Gov. Jerry Brown released budget

[Intense]

We can cut spending by 50% without invoving any union members

Take it out of the military budget, something the teabaggers and the rightwing will never do because they don't really want to cut spending. That's why the teabaggers in congress are walking away from their promise to cut spending, and that's why the republicans have NEVER reduced the amount of money the govt spends

Are you just physically unable to stay on point, sangha?

What "military" does the state of California have?

National Guard.

 

[Intense]

why does a Union need to be banned?...im sorry but that kinda sounds anti-worker.....you may not believe it,but there some industries that actually need a Union.....

The problem with public sector unions is that they do not have fair negotiations because those who pay them (The public by taxation) are not the ones directly negotiating with the union. The government is, and the government, as we have seen is easily manipulated into wasteful spending without direct repercussions to the ones who can then get away with graft and corruption for votes. This being said, unions can get benefits and wages far above the marketplace if they are not reined in for no one is really looking out at the harm it causes the taxpayers.

Now, I would be in favor of allowing a public sector union if you make some changes in how contracts were negotiated.

1. Unions are paid directly out of a budget that must receive a tax payer referendum to grow so costs can be directly controlled by the tax payer.

2. Their pay is based on a survey of private sector pay for similar job SKILLS, not title. This prevents them from making a junior or new operator a 'supervisor' to manipulate a pay raise. The public sector jobs would be set between the 40th and 60th percentile of the private sector

3. An absolute ban on all political activities of a public sector union. They receive their pay from the tax payer, they cannot use the taxpayer's money to illicitly manipulate elections to get politicians into office who would then owe them political favors.

If at least 2 of those three conditions were met, I'd be fine with public sector unions. But less than that, no. They should be banned if they cannot abide by those rules because it creates too easy an environment of corruption as we have seen the results of.

You need a union to protect workers from bad management and abuse, but it needs to be balanced against the cost to taxpayers and impropriety found in political contributions to politicians that decide their contracts and wages.

Not that I disagree with the premise of your post (unions are two powerful and often act in detriment to the entity employees work for), I've got a lot of disagreement with unions of today as opposed to their need 100 years ago when workers were abused, maimed, and killed by employers for poverty wages. Those days are gone and (in general) employers today would not even consider reimplementing some of the conditions that existed then.

Some of your terminology is fundamentally wrong - it's not the "taxpayers money". Unions are supported by dues paid by the employees. No allocations are (or should be) distributed by local, state, or federal treasury organizations directly to the unions. People perform services, for those services they are compensated. At the point they are paid for their work - it is no longer "government money" or "taxpayer money" it is now the money of the individual employee.

When I take my paycheck and go to the store to by groceries, I'm not spending taxpayer money, I'm spending my own money.

Same applies to the UAW, when they receive revenue it's not "Fords money" or "GM's Money". Once the worker is paid, it's the employees money.


********************

1. I'm a Republican.

2. I'm not in a union, never have been, and it's very unlikely I ever will be.

3. I live in Virginia, which is a right to work state, and the government entity I work for has no "union" with negotiating power over wages and benefits.

4. I vehemently oppose "closed shops" and/or mandatory dues.



>>>>

1. I'm a Republican.

2. I'm not in a union, never have been, and it's very unlikely I ever will be.

3. I live in Virginia, which is a right to work state, and the government entity I work for has no "union" with negotiating power over wages and benefits.

4. I vehemently oppose "closed shops" and/or mandatory dues.

That would make you anti Union from a Union perspective. Unions are involved in a lot more than you are aware of. How would you like to live in a Union owned Complex where you are forced to buy only Ge Appliances of have access to a paid garage only if you own an American car? Wait you are not even eligible to live there, being non union. I wonder how those tax breaks play out? Unions work against the interests of the Republic. They need to be put in their place or shown the door. Nothing is equal in Union life. it is either Equal or more equal. If you ain't in the more equal class you are fucked.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Seems lots of misconceptions aboud. I can only speak to my experience. I retired into the safety system, a government system for employees working in safety occupations (generally police and fire).
My retirement was based on my final year of compensaton - I was salaried and did not earn OT income; OT was compensated by time off, not money.)
Our retirement was based on the final years compensation and years of service. If one worked 20 years they retired at 60% of their final compensation; 30 years, 90% of final compensation. Line staff and management were able to 'spike' their retirement by saving vacation and being paid for the vacation unused at retirement. This money was part of the final compensation. Two years of vacation accrual was the maximum an employee could save before beginning to lose hours. At 30 years one earned 6 weeks of vacation.
Non-safety members do not earn 3% of their final one year's compensation, and these are the bulk of government workers. They earn 2 or 2.5% per year on the average of their last three years of employment and cannot spike their retirement with vacation sales.

 

[Trajan]

I will tell you one thing I see with the Government Union Contract's both State and Federal, when it comes to the last two years before retirement, workers tend to manipulate all the overtime they can to effect their Pensions. You have retired workers making more in pensions, than they did when they actually worked. This is a scheme, from my perspective, a scam on the system. Many jobs in the private sector are Salaried, where there is no overtime. You work what is required because that is what you were hired to do. That is one solution. Another solution is to base pensions on base pay, excluding overtime. News flash Madeline, Retirement Benefits is one of the largest burdens on government.

it doesnt work that way Intense.....at least at the federal level....Overtime has absolutely no bearing on your retirement.....your base pay is all that matters....

uhm, I must differ, unless you mean salaried emp. I am I admit in a peculiar situation, I am fed employee being paid thru a state vehicle, BUT I do get to spike my comp. with OT if I choose to do so.

Of course another big one is the 100% free med. care............... for life...booyah.

 

[WorldWatcher]

1. I'm a Republican.

2. I'm not in a union, never have been, and it's very unlikely I ever will be.

3. I live in Virginia, which is a right to work state, and the government entity I work for has no "union" with negotiating power over wages and benefits.

4. I vehemently oppose "closed shops" and/or mandatory dues.

That would make you anti Union from a Union perspective.

Yep, that's pretty much true.

My Dad was in a union growing up. Small town up in New England, he worked for AT&T before it broke up into the Baby Bells. Made a decent living and all, Mom worked part-time at the bank after the kids were old enough and that provided some of the "extras". I remember once there was a strike (seems like it was the late 60's or early 70's) and Dad was out of work for months. Overhearing some conversations at the dinner table, he was pissed at the union because the amount they were arguing over, when compared to the wages lost, it would take 4 or 5 year to make up the wages already lost and savings were running out. In the end he quit the union and went back to work. Partially because of the money and partially because he was loyal to the company and our neighbors he took care of.


>>>>

 

[Harry Dresden]

The problem with public sector unions is that they do not have fair negotiations because those who pay them (The public by taxation) are not the ones directly negotiating with the union. The government is, and the government, as we have seen is easily manipulated into wasteful spending without direct repercussions to the ones who can then get away with graft and corruption for votes. This being said, unions can get benefits and wages far above the marketplace if they are not reined in for no one is really looking out at the harm it causes the taxpayers.

Now, I would be in favor of allowing a public sector union if you make some changes in how contracts were negotiated.

1. Unions are paid directly out of a budget that must receive a tax payer referendum to grow so costs can be directly controlled by the tax payer.

2. Their pay is based on a survey of private sector pay for similar job SKILLS, not title. This prevents them from making a junior or new operator a 'supervisor' to manipulate a pay raise. The public sector jobs would be set between the 40th and 60th percentile of the private sector

3. An absolute ban on all political activities of a public sector union. They receive their pay from the tax payer, they cannot use the taxpayer's money to illicitly manipulate elections to get politicians into office who would then owe them political favors.

If at least 2 of those three conditions were met, I'd be fine with public sector unions. But less than that, no. They should be banned if they cannot abide by those rules because it creates too easy an environment of corruption as we have seen the results of.

You need a union to protect workers from bad management and abuse, but it needs to be balanced against the cost to taxpayers and impropriety found in political contributions to politicians that decide their contracts and wages.

i can only comment on the Post Office here,since that is who i work for.....♠


The problem with public sector unions is that they do not have fair negotiations because those who pay them (The public by taxation) are not the ones directly negotiating with the union. The government is, and the government, as we have seen is easily manipulated into wasteful spending without direct repercussions to the ones who can then get away with graft and corruption for votes. This being said, unions can get benefits and wages far above the marketplace if they are not reined in for no one is really looking out at the harm it causes the taxpayers.


i understand what you are saying here.....but just about every time a Contract is negotiated a Arbitrater is brought in....and both sides have to adhere to what he says....and both sides win and lose......


1. Unions are paid directly out of a budget that must receive a tax payer referendum to grow so costs can be directly controlled by the tax payer.


our Union is "paid" out of our dues.......


2. Their pay is based on a survey of private sector pay for similar job SKILLS, not title. This prevents them from making a junior or new operator a 'supervisor' to manipulate a pay raise. The public sector jobs would be set between the 40th and 60th percentile of the private sector


UPS is paid about 3-4 dollars an hour more then Postal Carriers......


3. An absolute ban on all political activities of a public sector union. They receive their pay from the tax payer, they cannot use the taxpayer's money to illicitly manipulate elections to get politicians into office who would then owe them political favors.

this i agree with 100%.....only its my dues they are using to back people i would NEVER back....


You need a union to protect workers from bad management and abuse,

and this is why a Union is needed in the PO..ABUSE would run rampant in the PO if it wasnt for the Unions....Bad Management...well there aint nothing the Union can do there.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

I will tell you one thing I see with the Government Union Contract's both State and Federal, when it comes to the last two years before retirement, workers tend to manipulate all the overtime they can to effect their Pensions. You have retired workers making more in pensions, than they did when they actually worked. This is a scheme, from my perspective, a scam on the system. Many jobs in the private sector are Salaried, where there is no overtime. You work what is required because that is what you were hired to do. That is one solution. Another solution is to base pensions on base pay, excluding overtime. News flash Madeline, Retirement Benefits is one of the largest burdens on government.

it doesnt work that way Intense.....at least at the federal level....Overtime has absolutely no bearing on your retirement.....your base pay is all that matters....

uhm, I must differ, unless you mean salaried emp. I am I admit in a peculiar situation, I am fed employee being paid thru a state vehicle, BUT I do get to spike my comp. with OT if I choose to do so.

Of course another big one is the 100% free med. care............... for life...booyah.

i am talking Postal....Salaried and Hourly....base pay is all that matters.... your 3 year high.....any 3.....but it is usually your last 3....

 

[WorldWatcher]

>


Just a question, could someone provide a link to a good discussion of the impact on propositions on the California budget? How much is "off limits" to the legislature because defunding (or reduced funding) certain items is beyond their direct control. My wife is originally from California and it's been many-many years since I was stationed there.

Thanks in advance.


>>>>

 

[Big Fitz]

Unions are supported by dues paid by the employees.

Employees are paid by the government. The government is paid by the taxpayers. Therefore the Union is paid by taxes. Remember, the union negotiated the contract and is getting at least 'fairshare' from non members and full dues from the rest. So in negotiating in bad faith by compromising the electoral process with union monies is de facto getting them increases from the tax payer who ultimately services the money for the employees to earn. To say that it isn't taxpayer money is a game of semantics, not fact.

Not semantics, fact. Once a worker is paid for services rendered it is their money not the governments anymore.

Once my employer deposits my check in my account, it's now my money.

The "taxpayer money" is a fallacy used to provide a negative emotional response.


>>>>

How does the employer... the government get money to pay it's employees? Taxes. Ergo, paid by taxpayers because if the contract goes up, taxes must match.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Employees are paid by the government. The government is paid by the taxpayers. Therefore the Union is paid by taxes. Remember, the union negotiated the contract and is getting at least 'fairshare' from non members and full dues from the rest. So in negotiating in bad faith by compromising the electoral process with union monies is de facto getting them increases from the tax payer who ultimately services the money for the employees to earn. To say that it isn't taxpayer money is a game of semantics, not fact.

Not semantics, fact. Once a worker is paid for services rendered it is their money not the governments anymore.

Once my employer deposits my check in my account, it's now my money.

The "taxpayer money" is a fallacy used to provide a negative emotional response.


>>>>

How does the employer... the government get money to pay it's employees? Taxes. Ergo, paid by taxpayers because if the contract goes up, taxes must match.

I doesn't matter where the "employer" get the money, whether it be government, private, or non-profit, once the employee provides services to the employer and is compensated in the form of a paycheck **THAT** money is now the employees.

When my check is deposited in my account it has my name on it, not the name of my employer. When I was in the military the money was deposited in an account belonging to "SeaShadow" not the "US Treasury".

>>>>

 

[Big Fitz]

I doesn't matter where the "employer" get the money

Yes. It does. If you don't produce something people willingly give you money for, you go out of business. The law compels people to pay the government. This is not profit. It is tax.

You're pushing distinctions with no meaning. If the government does not collect taxes, how are government employees paid?

 

[WorldWatcher]

I doesn't matter where the "employer" get the money

Yes. It does. If you don't produce something people willingly give you money for, you go out of business. The law compels people to pay the government. This is not profit. It is tax.

You're pushing distinctions with no meaning. If the government does not collect taxes, how are government employees paid?

That's seems to be your primary problem, see it doesn't matter what the source of the money originally was. Once services have been performed and the employee money paid, it no longer matters who orirginally employeed the individual (whether it be government, private, or not-for-profit), once the employee is paid it's not longer the employers money.

If there is no government, then there would not have been a job, there would have been no employee and there would have been no pay to the employee for services rendered.

That's the problem with both big liberals and big government conservatives, they both think the money residing in **MY** checking account belongs to them.


Well, I'm off to bed, you have a good night BF.



>>>>

 

[syrenn]

Besides unions, who in California is in "heaven?"

If you are in California, you are in heaven.

only if you are on welfare The rest of us pay our way and that SUCKS here.

 

[syrenn]

He's not cutting anything but non-union payrolls.

wrong, already posted, he's cutting 12.5 BILLION from a 100 billion budget. That's a 12% cut!

SCHOOLING the TEATARD nation!

here's the summary:

http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/pdf/BudgetSummary/SummaryCharts.pdf

Nothing in those charts touches the public employee unions.

I agree. He is being very careful not to touch unions.

 

[syrenn]

wrong, already posted, he's cutting 12.5 BILLION from a 100 billion budget. That's a 12% cut!

SCHOOLING the TEATARD nation!

here's the summary:

http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/pdf/BudgetSummary/SummaryCharts.pdf

Nothing in those charts touches the public employee unions.

which means that there is a still a resevoir for future cuts if need be.

The fact is the governor is POWERLESS To cut wages and benefits for union employees which is the only reason why Arny never did it.

But so far MoonBeam Brown is proving himself to be head, shoulders, chest, waist, thighs, knees and calves above the TeaTardos who merely pretend to be for spending cuts.

So what does that tell you? If both dems and repubs are AFRAID to cut the unions off, then the unions are the major problem in CA.

 

[syrenn]

wrong, already posted, he's cutting 12.5 BILLION from a 100 billion budget. That's a 12% cut!

SCHOOLING the TEATARD nation!

here's the summary:

http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/pdf/BudgetSummary/SummaryCharts.pdf

Nothing in those charts touches the public employee unions.

which means that there is a still a resevoir for future cuts if need be.

The fact is the governor is POWERLESS To cut wages and benefits for union employees which is the only reason why Arny never did it.

But so far MoonBeam Brown is proving himself to be head, shoulders, chest, waist, thighs, knees and calves above the TeaTardos who merely pretend to be for spending cuts.

We are not powerless. How about we put all CA contracts out for open free market bids and not just to unions? My guess is that would save the state millions.

 

[syrenn]

Stop taxing corporations, remove all regulations, and cut them off from the free ride on the government dole.

How is removing all business taxes even worth considering, considering?



Ohio has a fairly decent sized agricultural business, and we are about to adopt a new regulatory scheme for dictating how livestock are treated. Is this the sort of regulation you oppose? Why?

Yes, any kind of regulations. YOU are paying government to regulate. Just be a consumer. If the corporation cannot regulate itself, don't buy their Ho-Hos. Put another 1/4 of your taxes back in your purse. We have media and other sources to tell us how corporations are performing with the consumer. We don't need the government to do it. If they poison you, or environmentally hurt you, you have the courts to sue their ass. Lawsuits alone will bring them into compliance, because money (profit) is all they understand.

Stop all aid to the poor? Is that your suggestion?

No, I never said poor. I said the trillions of corporate aid (dole) YOU are paying. With all the taxes you save by cutting the corporate cord to government, you can buy the homeless homes.

Novel idea. How about they do it the old fashioned way. Work for what you have and buy a house with your own sweat and hard work. Now that is cutting the government cord.

 

[Big Fitz]

I doesn't matter where the "employer" get the money

Yes. It does. If you don't produce something people willingly give you money for, you go out of business. The law compels people to pay the government. This is not profit. It is tax.

You're pushing distinctions with no meaning. If the government does not collect taxes, how are government employees paid?

That's seems to be your primary problem, see it doesn't matter what the source of the money originally was. Once services have been performed and the employee money paid, it no longer matters who orirginally employeed the individual (whether it be government, private, or not-for-profit), once the employee is paid it's not longer the employers money.

If there is no government, then there would not have been a job, there would have been no employee and there would have been no pay to the employee for services rendered.

That's the problem with both big liberals and big government conservatives, they both think the money residing in **MY** checking account belongs to them.


Well, I'm off to bed, you have a good night BF.



>>>>

Sorry, but this is not an isolated thought experiment. You cannot just 'assume' funding from some magic source. A business must provide a product or service for a fee. A charity must collect donations. A government must tax. Cut and dried, those are your choices. A business has clients, a charity has donors, and a government has taxpayers.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yes. It does. If you don't produce something people willingly give you money for, you go out of business. The law compels people to pay the government. This is not profit. It is tax.

You're pushing distinctions with no meaning. If the government does not collect taxes, how are government employees paid?

That's seems to be your primary problem, see it doesn't matter what the source of the money originally was. Once services have been performed and the employee money paid, it no longer matters who orirginally employeed the individual (whether it be government, private, or not-for-profit), once the employee is paid it's not longer the employers money.

If there is no government, then there would not have been a job, there would have been no employee and there would have been no pay to the employee for services rendered.

That's the problem with both big liberals and big government conservatives, they both think the money residing in **MY** checking account belongs to them.


Well, I'm off to bed, you have a good night BF.



>>>>

Sorry, but this is not an isolated thought experiment. You cannot just 'assume' funding from some magic source. A business must provide a product or service for a fee. A charity must collect donations. A government must tax. Cut and dried, those are your choices. A business has clients, a charity has donors, and a government has taxpayers.

All true, and once an employee is paid it's their money and not the "sources" anymore.


>>>>

 

[Big Fitz]

That's seems to be your primary problem, see it doesn't matter what the source of the money originally was. Once services have been performed and the employee money paid, it no longer matters who orirginally employeed the individual (whether it be government, private, or not-for-profit), once the employee is paid it's not longer the employers money.

If there is no government, then there would not have been a job, there would have been no employee and there would have been no pay to the employee for services rendered.

That's the problem with both big liberals and big government conservatives, they both think the money residing in **MY** checking account belongs to them.


Well, I'm off to bed, you have a good night BF.



>>>>

Sorry, but this is not an isolated thought experiment. You cannot just 'assume' funding from some magic source. A business must provide a product or service for a fee. A charity must collect donations. A government must tax. Cut and dried, those are your choices. A business has clients, a charity has donors, and a government has taxpayers.

All true, and once an employee is paid it's their money and not the "sources" anymore.


>>>>

Government employees can't be paid without taxes being paid to the government. You cannot divorce that. Businesses pay their employees the customer's money after they've made their purchase.

Titling the money something else doesn't change the source. It may now be the government employees money, but his employer still got it from the taxpayer.

Again, distinction with no meaning.