Commentary: Everyone agrees but...

Mayor Woodrow Stanley proposes to hire a private company to provide trash hauling services and sell the city's equipment. He says that the city could save $3 million a year based on bids submitted by two firms.

He offers two alternatives. Either the unions must agree to changes which will provide a substantial reduction in the cost or he will lay off policemen and firemen.

The Flint City Council seems unanimously opposed to hiring a private firm to provide the service. Members argue that the private companies' bids do not accurately reflect the cost of the service. A private firm, they say, could initially provide the service at a loss, then raise the price because the city would no longer have the equipment to provide it.

They add that it would be more difficult to ensure the quality of the service if it is provided by a private firm rather than government employees directly accountable to elected officials.

The council members' solution to the budget problems are internal cost cuts in the sanitation division and other administration expenses such as the mayor's staff.

In short, both sides agree on the need to cut sanitation costs as part of an overall reduction in government spending, but they disagree on how to do it.

A reasonable person would say "find the solution that provides the highest quality service at the least cost."

If a private firm can do it, then let it do it. Fears that the city would be at the mercy of a greedy private trash firm if it dismantled its sanitation division are a red herring. A contract with a private firm can be enforced in the courts. If the firm decides to raise its price at contract renewal time, then hire a competing firm. Two of the largest in the country are bidding on Flint's contract and there are probably many others that could do the job.

On the other hand, if current city employees can provide comparable quality with a cost reduction proportional to the necessary overall reduction in city government spending, keep the present system. It would be stupid to throw away a system that provides an essential government service to get a small short-term cost savings and unfair to expect one division to bear a heavier burden than the others.

Unfortunately, the issue is more complex than a simple dollars and cents calculation.

First, there is the union verses employer issue. I cannot help but think that Mayor Stanley is using the threat of privatization to force the union to make concessions. An obvious one is for the union to allow the city to change the longtime policy of letting the trash collectors go home as soon as they finish their route. The employees claim that the policy benefits the city because it encourages them to work quickly and rewards them for not taking breaks. That may or may not be true for individual employees, but it is probably a policy which the mayor will try to change to cut the cost by reducing the work force.

Second, there is the city council's dependence on union support. Several have union ties, most depended on the support of unions, or at least the support of union members, to get elected. In an election year, it would be very difficult for many council members to agree to eliminate the number of union jobs held by sanitation workers if the union makes even minor concessions.

Third, there is the ever-increasing decline in Flint's economy. Fewer and fewer people are paying more and more taxes to support government services, but they feel they are getting less for each dollar they pay. For many people, the idea of saving $3 million is more appealing than saving the jobs of sanitation workers or the possibility that the promised savings will evaporate in a few years.

If I had to predict the outcome, I would say that in the short term the city will get some concessions from the union on hours and then cut the work force by attrition. Then, in the near future, it will try to generate some additional income with user fees, first on multiple-family residences, then on bulk pick up.

GPC