Are public sector unions the problem with state budgets??

[trenchfoot]

There is a certain expectation of compensation for skills/education. I had an offer requiring more education/certs than my current job offering 25% less total compensation and another offering 30% less total compensation than my current job.

Now - the short answer is that, because the offering was so much lower than the various salary sites had listed for what would be a job title promotion I expected to be compensated much closer to what the average was.

Longer answer:

Will they fill these positions with these offerings? Maybe but with such a drastic change in offered compensation you have to wonder about the quality of work and if the employee would bolt at the next opportunity. You will see less demand and desire to work hard and educate which. The job market will trundle along with those remaining in the field, masking long term employee level shortfalls that take a great deal of time to make up.

Sure it may be market forces at work (which are far form simple) but we have seen how the race to get the cheapest labor possible has worked in the past as driven my market forces. (which shows a lack of long term planning) Not to mention that our existing larbor market does not have the best history of what I would consider proper treatment of the American worker.

IMO the common notion of 'market forces' is flawed when applied to the job market. The job pool changes slowly and cannot react quickly the rapidly changing economic conditions due to inherent educational/skill requirements. As such, rapid (and IMO short sighted) fluctuations in compensation can have long term detrimental ripple effects.

I call that expectations. You may call that entitlement if you like.

Good post.:thumbsup:

 

[trenchfoot]

I've also noticed how the very rich have played the masses against themselves, while they sit back and pick off any opportunity that arises.

While all the rest of us suffer through the hard times that the very rich is responsible for creating, they themselves get even richer from the opportunities-through-crisis they have created for themselves.

They're laughing their asses off at the masses that are fighting amongst themselves for the scraps the rich casually toss down from their lofty perches as if feeding fish in a pond.

Just look at this thread as a perfect example. Just look at all the repub controlled states that are doing their best to please their very rich masters. Just look at what's going on inside the beltway for all the proof one needs.

It's become all too obvious. The very rich have seized the moment they were waiting for.

 

[BurnItDwn]

The problem with state budgets is that over the past 50 years, elected representatives have worried about the budget for that year, and only that year's budget. They have deffered whatever payments they could to the future, and they have done whatever it takes to get re-elected.

The result is we now have HUGE commitments to pay out stuff that was agreed in the past, and not enough money to handle it.

Pensions were set up when pensioners survived like 2-3 years longer than retirement on average, now, it's closer to 10-15 years ... costs go up for health care a LOT faster than inflation, which makes a bunch of crap cost more than before... etc ...


The whole system is approaching collapse at greater and greater speeds.

 

[Exterous]

Pensions were set up when pensioners survived like 2-3 years longer than retirement on average, now, it's closer to 10-15 years ... costs go up for health care a LOT faster than inflation, which makes a bunch of crap cost more than before... etc ...

The whole system is approaching collapse at greater and greater speeds.

People say now that we cannot touch these existing retirement promises because people planned on the promises and just passed the buck down the road. It will be interesting to see if the younger generations eventually say 'Fuck you old people. You screwed us over for years to come by shirking your responsibilities to your children.' and re-negotiate new pension plans for people who are already retired.

Is that fair? No. Is it fair the trouble our children are inheriting? No. But without some actual change the issue will eventually be forced one way or another and the longer we wait the less likely the solution will be well thought out and balanced

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The governor exempted the minority of unions *who endorsed him in the election*.

He has that bit or corrupt loyalty more than Reagan did, who got almost no union endorsements - an exception being the air traffic controllers.

Otherwise, this is an attack on the Democrats' funding - a raw power grab to repeal unions back to the pre-FDR days of a very weak middle class and a very large lower class.

And a very happy wealth class.

Well the Democrats funding is screwing over more than just the rich in NY. We pay the highest property taxes in the nation and it isn't enough to pay for the state and federal mandates. We pay high sales taxes, fuel taxes. You name it. What's happened? The people who can afford to move have leaving people who aren't well off stuck with the tab.

Stop making us spend money we don't have.

 

[Craig234]

Well the Democrats funding is screwing over more than just the rich in NY. We pay the highest property taxes in the nation and it isn't enough to pay for the state and federal mandates. We pay high sales taxes, fuel taxes. You name it. What's happened? The people who can afford to move have leaving people who aren't well off stuck with the tab.

Stop making us spend money we don't have.

I think you have some legitimate gripes with Democrats in NY. NY's Wall-Street dominated politics is not the model for Democrats IMO.

But right-wing policies aren't the answer - though you have the best national figure in the Republican party as mayor, Bloomberg.

You want to claim all the wealthy NY residents have left? Hardly.

 

[Craig234]

LOL, sounds like people are getting pissy that the republicans are not letting a crisis go to waste. Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, the great new mayor of Chicago:

http://www.google.com/search?q=neve...u&sa=X&ei=gYNmTfqkAYbGlQekz4H_AQ&ved=0CC0QqwQ

(sorry for the long link, it is a list of youtube videos with Emanuel saying that very quote)

Boy did you miss the point again. 'Don't let a crisis go to waste' is a neutral maxim - you need to look at whether the policy pushed from the crisis is good or bad.

FDR used crisis to implement outstanding improvements to the country that practically created the strong middle class. Bush used 9/11 to launch a war in Iraq.

Did you watch the clip before replying to my post about the clip? Doesn't look like it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I think you have some legitimate gripes with Democrats in NY. NY's Wall-Street dominated politics is not the model for Democrats IMO.

But right-wing policies aren't the answer - though you have the best national figure in the Republican party as mayor, Bloomberg.

You want to claim all the wealthy NY residents have left? Hardly.

All? No, most who work in the NYC area can afford whatever is thrown at them. Then again they're more than "rich". They are too big to fail. No the people I'm talking about have some few to tens of millions tied up in their businesses, or even less. On paper they have a lot of money, but it's not accessible unless they sell it. It's become too costly for many of them to stay so they close up shop and leave because the state constantly ups the price of doing business. So they leave and ten or a hundred people are out of work. Rinse, repeat.

The little businesses employ a lot of people and they can't afford it here. My mechanic's property tax almost doubled, and it wasn't just a few thousand. Not only that but the street drainage underneath his driveway collapsed. A year ago the town would have taken care of it since it's part of the roadway drainage system. But now because it's on his property they won't do it. 15K AND they said "don't forget to pay for the permits".

Why is this happening? Because the town and the county have to pick up more of the mandated programs from the state and the feds. People are hurting for money, but their taxes keep going up, and they are finding replacement jobs at lower pay. New business creation rates have plummeted. Again, we have to pay because we're told we have no choice in the matter. People lose jobs, or have a decrease in income from cutbacks. The programs have to be paid, indeed increased because that's the mandate.

Frankly I think that every piece of legislation has to have funding built into it at the level it's instituted. No mandating to the states for something the Feds require and the same for the states.

You make it you don't pass the buck.

That doesn't mean I want to go the other way and get rid of government, but with businesses cutting back and governments taking more, the citizen is the one being screwed by both sides at least here.

 

[JockoJohnson]

Boy did you miss the point again. 'Don't let a crisis go to waste' is a neutral maxim - you need to look at whether the policy pushed from the crisis is good or bad.

FDR used crisis to implement outstanding improvements to the country that practically created the strong middle class. Bush used 9/11 to launch a war in Iraq.

Did you watch the clip before replying to my post about the clip? Doesn't look like it.

Some consider the healthcare reform bad, some consider it good. So who gets to pick and choose which policy pushed from a crisis is good or bad? I would consider getting rid of union's big power a good thing. You don't. So, I watched the clip and gathered that info. I came to a different conclusion than you because our system of beliefs are different.

And I don't want to attack the speaker. She has a point. It is valid. Just because she is a wacko along with most of MSNBC, I don't discount what she says....like most people do about Fox.

 

[PokerGuy]

I call that expectations. You may call that entitlement if you like.

You can have whatever expectations you want, but that's your problem, not that of the employer. Someone else isn't obligated to pay you what you think you're worth. The employer has to decide how to get the most productivity at the lowest price to get the job done. If they choose poorly, they will bear the cost of their choices, and some competitor who chooses better candidates will do better.

It boils down to the question of "what is something worth?". The answer is, and should be, "it's worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it". If you feel you are worth more than what they are willing to pay you, feel free to start your own company and pay yourself what you think are worth, or seek out other employers who agree with your assessment. If you can't find any, it's a good indicator that your assessment is wrong.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

No. Here's a very clip from Rachel Maddow today with some info that it's not.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/

Remember, it is as you say a 'narrative', that's how propaganda works, something that 'sounds good' but is inaccurate.

They're grabbing the fiscal crisis (their policies brought about) to pursue their agenda, shifting wealth from the people (unions) to the rich (note corporation tax cuts).

you watch rachel maddow???
i would've never guessed it.

 

[Exterous]

You can have whatever expectations you want, but that's your problem, not that of the employer. Someone else isn't obligated to pay you what you think you're worth. The employer has to decide how to get the most productivity at the lowest price to get the job done. If they choose poorly, they will bear the cost of their choices, and some competitor who chooses better candidates will do better.

Your assumption that they will bear the cost of their choices assumes we operate in a free market. We do not. I think it is very clear that companies are not having to deal with the consequences of their poor decision making.

There are also issues determining how to get the most productivity at the lowest cost. Because of the inherent difficulties in determining, before hand, how productive a worker will be at a given wage, many companies are falling back on 'who will work for the lowest wage'. Not to mention that many positions requiring significant education are able to mask ability shortfalls because the company may not have the experience/knowledge to notice inadequacies before a significant amount of time has passed.

Now when we say a competitor will do better because of this issue we have to take into account how hard it is to determine the cause. In revenue generating positions this is easier to tell than in a support position. It also depends on the size of the company. Larger companies also absorb poor employee performance better than small companies so if we are talking about a position that is found in significantly greater numbers in a particular company size this will also impact the ability of 'market forces' to correct the imbalance

It boils down to the question of "what is something worth?". The answer is, and should be, "it's worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it".

Your answer is overly simplistic. First, we have government mandated guidelines about minimums about compensation regardless of what some people may want. Furthermore the current job market is fraught with examples of poor long term decision making. Unfortunately government intervention nullifies the consequences of this decision making. This removes the ability of market conditions to correct the imbalances and does not discourage bad business practices.

Next we have to consider the elasticity of the demand for a given profession. If the job requires less education/skill it will result in a more elastic job type. The types of positions would be more easily able to deal with rapidly changing market conditions and would fall more easily into what you propose

The job I was talking about is a significantly less elastic position. The position requires a large amount of time/money/education to get the required qualifications. These types of positions do not deal well with sudden shifts in market conditions. Overly drastic shifts in compensation to levels well below what is required to spend the time/money/education necessary will result in flight from that position. Now, assuming the position is a required position within a company and the same overly drastic compensation shift, you are left with a smaller pool of workers. Eventually demand, and therefore wages rise but the work force takes time to recover because people now need to spend the time/money/education to get the required skill set after it is proven there is an increased need. This results in a significant time lag

Will it eventually recover? Most likely. So yes, you are, in a sense, correct. However, I do not believe your answer to be the best one. I am seeing poor decisions made based on incorrect assumptions regarding a segment of the labor pool and outside intervention in market forces that will have lasting negative repercussions. The best bet would be to take market forces into consideration but also the requirements, the elasticity, of the position and it's potential impact to your company into account

Basically there is too much 'What someone is willing to pay for it' and not enough 'You get what you pay for' (Obviously, these need to be in balance because it can shift too far in the opposite direction)

 

[Kanalua]

Depends. In Hawaii the State Constitution gaurantees public workers the right to collectively bargain. Public sector Unions here are a part of the problem (but it's way more complicated than can be explained in a forum post). But public sector Unions are not THE problem with our state's financial problems.

And raising tax rates haven't been the magic bullet to solving our State's budgetary problems either.

 

[Red Dawn]

Yeah, no shit -- the Democrats only want to protect their voting demographic. You guys acts as if the Republicans are the only ones with political motivations. Rather than launch into a one-sided diatribe against the Republicans, call it what it is -- the Democrats are playing politics just as much as the Republicans.

The difference is it's Republicans who are playing with peoples livelihood for their plotitcal gain

 

[IndyColtsFan]

The difference is it's Republicans who are playing with peoples livelihood for their plotitcal gain

You don't think cuts need to be made? You think, for example, that it is bad to make state employees pay more into their own retirement and health insurance? Political gain or not, I think that benefits ALL of us.

You could also argue that Democrats are playing with the livelihoods of taxpayers by keeping the status quo (ie, appeasing their voting block) and not making the tough decisions. At any rate, the Democrats no longer have room to talk about Republican "obstructionism." Fleeing the states (Wisconsin and Indiana) in order to avoid voting on a piece of legislation you dislike is cowardly, despicable, and at least in the case of Indiana is probably illegal (IIRC). When Republicans use this stunt (and I bet they will), it will be despicable as well and I can't wait to hear the outrage from the lefties on this board who will conveniently ignore that the Democrats did it too.

 

[Red Dawn]

You don't think cuts need to be made? You think, for example, that it is bad to make state employees pay more into their own retirement and health insurance? Political gain or not, I think that benefits ALL of us.

You could also argue that Democrats are playing with the livelihoods of taxpayers by keeping the status quo (ie, appeasing their voting block) and not making the tough decisions. At any rate, the Democrats no longer have no room to talk about Republican "obstructionism." Fleeing the states (Wisconsin and Indiana) in order to avoid voting on a piece of legislation you dislike is cowardly, despicable, and at least in the case of Indiana is probably illegal (IIRC). When Republicans use this stunt (and I bet they will), it will be despicable as well and I can't wait to hear the outrage from the lefties on this board who will conveniently ignore that the Democrats did it too.

I have no problem with restructuring the benefits and pay packages, times are tough and everybody needs to feel some of the pain. The Union there has already said they'd be willing to go along with the proposal. The problem is the WI Republican Governor trying to take away their ability for collective bargaining on on everything except pay.

 

[gregoryvg]

Really? Simple math says the less tax money going to unions, the less expenses the state pays out, and the less money must be collected from tax-paying citizens.

Your graph doesn't say anything anyways, other than states run at about a 20% deficit. How about union membership versus tax rate? Versus GDP? Versus total government spending?

Seriously, I don't get how people can defend public-sector unions. You do realize that you are paying for them via taxes? Why should they get overpaid and a more expensive benefit package than a private sector employee's doing the exact same work? It is extortion, no better word for it - and we are forced to pay for it through higher taxes.

 

[piasabird]

The only reason for unions in the public sector is extortion!

 

[Londo_Jowo]

One man's extortion is another man's collective bargaining

 

[Craig234]

you watch rachel maddow???
i would've never guessed it.

Amuse me - try to *prove* your implied attack on her show.

She has one of the best news shows. Clueless people attacking are a compliment.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

The only reason for unions in the public sector is extortion!

this.

 

[Red Dawn]

this.

Use non Union.

 

[Craig234]

Some consider the healthcare reform bad, some consider it good. So who gets to pick and choose which policy pushed from a crisis is good or bad? I would consider getting rid of union's big power a good thing. You don't. So, I watched the clip and gathered that info. I came to a different conclusion than you because our system of beliefs are different.

And I don't want to attack the speaker. She has a point. It is valid. Just because she is a wacko along with most of MSNBC, I don't discount what she says....like most people do about Fox.

Yes. Some considered the holocaust a good things, some a bad things. So who's to say?

We post our opinions. But we should agree that some are good and some bad as an opinion.

As far as Fox - give me a break. Fox IS a terrible propaganda piece, a bought and paid for ideology machine with its views dictated by the 'ideology priests' on high.

It intentionally misleads, distorts, emphasizes for propaganda and many other things. It's not comparable to any other network, including MSNBC.

Shows that are trying to tell accurate information, which just happens to sound 'left' to people who are wrong right-wing ideologues, are different than propagandists on Fox.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Use non Union.

public employees? Do you pay attention at all?

 

[Red Dawn]

public employees? Do you pay attention at all?

Fire them, Reagan did.