F the city of Detroit Unions

[Locke09]

The city has reduced its workforce by 1/3 over the past 8 years and it has not stopped the city from spiraling further into bankruptcy.

This will be the third 10% wage reduction the city has implemented and it has not stopped the city from spiraling further into bankruptcy.

The city has gradually increased employees' portion of healthcare costs, including increases to co-pays and it has not stopped the city from spiraling further into bankruptcy.

Look at the city's budget. Back out the number of employees who are grant funded, and those in the enterprise fund [[except DDOT employees, because the city subsidizes DDOT.) Back out police and fire. You will see that the city does not have an awful lot of employees left.

The city provides services. Providing services requires people [[jobs). People will either be employed by the city or employed by companies the city contracts with. You might begin saying that you can reduce workforce without harming services. You'll just introduce efficiencies, you think. But eventually, if you keep cutting, you will have reduced the workforce beyond any agency's ability to provide the services needed, even with your efficiencies.

I guess the question is, are we there yet?.

[R8RBOB]

Can we acknowledge that Detroit has no healthy tax base. The city of Detroit tax base has been decreasing for years. No tax base, no money for the city. The exiting of citizens and lack of businesses moving to the city has brought the city of Detroit to where it is today. I am not in support of the workers having to sacrifice their wages again but we have to realize that the money isn't coming in. If this was a business, the plywood would already be on the windows.

[Locke09]

I am not in support of the workers having to sacrifice their wages again but we have to realize that the money isn't coming in. If this was a business, the plywood would already be on the windows.

The wages and benefits the city workers are being asked to sacrifice will not save jobs and therefore services will suffer even more across the board. We are fooling ourselves if we think you can totally separate jobs from services. Unless you know for certain that there is so much "featherbedding" that reduction in workforce won't affect service, or you know for certain that there are huge inefficiencies that can easily be addressed, then fewer jobs will equal less service.

So, I am still waiting for citizens to identify the services they would like to keep if the city could afford it, but can live without - because they understand the city's financial condition. I am still waiting for elected officials and executives to stop wasting money and undertaking unnececessary projects - because they understand the city's financial condition. Expect no change in the city's status if the workers are the only ones expected to act like the city has financial troubles. Management doesn't have to act like it. Politicians padding their staff with supporters don't have to act like it. Citizens clamoring for more service instead of less don't have to act like it. Only the workers.

The mayor should hold town hall meetings to find out what are the key services residents and businesses must have in order to consider this city "livable". Determine what it takes to fund those few services well. Fund the necessary support for the people who provide those services [[financial, human resources, technology, legal, right down to office cleaning) Staff accordingly and pay those people properly [[after all, according to the Mayor you have to pay well for good talent). If there is money left over, start funding things from a "wish list". Then when you talk about laying people off you can legitimately say you are doing it because they are not mission-critical for the services you have chosen to provide for your citzens. Then you can legitimately say it's not about making jobs it's about providing services.

Right now it's just a bunch of haphazard hypocrisy.

[reddog289]

When I wrote my post yesterday I was mad at being labeled as a lazy union worker. Therefore the giant run on sentence.There are things that have been posted here that I agree with and other I don't. For one thing I do work harder the I did in my non-union job due to the fact it is more physical labor aside from lifting cases of paper.Not as strong as I was but leaner. I do not blame the problems in the city or the state for that matter on the unions.The screw machine shop I worked for was non- union and after the ression of the 80's hit they were looking in Kentucky for property to get away from here. They stayed and went out last year.
This has been a fight that has gone on since the beginning of the unions. I personally feel safer working in the job I have now. I can be almost certain that I will get time and a half if I work over
40 hrs, My work area is safer and I don't have to worry as much if my paycheck is gonna bounce when I get to the back like I did in my former job.
As for the situation of the city employees, i

[reddog289]

I will try to not be as long winded with this one . First of all I work harder at my union job because it is a different type of work then I did before.I was mad as being labeled a lazy union worker. Hell I have seen that myself . I for one agree with Lowell there is plenty of blame to go around.
Things are different now in this day and time and things will change again as always.Yet I myself am better off in a ways, Yet not as well off as one of the remaining members of the UAW.I personally feel safer at my work now then I did 20 years ago.I don't have to deal with the don't answer the phone or I am not here B.S. that went on at my non union job.
As for Karl Jr he had every right to reply the way he did. At my former job I worked with a former C.O.D. employee who after 16yrs with the City had enough and got out stayed living there for another 20 + yrs till he made his escape.
As with the city workers living in the borders of the city, Well that is a thing that I can say that I do not belive that anyone should be forced to live in a certain area, Yet it could be encouraged. But as with the case in the City of Detroit not as many people chose to stay here without working for the city.I think that the elected officials need to reside in their cities. But to alot of them also that position is just a job.
After the senseles death of firefighter Walter Harris, A firefighter from his fire house mentioned about the size of the city in relation to the amount of firefighters and how it was still as big, But with less firemen to battle the fires to that effect.
Having a city this large with half the amount of people doesn't mean that there is less area to cover.Same amount of pipes, streets to patrol, and yet more mess do to the fact there are less people to police themselves. Therefore the garbage strewn lots. Abandoned houses, factories, ETC that still exist Yet don't contrbute to anything except blight which further drives people out.
Yes folks it is hard times round here for all round here Union,Non Union and Non working..

[Lorax]

Not really looking for converts. Just venting about unions insiting on top dollar, large number of jobs while having no accountability to the citizens. Acting like they give a shit about the citizens or the services they provide is the biggest joke imaginable.

Where do you get this "top dollar" stuff? The disparity in incomes in this country has been stretched to laughable lengths.

The CEO of Goldman Sachs makes 4 million per week.

An good attorney charges 300 bucks per hour for advice.

And you're carping that 18 bucks an hour [[before taxes) for city workers is out of line? How about 50 bucks? Even that disparity is ridiculous, but at least keeps people above the poverty level.

Unions exist for a reason- to keep the rich and entitled from driving down wages to third-world levels. I guess 50 cents an hour would be more in keeping with your ideals.

[jt1]

Where do you get this "top dollar" stuff? The disparity in incomes in this country has been stretched to laughable lengths.

The CEO of Goldman Sachs makes 4 million per week.

An good attorney charges 300 bucks per hour for advice.

And you're carping that 18 bucks an hour [[before taxes) for city workers is out of line? How about 50 bucks? Even that disparity is ridiculous, but at least keeps people above the poverty level.

Unions exist for a reason- to keep the rich and entitled from driving down wages to third-world levels. I guess 50 cents an hour would be more in keeping with your ideals.

Surely you're intelligent enough to infer that I was speaking about top dollar for their positions. There was no attempt to imply 'top dollar' as a measure across all fields and profession.

As for " I guess 50 cents an hour would be more in keeping with your ideals." you are just proving how irrational union types can be when discussing this. I believe that unions still have a place in society but I believe that the unions in Detroit , especially the AFSCME has turned into an impediment to moving forward.

Your lovely unions have insisting that the city keep bus drivers that have caused multipel accidents costing the city millions in settlements [[hell, they even fought to keep a woman behind the wheel after she killed someone). Your lovely unions have fought to keep a non-profit from using and maintaining a facility that the city does not staff [[because it might cost future jobs - the whole Greening of Detroit debacle), garbage workers [[who typically do a decent job) that refuse to get out of their trucks to pick up trash that comes out of courville containers when they are being dumped..

As i've said all along, if the unions allowed the dead weight to be cut and used their heads instead of claiming 'solidarity' to support and fight for the wosrt of the wosrt I would be a little more sympathetic. If the workers even gave the impression that they would make any effort to do anything beyond what is spelled out in their contract I would be a little more sympathetic.

Unions support the worst and fight the city to retain the positions for the dead weight. Unfortunately, this may represent a small piece of the union and the smaller percentage fo union workers but that is the image they represent to many of us.

With this said, I will freely admit much of/most of the blame lies with elected officials and mismanagement. This does not change my opinion that from the unions I have worked with there is more concern for jobs than delivering services.

Now just to be a smartass I would like to know how AFSCME local 207 can be taken seriously when they have a link to the BAMN website on their homepage.

[Buy American]

Not really looking for converts. Just venting about unions insiting on top dollar, large number of jobs while having no accountability to the citizens. Acting like they give a shit about the citizens or the services they provide is the biggest joke imaginable.

Accountability??? Ask a firefighter who was up for 24 hours, risking his life putting out fires set by the thugs of Detroit. Ask a firefighter who gets shot at when they are trying to put a fire out in a neighborhood. Ask a firefighter who has to purchase his/her own batteries for a city issued flashlight because the City won't provide them. Ask a firefighter who has to sleep in a fire house that has no working toilet....are you saying they don't give a shit?

If you live in Detroit and have a fire or an emergency in your house, please call someone else if you're so against the union employee...after all, a firefighter belongs to the union!

The other very few incidents you are speaking of do not reflect the majority of City of Detroit union workers, whether they are AFSCME or DPFFA.

[jt1]

Accountability??? Ask a firefighter who was up for 24 hours, risking his life putting out fires set by the thugs of Detroit. Ask a firefighter who gets shot at when they are trying to put a fire out in a neighborhood. Ask a firefighter who has to purchase his/her own batteries for a city issued flashlight because the City won't provide them. Ask a firefighter who has to sleep in a fire house that has no working toilet....are you saying they don't give a shit?

If you live in Detroit and have a fire or an emergency in your house, please call someone else if you're so against the union employee...after all, a firefighter belongs to the union!

The other very few incidents you are speaking of do not reflect the majority of City of Detroit union workers, whether they are AFSCME or DPFFA.

Your condescending bs aside I consistently state that I do not include Police or Fire in these discussions as they are unstaffed and underpaid.

I have also made it clear that one of my issues is that the unions hurt themselves by protecting the worst of the worst and that reflects poorly on the majority that do a good job.

Would you like me quote myself on these specific items or would you like to actually read the follow up comments?

[Buy American]

Not really looking for converts. Just venting about unions insiting on top dollar, large number of jobs while having no accountability to the citizens. Acting like they give a shit about the citizens or the services they provide is the biggest joke imaginable.

I must have missed the part where you say you aren't including Police and Fire in your discussions.

"but I believe that the unions in Detroit , especially the AFSCME has turned into an impediment to moving forward." ....is this statement excluding Police and Fire?

If you feel I was condescending, you're probably right....I'm sick and tired of the unions getting a bad rap for all the woes in today's economy. I started a thread "A few reasons" which linked about 4 stories concerning the City of Detroit and it's lack of accountibility which is a major cause why Detroit is in the financial situation it's in today. Sorry if you don't like my attitude.

[jt1]

I must have missed the part where you say you aren't including Police and Fire in your discussions.

"but I believe that the unions in Detroit , especially the AFSCME has turned into an impediment to moving forward." ....is this statement excluding Police and Fire?

Nope, this is the quote "Beyond critical services [[Police, fire, who are understaffed) many of the other services should be cut. I wish it weren't the case but it is economic reality". So I may not have been as clear about it as I should have been. I have however stated to you in many past discussions about unions. I have held to the fact that police and fire are underpaid and understaffed.

So again:

1. Police and Fire: Necessary and underpaid
2. Many/most union workers work hard but are paid well for the work they do [[not paid well compared to CEOs, etc).
3. The unions protect the worst and this reflects poorly on the rest of the workers.
4. The union leadership is as incompetent as the city leadership and both are driving this city to bankruptcy. The union leadership is too stubborn or stupid to see that this is not in their best interests.
5. I believe that union leadership and many union leaders care about the union and don't give a shit about the city
6. Just because city leadship has wasted money does not mean that the unions have played no role in the demise of the city.
7. Unions have an important place in society but what they have become is hurting them more than helping them [[see declining enrollment, general dislike of unions outside of the midwest)

Is that clear enough for you?

[jt1]

If you feel I was condescending, you're probably right....I'm sick and tired of the unions getting a bad rap for all the woes in today's economy. I started a thread "A few reasons" which linked about 4 stories concerning the City of Detroit and it's lack of accountibility which is a major cause why Detroit is in the financial situation it's in today. Sorry if you don't like my attitude.

Interesting, I'm sick of the unions indifference towards the city [[or the company in the private sector), exclsuing police and fire [[we can include some police officers but not the union as a whole.

I don't disagree that the city has a lack of accountability to it's citizens and has resulted in much waste. Does that excuse the unions lack of accountability to the city and it's waste? The argument of 'well, you did it too' shoudl stop working beyond grade school.

I'm not sorry if you dn't like my attitude. I have seen and dealt with too much indifference from union workers in the city. They are as bad as the incompetent elected officials. The difference is I am comfortable admitting that both are inadequate and hurt the city. You insist on your deluded belief that management is an evil monster whereas the unions are angelic in their dealings and every union members works as hard as possible and gives a shit about the city.

Maybe if you lived in the city you would see the indifference of many of the union employees as well as the indifference of city government. Your argument of extremes shows that you don't view this topic rationally.

[Buy American]

Point 3 is a valid one. It still does not reflect the good that the unions do for their workers. The unions were started to protect employees from unfair practices in the workplace.
Point 4...the unions are not driving the city into bankruptcy. The City administration, the Law Department and appointees have done a great job in that department.
Point 5...I believe the union leadership does care about the city.
Point 6...I disagree.
Point 7, I agree somewhat.

....and, with all the condescending bs set aside, I hope I am clear enough to you as well.

[Buy American]

Interesting, I'm sick of the unions indifference towards the city [[or the company in the private sector), exclsuing police and fire [[we can include some police officers but not the union as a whole.

I don't disagree that the city has a lack of accountability to it's citizens and has resulted in much waste. Does that excuse the unions lack of accountability to the city and it's waste? The argument of 'well, you did it too' shoudl stop working beyond grade school.

I'm not sorry if you dn't like my attitude. I have seen and dealt with too much indifference from union workers in the city. They are as bad as the incompetent elected officials. The difference is I am comfortable admitting that both are inadequate and hurt the city. You insist on your deluded belief that management is an evil monster whereas the unions are angelic in their dealings and every union members works as hard as possible and gives a shit about the city.

Maybe if you lived in the city you would see the indifference of many of the union employees as well as the indifference of city government. Your argument of extremes shows that you don't view this topic rationally.

"I have seen and dealt with too much indifference from union workers in the city."

That pretty much sums it up for me. I look at things from a different angle.

Have you devoted 35 years of employment to the City of Detroit? Do you belong to a union? Do you even work for the City of Detroit? Do you even live in Detroit?

I did all of the above. I gave the City my loyalty, my efforts, and in many instances almost my life for 35years. I was employed there and the union was there to negotiate fair contracts for me and thousands of others. I saw times when I thought the union was wrong protecting a drunk employee or fighting for a fired worker; but those instances were so few and far between that it doesn't even show up on the radar. But, since you've appointed yourself as the expert on unions and union business in the City of Detroit, I'll leave it to you.

[jt1]

Point 3 is a valid one. It still does not reflect the good that the unions do for their workers. The unions were started to protect employees from unfair practices in the workplace.
Point 4...the unions are not driving the city into bankruptcy. The City administration, the Law Department and appointees have done a great job in that department.
Point 5...I believe the union leadership does care about the city.
Point 6...I disagree.
Point 7, I agree somewhat.

....and, with all the condescending bs set aside, I hope I am clear enough to you as well.

Now we're getting somewhere:

3. I agree to some extent but I believe that unions have done much to alienate themselves and it hurts them in the long run.
4. Both are playing an active role in it.
5. Agree somewhat. If looked at a personal level I am sure many loev the city and would do anything for it. There are probably also some who don't give a damn about the city.
6. We'll probably continue to disagree but it doesn't mean either of us are necessarily correct.
7. We are probably pretty close on this one.

I appreciate the input and my tone on previous posts was probably unnecessary to fostering a good discussion.

[jt1]

"I have seen and dealt with too much indifference from union workers in the city."

That pretty much sums it up for me. I look at things from a different angle.

Have you devoted 35 years of employment to the City of Detroit? Do you belong to a union? Do you even work for the City of Detroit? Do you even live in Detroit?

I did all of the above. I gave the City my loyalty, my efforts, and in many instances almost my life for 35years. I was employed there and the union was there to negotiate fair contracts for me and thousands of others. I saw times when I thought the union was wrong protecting a drunk employee or fighting for a fired worker; but those instances were so few and far between that it doesn't even show up on the radar. But, since you've appointed yourself as the expert on unions and union business in the City of Detroit, I'll leave it to you.

I am not claiming to be an expert but speaking from my perspective on dealing with unions in the city and in the private sector for many years. It is likely a matter of perception. You may associate the best with your view of the union.

My headaches have come from dealing with the worst which may skew my perspective. i would be much, much more supportive of unions if they fought for the good employees and allowed the worst to be eliminated [[either by replacing the role or in times of economic crisis leaving the position open).

[reddog289]

I won't get long winded or "double" post this time. I myself can tolerate many things, But when a worker Union or Non becomes a habitual offender . Well it to me becomes more of a joke then a solidarity issue.They should know the deal and play by the rules.

[firstandten]

On this board I have gone thru so many threads about the union and non-union workers and mangement who's at fault etc.

This is one of those instances where I think everybody has a point.

The unions got there workers good increases in pay and benefits
they also negotiated changes in work rules which made management job a lot harder, in some cases management can't manage properly because of it [[ granted most of the fault lies with management for negotiating the work rules)

The unions protected lowlife freeloaders trying to work the system
they also protected employees, management was trying to railroad

The unions response when managment says they have no money " they are just crying poor
Sometimes its not crying poor, they really don't have money

Unions give off mixed messages by stated they want to have more of a say on how things are run, but they don't want too much of a say, because when things go bad they need to be able to say that "its management fault they don't know what there doing"

Everything is not black and white when it comes to this issue. However we are locked into a adversarial model of union management relations that frankly doesn't serve us well especially with this economy.

I would like to see us evolve into more of a japanese type model of union managment relation.

Our shaky economy may speed up that transition.

[karl jr.]

Firstandten, Nice common sense, I agree.

Jt1, I told you about me. I was born in and still live in Detroit. I work in and for the city, I was educated with in the city limits. How about you?

[oldredfordette]

Is there any point in reminding the haters here that the job of the union is to make sure the contract is followed? They don't defend bad workers, they make sure contract language is obeyed. The contract both unions and management signs. If management is worth a damn, they know how to get rid of the bad workers.

Carry on.

[firstandten]

Is there any point in reminding the haters here that the job of the union is to make sure the contract is followed? They don't defend bad workers, they make sure contract language is obeyed. The contract both unions and management signs. If management is worth a damn, they know how to get rid of the bad workers.

Carry on.

Again, this is an example of things being shades of grey rather than black or white.

Yes, the union makes sure the contract language is followed that both parties signed. However there are workers who know that contract language and will test the limits by going right to that line but not crossing it.

Those kind of actions while legal according to the contract are not always in the best interest of the company.

For that management must be blamed for signing off on the language. Management of some companies were too shortsighted by the quarterly reports to wall street and their resultant bonuses to understand that they could be shooting themselves in the foot by agreeing to contract language that in the long term could affect there competitiveness in the marketplace. You see managment rather than take a strike over work rules that they know over time would tie managements hands behind its back, signed off on it... hey times were good , had to keep pumping out product to meet quarterly goals and bonuses.

So now you say too bad management shouldn't signed off on the language. But that attitude hurts all of us because if the company goes out of business and the workers get laid off as a result who wins ?

[Locke09]

For city workers, a lot of what people consider to be "perks" were given in lieu of wage increases. The city has historically given very meager wage increases, if any at all in most years. The city often offered more flexible work rules and benefits instead of those increases.

Many people who could have worked in private industry at a higher wage, chose the city instead because of the better benefits. There may be city positions where a comparable private industry position would pay less. But most of the professional and technical positions pay significantly less than private industry - even in this economy. Especially where a college degree or licensing is required.

In fact, when the city brings in a contractor to supplement those professional and technical positions, the city might pay 50 - 100% more than the comparable city position, even with benefits included. The city might excuse this by saying they are only temporary. But they tend to stay forever.

Let the news media investigate that if they are really interested in helping show the public where money is wasted. Ask the city for all the types of jobs contractors are filling, and then see what the city pays for a comparable city position.

As I said, you have more credibility asking people for concessions when you have demonstrated responsibility in other areas.

[karl jr.]

"saturday and sunday service....

Is not they only service to be cut under Bings' "new vision".
My prediction is no bus system or service.
The layoffs that the unions have been notified of are a lot more far reaching than the media lets on to. The layoffs are not across the board as you would think a sane normal company would do.
Just a few that I will tell you about are - Mechanical supervisory staff levels are around 35 - 23 will be cut. Emergency ddot dispatchers presently 12 - 3 will be left after cuts. fueling and cleaning personnel presently near 37 will be cut to 7, stockroom store keep levels are 23 they are to be cut by 24 which equals -1. These are just a few. there are well over 300 cuts being made. The freepress reported 30 drivers and around a 100 mechanics, over 200 drivers have been notified.
As you see these cuts are either a management scare tactic or the planned ending of service in detroit. No supervisors, no cleaning, no parts will effect service."

Whoever posted this works at ddot. His figures are near right. Do ya think the unions dreamed this up? This is showing the administrations fix, does these changes sound right to you jt1?