snapshot

Mon, Mar 8, 2010 : 9:32 p.m.

Andy, a true pay as you go formula. Without all those property and school taxes, we could afford to pay as we go is that your premise?

Soothslayer

Sat, Mar 6, 2010 : 2:39 p.m.

Lets privatize FD/PD just like MD, which I think seems to be working well for a small amount of people who can afford and lobby to get the best care. You can opt for different levels of FD/PD response and support based the level of service and premiums you can afford. If you can't afford the best you better hope they don't deny you service or you may not get timely assistance on the freeway when you crash, when the hoodlums destroy your property and when your house/business is burning. Now can anyone see that privatized health care doesn't make sense? Just like the direction that cities and counties are taking to reduce costs. There is a tried and true formula for the amount of resources and personnel needed for an area for the FD/PD to provide the best care and service. Don't we want this? Stay in the crummy old city builing or sub-lease any of the umpteen available empty buildings just outside of the downtown area for pennies on the dollar what it is costing you for your premium downtown construction. Get your priorities and budgets straight.

I_love_ann_arbor

Thu, Mar 4, 2010 : 11:36 p.m.

Are we less safe? I doubt it. there won't be a rise in crime or any such thing. Most of the time a crime can be prevented thru the tip provided here. The AAPD can't be every where at once. Use the tips that are given here. Let's not forget the huge lawsuit brought by Lt. Khurum Sheik and others. What about the fact that a member of brass lived in AAHC public housing for almost a decade rent free courtesy of Elizabeth Lindsley.How about the taxpayers stop having to foot the bill for cops who sit at Blake Transit center all day? How about the Mayor and all"public" politicians take a pay cut?

snapshot

Thu, Mar 4, 2010 : 10:16 p.m.

OK thickCandy, I'll concede that Ford was the first Industrialist that made manufacturing "productive" with his creation of the assembly line which he based upon the process used in the meat slaughtering industry. He also paid his employees a wage that would allow them to purchase the product they helped create. This was an innovative concept back then when labor was considered to be more or less "endentured servants". Fords concept was localized in the Detroit area, however, and it was Roosevelt that created a "middle class" on a national level with his "New Deal" legislation. I would agree that your Grandfather probably did have a higher standard of living than we have today, but the "standard" would have to be defined. Living on one income, yes. Healthcare, no. At least not until WWII when employers began offering company paid health care to attract scarce employees rather than wage increases which were prevented due to a national wage freeze. there was also less crime, the cost of living was less, but no TV, no dining out, and vehicle purchases consumed a greater portion of income than it does now. Can you imagine wahing your clothes with a washboard, or even that new fangled ringer washer. How about splitting and stacking the firewood, or shoveling the coal into furnace every few hours. Defining "standard" of living gets a little more complicated and personnal the more we think about it.

J. A. Pieper

Thu, Mar 4, 2010 : 8:39 p.m.

I am a public service employee and I am willing to bear cuts and increased costs for medical insurance. I cannot have these types of cuts in my income and add taxes, or repeal the Headly Amendment and end up paying higher property taxes. My home is just big enough for my family of three, but I know now that I will never be able to keep it once I retire. I am cutting costs out of my everyday life, as we all are in this time of a struggling economy in Michigan. I only buy clothes from thrift shops, and literally have cut out most other spending, which hurts my community even more. We all have to give a little, even our city government. Oh, and those of you who think the cell phone ban is being proposed because it will be safer for all of us out on the roads, have you considered that the costly fines may be just to raise additional monies for the city government?

maccheese

Thu, Mar 4, 2010 : 7:42 p.m.

Rich your article sums it up in a nutshell. Of course, always the police and fire haters have to put in their two cents worth. Personally I don't think any dollar amount is too much for these people putting their lives on the line, facing risk and performing their thankless jobs daily. Basic services should not be cut, Ann Arbor needs start looking to other creative ways to balance the budget instead of the yearly scare tactics of layoffs.

Thick Candy Shell

Thu, Mar 4, 2010 : 7:34 p.m.

Yes, change the system, but don't blame the current employee's for the system. The fact is, if you push out retirement benefits, they will stay until the benefits are made available. And Roosevelt did not create a middle class, if anything Henry Ford did. My Grandfather came back from WWI and worked hanging doors on Cadillacs for 50 years and had a better standard of living than I have now.

snapshot

Thu, Mar 4, 2010 : 7:19 p.m.

ThickCandy, That's the way government jobs were oringinally intended to be when Roosevelt created a middle class through the civil service. It is no longer so. Just look at the facts as disclosed in Annarbor.com and via independent analysis. Government workiers are either going to give up some compensation or must take more money out of taxpayer pockets. What's it going to be? Are they going to take the moral high ground or try to force the public to pay their way? I don't see another choice other than bankruptcy. Do you?

Thick Candy Shell

Thu, Mar 4, 2010 : 6:05 p.m.

@Snapshot, the fact of life is this simple...When times are good, the private sector makes a killing when you compare it to the Government employees. When times are bad, the Gov employees don't take as much of a hit. If you really believe Gov jobs are so good, why didn't you get one when the times were good? Then you would have the "great jobs, great salaries, great pensions,great medical, and a great working environment" sorry, it doesn't ring true. I know many people who have left the City of Ann Arbor who make far more then Roger Frasier and still more that make far more than their equivalent "title" at the City. I think there is a reason for people who come to Gov service and part of it may be stability. Will you be on this blog shouting "give them back the cuts, and give them a bonus" when times are good?

lester88

Thu, Mar 4, 2010 : 5:39 p.m.

Mayor and Council need to quit reading blogs and get to the decisions. They are boxed in now and really need to make some tough choices between needs and wants of the city. I hope they rely on more than anonymous posts to assess city needs. Identifying the wants should be easy, you refer to them as boat anchors. Good post Rich. Took guts.

snapshot

Thu, Mar 4, 2010 : 5:32 p.m.

BornNRaised, Moose, 1. So the annarbor.com article indicating that ann arbor city employees have much better comp plans than anyone else is wrong? 2. So my tax bill that has 6.1% for city operating costs and 2.1% for city worker pension costs is wrong? 3. So the bureau of Labor Statistics 2009 report that has government unions larger than private union members for the first time. Government 7.9 million members vs. Private at 7.4 million members because the private sector has lost 8.5 million jobs since the employement peak of December 2007 while the government kept hiring through Sept. of 08 and since then has lost 141,000 jobs, is wrong? 4. So the fact that the tax revenue in ann arbor is decreasing and the city is 5.2 million dollars short of meeting there financial obligations, is wrong? 5. So the fact that the unions don't want to give up an appropriate amount to meet the budget requirements of the city, is wrong? 6. So the fact that the AIG's and financial sectors that you complain about budget 48% of revenue for employee total comp plans (that includes bonuses) and the city employee costs are 60 to 85 percent of revenue, is wrong? 7. So the fact that government unions practice enethical practices such as last minute promotions and overtime to enhance retirement benefits, is wrong? 8. That FD 4% pay concession was only good to July and was offerred only after the 13 guys got pink slips is wrong. 9. That the same 4% concession you keep harping on as being voluntary is only good to July, is wrong? Help me out here guys is any of the above wrong?

Awakened

Thu, Mar 4, 2010 : 4:48 p.m.

Sherriff Clayton at theCounty has turned the Sherriff's Department's finances around and is paying for a jail expansion and hiring new employees. Superior Township has been able to increase Police and Fire services and this year is giving back part of their public safety millage while maintaining services. Saline is surviving without untoward cuts to police and fire. Ann Arbor can't. Ann Arbor needs new managment.

Thick Candy Shell

Thu, Mar 4, 2010 : 4:42 p.m.

@groland, that is a good idea. We will keep all of the Police and Fireman in their job until they are 65. A win win, no more complaining about pensions, and we don't have to train any new employees!

Awakened

Thu, Mar 4, 2010 : 4:37 p.m.

If we reduced the police and fire depeartments by an additional 15 -20% there would be plenty of money to maintain the parks in their current conditions. And put up more community art. Nobody moves to Ann Arbor because of the police department. They come for the parks. What me worry?

groland

Thu, Mar 4, 2010 : 3:24 p.m.

The number one issue facing older municipalities are legacy costs. Pensions and benefits for retirees and their families. Consider that pensions, unlike 401Ks, are not vested in real money but are taken from current tax rolls, that many public sector employees retiree in their 50s after 30 years of service, and that many people live well into their 80s. The retirement ages must increase, or pension benefits must be deferred to 65, just like social security. No one in the private sector retirees as well and as early. We cannot tax our way out of this problem. Anymore increases in the property tax and people will not or cannot live here anymore.

Moose

Thu, Mar 4, 2010 : 2:56 p.m.

"Employee benefit costs are rising at an uncontrollable rate". That's basically because of the greed of the insurance/health care/big pharma bureaucracy not the fault of any employee.

Moose

Thu, Mar 4, 2010 : 2:41 p.m.

Once again, snapshot is wrong. My former private sector employer, to their credit and long before other similar private employers, offered saving plans for retirement and health insurance at the time I was employed there. While the private sector wages rose far faster than mine did in the public sector (including a few years wehre I had no wage increase), the benefits remained similar because of competition in the workplace market for skilled and educated employees. In fact my wife's private sector job had better benefits than I did in the public sector. Her wages were also much higher than mine. The difference was the pension, hers is smaller than mine. But I paid more out of my paycheck than she did into my retirement account. I was betting on the future with no guarantee that I would be around to collect, but I did and now some folks want to take it away.

BornNRaised

Thu, Mar 4, 2010 : 2:13 p.m.

There are also homeless people out there. So should everyone give up 100% of their pay because of that? All of you comparing what you have NOW to public sector employees are like little kids crying. I left a 6 figure per year job to join the public sector. I remember all the arrogant sales reps calling me an idiot because I was walking away from so much. I wouldn't go back for anything now. I love what I do, and took it knowing it was a huge pay cut. Yep, benefits were a LITTLE better than what I left. But it was a choice, and an easy one at that. Most of those that laughed at me are since unemployeed. So should I now give up everything because now they lost out? Funny, no one was giving my bonuses when I became a public employee. I never complained. But not look how many people, the same ones that called me 'stupid' are crying that we should be in the same boat as them. Hmmm... I don't remember ever saying, "Hey, I took a pay cut, so everyone in the private sector should be able to live off what I do now." Once this market turns around, watch how may of you jump back on your fat paychecks and nice bonuses to, once again, raise your noses at the public employees.

Basic Bob

Thu, Mar 4, 2010 : 1:49 p.m.

"How is it possible"? Employee benefit costs are rising at an uncontrollable rate, while tax revenue is decreasing. You think any of us like this situation? Think about the people who pay 100% of their own health care costs plus those of the public service employees. We pay ever-increasing premiums for ever-decreasing levels of coverage. So we can cut the administration a break on not having a good enough crystal ball. Today the budgetary boat anchors are "legacy retirement costs" and "health care premiums", not the costs to mow the grass and scare the geese at two golf courses. That is neither the fault of the administration or the employees.

snapshot

Thu, Mar 4, 2010 : 1:40 p.m.

When I look at my tax bill I see 6.1 mills for the city operating budget and I see 2.1 mills for city pensions. That's 33% of the city's operating budget. Is that one of the "buckets" the unions are complaining about?

snapshot

Thu, Mar 4, 2010 : 1:37 p.m.

Moose, you just affirmed that "private" employees didn't have it as good as "government" employees 10 years ago. Even though you took a cut in pay you made up for it in benefits and pension that weren't offerred in the private sector. In the last decade those "government" perks have more than doubled to what they are now. 30% higher in Ann Arbor than comparable "government" labor in other communities.

brownfields

Thu, Mar 4, 2010 : 1:33 p.m.

Anyone who says that Officers are overpaid should start talking numbers. Let's see how many people have almost 10% of each paycheck taken for the AWESOME benefit of a retirement alone. LE Retirements are not given, they are earned a paycheck at a time.

Moose

Thu, Mar 4, 2010 : 12:50 p.m.

When I left the private sector to go to work for the government, it literally took me 10 years to get back to the level of compensation that I was getting in the private sector. I did that, not only because of the potential future benefits of a pension and health care but because I wanted to work for the place where I lived, doing work that I felt was important to the community. I took the risk to change careers and delayed the potentially greater monetary gratification in the private sector for things that were more important to me. Job security, a pension and the crazy notion that what I was doing made a difference in people's lives.

A2Resi

Thu, Mar 4, 2010 : 12:45 p.m.

@pragmatic....nice that you seem to be so well paid. I wonder how many other, of course, "union" employees feel the same as you. Why don't you try using just some of the intelligence you should have and explore alternatives other than on the back of the hourly workers. Take a long, hard look at the legal services provided by the legal department at City Hall, take a long, hard look at consulting fees paid, take a long, hard look at temporary employee wages. Focusing on just one area to solve a problem is not the answer. I've seen posts here that indicate that some of the unions HAVE done their part and continue to work with the City to not only reduce expenditures but to provide the level of services expected from the residents of the City of Ann Arbor, with reduced staff.

ronaldduck

Thu, Mar 4, 2010 : 12:38 p.m.

I should have added that I'm willing to take concessions just not in my retirement.

ronaldduck

Thu, Mar 4, 2010 : 12:29 p.m.

Public sector employees are not saying that private sector employees have gotten rich or will in the future. The difference is that they have the opportunity to move up in their field and greatly increase their pay and benefits. All large corporations have people from middle managment up that make alot more than most of us. When you work for the government you give up the chance to do that. Even the president only makes $400,000 plus $50,000 expense allowance. Now to me and you thats alot of money but not much when you consider that he is the most powerful man in the world. There are many CEOs that make hundreds of millions. I submit that when he leaves office he will make 10 or 20 times as much in the private sector. For myself (I'm a firefighter) and almost every other person i've talked to, be it firefighter or police office, one of the big reasons for going into that line of work was because we were guaranteed a good retirement. We gave up the chance to make more money for that. Now some of you want to take that away. I have seen people that during the good years of the 90s and early 2000s got huge bonuses, some as large $15,000 and instead of saving for the future they spent it as quick as they got it. I wonder if any of the posters here could themselves among those people.

Lifelong A2

Thu, Mar 4, 2010 : 12:21 p.m.

I think Kinsey's piece (and several of the comments) misses the point. First, Ann Arbor police officers are paid well. Sunday's article showed that the average base pay for a lieutenant was $89,000. Many of the recently-retired lieutenants, sargeants, etc., earned more than $100,000/year thanks to overtime. That places them in the upper 20% of the income bracket, not in the middle class as Kinsey asserts. On top of that, they receive a generous health plan, a pension that allows them to retire at age 50, and lifetime health insurance when they retire. Plus comp time, overtime, double-time, uniform allowances, vacation time, etc. Officers work hard, but they are not under-compensated by any stretch of the imagination. Second, the sacrifice being asked of the officers isn't too onerous. We're talking about a 3% pay cut, and maybe some changes to health insurance/pension. Recall aa.com just published an article showing that the City's health plans are more generous than most public bodies, and FAR more generous than the private sector. Third, Kinsey is way off when he defends the pay structure by saying "both sides agreed to it." The parties agreed to the current contracts back when times were good. The economy has soured, and thus the policies need to chnage. Moreover, the binding arbitrartion system puts all cities in a corner. When Ann Arbor did NOT agree to the union's demands, the union refused to compromise and insisted on arbitration. That's how their last contract was settled... and the arbitrator awarded the officers generous pay raises that most other city unions had declined to take. Fourth, we shouldn't continue this overly-generous compensation package at the expense of other things. I'd rather have some well-kept parks than city employees who have a compensation package that is out-of-line. Police officers work hard. They deserve good compensation and benefits, as well as our respect. But the current pay and benefits structure is out-of-line using all relevant benchmarks, and it needs to be changed. If the cops won't do their share, layoffs is the appropriate solution.

pragmatic

Thu, Mar 4, 2010 : 11:46 a.m.

I am a well paid city employee and understand the difficult economic times that we are in and am willing to take pay concessions and am more than willing to pay for more of my health care insurance. It would be wrong and very selfish for the city employees to ask the taxpayers to pay more in taxes or rates so that we employees can continue to receive such lavish pay and benefits. Staffing cuts should also be thoroughly explored in every department if the concessions are not adequate.

snapshot

Thu, Mar 4, 2010 : 11:46 a.m.

Employees are unhappy and have low moral? They have great jobs, great salaries, great pensions,great medical, and a great working environment. What is there to be unhappy about? They act like taking a 7% across the board cut in compensation is the end of the world. I just don't understand how there can be so many issues in what I consider to be a simple decision of revenue to costs. What's all the arguing about? They need to do what needs to be done. Cut costs and live within their means. That means everybody from the top down needs to take a percentage reduction. It's fair, quick, and clean. What I see is the unions are providing a roadblock with their pettiness and finger pointing. I don't see what the problem is with an "across the board" percentage cut in compensation and spending that balances the budget. Why would the unions disagree with an across the board equal reduction by percentage? And please don't tell me the fire dept. already did it, I'm tired of that old song. It can be worked out that the FD gets "credit" so it's not an issue. I see city management trying to avoid the situation with passing the expense of their poor management on to the taxpayers. I see them spending money on their pet projects, money they didn't have. They have made poor decisions,made city government fragmented and lacking in accountability, and mortgaged the economic future of the city. I see the residents of the city complacent in their attitude towards city management. The residents of the city are mostly affluent and living financially stable lives so as long as they have their parks and restaurants they could care less what their government has been doing for the last decade. To recap, Taxpayers have not held their officials accountable, those official mismanaged the city's financial resources, unions and employees benefited from the situation with their generous salaries and benefits. Everything went unoticed until the economy took a downturn and taxpayers saw their wealth disappear. Now it's time to pay the piper and no one wants to step up to the plate. Not the unions, not the taxpayers, not the employees. Management doesn't have a choice in the matter. What are they going to do? Walk away? What good will that do? All the folks involved have to come to a decision and like I said, it's a simple across the board reduction to meet budget needs. Otherwise, I think bankruptcy is the only answer. Put the city in a receivership, everybody involved in the "financial numbers game" has to testify under oath,(we'll see a lot of stories on "both" sides changing here) and then the judge makes the tough decisions. No negotiating, no squabbling, just the facts, the revenue available, and how it's distributed. Someone needs to take charge of this mess. There's so much misinformation, distractions, pettiness, and mismanagement it's like Detroit is becoming Ann Arbor's role model. We teach children to play nice and respect each other. Ann Arbor public schools brag about how good they are and the citizens they produce. How many of you folks are graduates? Team sports are supposed to build character for working together. How many of you folks are former athletes? Do you really think you're justified to ask for more tax dollars? Do you think the city is going to stop the existing construction projects and redirect the money to your salaries? Would that benefit the city? Taxpayers? Do you think firing Fraser is going to resolve your problem? Hiefji?

MjC

Thu, Mar 4, 2010 : 11:44 a.m.

Interesting thoughts bellboz. But if you don't have a formal police department there is no one to report a crime to. And if there's no one to report a crime to, there's no crime data being collected. Correct? So how do you know what the actual crime rates are in these towns with no police force? If my home is robbed, I guess I just call the insurance company? Meanwhile the burglar moves on to other homes in my neighborhood. And if a drunk driver happens to be swerving up and down State Street I should just wave hello or shout out Go Blue? No. To me the number one priority of our city government is to protect and defend its citizens. Cutting our police force is just wrong, wrong, wrong.

Regular Voter

Thu, Mar 4, 2010 : 11:23 a.m.

"Just how broke is Ann Arbor?" That is a question you are likely to never have answered my blue suited friend. With the 'stewardship' provided by greedy self serving or clueless city officials and the lack of adequate watch dogs and/or concerned citizen oversight there is no real possibility of knowing where our city's finances stand. We are all us being manipulated and cynically treated to scare tactics by our servants. Pretty shameful way for liberal public servants to behave, but the least vocal/least powerful among us are the party they mean to stick with the bill.

tommy_t

Thu, Mar 4, 2010 : 10:58 a.m.

Don't worry just apply the UAW union method of selling out the younger recruit's future by lowering entrance wage, retirement and health benefits to secure the old guard until they die out. Ten's of thousands of jobless highly trained and tested combat veteran men AND women are now available in a growing pool. I'd even bet they would relocate at a chance for some type of future. Who says wars are bad.

treetowncartel

Thu, Mar 4, 2010 : 10:16 a.m.

This is a great piece. I think those offering up public sector paycuts are looking for some type of communism. We all get equal pay. You keep mentioning private sector paycuts yet we still here about lavish bonuses and perks for private sector employees. Who kept their jobs with the deductions taken out of our paycheck? Private sector employees, that is who. It is pure rhetoric and jealousy. In order to get people to become public sector employees you need to offer them something worthwhile to pursue that endeavor. Sure, times have changed and what that something is right now is also changing, but for those who have invested a significant amount of time that change should not be a drastic overhaul. The real problem is that government has grown too much and it does not need the number of employees that it has. However, it still needs some, and as a citizen i would hope they are able to attract good employees.

Jake C

Thu, Mar 4, 2010 : 10:12 a.m.

@Buzz: There are plenty of private-sector jobs more dangerous than the PD & FD, including garbage collectors, truck drivers & traveling salesmen, loggers, fishermen, roofers, electricians, etc. http://www.howstuffworks.com/10-most-dangerous-jobs-in-america.htm

Hunterjim

Thu, Mar 4, 2010 : 9:50 a.m.

Is anyone curious why the city will not go to arbitration and make the claim that they do not have the ability to pay? Could it be because they would have to open up the city books and show all their pet projects they PREFER to pay for rather than the basic needs of this community? We citizens must tell our politicians that while the feel good projects are nice in times of prosperity, they can NOT supersede the basic functions we expect from our tax dollars. Basic needs are not only the Police/Fire Dept wages that I am talking about. Our roads are falling apart. Bridges included! Sewers are old and need to be repaired. We need our trash picked up and streets cleaned when it snows. As much as I like to golf at our city owned courses, close or lease them, get out of the business. We can not afford them. Maintain only the parks that bring in some revenue. I have a small park by my house. I would be willing to help keep it mowed in the summer. Are we still paying for the folks from the Y to live outside our city? Temporary assistance is just that, TEMPERARY. Tough choices, yes. Necessary ones, absolutely. One final point. Contracts are binding. Both parties must abide by them. Both parties MUST bargain in good faith to reach common ground that is good for the city and good for the employees who keep this city operating. I believe it is dangerous to start down the road of voiding contracts. We all will live to regret it.

Fred Posner

Thu, Mar 4, 2010 : 9:36 a.m.

Mission Viejo is a neat counter point, that is not really reflective of this community. First, the city actually increased it's costs for police protection in each of the last few years (it's increased over 20% from 2006) and are now considering ending their contract with the county to start their own police department. Demographics are also very different, with Mission Viejo being one of the wealthiest cities in the United States and one of the highest rates of white-collar workers. It has no public transportation that can be used for work. It has a much older population, much fewer households, and the vast percentage of residents are married with children. I like comparisons, but let's compare something of similar demographics.

Moose

Thu, Mar 4, 2010 : 9:29 a.m.

@Scott Beal nails it! If and when the "good times" return and the private sector is thriving, will we "spread the joy" to public service workers?

Arboriginal

Thu, Mar 4, 2010 : 9:22 a.m.

What I have seen are SUVs with cars pulled over.No dogs. How about the Ford Focus? Milan? Not macho enough is my guess.

belboz

Thu, Mar 4, 2010 : 9:21 a.m.

Great - Chargers. Made in Canada. They probably have a Hemi shipped up from Mexico. Who is the moron that decided we need to buy our cop cars from outside of Michigan. Don't we have any plants making cars here? I thought we had at least one...? How is the economy ever going to be restored with thinking like this....

Thick Candy Shell

Thu, Mar 4, 2010 : 9:15 a.m.

Anyone correct me if I am wrong, but the SUV's are either 1) Motor Carrier Enforcement where they carry the scales and other equip. for dealing with commercial vehicles; or 2) K-9 units which need some space for the dogs As far as the Chargers, Ford has discontinued the Crown Vic. and all PD's are looking for a replacement. I see many Chargers in service all over the state so far. I would assume that is the preferred replacement.

Arboriginal

Thu, Mar 4, 2010 : 9:07 a.m.

Who is purchasing those giant SUVs and souped up Chargers? There is no need for the police to go 150 MPH and very little need for a Ford Expedition to be out writing traffic tickets. I'm sure a few jobs could be saved by exercising a little fiscal responsibility.

xmo

Thu, Mar 4, 2010 : 9:03 a.m.

Thank God that the City Council is almost ready to pass a law against driving and using a cell phone or texting. This will make us safer! I like the priorities of the City Council! One of these days they might be able to get around to the Fire and Police issue if they are to too busy.

Buzz

Thu, Mar 4, 2010 : 9:01 a.m.

Rich, in the immortal words of a good friend of mine, you are really going to stir up a s**tstorm here.

Buzz

Thu, Mar 4, 2010 : 8:58 a.m.

How many of us in the private sector are willing to to die on the job every day. Firefighters and Police know that they may get killed on every call they go on. Most accountants, doctors and lawyers don't leave their house everyday thinking this might be the last time I see my kids. Traditionally, private sector jobs paid better than public sector IN the recent years that may have changed but the average salary for a new pharmacist is around $85,000 a year (last info that I heard on that). How many private sector jobs (other than hospitals etc) work shift work with Tues/ Weds as days off? I guess good benefits are the trade off and that is why people will go work for the government. Ask attorneys why the do not want to work for the government and give up their private practice. Most will tell you they do not want to take a paycut.

AAbob43

Thu, Mar 4, 2010 : 8:57 a.m.

Even those who disagree on public employees' benefits, or on crime statistics or layoffs, all seem to accept as a given that healthcare benefit costs inevitably must increase. How many of you are opposed to the current healthcare legislation? I am a benefits attorney. I see how we in the U.S. shoot ourselves in the feet daily. A recent NY Times or Wall Street Journal article (I forget which) noted that had Nixon-era healthcare reforms been adopted, we'd be $1 trillion ahead. Had the Clinton reforms been adopted, we'd be $500 billion ahead. This can't keep up, but the Republican party and some Democrats are both afraid of change and think they have the reelection holy grail in opposition to healthcare reform. We're on the road to perdition. Enjoy the trip. It'll get more expensive each year.

mmggttnn

Thu, Mar 4, 2010 : 8:44 a.m.

To the unionized police department: If you would agree to some pay and benefit concessions in the 10-15% the range that we in the private sector have experienced, you wouldn't be facing so many layoffs and you would help bring down the city's budget deficit. Your greed is beyond imagination. Pitch in and help the city's taxpayers who need your service.

ann arbor girl

Thu, Mar 4, 2010 : 8:42 a.m.

Rich, you make a good point. But City Administrator Fraser pointed out a few weeks ago that dozens of citizens come to City Council regularly to argue on behalf of funding for parks (citizens seldom if ever come to City Council to argue on behalf of fire & police.) That's how Ann Arbor arrived at 160+ parks (more property off the tax rolls than the UM uses) which need three dedicated millages plus general fund dollars. That's not to say that police don't have places to cut costs. The City & County are consolidating services like IT & Community Development, the A2 & Ypsi Chambers are consolidating, nonprofits are consolidating - now is the time to ask why can't UM & City consolidate their police forces. Lots of overhead would be eliminated (e.g. two police chiefs at $130K+ benefits, as just one example) which would safeguard dollars for police officers. Turf battles led to the formation of the UM police dept in the late 1980's. That was twenty years ago and we can no longer afford the luxury of individual police departments. We must urge our leaders to explore this and other ideas where service is maintained but costs are reduced.

Sandra Samons

Thu, Mar 4, 2010 : 8:37 a.m.

How can we, as citizens, expect any loyalty and career commitment from our fire fighters and police officers if we are not willing to reciprocate? This is just one more example of the misplaced priorities of city officials that keep the rest of us feeling frustrated!

Awakened

Thu, Mar 4, 2010 : 8:35 a.m.

I agree that the Employees should take cuts to reduce costs in hard times and to avoid layoffs which could have an effect on services. I just worry that Fraser's complaint about 'struggles' with the unions is a self-fulfilling prophesy. He asks Fire to cut. They do. He agrees. Then he throws increased layoffs at them. If I were a city worker I would be wary of giving up cuts that in the end won't provide any security for them or the community. I'm afraid he made the goal of concessions harder.

belboz

Thu, Mar 4, 2010 : 8:35 a.m.

In general, it seems that it isn't the number and quality of the police officers that reduce crime - it is the quality of the people they are policing. Just look at Canada. "For example, in 2000 the United States' rate for robberies was 65 percent higher, its rate for aggravated assault was more than double and its murder rate was triple that of Canada." Yet, we have 25% more police per person in the United States. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Canada Some cities don't even have a formal city police force. Mission Viejo (over 100,000 citizens...) is one of the safest cities in the country, and they don't even have a Police Force - they contract out to the county. So, a large city police force does not equal a safe community. There are many ways to accomplish a safe environment. I feel a well educated and interactive community tends to provide a safe environment - which is what I think we have in Ann Arbor. I'm tired of the scare tactics. I do not feel any less safe with the 16% reduction and feel more is not inappropriate. I'd be more concerned if we lost 16% of the residents - which is slowly happening and will continue to happen if the city doesn't get costs under control and starts raising taxes.

Scott Beal

Thu, Mar 4, 2010 : 8:29 a.m.

"Public sector workers like state government office workers, prison employees, fire fighters, police officers, teachers and school district employees, university workers and professors, county and city employees need to recognize they are part of society and are expected to share the pain." There's a certain strand of thought I've noticed on these comment boards, ever since the school millage proposal, that focuses on "pain." Specifically, on wanting public sector employees to "feel the pain" or "share the pain." Rather than reasoned debate, it feels a little mean-spirited and sadistic to me. Like a kid who's been beaten up going to find a smaller kid to beat up. I guess it would be easier to swallow if we saw commensurate calls to "share the joy" when times are better, or from those corners of society who are still doing well. I don't think "spreading pain" is much of a sustainable basis for policy decisions.

Mike

Thu, Mar 4, 2010 : 8:26 a.m.

With reductions in police staffing and the Governor's office pushing to put heinous offenders back on the streets in record numbers, YOU ARE DEFINITELY LESS SAFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

HappySenior

Thu, Mar 4, 2010 : 7:56 a.m.

All public sector workers need to realize that this country is in a recession. Michigan is at the bottom of the pile. We have high unemployment, high mortgage foreclosure, high business taxes that discourage companies from coming here, and out-of-touch politicians that believe the answer lies in taxing the struggling people even more. People in the private sector are losing their jobs. Companies are cutting pay to workers. Private sector workers are paying a higher percentage of the costs for their health care benefits. Public sector workers like state government office workers, prison employees, fire fighters, police officers, teachers and school district employees, university workers and professors, county and city employees need to recognize they are part of society and are expected to share the pain. Public sector workers must pay the same share of health care benefit costs that private sector workers pay. Retirement plans for public sector workers need to be brought under fiscally responsible control. No one likes paying more for health care benefits. Every one would like a boss that pays for their pension. Giving back a raise doesn't come close to what it will take to save public sector jobs. Is Ann Arbor city government less than stellar at managing our financial affairs? Decidedly. Do they understand that taxpayers have no more money to give and are fed up? They may be catching on, and they will see the light when the November elections throw them out of office. Does that excuse the public sector from paying their fair share of benefit costs? No. I love cops. I love fire fighters. Notwithstanding, times have changed, money is in short supply and will continue to be for years, and we need to deal with reality.

Craig Lounsbury

Thu, Mar 4, 2010 : 7:52 a.m.

"it reminds me of a ship captain informed the ship is sinking, who then tells his crew there is no money for plugs or pumps, but they can get busy painting the upper decks because the paint fund is pretty flush." Nice analogy except the ship isn't sinking with respect to crime statistics. "Please understand public service employees.... do their jobs and provide valuable services in exchange for a middle class income, decent benefits, and job security." Recent articles seem to indicate your "decent benefits" out way the private sector on average by a fair amount. I'm begrudging that but it is worth noting since you choose not to point it out. As to "job security" we all would like that but it isn't reality anymore in the private sector sadly. Many of us in the private sector have lost jobs, taken pay cuts, lost health insurance. I wish job security was something we all had. I find your statement: "Please understand public service employees don't enter their careers to get rich. Police officers, firefighters, other city service providers and teachers serve the taxpayers" to be a wee bit disingenuous. It almost implies you gave something up, riches, in exchange for public service. The unsaid assumption would be that all, or most, public servants could have been rich if only they worked the private. sector.

EDM450

Thu, Mar 4, 2010 : 7:51 a.m.

The winter months are always slower when it comes to the number of crimes committed. As soon as the weather changes, the crime rates go up. This summer will be very interesting.

Awakened

Thu, Mar 4, 2010 : 7:48 a.m.

@zig. Based on the trends in crime reporting you are not less safe since last July. Getting rid of the oldest and most highly paid officers, often in jobs with little real function after a decade of hiring freezes didn't impact service. That is why it was a good plan. The question now is should AAPD lose the youngest and most energetic 10% at the bottom of the list? Will that have real effect on services? Like the first cut we may not know until a year or two down the line. In fact, losing some of the departments best trained and most experienced investigators like Mr. Kinsey may have had effects we haven't noticed, and won't notice for years. Losing good experienced people tends to stunt or degrade the devopment of their juniors (now replacements.) This is true in every skill realated job. If Chief Jones is correct that this new layoff WILL impact service: - It will be harder to replace those people because good, experienced candidates will be wary of coming to the bottom of the list. - The loss of the most experienced people last year will make leadership more difficult in the face of service failures. - The loss of the most experienced people will make the training of replacements harder. - The morale effect of the survivors of layoffs is often so impactful that the savings are not realized. (I refer you to a2politico - The Politics of Management.) We may not know the effects of these cuts will actually have for a couple of years. So the citizenry should think long and hard about this step. Time are tough and perhaps tough enough for layoffs. They are occurring elsewhere. But this step should be taken soberly and as a last resort.

TheGerman

Thu, Mar 4, 2010 : 7:26 a.m.

@zigziggityzoo Has more crime occured? Probably (Maybe) not. Are we less safe? Definitely.

zigziggityzoo

Thu, Mar 4, 2010 : 7:11 a.m.

Hate to ask - but are we less safe since July's reduction in force? I haven't noticed an increase in crime.

tdw

Thu, Mar 4, 2010 : 6:37 a.m.

Rich Before the clowns start coming out of the woodwork to slam the police ( which they always seem to do )it should be noted that the majority of people support the PD/FD and are sick of rediculous spending while laying of PO's and FF's