Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Extras | All Access e-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

CSEA reaffirms push to control costs at County Home

January 26, 2013

MAYVILLE — CSEA is reaffirming its commitment to negotiate separately for nursing home workers following the County Legislature’s vote this week not to sell the County Home....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(28)

bronski

Jan-26-13 7:15 AM

Is Mr. Edwards now willing to look at the new offer. How much more does he want these people to give up. If they go back to minimum wage which for some means a 50% cut in pay, is he and his department heads willing to do the same. Is management at the county home will to also do the same. NOT. It is time he started looking at the fact that the home may not sell in the next year and get his A** in gear and start putting into place the suggestions made in the report.

4 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

commentor

Jan-26-13 8:15 AM

Here's hoping this is a wake up call for everyone and decisions that benefit everyone will be made. They also need to take a real close look at the manager of the home and some of his tactics and practices. Problem is Edwards has no real interest in the home. If the goal is to sell and prove it is a loser then nothing good will come of this. I am in favor of a sale but that is not where the ball landed so get it together and make it work everyone.

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

bulldog10

Jan-26-13 8:41 AM

The fact is the home needs to be sold, should be sold and most likely will be sold to the next buyer.

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

bulldog10

Jan-26-13 8:43 AM

18 to 7 voted to sell to a proper buyer, the next step is finding that buyer. Forget about all the crap about dealing with the union and employees. They had many, many chances.

6 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

riley007

Jan-26-13 8:56 AM

Those supporting the sale of the home have argued that it was necessary to save taxpayers money. At the same time there have been no efforts by this administration to improve efficiency. If this is true with the County Home, why should anyone believe this isnt the case across the board? Because Mr.Edwards doesnt know how to manage government effectively maybe we should sell all County assets and call it a day. The truth of the matter is that Mr. Edwards wanted the home sold for political purposes. He has used this issue to bash the union and appeal to all the union haters. Mr. Edwards needs to grow up and accept that he didnt get his way. I know this is a lost opportunity for a photo opp but at this time we need leadership, not political opportunism.

7 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Snotziman

Jan-26-13 9:06 AM

The CSEA offer of concessions comes with a stipulation that the county fully funds the IGT fund at $3.2M per year. This is why the home was for sale in the first place, to stop the tax funding of the home.

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Snotziman

Jan-26-13 9:08 AM

The concessions offered by CSEA were placed mostly on part-timers and newer employees. Employees with more than 10 years service will only give up 2 paid holidays and a $40 longevity bonus. Less than $300 per year per employee.

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MachineHead

Jan-26-13 9:49 AM

riley007:"Those supporting the sale of the home have argued that it was necessary to save taxpayers money. At the same time there have been no efforts by this administration to improve efficiency.".This is so very true.

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MachineHead

Jan-26-13 9:59 AM

I have a question.Why was the County willing to give up the Home at such a low price of $16.7 million?.Looking at that facility in and out,I truly believe it is worth much more than that.This is a very serious issue,not a yard sale.

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MachineHead

Jan-26-13 10:12 AM

I think that its time that the people on Public assistance in this County start helping out.Increasing the sales tax is one way to do that.Even though it would affect us all,I would feel better knowing that these people who don't pay County taxes are contributing.Its time the issue of Welfare abuse in this County be addressed also.Plenty of our tax money is being funneled into this scam,and it must be stopped.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MachineHead

Jan-26-13 10:20 AM

I dont think it is fair that only The County Home employees make concessions.It should be all of the union employees, Administration included.

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Captain

Jan-26-13 10:30 AM

CCH was doing relatively well, but that was BEFORE Edwards decided the quickest way to raise a large sum of cash is to sell CCH. Would CSEA concessions be warranted if CCH were turning a profit? It was reported not too long ago that the CCLeg borrowed money from CCH's reserve accts, but again, that was BEFORE Edwards made up his mind to sell.

The relatively small subsidy (plus IGT funds) needed by CCH to operate is a pittance compared to the other services that require a much more staggering amt of taxpayer $$$.

The sale of CCH has temporarily failed, and NYS has refused to raise county sales taxes. Edwards & the CCLeg will now blame the failed sale on why they must raise our taxes AGAIN. Don't blame the minor subsidy OR the CSEA, blame Edwards & the CCLeg for their poor leadership.

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Christopher

Jan-26-13 10:58 AM

We need prayer in the schools, and those prayewrs should be that Edwards gets his head out of his tail, so to speak. Bible classes would help as well, especially the parts about the commandment not to lie.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wastelanddweller

Jan-26-13 11:27 AM

The care at CCH needs improving-(take that from a nurse that worked there for a month before getting fed up)....and privatizing will do that. It's run understaffed everyday. Plus it'll get rid of the crooked CSEA. Plus it'll save the county money? Why wasn't it sold again??? Because of the ignorance of a few people.

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Bulldog9

Jan-26-13 12:09 PM

Okay, all you Pro-Homers got your way. Look at the big picture. CCH is an enterprise account that is supposed to at least break even from the revenue it generates. If not sold, it will end up being closed sooner rather than later. That means: 1. Residents will be moved, most likely out of the county 2. Employees will lose their jobs rather than working for a private owner and 3. the property gets boarded up and sits there when the county could have been collecting property taxes from a private owner. Selling CCH now was the best option.

2 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Captain

Jan-26-13 12:29 PM

The last I knew, CC's deficit was approx $16M. To address this, Edwards first wanted to raise sales taxes; denied! Then he decided to sell the CCH; rejected!

CCH didn't cause this huge deficit, and even IF its workers now agree to give enough concessions equaling the taxpayer subsidy it now receives, it still does NOTHING to lower the current deficit! As much as it may pain some of you, busting the union by selling CCH won't either. Instead, demand why Edwards & the CCLeg have done absolutely nothing meaningful to lower the deficit.

Maybe Edwards & the CCLeg should start looking at the REAL problem, which is the other services that are much more heavily dependent upon taxpayer $$$. Of course doing so is not a popular choice, nor in their best political interests.

Like it or not, selling CCH is NOT the answer.

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Captain

Jan-26-13 1:08 PM

Bulldog9: the CCH will only close if we ALLOW IT to happen, meaning, the CCLeg must vote to stop funding the small subsidy it now provides.

And the reason why everyone "alleges" we can't afford this small subsidy is simple. It's due to the huge labor costs and operating expenses associated with other services, most notably, the CCSD and the airports.

Let's say we sold the CCH, the airports, and eliminated ALL other non-mandated services EXCEPT the CCSD. Would the CCSD then be targeted for meaningful cost-saving measures, or would it still be off limits, allowing the deficit to keep growing?

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

caregiver

Jan-26-13 2:36 PM

bulldog9 even if the home had been sold there was no guarantee that the employees or residents would remain there. even when some of the legislators asked the county exec what he was prepared to do if it was sold and the stipulations were not followed through with by the buyer. He had no answer. do you really believe that if it was sold Mr. Rothner would keep the residents there that would lose him money? he himself said that he would not. They could only stay if they could afford to be there. And we all know that any stipulations broken would cost the county money to fight them legally and then what? take back the county home when he so desperately wants to get rid of it? I highly doubt it. so you see, there are no guarantees either way but at least now we have the chance to try and do what CGR recommended

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MachineHead

Jan-26-13 2:51 PM

Researching other Public Homes in this state and others it was found that by implementing changes that were recommended in the studies they had done,these Homes were able to remain as is and not privatized.These County governments knew what had to be done,and they did it.This County government has had years to do the same and to this day continues not to do so.How can they throw their hands up and the only word they know is sell?.Get with the program and start now.There never was a problem with the County Home up until Mr.Edwards and some legislators decided to neglect the Home.

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MachineHead

Jan-26-13 3:00 PM

Snotziman:How is that you are privy to what language there is in the Unions proposal?.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Snotziman

Jan-26-13 3:17 PM

Captain, you sound like a drowning man trying eveything to stay above water. The County borrowed $500K from the CCH in 1995 (This was the only time money was borrowed) and it was repaid while Mark Thomas was CE. Greg Edwards was not involved.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Snotziman

Jan-26-13 3:19 PM

Machinehead, CSEA sent a letter of their proposals to every legislator and every news outet. The letter was published in the paper. Someone with as strong an opinion as yourself really should know all of whats going on.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Snotziman

Jan-26-13 3:21 PM

Machinehead, by the way your post is false. Every government home in NYS is bleeding money except for one in Monroe county that is attached financially to a hospital. Check your "facts" before spouting off.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MachineHead

Jan-26-13 3:39 PM

Snotziman;Easy son,easy.You are a bit testy.I am not spouting off for one.If you read my post correctly I said other "states" included.Also I did not see anything posted in the paper concerning a letter from the Union, if it was,I must have missed it.My apologies.You are acting very suspicious.You wouldn't be Mr.Edwards or one of the Legislators would you?.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

FredoniaFred

Jan-26-13 4:52 PM

If CSEA wants to make concessions to make the home viable they need to dig a lot deeper than in their recent endeavor.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 28 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web