Snyder to address Detroit financial crisis at WCCC town hall meeting

**lukabottle** · March-28-12, 09:11 AM

Is anyone going to this today at 11am?

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/in...ed_to_spe.html

"Gov. Rick Snyder will address Detroit's ongoing financial crisis and take questions from the public regarding a proposed consent agreement at a town hall meeting on Wednesday, his spokeswoman told MLive today.

Snyder will speak at 11 a.m. at Wayne County Community College's downtown Detroit campus, spokeswoman Geralyn Lasher said. The governor is returning to Michigan from an international trade mission on Saturday and wanted to speak with Detroiters as soon as possible."

**Wesley Mouch** · March-28-12, 09:26 AM

Originally Posted by lukabottle

Is anyone going to this today at 11am?

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/in...ed_to_spe.html

"Gov. Rick Snyder will address Detroit's ongoing financial crisis and take questions from the public regarding a proposed consent agreement at a town hall meeting on Wednesday, his spokeswoman told MLive today.

Snyder will speak at 11 a.m. at Wayne County Community College's downtown Detroit campus, spokeswoman Geralyn Lasher said. The governor is returning to Michigan from an international trade mission on Saturday and wanted to speak with Detroiters as soon as possible."

Good for him. Addressing Detroiters is a responsible step. I do hope that all Detroiters respect the governors efforts -- even if they disagree.

**Novine** · March-28-12, 10:30 AM

Livestream

**Wesley Mouch** · March-28-12, 11:22 AM

Originally Posted by Novine

Livestream

I'm getting to like M-Live more each day. For outstaters, they sure do a good job of covering Detroit.

**Hypestyles** · March-28-12, 12:15 PM

I saw most of the direct interview, but I missed the Q&A session, what came up?

**Wesley Mouch** · March-28-12, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by Hypestyles

I saw most of the direct interview, but I missed the Q&A session, what came up?

I missed most of the direct interview. Does anyone know if its posted online?

**Detroit Stylin** · March-28-12, 12:25 PM

He tap danced on LRT again and pushed for BRT....but for the most part it sounded sound but Im concerned about long term effects...

**Wesley Mouch** · March-28-12, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by Detroit Stylin

He tap danced on LRT again and pushed for BRT....but for the most part it sounded sound but Im concerned about long term effects...

...meaning what?

**maxx** · March-28-12, 01:30 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1385473.html

**Wesley Mouch** · March-28-12, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by maxx

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1385473.html

Thanks for link. Sounds pretty encouraging. Nice to see politicians coming together to work on a crisis together.

Everyone's at the table, except predictably the civic Unions who are just screaming political debris around to protect their status quo at the expense of others. I hate to raise this here because of the fervent pro-union at anyone's expense wing of DY -- but it must be said. The civic Unions need to stop their incessant squeezing of every dollar out of municipalities. Take a look at what the UAW has accomplished. They gave a lot up, but GM workers each got a $7,000 bonus because GM is doing so well. The UAW is alive and well, and will be holding management's feet to the fire at the next contract. And there will be a next time because GM didn't go down in flames. The UAW wisely made a tactical retreat. The civic Unions could take a lesson here.

SteveJ · March-28-12, 03:53 PM

Well in defense to the unions, their really isn't much to negotiate anymore. They've taken cuts and cuts every year so I can understand their notion to just lay people off or everyone will be making minimum age.

**Novine** · March-28-12, 04:38 PM

"The civic Unions could take a lesson here."

I won't claim to be an expert on the unions in Detroit but from what I've read, most unions were contributing at least 20% and more towards health care costs long before the state mandated it. They've also agreed to pay cuts of 10%. DPD agreed to pension changes last year to reduce costs. How much more is there you think they should give up? Work for 1/2 pay and 50% health care contribution? I know that the response is "give it up or your going to lose your job". But I can see how the unions have reached a point of "no more".

**skyl4rk** · March-28-12, 04:55 PM

I saw most of the town hall meeting. The crowd was very respectful, professional and engaged, not disruptive in any way.

**professorscott** · March-28-12, 05:53 PM

Originally Posted by Novine

But I can see how the unions have reached a point of "no more".

But that's completely irrelevant because the bank accounts have reached a point of "no more". The City cannot pay out money which it does not have.

The choices the City has, with regard to labor, are to reduce the costs per person quite a bit, or to reduce the number of people quite a bit. It's likely to be both.

**Novine** · March-28-12, 08:02 PM

"The choices the City has, with regard to labor, are to reduce the costs per person quite a bit, or to reduce the number of people quite a bit. It's likely to be both."

That's probably true. But there's a practical limit to those cuts. The city isn't going to be able to keep or hire people with any kind of skills when you cut the pay and benefits beyond the levels that people are willing to work at for the city. I know that many people think that government workers are mindless idiots doing menial labor. But there's plenty of jobs in city government that require people with a certain skillset or level of education. Even in this economy, the city isn't going to keep those people or be able to hire people with those skills when you're asking employees to work for pay and benefits that are far below what they can get in other communities. That's why it's likely that the city is going to have to cut positions and many of them. The idea that you can make deep cuts in pay and benefits to retain positions isn't realistic and isn't going to work.

**mam2009** · March-28-12, 09:04 PM

No need to paint the unions as uncooperative obstructionists. They JUST opened contract negotiations when they didn't HAVE to. They're not going to cut off their own arms. They have tried to help, but, unfortunately, the kind of long-term savings the City needs equates, in their minds, to cutting off their arms.

**professorscott** · March-28-12, 09:23 PM

Good arguments all, but still, if I only have one hundred dollars, I can't pay you two hundred dollars, no matter how much you and I agree that I ought to.

**Det_ard** · March-28-12, 09:58 PM

Originally Posted by Novine

"The civic Unions could take a lesson here."

I won't claim to be an expert on the unions in Detroit but from what I've read, most unions were contributing at least 20% and more towards health care costs long before the state mandated it. They've also agreed to pay cuts of 10%. DPD agreed to pension changes last year to reduce costs. How much more is there you think they should give up? Work for 1/2 pay and 50% health care contribution? I know that the response is "give it up or your going to lose your job". But I can see how the unions have reached a point of "no more".

Even if wages and benefits are where they need to be, there's still inefficient work rules and poor performers that remain on the payroll, fertile ground for creating a more responsive, more efficient and more effective city operations.

**corktownyuppie** · March-28-12, 10:57 PM

Originally Posted by Det_ard

Even if wages and benefits are where they need to be, there's still inefficient work rules and poor performers that remain on the payroll, fertile ground for creating a more responsive, more efficient and more effective city operations.

Work rules, productivity, and pensions. Should've fixed all 3 of these 20 years ago.

**skyl4rk** · March-29-12, 07:09 AM

The city can only push wages down so far, eventually the workers cannot afford to work there and keep their homes.

Even in a bad job market, the city is one employer competing for employees with other employers.

It sounds like employees have already taken cuts.

The city has the option to cut positions. It has always had this option. If you can't afford 4,000 employees, reduce the size of your workforce to something you can afford.

Why wasn't this done years ago?

Why try to push the decision on to the unions?

It is really a management decision to hire more employees than you can afford.

**JBMcB** · March-29-12, 07:42 AM

Originally Posted by skyl4rk

Why wasn't this done years ago?

Why try to push the decision on to the unions?

It is really a management decision to hire more employees than you can afford.

Because when your employees can vote for you, you want as many employees as possible, and you want to keep giving them raises and benefits so they will continue to vote for you.

This is why pension costs are so out of control in the public sector, it's easy to give out nice retirement packages because it's not up to you to have to pay for them - leave that up to the next mayor or city council.

**Wesley Mouch** · March-29-12, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by corktownyuppie

Work rules, productivity, and pensions. Should've fixed all 3 of these 20 years ago.

Its almost impossible to fix due to law giving power over working rules and conditions to the Union. They cannot be changed except via negotiation. And Union has little reason to agree to work rules to increase productivity, since this tends to reduce need for Union labor.

**Wesley Mouch** · March-29-12, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by SteveJ

Well in defense to the unions, their really isn't much to negotiate anymore. They've taken cuts and cuts every year so I can understand their notion to just lay people off or everyone will be making minimum age.

I completely understand the Union position, and if I were in their shoes, I'd do the same thing. Its really a structural problem. Unions have zero incentive to reorganize job functions, reduce positions, and realign wages and pensions during hard times. Its too bad.