Govt workers pay and benefits keep being compared to the private sectors pay.


  I want to ask a question to anyone on this board, aside from arpad which I will not read...I will just make an off the cuff sarcastic comment.

    How can it be that the private sector employees have stagnated while the CEO and big boss pays and bonuss' have skyrocketed even in these bad times...even with companies that have had FAILED leadership and took taxpayer bailiouts.
    How can that be ? if the corporations are hurting so bad.
  Some people believe private sector employees have been screwed by the Big shots and its not that govt workers make more...its private sector isnt making what they should.....
   
   

Hmmmm.....  Your question...... Do Govt workers make to much.....YES!!  ;D

Quote from: walkstall on February 23, 2011, 09:25:28 AM
Hmmmm.....  Your question...... Do Govt workers make to much.....YES!!  ;D

   You base that on what....

Quote from: zip on February 23, 2011, 09:38:53 AM
   You base that on what....

Re: Do Govt workers make to much   ;D

Zip, it isn't even close... Plus benefits, pensions, and job security.  They shouldn't be in the same conversation.

Quote from: taxed on February 23, 2011, 10:10:49 AM
Zip, it isn't even close... Plus benefits, pensions, and job security.  They shouldn't be in the same conversation.

Ok buddy...but what do you BASE that on...I hear people saying it...but is there a real basis or is it jealousy greed or a plan to keep pays down so the private sector doesnt bitch....What im asking is how do you determine who is making to much when you dont even know what they do...

   BTW just to make one thing clear...I am not for the unions nor am i defending them...Im for the workers the ones that get up everyday and go to work. Who are being attacked by the fat cats for personal gain as I see it.

Quote from: zip on February 23, 2011, 10:14:25 AM
Ok buddy...but what do you BASE that on...I hear people saying it...but is there a real basis or is it jealousy greed or a plan to keep pays down so the private sector doesnt bitch....What im asking is how do you determine who is making to much when you dont even know what they do...

I can tell you what a public sector employee does:  nothing!

Quote from: taxed on February 23, 2011, 10:16:48 AM
I can tell you what a public sector employee does:  nothing!

      Ok taxed..I guess that ends the conversation...You know all :)  I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for my pension and benefits that I did absolutlely nothing for...lucky me..

Quote from: zip on February 23, 2011, 10:19:33 AM
      Ok taxed..I guess that ends the conversation...You know all :)  I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for my pension and benefits that I did absolutlely nothing for...lucky me..

You are very welcome.  I don't have as much of a problem having my money stolen from me to subsidize your pension, since you were protecting society.  I do have a problem with everyone else who does not stand in front of bullets and fires.  Remove police and firefighters from the conversation, then pick back up the discussion.

Quote from: taxed on February 23, 2011, 10:21:39 AM
You are very welcome.  I don't have as much of a problem having my money stolen from me to subsidize your pension, since you were protecting society.  I do have a problem with everyone else who does not stand in front of bullets and fires.  Remove police and firefighters from the conversation, then pick back up the discussion.

   Lets remove all govt workers...ABOLISH all thier jobs...every single one...they dont do anything anyway right ?

Quote from: zip on February 23, 2011, 10:27:34 AM
   Lets remove all govt workers...ABOLISH all thier jobs...every single one...they dont do anything anyway right ?

Except for police, firefighters, those that maintain prisons....  yes.  We can eliminate 90% of government and it would run much better.

Quote from: taxed on February 23, 2011, 10:29:00 AM
Except for police, firefighters, those that maintain prisons....  yes.  We can eliminate 90% of government and it would run much better.

    How would you renew your license so I dont have to give you 4 citations and impound your vehicle

Quote from: zip on February 23, 2011, 10:34:26 AM
    How would you renew your license so I dont have to give you 4 citations and impound your vehicle

Gosh, aside from standing in line for 3 hours to pay $15 and dealing with overpaid service reps who act like I just had their great grandparents enslaved last week, I don't know. 

Oh, wait, just get it done at the grocery store, or any authorized agency, and eliminate 99% of employees dedicated to renewing licenses!

You have a lot of good ideas... keep them coming!!!

Zip, I recently posted about a county worker (occupation unknown, but a career county worker) in California who retired on a $178,000/year pension. The article didn't mention the worker's age, and it didn't mention health care benefits, though they were probably thrown in for free -- that is common. Does this sound reasonable to you?

In New York City, one in three city cops who retire (after as little as 20 years working, some barely 40 years old) do so on a claim of disability. Almost ALL city firemen retire on disability. Is working as a cop or a fireman in NYC so horribly dangerous or debilitating that physical disability is practically inevitable? Or could those workers perhaps be gaming a system that is VERY easy to game?

Going back to NYC, until recently the city had a number of what were derisively called "rubber rooms" for teachers. These were essentially holding pens for city-employed teachers who had screwed up so badly (some were sex offenders) that the city wouldn't permit them inside a classroom -- EVER again -- but because of union agreements and political pressure, these teachers couldn't be fired by the city. Year after year, New York taxpayers were ponying up $70 million to pay these useless parasites to sit in a room and watch Oprah. Does this make sense to you?

Since 1979, education spending (taxpayer dollars) has nearly tripled. One would think that  the quality of our public education system would have increased markedly over that time. Do you think that has happened, Zip?

Public sector unions were granted their collective bargaining rights in 1962, by executive order of John F. Kennedy. This act was not a response to any particular problem; Civil Service workers were already quite nicely compensated. Instead, it was a blatant political ploy on Kennedy's part to help members of his party get elected. By 1975, Victor Gotbaum, a leader in the American Federation of State and County Municipal Employees (AFSCME), was able to boast, "We have the ability, in a sense, to elect our own boss." Between 1989 and 2004, the AFSCME spent over $40 million of its members' dues to help its favored politicians get elected. 98.5% of that money went to Democrats. Do you think maybe there's a political tilt to public employee unions? Perhaps they favor the "party of government?"

Pop quiz, Zip. In the 2010 election cycle, who was the largest single outside donor to political candidates? If you guessed Archer Daniels Midland or Exxon/Mobil  or Boeing, sorry. If you guessed that it was AFSCME, you get to move to the front! Oh yeah, and 98% of the money went to Democrats. Hmmm.... Is there a pattern here, Zip?

Let's look at the top political contributors, the real "heavy hitters," for the period 1989-2010. ("Follow the money!") The top 14 on the list donated nearly half a billion dollars over that time, most of it to Democrats. (Of the top 14, only AT&T favored Republicans, 55% to 44% of donations.) Nine of the top 14 were unions, and 95% of their donations went to Democrats. Four of the top 14 were public-employee unions: AFSCME ($43.5 million, 98% to Dems), National Education Association ($32 million, 93% to Dems), Service Employees International Union -- the now-infamous purple-shirted SEIU ($29.1 million, 95% to Dems), and the American Federation of Teachers ($28.4 million, 98% to Dems). Zip, can you see a pattern?

Government workers DO make too much, on average FAR more than their counterparts in private industry. And I get to say that, Zip, because I'm a TAXPAYER and therefore a DIRECT employer of those government workers. I see a system where "unions" of political origin and political purpose use the political system for political gain, and use their members as cash cows. Zip, can you name the very best city in the US for finding a job right now, the ONLY major city in the entire NATION where total employment has INCREASED since the Great Recession took hold three years ago? I'll give you three guesses. (HINT: It's Washington, DC.)

Should private corporations be rewarding their executives with huge bonuses for mediocre performance? No, of course not. That is a stupid thing to do, and I'm seldom in favor of doing stupid things. But in the private-sector marketplace, such things have a way of stopping after a while. Sooner or later, somebody says, "Hey, what are we paying that asshole for?" And the asshole is out the door.

But that ain't the way it works with government unions, is it, Zip?

Government workers' pay and benefits are compared to those in the private sector because that's what there is to compare them to, Zip.

You say that "some people believe private sector employees have been screwed... [and aren't] making what they should...." What they "should?" What they "should" according to whom, Zip? You? From a compensation standpoint, the primary difference between government unions and those in the private sector is the fact that private sector employees are subject to market forces, and government union members are not. Government employment is in no way connected to any market, which is EXACTLY why the phrase "public employee union" should not exist in the English language.

OK, arp. Your turn.  :P :P :P