Police and fire contracts. again

What is it that some folks just don't understand? If you don't plan for the future, there is no way you are going to be able to survive in it. The attitude that we have the money now is certainly no guarantee that we will have any in the future. The Times-Reporter editorial this Sunday is beyond comprehension. If you haven't had the opportunity to read it, log on to http://www.timesreporter.com/, check out opinions for the article, "Police, fire raises were justified." It is obvious this opinion is based on a lack of understanding of basic financial principles, lack of concern for the welfare of the city, and not even a rudimentary understanding of political reality.

A city, or state, or nation for that matter, is no different than a household. There is a certain amount of money that goes into the household, income, and a certain amount that goes out, expenses. There are certain things that must be paid out of the income every month, rent, food, heat. Keeping track of what goes in and what goes out is called cash flow. With a positive cash flow, money is left over at the end of the month or year, which ever applies. If more money goes out than comes in, that's negative cash flow, and you're on the slide to losing your home, your car, what ever you own. To prevent this, you put money aside to save for that rainy day. That's called planning ahead. The City does have some carryover money this year because of council's past planning for this year's decreasing revenues from the city income tax and other income sources.

It would be wonderful if your boss would give you more money every year because you were a good guy. I'm talking about businesses who have to make a profit to stay in business, where if you expect to get a pay raise, you have to produce more. If you don't produce more, from where is company income to come from to give the pay raise? There is one answer. Raise prices. The consumer then has the choice to to pay the higher price, go elsewhere, or just don't buy at the higher price. The manufacturer makes his choice based on what he thinks will help his cash flow and profits. If he guesses wrong, sales fall off, profits fall, cash flow goes negative, the business fails, jobs are lost.

But, that only applies in business. Government is just the opposite. Government produces nothing. As it produces nothing, its revenue comes from taxes, The sole source of government funds, all government funds, at all levels, come from taxes. What about government bonds, you might ask? How do they get paid off? From money brought in from taxes. There is no other source. And government, at whatever level, seldom, if ever, sustains a positive cash flow.


The wage increase received by the fire and police departments was not given for increased production nor for an increase in work load. Nothing changed. Matter of fact, when asked what the wage increase for the fire department was going to provide the city, the Fire Chief's answer was, "Continued fire protection." For a combined wage increase of 16% in those two departments alone, what changes? Nothing. More money, but no changes. No increase in protection from either department.


Understand one thing, and understand this well. I do not fault any city department for trying for more money under the current administration of New Philadelphia. In this bargaining period, it is fortunate that the taxpayers didn't take a bigger hosing than they got. We don't know what the other two city bargaining units are going to get, there has been no communication between the Mayor and City Council, but that bill will be coming. A look at the bargaining talents of both sides explains a lot. Both the fire and police departments were represented, and advised, by professional union lawyers and/or advisers, who have spent years doing only one thing, representing their members against inept advisers for the city. The administration representatives have very little, if any, experience in labor negotiations. An outside negotiator was hired by the city whose qualifications are as a human resources individual. What was needed was an attorney schooled in labor contract confrontations who understands labor law and we didn't get one. Is it any wonder that the negotiations ended up as they did?


The editorial blames the current situation on council. The fact of the matter is that City Council was not advised about the state of contract negotiations but was presented with a finished contract in both cases without sufficient time to study either. Communication between the Mayor and City Council was nonexistent during the negotiations, an inexcusable fault on the part of the Administration. When presented to Council at the eleventh hour, suggestions for changes were from Council were evidently ignored and not explored.


In the matter of the fire contract, inadequate representation by the Administration during fact finding resulted in pay increases for the fire department from the fact finder. In the case of the Council vote on the police contract, the absence of Councilman at Large Jim Locker and the single vote against refusal to accept the contract by Councilman Rob Maurer precluded even taking the contract before the fact finder.


The editorial comments in "Police, fire raises were justified" were off the mark due to its ignorance of the facts. But then, that's what editorials are for, whether they are based on facts or not.


For further information about the Police and Firemen contracts, see past articles on this blog.