Great work if you can get it

How would you like to get paid for 40 hours a week even though you work only 32.5 hours?

In the private sector, such a question would be dismissed as nonsensical. After all, no legitimate employer will pay an employee for 7.5 hours a week for doing nothing.

But in the public sector – especially government – that scenario is played out more often than taxpayers imagine.

Your tax dollars at (non) work, so to speak.

Case in point.

The Trumbull County Budget Review Committee, which was appointed by the commissioners to analyze government’s revenues and expenditures, made 19 recommendations, including this one:

“Revise the current workday schedule of 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. with a one-hour paid lunch and two, 15-minute breaks, resulting in 6.5 hours of work for 8 hours of pay.”

It’s not hard to imagine the reaction of the 12 members of the committee when they reviewed the labor contracts and discovered that gem.

Indeed, seeing it in print – The Vindicator on June 3 detailed the committee’s recommendations – must have made county Commissioners Daniel Polivka, Frank Fuda and Mauro Cantalamessa cringe.

How do elected officials explain to their economically hard-pressed constituents that county employees are being paid for hours they do not work?

Talking points

Polivka, Fuda and Cantalamessa would do well to fashion their talking points from what the budget review committee wrote:

“Salaries and other payroll related expenditures are the largest expense for the county’s general fund.

“The TCBRC recommends that Trumbull County’s … policies be reviewed and revised in a manner consistent with statewide standards for communities comparable in terms of unemployment, household income, property values, poverty levels, etc. Where applicable, these policies should be aligned in a manner consistent with what is minimally required by statute.”

If the 32.5-hour work week – with pay for 40 hours – hasn’t piqued your interest, consider these other findings pertaining to compensation:

The current collective bargaining agreements require Trumbull County to pay up to 90 percent of the employee’s (emphasis added) portion of the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) contribution.

The committee is recommending that management and bargaining units collaborate to eliminate all taxpayer contributions to employee portions.

In layman’s terms, the workers are getting a free ride for their retirement benefits.

Management should assess the present policy on sick-leave payout upon retirement and reduce it to no more than the statutorily required amount. It should also review the vacation time conversion policy.

Management should work towards the elimination of all contractual language pertaining to health insurance, including premiums, copayments and deductibles.

The committee members believe that such a move would serve to develop employee awareness of the growing costs and impending challenges regarding health-care coverage.

Life insurance coverage for retirees should be eliminated.

When the commissioners adopt those recommendations, the committee believes that the county could save $2 million a year in the general fund.

Why when and not if?

For the simple reason that the cat is out of the bag. Polivka, Fuda and Cantalamessa appointed the review committee because they wanted independent support for any decision regarding an increase in the county’s sales tax.

The commissioners formed the panel after Polivka said he would not consider an increase in revenue through a sales-tax boost until county government’s books were reviewed by an outside entity.

That was the right move – given the public’s general distrust of government and its aversion to paying taxes. A growing number of taxpayers believe their money is being squandered.

The findings of the Trumbull County Budget Review Committee appear to support that belief.

How else to explain employees pocketing wages based on an 8-hour work day when they actually work only 6.5 hours, or employees not even having to pay for their own retirement benefits?

And how do commissioners explain to their constituents that public employees receive health-care insurance that most private-sector workers can only dream about?

It is noteworthy that the budget review committee’s report does give the commissioners a significant boost in confidence should they take action on a sales-tax increase. But there are conditions.

First, the county must implement the compensation-related recommendations that could result in savings of $2 million a year.

Then, Polivka, Fuda and Cantalamessa must reduce the county’s current inside millage from 1.8 mills to 1.0 mill. The reduction would result in a decrease of about $2.6 million in property tax revenue – from $5.7 million to $3.1 million. The money goes into the general fund.

To make up the shortfall, the committee is recommending an increase in the sales tax of 0.5 percent. It would generate $12.6 million annually.

There would be a net gain of $10 million.

However, committee members are adamant that the tax increase must not be used for personnel. In other words, if commissioners approve the sales-tax increase, they will be doing so with the clear understanding that county workers will not benefit financially.

This isn’t about punishing workers. Rather, it’s a reordering of spending priorities in light of the anticipated loss of $2.7 million in sales tax in 2018. Coupled with past cuts in the state Local Government Fund and the tangible personal property tax, Trumbull County has no alternative but to rearrange its priorities.

The budget review committee has given Commissioners Polivka, Fuda and Cantalamessa the cover they need to make the tough decisions.