Panel: Detroit water, sewer department should cut 81% of workers to slow soaring rate

[Motor City Sam]

Skepticism is always healthy... but why is there no skepticism of the claims of DWSD? Why is any deviation from the DWSD talking points immediatly rejected as motivated by ulterior motives? We have a generations worth of demonstrable evidence of corruption, graft, cronyism and out and out incompetence [[with more coming as Mercado readies to take the stand in Federal Court). Frankly, at this point, I would take almost anyone's word about what should happen to DWSD over anyone connected with DWSD. Give me one reason why that should not be so.

Bailey, I'm not sure what you mean when you ask why there is no skepticism about the claims of the DWSD. There is skepticism from everywhere about their claims. It has come from the local media, the Mayor's office, the leadership of the Water Department, people on this board, and from every other corner of the State. I have never suggested their claims should be taken at face value. The only point I have brought forth is the point about the guy with two classifications, which was confirmed by both the DWSD and the firm that wrote the report.

I only commented because so many people seem to be accepting the consulting firms report without question. If this board had been overwhelmingly supporting the comments of the DWSD without question, I would probably have cautioned against that as well.

Per the current federal case, the water department was used as a vehicle to illegally enrich KK and members of his inner circle. According to recent reports, some of Ficano's people have ended up their recently in six figure jobs created just for them as the scandal has grown in Wayne County government. It's worth noting that neither of those things are controlled by the rank and file workers at the water department, or their union, but I agree that I would not take anything coming from either management or labor in that organization as the absolute truth. I also feel that way about every just about every government entity and just about every corporation, as well.

[antongast]

Frankly, at this point, I would take almost anyone's word about what should happen to DWSD over anyone connected with DWSD. Give me one reason why that should not be so.

Can we agree that free-market think tanks and privatization consultants should be excluded from "almost anyone?"

[Detroitnerd]

Can we agree that free-market think tanks and privatization consultants should be excluded from "almost anyone?"

*clap* *clap* *clap*

[Wesley Mouch]

Regarding the Horseshoer, +1... its not the fact that there is a dual classification, it's the mere existence of the classification itself that should be a huge indicator of what else is going on.

Yes.

Also, not to thread jack but regarding the Coffee lady.... snip ....I think any reasonable person can admit that coffee served anywhere by anyone should never be hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns and necessitate skin grafts.....right?

Call me unreaasonable -- but I think coffee should be hot, and all coffee drinkers should know this and have responsibility for being careful.

I like my coffee very hot. And I don't think that's unreasonable.

Unless McD had a defective lid, or some other product liability, I don't think 'very hot' [[enough to burn) is a defect for coffee.

Can we agree that free-market think tanks and privatization consultants should be excluded from "almost anyone?"

Yes Indeed.

[coracle]

Can we agree that free-market think tanks and privatization consultants should be excluded from "almost anyone?"

Definitely not! While I also don't have a high regard for "consultants" from anywhere, the people I would exclude from making judgements on the staffing of DWSD are ALL other people that are paid with public money. People who spend other people's money they don't have to earn lose touch with reality.

[antongast]

Definitely not! While I also don't have a high regard for "consultants" from anywhere, the people I would exclude from making judgements on the staffing of DWSD are ALL other people that are paid with public money. People who spend other people's money they don't have to earn lose touch with reality.

I wasn't asking you.

[Kevgoblue]

Yes.

Call me unreaasonable -- but I think coffee should be hot, and all coffee drinkers should know this and have responsibility for being careful.

I like my coffee very hot. And I don't think that's unreasonable.

Unless McD had a defective lid, or some other product liability, I don't think 'very hot' [[enough to burn) is a defect for coffee.
[/I][/COLOR]

I hadn't intended to respond to this [[hate to threadjack), but I couldn't agree with you more. I worked waiting tables in college and I couldn't begin to tell you how many times I was asked to take some coffee back because it wasn't hot enough. Even when the pot was on the burner and the coffee was steaming as the customer spoke.

Without exception the request always came from a senior. Must be something about drinking hot coffee for years that numbs your tastebuds but for many anything under 200 degress might as well have been ice coffee.

Sorry. Back to the Water Dept.

[corktownyuppie]

The McDonalds in question had been warned several times about failing to keep its coffee at levels which were safe. Now reasonable people can disagree about what that is...and I'm certainly one who thinks that liability lawsuits in this country have and had gotten out of control.

At the same time, if I was at a Starbucks and I spilled my cappuccino on myself, I'd say I have a valid grip if it was so hot that it melted the polyester in my suit and burned away all the skin and into the muscle and bone.

I think that the coffee case is incorrectly characterized as frivolous because the facts of the case are rarely mentioned in the same sentence. As I learned more and more about the facts involved, I found myself coming to the conclusion that this was not a simple question of an idiot spilling coffee on themselves.

Whether or not you agree with the jury's decision, I think it's fair to say that to dismiss it outright without full understanding of the facts would be to oversimplify a complex incident.

Which brings me back to the DWSD.

You may not agree with the consultant's opinion. And you may also disagree with the union heads or the management. But I think what this study should conclude is that there reasonable cause to believe that there is significant waste and inefficiency going on within the system.

Yes, it's debatable whether or not it's 40% or 80%. And take a consultant's opinion as a grain of salt, etc. etc. But damn it, the city's primary function is to offer the best possible services to its citizens using the least amount of resources.

Any excess in resources should be used to increase or better either current services or future levels of services. If you want to argue that surplus funds should be invested back in its citizenry, then make the argument that the resources and energy spent on educating its citizens or better their lives will somehow result in a more productive population, one which will lead to more fiscal health, which translates into better tax revenues which results in better services for its citizens.

The city can't exist as a philanthropic organization because it doesn't have the funds to do it. That would be like me asking a panhandler to donate his money to pay another panhandler to panhandle.

Clear through the waste. Use the savings to better the lives and services of Detroiters.

[bailey]

Originally Posted by antongast
Can we agree that free-market think tanks and privatization consultants should be excluded from "almost anyone?

"*clap* *clap* *clap*

Did I misunderstand the report or was it not DWSD that hired the firm? Did the Mackinaw Center do this report?

I'm curious to know who would be an appropriate consultant to hire?

[antongast]

Did I misunderstand the report or was it not DWSD that hired the firm? Did the Mackinaw Center do this report?

I'm curious to know who would be an appropriate consultant to hire?

I don't understand why the city needs to hire consultants for this sort of thing. The problems with the civil service system are citywide, not confined to any particular department, and the outsourcing of positions recommended by this report strikes me as an inferior alternative to addressing those problems head-on. If the city would rather dismantle its civil service piecemeal than implement comprehensive fixes, I guess that's up to them, but I'm not seeing where the consultants are adding any value apart from providing political cover to the folks who are actually making those decisions.

[Islandman]

Cities, as well as any other entity, hire consultants so they someone other than themselves to point the finger at, good or bad.

[Wesley Mouch]

I don't understand why the city needs to hire consultants for this sort of thing. The problems with the civil service system are citywide, not confined to any particular department, and the outsourcing of positions recommended by this report strikes me as an inferior alternative to addressing those problems head-on. If the city would rather dismantle its civil service piecemeal than implement comprehensive fixes, I guess that's up to them, but I'm not seeing where the consultants are adding any value apart from providing political cover to the folks who are actually making those decisions.

Well -- the obvious rejoinder here is that the City DIDN'T address this issue. The extreme # of classifications for example was trivial to find. The consultant found it.

You don't like the answer, so you shoot the messenger.

It is pathetic that the city needed a consultant here -- but at least the message got out.

[[Now we'll see if its acted upon.)

[corktownyuppie]

I guess that's up to them, but I'm not seeing where the consultants are adding any value apart from providing political cover to the folks who are actually making those decisions.

The problems that face to Detroit are not too complex from a problem-solving vantage point. But from a political standpoint, they are absolutely maddening. That's why a bankruptcy judge will step in if an EM won't do the job. The bankruptcy judge has total unilateral authority and complete political cover to do the things that need to get done. That's the whole point.

I understand people lamenting the "death of democracy". But our problems are so severe that they require actions that no democratic group of people would willingly allow upon themselves.

If there's a better way, I'm open to hearing it.

[antongast]

Well -- the obvious rejoinder here is that the City DIDN'T address this issue. The extreme # of classifications for example was trivial to find. The consultant found it.

You don't like the answer, so you shoot the messenger.

It is pathetic that the city needed a consultant here -- but at least the message got out.

[[Now we'll see if its acted upon.)

It was certainly "trivial to find" [[by which I mean you could have asked anyone who has ever had anything to do with the C of D in any capacity and they'd have told you there were too many classifications), and the consultant was paid an assload of money to type that obvious and well-known fact into a report, recommend outsourcing as the solution, and call it a day. And as you point out, it's still ultimately up to city leaders to fix the problem in whatever ways they deem appropriate. This does not strike me as an efficient use of scarce city resources.

[antongast]

The problems that face to Detroit are not too complex from a problem-solving vantage point. But from a political standpoint, they are absolutely maddening. That's why a bankruptcy judge will step in if an EM won't do the job. The bankruptcy judge has total unilateral authority and complete political cover to do the things that need to get done. That's the whole point.

I understand people lamenting the "death of democracy". But our problems are so severe that they require actions that no democratic group of people would willingly allow upon themselves.

If there's a better way, I'm open to hearing it.

I don't have a better way, or any way at all. The problems here seem pretty intractable, and I know lots of smart, dedicated folks who've burned out on this place and left because of it. I've never claimed to be able to solve the problems.

My point about EMs [[if you don't think this applies to bankruptcy judges, I'll certainly hear you out on that) is and always has been that long-term problem-solving doesn't fall under the scope of their duties. Their goal is to balance the city's books as quickly as possible and then leave. Whether their methods set the city up for long-term success or failure isn't their concern, and neither is the impact on the city's residents. The city's financial distress, which is the problem the EMs are supposedly tasked with solving, is not the same problem we've been discussing in this thread [[the two are related, but not identical, and it's very possible to solve either one without solving the other).

[Wesley Mouch]

Organizations within the government need to be realigned periodically just as in the private sector. I just wish workers who may be in the private sector would stop and think about why there is the largest income disparity in the history of this country right now and why their wages/benefits continue to drop. It is because of the tax breaks and loopholes to the banks/wealthy/corporations. This is not because a clerk in Detroit makes $16/hr or some such nonsense. Private sector pay/benefits have dropped steadily and in line with the drop in union membership. You would think more people would see this. Although government workers do sometimes need to take cuts or have lay offs, this is not going to make the private sector middle class any more wealthy. It's right-wing snake oil meant to knock out one of the last sectors that actually provides decent pay to American workers.

We usually see what we want to see.

I see globalization as the bigger factor. Our working brothers in Asia are getting well-deserved pay increases to bring them towards parity. This is a serious downdraft on wages in the US in manufacturing.

I do not see that unionization is reason for higher wages outside of their sector any longer. It was true in early industrialization. Now I believe unionism to be mainly a drag on productive use of labor -- dragging down our economy as a whole by preventing creative destruction.

For example, have you ever tried to eliminate a job classification from a union contract such as 'Horseshoer' or 'Buggy Whip Former'? I have, and its nearly impossible given the anachronistic structure of our labor laws.

[Locke09]

For example, have you ever tried to eliminate a job classification from a union contract such as 'Horseshoer' or 'Buggy Whip Former'? I have, and its nearly impossible given the anachronistic structure of our labor laws.

I have too. Piece of cake if no one was currently in the title. Simply eliminate it from the budget and then eliminate it from the HR system.

If someone is in the title and I simply don't need that position anymore - I lay off everyone in that title, then eliminate it from the HR system.

If someone has the title but their job has changed, I survey the current job they perform, create a more appropriate title with an appropriate pay grade and grandfather them in. If the union complains I just eliminate the title all together and lay everyone off and start from scratch. But I've never had the union complain because the new job is generally higher skills with better pay.

Hardest case - someone with a dual title. Well, I might have to keep record of their old title on the books. But I don't have to budget for it. If there is no position budgeted for that title, having it on the books is irrelevant. Just a cleanup task to be performed whenever the last person who once held that title is no longer working for me.

Probably more of an electronic system constraint than anything else. Don't even know why it's so alarming.

[Motor City Sam]

I have too. Piece of cake if no one was currently in the title. Simply eliminate it from the budget and then eliminate it from the HR system.

If someone is in the title and I simply don't need that position anymore - I lay off everyone in that title, then eliminate it from the HR system.

If someone has the title but their job has changed, I survey the current job they perform, create a more appropriate title with an appropriate pay grade and grandfather them in. If the union complains I just eliminate the title all together and lay everyone off and start from scratch. But I've never had the union complain because the new job is generally higher skills with better pay.

Hardest case - someone with a dual title. Well, I might have to keep record of their old title on the books. But I don't have to budget for it. If there is no position budgeted for that title, having it on the books is irrelevant. Just a cleanup task to be performed whenever the last person who once held that title is no longer working for me.

Probably more of an electronic system constraint than anything else. Don't even know why it's so alarming.

Interesting perspective, Locke. Thanks for sharing.

[Wesley Mouch]

I have too. Piece of cake if no one was currently in the title. Simply eliminate it from the budget and then eliminate it from the HR system.

If someone is in the title and I simply don't need that position anymore - I lay off everyone in that title, then eliminate it from the HR system.

If someone has the title but their job has changed, I survey the current job they perform, create a more appropriate title with an appropriate pay grade and grandfather them in. If the union complains I just eliminate the title all together and lay everyone off and start from scratch. But I've never had the union complain because the new job is generally higher skills with better pay.

Hardest case - someone with a dual title. Well, I might have to keep record of their old title on the books. But I don't have to budget for it. If there is no position budgeted for that title, having it on the books is irrelevant. Just a cleanup task to be performed whenever the last person who once held that title is no longer working for me.

Probably more of an electronic system constraint than anything else. Don't even know why it's so alarming.

We have apparently dealt with different business agents -- but for this discussion that doesn't matter.

If it is easy to do, then this only further demonstrates the incompetence of the administration of the DWSD.

[Locke09]

We have apparently dealt with different business agents -- but for this discussion that doesn't matter.

If it is easy to do, then this only further demonstrates the incompetence of the administration of the DWSD.

Reread my post. The guy at DWSD likely falls into the last category. If there is an automated HR system in place, it likely tracks an employee's work history. It will need to for various reasons, including future pensions.

If the guy previously had the title "Horseshoer", that history needs to be maintained. Some metadata table in the system has to maintain the entry "Horseshoer" until horseshoer history is no longer needed, to enforce "referential integrity." If designed properly, it should be flagged as obsolete, but not removed.

Bottom line - as long as there is no horseshoer position budgeted and no one is being paid to be a horseshoer it is much ado about nothing - even if they never remove it.