Bing trying to play hardball - challenging unions

lilpup · November-09-11, 01:06 AM

With crap like this I'm starting to think the city would be better served by an EFM [[that isn't Bing, of course). Goodbye, Bing. Goodbye, expensive and ineffective City Council. Goodbye, corrupt admin throughout the city. If the unions are going to get cut [[which, in this scenario, is going to happen either way) at least don't roll over and play dead at the wanna-be master's command.

http://www.freep.com/article/2011110...state-takeover

**kraig** · November-09-11, 07:22 AM

Originally Posted by lilpup

With crap like this I'm starting to think the city would be better served by an EFM [[that isn't Bing, of course). Goodbye, Bing. Goodbye, expensive and ineffective City Council. Goodbye, corrupt admin throughout the city. If the unions are going to get cut [[which, in this scenario, is going to happen either way) at least don't roll over and play dead at the wanna-be master's command.

http://www.freep.com/article/2011110...state-takeover

It appears that he's proposing a very unreasonable deal in order to get the union to say no. Thereby saying he has no choice but to have an EFM appointed to the City. He's the worst mayor I've seen in the City of Detroit.

**Dexlin** · November-09-11, 07:39 AM

Is this where some unserious [[but earnest as hell) local curmudgeon chimes in "At least Kilpatrick made the buses run on time", which is an honest-to-goodness line I saw some DDOT rider made in print in the Free Press a few week ago? lol

Honestly, he wasn't just cooking the books. His administration took them, threw them out the window, and then made their own. It's kind of easy to 'solve' deficits when you've quite frankly made up your own numbers. Bing doesn't deserve re-election even a little bit -- time is money and he's ran out of both -- but to say he's the worst mayor Detroit's seen in a generation or two is a little beyond silly.

Bless his heart, though, you know, wanting to be the last guy trying to steer a mortally wounded Titanic, and all. That's a lot of bravery, a lot of hubris, or both.DD

The People Movers about to be shut down, DDOT is in so much trouble it'll be a dial-and-ride before you know it, a quarter of the street lights are out on any given night, the Department of Health & Wellness is scandal plagued as is Human Services, and the list goes on. Hell, even the agencies not directly attached to the city are going down. Honestly, what's left? Name a single significant service in this city that works for the residents at a level you'd see in a regular city. A single one.

**cramerro** · November-09-11, 07:59 AM

Originally Posted by kraig

It appears that he's proposing a very unreasonable deal in order to get the union to say no. Thereby saying he has no choice but to have an EFM appointed to the City. He's the worst mayor I've seen in the City of Detroit.

WIth all due respect, who the hell are we to know if his deal is 'unreasonable'? If he and the clowncil both agreed to [[and defended to the press) hold a closed door meeting to discuss the city's pending financial ruin [[the don't agree on anything), there is at least a reasonable chance that it really is that bad. The union folks are going to say his proposal is unreasonable no matter what he proposes... and with good cause - the financial problems of the country, state, and certainly the city are magnitudes worse than anything since the 1930's, and whatever cuts are asked for [[which are on top of the already 10% pay cut) are going to be devastating to the lives and families who work for the city.

Why the city won't make the report public is beyond me. If they want concessions and sympathy, just lay it out there. Like the bond rating people are really that stupid that if you just don't tell them they won't read the paper? Or look at what you have shown them? Or find out in February when you default on your bills?

**corktownyuppie** · November-09-11, 08:39 AM

Union leaders left the afternoon meeting determined to dig in for a fight, saying they’ve already taken 10% pay cuts two years ago while being asked to take on additional responsibilities.

“The mayor seems to be living in a fantasy world. We have already given up enough, and now it’s time to give back to us.”

This doesn't make any sense to me. How is anything from 2 years ago even relevant to the conversation? Does GM say, "you screwed us 2 years ago by buying a Ford, so this time you should buy a Chevy"? Does Magglio Ordonez say, "two years ago I won the American League batting crown so please throw me slower pitches so that I can do it again this time"? Does a farmer say, "Well two years ago corn prices dropped by .25 a bushel, so now you can't drop them again"?

It would be one thing if the city was giving everyone else raises while the union was taking cuts, or if the cuts were disproportionate to revenues. But it's not like revenues have tripled while the city is asking these guys to sacrifice.

Maybe it's time for the city to actually run out of money so that people can get a hard hit of reality.

**Danny** · November-09-11, 09:28 AM

" Gimme your pay cuts, or we go into receivership. And I will be dictator of Detroit." Thus saith KING BING!

**1953** · November-09-11, 09:38 AM

Thirty percent health care costs do seem pretty high, but I suppose that you can't pay people money you don't have.

**Cincinnati_Kid** · November-09-11, 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by lilpup

With crap like this I'm starting to think the city would be better served by an EFM [[that isn't Bing, of course). Goodbye, Bing. Goodbye, expensive and ineffective City Council. Goodbye, corrupt admin throughout the city. If the unions are going to get cut [[which, in this scenario, is going to happen either way) at least don't roll over and play dead at the wanna-be master's command.

http://www.freep.com/article/2011110...state-takeover

Don't forget Wayne County, they are just as corrupt as the city as we just found out.

**cramerro** · November-09-11, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by 1953

Thirty percent health care costs do seem pretty high, but I suppose that you can't pay people money you don't have.

This is going to come across as aloof, harsh, whatever, but private sector employees have been paying 30% and more for years now.

This also speaks to the claims the union is making that they should "cut the funding they pay out to contractors" before they ask for more union cuts. I'm not intimately familiar with the system, but I'd say it's certainly possible that the contractors are either paying 30%+ or are getting only major medical from thier employer. That's often much of the reason the city [[in theory) uses contractors - they are cheaper [[and more flexible as far as layoffs, etc) than the full-time city employee union counterparts.

**1953** · November-09-11, 10:48 AM

Is 30 percent not high? I couldn't find a private sector average using a quick search of the internet. If it isn't high, then I think the union needs to get on board. If it is high, as I thought it was, then its a tough break. Anyone have any stats on this sort of thing?

**MikeM** · November-09-11, 10:57 AM

30% sounds about average. I took a 42% pay cut, went from paying 0% to 25% of my insurance premium [[and had to settle for a plan with fewer benefits), had what little pension benefit I had earned frozen, got bumped down to a lower paying position, lost a bit of vacation, lost a huge amount of sick time, and had to work more each month to save my job. Cry me a river.

**Det_ard** · November-09-11, 11:09 AM

The standard line from the union leader is "we already gave up something, no more".

While I understand the emotion behind that statement, they never seem to look at the reality of the municipality's [[or company's) finances. Just because the union gave up something a couple years ago doesn't mean the city now has enough money to give out raises or to pay for the employee's ever-increasing health care costs, yet they act like they ought not be affected by the reality of the financial situation of their employer. It seems so naive and self-centered. Child-like, really.

**corktownyuppie** · November-09-11, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by 1953

Is 30 percent not high? I couldn't find a private sector average using a quick search of the internet. If it isn't high, then I think the union needs to get on board. If it is high, as I thought it was, then its a tough break. Anyone have any stats on this sort of thing?

In a survey of 2,088 public and private employers, workers contributed just over 27% of the health care costs, and employers picked up just under 73%. Total cost of insurance was $15,073 per year, with employees paying $4,129 per year on average.

http://ehbs.kff.org/pdf/8226.pdf
[[see page 1)

What's notable about this study is that in 2001, the total annual cost of insurance was under $7,100, meaning that cost of insurance has more than doubled in the last 10 years. 30% wasn't high 10 years ago, and it's not high now. But public sector employees have been sheltered from paying these costs for so long that when you combine: [[1) bringing up their share to the average, [[2) having the cost of health care double, [[3) seeing in a decline of city revenues forcing a shrinking of city government...having the change happen all at once appears like "Bing is playing hardball".

I don't think Bing is playing anything. I think he's just trying to get everything to average.

In Greece, 50% of the citizens are employed directly by the government. For decades they've been guaranteed a pay raise, whether or not the amount of taxes collected is going up or down. And there are laws in place that forbid the government from laying people off. Ever.

I sympathize with them because I know that they've been promised these benefits. I know that the necessary changes are going to be painful. But as I've said before...if the government owes you $5, owes me $5, and owes the bank $5...it's a problem when it only has $2.

And I'm a liberal, so I generally have a lot of sympathy for unions. You want to see bad news, then have a fiscally conservative EFM come in and see how that goes. I hope city leadership and the unions can find a solution to this.

**Ray1936** · November-09-11, 11:17 AM

Have no fear. Obamacare will save us all in 2014. I heard him say so, thus it is true.

lilpup · November-09-11, 01:14 PM

At the last job I had that provided healthcare the company only paid 50% up to $200 per month. Guys carrying family coverage were paying as much as 75% of the total premium per month. After a while even single person coverage topped the $400 mark so singles ended up paying more than 50%, too.

**cramerro** · November-09-11, 01:38 PM

Originally Posted by 1953

Is 30 percent not high? I couldn't find a private sector average using a quick search of the internet. If it isn't high, then I think the union needs to get on board. If it is high, as I thought it was, then its a tough break. Anyone have any stats on this sort of thing?

Sorry, I should have qualified that by saying I recently worked in the private sector and had to pay 30%. I also have direct knowledge of two other places where friends work, one where they have to pay 100% of the cost over the single person coverage if they want to insure their families. That adds up [[quickly) to over $450/month - $5,500/year just in employees' share of premiums... regardless of what they actually make.

**Al Publican** · November-09-11, 02:48 PM

I suggest that government units at all levels no longer involve themselves in pension systems. Pensions could be operated by autonomous agencies or private investors with appropriate safeguards.
I'm a benefactor of the Detroit Police-Fire pension system, but I don't see how government units can continue to commit, in some cases, a fourth to a third of their revenue [[or more) for salaries and pensions.

**R8RBOB** · November-09-11, 03:33 PM

Let's be real here. Even if Bing gets the union to shell out more money it will not solve Detroit's money woes. The city no longer have a robust tax base. You need a balance of new money coming in and cuts to stabilize the deficit because the city still have to function. Detroit don't have that and two years from now Bing would be before the unions again asking for more money.

Buy American · November-09-11, 03:39 PM

The City of Detroit spends money frivolously and foolishly. Just look at the headlines in the newspapers within the last few weeks. Yatoma getting paid for his fees by the City of Detroit...why? Conyers legal bills being paid by the City...why? Clownsil's budget exceeds the norm. thug KK can take up to 400 years to pay back his restitution...why? All the monies spent within the City of Detroit for things that don't matter when there is so many important issues to take care of. It's all about greed and it starts at the top and works its' way down. Regular employees making $30 to $40K a year with some benefits are not the problem...unions are not the problem. The problem is the administration and big pockets.

**Det_ard** · November-09-11, 04:03 PM

Alll the things you mentioned are chump change compared to the cost of wages and benefits for current and retired workers. Simple math.

**kraig** · November-09-11, 06:33 PM

Originally Posted by cramerro

WIth all due respect, who the hell are we to know if his deal is 'unreasonable'? If he and the clowncil both agreed to [[and defended to the press) hold a closed door meeting to discuss the city's pending financial ruin [[the don't agree on anything), there is at least a reasonable chance that it really is that bad. The union folks are going to say his proposal is unreasonable no matter what he proposes... and with good cause - the financial problems of the country, state, and certainly the city are magnitudes worse than anything since the 1930's, and whatever cuts are asked for [[which are on top of the already 10% pay cut) are going to be devastating to the lives and families who work for the city.

Why the city won't make the report public is beyond me. If they want concessions and sympathy, just lay it out there. Like the bond rating people are really that stupid that if you just don't tell them they won't read the paper? Or look at what you have shown them? Or find out in February when you default on your bills?

The fact that the Mayor and City Council held an illegal closed door meeting should give you an idea of how unreasonable they're about to be [[besides that, a little bird told me the details of the meeting).

He's looking to increase the employees health care cost, lower their pay, by another 10%, take away their paid lunch and increase the work day by one hour. And all of that is on top of the lowering of wages and increase in the amount that employees have had to pay for their health care since he took office. Which is on top of the decreases in wages and increases in health care that the employees took while Kwame was in office. Once someone's been cut to the bone, any further cut is going to be unreasonable.

**R8RBOB** · November-09-11, 07:14 PM

Originally Posted by kraig

The fact that the Mayor and City Council held an illegal closed door meeting should give you an idea of how unreasonable they're about to be [[besides that, a little bird told me the details of the meeting).

He's looking to increase the employees health care cost, lower their pay, by another 10%, take away their paid lunch and increase the work day by one hour. And all of that is on top of the lowering of wages and increase in the amount that employees have had to pay for their health care since he took office. Which is on top of the decreases in wages and increases in health care that the employees took while Kwame was in office. Once someone's been cut to the bone, any further cut is going to be unreasonable.

In Detroit, the knives are dull because they are being used to cut bone instead of meat. There is no more meat.

Maybe Bing should get on TV and tell all city workers that they need to get a "Star Trek" frame of mind and work for free because if the city continues to cut at the bone there will be no longer a structure to maintain.

Buy American · November-09-11, 07:28 PM

Originally Posted by Det_ard

Alll the things you mentioned are chump change compared to the cost of wages and benefits for current and retired workers. Simple math.

Chump change adds up after years of abuse my friend.

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · November-09-11, 08:06 PM

Originally Posted by Dexlin

Name a single significant service in this city that works for the residents at a level you'd see in a regular city. A single one.

If I could do it, I would scrap current government and start over altogether, like Japan after the war. Hold all new elections. Start programs from scratch. Hire all new city workers [[current ones welcome to reapply). The catch: the city would have to exist without issuing any new debt, with a fixed level of taxes and fees for 10 years, and 20% of all revenue going to debt service until paid off. The city could design a whole new government based on what it has, and not what it already has going on.

Note: there is no scenario in which the above could happen, it's just what I'd love to do if I could...

**Autoracks** · November-10-11, 08:41 AM

is it possible that this time its for real? Maybe the financial status of the city is so bad
that serious cuts need to be made. I could see it being that way
City govt needs money to run. That said it relies directly on tax revenue and state/federal
aid. It doesn't produce anything tangible for income except maybe water. In years past the news has been the same. City is broke. Now it is able to tax less people. The property it is taxing is worth less and yields less, and it receives less assistance from state and federal because the population has fallen off so hard. City hasn't shrunk in the physical sense. Just less people around to maintain it.
So thats that. I dont remember the city ever looking worse. Certainly no safer now than it was in the past. 60,000 empty homes and who knows how many of them are rehabilitatable. In closing seniority aside if the city needs to lay off workers as it undoubtedly will... the first that should go are the ones that live in the suburbs. I can understand how they are mad but its hard to look at things objectively when your livelihood is about to be stripped from you or at the very least trimmed