As an investor where would you put your money?

People need to realize the goal of a business is to make money, period. they have no social, political or economic obligations. They only have legal obligations and obligations to their shareowners.Ex - the goal of the Boston red Sox is to make money, period. If it became profitable to lose baseball games, they would do all they could to lose them. They have no obligation to anyone but their owners.

[mosholu]

As to which company to invest in I think it is governed by what your risk expectations are.
That is not your question though which I believe is whether a company has some greater obligation to factors other than the highest return to its shareholders. Even if you took the strict view that the company's obligation is to return the maximum value to shareholders there would still be some limit on the company's activities. For example, saving money by using a cheaper but potentially more faulty brake system design may make more money for an auto company short term but long term may hurt the company's long term profits as customer may avoid their cars. Does management have a greater duty to the short term holder over the longer term investor? Moving jobs to the third world may save salary expenses short term but in a politically unsettled third world could be more risky and lead to greater costs in the long run. While the bank is free to move those jobs off shore my point was that (i) the rationale (money savings) seemed flawed based on the conversations I had with some of our IT people and (2) the government was in a strong position after the bail out to wrangle from these banks some type of commitment to maintain employment in the US and did not do so. That was an opportunity lost.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by sokinwet

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.

I was also a municipal employee. So I can sympathize. But I never felt comfortable knowing that I made more money than most of those that paid my salary. Before our division was unionized, we actually were paid closer to a par with the average private employee. But we had far greater security. With unionization, we were transformed from service orientation to labor intensiveness. Our contracts became about our compensation and bennies, not about how we served the public. The rest of the city was unionized shortly before, and we all became about us, and what was once a great city became, between the ravaging of the auto and other industries and the city government, a model of total failure. Detroitified.

After retirement, I work part-time at a local golf course so that I can play for free. It is owned by the city, but is contracted to a private Golf Co. The city could not, because of the cost of its union labor, profitably run the course. It had deteriorated to a cow path. The private co. has managed to make it a golfing jewel and make a small profit.

So, now, yes, tough decisions have to be made. Yes, municipal bankruptcies are imminent. If tough decisions are made, rather than constant, inflationary and debt loading Federal Govt. bailouts, we may slowly return to some sustainable level. If not, in the words of Louis XV--apres moi, le deluge.