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.
The Mayor of New York is going to announce a cut of 23,000 workers but says that basic core services to the city residents will not be affected. If this is possible, then why did the people work for the city in the first place and why did the taxpayers money pay their salaries?
What do you think of the huge government layoffs in New York City?
The Mayor of New York is going to announce a cut of 23,000 workers but says that basic core services to the city residents will not be affected. If this is possible, then why did the people work for the city in the first place and why did the taxpayers money pay their salaries?
What do you think of the huge government layoffs in New York City?
That is NOT what was said. The mayor stated that if he could NOT get union concessions THEN a cut of up to 23,000 might be inevitable.
The Mayor of New York is going to announce a cut of 23,000 workers but says that basic core services to the city residents will not be affected. If this is possible, then why did the people work for the city in the first place and why did the taxpayers money pay their salaries?
What do you think of the huge government layoffs in New York City?
Becuase NYC government has been a job machine for decades. It doesn't take 300k people to run the city. This has been long overdue.....
They have to do what they have to do. So many unneeded employees draining the taxpayers while tax revenue is crashing is irresponsible government. The city can not just take on more debt to continue the bloated operations. They should cut and slash employee and programs until the budget is balanced.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Internet nut
The Mayor of New York is going to announce a cut of 23,000 workers but says that basic core services to the city residents will not be affected. If this is possible, then why did the people work for the city in the first place and why did the taxpayers money pay their salaries?
What do you think of the huge government layoffs in New York City?
The Mayor of New York is going to announce a cut of 23,000 workers but says that basic core services to the city residents will not be affected. If this is possible, then why did the people work for the city in the first place and why did the taxpayers money pay their salaries?
What do you think of the huge government layoffs in New York City?
1. What else can a mayor say to reassure residents than that core services will not be affected? Expected P/R.
2. Sad scenario across the country. Some posters have been decrying all the bad news or shutting themselves out, in actuality shooting the messenger, but the sad reality remains.
3. The budget cuts are sad but inevitable. Private, public sectors in NYC, NYS , across the country are faced with stark reality of years of greed, mismanagement, high roller living by all and sundry. Days of champagene and caviar are over.
4. It's only gloom and doom in the short-term. The American and the NYC/NYS economies are resilient. We have to tighten our belts, cut back on spending, save for emergencies, and do whatever it takes to eventually recover as a city, state, nation.
5. Don't blame Bloomie on this one. It's just got to be done.
6. There's a domino effect rippling across the country. Each sector in the economy is affecting the others. We won't get out of this singularly here in the city. It'll take a rising tide nationally to lift all boats across the country. Bipartisan efforts at federal, state, local levels and accountability fot taxpayer funded handouts are essential.
The overwhelming majority of those cuts are going to affect teachers--just wonderful! Don't do anything about duplicative jobs in the city bureaucracy (which must certainly number in the thousands), but go after the teachers instead. And just when there have been visible improvements in the public school system.
When Mike Bloomberg first became Mayor, he said some very reasonable things about what he planned to do. But hardly had he taken office when he began kissing up to Albany. As far as I'm concerned, he's been on a steady downhill path since then.
Becuase NYC government has been a job machine for decades. It doesn't take 300k people to run the city. This has been long overdue.....
No, one of the things it means is that the city has less work to do, processing fewer transactions, spending fewer dollars, etc, so much of the municipal oversight is no longer needed. A shrinking budget and tax base will need to be matched by a shrinking staff.
Location: Concrete jungle where dreams are made of.
8,900 posts, read 15,926,305 times
Reputation: 1819
They better not lay off us teachers. Class size is mostly at its limit anyway, imagine what it would be like if 15,000 teachers got laid off? Ridiculous...I bet Bloomberg is just saying 15,000 teachers as a worst case scenario in case the city gets no money. What do you other NYC teachers think about it? Hopefully I'll be safe, since layoffs happen by seniority and there might have been 10,000 hired after me.
Why don't we city employees just take a pay cut instead? There are other ways the city can save money, like raising the tax, raising subway fares.
They better not lay off us teachers. Class size is mostly at its limit anyway, imagine what it would be like if 15,000 teachers got laid off? Ridiculous...I bet Bloomberg is just saying 15,000 teachers as a worst case scenario in case the city gets no money. What do you other NYC teachers think about it? Hopefully I'll be safe, since layoffs happen by seniority and there might have been 10,000 hired after me.
Why don't we city employees just take a pay cut instead? There are other ways the city can save money, like raising the tax, raising subway fares.
Don't get too worried yet, Rachael. Albany or the Feds might step in and alleviate some , not all, of this crisis.
They better not lay off us teachers. Class size is mostly at its limit anyway, imagine what it would be like if 15,000 teachers got laid off? Ridiculous...I bet Bloomberg is just saying 15,000 teachers as a worst case scenario in case the city gets no money. What do you other NYC teachers think about it? Hopefully I'll be safe, since layoffs happen by seniority and there might have been 10,000 hired after me.
Why don't we city employees just take a pay cut instead? There are other ways the city can save money, like raising the tax, raising subway fares.
Rachael,how many years do you have? My union rep told me not to worry because I have 10 years.She said that in the worst case scenario anyone with more than 3 years would be safe.
The teachers always take the brunt of city layoffs because it is an overwhelmingly female profession.They leave the police , fire dept and sanitation dept alone for as long as possible because they are mostly men. This is a throwback to the dark ages when the thinking was that it was better to lay off lay women because they were either the second bread winner in the family or were spinsters and didn't have a family to support. It was (and evidently still is) considered worse to lay off men.
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.
cut till they balance the budget
