The Un-Spoken Problem with Our Budget
Tulsa may soon have 155 fewer police officers to bust our meth-labs-of-the-day and 147 fewer firefighters to pose for sexy calendars. I’m sure if Mr. September is gone, Dewey Bartlett will strip down to his pinstriped garter belt and step into the world of shirtless modeling.
How’s that for a mental image? How does that bit of vomit in your mouth taste?
Mayor Bartlett wants to boost revenue to fix the city budget, but there’s another issue that brought us here that needs to be fixed. The un-spoken problem of…
…across-the-board pay raises.
When government organizations such as schools, cities and high-class call girl sex rings, give raises, they give across-the-board percentage increases. This adds to administrators high pay and keeps the front-line workers pay low. For example, if the city approves a five percent increase, the person making $100,000 a year will now make $105,000 a year. The person making $25,000 a year will now make $26,250 a year. The person making good money has an extra $416 each month. The person scraping by gets an extra $104. It’s the front-line worker who needs the $416, not the administrator.
Why do your property taxes increase each year? Why does college tuition increase each year? Why does each government agency need more funding each year? Because of administration pay from decades of across-the-board percentage increases.
In the business world, most organizations give annual reviews. They may or may not get a raise based on job performance. Those who work hard and perform well, get a raise. Those who don’t, don’t get a raise. Simply put, prove you do a good job and get paid. It’s a foreign concept to government agencies because no one in the government wants to be held accountable.
Raises based on yearly reviews may increase payroll over time, but not to the extent of flat increases.
Another issue I have are those getting laid off. Who are usually the first to go? The lower paid workers. Isn’t this counter-productive? Our revenue is based on sales tax. Laying off 300 workers means 300 fewer shoppers. Couldn’t we toss out 20 administrators for the cost of 300 workers? That would result in only 20 fewer shoppers. Plus, they have bigger savings accounts to live off of while they job hunt.
But what do I know? I’m using common sense, the government’s other foreign concept.
Another genius blog of course. An older police dectective was expressing frustration because they are laying off the younger, healthier, still-excited-to-be-doing-the-job, cops instead of the (and I quote) “older, fat asses who are sitting around and eating donuts all day.”
Awesome quote Carol. The detective hit it on the nail. Thanks for giving me a laugh.
He’s probably frustrated cause now he doesn’t have a young cop to go get his donuts.
Fat asses are going to have to get up and get their own.
IT’s daddy, they have drive throughs at some of the donut shops now. All they have to do is get to the car in the morning.
What a novel idea: ” Couldn’t we toss out 20 administrators for the cost of 300 workers? That would result in only 20 fewer shoppers. ”
They will never think of it….it makes too much sense.