Good lord you are "hopeless" somebody with more patience for idiocy will have to take it from here.
State government employees are underpaid
- Thread starter Ricter
- Start date
Good lord you are "hopeless" somebody with more patience for idiocy will have to take it from here.
No problem. If you can't think it through, just continue with your beliefs, fine by me.
California is all liberal and that means that reason is suspended. It's been proven that to be liberal one has to suspend reason.. who was that philosopher with the radio show that asserted and proved that every day, can't recall...
California is really Mexican Friendly, but the Mexican social outlook is to work very hard for low wages and make up for the shortfall with money from the Public Sector.. Mexicans don't produce much tax revenue and they suck the life out of the housing, dependent children welfare, etc... system...
California is really welfare seeker friendly.. San Bernardino is the place that Highway 40 dumps people off after they tried the welfare programs in Texas [shoot 'em], New Mexico[starve 'em], and Arizona[shoot 'em and starve 'em plus jail them in tents in the desert heat if they bitch]... So San Berdoo has been the breeding ground of biker gang after biker gang, and all sorts of criminal stuff over the decades, it's the direct outgrowth of welfare. Check out the Black Ghettos, welfare pays not quite enough, nobody gets a private sector job because Leftist attorneys after the style of Jessie Jackemup have sued the private sector on racist charges so much that nobody in their right mind would hire a Black... ye godz, I've seen what happens when a Black does get a real job, they look around, see that there are no other Blacks working in the place and they start up with the charges of racism and proceed to get the elevated privilege of treating some Whites like shit until somebody finally can get the Black worker out of the place without paying too much extortion money...
I mean, Nancy Pelosi actually thinks all this shit is a good thing!! They all do...
California is really Mexican Friendly, but the Mexican social outlook is to work very hard for low wages and make up for the shortfall with money from the Public Sector.. Mexicans don't produce much tax revenue and they suck the life out of the housing, dependent children welfare, etc... system...
California is really welfare seeker friendly.. San Bernardino is the place that Highway 40 dumps people off after they tried the welfare programs in Texas [shoot 'em], New Mexico[starve 'em], and Arizona[shoot 'em and starve 'em plus jail them in tents in the desert heat if they bitch]... So San Berdoo has been the breeding ground of biker gang after biker gang, and all sorts of criminal stuff over the decades, it's the direct outgrowth of welfare. Check out the Black Ghettos, welfare pays not quite enough, nobody gets a private sector job because Leftist attorneys after the style of Jessie Jackemup have sued the private sector on racist charges so much that nobody in their right mind would hire a Black... ye godz, I've seen what happens when a Black does get a real job, they look around, see that there are no other Blacks working in the place and they start up with the charges of racism and proceed to get the elevated privilege of treating some Whites like shit until somebody finally can get the Black worker out of the place without paying too much extortion money...
I mean, Nancy Pelosi actually thinks all this shit is a good thing!! They all do...
It is the Government that is giving the OK for riskier investments. It is part of the Union / Government cabal. Use a funds historical returns , project them into the future. The higher the expected returns, the less the States need to fund on a yearly basis.
The federal Government does the same thing by overestimating revenue based on higher GDP then realistic. This then projects into lower deficits and allows then to borrow and spend more.
Even with the loses in pensions funds I am sure many gained most of that back after this year in the market. The problem is that the States are required to maintain a set level, yearly, in the pensions fund and also balance their budget. They are unable to weather these market corrections more then a year.
Nah it can't be da gubbermints fault ole optional here's gonna scapegoat the pension fund managers for failing to perform as assumed by govt hacks.
Yes, it is the government that is bailing out Wall Street, starting needless wars, giving kickbacks to corporations, creating the budget deficits, not the unions.
I am not saying that unions and union workers aren't going to have to compromise.
I believe in compromise and cooperation.
I just see lunacy in trying to end collective bargaining, as if collective bargaining was causal. A factor, yes. Causal, no.
There is blame on every side in my estimation, but in this case, I believe the agenda is not actually financial for the republicans, but political. The end game of the right wing is to destroy all the working man's rights and benefits, power and control over his own destiny, remove the security blanket of the new deal, and return to feudalism, in which they envision themselves as lords of their mini empires. The republicans do not believe in a middle class, and their budget busting started by Reagan for the sake of the military industrial complex profits was the first strike. This mindless move to deficits by Reagan was then seen as a means to be used politically to eventually bankrupt the government, thereby destroying the work of Roosevelt and the New Deal. Yes, it goes back that far, and farther, because republicans hate the working man's right to bargain collectively. Why? Because it gives power to the working man...which they oppose strongly.
See, we have two opposing forces. When those forces are in check by each other, we have balance. We have pure capitalism on the extreme right, and pure socialism on the extreme left.
I see the republicans wish to destroy that balance by usurping the rights of the workers to collectively bargain against the corporations
or governments...who grow in their power to influence the political process in their favor.
I oppose that. I favor balance and compromise.
I am not saying that unions and union workers aren't going to have to compromise.
I believe in compromise and cooperation.
I just see lunacy in trying to end collective bargaining, as if collective bargaining was causal. A factor, yes. Causal, no.
There is blame on every side in my estimation, but in this case, I believe the agenda is not actually financial for the republicans, but political. The end game of the right wing is to destroy all the working man's rights and benefits, power and control over his own destiny, remove the security blanket of the new deal, and return to feudalism, in which they envision themselves as lords of their mini empires. The republicans do not believe in a middle class, and their budget busting started by Reagan for the sake of the military industrial complex profits was the first strike. This mindless move to deficits by Reagan was then seen as a means to be used politically to eventually bankrupt the government, thereby destroying the work of Roosevelt and the New Deal. Yes, it goes back that far, and farther, because republicans hate the working man's right to bargain collectively. Why? Because it gives power to the working man...which they oppose strongly.
See, we have two opposing forces. When those forces are in check by each other, we have balance. We have pure capitalism on the extreme right, and pure socialism on the extreme left.
I see the republicans wish to destroy that balance by usurping the rights of the workers to collectively bargain against the corporations
or governments...who grow in their power to influence the political process in their favor.
I oppose that. I favor balance and compromise.
If you can find a quote where I claimed it was entirely the pension fund mangers fault, please do so.
My comments are a reaction to those who blame only the unions as the sole cause.
There are a multitude of factors in this equation, and the simple minded politically driven goal to bust the unions needs to be exposed to the sunlight of all the causes...repeat, all of the causes, so that change can be made to prevent the type of problem from happening again.
My comments are a reaction to those who blame only the unions as the sole cause.
There are a multitude of factors in this equation, and the simple minded politically driven goal to bust the unions needs to be exposed to the sunlight of all the causes...repeat, all of the causes, so that change can be made to prevent the type of problem from happening again.
I never claimed you intended to scapegoat pension fund managers exclusively, that stu mode of argument you are engaging in is as invalid for politics as it is discussing "God".
Busting govt unions (public) is entirely appropriate to protect the taxpayer.
My profession is not allowed to unionize, and neither should gubbermint workers.
It would be scapegoat if I were only blaming pension fund managers, which I am not. I am only pointing out the irrational or politically driven people who claim that unions are to blame. The blame goes to many different factors, not just unions. No one forced the government to give into the demands of the collectively bargained contract.
Busting unions is unnecessary, as the unions are not the cause of the problem.
More flawed logic or politically motivated logic.
Non union pension funds are in similar situations nationwide. Unions are not the cause of those problems, so it is illogical to claim that unions are the sole cause of pensions being unfunded.
Denying the workers the right to bargain collectively is similar to deny them the right to class action cases, or assemble collectively.
It is effectively un American.
Busting unions is unnecessary, as the unions are not the cause of the problem.
More flawed logic or politically motivated logic.
Non union pension funds are in similar situations nationwide. Unions are not the cause of those problems, so it is illogical to claim that unions are the sole cause of pensions being unfunded.
Denying the workers the right to bargain collectively is similar to deny them the right to class action cases, or assemble collectively.
It is effectively un American.
EMPLOYER STRATEGY
The use of contract labor and "precarious work" is part of the a global business strategy to undermine decent work and cut labor costs through labor market âflexibilizationâ or casualization. To understand what is at the core of this employer strategy, it is important to understand that the entire framework of labor law, including international labor law, is based on the permanent employer/employee relationship. "Precarious work" is not a mere short-term tactic to reduce costs or to defeat a union organizing drive, but a long-term strategy for shedding all obligations to workers and eliminating all employee rights based on the existence of an employment relationship.
From a historical perspective, employers discovered over time that slave labor was not economically efficient and that legally "free" workers could be contracted without the cost of providing them housing and food. Workers struck back by organizing unions and winning the right to bargain collectively as employees. Now employers are trying to turn the clock back by ridding themselves of permanent employees as such. Many employers have created a world of work where there is no longer a need to bust unions or use violence against union leaders when they can just take away the potential members.
http://www.laborrights.org/end-violence-against-trade-unions/contract-labor-and-precarious-work
The use of contract labor and "precarious work" is part of the a global business strategy to undermine decent work and cut labor costs through labor market âflexibilizationâ or casualization. To understand what is at the core of this employer strategy, it is important to understand that the entire framework of labor law, including international labor law, is based on the permanent employer/employee relationship. "Precarious work" is not a mere short-term tactic to reduce costs or to defeat a union organizing drive, but a long-term strategy for shedding all obligations to workers and eliminating all employee rights based on the existence of an employment relationship.
From a historical perspective, employers discovered over time that slave labor was not economically efficient and that legally "free" workers could be contracted without the cost of providing them housing and food. Workers struck back by organizing unions and winning the right to bargain collectively as employees. Now employers are trying to turn the clock back by ridding themselves of permanent employees as such. Many employers have created a world of work where there is no longer a need to bust unions or use violence against union leaders when they can just take away the potential members.
http://www.laborrights.org/end-violence-against-trade-unions/contract-labor-and-precarious-work