There's a rock song that springs to mind. Led Zeppelin, i believe.

In any case, the song has a string of uh-oh-uh-oh vocalizations by a singer who sounds like Robert Plant, anyway.

This morning I was at the opening of the contract negotiations between the city and the PPA.

It was a Dickensian scene. Ten men and a secretary got up and down, up and own, up and down, from their chairs FIVE times and left the conference room to "caucus" elsewhere. Each time, they came back, there were a few exchanges, then off they went. the union offered to have the meetings in a hotel if that would allow fix things.

The issue? The PPA didn't want the meeting to be public. And the city, for once, probably only for show, stood firm. So after more than two hours of this circus the meeting was adjourned and the ERB, whoever they are, are going to decide whether the meetings will be open or not.

I feel a glow warming the icicles in my psyche vis a vis the city. When they eventually decide to close the meetings, the glow will be permanently snuffed.

I asked Mr Westermann, as he was leaving, why he was carrying a gun in to contract negotiations. He said, "the way the tone is in the media, I'm the number one target". I replied, "oh you're wearing it because you are afraid?"

Oh no. "I'm not afraid of anything", he says.

Good luck, they have a pol back there that will actually disagree with the pub emp unions.

When you find one on this coast - Let me know.

It appears the issue in New Jersey, and soon to be in a lot of states with Republican administrations will be the question of how much, if any monies can be saved by privatization.

Privatization is the contracting out of services previously otherwise provided directly by government through hiring employees and operating the activity. Other things being equal, government would be able to provide the services at a lower cost, since it does not have to earn a profit or return on investment whereas the private sector does have that requirement. If for example, the costs of operating a garbage pick up and collection service were $10 million, and the investment in equipment and other assets were $5 million and equity investors required a 15% rate of return on their investment, the cost for the privatization would be $10.750 million ($10 million in expenses and $750,000 equal to 15% of $5 million as profit or return on investment.).

Of course, other things are not equal. The argument for privatization is the efficiencies in the private sector will more than offset the profit requirement, leading to an overall cost reduction. In the above example, if the private operation were able to operate the garbage pick up and collection services at 10% savings, the total cost under privatization would be $9.75 million, ($9 million in operating costs plus the $750,000 profit requirement).

So the question comes down to whether or not the private sector can save sufficiently on its costs to offset the profit requirement. I mention this only because some people take it as an act of faith that government services should be privatized whenever possible and some people take it as an act of faith that they should never be privatized. The answer is purely economics. In fact, an easy way to settle the issue is to allow the public employees to form an “ad hoc” non profit company and bid on the privatization the same as private companies.

However, since tremendous campaign contributions can be had by elected officials from private companies who want the contracts and from public employee unions who want the government to continue to provide services, the simple solution will never happen. You can be certain if government retains the operations costs will rise from inefficiencies and higher wages/benefits to public employees, and if privatization takes place costs will rise from sweetheart deals between politicians and private companies.

The likelihood of privatization solving the problem of local/state government finances is low, not because a competitive system between public and private operations would not work, but because it would not be allowed to work.

sidney, you're making us all depressed.

People are so angry at the public unions' sense of entitlement that they would go along even if costs were initially no lower, just to see the Unions busted.

I wonder if we'll have a candidate for governor that would consider then actually do something like Jersey is doing. It probably won't be from the democrat side, but will Alley or Dudley include it in their platforms? The citizens are waiting for a leader.

Didn't this almost happen when PPS fired all their unionized PPS janitors and replaced them with unionized janitors contracted through an outside agency? Both groups of janitors were represented by SEIU which at the time didn't seem to care which group had the job as long as they were able to represent them. The fired janitors successfully sued PPS and got back their jobs, back pay and SEIU representation costing the school district a lot of money.

http://www.dol.gov/_sec/media/reports/worktogether/chp2snap.htm

Privatization can and does work.

But the savings are generally quite evident.

For example, a medium size school district could outsource their bus drivers. The pay would be about the same ($14-18/hr), but the real savings come in the form of the benefits. Public union bus drivers get free healthcare with zero or very low deductables that cost over $12K per yr per employee. Add in PERS for another couple grand, and a public union bus driver who makes around $25K per year, cost the district about $40K including benefits. That medium sized school district could save $1M dollars a year if they went private, which would fund 15 teachers.

OK, full disclosure - I'm a union public employee, with enough seniority to be at the top of the pay scale - BUT . . .

What about all of the "deputy directors", "management analysts", "operations managers" etc. that aren't unionized, but probably are politicians' buddies who don't really do much. Not to mention the various "consultant contract" owners.

Be a union-buster all you want, but play fair with the paid-twice-as-much appointees who do less-than-half the work.

Umpire is correct as the amount of money paid to retired, double dipping bureaucrats with 'consultant contracts' (hush money) is staggering.

Steve: Just to let you know out here in Reno they have already laid off some public employees and between the City of Reno and Washoe County about 400 people will be out of a job by July. I realize we're not on the coast - but these layoffs are happening.

The 22 Jackson County libraies were able to re-open a couple years ago becuase busting the union allowed them to operate on half the money.

The union fought to keep them closed.

And there's this in Kansan City

District votes to close 29 schools to address $50 million budget shortfall

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35806883/ns/us_news-education/

The "jig" may be up as you put it, but this is a complete disaster for all American working men and woman.

"Privatization" is code for:
Lowering wages and benefits for the working men/women of the United States of America.

Waste at all levels of government, the agenda is too take it out on the people actually doing the useful work of this country.

It's all part of the "new world order" which is the same force that has moved most American manufacturing jobs out of this country.

The working men and woman of this country are in dire peril, and if they don't wake up they are going to be all working for minimum wage and "be thankful you have a job".

American's are a stupid population, hooked to sports and big screen tv's and network news.

The Europeans understand the risk:

GREEK WORKERS GO ON STRIKE PARALYZING THE COUNTRY