W.T.F.?

Seniority won't save S.R. workers


Louis Cooper
lcooper@pnj.com

Santa Rosa County employees with long service records will have no more protection than new employees if their departments face layoffs because of budget cuts.

The County Commission voted 4-1 Thursday to change a personnel rule that previously required the most recently hired person in a particular position to be let go first if layoffs become necessary. With Thursday's vote, those laid off will be up to the discretion of the elected official they serve.

Although Commissioner Bob Cole voted against the change, he did so only because he wanted to make the new rule effective Jan. 1, 2008, rather than immediately. Generally, he supports the new rule.

"I don't think it's right for the person (to be laid off) who is out there who is more educated, puts in a better example and works hard," Cole said. "They may do a better job than the person who has been there longer."

Only Sheriff Wendell Hall has said he will need to lay off personnel because of state-mandated property tax reductions in the budget that goes into effect Oct. 1. The new rule, however, would apply to any future layoffs. Commissioners expect to make more cuts if state voters approve a "super homestead exemption" in a January election on a proposed constitutional amendment.

Tina Hawkins, a 15-year veteran with the Sheriff's Office as a victims' advocate, said she has been told she will be among those laid off.

"When I was hired on with Civil Service, I thought, 'I've got security with the county,' " Hawkins said. "If you do away (with this rule), I will have nothing. I'm a single parent, putting my child through college. With 15 years with the county, it's not right."

Susan Musser, also an employee at the Sheriff's Office, urged the commission to keep the old rule.

"You're changing the rules in the middle of the game," Musser said. "We are simply asking that this board require all governing authorities to play by the rules that were in place when the layoffs were announced. ... Do not strip the employees of the little protection they have."

Commissioner John Broxson pointed out that while the commission sets the budgets for the various departments, it does not dictate how the various officials spend their money.

"If the sheriff or whoever the appropriate authority is wishes to keep all of his employees and go through a procedure by which everyone is reduced in salary through some agreement, he or she can do that," Broxson said. "There's no such thing as us telling anyone how to let people go. All we're saying is that 'X' number of dollars are available."


Note to Article Comment users
pnj.com and its related sites are pleased to be able to offer its users the opportunity to make comments and hold conversations online. However, the interactive nature of the Internet makes it impracticable for our staff to monitor each and every posting. Since pnj.com does not control user submitted statements, we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted on our Web site. In addition, we remind anyone interested in making an online comment that responsibility for statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not pnj.com or its related sites. All comments posted should comply with pnj.com's terms of service.


Article Comments


Add Comment | View All Comments


Reader Comment Fri Aug 24, 2007 1:25 am
This rule change really allows managers to lay-off the highest paid employees not necessarily the worst worker.

I can see it now, do they lay-off Debbie, Sally, and Mary whose combined salary is $65,000 or do they lay-off Jessica who makes $66,000? Can Jessica do her work and the work of three others or will it be easier to delegate Jessica's duties among Debbie, Sally and Mary? Easy call - Jessica is going to be history.
Posted by: Dr Pepper
Reader Comment Fri Aug 24, 2007 2:27 am
Here is another example why this new rule is a bad change:

Tom has been in a department 7 years and didnt support his elected boss during the last campaign.

Steve has been in the department 6 years and worked every evening and every Saturday putting up campaign signs.

Bob has been with the department 5 years and he gave a campaign donation of $500, along with his wife, and their respective parents, and their kids, etc to a tune of $4,000 to help his boss get electec.

The department has to cut back on personnel. Which person gets the ax? The old rule would say Bob. The new rule says Tom will be unemployed.
Posted by: Dr Pepper
Reader Comment Fri Aug 24, 2007 2:34 am
One more reason why this is a bad example:

Jerry is a dispatcher who has been on the job 5 years. He is not related to anyone working for the county.


Terry has been a dispatcher 1 year and is the cousin of a County Commissioner.


The Commissioner has some say on my budget request. However, I didnt get all the money needed to retain all of my current dispatchers. Who should get the ax?


My money says Jerry. No one in their right mind is going to terminate the Commissioners cousin. Not when the Commissioner has a say on funding my budget.
Posted by: Dr Pepper
Reader Comment Fri Aug 24, 2007 5:23 am
Time to AX a few county commissioners if you are ASKING me.
Posted by: Karl Rove
Reader Comment Fri Aug 24, 2007 5:28 am
This seniority thing came up in a meeting between the sheriff and fatty Gordon Goodin who told the sheriff he needed to make cuts in his higher paid and most senior staff to save the most jobs. Of course, if that was done it would mean the leadership at the SO would be gone and people not as qualified to do the vacant jobs would then move up. LOL GOodin is an BADDEN and a DUMBIN.
Posted by: Karl Rove
AGain Fri Aug 24, 2007 5:59 am
Well here is another example of our local government. Have they cut their salaries. They want and will lay off people based on a tax relief we are getting. They are sorry and what goes around will come back to you. HEre is people who have worked all their life and because of politics, crooked commisioners with no heart they loose their job. We could cut fat at the top. All county leaders need to cut some of their 100,000 salaries to show emotion for the little guy. It will not happen. We have a bunch of crooks who cannot budget and want more money to waste. If the public only knew how much money the county wastes a day it would be totally surprised. NOT one of these scums will get my vote and hope all of you agree with me. Let see if we can find some honest people who will volunteer in this job then the greed will be taken away.
Posted by: wesley
Reader Comment Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:53 am
I get it- "Don't lay me off- lay that person off!"


Most of these responses assume that the senior worker is a productive employee and earns the right to hold their job. What about the many cases where senior employees sit back and do the minimum because the system has isolated them from fear of reprisal? Shouldn't the employer have the right to lay off the least productive regardless of how long they have been there?

Is it better to lay off one senior employee and short the department one person, or layoff two or three newer employees and short the department more people?

Lay offs stink and I don't think there is a way to do them without upsetting the people being laid off. Anyone who thinks in this day and age that their job anywhere is safe is living in fantasy land.
Posted by: my2centsworth
Reader Comment Fri Aug 24, 2007 7:41 am
My2cents that is my thoughts exactly.

There are many senior employees who have lacked in their work ethics due to being "safe" because they have been at the job longer that the newer employees who have had to have good work ethics in their recent former employment in order to keep their jobs that did not lay off by seniority. I for one would rather have employees who appreciate having a job and actually come to work than the ones who complain about having to do what is their jobs and use up all their leave time and then complain about having to take time off for appointments they set up during work hours or calling in sick when they have no leave time.
How may times have you had to go to a county office and you see some workers getting people in and out and other employees are talking to each other or are getting one person out of the line opposed to the 3 people that are getting though at the other window. You can almost always tell who the senior employees are.

It's about time that the county makes their workers appreciate having a job with the county instead of taking it for granted.
Posted by: news watcher
work for it! Fri Aug 24, 2007 8:22 am
You guys are right!

Seniority is the worst excuse for "I'm lazy, but I've been here a long time". It is almost as bad as unions! The basic principles of economic capitalism are supply and demand. That works in the job market too! If you want the job, work your butt off!!! If you are a good worker and people enjoy being around you, you will be in demand, and they will pay you to stay!!!!

Only lazy bums could be against this decision.
Posted by: floridah2o
bad to worse Fri Aug 24, 2007 8:35 am
Well, Moral just went from Bad to Worse. Enjoy your $46 dollar tax relief folks....i spent mine on a tank of gas that i used to drive to work one week, and man that was the best week ever......
Posted by: andURpoint
Story tools
Text Size:


Print Email story Bookmark
Discuss Subscribe Request photo

Well it seems that the FOP would be doing something about this. It's not like the FOP is a NATIONAL ORGANIZATION or anything……..come on make some phone calls and get some of the other FOP brothers and sisters down her to help us out. Do anything accept sit here and let the county commissioners and sheriff hurt our families. I know for a fact the county commissioners are to blame, but I’m not 100% sure about the sheriff. So sheriff if your not I would hope you would start addressing this issue with the employees of the sheriffs office before they all turn on you. It’s coming and it coming fast……..do something before it’s to late. Stop letting SC make so many dumb ass decisions and either give the reins to someone with some sack or bring someone else in.

I believe the Sheriff has meetings every Tuesday in the training room to address these issues, and everyone is invited to attend. Believe it or not, he's as frustrated as we are.

yeah right

I believe the sheriff is probably frustrated, but I also think that he would and could figure out a way to not lay off employees.

I don’t know never seen the budget and don’t really know what he has to work with.

Maybe someone can enlighten me. Why don’t we just play hardball with the commissioners? How much do they make from our tickets? I know it’s more than we make so lets just stop writing tickets unless it’s a commissioner or their family. Hate to add their family in this, but the commissioners don’t care about ours so why should we care about theirs. Maybe we can run across GG’s drunken daughter again.

Why does the sheriff give the $2 per hour Sig-15 fuel money to the commissioners by CHOICE? Hell, use it to keep from having to let others get laid off instead of giving it to the CC.

Where does the bond money go? If we get it then no more low bonds. If it goes to the county then make it the lowest possible.

If we make things hard on them then they will eventually give in. We make more money for this county then any other county department. So if they **** with us then make them feel it where it hurts.

I would have to agree with getting rid of SC. All he does is sit behind his desk nitpicking stupid shit. Grow a spine and grab your sack or get the **** out of here SC. Be a leader for once and stop keeping things from the sheriff.

Put KM or JS in the #2 spot. At least they know what they are doing and have SACK!!!!!!!!

The county gets no set benefit from a criminal's bond money.

If a criminal hires a bondsmen, the fee is typically 10% of the bond amount. The bondsmen gets a portion of the money and the remainder goes to the insurance company that guarantees the bond.

If a criminal pay the full amount of the bond in cash, the money goes to the Clerk of Court. Once the court proceedings are completed, the bond money is returned to the person who posted the cash bond, MINUS any fines or court fees imposed.

Keep in mind that the purpose of a bond is to ensure the alleged criminal appears in court. It is not part of their punishment. High bonds usually result only in overcrowded jails.


Tickets:
I am seeking the information on how money generated from the various tickets (parking infractions, DUI, Speeding, etc) is returned to a county. Some money goes to cover court cost, some to specialty programs, and very (and I do mean very) little money is returned to the county's general budget.

Once I have the breakdown, I will post it to the board.


When the taxpayers gets upset that it took 30 minutes or an hour for you to answer a call, you can tell them the S/O doesnt have the staffing as the Commissioners failed to fund a proper budget.

It doesnt hurt to drive the speed limit (or a little slower) in order to jack up response times. Nothing like a slow response to pissoff the taxpayer.

Very nice reply, let's keep it going. We need to stick together!

When the taxpayers gets upset that it took 30 minutes or an hour for you to answer a call, you can tell them the S/O doesnt have the staffing as the Commissioners failed to fund a proper budget.

It doesnt hurt to drive the speed limit (or a little slower) in order to jack up response times. Nothing like a slow response to pissoff the taxpayer. [/quote]

Tax payer's do not care about staffing problem's. Excuses about taking a long time just get you complaints to the Sheriff. It was the same when the county spent 2 million a year more on the landfill than on the S.O., bought 24 new dump truck's and more equipment for Road and Bridge than they could use. However the S.O. couldn't get any new deputy's or new car's. Instead we had to get used FHP car's to make do with.
And that was not that many years ago.