Once again, I stray from Conservative orthodoxy

March 22nd, 2011

I’m against eliminating the residency requirement for City of Milwaukee cops, buy viagra malady firemen and teachers.

Yes, salve I understand the issue is supposedly about freedom.

But no one is forcing people to take a job as a Milwaukee cop. I don’t have any problem with the city choosing to make residency one of the requirements of employment. If you don’t like it, don’t take the job. That’s freedom enough.

And Milwaukee is already in too dire a shape to encourage the mass exodus of the only stabilizing population in the city.

Entry Filed under: Milwaukee

11 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Nick  |  March 22nd, 2011 at 9:46 am

    I understand your logic… but if we consider the right to choose where you live as a pretty basic human right… then would it be OK for a government (and we’re talking about a government and not a private company) to require you to give up your right to bear arms to work for it. What about your freedom of speech? Is it OK for a government to require you to give up your right to trial by jury in order to work for it?

    And while there may be many who choose to leave, I wonder how many people who currently live outside the city would choose to fill those jobs knowing that they don’t have to live there any more. Perhaps more talented people than is currently in the pool.

    Finally… Milwaukee basically has no incentive to change many things knowing that so many of its employees are forced to live in the city. What changes would the city finally own up to if it knew it actually had to keep its employees and citizens happy?

  • 2. Elliot  |  March 22nd, 2011 at 9:52 am

    Private companies can require me to give up my right to bear arms (in their workplace). And if you think you enjoy consequence-free freedom of speech as an employee, try posting a company secret on Facebook.

    I understand there are good arguments against the requirement. But I still think the real-world consequences will be negative and I don’t have a strong philosophical objection to it because I view it as a contractual issue.

  • 3. Fuzz  |  March 22nd, 2011 at 9:59 am

    You would rather have MPS hire a bad teacher who lives in Milwaukee than a better teacher who doesn’t want to leave her established home in Waukesha County? All that does is perpetuate Milwaukee’s problems. At this point, the city should be doing everything that it can to bring in the best candidates.

  • 4. Elliot  |  March 22nd, 2011 at 10:49 am

    I suspect protecting the tax base is more important to the city’s future than losing a few great teachers who simply must live in ‘tosa.

    And while your argument has merit when it comes to teachers, I doubt it has much bearing on firefighters or cops. Hell, for a cop Milwaukee is like the big leagues. ;)

  • 5. Nick  |  March 22nd, 2011 at 11:26 am

    @Elliot – My point about mentioning that we’re talking about a government entity is that there are restrictions on what governments can do versus private entities.

    Private entities can place different restrictions on employees than governments can, even when operating as an employer… they’re held to a higher level of scrutiny.

  • 6. Dan  |  March 22nd, 2011 at 12:41 pm

    Wasn’t residency a bargaining item way back when? If so, then it should be taken out by bargaining.
    But then this can also be a work rule, so bargaining may not work with the new work rules.
    I don’t think it will affect property values because the cops, fire fighters and teachers generally live in the better areas of Milwaukee, so those will be desirable to live in and they should be sold pretty quickly.

  • 7. John Foust  |  March 22nd, 2011 at 1:41 pm

    I think the state Realtor association asked Walker for this change so they can unload some hard-to-move McMansions in Lake Country and Ozaukee County.

  • 8. Elliot  |  March 22nd, 2011 at 1:57 pm

    Teachers, cops and firemen can afford McMansions? Damn it, we are paying them too much!!! ;)

  • 9. John Foust  |  March 23rd, 2011 at 10:42 am

    Fuzz, what forces any employer to hire a “bad” employee? If only bad candidates were found within Milwaukee County, wouldn’t that inspire better candidates to move into the county if they could? I would maintain that once you get beyond a certain number of applicants m in any USA job market, you’ll find one sufficiently good candidate.

  • 10. Fuzz  |  March 23rd, 2011 at 11:24 am

    I never said that every candidate was bad, but it is certainly a narrowed field. If the number of candidates is limited because a certain percentage of them do not want to sell their house and move their kids to Milwaukee, then the city is doing a disservice to both the MPS students and the taxpayers.

  • 11. John Foust  |  March 23rd, 2011 at 11:55 am

    You seem to want to imagine that there are a limited number of candidates and that they’ll be bad and that MPS will want to hire a bad one. I can understand that by introducing a requirement such as Milwaukee residency would be a hurdle that would limit the pool of applicants in some small way. On the other hand, the population of Milwaukee is 600,000. Do you have any anecdotal evidence that MPS or the fire department has a dearth of good applicants?

    I think a city that requires residency for its employees is following the same sort of “we eat our own dog food” policy seen in many private companies. It says you’re going to live with the quality of services you provide to the people who are paying you. If you worked at GM, you weren’t required to own a GM vehicle, but when you looked at the parking lot, it was full of GM vehicles.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


About

Being in a wheelchair gives you a unique perspective on the world. This blog features many of my views on politics, art, science, and entertainment. My name is Elliot Stearns. More...

The Abortionist

Recent Comments

Categories

Meta