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.
What's wrong with public-sector unions representing the members? Why is it OK for private industry and not members of public industry?
Unions in the public sector represent an inherent conflict of interest because of the fact that they allow government employees to demand higher wages from the taxpayers they are supposed to serve.
It ain't complicated kiddo. Even FDR knew it was wrong......
It's obvious why Illinois is failing as a state... good to see them failing. LolThe state of Illinois is dead broke, bankrupt. For 70 years they've been dominated by Democrats who would rubber stamp UNION benefits and pay increases in exchange for votes. This is the problem with public sector Unions- there is always a CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Illinois’ biggest government-worker union, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, is engaged in contract negotiations with the state in an attempt to boost its salaries and benefits. As part of its negotiation tactics, AFSCME claims its “middle class” benefits are under attack. That’s why union officials are demanding up to $3 billion in salary and benefits for union members.
AFSCME’s demands ignore four significant facts about Illinois state-worker compensation:
- Illinois state workers are the highest-paid state workers in the country
- AFSCME workers receive Cadillac health care benefits
- Most state workers receive free retiree health insurance
It’s not fair that Illinois residents, struggling with stagnant incomes in one of the nation’s weakest economies, continue to subsidize AFSCME benefits to such an extent.
- Career state retirees on average receive $1.6 million in pension benefits
Many other unions that contract with the state have recognized that taxpayers can’t withstand higher taxes to fund workers’ pay and benefits. Officials from more than 17 unions, including the Teamsters, understand the depth of Illinois’ fiscal crisis and have been willing to compromise and come to affordable contract agreements with the state.
AFSCME, which represents a mere 0.5 percent of Illinois’ total labor force (35,000 state workers out of a total 6.5 million workers), is putting undue pressure on the state and its finances.
AFSCME’s demands include new state-worker salary, health care and pension benefits. Specifically, AFSCME leaders are seeking four-year raises ranging from 11.5 to 29 percent, a 37.5-hour workweek, five weeks of vacation and enhanced health care coverage.
In contrast, Gov. Bruce Rauner has proposed a reform plan as part of the ongoing contract negotiations with AFSCME. Under the governor’s plan, AFSCME workers would undergo a temporary salary freeze in return for new merit pay and incentive bonuses.
In addition, workers would also have their health care benefits modified. Under the reform plan, Illinois taxpayers would still subsidize 60 percent of AFSCME workers’ annual health care costs, while state workers would be asked to pay 40 percent of their costs, up from 23 percent.
It’s in the best interest of all Illinoisans to provide salary, health care and pension benefits that are affordable for both state workers and taxpayers. Instead of increasing benefits as AFSCME has demanded, the state should work to bring its employees’ total compensation more in line with what the private sector can afford.
ILLINOIS STATE WORKERS ARE THE HIGHEST-PAID STATE WORKERS IN THE COUNTRY
Illinois state workers receive the highest wages of any state workers in the country, when adjusted for cost of living. Illinois pays its state workers more than $59,000 a year when adjusted for cost of living, far more than its neighbors and nearly $10,000 more than the national average.
Illinois state workers highest paid in nation | Illinois Policy
What's wrong with public-sector unions representing the members? Why is it OK for private industry and not members of public industry?
Unions in the public sector represent an inherent conflict of interest because of the fact that they allow government employees to demand higher wages from the taxpayers they are supposed to serve.
It ain't complicated kiddo. Even FDR knew it was wrong......
FDR was worried about his own self interest. If it's OK for private sector to influence government in the same way then I should be OK for the public. I mean really what do you think lobbyist do? Do you want to get rid of all lobbying I'm with you.
Make career politicians extinct, single term limits....you are right. Just like corpirate scum lobbyists that line the pocketbooks of politicians so they can wack away at things that help workers. Take big money out of elections. I AM FOR ARE RIGHTS AWAY FROM CAMPAIGN GIVERS AND LIMITING THEM.
you are right. Just like corpirate scum lobbyists that line the pocketbooks of politicians so they can wack away at things that help workers. Take big money out of elections. I AM FOR ARE RIGHTS AWAY FROM CAMPAIGN GIVERS AND LIMITING THEM.
What's wrong with public-sector unions representing the members? Why is it OK for private industry and not members of public industry?
Unions in the public sector represent an inherent conflict of interest because of the fact that they allow government employees to demand higher wages from the taxpayers they are supposed to serve.
It ain't complicated kiddo. Even FDR knew it was wrong......
FDR was worried about his own self interest. If it's OK for private sector to influence government in the same way then I should be OK for the public. I mean really what do you think lobbyist do? Do you want to get rid of all lobbying I'm with you.
What's wrong with public-sector unions representing the members? Why is it OK for private industry and not members of public industry?
Unions in the public sector represent an inherent conflict of interest because of the fact that they allow government employees to demand higher wages from the taxpayers they are supposed to serve.
It ain't complicated kiddo. Even FDR knew it was wrong......
FDR was worried about his own self interest. If it's OK for private sector to influence government in the same way then I should be OK for the public. I mean really what do you think lobbyist do? Do you want to get rid of all lobbying I'm with you.
Lobbying is protected by the 1st amendment of the Constitution, though it is not called lobbying, It calls it the right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Why do you hate the COTUS?
What's wrong with public-sector unions representing the members? Why is it OK for private industry and not members of public industry?
Unions in the public sector represent an inherent conflict of interest because of the fact that they allow government employees to demand higher wages from the taxpayers they are supposed to serve.
It ain't complicated kiddo. Even FDR knew it was wrong......
FDR was worried about his own self interest. If it's OK for private sector to influence government in the same way then I should be OK for the public. I mean really what do you think lobbyist do? Do you want to get rid of all lobbying I'm with you.
Lobbying is protected by the 1st amendment of the Constitution, though it is not called lobbying, It calls it the right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Why do you hate the COTUS?
Fine . Then it applies to public unions too.
By the way, where is the conflict ? How's it any different than any other group . Like the aarp .
And a union can't guarantee anything . Just cause someone works as a public employee doesn't mean they own their vote . People vote for lots of reasons .
What's wrong with public-sector unions representing the members? Why is it OK for private industry and not members of public industry?
Unions in the public sector represent an inherent conflict of interest because of the fact that they allow government employees to demand higher wages from the taxpayers they are supposed to serve.
It ain't complicated kiddo. Even FDR knew it was wrong......
FDR was worried about his own self interest. If it's OK for private sector to influence government in the same way then I should be OK for the public. I mean really what do you think lobbyist do? Do you want to get rid of all lobbying I'm with you.
Lobbying is protected by the 1st amendment of the Constitution, though it is not called lobbying, It calls it the right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Why do you hate the COTUS?
Fine . Then it applies to public unions too.
By the way, where is the conflict ? How's it any different than any other group . Like the aarp .
And a union can't guarantee anything . Just cause someone works as a public employee doesn't mean they own their vote . People vote for lots of reasons .
Give me a break. As a former State employee, I can say with clear conscious public employees are over appreciated. Forget all the rhetoric, this is the truth.
1. Low skilled employees are paid higher than private. Add the pension it's like stealing. That said, who can blame them for desiring that job?
2. Professional employees are paid more than private. There are some exceptions, but I promise you, professional public employees aren't held to the standard of private sector employees. Add the pension and they're stealing.
3. Skilled employees (i.e., developers, actuaries, attorneys) are underpaid. But then you add the pension, and again it's like stealing. They often use contractors at high pay, no pension. The majority of good ones have entered the private sector for more cash, and a lot of those are Eastern Indians.
On a side, it's interesting to note there's not a great disparity in pay between low-skilled and skilled. That's called socialism.
4. People move up the ranks if they're a yes man. You just have to agree, make others feel it's their idea. What you produce and ability has little meaning. Friends & family are a bonus in, as is being a woman. Race plays a part as well.
5. Most take advantage of the pension by chasing the ranks. The higher the pay the more your pension. The worst example of this are Administrators, who capture the position only to soon retire. It's a game. It's beyond me these "programs" don't put a cap on pensions. They're throwing your money away
6. Other than managerial, the higher up the ladder the less you do. There are some exceptions.
7. You know the stories about waste and inefficiency? Well, it's worse than that. Meetings are a real kicker. Lots of money thrown into the people who sit around the table. Half don't know what they're talking about, but that doesn't prevent them from nodding their heads. It's pathetic. They often approach a problem without an understanding of the problem. Must make for great results, right?
8. They throw money away at useless shit, from software to equipment. They constantly used new software to avoid doing things my way, only to end up doing things my way, at a cost of ZERO. They travel when it's not necessary.
9. While there are personality conflicts everywhere, many of these employees are abusive. They simply would not cut it in the private sector.
10. Project Management is a hoax. Everyone wants to be a project manager seems. They'll choose anyone in their ear, throw a ton of money at it, study and attend courses as opposed doing their work. Many of these people couldn't manage their way out of a wet paper bag, before and after these courses. A lot of that is liberalism, because they're too concerned about feelings.
I know a wealthy entrepreneur in finance, and he told me the real 1% are government employees, simply because nobody else gets the great pension with so little contribution. I get it.
I was a little hard on govt. workers. They're not stealing. But it's like stealing, if you get my meaning. Some exceptions, cops earn that pension. If it sounds good to you go for it. From military to school teachers. Lots of public opportunity. It's not the worst decision for certain. In many ways, there's just better options. The primary being you're limiting yourself as a govt. employee. Some are just scumbags. Like pretty much our house and senate.
As for pension caps, imagine you're a Deputy admin, earning say 90K. Prior to retirement you capture an administrator's position @ 120K. With 30 years service, which has since been extended in most cases, and some years at the top............They're retiring with 102K a year conservatively, with cost of living raises.
I know a retired parole Lt. with 32 years service pulling down 80K. That's not unusual.
I'm not sure if the state of Oregon still has the same program but their PERS program had a way that you could make more on your pension than what your salary was.
Top beneficiaries of the Oregon Public Employees Retirement System
Give me a break. As a former State employee, I can say with clear conscious public employees are over appreciated. Forget all the rhetoric, this is the truth.
1. Low skilled employees are paid higher than private. Add the pension it's like stealing. That said, who can blame them for desiring that job?
2. Professional employees are paid more than private. There are some exceptions, but I promise you, professional public employees aren't held to the standard of private sector employees. Add the pension and they're stealing.
3. Skilled employees (i.e., developers, actuaries, attorneys) are underpaid. But then you add the pension, and again it's like stealing. They often use contractors at high pay, no pension. The majority of good ones have entered the private sector for more cash, and a lot of those are Eastern Indians.
On a side, it's interesting to note there's not a great disparity in pay between low-skilled and skilled. That's called socialism.
4. People move up the ranks if they're a yes man. You just have to agree, make others feel it's their idea. What you produce and ability has little meaning. Friends & family are a bonus in, as is being a woman. Race plays a part as well.
5. Most take advantage of the pension by chasing the ranks. The higher the pay the more your pension. The worst example of this are Administrators, who capture the position only to soon retire. It's a game. It's beyond me these "programs" don't put a cap on pensions. They're throwing your money away
6. Other than managerial, the higher up the ladder the less you do. There are some exceptions.
7. You know the stories about waste and inefficiency? Well, it's worse than that. Meetings are a real kicker. Lots of money thrown into the people who sit around the table. Half don't know what they're talking about, but that doesn't prevent them from nodding their heads. It's pathetic. They often approach a problem without an understanding of the problem. Must make for great results, right?
8. They throw money away at useless shit, from software to equipment. They constantly used new software to avoid doing things my way, only to end up doing things my way, at a cost of ZERO. They travel when it's not necessary.
9. While there are personality conflicts everywhere, many of these employees are abusive. They simply would not cut it in the private sector.
10. Project Management is a hoax. Everyone wants to be a project manager seems. They'll choose anyone in their ear, throw a ton of money at it, study and attend courses as opposed doing their work. Many of these people couldn't manage their way out of a wet paper bag, before and after these courses. A lot of that is liberalism, because they're too concerned about feelings.
I know a wealthy entrepreneur in finance, and he told me the real 1% are government employees, simply because nobody else gets the great pension with so little contribution. I get it.
I was a little hard on govt. workers. They're not stealing. But it's like stealing, if you get my meaning. Some exceptions, cops earn that pension. If it sounds good to you go for it. From military to school teachers. Lots of public opportunity. It's not the worst decision for certain. In many ways, there's just better options. The primary being you're limiting yourself as a govt. employee. Some are just scumbags. Like pretty much our house and senate.
As for pension caps, imagine you're a Deputy admin, earning say 90K. Prior to retirement you capture an administrator's position @ 120K. With 30 years service, which has since been extended in most cases, and some years at the top............They're retiring with 102K a year conservatively, with cost of living raises.
I know a retired parole Lt. with 32 years service pulling down 80K. That's not unusual.
I'm not sure if the state of Oregon still has the same program but their PERS program had a way that you could make more on your pension than what your salary was.
Top beneficiaries of the Oregon Public Employees Retirement System
Give me a break. As a former State employee, I can say with clear conscious public employees are over appreciated. Forget all the rhetoric, this is the truth.
1. Low skilled employees are paid higher than private. Add the pension it's like stealing. That said, who can blame them for desiring that job?
2. Professional employees are paid more than private. There are some exceptions, but I promise you, professional public employees aren't held to the standard of private sector employees. Add the pension and they're stealing.
3. Skilled employees (i.e., developers, actuaries, attorneys) are underpaid. But then you add the pension, and again it's like stealing. They often use contractors at high pay, no pension. The majority of good ones have entered the private sector for more cash, and a lot of those are Eastern Indians.
On a side, it's interesting to note there's not a great disparity in pay between low-skilled and skilled. That's called socialism.
4. People move up the ranks if they're a yes man. You just have to agree, make others feel it's their idea. What you produce and ability has little meaning. Friends & family are a bonus in, as is being a woman. Race plays a part as well.
5. Most take advantage of the pension by chasing the ranks. The higher the pay the more your pension. The worst example of this are Administrators, who capture the position only to soon retire. It's a game. It's beyond me these "programs" don't put a cap on pensions. They're throwing your money away
6. Other than managerial, the higher up the ladder the less you do. There are some exceptions.
7. You know the stories about waste and inefficiency? Well, it's worse than that. Meetings are a real kicker. Lots of money thrown into the people who sit around the table. Half don't know what they're talking about, but that doesn't prevent them from nodding their heads. It's pathetic. They often approach a problem without an understanding of the problem. Must make for great results, right?
8. They throw money away at useless shit, from software to equipment. They constantly used new software to avoid doing things my way, only to end up doing things my way, at a cost of ZERO. They travel when it's not necessary.
9. While there are personality conflicts everywhere, many of these employees are abusive. They simply would not cut it in the private sector.
10. Project Management is a hoax. Everyone wants to be a project manager seems. They'll choose anyone in their ear, throw a ton of money at it, study and attend courses as opposed doing their work. Many of these people couldn't manage their way out of a wet paper bag, before and after these courses. A lot of that is liberalism, because they're too concerned about feelings.
I know a wealthy entrepreneur in finance, and he told me the real 1% are government employees, simply because nobody else gets the great pension with so little contribution. I get it.
I was a little hard on govt. workers. They're not stealing. But it's like stealing, if you get my meaning. Some exceptions, cops earn that pension. If it sounds good to you go for it. From military to school teachers. Lots of public opportunity. It's not the worst decision for certain. In many ways, there's just better options. The primary being you're limiting yourself as a govt. employee. Some are just scumbags. Like pretty much our house and senate.
As for pension caps, imagine you're a Deputy admin, earning say 90K. Prior to retirement you capture an administrator's position @ 120K. With 30 years service, which has since been extended in most cases, and some years at the top............They're retiring with 102K a year conservatively, with cost of living raises.
I know a retired parole Lt. with 32 years service pulling down 80K. That's not unusual.
I'm not sure if the state of Oregon still has the same program but their PERS program had a way that you could make more on your pension than what your salary was.
Top beneficiaries of the Oregon Public Employees Retirement System
The more I look at your link the more I want you to get POSTER OF THE CENTURY!
Look at those payments $55K per month! I stopped on page 3-4 at $13K/mo. Insanity. The country will collapse. I don't have keyboard but I had to revisit this.
Please post it permanent! Shout from rooftops! I am mad as hell and I am not going to pay it anymore!!!
