Reader: Ciy's unions must sacrifice some of their benefits - Se...

I applaud Mayor Wong for restricting overnight use of city vehicles. However, it will take far more to make up a $5 million budget shortfall.

[Fed up city employee]

Mr Andrews Let me ask you this....
I have no idea where you work or what you do but when you got hired you had an agreement with your company/boss as to working conditions pay ect .. right??
Ok
Now lets just say you haven't had a raise in ohhh 4yrs... nothing!
Occasionally instead of a raise your boss throws into your work agreement a few more days off a year...
Mean while EVERY single person in the surrounding area who holds the exact same job as you has been getting proper raises just to help off set the cost of living.
Now 4 years later they are making close to 10k more a year than you... Ohhh and they do 1/2 to 1/3 the work you do.
Now add into that an increase in the cost of fuel, food, health insurance, life insurance, taxes... the list goes on as we all know.
Now lay off 9 people
next year lay off 4-7 more, so you have to do even more work.
Ohh and still no sort of raise or at least a fix at all in the near future and people want to take away what little you have left because "The salaries and benefits of city employees are not in line with the private sector."
Do you know what a City of Fitchburg Police Officer makes a week for just doing his assigned shift.... roughly $725 (before deductions...look it up).... In order to make a living you have to work details (Ohhh wait most of those will been taken over by flag men).
Now for lets say $725 a week ... you have to deal with the possibility of being shot, stabbed, poked with an AIDS or HEP infected needle, and dealing with seeing the same person you just locked up yesterday for pointing a gun at someone walking Main St...... mean while your worried about how your gonna pay your morgage, kids doctors bills, taxes, car payment, utilities, and not sure if next month you'll even have a job.
If that person was you would you call for a cut in their pay or benifits because
"The salaries and benefits of city employees are not in line with the private sector.
The benefits in particular, i.e., health insurance, pension funds, vacation time, 401k contributions, and the list goes on and on, need to be reduced.
Even the dedicated, professional and hard-working portion of the public sector must understand what businesses deal with every day. "
Don't get me wrong I completely agree that the financial outlook for the .. well the entire country is not good how ever....
one must realize what most of these people deal with on a day to day basis... If you have the time... look into what local surrounding comunities make and what they deal with compared to Fitchburg...
That sir is the life right now of a Fitchburg Police Officer

[Liam]

I'd say it's time for me to look at other companies. Turn in my resignation as soon as I found that other job.

Right now the company we work for is going into "chapter whoknowswhenitwillcomeback ".

Me, I'm here for long haul.

[GO GIRL]

Fed up City Employee/ FPD..........the people that complain have no idea, in fact; the loudest ones that complain are people like housewives who have been taken care of all their lives and most people who do not know how to go out work hard take on more and more responsibilities nevermind putting your life in your hands for the thugs/slugs we have in Fitchburg. I say pay raises to all of you are justified and should always be forthcoming. Totally agree !!!!

[Angry in Lunenburg]

I have a friend who works for the public sector of Fitchburg, and they say that the city pays a HUGE portion of ALL of their benefits. Those of us in the private sector pay the majority of our health/dental benefits, life/disability benefits, and most people don't work for companies that contribute large portions into their pension and 401k plans. Perhaps if they reduced those across the board for every employee of the city of fitchburg and required them to pay a more appropriate portion of their benefits it would free up a substantial amount of money that could be used elsewhere.

[J_in _Ward _1]

If the city employees have it so bad, how come there's never a shortage of applicants for city jobs?

The unions do need to give some, just like unions made concessions to U.S. automakers so they wouldn't go out of business.

[Get a clue]

I agree, as long as those employees are given the proper raises that they have missed out on over the past SEVERAL years so that they can be brought up to par with people in similar positions.

[Get a clue]

Have you applied for a job lately? There isn't a shortage of applicants for any job.

[Ajay]

"...up to par with people in similar positions."

What people/positions are those?

[Former Municipal Official]

It is generally assumed that municipal workers receive a lower salary than their private sector counterparts, and that that disparity is a justification for better than average benefits ( A through back, in part, from a time when those benefits were relatively inexensive so it was a win-win all the way around). Of course that general assumption should be verified in any particularly case.

And, Ajay, you are right, I can't think of many private sector positions that require you to march into a burning building, or place you in front of a gun. Or that subject them to this level of public scrutiny and criticism.

[J_in _Ward _1]

Security guards are placed in front of a gun, and generally earn less than cops. Many work for agencies and don't have any benefits other than the statutory ones like employers' contribution to Social Security.

[lora]

Ajay wrote:

"...up to par with people in similar positions."
What people/positions are those?

"APPLICANTS"....ther es no shortage on "APPLICANTS"

NO JOBS.
Just lots of people who want their jobs. That why they should stop bitching.

[lora]

Former Municipal Official wrote:

It is generally assumed that municipal workers receive a lower salary than their private sector counterparts, and that that disparity is a justification for better than average benefits ( A through back, in part, from a time when those benefits were relatively inexensive so it was a win-win all the way around). Of course that general assumption should be verified in any particularly case.
And, Ajay, you are right, I can't think of many private sector positions that require you to march into a burning building, or place you in front of a gun. Or that subject them to this level of public scrutiny and criticism.

THEN DON'T DO IT. What? Is this the only skill your family knows? Only way to earn a living?
I think not.
The fire department, city workers, police department are riddled with layer after layer of family members, fathers, sons, uncles, brother and more. Why? Because it is a good job, you ALL love, good pay, excellent benefits and fantastic hours.

No raises, less benefits and lets change the hours that they work too.

They would still keep their jobs.

There would still be a line a mile long waiting to be hired.

[Ajay]

Iora,
Exactly! In the private sector, wages and benefits are tied to profits. There are no blank checks. I wonder how gov't and union employees would react if the city started looking for less costly workers?

[Truffles]

Maybe Scott should get himself a job in the public sector if it seems so appealing-but then again he probably lacks the necessary qualifications.

[Ajay]

Scott?

[WTF]

Instead of fixing the working conditions in the private sector, let's force public sector employment to reduce compensation to peon levels too!

That way not only will our jobs suck, but our public services will suck too! THEN there will be no excuse to not tear down our democratic civil institutions!

WooHoo! Third world nation, here we come!

[Ajay]

WTF,
If I'm reading your post correctly, you're saying that we should NOT reduce compensation in the public sector, but we should increase (or improve) it in the publec sector?

[WTF]

Ajay wrote:

WTF,
If I'm reading your post correctly, you're saying that we should NOT reduce compensation in the public sector, but we should increase (or improve) it in the publec sector?

What I'm saying is that the anomaly is not public sector compensation, but the downward drift of private sector compensation relative to the cost of living.

You can reduce all public sector positions to McJobs, but all that will come of that is shoddy services, and at the end of the day those services would still be relatively expensive (tax and budget-wise) if private compensation continues to lag behind the cost of living. The problem will keep repeating, so it's not a fix.

Supply side economics has proven to be an ineffective model in the private sector, and imposing that model to a greater degree in the public sector as well will do more harm than good.

[Ajay]

I understand your point. I was just trying to compare your arguement with another poster who claims that the public sector needs to "be brought up to par" with the private sector.

[Here we go again]

I don't believe that salaries or benefits should be reduced, however, we could realize a huge savings if we examined waste. What the public sector does a poor job of is quantifying the impact of certain budget items. For example, whenever we speak of layoffs in public safety we hear the anectdotal cries that claim that the safety of the public will be jeopardized. I'm not saying that it wouldn't be negatively impacted, but show me. By laying off "X" number of cops or firemen, how does that manifest itself relative to response? Does it mean response goes from 5 minutes to 10 minutes? Is that 5 minute delay something the public is willing to live with? That decision should ultimately be left up to the taxpayer. Department heads need to supply us with the impact of budget reductions and allow us to decide whether or not we feel our safety is in jeopardy. Then the unions need to decide if they want to keep their benefits and reduce manpower or if they want to maintain manpower and reduce benefits. In these budget times we have to make a choice between the two. We have to re-focus here. Police and fire can't, and shouldn't dictate the level of services we receive. It is our job to tell them what we can afford and can live with.

On the flip side, if we decide we can live with a reduction of services, we cannot complain when it takes a cop 30 minutes to get to our house or the fire department is relegated to preventing fires from spreading rather than saving the structure that is burning.