We ran a page one story today on the idea of considering furloughs for Wallingford town and school workers instead of a wage freeze or layoffs (which is the choice that Mayor Bill Dickinson has offered the unions). During a meeting Tuesday four town councilors, two from each party, voted to have the personnel director offer furloughs to the unions. Mayor Dickinson is not embracing or discounting the idea, although an article last week on the same topic indicated he will only accept a wage freeze.
I like the mayor’s approach and think the council should have stayed out of it. Furloughs can create as many problems as they solve because services still need to be provided while workers are taking unpaid days off.
By remaining at least publicly cool to the furlough idea, Dickinson is again showing he is a much shrewder politician than most people think. The voters are looking for “wage freeze” or even “wage reductions.” “Furloughs” doesn’t play as well with taxpayers who have lost their job, had their wages frozen or reduced.
By supporting the furlough idea, Democrats Mike Brodinsky and Vin Testa risk appearing weak to voters. Brodinsky has already ruled out a run for mayor. Testa may still be considering one. I don’t think the furlough initiative is going to win votes.
Let me know what you think
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
3 comments:
I disagree. The fire department offered a plan that works. The mayor said no. The mayor sure doesn't appear weak; he appears stubborn. If the mayor lays off a firefighter or two or a cop or two, you think the public will applaud? It's a game of chicken that doesn't have to be played. Brodinsky and Testa appear practical, because they are.
Good points. It would not be the first time Mayor Dickinson has been accused of being stubborn. In fact, I've made the point numerous times myself. Perhaps Testa and Brodinsky will emerge as the practical ones. We will see.
Anyone who applauds someone losing their job is uncaring. I certainly wouldn't. Like anyone who has lived in town for 20 years or more I know many cops, firefighters and other town and school employees.
On the whole, they do an excellent job. Regardless, the town only has so much revenue. Unions will make concessions or people will be layed off. It is their choice.
I was going to write a letter to the editor on this (I may still) but I’ll make a few points:
The assumption – the budget needs to be cut
The example – let’s make the amount one million dollars
How to get as close to a win for all should be the secondary objective because the one million dollars MUST be cut.
GIVE BACKS – PROS for the town if they can get them; they cut the one million dollars they need to cut, one less year of compounding on salaries, if they can get the unions to do this they’ve softened them up to doing it again in the future.
CONS for the town – employee morale may slip; more unjustified sick time leveraged (to “make up for it”)
PROS for the rank and file; layoffs may be avoided, may be able to use this as a bargaining chip in the future when they need something additional from the town
CONS for the rank and file; once this is done once you can be assured the ask will come again (setting precedent); loss of new income; compounding of salary year over year is halted on any year a raise is not received; lost raise is not caught up when times are better (no one is going to say “here’s your 3% increase for 2015 and an extra 3% for what you gave up in 2010”); you are giving back (salary increase) and getting nothing effectively
LAYOFFS – PROS for the town; they cut the one million dollars they need to cut; the savings is an annual one if the cut position is never re-instated.
CONS for the town; the work doesn’t go away and there are now less heads to do it; with service levels dropping more complaints to manage from the residents.
PROS for the rank and file – none; there is no “pro” when co-workers are let go
CONS for the rank and file; the same or more work being spread around less people; employee morale may slip; more unjustified sick time leveraged (to “make up for it”);
FURLOUGHS – PROS for the town; they cut the one million dollars they need to cut; no jobs are lost; same amount of employees are still working; employee morale slip might be less than other options; unjustified sick time leveraged (to “make up for it”) might be less than other options
CONS for the town; the increase is paid to the workers but not realized this year so it does add to the compounding to their salaries; there is the time off to consider and schedule so some work may not be completed that otherwise would with a full staff working all normal hours.
PROS for the rank and file; you are still getting your increase but you are not realizing it this year (that’s a CON) but it does allow your salary to grow compounded in the years to come; when times are better you’ll realize the full gain AND the compounding interest; you get something for your GIVE – five days off, yes it is without pay and your gross base annual salary is the same as the year prior but it is better than the GIVE BACK option where your gross base annual salary is the same as the year prior and you get nothing for that.
CONS for the rank and file; you get a salary increase that you cannot realize in this year; you are forced to take five days off without pay; you may not get to choose the days
When my employer who made a net profit of $17,000,000,000 (yeah – that’s 17 billion net PROFIT) said they were freezing all salaries this year I was dumbfounded. Once I got over that I decided that if given the choice I would rather that I had the option of a furlough.
Instead of getting a 3 to 4% performance raise my salary would hold and I’d get five days off without pay (and I have the type of job where the work just piles up so it’d be sitting there when I got back so they’d effectively get the work out of me anyway).
As I mentioned, I would have gotten something (time off) for what I was sacrificing (raise).
To me that is the closest you get to win-win for everyone the way I look at it.
Post a Comment