Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I've worked in both the private and the public sector and also as a a consultant in both environments. Whether the environment is a sweetheart deal, depends on the employee's risk tolerance and their need for stable employment versus opportunity for advancement. Because an employee values stable employment has little to do with their job performance.In other words, the conclusion is based on the assumption, unproven, that the high skills level of government workers is not needed. The fact that the study comes through the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank further discredits the claim.
Federal and state gov't jobs have a less than 6% annual turnover, and it has been this way for many years.
If they were paid so much less than the private sector - they would leave, except they don't, because they know they have a sweetheart deal. Private sector turnover is far higher, and it is because of the lousier work conditions, lower pay, etc.
The facts are on the ground, and the public union employee defenders/sycophants can try and spin this BS any which way they want - the truth is there for all to see.
I know... blame the Public Sector because you sheep allowed the Private Sector to dismantle your wages, benefits and pensions.
Its called global competition. Or would you prefer that india, china and brazil continue to operate as 3rd-world shitholes? The advancement of these nations and their populations puts them in direct competition with the US middle class.
You see, when Kennedy said "A rising tide raises all boats", he wasn't referring to the already wealthy. he was referring to the workforce of America. You pay them good wages, you give them attractive benefits packages and a pension for their years of loyalty, and they will in turn keep our consumer driven economy rolling to the point where everyone makes out well.
Except we are talking about PUBLIC unions, not private. Do you understand the difference?
Funny... up until Reaganomics took hold... things were going swimmingly for the people of Detroit who worked in the Auto industry.
The tools know that there's one thing that scares the crap out of their masters ...collective action by the people.
Whether its unions fighting for workers rights, or populist movements demanding citizens rights, this board trolling tools are going to whine about it.
The tools know that there's one thing that scares the crap out of their masters ...collective action by the people.
Whether its unions fighting for workers rights, or populist movements demanding citizens rights, this board trolling tools are going to whine about it.
Yes they are, no doubt.Please, guy, unions are in decline.
Unions jobs are like Rent Controlled apartment. A wonderful privilage if you happen to luck into one.
Yup.
Buddy of mine just quit his job because he got a union job. But after less than a year there, he got fed up and took a job just like the one he had left it for.
That's nice,
So?
I looked at both reports. The actual federal report was compiled from BLS figures for the Federal Salary Council. The federal report does include federal benefits, however the report suffers from the same short coming of Heritage report. Determining the average value of private sector benefit packages for comparable jobs is nearly impossible because of the range of the packages and difficulty of putting a dollar value on them. I suspect that the benefit values in both reports are highly subjective. However, there is no doubt that the wage comparison shows the private sector pays considerable more that the federal government.Nonsense. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, on average federal employees are underpaid by 26.3 percent when compared with similar non-federal jobs, a pay gap that increased by about 2 percentage points over the last year while federal salary rates were frozen.
Federal employees make average 26 percent less than private workers, Labor agency reports - The Federal Eye - The Washington Post
First of all, I highly doubt that number and suspect there might be some political influence there. I also suspect the BLS report only looks at base salary and does not include the benefits packages that are much better for federal civilians. And they are, and that doesn't include the job security factor either.
And then there's the question of state and local public employees. Check this out:
snippet:
" Several analyses of average wages and benefits in the public and private sectors reveal that state and local government workers earn more than private sector workers. According to the most recent Employer Costs for Employee Compensation survey from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, as of December 2009, state and local government employees earned total compensation of $39.60 an hour, compared to $27.42 an hour for private industry workers-a difference of over 44 percent. This includes 35 percent higher wages and nearly 69 percent greater benefits. "
Reason Foundation - Comparing Private Sector and Government Worker Salaries
The tools know that there's one thing that scares the crap out of their masters ...collective action by the people.
Whether its unions fighting for workers rights, or populist movements demanding citizens rights, this board trolling tools are going to whine about it.
Yes they are, no doubt.
Yup.
Buddy of mine just quit his job because he got a union job. But after less than a year there, he got fed up and took a job just like the one he had left it for.
That's nice,
So?
Besides the fact you can't master the quoting process..
That's the point. Most working people don't look at the union workers as their brothers in arms. They look at them as lazy, unproductive slugs.
They look at them at the worthless union teacher who wants to put your kid on Ritalin because she doesn't want to do her job.
They look at them as the six guys who stand around watching one guy work at a construction site, because he's got the lowest seniority.
Real working folks, they know management is out to screw them, but they don't see unions as being much of a help.
That's the point. Most working people don't look at the union workers as their brothers in arms. They look at them as lazy, unproductive slugs.
)
They look at them at the worthless union teacher who wants to put your kid on Ritalin because she doesn't want to do her job.
Yes they are, no doubt.
Yup.
That's nice,
So?
That's the point. Most working people don't look at the union workers as their brothers in arms. They look at them as lazy, unproductive slugs.
Well don't know about the "most people" part but I understand and am somewhat sympathetic to the point you are making.
They look at them at the worthless union teacher who wants to put your kid on Ritalin because she doesn't want to do her job.
Yes, there are some faith-based believers in such GOP tripe, no doubt. I'd say about 25% of the citizens suscrive to that sort of nonsense.
They look at them as the six guys who stand around watching one guy work at a construction site, because he's got the lowest seniority.
I've worked on road crew for PENN DOT. I understand why there are times that people are just standing around. If you've ever worked construction, no doubt you do too.
Real working folks, they know management is out to screw them, but they don't see unions as being much of a help.
And I fault UNIONS for that, just as you apparently are doing, too.
I remember back in the 60s when union members were more ubiquitous and also somewhat arrogant, too.
They had the world by the balls, and they're paying a price for that now.
But the sad part is now all Ameircan workers are paying the price for that.
I know someone who recently moved his family across the country to accept a new job. The company put him and his family up in a nice hotel while he looked for housing. In two weeks he had leased a nice apartment, had his kids registered in their new school. In three weeks his department was phased out. The company gave him two weeks pay and apologized.The tools know that there's one thing that scares the crap out of their masters ...collective action by the people.
Whether its unions fighting for workers rights, or populist movements demanding citizens rights, this board trolling tools are going to whine about it.
Please, guy, unions are in decline.
Unions jobs are like Rent Controlled apartment. A wonderful privilage if you happen to luck into one.
Buddy of mine just quit his job because he got a union job. But after less than a year there, he got fed up and took a job just like the one he had left it for.
I know someone who recently moved his family across the country to accept a new job. The company put him and his family up in a nice hotel while he looked for housing. In two weeks he had leased a nice apartment, had his kids registered in their new school. In three weeks his department was phased out. The company gave him two weeks pay and apologized.The tools know that there's one thing that scares the crap out of their masters ...collective action by the people.
Whether its unions fighting for workers rights, or populist movements demanding citizens rights, this board trolling tools are going to whine about it.
Please, guy, unions are in decline.
Unions jobs are like Rent Controlled apartment. A wonderful privilage if you happen to luck into one.
Buddy of mine just quit his job because he got a union job. But after less than a year there, he got fed up and took a job just like the one he had left it for.
Screwing the employees to protect profits, is not just tolerated today, it's become part of the business model.
They have the right to compete like any other worker. They don't have the right to bilk the taxpayers for higher pay than the private sector...nor do they have the right to intimidate the taxpayer into paying. (In that case they can strike, and be fired as far as I am concerned...just like what Reagan did in the ATC strike in the 1980's).Doesn't seem to fit the definition of a "right"
That's the point. Most working people don't look at the union workers as their brothers in arms. They look at them as lazy, unproductive slugs.
No actually, "most" people don't. Unions still have majority support despite it waning over the last few years (probably due to Fox's constant union bashing
They look at them at the worthless union teacher who wants to put your kid on Ritalin because she doesn't want to do her job.
Right...because it is the teacher that keeps increasing the class sizes. It is a lot easier to handle the kid that SHOULD be on Ritalin when you only have 19 other kids to deal with as well. Of course, class sizes keep increasing so the teacher has to deal with 29 or 39 other kids and that hyper kid takes up WAY too much of the teachers time.
A survey conducted in September by the United Federation of Teachers found a spike in class size grievances in New York City, with 6,978 classes reported as having more students than the contract allows. Even Texas, which has laws to keep class sizes down, granted more than 2,000 waivers to districts that couldnt afford to keep the requisite number of teachers. Ruth Skow, president of McAllen, Texas's arm of the American Federation of Teachers, said one class at Memorial High School has 50 students this year. A Las Vegas elementary school kindergarten class has 41 students.Class Size Fight: Debate Looms During A Year Of Overcrowding
I know someone who recently moved his family across the country to accept a new job. The company put him and his family up in a nice hotel while he looked for housing. In two weeks he had leased a nice apartment, had his kids registered in their new school. In three weeks his department was phased out. The company gave him two weeks pay and apologized.
Screwing the employees to protect profits, is not just tolerated today, it's become part of the business model.
No, its not B.S. Its real. Screwing the employees has become part of the corporate culture. Its often not by malicious intent. Its just considered good business. Profit is not a goal of business today. It is the only goal. In order for management to meet an ever-increasing demand for higher growth rates either revenue must increase or cost must come down. Cutting cost usually means cutting employee expenses.I know someone who recently moved his family across the country to accept a new job. The company put him and his family up in a nice hotel while he looked for housing. In two weeks he had leased a nice apartment, had his kids registered in their new school. In three weeks his department was phased out. The company gave him two weeks pay and apologized.Please, guy, unions are in decline.
Unions jobs are like Rent Controlled apartment. A wonderful privilage if you happen to luck into one.
Buddy of mine just quit his job because he got a union job. But after less than a year there, he got fed up and took a job just like the one he had left it for.
Screwing the employees to protect profits, is not just tolerated today, it's become part of the business model.
That's total bullshit, the company screwed up all right, but to suggest it's part of anyone's business model is absolute bullshit. And to imply that such is common place is also absolute bullshit.
Well, it really depends on the job. For example, I did some telemarketing many years ago. Training was about 30 minutes. I reached my peak proficiency by end of the first day. I quit the second day.You know what, Guy, I don't buy that.
My last job was a 90 day temp to hire position, but most of the office temps were hired eventually (although usually a lot longer than 90 days.) The fact is, it takes more than 90 days for an employee to get proficient in their job, for the most part. Rotating them every 90 days isn't a smart business strategy, really.
90 day temp to hire does have an advantage. You pick out the dirtbags pretty quickly. The one who sounded great in the interview but turned into a real slug on the workfloor.
