Hey Bob why do you take money from the village? It's OK for you but not those who work for a living??

Is there a union contract that Geoff Neustadt has not liked? Geoff has voted for everyone and he never once has challenged the status quo. I guess we should expect that since he is a union member and president of the union for school district 58. Nice work Bob in challenging the status quo of union contracts.

I have the utmost respect for the folks that do the day in and out work on behalf of each of us and I’ve made a point as noted in the article above and countless other times to commend and thank them.

2008-2009 is not that long ago. In fact, for many of us the recession and its aftermath continue to pose real economic challenges and hardship. That was the case for the Village when seeking to build its 2009 budget and as folks may recall we had to let some police officers go. That was awful – I don’t want to fire anyone again, if we can help it. And I think we can.

To that end, I have twice suggested a "force majeure" clause be inserted into all collectively bargained contracts so that the Village has an opportunity to re-negotiate with its bargaining units to see if compromise can be achieved ... rather than resort to raising taxes or, as is far more likely, terminating positions. This clause is not magic, but it does is provide for an opportunity to again talk, in the face of some catastrophic economic conditions, by automatically re-opening contracts for further negotiations. Is that really too much to ask?

Continued …

… continued

Those that have followed my public comments on this know too that I’ve lamented the potential other side of the equation. We now have some folks locked in at 1% raises in some years … what then is the effect on their families if the economy does improve and inflation returns to a more typical 3%~ish? Or what about the gas, utilities, taxes, braces, school supplies, little league fees, groceries, etc. that are likely to grow at more than 1%? Or what if the State of Illinois decides to change the LGDF and suddenly the Village is “short” planned millions of revenue? Such contracts guarantee that we will either raise taxes or lay off – that doesn’t seem reasonable to me.

If by “take money from the Village” you’re talking about the $2400 paid annually to Village Commissioners – let’s make it clear that it’s remained flat for a decade or so and the amount itself ought to clearly demonstrate that the job of Commissioner is one of service. No benefits, no pension, and $46 per week.

Bob Barnett

I would venture a guess that the payment to DG Commissioners on an hourly basis (that is, $2400/year divided by hours served per year) is significantly less than the current hourly minimum wage.

Unfortunately, a force majeure clause would only help the Village and has no real value to the labor entity. That clause would protect the Village in the case of circumstances beyond its control, such that it cannot fulfill its contract promises, as in a severe and debilitating economic downturn. In the instance that the economy had a profound rebound and the Village saw an increase in revenue during the third year of a contract, the labor entity would have a hard time proving that it could not fulfill its end of the contract just because the Village was making more money. I wish public sector jobs could operate in that manner, because those workers would have made several years of double digit raises during the housing boom, much like private sector workers experienced during those times. Of course, the downturn did not effect public sector workers as drastically as their private worker counterparts, but that is the way public employee systems operate. These are the advantages...and disadvantages. So for a municipality that operates squarely in the black, and has ample reserves, guaranteeing 1 to 2 percentage point raises for it's workers is a good deal for the taxpayer.

I and many of my friends have not received raises in years and work 50 weeks a year and very few holidays . Government people are protected by their union and the sympathetic bosses that pay the raise out of other peoples money , not their own .A good deal for the taxpayers would be to treat these coddled government workers as they would be treated in the private sector . I am sick and tired of hearing about the poor government workers that only get 1 or 2% raises . Do these government workers care that someone will have to skip meals to pay their raises ? Quick example : libraries , last I checked people make fewer and fewer trips to actually get books , more on line usage for sure . Have any employees been let go in the last five years ? Why is it the job of the taxpayers to provide free books anyway ? Time to ask why government is in the health club business also ?

Chaz - perhaps a better question might be why workers continue to allow themselves to be exploited (no raises, few holidays, meager vacation and such little pay that that it requires skipping meals).

While I have some issues with Bob Barnett's force majeure concept (namely, as mentioned above, would the unions even consider it?) I do appreciate the fact that Bob is coming up with ideas that 1) recognize the need to think in different ways about how to provide services and 2) ideally will do away with the practice of eliminating staff whenever times are lean.

Also, as a journalist who has attended many, many municipal meetings, I can assure you that by the time elected village officials count their time in meetings, preparing for meetings, answering constituent calls and emails and attending village and neighborhood events, the money they earn is the equivalent of pocket change.

Mr. Trayer is absolutely correct – which is why what I suggested, in more detail, were several triggers for reopening negotiations (I used “force majeure” as an example others might be familiar with to identify the concept). To be sure, the upside for employees would also have to have triggers as well. Contrary to Barry’s (err, sorry, Dan F.) comments, my position has never been to eliminate wages and the record from our public meetings makes this quite clear.

I simply believe three things should be changed; first the assumption that the public can or should assume any future cost increases irrespective of the economic conditions of the day, second that employees should not participate in the fortunes of the Village – good or bad – and finally that the appropriate number of fire-fighters or police should be determined in a manner reactive to a temporary economic setback.

I understand that Illinois, perhaps more than any other state, is a difficult place to start such a conversation but what is the argument for not trying to improve on predictability of cost and sustainability and quality of service while better ensuring employment for our public servants?

There is an element in this bunch that simply must enjoy plowing tons of ice and snow into mailboxes, its some kind of game for them. How many even live here ?? The crowd living in the Plano-Oswego-Hastert repo triangle must be ticked that the rest of us didn't move into the tornado belt and keep their overvalued housing prices up.