Orr to creditors: Detroit on 'brink of financial and operational ruin'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zacha341

I just watched LetitRip and it was mentioned that part of the possible pension scalping will be a roll-off of the healthcare portion to Medicare and Obamacare [[the Affordable care act)... which ain't sounding so good now that some will be forced this direction.

Especially when it was orginally thought they could keep their 'private' health care options. Hmmmn....

---

So Obama is now to blame for decades of fiscal mismanagement in Detroit?

Without the Obamacare subsidized insurance exchanges, these under-65 retirees likely would still lose their coverage and be left with NOTHING. They'd have to find a job that provides insurance or pay 100% out of pocket for private health insurance.

My grandfather lost his retiree health benefits when the steel company he worked for went bankrupt. They dumped him on Medicare and this was like 15 years ago. The private sector has been doing this for years, long before Obama was around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

So this is just a revenue problem?

---

It's a spending and revenue problem, but fixing one problem won't automatically fix the other problem.

Quote:

---

I just watched LetitRip and it was mentioned that part of the possible pension scalping will be a roll-off of the healthcare portion to Medicare and Obamacare [[the Affordable care act)... which ain't sounding so good now that some will be forced this direction.

Especially when it was orginally thought they could keep their 'private' health care options. Hmmmn....

---

That sounds like code for we are dropping your health care entirely, but you'll be able to go into the exchange and purchase your own care if you so desire. I wouldn't be shocked if there are some incentives/subsidies for this new coverage, but it will likely be a big shift from where things are today. . .

Some comments above seem to sharply criticize "Under 65 retirements". The problem there is that Police and Fire work are both young person's games. If you need the police in a hurry, you sure don't want to see a couple of 60-year olds responding, or trying to drag out a hose to put out your fire.

You young people will find this hard to believe, but after age 50 your body ain't the same as it was at 25.

Theoretically, a well-run police department is structured where folks who reach a certain age are assigned to desk duties until they reach a reasonable retirement age, while the younger officers are all on street duty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 313WX

Theoretically, a well-run police department is structured where folks who reach a certain age are assigned to desk duties until they reach a reasonable retirement age, while the younger officers are all on street duty.

---

Not when desk jobs are constantly either laid off or moved out to the street like happened this year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toka313

Not when desk jobs are constantly either laid off or moved out to the street like happened this year.

---

Well, no one said DPD is a well-run police department. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 313WX

Theoretically, a well-run police department is structured where folks who reach a certain age are assigned to desk duties until they reach a reasonable retirement age, while the younger officers are all on street duty.

---

Or transferred to being a security guard at DIA or other city functions. How many non-police security guard positions are there at city facilities?

The City of Detroit isn't allowing employees to simply transfer to other departments solely on the basis of seniority. It amazes me that people don't treat everything they read with some measure of skepticism and weigh it for reasonableness.

If there is an opening in a department, people have to apply for it. It can be posted internally or externally, meaning preference can be given to all qualified city employees first, or city employees can compete with people from the outside. Some titles strongly urge looking on the inside first, because it is assumed employees with that title across the city have similar capabilities.

If there is a layoff, then laid off employees who qualify for the same position in another department have seniority preference over others. This is called "bumping". But, it has to be the same title.

The problem begins when the person holding the title in the department that still has the position is more qualified than the person with the same title who was laid off in another department. All things being equal, you would hope all the employees are qualified. But of course that is not always the case. Some agencies are more lax in getting rid of incompetent employees than others. Some agencies assign employees duties outside of their title so they are not really competent at the title they hold. Some agencies didn't invest the training needed to keep skills up to date.

The city finally got rid of this practice - before Orr came on board. Now you have to show that you have the same skill set as someone you are hoping to "bump". That's appropriate, but it wasn't exactly a free for all based solely on seniority before.

Plus, it really is possible to fire government employees for lack of performance. Might take a couple of skirmishes with the union, but it's doable.Only poor management prevents this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Locke09

Plus, it really is possible to fire government employees for lack of performance. Might take a couple of skirmishes with the union, but it's doable.Only poor management prevents this.

---

This agrees with my experience with civil service employeed [[my experience here is not with the Detroit municipal government.). Managers can get rid of bad employees if they want to. Really bad employees are worth getting rid of because they are such a pain to have around, and it is relatively easy to document that they should be removed.

The problem comes in when you have an employee who isn't exactly bad, but who isn't good either. They can do some of their job, but not all of it, or they require excessive supervision, or possibly they have interpersonal issues. A lot of times, a co-worker is handling the stuff they can't do [[possibly resentfully). Now the manager has to decide whether they are going go through the effort either trying to upgrade the employee's skills [[assuming the employee actually is willing to try to do this) or whether to start documenting the incompetence so that they can dismiss them, or both.

Either way is a lot of effort, so the manager needs to have a manager who values that effort or else it probably won't happen. That is where the system tends to break down. But it tends to be mostly a managerial problem rather than a contractual one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hermod

No, it wasn't just growth that failed. The localities also operated on the principle that housing prices [[and the resulting ad valorum property taxes) would continue to increase forever. The mortgage industry made the same assumption. Unfortunately, in 2006, the music stopped and not everyone could find a chair.

---

This isn't really true. You are ignoring the problem is that in Michigan the property taxes can't increase with property values anyway. That is why the growth is so significant--new construction can be taxed at current valuations, unlike old construction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aj3647

So Obama is now to blame for decades of fiscal mismanagement in Detroit?

Without the Obamacare subsidized insurance exchanges, these under-65 retirees likely would still lose their coverage and be left with NOTHING. They'd have to find a job that provides insurance or pay 100% out of pocket for private health insurance.

My grandfather lost his retiree health benefits when the steel company he worked for went bankrupt. They dumped him on Medicare and this was like 15 years ago. The private sector has been doing this for years, long before Obama was around.

---

When everything goes wrong, it's always "Blame Obama" I'm not pleased he hasn't delivered on a lot of promises made, which is the case of most politicians. Don't blame him for everything, especially when most of the republican faction, conspires to work against him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Locke09

The City of Detroit isn't allowing employees to simply transfer to other departments solely on the basis of seniority. It amazes me that people don't treat everything they read with some measure of skepticism and weigh it for reasonableness.

---

Read the report posted. It may be that this is not 100% true, and that this has been mitigated recently -- but the statement remains true enough if you believe the report.

Your right, though, that we need to be skeptical. I did jump to this conclusion without reading as much as I should have. Perhaps because my dealings with the city have shown it to be mostly true.

I had a hard time reading the document, because it was so littered with nuggets of filth that needed to be aired. For example:

[[v) elimination of four to six annual bonus vacation days; and [[vi) reduced vacation accrual to 160 hours from 320 hours.


320 hours is forty days -- and then plus 4 to 6 'bonus' days. So that's eight to nine weeks vacation a year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Locke09

...The city finally got rid of this practice - before Orr came on board. Now you have to show that you have the same skill set as someone you are hoping to "bump". That's appropriate, but it wasn't exactly a free for all based solely on seniority before.

Plus, it really is possible to fire government employees for lack of performance. Might take a couple of skirmishes with the union, but it's doable.Only poor management prevents this.

---

I'm glad they now consider 'skills' in 'bumping'.

Yes, I'm sure it really is possible to fire government employees for lack of performance. Have you been through a union grievance hearing for wrongful discharge? Good luck coming out of it alive if you're a manager. It does very little for a manager's career to be the guy who puts the city through these things. I'm sure the city has more than enough 'poor management' at taxpayer expense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

[[v) elimination of four to six annual bonus vacation days; and [[vi) reduced vacation accrual to 160 hours from 320 hours.


320 hours is forty days -- and then plus 4 to 6 'bonus' days. So that's eight to nine weeks vacation a year.

---

I believe an employee is only entitled to bonus vacation days if they have at least 25 sick days in their bank AND used a total of 3 [[?) or so sick days the previous years. an Employee would have to work a couple years and have good attendance to get the bonus vacation.

Employees only get a certain amount of vacation a year, if they do not use the vacation, it carries over to the next year. I believe new employees get about 10 vacation days a year and it increases based on the number of years served. Stopping the 160 hour accrual just encourages people to use their vacation time, instead of letting the time grow in their banks in order to cash in on that time 30 years later when it is time to retire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 48205to24

I believe an employee is only entitled to bonus vacation days if they have at least 25 sick days in their bank AND used a total of 3 [[?) or so sick days the previous years. an Employee would have to work a couple years and have good attendance to get the bonus vacation.

Employees only get a certain amount of vacation a year, if they do not use the vacation, it carries over to the next year. I believe new employees get about 10 vacation days a year and it increases based on the number of years served. Stopping the 160 hour accrual just encourages people to use their vacation time, instead of letting the time grow in their banks in order to cash in on that time 30 years later when it is time to retire.

---

Thanks for the clarification. It seems like any banking of vacation is a bad idea, so this is a great step in the right direction. Much of the financial problem is the accrual of future costs on the back of future taxpayers. Time for that to stop. Glad they're starting the task.

Most companies now have adopted no rollover vacation time. Why hasn't city and county government done the same? You either "use it or lose it". No banking vacation time to use towards retirement.