Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Horseshit. It takes an act of god to get fired from the civil service gravy train. I did it part time while in college and the top guy was a GS13 making damn good money for the time. He spent the day looking busy, when he finally retired they never filled his position because he didn't do anything. Pay raises come in like clockwork regardless of any "opportunities".You're not just giving up the chance of getting rich working for the government under civil service but often the opportunity of any upward mobility. In most of the civil service jobs you get a step pay increase every year for 3 years then a step every 2 years for 3 years, then a step increase every 3 years. Then after 15 years, no more raises except for a cost of living raise.But most people I know would give up the far chance that they'll ever "make it rich" in the private sector for the job security and guaranteed pay raises working for the gov't.
But that's actually not true anyway. My father is a petroleum engineer. He started out at the bottom rung 42 years ago. When he first got the job him and my mom couldn't make ends meet. He moved up, got promotions, tons of pay raises, and wound up making 6 figures by the time he retired last December. He's also making like 90% of his old pay as retirement.
Needless to say, he did quite well. Maybe not a 1%'er but certainly top 10%'er.
Probably one the worst things about working for the federal government is that despite the growth in government spending, the number of permanent civil service jobs are not increasing. In 1992, there were 3 million permanent civil service workers, 2.8 million in 1995, 2.6 million in 2000, 2.6 million in 2005, 2.6 million in 2014. This may be good for tax payers but for an employee it means less opportunities for advancement.
The upside of federal civil service is competitive pay, good benefits, and stable employment. The downside is limited chance of advancement and limited employment opportunities compared to the private sector.
huh? I think you're nuts, I state your salary is based on compensation to pay dues, and you tell me you pay 32 dollars a month in dues. so, what is it exactly I'm wrong about?are you all there?....you said...."Remember, the reason for the higher salaries is so they can pay their union off".....i paid my union 32 bucks a month....was that huge amount enough to pay them off?..if you think so you have made my point....you dont know what the fuck you are talking about....I never stated what you paid, why inject I did? Although, you do make my point, thanks.Remember, the reason for the higher salaries is so they can pay their union offbut what they spend does nothing to replenish the tax budget except draw from it. They replenish very little. Remember, the reason for the higher salaries is so they can pay their union off not to repay the bucket from whence the money came from.The federal government ain't a employment agency although most liberals think so. Government hiring does not grow the economy. It's a freaking drain especially when government drones enjoy every holiday no matter how obscure and about 60% could call in sick permanently and nobody in the private sector would notice.
Wrong... government employees spend a lot of money and that helps to stimulate the economy,
If their off time is as generous as yo u say (it really isn't) then that gives them more time to spend all that money and help the economy!
my union dues were $32 a month.......i guess thats why i made what i did.....
no....you said that we make great money to pay the union off....32 bucks a month aint much to do that....thats what you are wrong about.....if i was paying 70-80 bucks a month you might have a point....huh? I think you're nuts, I state your salary is based on compensation to pay dues, and you tell me you pay 32 dollars a month in dues. so, what is it exactly I'm wrong about?are you all there?....you said...."Remember, the reason for the higher salaries is so they can pay their union off".....i paid my union 32 bucks a month....was that huge amount enough to pay them off?..if you think so you have made my point....you dont know what the fuck you are talking about....I never stated what you paid, why inject I did? Although, you do make my point, thanks.Remember, the reason for the higher salaries is so they can pay their union offbut what they spend does nothing to replenish the tax budget except draw from it. They replenish very little. Remember, the reason for the higher salaries is so they can pay their union off not to repay the bucket from whence the money came from.Wrong... government employees spend a lot of money and that helps to stimulate the economy,
If their off time is as generous as yo u say (it really isn't) then that gives them more time to spend all that money and help the economy!
my union dues were $32 a month.......i guess thats why i made what i did.....
oh come now, link to a white house paper. Black democrat congressmen and women and white liberal members forced congress to relax enforcement of regulations to banking laws. Banks were threatened to lose ability to expand if they didn't give home loans to people who could never make their monthly payments.We already been over this, agreed 10 years ago things were going along pretty good until Federal meddling policies crashed housing?
RINO=DemWit=at fault. there, we agree.
I can't agree more GOVT spending/debt will get USA out of debt.
"We already been over this, agreed 10 years ago things were going along pretty good until Federal meddling policies crashed housing?"
You mean Dubya's REGULATOR FAILURE allowed the Banksters to hose US And Dubya and his policies housed Fannie/Freddie right?
Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up
The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.
>
The housing boom and bust was global — Source: McKinsey Quarterly
>
A McKinsey Global Institute report noted “from 2000 through 2007, a remarkable run-up in global home prices occurred.” It is highly unlikely that a simultaneous boom and bust everywhere else in the world was caused by one set of factors (ultra-low rates, securitized AAA-rated subprime, derivatives) but had a different set of causes in the United States. Indeed, this might be the biggest obstacle to pushing the false narrative.
Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom.
Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards. Taking up that extra share were nonbanks selling mortgages elsewhere, not to the GSEs. Conforming mortgages had rules that were less profitable than the newfangled loans. Private securitizers — competitors of Fannie and Freddie — grew from 10 percent of the market in 2002 to nearly 40 percent in 2006. As a percentage of all mortgage-backed securities, private securitization grew from 23 percent in 2003 to 56 percent in 2006
In short, progressive democrats crashed the economy and blamed George Bush. You have been shown time and time again on YouTube.
Sure Bubba sure
Dubya hosed US and you blame Dems
Loans that were under government regulation did better than private loans, especially if they were regulated by the "Community Reinvestment Act."
Republicans choose to ignore facts and reality and live in a right wing world of delusion and disconnect created by the right wing echo chamber of spin, lies and misinformation.
Wall street banks freed to wheel and deal on main street got into the mortgage business because they could invest 1 dollar in the purchase of a mortgage and then magically change it into negotiable paper that produced 30 dollars of profit.
Available mortgages were quickly absorbed, so in an effort to produce more mortgages, Wall Street banks lowered their standards in order to produce more mortgages to be chopped up and sold as "investment paper" that would continue to produce unsustainable and totally fraudulent profits for the banks.
When investors started to get weary, Wall Street created the credit default swap which was insurance on the investments, this kept the machine rolling - Dubya tried to turn over Social Security funds to keep the pyramid alive, but he was rebuffed by the people.
Greed accompanied by regulator FAILURE OF DUBYA caused the mess, Fanny and Freddie were late comers to the feast they did not cause the mess at all, though they got caught up in it, Thanks to Dubya policies
Anyone that fails to recognize the facts is either ignorant or blatantly cynical.
i seen quite a few get dismissed from the PO....and it had nothing to do with god....Horseshit. It takes an act of god to get fired from the civil service gravy train. I did it part time while in college and the top guy was a GS13 making damn good money for the time. He spent the day looking busy, when he finally retired they never filled his position because he didn't do anything. Pay raises come in like clockwork regardless of any "opportunities".You're not just giving up the chance of getting rich working for the government under civil service but often the opportunity of any upward mobility. In most of the civil service jobs you get a step pay increase every year for 3 years then a step every 2 years for 3 years, then a step increase every 3 years. Then after 15 years, no more raises except for a cost of living raise.But most people I know would give up the far chance that they'll ever "make it rich" in the private sector for the job security and guaranteed pay raises working for the gov't.
But that's actually not true anyway. My father is a petroleum engineer. He started out at the bottom rung 42 years ago. When he first got the job him and my mom couldn't make ends meet. He moved up, got promotions, tons of pay raises, and wound up making 6 figures by the time he retired last December. He's also making like 90% of his old pay as retirement.
Needless to say, he did quite well. Maybe not a 1%'er but certainly top 10%'er.
Probably one the worst things about working for the federal government is that despite the growth in government spending, the number of permanent civil service jobs are not increasing. In 1992, there were 3 million permanent civil service workers, 2.8 million in 1995, 2.6 million in 2000, 2.6 million in 2005, 2.6 million in 2014. This may be good for tax payers but for an employee it means less opportunities for advancement.
The upside of federal civil service is competitive pay, good benefits, and stable employment. The downside is limited chance of advancement and limited employment opportunities compared to the private sector.
and then there is actually this from 2005. Black democrat congressmen and women and white liberal members forced congress to relax enforcement of regulations to banking laws. Banks were threatened to lose ability to expand if they didn't give home loans to people who could never make their monthly payments.We already been over this, agreed 10 years ago things were going along pretty good until Federal meddling policies crashed housing?
RINO=DemWit=at fault. there, we agree.
I can't agree more GOVT spending/debt will get USA out of debt.
"We already been over this, agreed 10 years ago things were going along pretty good until Federal meddling policies crashed housing?"
You mean Dubya's REGULATOR FAILURE allowed the Banksters to hose US And Dubya and his policies housed Fannie/Freddie right?
Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up
The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.
>
The housing boom and bust was global — Source: McKinsey Quarterly
>
A McKinsey Global Institute report noted “from 2000 through 2007, a remarkable run-up in global home prices occurred.” It is highly unlikely that a simultaneous boom and bust everywhere else in the world was caused by one set of factors (ultra-low rates, securitized AAA-rated subprime, derivatives) but had a different set of causes in the United States. Indeed, this might be the biggest obstacle to pushing the false narrative.
Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom.
Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards. Taking up that extra share were nonbanks selling mortgages elsewhere, not to the GSEs. Conforming mortgages had rules that were less profitable than the newfangled loans. Private securitizers — competitors of Fannie and Freddie — grew from 10 percent of the market in 2002 to nearly 40 percent in 2006. As a percentage of all mortgage-backed securities, private securitization grew from 23 percent in 2003 to 56 percent in 2006
In short, progressive democrats crashed the economy and blamed George Bush. You have been shown time and time again on YouTube.
Oh right, we forget about the OUT OF CONTEXT 2003-2004 ACCOUNTING SCANDALS WHEN DEMS SAID F/F WERE OK
WHAT HAPPENED?
Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?
A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.
From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008
“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”
Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse
2004 Republican Convention:
Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...
Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.
(APPLAUSE)
Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."
June 17, 2004
Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.
Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004
Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis
Talk radio and the blogosphere are pushing the idea that the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit was triggered by finance giants Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's lending money to poor and minority Americans. But federal housing data reveal that that charge isn't true. Instead, it was the private sector that was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.
Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis
Bush's documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)
Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals (2004)
Lowering Investment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule (2004)
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans (2004)
Lowering down payment requirements to 0% (2004)
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets (2004)
Giving away 40,000 free down payments PER YEAR (2004-2007)
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING (2003)
But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.
FACTS on Dubya's great recession | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
no i did not. LOL. Post up what I said come on now. At least have some integrity.no....you said that we make great money to pay the union off....32 bucks a month aint much to do that....thats what you are wrong about.....if i was paying 70-80 bucks a month you might have a point....huh? I think you're nuts, I state your salary is based on compensation to pay dues, and you tell me you pay 32 dollars a month in dues. so, what is it exactly I'm wrong about?are you all there?....you said...."Remember, the reason for the higher salaries is so they can pay their union off".....i paid my union 32 bucks a month....was that huge amount enough to pay them off?..if you think so you have made my point....you dont know what the fuck you are talking about....I never stated what you paid, why inject I did? Although, you do make my point, thanks.Remember, the reason for the higher salaries is so they can pay their union offbut what they spend does nothing to replenish the tax budget except draw from it. They replenish very little. Remember, the reason for the higher salaries is so they can pay their union off not to repay the bucket from whence the money came from.
my union dues were $32 a month.......i guess thats why i made what i did.....
i did post it up....here let me do it again just for you..........Remember, the reason for the higher salaries is so they can pay their union off....now was that you saying that...or someone else?.....no i did not. LOL. Post up what I said come on now. At least have some integrity.no....you said that we make great money to pay the union off....32 bucks a month aint much to do that....thats what you are wrong about.....if i was paying 70-80 bucks a month you might have a point....huh? I think you're nuts, I state your salary is based on compensation to pay dues, and you tell me you pay 32 dollars a month in dues. so, what is it exactly I'm wrong about?are you all there?....you said...."Remember, the reason for the higher salaries is so they can pay their union off".....i paid my union 32 bucks a month....was that huge amount enough to pay them off?..if you think so you have made my point....you dont know what the fuck you are talking about....I never stated what you paid, why inject I did? Although, you do make my point, thanks.Remember, the reason for the higher salaries is so they can pay their union off
my union dues were $32 a month.......i guess thats why i made what i did.....
well no it isn't what I said and it's funny you can't pull up the quote. Dude, pull up the post and post it here. Insert the quote and let's see if that's what I said.i did post it up....here let me do it again just for you..........Remember, the reason for the higher salaries is so they can pay their union off....now was that you saying that...or someone else?.....no i did not. LOL. Post up what I said come on now. At least have some integrity.no....you said that we make great money to pay the union off....32 bucks a month aint much to do that....thats what you are wrong about.....if i was paying 70-80 bucks a month you might have a point....huh? I think you're nuts, I state your salary is based on compensation to pay dues, and you tell me you pay 32 dollars a month in dues. so, what is it exactly I'm wrong about?are you all there?....you said...."Remember, the reason for the higher salaries is so they can pay their union off".....i paid my union 32 bucks a month....was that huge amount enough to pay them off?..if you think so you have made my point....you dont know what the fuck you are talking about....I never stated what you paid, why inject I did? Although, you do make my point, thanks.
yes it is, I completely agree it is a union buster to some degree, but it is more the right for someone who wishes to work in a field to get a job without having to work for a union. And the base rate pay that a right to worker makes is exactly the same as the union member's . his paycheck is smaller since the company doesn't have to pay for the union dues owed by the union member. So yes the check is smaller, but it is the same for the work that is performed. you are not very educated.dang you are a whiny little fellow aren't you. It must really suck to be you to have that much hate stored up. You should take your own and advice and not use a message forum to let your anger out.Gee, are't you archetype of the modern day anarchist. It's more likely you'll shoot a neighbor or a family member as you "lie in wait", which BTW, is one element of First Degree Murder.
Not when they're in my house.
You're all hat and no cattle. I suspect your dream is to kill a person and be found to be a hero. You know, the George Zimmerman type. Many who do so end up in prison, where they belong.
Right to work you don't like that do you. That 78% number will go down once the right to work makes it to more states. watch a tv near you for an update.
"Right to Work" is a euphemism for union busting and allowing employers to lower wages, reduce benefits, and providing a means to fire people who complain.
BTW, I'm not angry, I'm informed. My purpose here is to share information, not propaganda. Offer common sense ideas, not foolish schemes.
geezus christ....look at post 205....is that you or someone else named jc456?....well no it isn't what I said and it's funny you can't pull up the quote. Dude, pull up the post and post it here. Insert the quote and let's see if that's what I said.i did post it up....here let me do it again just for you..........Remember, the reason for the higher salaries is so they can pay their union off....now was that you saying that...or someone else?.....no i did not. LOL. Post up what I said come on now. At least have some integrity.no....you said that we make great money to pay the union off....32 bucks a month aint much to do that....thats what you are wrong about.....if i was paying 70-80 bucks a month you might have a point....huh? I think you're nuts, I state your salary is based on compensation to pay dues, and you tell me you pay 32 dollars a month in dues. so, what is it exactly I'm wrong about?are you all there?....you said...."Remember, the reason for the higher salaries is so they can pay their union off".....i paid my union 32 bucks a month....was that huge amount enough to pay them off?..if you think so you have made my point....you dont know what the fuck you are talking about....
here is what I said, you give me the one that you highlighted:
yes it is, I completely agree it is a union buster to some degree, but it is more the right for someone who wishes to work in a field to get a job without having to work for a union. And the base rate pay that a right to worker makes is exactly the same as the union member's . his paycheck is smaller since the company doesn't have to pay for the union dues owed by the union member. So yes the check is smaller, but it is the same for the work that is performed. you are not very educated.dang you are a whiny little fellow aren't you. It must really suck to be you to have that much hate stored up. You should take your own and advice and not use a message forum to let your anger out.Not when they're in my house.
You're all hat and no cattle. I suspect your dream is to kill a person and be found to be a hero. You know, the George Zimmerman type. Many who do so end up in prison, where they belong.
Right to work you don't like that do you. That 78% number will go down once the right to work makes it to more states. watch a tv near you for an update.
"Right to Work" is a euphemism for union busting and allowing employers to lower wages, reduce benefits, and providing a means to fire people who complain.
BTW, I'm not angry, I'm informed. My purpose here is to share information, not propaganda. Offer common sense ideas, not foolish schemes.
Under the Civil Service Reform Act, all federal worker unions are required to operate as “open shops,” meaning that any labor group representing non-management staff in an agency must represent all of the non-management employees, regardless of whether they join the union. This accounts for the fact that only 28% of the federal workers are union members Currently the average amount Federal Employees pay to be member of a union is $19.75/mo.huh? I think you're nuts, I state your salary is based on compensation to pay dues, and you tell me you pay 32 dollars a month in dues. so, what is it exactly I'm wrong about?are you all there?....you said...."Remember, the reason for the higher salaries is so they can pay their union off".....i paid my union 32 bucks a month....was that huge amount enough to pay them off?..if you think so you have made my point....you dont know what the fuck you are talking about....I never stated what you paid, why inject I did? Although, you do make my point, thanks.Remember, the reason for the higher salaries is so they can pay their union offbut what they spend does nothing to replenish the tax budget except draw from it. They replenish very little. Remember, the reason for the higher salaries is so they can pay their union off not to repay the bucket from whence the money came from.Wrong... government employees spend a lot of money and that helps to stimulate the economy,
If their off time is as generous as yo u say (it really isn't) then that gives them more time to spend all that money and help the economy!
my union dues were $32 a month.......i guess thats why i made what i did.....
That's not so. The lowest paid federal civil service workers pay less than .5% in dues. The average union member pays 19.75/mo or about .3% of their salary. Only 28% of federal workers are a member of a union since membership is voluntary and only available in sites where there is a union..i did post it up....here let me do it again just for you..........Remember, the reason for the higher salaries is so they can pay their union off....now was that you saying that...or someone else?.....no i did not. LOL. Post up what I said come on now. At least have some integrity.no....you said that we make great money to pay the union off....32 bucks a month aint much to do that....thats what you are wrong about.....if i was paying 70-80 bucks a month you might have a point....huh? I think you're nuts, I state your salary is based on compensation to pay dues, and you tell me you pay 32 dollars a month in dues. so, what is it exactly I'm wrong about?are you all there?....you said...."Remember, the reason for the higher salaries is so they can pay their union off".....i paid my union 32 bucks a month....was that huge amount enough to pay them off?..if you think so you have made my point....you dont know what the fuck you are talking about....I never stated what you paid, why inject I did? Although, you do make my point, thanks.
I too worked under federal civil service for 8 years. I know of 2 people in my department that were fired or forced to quit. 12,000 a year are fired. There are good and bad government workers just like in the private sector.Horseshit. It takes an act of god to get fired from the civil service gravy train. I did it part time while in college and the top guy was a GS13 making damn good money for the time. He spent the day looking busy, when he finally retired they never filled his position because he didn't do anything. Pay raises come in like clockwork regardless of any "opportunities".You're not just giving up the chance of getting rich working for the government under civil service but often the opportunity of any upward mobility. In most of the civil service jobs you get a step pay increase every year for 3 years then a step every 2 years for 3 years, then a step increase every 3 years. Then after 15 years, no more raises except for a cost of living raise.But most people I know would give up the far chance that they'll ever "make it rich" in the private sector for the job security and guaranteed pay raises working for the gov't.
But that's actually not true anyway. My father is a petroleum engineer. He started out at the bottom rung 42 years ago. When he first got the job him and my mom couldn't make ends meet. He moved up, got promotions, tons of pay raises, and wound up making 6 figures by the time he retired last December. He's also making like 90% of his old pay as retirement.
Needless to say, he did quite well. Maybe not a 1%'er but certainly top 10%'er.
Probably one the worst things about working for the federal government is that despite the growth in government spending, the number of permanent civil service jobs are not increasing. In 1992, there were 3 million permanent civil service workers, 2.8 million in 1995, 2.6 million in 2000, 2.6 million in 2005, 2.6 million in 2014. This may be good for tax payers but for an employee it means less opportunities for advancement.
The upside of federal civil service is competitive pay, good benefits, and stable employment. The downside is limited chance of advancement and limited employment opportunities compared to the private sector.
i wasnt the one who said that.....and in the PO its a lot higher than 28%.....maybe 70-80%.....That's not so. The lowest paid federal civil service workers pay less than .5% in dues. The average union member pays 19.75/mo or about .3% of their salary. Only 28% of federal workers are a member of a union since membership is voluntary and only available in sites where there is a union..i did post it up....here let me do it again just for you..........Remember, the reason for the higher salaries is so they can pay their union off....now was that you saying that...or someone else?.....no i did not. LOL. Post up what I said come on now. At least have some integrity.no....you said that we make great money to pay the union off....32 bucks a month aint much to do that....thats what you are wrong about.....if i was paying 70-80 bucks a month you might have a point....huh? I think you're nuts, I state your salary is based on compensation to pay dues, and you tell me you pay 32 dollars a month in dues. so, what is it exactly I'm wrong about?are you all there?....you said...."Remember, the reason for the higher salaries is so they can pay their union off".....i paid my union 32 bucks a month....was that huge amount enough to pay them off?..if you think so you have made my point....you dont know what the fuck you are talking about....
Under the Civil Service Reform Act, all federal worker unions are required to operate as “open shops,” meaning that any labor group representing non-management staff in an agency must represent all of the non-management employees, regardless of whether they join the union. This accounts for the fact that only 28% of the federal workers are union members Currently the average amount Federal Employees pay to be member of a union is $19.75/mo.huh? I think you're nuts, I state your salary is based on compensation to pay dues, and you tell me you pay 32 dollars a month in dues. so, what is it exactly I'm wrong about?are you all there?....you said...."Remember, the reason for the higher salaries is so they can pay their union off".....i paid my union 32 bucks a month....was that huge amount enough to pay them off?..if you think so you have made my point....you dont know what the fuck you are talking about....I never stated what you paid, why inject I did? Although, you do make my point, thanks.Remember, the reason for the higher salaries is so they can pay their union offbut what they spend does nothing to replenish the tax budget except draw from it. They replenish very little. Remember, the reason for the higher salaries is so they can pay their union off not to repay the bucket from whence the money came from.
my union dues were $32 a month.......i guess thats why i made what i did.....
What this all means is that most the anti- federal worker union articles on the Internet are pure Bull Shit.
Supreme Court labor ruling doesn’t impact federal unions, and here’s why
Number of federal union workers rose slightly
Dues & Eligibility | AFGE
i wasnt the one who said that.....and in the PO its a lot higher than 28%.....maybe 70-80%.....That's not so. The lowest paid federal civil service workers pay less than .5% in dues. The average union member pays 19.75/mo or about .3% of their salary. Only 28% of federal workers are a member of a union since membership is voluntary and only available in sites where there is a union..i did post it up....here let me do it again just for you..........Remember, the reason for the higher salaries is so they can pay their union off....now was that you saying that...or someone else?.....no i did not. LOL. Post up what I said come on now. At least have some integrity.no....you said that we make great money to pay the union off....32 bucks a month aint much to do that....thats what you are wrong about.....if i was paying 70-80 bucks a month you might have a point....huh? I think you're nuts, I state your salary is based on compensation to pay dues, and you tell me you pay 32 dollars a month in dues. so, what is it exactly I'm wrong about?
Participation varies by agency and site. Unlike unions in the private sector that can shut down a business, Federal employees are denied by statute the right to strike. Without the right to strike, union dues are little more than contribution to lobbying group as far as salaries are concerned.i wasnt the one who said that.....and in the PO its a lot higher than 28%.....maybe 70-80%.....That's not so. The lowest paid federal civil service workers pay less than .5% in dues. The average union member pays 19.75/mo or about .3% of their salary. Only 28% of federal workers are a member of a union since membership is voluntary and only available in sites where there is a union..i did post it up....here let me do it again just for you..........Remember, the reason for the higher salaries is so they can pay their union off....now was that you saying that...or someone else?.....no i did not. LOL. Post up what I said come on now. At least have some integrity.no....you said that we make great money to pay the union off....32 bucks a month aint much to do that....thats what you are wrong about.....if i was paying 70-80 bucks a month you might have a point....huh? I think you're nuts, I state your salary is based on compensation to pay dues, and you tell me you pay 32 dollars a month in dues. so, what is it exactly I'm wrong about?
They never do, but they do change the minds of those that have a mind to change.Under the Civil Service Reform Act, all federal worker unions are required to operate as “open shops,” meaning that any labor group representing non-management staff in an agency must represent all of the non-management employees, regardless of whether they join the union. This accounts for the fact that only 28% of the federal workers are union members Currently the average amount Federal Employees pay to be member of a union is $19.75/mo.huh? I think you're nuts, I state your salary is based on compensation to pay dues, and you tell me you pay 32 dollars a month in dues. so, what is it exactly I'm wrong about?are you all there?....you said...."Remember, the reason for the higher salaries is so they can pay their union off".....i paid my union 32 bucks a month....was that huge amount enough to pay them off?..if you think so you have made my point....you dont know what the fuck you are talking about....I never stated what you paid, why inject I did? Although, you do make my point, thanks.Remember, the reason for the higher salaries is so they can pay their union off
my union dues were $32 a month.......i guess thats why i made what i did.....
What this all means is that most the anti- federal worker union articles on the Internet are pure Bull Shit.
Supreme Court labor ruling doesn’t impact federal unions, and here’s why
Number of federal union workers rose slightly
Dues & Eligibility | AFGE
Thank you, sadly facts won't change the RW Rhetoric.
What the hell did they do, murder their supervisor? With seniority you'd really have to screw up. Newbies are a different story but no way if government firing on par with the private sector.I too worked under federal civil service for 8 years. I know of 2 people in my department that were fired or forced to quit. 12,000 a year are fired. There are good and bad government workers just like in the private sector.Horseshit. It takes an act of god to get fired from the civil service gravy train. I did it part time while in college and the top guy was a GS13 making damn good money for the time. He spent the day looking busy, when he finally retired they never filled his position because he didn't do anything. Pay raises come in like clockwork regardless of any "opportunities".You're not just giving up the chance of getting rich working for the government under civil service but often the opportunity of any upward mobility. In most of the civil service jobs you get a step pay increase every year for 3 years then a step every 2 years for 3 years, then a step increase every 3 years. Then after 15 years, no more raises except for a cost of living raise.But most people I know would give up the far chance that they'll ever "make it rich" in the private sector for the job security and guaranteed pay raises working for the gov't.
But that's actually not true anyway. My father is a petroleum engineer. He started out at the bottom rung 42 years ago. When he first got the job him and my mom couldn't make ends meet. He moved up, got promotions, tons of pay raises, and wound up making 6 figures by the time he retired last December. He's also making like 90% of his old pay as retirement.
Needless to say, he did quite well. Maybe not a 1%'er but certainly top 10%'er.
Probably one the worst things about working for the federal government is that despite the growth in government spending, the number of permanent civil service jobs are not increasing. In 1992, there were 3 million permanent civil service workers, 2.8 million in 1995, 2.6 million in 2000, 2.6 million in 2005, 2.6 million in 2014. This may be good for tax payers but for an employee it means less opportunities for advancement.
The upside of federal civil service is competitive pay, good benefits, and stable employment. The downside is limited chance of advancement and limited employment opportunities compared to the private sector.
And your one summer years ago working for one guy you, in the infinite wisdom all college students possess, thought was a waste, makes you an expert on what the millions of federal employees do. MHorseshit. It takes an act of god to get fired from the civil service gravy train. I did it part time while in college and the top guy was a GS13 making damn good money for the time. He spent the day looking busy, when he finally retired they never filled his position because he didn't do anything. Pay raises come in like clockwork regardless of any "opportunities".You're not just giving up the chance of getting rich working for the government under civil service but often the opportunity of any upward mobility. In most of the civil service jobs you get a step pay increase every year for 3 years then a step every 2 years for 3 years, then a step increase every 3 years. Then after 15 years, no more raises except for a cost of living raise.But most people I know would give up the far chance that they'll ever "make it rich" in the private sector for the job security and guaranteed pay raises working for the gov't.
But that's actually not true anyway. My father is a petroleum engineer. He started out at the bottom rung 42 years ago. When he first got the job him and my mom couldn't make ends meet. He moved up, got promotions, tons of pay raises, and wound up making 6 figures by the time he retired last December. He's also making like 90% of his old pay as retirement.
Needless to say, he did quite well. Maybe not a 1%'er but certainly top 10%'er.
Probably one the worst things about working for the federal government is that despite the growth in government spending, the number of permanent civil service jobs are not increasing. In 1992, there were 3 million permanent civil service workers, 2.8 million in 1995, 2.6 million in 2000, 2.6 million in 2005, 2.6 million in 2014. This may be good for tax payers but for an employee it means less opportunities for advancement.
The upside of federal civil service is competitive pay, good benefits, and stable employment. The downside is limited chance of advancement and limited employment opportunities compared to the private sector.
