IRS prioritized bonuses, union activity over helping taxpayers

[fskimospy]

I trust the report. If you would like to dispute it, please do. But don't call it a potato just because you don't like it. If you have facts, bring them. Otherwise keep rambling.

Okay, so back to my questions:

1. Why do you trust a report after being shown that at least one part of it is totally ridiculous? (complaining about the IRS doing what they are required by law to do)

2. Would you trust a similar report from a Democratic committee? If not, why?

 

[glenn1]

The panel found the IRS had cut customer services while continuing to hand out bonuses to employees, allowing staff to conduct union activities, failing to collect debt owed by employees of the federal government

No particular love for the IRS here but these accusations can both be true and have reasonable explanations. For example, bonuses are a legitimate management tool to mitigate retention problems and maintain morale. Their "cost" can actually generate a positive ROI if it incents the correct employee behavior for example. There may be legitimate legal reasons why garnishment of federal employee wages can't be done to settle debts owed the government.

OTOH, the norm with government is to trump up any supposed "misuse" of taxpayer funds regardless of the circumstances. Since that's a longstanding bipartisan pastime I don't think the IRS should get a free pass, or by extension Obama since he's their boss. He would be the first in line to complain if he were still in Congress and a Republican was in the White House now, so he can take the heat for this tempest in a teapot.

 

[rudeguy]

Okay, so back to my questions:

1. Why do you trust a report after being shown that at least one part of it is totally ridiculous? (complaining about the IRS doing what they are required by law to do)

2. Would you trust a similar report from a Democratic committee? If not, why?

There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to investigation.

I think we just found the source of your ignorance.

 

[ivwshane]

I think we just found the source of your ignorance.

And yours as well

 

[fskimospy]

I think we just found the source of your ignorance.

Are you refusing to answer simple questions?

If so that's your business, but you shouldn't complain about people doing it.

 

[jhbball]

I think we just found the source of your ignorance.

The source of yours? Failing high school, never going to college.

 

[DCal430]

What is your basis for the fact that the IRS should discontinue bonuses or allow others to conduct union activities which is likely in their contract?

Can you tell us why you think a partisan report from a house committee that you already know to contain at least one absurd claim (the ACA claim) would be a good source?

Federal Employees do not have actual union contracts, as they don't have real unions. They don't engage in any bargaining nor can the strike. They basically lobby. They aren't actual unions.

The only exception is postal workers who do engage in bargaining, but still cannot strike.

 

[Jimzz]

Federal Employees do not have actual union contracts, as they don't have real unions. They don't engage in any bargaining nor can the strike. They basically lobby. They aren't actual unions.

The only exception is postal workers who do engage in bargaining, but still cannot strike.

That is false, most agencies have unions and they do bargain. Yes they are weaker than unions of the private sector but they do bargain and have a collective agreement.

If you knew anything about federal government workforce you would know simple facts like that.

 

[DCal430]

That is false, most agencies have unions and they do bargain. Yes they are weaker than unions of the private sector but they do bargain and have a collective agreement.

If you knew anything about federal government workforce you would know simple facts like that.

This is wrong. They do not engage in actual collective bargaining. Some federal agency have limited quasi collective bargaining like TSA over non monetary items such as shift choices, and performance reviews. But actual items of value are not bargained, and most federal workers don't even get this. The few that can bargain only can bargain on items that don't have an impact on the budget, and the agency overall mission.

 

[JSt0rm]

The source of yours? Failing high school, never going to college.

Things are starting to make more sense...

 

[CitizenKain]

I think we just found the source of your ignorance.

Quick, call everyone smarter then you a shill again, that will really prove your point. You still don't understand what the word means of course, but keep trying.

 

[Slew Foot]

LOL, you people think the govt is here to help you? Theyll take everything you have and keep it for themselves. The trick is keeping the people complacent enough not to fight back.

 

[unokitty]

 

[master_shake_]

pay yourself before you pay others??

 

[sandorski]

I'd add that not only is the report partisan, but the authors were involved in chopping the IRS budget. They have a vested interest in deflecting blame for the negative consequences. It's like the boys who broke a window writing a report claiming the glass was defective. Their families might swallow such a lame story, but everybody else would roll their eyes.

Exactly. It's the old, force them to cut back, then blame then for cutting back routine.

 

[cabri]

Exactly. It's the old, force them to cut back, then blame then for cutting back routine.

the force to cut back is intended to be punishment for abuse of their responsibility.
However, in retaliation; they continue doing the same; using the cutbacks to generate more pain.

Downward spiral

 

[umbrella39]

You should really watch Last Week Tonight with John Oliver regarding the IRS. It might open your eyes a bit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn_Zln_4pA8

 

[sandorski]

the force to cut back is intended to be punishment for abuse of their responsibility.
However, in retaliation; they continue doing the same; using the cutbacks to generate more pain.

Downward spiral

They exist to enforce the Law.

 

[Jimzz]

This is wrong. They do not engage in actual collective bargaining. Some federal agency have limited quasi collective bargaining like TSA over non monetary items such as shift choices, and performance reviews. But actual items of value are not bargained, and most federal workers don't even get this. The few that can bargain only can bargain on items that don't have an impact on the budget, and the agency overall mission.

I work with Management; I have to review and go through the collective bargaining agreements, so yes there is collective bargaining.

​

http://www.nteu.org/Documents/CBPNTEUAgreement.pdf

http://www.seiu503.org/files/2014/01/2013-2015-Human-Services-Coalition-Contract-Final.pdf

and on and on....

They can affect time, pay, promotion rights, etc...

 

[cabri]

They exist to selectively enforce the Law.

fixed

 

[rudeguy]

They exist to enforce the Law.

Then why do they let federal employees break the law? Why are people like Sharpton allowed to break the law?

 

[Bowfinger]

the force to cut back is intended to be punishment for abuse of their responsibility. ...

That's certainly one way to spin it. Others see that as a self-serving excuse by the party that's rebuilt itself on a platform of opposing taxes and everything related to taxes, specifically including the IRS. Couple that with the IRS catching a bunch of political groups submitting fraudulent 501(c)(4) applications -- groups with deep pockets and mostly supporting the GOP -- and the IRS cutbacks look a lot more like retaliation for the IRS doing its job.

 

[DCal430]

I work with Management; I have to review and go through the collective bargaining agreements, so yes there is collective bargaining.

​

http://www.nteu.org/Documents/CBPNTEUAgreement.pdf

http://www.seiu503.org/files/2014/01/2013-2015-Human-Services-Coalition-Contract-Final.pdf

and on and on....

They can affect time, pay, promotion rights, etc...

Please look at what you gave me. The items are all budget and revenue neutral items that they are bargaining for. It doesn't include wages or benefits. Unless they can bargain for wages and healthcare and retirement benefits it isn't a real union. Also real unions can strike.

 

[Jimzz]

Please look at what you gave me. The items are all budget and revenue neutral items that they are bargaining for. It doesn't include wages or benefits. Unless they can bargain for wages and healthcare and retirement benefits it isn't a real union. Also real unions can strike.

So now you are moving the goal post?
You said "They do not engage in actual collective bargaining." I then post collective bargaining agreements and now you change your tune.

And yes money is part of what is bargained. Not base salary but how much is paid to come in after shifts, who gets priority of on calls and overtime, etc...
Right now for example if someone comes in after hours they get paid a minimum of 2 hours even if it takes 15minutes. That was a bargained item.

 

[glenn1]

Please look at what you gave me. The items are all budget and revenue neutral items that they are bargaining for. It doesn't include wages or benefits. Unless they can bargain for wages and healthcare and retirement benefits it isn't a real union. Also real unions can strike.

I would say collection of union dues is prima facie evidence that it is indeed a "real" union. Now whether the union is worth a shit is another story, but then again you could say that about most unions today in 2015.