 
Crumbled_pavement
Member
Username: Crumbled_pavement
Post Number: 504
Registered: 08-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, August 30, 2008 - 3:25 pm: |    |
I don't know, I'm just thinking aloud here. Maybe that's not such a good idea.
Anyhoo ... what do you think about offering City of Detroit employees buy outs (something like what the Little 3 have been offering their employees)?
Most of us agree Detroit needs to privatize quite a few of its services, yet what does it do with the excess employees? The union would fight pretty hard to prevent traditional lay-offs and privatization, however, they might agree to buy outs. This would be a huge financial hit upfront to Detroit but it might save far more money down the line. The city would have to borrow money to fund this program (just like the Little 3) but would save money down the road and achieve much needed downsizing.
I'm thinking a lump sum pay out with a tuition assistance program for city workers to go back to school (college, trades, etc.).
What do you think? Why would it work or not work?
Thanks |
Oldredfordette
Member
Username: Oldredfordette
Post Number: 5328
Registered: 02-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, August 30, 2008 - 4:08 pm: | |
Most of us would not agree that Detroit needs to privatize any of their services. Don't you think people pay enough? They need to pay for shareholder returns too? Bullshit. A terrible horrible idea. |
Ray1936
Member
Username: Ray1936
Post Number: 3575
Registered: 01-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, August 30, 2008 - 4:12 pm: | |
Gotta agree with Orf on this one. Privatizing city services is really not cost effective, although rubbish pickup could probably be done privately with better efficiency. But it would cost residents extra without any reduction in current taxes, fear not. |
Crumbled_pavement
Member
Username: Crumbled_pavement
Post Number: 505
Registered: 08-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, August 30, 2008 - 4:12 pm: | |
When I say privatize I mean the city would pay a contractor to do the work as opposed to city workers. No one is talking about citizens having to pay individually for service. Think outsourcing. |
Oldredfordette
Member
Username: Oldredfordette
Post Number: 5330
Registered: 02-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, August 30, 2008 - 4:18 pm: | |
I know what you mean. I am right. It will cost citizens more in the long run. It won't guarantee better service, in fact it will probably decline. |
Crumbled_pavement
Member
Username: Crumbled_pavement
Post Number: 506
Registered: 08-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, August 30, 2008 - 4:24 pm: | |
So what is your suggestion to improve services in the city and lower costs? And drop the attitude, this is just a casual conversation. |
Thames
Member
Username: Thames
Post Number: 218
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, August 30, 2008 - 5:58 pm: | |
Our trash pick up is privatized. We pay $192 per year or $48 per quarter. |
Townonenorth
Member
Username: Townonenorth
Post Number: 111
Registered: 10-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, August 30, 2008 - 8:55 pm: | |
Buyouts would only be effective using a model similar to the automakers and others. Base rate at significantly less than scale, reduced benefits.
We have a private service that picks up garbage here, the fee is on the water bill. They pick up most anything, concrete only once a year. |
Ray1936
Member
Username: Ray1936
Post Number: 3580
Registered: 01-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, August 30, 2008 - 9:33 pm: | |
Yeah, we have private trash pickup here in Las Vegas and its 'burbs also. They pick up twice a week, just about anything, and our recycling materials (newspapers, cans, and glass in separate bins provided by the company) every other week. They bill us $50 each quarter. |
Oldredfordette
Member
Username: Oldredfordette
Post Number: 5331
Registered: 02-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, August 30, 2008 - 9:55 pm: | |
My attitude is me. Don't like it? Read past me.
All privitization will do is bring a for profit motive to a simple service. I think we can make the departments and the workers accountable without destroying the job and the service provided. |
Living_in_the_d
Member
Username: Living_in_the_d
Post Number: 284
Registered: 01-2008
| | Posted on Saturday, August 30, 2008 - 10:22 pm: | |
Yeah, Oldredfordette, Well Said And Well Put! |
Frankg
Member
Username: Frankg
Post Number: 560
Registered: 08-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, August 30, 2008 - 10:32 pm: | |
One factor to consider is how many people are relatively close to retirement. The buyouts were fairly successful at getting people at retirement or really close to it to go. But for people only half way to retirement, I think fewer people signed up for those buyouts, unless they were prepared for another job, or there was the threat of a major move (i.e., the plant they work in is slated to close, etc). The success of a buyout plan would depend on the population distribution of city workers, what they think their futures are within their careers at the city, and what their chances of a career outside the city are. |
Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1
Post Number: 12174
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 30, 2008 - 11:23 pm: | |
quote:Most of us would not agree that Detroit needs to privatize any of their services. Don't you think people pay enough? They need to pay for shareholder returns too? Bullshit. A terrible horrible idea
Who is most of us? The services suck and the employees are overpaid. Support unions all you want but if you are using Detroit services as a reason to support them you come off looking pretty foolish.
If Detroit services are such a good deal why do you choose to live in another city?
Detroit services are a joke because unions allow them to continue being a joke.
There are 2 services that excel in the city, garbage pickup (city) and parking enforcement (outsourced).
The unions in the city supply a joke of a service but it is easier to support them, not paying paying 66 mills in the city.
What a f'in joke.
I put it as a challenge to you ORF. What services in the city are better due to unionization. As a resident I would like to know what value the unions bring to us. |
Zrx_doug
Member
Username: Zrx_doug
Post Number: 600
Registered: 03-2008
| | Posted on Saturday, August 30, 2008 - 11:28 pm: | |
Under the current administration, you have in-house workers being run by know-nothing friends & family of Kilpatrick..if the same administration were to farm out work to the private sector, the Bobby Ferguson's and Tony Soave's would get the cash for the inferior service..
We don't need privatized services, we need to take out the trash and run the existing services with qualified people in an honest manner.
I suspect that once Detroit is cleared of all the Kwamunists sucking at the public's tit that there will be sufficient cash to operate the city. |
Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1
Post Number: 12176
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 30, 2008 - 11:35 pm: | |
Prior to KK what services were better than neighboring communities due to unionization?
Please name one.
Police? Nope.
DFT? A joke of a union that kills the city (and I am pro- public education)
Parks and Rec? Horrible services.
DPW? A national embarrasment
This isn't just under KK, this is historical incompetence.
Of course we are paying pensions to100,000S of people. For what? |
Sumas
Member
Username: Sumas
Post Number: 245
Registered: 01-2008
| | Posted on Sunday, August 31, 2008 - 10:27 am: | |
The city needs to streamline service. PD&D and the CPC are good examples of duplication of services. One reports to the mayor, the other to council. How about a consolidation, since they pretty much do the same thing. It would be nice too if they felt responsible to the tax payers. |
Pffft
Member
Username: Pffft
Post Number: 1693
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 31, 2008 - 10:56 am: | |
Jt1,
Do you really think suburban police departments are not unionized??? LOL ... |
East_detroit
Member
Username: East_detroit
Post Number: 2009
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 31, 2008 - 11:13 am: | |
Blaming unions for the faults of administrators is pointing at the wrong people.
If Detroit had a population that could support the infrastructure then we wouldnt be discussing ways to cut expenses. Same as companies who arent making money on product.
Want to be creative? Think of ways to boost income instead of ways to lower expenses. Lowering expenses is just a losing proposition that makes boosting income more and more unlikely. |
Oldredfordette
Member
Username: Oldredfordette
Post Number: 5339
Registered: 02-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 31, 2008 - 2:41 pm: | |
I'm not talking about unionization, I'm talking about privitization. |
_sj_
Member
Username: _sj_
Post Number: 2508
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 31, 2008 - 2:45 pm: | |
Millions and Billions of taxpayer liabilities in pensions depending on the city, county or state government.
When we pay a large amount of tax dollars to cover benefits anything that could possibly save taxpayers money has to be explored.
Some governments are looking 60-80% of their tax dollars going to wages and benefits. That can not be sustained.
Think about .80 cents of every tax dollar is paying for someone elses benefits. |