rhodescholar
Gold Member
- Banned
- #61
Ah so when you take employment with the government you lose the right to form Unions.
Uh, yes. That is what civil service rules are for. Look them up.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ah so when you take employment with the government you lose the right to form Unions.
All states have civil service systems as do many local governments usually patterned after the federal civil service system. One of the functions of the system is to compare wages between government and the private sector and make recommendations for adjustments in order to keep government employee wages in line for the private sector. In reality this does not work very well because wages for most government jobs are well below the private sector. Employees are compensated with more secure if not better benefits.At the state level we could eliminate CB rights for public unions, tie their pay and compensation to what the private gets. Above all we need to foster competition in everything as much as possible, in education and healthcare, the whole 9 yards. There's a lot we could do, but we're not forcing our elected reps to do it. Maybe one day, after we've gone through a major economic shitstorm.
Corporations can raise money to get the Congress they want. Teachers and other public employees should have a say in those who oversee the sectors in which they work. Unions and professional associations allow public employees to pool their resources to support candidates who support them.
Outlawing collective bargaining for public employees is just a way of breaking their unions and diminishing the influence of ordinary people, and leaving all the power in the corporate board rooms.
Union political contributions pale in comparison with corporate contributions.
The impact that unions have on the political process has decreased radically as has the number of members. In 1945, 1 in 3 employees in the US belong to unions. By 1979, 1 in 4, by 2008, only 1 in 10. I think public sector unions will disappear along with private sector unions in the 21st century leaving corporatists in control of government.
Funny... up until Reaganomics took hold... things were going swimmingly for the people of Detroit who worked in the Auto industry.
You are absolutely correct. Many state pension plans are seriously underfunded.
About 10 will be in crisis mode within 10 years and about half will have serious problems in the next 10 years. However, this is not the fault of public employee unions. In only rare cases have benefits increased this century.
Please justify giving billionaires and millionairs tax breaks while making the middle class contribute more. Answer? A hatred for the middle class. Guess the Koch brothers didnt contribute enough. It wasnt billionaires who decided, it was those who make a middle class wage.
One of the functions of the system is to compare wages between government and the private sector and make recommendations for adjustments in order to keep government employee wages in line for the private sector. In reality this does not work very well because wages for most government jobs are well below the private sector. Employees are compensated with more secure if not better benefits. Although there is little completion for yearly raises, there is certainly competition for promotions. The idea that all employees are treated the same regardless of their performance is just not so. In my opinion most state level unions have little purpose and much of what they do is duplicates the civil service board.
First off, most large cities and towns have civil service system that protect employees, except in the highest positions from political cronyism. The days when clerks and garbage collectors lose their job due to an election are pretty much a thing of past in most cities. I have never seen any lavish benefits for rank and file workers. Benefits are generally, but not always better than the private sector. However good benefits have to be weighted against less opportunity for advancement and often poorer wages than offered in the private sector.I think that there is a need for union protections so that the government jobs don't end up going to the idiot cousin of the mayor or a congressman.
But the inflexible personnel rules and the lavish benefits outweigh any merits of the thing.
Nonsense. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, on average federal employees are underpaid by 26.3 percent when compared with similar non-federal jobs, a pay gap that increased by about 2 percentage points over the last year while federal salary rates were frozen.One of the functions of the system is to compare wages between government and the private sector and make recommendations for adjustments in order to keep government employee wages in line for the private sector. In reality this does not work very well because wages for most government jobs are well below the private sector. Employees are compensated with more secure if not better benefits. Although there is little completion for yearly raises, there is certainly competition for promotions. The idea that all employees are treated the same regardless of their performance is just not so. In my opinion most state level unions have little purpose and much of what they do is duplicates the civil service board.
Are you paid to post this BS? Well below the private sector? Is that why Wash DC is now the wealthiest in the country? The average salary for public workers now EXCEEDS the private sector significantly.
In most states pension benefits have not increased. I'm not familiar with N.J. I only familiar with an increase in 2001.You are absolutely correct. Many state pension plans are seriously underfunded.
As in BANKRUPT. Like IL and RI.
About 10 will be in crisis mode within 10 years and about half will have serious problems in the next 10 years. However, this is not the fault of public employee unions. In only rare cases have benefits increased this century.
Where on this fucking earth do you come up with this BS? In NJ, the pensions have been sweetened many times since 2000 alone...get some facts before spewing nonsense...
Sounds like democracy. This wasn't an easy thing to do.
i disagree.......
i have alot of problems with unions for government employees......
in the private sector, the company dealing with the union always has the option of closing its doors or moving to another location if it does not like the union demands..... or if it does accept them, there is always the possibility that the company could not sustain the demands and go out of business......
i have no problem with that......
now, the same cannot be applied to the govenrment, it does not have the option of closing shop or moving to another location or even going out of business......... therefore it is forced to comply with union demands....
i have alot of problem with that........
Ah so when you take employment with the government you lose the right to form Unions.
Nonsense. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, on average federal employees are underpaid by 26.3 percent when compared with similar non-federal jobs, a pay gap that increased by about 2 percentage points over the last year while federal salary rates were frozen.One of the functions of the system is to compare wages between government and the private sector and make recommendations for adjustments in order to keep government employee wages in line for the private sector. In reality this does not work very well because wages for most government jobs are well below the private sector. Employees are compensated with more secure if not better benefits. Although there is little completion for yearly raises, there is certainly competition for promotions. The idea that all employees are treated the same regardless of their performance is just not so. In my opinion most state level unions have little purpose and much of what they do is duplicates the civil service board.
Are you paid to post this BS? Well below the private sector? Is that why Wash DC is now the wealthiest in the country? The average salary for public workers now EXCEEDS the private sector significantly.
Federal employees make average 26 percent less than private workers, Labor agency reports - The Federal Eye - The Washington Post
From the study - "Salaries and benefitsfor identical jobsare 30 percent to 40 percent higher in the federal government than in the private sector Claims that this dramatic discrepancy in compensation is warranted because of government workers high skills are unjustified."
From your own linked article:
The study driving GOP criticism of federal pay - The Federal Eye - The Washington Post
"Much of it stems from a 2010 Heritage Foundation study by James Sherk, a fiscal policy analyst who argues that the total compensation of federal employees salary, plus health and retirement benefits is between 30 and 40 percent higher than identical positions in the private sector."
================================
Read this article for the facts, the BEST article on this issue:
The Beholden State by Steven Malanga, City Journal Spring 2010
"The unions political triumphs have molded a California in which government workers thrive at the expense of a struggling private sector. The states public school teachers are the highest-paid in the nation. Its prison guards can easily earn six-figure salaries. State workers routinely retire at 55 with pensions higher than their base pay for most of their working life. Meanwhile, what was once the most prosperous state now suffers from an unemployment rate far steeper than the nations and a flood of firms and jobs escaping high taxes and stifling regulations. This toxic combinationhigh public-sector employee costs and sagging economic fortuneshas produced recurring budget crises in Sacramento and in virtually every municipality in the state.
How public employees became members of the elite class in a declining California offers a cautionary tale to the rest of the country, where the same process is happening in slower motion. The story starts half a century ago, when California public workers won bargaining rights and quickly learned how to elect their own bossesthat is, sympathetic politicians who would grant them outsize pay and benefits in exchange for their support. Over time, the unions have turned the states politics completely in their favor. The result: unaffordable benefits for civil servants; fiscal chaos in Sacramento and in cities and towns across the state; and angry taxpayers finally confronting the unionized masters of Californias unsustainable government."
In other words, the conclusion is based on the assumption, unproven, that the high skills level of government workers is not needed. The fact that the study comes through the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank further discredits the claim.
I looked at both reports. The actual federal report was compiled from BLS figures for the Federal Salary Council. The federal report does include federal benefits, however the report suffers from the same short coming of Heritage report. Determining the average value of private sector benefit packages for comparable jobs is nearly impossible because of the range of the packages and difficulty of putting a dollar value on them. I suspect that the benefit values in both reports are highly subjective. However, there is no doubt that the wage comparison shows the private sector pays considerable more that the federal government.Nonsense. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, on average federal employees are underpaid by 26.3 percent when compared with similar non-federal jobs, a pay gap that increased by about 2 percentage points over the last year while federal salary rates were frozen.Are you paid to post this BS? Well below the private sector? Is that why Wash DC is now the wealthiest in the country? The average salary for public workers now EXCEEDS the private sector significantly.
Federal employees make average 26 percent less than private workers, Labor agency reports - The Federal Eye - The Washington Post
First of all, I highly doubt that number and suspect there might be some political influence there. I also suspect the BLS report only looks at base salary and does not include the benefits packages that are much better for federal civilians. And they are, and that doesn't include the job security factor either.
And then there's the question of state and local public employees. Check this out:
snippet:
" Several analyses of average wages and benefits in the public and private sectors reveal that state and local government workers earn more than private sector workers. According to the most recent Employer Costs for Employee Compensation survey from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, as of December 2009, state and local government employees earned total compensation of $39.60 an hour, compared to $27.42 an hour for private industry workers-a difference of over 44 percent. This includes 35 percent higher wages and nearly 69 percent greater benefits. "
Reason Foundation - Comparing Private Sector and Government Worker Salaries