Maggie's Farm

The mayor had to do *something*, and while it's not clear what he did is legal, right or even good - I give him credit for doing something obvious. Keep people working and collecting a salary until a solution of whatever kind is worked out.

In the spirit of goodwill and working toward said solution, I would probably work alongside the mayor and accept this for what it is, a temporary and inadequate fix in which everyone kicks in to help out.

The problem is, we're all stuck on what we want, we fail to see what we'll lose.

I don't know the mechanics of how Scranton will wind up declaring bankruptcy. But it doesn't really matter, does it? If there's no money, then there's no money. I can ask for my full paycheck all day long, and perhaps collect promissory notes into next year....but promissory notes don't buy food.

The issue today is simple. The city is teetering on bankruptcy, and if they want to avoid it, they should all recognize major cuts are going to have to be made somewhere.

The mayor faces a no-win situation. If he pays them what he's contractually obligated to, they are out of work.

Which would you prefer, a small part of what you're owed while the situation is worked out, or everything you're owed in this paycheck, but nothing afterward?

The legal obligation is one thing. The practical force of reality is quite another.

I'm fairly certain the police and fire departments have contracts - most do. They have unions.
I also think most city workers are part of unions, as well, and they usually benefit from a contract too.

But your point is correct, the issue of looming bankruptcy should make them all more concerned about what lay ahead, rather than what they were getting today.

I'm not sure when things changed, but prior to about 1900, many companies would react to difficult times by not laying off workers and merely cutting wages and salaries. This isn't to say unemployment didn't move up or down, it did. Lay offs, depending on how bad the situation is, become part of the equation at some point.

Today, there is an assumption on the part of people that their salary is 'theirs' and they have a right to keep it at a certain level.

Working in the private sector, I've had 3 different cuts in my salary due to a variety of events. Once, when I took a job at a start up (and cut my salary to get stock options which could've made me rich, but didn't), the other two times when I suffered a layoff and after about six months had to readjust my priorities when jobs didn't just jump off the table.

I no longer view my salary as the important gauge I thought it was. In fact, during my last layoff, I cut my expenses to the bone and determined what the minimal salary I could live on was - and that helped me find the job I eventually landed because I worked part-time at that lower level income until the job became permanent and I got a promotion.

Economists differ on whether cutting salaries and retaining workers is better than layoffs. I happen to think a mix of the two make sense. I've worked for many companies that are overstaffed, and when the time comes to cut there is very little thought put into the cuts. You wind up losing good people, you wind up cutting in areas that are lean while areas with fat go untouched, you wind up misallocating resources.

The decision to cut employees is almost always politically motivated, in both the private and public sector. Who do I like? is more common than Who does the best job? as a guide.

I'll respond to ambisinistral and Axeman in combination, since they are roughly saying the same thing.

There isn't an ambivalence toward the working people, the firefighters, or the police. If anything, here at Maggie's, we respect what public workers do and I don't think anyone here blamed the workers for the problems the city faces. I believe what I wrote is that I find their reaction, as the situation escalates, to be aggressive. The beauty of being a public worker like a cop is you can always say "what will you do without me?" These are powerful words, particularly in a financial negotiation. But they are also sometimes misused. It's not that we want to see cops let go, underpaid or mistreated. But in the public sector, there has to be a sense of shared sacrifice along with the citizenry when financial times get tough.

My town recently voted down the school budget. We were tired of overspending for a district that went from 1 supervisor for 3 schools to 3 for each school, along with a host of other 'needed' positions like counselors, etc. We were asked who would teach our children if 15 supervisors and teaching assistants were cut. We made the cuts, and it hasn't altered our school's performance.

In addition to this, there isn't much value in reviewing the past. In rehashing how we got from there to here, how do you propose we change the past? As Axeman points out, Doherty has been in place for years, so I can only assume that his policies haven't solved any issues up to this point. The problem with most politicians is they pursue outlandish policies, then when the going gets tough they refuse to accept their policies may have played a role in making things worse and propose more of the same - or worse. In this case, Doherty is in a tough situation, possibly (though I doubt it since these issues have many sources) of his own making. And while we can say it's his fault, or the voters played a role, I'm not sure what that means or how it fixes anything. It's just an object lesson for other cities and the future.

Where I work, blame isn't fixing things, and I only listen to someone blaming another if they provide a solution as part of their discussion.

Axeman, as I pointed out, I grew up near Scranton and the area has been depressed since I was living nearby in the 70's. I'd say 20 years may be 'official', but 35 years is closer to the truth.

Regardless of how the current crisis started, the city has been going from crisis to crisis for years. This is just an act in a never-ending play.

Blame can be placed on Doherty - but he keeps getting elected and there doesn't seem to be much interest in actually making things better in Scranton. He proposed raising taxes and the council rejected the plan. You say the mayor refuses to bargain, but he did provide the council with a plan and they rejected it (probably with some justification, since raising taxes isn't a solution). In this case, I'd say the council isn't bargaining - seems like there's a lot of this going around.

I believe that what the mayor did to salaries, again regardless of the chain of events which led to this point, was justifiable. Scranton, like many other cities in similar situations, is a city on the edge. Its future is marginal, at best. It can't be managed like the small-sized city it once was.

I posted this not to make a comment on the mayor's past - just on how he is handling the current situation. He has very few options left, and exercised one which is keeping the city solvent.

I recently worked for a company which was on the edge of bankruptcy. The first year I was there, we laid off 100 people and my boss took a $50,000 pay cut. I didn't get a raise or a bonus for 3 years, even though contractually I was "due" one. I could've gone to court over it, but what would it have gotten me?
The company didn't have the money, so I'd only have made the situation worse. My name would've been passed around the industry as someone who wasn't loyal, and leaving would've been difficult. I accepted my situation for what it was and made the best of it. I wasn't happy, so I was looking for another job. Eventually, they found out I was looking and when they had the chance to dump me, they did. After a period of unemployment, I found a better position.

Sometimes, you have to take the medicine and accept difficult times to get to the better place. Life isn't always fair, situations aren't always perfect, and if you're looking out for the long term you're going to be better off.

I do not see how the mayor paying everyone's salaries in full and leading to bankruptcy fixes any problems. It would mean any money loaned to Scranton would have to be loaned at a much higher rate of interest than otherwise available....increasing the costs overall.
It would mean that Scranton would likely face difficult choices in terms of staffing in order to maintain salary levels. It would mean any number of things which increase the costs of running an already nearly insolvent town.

There is always a time to talk politics, but I deliberately didn't when I posted this. I'm not a fan of politicians, in general. I'm certain the mayor and many other council members, as well as public employees, have all played a role in developing this situation. I'm sure there is a dominant party which has turned a blind eye to the situation, in order to maintain its grasp on power. I'm sure any number of political statements can be made. But these statements don't get anyone from point A to point B.

If you ask me, based on my familiarity of the region, I'd cut public services back to bare bones, avoid increasing taxes, and work as hard as possible to focus on the few growing industries which exist in the region, perhaps teaming with academics in the region (there are several very good colleges there) to determine what kinds of industries it would make sense to try and attract or encourage.

But politics is politics and power is a difficult thing to factor into economic reality. While a well-managed Treasury should keep the Federal Government solvent, political realities over the last 10 years have created a monster. Cities and various states have faced similar, and larger problems, over the years, because they lack what the Federal Government has - a printing press.

Indifferent toward the public workers? No, not indifferent. But at some point you have to stop worrying about what the system can provide, and either try saving what's left of the system or try to build a new system.

I figured you'd make that comparison, but rather than address it in my initial comment, I thought I'd wait.

My not getting a bonus is different, but it's only a matter of scale. My contract was the key point - which is what everyone who had their wage cut is pointing to. Regardless of whether I got my bonus or I got my salary cut by half, a contract was 'broken'. In difficult times, sometimes this occurs.

A tax ALWAYS lands more heavily on the back of one group versus another. So if the mayor did raise taxes - who would get hit more? The people without jobs? Unlikely. The people with bigger homes? Probably. What about people who are working or rent? See the point? A tax is almost always unfair.

Studies by many tax foundations have determined that raising taxes as a means of increasing revenue is rarely an effective method of achieving your goal, beyond a certain tax rate. In Scranton's case, the reality is the situation is so bad, a tax increase on the 'wealthy' (an odd designation) would probably mean more people would lose jobs as the 'wealthy' cut back saving and investment in the region. So this may turn into a double tap.

You point out programmers suffered a 75% tax rate - this may be true. But it's better than a 100% tax rate with a layoff, isn't it?

One thing I didn't mention in my discussion of my personal experience was when my boss had his salary cut by $50k, he called me in and started complaining. I calmly explained to him that it was nothing compared to what 100 people suffered that same day. Did he feel he was worse off than 100 people who lost their jobs? I asked him to compare his own situation to theirs, even if his salary had been cut to my level - would he be worse off than them?

It was a humbling experience for him, though he was still pissed off. He did recognize that his cut was 'doing his part' to save the company.

As for the grandstanding - perhaps it is grandstanding of a sort, though I'd say grandstanding of that kind doesn't tend to yield the kind of benefits locally that it may on a national level. I'm sure, given the number of public workers in Scranton, it's cost him a huge % of votes which were previously considered "safe".
As I mentioned, I wasn't discussing politics, just that this was a reasonable reaction to a current events. Even today, another city (San Bernadino) has gone bankrupt. More will follow. If you think Scranton's situation is bad, just remember how much worse it could get.

Garry,
Not sure what your point is. Unions exist for several reasons, many of which are obsolete today. My experience with unions, as a member and as a person 'benefitting' from their service, is not good.

A union would not have served me well, at all. The company's problems were very deep. Much like Scranton, the people at the top (including my old boss) were making a hash of things. There were moments when it looked like opportunities to improve were presenting themselves, and those moments all passed without any kind of reasonable consideration of the opportunity.

A union, by enforcing my contract and representing me on my behalf, would have only made things much worse, for both me and the company. I've worked for companies which keep people on because of a contract, even when it's clear the relationship should be terminated. The results are not good for either side.

I remained loyal to the company even as I was looking for a new position. I realized the chance to make things better still existed if I put my effort into the work at hand. But I also realized the marketplace was changing and the company had squandered previous chances, making the likelyhood of improvement minimal. A move was the only real option - and they didn't dump me because I was looking for a job. That could've led to a lawsuit. They let me go as part of a fourth round of layoffs, though the truth is always very evident.

I'm fairly certain he is a Democrat. Whether he supports Obama is another question....but I did read that the head of the police union was going to send his complaint to the Party heads (Democrat) to see if they agreed.

Yes, all of this does reek of politics. But this is government, so reeking of politics is a daily event. If I work in a fish factory, it's going to reek of fish, too. When it comes to work though, I can't turn the fish into meat, all I can do is determine if the fish I'm preparing is clean and prepared in a reasonable manner for consumption.

I don't think my loyalty was misplaced at all. When I work somewhere, or for someone, I will do all I can to make sure the job is done well and I do it to the best of my ability. If that is misplaced loyalty, I'm sorry you feel that way.

I could've left - but I won't leave on my own unless I have another job. Which I was looking for. But anyone who has worked in a similar situation realizes this doesn't cut into getting the job done.
I could've been bitter about the fact upper management was a bunch of boneheads. But almost every company (and government) is full of boneheads. So loyalty to that company, or my current company (which is much better managed, but still has its issues) is important. Had I done a half-assed job, the word would get out and few people would be willing to speak with me.

There are many who can't or couldn't do what I did? I disagree. Anyone can. We all have the choice. Every single one of us. The difference is some of us choose to accept the responsibility of the choice and the willingness to act upon it.

Life if full of choices. Sometimes they just happen to suck.

Nobody said the solution was equitable. This isn't about equitable solutions.

Nobody said the workers were the villains, either.

But it's painfully obvious there are massive political problems here, and at the end of the day the workers are adding to the burden.

Why? Because ask yourself a simple question: Is something better than nothing? Is it better to keep the city running, even at my expense (and the expense of all city workers, NOT just you - at least the minimum wage was applied to all, and not arbitrarily) or is it better to risk losing large chunks of coverage in fire and police?

Yes - there is a political problem and the workers are caught in it. That's unfortunate. But as a public worker, you've made a choice to take a certain tradeoff - a level of security vs. a higher wage. Not to mention most city benefits are still intact, and they wouldn't be under bankruptcy.

Is the mayor a problem? Yes, but apparently he's on his way out. Is the city council a problem? Yes (actually I spoke with a friend of mine who still lives there and she didn't have kind things to say about them), but they are holding the purse strings hostage.

Many years ago, my friend mentioned, Scranton tried to abolish the city council and bring in an independent city manager. It was voted down.....and things have continued to decline.


In my estimation, Scranton represents the problem the country faces, but in a micro scale. Too much government, and too much BAD government, has created a massive black hole for finances.

For the record, I answered your question below - if it was in my best interest to work at minimum wage to keep things running, then I'd do it.

Let's consider the circumstances. I'll pretend I'm a fireman.
With the minimum wage, here is my situation:
1. I'm pissed at the mayor and the city council. Still, if there's a fire, people may die. Am I ethically challenged thinking that not accepting minimum wage and walking out may kill someone? I am. A reason to stay on the job.
2. I still have my benefits, and they are quite good. I need my health insurance, after all. A reason to stay.
3. The politicians are in deep...I can work to get rid of them, and speak out against them in the media. If I leave, I appear to be a embittered worker who is rebelling and have less credibility. A reason to stay.
4. Minimum wage sucks, and my savings may not last more than a month or two. But for the time being, it's better than collecting unemployment, which I can't collect if I walk out. A reason to stay.


I could go on and on. Fact is, yes, I would stay. I wouldn't be happy, and I would still blame the politicians. But bringing a lawsuit will only damage things further. Why?

Costs on the city rise, and if I win, I will cast many more city workers out onto the street as bankruptcy ensues.

While Scranton's problems are political, I think you're forgetting a key point I make in the post - maintenance of the status quo. Scranton has been in decline for about 35 years, but has done nothing to confront and deal with this fact. Everybody has wanted to pretend they are living better than they were 35 years ago. So they have - by borrowing money.

Well, the chickens come home to roost. Workers need to recognize that they can't keep asking for more, and then demand it when it isn't available.

Politicians need to recognize they need to manage things more effectively and be held accountable.

I didn't say people should just "rollover". But they should consider what their options are....either the street or something, no matter how little it is.

You need a job to find a job - I've always believed this. I've found jobs faster when I'm working than when I've been unemployed.

Would I do it? Yes, if it was in my best interests, just as staying at my last position as long as I did was in my best interest.

"If they were like you" you'd agree? I'm not sure what that means. In the sense that we all have choices to make, everyone is exactly like me.

I would say there is no good solution, at least in the political sense, for Scranton (there rarely is a good political solution to anything, so it is almost redundant to say this). I don't think the action that was taken, when the back was against the wall, was absurd. It was logical.

People hate politics and politicians for this reason. When times are good, politicians get all the credit for doing nothing. When they get bad, they have to make tough choices and they have to choose who to appeal to.

Is it grandstanding, as the commenter suggested? I doubt it, really. Maybe it is, though. It doesn't matter, though. Because he can't make any "good" decisions given his situation. Somebody is going to get hurt.

Raise taxes on landowners? Renters get off easy
Raise taxes on 'the wealthy'? Low income people benefit
Cut staff? People who rely on city hall for 'stuff' complain they aren't getting what they need, contracts are late, payroll is delayed, etc.
Cut public safety? Well, we know what that will do...

Probably the only place he could cut that nobody would care is transit and parking, since people complain about them all the time - but they generate revenue, too. So that's out.

See? There is no winning combination. The only move is not to play.