I'm thinking the "pluses" will include:
- The Court will appoint a grown-up to manage the City, rather than leaving the big checkbook in the hands of Villaraigosa and the rest of the Spring Street Gang;
- The City will avoid all the onerous "poison pill" contract provisions that make it more expensive to lay off employees than keep them on the payroll;
- The City will likewise avoid the pension obligations before they become a fiscal black hole, sucking in all available revenues;
- The City will avoid the 99-year "leases" of parking lots, golf courses, street parking and other assets that Villaraigosa et al. are about to give away at fire-sale prices to reward their cronies;
- The City will avoid countless other wasteful contracts, "conditional loans," and leases that unfairly benefit the Spring Street Gang's cronies at the expense of you, the taxpayer; and
- The political careers of Villaraigosa and every member of the City Council will be "done," once and for all.
As for the "minuses," . . . .
Yeah, I'm not getting any minuses, are you?
For more details about what could happen if the City declares Chapter 9 bankruptcy, you can review the essay I wrote back on January 26, 2010.
For those Americans that are well informed the current City budget crisis is merely a vivid picture of a much larger problem. The middle class of this country is disappearing and the fact that government workers now make more than their civilian counterparts (in some cases) only proves how the middle class earning power has declined. 40 years ago, NO civil servants made more than their civilian counterparts. Working for the government back then was the last choice for most people. The fact that many here wish to drag the government workers down into the toilet with them shows that they are in denial of the obvious problem. ALL the good paying jobs have been farmed out by our greedy corporations much to the approval of the US government. Now we all get to compete with some dude in China that works 10 or 12 hours for $.68 per hour. The middle class is dying. Pulling middle class government workers down with everyone else may make you feel better, but it will not help our economy.
ReplyDeleteI agree with 2:52 PM. Unless you can show that the employees had their hands of the financial "steering wheel", instead of the Mayor and City Council, punishing them will not cure the problem. The problem is that the City is being mismanaged into the ground by the spending habits akin to that of "drunken sailors". Although, bankruptcy would take much of their power away, a judge may still have no idea how to run the City of Los Angeles.
ReplyDeleteWalter; wouldn't it be difficult for a municipality to qualify for bankruptcy if it still holds assets, albeit not in plain sight, that it has not employed to offset it's claimed debts?
"Pulling middle class governmental workers down . . . will not help our economy."
ReplyDelete"[P]unishing them will not cure the problem."
Hey fellahs, it's nice to know City union workers are reading my essays.
Here's the thing: While you've been getting record-setting raises, and pensions the rest of us can only dream of, those of us in the private sector have been getting hammered, as in losing our jobs right and left.
We can't afford to keep paying you far more than we make. It's not punishment, it's economic reality.
If I were in the City employees' unions, I would be hammering away at the corporate welfare doled out through the CRA. That's hundreds of millions of dollars per year going to politically connected businesses, that could instead pay for actual goods and services.
Better yet, abolish both the CRA and the business income tax simultaneously, to make this a good place for ALL employers to hire workers -- not just those who get subsidies paid for by the rest of us.
To answer your question about assets, I'm no expert in municipal bankruptcy, but I suspect the answer is "no." Cities are entitled to own a bunch of assets: buildings, police cars, parks, etc.
ReplyDeleteI think it is far more likely that the bankruptcy would focus on contracts that are out of line with market rates. That would include above-market employment contracts and those $1 per year lease deals.
City leadership is totally corrupt and morally bankrupt. Financial bankruptcy will be the end result of that. I welcome it.
ReplyDeleteIt will destroy Union control and influence. Many wasteful programs will be eliminated. And like you said, the careers of Villaraigosa and the Spring Street 15 will be over, as they were the ones who drove the City right off the financial cliff.
Walter, speaking as a city worker and in regards to "record setting raises", you must be referring to the Department of Water and Power. I've taken a two-year wage freeze, I'm on two days a month furlough, I'm contributing 1.07% more to my pension, the Mayor is calling for 10% more reduction and my co-workers jobs are being contracted out in the face of a shrinking City workforce.
ReplyDeleteI understand where the public perception is that a city worker is a city worker is a city worker. The truth is that we are represented by so many different City unions, we have different bargaining agreements and situations, which aren't as lucrative as DWP's.
It's important to remember that when our economy was enjoying the DotCom boom and millionaires were sprouting up, our jobs were considered menial and dead-end in comparison.
Now that a recession has taken hold, the public perspective has changed. I'm sure, if I'm still around, my job will again be considered menial and dead-end.
No, I am talking about the record-setting raises you got in December 2007. Let me refresh your recollection. Here's a link to the CAO memo summarizing the massive raises you got: http://bit.ly/as0Tit.
ReplyDeleteAs I recall, the union leaders bragged about how it was the biggest raise ever obtained, or something like that.
Anyhow, no offense, but your taking a two-year wage freeze while many of the people paying your salary are losing their jobs, moreover, hardly inspires a great deal of sympathy. Hey, I wish we all could get raises. But a lot of my friends wish they had jobs. So they're not going to lie awake tonight fretting about your not getting a raise.
Bottom line: the City unions have negotiated themselves too good a deal. We taxpayers cannot afford to give you pensions that are far, far more generous than any of us get. No one's saying you don't work hard. You just got too good a deal, whether you realize it or not.
P.S. That big honking raise, you may recall, was conditioned on Prop S passing, which, in effect, meant Villaraigosa was essentially bribing union members to vote for it.
ReplyDeleteHere's the essay I wrote about it at the time: http://bit.ly/de2hD0
P.P.S. FYI, here's how Rick Orlov of the Daily News reported on the contracts on 12/20/2007:
ReplyDelete"The employee contracts - which come at a time when city revenue growth has begun to fall sharply - provide 23 percent wage increases over the next five years for some 200,000 city workers."
See for yourself at the following URL: http://bit.ly/bFd7iv
I really don't just make this stuff up, you know. : )
Over the years the illegal aliens where able to gain employment in the once high wage union construction and other living wage Jobs and wages became depressed and the
ReplyDeleteCivil service government jobs for the most part where not breeched by the influx of
Illegal aliens and the wages of the government jobs keep paced with the cost of living
And the benefits improved and soon outpaced the private sector and now we have
An imbalance of wages we have illegal alien wages supporting higher waged
Civil servants.
On the contrary, the influx of illegal aliens increased the "demand" for public sector workers. Think about it: more teachers, more "social services" workers, more interpreters and translators, tons of so-called "outreach" employees. When you import poverty, government becomes a growth sector.
ReplyDeleteWalter, those "raises" referred to by Rick Orlov in his article were for a period of five full years and were short circuited by our concessionary agreement in 2009. The period of five years was the record setter because we had never signed more than a three year agreement with the City. The full effect of those intended raises were supposed to take effect the last three years of the contract, which of course, didn't happen. The contract prior to 2007 included a year of 0% raise, but inflation increased way more than that. Sympathy is not being sought, perspective was the goal.
ReplyDeleteBut you still got a raise between January 1, 2007 and today, right? And you still have a pension plan -- and health care, and disability, and life insurance -- unlike any of us in the private sector, right?
ReplyDeleteThat's something to consider in your perspective, too.
And, believe it or not, I DO have sympathy. I have encountered a bunch of City employees who do consistently outstanding work. I am serious about that. Plus, I know you -- like the rest of us -- make plans in reliance on whatever your employment deal is. It really sucks to have someone change the deal to make it worse afterwards.
I just think your leaders don't serve you particularly well when they complain publicly about minor concessions like those in the EAA contract at a time when many in the private sector would love just to get a job.
I think the solution involves pulling the plug on corporate welfare through the CRA, pulling the plug on on the Mayor's failed "gang" program, reforming your pension plan, and ending all those sweetheart deals for cronies (e.g. $1 leases).
I WANT competent, professional, civil service workers, and I'm all for them having union representation. The union leaders need to recognize, however, that sometimes the best interest of the members is not to maximize compensation, but instead to hang onto jobs.