Tuesday, August 28, 2007

Play Nice or Not at All

Some recent replies calling me ‘evil’ from a local blogger on my post on Tony Palmeri and his opposition to Dave Omachinski reminded me of how I describe what I do to folks not in higher education.

Way back when, in meeting neighbors or individuals in social situations, the subject of employment inevitably would come up. When mine was discussed, the reaction always was along the line of ‘you teach college’. I’d always explain that I’m not a teacher but rather, I facilitate learning at a university. Young children are taught. Don’t touch the stove because it is hot and it will burn you, etc. They remember lessons by rote.

It isn’t until later, that children begin to learn by making discoveries and thus at the post secondary level, we don’t teach our students but we learn ‘em. I present topics and ideas, and students research and form opinions and come to formulate their own ideas in my area.

Often times at this level, our learning ‘em improves on the rote learning of their youth. Finally, I’m getting to make my point.

As a child, one is taught to not call others bad names; it is not nice. As the child grows and matures the child learns, hopefully, that calling names also isn’t productive to rational discourse. Calling someone a derogatory name or assigning them uncomplimentary character traits isn’t a way to win an argument. So as I make my point (see first paragraph) on the postings of “working to make a living” I’m guessing that as a child he/she wasn’t taught as a child not to call others names and as a young adult, he/she hasn’t yet learned that name calling doesn’t lead to swaying the opinions of others.

So, play nice and post nice is my motto. Rational discourse is good, name calling is bad. I ask “working to make a living” to save the name calling for the street rallies ‘cause if you do it again, I got the big ol’ delete key ready and waiting.

44 comments:

Working To Make A Living said...

"most people are not, in action, worth very much; and yet, every human being is an unprecedented miracle. One tries to treat them as the miracles they are, while trying to protect oneself against the disasters they’ve become"
frank mccandless you can find me on campus.

Jb said...

"As a member of the avant-garde who is capable of perceiving the conspiracy before it is fully obvious to an as yet unaroused public, the paranoid is a militant leader. He does not see social conflict as something to be mediated and compromised, in the manner of the working politician. Since what is at stake is always a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil, what is necessary is not compromise but the will to fight things out to a finish. Since the enemy is thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable, he must be totally eliminated—if not from the world, at least from the theatre of operations to which the paranoid directs his attention. This demand for total triumph leads to the formulation of hopelessly unrealistic goals, and since these goals are not even remotely attainable, failure constantly heightens the paranoid’s sense of frustration. Even partial success leaves him with the same feeling of powerlessness with which he began, and this in turn only strengthens his awareness of the vast and terrifying quality of the enemy he opposes." *

Anonymous said...

I don’t have access to the shareholders info, but my guess is that Omachinski’s salary for outsourcing my union brothers and sisters jobs was close to $1M. It’s highly unlikely that he and Hyde took a pay cut to keep people working in Oshkosh. Another guess I have is that the workers at B’Gosh took their share of pay and benefit cuts in order to help the corporation stay in Oshkosh. What pi_ses me off the most is that he put it on his resume as an accomplishment: “I f_cked over a lot of working families to help the rich make more money.”
You have enough input from folks like Omachinski on the Oshkosh Redevelopment Authority. You’ve experienced years of a shadow government run by people who own real estate and businesses in Oshkosh. Yet, you seem to believe that people like Omachinski just want to be involved out of the goodness of their hearts. Who benefits? Certainly not the tax-payers.

As far as where the discussion regarding outsourcing should take place; I’ve heard Tony speak often about it. I’ve heard the left-leaning Democrats only defend their labor-hating Clinton and his NAFTA. However, not everyone gets that the Dems care about working families as little as the Republicans. So many co-dependent, brain-washed union people, following the bosses who give and get the favors from the candidates, voting against their bests interests. Hating Tony to the bitter end because he spoiled it in 04 for the guy the union leaders said to support.

And if the sidewalk issue alienated the lefties at UW-O, while they’re yawning over Iraq, impeachment, outsourcing,sustainability, global warming, violence against the UW-O LGBT community, etc. then the goddess please, please! help Oshkosh and our university students.

Anonymous said...

I find it interesting to read two somewhat polar opposite columns in the Sunday paper today.

1) The Letter to the Editor about the Omachinski issue.
2) The lead story about City Unions moving to arbitration.

On one hand, you have a man with extraordinary fiscal responsibility, driven to “make tough decisions that maintain profitability for the company”. The shareholders demand better value, so he did what was needed to maintain “financial long-term success of the company” Additional costs of labor simply could not be passed on the consumer.

Then we hear that several city unions have taken Oshkosh’s last offer to arbitration. It appears that these unions believe they deserve more than the contract that was approved by the police unions. These union members who already have 95% of their healthcare paid by Oshkosh property taxpayers feel that the wage increase they’ve been offered (on top of those extraordinary healthcare benefits) isn’t enough. They want more!

So many people line up to support Mr. Omachinski and his position to cut jobs and do whatever it took to maintain profitability and shareholder value in a private corporation, yet when we taxpayers are funding healthcare and providing raises to our city workers that are well over and above what most of us obtain WE are called insensitive and uncaring. Something is terribly wrong with our labor system.

I think laws need to be changed to level the playing field.

Municipal union employees should not be held in higher regard than any other labor group. Jobs in the private sector are downsized and wages are re-organized on a regular basis. It’s often called “Supply and demand”. I’m fairly certain there would be a long line at city hall to fill some of these city union jobs just for the healthcare coverage without any wage increases at all. Supply and demand.

Two polar opposite and troubling articles. More reason to believe there is much work to be done at city hall when our new manager comes aboard.

Working To Make A Living said...

"yet when we taxpayers are funding healthcare and providing raises to our city workers that are well over and above what most of us obtain WE are called insensitive and uncaring."

Thats putting in mildly. rather than pulling people down lets bring them up. Since 1948 U.S taxpayers have spent -at the federal level-34 trillion on defense, and 1.08 trillion on education, health care, and other social services comvbined.

Anonymous said...

Another excellent article in the paper today. Again discussing healthcare benefits.

This paragraph is a snapshot of part of the problem:

“Besides the cost, the current system is incredibly unfair. Anyone who works for the government (Oshkosh City Workers) gets health insurance as a benefit. People who cannot afford insurance pay, through their taxes, for the health insurance of government employees (Oshkosh City Workers).”

This is exactly what has been mentioned on this and other blog sites so many times. The middle class blue collar worker who struggles to put food on his table and keep a roof over his families head may not be able to afford healthcare insurance for his family…yet thought his property taxes, he helps fund a healthcare plan that pays 95% of all costs associated with a city workers healthcare plan.

The taxpayer can’t afford health insurance for his family, yet his taxes pay for a Cadillac healthcare plan for city workers.

“It is the height of hypocrisy for politicians to tell the uninsured that they should set up Health Savings Accounts and use that money to pay for their insurance. First, they don't have any money to save and second, why should they have to buy their own insurance in addition to paying for their representative's? If we took away their insurance, I am sure they would find a way to cover everyone.”

For more, read this excellent article:
http://www.thenorthwestern.com/apps/
pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070903/
OSH06/709030375/1189

Anonymous said...

Apparently 7:03; who has posted this same diatribe on every blog site he can find (whether or not on topic) wants city employees to face the same consequences as the Oshkosh B'Gosh workers! His posting is just mindless ramblings from a bitter person.

Anonymous said...

1:58 PM - The rage of a city employee upset that people want to have a dialog about the benefit package we the taxpayers fund.


Mr. Omachinski has been heralded as an executive just doing his job. A job, which required him to choose between company profitability and local jobs. The free market system could no longer support the cost of goods created by Oshkosh B'Gosh local labor. Manufacturing was moved offshore so the corporation could compete.

We can't offshore services provided by city employees. But the resulting escalating expectations of labor towards those that pay them would never fly in a corporate setting.

Just as corporations can't continue to compete with sky-rocketing labor costs, taxpayers can't continue to fund things like 95% healthcare coverage for city labor when they themselves are unable to afford healthcare for their own families.

Those, the city workers that are in the position to receive these benefits seem to want to stifle this discussion. They want these benefits to fly under the radar screen of the average taxpayer.

Article such as
http://www.thenorthwestern.com/apps/
pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070903/
OSH06/709030375/1189
Bring to focus the healthcare crisis is America, and furthermore focus on how the working - middleclass taxpayer is hurting.

Anonymous said...

Glib:
It looks like your blog has been hijacked by a City of Oshkosh employee basher. It's unfortunate, I liked reading your blog.

Anonymous said...

September 3, 2007 6:06 PM said...
"Glib:
It looks like your blog has been hijacked by a City of Oshkosh employee basher. It's unfortunate, I liked reading your blog."

That comment is an attempt to stifle information.

No one is bashing city employees.

No one has accused any employee of improper conduct. I as a taxpayer am making a case that we taxpayers fund 95% of city employees healthcare costs. I am also making a statement that many Oshkosh taxpayers have little or no healthcare coverage for their families.

There seems to be a divide in that several of the city unions feel they should receive a very resonable 3% wage increase along with a healthcare package that is about 95% funded by Oshkosh taxpayers.

Notice I never "bashed" any city employee. I simply believe the taxpayers are being taken advantage of when it comes to paying that percentage of the employees healthcare costs.

Furthermore, I hope that our new Manager or Strong Mayor will investigate and develop a plan to bring this ratio more in line with a standard 80-20 ratio.

Anonymous said...

Wow 6:16, you sure don't like City Employees do you!?!?! Slam slam slam. I am a taxpayer too and I don't slam the City employees. I have to get to bed. I have a business to run in the morning. Try getting a job and you will not be so nasty to those that work and serve you! Nighty night.

Anonymous said...

7:36 says:
“Wow 6:16, you sure don't like City Employees do you!?!?! Slam slam slam. I am a taxpayer too and I don't slam the City employees. I have to get to bed. I have a business to run in the morning. Try getting a job and you will not be so nasty to those that work and serve you! Nighty night."




Well 7:36, I’d like you to take a moment of you time to read another excellent article published in the Northwestern today. Please read:

http://www.thenorthwestern.com/
apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/
20070904/OSH06/709040368/1189

Some specific comments in that article you should pay attention to.

Your attempt to belittle people with a differing opinion from yours seems to fit this comment from the article:
“They oppose consideration of different points of view, leave no room for discussion and discourage people from voicing disagreements with their conclusions.”

Another comment from that article seems to fit your profile:
"Unless you agree with us, your voice doesn't matter."

I have no axe to grind with City Employees.

My problem is with a benefit package that provides city taxpayer funded healthcare benefits. The ratio of 95% paid by the property taxpayer and 5% paid by the city employee is simply not in line with other average middleclass Oshkosh taxpayers plans.

Something needs to be done to curb this. Rising healthcare costs are a primary concern for all Americans.

Many Oshkosh taxpayers can not afford healthcare for their own families, yet through their property taxes, they fund 95% if city employee coverage. To any common sense human being this is and obvious inequity.

I certainly applaud our City Council for their stand in contract negotiations. I am pleased to see that after many attempts for compromise, when faced with an unreasonable demand, the Council did not flinch and chose arbitration. This may be the first step in setting a new course for managing the run-away healthcare costs born by the property tax payer.

Furthermore, I expect that a new Manager or Strong Mayor may pay much more attention to this one extremely costly part of the overall city budget.

Anonymous said...

5:18 you hijacked another blog!!!!! Isn't it a crime? Another day of slamming city employees in store for you? Push yourself away from the keyboard and get a job and stop being so nasty to those that work.

Anonymous said...

Here is the issue:

Most of us have employer sponsored healthcare coverage. Most of us currently pay about 20% for the coverage; our employers pay the remaining 80%.

As the cost of healthcare continues to soar, we as a society no doubt need to demand our elected officials intercede and stop this run-away train…but until such time as that happens, we all face these rising costs.

Most corporations public or private have addressed the rising cost of healthcare by passing along costs to their employees. Private sector unions are not insulated from these rising costs either. Most private sector unions have made significant concessions related to healthcare costs. Union members are aware that if costs continue to spiral out of control, they may very well loose their jobs as the cost of healthcare coupled with the overall benefit package makes the product they produce uncompetitive.

It is in the public sector that the problems still exist with regard to healthcare cost sharing.

Public sector employees are funded by taxpayers. Historically, property taxes are raised to provide additional funding for wages and benefits to those in public sector jobs. These jobs seem insulated from the reality most union and non-union private sector employees are faced with regarding healthcare costs.

If you look at some of the largest corporations in Wisconsin, you will find that in some cases, the healthcare plans provided to their employees are very often much weaker than those provided to pubic sector employees.

Taxpayers fund public sector employee wage and benefit packages.
Corporations and business owners fund private sector employees wage and benefit packages.

Taxpayers are not an un-ending source of funding. Public sector employees need to realize that in many cases throughout our State and Nation many workers can no longer afford healthcare coverage for their families…yet through property taxes and increased rent, they fund a very high percentage of public sector employee healthcare costs. In Oshkosh, that percentage is about 95%. Oshkosh property taxpayers pay about 95% of the entire cost, and the employee pays about 5%. Most private sector programs are in the 80%-20% range.

Furthermore, public sector employees assume that on top of these extremely favorable healthcare costs, they should continue to receive 2.5% - 3% wage increases.

If these were private sector jobs, corporations would simply shut the doors and move the business.

I applaud our City Council for the decision to take our wage and benefit package offer to arbitration. That stance is the first step to show that given the constraints of laws currently in-place, we recognize that we can not continue to pass these costs on to the property taxpayer without a fight.

This is not about bashing any employees. It is simply about the ability of Oshkosh taxpayers to afford the cost of services offered.

Anonymous said...

5:59 the nasty blog hijacker strikes again. He bashes those that made better choices in life than him. What a sad way to live.

Anonymous said...

6:28-
Please read:
http://www.thenorthwestern.com/
apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/
20070904/OSH06/709040368/1189

This is not about bashing any employees. It is simply about the ability of Oshkosh taxpayers to afford the cost of services offered.

Anonymous said...

7:31 Of course it is about bashing city employees. You are a very nasty person. Now go in the corner for a time-out and when you are finished, try being nice.

Anonymous said...

8:14 you are the only one bashing here.

As a taxpaying citizen it is my right to question spending. I'm not making this personal...you are.

Rather than continue your bashing of me, please help me understand how city employees deserve this wage and benefit package? Yes they work hard but so do the private sector employees that pay Oshkosh property taxes.

Our property taxes fund about 95% of the entire city employee healthcare cost, and the employee pays about 5%. Most private sector programs are in the 80%-20% range.


For the most part, our Oshkosh city employees are doing a wonderful job. This is not about bashing any employees. It is simply about the ability of Oshkosh taxpayers to afford the cost of services offered.

Anonymous said...

9:03 Ohhhhhhhh, YOU are the "victim" here. That is hilarious. You bash the city employees again and again and again and then cry because someone calls you on it and you claim to be the one getting bashed. You may not have a brain, but you have guts for crying victim. I am also a taxpayer and I have the right to tell you to stop your complaining and go get a job so I do not have to support you any longer. Help, I'm a victim!

Anonymous said...

9:15 you do not make any type of compelling argument to counter what 9:03 has said. Rather than name calling, please provide rational debate. If not, you make your position irrelevant.

Anonymous said...

9:45 you should know since you ARE 9:03. I know you are not a smart man and I am paying benefits to you so you can sit at home but during my lunch hour I was able to see you are spewing the exact same nastiness on other websites. You need help.

Anonymous said...

Still no compelling argument to counter what 9:03 has said.

I'd really like to hear a sound reason why Oshkosh taxpayers should "shut up and put up" to the toon of paying 95% of city employees healthcare coverage.


Rather than name calling, please provide rational debate. If not, you make your position irrelevant.

Anonymous said...

10:17 you silly goose, no one else is going to do your critical thinking for you. The more you Copy and Paste the sillier you appear. Now, I recommend going outside and enjoying this gorgeous day. That should help your mood.

Anonymous said...

10:39, Still no compelling argument to counter what 9:03 has said. Only more name calling.

I'd really like to hear a sound reason why Oshkosh taxpayers should "shut up and put up" to the toon of paying 95% of city employees healthcare coverage.

Rather than name calling, please provide rational debate. If not, you make your position irrelevant.

Anonymous said...

11:16 Who are you trying to kid. You do not want a dialogue. You prefer to have others do your thinking for you and for you to Copy and Paste your single-issue thought (Yes, I am stretching to say it is a thought) around on the local blogs. You throw the same garbage because you have nothing better to do with your life and that is unfortunate for all of us. I am going for a swim; try to get well through some professional assistance.

Anonymous said...

Here is the issue to be discussed:

Most of us have employer sponsored healthcare coverage. Most of us currently pay about 20% for the coverage; our employers pay the remaining 80%.

As the cost of healthcare continues to soar, we as a society no doubt need to demand our elected officials intercede and stop this run-away train…but until such time as that happens, we all face these rising costs.

Most corporations public or private have addressed the rising cost of healthcare by passing along costs to their employees. Private sector employees are not insulated from these rising costs either. Most private sector unions have made significant concessions related to healthcare costs. Union members are aware that if costs continue to spiral out of control, they may very well loose their jobs as the cost of healthcare coupled with the overall benefit package makes the product they produce uncompetitive.

It is in the public sector that the problems still exist with regard to healthcare cost sharing.

Public sector employees are funded by taxpayers. Historically, property taxes are raised to provide additional funding for wages and benefits to those in public sector jobs. These jobs seem insulated from the reality most union and non-union private sector employees are faced with regarding healthcare costs.

Unfortunately, middle to lower middleclass people are generally thought of as Oshkosh residents. These are the people who pay Oshkosh property taxes.

Town of Algoma is where you'll find the middle to upper middleclass people residing. These township residents do not pay Oshkosh property taxes; the taxes that fund wages and benefits City employees.

If you look at some of the largest corporations in Wisconsin, you will find that in some cases, the healthcare plans provided to their employees are very often much weaker than those provided to pubic sector employees.

Taxpayers fund public sector employee wage and benefit packages.
Corporations and business owners fund private sector employees wage and benefit packages.

Taxpayers are not an un-ending source of funding. Public sector employees need to realize that in many cases throughout our State and Nation many workers can no longer afford healthcare coverage for their families…yet through property taxes and increased rent, they fund a very high percentage of public sector employee healthcare costs. In Oshkosh, that percentage is about 95%. Oshkosh property taxpayers pay about 95% of the entire cost, and the employee pays about 5%. Most private sector programs are in the 80%-20% range.

Furthermore, public sector employees assume that on top of these extremely favorable healthcare costs, they should continue to receive 2.5% - 3% wage increases.

If these were private sector jobs, corporations would simply shut the doors and move the business.

I applaud our City Council for the decision to take our wage and benefit package offer to arbitration. That stance is the first step to show that given the constraints of laws currently in-place, we recognize that we can not continue to pass these costs on to the property taxpayer without a fight.

This is not about bashing any employees. It is simply about the ability of Oshkosh taxpayers to afford the cost of services offered.

This is not personal; it is all about the costs of services rendered.

Anonymous said...

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Anonymous said...

The Northwestern’s Editorial this morning stated:

“Frugal cities like Oshkosh get a colder shoulder than others when the state legislature freezes their revenues yet allows all-powerful arbitrators to break deadlocks over public contracts negotiations with little to no consideration whether or not employer-cities can afford unions' demands.”

http://www.thenorthwestern.com/
apps/pbcs.dll/articleID=/
20070907/OSH06/709070414/1189

This is exactly what needs to be fought for. AFFORDABILITY.

This is not at all about bashing any employees. Most of them are very hard workers. And...most tax payers are also hard workers.

We can't let this fly under the radar screen as it really affects so very many people...really everyone in Oshkosh who pays property tax or rent.

The entire issue is simply about the ability of Oshkosh taxpayers to afford the cost of services offered.

Have the services offered by city employees become too costly for Oshkosh taxpayers to afford? Can taxpayers afford to provide 3% wage increases on top of funding 95% of employees healthcare?

What will become of the arbitration now in progress?

We need to take back control of negotiations. Property taxpayers are not an endless trough of money to be tapped into at each and every contract renewal period.

I personally thank the Oshkosh Common Council for not simply rubber stamping contract approval and taking this issue to arbitration. We need to send a clear signal to the city employees that the residents, property taxpayers, renters and voters in Oshkosh have a finite tolerance for the cost of labor to provide city services.

Anonymous said...

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Anonymous said...

Heres and interesting statistic for you:
According to the City Manager, the 2006 cost to Oshkosh Taxpayers for employee healthcare insurance totals $6,599,146.08.

That's JUST HEALTH INSURANCE!

Anonymous said...

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Anonymous said...

Why does that guy keep drawing that picture of a rope?

Anonymous said...

Interesting comments posted on another blog:

"Although McHugh was a longtime member of the union, he was not endorsed by them when he ran for council. Esslingers recent endorsements only came from the Fox Valley UAW not the Winnebago County Labor Council. It is extremely unlikely that those unions will back a conservative. They are looking for the rubber stamp approvals and gold plates to get into office. I was interviewed by them and quickly dismissed when I didn't buy into the high raises and continued health coverage. They didn't even want to hear my ideas of saving the taxpayer money while continuing the level of benefits.

I will add that those are the folks (public unions) that are GUARANTEED to vote. The UAW may show up for Presidential elections, but not so much for local elections. Winning or losing is not hinged on that endorsement. There are some that won without it and lost with it. But they do remain a large number of voters."

Anonymous said...

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Anonymous said...

Excellent comments and perspective from a blue collar union employee and Oshkosh property tax payer:

"Well, I'm a union member that works in the real world and I'm getting sick and tired of having to pay for increases in city union workers. I'm all for union people making more, but we have to look at where these city union workers are.

They make VERY good money and get 95% of their insurance paid for them! I make $15,000-$20,000 less per year for a comperable job, work my butt off and have to pay 25% of my insurance and have a $2,000 deductable.

City union workers are giving the rest of the union base a bad name!

Every time I'm talking to people and they hear that I'm a union person they think that I make a lot of money. I tell them that I work in the private sector not the public sector.

Sep 8, 2007 10:21:00 AM"

Anonymous said...

10:21 OK since you believe everything that is on-line (including stuff you write pretending to be someone else); you are Eeyore. Now go back to the Hundred Acre Wood and be gloomy there.

Anonymous said...

As for the "city employee bashing" comments that keep surfacing. I don't have anything against the hard working individuals that work for our City. I have a problem with Greedy Union representation. The ones that go in with their hand out and aren't willing to negotiate are the ones that I have a problem with.

2.25% is a gift. When the City Manager first proposed the budget, he proposed a 1% increase. Yes, I said 1%. So anything more than that is a gift.

Anonymous said...

7:45 You have everything against them. You have been bashing them and what they make for weeks. Sad, you don't take all that time you spend bashing city employees and better yourself.

Anonymous said...

On another blog 4:37 stated:
"what jobs do you want eliminated? I said the before. Everyone makes the threats, but no one ponies up when it comes to the jobs, and therefore services, they want cut. Start listing them!"


This is the odd thing. This person, (who likely is a city union employee) is eagerly willing to through his fellow union workers job "under the bus" no pun intended.

We often hear from the union about what positions do you want eliminated. They are so very quick to put that out there as a way of tackling this problem. They are quickly willing to sacrifice their union brothers jobs to save their own job. They do this and then call us "Union bashers"

We propose a far more friendly approach. No jobs lost, no city employees out of work. A far more friendly approach and CERTAINLY NOT BASHING.

We propose that all city employees have a greater participation in healthcare cost sharing.

Currently we have employees paying 5% while we taxpayers fund 95%.

If city workers would contribute a more reasonable 20%, all jobs could be maintained. Furthermore, consistent and moderate wage increases would also be affordable.

You see, this is simply about affordability. As the Northwestern article suggested, Oshkosh taxpayers cannot continue to fund city employee labor at the current rate. The services they provide are becoming unaffordable.

I suggest we choose a far more city employee friendly approach and rather they eliminating jobs, have all existing employees participate more in cost sharing.

Anonymous said...

4:45 In your ignorance and rush to continue bashing city employees and their ability to raise a family you stated I (4:37) posted ""what jobs do you want eliminated . . ." You are a foolish, nasty person without any apparent redeeming qualities. Please go find a hole to be miserable in and stop bashing those that improved their lots in life.

Anonymous said...

5:58, I submit that you are the only one who continues to bash city employees.

You are the one who keeps suggesting eliminating positions as a way of controlling spending. You are the one who seems to believe job elimination is the only way to control spending. Your suggestions are certainly bashing or worse to city workers as your proposals eliminate jobs.

We have another much more employee friendly plan.

We propose that all city employees have a greater participation in healthcare cost sharing.

Currently we have employees paying 5% while we taxpayers fund 95%.

If city workers would contribute a more reasonable 20%, all jobs could be maintained. Furthermore, consistent and moderate wage increases would also be affordable.

You see, this is simply about affordability. As the Northwestern article suggested, Oshkosh taxpayers cannot continue to fund city employee labor at the current rate. The services they provide are becoming unaffordable.

I suggest we choose a far more city employee friendly approach and rather they eliminating jobs, have all existing employees participate more in cost sharing.

No bashing here. Just a more fair and balanced cost sharing approach between the property tax payer and ALL city employees. Fair, friendly and everyone remains employed.

Anonymous said...

6:22 I am going to push the "ignore" button on you because you continue to assume one person is responding to your ramblings and bashings of city employees. You certainly are a mean person with no credibility. If Glib wants to continue to allow you to hijack his blog that is up to him. Button is being pushed in three . . . two . . .one

Douglas McCloud said...

ENOUGH!

Take it outside you two. We get the points, city workers are either overpaid or underpaid, overworked or underworked, have too many or too few employee benefits. It isn't going to get solved here.

Move along!

Anonymous said...

6:33 it is OK if you don't read or choose to respond. I have no problem with that.

I also understand your desire to limit converstion on this topic. The less the voting public knows about city employee compensation the less you have to be concerned about.

The truth is, no one other than you has been in a "bashing" mode. We have presented in very civil thoughts and ideas. Lets recap:

Rather than have some of your fellow city workers fired as you seem to suggest, we'd rather have all city employees share more than the current 5% they pay for health insurance?

I'm a taxpayer and I understand how important keeping a job is. I'd rather sacrifice some wages and benefits and keep all my fellow workers employed.

After all, I doubt many if any companies at all in the Oshkosh area pay 95% of their employees health insurance.

Seems like a wonderful compromise to have the employee share more of the cost and maintain all the jobs. Affordability is the issue. Re-read the Northwestern article. Oshkosh taxpayers are quickly approaching a point where city labor costs are making the services they provide unaffordably to the property taxpayers in Oshkosh.

We believe a higher level of cost sharing is a much more city employee friendly approach!