The Discussion > Binding Arbitration
Eric, (please include your last name next time) (but I'm assuming this is Eric Suevel)
You included a whole lot to talk about here. Feel free to call me and we can clarify some of the specifics you bring up. To your point about a potential 6% increase (~$28 more bucks)....I agree it's not a lot to you and me. I'm not sure what your employment status is, but I work my 40+ hours, pay my taxes, and would likely be able to afford that increase. But I'm not going to speak for everyone else. The larger statement is that government always seems to need a reason to root out inefficiencies. We are taking a close look at City finances and operations to uncover room for savings and improvement.
October 26, 2009 |
Alderman Matt Bogusz
Alderman Matt Bogusz
Matt,
Why are there FEDERAL LAWS on Binding Arbitration? Why did the CITY COUNCIL pass pay raises, give 50,000.00 to the Senior Center and many other things with out raising any taxes and yet want to blame Unions for the City woes. Should we not point out all the historical irresponsibility of the City Council and financial problems? Why did the City spend CERF and FDERF money in the general spending and not for what they were intended?
It is such a shame that the City wants to always blame the Unions for their mistakes. If you look deep into the history Matt you will find that the "Unions" have given many things to this City.
"Union employees without binding arbitration work along with the city and walk away believing in fair deal" not sure what that means. Negotiations means just that, that the parties involved Negotiated a DEAL that BOTH sides feel are FAIR and Equitable. One side does not take without giving the other side something in return. I certainly hope you explained that detail and showed the Citizens how "HISTORICALLY" the Unions have worked very well with the City.
"Set standards are set by their union boards" not true a all! Duty of Fair Representation another LAW says that Unions must represent the whole not a few, so the "standards" are agreed upon by the Whole.
Was it discussed that had the CITY COUNCIL done their fiduciary duty and their Due Diligence (the performance of an act with a certain standard of care) like raising taxes,we might not be in such a situation right now?
Why do you Matt and the City insist on comparing us with Mt. Prospect when it has been shown to you that you are comparing Apples and Oranges?
Early retirement was offered to more than the Police and Fire.....
Balancing the Budget is a hard thing Matt we will all give you that. It is a big responsibility, but the Council members; especially now that term limits are here and we have new and just learning members, that the City has a HUGE long history of not raising taxes and standing proud that they didn't. Well, the chickens are coming home to roost
The people complaining about their taxes should be listened to, but they need to be guided to the big spenders not the City. The City does a great job of spending little and giving a great big bang for your buck. on average 13%, let me say that again, 13% goes to the City. So, for the average middle of the road tax payer that comes to a whopping $468.00 and that give you the whole kit and caboodle. So, had the City raised taxes like the City Manager suggested a 6% increase would have cost me about $28.00; and I can write that off when I do my taxes, I cant write off all the other goofy taxes the City imposes. $28.00 and we are dealing with this silly mess $28.00 really?