Left In Lowell

City Manager Contract Should be Discussed During Campaign

10 Responses to “City Manager Contract Should be Discussed During Campaign”

1. waittilnextyr Says:
   October 2nd, 2007 at 11:16 am

   Although I agree with a contract for the city manager, I would not endorse the concept that his lack of a raise for this fiscal year should flow down to the union workers. He effectively received his current year raise when he signed a contract last year, whereas all that the union workers have received is an increase in their costs for the health plan.

   As for another person that received a 4-yr contract extension from the American people in 2004, he is now promoting the border fence as part of the admininstration’s environmental improvement policy!

   Border fence said to aid environment
   October 2, 2007

   Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff defended yesterday the construction of a fence along the southwest border, saying it is actually better for the environment than what happens when people illegally cross the US-Mexico line. “Illegal migrants really degrade the environment. I’ve seen pictures of human waste, garbage, discarded bottles, and other human artifact in pristine areas,” Chertoff said. “And believe me, that is the worst thing you can do to the environment.”

2. joe Says:
   October 2nd, 2007 at 12:28 pm

   The fact that things don’t work the same way with this City Manager as they have worked in the past is one of the best things to happen to Lowell in years.

   I don’t WANT the City Council to do things “the way we did it in the past.” The way they did it in the past seems to have accomplished little except for lots of buddy-buddy favoritism. Hey, I grew up down the block from that guy, let’s give him a contract!

   There are people who are unhappy that Lowell has moved away from that way of doing things by hiring a professional to be City Manager, and there are people who are quite happy about it.

   This election is about whether the City Council will be controlled by the former group, or by the latter.

   They don’t make “I’m for Professionalism” bumper stickers. Maybe they should.

3. Prince Charming Says:
   October 2nd, 2007 at 3:10 pm

   joe: They don’t make “I believe in the Easter Bunny” bumperstickers either. This is politics. It has been this way since the beginning of time. The major differences between parties/factions is nominal. It’s all about their respective philosophies of governing. There’s only so much pie, Republicans will cut it into four slices and Democrats will cut it into sixteen. Certain “friends” of the powerful will get the spoils no matter who is in control. As far as “the old way” of doing it, it hasn’t changed and it won’t change. The spoils just get spread around differently.

4. Jason Says:
   October 2nd, 2007 at 3:27 pm

   I found it funny that right after arguing against extending Manager Lynch’s contract by a “lame duck” council there was no objection by the Sun to this same council approving the new Police Chief’s contract for roughly the same time period.

   Contradictory, no?

5. Mimi Says:
   October 2nd, 2007 at 7:04 pm

   Wait:

   Just to be clear, I am not advocating not giving city wokers a raise; on the contrary, I think they should receive a raise. What bothers me is the mixing the union negotiations with the concept of hiring a CM with a contract as opposed to hiring him at will. This is strictly a Cty Council campaign political issue. If this were to occur in 2008, none of these discussions would be taking place

   By the way, I am sure that the day the new contracts are signed with the various unions, they will be retroactive. Won’t they?

6. Jason Says:
   October 2nd, 2007 at 9:22 pm

   Mimi,

   Contracts are usually signed retroactively, however the dates pay raises become effective (if given) are part of negotiation, not always retroactive. Often working condition language changes become effective the day the contract is signed to prevent the complications of retroactive grievances (some of these are usually settled in contracts anyways). Of course labor wants any raise effective the first day of the contract year(with any money being given retroactively) and management usually wants it the last day of the year. Both sides try to maximize the effectiveness of the raise, but either way both can say a raise was given and received for a particular year, whether you see any of it in your paycheck that year or not.

   Municipal labor contracts frequently expire and negotiations take place sometimes over multiple years while terms of the previous contract are still in effect. If negotiations break down and arbitration is required, it takes even longer. It’s not unheard of for negotiations to go 3-5 years if especially hostile.

   The manager’s contract and union contracts aren’t the same issue by any means, even if both are subject to council approval. If he agreed to a two year contract the terms of this year would be based on the original negotiations. Just like any union would be bound in the second year of a multi-year contract. I wouldn’t want to work without a defined contract, so I would hardly expect a manager working basically on the whim of the council to do so either. Every working person should have some type of economic security.

   In addition to my healtcare cost increase this year, as a resident my city taxes will likely go up too, as they did last year. That’s essentially the same as a pay cut. I don’t think any of us on the city side expect to break the bank, but keeping pace with the cost of living would be nice.

7. Mimi Says:
   October 3rd, 2007 at 7:13 am

   Jason:

   Thanks for the explanation. I too want my (private sector) employer to make sure that my pay raises compensate for the increases in health cost as well as keep up with inflation; but it is not happening.

   They cannot make a profit or break even without passing on some of the double digit increase in health costs to the employees. It is a reality of living and working in Massachusetts in 2007. The major push in the private sector is to control healthcare costs; if we do not control it, businesses will not be able to remain in this State.

8. Anonymous Says:
   October 3rd, 2007 at 8:45 am

   If the pay raises in the new contracts AREN’T retroactive, I will eat my shoe.

9. waittilnextyr Says:
   October 3rd, 2007 at 8:48 am

   It will take a major restructuring of how we deal with health care as a nation to get this problem under control. There are too many costs pushed in the name of profit with the system we have, so the Medicare solution may be the best hope in controlling costs. However, such a change focuses the entire cost of healthcare in a single payer, and that is estimated to be about $2T per year right now. Even if efficiencies and better health practices get that expense down, it is still an enormous number to fund with any of the current sources of revenue.

   But the point should be, that is what we are currently paying, one way or another. Letting it continue to increase at a double digit rate is not sustainable.

10. Jason Says:
    October 3rd, 2007 at 2:50 pm

    LOL, only in Lowell can a union employee post on a lefty blog saying he would take a COLA and be told he’s probably expecting too much.

    The entire healthcare system’s costs are increasing. This is a national issue and borderline crisis. Its not master medical versus HMO as some would have you believe. Those on the city HMO had their rate go up too. I don’t even use the city insurance for anyone but myself. My wife and child get insurance through her job because it’s better (more plan options and better price). Quite a few of the younger people working for the city have realized the HMO is a better deal because it’s the early/preventative care that keeps you healthy in the long run. The incentive is to go for the low cost regular appointments to prevent the more expensive long term health problems. Unfortunately there are few incentives anywhere in the healthcare system large enough to convince everyone to do this and stay healthier. So what makes more sense? Protect your long term interests in case you get really sick and need care to prevent you from dying, which is why most stay with Master Medical.

    The core issue is that we want the lowest cost, but our values system dictates everyone get the best/same care to the fullest extent regardless of their ability to pay. The cost gets passed somewhere. In our case to the people who have enough money to pay for insurance and pay their taxes. The people who don’t pay or pay the least could care less. One example, the biggest abusers of 911 are those either uninsured or on public health care. They don’t end up paying. They get written off and the cost passed on to those who can pay.

    The entire insured population is slowly being pushed by cost increases (and taxes) to cover the uninsured. The eventuality is that either healthcare companies will fail (by not being profitable), or insurance will become a luxury for all but the people who need it least and can pay for care out of pocket anyways. Guess who ends up on the hook then? Everyone, via the government. Of course no one wants to really fix this issue, as long as the money from healthcare special interests keeps rolling in.

    Everyone would probably be better off buying crisis health insurance in case of catastrophic illness or injury (just like life insurance) and paying out of pocket for basic appointments and prescriptions. Then by shopping around you force the healthcare and drug industry to work in a real market. It’s either that or develop a single national system. One way or the other it’s probably coming. Moving everyone eligible to Medicare is a perfect illustration of this. I’m not sure socialized medicine will be a lot better. It definitely means choices will need to be made about what care can afford to be given by the government. If you have the means to pay for your own choices currently, you don’t want that. Ask a VA patient. Then you would probably see the development of two systems, one for those paid by the government and one for those who are wealthy, sounds great! If global warming and energy don’t screw up the planet first, this issue will be the major crisis for a generation.

    One other thing Mimi, those of us in the civil service sector (police and fire basically) don’t work in a free market. There is nowhere else for us to go. The civil service system doesn’t allow me to just decide to go work in another local municipality where pay and benefits may be better. We have all seen the recent denials of lateral transfers between departments for the good of the community. At least those with job skills that apply in the private sector have an option to go elsewhere where better pay and benefits are given. Short of leaving the Northeast completely, I’m stuck here by the systems and what I’m trained to do.

Leave a Reply