Print Page | Close Window

Firefighter Proposal

Printed From: MiddletownUSA.com
Category: Middletown City Government
Forum Name: City Council
Forum Description: Discuss individual members and council as a legislative body.
URL: http://www.middletownusa.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4331
Printed Date: Jun 01 2024 at 9:20pm


Topic: Firefighter Proposal
Posted By: VietVet
Subject: Firefighter Proposal
Date Posted: Jan 19 2012 at 7:06am
Today's Journal....

Middletown firefighters agree to wage freeze, will pay more for health care

MIDDLETOWN — Firefighters have agreed to no wage increases for at least two years and to double their health care payments, according to a new three-year IAFF contract City Council is considering

“I think considering the economic times and the financial times the governor put the city in, it was a win for the city,” IAFF President Jon Harvey said, “and there was no sense of us prolonging any kind of process when our goal is to try to move this city forward.”

But Councilman Josh Laubach thinks the city staff “could have done a better job.”

But Laubach believes the contract is not beneficial for the city.

“I think we have to do a better job if we’re going to move forward in the future and provide adequate safety protection and meet all of our obligations,” he said.

He’d like to see more money invested in infrastructure

SO WOULD THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE LIVING HERE MR. LAUBACH BUT SOMEHOW NONE OF US THINK THAT WILL HAPPEN.

And Laubach said about 70 percent of the city’s general fund is spent on police and fire, and he said the city cannot afford that.

“I think we need a pay reduction, which isn’t there,” he said. “And the ‘me too’ clause was not in the best interest of city employees.”

“We’re spending so much on public safety; we’re not spending enough (local) money on our infrastructure,” he said

AGREE-SO WHEN IS THE STREET FUND GOING TO HAVE IT'S MONEY RETURNED FROM THE "BORROWING" DONE FOR "EMERGENCY PURPOSES" IN 1986?

Harvey disagrees with Laubach’s assessment, saying historically cities nationwide pay 70 to 80 percent for police and fire departments.

Middletown has budgeted 72 percent of the general fund for public safety, or just under $21 million, for 2012. Of the $8.9 million spent on the fire department, 88 percent is spent on personnel.

88 PERCENT OF THE 8.9 MIL ON PERSONNEL! TOO HIGH ISN'T IT?

“That’s where citizens say where they want their money spent,” Harvey said. “I think Josh’s hatred for unions gets in his way of thinking clearly

MAYBE AMEND THAT TO SAY "JOSH'S HATRED FOR UNION GREED" HARVEY. AND NO, LAUBACH IS THINKING QUITE CLEARLY.

Harvey said the contract does move the city forward because it controls costs, and there’s no substantial cost to the city

HOW DO YOU FIGURE THAT 88% on 8.9 MIL IS NO SUBSTANTIAL COST? MOST OF THE BUDGET MONEY IS CONSUMED BY SALARIES AND BENEFIT COSTS. 'BOUT TIME YOU PUBLIC SECTOR FOLKS STARTED PAYING 15% TOWARD YOUR BENNIES. 7.5% HAS BEEN A GIFT FOR MANY YEARS FOR YOU. PRIVATE SECTOR PEOPLE HAVE BEEN PAYING 15% OR MORE FOR MANY YEARS. IT'S YOUR TURN NOW TO SHARE IN THE MISERY.



Replies:
Posted By: ground swat
Date Posted: Jan 19 2012 at 7:18am
I would advise Mr. Harvey to say know more, SB5 was tossed out but it's not forgotten. The only hatred I have is the lack of common sense these unions have along with a city that has over 60 accounts they can shuffle money around. This system and admin. is broken.


Posted By: lrisner
Date Posted: Jan 19 2012 at 10:52am
All these "Union Greed" comments piss me off. If you say that it is only because you know NOT what you are talking about and also, i suspect, You are a childish person that only wants what you want and DON'T want facts to get in the way.

Josh and the other Anti Union hard heads keep saying Middletown Government should be run like a Business, well I agree!  Then quit whining and do so.  If a business can't afford 50 employees but can afford 45, then they lay off 5 employees. Do the same with the City Staff. Geeez, it is not hard math.

The real problem is the greedy people of the World still want all the services and protection that a fully staffed City Government provides but they don't want to pay for it. They want the Unions to work for poverty wages so they can have their subservient under class to SERVE them.  That is what it really is all about.

  The simple fact is that Middletown is no longer the substantial City it was 50 yrs ago. We need to accept it and move on. If we can't afford the Police and Fire protection we would like to have, then we just CAN'T afford it. Making the Police and Fire Fighters become poorly paid servants is NO answer.

SB5 IS dead because most Ohioans understand just how stupid it was. It is as unAmerican as anything I have seen in my whole lifetime. To support it suggest that you either are a greedy elitist like Mr Kasich, or you are just an uninformed dupe of the Neo Conservatives.


Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Jan 19 2012 at 11:31am
Irisner, you are either a union person yourself or are a staunch union supporter because you grew up in a union household perhaps.

I would like to address some comments you have posted here, if I may.

You state:

"All these "Union Greed" comments piss me off. If you say that it is only because you know NOT what you are talking about and also, i suspect, You are a childish person that only wants what you want and DON'T want facts to get in the way"

No, not childish, more like practical. I grew up in a union household. Grandfather worked in the union at Armco for 46 years. Made a great living. I worked for the Armco union for three months back in 1968 before I went in the service. Have worked for 8 different non-union companies for 43 years now and will continue to do so for 7 more years until retirement at 70, giving me 51 years total. Always had decent bennies at each company. Pay started at the $2.75/hour back in 1972 after the service stint of 4 years. Happy to get it at the time. Now, at over $22/hour(took me 43 years to get there), still plugging along. Fact is, the unions have been paying way less for their share of bennies than the private sector for many years now. Fact is, the union shops have always made better money than non-union shops with step increases between yearly pay increases, unheard of in a non-union shop. Unions have work environment reps and lawyers to go to bat for you if management is out of line. Non-union-no one. Fact is the union folks, over time and with the benefit of weak resistance from the other side of the bargaining table, have managed to work their way up to an executive lifestyle while working blue collar jobs, using their greed over the years as a tool for advancement. Here in Middletown, you see union steel workers living amoungst bankers and other execs in the Oaks for example with the wife's Cadillac Escalade and the bass boat covered in the driveway.

We're not the greedy people here Irisner. We want the best service for a fair price and that may not happen because the union folks have outpaced themselves with what they are compensated for versus what we get for that compensation. IE-they have managed to price themselves right out of affordability for most cities and for what the taxpayer can afford to give anymore. Money is tight, yet somehow, some union folks just seem to want to keep squeezing the ballon until it pops.

"The simple fact is that Middletown is no longer the substantial City it was 50 yrs ago. We need to accept it and move on. If we can't afford the Police and Fire protection we would like to have, then we just CAN'T afford it. Making the Police and Fire Fighters become poorly paid servants is NO answer"

Then what are we to do? If we can't afford you any longer, and if you want to keep your jobs, you'll have to give some concessions. One may be to lower your wages and pay more for your bennies. OR, look for a position that will pay you what you think you are worth in another city. It is your choice. It is all our choices-union or non-union. If you don't like where you are, for whatever reason, you always have the choice of leaving. I have done this several times in my working life.

SB5 IS dead because most Ohioans understand just how stupid it was. It is as unAmerican as anything I have seen in my whole lifetime. To support it suggest that you either are a greedy elitist like Mr Kasich, or you are just an uninformed dupe of the Neo Conservatives.

Hardly the case Irisner. I'm a working class person like most are. Will never be anything else. Not greedy nor an elitist. Very informed, thank you, and am proned to be more conservative as I get older. SB5 was fine with me. I, like most, am a taxpayer. I have alot taken out of my paycheck every other week. I want the biggest bang for the buck if I'm footing the bill for services. I want a level playing field where public union folks are contributing as much toward your bennies as I am in the private sector. I want a level playing field with wages. My job is technical in nature.....research. Gotta think to do this job. Just as "professional" as a cop or firefighter's job. Yet, for all these years, I haven't come close to earning the wages I see made in the police or firefighter positions. IMO, no level playing field here. The union folks have been light years beyond the non-union folks for many years. It is time we play on a level field. We can no longer afford your demands and we're both seeing that now. Unions are not necessarily popular nowadays, particularly with their demands in a tight economy. JMO


Posted By: lrisner
Date Posted: Jan 19 2012 at 6:22pm
First...who cares what someone else pays for "bennies"? Total compensation is all that matters.At AK/Armco, they waived a raise one year to get a better Pension plan. Is it any of YOUR business HOW someone chooses to be compensated? NO it is not! 

 If you want to talk total compensation, you may have a viable argument and I might actually agree with you based on what you say. HOWEVER, as soon as you bring up bennies, I write you off as the brainwashed type I mentioned earlier.

Clearly, your Escalade comment proves you know nothing about AK pay. Working shift work and in a bad environment, one will make about 50k-60 at AK. That is working the Christmas and Thankgiving and thru most of the Football Games your son might have. That is not excessive. If your nieghbor has the things it because they LIVE (much overtime) at AK or more than likely have a hard working Spouse in serious job.

Concessions? That is entirely up to the Union. If the workers choose to make less so that all current employees can stay, that is up them. Just because YOU want more services that you want to pay for doesn't mean someone else should have to work for less.To act like they are greedy just shows me YOU are greedy.

SB5 is an attempt to give the Cities a chance to "abuse" their employees like Private sector companies can now. It is abuse. AK had no strike in 06, they had a LOCKOUT. What really pisses me off is that knot-heads like you FORCED arbitration on Public Unions 30 years ago so they  would have to let an arbiter decide what is fair and NOW those same knot-heads are mad because the Arbiters are FAIR. You don't know squat about SB5 except what Rush told you to think.

Case in point....research. Geez. You want no part of a Mill, or a House Fire, or a Crackhead with a gun, but you are mad because they make more money than you. If you have the credentials you have suggested, then apply at AK. I bet you could get a Shift Managers job making about 70-80k and you would get to work all the Holidays and all the Football games but you would make more.


just as I suggested...whiners and jealous.


Posted By: lrisner
Date Posted: Jan 19 2012 at 6:34pm
Oh., yea Vet. I meant to ask. Why do you think you know more about what is fair in this situation than does some Labor Lawyer (arbitrator) compelled by Federal Law to be fair and unbiased?

Just who do you think you are?

Stop watching so much FOX News. You will be a more well rounded person if you make the change.


Posted By: spiderjohn
Date Posted: Jan 19 2012 at 7:27pm
hate to jump into the middle of this chest-thumping, HOWEVER it is a little different when you are talking about taxpayer-funded govt.employees as opposed to the private sector.
 
btw--I didn't like anything about either side of SBW5, and didn't really think that either result would  save anyones' job in the long haul. No mo' money is a pretty powerful factor.
 
jmo


Posted By: lrisner
Date Posted: Jan 19 2012 at 8:08pm
Sorry Spider, what does Tax payer paid employee or not have anything to do with what is fair? Are you saying that if paid by Tax Payer then an Employee should accept unfair treatment?

I think you haven't thought it thru and just have got on the Band wagon. I have found you to be reasonable in the past and ask you to think about this issue and then explain to me what difference WHO pays somebody has to do with what is fair.


Posted By: TonyB
Date Posted: Jan 19 2012 at 8:46pm
Irisner,

As a union supporter, both public and private; I believe the fairness issue comes into play when public employees have better pay and benefits than equivalent private sector jobs. Yes, I know, not too many equivalent jobs with police and fire but that is the perception now. Whether that perception is fair or even accurate isn't the issue.

The difference is that a private company pays its employees from revenues generated by the work of the employees. That is not the case in public sector employees. Police and fire do not generate revenue; the fees charged are to offset the cost; they do not pay for the departments. When you have citizens who pay taxes and work in private sector jobs, their job is dependent on their labor bringing in more revenues than it costs their company. If you're not a profitable employee, you get shown the door!!! That is not a consideration for a public employee who is usually shown the door only when they violate policy or regulations.

One other thing and this is really a general comment: there is no reason for the personal characterizations! I know that this forum brings up issues that people are passionate about but that does not excuse name calling and character assasinations; that only weakens your argument, imo. The most difficult thing to do is to step back and try to look through the eyes of the other person; you don't have to agree with them but trying to see the other point of view provides a perspective that you haven't thought about and many times makes it easier to see your own point of view clearer. I'm always willing to listen right up to the point when personal insults and name calling starts. When that happens, (imo) you've just lost your argument!!!


Posted By: Bill
Date Posted: Jan 19 2012 at 9:29pm
Is it "fair" when our private sector employers (AK comes to mind) force pay reductions on salaried workers?  Is it fair when my health insurance costs go up year after year (and not just in response to a union negotiation)?  Is it fair that a complaint about all the above to my employer will likely result not in a negotiated response, or a counteroffer, or a seat before an arbitrator, but possibly in my termination?


Posted By: lrisner
Date Posted: Jan 19 2012 at 10:26pm
With all due respect, all arguments offered are indicative of how the average American (my sweet, wonderful Parents included) have been brainwashed by the Media. All of what you both have said mean nothing. If there is an inequity? then what is the root cause? Do you all believe that the Arbitrators are corrupt? In the Unions' pockets? What is the reason?

The reason is that the Private Sector has been able to be grossly unfair. More of the same evil, is that what you all want? there is NO other reason than that to support SB5. NO reason. Unless you DO think the arbiters are corrupt, then you have NO argument for that mentality.

As to Bill....Duh! that is part of collective bargaining. When AK was booming in the late 90, the salaried people were getting HUGE bonuses. The Union ONLY got what was Contractually required. Again, sorry to say, it is whining. "Wha, Wha, I want to ignore how great it is to be Salary when times are good, but I want to whine when the bad times get in my pocket". Give me break!  Get a Union job then Bill.

I must also say that name calling is in poor taste, but unfortunately most of the nonsensical views expressed on this site are just as bad in regards to taste as my comments. Most of you are so blinded you don't see that, but it is true. this issue is just that. wanting to take away someone's rights because you want to save a dime or you are jealous. Bad Taste!

I feel like some anti Nazi German in the 1930s, trying so hard to convince you all that Adolf is not so great.

Sad commentary for our Nation. The real tragedy is that the same people that are for taking Union rights away from first responders think it is terrible to take away a few more dollars from some Hedge Fund manager paying 15% in FIT every year. Disgusting.


Posted By: TANGO
Date Posted: Jan 20 2012 at 6:27am
Irisner do you think that the firemen should have control over who gets raise in the city for the next 3 yrs., even if some of those people have not had a raise for 6 yrs.  Thats what the METO  clause does to the city.
Now the the police next year have to get a contract with meto in it as well.  METO, that as childish as it sounds. 


Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Jan 20 2012 at 6:41am
Originally posted by lrisner lrisner wrote:

Oh., yea Vet. I meant to ask. Why do you think you know more about what is fair in this situation than does some Labor Lawyer (arbitrator) compelled by Federal Law to be fair and unbiased?Just who do you think you are?Stop watching so much FOX News. You will be a more well rounded person if you make the change.


Irisner...

To let you know the facts, I am a registered Democrat. Hell, even had the union endorsements when I ran for office years ago. Went down on Rt. 4 to a union hall and did the old union sponsorship thing. They pledged support as they were told to do because I was a Democrat, not because they believed what I was all about. I didn't even talk to them and got their support that night. How shallow is that? In general, I do not like the Republican party as I think it represents big business, takes management's side on things and has traditionally relied on the war machine to stimulate the economy while it was getting people killed. I don't like the Democrats because they sponsor some greedy unions and want to give our hard earned money to social programs that are mismanaged, have people who have qualified who are scum and are abusing the system, bilking the taxpayers and the Dems want to give rights to illegals. Don't like Obama for that and I voted for the guy. Doubt that will happen again. Don't like any of the Repubs either. I don't watch FOX News as it is as slanted as CNN and MSNBC are on the Democratic side. Personally, I think both sides are full of it nowadays. There are no good choices for any of us, IMO. No, Irisner, my comments are my own and I do not side with either the Governor nor the union on SB5. My comments are my own and not enticed by FOX, CNN, MSNBC, the Governor, etc. It is just what I have seen over the last 43 years in the work place and the differences in what the union folks have received in wages and bennies and what us non-union folks have received. It have been very skewed to say the least and I'd like to see some balance for a change.

As for your reply on my Escalade comment.......I live right across from the Oaks. I know for a fact there is a retired Armco floor worker...IE...non-mangement/ex-union person who lives among the high rollers who occupy the Oaks. (I live in one of the grass huts that surround the Oaks just over the moats). He has an Escalade and a bass boat. I know the guy. It took no more skill to do his job than it takes to do mine, yet he is well above me in standard of living for a comparably-skilled job. Difference between the union shops and non-union. THAT'S WHAT IT IS ALL ABOUT FOR ME WITH SB5 AND IN OUR DISCUSSION HERE. NOT A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD FOR COMPARABLE WORK AND PAYING YOUR OWN WAY ON BENNIES. Public sector jobs, by not paying their fair share of premiums for bennies, have gotten a free ride at the expense of taxpayers like myself, who must pay more from our paychecks to help our employers afford the ever-increasing costs of healthcare AND, adding insult to injury, having to help pay for the public union folks bennies all these years. Call it jealousy, call it looking for fairness, call it anything you wish. Just want it to be even-up, that's all.


Who do I think I am? I'm a working guy who pays taxes, wants some fairness and the biggest bang for my tax bucks, that's all. The labor lawyer just interprets the law. He knows what is in the books. If I read the negotiation laws, I would know as much as the frikkin' labor lawyer. What's your point?

Well-rounded?......only around the mid section bud. Got alot of flaws.....but then, so do you.


Posted By: lrisner
Date Posted: Jan 20 2012 at 6:47am
First, Again, WE blame the Union for something the city agreed to. It amazes me how if some home owner agrees to some terrible terms in mortgage, then we all say, Buyer be ware. read what you sign,, be good for your word...blah, blah, blah. YET, when the City(or even a private Employer) agrees to something and later regrets it, it all of a sudden becomes the "greedy" Union's fault.

How about we start EXPECTING our high paid City Administrators to ACT like they DESERVE to be so highly paid.

The sad thing about this debate is that almost ALL of you are so busy WHINING about this crap, that I doubt if ANY of you remember me saying that the solution to our budget problem was a 30% REDUCTION in Staff. ALL Staff, Union and Union Union. Does that still make me a Union cry baby like most of you asume.

I think I may be the only Adult in this debate. IF the Union wanted to take DEEP cuts to avoid the 30% lay off, then fine, that is OK with me. But to simply want the Union City workers to give up all they negotiated in the past and give up the bargaining rights that many people in years gone by have earned JUST so the WHINERS of Middleton can have the services they don't want to pay for is wrong.  I REFUSE to participate in the building of a subservient underclass to SERVE those of us who think we deserve such service. If you want the service, PAY for it. If not, then do with out.


Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Jan 20 2012 at 7:04am
Irisner states...

"Most of you are so blinded you don't see that, but it is true. this issue is just that. wanting to take away someone's rights because you want to save a dime or you are jealous".

YOU FORGET, BUD, IT'S OUR DIME FOR THE PUBLIC UNION PEOPLE AND WE HAVE A RIGHT TO WANT TO SAVE IT. WE....WE ARE FOOTING THE SALARIES, THE BENNIES AND THE VERY EXISTENCE OF PUBLIC UNION PEOPLE. WE ARE PAYING THE COST TO BE THE BOSS. YOU CAN BITCH IF YOU'RE PAYING THE WAY. JEALOUS.....HELL YES. WE HAVE BEEN WANTING SOME OF THAT GRAVY FOR YEARS.



The real tragedy is that the same people that are for taking Union rights away from first responders think it is terrible to take away a few more dollars from some Hedge Fund manager paying 15% in FIT every year. Disgusting.

NO, THE REAL TRAGEDY IS THAT YOU ARE INTENTIONALLY MIS-INTERPRETING WHAT WE WANT. WE WANT A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD. WE WANT THE UNION DEMANDS AT THE NEG. TABLE (by the way, we non-union folks don't have a negotiation table- we take what they offer us and we like it or tough cookies and the raise is not automatic, it is by merit) TO BE TEMPERED IF OUT OF CONTROL AND NOT CONDUSIVE TO THE ECONOMIC TIMES AND NOT BREAK THE BANK IN THE CITY AND BURDEN THE TAXPAYERS EVEN MORE. WE WANT THE PUBLIC UNIONS TO PAY MORE OF THEIR FAIR SHARE FROM THE SALARIES THAT WE....WE HAVE PROVIDED THEM. AGAIN, WE ARE PAYING AND THAT GIVES US A RIGHT TO HAVE A SAYSO IN HOW ALL OF THIS GOES DOWN. PRIVATE UNIONS.....DIFFERENT STORY. TIMES HAVE CHANGED. THE UNIONS HAVEN'T BEEN WILLING TO CHANGE WITH THOSE TIMES. THE WORKPLACE HAS CHANGED TO 2012. THE UNIONS STILL WANT TO HOLD ONTO THE 1930's WORKPLACE MENTALITY. CATCH UP.....EVERYONE IS MAKING CONCESSIONS JUST TO KEEP THEIR COMPANY AFLOAT AND HOLD ON TO THEIR JOB NOWADAYS. WELCOME TO OUR WORLD.


Posted By: TonyB
Date Posted: Jan 20 2012 at 7:29am
Irisner,

"With all due respect"? Really? Your comments are indicative of exactly what you rail against; it's the "I'm right and everybody else is wrong" mentality. Not to mention that it is grossly insulting to compare those who don't agree with you to Nazi supporters!!! That right there shows me exactly what kind of person you are and negates your entire argument. I support unions, I support collective bargaining and I was against SB5. Your argument isn't about fairness at all it seems, it's just another way to hurl insults and demean others. You're the only adult in this debate! NOT!!!


Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Jan 20 2012 at 7:50am
Irisner...

"First...who cares what someone else pays for "bennies"? Total compensation is all that matters.At AK/Armco, they waived a raise one year to get a better Pension plan. Is it any of YOUR business HOW someone chooses to be compensated? NO it is not"

IT CERTAINLY IS IF WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A PUBLIC UNION JOB. IT IS NOT IF A PRIVATE COMPANY UNION. I CARE WHAT SOMEONE ELSE PAYS FOR BENNIES IF A PUBLIC UNION EMPLOYEE. IF THEY PAY MORE, I PAY LESS IN TAXES TO FOOT THE BILL FOR THEIR HEATHCARE, DENTAL AND VISION BENNIES.

"Clearly, your Escalade comment proves you know nothing about AK pay. Working shift work and in a bad environment, one will make about 50k-60 at AK. That is working the Christmas and Thankgiving and thru most of the Football Games your son might have. That is not excessive. If your nieghbor has the things it because they LIVE (much overtime) at AK or more than likely have a hard working Spouse in serious job"

I DIDN'T SAY HE USED THE BOAT. SITS MOST OF THE TIME COVERED UP IN THE DRIVEWAY. YOU'RE RIGHT, HE WORKED ALOT OF OVERTIME....NO TIME TO ENJOY THE THINGS HE BOUGHT. (WHAT'S THE POINT IN OWNING THEM?) HIS WIFE CERTAINLY USED AND ENJOYED THE ESCALADE THOUGH. OH. I KNOW A THING OR TWO ABOUT AK PAY. JUST BECAUSE I DON'T WORK THERE, DOESN'T MEAN I'M DETACHED FROM KNOWING WHAT GOES ON.

"Concessions? That is entirely up to the Union. If the workers choose to make less so that all current employees can stay, that is up them. Just because YOU want more services that you want to pay for doesn't mean someone else should have to work for less.To act like they are greedy just shows me YOU are greedy"

AGAIN IRISNER, IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A PRIVATE UNION, YOU ARE CORRECT. IF A PUBLIC UNION, THEN WE ALL HAVE A RIGHT TO STICK OUR NOSE IN THEIR BUSINESS. AS I HAVE ALREADY MENTIONED, IF WE ARE PAYING FOR THEIR SERVICES, WE SHOULD HAVE A SAY IN HOW IT WILL BE.

"SB5 is an attempt to give the Cities a chance to "abuse" their employees like Private sector companies can now. It is abuse"

SPOKEN LIKE A TRUE TUNNEL-VISIONED UNION SUPPORTER. AN "ATTEMPT TO ABUSE" AS YOU SAY......OR......HOW ABOUT, THESE ARE TOUGH ECONOMIC TIMES AND ALL CITIES ARE HAVING A HARD TIME GENERATING REVENUE TO OPERATE. THEY, LIKE AVERAGE HOUSEHOLDS, HAVE TO WATCH THEIR SPENDING AND MUST CUT BACK ON THINGS THEY ARE ACCUSTOMED TO HAVING IN MORE PROSPEROUS ECONOMIC TIMES. THEY ARE ASKING FOR CUTS IN EVERY AREA OF THE BUDGET THEY CAN AND YET, STILL FUNCTION AT A MINIMAL LEVEL.

"What really pisses me off is that knot-heads like you FORCED arbitration on Public Unions 30 years ago so they would have to let an arbiter decide what is fair and NOW those same knot-heads are mad because the Arbiters are FAIR. You don't know squat about SB5 except what Rush told you to think"

OH GOD, IF ONLY YOU KNEW HOW I HATE RUSH (LIMBAUGH I ASSUME YOU ARE REFERRING TO) HATE/DESPISE/LOATH THE MAN. IRISNER, 30 YEARS AGO THIS "KNOT-HEAD" COULD HAVE CARED LESS ABOUT WHAT THE UNIONS WERE DOING. LIKE ANY YOUNG PERSON, I WAS WRAPPED UP IN MY OWN LITTLE WORLD, OBLIVIOUS TO WHAT WAS GOING ON AROUND ME. YOU PAY MORE ATTENTION TO YOUR SURROUNDINGS WHEN YOU GET OLDER IMO. OH, AND YES, I DO KNOW SQUAT ABOUT SB5.



"Case in point....research. Geez. You want no part of a Mill, or a House Fire, or a Crackhead with a gun, but you are mad because they make more money than you. If you have the credentials you have suggested, then apply at AK. I bet you could get a Shift Managers job making about 70-80k and you would get to work all the Holidays and all the Football games but you would make more"

NOW TO PROVE THAT YOU REALLY DON'T KNOW WHO YOU'RE TALKING TO. NOT ALL OF MY 43 YEARS HAS BEEN IN RESEARCH. I SPENT 12 YEARS RUNNING AN EXTRUDER ON THE FLOOR, WORKING ROTATING SHIFTS IN A FACTORY. SPENT 3 YEARS ON PERMANENT MIDNIGHTS FEELING CRAPPY THE WHOLE TIME. SPENT 3 YEARS ON 2ND SHIFT RUNNING A FORKLIFT. YEAH, I'VE WORKED THE FACTORY SCENE. HASN'T ALL BEEN IN A NICE TEMP-CONTROLLED LAB. I'VE PUT MY TIME IN IN THE SAME ENVIRONMENT AS THE AK FOLKS ARE IN INCLUDING WORKING HOLIDAYS WHEN THE PRODUCTION SCHEDULE WARRANTED IT. WORKED 12 ON -2 OFF EVERY SUMMER FOR 7 SUMMERS WAY BACK WHEN. WORKED 35 STRAIGHT DAYS AT NEATON AUTO DURING ISO 9002 PREPARATION IN THE 90'S. (THE WORKERS ARE VERY WELL COMPENSATED FOR THE HOLIDAY PAY AT AK, BY THE WAY- VERY WELL COMPENSATED) RESEARCH/LAB WORK CAME AT INTERVALS IN THE 60'S/70'S/ 80'S/ 90'S TO CURRENT.


"just as I suggested...whiners and jealous"

WHINERS.....NO......JEALOUS......YES





HEY! NICE TALKING TO YOU. I ENJOY DEBATING THIS TOPIC.


Posted By: spiderjohn
Date Posted: Jan 20 2012 at 4:04pm
hey mr.risner--we are all adults, and not totally out of it.
I don't stick my nose into the workings of other privately-held businesses, and don't expect others to intrude into mine.
 
I don't have any issue with anyone taking what is offered. Most do.
I don't really have an issue with public sector salaries.
It is the retirement/health care packages that are sinking governments and schools of every size and location.
Like Social Security, the basic premise was founded decades ago, when people retired in their 6os, and were lucky to live past their 70s. Now--with new/expensive health careprocedures, people are living well into their 80s and 90s. A good thing, but very expensive. When coupled with today's retirements in the late 40s/50s age groups, we have created impossible to support legacy costs. Today's economy simply won't support the pending obligation, and there aren't enough revenues(workers'/business profit tax) to support this.
 
But with your backround, I am not telling you anything.
 
Pretty simple in the private sector to downsize, layoff, close or seek concessions.
Not so simple in the municipal sector.
Learn to live with less?
No worry there--we will all have to do just that.
 
What about the pension plans that are now not fully-funded?
Who picks up that tab?
Should that be "tough luck" for both sides that negotiated the contract and managed the fund?
 
I have seen most everything in my time, and a lot of labor + management abuses and bad thinking.
Give either side enough rope, and they will try to hang the other side, then han themselves, and eventually hang everyone.


Posted By: lrisner
Date Posted: Jan 20 2012 at 4:43pm
Am I right and you all wrong? YES. You know why? Because on this CONSERVATIVE site, I am the radical. Guess what? there are many LIBERAL sites where I am CALLED.....the Radical! 

So it seems that being in the middle makes me right, or at least close to it. Once again, I hear NOTHING but complaining. That is exactly why I don't care to be civil. When all I hear is bitching and jealousy, with NO rational argument (saying it is Public money changes NOTHING! GOD, that is a stupid argument) supporting the anti First responder attitudes.

Just why does Public money make ANY difference what is or is not fair and reasonable. NOT one of you have suggested that Middletown's finest make more than the average for the positions they have. That would be a RATIONAL argument if one of you made it. None of you have. All I have heard is "I don;t want to pay" " I am jealous". Get over it.

Tony...I didn't say that disagreeing with me made someone a Nazi. I was simply making the point that what is popular is NOT always the right or even non-evil opinion. That is all. The minority opinion has many times in History proven to be the right opinion over time.  If this were 1840, I would be considered a nut case for being against slavery. If I phrased it poorly, I apologize.

Vet, i don't know what to say to you. I mentioned TOTAL COMPENSATION and you still are ranting about Bens. Just put me on ignore, OK. I doubt you and I can even scream at each and do any good.

Spider, I don't disagree with what you said. I know we have problems. I also know that creating an underclass to do the Municipal work is not the answer. Unfortunately until we stop the nonesense and have serious discussions, we won't find the answer. I think Josh is a good kid, but misguided. I do HOWEVER, agree with his infrastructure funding Idea. We do have to stop under funding Infrastructure and setting it aside is plausible answer. It will leave less for staffing, but we just have to do what ever to deal with that. Layoffs or concessions, the Unions will have to decide. Does that seem to be strange talk from a Union nut case? Wow! Maybe I am someone just playing the middle!

I am a rare breed this days. A principled person who's positions follow the information and NOT self interest.

That is the root of the problem! The ME generation LIVES.


Posted By: ground swat
Date Posted: Jan 20 2012 at 7:39pm
Tunnel vision at it's best. I wouldnt brag about the service our public unions provide. Two sides to the problem with the sap taxpayer in the middle (The third side of the story). Please keep blogging or what ever you call this. I'm right the rest of you are wrong, haven't had this much laughter since VOR!


Posted By: TonyB
Date Posted: Jan 21 2012 at 8:29am
Irisner,

You a radical? That is hysterically hilarious!!! You are someone who refuses to even recognize the problem hence becoming the problem yourself. I explained above to you why getting paid with tax dollars is different than an occupation in the private sector but the only acknowledgement was to apologize for the Nazi reference. Let see if I can explain this to you again; not that I think that you'll take the time to read and try to understand it.

A worker for a private enterprise generates revenue through his work. That worker must generate more revenue than they are paid in compensation for the labor if they want to keep the job. That counts wages and benefits.

A public servant is not measured by the amount of revenue generated but the effectiveness, efficiency and benefit that their service provides the community. It is the community (all of us) that pays the wages and benefits for public servants.

It is not fair or reasonable for public servants to have a compensation package that deprives the taxpayer of other necessary services. IMO, police and fire should be the highest paid public employees because they provide the most essential services to the community. I don't think there is anyone on this forum who would disagree with that. That doesn't mean; however, that their aren't other necessary services that the community wants and expects for their tax dollar. That is where the fairness argument comes into play. When the compensation package is the highest in the area, taxpayers begin to wonder what they are getting for the money. When other communities are getting the same services for less, they wonder why.

I wouldn't want the job of police or fire. I commend and applaud your service. There will always be a need for these services. Just don't mistake the need for the services with the idea that those services can't be provided by someone else who would be willing to do them for less compensation. You've seen the trend in privatization of government services; (btw, one of the worst ideas, ever!!!) that snowball is picking up steam thanks to bought and paid for politicians. These a**holes are out to make government a "for-profit" enterprise and they'll get their way if they can convince the public that the public service unions are the villains. If that ever happens, you can kiss freedom and democracy goodbye!!!

I don't know what your job is but I certainly hope that our paths never cross. That would mean that I'm neither being arrested or in need of emergency medical services!!! As for being a radical, you barely break the "moderate" label. A true radical would be organizing protests and demonstrations against the corruption that is going on in Middletown. All you've done is try to justify why you deserve what you're getting. Nothing "radical" about that.


Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Jan 21 2012 at 9:13am

TonyB,

You forgot one other difference between the public and private sectors…one of the biggest differences.

In the private sector, the employees have no say in picking their “bosses”: the people who must approve changes in their working conditions and pay rates.  However, in the public sector, they do by way of their votes.



-------------
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012


Posted By: acclaro
Date Posted: Jan 21 2012 at 1:30pm
Speaking of efficiencies TonyB, I was driving last night about 8:30 PM through Middletown coming from the airport when the ice rain came. I had on 700 am, and they were talking about how Cincinnati's road crews had taken advantage of the dry weather, and put salt (brine) down covering 99.9% of the roads by Wednesday. Well, as I was driving last night, I saw Middletown's salt trucks on all major roads, and today, the same.

When one speaks of efficiencies, using this example, how much overtime did Middletown pay when it could have put salt down when it was 20 degrees all week, than wait until Friday night and Saturday, all overtime evenings and weekends, for the city workers? That's not quite efficiency, and I was really taken by the intelligence of Cincinnati Public Works to plan ahead, while Middletown, as usual, reacted afterwards. I'm not a chemical engineer or an expert on thermal dynamics, but it made alot of sense to me. What was Dave Duritsch doing? Planning for the next sinkhole, or planning for an ice storm, and getting trucks out two days in advance so NO overtime would have to be paid. Just a thought when I heard how SMART Cincinnati was, in comparison to the reactive nature of the city of Middletown. 


Posted By: jag123
Date Posted: Jan 21 2012 at 4:37pm
Acclaro: All of the forcasts I read said that rain was coming first, which would have washed the pre-treatment away. If they had pre-treated and rain washed it away, you would still be saying how stupid the city is. How smart is it to be driving while the ice is coming down? Would you live in Warrewn County?Ermm


Posted By: ground swat
Date Posted: Jan 21 2012 at 7:28pm
Per-salting is a JOKE! Let those that are dumb enough to get up at 3:30am handle the efficient way of putting your salt down. 2-3/10 ths of ice sucks at 7am, luckily it was a Sat.


Posted By: ground swat
Date Posted: Jan 21 2012 at 7:55pm
What happen to the "your wrong I'm right" BS. Why should the citizen worry about how someone EARNS their pay. Accountable for my actions , I think not. I'm Owed GDMT the city set this up. Please don't stop posting make me believe.


Posted By: acclaro
Date Posted: Jan 21 2012 at 9:41pm
gs, I don't know if you are ranting about me as i don't comprehend your pt frankly. Cincinnati put their salt and treatment out on Wednesday and said because of the dry weather, it made a hell of a difference. I was out tonight, after the city placed salt twice on the road, shoveled Rosedale, and the roads still were terrible. Seemed to work for Cincinnati, but not in Middletown? As to my driving while an ice storm was coming, that's what happens when the airplane arrives at the gate at 6:50 PM on a Friday night in Cincinnati jag. Evidently, Middletown has better chemical engineers than Cincinnati does and Cincinnati;s public services Director is a moron to think one can put down salt in dry conditions a few days before an ice storm without it wasting salt. shame on you 700 AM, for spreading such falsehoods. 

Glad you two are experts in thermal dynamics, admittedly, I am not. Just repeating what Cincinnati said they did, how it prevented accidents, and I do know, Clifton, Mt Adams, Cheviot, Hyde park, is a hell of lot more hilly and steep than anything in Middletown.     


Posted By: ground swat
Date Posted: Jan 22 2012 at 5:07am
Ranting is towards the post of how wrong I am towards public unions comp.  Know not a expert at thermal dynamics just at not wasting clients money. Quite frankly don't waste money on side streets learn how to drive slowly and safely. Cincy a different animal when dealing with ice as was stated, hilly. Volume of traffic is key to get most out of your salt.


Posted By: jag123
Date Posted: Jan 22 2012 at 9:20am
I saw an interview last night on News 5 with the Cincinnati street boss. He said that they had to do the pre-treatment twice. The rain washed away the first one. I bet that was expensive.


Posted By: acclaro
Date Posted: Jan 22 2012 at 9:53am
At the temperatures below 25 degrees, the effect of putting salt on the street is non existent, it doesn't melt the ice. The roads still have enormous coatings of ice. That's why cincinnati put it down when the temperatures were above 32 degrees. The transition between the sudden conversion of cold water to ice was within a short period of time. I wonder who had the policy which was best....brine before the temp dropped and meling it had no effect, or putting it down when it could be melted. No matter, today it hits 40 degrees---problem resolved. 


Posted By: lrisner
Date Posted: Jan 22 2012 at 10:11am
Tony,

   Either I am TERRIBLE at explaining things or you just don't listen.

  Does the market rate for a 'Employee Skill Level 1"  change because of WHO pays for that Employee? No, it does not. You, and others think public money changes the Market, but only because you WANT it to, not because it does.

As to the compensation package depriving Tax payers of other services, there you go again, whining wanting someone else to work for less just so YOU can get more. That is the whole point of this discussion. I say pay what is normal,on a Regional basis,for the Skill level of the Employee. Your mindset on this issue is what SB 5 is all about. Take away the Bargaining Rights of the Public employees so that we can beat them  over the head until they submit and work for what will allow us to have the services we want. We only employ the number of people we can afford. IMO, that number is a lot less that we currently have.

You said "When the compensation package is the highest in the area". OK, I have ask several times for my opponents to make rational arguments and leave the whining out of the discussion. That comment would have fit my request. Why do you only make it now? You could or could not be right. I have heard no one say that till now. Oh, there has been a lot of "too much", "wha, I don't make that much", "Wha, Bens.....".  Now of those comments have meaning, they are whining. If you want to post regional pay and Middletown's pay (total compensation) for the employees covered by this thread, then we might actually be able to have a real discussion about this. Rarely on this forum are there rational discussions. This is the "Whining" Forum in my opinion.


Oh, yea. I am a Supervisor for a NON-Union company. Known to be firm, but very fair in dealing with People.



 


Posted By: acclaro
Date Posted: Jan 22 2012 at 10:17am
Why debate an issue which was defeated. SR5 was premised upon the logical notion cities needed the toolkit and flexibility afforded to negotiate contracts which were fair and protected its taxpaying constituents. Many argued it was over-reaching, and it failed. The outcome was the exact principles in existing negotiation remain intact, yet cities have the flexibility to reduce staff. hence, it would appear the union took a bite out of its nose to spite its face. Of course, the alternative is to pass higher tax levies, which will fail. 


Posted By: bumper
Date Posted: Jan 22 2012 at 5:04pm

Salt Brine

WHAT IS SALT BRINE?
Salt brine is a clear water and sodium chloride solution used for snow and ice control. It is composed of tap water and rock salt mixed to typical concentrations of 23% to 26% salt.

WHY IS SALT BRINE USED?

Salt brine can be used effectively either as an anti-icing or de-icing product to keep winter roads free of ice and snow. Remember, almost all snow and ice fighting products, including salt and salt brine, are used for their snow/ice pavement-breaking capability, not because they have the ability to melt all of the ice on the pavement.

  • LESS EXPENSE: Salt brine uses less of the expensive white stuff (salt).
  • The amount of salt required to break ¼ inch of ice from one lane mile of road with a freezing point of 20°F is approximately 8,234 pounds.
  • It requires approximately 60 gallons of salt brine to break the similar one lane mile of road of ice bound to the pavement. At a 23% concentration mixture, this product would offer multiple savings over the use of salt alone.
  • MORE SALT BRINE STAYS WHERE YOU NEED IT (ON THE PAVEMENT – NOT IN THE DITCHES)
  • The bounce and scatter effect suffered when spreading rock salt on the pavement is eliminated. Bounce and scatter loss varies with conditions and speed of application, but can amount to a loss of up to 30% of the total volume of salt.
  • PRE-TREAT WITH SALT BRINE: SALT BRINE CAN BE USED EITHER AS A DE-ICING PRODUCT OR AS AN ANTI-ICING ICE TREATMENT PRODUCT. SALT IS MOST EFFECTIVE ONLY AS A REACTIVE (DE-ICING) PRODUCT.
  • The Salt Institute has stated that applying brine to the pavement before snow or ice has bonded can be 10 times more effective than placing salt crystals on top of snow and ice after it has bonded to the pavement.
  • Pre-treating is the act of applying salt brine directly to the pavement surface anytime pavement temperatures are predicted to drop below freezing, even when there is no snow or ice in the weather forecast.
  • Benefits of pre-treating with Salt Brine includes:
  • Pre-treating pavement with salt brine is normally done one driving lane at a time at normal traffic speeds. Small streams are dribbled on the pavement surface approximately 8” to 12” apart. In clear weather, these liquid streams will leave a strip of fine salt bonded to the pavement and will stay intact for several days under normal traffic conditions. When snow or ice begins, the moisture activates the brine strips preventing the snow or ice from bonding to the pavement.
  • Total application of salt brine during pre-treatment is normally at the rate of 50 to 60 gallons of brine per lane mile.
  • Pre-treating with salt brine is labor efficient since the process can be performed during normal working hours – not at the overtime hours required when the storm materializes.
  • Pre-treating gains the snow fighters time and greatly reduces the cost of breaking the ice and snow bonded to the pavement surfaces.
  • Once a snow or ice bond forms, a dangerous situation occurs for the traveling public and an expensive and time consuming task is created to clear that bond from the roads.


WHAT ARE THE DRAWBACKS OF USING DRY GRANULAR SALT?

Granular salt must be dissolved into brine before any deicing can begin. Making brine of salt can occur prior to application to the surface, or naturally after surface application through the interaction of the salt with moisture.

  • If the roadway is dry, granular salt will not bond to the pavement and traffic will quickly crush it and cause the powder to blow away. Therefore, dry salt cannot be effectively used for pre-treatment before a winter storm.
  • Ohio D.O.T. tests have proven that efficient placement of dry salt can only occur at very low speeds. Excessive scattering of material begins at speeds as low as 15 mph. Tests have shown that on dry pavement at speeds above 309 mph a truck equipped with a conventional spinner will only place 20% - 40% of the salt in the driven lane. Placement does improve somewhat on wet pavement.
  • For dry granular salt to have an effect, it must be placed on snow covered or wet pavement. On snow covered pavement, initial melting must occur from the top down. Salt gradation does affect results. Salt granules that are too fine either blow away via the truck turbulence or they are so small they will completely dissolve and dilute before reaching the pavement, leaving liquid covered snow or a slick spot. The larger salt crystals are the ones that have enough mass to make it through the ice to the pavement where snow/ice pavement bond breaking can begin. The penetration and dissolving process takes time and is slowed by lower temperatures.

THE BETTER ALTERNATIVE – GEOMELT BLENDS®
GEOMELT CUSTOM BLENDED WITH SALT BRINE

  • GEOMELT® is an eco-friendly, sugar beet based natural organic accelerator for nearly any anti-icing or de-icing product.
  • GEOMELT BLENDS® are derived from renewable resources providing an attractive alternative where environmental concerns are important.
  • GEOMELT-S fluid is a natural product - GEOMELT® blended with salt brine – and is a less corrosive fluid featuring ice control performance superior to traditional salt brine.
  • BENEFITS OF USING GEOMELT-S BLENDS® OVER REGULAR SALT BRINE:
  • GEOMELT® salt-brine blend works at temperatures where salt brine is no longer effective. GEOMELT® Blends has a freezing point of -12° to -30°F., which is 25°F. lower than salt brine alone.
  • GEOMELT-S Blend is a natural anti-corrosion agent. Test results from an independent lab approved by the Pacific Northwest Snowfighters have shown GEOMELT® Blends anti-icing/deicing fluid to be three times less corrosive tan salt brine


Posted By: bumper
Date Posted: Jan 22 2012 at 5:19pm

Annual cost to produce 100,000 gallons of salt brine

Assume 2,500 gallons per hour

Labor @ $22 per hour$860
Building*$886
Water$750
Salt$795
Electricity$750
Storage tanks*$60
Brine maker*$650
Total annual cost$4,751
Cost per gallon$0.00475
 


Posted By: bumper
Date Posted: Jan 22 2012 at 5:30pm
(40-50 gallons per lane-mile  Wink


Posted By: ground swat
Date Posted: Jan 22 2012 at 6:35pm
I love this town!


Posted By: lrisner
Date Posted: Jan 22 2012 at 7:47pm
Originally posted by acclaro acclaro wrote:

Why debate an issue which was defeated. SR5 was premised upon the logical notion cities needed the toolkit and flexibility afforded to negotiate contracts which were fair and protected its taxpaying constituents. Many argued it was over-reaching, and it failed. The outcome was the exact principles in existing negotiation remain intact, yet cities have the flexibility to reduce staff. hence, it would appear the union took a bite out of its nose to spite its face. Of course, the alternative is to pass higher tax levies, which will fail. 



logical "notion"?   You and Vet need to get a room.


Posted By: TonyB
Date Posted: Jan 22 2012 at 11:07pm
Irisner,

I read and comprehend just fine. Money is money. Pay for services rendered. Not a difficult concept . Got it before you brought it up. Money does change the market only when someone is offering to do the same thing for less. Basic economics. Learned it in school (Middletown Public School System, btw). I don't want anything!!! The point I've tried to make twice which you still haven't gotten (or at least acknowledged), is that the public sector worker DOES NOT GENERATE THE REVENUE FROM WHICH THEY RECEIVE COMPENSATION!!! I'm not asking anyone to work for less; the point is that with public service there is a finite amount from which to pay for all services. In the private sector, the more productive the employee, the more revenue the company makes (profit) and can pay the employee more. Public service employees are paid with tax dollars that can only increase through more tax revenues being generated. That only happens in two instances; a booming economy or higher tax rates. That's why it's different. Do you really not see that or has your "radical" mindset precluded the possibility that there is more than one perspective to this argument? I was at the downtown rally against SB5; were you?

As for the argument about Middletown police and fire being among the highest compensated in the area, the facts are pretty clear. Personally, I don't have any problem with that. I also don't see how you can say to a public employee who has been offered these contracts by the city administration that they should suddenly give it back. The whining about how it's unfair is bulls*** in my opinion. Tell me your going to give me more money and I'm going to say "Thank you very much" and move on; not " are you sure this is fair?" If we had a more farsighted city council, perhaps they would not have offered so much or been such pushovers at the negotiating table. I don't think that there is any argument that the infrastructure in this city is in terrible shape and it started when the infrastructure fund was shifted into general revenues to pay salaries and benefits for all city workers, union and non-union. It is up to council to fix this problem, not shift it to the backs of police and firefighters. I believe on that we agree.


Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Jan 23 2012 at 6:37am
Irisner quote....

"Oh, there has been a lot of "too much", "wha, I don't make that much", "Wha, Bens.....". Now of those comments have meaning, they are whining. If you want to post regional pay and Middletown's pay (total compensation) for the employees covered by this thread, then we might actually be able to have a real discussion about this. Rarely on this forum are there rational discussions. This is the "Whining" Forum in my opinion".

Irisner.....this sparring back and forth was never about comparing regional pay and Middletown's pay for public unions. Never in the equation. This debate, for me, is about the comparison between what the union folks have made and are making for similarly skilled work, compared to non-union workers, the percentage they are paying out of their paychecks, compared to what non-union/private sector workers pay out of their paychecks for bennies and the fact that the union people can "bargain" for their wages, using a contract, that gets them raises many years out, BEFORE the work is done and without a merit system defining accomplishments and contributions to the organization. (City residents in the case of city employees). IE- are we using taxpayer money to pay people who work for us that are totally useless or do they contribute? I JUST WANT A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD, THAT'S ALL. What the hell is the incentive to do a decent job if the public sector people are never rated by some kind of merit system, and they know they are going to get raises in years to come, regardless of the job they do? The current evaluation system has the potential of shafting the taxpaying citizens of this community. I don't give a dam about the comparison between Midd. public union workers and those in other areas. I give a dam about how they use my tax money and whether they give it to people who will work at the public union position level and not the half-steppers who drive around all day in a frikkin' pick-up truck with the little yellow bubble-gum light on top. That's as plain as I can make it Irisner. It's up to you whether you want to turn it around and distort it, OR, just plain ignore the message as you have done so far.

Irisner further posts.....

"Oh, yea. I am a Supervisor for a NON-Union company. Known to be firm, but very fair in dealing with People"

Then if you are a supervisor for a non-union company, I'm sure you have been in a position where there has been talk from the "worker" crowd from time to time, about inviting a union in, right? And when that happens, the management of the company, who are very happy WITHOUT a union, gather you supervisors and above together to tell you what to say if you are approached by union talk, right? Been there....done that....Crane Plastics-Columbus- 1972- 1979 and Neaton Auto- Eaton- 1994 to 1998. Non-union...talk of getting a union by the floor folks. Gathered the supervisors and up together to stop the union talk. With your stanch defense of unions and their "rights", I'm surprised you work for a non-union shop. I had you pegged for some union rep out at AK, or some city employee with union ties.


Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Jan 23 2012 at 6:42am
Originally posted by lrisner lrisner wrote:


Originally posted by acclaro acclaro wrote:

Why debate an issue which was defeated. SR5 was premised upon the logical notion cities needed the toolkit and flexibility afforded to negotiate contracts which were fair and protected its taxpaying constituents. Many argued it was over-reaching, and it failed. The outcome was the exact principles in existing negotiation remain intact, yet cities have the flexibility to reduce staff. hence, it would appear the union took a bite out of its nose to spite its face. Of course, the alternative is to pass higher tax levies, which will fail. 

logical "notion"?   You and Vet need to get a room.


And you need to show some civility in the discussion, bud.


Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Jan 23 2012 at 6:51am
Originally posted by VietVet VietVet wrote:

Irisner...
I had you pegged for ... some city employee with union ties.
Vet,
I doubt it!!! I'd bet that all of Irisner's ties were made by non-union employees at garment-worker sweatshops in Malaysia or Latin America!!! Wink LOL LOL LOL


-------------
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012


Posted By: LMAO
Date Posted: Jan 23 2012 at 12:51pm
MR. LAUBACH you have lost alot of backers.All I got to say about that.(Forrest gumps favorite saying)LOL


Posted By: lrisner
Date Posted: Jan 24 2012 at 1:11am
Ignore the message....Geeeez. Who TOLD you that where the revenue came from had an impact on the market value of labor or anything else? Did you here that on FOX News?   Duh....the only bearing , in reality, is how the Administrators deal with the revenue if and when a decline in recipients comes. It has NOTHING to do with the value of anything.Duh! Do you thing that the City calls the Salt suppliers and say "We gotta pay less for Salt since we depend on the Tax payer for revenue and that revenue is down"?

Hey Mike....Run for Office again so i can vote against you again.


Chill, a lot of this is just making a little fun out of a laughable SNAFU.

I grew up thinking Community Leaders were smart people. I now find most of them to be out right corrupt or at least stupid. It is a sad commentary about the average American today.


Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Jan 24 2012 at 5:36am
Originally posted by lrisner lrisner wrote:


Hey Mike....Run for Office again so i can vote against you again.

Gee…I’m not surprised that you “voted against” me.  You’re usually wrong.

I did notice, however, that I got a lot more votes than YOU!!! Big%20smile



-------------
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012


Posted By: TonyB
Date Posted: Jan 24 2012 at 2:40pm
I never realized that you could vote AGAINST someone!!! I always thought when candidates were involved, you voted FOR someone. I guess the Board of Elections forgot to put "NONE OF THE ABOVE" on the ballots!!! That would truly be a "radical" idea!!! 


Posted By: Wots
Date Posted: Jan 26 2012 at 8:54pm


-------------
Wots
Liberalism: Moochers Electing Looters to Steal from Producers.


Posted By: Pacman
Date Posted: Jan 26 2012 at 9:30pm
LMAO,
 
What give you the impression that Mr. Laubaugh can effect change when most of the time he is on his own at Council or at the best has only one other council person voting along with him.

If you are going to effect change in council you need to stop voting in the Pickard, Mulligans, and the Morts.  Nothing will change as long as council has this make up.

Mr Laubaugh has been one of the most vocal people of council speaking in favor of the citizens. 

Current council mainly deals with the poverty stricken of Middletown or the upper end crown such as Main St.  They have no time for the middle class citizen in Middletown. 

PacmanCool


Posted By: TonyB
Date Posted: Jan 27 2012 at 11:26am
Pacman,

Could not agree with you more!!! They'll be no change in Middletown so long as the current council is dominated by the MMF crowd. They have their idea of what they want to do and they have the votes to continue doing it. Of course, once the current disaster over the CIC is brought to light (if it ever will be), perhaps the citizens of Middletown will wake up and see how little regard for the law our current council has. Since the local newspaper is intent on the policy of "good news only", it's going to take an outside media story to get any coverage of the mess that's been made.


Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Jan 27 2012 at 11:34am
Originally posted by TonyB TonyB wrote:

Pacman,Could not agree with you more!!! They'll be no change in Middletown so long as the current council is dominated by the MMF crowd. They have their idea of what they want to do and they have the votes to continue doing it. Of course, once the current disaster over the CIC is brought to light (if it ever will be), perhaps the citizens of Middletown will wake up and see how little regard for the law our current council has. Since the local newspaper is intent on the policy of "good news only", it's going to take an outside media story to get any coverage of the mess that's been made.



TonyB/ All....

Perhaps a call to the Cincy/Dayton TV stations and sending researched info. from these pages to the AG (or whoever is responsible for the enforcement of CIC's/NFP's) in Columbus?


Posted By: chu082011
Date Posted: Jun 11 2012 at 5:16am

Dear friends

 

Thanks for sharing. I like Firefighter Proposal

very much.

 

Very useful for me.

 

If you have some time, pls visit my blog at: http://azjobebooks.info/50-firefighter-interview-questions-and-answers/ - Firefigter interview questions

Rgs



Posted By: Stanky
Date Posted: Jun 12 2012 at 11:55am
Today's Journal:

MIDDLETOWN — The city’s fire administration may look about 50 miles north to determine if a significant amount of taxpayer dollars can be saved.

Fire Chief Steve Botts is interested in exploring Springfield’s fire department model, but he said he wants to wait on direction from city council or the city manager.

City Manager Judy Gilleland is out of the office, but it appears a majority of council wouldn’t object to at least exploring the option.

“What works for one city doesn’t always work for another, but we should be open to exploring the best possible alternatives while trying to continue the best possible service for a community,” said Councilwoman Anita Scott Jones.

Councilman Joe Mulligan would like another work session to discuss the topic before he would say if Botts should proceed in an in-depth comparison.

“It’s just so early in the process; I don’t want to say it’s good or bad. I just don’t know yet,” he said.

When comparing Middletown to similar fire district around the region — specifically looking at Hamilton, Springfield, Mansfield, Newark and Fairborn — Botts said the research brought the Springfield model to his attention.

“It’s something I would like to take a little bit more time to look at,” he told council last week.

The fire division’s budget — along with the police division’s — relies in large part on the city’s public safety levy, a 0.25 percent income tax which expires this year. It is on the August ballot.

On the line is nearly $3 million that supplements the combined $21 million budgets. The fire division’s budget is around $9 million.

“Everyone has to ready themselves for the possibility that it could be turned down,” Botts said.

Botts, according to his research, said it costs Middletown $924 per call in 2011, and with a reduced 2012 budget of about 9.5 percent, it’s projected that cost will drop about $88 per call this year.

The Springfield model will provide “significant” savings, Botts said, though exactly how much is not yet certain. He said his research indicates Springfield’s model is “best in class” when it comes to cost per call spending.

Springfield’s cost per call in 2011 was $784, Botts said.

Springfield completed in 2007 a long-term evaluation of its fire service, said Fire Chief Nick Heimlich.

“We essentially had divided services,” he said.

The fire department and the labor union worked on the changes, and Heimlich said the switch “has worked for us from the outset.”

Nine Springfield fire companies are staffed with a minimum of three firefighters, as opposed to two, and CREWS TAKE THE MOST APPROPRIATE VEHICLE TO A CALL AS OPPOSED TO BOTH AN AMUBULANCE AND A FIRE ENGINE....

------------
Gee, where have we heard of this great idea before? And why is Botts only now realizing there are better ways of running a department?


Posted By: jag123
Date Posted: Jun 12 2012 at 1:17pm
I worked with Springfield Fire for a year or so and this is an apple to organge comparison. Springfield is fully staffed and has 2 fire stations with double companies. I like the idea but you can't compare the two.



Print Page | Close Window