Why NOT To Attack Public Sector Workers.

[Quantum Windbag]

"And your solution is to ignore the problem?"

Not at at all.

I'm not ignoring the problem, merely pointing out the error of solving it via the wrong path.

First, we have identied a problem.
Checks and balances have to be applied to it. Now that we admit that greed and self-aggrandizement are part of the human condition...we adjust for same.
a. The free market should determine salaries.
b. If, as has happened, there are feather-bedding positons, there should be a basis for eliminating them. I suggest that human nature will provide the answer: monetary rewards for those in the field who can point out positions that are redundant and unnecessary...for example, teachers no doubt will be able to point out better ways to excess administration positions.

Tenure can be eliminated. Easily. It was done in NYC for supervisors, by offering extra bonuses if tenure was eliminated.

I'm a strong believer in vouchers and charter schools. They can set their own salary scales.

Sanitation was once five men to a truck, now it is two.

Elected officials need to face criminal charges if they sign off on excessive raises, perqs, etc...and there should be no time limitations, if they did not anticipate long term over-runs, they would still be subject to charges.
We should expect realistic appraisal of costs, and of return on pension funds. This expertise is a requirement of the position.

Workers should be made to understand years in advance what the changes would be, so that they can plan ahead, look for other employment, etc.
The same for entitlements.

Heavily taxing entrepreneurs sends exactly the wrong message if we rather incentivize private sector employment, over public.

Off the top of my head, that would be a start. I'm sure there are bright people, Solons, who can move us along.

But it is wrong to demonize these workers.

No one, repeat is demonizing the workers. That is just a tactic by one side to make the other side look like the big bad evil guys. By repeating it you are not even attempting to solve the problem, you are perpetuating it. The problem is not the workers, it is the simple fact that we cannot sustain the pensions the unions, and the politicians they elected, promised them.

Public employees are not subject to the free market. They work for a monopoly, and get a job that is hard to loose. If they do not like the pay they get, they are free to leave the public sector, join the private sector, and prove they are worth the money they claim they are.

Teachers are not an exception to this. They should realize that they do not have to compete for their wages, and stop complaining about the fact they make less money than the private sector. The truth is that most private sector teachers make significantly less than public sector teachers. If we stopped paying public school teachers so much money that we cannot afford basic schools supplies. Either that, or eliminate the administrative positions from the schools, and allow parents to determine school policy, and overseen by the local, and maybe the state, government.

Baby steps would have worked a few decades ago, or even a few years ago, but the situation has reached the point where the only answer is drastic change. We either need to eliminate unions in the public sector, including the teachers, or we will face a massive debt crisis that we cannot ignore.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ask the average conservative American, or any American for that matter, what they would do if they were trying to attract better quality people to join the military,

and I guarantee you, very high on almost everyone's list would be

better pay and benefits.

Unless you don't believe that the quality of the people who work in the rest of the public sector matters,

for example, police, firefighters, teachers...

...how can you not believe in the same principle?

WHY bring the Military into this? Can you answer? The Military are far removed from the topic

SPIN. The Government is CHARGED with defending this Republic....

Your spin is NOT germain.

Because they are public employees that presumably you want to be of good quality.

Now,

do you agree? Do you agree that the way to get better people into the military is to improve their pay and benefits,

or not?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ask the average conservative American, or any American for that matter, what they would do if they were trying to attract better quality people to join the military,

and I guarantee you, very high on almost everyone's list would be

better pay and benefits.

Unless you don't believe that the quality of the people who work in the rest of the public sector matters,

for example, police, firefighters, teachers...

...how can you not believe in the same principle?

Are you saying the military has the pay, (they do have the benefits if they get vested and how long does that commitment last?), that your other examples do?

The question is, do you believe that the way to attract better people into the military (a government JOB btw)

is to offer better pay and benefits?

It's a simple question. It's a yes, no, or I don't know.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ask the average conservative American, or any American for that matter, what they would do if they were trying to attract better quality people to join the military,

and I guarantee you, very high on almost everyone's list would be

better pay and benefits.

Unless you don't believe that the quality of the people who work in the rest of the public sector matters,

for example, police, firefighters, teachers...

...how can you not believe in the same principle?

I would want high-quality people working for the government, just as a successful business would want high-quality people working for them. But there is a point where you're not paying people enough, and there is a point where you're paying people too much--there's a balance to everything. And right now, public employees get a pretty sweet deal with all the benefits they get.

Another important thing to keep in mind that while money doesn't hurt, no amount of money can guarantee high-quality work. The people in charge of hiring still have to be smart.

Teachers make less than non-teachers at comparable education/training levels. How is that a pretty sweet deal?

 

[The T]

Ask the average conservative American, or any American for that matter, what they would do if they were trying to attract better quality people to join the military,

and I guarantee you, very high on almost everyone's list would be

better pay and benefits.

Unless you don't believe that the quality of the people who work in the rest of the public sector matters,

for example, police, firefighters, teachers...

...how can you not believe in the same principle?

Are you saying the military has the pay, (they do have the benefits if they get vested and how long does that commitment last?), that your other examples do?

The question is, do you believe that the way to attract better people into the military (a government JOB btw)

is to offer better pay and benefits?

It's a simple question. It's a yes, no, or I don't know.

But does the MILITARY have the POWER TO STRIKE...

NO they don't...Non sequiteur.

You lose the argument...and you better check your HATE for the US Military while you're at it carbo.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"And your solution is to ignore the problem?"

Not at at all.

I'm not ignoring the problem, merely pointing out the error of solving it via the wrong path.

First, we have identied a problem.
Checks and balances have to be applied to it. Now that we admit that greed and self-aggrandizement are part of the human condition...we adjust for same.
a. The free market should determine salaries.
b. If, as has happened, there are feather-bedding positons, there should be a basis for eliminating them. I suggest that human nature will provide the answer: monetary rewards for those in the field who can point out positions that are redundant and unnecessary...for example, teachers no doubt will be able to point out better ways to excess administration positions.

Tenure can be eliminated. Easily. It was done in NYC for supervisors, by offering extra bonuses if tenure was eliminated.

I'm a strong believer in vouchers and charter schools. They can set their own salary scales.

Sanitation was once five men to a truck, now it is two.

Elected officials need to face criminal charges if they sign off on excessive raises, perqs, etc...and there should be no time limitations, if they did not anticipate long term over-runs, they would still be subject to charges.
We should expect realistic appraisal of costs, and of return on pension funds. This expertise is a requirement of the position.

Workers should be made to understand years in advance what the changes would be, so that they can plan ahead, look for other employment, etc.
The same for entitlements.

Heavily taxing entrepreneurs sends exactly the wrong message if we rather incentivize private sector employment, over public.

Off the top of my head, that would be a start. I'm sure there are bright people, Solons, who can move us along.

But it is wrong to demonize these workers.

No one, repeat is demonizing the workers. That is just a tactic by one side to make the other side look like the big bad evil guys. By repeating it you are not even attempting to solve the problem, you are perpetuating it. The problem is not the workers, it is the simple fact that we cannot sustain the pensions the unions, and the politicians they elected, promised them.

Public employees are not subject to the free market. They work for a monopoly, and get a job that is hard to loose. If they do not like the pay they get, they are free to leave the public sector, join the private sector, and prove they are worth the money they claim they are.

Teachers are not an exception to this. They should realize that they do not have to compete for their wages, and stop complaining about the fact they make less money than the private sector. The truth is that most private sector teachers make significantly less than public sector teachers. If we stopped paying public school teachers so much money that we cannot afford basic schools supplies. Either that, or eliminate the administrative positions from the schools, and allow parents to determine school policy, and overseen by the local, and maybe the state, government.

Baby steps would have worked a few decades ago, or even a few years ago, but the situation has reached the point where the only answer is drastic change. We either need to eliminate unions in the public sector, including the teachers, or we will face a massive debt crisis that we cannot ignore.

The strategy is admirable.

The tactics are flawed.

If we behave the way, it seems to me, you are suggesting, we many accomplish the short term goals of your strategy...but the other party will be back in power sooner or later.

At that point everything will go right back to square one.

No, we should treat these workers as you would like to be treated in similar circumstances, and educate the position, allow them to agree to compromises, and alter the rules so that future politicians cannot give away the store.

The correct strategy is to bring public sector folks to see the correct action.


“I do not believe that the solution to our problem is simply to elect the right people. The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing. Unless it is politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing, the right people will not do the right thing either, or if they try, they will shortly be out of office.” Milton Friedman


"Baby steps would have worked a few decades ago, or even a few years ago, but the situation has reached the point where the only answer is drastic change."
Much beyond 'baby steps' will create undying enmity.

How about significant cuts with a promise to 'repay' deferred monies when the economy rebounds to a specified point.....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"And your solution is to ignore the problem?"

Not at at all.

I'm not ignoring the problem, merely pointing out the error of solving it via the wrong path.

First, we have identied a problem.
Checks and balances have to be applied to it. Now that we admit that greed and self-aggrandizement are part of the human condition...we adjust for same.
a. The free market should determine salaries.
b. If, as has happened, there are feather-bedding positons, there should be a basis for eliminating them. I suggest that human nature will provide the answer: monetary rewards for those in the field who can point out positions that are redundant and unnecessary...for example, teachers no doubt will be able to point out better ways to excess administration positions.

Tenure can be eliminated. Easily. It was done in NYC for supervisors, by offering extra bonuses if tenure was eliminated.

I'm a strong believer in vouchers and charter schools. They can set their own salary scales.

Sanitation was once five men to a truck, now it is two.

Elected officials need to face criminal charges if they sign off on excessive raises, perqs, etc...and there should be no time limitations, if they did not anticipate long term over-runs, they would still be subject to charges.
We should expect realistic appraisal of costs, and of return on pension funds. This expertise is a requirement of the position.

Workers should be made to understand years in advance what the changes would be, so that they can plan ahead, look for other employment, etc.
The same for entitlements.

Heavily taxing entrepreneurs sends exactly the wrong message if we rather incentivize private sector employment, over public.

Off the top of my head, that would be a start. I'm sure there are bright people, Solons, who can move us along.

But it is wrong to demonize these workers.

No one, repeat is demonizing the workers. That is just a tactic by one side to make the other side look like the big bad evil guys. By repeating it you are not even attempting to solve the problem, you are perpetuating it. The problem is not the workers, it is the simple fact that we cannot sustain the pensions the unions, and the politicians they elected, promised them.

Public employees are not subject to the free market. They work for a monopoly, and get a job that is hard to loose. If they do not like the pay they get, they are free to leave the public sector, join the private sector, and prove they are worth the money they claim they are.

Teachers are not an exception to this. They should realize that they do not have to compete for their wages, and stop complaining about the fact they make less money than the private sector. The truth is that most private sector teachers make significantly less than public sector teachers. If we stopped paying public school teachers so much money that we cannot afford basic schools supplies. Either that, or eliminate the administrative positions from the schools, and allow parents to determine school policy, and overseen by the local, and maybe the state, government.

Baby steps would have worked a few decades ago, or even a few years ago, but the situation has reached the point where the only answer is drastic change. We either need to eliminate unions in the public sector, including the teachers, or we will face a massive debt crisis that we cannot ignore.

The strategy is admirable.

The tactics are flawed.

If we behave the way, it seems to me, you are suggesting, we many accomplish the short term goals of your strategy...but the other party will be back in power sooner or later.

At that point everything will go right back to square one.

No, we should treat these workers as you would like to be treated in similar circumstances, and educate the position, allow them to agree to compromises, and alter the rules so that future politicians cannot give away the store.

The correct strategy is to bring public sector folks to see the correct action.


“I do not believe that the solution to our problem is simply to elect the right people. The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing. Unless it is politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing, the right people will not do the right thing either, or if they try, they will shortly be out of office.” Milton Friedman


"Baby steps would have worked a few decades ago, or even a few years ago, but the situation has reached the point where the only answer is drastic change."
Much beyond 'baby steps' will create undying enmity.

How about significant cuts with a promise to 'repay' deferred monies when the economy rebounds to a specified point.....

This is not about politics, it is about finances. The money to keep paying the promised benefits does not exist, and treating this like a political problem is a sure way to make sure it never goes away. The Republicans are not going to be any happier with the answers than the Democrats, so me worrying about which part has power is a total waste of time.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No one, repeat is demonizing the workers. That is just a tactic by one side to make the other side look like the big bad evil guys. By repeating it you are not even attempting to solve the problem, you are perpetuating it. The problem is not the workers, it is the simple fact that we cannot sustain the pensions the unions, and the politicians they elected, promised them.

Public employees are not subject to the free market. They work for a monopoly, and get a job that is hard to loose. If they do not like the pay they get, they are free to leave the public sector, join the private sector, and prove they are worth the money they claim they are.

Teachers are not an exception to this. They should realize that they do not have to compete for their wages, and stop complaining about the fact they make less money than the private sector. The truth is that most private sector teachers make significantly less than public sector teachers. If we stopped paying public school teachers so much money that we cannot afford basic schools supplies. Either that, or eliminate the administrative positions from the schools, and allow parents to determine school policy, and overseen by the local, and maybe the state, government.

Baby steps would have worked a few decades ago, or even a few years ago, but the situation has reached the point where the only answer is drastic change. We either need to eliminate unions in the public sector, including the teachers, or we will face a massive debt crisis that we cannot ignore.

The strategy is admirable.

The tactics are flawed.

If we behave the way, it seems to me, you are suggesting, we many accomplish the short term goals of your strategy...but the other party will be back in power sooner or later.

At that point everything will go right back to square one.

No, we should treat these workers as you would like to be treated in similar circumstances, and educate the position, allow them to agree to compromises, and alter the rules so that future politicians cannot give away the store.

The correct strategy is to bring public sector folks to see the correct action.


“I do not believe that the solution to our problem is simply to elect the right people. The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing. Unless it is politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing, the right people will not do the right thing either, or if they try, they will shortly be out of office.” Milton Friedman


"Baby steps would have worked a few decades ago, or even a few years ago, but the situation has reached the point where the only answer is drastic change."
Much beyond 'baby steps' will create undying enmity.

How about significant cuts with a promise to 'repay' deferred monies when the economy rebounds to a specified point.....

This is not about politics, it is about finances. The money to keep paying the promised benefits does not exist, and treating this like a political problem is a sure way to make sure it never goes away. The Republicans are not going to be any happier with the answers than the Democrats, so me worrying about which part has power is a total waste of time.

"This is not about politics,..."
Of course it is....totally about politics.
If this was a private sector business, it would be simple enough: close the business, declare bankrupcy, buy out the contracts....

But the 800-pound gorilla in the room is the political clout of the unions. Of the power base of the left...vs. the current anger of the citizenry- which is also political, and will pay an election dividend for the right.

But will not solve the problem.

If, however, the government got out of the education business, outside of mandating a certain level of same, and allowed vouchers similar to the GI Bill....it wouldn't produce a huge constituency that would block-vote for the hand-out boss.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Bottom line....

Either they take the cut...or no more job...

They can quit of course. Or they can somehow "politically" force the system to continue to pay them until the state goes bankrupt which means no more job....

How are "politics" going to get around financial reality....?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Same tired old argument from the left: Using the military, teachers, fire and police as weapons. Fine, keep them. We all (should) respect them. Get rid of the fucking bureaucrats..... cut the dross out of the public sector.

Shrink civil bureaucracy: (1) use attrition through retirement, resignation, death with only 5 of 10 replacements in positions; (2) a graduated cut up to 10% in all salaries $60K and above; (3) no management bonuses for civil bureaucrats for doing their jobs; and (4) understand the government workers will accept no restriction on collective bargaining.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Bottom line....

Either they take the cut...or no more job...

They can quit of course. Or they can somehow "politically" force the system to continue to pay them until the state goes bankrupt which means no more job....

How are "politics" going to get around financial reality....?

"...or no more job..."

So, Bird-man, how long do you suppose our Wisconsin friends will abide having their children home???

 

[PoliticalChic]

Same tired old argument from the left: Using the military, teachers, fire and police as weapons. Fine, keep them. We all (should) respect them. Get rid of the fucking bureaucrats..... cut the dross out of the public sector.

Shrink civil bureaucracy: (1) use attrition through retirement, resignation, death with only 5 of 10 replacements in positions; (2) a graduated cut up to 10% in all salaries $60K and above; (3) no management bonuses for civil bureaucrats for doing their jobs; and (4) understand the government workers will accept no restriction on collective bargaining.

I'm sure that you don't realize that you are forecasting the end of progressive government...

Woodrow Wilson, the first progressive President, worshipped at the idol of big-government bureaucracy...

1. "Wilson placed a premium on expertise. Therefore, this new class would be the experts, the people with mastery over all the ‘principles and details’. Educated specialists who were possessed of insight beyond the masses and certainly beyond that of mere politicians." Barack Obama, Woodrow Wilson and the Administrative State

2. The Progressives envision an ‘Administrative State’ that moves to solve social ills as they develop by expanding through the addition of unelected bureaucrats, czars, commissions and ‘experts,’ a la the European type of government.
Moreover, nearly all of the regulations imposed are devised by unelected civil servants and political appointees to whom Congress, undeniably in breach of the Constitution’s separation of powers, has delegated legislative, executive, and judicial responsibilities;… what remains undecided within the administrative agencies is generally dealt with in courts unresponsive to the electorate. https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/digital/rahe/default.asp


3. The new Administrative State 1) politicians were to be elected 2) technocrats, civil servants, bureaucrats, experts draft the regulations. “…the agencies comprising the bureaucracy reside within the executive branch of our national government, but their powers transcend the traditional boundaries of executive power to include both legislative and judicial functions, and these powers are often exercised in a manner that is largely independent of presidential control and altogether independent of political control.” The Birth of the Administrative State: Where It Came From and What It Means for Limited Government | The Heritage Foundation

So glad you've finally seen the light!

 

[The T]

Bottom line....

Either they take the cut...or no more job...

They can quit of course. Or they can somehow "politically" force the system to continue to pay them until the state goes bankrupt which means no more job....

How are "politics" going to get around financial reality....?

"...or no more job..."

So, Bird-man, how long do you suppose our Wisconsin friends will abide having their children home???

Or being dragged to a protest that by all accounts NONE of them have a clue of what's going on anyway.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have failed to understand that progressivism is a process of political reform with liberal, centrist, and conservative wings. Progressive reform will never end as long as America remains a constitutional republic. Glad that you are standing solidly on good ground on this.

Same tired old argument from the left: Using the military, teachers, fire and police as weapons. Fine, keep them. We all (should) respect them. Get rid of the fucking bureaucrats..... cut the dross out of the public sector.

Shrink civil bureaucracy: (1) use attrition through retirement, resignation, death with only 5 of 10 replacements in positions; (2) a graduated cut up to 10% in all salaries $60K and above; (3) no management bonuses for civil bureaucrats for doing their jobs; and (4) understand the government workers will accept no restriction on collective bargaining.

I'm sure that you don't realize that you are forecasting the end of progressive government...

Woodrow Wilson, the first progressive President, worshipped at the idol of big-government bureaucracy...

1. "Wilson placed a premium on expertise. Therefore, this new class would be the experts, the people with mastery over all the ‘principles and details’. Educated specialists who were possessed of insight beyond the masses and certainly beyond that of mere politicians." Barack Obama, Woodrow Wilson and the Administrative State

2. The Progressives envision an ‘Administrative State’ that moves to solve social ills as they develop by expanding through the addition of unelected bureaucrats, czars, commissions and ‘experts,’ a la the European type of government.
Moreover, nearly all of the regulations imposed are devised by unelected civil servants and political appointees to whom Congress, undeniably in breach of the Constitution’s separation of powers, has delegated legislative, executive, and judicial responsibilities;… what remains undecided within the administrative agencies is generally dealt with in courts unresponsive to the electorate. https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/digital/rahe/default.asp


3. The new Administrative State 1) politicians were to be elected 2) technocrats, civil servants, bureaucrats, experts draft the regulations. “…the agencies comprising the bureaucracy reside within the executive branch of our national government, but their powers transcend the traditional boundaries of executive power to include both legislative and judicial functions, and these powers are often exercised in a manner that is largely independent of presidential control and altogether independent of political control.” The Birth of the Administrative State: Where It Came From and What It Means for Limited Government | The Heritage Foundation

So glad you've finally seen the light!