Pick a Side Wisconsin (Page 3)

Slackers.

Agreed.

So why is everybody arguing that they `only work nine months a year.' Funny how that argument comes and goes at the leisure of he or she doing the arguing.

3 (or 2 depending) months of not having to show up to work is a good bit different that working 40 verse 45 hours in a week.  When teachers and others compare the salaries they are comparing year for year.  Month for work verse month for work would be a better way to do this.

You're missing my point. I responded to:



I'd like to highlight this:

A salary is paid for the completion of job responsibilities no matter how long that job takes you.

You just make way too much sense. 

When it comes time for lay-offs, is it based on performance or longevity?

I would like my child to have the best teacher available, no matter how long he/she had been there? 

Please provide a link where Walker campaigned on busting the unions of public employees. 

My point was comparing a job that take 9 months to do and a job that takes 12 months to do is not a good comparison.  This is much different than comparing a job that takes 40 hours a week verse 45 hours a week.

I used to work for the County, I was a supervisor in the court clerk's office so I had about 40 people under me. I had been there one year when they promoted me to supervisor, there were others that had been there for 20+ years. I wasn't content to sit around and do nothing, management recognized that and made me a supervisor.

I made $15 an hour. There was a lady there who had been there for 25 years. She used to be in charge but was so crazy that she had "out of body experiences" where she would freak out on employees in her office yelling and screaming profanities. Then she would lay down on the floor and shake around. So once they decided it was best for her to not be in charge anymore as she was a gov't employee we couldn't fire her, because no one ever got fired, so we had to find something for her to do. So she sat at a desk and put stickers on file jackets from 8:00-5:00. For this she was paid over $20 an hour.

So me, someone who worked hard and tried to better the workplace for himself and everyone else was paid $15 an hour to supervise someone who did the job of a well trained monkey for over $20 an hour.

I even had the audacity to suggest that we not fill an open position because I was already struggling to find things for people to do and when employees are bored, they tended to cause trouble. I was promptly smacked down because if we didn't fill the position we wouldn't get the money for that position next year. I said we didn't need the position, they said yeah but we might at some point so hire someone to fill it so we don't lose it.

My experience in working for the government was there is a whole lot of waste and there are a lot of people sitting around doing nothing for great pay because they know they won't get canned. I would have much rather laid some people off and replaced them with people who actually did the job they were hired for.

I left that job because of such gross inefficiences and the fact that the only way to get ahead was to be in the seat for 30 years.

TriRSquared - I threw a jab at your post on the other thread, but you are now officially my hero.


-- just a salaried guy who has worked WAY over 40 hrs/wk for most of his career (often getting OTHER people's stuff done). 

I too spent way too many 60 hour weeks taking care of problems.  I believe any boss needs to actually do the job he is managing at some point to feel the pain.

I work in Government, and I will say layoffs hurt more than they help because the cuts are with a broadsword and not a scalpel.

For example, if an organization needs to cut 200 out of 2000 jobs, they are going to look for a whole section to fire, not just individuals, because that's easier.   The problem is sometimes these sections serve a function, and the other groups have to change to accomodate.  Sometimes this causes overtime, it always causes poor customer service.

Personally, I'd like to see outside auditors evaluate and then make a decision.  Right now layoffs are literally decided by who begs for their job the most or who has a relative in the department.

Also,  Layoffs should be quasi performance based.  We have several people who do nothing, get told they'll be fired if they act up in a 6 month period, behave, then act up again.  These people have 10-15 years in and will stay while the people working will go.  I'd hate to see someone go for having an odd write up, but the constant problems should not be protected.

Let me first state that I am NOT a union worker. I work for a municipality. Our benefits are state benefits. What happens to the state workers eventually trickles down to us. We have no fat to trim at our organization. We down sized our workfoce in 2002. Our raises are performances based. We operate as if we were a private business. We don't receive bonuses or stock options, unlike many of my friends in the private sector.I am salaried. I work a ton of hours in the summer. Anything over 40 hours I do not get compensated for. That doesn't bother me. it is my job and that is what is expected of me.What bothers me the most is that the increase in the cost of benefits is not prorated based on how much you make. I wil take a bigger hit than most of the people I work with. I am at the bottom of the salary scale. Trust me I can live on less. I will take home less. Thus, I will less to spend. it is a vicous cycle. There are a lot of people close to retirement. I wonder if the threat of losing their jobs will push them to retire??

How do you translate "balancing budget" to "Busting unions"?

Yep. You missed my point. Again.

There is ALWAYS fat to trim.  ALWAYS!  There is no such thing as 100% efficiency.  Sometimes people just misidentify what should (or can) be trimmed.

If you think this is about balancing the budget, you are blind. Its purpose is to neuter the unions.

They've agreed to increasing their contributions to health insurance and pensions, yet Walker still says they must give up collective bargaining rights. It's obvious.

Edited by feh 2011-02-23 8:29 AM

No, it's not necessary. They could simply show up at the bargaining table and say "We don't have money for this.  You either need to kick in more for your benefits, or X number of people will be laid off. You decide."

It's obviously not about that. Public unions are a major force against Walker's party, which is why he's trying to kill them. 

TriR^₂ and what makes you qualified to make a statement like that about the organization I work for??

Edited by TracyV 2011-02-23 8:55 AM

And do you think the unions will make the necessary cuts and concessions in the best interest of balancing the budget?

That kind of makes me giggle.

Every member of that union still has a vote.  He isn't somehow taking that away.  Or are you more concerned about the union power?  That's a pretty disturbing perspective if that is the case.

Let the union decide between cuts and layoffs. Either way, the state spends less. In the current situation, they've already agreed to the requests, so your giggling seems misplaced.