Did anyone else see the report last week that Peoria's next budget is over $2 million in the red? Forced by higher government to fund future benefits for employees, Peoria is in trouble come 2007. Might as well put the last nail in the coffin that is Fire Station 11.
One possible solution suggested by Fifth District Councilman Patrick Nichting-outsourcing. No, we most likely won't have to wait for snow plows from India to clear the streets this winter, but look for more private businesses to start taking over what used to be city employee domain.
Private companies are not forced to fund -or even offer- the same benefits local city employees currently enjoy, so they can provide services cheaper than the City can. There are a few departments I would love to see taken over by a private corporation. Namely, code enforcement. The city has apt time to move on slum landlords and homeowners who just don't care that their properties are destroying a neighborhood and inviting crime. I digress.
The outsourcing ploy might work for those city services that depend on braun, but it seems less likely that private enterprise can take over the duties of the City Clerk's Office or the Treasurer's Office for example. Who will be responsible for receiving funds from such revenues as parking tickets, permits, and license requests? Who will keep the minutes of City Council meetings, fill FOA requests, track the budget? Temps from Manpower?
In a capitalist environment, it seems odd that Government would ever pay its employees higher salaries or provide better benefits than private companies. Of course, since City government doesn't provide a profit, it can't work exactly the same way as does private business. Most non-profits pay less and provide far fewer benefits than private businesses. So should the City of Peoria.
Whoever did the original math should be hunted down and shot. Even with a significant tax increase, there is no way the City will be able to provide the benefits it has promised to employees without going broke. Maybe no one saw that health care was going to become so expensive. Maybe the city employees union is too strong. Maybe whoever did the original math on the city employee benefits package was tripping on crack. It really doesn't matter.
I'm not saying that City employees don't work hard. Most of them probably do. I'm not saying they don't deserve healthcare or retirement benefits. They do. Just not better benefits than their bosses (taxpayers) enjoy. Unless you want to give your credit card number to some boiler room operator in India the next time you get a parking ticket downtown, something has got to give.
If your mind is too open, your brain will fall out. Warning: Names, identities, descriptions, and pictures have been changed and/or used to protect the innocent as well as the guilty. PollyPeoria should not be used or quoted as a source for your senior college thesis.
Monday, September 4
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
Links
- Batten Disease Home Page
- Peoria Pundits
- Peoria Chronicle
- Peoria Story
- Peoria Illinoisan
- Merle Widmer's Peoria Watch
- Ahl Things Considered
- Eyebrows McGee Plays in Peoria
- Lollygaggin
- Scott's Blog Experience
- Chef Kevin's Culinary Rant & Raves
- Obrien's Briar Patch
- Market 117
- Vonster
- Pasghetti Place
- Dying In Haiti
- A Bird In The Hand
3 comments:
One of the problems that has caused real problems for city and county governments in Illinois is the penchant for the state legislature (and governor) to mandate increased pensions for police, fire, sheriffs deputies and the like--and then pass the increased costs to the local governments. No one disputes that someone who puts his/her life on the line in the name of public safety deserves a decent retirement. But, every time one of these groups goes to the state house with a request for an increase, the other groups all follow suit in the name of "parity". . . .and the state legislature seems to never have seen a pension increase they didn't like. . .It's time we voters told our representatives in Springfield that enough is enough. . .
Anon,
Yup. I agree completely. Moreover, guess what governmental body is requiring local governments to have future benefits funding and directly responsible for our 2 1/2 million red ink problem. Idiots.
"In a capitalist environment, it seems odd that Government would ever pay its employees higher salaries or provide better benefits than private companies."
This is an interesting point. For lawyers, private-sector salaries are so astronomical for the top graduates that the government (at all levels) is having difficulty attracting good lawyers and for jobs that aren't political-advancement-oriented or sexy (i.e., CIA lawyers), government agencies often end up with third- or fourth-tier graduates. With $100,000 student loans, grads can't afford to take government jobs. There's even a problem in retention of judges -- judges can often make SIX TIMES in private practice what they make on the bench, particularly in big cities, often doing little more than adding "Judge Joe Brown" to the letterhead of a firm trying to up its prestige. If you have three kids to send to the Ivies, would you stay on the bench when you could make three or four times as much working shorter hours in private practice and not having insane people come into your courtroom with guns?
Should the nation's best lawyers be working for Nike and Microsoft in large law firms, or should they be working for the prosecutor, the public defender, legal aid, the IRS, and the bench? Where does quality of lawyering matter more -- in multi-billion dollar trademark cases that drag on for six years between companies that can afford 200 lawyers each, or in prosecuting rapists?
I suppose the analogous argument is really to teaching -- districts can HIRE teachers on craptastic salaries, sometimes even good (idealistic) teachers, but many/most top graduates who COULD go into teaching are going to go into something that pays enough to let them go to the movies now and then. Whom do you want teaching your child, the best talent available, or the lowest bidder?
So the question is, if the government is providing ESSENTIAL services that need to be provided at the best level possible (prosecution, teaching, policing, firefighting), are we willing to pay for quality, or do we take what we can get with the low bid?
This sounds like I'm advocating high public salaries, which I'm really not; I think the problem is in the skewed private compensation in certain fields and in the cost of college that handcuffs graduates, but drawing talented people is a HUGE problem for government, and the traditional benefits and security of a government job are one of the few bargaining chips the government has.
I know you were mostly focusing on "brawn not brain" services, as you said, but I do think it's a really interesting and pertinent argument without any really easy answers. I can only imagine what our property taxes would look like if we were paying teachers $90,000 a year to snag them away from private corporations.
Post a Comment