With a new budget year starting July 1, Mayor Joe Ganim is threatening to wield a layoff hammer if city unions don’t cough up concessions he says the city needs to close a budget deficit.
Ganim kicked out this news release on Wednesday:
Mayor Joe Ganim today is seeking to avoid more layoffs in Bridgeport city government by agreeing to $4,000,000 in salary freezes and other concessions with city labor unions. The concessions are necessary to achieve the savings needed to close the current budget deficit and end the fiscal year in balance on June 30, 2016. Mayor Ganim’s administration has worked diligently to close the $20,000,000 budget gap it inherited upon taking office on December 1, 2015–taking steps such as separating nearly 100 employees from municipal service, reorganizing city departments to eliminate unnecessary positions, instituting unpaid furloughs and salary freezes for appointed officials, restructuring city debt, and working with uniformed services to reduce overtime in the Bridgeport Fire and Police Departments.
“This has been a tough fiscal year for the city of Bridgeport and this administration wants to avoid another round of layoffs if we can,” said Bridgeport Chief Administrative Officer John Gomes. “We have been in negotiations with organized labor for months, but time is growing short to close our current fiscal year deficit. We are willing to be as flexible as possible but the bottom line is we need more savings. Separating employees is always a last resort and a difficult decision, but one we are ready to make if we have no other options.”
In addition to the cost savings measures previously enumerated, the city of Bridgeport also offered early retirement incentives to any city employees who achieved at least 15 years of municipal service. So far, some 51 municipal employees have taken advantage of this incentive program and have notified the city of Bridgeport of their intent to retire by June 30th. The savings realized by these early retirements will impact the following fiscal year starting on Friday July 1, 2016 as some positions may be eliminated or not refilled.
Ed Gavin, a lawyer representing the Bridgeport City Supervisors Association bargaining unit, has a different take in a email statement to the Connecticut Post.
“This administration fails to recognize the sacrifices the Union members have and are continuing to make to support the City. Unions such as the Bridgeport City Supervisors Association have, in the past, gone years without raises to meet the fiscal needs of the Administration. It is reckless and dangerous to layoff dedicated employees who serve the citizens of Bridgeport.”
They just found $250,000? I though the high mil rate was going to help. How much more does he want? I though the budget committee want to make cuts but he did not want to hear it.
Given the money he’s found for jobs for cronies, a contract deal for the police union and his highly political use of prior layoffs, the mayor’s credibility on this issue is almost nonexistent.
Do I spy some cutting loose of Finch Primary supporters coming on?
Good point, Michael. Ganim wants to take $250K for his summer program and $100K for his second-chance initiative and fund it by firing Bridgeport employees. Notice how they can’t even say firing but choose to use “separating” employees.
This is used to make Ganim and his honchos feel better rather than calling it like it is.
More two-faced Joe.
Or how about this language “Some 51 employees have taken advantage of this incentive program (early retirement). The savings realized … will impact the following fiscal year starting on Friday July 1, 2016 as some positions may be eliminated or not refilled.”
I repeat “some positions may be eliminated or not refilled.”
So we are front-loading the retirement costs into June 2016 (Finch budget) and refilling the positions in Ganim’s budget.
Given that most of these positions are union, the only real savings with this budget gimmick that I could see would be in the area of seniority pay (if any) and more expensive benefits if the unions have a new benefits plan kicking in because you can be sure that when Joe says “may be eliminated or not refilled” he fully intends on filling all the positions but with his own people.
Didn’t I predict this scenario about a month ago? Do you want me to contact my crystal ball for the next move? Or “may” I just say I’ve lived through these machinations while serving with five administrations. Nothing changes but the names! Whoops, this time the name’s the same.
AFSCME local 1522 will take three furlough days by Dec 1, 2016, as part of their new contract–one which goes back to July 1, 2014. Special education and kindergarten paraprofessionals, home school coordinators and secretaries are members of this union–and a number of these people will lose their jobs because of the cuts in the BOE budget, and a lot of the ones who will remain on the job cannot afford to lose another seven days of pay.
You are so right, Lisa P.
This is an interesting case study, though not unique. In order for the Administration to staff its appointees at salary levels that may seem more palatable to the public, the jobs would need to be downgraded in the salary structure. That action is not an option utilizing the current system so the whole job grading system would need to be overhauled and that cannot happen overnight, and it’s costly in terms of in-house man hours or outsourcing a firm to get the job done. The only quick and cost effective avenue available to the Administration to dial back the salaries of appointees is furloughs; which is what was done. (This is assuming the appointee salary level is an argument the unions have for resisting coming to the table with concessions.)
The unions have contracts which bring about arbitration or grievances for perceived violations which are costly as well. The unions also have supervisors who have been with the city for many years ( some too many), and yet because of the binding nature of the contracts, the City cannot move folks up and out as they would like to in order to bring in fresh perspectives and promote the natural evolution of a workforce. But they do have rights and lots of the employees are highly skilled, have families, and need to keep up with the rising cost of living.
Yikes. Just yikes.
And I agree the use of the word “separating” is an attempt to soften the language, and is not typically used with respect to eliminating positions or planning rounds of layoffs. Sometimes a rose is just a rose and should be addressed as such no matter how much it stinks.
Hi Lisa,
How are you? May I ask you a question please? Was Bridgeport in Financial Trouble prior to Mayor Ganim taking office? Not to mention the “Dagger” that was left in his back??? NO, I don’t have a Masters or Dr.’s Degree, however I can’t seem to understand anyone not willing to give up one day a week as opposed to losing their job. Yes, they went through this before, but what can they do? The COUNTRY is struggling, so what do you expect that trickles down to the States and Cities. Does it take a Rocket Scientist to figure that out??? YES I was and still am a strong supporter of Mayor Joe Ganim, which has nothing to do with my questions. Would you rather be jobless or give back one day a week? I will take the latter. I NEED A JOB!!! 🙂
On the other hand. The Dems are proposing a $15 minimum wage. Once (some) of the workers ‘give back’ 5, 10, 15 furlough days, their pay will drop to less than $15/hr. So these politicians are proposing this minimum wage to all employers but them?
The other issue is Ganim is taking back and laying off $30k/year employees who do the work and hiring $70-100K employees for helping his election. How is that fair?
But you are correct. The city has these people by the short hairs. I guess they should pull while they can. As long as these people continue to buckle the city will see no reduction in services at a lower cost. Until the workers get fed up with it and move south.
Brenda, hi. You don’t mean me, do you? (Parziale)
Yes, this could become an interesting case study. Bridgeport, like so many urban centers, was once the economic engine of the region. Now, it is a shell of its former self with ‘affordable housing’ being portrayed as economic development. What remains is a high-cost infrastructure that cannot be supported by taxing a shrinking grand list.
Twenty-five years ago, Mayor Moran’s administration hoped to ‘dial-back’ the cost of personnel by court action (municipal bankruptcy) to require union contracts be renegotiated given the fiscal constraints of the city. The court ruled that Bridgeport could not file municipal bankruptcy because it had assets (buildings, land) and could simply raise taxes to cover higher costs of operations.
Returning to 2016, we see Bridgeport’s mayoral administration focusing on personnel costs to balance a budget. Government personnel costs have risen faster than in the ‘private sector.’ Can Bridgeport streamline and realign its services so the cost of personnel is in line with the ability of taxpayers to pay? Furloughs are a temporary reduction in personnel costs. Can this administration bring about structural and operation changes to reduce personnel costs? Governments are generally viewed as inefficient. At the local level, in my opinion, you begin with identifying what services are municipalities required to offer. Bridgeport government, in my opinion, is more efficient than it was 25 years ago but obviously must do more to eliminate nonessential services.
TOM WHITE ALERT: Seeing as you have a problem with understanding the phrase “dog whistle politics,” here is something from your Republican candidate for President.
Trump’s dog whistle the white screwed over:
m.ctpost.com/news/article/Trump-s-dog-whistle-the-white-screwed-over-8320333.php
Ganim ought to cough up a few dollars, play Mega Millions and Power Ball. The jackpots are high enough to cover the deficit and add a nice little surplus.