"Free Buffalo" should do just that. Free Buffalo & stay out of Amherst! Buffalo has its own problems. They are bleeding the rest of the region. Amherst isn't expecting help from other communities & we can hold our own.
Free Buffalo has released an initial proposal for cutting Amherst town employee compensation by at least 20 percent.
This would produce, the organization says, a $12 million savings and 16% reduction in town property taxes.
This seems drastic to me, but an interesting starting point.
Can it be done? Any alternative suggestions that DON'T involve pointless crude suggestions, name calling etc.?
The analysis, which is preliminary, can be found on the An Evening With Satish thread.
"Free Buffalo" should do just that. Free Buffalo & stay out of Amherst! Buffalo has its own problems. They are bleeding the rest of the region. Amherst isn't expecting help from other communities & we can hold our own.
""Free Buffalo" should do just that. Free Buffalo & stay out of Amherst! Buffalo has its own problems. They are bleeding the rest of the region. Amherst isn't expecting help from other communities & we can hold our own."
Good argument. Free Buffalo is the Erie County Chapter of Free New York, Inc., a statewide organization to free this state of the voracious political class that has destroyed its economy.
We have many members from Amherst, and, if it's okay with you, they will further review the Amherst budget and propose even more cuts.
Okay?
Okay, post #2 and already with the lame attacks. And from familiar quarters at that.Originally Posted by Gandalf
Wouldn't it be nice to a thread have about Amherst that doesn't morph into a pissing-match (sorry, there really is no better way to put it)?
If you want to make a proposal like that, do it on all NEW hires. I don't see it flying either way because the unions and their families will oppose it.
If the Board goes for it, that means Dan ward would have to vote against it or lose county union backing.
Do you think he can pull it off? He's all for cutting costs!
Fan, what's the problem? I read a different opinion, not a 'pissing match'. I'm really getting weary of your holier than thou remarks. Disagreement is OK. Opinions are OK. And if they don't get approved by you, that's OK, too.
20% reduction? The town could do it to all employees NOT represented by a Union, ie. dept heads, asst. dept heads (always wondered why you need an asst. dept head. If the head honcho can't do it without help, get someone who can) part-timers and ELECTED OFFICIALS. Might work.
Do you mean start with NEW hires and then, when negotiations roll around, try getting cutbacks in compensation from the unions on pre-existing employees?Originally Posted by Usually Right
I don't know the system well, but if negotations stalled and an impasse was declared, would the issue head to arbitrators? And would either party be bound by whatever the arbitrator found?
And please don't berate me for asking these questions. I don't know the answers and am hoping one of you out there does!
Why wouldn't the town be able to do it with union employees? And I'm not baiting you. Is the Taylor law what would prevent that, or the evergreen clauses in state law?Originally Posted by etc
It's called FAIRNESS! And I can tell by your thoughts that you have never been privy to any labor negotiations.
Okay, so you don't have knowlege of the workings of negotiations or the laws that cover them.Originally Posted by Usually Right
Anyone out there know what would legally impede a pay cut for unionized employees? I'm assuming it has to do with the Taylor Law.
No, actually, it's NOT Okay! Don't go attacking government employees & suggest a 20% cut in their wages! Are you also suggesting a 20% reduction in private sector employees salaries? No. I didn't think so! Your attacks are mindless. Don't waste your time. You do understand that the elected members of the TB also get some nice benefits that they may not want to part with. I doubt that you'll see a majority of votes here. OKAAAAAY???Originally Posted by Jim Ostrowski
According to the FreeBuffalo report, the 20% cut in total compensation (salary and/or benies) would bring the amount in line with private sector compensation, at least in part.Originally Posted by Gandalf
I don't know if that percentage is correct, but the idea is to achieve parity between private and public compensation. The theory is that even though compensation for town employees would be cut, that would be offset by the resulting cut in property taxes that they pay.
That sounds good in theory, but I don't think it would work in reality. And I'd worry about lower paid town employees who surely couldn't absorb such a big cut at once.
And I don't see how it could be done, given the evergreen clauses guaranteed by the Triborough (sp?) Amendment (which I finally looked up on a state site, having given up finding information here).
If you can be a little patient my good buddy Smiley can answer all of your questions. He's an expert. I give him a thumbs up.
He's just having a problem with his dot right now.
Most government jobs are higher paid because they are jobs nobody else wants...I as a taxpayer support these people and thier higher salaries because they work really hard at jobs I dont want or could never do...
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)