rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteIn case you are unaware of the little reported quote of FDR
Quote“FDR; "All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations ... The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for ... officials ... to bind the employer ... The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives"”
Cool. But what it says is the state screwed the pooch by letting it get established in the first place. Now it's in and they are trying to deal with reality.
By doing the right thing
And ending it
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Hell, let's do that to the national budget too!
"All right mr. military... We're taking 40 gazillion dollars in benefits away from you. You're going to have to make up the difference by contributing some of your pay back into the plan."
It's not like that. Nothing is being taken away that wasn't there before. They aren't saying, "You owe us back money for health benefits. And, we want 8% back to when you started."
They get what they've already got. In the future they'll have to contribute something to their retirements and pay more for their healthcare, basically leaving them to face less than a quarter of the pain that the private public faces for the same thing. Of course, private citizens will still be funding their salaries and a lot more of their retirements than they will. But it's just moving in a direction that is more sustainable.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
QuoteIt's not like that. Nothing is being taken away that wasn't there before. They aren't saying, "You owe us back money for health benefits. And, we want 8% back to when you started."
You got off track there.
Quote...In the future they'll have to contribute something to their retirements and pay more for their healthcare,....
But you got back on here. That was what I was saying, yes. Go from paying nothing to paying something.
QuoteBut it's just moving in a direction that is more sustainable.
Absolutely! I just don't see why it has to be done all in one fell swoop.
(I used that phrase before didn't I.
)
I can see the unions, in the not-so-distant future, bargaining to make up the difference to the individuals by shooting for higher wages to make up the loss in take-home pay.
Have YOU got any suggestions such as what you asked me?
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
QuoteWisconsin State Employees feel no pain at all.
With respect to this issue, agreed....at this time.
When the money starts coming out of their take-home pay, they will.
QuoteThey do not contribute to their retirements. Nothing! Not a thing! Unless you count taxes, which everyone else pays. There is a concentrated benefit gfiven to those with a sprewad outr cost to everyone. Everybody pays to public employee retirements. They pay nothing more than anyone else.
What happens when the employees retire? They get upwards of 80% of their income while a replacement it hired. Retirements not paid on the basis of personal contribution - just by tax dollars.
All this is already known to one and all. I don't know why you are explaining it again. I have given you nothing to think I understand otherwise.
QuoteThe fight is because both sides know the real money is in the benefits.
I agree. I don't think anyone here disagrees.
QuoteWhat'sa wrong with having a person contribute to retirement? Just like everyone else?
Nothing. Say, did I give you the idea that I thought otherwise?
QuoteIt's a higher caste receiving tribute from the peasants for life.
Rats...a good conversation gets shot down with emotional rhetoric. You know better, lawrocket.
QuoteI have a problem with that. So, too, do those who foot the bill.
I have a problem with doing for them what they could do for themselves.
I've never been one to throw someone in the pool and say, "Sink or swim". I believe in a step-by-step process as opposed to all in one fell swoop. Simple as that.
(dang, did it again.)
Again, I believe the guv could do a better job of resolving the issue by taking a more diplomatic (or democratic, if you will) approach as oppose to the dictatorial one he's currently using.
How about this?
Downsize the gooberment payroll across the board immediately....make the gooberment more efficient.
Yep, some will lose their jobs but we can help balance the budget! That's something else we could do all at one time!
(yes, I know...extremes and all that.
)I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
Absolutely. Moving government employees on track with everyone else who must pay something. Will it hurt? Yeah. Isn't it time that the working men and women in private industry quit paying for the retirement of others?
[Reply] I just don't see why it has to be done all in one fell swoop.
It isn't. Government employees will still be recipients of benefits far in excess of private with costs far below those of private employees. You are describing the pain of even starting to trat public employees like a private citizen. You'd think that they're asking Paris Hilton to pay a cover charge. The horror!
[Reply]Have YOU got any suggestions such as what you asked me?
Yep. Free ride ends now. We'll grandfather in everyone already in and keep the promises we already made. In 20 years retirements will be the responsibility of the employees with employer matching up to, say, $15k per year.
Same with health care. It isn't a lifetime benefit. You gotta prepare for it. Want a future? Prepare for it.
[Reply]I can see the unions, in the not-so-distant future, bargaining to make up the difference to the individuals by shooting for higher wages to make up the loss in take-home pay
Sure. But that's something that is easy to deal with that doesn't have a big back-loaded onus on the taxpayer. Revenues low? People can be laid off. And - if the public employees want their wages to be reflective of what they actually cost then let them go for it. They can then be taxed like everyone else and tell Joe six-pack "Yes. I'm actually a $90k per year employee. I need that extra money to receive what I'd receive had our benefits not been cut."
Trust me - there is NO WAY that unions want it known just how much the public employees receive. The "benefits" are easy enough to hide and fudge.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Wisconsin State Employees feel no pain at all. They do not contribute to their retirements. Nothing! Not a thing! Unless you count taxes, which everyone else pays. There is a concentrated benefit gfiven to those with a sprewad outr cost to everyone. Everybody pays to public employee retirements. They pay nothing more than anyone else.
What happens when the employees retire? They get upwards of 80% of their income while a replacement it hired. Retirements not paid on the basis of personal contribution - just by tax dollars.
Collective bargaining for wages will still be allowes. The fight is because both sides know the real money is in the benefits. Near free healthcare for life. Free retirement. It's paid by everyone else.
What'sa wrong with having a person contribute to retirement? Just like everyone else? It's a higher caste receiving tribute from the peasants for life. I have a problem with that. So, too, do those who foot the bill.
My wife is hotter than your wife.