Public Employees Paid More Than Private Workers in 41 States

[red states rule]

So much for the underpaid teachers VS the evil greedy Republican Gov

Damn those pesky facts!!!




Wisconsin is one of 41 states where public employees earn higher average pay and benefits than private workers in the same state, a USA TODAY analysis finds. Still, the compensation of Wisconsin's government workers ranks below the national average for non-federal public employees and has increased only slightly since 2000.

The finding comes as the Midwestern state remains in the center of efforts by several governors to reduce budget shortfalls in part by requiring state and local government workers to pay more for health and retirement benefits.

The standoff reaches a crucial point today when Republican Gov. Scott Walker presents a proposed budget for the year beginning July 1. He says layoffs of state workers may begin if the Legislature does not adopt his proposal to curb collective-bargaining rights of public workers and require them to pay a higher share of the cost of benefits.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-03-01-1Apublicworkers01_ST_N.htm









http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/public-compensatin.jpg

[fj1200]

That must be the mistreatment that PB is talking about.

[Psychoblues]

Here is a certainly better and more fair look at the public/private pay disparity.

Source: Washington Post

By: Ed O'Keefe

The Public-Private Pay Gap, Revisited

John Berry, the government's personnel chief, never shies away from a microphone or reporter's notebook and didn't disappoint Tuesday when asked once again about the ongoing debate regarding pay and benefits earned by federal workers.

You'll recall that Berry picked a fight on the issue this summer with Republican lawmakers, the Cato Institute, USA Today and others, sticking up for the rank and file with an emotional defense. The fight started last December when USA Today reported that the number of feds earning six-figure salaries has exploded during the recession despite private-sector job losses.

In light of those reports, federal officials are considering an overhaul of how the government tracks and compares public and private sector pay.

"I don't want to get ahead of myself, it may be no changes are needed," he said Tuesday after meeting with agency personnel officials. But he cautioned that the current pay debate is nothing new.

"[The Heritage Foundation] and Cato , they could have published the same thing they published 25 years ago," he said. "Data can be manipulated to make whatever point you want to make.".................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ...........................

"The job categories in the private and public sectors are simply not comparable," he said. More:

One great example is "broadcast technicians." According to the USA Today, "broadcast technicians" in the federal government earn an average of $132,410 a year, while those in the private sector earn only $88,241. However, what the USA Today doesn't tell its readers is that, according to the very same data set they used, there are only 110 broadcast technicians working in the entire federal government. In the entire national workforce, according to the same data, there are 33,550 broadcast technicians. This means that broadcast technicians in the federal government represent three-tenths of one percent of the total. One can hardly compare them, especially since, according to the OPM, 99% of the broadcast technicians in the federal government work for the Broadcasting Board of Governors here in Washington. I know very well from personal experience that BBG technicians require much more experience and education than the average private sector broadcast technician.

Much more: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/09/john_berry_on_the_pay_fight.html

I don't see executives, skilled professionals, professional teachers, etc. banging the doors down trying to get to those so-called sweet, cushy, overpaid government jobs. What I do see is a government that seems to attract an across the board general mix of the population and in the case of higher paid professional staff, they know they can make more money in the private sector but they are for whatever reason not driven by pure economics. There is a certain desire for service regardless the poor rewards that guide most public employees has been my experience and observation of about 45 years.

[I]Psychoblues

[darin]

That data is such a crock of shit.

"Largely because of the value of benefits..." or whatever. Stupid statistic.

Stories like these piss me off because they rely on the person interpreting the data; and are subject to the filters used when compiling the data.

Public service is a service.

Wanna get a fed job? Some $45k year jobs require PhD's. The gov't doesn't over-pay except when dealing with life-sucking labor unions.

[red states rule]

That data is such a crock of shit.

"Largely because of the value of benefits..." or whatever. Stupid statistic.

Stories like these piss me off because they rely on the person interpreting the data; and are subject to the filters used when compiling the data.

Public service is a service.

Wanna get a fed job? Some $45k year jobs require PhD's. The gov't doesn't over-pay except when dealing with life-sucking labor unions.

As I said in the OP, I posted the USA story becuase it included data on the WI teachers. You know, those "poorly paid" teachers

You will notice those supporting the WI union workers have avoided this thread

[Psychoblues]

As I said in the OP, I posted the USA story becuase it included data on the WI teachers. You know, those "poorly paid" teachers

You will notice those supporting the WI union workers have avoided this thread

I haven't.

Psychoblues

[actsnoblemartin]

facts, we dont need no stinking facts

:laugh:


So much for the underpaid teachers VS the evil greedy Republican Gov

Damn those pesky facts!!!




http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/public-compensatin.jpg

[Kathianne]

I'm having a difficult time finding factual sites regarding private and public school teachers and compensation. All the following include the standard caveats about 'choosing students', 'class sizes', and 'poverty in public schools,' otherwise known as editorializing. Then they address the salaries, never the benefits which are much lower in the private sector vs. public.

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=55


* In 2007�08, the average annual base salary of regular full-time public school teachers ($49,600) was higher than the average annual base salary of regular full-time private school teachers ($36,300).

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

http://712educators.about.com/od/jobopenings/a/private-public.htm


Pay

While there are many pros and cons to teaching in a private school, probably the biggest negative is the pay. Private school teachers make in most cases much less than their public school counterparts. Teacher pay at these schools is based on the tuition brought in by students. Therefore, expect to earn at least $10 – 15,000 less at a minimum if you choose to teach at a private school.

Bottom line is that state accredited private schools must have certified staff and meet the requirements set by the state. At the private school I last taught at over 50% of staff held Master degrees, 1 a PhD in reading.

[Gaffer]

1 a PhD in reading I guess I'll be facetious here and ask how do you get a degree in reading. Do you read a certain number of books? I can see a degree in literature or composition. This just struck me as funny. :laugh:

[Kathianne]

1 a PhD in reading I guess I'll be facetious here and ask how do you get a degree in reading. Do you read a certain number of books? I can see a degree in literature or composition. This just struck me as funny. :laugh:

Never underestimate the minutia of education departments. LOL! In actuality she was able to test and analyze all sorts of reading problems and scores. A really big asset in a school without any special needs staff, but scores of special needs kids.

[Gaffer]

Never underestimate the minutia of education departments. LOL! In actuality she was able to test and analyze all sorts of reading problems and scores. A really big asset in a school without any special needs staff, but scores of special needs kids.

I thought there was more to it. Thanks for clarifying that for me. I was picturing stars on a board for books completed. :laugh:

The first book I ever read was Last of the Mohicans in third grade. Took me 6 weeks and I only had one star for that book while the other kids had ten or twenty stars. They only counted quantity.

[Kathianne]

I thought there was more to it. Thanks for clarifying that for me. I was picturing stars on a board for books completed. :laugh:

The first book I ever read was Last of the Mohicans in third grade. Took me 6 weeks and I only had one star for that book while the other kids had ten or twenty stars. They only counted quantity.

I'd wish that I could tell you it's different all these years later for me and you, but unless the teachers 'weighs' the readings, same crap.

[darin]

I have a PhD. in AWESOME.

[Psychoblues]

I have a PhD. in AWESOME.

And I suppose that's why you're soaking up all them sweet bennies and sucking them taxpayer paid dineros down like smooth whiskey?!?!???!?!??

Psychoblues

[actsnoblemartin]

are you talking about student loans?

I thought you had to pay those back?

[Psychoblues]

are you talking about student loans?

I thought you had to pay those back?

marteen, the OP is total shit. And I don't know anything about student loans but I will help research and give you my opinions or share some facts when I find them.

Psychoblues

[red states rule]

All you need to know about how the unions see the taxpayers

<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QyxuUjgHkgs&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QyxuUjgHkgs&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

[Psychoblues]

All you need toi know about how the unions see the taxpayers



The Union members are taxpayers, too, red, and they don't have these Swiss, Caribbean hideaways for cash or even the incomes to need them. Most Union members pay more in taxes that the CEO's of the corporations they work for.

So your solutions to all this remains ridiculous cartoons?

Psychochoblues

[red states rule]

The Union members are taxpayers, too, red, and they don't have these Swiss, Caribbean hideaways for cash or even the incomes to need them. Most Union members pay more in taxes that the CEO's of the corporations they work for.

So your solutions to all this remains ridiculous cartoons?

Psychochoblues


Fisrt you claim you can't watch videos - so how can you comment on something you did not watch?

So which is it?

Can you get videos and you were lying before?

Or you can't get videos and you are ranting about something you did not watch?

Please explain PB

[Psychoblues]

Fisrt you claim you can't watch videos - so how can you comment on something you did not watch?

So which is it?

Can you get videos and you were lying before?

Or you can't get videos and you are ranting about something you did not watch?

Please explain PB

I have not watched any interwebs video, red. I cannot watch any video with my equipment and connection. Are you trying to change the subject because you just got your ass handed to you on a silver platter? How do you go to sleep at night with all that anger and hate rattling around in your head?

Psychochoblues

[red states rule]

I have not watched any interwebs video, red. I cannot watch any video with my equipment and connection. Are you trying to change the subject because you just got your ass handed to you on a silver platter? How do you go to sleep at night with all that anger and hate rattling around in your head?

Psychochoblues

How the hell can you comment on soemthing you did not watch PB?

I see you are geeting short tempered by having such obvious questions asked of you

What is next? Putting me on ignore again because the heat is geting to you once again?

[Psychoblues]

How the hell can you comment on soemthing you did not watch PB?

I see you are geeting short tempered by having such obvious questions asked of you

What is next? Putting me on ignore again because the heat is geting to you once again?

I'm NOT the one getting angry and hateful, red. There is help for your projection issues. Talk to your Doctor about them.

Psychochoblues

[red states rule]

I'm NOT the one getting angry and hateful, red. There is help for your projection issues. Talk to your Doctor about them.

Psychochoblues

So you got busted PB and now you run off like a coward

No surprise there. Only you would comment about a video he admits he could not watch :laugh2:

[Psychoblues]

So you got busted PB and now you run off like a coward

No surprise there. Only you would comment about a video he admits he could not watch :laugh2:

My comment concerned your statement about how the Union members viewed the taxpayers. The Union members ARE the taxpayers. Their corporate bosses certainly aren't. red, you got some angry shit rolling around in that big belly of yours, don't you?

Psychochoblues

[red states rule]

My comment concerned your statement about how the Union members viewed the taxpayers. The Union members ARE the taxpayers. Their corporate bosses certainly aren't. red, you got some angry shit rolling around in that big belly of yours, don't you?

Psychochoblues

and when they make more then the people paying them and they complain - they demand they pay more in taxes

In their world that solves the problem

[Psychoblues]

and when they make more then the people paying them and they complain - they demand they pay more in taxes

In their world that solves the problem

Every worker I ever knew whether Union or not just wanted a fair days pay for a fair days work. It's hard to know what a fair days pay is when you discover that your boss makes 237 times what you do and he wouldn't last 5 minutes doing what you do and he spends most of his time on the golf course or in the players club sucking down cocktails. It's true they are different animals, apples and oranges if you will, but 237 to 1 ratio? I could never see any justification for that under any circumstances whatsoever and there are books written about this topic by authors that were business owners that limited their own pay and rewards to the pay of their lowest paid employees.

Are you advocating that people should not be paid a fair days pay for a fair days work?

Psychochoblues

[red states rule]

Every worker I ever knew whether Union or not just wanted a fair days pay for a fair days work. It's hard to know what a fair days pay is when you discover that your boss makes 237 times what you do and he wouldn't last 5 minutes doing what you do and he spends most of his time on the golf course or in the players club sucking down cocktails. It's true they are different animals, apples and oranges if you will, but 237 to 1 ratio? I could never see any justification for that under any circumstances whatsoever and there are books written about this topic by authors that were business owners that limited their own pay and rewards to the pay of their lowest paid employees.

Are you advocating that people should not be paid a fair days pay for a fair days work?

Psychochoblues

Once again you have to change the topic PB.

These "poor abused" workers are not working for the evil CEO you lefties like to vilify. They are working for the TAXPAYERS

But here is the REAL reason libs are fighting for the unions. They are fighting to save their cash cow




The liberal columnist E. J. Dionne is crying in his column today about the plight of the public sector unions. He accuses Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker of seeking “a shift in the long-term balance of political power that undercutting collective bargaining.” But the nub of his complain appears in his last paragraph where he writes,

The Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, which swept away decades of restrictions on corporate spending to influence elections, has already tilted the political playing field toward the country's most formidable business interests. Eviscerating the power of the unions would make Republicans and Democrats alike more dependent than ever on rich and powerful interests and undercut the countervailing strength of working people.

This is a variant on the argument that Democrats need the money they receive from public sector unions in order to balance the money Republicans receive from greedy corporations. But of course there are some factual problems with that argument. The Republicans, as my Examiner colleague Timothy Carney points out with a wealth of example, don’t monopolize contributions from business interests and in the past several campaign cycles have in fact received less business money than Democrats. And no one has demonstrated that the Citizens United decision resulted in a vast flow of money to anyone, much less a disproportionate flow to Republicans. There’s nothing here to countervail.

It’s interesting to see Democrats bewail the unfairness—unfairness, unfairness!—of Republicans being able to raise in the 2010 cycle almost as much money as they did. But that was less a function of Citizens United than it was a result of the smart money figuring out who was going to win the election.

The most important factual problem with Dionne’s argument is that he doesn’t mention where the money public employee unions contribute to Democrats comes from. Let me refer him to these words from my Examiner column last Wednesday:

Taxpayers, present and future, . . . are the source of every penny of dues paid to public employee unions, who in turn spend much of that money on politics, almost all of it for Democrats. In effect, public employee unions are a mechanism by which every taxpayer is forced to fund the Democratic Party.

My question to E. J. Dionne: What’s the public policy argument for taxpayer funding of one of two major political parties?

http://washingtonexaminer.com/

[actsnoblemartin]

im confused.

do union members pay more or less into their healthcare accounts then the average worker?

[red states rule]

im confused.

do union members pay more or less into their healthcare accounts then the average worker?

Some teachers in some states pay NOTHING toward their retirement and peanuts toward their health care

If anyone tries to change that and make them pay what the rest of us pay with our employer all hell breaks loose and libs like PB join them in screwing over the taxpayers even more so the money continues to flow into DNC bank accounts

[fj1200]

The Union members are taxpayers, too, red, and they don't have these Swiss, Caribbean hideaways for cash or even the incomes to need them. Most Union members pay more in taxes that the CEO's of the corporations they work for.

Uh, I don't think so unless you've got some proof for that.

[red states rule]

Uh, I don't think so unless you've got some proof for that.

and do not wait for PB to produce proof of that statement unless you packed a lunch

The truth is most CEO's pay more in taxes in one year then the total income PB has made in his entire life

[Psychoblues]

Uh, I don't think so unless you've got some proof for that.

Well, perhaps a little over the top but you get the point don't you, fj?

Psychochoblues

[Missileman]

Every worker I ever knew whether Union or not just wanted a fair days pay for a fair days work. It's hard to know what a fair days pay is when you discover that your boss makes 237 times what you do and he wouldn't last 5 minutes doing what you do and he spends most of his time on the golf course or in the players club sucking down cocktails. It's true they are different animals, apples and oranges if you will, but 237 to 1 ratio? I could never see any justification for that under any circumstances whatsoever and there are books written about this topic by authors that were business owners that limited their own pay and rewards to the pay of their lowest paid employees.

Are you advocating that people should not be paid a fair days pay for a fair days work?

Psychochoblues

Cry me a river! I don't know anyone who started a job without knowing what the salary and benefits were. If you don't think it's fair, find another place to work. You whiner libs think that company owners should make all the employees equal partners from day one...that the newly hired janitor should pull down the same money as the guy who spent a lifetime of blood and sweat building the business into a place capable of supplying people with jobs. You truly are an ignorant bunch.

[red states rule]

Well, perhaps a little over the top but you get the point don't you, fj?

Psychochoblues

Yea, you are full of it and posted a bold face lie as usual

[fj1200]

Well, perhaps a little over the top but you get the point don't you, fj?

Psychochoblues

No, because being nowhere close to the truth is NOT "a little over the top." BTW, the percentage of CEO's who make that multiple is exceedingly small, not something we should make policy by.

[red states rule]

No, because being nowhere close to the truth is NOT "a little over the top." BTW, the percentage of CEO's who make that multiple is exceedingly small, not something we should make policy by.

PB is simply repeating the approved DNC talking points. He refuses to admit the unions are out to screw over the taxpayers just like the Dem party

I notice he has ignored the real reason for the fight for the "rights" of union workers

So the cash keeps flowing form the union workers paychecks, to the union bosses, and then to the DNC bank accounts

[Psychoblues]

No, because being nowhere close to the truth is NOT "a little over the top." BTW, the percentage of CEO's who make that multiple is exceedingly small, not something we should make policy by.

So, you're saying that it doesn't happen? Get your calculator out, cowgirl. Say you have a janitor that is making say $10 an hour. Where I live that would be a highly paid janitor. They generally start and end at minimum wage around here and that, I think is about $7.25 an hour. A fairly low paid CEO at fairly small industries make about a million. Or even $500,000 is VERY common. How is your calculator working on just those modest or should I say "conservative" numbers?

My apples and oranges were pretty dead on, were'nt they?!?!?!?!


Psychochoblues

[Missileman]

So, you're saying that it doesn't happen? Get your calculator out, cowgirl. Say you have a janitor that is making say $10 an hour. Where I live that would be a highly paid janitor. They generally start and end at minimum wage around here and that, I think is about $7.25 an hour. A fairly low paid CEO at fairly small industries make about a million. Or even $500,000 is VERY common. How is your calculator working on just those modest or should I say "conservative" numbers?

My apples and oranges were pretty dead on, were'nt they?!?!?!?!


Psychochoblues

There's nothing preventing the janitor from starting his own company where he can pull down $500K a year.

[Psychoblues]

There's nothing preventing the janitor from starting his own company where he can pull down $500K a year.

I was talking about a "fairness" issue, Mm. I am already aware that you will have none of it. What would we do if we didn't have any janitors? Somebody has to do those jobs and somebody makes the decisions to fashion in some way the marketplace of labor to provide them. Whether the pay is fair is my question and my answer is No, HELL NO. There is no consideration EVER from a managerial standpoint to pay a fair days pay for a fair days work. This is why labor needs all the professional representation and professional negotiators it can get just like the corporations and other big boys do it.


Psychochoblues

[fj1200]

So, you're saying that it doesn't happen? Get your calculator out, cowgirl. Say you have a janitor that is making say $10 an hour. Where I live that would be a highly paid janitor. They generally start and end at minimum wage around here and that, I think is about $7.25 an hour. A fairly low paid CEO at fairly small industries make about a million. Or even $500,000 is VERY common. How is your calculator working on just those modest or should I say "conservative" numbers?

My apples and oranges were pretty dead on, were'nt they?!?!?!?

Don't be a dolt I didn't say it didn't happen, I said the multiple was small and not something to make policy by. You even quoted it so I can only assume you read it, comprehending it is another thing altogether. I stand by that because the CEO running the company is far more important to the company than the person who's sweeping the floors. Besides, most people will make the comparison to average worker pay and not the least educated floor sweeper.

Dated but relevant: The Great Overpaid CEO Debate (http://news.cnet.com/The-great-overpaid-CEO-debate/2010-1014_3-6078739.html)


Fixing the right problem
If there is an excessive CEO pay problem, we won't fix the problem by measuring the wrong things and then misinterpreting flawed calculations. That only will encourage misguided legislation, and we've had plenty of that. It also might encourage big shareholders and their advisors to begin bullying companies into change using arbitrary standards, and we've had plenty of that, too.

Disclosure and publicity of pay allows us to identify the egregious situations and apply pressure to fix them, but only when the data seem accurate to reasonable people.

I just read that U2 made $260 million in gross receipts on their 2005 tour. That's $3 million per show (about $1 million per hour)--far above Motley Crue's $33 million for a similar number of shows (a paltry $400,000 per show, well under $200,000 per hour). I don't think most Americans want to impose an arbitrary cap on CEO pay any more than we want to impose a cap on U2's concert tour receipts because we know U2 would stop touring, and good CEOs would stop CEO-ing, and neither of those is to our benefit.

Let's focus on the real problem and not on concocted metrics rooted in sociopolitical sentiments. There is a lot of fixing needed in executive pay practices, and these average worker pay ratios have the potential to send us in the wrong direction.

Oh and that floor sweeper who gets $10 per hour makes $20k per year not including bene.s which compared to the $1mm CEO is a 50x multiple NOT 500. If you're going to make up numbers at least make up numbers that back your point. :laugh:

BTW, your apples and dumptrucks comparison? Yeah, dead on. :rolleyes:

[Psychoblues]

Don't be a dolt I didn't say it didn't happen, I said the multiple was small and not something to make policy by. You even quoted it so I can only assume you read it, comprehending it is another thing altogether. I stand by that because the CEO running the company is far more important to the company than the person who's sweeping the floors. Besides, most people will make the comparison to average worker pay and not the least educated floor sweeper.

Dated but relevant: The Great Overpaid CEO Debate (http://news.cnet.com/The-great-overpaid-CEO-debate/2010-1014_3-6078739.html)



Oh and that floor sweeper who gets $10 per hour makes $20k per year not including bene.s which compared to the $1mm CEO is a 50x multiple NOT 500. If you're going to make up numbers at least make up numbers that back your point. :laugh:

BTW, your apples and dumptrucks comparison? Yeah, dead on. :rolleyes:

You're proud of a 50 to 1 pay disparity in a relatively small business? There are thousands and thousands where my numbers do come much closer. The best bosses I ever had were bosses that considered me as important to the company as themselves. I was totally confident they had my back just as much as they expected me to have theirs. Were there pay disparities? Huge. On the other hand, I made better than average wages myself and my wife, my kids and me had relatively stressful but otherwise comfortable lives.

I just ain't diggin' ya, fj.

Psychochoblues

[fj1200]

You're proud of a 50 to 1 pay disparity in a relatively small business? There are thousands and thousands where my numbers do come much closer. ...

I just ain't diggin' ya, fj.

In your made up company and your out of your A' statistic? Ya, you betcha, eh. We don't and shouldn't make big and important decisions based on how much the floor sweeper makes, Dig it!!!

And I'm also proud of a country that rewards hard work, education, risk taking, etc.

[Missileman]

I was talking about a "fairness" issue, Mm. I am already aware that you will have none of it. What would we do if we didn't have any janitors? Somebody has to do those jobs and somebody makes the decisions to fashion in some way the marketplace of labor to provide them. Whether the pay is fair is my question and my answer is No, HELL NO. There is no consideration EVER from a managerial standpoint to pay a fair days pay for a fair days work. This is why labor needs all the professional representation and professional negotiators it can get just like the corporations and other big boys do it.


Psychochoblues

So in your opinion, $10 an hour for the most unskilled of labor doesn't constitute fair pay. Pull your head out of your ass and consider what a Big Mac might cost if the pimple-faced idiot who can barely manage "would you like fries with that?" were making $100K a year.

[Psychoblues]

In your made up company and your out of your A' statistic? Ya, you betcha, eh. We don't and shouldn't make big and important decisions based on how much the floor sweeper makes, Dig it!!!

And I'm also proud of a country that rewards hard work, education, risk taking, etc.

Very often that floor sweeper works harder than anyone in the office, is educated to the best of his own ability and takes the risks that are presented to him. FJ, I'm not opposed to people making more than others at all. I am opposed to 237 to 1 or even 50 to 1 pay disparities. And I know several business owners that feel the same way as I do. A fair days pay shouldn't have to be so small that a small increase in the price of gas or groceries has any effect on the wage earner while it means not even a second thought to the boss. We get this issue convoluted and blown out of proportion pretty quickly but we have a rich getting richer and poor getting poorer problem in this country and it's getting worse whether you want to admit it or not. Every single economic problem that has come up since about 1981 has been solved on the backs of the poor and middle class to the point that much of the middle class doesn't exist any more.

Psychochoblues

[Psychoblues]

So in your opinion, $10 an hour for the most unskilled of labor doesn't constitute fair pay. Pull your head out of your ass and consider what a Big Mac might cost if the pimple-faced idiot who can barely manage "would you like fries with that?" were making $100K a year.

Howza 'bout you get your head outta your ass, Mm. I didn't say or mean anything like that. Disgusting.

Psychochoblues

[fj1200]

Very often that floor sweeper works harder than anyone in the office, is educated to the best of his own ability and takes the risks that are presented to him.

No, maybe, and not in the same way as a business owner.


FJ, I'm not opposed to people making more than others at all. I am opposed to 237 to 1 or even 50 to 1 pay disparities. And I know several business owners that feel the same way as I do.

Good for those businesspeople. I'm opposed to your arbitrary imposition of a standard.


A fair days pay shouldn't have to be so small that a small increase in the price of gas or groceries has any effect on the wage earner while it means not even a second thought to the boss.

The Fed sure does suck these days at their inflation management responsibilities don't they?


We get this issue convoluted and blown out of proportion pretty quickly but we have a rich getting richer and poor getting poorer problem in this country and it's getting worse whether you want to admit it or not.

Wrong. Talking points are not evidence.


Every single economic problem that has come up since about 1981 has been solved on the backs of the poor and middle class to the point that much of the middle class doesn't exist any more.

1981 huh? You should work at being less transparent.

[Missileman]

Howza 'bout you get your head outta your ass, Mm. I didn't say or mean anything like that. Disgusting.

Psychochoblues

Then please, by all means, put a figure to how many tens of thousands of dollars a year you'd consider fair pay for the bottom of the rung employee...starting salary.

[Psychoblues]

Then please, by all means, put a figure to how many tens of thousands of dollars a year you'd consider fair pay for the bottom of the rung employee...starting salary.

I advocate a "fair days pay" for a "fair days work", Mm. That number is more subjective than most but at least the blue collar workers should be allowed collective and professional representation in the negotiation department just like the corporations and other big boys do.

Psychochoblues

[Missileman]

I advocate a "fair days pay" for a "fair days work", Mm. That number is more subjective than most but at least the blue collar workers should be allowed collective and professional representation in the negotiation department just like the corporations and other big boys do.

Psychochoblues

ROFL...a typical non-answer from you. Why can't you put a number to it? BTW, what's the Federal minimum wage? Surely you don't believe that your DC heros have set an unfair pay standard?

[Psychoblues]

ROFL...a typical non-answer from you. Why can't you put a number to it? BTW, what's the Federal minimum wage? Surely you don't believe that your DC heros have set an unfair pay standard?

Perhaps a more nuanced or thoughtful answer than you might like but definitely not a "non-answer". And the subject of the minimum wage gets my blood boiling. Although I can see setting such a number for totally unskilled, uneducated and inexperienced workers it is often used in totally impoverished areas with great resources and exploited as a threat against higher paid workers in short term economic crises. If minimum wage workers understood who was keeping the minimum wage so low or would eliminate it all together if they could do you think that might change the voting against one's own self interests dynamic that is so alive and well in this country?

Psychochoblues

[Missileman]

Perhaps a more nuanced or thoughtful answer than you might like but definitely not a "non-answer". And the subject of the minimum wage gets my blood boiling. Although I can see setting such a number for totally unskilled, uneducated and inexperienced workers it is often used in totally impoverished areas with great resources and exploited as a threat against higher paid workers in short term economic crises. If minimum wage workers understood who was keeping the minimum wage so low or would eliminate it all together if they could do you think that might change the voting against one's own self interests dynamic that is so alive and well in this country?

Psychochoblues

You're still dodging. If you can't put a number to it, then you're just arguing FOR the unions for what they contribute to the DNC.

[DragonStryk72]

PB is simply repeating the approved DNC talking points. He refuses to admit the unions are out to screw over the taxpayers just like the Dem party

I notice he has ignored the real reason for the fight for the "rights" of union workers

So the cash keeps flowing form the union workers paychecks, to the union bosses, and then to the DNC bank accounts

You're incorrect there, RSR. It's not the union's goal "to screw over taxpayers". that's more of a methodology than an actual purpose.

As to your video link, thank you a great deal. I've been having a hell of a time finding out what was actually in that legislation. It's the one thing that's been missing from this argument. So if I have this right, then the main points of it are thus:

1. Worker are no longer forced to pay union dues, so they can opt out.

2. Voters must now approve wage increases that are greater than the rate of inflation, meaning that the Teachers' salaries will stay at about the same level they are now on the meaningful level (i.e. comparative to cost of living).

3. Workers can still negotiate wages.

That clears a lot up, cause honestly, the rhetoric from both sides has been pretty bad, and a bit of simple english goes a long way.

So pretty much, the union bosses have whipped up their people, probably using the same run of talking points as are being used now, so it's likely that the teachers don't even know what is actually in the bill.

[Psychoblues]

You're incorrect there, RSR. It's not the union's goal "to screw over taxpayers". that's more of a methodology than an actual purpose.

As to your video link, thank you a great deal. I've been having a hell of a time finding out what was actually in that legislation. It's the one thing that's been missing from this argument. So if I have this right, then the main points of it are thus:

1. Worker are no longer forced to pay union dues, so they can opt out.

2. Voters must now approve wage increases that are greater than the rate of inflation, meaning that the Teachers' salaries will stay at about the same level they are now on the meaningful level (i.e. comparative to cost of living).

3. Workers can still negotiate wages.

That clears a lot up, cause honestly, the rhetoric from both sides has been pretty bad, and a bit of simple english goes a long way.

So pretty much, the union bosses have whipped up their people, probably using the same run of talking points as are being used now, so it's likely that the teachers don't even know what is actually in the bill.

You are correct, DS'72 in that it has never been even a remote consideration by ANY Union to "screw over the taxpayers" or ANYONE ELSE for that matter. That's more of a mythology than anything else. I can't see the video but I think I can see in the sense you are making your points what is happening.

1. The proposed legislation, if I understand your remarks, proposes policy similar to that in "right to work" or open shop states. Neither of these nomenclatures describe the actual results of the legislation/policy. In right to work or open shop states the non-union workers just don't have to pay any Union dues but do have every single right, wage, representation or consideration of a full dues paying worker. Now, THAT, is riding the back of others for an unearned and unpaid for benefit.

2. Unions have historically maintained cost of living wage adjustments in their wage negotiations and they show proof of the prevailing wages always in negotiations. Can I share just one personal experience that I had with a management proposal for a prevailing wage consideration? We were negotiating wages for highly skilled machinists and powerhouse mechanics whose work was incredibly difficult and under incredibly difficult conditions that most people that came to work there never made it past lunch time of the very first day. The noise, the fly-ash, the coal dust and flue gasses just blew them away and then to look at the precision that we had to maintain and the pure number of technically difficult jobs that we had to do was just too much for them. The fact that the boss was a total ass-hole didn't help either. Well, management showed up at wage/benefit conference with wage/benefit data from Jiffy Lube. I am not shitting you, DS'72. Jiffy Lube!!!!!!!! I immediately got on the phone to our division headquarters and spoke with the director. A few minutes later another man in a suit came in, leaned over and spoke to the guy with the Jiffy Lube data. He picked up his briefcase and we never saw him again.

3. Workers, even professional workers like lawyers, doctors, actors, book-writers, playwrights, etc. are never any good at negotiating their own pay. That's why they hire agents and other professionals to look after their better interests. This also holds true in the high level management types, the high level economists and forecasters, university professors, corporate types, they all use professionals to negotiate or advise in these matters. Why would lower level blue collar types be resented for seeking out a collective and more fair way for their own representation and wage/benefit negotiation?

Psychochoblues

[DragonStryk72]

You are correct, DS'72 in that it has never been even a remote consideration by ANY Union to "screw over the taxpayers" or ANYONE ELSE for that matter. That's more of a mythology than anything else. I can't see the video but I think I can see in the sense you are making your points what is happening.

1. The proposed legislation, if I understand your remarks, proposes policy similar to that in "right to work" or open shop states. Neither of these nomenclatures describe the actual results of the legislation/policy. In right to work or open shop states the non-union workers just don't have to pay any Union dues but do have every single right, wage, representation or consideration of a full dues paying worker. Now, THAT, is riding the back of others for an unearned and unpaid for benefit.

Where is this mythical place? Certainly not in Virgnia, where I lived for thirteen years after Navy, a right to work state as you mentioned. Yes, the company has to offer the same benfits, union or non-union.

So, according to your statement here, it is completely okay to demand money out of non-Union member to pay for the union they do not wish to be a part of, and that is not forcing others to pay for unions or unfair in any way. But because all the employees get the same benefits package through the company, that somehow is unfair?

Allowing people to choose whether or not they are in a union, and not having to pay the union to not be a part of it... that seems fair to me. Taking the benefits your company offers, again, completely fair.

2. Unions have historically maintained cost of living wage adjustments in their wage negotiations and they show proof of the prevailing wages always in negotiations. Can I share just one personal experience that I had with a management proposal for a prevailing wage consideration? We were negotiating wages for highly skilled machinists and powerhouse mechanics whose work was incredibly difficult and under incredibly difficult conditions that most people that came to work there never made it past lunch time of the very first day. The noise, the fly-ash, the coal dust and flue gasses just blew them away and then to look at the precision that we had to maintain and the pure number of technically difficult jobs that we had to do was just too much for them. The fact that the boss was a total ass-hole didn't help either. Well, management showed up at wage/benefit conference with wage/benefit data from Jiffy Lube. I am not shitting you, DS'72. Jiffy Lube!!!!!!!! I immediately got on the phone to our division headquarters and spoke with the director. A few minutes later another man in a suit came in, leaned over and spoke to the guy with the Jiffy Lube data. He picked up his briefcase and we never saw him again.

right, and this is where you can appeal to the voters. Again, collective bargaining isn't really being taken away, and if the voters approve the wage for whatever reason (Given your scenario, I can't imagine they wouldn't approve it, if only to give the company a giant middle finger). This takes away the power of the man in a suit, who now has to honestly worry about the workers going to the general public with it, and the public deciding on the wage increase.

3. Workers, even professional workers like lawyers, doctors, actors, book-writers, playwrights, etc. are never any good at negotiating their own pay. That's why they hire agents and other professionals to look after their better interests. This also holds true in the high level management types, the high level economists and forecasters, university professors, corporate types, they all use professionals to negotiate or advise in these matters. Why would lower level blue collar types be resented for seeking out a collective and more fair way for their own representation and wage/benefit negotiation?

Psychochoblues

Um, nothing, hence why no one's stopping them. They're not giving them carte blanche anymore, but they're not in any way really stopping them from getting proper representation. They can still do that, so I don't see the point of your response here.

[Psychoblues]

Um, nothing, hence why no one's stopping them. They're not giving them carte blanche anymore, but they're not in any way really stopping them from getting proper representation. They can still do that, so I don't see the point of your response here.

The governor flat out said that he would no longer negotiate with or recognise unions. Do you not agree with that? You said that it was not the purpose of the Unions to "screw over the taxpayers" but more a methodology than any actual purpose. That set my head to spinning but I do know there are those that incessantly ride the backs of Unions accusing them of riding the backs of taxpayers The accusation that Unions want to ride the backs of anyone is ludicrous at best and always mythology.

If a person has a problem joining a Union he/she can disassociate themselves from them very easily. Instead they apply for work at Union jobsites, generally make everyone miserable with their constant carping about Unions and all things they don't like, they are usually pretty miserable and very unattractive people, but insist on enjoying the same pay and benefits as their Union counterparts. They even expect the Union to personally represent them in disputes they may have with management and the Unions are by law compelled to do that and can be held liable if it can be demonstrated that the Union failed to represent adequately based on the non-Union status of the complainant. Lemme give you a few examples of this that I was involved in. An employee was hired, non-Union I might add and off the street. His job was tool room attendant on the night shift. He made it through his 90 day probationary period OK but refused to even consider joining the Union. One morning right at work time for me he appeared wanting me to help him get his job back. Wow! I didn't see that one coming. Anyway, it seems that he had been caught sleeping in the tool room was fired on the spot for it. From past experience I knew that wasn't necessarily a termination offence. I requested a meeting with the Plant Superintindent, got it and negotiated a 3 day suspension for the man. About 2 weeks later the same thing happened. I know that job is incredibly hard to stay awake on the night shift on as I have worked it myself and you can easily go hours without seeing anyone, the noise, the heat, the constant humming of the generators, it really is tuff to stay awake but it can be done. I went to bat for him again and got a 3 week suspension for him this time. Did I mention that the bastard had still not joined the Union despite his constant promises to me that he would on payday. Payday didn't have anything to do with it but that's another story. In any event about a month after he came back to work he appeared once again at my workstation with the same song third verse. Although I felt I had done all that coulod be done for him I agreed to talk with the principals. I approached his foreman and asked what happened. His foreman, who I liked and we had an excellent relationship, showed me some pictures of this guy had made himself a bed out of clean oil rags and was sound asleep on the tool room floor. The pictures showed the foreman and 3 or 4 more people milling around this guy who laid aout like a Christmas ham. I told the non-Union dick to go pay for a lawyer if he ws unhappy with anything that I or the company had done in his case. Another one is about a highly skilled machinist/mechanic that management had hired straight off the street. Everybody liked this guy despite him being such a blatant scab. But he liked to play. And play and play he did to the point he didn't get much work done and to the point he was hurting people and causing all kinds of badfeelings all over the plant. On one occasion he was written a warning letter and he wanted me to get it out of his record. I accomplished that, he promised to join the Union. Another occasion he was suspended for 3 days and upon his request I got it reduced to a letter of reprimand. The third time he was terminated and I told him the same as in the other story. If you feel like you've been mistreated by me or the company then get you a lawyer and we will go from there.

So, your opinions as to the fairness issue may be considerably different than my own but I have personal experience and documentation to back my claims up. What do you have? Repeating talking points from fearmongering assholes that just don't have a clue as to fair or unfair?

Psychochoblues

[Missileman]

The governor flat out said that he would no longer negotiate with or recognise unions. Do you not agree with that? You said that it was not the purpose of the Unions to "screw over the taxpayers" but more a methodology than any actual purpose. That set my head to spinning but I do know there are those that incessantly ride the backs of Unions accusing them of riding the backs of taxpayers The accusation that Unions want to ride the backs of anyone is ludicrous at best and always mythology.

If a person has a problem joining a Union he/she can disassociate themselves from them very easily. Instead they apply for work at Union jobsites, generally make everyone miserable with their constant carping about Unions and all things they don't like, they are usually pretty miserable and very unattractive people, but insist on enjoying the same pay and benefits as their Union counterparts. They even expect the Union to personally represent them in disputes they may have with management and the Unions are by law compelled to do that and can be held liable if it can be demonstrated that the Union failed to represent adequately based on the non-Union status of the complainant. Lemme give you a few examples of this that I was involved in. An employee was hired, non-Union I might add and off the street. His job was tool room attendant on the night shift. He made it through his 90 day probationary period OK but refused to even consider joining the Union. One morning right at work time for me he appeared wanting me to help him get his job back. Wow! I didn't see that one coming. Anyway, it seems that he had been caught sleeping in the tool room was fired on the spot for it. From past experience I knew that wasn't necessarily a termination offence. I requested a meeting with the Plant Superintindent, got it and negotiated a 3 day suspension for the man. About 2 weeks later the same thing happened. I know that job is incredibly hard to stay awake on the night shift on as I have worked it myself and you can easily go hours without seeing anyone, the noise, the heat, the constant humming of the generators, it really is tuff to stay awake but it can be done. I went to bat for him again and got a 3 week suspension for him this time. Did I mention that the bastard had still not joined the Union despite his constant promises to me that he would on payday. Payday didn't have anything to do with it but that's another story. In any event about a month after he came back to work he appeared once again at my workstation with the same song third verse. Although I felt I had done all that coulod be done for him I agreed to talk with the principals. I approached his foreman and asked what happened. His foreman, who I liked and we had an excellent relationship, showed me some pictures of this guy had made himself a bed out of clean oil rags and was sound asleep on the tool room floor. The pictures showed the foreman and 3 or 4 more people milling around this guy who laid aout like a Christmas ham. I told the non-Union dick to go pay for a lawyer if he ws unhappy with anything that I or the company had done in his case. Another one is about a highly skilled machinist/mechanic that management had hired straight off the street. Everybody liked this guy despite him being such a blatant scab. But he liked to play. And play and play he did to the point he didn't get much work done and to the point he was hurting people and causing all kinds of badfeelings all over the plant. On one occasion he was written a warning letter and he wanted me to get it out of his record. I accomplished that, he promised to join the Union. Another occasion he was suspended for 3 days and upon his request I got it reduced to a letter of reprimand. The third time he was terminated and I told him the same as in the other story. If you feel like you've been mistreated by me or the company then get you a lawyer and we will go from there.

So, your opinions as to the fairness issue may be considerably different than my own but I have personal experience and documentation to back my claims up. What do you have? Repeating talking points from fearmongering assholes that just don't have a clue as to fair or unfair?

Psychochoblues

You can't even back up the first line of this quoted post...it's pure fabrication. I can't believe that you believe that anyone believes a single thing you write.

While I personally hold the opinion that unions are a bane to the country. They have had a huge hand in the demise of US manufacturing and the unemployment resulting from companies moving out in search of cheaper labor. That said, if the private sector wishes to continue to deal with them it will mean more money out of my pocket in higher prices, but I will have the option of not buying certain products. However, when it comes to the public sector unions, they should have absolutely NO collective bargaining rights at all. They spend millions of dollars and manhours getting people elected to office who will be the ones to sit down at these collective bargaining sessions. They are in essence, bargaining with themselves, and we taxpayers take it in the ass when it's allowed to occur. It's a totally corrupt process that should be illegal.

[fj1200]

Lemme give you a few examples of this that I was involved in.

Sounds like you've hit on one of the problems with unions, you used your position of influence to insulate employees from the consequences of their actions. And it seems it was done so to protect entrenched workers at the expense of a future worker. Bargaining for pay and benefits is one thing but when an employee is detrimental to the workplace the employer should have control.

[logroller]

Sounds like you've hit on one of the problems with unions, you used your position of influence to insulate employees from the consequences of their actions. And it seems it was done so to protect entrenched workers at the expense of a future worker. Bargaining for pay and benefits is one thing but when an employee is detrimental to the workplace the employer should have control.

Hmmmm, intriguing. I think I would premise the same conclusion from representaive democracy; specifically the ranking order of precedence in committee assignments and prevalency of incumbant advantage in seeking reelection.



“Profits, like sausages... are esteemed most by those who know least about what goes into them.”-Alvin Toeffler

[logroller]

You're incorrect there, RSR. It's not the union's goal "to screw over taxpayers". that's more of a methodology than an actual purpose.

As to your video link, thank you a great deal. I've been having a hell of a time finding out what was actually in that legislation. It's the one thing that's been missing from this argument. So if I have this right, then the main points of it are thus:

1. Worker are no longer forced to pay union dues, so they can opt out.

2. Voters must now approve wage increases that are greater than the rate of inflation, meaning that the Teachers' salaries will stay at about the same level they are now on the meaningful level (i.e. comparative to cost of living).

3. Workers can still negotiate wages.

That clears a lot up, cause honestly, the rhetoric from both sides has been pretty bad, and a bit of simple english goes a long way.

So pretty much, the union bosses have whipped up their people, probably using the same run of talking points as are being used now, so it's likely that the teachers don't even know what is actually in the bill.

As per point 2, is this for exempt and non-exempt employees? (salary vs wage) Because the insistance by others for a reasonable $ amount would necessarily depend on such.

For the record I would say a reasonable starting salary for a non-exempt employee would be roughly twice the poverty level (around 20k), though this would necessarily be higher in certain areas, perhaps $30k. Exempt employees, certainly those extensively trained and accredited, ie teachers would demand more, perhaps 3-4 times the poverty level, say $35k. What is troubling about current pay structures(teachers specifically), and for this I blame unions, is the increase in pay based heavily on seniority, rather than performance or extended education/ training. I can believe that with time people get better at what they do, but this alone is heavily favored over additional training which, purely by engaging in, demonstrates to me a will to better oneself more so than not quitting or getting fired.

[Psychoblues]

Sounds like you've hit on one of the problems with unions, you used your position of influence to insulate employees from the consequences of their actions. And it seems it was done so to protect entrenched workers at the expense of a future worker. Bargaining for pay and benefits is one thing but when an employee is detrimental to the workplace the employer should have control.

It was a matter of being compelled by LAW that I used my position to represent in good faith the positions of the complainant employees.

Psychochoblues

[fj1200]

It was a matter of being compelled by LAW that I used my position to represent in good faith the positions of the complainant employees.

OK, doesn't diminish my point however.

[Psychoblues]

OK, doesn't diminish my point however.

I didn't want to represent them at all for a lot of reasons including at least in the one case a safety issue. I was shocked when management so easily agreed to re-hire the bastard scab. I had to be very careful with those shits. You never know when you're dealing with a plant to see if an individual like me is going to be stupid enough to refuse to represent them to the best of my ability because of their scab situation. It happens and it happens often.

Your point is much more than diminished, it is completely irrelevant.

Psychochoblues

[fj1200]

I didn't want to represent them at all for a lot of reasons including at least in the one case a safety issue. I was shocked when management so easily agreed to re-hire the bastard scab. I had to be very careful with those shits. You never know when you're dealing with a plant to see if an individual like me is going to be stupid enough to refuse to represent them to the best of my ability because of their scab situation. It happens and it happens often.

Your point is much more than diminished, it is completely irrelevant.

Nope, unions hold to much sway in work rules.

[trobinett]

Never could understand why I should have someone else speak for me.

[Missileman]

Never could understand why I should have someone else speak for me.

You're obviously someone whose work stands on its own merit. Liberals seem to have a problem with their pay being based on their work.

[trobinett]

You're obviously someone whose work stands on its own merit. Liberals seem to have a problem with their pay being based on their work.

When you own your business, and your rep depends on the quality of your work, as it should with ALL work, then what you said makes perfect sense.:salute:

[Psychoblues]

I continue to abide the old adage only once removed in this case, any client that defends himself in court has a fool for a lawyer.

Psychochoblues

[Missileman]

I continue to abide the old adage only once removed in this case, any client that defends himself in court has a fool for a lawyer.

Psychochoblues

If you can't do your job well enough that your employer is looking to pay you more money, you don't deserve a raise...and likely don't deserve what you're currently being paid.