Chef Jim Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Exactly. I wouldn't be surprised if this deal had to go through some sort of prison-owned corporation, for tax, liability, and contractual purposes. At the very least they're moving money from line-item to line-item in the budget, which requires some sort of negotiation so that both people can show a "profit" (the prison system says "Look! We saved taxpayer money by contracting out prisoners as help!", whatever department owns the building says "Look! We saved taxpayer money by contracting prisoners!" Both sides have to negotiate a deal where they both get to say that.) Not saying it's right...just saying it's the friggin' government. And in five years some other political dweeb is going to say: "We saved the taxpayer money by no longer using these prisoners as janitors". And the town idiots will rejoice and re-elect said dweeb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Add in the "wisdom" of Ohio voters. They passed a ballot that not only raised minimum wage ahead of the recent federal increase, but has a built-in yearly cost of living increase. So far, I have seen grocery stores increase their numbers of self-serve registers, including new full-belt ones that shuttle your stuff downstream. Jobs cut. A small local eatery chain that I patronize, has slashed staff. Cut hours, raised prices, requires the wait staff to deliver checks and collect cash instead of customers being able to bring their check up to the register. Which plants the customer in place, and makes them not come back. A classic death spiral. Prices are up in other restaurants, too. Meanwhile, the OH State govt. has raised just about every fee they can, shocked because they had to lay off some of their own - can't have that, and they have to keep up the payoffs to the craftily-cultivated dependent crowd, because they are their very important voting bloc. Narrowly avoided was a ballot initiative, that would require all employers to give 5 days per year of "personal time", which could be cashed in without notice, in 15 minute increments. In a snit? Take off. Big, important meeting you didn't prepare for? Take off. It will be back - it has very heavy union backing, and our current Governor took the cash and understands which side his personal bread is buttered on. Last years' big noise was DHL leaving Wilmington, OH. 10,000+ well paying jobs, a big deal for that rural county. Much hand-wringing. Had to stop U.S. operations. Bad global economy. They left, and today resurfaced to do business at the CVG Airport - which is located in Kentucky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted April 18, 2009 Share Posted April 18, 2009 Exactly. I wouldn't be surprised if this deal had to go through some sort of prison-owned corporation, for tax, liability, and contractual purposes. At the very least they're moving money from line-item to line-item in the budget, which requires some sort of negotiation so that both people can show a "profit" (the prison system says "Look! We saved taxpayer money by contracting out prisoners as help!", whatever department owns the building says "Look! We saved taxpayer money by contracting prisoners!" Both sides have to negotiate a deal where they both get to say that.) Not saying it's right...just saying it's the friggin' government. Be careful, because your suggestion that transferring line items from budget/cost centers (legal cooking the books, really) has already been suggested and was pronounced by the oracle LABills to be stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 18, 2009 Share Posted April 18, 2009 Be careful, because your suggestion that transferring line items from budget/cost centers (legal cooking the books, really) has already been suggested and was pronounced by the oracle LABills to be stupid. Generally he's right, it is stupid. As you yourself so succinctly pointed out when you called it "legally cooking the books, really". In this particular case, there probably is an opportunity for some cost savings, since the state could easily save more on salary costs than they'd spend on the ancillary costs of contracting to inmates. Whether they will truly realize that potential savings is another matter...I doubt it, personally, since it's so much more accpetable to inflate operational budgets than HR budgets (since the voters never really complain that "stuff" costs too much, but are always ready to accept the idea that people are greedy.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 What? Before vets? Isn't that what (gov't jobs) were first intended for when first created well over a century ago (vets that is)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts