Should city workers be required to live in South Milwaukee? That’s what the City Council will consider at its meeting on July 17.
The Human Resources Committee — and several other aldermen in attendance, including me — vigorously debated the subject Tuesday, voting to bring the issue before the full council next week.
Here is where I stand: I am against strict residency. In other words, I favor changing city ordinances and the Civil Service Manual to remove the requirement that all city civil service employees hired after July 1 live in South Milwaukee (or move there within a year).
Would I prefer that our employees live in South Milwaukee? Of course, and my position is by no means meant to diminish the skills of current South Milwaukee residents. Far from it.
I look at it this way: Placing artificial restrictions like this on workers only serves to limit the labor pool and all but guarantees that at least some quality people will not apply for jobs in our fair city.
Strong local roots. Kids established in school. A historically bad real housing market. Complicated family situations. Those are just a few of the reasons people are hesitant to pick up and move for their jobs – and why some wouldn’t even consider applying with an employer that requires you to live where you work.
And with Act 10 and the demise of public unions, and union benefits being reduced, we are increasingly competing head to head with the private sector for employees – private employers that do not require their employees to live where they work. Neither should we.
Instead, there is a reasonable standard I hope we consider (and pass Tuesday).
It would require that civil service employees live within these boundaries: Highway 20 from Racine west to Highway S; north on S to Highway K; west on K to Highway 164, north on 164 to the Waukesha-Racine County border, east to Highway V (Town Line Road) extended, north on Highway V extended to Silver Spring Road (Highway VV), and east on Silver Spring Road to Whitefish Bay.
Existing non-represented and fire union employees already adhere to these restrictions, while our police officers have no residency requirements (per their negotiated contract).
Now, there should be exceptions to any residency rule. Some jobs should require that workers live even closer to South Milwaukee, or in the city itself … and those job descriptions should clearly lay out those requirements, so current and new employees know exactly what’s expected of them.
A blanket, and restrictive, requirement, however, is a step too far. As an alderman, a big part of my job is to make South Milwaukee a city in which people want to live – not where they’re forced to.
Of course, I’d like to know what you think about this. Post your comments below!
South Milwaukee Blog 
Your argument is not at all correct! Talk to an Expert on the topic of attracting talent!
I have worked in Human Resources for 25 years and have recruited and hired 2000 plus employees over the years for employers both in the private and public sector. I have hired nationwide and small communities across the USA. I have hired candidates in small rural towns. You state that it would be difficult for South Milwaukee to hire and attract talent to our fine city. Bottom line if you believe that premise than you won’t be able to attract and hire top quality candidates. Part of the recruitment process is to sell candidates on the advantages of why it would benefit their family to move to South Milwaukee. Do you know how this recruitment process works? It is a sales and marketing process — bottom line!
If you are offering them a great career move than all of the thousands of candidates I have recruited will accept a job. How do small companies attract top talent and compete against the big Fortune companies? They explain the pros of working for their company rather than taking that job at a larger more prestige company.
So your arguments tell me you do not believe much in our city to attract talent. You sometimes have to take a stand and say it is important for us to make a shift and change the policy for the overall benefit to our city.
At the end of the day candidates do not take a job just based on salaries and benefits. They take a job because they believe they can do great meaningful work. Or maybe they can make a difference in their community in a small town. Don’t put the argument out there that South Milwaukee would not be able to attract talent. It is the very similar argument they you gave when you said we could not attract any other business to South Milwaukee. You really do not believe in this community can do better! It sends a message loud and clear to the citizens of this city about your true beliefs.
If this council wants employees who are invested in South Milwaukee they will vote to accept this policy. I want employees who have some skin in the game who pay taxes and live in our city. Wow this is so simple. Most public sector jobs have a residency requirement. We pay taxes to support these jobs why should these employees not want to be a part of the community where they earn their income as a public sector employee? It is simple.
Also candidates who are interested in the public sector vs. the private sector are in the public sector job market for other reasons than money and cash. They are in the public sector market for personal reasons and wanting to give back to society. You are all wrong when you say we could not attract employees to our community.
Call up an expert like myself and ask them their views prior to making a stand. Do some research on the topic? Hey I will offer you my services for $1 to recruit the next management job you say South Milwaukee could not hire …..I guarantee I will find the top candidate for the job. Stop making excuses as to why this cannot be a better place to live and raise a family. I love living here. So I could sell someone the benefits of the city. Folks across the nation are moving to find a job. They have a year to make the move so this allows them to sell or rent their home, change schools and do the necessary planning to take on the job. Eric let me give you some insight — America is a mobile economy ….people move for jobs.
A believe the benefits far outweigh the negative of saying we could not attract top talent. How about thinking I have a city engineer who lives in my city that pays taxes and has some skin in the game when planning out future growth for the city. How about having a city planner who is over the growth and development of our city live in our city maybe that is too much to ask for? Maybe if this person lives in the city they would think twice about how the city develops. How about a Chief of Police who does not live in our city? Really we could not hire a chief of police who wants to live in the city they protect.
Eric you are dead wrong on this one. ……….I want the tax dollars that they are giving away to Oak Creek, Milwaukee and other cities where they live. I want to have them live in my community, sending their kids to the same schools I sent my kids to. I want them to feel invested in my town. Think about your vote you are on the wrong side of this argument.
Lynn: Thanks for your comments. A few points in response …
I am disappointed to see you question my belief in South Milwaukee. I love this city — and its potential. I wouldn’t seek public office if I didn’t … and my family wouldn’t have put down roots here like we have if we didn’t feel strongly that South Milwaukee is a great place to live, work and play, with a strong future. On this blog and in person, I regularly and eagerly tell others whenever I can about the benefits of living here. And we have a great story to tell. Clean, safe streets, affordable house, top schools, parks, recreation, first-class city services … there are lots of reasons we have chosen to live here, and become invested in South Milwaukee.
I absolutely want others to choose the same way I have — to live here, to pay taxes here, to send their kids to school here, to be good neighbors here. But I want that to be a choice. As I wrote, I want to create a city that our workers want to live in, not one where they are forced to live. I want them to choose to invest in our city because they love our city as much as I do — not because of a hard-and-fast rule about residency.
Now, I admittedly am no HR expert. But I am also not alone in this belief. Outside of the City of Milwaukee, I don’t believe any community or school district in Milwaukee County requires its rank-and-file workers to live in their communities. And until the passage of our civil service ordinance and civil service manual in recent months, South Milwaukee had not required it either for more than a decade. I want a return to this policy.
About half of our current city workers live in South Milwaukee. I’d love to see them all live here, and to fill all city jobs with South Milwaukee residents. But I feel our priority is to hire the best person for the job — and if that person happens to live in Oak Creek and wants to stay living in Oak Creek, then we should let them stay living in Oak Creek. At the same time, we should do all we can to continue to make South Milwaukee a desirable place to live, work and play. I am focused on that every day as an alderman and am proud of the work I’ve done to advance those efforts.
Pingback: Council Approves Expanded Residency For Many City Workers « South Milwaukee Blog