Monday, December 13, 2010

Berding bashes union agreement he approved

In reality, both unions have no bonus structure. Their pay, benefits and working conditions are governed by contracts negotiated through a lengthy bargaining process; contracts which Berding himself approved.

The Enquirer reports that “A majority of Cincinnati City Council members say they’ll stop the layoffs of 275 police officers and firefighters if both unions agree to a total of $20 million in concessions.

$20,000,000 in concessions divided by approximately 1700 people means each and every cop and firefighter would give back about $12,000 a year or $1,000 a month. That's an awfully steep price to pay for a streetcar. Would you take that large a pay cut to keep your current job? Or would you move away for a better job?

The same Enquirer article said Council members “talked about it being time for unions to understand their contracts are too lucrative…” Councilmember Bortz said it was time for the unions “to join the real world.”

Is this true? Are we paying our safety personnel too much?

COAST decided to find out.

Using data from The Enquirer, it’s easy to see that Cincinnati’s cost per officer is the lowest of comparable cities. The lowest by far. More than $10,000 lower per officer. We’re already getting a bargain, and if the layoffs stand, our loss is liable to be these other cities’ gain.

Berding & Council have known about the current budget situation for the better part of a year, and maybe two. Yet they spent $5 million on new windows for City Hall, $6 million on radio recycle bins, and $2.8 million on streetcar preparations.

Jeff Berding likes to spend your tax money. And he thinks your safety is more frivolous than those things. Let’s send Jeff back to “the real world.”

19 comments:

  1. It is union salaries and their benefit packages that are bankrupting cities nationwide, not public transportation. COAST has jumped in bed with the unions because they, like union bosses, feed their families by tricking their constituency and the general public.

    ReplyDelete
  2. ^Jake,
    Why don't you explain how we're being "bankrupted" by paying less per cop than any of our peer cities? Cincinnati gets more bang for our public safety dollars than anybody else, and Council is about to screw that up.

    Unlike transit, police and fire are legitimate and required functions of government. They serve and protect 100% of the citizenry. Most transit systems are lucky if they serve 5% of their local populations.

    ReplyDelete
  3. We are being bankrupted because the city keeps expanding the size of the police force under the false pretense that we can afford this trend, in perpetuity, without ever raising taxes.

    Eventually you reach a point of diminishing returns, where the economic benefits to hiring more police do not offset the cost of hiring that officer. We've reached that point. We reached it in 2007.

    You can steal from all of the capital funds you want, but don't pretend that that is a solution. You are merely proposing the same cowardly myth that has plagued city hall all decade: That there is an infinite number of dollars to cut from the rest of the city to keep hiring more public safety.

    At least one city council member, who's actually a veteran police officer, has the courage to actually propose the only solution that will keep officers on the streets and fire houses in operation: raise revenue to match the expansion of the public safety department.

    I happen to agree with him, would gladly pay more taxes if they fix the long-term growth problems, which means: I care more about Police and Fire services than you do.

    COAST: How about you explain how exactly the money for the streetcar and other public works projects is going to save jobs.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hamilton County is bankrupt because of the corrupt stadium deal.

    Cincinnati is going bankrupt (give it 20 years) because of the looming pension fund shortfall that they won't do anything about. It's refusal to utilize windfalls, such as the Blue Ash airport sale and Anthem money, on long-term problems that need fixing rather than wasteful spending sprees like the streetcar, is only making things worse.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anton sez:

    I see that the real estate people who stand to pocket some cash from the streetcar boondoggle are now posting here. Good for them. It is enlightening to have the view that streetcars are more important than police and fire aired in public. How absurd it is when one actually sees this nonsense in print.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "COAST: How about you explain how exactly the money for the streetcar and other public works projects is going to save jobs."

    Very easy. Streetcar operating losses, estimated to be about $3 million per year (probably double that), will be paid out of the general fund, which is the same pot of money used to pay for police, fire, and public works employees. Add several million dollars each year to an already structurally imbalanced budget and you have less money to pay for necessary police, fire, and public works employees.

    You're welcome.

    ReplyDelete
  7. You failed. That operating cost (which you call a "loss") doesn't happen yet.

    So... how will stopping the streetcar now stop the layoffs now?

    What about the $18M annual operating "loss" of the city's road network?

    How about Metro's $95 Million "operating loss" annually" (as computed using the same standard that you rely upon to (mis)represent the streetcar's operating cost).

    ReplyDelete
  8. You asked how it's "going to save jobs". It's going to save jobs next year, and the year after and the year after. Surely you're not suggesting that City employees be so shortsighted that they refuse to look a mere 12 months down the line when it comes to layoff prospects. You fail.

    As to the City's road network. This is a resource that benefits everyone, not just a few urban hipsters who live downtown. Even if you don't own a car, you certainly purchase good and use services that are brought to you by.... THE ROADS. You fail.

    As to Metro, of course there is a huge operating loss. The fallacy in your thinking is that because we have one failed transit system it makes it ok for us to add yet another transit system with a huge operating loss. What a clever way to fix a huge budget deficit. Let's also not forget that Metro is actually a "transit system" serving a huge portion of the City's poor population with necessary transportation needs and not a tiny loop through downtown for well-to-do urban professionals.
    You fail, in an epic fashion.

    ReplyDelete
  9. COAST and your ilk can't have it both ways. We keep hearing from you guys that people will move downtown (I am waiting for all the Westwoodites and West Chester folk) when the cops make it safe there. Now, you are saying that we get more bang for our buck than other cities and that we have more cops per person than other cities.

    The real change in downtown is happening as 3CDC moves block by block and renovates abandoned buildings. Public transit then makes it more enticing to live downtown. To keep adding cops patrolling abandoned buildings hasn't brought any of you back to living downtown has it? Having businesses and residents downtown is what is going to help reduce crime.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hey anonymous -
    I don't recall COAST ever saying that people will move downtown. Please provide a source for your lie or stfu.

    Further, why should the safety of City residents in Westwood, Price Hill, or Bond Hill suffer so that downtowners can have a choo choo train.

    PS - There's already a functioning public transit system in downtown. It's called a bus, and it can go everywhere your precious trolley can go, and many places that a choo choo can't. Are you too good for a bus, or is it that riding with common folks on a Metro isn't "enticing" enough for you.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Further, why should the safety of City residents in Westwood, Price Hill, or Bond Hill suffer so that downtowners can have a choo choo train. "

    It won't. That's a lie you COAST shills and bat shit white trash like Mary Kuhl so easily believe. Kill the streetcar, we'll still layoff police officers and firefighters.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The best thing about this plan to lay off most of our police force is that this would result in hundreds of minorities losing their jobs. Simon Leis sure won't be hiring the number of minorities that Cincinnati does. This is a solid opportunity to shift some jobs to white people, my base.

    ReplyDelete
  13. hahahahaaahaha how pathetic:

    "The best thing about this plan to lay off most of our police force"

    - Most of the force? Wow, can COAST supporters exaggerate much? Oh, I forgot, they're lead by dinosaur Luken, at least he has dementia as an excuse.

    "is that this would result in hundreds of minorities losing their jobs."

    - Oh, so the numbers are in? Of the 144 officers proposed to be laid off, 100+ of those are of minority status? When you couldn't defeat the streetcar by a crazy charter amendment, you tried to lie and make it an issue about public safety and now that's not working so its a blatant lie about race?

    These are the people who support COAST. What a joke.

    ReplyDelete
  14. ^^^

    What an idiot! The plan Berding/Qualls are proposing lays off all of the city's patrol officers (700+), and contracts patrol of the city to Simon Leis. Their idea is that Leis will hire back many of them, but the reality is Leis runs the Hamilton County Sheriff's office and he'll hire whoever the hell he wants.

    Let's repeat this again so you'll get it. The Berding/Qualls plan lays off most of the Cincinnati Police Department.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Moron Patrol,

    The current plan to meet the budget deficit calls for a recommendation of laying off 144 police officers. Shifting power to the county sheriff for patrol duties has been an idea discussed in the past, but is not currently proposed to meet the current budget problems.

    ReplyDelete
  16. But I was talking about the Jeff Berding/Roxanne Qualls plan. I know that the Mallory/Doughhony plan is lay off a hundred-something police and fire. That is a different plan than the one Berding/Qualls are promoting.

    The Berding/Qualls plan involves laying off most of the Cincinnati police force and hiring the Hamilton County Sheriff's Department to patrol the city. One of the reasons behind this plan is to give hundreds of minorities the pink slip, then watch Simon Leis hire mostly white people to replace them. A bleaching of the Cincinnati patrol.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I'm with Bengal Berding, if we lay off the black cops, that puts more black people on the streets doing crime.

    ReplyDelete
  18. But I was talking about the Jeff Berding/Roxanne Qualls plan. I know that the Mallory/Doughhony plan is lay off a hundred-something police and fire. That is a different plan than the one Berding/Qualls are promoting.

    The Berding/Qualls plan involves laying off most of the Cincinnati police force and hiring the Hamilton County Sheriff's Department to patrol the city. One of the reasons behind this plan is to give hundreds of minorities the pink slip, then watch Simon Leis hire mostly white people to replace them. A bleaching of the Cincinnati patrol.


    Actually, that is completely false. The police patrol contracting will be bound upon the agreement that Lies hires all of the city's officers for the patrols. Additionally, it would be extremely short-sighted for Si Lies to not hire back willing patrol officers who have the community contacts and experience to make them better officers than just any new recruit.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Wrong again. There is no agreement in place, only a commitment to study it. You cannot claim to know what is in an agreement that doesn't exist.

    Si would have huge incentive to not hire many of the Cincinnati patrol officers. Remember, Si has laid off many of his own deputies in recent years. He'd want them back first, in addition to the fact that there are too many hard-working minorities in the CPS for Leis to tolerate.

    ReplyDelete

We follow the "living room" rule. Exhibit the same courtesy you would show guests in your home.