Civil Servants under attack by the Right Wing.

[Dawg]

[QUOTE Pro union propaganda proves nothing. it's whining. The union people are seething because their way of life is being challenged.
Here's the deal for all you folks who think public workers are deserving of their incredibly high wages and lifetime benefits...
The workers themselves are not being "attacked"...
What is happening is the taxpayers have had enough. There is no more money. Taxes cannot continue to be increased to pay for public worker benefits.
Example.....NJ Governor Christie asked the NJEA( teacher's union) to have it's members contribute 2.5% of the annual cost of their health insurance. Currently the teachers get that on the taxpayer's dime. The Union said no and the teachers attacked Christie saying he doesn't care about education and he hates children..
Look, public worker unions have been coercing high wages and the type of benefits that the private sector worker could only dream of. The most insulting part of this is when New York governor Andrew Cuomo, BTW a liberal democrat, proposed an annual property tax cap, the public worker unions went bonkers.
New Jersey already has a property tax increase cap of 2%...
At the end of the day, the wages and benefits are unsustainable. Once again, there is no more money...
Public worker wages and benefits should be brought in line with private sector wages and benefits.
There should be no more sick and vacation time banking, no more 8 hours pay for showing up for two hours and going home, no more civil service protection or 100% job security. Union workers are protected from living in the real world. Public sector workers should be treated equally to their private sector counterparts.
Lastly, public sector workers are "SERVICE" to the taxpayer. The severs should not be more well off than those they serve.
You will disagree with this. You oppose the majority. Just ask anyone where you live if they like paying $15k per year in property taxes or the plethora of other confiscations to fund this nonsense.[/QUOTE]

You raise some very good points here. But one thing bothers the hell out of me regarding the Right Wing debate on federal spending. Why the hell is their focus limited to the middle class worker? Why to they ignore the out of control spending on the Military and its wasteful projects? What about the Couple of Trillion dollars we wasted blowing up and then rebuilding Iraq? Why is corporate welfare not part of this discussion?
Any rational debate on getting the US back on sound financial track must include a hell of a lot more than demanding more sacrifices from middle class workers (union or not). The Right Wing debate addresses none of the above. Until it does, it appears to cover a hidden agenda that is NOT expressly focused on Fiscal Policy.

 

[rhodescholar]

You raise some very good points here. But one thing bothers the hell out of me regarding the Right Wing debate on federal spending. Why the hell is their focus limited to the middle class worker? Why to they ignore the out of control spending on the Military and its wasteful projects? What about the Couple of Trillion dollars we wasted blowing up and then rebuilding Iraq? Why is corporate welfare not part of this discussion?
Any rational debate on getting the US back on sound financial track must include a hell of a lot more than demanding more sacrifices from middle class workers (union or not). The Right Wing debate addresses none of the above. Until it does, it appears to cover a hidden agenda that is NOT expressly focused on Fiscal Policy.

Glad you asked.

I would reduce the ENTIRE federal budget, including military, eliminate corporate welfare, deport all illegal aliens, eliminate the farm bill, and various entire departments like education, agriculture, homeland security (isnt that what the FBI is for?), etc., and remove the ability of public workers to unionize - period. The only tax money for corporations I'd accept is for medical/scientific research. No more fucking stadiums, etc.

Most conservatives like me are not against unions, shit, i couldn't care less about them - but they are totally unacceptable in the public sector.

In no way can this be reasonably argued as "against the middle class," that is a public employee union talking point simply to derail the argument away from the facts.

 

[MikeK]

It would take the average American worker 100 years to get the retirement benefits of those sucking on the public tit.

Explain why these "public servants" should live lives of opulent luxury whilst the taxpayers who support them eat dog food in retirement?

The fact is that you fascists support an aristocracy of government hacks who live far above the peasantry who support them.

What government agency do you work for? (One that doesn't require an college degree, obviously.)

Your use of the word whilst suggests you are English and/or are living elsewhere, so I will assume the substance of your resentful complaint about civil servants living lives of "opulent luxury" reflects a social order other than here in the U.S. Because the salary range and benefit structure of typical American civil service positions has for the past half century closely equated to positions with similar qualifications in the private sector.

The outstanding advantages of civil service are job security and desirable benefits. These advantages exist for the purpose of competing with the private sector in attracting qualifed and competent personnel.

The entry level requirement for my civil service job was a minimum of two years law school. Promotion to supervisory level called for at least a BA or BS. I'm retired now and I can assure you that my salary range did not exceed that of the average college graduate in the private sector. In fact my son-in-law, a union truck driver, who has only a GED received in the military, drives over-the-road for United Parcel Service and earns more than I did. He does put in a lot of overtime but he likes his job and he will retire with a good pension and benefits.

There are some civil service jobs which pay a substantial wage and offer a generous pension with early retirement and excellent benefits, but these are highly stressful jobs or those which involve a substantial risk to life, such as firefighter. I don't know what the average firefighter's salary is but I wouldn't take that job for three times as much. And the fate of over three hundred of them in the 9/11 World Trade Center collapse is one example of why.

So I don't think your impression of civil service is based on the American example.

 

[Harry Dresden]

You're right.

But the current budgetary battle heating up is with the federal budget.

This raises the question: What's the motivation for AFSCME propaganda in this given context?

first tell me what the SCM....stand for?.....

State, County and Municipal.

....i was being a smart ass.....you already said what it meant twice i think....

 

[Harry Dresden]

A long read, but well worth it. Now multiply CA's situation across the country in all 50 states...I predict national riots and civil uprisings attacking public union employees within 5 years, with attacks on illegals and long-time welfare parasites not long afterwards.

really?.....but no attack on the people responsible for getting the Country to this point?....

 

[thereisnospoon]

So you're pulling in multi-million dollar bonuses? Cool beans.

I've sat back in this thread watching an asshole like you continue to do EXACTLY what every fucking lowlife liberal/public union employee worker does, namely obfuscate and deflect with nonsensical UFT-written talking points - but no longer.

"Rich bankers..."

Give me a fucking break you fucking assholes already, I and most of the rest of the taxpaying public working in real jobs in the private sector will NOT tolerate this bullshit anymore, and even the fat-at-thebuffet-table public union employees realize now that the game is UP:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/11/nyregion/11publicworkers.html?hpw

" Privately, Public Employees See Cuts as Inevitable "

20% unemployment, no raises for years, reduced health benefits with higher co-pays, no retirement savings' guarantees, the days of the gold-plated public union employee benefits are OVER.

Excellent post!!!!!
In the article several times it is mentioned how the workers interviewed are taking this personally or are feeling as though their work ethic is being questioned. Not so.
And people must be reminded that this is not personal. This is business. This is the taxpayers saying ENOUGH!
When private sector wages and benefits are frozen or even lowered while public sector workers funded by the taxpayers wages and benefits keep rising, someone has got to take a stand and say NO MORE.
The perks have to go first. Public workers should no longer be permitted to bank vacation and sick time. All banked time should be taken away immediately. This would prevent a mass retirement of eligible workers. The concept on this is simple....Paying people to NOT work is absurd. If these workers wanted or needed vacation ,they should have taken it in the year it was forthcoming. Very few private enterprises allow employees to bank ANY sick or vacation time.
All public sector workers should have to cover the same average percentage of their health insurance costs as their private sector counterparts.
After reading how that one woman got $100,000 worth of medical care and the ENTIRE bill went to the taxpayers of New Jersey, how anyone in that State can sleep at night is a mystery.
This all has to end. NOW.....

 

[thereisnospoon]

[QUOTE Pro union propaganda proves nothing. it's whining. The union people are seething because their way of life is being challenged.
Here's the deal for all you folks who think public workers are deserving of their incredibly high wages and lifetime benefits...
The workers themselves are not being "attacked"...
What is happening is the taxpayers have had enough. There is no more money. Taxes cannot continue to be increased to pay for public worker benefits.
Example.....NJ Governor Christie asked the NJEA( teacher's union) to have it's members contribute 2.5% of the annual cost of their health insurance. Currently the teachers get that on the taxpayer's dime. The Union said no and the teachers attacked Christie saying he doesn't care about education and he hates children..
Look, public worker unions have been coercing high wages and the type of benefits that the private sector worker could only dream of. The most insulting part of this is when New York governor Andrew Cuomo, BTW a liberal democrat, proposed an annual property tax cap, the public worker unions went bonkers.
New Jersey already has a property tax increase cap of 2%...
At the end of the day, the wages and benefits are unsustainable. Once again, there is no more money...
Public worker wages and benefits should be brought in line with private sector wages and benefits.
There should be no more sick and vacation time banking, no more 8 hours pay for showing up for two hours and going home, no more civil service protection or 100% job security. Union workers are protected from living in the real world. Public sector workers should be treated equally to their private sector counterparts.
Lastly, public sector workers are "SERVICE" to the taxpayer. The severs should not be more well off than those they serve.
You will disagree with this. You oppose the majority. Just ask anyone where you live if they like paying $15k per year in property taxes or the plethora of other confiscations to fund this nonsense.

You raise some very good points here. But one thing bothers the hell out of me regarding the Right Wing debate on federal spending. Why the hell is their focus limited to the middle class worker? Why to they ignore the out of control spending on the Military and its wasteful projects? What about the Couple of Trillion dollars we wasted blowing up and then rebuilding Iraq? Why is corporate welfare not part of this discussion?
Any rational debate on getting the US back on sound financial track must include a hell of a lot more than demanding more sacrifices from middle class workers (union or not). The Right Wing debate addresses none of the above. Until it does, it appears to cover a hidden agenda that is NOT expressly focused on Fiscal Policy.[/QUOTE]

The part that bothers me is this is not a federal issue. It has everything to do with State, County and Municipal workers that are given perks and high wages that have grown out of control. So much so that the average public worker wage in these particular states is as much as 1/3 higher than private sector employees doing similar work.
Oh, $100,000 per year PLUS benefits is certainly NOT middle class. No way.
It is not rich either. But I will tell you what, take this for instance.....My friend's sister is married to a retired NJ municipal police chief. He is 45 years old. They own a house in a very upscale North Jersey bedroom community. They own a weekend getaway house in the Pocono Mountains,. The kids go to public school but one of the finest systems in NJ. There is little if any crime. His wife has never worked outside the home.
The house is worth over $700,000 their property taxes in the mid teens per year. The retired guy never has to work another day in his life....
Now, are you going to tell me THAT is MIDDLE CLASS?...Please.....
This issue is exclusive of federal policy.

 

[thereisnospoon]

It would take the average American worker 100 years to get the retirement benefits of those sucking on the public tit.

Explain why these "public servants" should live lives of opulent luxury whilst the taxpayers who support them eat dog food in retirement?

The fact is that you fascists support an aristocracy of government hacks who live far above the peasantry who support them.

What government agency do you work for? (One that doesn't require an college degree, obviously.)

Your use of the word whilst suggests you are English and/or are living elsewhere, so I will assume the substance of your resentful complaint about civil servants living lives of "opulent luxury" reflects a social order other than here in the U.S. Because the salary range and benefit structure of typical American civil service positions has for the past half century closely equated to positions with similar qualifications in the private sector.

The outstanding advantages of civil service are job security and desirable benefits. These advantages exist for the purpose of competing with the private sector in attracting qualifed and competent personnel.

The entry level requirement for my civil service job was a minimum of two years law school. Promotion to supervisory level called for at least a BA or BS. I'm retired now and I can assure you that my salary range did not exceed that of the average college graduate in the private sector. In fact my son-in-law, a union truck driver, who has only a GED received in the military, drives over-the-road for United Parcel Service and earns more than I did. He does put in a lot of overtime but he likes his job and he will retire with a good pension and benefits.

There are some civil service jobs which pay a substantial wage and offer a generous pension with early retirement and excellent benefits, but these are highly stressful jobs or those which involve a substantial risk to life, such as firefighter. I don't know what the average firefighter's salary is but I wouldn't take that job for three times as much. And the fate of over three hundred of them in the 9/11 World Trade Center collapse is one example of why.

So I don't think your impression of civil service is based on the American example.

Yes ,I have heard the "best and brightest" argument used many times in concert with the high wages of public workers. It's bunk.
A few years ago an article in the Bergen Record of NJ ran a story which made a lot of people in the pubic worker sector very angry.
The writer used the borough of Fort Lee. This town,at the foot of the Geo Washington Bridge has a population of about 11,000. The municipal payroll included about 350 people... over 130 were being paid over $100,000 per year. Many of them in mid level administrative jobs, Dept of Public works labor and other non- education required jobs.
The argument supporting the high wages was the Borough need to attract the best and brightest....That's a load of horse manure. The fact of the matter is the unions representing these workers get these wages because the town is powerless to resist union demands. Besides, the union bosses offer political support($$$) to those elected officials who are "cooperative"....
Best and brightest? Bull cookies.

 

[rhodescholar]

really?.....but no attack on the people responsible for getting the Country to this point?....

And who might that be?

 

[Two Thumbs]

Firefighters? Cops? Emergency Workers? Teachers? Librarians?

Ugh..

It would take one of them..nearly 100 years to get make annual bonuses of a good number of CEOs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyCHV3DSQZE

Where was this outrage when clinton was putting Vets out of jobs?

Where was this anger as he broke contracts with men and women that volunteered to serve this country?

 

[Uncensored2008]

You raise some very good points here. But one thing bothers the hell out of me regarding the Right Wing debate on federal spending. Why the hell is their focus limited to the middle class worker?

It isn't "limited" to the middle class worker, but it is focused on the middle class. The reason for that is obvious, the middle class is targeted for extinction by the left. The middle class, or to use the vernacular popularized by Karl Marx, the Bourgeoisie, have been the target of the left since the start of the 20th century. People like Obama seek a vast underclass ruled by a tiny elite.

The middle class is unruly and independent, they stage their TEA Parties and call in campaigns, they QUESTION the rulers.

Why to they ignore the out of control spending on the Military and its wasteful projects?

I can't speak for "they," but personally I support an 80% cut in defense expenditures. Start by closing ALL foreign bases. Japan can defend herself - Europe can go fuck itself.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

really?.....but no attack on the people responsible for getting the Country to this point?....

And who might that be?

Oh come on.... Bush of course.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Your use of the word whilst suggests you are English and/or are living elsewhere, so I will assume the substance of your resentful complaint about civil servants living lives of "opulent luxury" reflects a social order other than here in the U.S.

I was born and raised in California. Being American doesn't mean one is uneducated. (Being a democrat might, though..)

Because the salary range and benefit structure of typical American civil service positions has for the past half century closely equated to positions with similar qualifications in the private sector.

False, as I demonstrated before.

{At a time when workers' pay and benefits have stagnated, federal employees' average compensation has grown to more than double what private sector workers earn, a USA TODAY analysis finds.
Federal workers have been awarded bigger average pay and benefit increases than private employees for nine years in a row. The compensation gap between federal and private workers has doubled in the past decade.

Federal civil servants earned average pay and benefits of $123,049 in 2009 while private workers made $61,051 in total compensation, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The data are the latest available.}

Federal workers earning double their private counterparts - USATODAY.com

The outstanding advantages of civil service are job security and desirable benefits.

Civil masters can never be fired - for any reason. Receive obscene, diamond plated pensions and are paid double what private workers get. Oh, and since they retire after 20 years, often in their late 40's or early 50's, they turn around and get another government job and draw MORE taxpayer money on top of the obscene pension.

These advantages exist for the purpose of competing with the private sector in attracting qualifed and competent personnel.

These obscenities exist because the same hacks who make the rules benefit from scamming the system. It's all free money.

The entry level requirement for my civil service job was a minimum of two years law school.

So?

Promotion to supervisory level called for at least a BA or BS.

So? My job requires a graduate degree.

I'm retired now and I can assure you that my salary range did not exceed that of the average college graduate in the private sector.

Then you did something terribly wrong.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It would take the average American worker 100 years to get the retirement benefits of those sucking on the public tit.

Explain why these "public servants" should live lives of opulent luxury whilst the taxpayers who support them eat dog food in retirement?

The fact is that you fascists support an aristocracy of government hacks who live far above the peasantry who support them.

What government agency do you work for? (One that doesn't require an college degree, obviously.)

Your use of the word whilst suggests you are English and/or are living elsewhere, so I will assume the substance of your resentful complaint about civil servants living lives of "opulent luxury" reflects a social order other than here in the U.S. Because the salary range and benefit structure of typical American civil service positions has for the past half century closely equated to positions with similar qualifications in the private sector.

The outstanding advantages of civil service are job security and desirable benefits. These advantages exist for the purpose of competing with the private sector in attracting qualifed and competent personnel.

The entry level requirement for my civil service job was a minimum of two years law school. Promotion to supervisory level called for at least a BA or BS. I'm retired now and I can assure you that my salary range did not exceed that of the average college graduate in the private sector. In fact my son-in-law, a union truck driver, who has only a GED received in the military, drives over-the-road for United Parcel Service and earns more than I did. He does put in a lot of overtime but he likes his job and he will retire with a good pension and benefits.

There are some civil service jobs which pay a substantial wage and offer a generous pension with early retirement and excellent benefits, but these are highly stressful jobs or those which involve a substantial risk to life, such as firefighter. I don't know what the average firefighter's salary is but I wouldn't take that job for three times as much. And the fate of over three hundred of them in the 9/11 World Trade Center collapse is one example of why.

So I don't think your impression of civil service is based on the American example.

Yes ,I have heard the "best and brightest" argument used many times in concert with the high wages of public workers. It's bunk.
A few years ago an article in the Bergen Record of NJ ran a story which made a lot of people in the pubic worker sector very angry.
The writer used the borough of Fort Lee. This town,at the foot of the Geo Washington Bridge has a population of about 11,000. The municipal payroll included about 350 people... over 130 were being paid over $100,000 per year. Many of them in mid level administrative jobs, Dept of Public works labor and other non- education required jobs.
The argument supporting the high wages was the Borough need to attract the best and brightest....That's a load of horse manure. The fact of the matter is the unions representing these workers get these wages because the town is powerless to resist union demands. Besides, the union bosses offer political support($$$) to those elected officials who are "cooperative"....
Best and brightest? Bull cookies.

I agree the wages and benefits for municipal workers are high, but the argument that their compensation should be lowered is a canard. Why shouldn't the wages and benefits of private sector workers rise?
Think about the arguments in vogue today. If we cut taxes people will have more money to spend and stimulate the economy. Now consider if the private sector emulated the public one, the salaries between the top and the bottom would be tiered. Supervisors would make 5% more than line staff; managers 5% more than supervisors, Directors 5% more than managers and so on. Only the top dog would make a greater salary, and that would not be one in seven figures.
As more wealth is shared more products and services would sell and the economy would grow, taxes would rise and deficit spending would be a thing of the past.
Envy of public workers benefits and salary is a manufactured one, manufactured by the most wealthy Americans, generally far right and Republican voters who believe they deserve great wealth and those who are not wealthy are morally corrupt.
Corporations and business are no different than union bosses, both bribe public officials for their own benefit.
The idea that bringing down others raises those whose envy is a product of emotional arguments is absurd. If you don't earn enough organize. Capital needs labor so don't be surprised when your demands for higher wages, better benefits and safer working condition reult in your termination. You can be replaced, there are many south of our border ready and willing to take your job and be happy with it. And if you doubt business and industry would do so you live in a fantasy world.

 

[Sallow]

I WORK on WALL STREET.

I was in the direct center of what happened.

Hmmmm...the market is open today.

Why are you on here posting all morning?

he's "working" from home......
I worked on Wall Street to..Back in the early 80's.....As a courier.
Big friggin deal...
I could have left it at "worked on wall Street" and would have told the truth.

I work in IT..but I am sure your work as a courier afforded you an upper east side manhattan co-op, and at least 2 out of country vacations a year. Last year I went to Guatamala, Taiwan and Shanghai. I enjoy hearing about other people trips..so maybe sometime you can tell us about your yearly travels.

Got the numbers on my bonus yesterday..double from last year. Been pretty consistent about where I work for some time now in my posts. Never said exactly where..that would be foolish.

 

[Sallow]

So you're pulling in multi-million dollar bonuses? Cool beans.

I've sat back in this thread watching an asshole like you continue to do EXACTLY what every fucking lowlife liberal/public union employee worker does, namely obfuscate and deflect with nonsensical UFT-written talking points - but no longer.

"Rich bankers..."

Give me a fucking break you fucking assholes already, I and most of the rest of the taxpaying public working in real jobs in the private sector will NOT tolerate this bullshit anymore, and even the fat-at-thebuffet-table public union employees realize now that the game is UP:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/11/nyregion/11publicworkers.html?hpw

" Privately, Public Employees See Cuts as Inevitable "

20% unemployment, no raises for years, reduced health benefits with higher co-pays, no retirement savings' guarantees, the days of the gold-plated public union employee benefits are OVER.

If you are expecting some kind of reasoned response after this sort of name calling..

Naw.

Go fuck yourself you little pissant.

 

[Sallow]

Firefighters? Cops? Emergency Workers? Teachers? Librarians?

Ugh..

It would take one of them..nearly 100 years to get make annual bonuses of a good number of CEOs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyCHV3DSQZE

Where was this outrage when clinton was putting Vets out of jobs?

Where was this anger as he broke contracts with men and women that volunteered to serve this country?

It was probably buffered by the fact the Clinton administration offered all sorts of educational programs to people displaced by his initiatives. I actually was in a "debate" of sorts with a vet that blamed Clinton for his dischage. Through a Clinton program he learned Windows NT administration and got a job as an Admin for a bank. And he was STILL pissed at Clinton!

 

[Uncensored2008]

If you are expecting some kind of reasoned response after this sort of name calling..

You're not capable of a reasoned response, not indeed reason.

You are but a shit flinging, feral baboon.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Firefighters? Cops? Emergency Workers? Teachers? Librarians?

Ugh..

It would take one of them..nearly 100 years to get make annual bonuses of a good number of CEOs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyCHV3DSQZE

Where was this outrage when clinton was putting Vets out of jobs?

Where was this anger as he broke contracts with men and women that volunteered to serve this country?

It was probably buffered by the fact the Clinton administration offered all sorts of educational programs to people displaced by his initiatives. I actually was in a "debate" of sorts with a vet that blamed Clinton for his dischage. Through a Clinton program he learned Windows NT administration and got a job as an Admin for a bank. And he was STILL pissed at Clinton!

This is what I was offered;

We will give you resume training, and for that we will take 1/2 the money we owe you up front, then take the other 1/2 from you by taking it from your tax return.

that's the help I got, I never even heard of a clinton program to help any Vet. All I heard was the big fuck you from a draft dodger.

 

[Two Thumbs]

If you are expecting some kind of reasoned response after this sort of name calling..

You're not capable of a reasoned response, not indeed reason.

You are but a shit flinging, feral baboon.

wow

A fool opens his mouth and removes all doubt.


Sallow is a good guy, and shares many, if not most of my fiscally conservative views. Unlike me, who will wonder off when the trolls show up, he will give what he gets.

don't be a moron, we have plenty and really don't need anymore.