Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Someone earlier in this thread compared this scenario to the corporate "bailouts" that have been poured out to private companies. You are absolutely correct, those private corporation bailouts were unecessary and should have never happened. However, if the city of Charlotte were to give, or even loan funds to Mecklenburg County to assist in the budget crisis, I would have no problem with it. Why? Because we are talking about TAXPAYER money contributing to conserve services and jobs that our TAX MONEY is collected for. The teaching jobs, library services, etc that are at risk now are vital parts of our community that should be preserved. I don't see this as a "bailout", even though the county noobs have problems with how they manage funds. It is ALL TAX MONEY, no matter what agency/government is handling it. I do see a problem with local city employees getting raises when they could be using OUR tax money to save some important jobs and services. I would rather the politicians work together to solve local issues with local tax money. It's a very simple concept that sadly many people can not grasp.
Why is there such a quick jump to the conclusions on this board that people can't grasp simple concepts instead of exploring the fact that maybe people don't agree with the ideas?
The $6.1 million that's being allocated to raises would most definitely save a lot of jobs, but that doesn't even put a significant dent in the $81 million budget shortfall the county has. The county has way bigger issues to solve and the city can't solve them for the county by handing over money; again, jobs would definitely be saved but when we're looking at libraries (for example), there's operational costs that are not sustainable right now. It's not as simple as just handing over the money... I can't even imagine the hoops that would have to be jumped through to even transfer the money from city to county, even if that's what the city officials decided they wanted to do.
Two points in this article that have not been mentioned here:
1 - No raises or bonuses were given last year. So I don't see where a 2% raise over two years is all that much. Especially since only 117 of 6700 are making over $100k. I did not see mentioned in the article what the average city worker's salary is.
2 - It also says that, in fiscal year 2011, for all city employees except police officers, the city's contribution to workers' 401k funds will drop from 3% to 2%. So, if those workers want to maintain their current 401k contributions, the bulk of whatever raise they will make will be pretty much nullified. In some ways, it is just a redistribution of current funding...drop the 401k contribution and give a slight increase in salary. And if out of pocket costs for other benefits (such as health insurance) are going up, as someone stated above, then its not like these people getting a 2% raise are all of a sudden going to be buying a Benz and eating lobster every night. These people are still likely seeing a slight drop in their overall income.
Ani - to your point: While part of me agrees with the concept of, lets forgo raises and use those funds to hire a few more people, the other part of me has no problem with giving some slight incentive / reward for those people in those positions who are going in and doing their job day in and day out. Especially when the amount is simply helping them to maintain.
Location: Partisanship Is An Intellectual/Emotional Handicap
1,851 posts, read 2,146,514 times
Reputation: 1082
Quote:
Originally Posted by uncharch7
But please, the next time you have to rely on a City employee to provide a service to you (if your house burns down, you get in a car accident, you have to call code enforcement, or heck, even calling 311), at least think of your tax dollars being hard at work to allow those services to be available to you. You never know when you're going to need a City employee to help you out; they deserve raises just like any other hard working employee, no matter where they work.
That's irrelevent to the discussion.
No one was saying to get rid of those people and their jobs.
Rather, that this is a really bad time for, anyone to be getting raises. Very ill-advised and inappropriate.
And that applies to policemen, firemen ....sanitation workers...etc.
It's not about disrespect and being unappreciatative of their jobs and of what they do.
No one was saying to get rid of those people and their jobs.
Rather, that this is a really bad time for, anyone to be getting raises. Very ill-advised and inappropriate.
And that applies to policemen, firemen ....sanitation workers...etc.
It's not about disrespect and being unappreciatative of their jobs and of what they do.
It's about the mess we're in.
I disagree. It would be different if we were talking about massive raises - but these are not. These are essentially cost of living adjustments (not even that really) that will pretty much be a wash.
Once again - the city is cutting 401k contributions, given the potential earnings of that money over the long term, that alone means that getting a 2% raise and losing that 1% contribution is essentially lessening the overall income of the employees, not increasing it.
Its a minor raise (and the first one they have gotten in two years to boot) - I have no problem with it whatsoever.
Two points in this article that have not been mentioned here:
1 - No raises or bonuses were given last year. So I don't see where a 2% raise over two years is all that much. Especially since only 117 of 6700 are making over $100k. I did not see mentioned in the article what the average city worker's salary is.
2 - It also says that, in fiscal year 2011, for all city employees except police officers, the city's contribution to workers' 401k funds will drop from 3% to 2%. So, if those workers want to maintain their current 401k contributions, the bulk of whatever raise they will make will be pretty much nullified. In some ways, it is just a redistribution of current funding...drop the 401k contribution and give a slight increase in salary. And if out of pocket costs for other benefits (such as health insurance) are going up, as someone stated above, then its not like these people getting a 2% raise are all of a sudden going to be buying a Benz and eating lobster every night. These people are still likely seeing a slight drop in their overall income.
Ani - to your point: While part of me agrees with the concept of, lets forgo raises and use those funds to hire a few more people, the other part of me has no problem with giving some slight incentive / reward for those people in those positions who are going in and doing their job day in and day out. Especially when the amount is simply helping them to maintain.
I guess I emphasized my concern about the TOP WAGE EARNERS getting a raise too much and didn't emphasize (altho I did post) that it doesn't bother me that the low wage earners would get a raise. What upsets me is the HIGH WAGE EARNERS getting a raise.
Let's face it: When someone making $25K a year gets a 2% raise, we are only talking a few dollars. But when someone making $100K gets a raise, we are talking $2K dollars. That isn't highway robbery, either, but it is the principle of the matter. And it does add up.
Plus, as I said earlier, it just looks bad, when folks are being laid off, especially when the folks being laid off report to the high wage earners who got raises. I hope that makes sense.
It is a slap in every unemployed persons face that these people continue to be able to give themselves the "royal" treatment of even a sliver of a raise.
And it is a slap in the face of the people who have worked hard to get where they are (in any line of work) not to reward them for their efforts just because not everyone is in the same position as they are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sylbeth
Can you even imagine that there are people out there working three small jobs, just to put food on their tables, while this bunch of "Royalty" can wine and dine at the best places, shop at South Park...
I hardly think most city employees are treated like "royalty". I'd be willing to be that most are probably making around the median salary for a resident of the city (which ain't really all that much to begin with).
As for some people working multiple jobs to put food on the table while others are in a much better financial situation, well...it has always been that way. Some people will always have more money / financial advantages than others. That is just a simple fact of life.
Let's keep in mind that every dime the city spends is coming out of the taxpayer's pockets. If they can afford to give a 2% raise, this is money they can't spend elsewhere and/or refund back to the poor taxpayers who are also struggling to meet bills including the property tax.
With that in mind, that is the city has X tax dollars to spend, then it becomes a matter of priorities.
Is it more important to tax people at a higher rate so that higher salaries can be paid to city employees?
What is being cut out of the city budget to support those raises? I think people will be surprised at the cuts they are making and any discussion of city raises should be handled in that context.
How many tax foreclosures are taking place because non-city workers have lost their jobs and are struggling to make their bills.
It's easy enough to say that people should be given raises. It's not so easy when the money is going to come out of other working people's pockets in order to accomplish it. I recommend a read of the proposed budget.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I do not have a problem with the raises.
can wine and dine at the best places, shop at South Park...
