Ann Arbor mayor embracing culture of cutting public services, while dumping on employees
I was disappointed to read this week that City Council voted to slash 20 positions from the police and fire departments. Although the goal of efficient government is commendable, the degradation of public safety that comes from continued reductions in city staffing is reaching a critical point.
But what really drew my ire was when Mayor John Hieftje commented that he hoped the state House of Representatives would pass a bill requiring public employees to pay 20 percent of their health care premiums. It seems that instead of negotiating with the police and firefighters unions, the mayor merely wishes to dictate terms to them. That’s not how negotiations work -- one side doesn’t simply enforce its will on the other.
The firefighters already took a pay cut when they signed a short-term contract last year, and though the city has real needs to reduce its health care burden, the high-deductible plan it has forced on its non-unionized employees seems quite insufficient.
Finally, as a resident of the city, I’m disappointed that Hieftje seems to be embracing the culture of cutting public services and dumping on public employees that has become all too popular in Lansing this year. I want my mayor to be leading the charge fighting back against state cuts and looking to balance service cuts with revenue increases at both the state and local levels.
Instead, he has chosen to encourage the state as it tries to tilt the playing field still more against workers.
Mr. Mayor, I’ve happily voted for you three times. After your actions on June 2, you’ve got a long way to go to earn my support again.
Patrick O’Mahen
Ann Arbor
Comments
timjbd
Mon, Jun 20, 2011 : 1:41 p.m.
Good benefits are always one way to move negotiations forward in lieu of salary increases. They push the financial burden off to the future. What if it wasn't an issue? We'll all see how it goes in Vermont. <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/05/26/us_health_care_vermont" rel='nofollow'>http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/05/26/us_health_care_vermont</a> _________ ""We gather here today to launch the first single-payer health care system in America, to do in Vermont what has taken too long -- have a health care system that is the best in the world, that treats health care as a right and not a privilege, where health care follows the individual, isn't required by an employer -- that's a huge jobs creator," Shumlin said." _________ Expanding Medicare to cover everyone would free up a huge amount of business capital. All three US automakers were waiting in the wings to come out in support of the Clinton healthcare plan in the 90's then the republicans got together and destroyed that highly pro-business initiative. That may have headed off the downfall of the big three well before the much-needed (and successful) bail-out. Taking the burden of healthcare off business (especially small business) is an obvious job creator and yet it fails in this country because of the amount of money insurance companies and their slick lobbyists pour into the campaigns of congressional candidates from both sides. A government bureaucracy operating at 3% overhead (accountable to the electorate to whom they provide service) whose aim is health over profit is far preferable to a private bureaucracy (accountable only to profits of shareholders) whose aim is profit over health and which operates at 25-30% overhead. In both cases, they are the same people populating the bureaucracy. The difference is the extent to which massive salaries and free cash flow must be generated at the top and the ultimate aim of the bureaucracy.
AACity12
Mon, Jun 20, 2011 : 1:13 a.m.
"Increasing taxes on residents during these high times of unemployment is not a reality" But raising the costs of benefits, cutting pay and laying off staff is a completely reasonable plan? Does it make sense to "tax" a few employees to pay for all these services or tax a few 1000 people that actually use them?
Goober
Mon, Jun 20, 2011 : 8:11 a.m.
Pay and benefits must be brought in line with private employers. Once done, the focus can then shift to the elimination of waste.
Mick52
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 8:16 p.m.
Patrick, if they are paying less than 20% I am surprised. I have no problem with the mayor's statement. I would take it a little farther though. I am beginning to think that since cities get their authority from the state, the state should develop minimum standards to assure safety and reliability in city budgets. By that I mean the state should develop formulas to determine the minimal level of essential services that cities must provide. For example, the state should be able to tell municipalities that based on population, density, structures, etc that they must provide a particular number of police officers, fire fighters and so on. This would prevent cities from cutting services too severely in order to fund projects based on social agendas or pet projects, programs they can fund but only with appropriate funding in essential services. I think the state should be allowed to do this because if a city has a budget crisis the state has to conduct the bail out.
Joe Hood
Mon, Jun 20, 2011 : 3:33 a.m.
Aren't minimum standards basically handled by the insurance industry? Say Ann Arbor fired all of their fire fighters, I bet our homeowners insurance would go through the roof. Right now on a scale 1-10 (1 being perfect), we rate a 4 in Ann Arbor (<a href="http://www.a2gov.org/government/safetyservices/Fire/Pages/Fireoper.aspx)" rel='nofollow'>http://www.a2gov.org/government/safetyservices/Fire/Pages/Fireoper.aspx)</a>.
nowayjose
Mon, Jun 20, 2011 : 1:17 a.m.
Awesome, so you are for socialism.
sh1
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 6:15 p.m.
I have to give props to the GOP and their talking points for turning middle class private employees against middle class public employees. It sure helps distract from how our money is really being wasted.
John B.
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 4:20 p.m.
When my wife and I moved to Michigan many years ago, we were shocked to repeatedly see that the only way the residents here could make themselves feel good appeared to be by tearing down and denigrating others. Neither of us had experienced that anywhere either of us had previously lived. I see that behavior hasn't changed much since then. It's sad, really.
Joe Hood
Mon, Jun 20, 2011 : 3:23 a.m.
@John: You are loved!
Mick52
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 8:18 p.m.
Yesterday my wife and I spoke with a young man who has been out of state and he told us people in Michigan are far more friendly from places he has been. So some of us feel good by being nice to others.
braggslaw
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 6:40 p.m.
I don't want public unions to use me as an ATM. no tearing down, simply saying no
Craig Lounsbury
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 5:52 p.m.
well played antikvetch
antikvetch
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 5:22 p.m.
And today's irony award goes to......
shepard145
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 3:26 p.m.
The most frightening word in Ann Arbor politics: Leadership
shepard145
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 3:23 p.m.
AA residents need to expect strategies designed to soften them up for another run at increasing property taxes. Residents should demand that Council and the Mayor cut their pet social and environmental projects before vital public services. If not, they will continue to pay for their "most vulnerable citizens" (gag) - another expensive utopian failure - and support losing environmental policies that cost the City millions in lost tax revenue. TAX INCREASE STRATEGY BEGINS WITH UNACCEPTABLE CUTS DESIGNED TO HIT TAX PAYERS BETWEEN THE EYES!! THEY WANT YOU TO FEEL IT AT HOME TO LOOSEN YOUR CHECK BOOK SO LOOK FOR CUTS THAT WILL EFFECT YOU, THE WORKING TAX PAYER, DIRECTLY - public safety, road maintenance, snow plowing, etc.. This opinion piece is not helpful though. We don't need to hear form more people living in democrat fantasy land beating the same drum circle with absurd solutions: a. The mayor needs to prevent state tax cuts we don't like even tough the state has a $1.8 billion deficit. b. We need "revenue increases" = TAX INCREASES even as one of the worst economies in the country with the highest unemployment and free falling home values!? c. Save "the workers", cut "somewhere else". d. Keep the Cadillac healthcare superior to what private sector employers have provided for years. ..the exception is police/fire who need special consideration to care for injuries sustained on the job. These were the failed answers of the foolish Granholm administration. Unions freely spent big money to elect the politicians they would later negotiate public sector benefits with, which should have been OUTLAWED DECADES AGO!! After bankrupting states around the country with this scam, it's time to wake up to reality. The key to increasing revenue in Ann Arbor is to fix the nonsensical, activist driven business and job killing regulation and zoning policies that have largely stagnated the City. ...another words, the most frightening word in A
stunhsif
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 2:47 p.m.
" It seems that instead of negotiating with the police and firefighters unions, the mayor merely wishes to dictate terms to them. That's not how negotiations work -- one side doesn't simply enforce its will on the other." The mayor has tried repeatedly to negotiate with the unions so this is in no way his fault. Hopefully the Gov will put in place either a cap on the spending or a percentage that public employees must pay for their health and pension benefits. Current funding levels are no longer sustainable, the taxpayers are getting taken to the cleaners but are getting dirty laundry in return.
Doug Gross
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 2:46 p.m.
Asking employees to contribute to health care insurance is not "dumping on employees". The city needs to continue to hire young, vibrant employees to provide services to the public - the unions are more worried about protecting retirees that retire at 55 and want the same income they had when they were working. The city should be sharing more information about the generous health care benefits provide to retirees. If everyone has some skin in the game ( contributes to health care), this will fix some of the budget problems. See PEBRC.org for more information.
Mike D.
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 1:47 p.m.
The very notion that employees get to negotiate pay as a group with their employers is old-school union-think. Let me tell you about how real jobs work today: You get paid what your boss thinks you're worth, right up until the day he doesn't need you anymore, and then you're out. If you--you personally--are good enough at your job to deserve a raise, you have to go beg for it on the merits, not by complaining to the press. Regardless of your performance, if the company doesn't do well, you get a pay cut and your benefits are reduced. You get a memo explaining it and telling you to keep working hard. There is no opportunity for discussion on the matter. Yes, all of the above has happened to me in the past 24 months. If I don't like it, I am free to leave and find another job. City employees make good money here, and renegotiating their pay to a sustainable level isn't unreasonable. I am less keen on actually cutting staffing levels for safety services (and road maintenance) beyond their current unreasonable levels, and one of the ways you get to keep reasonable staffing levels is by having reasonable rates of pay.
Mike D.
Thu, Jun 23, 2011 : 12:37 p.m.
@sh1 Clearly we are looking at this from different perspectives. But I think we can agree on one thing: I wouldn't hire you, and you wouldn't want to work for me!
Joe Hood
Mon, Jun 20, 2011 : 3:19 a.m.
@huh7891 Pony up? The taxpayers are groaning that they don't have jobs and your reply to them is "pony up?" Pony up to pay someone else at an unsustainable level?
Maxwell
Mon, Jun 20, 2011 : 3:17 a.m.
Sounds to me like you need to unionize!
sh1
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 8:34 p.m.
Mike, I'm not sure there was a misunderstanding at all. You wrote of having to "beg" for a raise, and being fired at the boss's whim without notice. That doesn't sound like "people earning salaries on their own merits."
Mike D.
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 3:21 p.m.
@huh7891 I think you misunderstood my post. I am happy with the amount of money I make, and if I didn't like my employer or my rate of pay, I'd leave and go elsewhere. They treat me as I treat my own employees: people have to earn their salaries on their own merits. There is no entitlement to a rich compensation package just for showing up. As for worrying about my own benefits and not those of city employees, do you not understand that my property taxes are paying their salaries? It is my money they want more of (and make no mistake, with the cost of health care going up, they do want more of it even with the nominal co-pays), so yes, it is my business.
huh7891
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 2:25 p.m.
Mike D..it's called a union and thru the years has protected the workers. While it is unfortunate that your employer doesn't seem to care about you or retaining you as a worker as you clearly described above, most employers do want to retain their hard working, skilled and talented employees. The pay these employees receive are not out of line for the work they do. I don't work for the city and it amazes me the endless postings on here from people that feel since they don't receive a certain benefit no one else should, that's crazy...Why don't you worry about yourself and quit whining because your employer felt the need to put the screws to you. As for complaining to the press, the news is the news and any one has the right to remark just like you do...don' like it..quit reading. Public safety is number one priority and no one should have to put up with the constant threats of job loss year after year , after year. When times are better and excess money is to be had then and only then should the city be spending on greenbelts and pretty artwork. Pony up Ann Arbor and start supporting the people that protect you...they have earned every dime they make.
braggslaw
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 1:34 p.m.
Only a public employee would argue this perspective
Basic Bob
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 1:41 p.m.
Or a public retiree with irresponsibly generous benefits for life.
walker101
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 1:23 p.m.
Mr. O'Mahen, every heard of fiscal responsibility? The City can continue the current culture of spending money they don't have or maybe they can start growing more money trees? Funny how the governor wants to cut back and he's a villain and the left wants him to be recalled, and yet you continue to elect the same politico no less three times along with an administration that is bankrupting our country. When will you ever learn?
Lamont Cranston
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 1:15 p.m.
I certainly don't think it is unreasonable for public employees to contribute to their own health care costs. It is something that I have been doing with my company for the last 20 years. So in these times of budgetary challenges, cities have to balance the budgets and citizens have to accept lower services. No one is"dumping" on public employees, public employees are now feeling the effects of the economy that private sector employees felt 2 or 3 years ago. It seems that some people think that public sector employees are different and don't face the economic realities that private sector employees do. When times get better and there is more to spend, we can bring back more services. Everyone has to adjust to the new economic reality.
Goober
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : 1:13 p.m.
This article seems to breed the feeling that increased revenue can be a reality. It also ignores the reality that there comes a time, when costs must be reduced until such time that more favorable conditions exist. Increasing taxes on residents in these times of high unemployment is not reality. Unless the state has a gold pot buried someplace, the challenge on all Michigan residents is how best to attract new companies and businesses to grow future revenues.
Craig Lounsbury
Sun, Jun 19, 2011 : noon
Mr. O'Mahen, As an Ann Arbor resident how much more are you willing to chip in? Do you want your property taxes raised or an income tax implemented?