Hoboken to Lay off 36 Employees

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by SmartyJones on July 29, 2010 at 2:39pm

Scott,

Have your people contact my people so we can sort all of this out.
Currently, I have a stable but no people, just horses.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dave Kaplan on July 29, 2010 at 2:45pm

Kim,

Actually, I do not believe you are correct, because you have not accounted for both demotions and layoffs.

Keeping math simple, if one salary of $100,000 is reduced to $80,000, and the former $80,000 becomes 0 (due to a layoff, which is, at least in part, what is happening), then that would be $100,000 savings.

Nevertheless, if the budget allocation is not actually reduced by the amount the mayor claims, I will agree that there was an issue. Frankly, there is no benefit to the mayor to claim a greater savings than will actually be created because citizens, such as myself, are going to expect the budget item to be reduced by that amount.



Kim said:

No offense Kaplan but It amazes how wrong and blinded some of you really are to the actual numbers. Why not call for yourself and ask the Mayor for the answer and her calculations? What was her formula? It really is simple you know, just because you reduce the number of supervisors to a lower rank doesn't mean their entire salary is counted as a savings. Its the difference in what they make that would be the savings, not the entire salary.

Example a Sergeant making 100,000 per year demoted to patrol officers who makes 80,000 per year is not a savings of $100,000, its only $20,000. Do that with real numbers and you can see for yourself. Go ahead and get a list of city employees with their salaries and do the calculations.

Dave Kaplan said:

A back of the napkin calculation can easily explain that the stated savings is a completely reasonable figure. If you divide the savings by the number of people laid off, then you will have your answer, and I think that is a completely reasonable number.

The only independent audit was performed at the direction of the state of new jersey. An audit done at the direction of the union simply doesn't carry much weight to an ordinary citizen (not a public safety expert in any way) such as myself. The only group that did not have any financial motivation here performed the first audit.

You also have me all wrong. I don't hate anyone, certainly not any public safety workers. I fully appreciate what they do, and also do not wish for anyone to lose their jobs during tough economic times like these. However, this must be balanced with what the city can afford. These economic times are real, and, whether you and i like it or not, citizens simply don't have the money right now to pay the increased taxes that would be caused by retaining extra employees that an independent auditor states are not providing hoboken with the best bang for its buck.

Finally, pointing to other possible savings is something I welcome. And indeed, I hope that other responsible cuts will continue to be made. It is not a zero sum game however. If cuts are made elsewhere, that doesn't mean that the city can or should pay more than it can currently afford for public safety.

We may have to agree to disagree, and that is natural, but I remain in favor of the recent step that regrettably had to be taken due to current conditions. I have not seen any fundamental flaw in the reasoning that was given for the move, nor have I seen any flaw in the estimated savings.






Kim said:

Ok, you're entitled to your opinion. Explain to me then where does she get those figures from then? Do you know the answer? Why not give the public a breakdown as to where the savings are coming from exactly. Stating the city will save 2.5 million by demoting and laying off is not good enough to those it affects. Show me and other concerned citizens who do not want to lose officers where she gets these figures from.

As for the numbers on the street, wrong again. The same number will not be on the street, the city will lose officers and that is a fact people as yourself will soon see but of course will ignore because of your support for her. I Would like you to remember this post and realize that yes this person was correct all along.

I see you support that garbage of an audit because you are one of them who have hatred for the public safety. It's obvious in the rebuttal that the audit was completely flawed and used to benefit the city's needs. I support the rebuttal and would hope that the Mayor would be more honest with the public with her facts and misinformation so that people such as yourself can see the truth.

Dave Kaplan said:

Kim,

I have seen no reason to doubt the mayor's number for savings. You certainly have not made a convincing case.

In addition, the same number of police officers will be on the streets from my understanding, so I don't believe that part of your argument is true.

I am a resident (who lives west of Bloomfield Street incidentally), and I support following the independently done police audit.



Kim said:

Mr. Siegal why don't you tell people what you are really like? You are not a tax payer ,you rent on Castle Point and most likely unemployed. You continuously defend everything and anything this administration does regardless whether it's true or not. Your rent will not go up whether the taxes go up or down,it will remain the same. The 2.5 million dollar savings is INCORRECT!!!!!!! We are talking less then $500,000 dollars in savings and not the 2.5 she claims. Do some math and figure the numbers out, it's approximately less then $200 dollars per year in savings. Take that and divide by 4 quarters and you get your quarterly savings. Let's assume they include the benefit package, the numbers are still WAY lower then the 2.5 YOUR mayor claims. Do a bit more research and you will see the actual truth and not complete lies as she has been doing.
Let's ask the citizens of Hoboken what they would prefer, 18 more cops in the street protecting their families, patrolling the streets, keeping everyone safe or $200 less on their tax bill and i mean all the citizens , not just Mr. Brice's people, The Hoboken Recult members or any anti police people. Why don't you walk down the housing Mr. Seigal and ask them what they prefer, don't just stop on Bloomfield St. It's safe to go further West, don't be afraid.
I can guarantee you that the majority of Hoboken prefer them to leave those officers at work where they belong rather then laying them off so the REAL taxpayers, not just your average renter as yourself can safe a measly few bucks.
scott m siegel said:

Vince Lombardi has let his union down. Not surprising given the obstinance of union leaders throughout this country. We can no longer afford this behemoth and costs must be realigned with reality. This is what happens when union leaders live in Egypt. You know da Nile. They should have come to the table with significant cost savings but refused to do so.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kurt Gardiner on July 29, 2010 at 2:53pm

You left out some madman grabbed a blogger's camera and assaulted him. Wait that was actually a legitimate complaint when some public figure named Lane went berserker at a BOE forum. Oops:)

Discovery yielded zero witnesses for the initial defendant. Trial date to be set 8/3/2010 in JC. Stay tuned.

Kim said:

I would hope the Police Chief does what the Oakland PD Chief did which was to make a list of services they will no longer be able to handle due to cuts. No more stupid walk in reports, no more "my neighbor said I was a jackass can I report that". "Someone poured water on my flower pot, can I file a complaint"?
The stories I hear about the morons who walk in with the dumbest things. "I left my rolex on top of my un-chained bike on Marshall Drive while I went to Williw McBrides to get drunk and someone took it, can you believe that?
They did what they wanted to do, now you do what you have to do.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dave Kaplan on July 29, 2010 at 4:10pm

Kim,

The other factor not included in your example (setting aside that we both understand that the salary figures are simply for this example only and not the correct figures) is total compensation is equivalent to more than just salary. This includes any other benefits paid, including health benefits, pension costs paid by the city, etc.



Kim said:

That was not an actual number Mr. Kaplan, it was an example. The savings for the actual demotions are the difference in pay. The savings for layoffs are the total salary. You need to remember that the salaries for the layoff part are officers who have less then 3 yrs working, therefore their salaries are not that high. You need to know the exact number of layoffs and demotions, take their salaries and do the math. It is not near the 2.5 million she claims.

Again example.
10 Sergeants demoted to patrol officers at 100,000 each to $80,000 each (patrol pay) equals a savings of $200,000 total in pay difference.
10 layoffs at $40,000 each is a total savings of $400,000. total savings $600,000
AGAIN these are not real numbers just example.

Dave Kaplan said:

Kim,

Actually, I do not believe you are correct, because you have not accounted for both demotions and layoffs.

Keeping math simple, if one salary of $100,000 is reduced to $80,000, and the former $80,000 becomes 0 (due to a layoff, which is, at least in part, what is happening), then that would be $100,000 savings.

Nevertheless, if the budget allocation is not actually reduced by the amount the mayor claims, I will agree that there was an issue. Frankly, there is no benefit to the mayor to claim a greater savings than will actually be created because citizens, such as myself, are going to expect the budget item to be reduced by that amount.



Kim said:

No offense Kaplan but It amazes how wrong and blinded some of you really are to the actual numbers. Why not call for yourself and ask the Mayor for the answer and her calculations? What was her formula? It really is simple you know, just because you reduce the number of supervisors to a lower rank doesn't mean their entire salary is counted as a savings. Its the difference in what they make that would be the savings, not the entire salary.

Example a Sergeant making 100,000 per year demoted to patrol officers who makes 80,000 per year is not a savings of $100,000, its only $20,000. Do that with real numbers and you can see for yourself. Go ahead and get a list of city employees with their salaries and do the calculations.

Dave Kaplan said:

A back of the napkin calculation can easily explain that the stated savings is a completely reasonable figure. If you divide the savings by the number of people laid off, then you will have your answer, and I think that is a completely reasonable number.

The only independent audit was performed at the direction of the state of new jersey. An audit done at the direction of the union simply doesn't carry much weight to an ordinary citizen (not a public safety expert in any way) such as myself. The only group that did not have any financial motivation here performed the first audit.

You also have me all wrong. I don't hate anyone, certainly not any public safety workers. I fully appreciate what they do, and also do not wish for anyone to lose their jobs during tough economic times like these. However, this must be balanced with what the city can afford. These economic times are real, and, whether you and i like it or not, citizens simply don't have the money right now to pay the increased taxes that would be caused by retaining extra employees that an independent auditor states are not providing hoboken with the best bang for its buck.

Finally, pointing to other possible savings is something I welcome. And indeed, I hope that other responsible cuts will continue to be made. It is not a zero sum game however. If cuts are made elsewhere, that doesn't mean that the city can or should pay more than it can currently afford for public safety.

We may have to agree to disagree, and that is natural, but I remain in favor of the recent step that regrettably had to be taken due to current conditions. I have not seen any fundamental flaw in the reasoning that was given for the move, nor have I seen any flaw in the estimated savings.






Kim said:

Ok, you're entitled to your opinion. Explain to me then where does she get those figures from then? Do you know the answer? Why not give the public a breakdown as to where the savings are coming from exactly. Stating the city will save 2.5 million by demoting and laying off is not good enough to those it affects. Show me and other concerned citizens who do not want to lose officers where she gets these figures from.

As for the numbers on the street, wrong again. The same number will not be on the street, the city will lose officers and that is a fact people as yourself will soon see but of course will ignore because of your support for her. I Would like you to remember this post and realize that yes this person was correct all along.

I see you support that garbage of an audit because you are one of them who have hatred for the public safety. It's obvious in the rebuttal that the audit was completely flawed and used to benefit the city's needs. I support the rebuttal and would hope that the Mayor would be more honest with the public with her facts and misinformation so that people such as yourself can see the truth.

Dave Kaplan said:

Kim,

I have seen no reason to doubt the mayor's number for savings. You certainly have not made a convincing case.

In addition, the same number of police officers will be on the streets from my understanding, so I don't believe that part of your argument is true.

I am a resident (who lives west of Bloomfield Street incidentally), and I support following the independently done police audit.



Kim said:

Mr. Siegal why don't you tell people what you are really like? You are not a tax payer ,you rent on Castle Point and most likely unemployed. You continuously defend everything and anything this administration does regardless whether it's true or not. Your rent will not go up whether the taxes go up or down,it will remain the same. The 2.5 million dollar savings is INCORRECT!!!!!!! We are talking less then $500,000 dollars in savings and not the 2.5 she claims. Do some math and figure the numbers out, it's approximately less then $200 dollars per year in savings. Take that and divide by 4 quarters and you get your quarterly savings. Let's assume they include the benefit package, the numbers are still WAY lower then the 2.5 YOUR mayor claims. Do a bit more research and you will see the actual truth and not complete lies as she has been doing.
Let's ask the citizens of Hoboken what they would prefer, 18 more cops in the street protecting their families, patrolling the streets, keeping everyone safe or $200 less on their tax bill and i mean all the citizens , not just Mr. Brice's people, The Hoboken Recult members or any anti police people. Why don't you walk down the housing Mr. Seigal and ask them what they prefer, don't just stop on Bloomfield St. It's safe to go further West, don't be afraid.
I can guarantee you that the majority of Hoboken prefer them to leave those officers at work where they belong rather then laying them off so the REAL taxpayers, not just your average renter as yourself can safe a measly few bucks.
scott m siegel said:

Vince Lombardi has let his union down. Not surprising given the obstinance of union leaders throughout this country. We can no longer afford this behemoth and costs must be realigned with reality. This is what happens when union leaders live in Egypt. You know da Nile. They should have come to the table with significant cost savings but refused to do so.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dave Kaplan on July 29, 2010 at 5:27pm

Kim,

One further point is that the initial announcement linked at the beginning of this conversation states that the savings of $2.5 M will be realized due to 36 layoffs (18 police) and 19 demotions. Therefore, it is important to understand that it is the combination of these factors that will lead to the savings of $2.5 M, and not any cuts in police by itself.



Kim said:

Yes, you are correct, I did leave that out in the examples but I did mention it originally in my original first post that even if they added that it would still be below that 2.5 million number she claims.

All I ask from her is to break it down for all to see so that we can see where she came up with that number. Am I not entitled as a taxpayer to know where the figures are coming from? If I am going to lose 18 officers on the street who protect me, then tell me how are we saving and how did you get the figures. Tell me, and not from you Kaplan but from the Mayor or Representative how you got to that number.

Dave Kaplan said:

Kim,

The other factor not included in your example (setting aside that we both understand that the salary figures are simply for this example only and not the correct figures) is total compensation is equivalent to more than just salary. This includes any other benefits paid, including health benefits, pension costs paid by the city, etc.



Kim said:

That was not an actual number Mr. Kaplan, it was an example. The savings for the actual demotions are the difference in pay. The savings for layoffs are the total salary. You need to remember that the salaries for the layoff part are officers who have less then 3 yrs working, therefore their salaries are not that high. You need to know the exact number of layoffs and demotions, take their salaries and do the math. It is not near the 2.5 million she claims.

Again example.
10 Sergeants demoted to patrol officers at 100,000 each to $80,000 each (patrol pay) equals a savings of $200,000 total in pay difference.
10 layoffs at $40,000 each is a total savings of $400,000. total savings $600,000
AGAIN these are not real numbers just example.

Dave Kaplan said:

Kim,

Actually, I do not believe you are correct, because you have not accounted for both demotions and layoffs.

Keeping math simple, if one salary of $100,000 is reduced to $80,000, and the former $80,000 becomes 0 (due to a layoff, which is, at least in part, what is happening), then that would be $100,000 savings.

Nevertheless, if the budget allocation is not actually reduced by the amount the mayor claims, I will agree that there was an issue. Frankly, there is no benefit to the mayor to claim a greater savings than will actually be created because citizens, such as myself, are going to expect the budget item to be reduced by that amount.



Kim said:

No offense Kaplan but It amazes how wrong and blinded some of you really are to the actual numbers. Why not call for yourself and ask the Mayor for the answer and her calculations? What was her formula? It really is simple you know, just because you reduce the number of supervisors to a lower rank doesn't mean their entire salary is counted as a savings. Its the difference in what they make that would be the savings, not the entire salary.

Example a Sergeant making 100,000 per year demoted to patrol officers who makes 80,000 per year is not a savings of $100,000, its only $20,000. Do that with real numbers and you can see for yourself. Go ahead and get a list of city employees with their salaries and do the calculations.

Dave Kaplan said:

A back of the napkin calculation can easily explain that the stated savings is a completely reasonable figure. If you divide the savings by the number of people laid off, then you will have your answer, and I think that is a completely reasonable number.

The only independent audit was performed at the direction of the state of new jersey. An audit done at the direction of the union simply doesn't carry much weight to an ordinary citizen (not a public safety expert in any way) such as myself. The only group that did not have any financial motivation here performed the first audit.

You also have me all wrong. I don't hate anyone, certainly not any public safety workers. I fully appreciate what they do, and also do not wish for anyone to lose their jobs during tough economic times like these. However, this must be balanced with what the city can afford. These economic times are real, and, whether you and i like it or not, citizens simply don't have the money right now to pay the increased taxes that would be caused by retaining extra employees that an independent auditor states are not providing hoboken with the best bang for its buck.

Finally, pointing to other possible savings is something I welcome. And indeed, I hope that other responsible cuts will continue to be made. It is not a zero sum game however. If cuts are made elsewhere, that doesn't mean that the city can or should pay more than it can currently afford for public safety.

We may have to agree to disagree, and that is natural, but I remain in favor of the recent step that regrettably had to be taken due to current conditions. I have not seen any fundamental flaw in the reasoning that was given for the move, nor have I seen any flaw in the estimated savings.






Kim said:

Ok, you're entitled to your opinion. Explain to me then where does she get those figures from then? Do you know the answer? Why not give the public a breakdown as to where the savings are coming from exactly. Stating the city will save 2.5 million by demoting and laying off is not good enough to those it affects. Show me and other concerned citizens who do not want to lose officers where she gets these figures from.

As for the numbers on the street, wrong again. The same number will not be on the street, the city will lose officers and that is a fact people as yourself will soon see but of course will ignore because of your support for her. I Would like you to remember this post and realize that yes this person was correct all along.

I see you support that garbage of an audit because you are one of them who have hatred for the public safety. It's obvious in the rebuttal that the audit was completely flawed and used to benefit the city's needs. I support the rebuttal and would hope that the Mayor would be more honest with the public with her facts and misinformation so that people such as yourself can see the truth.

Dave Kaplan said:

Kim,

I have seen no reason to doubt the mayor's number for savings. You certainly have not made a convincing case.

In addition, the same number of police officers will be on the streets from my understanding, so I don't believe that part of your argument is true.

I am a resident (who lives west of Bloomfield Street incidentally), and I support following the independently done police audit.



Kim said:

Mr. Siegal why don't you tell people what you are really like? You are not a tax payer ,you rent on Castle Point and most likely unemployed. You continuously defend everything and anything this administration does regardless whether it's true or not. Your rent will not go up whether the taxes go up or down,it will remain the same. The 2.5 million dollar savings is INCORRECT!!!!!!! We are talking less then $500,000 dollars in savings and not the 2.5 she claims. Do some math and figure the numbers out, it's approximately less then $200 dollars per year in savings. Take that and divide by 4 quarters and you get your quarterly savings. Let's assume they include the benefit package, the numbers are still WAY lower then the 2.5 YOUR mayor claims. Do a bit more research and you will see the actual truth and not complete lies as she has been doing.
Let's ask the citizens of Hoboken what they would prefer, 18 more cops in the street protecting their families, patrolling the streets, keeping everyone safe or $200 less on their tax bill and i mean all the citizens , not just Mr. Brice's people, The Hoboken Recult members or any anti police people. Why don't you walk down the housing Mr. Seigal and ask them what they prefer, don't just stop on Bloomfield St. It's safe to go further West, don't be afraid.
I can guarantee you that the majority of Hoboken prefer them to leave those officers at work where they belong rather then laying them off so the REAL taxpayers, not just your average renter as yourself can safe a measly few bucks.
scott m siegel said:

Vince Lombardi has let his union down. Not surprising given the obstinance of union leaders throughout this country. We can no longer afford this behemoth and costs must be realigned with reality. This is what happens when union leaders live in Egypt. You know da Nile. They should have come to the table with significant cost savings but refused to do so.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dave Kaplan on July 29, 2010 at 5:31pm

Also, I'm an open dialog kind of a guy; might I respectfully suggest asking the Mayor and seeing what response you get? I would be interested to hear whether your questions are answered after such a dialog.

Kim said:

Yes, you are correct, I did leave that out in the examples but I did mention it originally in my original first post that even if they added that it would still be below that 2.5 million number she claims.

All I ask from her is to break it down for all to see so that we can see where she came up with that number. Am I not entitled as a taxpayer to know where the figures are coming from? If I am going to lose 18 officers on the street who protect me, then tell me how are we saving and how did you get the figures. Tell me, and not from you Kaplan but from the Mayor or Representative how you got to that number.

Dave Kaplan said:

Kim,

The other factor not included in your example (setting aside that we both understand that the salary figures are simply for this example only and not the correct figures) is total compensation is equivalent to more than just salary. This includes any other benefits paid, including health benefits, pension costs paid by the city, etc.



Kim said:

That was not an actual number Mr. Kaplan, it was an example. The savings for the actual demotions are the difference in pay. The savings for layoffs are the total salary. You need to remember that the salaries for the layoff part are officers who have less then 3 yrs working, therefore their salaries are not that high. You need to know the exact number of layoffs and demotions, take their salaries and do the math. It is not near the 2.5 million she claims.

Again example.
10 Sergeants demoted to patrol officers at 100,000 each to $80,000 each (patrol pay) equals a savings of $200,000 total in pay difference.
10 layoffs at $40,000 each is a total savings of $400,000. total savings $600,000
AGAIN these are not real numbers just example.

Dave Kaplan said:

Kim,

Actually, I do not believe you are correct, because you have not accounted for both demotions and layoffs.

Keeping math simple, if one salary of $100,000 is reduced to $80,000, and the former $80,000 becomes 0 (due to a layoff, which is, at least in part, what is happening), then that would be $100,000 savings.

Nevertheless, if the budget allocation is not actually reduced by the amount the mayor claims, I will agree that there was an issue. Frankly, there is no benefit to the mayor to claim a greater savings than will actually be created because citizens, such as myself, are going to expect the budget item to be reduced by that amount.



Kim said:

No offense Kaplan but It amazes how wrong and blinded some of you really are to the actual numbers. Why not call for yourself and ask the Mayor for the answer and her calculations? What was her formula? It really is simple you know, just because you reduce the number of supervisors to a lower rank doesn't mean their entire salary is counted as a savings. Its the difference in what they make that would be the savings, not the entire salary.

Example a Sergeant making 100,000 per year demoted to patrol officers who makes 80,000 per year is not a savings of $100,000, its only $20,000. Do that with real numbers and you can see for yourself. Go ahead and get a list of city employees with their salaries and do the calculations.

Dave Kaplan said:

A back of the napkin calculation can easily explain that the stated savings is a completely reasonable figure. If you divide the savings by the number of people laid off, then you will have your answer, and I think that is a completely reasonable number.

The only independent audit was performed at the direction of the state of new jersey. An audit done at the direction of the union simply doesn't carry much weight to an ordinary citizen (not a public safety expert in any way) such as myself. The only group that did not have any financial motivation here performed the first audit.

You also have me all wrong. I don't hate anyone, certainly not any public safety workers. I fully appreciate what they do, and also do not wish for anyone to lose their jobs during tough economic times like these. However, this must be balanced with what the city can afford. These economic times are real, and, whether you and i like it or not, citizens simply don't have the money right now to pay the increased taxes that would be caused by retaining extra employees that an independent auditor states are not providing hoboken with the best bang for its buck.

Finally, pointing to other possible savings is something I welcome. And indeed, I hope that other responsible cuts will continue to be made. It is not a zero sum game however. If cuts are made elsewhere, that doesn't mean that the city can or should pay more than it can currently afford for public safety.

We may have to agree to disagree, and that is natural, but I remain in favor of the recent step that regrettably had to be taken due to current conditions. I have not seen any fundamental flaw in the reasoning that was given for the move, nor have I seen any flaw in the estimated savings.






Kim said:

Ok, you're entitled to your opinion. Explain to me then where does she get those figures from then? Do you know the answer? Why not give the public a breakdown as to where the savings are coming from exactly. Stating the city will save 2.5 million by demoting and laying off is not good enough to those it affects. Show me and other concerned citizens who do not want to lose officers where she gets these figures from.

As for the numbers on the street, wrong again. The same number will not be on the street, the city will lose officers and that is a fact people as yourself will soon see but of course will ignore because of your support for her. I Would like you to remember this post and realize that yes this person was correct all along.

I see you support that garbage of an audit because you are one of them who have hatred for the public safety. It's obvious in the rebuttal that the audit was completely flawed and used to benefit the city's needs. I support the rebuttal and would hope that the Mayor would be more honest with the public with her facts and misinformation so that people such as yourself can see the truth.

Dave Kaplan said:

Kim,

I have seen no reason to doubt the mayor's number for savings. You certainly have not made a convincing case.

In addition, the same number of police officers will be on the streets from my understanding, so I don't believe that part of your argument is true.

I am a resident (who lives west of Bloomfield Street incidentally), and I support following the independently done police audit.



Kim said:

Mr. Siegal why don't you tell people what you are really like? You are not a tax payer ,you rent on Castle Point and most likely unemployed. You continuously defend everything and anything this administration does regardless whether it's true or not. Your rent will not go up whether the taxes go up or down,it will remain the same. The 2.5 million dollar savings is INCORRECT!!!!!!! We are talking less then $500,000 dollars in savings and not the 2.5 she claims. Do some math and figure the numbers out, it's approximately less then $200 dollars per year in savings. Take that and divide by 4 quarters and you get your quarterly savings. Let's assume they include the benefit package, the numbers are still WAY lower then the 2.5 YOUR mayor claims. Do a bit more research and you will see the actual truth and not complete lies as she has been doing.
Let's ask the citizens of Hoboken what they would prefer, 18 more cops in the street protecting their families, patrolling the streets, keeping everyone safe or $200 less on their tax bill and i mean all the citizens , not just Mr. Brice's people, The Hoboken Recult members or any anti police people. Why don't you walk down the housing Mr. Seigal and ask them what they prefer, don't just stop on Bloomfield St. It's safe to go further West, don't be afraid.
I can guarantee you that the majority of Hoboken prefer them to leave those officers at work where they belong rather then laying them off so the REAL taxpayers, not just your average renter as yourself can safe a measly few bucks.
scott m siegel said:

Vince Lombardi has let his union down. Not surprising given the obstinance of union leaders throughout this country. We can no longer afford this behemoth and costs must be realigned with reality. This is what happens when union leaders live in Egypt. You know da Nile. They should have come to the table with significant cost savings but refused to do so.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by scott m siegel on July 29, 2010 at 7:11pm

Klam:

18 patrolmen @ $40m + $15m (benefit est ) = $990,000
18 civilians @ $50m +$15m = $1.17 million (probably some civilians make even more)
Total: = $2.16 million
Demotions: 1 Chief = ?
6 Lt's = ?
4 Sgt's = ?
my guess: $340,000
total estimated savings: $2.5 million
wow that's the same number the Mayor's office came up with!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by InfotainMe on July 29, 2010 at 7:26pm

Wait - you were Kim before and now you're Jim?

Jim said:

Yes I did, why? because they refuse to see and understand the obvious. If Zimmer said so then it must be right is how they think. Many people know her dislike for the PD and why, you shouldn't blame them for something someone else did. Thats not something I will get into, yet.

Zimmer and her allies have been on this HPD kick for such a long time, putting out misinformation and half truth.
If she is going to say things back it up with facts. She needs to explain to people where she is getting her info or how they came about getting that info. How did she come up with those numbers? What formula did she use to get those numbers? These are legitimate questions they refuse to answer, just saying so is not good enough. how does she know it will not affect the number of officers on the street? where did she get that info from?

Answer these specific questions so that Hoboken can know the truth. As for that "Garbage Audit" comment, well it's my opinion and that's it. She has shown a total lack of respect towards the HPD and it's time she start answering questions.


InfotainMe said:

Kim said: "I see you support that garbage of an audit because you are one of them who have hatred for the public safety."

Hatred for the public safety? You got all that out of Kaplan's respectful disagreement with you? Yikes.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by InfotainMe on July 30, 2010 at 8:18am

Wait, wait, wait... You were Kim, and then Jim, and now Tim? You do realize that all the replies to you are tagged with the name you were using at the time, ie, they say Kim, Jim, and now Tim. So it will be clear to everyone that you are working your way through the "im"s in the alphabet.

Anyway, good luck with all that, Zim. And all the best to Him. And watch out for Shims. And so on.

InfotainMe said:

Wait - you were Kim before and now you're Jim?

Jim said:

Yes I did, why? because they refuse to see and understand the obvious. If Zimmer said so then it must be right is how they think. Many people know her dislike for the PD and why, you shouldn't blame them for something someone else did. Thats not something I will get into, yet.

Zimmer and her allies have been on this HPD kick for such a long time, putting out misinformation and half truth.
If she is going to say things back it up with facts. She needs to explain to people where she is getting her info or how they came about getting that info. How did she come up with those numbers? What formula did she use to get those numbers? These are legitimate questions they refuse to answer, just saying so is not good enough. how does she know it will not affect the number of officers on the street? where did she get that info from?

Answer these specific questions so that Hoboken can know the truth. As for that "Garbage Audit" comment, well it's my opinion and that's it. She has shown a total lack of respect towards the HPD and it's time she start answering questions.


InfotainMe said:

Kim said: "I see you support that garbage of an audit because you are one of them who have hatred for the public safety."

Hatred for the public safety? You got all that out of Kaplan's respectful disagreement with you? Yikes.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by scott m siegel on July 30, 2010 at 9:15am

scott m siegel said:

Klam:

18 patrolmen @ $40m + $15m (benefit est ) = $990,000
18 civilians @ $50m +$15m = $1.17 million (probably some civilians make even more)
Total: = $2.16 million
Demotions: 1 Chief = ?
6 Lt's = ?
4 Sgt's = ?
my guess: $340,000
total estimated savings: $2.5 million
wow that's the same number the Mayor's office came up with!

Oops forgot! FICA @ 7.5%. Do public employers pay matching FICA? If so, add 15% to salary figures.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jack Dawkins on July 30, 2010 at 9:53am

Correction: Mason does collect her salary

Also, don't you believe people that are working deserve to get paid for it? (city council) While I agree with you that the Directors salaries are too high in these economic times (all over 100K) - how many police officers in Hoboken make way more than that? (and yes, I believe anyone with more years on the job deserves to get more money based on seniority) But with things being the way they are, perhaps the high paid police at the top end of the salary ladder would have considered a pay cut/freeze - but I don't think that was the case.



Tim said:

By the way, if she wants to cut, why not start from the Public Safety position which the audit claims is not needed either? I dont think so because they are hoping to use him for elections to assist Lenz in the fourth ward. Lenz I'm sure is not happy with these layoffs and demotions knowing it might affect his chances of winning the seat.
Why not suggest the council give up that 27 something thousand they make for their seat along with benefits? Each and everyone of them with the exception of Mason, have a full time position somewhere else but accept the benefit package the city gives them and the pay. They are so concerned with the savings, start with the people in the building she keeps her office in.
According to their bio's
Mello (Teacher NYC) salary and health benefits from them
Bhalla (Lawyer) salary
Cunningham (business development executive) big bucks
Marsh (She is currently pursuing an MS in Library Science at Rutgers.)
Castellano (president of Morton Properties, Inc)
Russo (licensed Physical Therapist)
Giachi (Partner with the law firm of Tompkins, McGuire, Wachenfeld & Barry in Newark, NJ.)
Lenz(County position)
Mason (only one not accepting pay)

Let's not forget the three assistant the Mayor has working for her, does she really need 3?
And then there are the 8-10 directors she has making over $100,000 dollars each with benefits.

So don't give me that bull about the police needing cuts, practice what you preach!!!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by scott m siegel on July 30, 2010 at 10:21am

Jack: You are correct about Beth, I noted that yesterday. 50% of our public safety officials make over $100,000 in salary. 80% make over $75,000.

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page