As predicted here, Phase Two of the SR's push to form public opinion around the city's budget happened today in a piece by their editorial board. I am pretty sure I know what Phase Three is going to look like (sound like?). If you want to hear my prediction, email me. If I know you, I will tell you.
Before I get started here, I would like to thank Chiefs Schaeffer and Williams for not sugar-coating it for the media yesterday. The cuts, if they come to fruition, will mean 15 firefighters and the closure of one station. Thanks for telling it like it is.
Now then, this morning's editorial. It is basically a rehashing of the Journal of Business' editorial which I addressed here. No wonder, the Journal is an arm of the Cowles Publishing Co. Here is a more complete picture of the Cowles Publishing Co. It is easy to see how the information is controlled in Spokane and that the formation of public opinion is almost like a lab experiment where all the input is planned for a desired result.
The tone of the editorial this morning is that we are all one community and that many in our community are hurting financially and that city workers have good compensation, better than most of our citizens. There is a funding gap and we should chip in to help. Fair enough. I hate to sound like a broken record, but here we go again:
1. How will the community ever know when we give up compensation and benefits when the Spokesman-Review won't tell them? Why won't they tell the citizens? Please refer again to the Wikipedia article. The Cowles have not been a friend to organized labor or government employment. To squash positive stories of city workers is a "two-fer," in that city employees are both government employees and organized labor.
2. Yes, we are one community. In fact, we are the second largest city in the state. Interestingly, we are the only major city in the state without a B and O tax. Why is that? Who would stand to lose from a B and O tax? I know who would stand to gain - those of us who shop in the city and pay a whopping sales tax, those of us who live in the city and pay property taxes, cable TV taxes and other surcharges that go a long way to offset Spokane's bizarre lack of a B and O tax. Hey Journal of Business and Spokesman-Review, show us what community supporters you are by proposing a B and O tax. I've told you what we could do in response.
OK this is old news and my old opinion. Don't ever expect to see it in print. That's fine, the way things are going, probably just as many are reading this blog as are reading the paper.
Here is something new to chew on. Yes, the community is hurting. Foreclosures are up. The ranks of the uninsured are swelling. Medical assistance to the mentally ill is dwindling. Guess who takes care of these folks? Guess who stops the insurance arson fire from spreading from the building next door into your abode or business? That's right. And these are the folks you are going to cut. It's like being in the middle of a war set to escalate and you want to cut troop levels and troop compensation. Except this war is not in some far-off land. It's right here and right now. And those who get the most benefit from those fighting it are the ones least willing to pay for it.
Some things never change.
Showing posts with label Spokane journal of business. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Spokane journal of business. Show all posts
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Monday, July 13, 2009
A response to yesterday's S-R article on city unions...
Yesterday’s Spokesman-Review article by Jonathan Brunt was pretty typical and not a big surprise. When it comes to our wages and the city budget, I guess there are some key items that will never be mentioned in the Spokesman-Review:
1. The 48 hours that each of us worked for free to help the city in its last budget crisis. We never received a media mention when we did it. And it won’t ever be noted in an article concerning the budget crisis de jour.
2. The fact that Spokane is the only city in the state without a B and O tax. The budget continues to be balanced on the backs of home and property owners, cable subscribers, shoppers and visitors. Hmmm, who would be effected by a B and O tax? Perhaps that is why it never gets mentioned.
3. Spokane’s firefighters respond to more emergencies with less people for about a fourth (I think) less funding than our comparables. Quite a good deal for the taxpayer. Don’t expect to ever see that in print.
4. Insurance company’s premiums continue to escalate, even while their bank accounts swell. Actually there was a mention of this in an opinion article yesterday but there was no connection to Brunt’s article. Insurance companies generate a lot of advertising revenue.
It will be interesting to see if Sunday’s article is the beginning of the predictable pattern the newspaper uses to form public opinion in Spokane. We’ll see if Phase Two manifests itself, as scheduled, tomorrow.
I have to admit that Mr. Brunt’s article, while definitely slanted, wasn’t completely lopsided. Maybe he didn’t get the memo about how this is supposed to work.
Here’s what I would propose Local 29 put forward to help the city budget. After reading this, you probably will be glad I’m not calling the shots.
1. We would be willing to give up a commensurate percentage of our next cost-of-living wage for every percentage the city is willing to tax businesses. The Journal of Business talks a good game about how we are all in this together. Let’s see them put up or shut up.
2. Forget about giving up any of our upcoming raises. Let’s have a business and occupation tax for anyone or any entity that makes money in Spokane - including firefighters, cops, plumbers, newspaper reporters, businesses - everyone who makes money off the infrastructure (including fire protection) Spokane provides.
3. How about a gasoline tax to pay for the emergency calls that automobiles generate? Beside car fires and MVAs, you can throw heart disease, diabetes and obesity-related calls into the mix. Along those lines, a tax on “high gravity” beer might make the imbibers of such pay for the detox service they periodically enjoy.
4. This is my favorite idea. Every percentage that an insurance company raises its rates on city-provided plans, there is a commensurate tax on the revenues they receive for providing insurance to Spokane citizens and companies. They raise their rates 10%, we slap them with a 10% tax. Next year, if they raise their rates another 10%, it’s now a 20% tax. I think they would get the message. There is no free market competition for health insurance companies. Never has been. This might help.
All to say, the Spokesman-Review has, from its earliest days, despised organized labor and the ability of working men and women to come together and effect change. It threatens the oligarchy of inherited wealth and power. Whenever there is a chance to put the blame in the lap of labor, they will make sure it happens. The continued news blackout of our previous concessions just makes this more obvious.
Whatever decision we make in regard to concessions, or medical insurance reform, we need to make sure we do it because it’s the right thing to do and be prepared that not one of our citizens will ever hear about it from the Spokesman-Review.
John
1. The 48 hours that each of us worked for free to help the city in its last budget crisis. We never received a media mention when we did it. And it won’t ever be noted in an article concerning the budget crisis de jour.
2. The fact that Spokane is the only city in the state without a B and O tax. The budget continues to be balanced on the backs of home and property owners, cable subscribers, shoppers and visitors. Hmmm, who would be effected by a B and O tax? Perhaps that is why it never gets mentioned.
3. Spokane’s firefighters respond to more emergencies with less people for about a fourth (I think) less funding than our comparables. Quite a good deal for the taxpayer. Don’t expect to ever see that in print.
4. Insurance company’s premiums continue to escalate, even while their bank accounts swell. Actually there was a mention of this in an opinion article yesterday but there was no connection to Brunt’s article. Insurance companies generate a lot of advertising revenue.
It will be interesting to see if Sunday’s article is the beginning of the predictable pattern the newspaper uses to form public opinion in Spokane. We’ll see if Phase Two manifests itself, as scheduled, tomorrow.
I have to admit that Mr. Brunt’s article, while definitely slanted, wasn’t completely lopsided. Maybe he didn’t get the memo about how this is supposed to work.
Here’s what I would propose Local 29 put forward to help the city budget. After reading this, you probably will be glad I’m not calling the shots.
1. We would be willing to give up a commensurate percentage of our next cost-of-living wage for every percentage the city is willing to tax businesses. The Journal of Business talks a good game about how we are all in this together. Let’s see them put up or shut up.
2. Forget about giving up any of our upcoming raises. Let’s have a business and occupation tax for anyone or any entity that makes money in Spokane - including firefighters, cops, plumbers, newspaper reporters, businesses - everyone who makes money off the infrastructure (including fire protection) Spokane provides.
3. How about a gasoline tax to pay for the emergency calls that automobiles generate? Beside car fires and MVAs, you can throw heart disease, diabetes and obesity-related calls into the mix. Along those lines, a tax on “high gravity” beer might make the imbibers of such pay for the detox service they periodically enjoy.
4. This is my favorite idea. Every percentage that an insurance company raises its rates on city-provided plans, there is a commensurate tax on the revenues they receive for providing insurance to Spokane citizens and companies. They raise their rates 10%, we slap them with a 10% tax. Next year, if they raise their rates another 10%, it’s now a 20% tax. I think they would get the message. There is no free market competition for health insurance companies. Never has been. This might help.
All to say, the Spokesman-Review has, from its earliest days, despised organized labor and the ability of working men and women to come together and effect change. It threatens the oligarchy of inherited wealth and power. Whenever there is a chance to put the blame in the lap of labor, they will make sure it happens. The continued news blackout of our previous concessions just makes this more obvious.
Whatever decision we make in regard to concessions, or medical insurance reform, we need to make sure we do it because it’s the right thing to do and be prepared that not one of our citizens will ever hear about it from the Spokesman-Review.
John
Thursday, June 04, 2009
An open response to the Journal of Business’ open letter to the Workers of City Hall.
An open response to the Journal of Business’ open letter to the Workers of City Hall.
Dear Journal of Business Editorial Staff:
I write this letter as a member of Local 29 - the city firefighters’ union - a member of the Spokane Chamber of Commerce (Greater Spokane), and as a citizen of Spokane.
Everyone knows that business is the economic engine of our city. Your fine publication showcases and promotes regional businesses that are directly responsible for the success of Spokane. We firefighters, more than anyone, want to see local businesses flourish. I think you would be hard pressed to find a group of people who are more willing to give (and have given their all) for the physical structures of business, the employees and owners of Spokane businesses and their families. We are sure that you know, that like the military that protects our freedoms, your firefighters are willing to lay it on the line to protect you, your business, your customers and the entire infrastructure of a city. Without protecting this infrastructure and human population, chances are Spokane’s days would be numbered. To say the least, that would be bad for business. We are intertwined with each other and dependent upon each other - as it has been since the earliest days of our nation and our city.
You didn’t say much about how it is that our wages are determined. Simply put, our wages and working conditions are basically derived by comparison to similar cities in similar economic conditions. Both sides (labor and administration) negotiate along these lines and binding arbitration assures a fair settlement for all (and also forbids us from striking). When comparable firefighter wages go up, ours could go up in a future contract. Likewise, if there is an economic downturn and wages fall, ours could follow suit.
Your letter states that as a public relations gesture, we should lower our wages. With that in mind, I would like to tell you about our experience with your suggestion. A few years ago, the city administration came to the city’s three unions and asked if they would make some concessions to help them out of a financial bind they were in. This request was brought to the firefighters of Local 29. A vote was taken. Overwhelmingly, we voted to gift the city with 48 hours of free labor from each and every firefighter (over a two-year period). This saved the city over $600,000. Press releases were dispatched, and we awaited feedback from citizens, The Spokesman-Review and even The Journal of Business. Nothing happened. The news was never reported. We made contacts again with the press - nothing. I think many of our members now see this effort as a failed trial balloon. It would be hard to believe that any further future concessions would sway those who already have a bias against us and unionized labor in general. Our experience is that these concessions would not even be made public by members the news media (The Journal of Business included).
The Journal of Business, businesses in Spokane, unions, city workers, citizens - retired, employed, unemployed, our families - we are all in this together. You need us and we need you. It’s time to drop some of our biases and take a truthful look at what we can do together.
First off, a simple question. “Why are city employees costing the city so much money?” Raises have been modest. Well, the truth of it is something that you mentioned in your letter - health insurance. Twenty years ago, affordable health insurance was the norm for all workers. Even the smallest of businesses were able to insure their employees. You are right, city employees still enjoy this traditional benefit. But here’s something that you leave out of your analysis. It is the health insurance companies that are responsible for a greediness that has catapulted insurance costs higher than many mortgages. Is The Journal of Business, right now, willing to advocate for a national single-payer health care system, or some other reform, that would allow all to enjoy the benefits that city employees now enjoy? These are benefits that all workers used to enjoy until deregulated insurance companies took us to the cleaners. To be sure, their coffers are overflowing with cash. This cash makes its way into your publication. Most citizens and business owners know this. Maybe it’s time for you, not just as a public relations stunt but because you care about Spokane, to take a stand for small businesses, for government, for citizens and for our future against the true culprits of the budget - one of your patrons - the health insurance industry.
When you compare Spokane’s fire department with Tacoma’s (our most comparable) or any other city in Washington, the numbers are pretty stark. Spokane responds to more emergency calls with less firefighters for a fraction of the cost compared to other cities' fire departments. Citizens and businesses in Spokane get more bang for their buck. This is great news for all of us. However, there’s more to the picture. In Spokane, homeowners foot a bigger percentage of the city’s operating costs, when compared to cities where businesses offset property taxes with their contributions to a B and O tax. There is a B and O tax in every Washington city except Spokane. Will The Journal of Business advocate a city, or even a county, B and O tax? This would alleviate Spokane’s budget problems and help take some financial pressure off of our citizens and customers.
A new era has dawned in our nation, and in Spokane. We are beginning to see the folly of blindly following an ideology without question, and not looking with rational eyes at our circumstances. We need to logically consider, and perhaps implement, what has worked in other cities, states and countries. So far, your editorial board seems to want to stay on a course that has proven to be beneficial in the short run for a few, and disastrous in the long run for all. That’s understandable. It's a comfortable place for you. This is where The Journal of Business, like many, has strayed the past 20 years, intensifying in the last eight. But the times, they are a’changing. It won’t be easy to set aside a comfortable ideology. It may cost you (or us) some money, in the short run. Together we owe the future of Spokane nothing less, if there is to be a future for Spokane.
Here is one “Worker of City Hall” who has read what you had to say. I have taken it to heart. I hope you now have a better idea of why we need each other. And I hope you have considered what I have to say.
John Griffith
IAFF LOCAL 29
Dear Journal of Business Editorial Staff:
I write this letter as a member of Local 29 - the city firefighters’ union - a member of the Spokane Chamber of Commerce (Greater Spokane), and as a citizen of Spokane.
Everyone knows that business is the economic engine of our city. Your fine publication showcases and promotes regional businesses that are directly responsible for the success of Spokane. We firefighters, more than anyone, want to see local businesses flourish. I think you would be hard pressed to find a group of people who are more willing to give (and have given their all) for the physical structures of business, the employees and owners of Spokane businesses and their families. We are sure that you know, that like the military that protects our freedoms, your firefighters are willing to lay it on the line to protect you, your business, your customers and the entire infrastructure of a city. Without protecting this infrastructure and human population, chances are Spokane’s days would be numbered. To say the least, that would be bad for business. We are intertwined with each other and dependent upon each other - as it has been since the earliest days of our nation and our city.
You didn’t say much about how it is that our wages are determined. Simply put, our wages and working conditions are basically derived by comparison to similar cities in similar economic conditions. Both sides (labor and administration) negotiate along these lines and binding arbitration assures a fair settlement for all (and also forbids us from striking). When comparable firefighter wages go up, ours could go up in a future contract. Likewise, if there is an economic downturn and wages fall, ours could follow suit.
Your letter states that as a public relations gesture, we should lower our wages. With that in mind, I would like to tell you about our experience with your suggestion. A few years ago, the city administration came to the city’s three unions and asked if they would make some concessions to help them out of a financial bind they were in. This request was brought to the firefighters of Local 29. A vote was taken. Overwhelmingly, we voted to gift the city with 48 hours of free labor from each and every firefighter (over a two-year period). This saved the city over $600,000. Press releases were dispatched, and we awaited feedback from citizens, The Spokesman-Review and even The Journal of Business. Nothing happened. The news was never reported. We made contacts again with the press - nothing. I think many of our members now see this effort as a failed trial balloon. It would be hard to believe that any further future concessions would sway those who already have a bias against us and unionized labor in general. Our experience is that these concessions would not even be made public by members the news media (The Journal of Business included).
The Journal of Business, businesses in Spokane, unions, city workers, citizens - retired, employed, unemployed, our families - we are all in this together. You need us and we need you. It’s time to drop some of our biases and take a truthful look at what we can do together.
First off, a simple question. “Why are city employees costing the city so much money?” Raises have been modest. Well, the truth of it is something that you mentioned in your letter - health insurance. Twenty years ago, affordable health insurance was the norm for all workers. Even the smallest of businesses were able to insure their employees. You are right, city employees still enjoy this traditional benefit. But here’s something that you leave out of your analysis. It is the health insurance companies that are responsible for a greediness that has catapulted insurance costs higher than many mortgages. Is The Journal of Business, right now, willing to advocate for a national single-payer health care system, or some other reform, that would allow all to enjoy the benefits that city employees now enjoy? These are benefits that all workers used to enjoy until deregulated insurance companies took us to the cleaners. To be sure, their coffers are overflowing with cash. This cash makes its way into your publication. Most citizens and business owners know this. Maybe it’s time for you, not just as a public relations stunt but because you care about Spokane, to take a stand for small businesses, for government, for citizens and for our future against the true culprits of the budget - one of your patrons - the health insurance industry.
When you compare Spokane’s fire department with Tacoma’s (our most comparable) or any other city in Washington, the numbers are pretty stark. Spokane responds to more emergency calls with less firefighters for a fraction of the cost compared to other cities' fire departments. Citizens and businesses in Spokane get more bang for their buck. This is great news for all of us. However, there’s more to the picture. In Spokane, homeowners foot a bigger percentage of the city’s operating costs, when compared to cities where businesses offset property taxes with their contributions to a B and O tax. There is a B and O tax in every Washington city except Spokane. Will The Journal of Business advocate a city, or even a county, B and O tax? This would alleviate Spokane’s budget problems and help take some financial pressure off of our citizens and customers.
A new era has dawned in our nation, and in Spokane. We are beginning to see the folly of blindly following an ideology without question, and not looking with rational eyes at our circumstances. We need to logically consider, and perhaps implement, what has worked in other cities, states and countries. So far, your editorial board seems to want to stay on a course that has proven to be beneficial in the short run for a few, and disastrous in the long run for all. That’s understandable. It's a comfortable place for you. This is where The Journal of Business, like many, has strayed the past 20 years, intensifying in the last eight. But the times, they are a’changing. It won’t be easy to set aside a comfortable ideology. It may cost you (or us) some money, in the short run. Together we owe the future of Spokane nothing less, if there is to be a future for Spokane.
Here is one “Worker of City Hall” who has read what you had to say. I have taken it to heart. I hope you now have a better idea of why we need each other. And I hope you have considered what I have to say.
John Griffith
IAFF LOCAL 29
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)