Is the Dem mayor barret still forcing people to live in Milwaukee? (Madison: house, job market)

[Kchomps]

I don't mean people, just government employees as a condition of getting and keeping their union job. I know some went to madison to ask for a change in the law--anyone know the status of this?

It just seems weird that the leader of a city would force people to live there under threat of losing their job. And what kind of mayor is this that says if the didn't have their residency rule, that the city employees "would flee in droves"?

Did he get elected with a sizeable vote? How do people in milwaukee view him?

[Pete.]

I really don't think Mayor Barrett made the rule. I'm pretty sure it's been in place a lot longer than he's been the mayor.

[TommyGavin]

The city of Milwaukee's residency rule has existed since 1938, or so. Tom Barrett has been Mayor for about eight.

The status of the residency bill has not changed and currently does not have enough support to pass.
No one is "forced" to live in the city of Milwaukee. As an employee, a person may be economically tied to living within the city boundaries but, they are most certainly not "forced" to live there.

[43north87west]

Originally Posted by Kchomps

I don't mean people, just government employees as a condition of getting and keeping their union job. I know some went to madison to ask for a change in the law--anyone know the status of this?

It just seems weird that the leader of a city would force people to live there under threat of losing their job. And what kind of mayor is this that says if the didn't have their residency rule, that the city employees "would flee in droves"?

Did he get elected with a sizeable vote? How do people in milwaukee view him?

The requirement is in effect for non union jobs as well as union jobs. It's not going to change any time soon. Residence in Milwaukee is a condition of employment. If the employee fails to meet the requirements of the position, they are terminated. There are no threats. The mayor doesn't order it or force anyone to live in Milwaukee.

[Kchomps]

I know this didn't start with barret. But milwaukee govt employees went to madison to try and get this silly law dumped, so I was wondering many things, like what people think about it, results, etc.

But as long as the discussion is widened, anyone know how many other major cities force their employees to live in the city or else?
Seems like the "pay to play" thing so common in thug ran cities, but that's just me.

Originally Posted by 43north87west

The requirement is in effect for non union jobs as well as union jobs.

Non union meaning management level in govt, union meaning non management I presume?

[Milwaukee City]

It's a dumb argument and a dumb law or rule to have. I like freedom and I like to have freedom in as many places as possible. If I want to live in Watertown on a farm but want to work for the city of Milwaukee I should be able to. Living in another place other than Milwaukee will not make certain neighborhoods become Detroit as the mayor implied in his earlier statements and it will not diminish quality of services. These are the two arguments you hear in favor of this rule of requiring workers for the FD or PD or city to live in the city of which they work. I also don't believe there will be thousands of employees making a mad dash to the suburbs, despite what Mayor Milk Carton would like to think many city employees actually love living in the city and are not staying in the city just because the city makes them. I don't know what the mayor is afraid of? there is no reasonable argument for this rule.

If anything this rule limits the type or amount of employees that would or could work for the city, FD or PD. Schools, maybe some parents would love to work for the city of MKE but don't want to send their kids to a MPS high school, maybe the city has an opening for a level 3 accountant and there is a guy who has roots put down in Richfield and would be perfect for the job but doesn't want to sell his house and pull his kids out of school to move to Milwaukee. A smaller pool of applicants means a smaller pool of qualified applicants it's pure numbers.

I also find it odd that this issue is supported mainly by party lines, republicans want to get rid of this rule meanwhile the democrats want to keep this rule in place and the same goes for voters of these parties.

What are you afraid of by repealing this selfish rule?

[Pete.]

Originally Posted by Kchomps

I know this didn't start with barret. But milwaukee govt employees went to madison to try and get this silly law dumped, so I was wondering many things, like what people think about it, results, etc.

But as long as the discussion is widened, anyone know how many other major cities force their employees to live in the city or else?
Seems like the "pay to play" thing so common in thug ran cities, but that's just me.

Non union meaning management level in govt, union meaning non management I presume?

- You kind of implied that it was all Mayor Barrett's fault. It's not his law, so I wouldn't put the blame entirely on him.

- A group of employees may have went to Madison regarding the requirement, but I don't think they represented the view of ALL the city employees.

- Not all city employees are members of a union. It doesn't have anything to do with whether they are managers or not.

- Just because you disagree with Democrats doesn't make them "thugs".

- I think an employer has every right to have a residency requirement. Other employers have plenty of requirements - college degrees, certifications, experience. Heck, even Hooters has "requirements".

[Empidonax]

There are some good arguments for and against residency requirements of this sort. One major argument in favor is that employees of a municipality should be fully vested as residents of the municipality--that is, they should be rooted in the community they work for.

By extension, I see no problem with requiring that Milwaukee County workers live in Milwaukee County, that State of Wisconsin workers live in Wisconsin, and U.S. Government workers live in the U.S.

(Obviously, some exceptions have to be made, or we couldn't have state representation in Congress, and the U.S. couldn't have workers deployed abroad in certain places. Perhaps there's a technical difference between "living" in a place versus "having a primary residence" in a place. At the municipal level, some suburbs have to allow teachers and other employees to live/reside in other places due to cost of living, limited labor pool, etc.)

One major argument against the residency rule for municipalities is the case when a couple or other cohabitants have municipal/city jobs in different places. If all municipalities had a residency requirement, a Brookfield teacher could not legally live with a Milwaukee firefighter under such conditions. The current system only "works" now because so few places have a residency requirement.

On the other hand, if a Minnesota state senator wants to live with a Wisconsin state senator, what do we allow? Freedom is nice for them, but shouldn't the representative of a state live in that state?

Ultimately, it seems to me that being a government employee at whatever level implies in most cases a full, work/residential commitment to the community or geographic entity tied to the job.

Originally Posted by Milwaukee City

It's a dumb argument and a dumb law or rule to have. I like freedom and I like to have freedom in as many places as possible. If I want to live in Watertown on a farm but want to work for the city of Milwaukee I should be able to. Living in another place other than Milwaukee will not make certain neighborhoods become Detroit as the mayor implied in his earlier statements and it will not diminish quality of services. These are the two arguments you hear in favor of this rule of requiring workers for the FD or PD or city to live in the city of which they work. I also don't believe there will be thousands of employees making a mad dash to the suburbs, despite what Mayor Milk Carton would like to think many city employees actually love living in the city and are not staying in the city just because the city makes them. I don't know what the mayor is afraid of? there is no reasonable argument for this rule.

If anything this rule limits the type or amount of employees that would or could work for the city, FD or PD. Schools, maybe some parents would love to work for the city of MKE but don't want to send their kids to a MPS high school, maybe the city has an opening for a level 3 accountant and there is a guy who has roots put down in Richfield and would be perfect for the job but doesn't want to sell his house and pull his kids out of school to move to Milwaukee. A smaller pool of applicants means a smaller pool of qualified applicants it's pure numbers.

I also find it odd that this issue is supported mainly by party lines, republicans want to get rid of this rule meanwhile the democrats want to keep this rule in place and the same goes for voters of these parties.

What are you afraid of by repealing this selfish rule?

[43north87west]

It applies to all city employees. You can look at it as pay to play, or as quijote said, having a vested interest in the community. Both cities in which I live have this requirement, and I see no problem with it. I'm all for freedom myself, but there is plenty of freedom in the job market.

Historically, private industry is more volatile than public service. Seems that living in one place is a small price to pay for a job that is more likely to exist tomorrow, than ones that are routinely lost in private industry, whenever the wind changes direction.

The older I get, the more I see the value in that.

[TommyGavin]

Originally Posted by Kchomps

But as long as the discussion is widened, anyone know how many other major cities force their employees to live in the city or else?

Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Boston and Chicago are the quickest which come to mind.

Whether or not this is a silly argument doesn't really matter. I am very conservative with my views and have no problem with it. No one has the right to work for any entity or city. Every employee has the knowledge that they must live inside the city of Milwaukee during the course of their employment, before they apply for the job. Freedom belongs to everyone, including the employer to set rules they see fit.

If that doesn't fit a persons interest as a requirement they can work someplace that has no residency.