Now
Overcast
34°
High
36°
Low
13°
Full Forecast

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > News > Local
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

Deena Winter: No contract, no living wage requirement

Comments 62 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

Tuesday, Nov 27, 2007 - 11:58:38 pm CST

Some workers at the Capital Humane Society were surprised to see a photo caption in last week’s Journal Star that said they would “continue” to be paid a living wage since the mayor vetoed an exemption from the wage requirement for nonprofit groups.

They were surprised, because about half of the shelter workers don’t get paid the living wage, as defined by the city.

The living wage ordinance requires companies that contract with the city to pay full-time employees a minimum hourly salary, which is adjusted annually. This year, it’s $9.93 per hour if the employer provides health insurance benefits, $10.92 if it doesn’t. The wage requirement, enacted in 2004, applies to entities with at least 10 employees and contracts worth at least $25,000.

Story Photo

And even though the Humane Society is paid nearly a quarter of a million dollars a year to house stray animals picked up by the city, they’ve been essentially working without a contract since negotiations broke down on a new agreement and their official contract ended in 2006.

The 2004 contract paid the Humane Society $158,000 a year, but the Society requested $253,000 in 2005, citing increased costs due to the living wage requirement. The city offered $168,000. The ensuing contract dispute prompted the Humane Society to re-examine its mission and at one point decide to stop taking in stray animals for the city.

But the Humane Society has continued to accept city animals on a monthly basis for the annual equivalent of $244,000, and has now reached the point where it’s preparing to bid on a new contract for kennel services.

Capital Humane Society Director Bob Downey said the shelter isn’t subject to the living wage requirement because, “We don’t have a contract. We do not even have a month-to-month contract.”

City Attorney Dana Roper agreed. The shelter sends his office a bill every month, which he sends to the Finance Department. He said it’s the only entity whose payments are handled that way.

And even though the Humane Society is now getting paid more than would have been necessary to pay employees a living wage in 2005, Downey said, “That was over three years ago.” He said costs have gone up since then.

If the Humane Society should successfully win a new contract with the city, mayoral aide Rick Hoppe said, they would be expected to begin paying the living wage.

Eschliman slams Beutler veto

Not long after Mayor Chris Beutler announced he would veto a City Council-approved exemption to the city’s living wage for nonprofits, Councilwoman Robin Eschliman fired off a press release decrying his decision as “hypocritical, (a) double standard, flawed logic and symbolism over substance.”

Eschliman said she had first-hand knowledge of the effect of what she calls “the super-minimum wage.” A nonprofit agency that provided services to low-income and elderly people (and employed her mother) closed down shortly after the living wage ordinance went into effect.

Home Services for Independent Living closed in 2004, in part, because of the increased costs brought on by the new living wage requirement, said the group’s former executive director, Donna Burkhardt.

Since 1972, the agency had helped low-income elderly people continue to live in their homes by helping them with cleaning, grocery shopping and personal care. At one time, the agency had 60 employees serving 400 clients. It also had a contract with the city to pay for services for poor elderly people.

However, funding from the city aging department dried up, and near the end, Home Services was down to 20 employees and about 50 clients, Burkhardt said.

The aging department ran out of local funds to pay the company for summer months, she said.

Dee Fullerton, accountant for the aging department, confirmed that it ran out of money for the services in July and August of 2004.

As a contract renewal loomed, Burkhardt was told her agency wouldn’t get a funding increase to deal with the living wage requirement, Burkhardt said. That was the final nail in the coffin.

And not only that...

“To add insult to injury,” Eschliman said, despite an aggressive campaign by the mayor’s office to get city employees to contribute to United Way this year, just 45 percent of city employees, “most of whom are union employees,” did.

“Our city employees expect to receive union wages and benefits, but the majority are not willing to contribute any of their union wages to these nonprofit organizations whose budgets run on shoestrings and who are helping ‘the least of these’ in our city,” Eschliman said in a press statement. “If the city really cared about good wages for nonprofit employees, giving on the part of city employees would be mandated, not pitifully supported.”

Early retirement plan should save a quarter-million

The city is expected to save about a quarter of a million dollars the first year of its early retirement incentive program.

According to figures from the city budget office, the city paid out nearly $879,000 in incentives for people to retire early, which will save the city $1.1 million in annual salaries and benefits, for a net savings of nearly $252,000.

Forty-seven people signed up for the early retirement pilot program, which is aimed at reducing the city’s burgeoning personnel costs.

The incentive: a $15,000 contribution to the employee’s Post-Employment Health Plan (a tax-free investment account employees use for health care costs after they retire) and an additional 15 percent sick leave payout.

Reach Deena Winter at 473-2642 or dwinter@journalstar.com.


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Local > Back to Top of Story

Post Your Comment

Standards and Rules
All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Hide Comments Hide Comments   Newest First Newest First  
State Employee wrote on November 28, 2007 5:23 am:
" Robin, here's the reason I do not give to local charities. Contrary to what was reported in the paper, I received a 0% raise in July. Every day in the LJS there are a number of stories about the crazy spending going on in this town. The 2015 Vision group raises 25 million to pay for their lofty ideas, the City spends millions on Antelope Valley, buying property all over town, and building an arena we don't need. We have UNL spending millions to raid the State Fair and now to unload unwanted employees, It seems this town has folks throwing millions of dollars around on everything except supporting the local charities. Every budget cycle we see cuts to agencies that assist those in need. The leaders in this town have no sense of priority and are very poor role models. Therefore, since apparently there is so much extra money floating around in Lincoln, I find that my priority is keeping a roof over my family's head and paying my increased property taxes and utilty bills. "

 City employee wrote on November 28, 2007 5:59 am:
" Council-women Eschliman now threatens to require city employees to contribute to United Way or else lose 'union wages'. Wow. Although this is absurd beyond belief to start with I think Eschliman should begin by setting the standard. Since she bought it up it is only fair now that she makes public what she contribues to United Way. With the constant in-fighting and dishonesty that has led many to distrust the City Council why would anyone believe that Eschliman is not just another city council hypocrite. By the way, I don't think Eschliman has any idea how much of those union wages city employees privately and silently donate to charity. I know that myself amd many other city employees give significant amounts to charities other then the United Way, the obvious cities forced charity of choice. "

 james wrote on November 28, 2007 6:04 am:
" I'm afraid Councilwoman Eschliman seems to have mistaken the two levels of analysis. There is a big difference between city employees giving to charity and the policy of the mayor. These two have the same amount of a relationship as the mailman supporting the war in Iraq. I'm saddened the race for mayor has already started, I was hoping there would be some peace for at least a year. "

 Gerard Harbison wrote on November 28, 2007 6:11 am:
" "“If the city really cared about good wages for nonprofit employees, giving on the part of city employees would be mandated, not pitifully supported.”". I usually support Eschliman, but this is obnoxious. A 'mandated donation' is called a tax, Ms. Eschliman. You're supposed to be anti-tax, remember? "

 J wrote on November 28, 2007 6:38 am:
" First of all, I admit. I voted for Ms. Eschliman. I wont make that mistake again. Why do you continue to lash out against city employees. You ARE right. They are not required to donate any of their hard earned wages to charities. However, 45% of them DID make a contribution. As a taxpaying citizen (your boss), I am asking your to please stop your unwarranted vendetta against city employees, and focus like your fellow councilmen on the issues that really matter. "

 wait wrote on November 28, 2007 7:03 am:
" Let's see if I got this right. The capitol humane society says they need more money because of the living wage. Contract ends and they are still doing the job but getting more money so they can pay the living wage, but they are not paying it to all employees. Wonder which employees are getting the higher pay. Logic would say they have a contract and should be paying. It's a verbal contract or agreement. Oh shoot I forget this is my government doing this they don't have to play by any rules they make. "

 Jack wrote on November 28, 2007 7:58 am:
" First of all, charitable giving should not be mandated, as Robin proposes. Besides, who's to say that these folks haven't donated to other organizations. I don't give to the United Way either as it is not efficient with donations. It is better to donate directly to the organization you want to help. "

 I wonder wrote on November 28, 2007 8:15 am:
" Would a contribution from Robin E. also be mandated? Who does she think she is? Maybe she just doesn't think before she speaks. The day that government MANDATES giving, it becomes TAKING. She has no idea what personal financial situations of the non-profit Union Dues paying employees are. First hand knowledge is this, 45% of contributions should never be considered as "pitifully supported". Learn to say "Thank you". The employees will always give what they can. Eschliman's comments in this article are not only narrow, shallow, and borderline ignorant, but have thoroughly disgusted this reader. Please, Lincoln voters, do not re-elect this woman for anything. "

 NS wrote on November 28, 2007 8:23 am:
" Well Robin wake up! That is why there are government programs in place to help the disadvantaged in our society. In a perfect world the rich would help the poor and we would all work together. However, it has been found repeatedly over the years that the rich don't like to help the poor, they like to help the rich by contributing to things like univerisities and polo clubs and hospitals. City employees are not rich, they make a descent wage. However, if their spouse does not and they have a tight budget, there probably isn't room for them to contribute to charity. You can't force charity on anyone, otherwise it's not really charity, it's a pay cut. If you want to argue that point fine, but don't just whine about how the city employees won't contribute to charity and the mayor won't pass a living wage, the two really aren't related. "

 russ wrote on November 28, 2007 8:29 am:
" Yeah Robin, you get him. Mandate that every employee has to give to United Way. Then you can pass a law making every citizen donate to United Way. It reeks of imperialistic government to MAKE people give money to charity. When is the next city council election? "

 russell wrote on November 28, 2007 8:32 am:
" A solution for living wage and non-profits could be the employee be paid the required wage for certain number of hours and 'volunteer' the remaining hours. There would be no change in wage income and non-profit expenses. "

 robin robin robin wrote on November 28, 2007 8:33 am:
" and I liked you so much when you got elected... Mandating where your employees contribute? What kind of logic is that? As far as the humane society what a joke - during the early contract negotations regarding living wage they refused to give the info the council asked for, particularly the wage of the highest earning employees. They gave an average but would not give a high and low end. So now they're setting themselves up to say the current payment amount isn't enough even though they still don't pay the wages it's based on??? "

 George wrote on November 28, 2007 9:13 am:
" Thanks to Terry Werner and Mayor Buetler for the living wage ord. You are saving us tax payers money by driving all of the non profits out of business. Maybe next You'll force the super minimum wages on our local restuarants, drive them out of business too so I won't eat out so much. "

 Taxes wrote on November 28, 2007 9:34 am:
" I don't know about anyone else, but I do my charitable giving outside the workplace. I already contribute enough of my hard earned non-union dollars to the "disadvantaged" living in the social safety hamock through my required payment of taxes. If I was not already paying over 1/3 of my income in taxes maybe I would have more to contribute the "disadvantaged". Perhaps the "disadvantaged" should get jobs instead of looking for handouts. "

 City employee - wrote on November 28, 2007 9:51 am:
" I have donated to United Way in past years. Most recent years I have donated directly to a charity I am involved with. I donate both financially and my time. I think the City should NOT be involved in soliciting donations for charities during City Business Hours - isn't this non-productive time ?? The idea of forcing city employees to donate to a particular charity proves you are out of touch !! Are the constituates which you are suppose to represent also "anti City employee" or is this your own (LIBA) agenda? "

 good ole days wrote on November 28, 2007 10:08 am:
" Did Home Services also cut people's toenails? I thought Robin was vocal in her opposition to using government money for that. "

 amazed wrote on November 28, 2007 10:16 am:
" It is against the law for employers to mandate or even presure employees to give to charity. Not everyone loves the United Way or some of the groups they support. She also doesn't know what other peoples finaces are. I know when my employer takes from my income or I losse benfits my giving to the Company's designated charity goes way down. "

 Jen wrote on November 28, 2007 10:36 am:
" Wow, the selfishness presented in these comments is absolutely stunning! Everyone worries about me, me, me, but who do you think will help you should you fall on hard times? Grouping all people who receive assistance from non-profit organizations as lazy is over the top, to say the least. No matter what your situation, there is always someone who has it worse. I have two children, my husband is currently unemployed, we live paycheck to paycheck, and yet I still find the time & money to contribute. It angers me to see that society is so self-serving that they refuse to contribute a cent (or second) to those who truly need it. I support the exemption of the living wage increase, as the income being paid to employees comes out of the benefits for those in need. You need bodies to run a charity, and volunteers are hard to come by. Don't force another great organization to close it's doors because we have no sympathy for those that want to help. If you don't have the money, the least you can do is donate your time. In a lot of cases, you don't even have to leave home. Organizations are always looking for people to stuff envelopes, do internet work, or make/receive phone calls. Veto the exemption if you will, but be prepared to step in and pick up the slack. And God forbid you ever be placed in a situation where you need the favor returned. "

 Another City Employee wrote on November 28, 2007 10:37 am:
" I don't agree with an employer getting in the middle of what I do with my income or making me donate to charities. I prefer to do that on my own which I do. It's my income no matter who pays me as I do my job. However, this year I did donate to the United Way, I usually don't. I make my donations directly to the charity, such as JDRF, Boy and Girl Scouts, Ceders Home, MDA, FCA, Make a Wish, City Mission, YMCA, Children's Tumor Foundation, Salvation Army, Food Bank and I can go on. My favorite charities NE Children's Home and my church are not part of United Way. I just don't give money I give my time too. Robin you have NO idea how or what City employees feel about giving to charities. I voted for you too, but won't make that mistake twice. Robin, you forgot to mention the thousands of pounds of food and money City employees collected for the food bank this past summer, and every summer. Robin, What did you give?? "

 Locke wrote on November 28, 2007 10:53 am:
" Three things. First, a "living wage" is a bad thing. Yes, some people will earn more money than they have earned before. However, many other people will be put out of work or remain unemployed because businesses can not afford to pay them at the higher rate. (Many economic studies have provided evidence to support these assertions.) Second, requiring employees to support charities, especially requiring donations to certain charities, is ridiculous. City employees should be allowed to decide how to spend their own money. There should not be a "giving tax". Third, giving to the United Way is not necessarily the most efficient way to donate money. I give my money directly to the charities of my choice instead of funnelling it through the United Way. While the United Way has drastically reduced its overhead over the years, they still charge overhead for donations. I want my money to go to the charity of my choice instead of some part of it going to the cost of getting my money to the charity. "

 The truth wrote on November 28, 2007 10:59 am:
" Perhaps Councilperson Eschliman should find out the truth before she speaks. I just read the living wage ordinance and it specifically exempts "any service contract which primarily benefits or involves physically or mentally disabled individuals or senior citizens (over age 65)' Lincoln Living Ordinance paragraph 2.81.90 I don't doubt that her mother lost her job, but don't blame it on the living wage when the fact is it didn't apply to that type of organization or contract. Once again, Robin, firing off before knowing the facts. "

 Amazed wrote on November 28, 2007 11:01 am:
" Is this woman for real? No wonder people are getting tired of this city council. Is she going to mandate that we give to her church to? SHE has no right to tell people how and what to do with THEIR earned money. "

 City Employee wrote on November 28, 2007 11:30 am:
" I can't believe that Robin Eschliman would take a positive thing, such as City Employees donating their own money to the United Way Campaign, and turn it into a negative thing by saying that ONLY 45 percent of City employees donated. We had more people donated this year than last year, and I must say 45 percent is better than nothing. I would like to know how much money and time she donates to charities. I know for a fact, that many many people within the City donate to many other individual organizations during the year, plus their churches and friends organizations and many others. Asking that they make donating to the United Way Campaign mandatory, is just absurd. I think she owes everyone at the City an apology. "

 Be Nice Robin wrote on November 28, 2007 12:03 pm:
" Just because someone doesn't enroll through the United Way workplace giving doesn't mean that they do not give to other charities and non-profits! It is not the only way to donate money to charity and it serves a limited number of non-profit agencies. I give through the workplace to Community Health Charities but I also give money through other ways too. "

 Kari wrote on November 28, 2007 12:09 pm:
" I am a city employee and very upset about what I have read regarding Robin's comments. First of all, I have given to the United Way for years. I also contribute to many other organizations. Robin has no idea what the finances are for each individual city employee or how much they give to charity. This is really not her call to be bad mouthing city employees when she once again does not have the fact. "

 Chef wrote on November 28, 2007 12:15 pm:
" “Our city employees. . .are not willing to contribute to . . .nonprofit organizations" First, some of the city employees, especially entry level are not ABLE to contribute. Second, as citizens they retain the right to contribute (or not) to ANY organization(s) they choose. Third, multiple private sector firms employ differential pay-scales - that is employees are paid at different scales when they are working on city, state or federal contracts. This is an Accounting Department problem - Did anybody take any Business Admin 101 courses ??? "

 Lincoln Police Charities Inc., wrote on November 28, 2007 12:56 pm:
" I read Robin Eschliman’s comments in the Lincoln Journal Star regarding "city employees not willing to contribute any of their union wages to these nonprofit organizations who budgets run on shoestrings and who are helping ‘the least of these’ in our city". This can not be further from the truth. All Lincoln Police Union members donate a portion of their monthly union dues to the Lincoln Police Union Charities, Inc. LPU Charities is a non profit 501 C (3) organization. Furthermore, members of the Lincoln Police Department donate to LPU Charities Inc. through the United Way. Lincoln Police Union Charities Inc., funds organizations throughout the City of Lincoln including, but not limited to, the United Way, Santa Cop, YMCA Strong Kids, Boy Scouts, Friendship Home, Special Olympics, Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, Youth Sports, the Center for the People in Need, and Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. Over $50,000.00 will be disbursed to these organizations. The Lincoln Police Union Charities, Inc. Santa Cop Auction, which was held November 17th, 2007, had a record year in donations and participants in which the proceeds will be used to purchase toys, food, and clothing for children who are less fortunate. The merchandise that is purchased will be donated to the Center for the People in Need for distribution. LPU members also volunteer their time for many of the organizations that we choose to support including Law Enforcement Torch Run, Polar Plunge, Cops-n-Lobsters, Santa Cop, Chocolate Lovers Fantasy, Youth Sports, and many others. "

 Larry wrote on November 28, 2007 1:53 pm:
" Robin's anti city employee agenda continues to amaze me. Her comments are completely inappropriate. United Way is only one of the charities that city employee unions are involved in. While not every employee may participate in United Way, union employees are involved in many other charities that improve our community throughout the year. There are many excellent charities out there and each city employee has to make a determination as to which ones they are going to participate in. I encourage city employee unions to educate Ms. Eschliman on all of the great things that city employees do for this community. She obviously has not done her research. "

 cop wrote on November 28, 2007 2:03 pm:
" Robin, the reason I did not donate to the United Way is because they dontae the ACLU and a host of other leftist organizations. "

 Oh Robin wrote on November 28, 2007 2:06 pm:
" I don't think people are upset with the prospect of giving. I think they're upset with being MANDATED to give to the United Way. Robin does not & should not have the power to say who, where & how much money that I donate to charitable organizations. Nor should she have the right to pressure people to contribute either. I won't be voting for her in the next election. "

 Grundle wrote on November 28, 2007 2:09 pm:
" Hey Robin, ever heard the saying, "don't look a gift horse in the mouth"? It may not have been a large percentage of employees that donated, but with the city council constantly coming after the jobs of city employees, you'll have to forgive us for not feeling so secure about our financial futures. As one commenter already mentioned, mandated charity is not charity at all, but a tax. Charity involves giving...taxation involves taking. Telling someone, "you HAVE to give this to us" is taking. Tell ya what Robin, if you're so concerned about these NPO's, why don't you donate your entire city council salary to charity? After all, if the city really cared about good wages for nonprofit employees, giving on the part of city councilmen and women would be mandated, not pitifully supported. "

 Darren wrote on November 28, 2007 2:41 pm:
" Another attempt by Eschliman to demonize the city employees. City employees give to many charities and to single out one for the purposes of attacking city employees is unfair and misleading. I expect much more from our elected officials. I will not forget her conduct when she is up for re-election. "

 Why Amazed? wrote on November 28, 2007 2:45 pm:
" That is about all the government ever really does is tell people what to do with THEIR earned money. "

 Why not? wrote on November 28, 2007 2:55 pm:
" If the Government tells us: who we must/must not hire, who we must/must not serve, what kind of plants we can/cannot burn and inhale, and where we can/cannot do it, how much head protection/body restraint we must/must not wear while travelling in/on certain vehicles, what sex/species/number we can/cannot marry, it doesn't seem that big a stretch to tell us what charities we must or must not give to. "

 Not far-fetched wrote on November 28, 2007 2:59 pm:
" The Feds already have many programs of forced charitable giving: welfare, medicare, international aid... Why would it shock anyone that the locals might want to get in on the action. "

 What is the problem. wrote on November 28, 2007 3:06 pm:
" Why is it acceptable for the city to tell contractors what they have to pay their employees, but it is absurd to tell their own employees what charity to give to. "

 City Chattel wrote on November 28, 2007 3:09 pm:
" Absolutely unbelieveable... Robin I am a city employee, my husband is also a public employee. We both give to United Way through our work places, also to our church, the Audubon Society, Nature Conservency, Heiffer project, our children's school (a public school) and the Boy Scouts of America. Between all of these charities we give about $4,000 a year - about 5% of our total income. In addition we volunteer with our church, rural fire district, Boy Scouts, Audubon, Athletic boosters, Music boosters, the village planning commission,and others for a total of about 400 hours a year. If we were paid at the living wage, that would be about another $4,000, for a total of about 10% of our income. What was your income last year, Robin? What percentage did you contribute to charity? "

 Hey Robin wrote on November 28, 2007 3:12 pm:
" Some people don't contribute to the United Way because they don't agree with some of the charities it supports - such as Planned Parenthood. "

 No way! wrote on November 28, 2007 3:44 pm:
" Eschliman needs to shut her yap. Just sit behind the city council desk, and be quiet. What's next, she going to require us to donate to her campaign for President of the Universe? "

 Will she ever learn? wrote on November 28, 2007 4:47 pm:
" Way to go, Eschliman. I wonder how many City employee followers she lost because of this? Not to mention how many votes should she choose to run again. I know of City employees who volunteer their own time as a team and help out a much needed organization here in town who relies heavily on volunteers. Plus, I think that almost half of the City is a pretty good number, considering many people clearly have their own charities they support in their own way, yet many of them gave to the UW campaign. I really hope you come out with a public apology to City employees, especially since you made the people who DID give to the charity that you may think their contribution didn't matter. Also, although I understand that money is involved and this is not considered charity, many employees who work for the City may put up with low wages and little or no benefits, yet help people EVERY DAY who may utilize charitable organizations. And while I understand they could get a different job, many people LIKE what they do BECAUSE IT DOES HELP people who need it. Some people have devoted 40+ years to doing just that. So, a round of applause for you, Ms. Eschliman, for yet another faux pas. "

 another city employee wrote on November 28, 2007 5:26 pm:
" as a city employee public works division i and most of my co-workers are not paid enough to give any of our paycheck away only those in select positions with large salaries with in public works can do that we all do not make the kind of wages you see posted in the paper the "average joe" working the street is barley making the stated minimum living wage stated above (which at that salary your not doing much living) "

 sue wrote on November 28, 2007 6:05 pm:
" The PEHP would be a more flavorful carrot if one could use it for any medical care, not just premiums. "

 deb wrote on November 28, 2007 6:09 pm:
" Eschliman once again speaks before she considers additional information. I contribute through United Way but I also contribute to other charities directly or those not on the 'list'. There are many city employees involved one way or another in charities-- either through fund raising, Food Bank Drive, or volunteering. This was a cheap shot. "

 PP wrote on November 28, 2007 7:00 pm:
" Planned Parenthood is not listed on the UW of Lincoln's website as a program that benefits from their fundraising. And neither is the ACLU. Look at their website or get the information before writing about it. "

 Wait a sec wrote on November 28, 2007 7:11 pm:
" Isn't a living wage ordinance mandatory charitable giving on the part of the taxpayer? "

 Disgusted Republican wrote on November 28, 2007 7:22 pm:
" As a life long Republican I have to ask the question of my party leadership: Is Councilwoman Eschliman the best we have to offer up for election? Her continued ignorance over issues, and now talking about mandatory charitable contributions is over the top. Time to recruit a new candidate folks. "

 Robin's close wrote on November 28, 2007 7:23 pm:
" The living wage ordinace should be applied to city employees as well. When they get their hair done we should make sure the hairdresser was paid a living wage. Oil changed, the grease monkey better be making a living wage. Hire your grandson to mow the lawn, living wage please... The city money should go to no one who take's advantage of workers. "

 SF wrote on November 28, 2007 7:32 pm:
" Can we do any more to demoralize and put down the city worker? Robin's comments are absolutely obnoxious. Here here to "cop" for reminding us that the United Way donates to the ACLU and other leftist organizations. Not thanks Robin. "

 How dare her... wrote on November 28, 2007 7:46 pm:
" It's way out of bounds for a council person to call for a donation mandate. 45% is a very good response to a charity. Way better than the average voter turnout. LPD has Santa Cop that most of the cops donate to. I also donate directly to the People's City Mission. I hope the voters remember this little stunt when this socialist tries to get re-elected to office. "

 long memory wrote on November 28, 2007 8:56 pm:
" Negative comments like Ms. Eschliman's have the exact opposite effect. Even fewer City employees will donate to the United Way campaign next year, as a result of being belittled for their significant increase in giving this year--but one that didn't quite meet Ms. Eschliman's standards. I would think after the debacles, investigations, and criminal charges associated with the Lincoln Interfaith Council, the Malone Community Center, and the Family Services Association--all well documented in this newspaper--that police officers in particular would be a bit more likely to make direct contributions to the charities of their choice through their own 501(c)(3) charitable organization. It is unconscionable for her to attack the police union for what she perceives as a low percentage of contributors--particularly when she is apparently oblivious to their other charitable and philanthropic activities. Ms. Eschliman needs a frank lecture about the impropriety of belittling her employees, and making veiled threats to retaliate at budget and contract negotiation time. This should most appropriately come from the Lincoln-Lancaster County United Way Campaign Chair, Richard Vierk. A short, public, and sincere apology to the effect of "I'm sorry" with no further adjectives or phrases appended would be in order, and should be graciously accepted by the hundreds of offended employees, who must realize that Ms. Eschliman does not represent the United Way agencies, the City, the City Council, or the United Way campaign in any way shape or form. Absent such an apology, it is incumbent on the United Way Board of Directors and the remainder of the City Council to make it clear that Ms. Eschliman does not speak for them or represent their views. "

 Why Home Services Really Closed wrote on November 28, 2007 9:00 pm:
" Lets get the story straight. Home Service's closure had nothing to do with living wage requirements. In competitive bidding for Supportives Contracts, HSIL always offered the City and low-income older persons rates that exceeded the rates of private, for-profit competitors by $2.00 or more dollars per hour. Low-income older persons predictably chose not to pay a higher share of the cost. On the open market, adequate-income older persons also chose more reliable, better quality services at a lower price from other agencies. Draw your own conclusion about where the blame really lies. "

 Eschliman Speaks! wrote on November 28, 2007 9:21 pm:
" What a hypocrite - - she has the opportunity to GET DIRECTLY INVOLVED each year during budget session if she wants to have an impact on the plight of the non profits in Lincoln. Lets be honest, if Eschliman really cared, she'd advocate that more money was available for non profits when the City budget gets voted on by Council each year. Funding for non profits was cut, not to mention Aging Services, and approved by Eschliman and Mayor Beutler just a few short months ago. However, I remember quite clearly that Eschliman, Camp, Spatz, and Svoboda tried to get through many ADDITONAL CUTS above and beyond what Mayor Beutler had already made to balance the budget. She's demonstrating her twisted view of city employees and unions in general. How can she be respected with such silly views? Credibility? None. As a Republican voter, I'm saddened by the actions of a couple of our Republican council members. "

 Another view wrote on November 28, 2007 9:44 pm:
" The United Way campaign at the City was the best organized effort ever at the City to increase participation. The various coordinators did a great job. There were good natured contests between Departments and Divisions based on the percentage of employee participation. Some of the results are: 1) 943 givers, 250 more than last year. 2)$132,193 in donations, up $25,747 or a 24% increase over last year. 3) Of the 26 Departments and Divisions tracked by the campaign, 25 increased the number of people giving or the amount given; 4 Departments/Divisions had 100% participation, 11 had 75% or better and 14 had 60% or better. It doesn't seem to me the campaign was "pitifully" supported as Ms. Eschliman maintains. I suspect the United Way would be quite pleased if the results of the campaign with City employees were repeated all throughout Lincoln. In addition, employees in my Department support other causes at work such as Santa's Helpers, the Food Bank, Juvenile Diabetes, the Cancer Society, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts and others. Several are blood donors and others no doubt support churches and many other organizations at home. I'm sure this is true of other Department's employees as well. As mentioned in other posts, charitable causes that might be specific to a Department, such as Santa Cop, are also supported. It is unfortunate that Ms. Eschliman made this misguided attack at a City Council meeting. She then carried it further by releasing a statement and apparently continued by attacking Police Dept. employees for what she didn't think was an adequate participation rate on a local radio show. She also tied her opinion to what she believes should be discussed at the next round of Police labor negotiations. Needless to say, there were many angry employees at work today. The United Way campaign at the City was a fun, successful event that can and should be repeated in the future. Let's hope that a City Council member doesn't spoil it again. "

 union employee wrote on November 28, 2007 11:00 pm:
" At our last Union meeting it was suggested to campaign to RECALL Robin - now do we have any more members willing to jump on board??? - I bet all council meetings would be a lot simpler if she weren't sitting up there talking nonsense. Talk about waste of taxpayer money, your money is paying her council wage, too! Some of Robin's finer moments: Her first year - when she told everyone that they needed to vacation in Lincoln to help our economy but she chose to take a trip overseas and publicly advertised her vacation by asking people to join her. Then last year when thousands of taxpayer dollars were wasted when the council was told they couldn't cut our retirement plan but thought they were above the legal ruling so they still tried. They are trying again this coming budget year and will waste more taxpayer money. If Robin would get recalled - or if Dan Marvin leaves for bigger glory - make sure your next vote doesn't go to another LIBA puppet or they'll just run this fair city further into the ground. I thought LIBA was for the betterment of this city - maybe we should all take our Christmas shopping out of town to prevent more of our taxes being wasted. "

 JRT wrote on November 29, 2007 6:21 am:
" To the lady "Eschliman Speaks," actually, the Council put money BACK IN to the budget for aging from what the Mayor recommended. If you are a republican maybe you were mad the council spent more. "

 KP wrote on November 29, 2007 10:38 am:
" Ya DON'T mandate any employee to GIVE to a charity. Thats the trouble with Eschlman and friends, this town is mandated for everything to going to the bathroom!!!! You buy an new piece of utility and the city has to check the licensed service persons job FOR A PRICE. Another one of Lincoln's "job" progression, the citizens taxed to death to pay people to come stand in front of your new equipment for 5 minutes and say its O.K.!!!! This crap never happened in my former city, why are taxes were half Lincolns!!!!! Eschlman would tax everyone that drank a sip of water out of a water fountain!!!!! "

 JR wrote on November 29, 2007 3:00 pm:
" I'm sorry, but I have to ask. Did anyone actually hear Robin say this? If you did, could you tell it was her voice? Or if you saw her say this, was she sitting on Jon Camp's lap and he was barely moving his mouth at the same time? Or could this just be Jon Camp playing a belated Halloween prank by dressing up like her? As much as it seems out of character for her, it seems right up his alley. Or maybe she is just adopting his contentious, divisive ways. "

 Great wrote on November 29, 2007 3:02 pm:
" Typical stuff coming from LIBA "

 Jeff wrote on November 29, 2007 3:28 pm:
" "Mandated Giving"? It is not giving if mandated, it is a tax! What nonsense. "

 concerned wrote on November 29, 2007 4:39 pm:
" This article failed to explain why, even though, the humane society receives plenty of money from the city, they fail to pay their employees a decent wage. Whats going on Bob Downey? "

 Insulted wrote on November 29, 2007 7:53 pm:
" This is the most insulting, thoughtless, inaccurate opinion about charitable giving by City employees. Go to the United Way Website - they list literally thousands of donors, do you see Eschliman's name anywhere? Do you see her company name anywhere? Do you see the LIBA anywhere? Notice the the City of Lincoln is one of the top organizations that generously support United Way? Charitible giving has nothing to do with being part of a union organization. I could go on, but what is the point - she doesn't get it in many areas. "

 To Concerned: wrote on November 29, 2007 11:07 pm:
" "Plenty of Money" would hardly be considered an accurate term. Well over 50% of the costs incurred by CHS are related to the contract activity of the city. Less than 20% of CHS's budget comes from the city contract. What does that mean (since you want answers)? CHS loses hundreds of thousands of dollars by taking on this contract. Quite a bargain for the city of Lincoln considering Animal Control's budget is nearly $1.5 million (I'm not sure why this figure is never mentioned in any of these articles.) Does the funding still sound like "plenty of money"? "

Ads by Yahoo!