Dear Gov. D-bag of WI:

Champion

6056

Menomonee Falls, WI

Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI:

Fred Doucette - 2011-03-06 6:08 PM

burhed - I agree that there can modifications to some programs or debates. But where it the problem with a teacher in Milwaukee making $100k in total benefits? What total salary to you feel they should earn? When people throw out these numbers that seem like teachers make so much money I just wonder what they feel they should earn.

Considering the median individual income in the USA is approximately $50K, what do you feel teachers should earn when a state is dealing with a multi-billion dollar deficit? $100K is twice the median individual income, so is that reasonable?

And let's be honest. It's for 9 months work with more days off during the year than anyone gets in the private sector (Christmas Break, Spring Break, MLK Day, "Development" days)... 20% less days in all when compared with private sector occupations.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate what teachers do but that kind of compensation is completely out of whack with the private sector and what their employers (we, the taxpayers) can afford.

While it's hard to find and compare data for private school teachers in this state (because the aggregate data includes boarding school teachers who put in many more hours and teachers at exclusive private school teachers who are compensated at higher levels), I did find this stat: The median salary of all teachers (public and private, not including benefits) is $41, 682.

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/State=Wisconsin/Salary

That should show you how out-of-whack MPS teachers are compensated by comparison.

Note that this also does not include extra compensation teachers can gain by coaching/leading extracurricular activities.

Edited by scoobysdad 2011-03-06 8:47 PM

My Race Log

Member

169

Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI:

scoobysdad - 2011-03-06 8:23 PM

Fred Doucette - 2011-03-06 6:08 PM

burhed - I agree that there can modifications to some programs or debates. But where it the problem with a teacher in Milwaukee making $100k in total benefits? What total salary to you feel they should earn? When people throw out these numbers that seem like teachers make so much money I just wonder what they feel they should earn.

Considering the median individual income in the USA is approximately $50K, what do you feel teachers should earn when a state is dealing with a multi-billion dollar deficit? $100K is twice the median individual income, so is that reasonable?

And let's be honest. It's for 9 months work with more days off during the year than anyone gets in the private sector (Christmas Break, Spring Break, MLK Day, "Development" days)... 20% less days in all when compared with private sector occupations.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate what teachers do but that kind of compensation is completely out of whack with the private sector and what their employers (we, the taxpayers) can afford.

While it's hard to find and compare data for private school teachers in this state (because the aggregate data includes boarding school teachers who put in many more hours and teachers at exclusive private school teachers who are compensated at higher levels), I did find this stat: The median salary of all teachers (public and private, not including benefits) is $41, 682.

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/State=Wisconsin/Salary

That should show you how out-of-whack MPS teachers are compensated by comparison.

Note that this also does not include extra compensation teachers can gain by coaching/leading extracurricular activities.

Is there a cost of living compensation for MPS teachers? Do MPS teachers have more experience? Do MPS teachers have more higher degrees (masters)? I don't know the answers to these but just wondering if it's good apples to apples comparison.

Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI:

burhed - 2011-03-06 6:51 PM

scoobysdad - 2011-03-06 8:23 PM

Fred Doucette - 2011-03-06 6:08 PM

burhed - I agree that there can modifications to some programs or debates. But where it the problem with a teacher in Milwaukee making $100k in total benefits? What total salary to you feel they should earn? When people throw out these numbers that seem like teachers make so much money I just wonder what they feel they should earn.

Considering the median individual income in the USA is approximately $50K, what do you feel teachers should earn when a state is dealing with a multi-billion dollar deficit? $100K is twice the median individual income, so is that reasonable?

And let's be honest. It's for 9 months work with more days off during the year than anyone gets in the private sector (Christmas Break, Spring Break, MLK Day, "Development" days)... 20% less days in all when compared with private sector occupations. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate what teachers do but that kind of compensation is completely out of whack with the private sector and what their employers (we, the taxpayers) can afford. While it's hard to find and compare data for private school teachers in this state (because the aggregate data includes boarding school teachers who put in many more hours and teachers at exclusive private school teachers who are compensated at higher levels), I did find this stat: The median salary of all teachers (public and private, not including benefits) is $41, 682. http://www.payscale.com/research/US/State=Wisconsin/SalaryThat should show you how out-of-whack MPS teachers are compensated by comparison. Note that this also does not include extra compensation teachers can gain by coaching/leading extracurricular activities.

Is there a cost of living compensation for MPS teachers? Do MPS teachers have more experience? Do MPS teachers have more higher degrees (masters)? I don't know the answers to these but just wondering if it's good apples to apples comparison.

At the end of the day in our society it really boils down to supply and demand as to what the teachers get paid, unless we want to move to a different kind of societial structure.

Asking what someone should get paid is very subjective, what should someone who is good a dribbiling a basketball and putting it through a round metal ring 10 ft. off the ground get paid?

While I personally think that professional athletes are overapid and teachers are underpaid, as well as cops and firemen. At this point in time it appears the the supply and demand has reached a peak and is now on back slide due to the lack of funds, and changes, painful changes need to be made.

My Race Log

Champion

6056

Menomonee Falls, WI

Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI:

burhed - 2011-03-06 8:51 PM

scoobysdad - 2011-03-06 8:23 PM

Fred Doucette - 2011-03-06 6:08 PM

burhed - I agree that there can modifications to some programs or debates. But where it the problem with a teacher in Milwaukee making $100k in total benefits? What total salary to you feel they should earn? When people throw out these numbers that seem like teachers make so much money I just wonder what they feel they should earn.

Considering the median individual income in the USA is approximately $50K, what do you feel teachers should earn when a state is dealing with a multi-billion dollar deficit? $100K is twice the median individual income, so is that reasonable?

And let's be honest. It's for 9 months work with more days off during the year than anyone gets in the private sector (Christmas Break, Spring Break, MLK Day, "Development" days)... 20% less days in all when compared with private sector occupations.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate what teachers do but that kind of compensation is completely out of whack with the private sector and what their employers (we, the taxpayers) can afford.

While it's hard to find and compare data for private school teachers in this state (because the aggregate data includes boarding school teachers who put in many more hours and teachers at exclusive private school teachers who are compensated at higher levels), I did find this stat: The median salary of all teachers (public and private, not including benefits) is $41, 682.

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/State=Wisconsin/Salary

That should show you how out-of-whack MPS teachers are compensated by comparison.

Note that this also does not include extra compensation teachers can gain by coaching/leading extracurricular activities.

Is there a cost of living compensation for MPS teachers? Do MPS teachers have more experience? Do MPS teachers have more higher degrees (masters)? I don't know the answers to these but just wondering if it's good apples to apples comparison.

I don't believe any of these variables differs significantly from teachers in any other part of the state. It's probably true that MPS teachers must deal many more "difficult" students and tougher working conditions, along with a residency requirement (which would be ended by Gov. Walker's bill), but I still don't think those factors are any basis for MPS teachers making $100K in compensation and far more than their colleagues in other districts.

Of course, one reason that taxpayers are forced to pay, on average, nearly $20K annually for healthcare for each teacher's family is the fact that their CBA mandates their plan is purchased from a provider owned by their union. How is that not a complete conflict of interest? The same exact plan and benefits could be purchased on the open market from competitors for $6K less!

My Race Log

Elite

2733

Venture Industries,

Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI:

One of the things to think about when we are talking budget cuts is the degree of services, by that I mean will cutting budgets afford the same level of services as previous, and if not what level of service degredation is the public willing to accept for saving money? At some point budget cuts will require less services. You can't do the same, or more in some circumstances, with less.

In Fla. the Governor has called for cutting the judicial budget by $39 million dollars. This equates to the loss of 574 full time positions across the state. The result of these losses is that hearing officers, para-legals, and magistrate positions will be cut.

However, during this time there has been an increase in both civil and criminal cases state wide. Thus, there is a decrease in man power but an increase in work load.

Because many of the functions of hearing officers, and magistrates are not going away, these functions and case loads must be passed onto judges. Thus, because of this the Supreme Court has called for the creation of 80 new judicial positions state wide. This is mainly due to the elimination of positions that would have previously done the work that will now, out of necessity, be passed onto the judges.

The Governors budget will also call for cutting 137 psoitions from the State Attorney's Offices (prosecutors) In one circuit alone the Governors proposed budget cuts would require the elimination of 19 positions in the Public Defenders Office.

I bring up the judicial aspect and the prosecutors and public defenders for two reasons. (1) I'm familiar with the system and (2) it's a public safety issue.

So, my question is, as citizens where do you balance financial savings versus reduction of services?

From experience I can say that eventually with the continued loss of personnel the efficacy of the system will reak down. Prosecutors case loads will increase, increase in case loads means that prosecutors will be able to spend less time per case. The end result is eventually, something will slip through the system. The ball will get dropped on some case.

My Race Log

Iron Donkey

38643

, Wisconsin

Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI:

Brock Samson - 2011-03-07 9:50 AM One of the things to think about when we are talking budget cuts is the degree of services, by that I mean will cutting budgets afford the same level of services as previous, and if not what level of service degredation is the public willing to accept for saving money? At some point budget cuts will require less services. You can't do the same, or more in some circumstances, with less.

In Fla. the Governor has called for cutting the judicial budget by $39 million dollars. This equates to the loss of 574 full time positions across the state. The result of these losses is that hearing officers, para-legals, and magistrate positions will be cut.

However, during this time there has been an increase in both civil and criminal cases state wide. Thus, there is a decrease in man power but an increase in work load.

Because many of the functions of hearing officers, and magistrates are not going away, these functions and case loads must be passed onto judges. Thus, because of this the Supreme Court has called for the creation of 80 new judicial positions state wide. This is mainly due to the elimination of positions that would have previously done the work that will now, out of necessity, be passed onto the judges.

The Governors budget will also call for cutting 137 psoitions from the State Attorney's Offices (prosecutors) In one circuit alone the Governors proposed budget cuts would require the elimination of 19 positions in the Public Defenders Office.

I bring up the judicial aspect and the prosecutors and public defenders for two reasons. (1) I'm familiar with the system and (2) it's a public safety issue.

So, my question is, as citizens where do you balance financial savings versus reduction of services?

From experience I can say that eventually with the continued loss of personnel the efficacy of the system will reak down. Prosecutors case loads will increase, increase in case loads means that prosecutors will be able to spend less time per case. The end result is eventually, something will slip through the system. The ball will get dropped on some case.

But, hey, we trimmed the budget.

My Race Log

Extreme Veteran

312

Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI:

crusevegas - 2011-03-05 11:12 AM

UWMadTri - 2011-03-05 8:25 AM

scoobysdad - 2011-03-05 7:42 AMThat's odd. I had no idea Defense played such a huge role in a STATE BUDGET.

Did you not read cervelo's post?

Why no arrow to HHS? I mean the Federal Govts. MAIN duty is defense isn't it? Where in the US constitution does it say the Federal Govt specifically needs to be involved in HHS matters or education?

EXACTLY! People are clueless - the FEDERAL government is SUPPOSE to have as one of its main priorities national defense. HHS & Education were meant to be LOCAL issues.

This is where the government has overstepped (and bought votes) forever - lets keep giving people handouts so they like politician X.

Veteran

478

Chicago Area

Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI:

I actually have no problem with a good teacher making 100K a year, but I stress the good part. Because of Unions a crappy teacher can sit behind a desk for 20 years, barely have students get by and have the same benefits and salary of that of a teacher that spends the extra time on making sure their students get it.

I have to imagine that these good teachers see the crappy teachers and I wonder why they would want to help save their jobs. But maybe its the good teachers that didn't call in sick to take a trip to Madison and were at their desks trying to help kids graduate.

My Race Log

Champion

6056

Menomonee Falls, WI

Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI:

Brock Samson - 2011-03-07 9:50 AM

One of the things to think about when we are talking budget cuts is the degree of services, by that I mean will cutting budgets afford the same level of services as previous, and if not what level of service degredation is the public willing to accept for saving money? At some point budget cuts will require less services. You can't do the same, or more in some circumstances, with less.

In Fla. the Governor has called for cutting the judicial budget by $39 million dollars. This equates to the loss of 574 full time positions across the state. The result of these losses is that hearing officers, para-legals, and magistrate positions will be cut.

However, during this time there has been an increase in both civil and criminal cases state wide. Thus, there is a decrease in man power but an increase in work load.

Because many of the functions of hearing officers, and magistrates are not going away, these functions and case loads must be passed onto judges. Thus, because of this the Supreme Court has called for the creation of 80 new judicial positions state wide. This is mainly due to the elimination of positions that would have previously done the work that will now, out of necessity, be passed onto the judges.

The Governors budget will also call for cutting 137 psoitions from the State Attorney's Offices (prosecutors) In one circuit alone the Governors proposed budget cuts would require the elimination of 19 positions in the Public Defenders Office.

I bring up the judicial aspect and the prosecutors and public defenders for two reasons. (1) I'm familiar with the system and (2) it's a public safety issue.

So, my question is, as citizens where do you balance financial savings versus reduction of services?

From experience I can say that eventually with the continued loss of personnel the efficacy of the system will reak down. Prosecutors case loads will increase, increase in case loads means that prosecutors will be able to spend less time per case. The end result is eventually, something will slip through the system. The ball will get dropped on some case.

Interesting questions and I just happened to come across a couple of articles/polls that apply to these questions here in Wisconsin.

The first article applies to the impact of Gov. Walker's budget and budget fix (in tandem) on the level of education we can provide around the State. Of course, the teachers, Teacher's Unions and related special interest groups constitute the bulk of protesters screaming bloody murder about what Walker and the "evil" Republicans budget cuts will do to education in the State.

However, a Business Director for a major state school district who has actually looked at the numbers believes it's a "wash".

http://www.thenorthwestern.com/article/20110306/OSH0105/110306001/-...

In addition, Wisconsinites are in favor of having a lower level of services in exchange for lower taxes.

http://www.wpri.org/polls/March2011/poll0311.html

From the poll:
Taxes: Slightly more than half of respondents (52 percent) said they would rather pay lower taxes and get fewer services than pay higher taxes and get more services while 42 percent said the opposite.

My Race Log

Extreme Veteran

312

Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI:

scoobysdad - 2011-03-06 9:08 AM Terrific. Now we have Michael Moore in the Capitol basically saying that private wealth is a national asset that needs to be redistributed. Funny, he seems to have left his own checkbook back in his luxury apartment overlooking Central Park in NYC. http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/117463643.html

And Michael Moore refused to use Union workers on one of his films. Another Hollywood Hypocrite!

http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/publius-forum/2011/03/michael-moore-big-fat-union-hypocrite.html

Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI:

RedShark - 2011-03-07 10:03 AM

scoobysdad - 2011-03-06 9:08 AM Terrific. Now we have Michael Moore in the Capitol basically saying that private wealth is a national asset that needs to be redistributed. Funny, he seems to have left his own checkbook back in his luxury apartment overlooking Central Park in NYC. http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/117463643.html

And Michael Moore refused to use Union workers on one of his films. Another Hollywood Hypocrite!

http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/publius-forum/2011/03/michael-moore-big-fat-union-hypocrite.html

Come on now RS, you know that's different,,,, it's his own money. shhhhhhhhhhhhhh

My Race Log

Elite

2733

Venture Industries,

Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI:

scoobysdad - 2011-03-07 12:44 PM

Brock Samson - 2011-03-07 9:50 AM One of the things to think about when we are talking budget cuts is the degree of services, by that I mean will cutting budgets afford the same level of services as previous, and if not what level of service degredation is the public willing to accept for saving money? At some point budget cuts will require less services. You can't do the same, or more in some circumstances, with less.

In Fla. the Governor has called for cutting the judicial budget by $39 million dollars. This equates to the loss of 574 full time positions across the state. The result of these losses is that hearing officers, para-legals, and magistrate positions will be cut.

However, during this time there has been an increase in both civil and criminal cases state wide. Thus, there is a decrease in man power but an increase in work load.

Because many of the functions of hearing officers, and magistrates are not going away, these functions and case loads must be passed onto judges. Thus, because of this the Supreme Court has called for the creation of 80 new judicial positions state wide. This is mainly due to the elimination of positions that would have previously done the work that will now, out of necessity, be passed onto the judges.

The Governors budget will also call for cutting 137 psoitions from the State Attorney's Offices (prosecutors) In one circuit alone the Governors proposed budget cuts would require the elimination of 19 positions in the Public Defenders Office.

I bring up the judicial aspect and the prosecutors and public defenders for two reasons. (1) I'm familiar with the system and (2) it's a public safety issue.

So, my question is, as citizens where do you balance financial savings versus reduction of services?

From experience I can say that eventually with the continued loss of personnel the efficacy of the system will reak down. Prosecutors case loads will increase, increase in case loads means that prosecutors will be able to spend less time per case. The end result is eventually, something will slip through the system. The ball will get dropped on some case.

Interesting questions and I just happened to come across a couple of articles/polls that apply to these questions here in Wisconsin. The first article applies to the impact of Gov. Walker's budget and budget fix (in tandem) on the level of education we can provide around the State. Of course, the teachers, Teacher's Unions and related special interest groups constitute the bulk of protesters screaming bloody murder about what Walker and the "evil" Republicans budget cuts will do to education in the State. However, a Business Director for a major state school district who has actually looked at the numbers believes it's a "wash". http://www.thenorthwestern.com/article/20110306/OSH0105/110306001/-... In addition, Wisconsinites are in favor of having a lower level of services in exchange for lower taxes. http://www.wpri.org/polls/March2011/poll0311.htmlFrom the poll: Taxes: Slightly more than half of respondents (52 percent) said they would rather pay lower taxes and get fewer services than pay higher taxes and get more services while 42 percent said the opposite.

I have absolutely no problem with this mind set. If people are willing to accept less services then cuts are justified and warranted.

The people in this argument that frustrate me are those that demand the exact same services, or in some case, even more services for less money.

My Race Log

Champion

18680

Lost in the Luminiferous Aether

Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI:

Brock Samson - 2011-03-07 1:06 PM

scoobysdad - 2011-03-07 12:44 PM

Brock Samson - 2011-03-07 9:50 AM One of the things to think about when we are talking budget cuts is the degree of services, by that I mean will cutting budgets afford the same level of services as previous, and if not what level of service degredation is the public willing to accept for saving money? At some point budget cuts will require less services. You can't do the same, or more in some circumstances, with less.

In Fla. the Governor has called for cutting the judicial budget by $39 million dollars. This equates to the loss of 574 full time positions across the state. The result of these losses is that hearing officers, para-legals, and magistrate positions will be cut.

However, during this time there has been an increase in both civil and criminal cases state wide. Thus, there is a decrease in man power but an increase in work load.

Because many of the functions of hearing officers, and magistrates are not going away, these functions and case loads must be passed onto judges. Thus, because of this the Supreme Court has called for the creation of 80 new judicial positions state wide. This is mainly due to the elimination of positions that would have previously done the work that will now, out of necessity, be passed onto the judges.

The Governors budget will also call for cutting 137 psoitions from the State Attorney's Offices (prosecutors) In one circuit alone the Governors proposed budget cuts would require the elimination of 19 positions in the Public Defenders Office.

I bring up the judicial aspect and the prosecutors and public defenders for two reasons. (1) I'm familiar with the system and (2) it's a public safety issue.

So, my question is, as citizens where do you balance financial savings versus reduction of services?

From experience I can say that eventually with the continued loss of personnel the efficacy of the system will reak down. Prosecutors case loads will increase, increase in case loads means that prosecutors will be able to spend less time per case. The end result is eventually, something will slip through the system. The ball will get dropped on some case.

Interesting questions and I just happened to come across a couple of articles/polls that apply to these questions here in Wisconsin. The first article applies to the impact of Gov. Walker's budget and budget fix (in tandem) on the level of education we can provide around the State. Of course, the teachers, Teacher's Unions and related special interest groups constitute the bulk of protesters screaming bloody murder about what Walker and the "evil" Republicans budget cuts will do to education in the State. However, a Business Director for a major state school district who has actually looked at the numbers believes it's a "wash". http://www.thenorthwestern.com/article/20110306/OSH0105/110306001/-... In addition, Wisconsinites are in favor of having a lower level of services in exchange for lower taxes. http://www.wpri.org/polls/March2011/poll0311.htmlFrom the poll: Taxes: Slightly more than half of respondents (52 percent) said they would rather pay lower taxes and get fewer services than pay higher taxes and get more services while 42 percent said the opposite.

I have absolutely no problem with this mind set. If people are willing to accept less services then cuts are justified and warranted.

The people in this argument that frustrate me are those that demand the exact same services, or in some case, even more services for less money.

You mean like what the private sector has had to do for the last few years?

Elite

2733

Venture Industries,

Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI:

trinnas - 2011-03-07 1:11 PM

Brock Samson - 2011-03-07 1:06 PM

scoobysdad - 2011-03-07 12:44 PM

Brock Samson - 2011-03-07 9:50 AM One of the things to think about when we are talking budget cuts is the degree of services, by that I mean will cutting budgets afford the same level of services as previous, and if not what level of service degredation is the public willing to accept for saving money? At some point budget cuts will require less services. You can't do the same, or more in some circumstances, with less.

In Fla. the Governor has called for cutting the judicial budget by $39 million dollars. This equates to the loss of 574 full time positions across the state. The result of these losses is that hearing officers, para-legals, and magistrate positions will be cut.

However, during this time there has been an increase in both civil and criminal cases state wide. Thus, there is a decrease in man power but an increase in work load.

Because many of the functions of hearing officers, and magistrates are not going away, these functions and case loads must be passed onto judges. Thus, because of this the Supreme Court has called for the creation of 80 new judicial positions state wide. This is mainly due to the elimination of positions that would have previously done the work that will now, out of necessity, be passed onto the judges.

The Governors budget will also call for cutting 137 psoitions from the State Attorney's Offices (prosecutors) In one circuit alone the Governors proposed budget cuts would require the elimination of 19 positions in the Public Defenders Office.

I bring up the judicial aspect and the prosecutors and public defenders for two reasons. (1) I'm familiar with the system and (2) it's a public safety issue.

So, my question is, as citizens where do you balance financial savings versus reduction of services?

From experience I can say that eventually with the continued loss of personnel the efficacy of the system will reak down. Prosecutors case loads will increase, increase in case loads means that prosecutors will be able to spend less time per case. The end result is eventually, something will slip through the system. The ball will get dropped on some case.

Interesting questions and I just happened to come across a couple of articles/polls that apply to these questions here in Wisconsin. The first article applies to the impact of Gov. Walker's budget and budget fix (in tandem) on the level of education we can provide around the State. Of course, the teachers, Teacher's Unions and related special interest groups constitute the bulk of protesters screaming bloody murder about what Walker and the "evil" Republicans budget cuts will do to education in the State. However, a Business Director for a major state school district who has actually looked at the numbers believes it's a "wash". http://www.thenorthwestern.com/article/20110306/OSH0105/110306001/-... In addition, Wisconsinites are in favor of having a lower level of services in exchange for lower taxes. http://www.wpri.org/polls/March2011/poll0311.htmlFrom the poll: Taxes: Slightly more than half of respondents (52 percent) said they would rather pay lower taxes and get fewer services than pay higher taxes and get more services while 42 percent said the opposite.

I have absolutely no problem with this mind set. If people are willing to accept less services then cuts are justified and warranted.

The people in this argument that frustrate me are those that demand the exact same services, or in some case, even more services for less money.

You mean like what the private sector has had to do for the last few years?

Nope not at all. I'm not sure there is any "private sector" equivalent for prosecutors, police, and fire. That's what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about the services to the public that public employees engage in...you know like putting out your house fires, arresting the people that committ crimes against you private sector employees, or prosecuting those criminals to ensure you private sector employees remain safe.

I'm talking about cutting their budget, which as I've shown is going to necessarily result in diminished services. My question was a simple one, are you willing to give up services to save money.

When police, public defenders, teachers, magistrates, prosecutors, para-legals get laid off as a result of budget cuts, there must necessarily be a deminuation of services.

My Race Log

Champion

7347

SRQ, FL

Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI:

Brock Samson - 2011-03-07 1:23 PM

When police, public defenders, teachers, magistrates, prosecutors, para-legals get laid off as a result of budget cuts, there must necessarily be a deminuation of services.

Why do people always assume there is only one side to an equation? There are two. So either what you have suggested happens or...

...we become more efficient. When companies lay people off they often find that they really did not need some of them when the business turns around again. That's because they become lean and more efficient and do more with the same amount of resources.

It is possible. Otherwise if you take your example to the extreme when populations are much much larger we end up with more and more and more public servants and can never go back and reduce this number. I think this is a false assumption.

Edited by TriRSquared 2011-03-07 12:31 PM

My Race Log

Champion

18680

Lost in the Luminiferous Aether

Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI:

Brock Samson - 2011-03-07 1:23 PM

trinnas - 2011-03-07 1:11 PM

Brock Samson - 2011-03-07 1:06 PM

scoobysdad - 2011-03-07 12:44 PM

Brock Samson - 2011-03-07 9:50 AM One of the things to think about when we are talking budget cuts is the degree of services, by that I mean will cutting budgets afford the same level of services as previous, and if not what level of service degredation is the public willing to accept for saving money? At some point budget cuts will require less services. You can't do the same, or more in some circumstances, with less.

In Fla. the Governor has called for cutting the judicial budget by $39 million dollars. This equates to the loss of 574 full time positions across the state. The result of these losses is that hearing officers, para-legals, and magistrate positions will be cut.

However, during this time there has been an increase in both civil and criminal cases state wide. Thus, there is a decrease in man power but an increase in work load.

Because many of the functions of hearing officers, and magistrates are not going away, these functions and case loads must be passed onto judges. Thus, because of this the Supreme Court has called for the creation of 80 new judicial positions state wide. This is mainly due to the elimination of positions that would have previously done the work that will now, out of necessity, be passed onto the judges.

The Governors budget will also call for cutting 137 psoitions from the State Attorney's Offices (prosecutors) In one circuit alone the Governors proposed budget cuts would require the elimination of 19 positions in the Public Defenders Office.

I bring up the judicial aspect and the prosecutors and public defenders for two reasons. (1) I'm familiar with the system and (2) it's a public safety issue.

So, my question is, as citizens where do you balance financial savings versus reduction of services?

From experience I can say that eventually with the continued loss of personnel the efficacy of the system will reak down. Prosecutors case loads will increase, increase in case loads means that prosecutors will be able to spend less time per case. The end result is eventually, something will slip through the system. The ball will get dropped on some case.

Interesting questions and I just happened to come across a couple of articles/polls that apply to these questions here in Wisconsin. The first article applies to the impact of Gov. Walker's budget and budget fix (in tandem) on the level of education we can provide around the State. Of course, the teachers, Teacher's Unions and related special interest groups constitute the bulk of protesters screaming bloody murder about what Walker and the "evil" Republicans budget cuts will do to education in the State. However, a Business Director for a major state school district who has actually looked at the numbers believes it's a "wash". http://www.thenorthwestern.com/article/20110306/OSH0105/110306001/-... In addition, Wisconsinites are in favor of having a lower level of services in exchange for lower taxes. http://www.wpri.org/polls/March2011/poll0311.htmlFrom the poll: Taxes: Slightly more than half of respondents (52 percent) said they would rather pay lower taxes and get fewer services than pay higher taxes and get more services while 42 percent said the opposite.

I have absolutely no problem with this mind set. If people are willing to accept less services then cuts are justified and warranted.

The people in this argument that frustrate me are those that demand the exact same services, or in some case, even more services for less money.

You mean like what the private sector has had to do for the last few years?

Nope not at all. I'm not sure there is any "private sector" equivalent for prosecutors, police, and fire. That's what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about the services to the public that public employees engage in...you know like putting out your house fires, arresting the people that committ crimes against you private sector employees, or prosecuting those criminals to ensure you private sector employees remain safe.

I'm talking about cutting their budget, which as I've shown is going to necessarily result in diminished services. My question was a simple one, are you willing to give up services to save money.

When police, public defenders, teachers, magistrates, prosecutors, para-legals get laid off as a result of budget cuts, there must necessarily be a deminuation of services.

So because the jobs aren't identical they cannot be done more efficiently? That is a specious argument. What do you think has happened in the private sector. Budgets were cut and staff was expected to do more with less. Why should governments workers be immune to this pressure? You see in the private sector when people get laid off the ones that are left get to work harder to keep their jobs. But I guess that doesn't happen in the public sector where you have a job for life and you will never go out of business.

Champion

6056

Menomonee Falls, WI

Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI:

Brock Samson - 2011-03-07 12:23 PM

trinnas - 2011-03-07 1:11 PM

Brock Samson - 2011-03-07 1:06 PM

scoobysdad - 2011-03-07 12:44 PM

Brock Samson - 2011-03-07 9:50 AM One of the things to think about when we are talking budget cuts is the degree of services, by that I mean will cutting budgets afford the same level of services as previous, and if not what level of service degredation is the public willing to accept for saving money? At some point budget cuts will require less services. You can't do the same, or more in some circumstances, with less.

In Fla. the Governor has called for cutting the judicial budget by $39 million dollars. This equates to the loss of 574 full time positions across the state. The result of these losses is that hearing officers, para-legals, and magistrate positions will be cut.

However, during this time there has been an increase in both civil and criminal cases state wide. Thus, there is a decrease in man power but an increase in work load.

Because many of the functions of hearing officers, and magistrates are not going away, these functions and case loads must be passed onto judges. Thus, because of this the Supreme Court has called for the creation of 80 new judicial positions state wide. This is mainly due to the elimination of positions that would have previously done the work that will now, out of necessity, be passed onto the judges.

The Governors budget will also call for cutting 137 psoitions from the State Attorney's Offices (prosecutors) In one circuit alone the Governors proposed budget cuts would require the elimination of 19 positions in the Public Defenders Office.

I bring up the judicial aspect and the prosecutors and public defenders for two reasons. (1) I'm familiar with the system and (2) it's a public safety issue.

So, my question is, as citizens where do you balance financial savings versus reduction of services?

From experience I can say that eventually with the continued loss of personnel the efficacy of the system will reak down. Prosecutors case loads will increase, increase in case loads means that prosecutors will be able to spend less time per case. The end result is eventually, something will slip through the system. The ball will get dropped on some case.

Interesting questions and I just happened to come across a couple of articles/polls that apply to these questions here in Wisconsin. The first article applies to the impact of Gov. Walker's budget and budget fix (in tandem) on the level of education we can provide around the State. Of course, the teachers, Teacher's Unions and related special interest groups constitute the bulk of protesters screaming bloody murder about what Walker and the "evil" Republicans budget cuts will do to education in the State. However, a Business Director for a major state school district who has actually looked at the numbers believes it's a "wash". http://www.thenorthwestern.com/article/20110306/OSH0105/110306001/-... In addition, Wisconsinites are in favor of having a lower level of services in exchange for lower taxes. http://www.wpri.org/polls/March2011/poll0311.htmlFrom the poll: Taxes: Slightly more than half of respondents (52 percent) said they would rather pay lower taxes and get fewer services than pay higher taxes and get more services while 42 percent said the opposite.

I have absolutely no problem with this mind set. If people are willing to accept less services then cuts are justified and warranted.

The people in this argument that frustrate me are those that demand the exact same services, or in some case, even more services for less money.

You mean like what the private sector has had to do for the last few years?

Nope not at all. I'm not sure there is any "private sector" equivalent for prosecutors, police, and fire. That's what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about the services to the public that public employees engage in...you know like putting out your house fires, arresting the people that committ crimes against you private sector employees, or prosecuting those criminals to ensure you private sector employees remain safe.

I'm talking about cutting their budget, which as I've shown is going to necessarily result in diminished services. My question was a simple one, are you willing to give up services to save money.

When police, public defenders, teachers, magistrates, prosecutors, para-legals get laid off as a result of budget cuts, there must necessarily be a deminuation of services.

Here's the thing. You don't have to cut services or raise taxes if the public employee unions would simply contribute a little (less than half what FEDERAL employees contribute) to their healthcare and pensions and eliminate the DEFINED NON-WAGE BENEFITS in the CBA's. That's what Walker is proposing... holding the line of government spending with NO LAYOFFS.

All he is asking-- all that the taxpayers are asking-- is for public employees to chip in a little bit to their own health and retirement and give up some their restrictive and onerous rules and benefits mandated in their CBA's. But the unions would rather protect their Old Guard members and throw their younger, less "tenured" union members under the bus and be laid off, then blame the "heartless Republicans".

My Race Log

Master

4101

Denver

Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI:

TriRSquared - 2011-03-07 11:30 AM

Brock Samson - 2011-03-07 1:23 PM

When police, public defenders, teachers, magistrates, prosecutors, para-legals get laid off as a result of budget cuts, there must necessarily be a deminuation of services.

Why do people always assume there is only one side to an equation? There are two. So either what you have suggested happens or...

...we become more efficient. When companies lay people off they often find that they really did not need some of them when the business turns around again. That's because they become lean and more efficient and do more with the same amount of resources.

It is possible. Otherwise if you take your example to the extreme when populations are much much larger we end up with more and more and more public servants and can never go back and reduce this number. I think this is a false assumption.

How do you know the public sector isn't becoming more efficient as well? I have a friend who works for the state here and she's mentioned that in addition to the 4 furlough days they had to take last year, budgets are being slashed everywhere and they have a number of positions that have gone unfilled as people leave - the same as is happening in the private sector - doing more with the same amount of resources.

My Race Log

Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI:

TriRSquared - 2011-03-07 10:30 AM

Brock Samson - 2011-03-07 1:23 PM

When police, public defenders, teachers, magistrates, prosecutors, para-legals get laid off as a result of budget cuts, there must necessarily be a deminuation of services.

Why do people always assume there is only one side to an equation? There are two. So either what you have suggested happens or...

...we become more efficient. When companies lay people off they often find that they really did not need some of them when the business turns around again. That's because they become lean and more efficient and do more with the same amount of resources.

It is possible. Otherwise if you take your example to the extreme when populations are much much larger we end up with more and more and more public servants and can never go back and reduce this number. I think this is a false assumption.

Well actually based on the way things are currently with the Unions and their stanglehold at the negoating table I think Brock may be correct. With unions having such ineffecient rules, where the resources cannot be used as efficiently as possible. An example would be where a light bulb has burnt out and work has to stop until the proper light bulb changing person can be found to come and change the lightbulb so that work can continue.

This if I understand what Gov. Walker is trying to do with the CBA is to have the flexibility for the different agencies to use their resources more efficiently and more cost effectively than what they are able to now due to the Union rules.

I think another beneffit when walker gets this bill passed will be that they will be able to keep and reward the good workers and have the ability to disipline the slackers.

My Race Log

Elite

2733

Venture Industries,

Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI:

crusevegas - 2011-03-07 1:46 PM

TriRSquared - 2011-03-07 10:30 AM

Brock Samson - 2011-03-07 1:23 PM

When police, public defenders, teachers, magistrates, prosecutors, para-legals get laid off as a result of budget cuts, there must necessarily be a deminuation of services.

Why do people always assume there is only one side to an equation? There are two. So either what you have suggested happens or...

...we become more efficient. When companies lay people off they often find that they really did not need some of them when the business turns around again. That's because they become lean and more efficient and do more with the same amount of resources.

It is possible. Otherwise if you take your example to the extreme when populations are much much larger we end up with more and more and more public servants and can never go back and reduce this number. I think this is a false assumption.

Well actually based on the way things are currently with the Unions and their stanglehold at the negoating table I think Brock may be correct. With unions having such ineffecient rules, where the resources cannot be used as efficiently as possible. An example would be where a light bulb has burnt out and work has to stop until the proper light bulb changing person can be found to come and change the lightbulb so that work can continue.

This if I understand what Gov. Walker is trying to do with the CBA is to have the flexibility for the different agencies to use their resources more efficiently and more cost effectively than what they are able to now due to the Union rules.

I think another beneffit when walker gets this bill passed will be that they will be able to keep and reward the good workers and have the ability to disipline the slackers.

My comments were specific to Florida, and we don't have unions in Florida, we're a right to work state.

The union/inefficiency/efficiency argument I don't think holds much weight in the services I was talking about. Let's say a county prosecutors office has 2800 felony cases a year. They have 10 felony prosecutors. That's 280 cases per year per attorney. If you eliminate a position (which is one of the things that may happen as a result of the Governors budget) the prosecutors are now going to handle 311 cases per year per attorney. (This 311 cases per year is actually not an accurate number because this assumes that cases are resolved in the criminal system in one year. Which isn't the case. Attorney's will have cases hanging on for several years depending on the type of case and charges, therefore in addition to the 311 cases for year 2011 you may also have 10-20 cases hanging on from 2010, and 5 from 2009. This also doesn't include violations of probation which aren't counted as new cases and add about another 30% to a prosecutors office case load yearly.)

I don't see the efficiency argument impact or the argument that unions make public sector less efficient. Especially in light of the fact that there are no unions in this area, and it's a matter of simple math.

The statement about unions and efficiency is one of the problems I'm having with this debate. The proscription of someones perception of reality to the situation when that perception may not be accurate.

What will be a result of fewer resources in this area will be, that because the system can't handle anymore inmates in the jails and prison, you will start having early release and parole. Additionally, individuals that might have been incarcerated previously will not be now. Additionally, more "intervention" services will happen, pre-trial diversion services. These services will be ineffectual because the first thing that will be cut from the budgets will be monies to these services. So more people will go into the pre-trial intervention programs but the programs themselves will have less money, and less staff.

Ultimately, the public will become outraged that some burglar got diversion instead of going to prison.

My Race Log

Expert

3126

Boise, ID

Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI:

Brock Samson - 2011-03-07 12:05 PM

crusevegas - 2011-03-07 1:46 PM

TriRSquared - 2011-03-07 10:30 AM

Brock Samson - 2011-03-07 1:23 PM

When police, public defenders, teachers, magistrates, prosecutors, para-legals get laid off as a result of budget cuts, there must necessarily be a deminuation of services.

Why do people always assume there is only one side to an equation? There are two. So either what you have suggested happens or...

...we become more efficient. When companies lay people off they often find that they really did not need some of them when the business turns around again. That's because they become lean and more efficient and do more with the same amount of resources.

It is possible. Otherwise if you take your example to the extreme when populations are much much larger we end up with more and more and more public servants and can never go back and reduce this number. I think this is a false assumption.

Well actually based on the way things are currently with the Unions and their stanglehold at the negoating table I think Brock may be correct. With unions having such ineffecient rules, where the resources cannot be used as efficiently as possible. An example would be where a light bulb has burnt out and work has to stop until the proper light bulb changing person can be found to come and change the lightbulb so that work can continue.

This if I understand what Gov. Walker is trying to do with the CBA is to have the flexibility for the different agencies to use their resources more efficiently and more cost effectively than what they are able to now due to the Union rules.

I think another beneffit when walker gets this bill passed will be that they will be able to keep and reward the good workers and have the ability to disipline the slackers.

My comments were specific to Florida, and we don't have unions in Florida, we're a right to work state.

The union/inefficiency/efficiency argument I don't think holds much weight in the services I was talking about. Let's say a county prosecutors office has 2800 felony cases a year. They have 10 felony prosecutors. That's 280 cases per year per attorney. If you eliminate a position (which is one of the things that may happen as a result of the Governors budget) the prosecutors are now going to handle 311 cases per year per attorney. (This 311 cases per year is actually not an accurate number because this assumes that cases are resolved in the criminal system in one year. Which isn't the case. Attorney's will have cases hanging on for several years depending on the type of case and charges, therefore in addition to the 311 cases for year 2011 you may also have 10-20 cases hanging on from 2010, and 5 from 2009. This also doesn't include violations of probation which aren't counted as new cases and add about another 30% to a prosecutors office case load yearly.)

I don't see the efficiency argument impact or the argument that unions make public sector less efficient. Especially in light of the fact that there are no unions in this area, and it's a matter of simple math.

The statement about unions and efficiency is one of the problems I'm having with this debate. The proscription of someones perception of reality to the situation when that perception may not be accurate.

What will be a result of fewer resources in this area will be, that because the system can't handle anymore inmates in the jails and prison, you will start having early release and parole. Additionally, individuals that might have been incarcerated previously will not be now. Additionally, more "intervention" services will happen, pre-trial diversion services. These services will be ineffectual because the first thing that will be cut from the budgets will be monies to these services. So more people will go into the pre-trial intervention programs but the programs themselves will have less money, and less staff.

Ultimately, the public will become outraged that some burglar got diversion instead of going to prison.

I definitely see your point but I think there is another angle to consider.

Yes your example of felony cases handled by a prosecutor is valid. However I don't see any well managed entity cutting people it cannot afford to lose. So I don't think the prosecutor himself would get cut. Perhaps his paralegal would get cut and another paralegal would be assigned to two attorneys instead of just one. Perhaps the front desk of the prosecutor's office will have one worker rather than two, etc.

I think there are usually places where things can be trimmed without going to such dire straights as to cut the actual prosecutor. I know in the clerk's office I supervised we had employees we could afford to lose and employees we really wouldn't want to lose. I would definitely cut the "floaters" that were nice to have in a pinch and assign more work to my good workers than cut say a judge's clerk who is already earning their keep very well.

Obviously I can't speak to every gov't entity, but I do think there are probably ways to cut a budget without affecting services to the degree of increasing a prosecutor's caseload by 20%.

And where the unions are invloved, from what I have read here there is definitely a lot of waste when they need someone for 1 hour but have to pay them for 4. Or paying teachers a full year salary to work 30 days a year after retirement. Things like that can definitely be cut before cutting people's jobs, which is why I think it is important that Walker get rid of the CBA's.

My Race Log

Pro

3906

Libertyville, IL

Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI:

Brock Samson - 2011-03-07 1:05 PM

crusevegas - 2011-03-07 1:46 PM

TriRSquared - 2011-03-07 10:30 AM

Brock Samson - 2011-03-07 1:23 PM

When police, public defenders, teachers, magistrates, prosecutors, para-legals get laid off as a result of budget cuts, there must necessarily be a deminuation of services.

Why do people always assume there is only one side to an equation? There are two. So either what you have suggested happens or...

...we become more efficient. When companies lay people off they often find that they really did not need some of them when the business turns around again. That's because they become lean and more efficient and do more with the same amount of resources.

It is possible. Otherwise if you take your example to the extreme when populations are much much larger we end up with more and more and more public servants and can never go back and reduce this number. I think this is a false assumption.

Well actually based on the way things are currently with the Unions and their stanglehold at the negoating table I think Brock may be correct. With unions having such ineffecient rules, where the resources cannot be used as efficiently as possible. An example would be where a light bulb has burnt out and work has to stop until the proper light bulb changing person can be found to come and change the lightbulb so that work can continue.

This if I understand what Gov. Walker is trying to do with the CBA is to have the flexibility for the different agencies to use their resources more efficiently and more cost effectively than what they are able to now due to the Union rules.

I think another beneffit when walker gets this bill passed will be that they will be able to keep and reward the good workers and have the ability to disipline the slackers.

My comments were specific to Florida, and we don't have unions in Florida, we're a right to work state.

The union/inefficiency/efficiency argument I don't think holds much weight in the services I was talking about. Let's say a county prosecutors office has 2800 felony cases a year. They have 10 felony prosecutors. That's 280 cases per year per attorney. If you eliminate a position (which is one of the things that may happen as a result of the Governors budget) the prosecutors are now going to handle 311 cases per year per attorney. (This 311 cases per year is actually not an accurate number because this assumes that cases are resolved in the criminal system in one year. Which isn't the case. Attorney's will have cases hanging on for several years depending on the type of case and charges, therefore in addition to the 311 cases for year 2011 you may also have 10-20 cases hanging on from 2010, and 5 from 2009. This also doesn't include violations of probation which aren't counted as new cases and add about another 30% to a prosecutors office case load yearly.)

I don't see the efficiency argument impact or the argument that unions make public sector less efficient. Especially in light of the fact that there are no unions in this area, and it's a matter of simple math.

The statement about unions and efficiency is one of the problems I'm having with this debate. The proscription of someones perception of reality to the situation when that perception may not be accurate.

What will be a result of fewer resources in this area will be, that because the system can't handle anymore inmates in the jails and prison, you will start having early release and parole. Additionally, individuals that might have been incarcerated previously will not be now. Additionally, more "intervention" services will happen, pre-trial diversion services. These services will be ineffectual because the first thing that will be cut from the budgets will be monies to these services. So more people will go into the pre-trial intervention programs but the programs themselves will have less money, and less staff.

Ultimately, the public will become outraged that some burglar got diversion instead of going to prison.

with all due respect, i dont think this is a case of all unions being bad or unnecessary, but rest assured, i have heard of many situations with teachers unions and some that have been there merely biding there time til their pension kicks in vs having the best interests of students in mind, and this comes from others in the system. in some cases such as this, a union can overstep its bounds to where many would feel they are of assistance to the best interests of all vs being nothing more than self promoting and greedy. i get that they are looking out for their own interests but again, in this case, nobody is on the other side of the table.

as far as folks being ok with services lost due to cuts, i think sometimes thats what it takes to see how much is needed. it is possible get where you have cut into the muscle but that can always be reversed whereas the status quo generally leans towards allowing things to operate at less than optimal levels. personally, i would rather we try and find that sweet spot when times are tough vs being fearful that things will fall apart. the pendulum generally starts to swing the other way and it ends up getting corrected. but speaking to the wisconsin situation, there is definitely fat to be trimmed.

My Race Log

Champion

7347

SRQ, FL

Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI:

drewb8 - 2011-03-07 1:37 PM

TriRSquared - 2011-03-07 11:30 AM

Brock Samson - 2011-03-07 1:23 PM

When police, public defenders, teachers, magistrates, prosecutors, para-legals get laid off as a result of budget cuts, there must necessarily be a deminuation of services.

Why do people always assume there is only one side to an equation? There are two. So either what you have suggested happens or...

...we become more efficient. When companies lay people off they often find that they really did not need some of them when the business turns around again. That's because they become lean and more efficient and do more with the same amount of resources.

It is possible. Otherwise if you take your example to the extreme when populations are much much larger we end up with more and more and more public servants and can never go back and reduce this number. I think this is a false assumption.

How do you know the public sector isn't becoming more efficient as well? I have a friend who works for the state here and she's mentioned that in addition to the 4 furlough days they had to take last year, budgets are being slashed everywhere and they have a number of positions that have gone unfilled as people leave - the same as is happening in the private sector - doing more with the same amount of resources.

Great. Then continue to do so. Just illustrating that there is more than one answer.

My Race Log

Elite

4564

Boise

Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI:

drewb8 - 2011-03-07 11:37 AM

TriRSquared - 2011-03-07 11:30 AM

Brock Samson - 2011-03-07 1:23 PM

When police, public defenders, teachers, magistrates, prosecutors, para-legals get laid off as a result of budget cuts, there must necessarily be a deminuation of services.

Why do people always assume there is only one side to an equation? There are two. So either what you have suggested happens or...

...we become more efficient. When companies lay people off they often find that they really did not need some of them when the business turns around again. That's because they become lean and more efficient and do more with the same amount of resources.

It is possible. Otherwise if you take your example to the extreme when populations are much much larger we end up with more and more and more public servants and can never go back and reduce this number. I think this is a false assumption.

How do you know the public sector isn't becoming more efficient as well? I have a friend who works for the state here and she's mentioned that in addition to the 4 furlough days they had to take last year, budgets are being slashed everywhere and they have a number of positions that have gone unfilled as people leave - the same as is happening in the private sector - doing more with the same amount of resources.

and then other times you have this.

http://www.mercurynews.com/internal-affairs/ci_17548349?source=rss&nclick_check=1

At a time when San Jose faces more than a $100 million budget deficit and the prospect of hundreds of layoffs, San Jose City Councilman

Pete Constant is battling with a City Hall employees' union over whether he should be forced to hire an administrative assistant.

My Race Log

Master

4101

Denver

Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI:

JoshR - 2011-03-07 12:37 PM

and then other times you have this.

http://www.mercurynews.com/internal-affairs/ci_17548349?source=rss&nclick_check=1

At a time when San Jose faces more than a $100 million budget deficit and the prospect of hundreds of layoffs, San Jose City Councilman

Pete Constant is battling with a City Hall employees' union over whether he should be forced to hire an administrative assistant.

And then you have this:

"San Jose officials Thursday announced a tentative deal in which city firefighters would agree to cut their pay and benefits 10 percent for the next two years to reduce the need for layoffs in the thinly staffed department."

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_17535180

I'm not trying to defend everything every union does, if the councilman in that article doesn't need to hire an admin I don't see why he should be forced to, it sounds like a poorly negotiated contract. I was just trying to point out that just as in the private sector, the public sector is making sacrifices and doing more with less as well. It isn't limited to just the private side of things.

Edited by drewb8 2011-03-07 1:54 PM

My Race Log

Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: (Page 30)

REGISTER TODAY