My Photo

Feeds and more

  • [ BadgerLink logo ]
Blog powered by Typepad


Uppity Wisconsin - Progressive Webmasters

« Airlines Plot Against Customers - Passengers Joyfully Share Airport Comforts | Main | God-o-Meter Rates Presidential Candidates on Theocracy Scale. Seriously, This Is NOT a Joke. »

January 02, 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


I'm a city employee and under my union contract I do not have to live in the city, but I do and plan to continue to do so. I agree with Paul, it SHOULD be required. The benefits far outweigh the 'freedom' it offers. One thing that was not mentioned is that this also exacerbates the car/commuter culture that we have.

Brad Clark

I agree here 100% as well. I am also a City employee, and I agree with the premise that working for the City is a privilege, not a right, and that residency in the City that pays your salary is entirely reasonable. Unfortunately, that horse has long since exited the barn...


I'm not sure that residency requirements are a good idea. In milwaukee, for example, most accomplished teachers refrain from taking jobs in the city because they don't want to live there. Kids suffer. I'm sure that while residency requirements do a good job of consolidating union employees and thus democratic voting blocks, they put governments at a disadvantage as far as recruiutng the best employees. The goal of government should be to attract the best teachers or bus drivers or county parks employees. When you have a fire at home, do you really care that the best guy drove first to the station from down the block or from thirty miles away? No. You care that the guy is the best firefighter there is.


Who wouldn't feel safer with a good accountant living down the street.


I'd prefer that all people live in the community where they work because commuting less distance
causes less pollution, but it is not the place of any employer to dictate where its employees may reside.

An employer should not have authority over any aspect of an employee's personal life. My employer's authority
over me ends when I walk out the door and that's the way it should be.

I'm in favor of encouraging a mix of incomes in neighborhoods. Offering incentives to police officers to
live in high crime neighbourhoods is very different from trying to deny public employees freedom of choice
over their personal lives.


Which right trumps the other?

1. The right to live where you choose?

2. The right of your employer to tell you to live?

You choose

The comments to this entry are closed.