First....when a union negotiates with the 'private sector', they negotiate 'with' the people who lay the golden egg that produces PROFIT!
When a union negotiates with the 'public sector', they are negotiating with 'politicians/government' who are not required to make a profit.....only to tax its citizens to meet the demand. And if the negotiations don't go the way of the union.....the union will just manipulate a negative campaign for their benefit!

Second.....I don't mind paying for our firemen, or police officers. What I do mind is when they rig the system to manipulate their retirement/benefits.

Quoted from bumblethru

First....when a union negotiates with the 'private sector', they negotiate 'with' the people who lay the golden egg that produces PROFIT!
When a union negotiates with the 'public sector', they are negotiating with 'politicians/government' who are not required to make a profit.....only to tax its citizens to meet the demand. And if the negotiations don't go the way of the union.....the union will just manipulate a negative campaign for their benefit!

Second.....I don't mind paying for our firemen, or police officers. What I do mind is when they rig the system to manipulate their retirement/benefits.

I agree.

Acutally I think the government sort of does make a profit, it's called surplus, which should come back to us as lower taxes.  OK, it doesn't end up lowering taxes.  Why not?   Because the elected don't do that.  But then we keep voting them back in.  THe other thing is that we have demands.  If the government laid people off, it would mean cuts in services and we don't want that.  But then we complain about high taxes.  But don't you think the intersting thing about business for profit and government is that in business they more often lately, thanks to the demise of the unions, the top dogs keep the profits for themselves and pay their employees low wages.  The government provides a wage that employees can support their families.  Today for instance people were taking that entry level state test which has no qualifications.  Walmart jobs also don't require any qualification.  People get a job for Walmart they will have no unions to help them, the employees will have to apply for some government assistance.  Get a government job, decent wages are negotiated for you and you can support your family without public assistance.  By virtue of being employed by the govt, yeah, maybe that's considered in a way government assistance, but you might be working out in the extreme heat standing on hot pavement filling potholes.  Or you might be working 16 hours in 20 below zero temps plowing roads.  Or you might be a psych nurse dealing with the worst of the psychos, that which no private institution would take, or you might risk your life providing services to Lemuel Smith.  Or you are fast and furiously dealing with some taxpayer who is incredibly angry that it takes more than 2 minutes to locate, scan and send you a copy of your birthcertificate when you waited til the last moment to get a copy and you need it for your passport so that when you go to an auto race in Canada for a couple hours you can get back into this country.  Or so many other things.  Maybe you and I don't need or want a specific service, but guaranteed someone will and we often will support them, well, support their need for such a service.

Hey, my mom was a secretary with the state.  My dad was a blue collar worker for GE, and when he worked for GE and union was good then, my mom didn't have to work.  Today, I'll be if you work for GE your wife has to work too

....yes, because taxes absorb half of what we make when you factor in all the taxes you pay on sales, property, state, SSI, federal and the costs that get passed on over and over. Yes, Mom has to work now, wages are lower because both genders are in the workplace en mass, and social programs are trying to do what the family once did, and wage earning people are paying for that.

Quoted Text

The Government Pay Boom
America's most privileged class are public union workers.
It turns out there really is growing inequality in America. It's the 45% premium in pay and benefits that government workers receive over the poor saps who create wealth in the private economy.

And the gap is growing. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), from 1998 to 2008 public employee compensation grew by 28.6%, compared with 19.3% for private workers. In the recession year of 2009, with almost no inflation and record budget deficits, more than half the states awarded pay raises to their employees. Even as deficits in state capitals widen and are forcing cuts in services, few politicians are willing to eliminate these pay inequities that enrich the few who wield political power.


Let's walk through the math. In 2008 almost half of all state and local government expenditures, or an estimated $1.1 trillion, went toward the pay and benefits of public workers. According to the BLS, in 2009 the average state or local public employee received $39.66 in total compensation per hour versus $27.42 for private workers. This means that for every $1 in pay and benefits a private employee earned, a state or local government worker received $1.45.

The BLS study breaks down where that 45% premium comes from. It turns out that public employees earn salaries that are about one-third higher on average than what is provided to private workers per hour worked. But the real windfall for government workers is in benefits. Those are 70% higher than what standard private employers offer, as shown in the nearby table. Government health benefits are twice as generous as what workers employed by private employees earn. By the way, nearly this entire benefits gap is accounted for by unionized public employees. Nonunion public employees are paid roughly what private workers receive.

What if government workers earned the average of what private workers earn? States and localities would save $339 billion a year from their more than $2.1 trillion budgets. These savings are larger than the combined estimated deficits for 2010 and 2011 of every state in America.

In a separate survey, the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis compares the compensation of public versus private workers in each of the 50 states. Perhaps not coincidentally, the pay gap is widest in states that have the biggest budget deficits, such as New Jersey, Nevada and Hawaii. Of the 40 states that have a budget deficit so far this year, 28 would have a balanced budget were it not for the windfall to government workers.

But these current fiscal problems are a picnic compared to the long-term benefit commitments that state and local politicians have made to public retirees. A 2009 study by economists Robert Novy-Marx and Joshua Rauh, published in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, estimated that these government pensions are underfunded by $3.2 trillion, or $27,000 for every American household.

The Orange County Register reports that California has 3,000 retired teachers and school administrators, who stopped working as early as age 55, collecting at least $100,000 a year in pensions for the rest of their lives.

Illinois's pension obligations are so costly the state had to issue $3.5 billion of bonds merely to meet its mandatory contribution to the worker retirement program, which faces $85 billion, or three years of state tax revenues, in unfunded liabilities. Near-bankrupt New Jersey would have to pay $7 billion a year if it properly accounted for its pension and health benefits.

California, Nevada New Jersey and Ohio all allow double dipping, which lets government workers retire in their 50s and then work another full-time job while collecting retirement checks. In Ohio, police, firefighters and teachers can retire after 30 years on the job, collect a full benefit each year and go back to work full-time doing the same job. This is called retire and rehire.

As the Columbus Dispatch reported last year: "Across the state, Ohio's State Teachers Retirement System paid out more than $741 million in pension benefits last school year to 15,857 faculty and staff members who were still working for school systems and building up a second retirement plan." Some teachers can earn nearly $200,000 a year in pensions and salaries.

The union response is that government workers deserve all this because they are more educated and highly skilled. That may account for some of the pay differential but not the blowout benefits. The unions also neglect one of the greatest perks of government employment: job security. Short of shooting up a Post Office, government workers rarely get fired or laid off.

If government workers were underpaid, we'd expect high attrition rates, as they pursued better private opportunities. The reality is the opposite. Cato Institute economist Chris Edwards has analyzed Department of Labor statistics and found that private workers are three times more likely to quit their jobs than are government workers.

So if your state is broke, this is a major reason. Eventually, governors, state legislators and city council members are going to have to decide whether protecting America's privileged class of government workers is a higher priority than funding such core functions of government as public safety. Something has to give. It's time to close the biggest pay gap in America.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704281204575003101210295246.html

Quoted from GrahamBonnet

....yes, because taxes absorb half of what we make when you factor in all the taxes you pay on sales, property, state, SSI, federal and the costs that get passed on over and over. Yes, Mom has to work now, wages are lower because both genders are in the workplace en mass, and social programs are trying to do what the family once did, and wage earning people are paying for that.

Oh, man do I ever hear you!  And so agree.

And this year I saw the new story, I think it had to do with Schenectady school district, something about all these medical exams for the kids entering kdg I think.  

Yes, parents used to clothe their children, feed their children breakfast at home, slap some turkey or tuna on a couple pieces of bread, toss in an apple and some milk in a thermos and put it in the lunch box.  THen parents took their children to their own pediatrician for an annual check up which met such requirement for school.  And parents took their children to the dentist for cleanings, check up, and fillings; I do however remember the flouride treatments, were they the things where your teeth got all red?  Then either junior came home to mom after school, who promptly sent junior out to play (exercise) til dinner, or mom and dad hired a neighborhood teen for an half an hour or hour of babysitting.  Then mom and dad saw to it that junior did his/her homework, limited TV and bedtime no later than 9, probably earlier in younger grades.  And if homework was light, mom and/or dad took kids to the library to take out books (at no cost) with which to read.  And if junior had a speech problem or psychological problem, mom and/or dad took junior to their own pediatrician to sent the child to a speech therapist or psych specialist if necessary.  

Today, it's breakfast, lunch, and sometimes dinner provided for the kids at the school.  Schools provide the annual check up, dental, speech, and psych services.  Teachers are now providing the one on one services reading with the child and guiding them in their homework assignments.  

Quoted from mikechristine1

Oh, man do I ever hear you!  And so agree.

And this year I saw the new story, I think it had to do with Schenectady school district, something about all these medical exams for the kids entering kdg I think.  

Yes, parents used to clothe their children, feed their children breakfast at home, slap some turkey or tuna on a couple pieces of bread, toss in an apple and some milk in a thermos and put it in the lunch box.  THen parents took their children to their own pediatrician for an annual check up which met such requirement for school.  And parents took their children to the dentist for cleanings, check up, and fillings; I do however remember the flouride treatments, were they the things where your teeth got all red?  Then either junior came home to mom after school, who promptly sent junior out to play (exercise) til dinner, or mom and dad hired a neighborhood teen for an half an hour or hour of babysitting.  Then mom and dad saw to it that junior did his/her homework, limited TV and bedtime no later than 9, probably earlier in younger grades.  And if homework was light, mom and/or dad took kids to the library to take out books (at no cost) with which to read.  And if junior had a speech problem or psychological problem, mom and/or dad took junior to their own pediatrician to sent the child to a speech therapist or psych specialist if necessary.  

Today, it's breakfast, lunch, and sometimes dinner provided for the kids at the school.  Schools provide the annual check up, dental, speech, and psych services.  Teachers are now providing the one on one services reading with the child and guiding them in their homework assignments.  

Parents who care...and who can...still do it the old way.  In our house lunches are made, before school though the sitter does breakfast since we work early.  After school its homework, softball, girl scouts, football, whatever we have that night.  

Government mandates that shouldn't exist........we cant afford them........

They 'system' is saying we can't do it better! The 'system' is saying they can do it better! We've all become mental midgets with no confidence in making decisions regarding our children, finances or health.

We're slowly being brainwashed........ one brain cell at a time and don't even know it!

Quoted from bumblethru

They 'system' is saying we can't do it better! The 'system' is saying they can do it better! We've all become mental midgets with no confidence in making decisions regarding our children, finances or health.

We're slowly being brainwashed........ one brain cell at a time and don't even know it!

You can feed your children, you can help them with their homework.  I do not like how the schools can diagnose your kid ADHD and boom you're screwed.  Let them try that with my kid.

Quoted from 664

I do not like how the schools can diagnose your kid ADHD and boom you're screwed.  Let them try that with my kid.

If you disagree with the school psychologist about the diagnoses of your child, and choose not to medicate them, the school will call CPS(Child Protective Services) and they will be knocking at your door to evaluate your parenting.  Believe me, it happened to a co-worker of mine.  They wanted to put his son on ADHD drugs to calm him down, and my co-worker sarcastically told them that he might as well have his son smoke pot to treat his hyper activity.  Needless to say, the school psychologist wasn't amused and he had CPS at his door that night. It's scary.

A cousin of my fiance's had the same thing from her son's DOCTOR.  She changed doctor's and the new doctor did not diagnose him with ADHD.  I just hope if it ever happens to me I can get a hold of my lawyer before I punch that person out.  

We are being led like sheep.....We buy a home when the 'market' tells us to. We feed our children what they tell us to. The pharmaceutical companies advertise daily on what meds we should take. They tell us what cars we should drive. The media spins everything, and we buy it hook line and sinker. The system controls Wall St...aka...our investments/retirements. The system controls our income. The system tells us what schools our children 'must' attend. The system tells us when and where we can pray. The system tells us where and when we can smoke. The system forces us to be tolerant to the intolerable.

They have basically beaten us down into robotic mental midgets. For a country that boasts FREEDOM & CHOICE.......we are losing them at an alarming rate! And here we sit.........