The Observation Deck

How many people are employed by the City of Lakewood?

Paging Bill Call to the thread. Bill Call, please pick up the white courtesy phone.

The blue light is flashing K-mart shoppers that means you get a special prize for the correct answer....

Answers:

Bill Call: Too many.

City Workers: Not enough.

768 in 2006 (536 full time) There are 23 fewer worker for refuse and 19 fewer working for waste water than there were in 1983.

616 in 1983 (516 full time) 100 part time

Thank you Bill! Bill do you smoke cigars?


Question number 2

How many of the of the 536 full time employees live in the city Lakewood?


Question number 3

Does Lakewood entice its employees to live in the city of Lakewood? Eg. a small income tax break??


PS I am aware of Ohio Senate Bill 82.

Interesting in the levels of employment between 1983 and 2007. Two questions/factors I dont have answers for.

EMS workers were employed by Lakewood Hospital in 1983, they are now city employees, correct? Were there other LH jobs that transferred to the city under the agreement with the Clinic in the late 90s?
Also, am I right that Winterhurst workers were technically school board employees in 1983 and are now city employees? That transfer was in 1998, I believe?

What other factors would account for a huge increase in overall bodies but a relatively small bump in FTEs?

Dee Martinez wrote:What other factors would account for a huge increase in overall bodies but a relatively small bump in FTEs?

The 2006 numbers include 19 at winterhurst, 3 for income tax and 2 for early childhood education, those jobs were not City jobs in 1983. However, since there are 38 fewer City employees in base City services I treated the numbers as a wash.

70% of Lakewood City employees live outside the City

I suppose if it were me I would have a game of musical chairs with a chair for each City job that existed in 1983. Each existing City employee would circle those chairs until the music stopped. Every City employee left standing would have to explain why his job was not necessary in 1983 but vital to the survival of the City in 2006.

Of course nobody liked my pick up truck debate format so I don't suppose anyone likes my musical chair format either.

If I were getting my MBA I guess I would title my thesis: Management By Musical Chairs In A Contemporary Urban Environment.

Bill Call wrote: Of course nobody liked my pick up truck debate format so I don't suppose anyone likes my musical chair format either.

Bill

Come over here you knucklehead, group hug.


.

Bill-- You know what? You rattle off statistics with no connecting points.

However, you want to know what these employees do every day?

No, you don't'. I've never scene you at any of the budget committee hearings. That's where the total explanations of the day to day work and future considerations are explored.

Had you attended any public hearing you might be surprised as to the desire on the part of public employees to do a good job and do it well.

Your whole approach has the unfortunate effect of diminishing the value of work and sabotaging the greater public good.

Stan Austin

Bill Call wrote:
The 2006 numbers include 19 at winterhurst, 3 for income tax and 2 for early childhood education, those jobs were not City jobs in 1983. However, since there are 38 fewer City employees in base City services I treated the numbers as a wash.

.

What about the EMS and hosptial workers??

(Even though I usually disagree with you philosophically, I appreciate your quest for factual evidence.)

Dee Martinez wrote:What about the EMS and hosptial workers??

It looks like there are about 13 paramedics on the City payroll in 2006 that were not on the City payroll in 1983.

There are about 44 more employees for things like paramedics, income tax etc that did not exist in 1983. However, there are 38 fewer waste water and refuse workers. That is a net of 6 for new departments.

The hospital employment is not included in the 1983 or 2006 numbers for City employees.

In 2001 there were 818 City employees.

The city worker (Water Dept.) who was at our house this a.m., on time and courteous, solved the issue we were facing, explained in a professional manner what the problem was and what he did to correct the problem.

Much better customer service, than say cell phone providers

Richard Cole wrote:The city worker (Water Dept.) who was at our house this a.m., on time and courteous, solved the issue we were facing, explained in a professional manner what the problem was and what he did to correct the problem.

Much better customer service, than say cell phone providers

What an excellent point. The goal of any entereprise isnt just simply keeping labor costs down. A trained chimp can mindlessly cut payroll. The goal is to be efficient WHILE GETTING THE JOB DONE and part of the "job" is "customer satisfaction."
occasionally thats going to involve paying people as well as hiring enough people to perform to customers service expectations.

See the thread about the Grant kindergarten for a good example. The Grant parents didnt much care about how overall cost efficiency, they wanted an extra kindergarten teacher to keep class size down and it looks like they got it.

By the way Verizon now charges you $5 if you require the assistance of a "customer care" person to make a bill payment. Think about that. They CHARGE you to PAY your bill. Is that the direction we want the city to go?

The people who work at the tax department are also very courteous and helpful.