City Benefits Debate

Posted by Mike Sylvester - 8/23/09 @ 1:44 pm - Filed Under City Council, Featured

Liz Brown tried to bring forward an ordinance that would cause certain City retirees to have to pay a small fee to get their benefits after they retire.

All of the other members of City Council voted against the ordinance.

Liz Brown is 100% right.  This is an issue that needs to be addressed for Federal workers, State workers, City workers, County workers,  school district workers, etc.

20 years ago private sector workers were paid paid higher compensation than public sector workers once you consider hours worked, holidays, benefits, pensions, wages, etc.

Now several recent studies have concluded that over the last several years public sector workers now make more than private sector workers once the above factors are considered.

The benefits packages of public sector workers need to be brought in line with the private sector.  Almost every Government organization in the country is in serious debt and needs to cut costs significantly.  SOME public organizations have started to cause their employees to pay more for healthcare benefits, this is a trend that needs to continue.

Private sector employers have laid off millions of workers and slashed compensation and benefits.  The public sector needs to do the same.

Liz Brown is 100% right on this issue and it is extremely disappointing that the other members of City Council voted the way they did.

Mike Sylvester

Comments

6 Responses to “City Benefits Debate”

  1. guest on August 23rd, 2009 8:06 pm

    Public Safety negotiated a collective bargaining ordinance with the City becoming law and voted on by council.What other laws don’t you like.Work within the law.Otherwise there is chaos.

  2. Mike Sylvester on August 24th, 2009 10:41 am

    Guest,

    I agree with you in one sense; I do not think we should open up previously negotiated contracts and change them.

    I think this topic should be considered by City Council for all future contracts and I think the City needs to take a hard line on all future contracts.

    The problem is the Mayor’s office seems completely unwilling to address these issues; therefore, City Council will have to handle it.

    Mike Sylvester

  3. gadfly on August 24th, 2009 10:42 pm

    So the police unions are free to quit issuing traffic tickets but the taxpayer has no recourse against such insubordination?

    I do not like Fort Wayne politics.

  4. Robert Enders on August 25th, 2009 1:35 am

    I love ticket strikes!

  5. Guest on August 25th, 2009 7:22 am

    To the best of my knowledge City Council only has an up or down vote on contracts the Mayors office negotiates with public safety.Council would most likely would have to dismantle collective bargaining a daughting task.And to ignore collective bargaining would result in very expensive lawsuits.I am assuming that the mayor is trying to shore up his base as he gets ready for re-election.If you do not like what is going on you need to take him out at the ballot box.

  6. Phil Marx on August 25th, 2009 7:15 pm

    Two suggestions, both of which I believe should only be implemented after the current contract expires.

    First, under current terms, the amount the retirees pay for health care is capped, which means that as prices continue to rise, the cost to tax payers rises also. I propose that we cap the amount that the city pays instead. This allows the retirees to keep the value that they currently have, but it means any future increase will be born by them, rather than the tax payers.

    Second, negotiate all future contracts for a four year term, set to expire one year after each city council election. This will ensure that all new members will be allowed to give their input on future negotiations without breaking previous agreements.

Leave a Reply