Buyout Inconsistency

 
To the Editor:

Regarding the Feb. 17 article, "Offer Retirement Incentive for State Workers," I did not see why one set of arguments works for state workers and not for city workers. Do only city workers and not state workers wait for early retirement incentives?

Would not city management benefit from organizational restructuring, streamlining, down-sizing, etc.? Aren't projected future city budgets in need of reduction? Wouldn't a retirement incentive package for city workers be a positive pre-emptive budget move? Won't city workers on the fence now wait for city finances to go south, making a buyout more likely?

The logic seems off in this article. What's good for the state is good for the city in this instance. Why not reduce headcount, cut spending before we have to? Wasn't Mayor Bloomberg praised for pre-emptively funding the pension fund? What's the difference here?

MARK SCHOENFIELD