County workers face furloughs
Advertisement
Text size: small | medium | large
By Cheryl Chumley
Published: November 25, 2008
Prince William employees will have to help decide the lesser of several evils in the coming weeks: Is it better to take a day off without pay, lose a holiday or face a salary cut?
“We’ve had a number of employees say, I’ll take a furlough day. Well, we can’t furlough everyone, though,“ said Craig Gerhart, county executive, in a presentation to supervisors Tuesday about possible ways to cut government.
On Nov. 18, supervisors agreed that budget talks for fiscal year 2010 should progress with a starting tax rate of $1.13. That amount guaranteed homeowners would see a drop in tax bills ranging from about six to 18 percent. But it also left an estimated shortfall between $26 million and $30 million.
Implementing a one-day furlough policy for county employees—minus the Public Safety Department—could trim the budget by $300,000, Gerhart said. The furlough program would send 1,377 county workers home for a day without pay, according to background documents to the board.
Another savings option: decrease the number of paid holidays. Prince William workers are currently granted 12 paid holidays per year.
“If we eliminate a holiday, we would save about $400,000,“ Gerhart said. “Also, we would no longer have to pay overtime for folks who would normally work on the holiday anyway [like Public Safety employees].“
By far the greatest savings could be seen with a halt on merit pay; a one-year hiatus on this 3 percent pay increase saves $3.9 million, according to background documents.
“This [option] may be pretty high on the list,“ Gerhart said.
Other recommendations included an across-the-board pay cut; an increase in employee contributions for health care; and a suspension of the county government’s investment plan, the 401(a) Money Purchase Plan.
The pay cut was proposed for 1 percent, which would result in reported savings of $2.8 million. Supervisor John Jenkins, D-Neabsco, asked about the feasibility of freezing pay on those who earn in excess of certain salary amounts.
“I sort of feel like we’re all in this together and if we start differentiating, then that has implications other than financial,“ Gerhart said.
County employees will be ranking options in the next few weeks for Gerhart to consider and incorporate when he makes his final budget proposal to the board in February.
Staff writer Cheryl Chumley can be reached at 703-670-1907.
Post a Comment
The commenting period has ended or commenting has been deactivated for this article.
Can't find what you're looking for? Try our quick search:
Reader Reactions
Posted by ( zcxnissan ) on November 30, 2008 at 10:21 am
Thats great if no one is hiring in the construction business. Actually the “W” plan currently in effect for illegals is good. Workplace raids, loss of jobs for illegals, they can impound vehicles and close down businesses too. These have been positive effects of this current recession. Its like a self frog marching hehe. Reimplementation of the 60’s plan is the best plan and solution. LOL Chris Cummings
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( raywilliams ) on November 30, 2008 at 7:59 am
“Not one that benefits you as the hiring of illegals”
Chris, trust me. No one in the construction business is hiring anyone right now - legal or not!
It seems the best plan to fight illegal immigration is the new W Plan - as in the George W. Bush Failed Economic Plan of 2000-2008.
Bad for America, great for chasing out illegals. Not so good for CitiBank, GM, Wachovia and others either….
“Ray we need a better plan then what you are suggesting.“
Chris - I’m all ears. Instead of bashing my plan, toss out YOUR plan so we can see what is there to work with.
I just hope it is not the old tried & true failed HSM plan of marching all 12 million illegals down I-95 and back across the border. Come on - we need a real, workable plan from you.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( zcxnissan ) on November 29, 2008 at 10:56 pm
“Major Problem” with plan
A) Raises the unemployment rate of legal immigrants and lowers salaries bcause employers can do as they wish in regards to hiring with this plan.
B) Does not give a full documentation of their crime histories and background from their home countries.
C) Their are many ways to be a legal immigrant and cheaper then sneaking across the border and risking capture or deportation as well as having a coyote transport you, although odds are he will rob you, kill you, or rape you.
D) Operation “W” in the 60’s as it was inappropriately dubbed by program operators was a success in regards to curtailing illegal immigration until the American Civil Liberties Union stepped in.
E) Ray we need a better plan then what you are suggesting. Not one that benefits you as the hiring of illegals lol on that term. We all know the meaning of it.
LOL Chris Cummings
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( zcxnissan ) on November 29, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Actually the early 1960’s plan in regards to illegal immigration works best. It was Operation something or other, I won’t say it because some might find it offensive. Highly successfull until the ACLU stepped in. LOL Chris Cummings
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( raywilliams ) on November 26, 2008 at 4:54 pm
“I say NO to driver’s licences.“
Our current problem Mark is they drive regardless, and have NO WAY of obtaining auto insurance without a legal license.
With my Documented Illegal Immigrant Card, they risk losing their Card if caught without a license and the required insurances etc.
I am wide open to input, thoughts and suggestions on the Plan. I just feel there is a need to toss something out that is workable - and is not the full amnesty favored by some nor the impossible HSM plan of marching all 12 million of them back across the border.
The issues most people cite are no collection of payroll taxes, not knowing who is in this country and crime. My Documented Illegal Plan covers all these issues and works toward stopping the ongoing lobbing of slurs over the tennis net.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( Mark JM ) on November 26, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Ray Williams has a good plan in regards to dealing with the illegals. I agree with everything except for one thing Ray: I say NO to driver’s licences. Let them pay for public transit to get to and from work. Illegals with driver licences in this region is like giving a 2 year old a loaded gun.
They don’t know/respect US Law as it is so therefore they shouldn’t be driving as they don’t follow traffic laws that are in place for a good reason. Also, if they’re illegal, chances are they won’t have vehicle insurance either as you have to have a legal place of residency in order to obtain a car insurance policy.
But everything else I agree with you on hands down. Your plan wouldn’t cost us taxpayers money (we would actually gain from it) and it does add to our already successful crackdown on illegals in PWC.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( raywilliams ) on November 26, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Here are the highlights of my Documented Illegal Plan I’ve been posting for about 6 months now tricky.
The anti-immigrant group always wants to talk about “what’s wrong” but never about how to fix it - other than frog-marching 12 million illegals home down I-95.
from another of my posts:
Many months ago I posted what I call my Documented Illegal Immigrant Plan. Too many details for tonight but I skim some of the highlights.
One, they’re not going away, but it would be nice to know who they are and where they live. So we issue a card that documents them as “illegal”. With this, we get fingerprints, name, address and if you want, a DNA sample and next of kin.
Two: With this card they can get a driver’s license and a tax ID number, ensuring they drive a vehicle with legal tags, insurance etc. With the tax ID number, we can collect taxes on their wages.
With this tax ID, they are not eligible for S.S. benefits on the wages earned, HOWEVER, they will contribute that 7% with a matching 7% by their employer to an Illegal Immigrant Fund. This would be distributed 7% to the Feds and 7% to PWC to offset costs associated with illegals.
Three: Drop the anchor baby clause. You’re born here to illegal parents, you too are illegal.
Four: Put a 2,4, or 6 year expiration date on the Card. You’ve got that time to get legal or get your affairs in order to return home.
Five: A felony criminal offense will revoke your card.
Six: You’re caught without a Documented Illegal Card and you’re on the next boat home - assets seized to pay the freight on your return ticket.
No catch and release program here.
This may not be a perfect plan, but begins a transition towards getting a handle on the problem. Those that want to comply are given some breathing room, that don’t wish to EVER become legal will have added pressure placed on them.
Oh, Seven: Quit spending our tax dollars on securing the borders of Iraq and start spending them on securing the borders of the USA.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( trickydix2000 ) on November 26, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Agree as long as you pay your taxes, I don’t have a problem with anyone living or working here. Good point.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( raywilliams ) on November 26, 2008 at 12:03 pm
“We built a beautiful home for a quarter of that.“
Deb, you built a new home in the last few years for a quarter of the upmarket costs?
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( raywilliams ) on November 26, 2008 at 12:00 pm
“First you blame it on Bush and then you end your rant blaming it on Cory.“
Early morning rushing-off-to-work post.
I guess I think they both get a little credit for the current economy.
Bush for complete failure, Cory for failing to react quick enough to cut program costs once illegals were driven out of PWC, interestingly enough, not by Cory but by the failed Bush economy!
do right - let’s return to my Documented Illegal Immigrant Plan where we can tax these folks that are here illegally but use our services.
Any takers?
Report Inappropriate Comment