Most of Tuesday’s council meeting
centered around the two DPW layoffs. A
large number of DPW supporters attended the meeting. Everyone that spoke on the issue made the
case why the layoffs are unfair. Nobody
could provide the other argument.
The union representative touched
upon some of the following points and I am paraphrasing:
-He is opposed to any layoffs but
when layoffs occur it is usually last one on, first one off. That is not occurring here.
-There were DPW layoffs, but “Building
and Grounds” was not considered.
-Summer help was hired at the time
of these layoffs. Spending cuts do not
seem to be occurring elsewhere.
-DPW employees go through
background checks. Private employees on
the street may not.
-DPW workers are three quarters
done with new street signs. Why would you hire an outside contractor to finish
the job?
I touched upon the following
points:
-On September 18, 2012, I
questioned why it was necessary to create a new “Building and Grounds”
Department. I stated that Lodi was two
square miles. Why would you need two DPW
departments? Neither Luna nor the council could give any explanation at that time. They have no explanation two years later.
-At that same 2012 meeting, I asked
if any family memers of the council would benefit financially from the new
ordinance. They laughed and said “No”. I asked Mrs. Licata if her son would benefit
from the new department. She laughed and
said “No”. It turned out her son was
first DPW employee moved to “Building and Grounds”.
-The Deputy Mayor’s son is
benefiting. He was hired in 2012. He was sitting at the meeting on Tuesday
without being considered for a layoff. He
did not have a family dealing with the crisis of a layoff. But employees with more seniority than the
Deputy Mayor’s son were.
-The purpose of Civil Service is to
protect employees from politics. This
administration is replacing seniority with politics. They passed an ordinance for the sole purpose
of helping some and hurting others.
-Everyone
read the Record story on Saturday about one lawsuit already filed against Lodi. These two
layoffs only invite more lawsuits. Lodi
cannot afford more litigation.
Who made the argument for the other
side? Nobody.
Who defended their actions? Nobody.
A) They have no defense.
B) They think they will be sued.
C) They have no defense and
therefore think they will be sued.
No matter how anyone feels about public employees or privatization, this
issue comes down to seniority vs. politics.
What type of person would go as far
as passing a new ordinance just to help a Deputy Mayor’s son?
How would Mr. Luna feel if new department
was created by the Borough, Lodi Board of Education, or Lodi Housing Authority
for the sole purpose of targeting his family members for layoffs (not to save
money but to make room for other political families)?
And anyone can look at Lodi’s
monthly bills or the contracts awarded at Passaic Valley to see that
privatization usually costs more when its Luna awarding the contracts.
