"What public services would you abolish or privatize, and to keep Mr. Erickson happy, please state specifically what you would privatize in Saint Paul, who you would handle it, and explain how the taxpayers would be saved money."
1. Significantly reduce the number employees at Public Works, specificially in the area of road maintenance. Put out for bid the repair and upkeep of specific roads. Less major equipment to buy, less workers comp, less overtime, less benefits, less 4 people holding up a shovel while one works. 2. Put snow plowing out for bid. Have set criteria that must be met. Less equipment, manpower and overtime. Since most of this activity is outside of regular duties a lot of major equipment, maintenance, overtime, manpower savings. 3. The Human Rights department would be gone. Intimidation of employers/landlords/etc is not the way. Either people are violating the laws or not, if so prosecute, let the city attorney handle this. There is the EEOC on the Federal level, and the state has an office that handles these complaints. Call the EEOC and you have to choose whether you go with a state agency complaint, EEOC complaint or a City complaint. Talk about duplication of services. Elimination of wages, benefits, office space, etc. 4. Licensing and permits would be dramatically streamlined and downsized for residential issues, and make changes to business, commercial and rental properties bureaucracy and red tape. Reduced manpower and streamlined codes that are understandable to all, not convoluted codes to increase public employment. These are just a few that come to mind right now, I'm sure I've missed many millions in savings that I'll think of as the day goes on. And residents of St Paul wouldn't even see a reduction in services, in fact they may see more services for less money. "Mr. Thompson says he would abolish public employee unions. Sorry, that doesn't qualify, The unions are paid for by members dues and not the taxpayers." Oh, how wrong you are. We pay and pay and pay for public employee unions. This is basically the employees vs us the taxpayers. The employees have lost sight of the fact that it is us, the taxpayers, who allow them to continue to be employed. We should have far more say in what is done and by whom, without union contract issues. They work for us, not the other way around. As a card carrying AFSCME member I know this. True the employees pay a "fair share" to the union in dues, however, that is not the true cost of unions. Unions force us (taxpayers) to keep employing less qualified people. If there is a layoff, or a a restructuring, the less senior person is moved or laid off. That person may be the best employee. Yet we as taxpayers can't keep the "best" employee only the one who has been a city employee the longest. That is wrong. Unions enable employees who should be fired/reprimanded/suspended to continue working. Why should we pay for employees who are waiting for disciplinary action? Because the union contract says that they get full pay and benefits while awaiting discipline. Either discipline you employee or not. This costs us plenty. Unions lump many jobs together to get strength in numbers. These then become bargaining groups. These bargaining groups are only to raise pay levels of the group. Now that's not so bad until you look at the fact that people are doing different jobs within those groups. Pretty soon you have people making more money (in terms of wages, benefits) than most private sector jobs. Not that that's a bad thing, if that employee is worth it. However, we aren't able to pay people by merit, only by job grouping, classification. So when a good employee leaves because of lower pay and bad employee is allowed to continue with public employment we suffer. Oh did I say lower pay, not in general terms, but in terms of that single employee being worth more in the marketplace. Not in general that public pay is low, in fact it's high. We need to retain our good employees and have the opportunity to allow managers in the city to weed out the bad employees, even if they've been here the longest. We need to reward our good employees and if you aren't cutting the mustard then raises aren't so good, just like the real world. Employment laws cover public and private employees. If the city is unfairly treating someone they have plenty of places to go for a grievance. It doesn't have to be to a union rep. If they don't get the raise they want, they can look for a different job, we need motivated employees not ones constantly whining about what they make (when it's more than many/most people in St Paul for the same duties). This would save us lots of money (or substantially increase performance, which saves us money) and probably give us a more responsive work force. They will remember that their jobs depend on them treating us as customers, not servants to them. There are lots of ways to streamline government and save money. The problem is public employees and elected officials won't do it. Their jobs and livelihood depends on perpetuating and increasing dependence on public services. But, their jobs should be to increase the livability of St Paul, not only public services. That can also mean privatization of services and elimination of unionization. This has nothing to do with a return on investment. It has to do with the investment being made having a purpose and producing an outcome. And I don't think the public should pay for sports stadiums. Let the billionaire owners pay for their own stadiums, or have the city purchase the sports franchise, as in Green Bay, and collect the revenues from the franchise and the stadium. Tom Thompson Como Park _____________________________________________ To Join: St. Paul Issues Forum Rules Discussion Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _____________________________________________ NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul Archive Address: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/
