Cities, Towns Want To Get Out From Un...

Cities, Towns Want To Get Out From Under Costly State Mandates

There are 39 comments on the Hartford Courant story from Feb 3, 2009, titled Cities, Towns Want To Get Out From Under Costly State Mandates. In it, Hartford Courant reports that:

Cash-starved cities and towns would save nearly $30 million next year if they're allowed to ignore several state-imposed rules on schools, tenant evictions and property revaluations, municipal leaders told a ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Hartford Courant.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
State Mandate Relief

United States

#22 Feb 3, 2009
Ha ha!! You must be a State Worker!!

"...misguided personal frustration ..." ?

Hardly, I claim the same level of bureaucratic incompetence has gone completely unchecked since the New Deal was signed into existence.

Where have you been?

How about eliminating unions! Nothing but a bunch of self serving lobbycrats who are indulging in their own survival ... at the expense of others.

Want to start someplace productive? Look at the tomes of non-sensical gibberish called regulation and all of the voluminous copies thereof and heretofor! Reduce it to English, the language of Americans (or at least it used to be) and get rid of all programs represented by all of that gobbledeguuk, and the representative architects of said same gobbledeguuk, that are not self-sustaining and serving the majority of the people.
doityourselfweat her com

Waterbury, CT

#23 Feb 3, 2009
HEY! Hartford Courant:

Why not print ALL the mandates, the dates imposed and their related cost to the towns/cities (Taxpayers) and give the background (history of mandates in CT).
Not only would you be doing the citizens a service but YOU WOULD SELL PAPERS!!!!!!
Jingles

AOL

#24 Feb 3, 2009
State Mandate Relief wrote:
Ha ha!! You must be a State Worker!!
"...misguided personal frustration ..." ?
Hardly, I claim the same level of bureaucratic incompetence has gone completely unchecked since the New Deal was signed into existence.
Where have you been?
How about eliminating unions! Nothing but a bunch of self serving lobbycrats who are indulging in their own survival ... at the expense of others.
Want to start someplace productive? Look at the tomes of non-sensical gibberish called regulation and all of the voluminous copies thereof and heretofor! Reduce it to English, the language of Americans (or at least it used to be) and get rid of all programs represented by all of that gobbledeguuk, and the representative architects of said same gobbledeguuk, that are not self-sustaining and serving the majority of the people.
Getting rid of the unions is not really necessary. Instead, Jodi Rell should update her campaign finance reform to make it illegal for unions to donate one cent to any campaign. She got rid of contractors and lobbyists. My guess is that unions contribute more to campaigns than lobbyists and state contractors combined. Take away their political clout and then they are in business to take care of their members and not influence politicians.
Joe Visconti - WHTFD TC

West Hartford, CT

#26 Feb 3, 2009
The Unions are paying for mobile billboards already. Saw one this am in West Hartford. Save the Union Bosses it should say. Propoganda from the left, same game was played against Voting No for a Constitutional Convention. Make CT a Right to work State and Start keeping more of your hard earned paycheck citizens!
Jack

Glen Cove, NY

#27 Feb 3, 2009
I have not read a single post about repealing one of the most absurd State mandates ever passed - heart and hypertension disability for police and fire personnel. It costs every municipality million of dollars each year. It is a "perc" unheard of in the private sector. Police and fire personnel are, contrary to popular belief, not terrible dangerous fields of work. A construction worker, or a fisherman are far more likely to be injured or die on the job. So let's cut the big giveaway which should have never been passed in the first place.
Stosh

Wallingford, CT

#29 Feb 3, 2009
Read the last paragraph of the article again.... "The legislature is expected to consider requests for relief from mandates that would waive prevailing wage laws for many municipal construction jobs, amend binding arbitration rules, bar unemployment benefits for part-time or seasonal workers who worked less than 1,000 hours in a year, and allow municipalities to stop using newspaper ads to notify the public about actions by boards and commissions."

Who's screwing who - look at what the State is making us do, at the local level, with our tax dollars. What a crock of nonsense...!!!
State Mandate Relief

United States

#30 Feb 3, 2009
Jingles wrote:
<quoted text>
Getting rid of the unions is not really necessary. Instead, Jodi Rell should update her campaign finance reform to make it illegal for unions to donate one cent to any campaign. She got rid of contractors and lobbyists. My guess is that unions contribute more to campaigns than lobbyists and state contractors combined. Take away their political clout and then they are in business to take care of their members and not influence politicians.
Getting rid of unions not necessary? Maybe. I think it is preferable. They serve only special interest. The needs of the many alway outweigh the needs of the few. Sorry
State Mandate Relief

United States

#31 Feb 3, 2009
Jack wrote:
I have not read a single post about repealing one of the most absurd State mandates ever passed - heart and hypertension disability for police and fire personnel. It costs every municipality million of dollars each year. It is a "perc" unheard of in the private sector. Police and fire personnel are, contrary to popular belief, not terrible dangerous fields of work. A construction worker, or a fisherman are far more likely to be injured or die on the job. So let's cut the big giveaway which should have never been passed in the first place.
Actually Jack, I made the most general reference possible. It's called gobbledeguuk. The real point is, it is not really possible to follow a thought process that broadly encompasses the specific. One must be specific as you were. Yet, you are only focused on your point. A good thing, yes - but hardly conveys a preference to reform anything outside the boundrys of your understanding. That is how politicians slam you, and me, everytime. Gobbledeguuk!
Jingles

AOL

#32 Feb 3, 2009
State Mandate Relief wrote:
<quoted text>Getting rid of unions not necessary? Maybe. I think it is preferable. They serve only special interest. The needs of the many alway outweigh the needs of the few. Sorry
I am not advocating unions. I am saying by removing their ability to swing elections through massive campaign contributions and endorsements, they will be reduced to simply serving their members. When the union endorses a candidate, that candidate becomes beholden to them. Once the candidate is elected he owes the union something. Take away the unions ability to make campaign contributions and politicians are not beholden to the unions. Now union members are on the same footing as non union workers.
Kazabud1

Abbeville, AL

#33 Feb 3, 2009
Oh Oh. get what you asked for. Arent these guys the same ones who passed the bills?
State Mandate Relief

United States

#34 Feb 3, 2009
Jingles wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not advocating unions. I am saying by removing their ability to swing elections through massive campaign contributions and endorsements, they will be reduced to simply serving their members. When the union endorses a candidate, that candidate becomes beholden to them. Once the candidate is elected he owes the union something. Take away the unions ability to make campaign contributions and politicians are not beholden to the unions. Now union members are on the same footing as non union workers.
Clear enough for keeping it straight forward and simple. The gut feeling of it goes something like this: Credit Unions provide a service that benefits those who subscribe and I don't think there is any impact whatsoever to those who do not. Other union associations, in my mind at least, are predatory and work against the good of all. There is a difference between a hand-out, and a hand-up!
Jingles

AOL

#35 Feb 3, 2009
State Mandate Relief wrote:
<quoted text>Clear enough for keeping it straight forward and simple. The gut feeling of it goes something like this: Credit Unions provide a service that benefits those who subscribe and I don't think there is any impact whatsoever to those who do not. Other union associations, in my mind at least, are predatory and work against the good of all. There is a difference between a hand-out, and a hand-up!
Yes, clear and simple.
CtlAltDel

Ludlow, MA

#36 Feb 3, 2009
As, it's nice that this forum gives us all a place to vent. That's as much good as will come of this.

Our legislature will once again ignore the cries of the taxpayers and guard their pet programs with our very last dollar. These are mostly DEMOCRATS, remember?

NOW people complain about big government, entitlement programs, and the like. Where were you when these boneheads ran for election? Have you commented on the spending before?

Remember in November.
sam

Danbury, CT

#37 Feb 3, 2009
Think About It wrote:
<quoted text>
let's think about this a minute.
I, for one, am always amazed and shocked at the number of wasted "half-days" that our children are carted off to school only to return by noon for mandatory teacher in-service trainings.......
Think about the waste. Kids are there for a 1/2 day, they KNOW they are going home early and aren't focused. We spend the thousands per day to transport them: Fuel, drivers, croasing guards, etc....
In any other profession - Physicians, Social Workers, Certified Nurses, Attorneys, etc..._ the require continuing education requirements are the responsibility of the professional. They must schedule, arrange and PAY for their own trainings. Why can't teachers do the same? They have three months off per year, have short class days. We could save millions AND reduce the school days (as stated in the article) by terminating these wasteful, half-day in service fiascos.
The children, in the end, would have the SAME actual hours in a legitimate classroom setting and still save one-to-two weeks operating cost from teh overall scheduled year/budget.
God knows my employer doesn't pay for my day off to obtain CEU's nor do they pay for the actual course or my annual lincesure fees.... Maybe this is a common sense concession the teacher's union could make to save ALL taxpayers (including themselves) millions.......
amen as an rn i have to attend my ceu's on my day off. i may usually $200 for an 8 hour class and need to take at the very least 3 in a year. it is amazing the amount of professional days the teachers are given. do we really need to give them a febuary vacation and then april consolidate down to one. they just had off for the 2 weeks of the holiday.factor in snow days when do they work. i picked my profession so it is all good but we pay way too much to the higher echelon cut out the fat to keep the meat.
Waldo 313

Marietta, GA

#38 Feb 3, 2009
A $30 million saving is chump change. I can save them all the money they need. No state/municipal worker should be able to cash in unused sick or vacation time. No state/town worker can retire until age 62. State/municipal workers get wages and benefits equivalent to the private sector. Voila!! Massive surplus!!
Matt from CT

New York, NY

#39 Feb 3, 2009
Waiving 180 school days is hardly a meaningful fiscal change.

And if basic state laws are mandates, could I get the State to pay for renewing my license & plates, please?

Maybe waive that speed limit thing.

Oh...and especially that income tax thingy.

Want to make MEANINGFUL reform?

Abolish binding arbitration. Let's remember it was the early 1990s when binding arbitration awarded teachers three consecutive years of 10% pay increases and that has had a far more profound impact on our taxes then anything else in memory.

That time period also marked a break with the old tradition where public sector employees enjoyed great benefits and better job security then private industry, but in exchange had relatively low salaries.

Since then they've enjoyed better benefits, better job security, AND receive take home pay competetive with private industry salaries.

Things like abolishing binding arbitration would represent true reform.
State Mandate Relief

United States

#40 Feb 3, 2009
CtlAltDel wrote:
As, it's nice that this forum gives us all a place to vent. That's as much good as will come of this.
Our legislature will once again ignore the cries of the taxpayers and guard their pet programs with our very last dollar. These are mostly DEMOCRATS, remember?
NOW people complain about big government, entitlement programs, and the like. Where were you when these boneheads ran for election? Have you commented on the spending before?
Remember in November.
Actually .... YES!!! Big Time!!!!
Cheryl D -West hartford

United States

#41 Feb 3, 2009
Joe Visconti - WHTD TC wrote:
It's time to watch the AFSCME ET AL crowd as they start singing:"Look for the Union Label". For everyone else, start singing: "I beg your pardon we never promised you a Rose Garden, along with sunshine there's got to be a little rain sometimes".
This is why i never voted for you.
Stranger than fiction

United States

#42 Feb 3, 2009
Matt from CT wrote:
Want to make MEANINGFUL reform?
Abolish binding arbitration. Let's remember it was the early 1990s when binding arbitration awarded teachers three consecutive years of 10% pay increases and that has had a far more profound impact on our taxes then anything else in memory.
That time period also marked a break with the old tradition where public sector employees enjoyed great benefits and better job security then private industry, but in exchange had relatively low salaries.
Since then they've enjoyed better benefits, better job security, AND receive take home pay competetive with private industry salaries.
Things like abolishing binding arbitration would represent true reform.
Only in CT's public sector is an annual raise and free health care considered an entitlement. When Bridgeport was in danger of going belly up a few years back,the city's finances were taken over by a State oversight board. The first thing they did was abrogate the existing public employee union contracts.
Maybe its time??

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Winsted Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Torrington Police Department (Jun '07) Mon Spaz 42
News Alleged victim recounts sexual assault in '90s (Apr '08) Apr 26 cops are degenerates 84
News Torrington Man's 'Bag Of Bones' Revives Cold Case (Sep '08) Feb '16 livelove 10
News Bridgeport factory conversion financing in place Dec '15 Citizen44 13
Eddie DuBois (Oct '14) Oct '15 InterNet Ghost 5
Housing (Jan '15) Sep '15 Kay 2
horny chat (Apr '10) Sep '15 WOW 21
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Winsted Mortgages