Here is your proof Greg Canfield.

I used to be a HR Manager and the things that I saw in today's Buyers Guide that the City Employees have an issue with are things that employees in the work world encounter and are required to adhere to every day. The grievance procedure is similar to that in most companies and all that I have worked at in the past 30 years. Subcontracting is a fact of life in today's economic times. The concern the city employees have with outside employment has been a policy at every employer where I have worked over the past 30 years. At will employment has been a fact of life for non union members in Michigan for as long as I have been in the work force. I was actually for the employees until I saw their issues because even though I have lived in this town my entire life, I think the City government, policies, procedures, and just in general leave much to be desired and I am not a fan. However, if this is this seriously what has held up the contracts for years, then the city employees need a good dose of reality.

I think that people on both sides are so emotional right now about these topics that they can’t see the big picture and that there are legal ways around every policy. In terms of the extreme example of the $5 umpire losing a 25-year job. I am not claiming a policy of no outside work is fair and I don’t tend to like those policies but they are out there and it is the norm for corporate America. So we deal with it. Most of the employees in Michigan have to deal with this so you think outside the box to stay within policy. For instance, instead of taking the $5 you refuse it and instead volunteer your time. Problem solved. Was that honestly so difficult? You are not paid so it is not outside employment. If you know taking the $5 could put your job in jeopardy then you don’t do it, find a legal and legit way around it. I am guessing you could easily give up the $5 to keep your job and still umpire your kid’s game.

At will employment provides the same liberty to the employee as the employer. A Moonlighting policy is to protect the employee as well as the employer from conflicts of interest, performance and attendance conflicts. Subcontracting labor is a benefit to both parties as well from demand of hours during crisis, heavy demand of services, rapid growth, cost control and most important employee fatigue and safety.

Answer number one: Requires no explanation as agreed with technically yes. A yes is a yes.

Unless one wishes to be the ultimate decider of the vague definition of "just cause" it's a term too difficult to define in an employment setting where policies and procedures should be clearly defined. Each party should know exactly the expectations. I cannot express this with too great amount of emphasis, Retaining a valuable employee is as much important to the employer as the valuable employer is to the employee. When dealing with asset hardworking employees there is no upper hand. It is a mutual respect and nobility. I am honored that each of my employees chose to work at Custom Components Corporation. While I maybe the owner I am only a trusted servant. These people depend on me to make good decisions as much as I depend on them for the same. Stop by my shop and ask any one of them. I was an employee long before I became the owner. I have been the former longer than the latter.

When is it OK for an employer to enact a policy regarding Moonlighting? It is the entities right by law to enact a policy if written in the handbook or similar employment agreement. At any time. To your specific question when is it OK for an employer to control what an employee does after hours? The question itself is misconstrued. No one person can control another's actions. Employer to employee and employee to employer. If an employee signs and agrees to the employment contract where this Claus is In place; they have agreed to abide by it. If the employee choses to violate policy the corresponding corrective action clearly outlined in the manual or like document, that the employee agreed to, may occur. Just as with an attendance policy, vacation pay, benefit package etc. if the employee does not want to work under these conditions don't sign it. The candidate should then seek out an employer that does not have such a Claus. I have people that work for me that have side businesses. We too have a moonlighting Claus. I have never denied an employee. But I reserve the right, that if I find out he works for my competitor up the street at night, to fire him. My guys and gals do everything from tattoo artistry to mason work as long as both parties agree there is no conflict approvals are granted in writing after or while the employment agreement is made. The Claus is to protect and inform both parties to prevent a conflict of interest. Not to "control". Most all employers contain information vital to their operation, trade secrets that lend competitive advantage to that business or government entity. It is the management of that organizations job to protect that information from landing in the hands of a competitor and or jeopardizing safety of other workers in the company because bob works 10 hours here and 8 hours at his other job and did not follow procedures due to fatigue. You cannot risk the safety of many for the few.

Management, as someone must lead without leadership there is chaos, must be able to adjust pay, hours, rates and benefits and should be free to do so based on all economic factors. This must remain for any entity to remain viable. An entity must remain flexible to adjustments to recession, loss of contracts, depression, drop in home values resulting in lower tax revenue, decreases in state and federal aide and increasing costs of benefits and many more factors. "Undermine" again is an ambiguous term without specific description and definition. It is a state of mind not a clear cut policy.

I have been on both sides of this story and clearly understand the needs of each party. To yield to these requests would not be in the best interest of any party. Employer or employee. And most definitely not the customer(taxpayer).

I encourage you and all others in opposition of the council and city manager to read the city charter if you have not, review the budget and financials of the city past and present and court transcript from the fact finding hearing. After reviewing these in detail. The facts are clear. The financial burdens of this great city and legacy costs that this council and city are working through are tremendous.

This financial situation is the absolute result of less than ideal economic conditions and a city heavy weighted by legacy costs of excess.

The current council and manager maintain good economic sense. They require the freedoms to continue their work. Which is to manage and restructure the costs of the city and capitalize every tax dollar and cent for the citizens of Lowell. If they are not afforded the opportunities to do so; the city will be in great peril. For example; Our current city manager and council worked to refinance the cost of the city hall building in 2012 reducing monthly debt service total from 279585 per year to 231200 per year. A net savings of well over $580000. Over the twenty years remaining on the bond.

The council and it's manager have done great service and continue to do so.

Most if not all council members and the manager played no role in the financial issues they are facing. They did not create them but they own it and accept the challenge of it. Each and every one of them.

I would gladly sit down line by line and go through the charter, budget, decision, minutes of meetings past financials, proposed contracts as they become available, transcripts of the hearing with the judge to any great detail you would like. I have read and studied all of it.

But I will not partake or engage in any form of personal attacks. Nor will I set by and Watch them happen. That was never the intention of this group as stated in the mission statement by positive means. I know this because I was there and chaired the original meetings of the LCTV Group, at the request of the late Ivan Blough, from which VOICE came from.

Thank you. Ryan Pawloski

After reading the information from the sites you mentioned. My position has not changed. But you bring up a very valid point. Where is the existing employee handbook and employment contract and pay scales? There must be one in place if the city had been doing business properly with these employees for 14-24 years. What is the city manager requesting to be changed from the employee agreements already in place? Do any of you have a copy of that? If not I will request one. Thank you, Ryan

Ryan, I'm adding some concerns and questions I just posted on "Follow the Money" Maybe you'd also be willing to request information on the following. Thanks.

It seems to me that almost $70,000 is only the tip of the iceburg. What about all the manhours that are being paid for by the City and LL&P. I assume the City Manager (with his big salary and raise) as well as any employees who attend these meetings are being paid for their time as well as not being on the job to perfume their regular duties. I wonder how much this adds up to?
I also wonder where all this money is coming from to pay these fees. If the City has no money for streets, equipment, workers' salaries, and earned raises, how can they be paying their attorney. Maybe topic for a FOIA request?