I’ve been keeping a low-profile on the war that’s going on in Madison

February 17th, 2011

Because, cialis usa check even though I think Walker is right, I take no pleasure in other people’s hardship.

Entry Filed under: Observations

14 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Soapbox Jill  |  February 17th, 2011 at 3:35 pm

    I take no pleasure in other people’s hardship, either. But my “other people” are the taxpayers who have been forced into funding unreasonable benefits and salaries for teachers due to a hardened, unbudging teacher’s union.

    Did you see the trash these protestors left at the capital? What kind of respect is that for our state property that belongs to all of us? Whenever protestors leave such messes it seems they only care about what they can GET. They are TAKERS. But public workers need a sense of perspective and place. They work for us.

  • 2. Debunked  |  February 17th, 2011 at 4:09 pm

    http://reason.org/news/show/public-sector-private-sector-salary

    Public sector employees, on the whole, do not have “unreasonable benefits and salaries.” Their benefits are better at the expense of slightly worse salaries. The one place public employees greatly benefit over private employees isn’t in their monetary compensation – it is their job security.

    If being a public sector employee is so great, then why aren’t you out there applying for a job in the public sector, again?

    Public sector employees are nothing more than a scapegoat used by politicians. Why can people not see that this whole divide between private and public sector employees is merely a political tool to create dissent among the middle class rather than unity against the wealthy elite who profit off the backs of public and private sector employees alike and it back and laugh while they allow the middle class vermin fight between themselves.

    Likewise, the unions is far from some “unbudging” powerhouse. It takes two to bargain. Salaries have remained relatively stagnant over the past few years because those unions have bargained to maintain benefits AT THE COST of adjusted salary increases.

    Further, YOUR sense of entitlement from public sector employees is, quite frankly, despicable. “They work for us.”

    Sorry, no, they work for themselves just as you work for yourself. They work to pay their bills, put food on their tables, and send their children to school. The same reason you work every day.

  • 3. Dan  |  February 17th, 2011 at 4:40 pm

    Sorry Debunked but when there are civil service jobs, teaching jobs, professional jobs, there is almost always an over abundance of applicants for a position, so your thoery is completely wrong. How many government jobs go unfilled because they couldn’t find any applicants? Damn few. In teaching, with the exception of Special ed., math and science, there is a glut of unemployed teachers that would to have a teaching job, starting at the bottom. Same with police and firefighting jobs.
    So, don’t hand us this crap that public employees are this poor working class people who are being stripped of their dignity, they are not. They are only asked to pay a fraction more towards their benefits and certainly far less than most private sector employees.

  • 4. Debunked  |  February 17th, 2011 at 4:53 pm

    There’s an over abundance of applicants for many positions in the private sector, too. It’s why we have this thing called unemployment that remains above 0%.

    Typically, you go through this process called an interview where the employer puts in some effort in an attempt to hire the best candidate for the job.

    So, if you think public sector jobs are so good and you’re so much better than those who are currently working them, then apply and get one. Otherwise, you’re admitting they perform the tasks better than you can and deserve the (what you believe) to be higher compensation in the form of their benefits package.

    Further, if they were only being asked to pay a “fraction more toward their benefits” to prevent layoffs, then we would not be seeing protests of the level that are currently happening. The union leaders are not stupid. They would agree to a short term sacrifice to preserve jobs, as they have in the past.

    But the fact is, private sector employees have had to “buckle down” the past few years due to the cost of living increases just as much as public sector employees. The recession hit public sector employees just as hard as private sector employees.

    Again, politicians claiming that public sector employees need to “also feel the burden” are grand standing. Those public sector employees are lower and middle class Americans, like everybody else. They’ve felt the impacts of the recession just as much as everybody else.

    Now they’re being asked to take another hit just to, yet again, satisfy the role of pawns as seen by the governing class by pitting private sector against public sector to divert the focus away from them, instead. Where does it end?

  • 5. John Foust  |  February 17th, 2011 at 5:01 pm

    Come on, conservatives – defend Walker’s notion of blocking wage adjustments that aren’t within range of the Consumer Price Index. Sounds like government wage controls. Wouldn’t it lead to statues of Marx in the hallways? Death panels on every street corner? Why not pay what the market will bear?

    Dan, half of the UW colleges are without deans right now because they can’t find good people at the wages they offer. Are you implying that government HR will take just anybody who’ll work for the wage they offer?

  • 6. Debunked  |  February 17th, 2011 at 5:12 pm

    The ironic thing here, is that Wisconsin actually was not in that bad of a position budgetary wise prior to Walker. This whole bill is based on the notion that the budget of Wisconsin is bordering on bankruptcy… without failing to mention that the Wisconsin had a projected surplus prior to policies Walker implemented in January.

    http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/editorial/article_61064e9a-27b0-5f28-b6d1-a57c8b2aaaf6.html

    And legislative paper over state budget found in above article:
    http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb/Misc/2011_01_31Vos&Darling.pdf

    So, this union busting bill is estimated to save $137 million… interesting enough, quite a similar figure to the $140 million in new spending he pushed through in January.

    * $25 million for an economic development fund for job creation that still has $73 million due to a lack of job creation. Walker is creating a $25 million hole which will not create or retain jobs.

    His $2000/$4000 tax cuts for businesses which hire new people. Last I checked, it isn’t exactly a smart business decision to pay $40000+ annually to hire a new person to receive a single $2000-$4000 tax cut unless business demands it…in which case they’ll hire that person anyway.

    * $48 million for private health savings accounts, which primarily benefit the wealthy. A study from the federal Governmental Accountability Office showed the average adjusted gross income of HSA participants was $139,000 and nearly half of HSA participants reported withdrawing nothing from their HSA, evidence that it is serving as a tax shelter for wealthy participants.

    Oh, look, he’s set up more funding to give more tax dollars to the wealthy… and then attempted to pay for by the public sector employees with the current bill. But, you know, it’s the public sector employees who are at fault.

    * $67 million for a tax shift plan, so ill-conceived that at best the benefit provided to ‘job creators’ would be less than a dollar a day per new job, and may be as little as 30 cents a day.”

  • 7. Fuzz  |  February 18th, 2011 at 9:31 am

    If raises are not based upon performance, then what justifies automatically raising salaries, across the board, by anything more than the CPI?

  • 8. Debunked  |  February 18th, 2011 at 11:07 am

    Who said anything about justifiably raising salaries, across the board, by anything more than the CPI? John and I were both talking about negotiating to maintain benefits at the cost of salary increases.

    Recent Wisconsin reports have shown that public employees receive, on average, (even after accounting for their benefits) 4.8% less compensation than private sector counterparts with similar education and work experience. Thus, we can conclude that public sector employees are not *overpaid.* They are, actually, paid what I might suggest is relatively fair given their enhanced job security.

    Further, if my above comment would leave awaiting moderation, you would see that the current $137 million deficit projected for this fiscal year is due to the policies Walker implemented last month. He implemented $140 million in tax cuts that will primarily go to the upper class.

    All he’s trying to do here is take money out of the hands of Americans who happen to have public sector jobs and put it into the hands of wealthy citizens. All while the public demands more and more from the public sector.

    As I said above. It’s nothing more than partisan political tactics to divide the private sector employees from the public sector employees while shifting focus from the true problem – the corporate control of government that has been growing unchecked for several decades.

    This is nothing more than trickle-up economics. Working for the rich since 1981.

  • 9. John Foust  |  February 18th, 2011 at 11:10 am

    Can’t you imagine that a prevailing wage for a certain job would change with the demands of the market? If speech pathologists are in great demand in public schools, doesn’t that mean a district would need to increase the offered wage in order to fill a position? If demand drops, shouldn’t they consider lowering the offer?

    Similarly, if you wish to keep an existing employee, you might need to adjust the wage to reflect the market demand. What does that have to do with the CPI?

    Jeremy Shown has an interesting explanation.

  • 10. Fuzz  |  February 18th, 2011 at 11:23 am

    @John – I absolutely agree that a prevailing wages for a certain jobs change with the demands of the market. When it inevitably does, a referendum can be passed to increase those wages.

  • 11. Elliot  |  February 18th, 2011 at 11:25 am

    I’m sorry, Debunked, I don’t know why that comment went into the moderation queue and I didn’t realize it was there.

  • 12. John Foust  |  February 18th, 2011 at 1:04 pm

    A referendum? Are you kidding? I think we need to give local control a bit more respect. A referendum could cost more than the raise itself.

  • 13. Dan  |  February 19th, 2011 at 3:46 am

    To John, it would be nice if speech pathologists would get paid more in the school districts, but they are usually classified as teachers or professional support staff. But because of union and administration rules, they won’t get any extra money. So, John are you advocating getting rid of the current pay scale for teachers?

  • 14. Dan  |  February 19th, 2011 at 3:51 am

    And to Debunked, I am a public employee- teacher. But I have also extesive experience in the private sector along with a civil service job or two.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


About

Being in a wheelchair gives you a unique perspective on the world. This blog features many of my views on politics, art, science, and entertainment. My name is Elliot Stearns. More...

The Abortionist

Recent Comments

Categories

Meta