Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: (Page 33)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
2011-03-09 5:35 PM in reply to: #3390828 |
Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: TriMyBest - 2011-03-09 2:33 PM crusevegas - 2011-03-09 5:02 PM burhed - 2011-03-09 1:19 PM Yes, but are they doing it to avoid taxes to stay in business or just to boost the bottom line? The reason I say it is a whole other subject is because it is very complex as to why they move over seas. In some cases I think it's because that is where an emerging market is. In other cases it's simply because they want to avoid taxes; but where will that leave the US market when we are missing out on a tax base simply so XYZ Corp can have higher profits?crusevegas - 2011-03-09 2:59 PM burhed - 2011-03-09 12:35 PM Is there any data to support this idea of corporations / companies being taxed out of existence? It seems now that what happens is corporations ship things over seas to avoid taxes, but that is a whole other issue. I would think lack of demand is going to put a corporation out of business before taxes. Perhaps there are small businesses that go out of business because taxes are too high, just wondering if it's documented.jszat - 2011-03-08 10:19 AM I am curious as to where jobs come from when all of these wealthy people and corporations are taxed out of existance Interesting, it looks like you answered your own question? Why do business entities exist to pay tax or to generate profit? Where will that leave the US market when we raise taxes higher and higer and more companies flee the US market? I hope that is a rhetorical question. Higher taxes alone don't drive companies out of business. Higher taxes combined with decreased consumer demand during a recession, smaller markups over cost during the same recession, combined with increasing costs for fuel, insurance, etc, all contribute to companies' failure. It simply all adds up until the business can no longer be viable. As to why businesses exist, it's not to generate profit. In the big picture of society, they exist to provide a product or service. Profit is a by-product without which they cannot continue to provide those products or services.
Wrong, that is precisely why a business exists, it by defination cannont exist without a profit, they make this profit, as you said providing a proudct &/or service. Look at the Corporate by-laws of any for profit corporation, that will be in there. As far as there being other things that cause a business to move out of a state, the country or to become unable to make a profit, yes of course there are. Edited by crusevegas 2011-03-09 5:49 PM |
|
2011-03-09 5:42 PM in reply to: #3390921 |
Champion 6056 Menomonee Falls, WI | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: BREAKING: Looks like State Republicans have gone to the "nuclear" option-- they are going to split out the Collective Bargaining issue from the Budget Repair Bill, making it a non-fiscal issue, which can be passed without a quorum present. Needless to say, things are going to get higgledy-piggledy around Madison, but it's all legal-- perhaps in the same legal gray area as the Democratic Senators bolting from the state to prevent a vote. We're all about to see some unionized heads pop all over the State, maybe the nation. |
2011-03-09 6:36 PM in reply to: #3390921 |
Pro 6011 Camp Hill, Pennsylvania | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: crusevegas - 2011-03-09 6:35 PM I'd kindly suggest you read my post again. I said profit is necessary, so we agree. You're right that, from the perspective of the business, they exist to make a profit, but that's not why they exist in the larger scheme. If they fail to provide a product or service for which there is a demand, or generate a profit, they will cease to exist. BTW, I'm not pulling this out of my backside. This is coming from my degree in business management combined with over 20 years of business management experience, including 11 years of owning a business. I have firsthand experience with both highly successful businesses and ones that have failed. Contrary to what some people in this thread have questioned, I can say with 100% certainty that tax increases do contribute to business closures. It can be the straw that breaks the camel's back.TriMyBest - 2011-03-09 2:33 PM crusevegas - 2011-03-09 5:02 PM burhed - 2011-03-09 1:19 PM Yes, but are they doing it to avoid taxes to stay in business or just to boost the bottom line? The reason I say it is a whole other subject is because it is very complex as to why they move over seas. In some cases I think it's because that is where an emerging market is. In other cases it's simply because they want to avoid taxes; but where will that leave the US market when we are missing out on a tax base simply so XYZ Corp can have higher profits?crusevegas - 2011-03-09 2:59 PM burhed - 2011-03-09 12:35 PM Is there any data to support this idea of corporations / companies being taxed out of existence? It seems now that what happens is corporations ship things over seas to avoid taxes, but that is a whole other issue. I would think lack of demand is going to put a corporation out of business before taxes. Perhaps there are small businesses that go out of business because taxes are too high, just wondering if it's documented.jszat - 2011-03-08 10:19 AM I am curious as to where jobs come from when all of these wealthy people and corporations are taxed out of existance Interesting, it looks like you answered your own question? Why do business entities exist to pay tax or to generate profit? Where will that leave the US market when we raise taxes higher and higer and more companies flee the US market? I hope that is a rhetorical question. Higher taxes alone don't drive companies out of business. Higher taxes combined with decreased consumer demand during a recession, smaller markups over cost during the same recession, combined with increasing costs for fuel, insurance, etc, all contribute to companies' failure. It simply all adds up until the business can no longer be viable. As to why businesses exist, it's not to generate profit. In the big picture of society, they exist to provide a product or service. Profit is a by-product without which they cannot continue to provide those products or services.
Wrong, that is precisely why a business exists, it by defination cannont exist without a profit, they make this profit, as you said providing a proudct &/or service. Look at the Corporate by-laws of any for profit corporation, that will be in there. As far as there being other things that cause a business to move out of a state, the country or to become unable to make a profit, yes of course there are. Edited by TriMyBest 2011-03-09 6:42 PM |
2011-03-09 7:53 PM in reply to: #3390935 |
Master 1795 Boynton Beach, FL | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: scoobysdad - 2011-03-09 6:42 PMBREAKING: Looks like State Republicans have gone to the "nuclear" option-- they are going to split out the Collective Bargaining issue from the Budget Repair Bill, making it a non-fiscal issue, which can be passed without a quorum present.Needless to say, things are going to get higgledy-piggledy around Madison, but it's all legal-- perhaps in the same legal gray area as the Democratic Senators bolting from the state to prevent a vote. We're all about to see some unionized heads pop all over the State, maybe the nation. Now that you resigned you can keep us updated on the hour! Thanks for the news and can't wait to find out that governors attempt at compromise was just a ploy. But that is my wishful thinking. Bbbwwwwaaaahhhaaahhhaaaa.. |
2011-03-09 8:13 PM in reply to: #3390989 |
Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: TriMyBest - 2011-03-09 4:36 PM |
2011-03-09 8:13 PM in reply to: #3390989 |
Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: TriMyBest - 2011-03-09 4:36 PM |
|
2011-03-09 8:15 PM in reply to: #3390989 |
Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: TriMyBest - 2011-03-09 4:36 PM Show me a copy of a corporations by-laws where they say profit is a by-product of their primary objective and I'll stand corrected. |
2011-03-09 8:24 PM in reply to: #3357526 |
Master 2447 White Oak, Texas | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: Congratulations Wisconsin |
2011-03-09 8:32 PM in reply to: #3391129 |
Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: CBarnes - 2011-03-09 6:24 PM Congratulations Wisconsin X2 Way to go Gov. D-bag Walker,,,, & thank you for your persistence, the time you spent trying to get the fleeing 14 back and to work with them and the wisdom & courage to do what was necessary. 2016 Scott Walker for President! |
2011-03-09 8:37 PM in reply to: #3391140 |
Iron Donkey 38643 , Wisconsin | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: crusevegas - 2011-03-09 8:32 PM CBarnes - 2011-03-09 6:24 PM Congratulations Wisconsin X2 Way to go Gov. D-bag Walker,,,, & thank you for your persistence, the time you spent trying to get the fleeing 14 back and to work with them and the wisdom & courage to do what was necessary. 2016 Scott Walker for President! Nope. Now he's a d-bag and a big money corporate tool in my eyes and I would definitely rally against him running. |
2011-03-09 8:53 PM in reply to: #3391147 |
Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: 1stTimeTri - 2011-03-09 6:37 PM crusevegas - 2011-03-09 8:32 PM CBarnes - 2011-03-09 6:24 PM Congratulations Wisconsin X2 Way to go Gov. D-bag Walker,,,, & thank you for your persistence, the time you spent trying to get the fleeing 14 back and to work with them and the wisdom & courage to do what was necessary. 2016 Scott Walker for President! Nope. Now he's a d-bag and a big money corporate tool in my eyes and I would definitely rally against him running. Shocked I'm shocked this didn't bring you around. |
|
2011-03-09 9:33 PM in reply to: #3391161 |
Expert 2180 Boise, Idaho | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: crusevegas - 2011-03-09 7:53 PM 1stTimeTri - 2011-03-09 6:37 PM crusevegas - 2011-03-09 8:32 PM CBarnes - 2011-03-09 6:24 PM Congratulations Wisconsin X2 Way to go Gov. D-bag Walker,,,, & thank you for your persistence, the time you spent trying to get the fleeing 14 back and to work with them and the wisdom & courage to do what was necessary. 2016 Scott Walker for President! Nope. Now he's a d-bag and a big money corporate tool in my eyes and I would definitely rally against him running. Shocked I'm shocked this didn't bring you around. I hear Sharron Angle is available for VP. |
2011-03-09 9:41 PM in reply to: #3391196 |
Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: jeffnboise - 2011-03-09 7:33 PM crusevegas - 2011-03-09 7:53 PM 1stTimeTri - 2011-03-09 6:37 PM crusevegas - 2011-03-09 8:32 PM CBarnes - 2011-03-09 6:24 PM Congratulations Wisconsin X2 Way to go Gov. D-bag Walker,,,, & thank you for your persistence, the time you spent trying to get the fleeing 14 back and to work with them and the wisdom & courage to do what was necessary. 2016 Scott Walker for President! Nope. Now he's a d-bag and a big money corporate tool in my eyes and I would definitely rally against him running. Shocked I'm shocked this didn't bring you around. I hear Sharron Angle is available for VP. Yeah, they say she's crazy and Harry Reid says that if it wasn't for the millions of dollars the federal govt gives for cowboy poetry 10s of thousands of people wouldn't be alive..... You can't make this stuff up. I guess they have a really good time at these cowboy poetry events. |
2011-03-10 12:44 AM in reply to: #3357526 |
Expert 1002 | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: Just an FYI: the vote was likely not legal and will probably be overturned tomorrow. So not only won't this pass, the Republican party just admitted that this collective bargaining portion has nothing to do with fiscal matters. Political suicide with no benefit. Way to go! Oh, and Scott Fitzgerald also admitted exactly that today. So, you know. Go team BS! Edited by UWMadTri 2011-03-10 12:52 AM |
2011-03-10 3:53 AM in reply to: #3391147 |
Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
2011-03-10 8:28 AM in reply to: #3391277 |
Iron Donkey 38643 , Wisconsin | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: Fred Doucette - 2011-03-10 3:53 AM 1stTimeTri - Nope. Now he's a d-bag . There you go again. Name calling, very nice. I thought you were 'moderating' your own thread. Oh wait, just the stuff you disagree with When 2 BT'ers get into it, I have a concern. He's not a BT'er (that I'm aware of). I have more respect for my fellow BT'ers. And, they aren't the ones making some crazy decision. |
|
2011-03-10 8:30 AM in reply to: #3391260 |
Champion 6056 Menomonee Falls, WI | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: UWMadTri - 2011-03-10 12:44 AM Just an FYI: the vote was likely not legal and will probably be overturned tomorrow. So not only won't this pass, the Republican party just admitted that this collective bargaining portion has nothing to do with fiscal matters. Political suicide with no benefit. Way to go! Oh, and Scott Fitzgerald also admitted exactly that today. So, you know. Go team BS! Sorry, not gonna happen. Everything was done by the book, despite everything the Democrats tried to do to re-write the rules of Parliamentary Procedure. This will pass and stick. No question there is a national aspect to the story. That happened when President Obama himself chimed in and his union backers with direct ties to his administration brought in to protest at the Capitol and organize and fund recall elections of officials elected by Wisconsin citizens. Obama is in this because he injected himself in this. But at its heart, this is still a State fiscal issue. This is a very positive step toward balancing the budget the next two years as well as reforming government to be more fiscally responsible in the future. That was the mandate State voter gave to Walker and the Republicans in November, and that is what they are taking the necessary steps toward accomplishing. |
2011-03-10 9:21 AM in reply to: #3390989 |
Pro 3906 Libertyville, IL | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: TriMyBest - 2011-03-09 6:36 PM on first read of your initial post i was going nuts, but yes, i suppose the good or service is first and foremost the backbone of a business. Profit is generally the lifeblood that allows that good or product to continue to exist but it is often also often profit motive that gets a product off of the ground. You could absolutely start a business that isnt intended to be profitable though that turns out to be. My own side biz is a perfect example of that, kind of an idea that saw demand so i went with it and it pays some decent revenues. With the product or service, you can do a cost analysis and decide if its an endeavor worth venturing on and profit may or may not be the basis of that. However, without that initial idea, you are just looking for ways to make moola. Profit motive can certainly be a reason for how business is conducted but making a life saving product that operates at a loss or performing a non-profitable service to help the elderly for example would certainly be other valid missions for a company. However, I dont think many companies do exist simply to pay more taxes. That much is clear crusevegas - 2011-03-09 6:35 PM I'd kindly suggest you read my post again. I said profit is necessary, so we agree. You're right that, from the perspective of the business, they exist to make a profit, but that's not why they exist in the larger scheme. If they fail to provide a product or service for which there is a demand, or generate a profit, they will cease to exist. BTW, I'm not pulling this out of my backside. This is coming from my degree in business management combined with over 20 years of business management experience, including 11 years of owning a business. I have firsthand experience with both highly successful businesses and ones that have failed. Contrary to what some people in this thread have questioned, I can say with 100% certainty that tax increases do contribute to business closures. It can be the straw that breaks the camel's back.TriMyBest - 2011-03-09 2:33 PM crusevegas - 2011-03-09 5:02 PM burhed - 2011-03-09 1:19 PM Yes, but are they doing it to avoid taxes to stay in business or just to boost the bottom line? The reason I say it is a whole other subject is because it is very complex as to why they move over seas. In some cases I think it's because that is where an emerging market is. In other cases it's simply because they want to avoid taxes; but where will that leave the US market when we are missing out on a tax base simply so XYZ Corp can have higher profits?crusevegas - 2011-03-09 2:59 PM burhed - 2011-03-09 12:35 PM Is there any data to support this idea of corporations / companies being taxed out of existence? It seems now that what happens is corporations ship things over seas to avoid taxes, but that is a whole other issue. I would think lack of demand is going to put a corporation out of business before taxes. Perhaps there are small businesses that go out of business because taxes are too high, just wondering if it's documented.jszat - 2011-03-08 10:19 AM I am curious as to where jobs come from when all of these wealthy people and corporations are taxed out of existance Interesting, it looks like you answered your own question? Why do business entities exist to pay tax or to generate profit? Where will that leave the US market when we raise taxes higher and higer and more companies flee the US market? I hope that is a rhetorical question. Higher taxes alone don't drive companies out of business. Higher taxes combined with decreased consumer demand during a recession, smaller markups over cost during the same recession, combined with increasing costs for fuel, insurance, etc, all contribute to companies' failure. It simply all adds up until the business can no longer be viable. As to why businesses exist, it's not to generate profit. In the big picture of society, they exist to provide a product or service. Profit is a by-product without which they cannot continue to provide those products or services.
Wrong, that is precisely why a business exists, it by defination cannont exist without a profit, they make this profit, as you said providing a proudct &/or service. Look at the Corporate by-laws of any for profit corporation, that will be in there. As far as there being other things that cause a business to move out of a state, the country or to become unable to make a profit, yes of course there are. |
2011-03-10 10:08 AM in reply to: #3391260 |
Expert 3126 Boise, ID | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: UWMadTri - 2011-03-09 11:44 PM Just an FYI: the vote was likely not legal and will probably be overturned tomorrow. So not only won't this pass, the Republican party just admitted that this collective bargaining portion has nothing to do with fiscal matters. Political suicide with no benefit. Way to go! Oh, and Scott Fitzgerald also admitted exactly that today. So, you know. Go team BS! Did you watch the interview? The entire interview? Interesting how one can make whatever conclusions they want given a single sentence taken out of context. Interesting that the link you provide doesn't even show what the question was.
Good on Walker and the rest of the repubs for getting this passed. Now watch as all the people who supported the dems tucking tail and running, start crying about the bill being split. The dems break the rules and flee causing orders to be issued for their arrest and delivery to the capital, the repubs follow the rules to get their bill passed and somehow the repubs are terrible "shameful" losers. BTW: Idaho just passed a bill limiting CBA and getting rid of tenure and other things for teachers. Idaho, now Wisconsin, looks like the unions aren't doing so hot.
|
2011-03-10 10:28 AM in reply to: #3391791 |
Champion 6056 Menomonee Falls, WI | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: Aarondb4 - 2011-03-10 10:08 AM [BTW: Idaho just passed a bill limiting CBA and getting rid of tenure and other things for teachers. Idaho, now Wisconsin, looks like the unions aren't doing so hot.
They haven't been doing well for years. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/22/business/22union.html Seems if you give workers the RIGHT TO CHOOSE a union or not, they more often choose "not". |
2011-03-10 11:08 AM in reply to: #3391684 |
Pro 6011 Camp Hill, Pennsylvania | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: jszat - 2011-03-10 10:21 AM on first read of your initial post i was going nuts, but yes, i suppose the good or service is first and foremost the backbone of a business. Profit is generally the lifeblood that allows that good or product to continue to exist but it is often also often profit motive that gets a product off of the ground. You could absolutely start a business that isnt intended to be profitable though that turns out to be. My own side biz is a perfect example of that, kind of an idea that saw demand so i went with it and it pays some decent revenues. With the product or service, you can do a cost analysis and decide if its an endeavor worth venturing on and profit may or may not be the basis of that. However, without that initial idea, you are just looking for ways to make moola. Profit motive can certainly be a reason for how business is conducted but making a life saving product that operates at a loss or performing a non-profitable service to help the elderly for example would certainly be other valid missions for a company. However, I dont think many companies do exist simply to pay more taxes. That much is clear Exactly!!!!
|
|
2011-03-10 11:48 AM in reply to: #3391518 |
Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: 1stTimeTri - 2011-03-10 9:28 AM Fred Doucette - 2011-03-10 3:53 AM 1stTimeTri - Nope. Now he's a d-bag . There you go again. Name calling, very nice. I thought you were 'moderating' your own thread. Oh wait, just the stuff you disagree with When 2 BT'ers get into it, I have a concern. He's not a BT'er (that I'm aware of). I have more respect for my fellow BT'ers. And, they aren't the ones making some crazy decision. Yet people got dinked for calling the President "O-bozo". Same thing isn't it? |
2011-03-10 11:50 AM in reply to: #3391836 |
Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: scoobysdad - 2011-03-10 11:28 AM Aarondb4 - 2011-03-10 10:08 AM [BTW: Idaho just passed a bill limiting CBA and getting rid of tenure and other things for teachers. Idaho, now Wisconsin, looks like the unions aren't doing so hot. They haven't been doing well for years. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/22/business/22union.htmlSeems if you give workers the RIGHT TO CHOOSE a union or not, they more often choose "not".
And the Repubs are introducing a Federal right to work bill. ETA: forgot the link http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/03/09/republicans-introduce-national-right-to-work-bill/ Edited by TriRSquared 2011-03-10 12:14 PM |
2011-03-10 2:00 PM in reply to: #3357526 |
Expert 1192 Oak Creek, WI | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: good stuff here... nice examples of some of the issues with collective bargaining...
The cost of collective bargaining:
by Alberta Darling on Tuesday, March 8, 2011 at 12:34pm While the main focus of the debate on collective bargaining has been on fiscal issues such as wages and benefits, there are plenty of "non-fiscal" issues like work schedules, choice of provider, and layoff procedures that have a big impact. The following examples are all due to the current collective bargaining process: Example #1 - The $150,000 Bus Driver In 2009, the City of Madison's highest paid employee was a bus driver who earned $159,258, including $109,892 in overtime, guaranteed by a collective bargaining agreement. In total, seven City of Madison bus drivers made more than $100,000 per year in 2009. "That's the (drivers') contract," said Transit and Parking Commission Chairman Gary Poulson. Source: Wisconsin State Journal, 2/7/10 Example #2 - $800,000 for "Free" Viagra Milwaukee Public Schools attempted to drop from its health insurance plan coverage of Viagra, saving $786,000 per year, enough to pay up to a dozen teachers. The teachers union sued the district to regain coverage. Source: ABC News, 8/12/10 Example #3 - A Year's Worth of Pay for 30 Days of Work Under the Green Bay School District's collectively bargained Emeritus Program, teachers can retire and receive a year's worth of salary for working only 30 days over a three year period. This is paid in addition to their already guaranteed pension and health care payouts. At the average annual salary for a Green Bay teacher of $51,355, this amounts to a daily rate of pay of $1,711.83, or an hourly rate of $213.98. Since most retiring teachers receive higher than average salary, these amounts are, in practice, much higher. Source: WLUK-TV, 3/3/11 Example #4 - $150,000 Correctional Officers Correctional Officer collective bargaining agreements allow officers a practice known as "sick leave stacking." Officers can call in sick for a shift, receiving 8 hours of sick pay, and then are allowed to work the very next shift, earning time-and-a-half for overtime. This results in the officer receiving 2.5 times his or her rate of pay, while still only working 8 hours. In part because of these practices, 13 correctional officers made more than $100,000 in 2009, despite earning base wages of less than $60,000 per year. The officers received an average of $66,000 in overtime pay for an average annual salary of more than $123,000 with the highest paid receiving $151,181. Source: Department of Corrections Example #5 - 'Outstanding First Year Teacher' Laid Off Milwaukee Public Schools teacher Megan Sampson was laid off less than one week after being named Outstanding First Year Teacher by the Wisconsin Council of English Teachers. She lost her job because the collective bargaining agreement requires layoffs to be made based on seniority rather than merit. Informed that her union had rejected a lower-cost health care plan, that still would have required zero contribution from teachers, Sampson said, "Given the opportunity, of course I would switch to a different plan to save my job, or the jobs of 10 other teachers. Source: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 6/14/10 Example #6 - Taxpayers Pay $68 Million for Union Health Insurance Monopoly An updated review of a 2005 WPRI study concluded that school districts could save $68 million by switching from their expensive WEA Trust insurance plans to the state health insurance plan. Switching to a competitively priced private sector plan would save more money still. Collective bargaining agreements effectively give the teachers union a veto over any effort to change providers, however. As a result, WEA Trust insures about two-thirds of Wisconsin's school districts. Source: WPRI, WASB, ETF, DPI, WEA Trust Example #7 - Arbitrator Reinstates Porn-Watching Teacher A Cedarburg school teacher was reinstated by an arbitrator after being fired for viewing pornography on a school computer. The school district ultimately succeeded in terminating the teacher only after taking the case to the Wisconsin Supreme Court at great cost to the taxpayers. Source: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 8/23/08 Example #8 - Taxpayers Pay 800 Government Employees to Conduct Union Business In 2010, the state allowed paid time off for 805 employees to conduct union business. Total cost to the taxpayers was $433,333. Source: Office of State Employment Relations Example #9 - Union Opposes Cost-Saving Lawn Mowing Program As a cost cutting measure, Racine County began using county inmates to cut the grass in medians and right-of-ways at no cost to the taxpayers. A county employee union filed a grievance indicating it was the right of government workers to cut the grass, even though it would cost the taxpayers dramatically more. Source: Racine Journal Times, 5/12/10 Example #10 - $6,000 Extra for Carrying a Pager Some state employees, due to the nature of their positions, are required to carry pagers during off-duty hours in order to respond to emergency situations. Due to the collective bargaining agreements, these employees are compensated an extra five hours of pay each week, whether they are paged or not. For an employee earning an average salary of $50,000 per year, this requirement can cost more than $6,000 in additional compensation. Source: 2008-09 Agreement between the State of Wisconsin and AFSCME Council 24
Example #11 - No Volunteer Crossing Guards Allowed A Wausau public employee union filed a grievance to prohibit a local volunteer from serving as a school crossing guard. The 86-year-old lives just two blocks away and serves everyday free of charge. Principal Steve Miller says, "He said, you know, this gives me a reason to get up in the morning to come and help these kids in the neighborhood." But for a local union that represents crossing guards, it isn't that simple. Representatives didn't want to go on camera but say if a crossing guard is needed, then one should be officially hired by the city. Source: WAOW-TV, 1/27/10 Example #12 - Teachers Receiving Two Pensions Due to a 1982 provision of their collective bargaining agreement, Milwaukee Public School teachers actually receive two pensions upon retirement instead of one. The contribution to the second pension is equal to 4.2% of a teacher's salary, with the school district making 100% of the contribution, just like they do for the first pension. This extra benefit costs taxpayers more than $16 million per year. Source: February 17, 2010 Press Release, Process of developing FY11 budget begins Milwaukee Public Schools Example #13 - Almost $10,000 per Year for Doing Nothing While the Green Bay Emeritus Program actually requires teachers to at least show up for work, the Madison Emeritus Program doesn't even require that. In addition to their pension payouts, retired Madison public school teachers receive annual payments of at least $9,884.18 per year for enrolling in the Emeritus Program, which requires ZERO days of work. When this program began, 20 days of work per year were required. Through collective bargaining, the union successfully negotiated this down to zero days. Source: Madison Teachers Inc. Website |
2011-03-10 2:03 PM in reply to: #3392023 |
Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
|