Answers sought to questions of local candidates
Yesterday someone posted a few questions on the alternate Eye on Oshkosh web site (www.eyeonoshkosh.com) for candidates for mayor and Oshkosh Common Council to answer. These are questions that have been on the lips of many Oshkosh taxpayers for a number of months now. Undoubtedly these questions will come up in interviews and/or debates. Any candidate wishing to answer them now in order to get their views known or to have a reasonable, mature public discussion is welcome to do so.
Arbitration and quid pro quo laws in the state of Wisconsin do not allow for strikes by public sector employees, but they also do not allow for something to be taken away from those employees without something of equal value being given in return. Some people believe these laws stop governmental bodies from being able to truly negotiate with the union, especially when the matter could end up in arbitration with an arbiter making the final decision. What is your opinion of these kinds of laws? Do you feel that all represented employees deserve these kinds of protections under the law or should they just be reserved for those employees working in critical, life or death type positions, such as police and fire?
Some people also believe that these laws are slanted to protect unions and punish the taxpayers ultimately. Do you agree with this kind of thinking and what, if anything, do you intend to do to level the playing field in the contract negotiation process?
In the city of Oshkosh, employees contribute approximately three to seven percent to their health insurance costs, meaning the taxpayers pay about $6 million toward their health care. Do you feel this is out of line and, if so, what do you plan to do to try to lower those health care costs, bringing them more in line with employee contributions versus employer contributions in the private sector, which is said to be more like an 80/20 split?
Budget discussions are held in public; contract negotiations are not. Some people believe they should be, especially since it is the salaries and benefits that are costing taxpayers the most money in municipal budgets. Since the public is footing the bill for these benefits, is there any way to make contract negotiations more public and, if so, what will you do to make sure that happens? Conversely, if there are laws allowing such negotiations to be kept private, what, if anything, will you do to try changing the law?
Since the biggest expense in a municipal budget is labor versus operational, if elected, what will you do to try making the city administration place more emphasis on making reductions in labor costs rather than on operational ones?
Arbitration and quid pro quo laws in the state of Wisconsin do not allow for strikes by public sector employees, but they also do not allow for something to be taken away from those employees without something of equal value being given in return. Some people believe these laws stop governmental bodies from being able to truly negotiate with the union, especially when the matter could end up in arbitration with an arbiter making the final decision. What is your opinion of these kinds of laws? Do you feel that all represented employees deserve these kinds of protections under the law or should they just be reserved for those employees working in critical, life or death type positions, such as police and fire?
Some people also believe that these laws are slanted to protect unions and punish the taxpayers ultimately. Do you agree with this kind of thinking and what, if anything, do you intend to do to level the playing field in the contract negotiation process?
In the city of Oshkosh, employees contribute approximately three to seven percent to their health insurance costs, meaning the taxpayers pay about $6 million toward their health care. Do you feel this is out of line and, if so, what do you plan to do to try to lower those health care costs, bringing them more in line with employee contributions versus employer contributions in the private sector, which is said to be more like an 80/20 split?
Budget discussions are held in public; contract negotiations are not. Some people believe they should be, especially since it is the salaries and benefits that are costing taxpayers the most money in municipal budgets. Since the public is footing the bill for these benefits, is there any way to make contract negotiations more public and, if so, what will you do to make sure that happens? Conversely, if there are laws allowing such negotiations to be kept private, what, if anything, will you do to try changing the law?
Since the biggest expense in a municipal budget is labor versus operational, if elected, what will you do to try making the city administration place more emphasis on making reductions in labor costs rather than on operational ones?
posted by Cheryl Hentz at 12:27 PM
2 Comments:
I don't understand why most of the questions focus on things that are state law. Personally, I'd rather know what the candidate thinks about things they actually might vote on rather than expound on their thought about things over which they have no control.
My question:
Do you believe in spending taxpayer money on "quality of life" things like the museum, library, flowers, zoo, parks etc.?
Questioning: I agree with you that there are a lot of other questions that need to be asked and answered. I will pass these questions along to candidates when we begin interviewing them.
I also agree with you that local candidates for Common Council have no control over state law per se. But they can certainly articulate to state lawmakers their feelings about the laws as taxpayers and constituents. And sometimes local representatives can carry some weight in working with state lawmakers to get laws changed.
In essence I think all things that affect our quality of life are fair game for candidates. And things that affect essential services are also things that in one way or another affect our quality of life. I think it's all relative, wouldn't you agree?
Post a Comment
<< Home