1 2 3 4
Leach
Leach SuperDork
3/12/11 1:51 a.m.
novaderrik wrote: they were hired by the state because they applied. they took the job because they agreed to the terms of employment and compensation. if the compensation changes, they can either stay or leave and find a different job. mo one is entitled to a job or to a certain compensation package just because they have it. maybe the unemployed people that are looking for jobs would be willing to do the work. remember- this isn't about cops or firemen. this is about all the other workers that don't have lives in their hands every day. free market ftw..

Even now, offering the "excessive wages and benefits" we cannot hire enough people. Many that come in are not qualified, and of the ones that are many more leave rather than put up with all the conditions of employment here. Why should I give up more than I already have to stay here. .

novaderrik
novaderrik HalfDork
3/12/11 2:22 a.m.
Leach wrote:
novaderrik wrote: they were hired by the state because they applied. they took the job because they agreed to the terms of employment and compensation. if the compensation changes, they can either stay or leave and find a different job. mo one is entitled to a job or to a certain compensation package just because they have it. maybe the unemployed people that are looking for jobs would be willing to do the work. remember- this isn't about cops or firemen. this is about all the other workers that don't have lives in their hands every day. free market ftw..

Even now, offering the "excessive wages and benefits" we cannot hire enough people. Many that come in are not qualified, and of the ones that are many more leave rather than put up with all the conditions of employment here. Why should I give up more than I already have to stay here. .

you shouldn't.. you should find a new line of work or place to do that work.

Salanis
Salanis SuperDork
3/12/11 3:25 a.m.

Leach
Leach SuperDork
3/12/11 5:59 a.m.
novaderrik wrote:
Leach wrote:
novaderrik wrote: they were hired by the state because they applied. they took the job because they agreed to the terms of employment and compensation. if the compensation changes, they can either stay or leave and find a different job. mo one is entitled to a job or to a certain compensation package just because they have it. maybe the unemployed people that are looking for jobs would be willing to do the work. remember- this isn't about cops or firemen. this is about all the other workers that don't have lives in their hands every day. free market ftw..

Even now, offering the "excessive wages and benefits" we cannot hire enough people. Many that come in are not qualified, and of the ones that are many more leave rather than put up with all the conditions of employment here. Why should I give up more than I already have to stay here. .

you shouldn't.. you should find a new line of work or place to do that work.

A lot of our drivers are doing this which is why the next big story is going to be how many gov't workers are making a killing on overtime. They are covering all our open work until they hit their salary cap.

Ignorant
Ignorant SuperDork
3/12/11 6:18 a.m.

wally/Leach,

You bring up an interesting point and one that I have some experience with: What happens when you offer good salaries and benefits but cannot find good qualified people?

Recently a company offered a large voluntary/early retirement seperation package. 3x the people they wanted to leave, actually left. There are now plenty of open jobs, but filling them is very tough. This ties directly into the other big employment issue in America; the age of our workforce. As the older more skilled and knowledgeable folks retire there is a serious gap in the productivity of their replacements.

So here's an interesting thought, So we lessen the benefits of those who teach our children and do other tasks for us; When those who are good enough in those positions to do other jobs, leave.. Are we then stuck with the bottom of the barrel of teachers? Luckily, my wife is a teacher and we can home school if push comes to shove, but we'd rather not do that.

SVreX
SVreX SuperDork
3/12/11 7:57 a.m.
Ignorant wrote: Blaming GM's downfall entirely on the unions is false. Any company can bear any burden if they have product that supports the high profit required.

Ponzi would disagree. GM's problem with high costs related to their legacy costs are not the costs (as you have noted). The problem is the costs as a relation to their market share. Unreasonable costs and benefits work fine in a Ponzi scheme until the market becomes saturated with your product. At some point, the entire system dose begin to collapse.

GM's market share is so huge that the benefits they committed to are now unsustainable.

Same could be said for public union benefits.

Ignorant wrote: Recently, it seems as if, We're all on some gigantic witch hunt to find out why we're in this big economic mess. As with all witch hunts, It seems that the main purpose is to blame someone else for problems in which we have all played our part.

I agree. But the question at hand is not if the unions and their benefits are solely to blame for the problem. The question is if they are part of the problem, and if addressing their bloated costs are a legitimate part of a solution to the problem.

SVreX
SVreX SuperDork
3/12/11 8:18 a.m.
JohnGalt wrote: The sad thing is the Dems were not primarily worried about the loss of collective bargaining over benefits. The real killer in this bill was the fact that it ended the closed shop status of the state school system. That's the dirty little secrete behind the bill. When you give the teaches the option to have 1000 to 2000 less deducted from their yearly pay there will be FAR fewer union members in a year or two. That's the killer. Fun fact, voting amongst union members in the state of Wisconsin was split about 48/52 GOP/Dem last election, but political contributions by the teachers union (and other unions) are about 96% biased in favor of democratic candidates. So that my friends is the true reason behind all this outrage. One party will lose a HUGE source of funding in the coming years and possibly a large voting block as well. Money is the lifeblood of politics and unions are a major source of Dem funds, you start opening shops everywhere and you deal a huge blow to democratic coffers everywhere. Notice how most right to work states are almost always GOP controlled states. As private union membership has declined in the last 20 years due to natural economic realities and market forces, public unions (state and some federal workers) have increased and currently there are more public than private union members. Public unions are far more dangerous than their private counterparts because elected officials are in direct control of the pay/benefits of members. So in a since you are electing your own boss which economically is a very bad idea. Employees will ALWAYS vote in their own best interests as its the only rational thing to do and will always vote for the candidate that will raise pay and benefits. Their is quite a bit of quid pro quo than goes on between public unions and elected officials. The official knows that as pay increases for public union members the union takes in more and can then donate more to the party organization. So the official gets guarantied funds and votes next election if they capitulate to the unions demands. This is also a roundabout way to funnel tax payer dollars into party coffers as your taxes pay the public workers and the union deducts its dues from the pay checks of its members and then sends them to a party of candidate. Union members have almost zero control over where union dollars go and even though the partisanship of a union might be evenly split the money never is. They are responsible for most of the debt in states like California and are bad for both sides of the isle. Not really trying to dump on either party here but it just happens that Dems have received the majority of public union support in the last 20-30 years. Trying desperately NOT to flounder this thread...

This was probably the best post in this entire thread. Very constructive and interesting (even if a bit controversial). Thank you, JohnGalt.

Unfortunately, the prediction of flounder was greatly understated.

Do you guys REALLY think arguing about who makes more stuff that is in our homes has anything productive to offer, other than getting your own blood pumping while you are pounding your chests?

Ignorant
Ignorant SuperDork
3/12/11 8:45 a.m.
SVreX wrote:
Ignorant wrote: Blaming GM's downfall entirely on the unions is false. Any company can bear any burden if they have product that supports the high profit required.

Ponzi would disagree. GM's problem with high costs related to their legacy costs are not the costs (as you have noted). The problem is the costs as a relation to their market share. Unreasonable costs and benefits work fine in a Ponzi scheme until the market becomes saturated with your product. At some point, the entire system dose begin to collapse.

GM's market share is so huge that the benefits they committed to are now unsustainable.

Same could be said for public union benefits.

Here's another way of thinking about this..

The costs of their benefits were knowns. They did not effectively manange their product to provide for coverage around their knowns.

oldsaw
oldsaw SuperDork
3/12/11 9:21 a.m.

In reply to Ignorant:

Following that line of thought one sees that previous management was woefully incompetent or ambivalent (at best) in managing the product.

Which is why a new management team was hired to fix the mess.

GlennS
GlennS Dork
3/12/11 10:16 a.m.
wcelliot wrote: while the GOP tends to tick off people by being judgemental, but are very ineffective at actually infringing upon freedoms. We have lost huge amounts of freedoms in this country over the last few decades... nearly all of it from people like you

unless you happen to be a minority, gay, Muslim, a union member(last ones for the lols)

both parties are quick to control your freedoms in different ways given the opportunity..... i think your opinion on which party is more effective at it comes down to your political affiliation.

I think your confusing being a cheer leader with being correct.

Ignorant
Ignorant SuperDork
3/12/11 11:24 a.m.
oldsaw wrote: In reply to Ignorant: Following that line of thought one sees that previous management was woefully incompetent or ambivalent (at best) in managing the product. Which is why a new management team was hired to fix the mess.

Ha ha ha ha .. Man.. I need to sit down and drink a beer with you some day. It would be one hell of a conversation.

Ignorant
Ignorant SuperDork
3/12/11 11:25 a.m.
SVreX wrote: Do you guys REALLY think arguing about who makes more stuff that is in our homes has anything productive to offer, other than getting your own blood pumping while you are pounding your chests?

You're 11000000% correct, but the man accused me of being anti-capitalist and I was merely making a point as weird as it may be...............

I've really been trying to look at things much more objectively lately, it may not seem like, but I have. Because of that.. I got lumped in with Hugo Chavez.

Anyway.. You are also correct that the John Galt guy had some good points.

pitbull113
pitbull113 New Reader
3/12/11 7:18 p.m.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=su4PwZCWUdg

madmallard
madmallard Reader
3/12/11 7:30 p.m.
Ignorant wrote: wally/Leach, Recently a company offered a large voluntary/early retirement seperation package. 3x the people they wanted to leave, actually left. There are now plenty of open jobs, but filling them is very tough. This ties directly into the other big employment issue in America; the age of our workforce. As the older more skilled and knowledgeable folks retire there is a serious gap in the productivity of their replacements.

or worse in our family's case, an unwillingness to re-hire 'aged' workers back into the workforce that aren't yet retiring.

1 2 3 4
Our Preferred Partners
9u8ZwTXlwRegar3XWbP8H88v6ApuNv1YNGZ6XojRXyHPyBpYePvyVq43SxfB8cQ4