If I had 10 employees each earning $40 an hour seems to me I would ask if they would all take a 10% cut to $36 an hour. That would save $80,000 a year and no one laid off. I could get along real nice on $72,000 for a year or two. Yep and maybe an $8 cut might be needed.

I don't think there are many city employees making $40 and hour. If there are, then there is our problem. However, I think most city employees are making just enough to get by. 10% of $15-$20/hour is not nearly as impressive. It is a tough problem all around. I have to agree with Mr. Turley on this one. I think looking at layoffs and/or furloughs makes good sense, as tough as it is for any organization to do so.

What I can't believe is how the state and I'm sure most city government is run. Layoffs are based upon longevity and not productivity. If you've worked for the state for a long enough period of time you are encouraged through the policy to not work hard because there is no reward for hard work and no penalty for lackluster work. So basically our tax dollars are propping up a system that is by its very nature, wasteful and inefficient. I personally know of state employees who are at risk of losing there jobs, not because they are the least effective workers nor even because they are in a job that is redundant. Instead they are at risk because they were last hired. Nevermind that there are entrenched 30+ year workers who literally sit around twiddling there thumbs as they collect a paycheck and job security.

I believe they meant Broadweave not Broadband.

I'm a city employee who has worked hard for what I have. My family depends on every dime I make. What makes Turley think he has the "magic bullet"? I know if things get tougher they'll resort to look at lay-offs and furloughs, but they're just looking out for their own. Which is what good companies should do! This economy affects all of us--if we don't get money we're certainly not going to spend it--which hurts our tax dollars . . . . on and on and on. I think this is a GRAND STANDING ACT by Turley.

I think the council is supposed to reflect their constitutes and be a check and balance to the Mayor. I understand that the Mayor is opposed to layoffs and maybe rightfully so, as the employees are his employees. However, I think the council has to lookout for the people of Provo city who partially fund, through their taxes, the city employee's salaries. I pay taxes and, in part, the salaries of Provo City employees. So, I am supposed to go to work and face potential layoffs knowing the city employees are immune from such cost cutting measures? I'm sorry, but as a tax payer I would like to see government run a little leaner and if that means cutting the fat at the City then I am all for it. I think it is irresponsible for the council to just assume that they can "make it up later".

We have lost our merit raises, our COLA raise, our christmas bonus, and have been hit with a health insurance deduction. Layoffs is all that is left. This is happening when we have already been trimmed way back in employee numbers and are being asked to more than is possible. I would pretty much welcome a layoff at this point.
What is the real problem here? It is the misuse of public funds. This includes spending $60+ million for iProvo, millions for Action Target, millions at the airport, and an endless list of the mayor's pet projects. If he and his Energy director would have stayed on task for the real business of the city we would not be here now.

Here's a thought Mr. Turley, why don't you volunteer yourself for a longterm furlough? When was the last time you produced anything besides useless rhetoric and ridiculous viewpoints?