I think everyone is a parasite on the body politic. There are just a few who are more self-rightous than others.
I think everyone is a parasite on the body politic. There are just a few who are more self-rightous than others.
Last edited by tantric superman; 04-20-2012 at 01:24 PM.
Steel companies? Bankrupt
Unions destroy whatever they attach themselves to. And they're attached like hell to our state governments. In the private sector, that means that the company goes belly up. But in the public sector, it means my taxes have to go up to pay for this $#@!.
Last edited by Chewbacca; 04-20-2012 at 01:25 PM.
The gov't workers union is made up of the very people who would negotiate or at the very least create position papers on what pay/benefits/ job descriptions should be for gov't workers.
FDR had pretty strong opposition to gov't employee unions and he was a pretty big gov't president. He saw the inherent dangers of such a union.
You me and FDR could have been a monster front line in wheelchair basketball and in union negotiations.FDR had pretty strong opposition to gov't employee unions and he was a pretty big gov't president. He saw the inherent dangers of such a union.
Those Congressman and Senators should really look at it as a temporary position cause they'll piss off enough of their constituents that they won't get re elected in many cases after voting for actual across the board, everyone gets hurt a little cuts. In short we need to make the first qualification for running for Congress be that you're an accountant and not a lawyer. And the election slogan for every single candidate should be NO MORE REDTAPE
Hell pay 'em a % bonus for every billion they cut from the budget going forward.
That's not going to happen. And to say we get the elected officials we deserve is just not really an applicable description of what's happening in that instance. We need to save ourselves from ourselves if we're going to make it into the next century as a true global economic leader.
Other countries whose students score better on tests but have lousy graduation rates include Australia, UK, Italy, Ireland, France, Belgium.
South Korea still kicks ass.
You can debate whether it makes more sense to educate a broad portion of the public, or to encourage lower performers away from the academic path, but you can't just compare the numbers (either cost per student, or test scores) and pretend you are comparing apples to apples.
Oh, and I wouldn't recall any politician for any reason other than ethical malfeasance, regardless if I disagree with their policies.
As has been noted before, both FDR and George Meany abhorred the idea of public sector unions.
Last edited by Armybrat; 04-20-2012 at 02:14 PM.
if the unions are bargaining wages on behalf of the government employees then the taxpayer who is funding their wages need to have a seat at the table. you want to use a union to negotiate a cotnract then the public paying the bill needs to vote on that contract, and the taxpayer needs a representative in the negotiations who is NOT a politician.
The problem with unions is that they breed the inefficient resolution of issues, and you guys want to add administrative and legislative hurdles to how we deal with unions.
To me the solutions are to outlaw public sector unions or, if that isn't going to happen, simply deal with unions in a strong fashion.
going back to the windfall elimination, i think if you actually read about it, it is a fairly sensible provision in most cases. social security was designed to replace a higher percentage of income for low earners and a smaller percentage for high earners.
if you have 30 years of substantial SS earnings or you were hired as a non-SS government worker after 1983, the windfall provision doesn't even apply to you.
the normal monthly SS benefit is calculated on average earnings as:
first $767 x 90% = $690
next $3,857 x 32% = $1,234
remaining ??? x 15% = ???
the windfall provision only affects that first $767 and depends on years of SS earnings, phasing down to 40%.
the government pension offset basically works on the same principle. the SS spousal benefit was created to protect housewives. it wasn't put in place to give a spousal benefit to someone who is taking in another government pension on their own record.
feel free to correct me if i am wrong, but as i understand the provisions, i don't have much of a problem with them.
I find it funny when people don't know how the unions are moving the goal posts. First the recall was about ACT10 but now that it has been PROVEN that ACT10 works and has saved school districts $1,000,000s of dollars then now are trying the "war on women" tact and the democratic DA in Milwaukee county is holding a "john doe" indictment that he as been working on for 24 months but not coming to a conclusion until just before the election?
and that $12 million uncontested information I need a link for that because I flat out don't believe you.
Last edited by Tennesseehorn; 04-20-2012 at 06:25 PM.
For some reason it's intuitive that high paid executives will fight to keep their employment contracts but for some reason we think that this impulse is some how evil when it comes to union and union employees trying to get the best deal.
Just to belabor the point, if a CEO or football coach wants a five year contract at $5 Million a year and I'm free to agree to their offer or say "No I think I want a different CEO (or football coach)." or my agents (the Board [or the Athletic Director]) are acting in my interests, then I'm fine with a contract. Likewise if the Broadway show is free to say "No I don't like the union proposal that stagehands get paid $400K per year, I think I'll hire a non-union group of stagehands." then I'm fine with the show entering into a contract with the stagehands. The issue is whether I'm free to do business with the employee(s) who offer me the best bang for my buck. If my best deal is Nick Saban at $5 million per year, Julia Roberts at $20 million for the movie or Michael Eisner at $50 million per year I'm fine with the contract. I'm not fine with a contract with the CFO who threatens to trash the company if I don't give him a $1MM a year "consulting" contract to leave but do nothing. It's all about whether the relationship is FREE or EXTORTED. I need the right to say "$#@! you, if that's your position I'll get a new CEO" or "$#@! you, if that's your position I'll hire non-union stagehands." I want to be FREE.
P.S. If my agents (e.g. the Board or an elected official) are not acting in my interests I have a problem with the deal. And there are lots of companies where the Board is beholden to the CEO, and there are many government situations where the politician is beholden to the union.
Last edited by TahoeHorn; 04-21-2012 at 11:42 AM.
I've worked in both private and public sectors and it's 10X more of a bitch to get rid of a $#@!ty public employee as a private one. If there are executives out there who have a "no fire" clause in their contracts, I haven't ever seen one.
Uh excuse me private sector jobs aren't being financed with my tax dollars. Public emplyees who cannot be fired without almost an act of Congress are being funded by me and you and anyone else who actually pays taxes, and they seem to think they should have some $#@!ing guaranteed employment???
Can you people stay on point ? There's no comparison of the two.
[quote[Public emplyees who cannot be fired without almost an act of Congress are being funded by me and you and anyone else who actually pays taxes, and they seem to think they should have some $#@!ing guaranteed employment???[/quote]
That's what their deal is. If you had a similar deal, you would just say, or $#@! it, I gave up another private sector job in exchange for this deal but here, $#@! me in the ass. $#@! me in the ass harder when I see executives still getting their bonuses after the taxpayers bailed them out, and when the private sector looks grimmer than it has in years.
It's absolutely on point. If you are going to criticize union members, you have to look at it from their standpoint as employees who were given an employment contract.Can you people stay on point ? There's no comparison of the two.
Do you routinely go to your employer and tell them you want less money, that you screwed them over when you negotiated your employment contract or salary and bonus opportunities?
Hey kids, come here. Dad is going to let himself get $#@!ed because nobody wants to honor the deal they made to me and the people of this state don't want to pay more taxes. Just want you to know I am not going to put up a fight or get the best deal I can so that I can support you and your mom.
Now in full disclosure, my job is absolutely to keep unions out, to $#@! them over in negotiations, and to try to beat them up as much as possible. But no hard feelings. They have statutory rights and thus the right to push those as hard as they can.
It's very hard to term them for cause unless they $#@! the new hire and lie to you about it.
No question about it. And the fault of that lies with the person who gave them that benefit. Obviously, we are in a period of panicked correction. And instead of looking at it in the pure business way that it should be looked at, the politicians are going to score points off of it. I think we make much more progress but shrugging, saying that it is unsustainable, and trying to make it as painless as possible for all parties.I've worked in both private and public sectors and it's 10X more of a bitch to get rid of a $#@!ty public employee as a private one. If there are executives out there who have a "no fire" clause in their contracts, I haven't ever seen one.
If my company has to RIF people or cut their salary, we don't spend a whole lot of time demonizing the employees. We know that it is due to poor management that we over hired and overpaid.
This is no different. We need to focus the blame on the managers of state government, and change the way they negotiate with vendors and unions.
By the way, and this is after hearing a couple of news stories -- Scott Walker is up for recall as much for being an $#@! as he is for his anti-union policy. I think republicans and budget cutters are better served "feeling the pain" of unionized workers as they attempt to get out of the union contracts than they are by hamming union members and union attempts to get the most for their members.
By the way, the guy who is starving of thirst and is offered an exorbitant price for water -- that is the definition of free trade and is only remotely extortion if you artificially lower the thirsty guys perceived demand for water.
In this case, everyone seems to be lowering a union members right to get the best employment deal he can get.
Is that what "employment at will" means?
looks like the union-led revolution to keep the status quo of taxpayers funding more and more "public service workers" and their gold-plated benefits is going to fail in Wisconsin
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker to win the 5 June 2012 recall election
Last prediction was: $9.35 / share
Today's Change: +$0.35(+3.9%)
Football .. Basketball .. Baseball .. Other Sports .. RC Didn't Offer .. Gamboool
Varsity .. Hole in the Wall .. PCL .. Einstein's .. Nasty's .. GM Steakhouse .. NSAA
Bada Bing .. Can you help me with this? .. Shagslist .. Cloak Room .. Classics .. Bellmont