KD in CA Posted March 9, 2010 Posted March 9, 2010 And how do you force negotiations with absolutely no leverage because you can't lay anyone off? You can't lay anyone off because times are hard. And when times are good, you can't lay anyone off because there's enough to go around.
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 9, 2010 Posted March 9, 2010 Every single line item except the one that is by far the largest, huh? I'm sure it hasn't dawned on you that the people making the recommendations know exactly what needs to be done and are very familiar with the 'books'. But yeah, I'm sure they'll close an $11 billion budget gap by scraping little bits here and there. You are officially dumber than molson_golden. Of course they don't! Have you ever worked for the gov't? I do. The people making the recommendations don't know their ass from a hole in the ground.
VABills Posted March 9, 2010 Posted March 9, 2010 How's about states just not paying for un-funded federal mandates like say additional medicare/medicaid costs that are to be incurred by the new healthcare plan?
erynthered Posted March 9, 2010 Posted March 9, 2010 Of course they don't! Have you ever worked for the gov't? I do. The people making the recommendations don't know their ass from a hole in the ground. They hired you. Says enough right there.
pBills Posted March 9, 2010 Posted March 9, 2010 I am not unionized either. We have a choice. I am still pro-union, yet left the union years ago. I didn't think they were spending the money wisely. Totally agree with you. Unions are not looking at the big picture. Everyone knows that States are in trouble, they need to balance their budgets. Renegotiating contracts will not only help out the state but their membership as a whole by being able to avoid layoffs, furloughs and other cuts.
pBills Posted March 9, 2010 Posted March 9, 2010 You can't lay anyone off because times are hard. And when times are good, you can't lay anyone off because there's enough to go around. Adding more people to the unemployment line should be the last resort. Unionized or not.
KD in CA Posted March 9, 2010 Posted March 9, 2010 Of course they don't! Have you ever worked for the gov't? I do. The people making the recommendations don't know their ass from a hole in the ground. They certainly know there's no way to close an $11B budget gap without reducing a state workforce that has grown 20% in the last 8 years.
pBills Posted March 9, 2010 Posted March 9, 2010 They certainly know there's no way to close an $11B budget gap without reducing a state workforce that has grown 20% in the last 8 years. I am sure keeping on top of their projects... making sure they stay on or under budget and on time will help out as well.
KD in CA Posted March 9, 2010 Posted March 9, 2010 Adding more people to the unemployment line should be the last resort. Unionized or not. Why? It's not about them being in a union, it's about them being unnecessary gov't employees -- meaning they are another burden on the ever shrinking base of taxpayers. Having them unemployed isn't making them any more of a burden than they already are, and if we change the culture away from limitless gov't, maybe some of these people can do something that creates wealth rather than just consume it. Governments should be run leaner than any private business. Instead they are run as the most bloated, inefficient organizations on the planet and that is the reason they are all billions or trillions in the red. The union deserves to be vilified for making it such that these people can't be laid off under any circumstances. Corazine deserves to be burnt at the stake for selling the people out and agreeing to something so outrageous. The unions aren't the only ones who need to look at the big picture.
pBills Posted March 9, 2010 Posted March 9, 2010 Why? It's not about them being in a union, it's about them being unnecessary gov't employees -- meaning they are another burden on the ever shrinking base of taxpayers. Having them unemployed isn't making them any more of a burden than they already are, and if we change the culture away from limitless gov't, maybe some of these people can do something that creates wealth rather than just consume it. Governments should be run leaner than any private business. Instead they are run as the most bloated, inefficient organizations on the planet and that is the reason they are all billions or trillions in the red. The union deserves to be vilified for making it such that these people can't be laid off under any circumstances. Corazine deserves to be burnt at the stake for selling the people out and agreeing to something so outrageous. The unions aren't the only ones who need to look at the big picture. I have been saying that all along. You are right, receiving unemployment benefits is cheaper than the other option. However, what politician is going to want to add to their states unemployment rate? No one will want to take that on. To many factors go into this... one side the state for the time being saves money. Then eventually loses money due to people not spending money (laid off nothing in their pockets), unemployment benefits and possibly welfare. Not including some people could lose their homes.
Dante Posted March 9, 2010 Posted March 9, 2010 Adding more people to the unemployment line should be the last resort. Unionized or not. I wish we had the luxury of not laying people off here. But if our sales can't support employees I have to. Would rather not put them on the employment line but if I don't were risking losing more money and shutting down. Government should operate the same
IDBillzFan Posted March 9, 2010 Posted March 9, 2010 The union deserves to be vilified for making it such that these people can't be laid off under any circumstances. Corazine deserves to be burnt at the stake for selling the people out and agreeing to something so outrageous. I think the bulk of the blame falls to Corzine, not the union. The union is no different than the mortgage lender or the professional football player. They each seek the best deal they can get, but the deal doesn't exist until someone agrees to it. Personally speaking, when all of these people ended up with crappy mortgages, I found it ridiculous to vilify the mortgage lenders because they didn't put a gun to the borrower's head to sign the bad deal. If you're too stupid to know what you're signing, you're just too stupid. So it's hard for me to vilify the unions for getting that deal. So far as I know, the state didn't have a gun to its head when it agreed to it, and if they somehow did, it was likely because they gave someone the gun, and then handed them the bullets in exchange for the promise that they'd never be on the barrel-end of the firearm.
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 9, 2010 Posted March 9, 2010 They hired you. Says enough right there. Actually they didn't. I was hired at the field level and have more trust in my boss to make the recs than say some suit in DC.
pBills Posted March 9, 2010 Posted March 9, 2010 I think the bulk of the blame falls to Corzine, not the union. The union is no different than the mortgage lender or the professional football player. They each seek the best deal they can get, but the deal doesn't exist until someone agrees to it. Personally speaking, when all of these people ended up with crappy mortgages, I found it ridiculous to vilify the mortgage lenders because they didn't put a gun to the borrower's head to sign the bad deal. If you're too stupid to know what you're signing, you're just too stupid. So it's hard for me to vilify the unions for getting that deal. So far as I know, the state didn't have a gun to its head when it agreed to it, and if they somehow did, it was likely because they gave someone the gun, and then handed them the bullets in exchange for the promise that they'd never be on the barrel-end of the firearm. Well put.
IDBillzFan Posted March 9, 2010 Posted March 9, 2010 Well put. That said, all unions need to be purged at the very first opportunity. I have no problem protecting workers' rights, but it's out of control now. The spirit of individual advancement is deflated when the goal of the union is to get its members the most (money, bennies, etc) they can in exchange for the least amount of effort possible. You ultimately end up with less incentive to DO MORE. Companies excel in a competitive market when the individual employees are offered incentives beyond a particular threshold of income. It comes down to one very basic tenet which unions debase: having and keeping a job is not a right. It's just that simple. Union deals change that, which, again, erodes personal incentive which, in turn, erodes a company's ability to compete.
DC Tom Posted March 9, 2010 Posted March 9, 2010 I think the bulk of the blame falls to Corzine, not the union. The union is no different than the mortgage lender or the professional football player. They each seek the best deal they can get, but the deal doesn't exist until someone agrees to it. Personally speaking, when all of these people ended up with crappy mortgages, I found it ridiculous to vilify the mortgage lenders because they didn't put a gun to the borrower's head to sign the bad deal. If you're too stupid to know what you're signing, you're just too stupid. So it's hard for me to vilify the unions for getting that deal. So far as I know, the state didn't have a gun to its head when it agreed to it, and if they somehow did, it was likely because they gave someone the gun, and then handed them the bullets in exchange for the promise that they'd never be on the barrel-end of the firearm. I don't disagree...the unions' purpose, after all, is to look out for their members. If they're not driving to get the best deal possible, they're simply not doing their jobs. However...most of the union stories you hear tend to indicate that unions often take a view that's either too short-term or - more frequently - too contentious. It does unions no good to ignore business conditions in the interests of trying to !@#$ over management for a buck and thereby slit their own throats long-term (note to pBills: I'm not saying all unions do this. But some are that stupid.) I don't know how much of that went on with NJ's unionized employees...but judging by the artfully crafted contract that as a practical matter allows no layoffs, and by the bias of my own personal experience, I'd say more than a little.
KD in CA Posted March 9, 2010 Posted March 9, 2010 I have been saying that all along. You are right, receiving unemployment benefits is cheaper than the other option. However, what politician is going to want to add to their states unemployment rate? No one will want to take that on. To many factors go into this... one side the state for the time being saves money. Then eventually loses money due to people not spending money (laid off nothing in their pockets), unemployment benefits and possibly welfare. Not including some people could lose their homes. WHAT?? You have not been saying this all along. What politician wants to add to his state's unemployment? Chris Christie does, that's who. You are primary person arguing against it in this thread. And your assumption that laying off a state employee is a long term loss for the state is simply ludicrous. The vast majority of such people would go out and find a real job. People aren't garden slugs, they aren't just going to sit there forever on the dole if their cushy gubmint job disappears.
OCinBuffalo Posted March 11, 2010 Posted March 11, 2010 I heard somebody(think it was Krauthammer) say something interesting the other day: Essentially, Republican Vs. Democrat is over....we are going to have a "war" in this country between private sector people that create wealth and public sector people that have been voting themselves the ability to take that wealth. Its interesting because I think that is the best way to look at NYS government's issues, and, per the OP, NJ's issues as well. My money's on the private sector people, and not just because I am one.
Recommended Posts