Languish.org

Seems like we're solidly anti-union in the gay marriage thread; wanted to get a better idea of where we stand on this.

I'm against. My rationale is that, while Strix is claiming that to be against unions is to be against free market, I think it's the other way around: unions subsist by restricting the market, and if their collective bargaining agreements are ever threatened, their recourse is to restrict it further by striking. Unions also encourage disparate pay practices, citing the United Auto Workers' recent grandstanding as an extreme example.

Honestly, I'm stymied as to how unions have managed to keep going; even those unions that offer apprenticeships aren't cost effective for employers or when their training is matched up against comparable outside education.

Summary: I'm against unions because they're mob rule getting in the way of free market.

 :wub:

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fc%2Fc4%2FWe_never_sleep.jpg&hash=e2e89b2198ec738fc048644f74c1a6dcc7d47843)

Actually that was me. <_<

It would seem to me that a Union is at it's most basic an independent, non-government agency which creates a contract with a business.  This seems fairly free market.  I don't see how this can viewed as "anti-free market" any more then if two business created a contract.  Now a lot of people confuse "free-market" with "pro-business" which might be the problem here.  A Union can make a business less profitable (thereby restricting it) but lots of stuff in the free-market does that.  For instance another business competing with the first business will "restrict it".  But it's not anti-free market.

In fact the only real way to get rid of Unions would be coercion or legal prohibition.  These both seem fairly "non-free market" solutions.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 17, 2009, 12:10:32 AM
Actually that was me. <_<

It would seem to me that a Union is at it's most basic an independent, non-government agency which creates a contract with a business.  This seems fairly free market.  I don't see how this can viewed as "anti-free market" any more then if two business created a contract.  Now a lot of people confuse "free-market" with "pro-business" which might be the problem here.  A Union can make a business less profitable (thereby restricting it) but lots of stuff in the free-market does that.  For instance another business competing with the first business will "restrict it".  But it's not anti-free market.

In fact the only real way to get rid of Unions would be coercion or legal prohibition.  These both seem fairly "non-free market" solutions.

I am a non union member.  Can I work for General Motors, not join UAW, receive lower wages than union members, and survive? 

Quote from: Monoriu on April 17, 2009, 12:28:54 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 17, 2009, 12:10:32 AM
Actually that was me. <_<

It would seem to me that a Union is at it's most basic an independent, non-government agency which creates a contract with a business.  This seems fairly free market.  I don't see how this can viewed as "anti-free market" any more then if two business created a contract.  Now a lot of people confuse "free-market" with "pro-business" which might be the problem here.  A Union can make a business less profitable (thereby restricting it) but lots of stuff in the free-market does that.  For instance another business competing with the first business will "restrict it".  But it's not anti-free market.

In fact the only real way to get rid of Unions would be coercion or legal prohibition.  These both seem fairly "non-free market" solutions.

I am a non union member.  Can I work for General Motors, not join UAW, receive lower wages than non-union members, and survive?

You are pretty cheap.  I think you can live on the lower wage.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 17, 2009, 12:10:32 AM
It would seem to me that a Union is at it's most basic an independent, non-government agency which creates a contract with a business.  This seems fairly free market.  I don't see how this can viewed as "anti-free market" any more then if two business created a contract.

When a business is offered goods or services by another business on terms it doesn't like they are free to decline and turn to another business.  The same is often not true of the employer/union relationship.

Neither is the market free, as Mono already pointed out, for employees who want to work but not join the union.

I think the Union is a conceptually good idea.

In practice though, they seem to often cause more trouble than they fix.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 17, 2009, 12:10:32 AM
It would seem to me that a Union is at it's most basic an independent, non-government agency which creates a contract with a business.  This seems fairly free market.

It is very free-market and no one in their right mind would ever consider banning all unions.  The trouble comes when the union uses its position of representation to attain political power and gets the government to mandate things on its behalf.  That is when it goes out of the realm of the free market and into the realm of mercantilism, which is why unions are so reviled by many.

Union are not inherently bad, just as businesses aren't.  They are mere entities.

What do we mean by 'Union'? Because the term is applied to at least three different concepts. To quote the Wikipedia:

"Unions may organize a particular section of skilled workers (craft unionism), a cross-section of workers from various trades (general unionism), or attempt to organize all workers within a particular industry (industrial unionism)."

Unions in Britain are completely different from French or Spanish unions, which are completely different from US unions, etc, etc... In Spain, for example, workers can't be forced to join a union, closed shops and union shops are illegal (our main problem with unions is their tendence to enter politics).

Regarding the original question my own opinion is a bit like Churchill's on democracy. Unionism is the worst form of workers defence except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time... and unions can be royal pain in the ass, but without them what could we workers rely on? The good will, humanitarian feelings and stern honesty of bosses, entrepreneurs and businessmen?

@Habbaku

And how is that different from business associations and lobbies trying to influence official policy and "get the government to mandate things on its behalf"?

Quote from: Alatriste on April 17, 2009, 02:48:48 AM
Regarding the original question my own opinion is a bit like Churchill's on democracy. Unionism is the worst form of workers defence except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time... and unions can be royal pain in the ass, but without them what could we workers rely on? The good will, humanitarian feelings and stern honesty of bosses, entrepreneurs and businessmen?

The profit motive. 

Going out on a limb, I'd say that, roughly, European posters will vote pro union and American posters anti union. But as Alatriste said, unions are very different from one country to another.

Personally I think they're necessary, even if at some points they're pin headed in the way they negotiate and act.

You have to remember that the US model of trade unions is not the only one.

For example, here, most of the employee rights are regulated by labour law, which is universally applicable. Unions present in individual companies serve mainly as a watchdog of these laws being observed, and when they negotiate, they negotiate on behalf of all employees (i.e. they can't strike a sweet deal just for union members at a given company, and leave non-unionized employees out in cold). This makes them much less influential and there is much less corruption involved, I guess.

That being said, only an idiot would claim that a free unrestricted market is able to adjudicate fairly and genuinely between an employer and a single employee. The difference in economic power is so great then it is simply impossible to expect the relationship be anything else but a dictate of the employer (unless the employee is extremely qualified/unique).

It's the same argument as with antitrust law and consumer protection - only by restricting absolute economic freedom of undertakings, you are able to preserve free market in the long run - otherwise unrestricted freedom quickly leads to monopolization.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 17, 2009, 01:09:44 AM
When a business is offered goods or services by another business on terms it doesn't like they are free to decline and turn to another business.

Ever heard of monopolies?

Quote from: Martinus on April 17, 2009, 03:28:13 AM
Ever heard of monopolies?

Interesting you should mention monopolies.  I was just on the verge of responding to your previous post by pointing out that it's based on company town thinking.  IF employees realize that they don't have to work in the mine just because their father and grandfather did, and IF they realize they don't have to live in the same town forever, then the fantastic economic power of the employer is meaningless.  If the mean old mine owner tries to pay them less than the market value of their labor, they can shop their services elsewhere.

As to actual modern day monopolies, I weep for the poor oppressed workers at Microsoft,  but I can't think of many other monopolies.

Unions were a good idea when 12 year-olds were working 15 hour days in the coal mines.  IMO they have outlived their usefulness here in the US. 

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 17, 2009, 03:37:37 AM

Quote from: Martinus on April 17, 2009, 03:28:13 AM
Ever heard of monopolies?

Interesting you should mention monopolies.  I was just on the verge of responding to your previous post by pointing out that it's based on company town thinking.  IF employees realize that they don't have to work in the mine just because their father and grandfather did, and IF they realize they don't have to live in the same town forever, then the fantastic economic power of the employer is meaningless.  If the mean old mine owner tries to pay them less than the market value of their labor, they can shop their services elsewhere.

As to actual modern day monopolies, I weep for the poor oppressed workers at Microsoft,  but I can't think of many other monopolies.

First of all, I used the example of monopolies as an area where law must intervene to protect freedom of trade, because without it, the freedom becomes illusory. It is not to say that workers only need to be protected when they are dealing with monopolistic employers, of course - not sure if you are arguing with that point, but it's a strawman.

In principle, there are three areas where it is recognized that state should intervene to preserve fair trading balance:
- dealings between undertakings where one of them has market dominance (we use the term "monopoly" here in a loose sense, but what we mean is market dominance, btw, which is broader and can include certain forms of oligopolies - also market dominance can be established at a much lower market share than a monopoly - for example, depending on the market structure, an entity with a market share even below 40% can be considered dominant),
- dealings between employers and employees, and
- dealings between businesses and consumers.

Both consumers and employees are, per se, in a much weaker economic position than the businesses, which makes their protection necessary irrespective of whether the business they are dealing with is dominant or not.

Quote from: sbr on April 17, 2009, 03:41:33 AM
Unions were a good idea when 12 year-olds were working 15 hour days in the coal mines.  IMO they have outlived their usefulness here in the US.

Considering that in the US there are states with the barbaric concept of "at will employment", I would say that trade unions are still very much necessary.

Quote from: Martinus on April 17, 2009, 03:49:06 AM
Both consumers and employees are, per se, in a much weaker economic position than the businesses, which makes their protection necessary irrespective of whether the business they are dealing with is dominant or not.

How so?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 17, 2009, 03:55:27 AM

Quote from: Martinus on April 17, 2009, 03:49:06 AM
Both consumers and employees are, per se, in a much weaker economic position than the businesses, which makes their protection necessary irrespective of whether the business they are dealing with is dominant or not.

How so?

What do you mean "How so"? It's a fucking axiom.  :huh:

The unions here are fairly reasonable for the most part, so I'd say that while they may not be good for business, they serve a useful function in society.

Quote from: Martinus on April 17, 2009, 03:59:59 AM
What do you mean "How so"? It's a fucking axiom.  :huh:

There are no axioms in economics. 

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 17, 2009, 03:37:37 AMI was just on the verge of responding to your previous post by pointing out that it's based on company town thinking.  IF employees realize that they don't have to work in the mine just because their father and grandfather did, and IF they realize they don't have to live in the same town forever, then the fantastic economic power of the employer is meaningless.  If the mean old mine owner tries to pay them less than the market value of their labor, they can shop their services elsewhere.

Plenty of people don't have the mobility that you advocate.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 17, 2009, 04:09:18 AM

Quote from: Martinus on April 17, 2009, 03:59:59 AM
What do you mean "How so"? It's a fucking axiom.  :huh:

There are no axioms in economics.

The statement the consumers and employees are in a "weaker economic position" is not an axiom, it is though true, generally.
Consumers and employees have less market power than a buisness, which is what I assume marti means by "economic position".
Unions improve an employees market market power, consumers are harder to improve the market power of, but there are methods, mostly govermental.

To quickly explain why a business has more market power, ask yourself how much of the market does a generic widget making buisness control, vs a customer buying widgets, or an employee trained in widget making.

Edit: side note there are a few axioms in economics, one is that people in sufficent quantity, act rationaly, or more accurately rationaly enough to make predictions of.

Quote from: Magnus on April 17, 2009, 04:23:43 AM
To quickly explain why a business has more market power, ask yourself how much of the market does a generic widget making buisness control, vs a customer buying widgets, or an employee trained in widget making.

By "control" do you mean the ability to influence price and quantity?  A generic widget maker is the textbook example of a price taker so none of them can influence price and quantity.  If the maker can influence price and quantity then he has to be a monopolist or an oligopolist, and in those situations I agree that he has greater power than the consumer, which is why we have antitrust laws.

QuoteEdit: side note there are a few axioms in economics, one is that people in sufficent quantity, act rationaly, or more accurately rationaly enough to make predictions of.

Actually that's an assumption, but one that is being challenged very vigorously by behavioral economists.

I'm a member of two unions. Frankly i can't get the best pay without being in those unions, so i tolerate them.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 17, 2009, 04:40:21 AM
By "control" do you mean the ability to influence price and quantity?  A generic widget maker is the textbook example of a price taker so none of them can influence price and quantity.  If the maker can influence price and quantity then he has to be a monopolist or an oligopolist, and in those situations I agree that he has greater power than the consumer, which is why we have antitrust laws.

Widgets were a bad example, as they are used to show perfectly competitive markets.
Eitherway, anti trust laws to not do well in a oligopsony, supply side groups, aka unions or farmers orgs do.
Also the need for anti-trust laws shows that the market is not inherently perfectly competative, much as min-wage laws show that labor markets are not perfectly competative.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 17, 2009, 04:40:21 AM

QuoteEdit: side note there are a few axioms in economics, one is that people in sufficent quantity, act rationaly, or more accurately rationaly enough to make predictions of.

Actually that's an assumption, but one that is being challenged very vigorously by behavioral economists.

In undergrad studies it is an axiom.
In later studies, depending what you deal with, it can be attacked, but as it is the underpinning of most economic theories, it is used as a first principle in most discussions. It is taken to be true, quacks like a duck and what not.
Actually I'll concide this point, because either it will lead to a discussion about first principles vs axioms, or the old "what is rationality" argument. Honeslty I'd prefer to stay away from the phil.

Had this question before.
They are a VERY good thing.
The trouble is in the west most of the stuff that unions push for- good working conditions, fair pay, etc... we already have. They're victims of their own success and have made themselves slightly redundant.
In less developed countries though they've still work to do.
To the question though...well yeah. Of course they're bad for buisness. Paying your workers anything at all rather than just keeping them in cages at night is bad for buisness.

Without Unions none of us (except maybe Garbon) would be here, we'd be too poor, too busy going week to week to afford any of the quality of life we have.

That being said, modern unions are a travesty & nothing more then a mafia.

Without unions, I'd be living on the family farm outside of Riga, instead of in Mississippi.

Quote from: Scipio on April 17, 2009, 06:29:02 AM
Without unions, I'd be living on the family farm outside of Riga, instead of in Mississippi.

Am I the only one confused if this is a yay or nay?  :huh:

Quote from: katmai on April 17, 2009, 06:30:16 AMAm I the only one confused if this is a yay or nay?  :huh:

Mississippi is a delightful place to live.  Just don't be a negro.  :)

Tolerable, as long as you can deal with them Harlan county style.

Quote from: katmai on April 17, 2009, 06:30:16 AM

Quote from: Scipio on April 17, 2009, 06:29:02 AM
Without unions, I'd be living on the family farm outside of Riga, instead of in Mississippi.

Am I the only one confused if this is a yay or nay?  :huh:

I think its a nay.

i.e. without unions, the colorful Latvian peasants would still be cheerfully labouring for Boyar Ignatieff.

In general against.  They've provided useful services in the past, but now it is time for them to be disbanded and their leadership liquidated.

Someone close to me has been very involved in one of our main unions for decades. I've heard countless stories, both good and bad about the trade and the conclusion I've come to is unions are the lesser evil. Anti-union proponents can mentally masturbate as much as they want, but businesses just have way too much power compared to your average worker and that's a fact not subjected to discussion.

Quote from: Scipio on April 17, 2009, 06:29:02 AM
Without unions, I'd be living on the family farm outside of Riga, instead of in Mississippi.

Also since the Bar is essentially a Union of Lawyers you wouldn't have had go to law school to be a lawyer.  You could just say you were one and fake it like marty.

Quote from: Iormlund on April 17, 2009, 07:38:36 AM
Someone close to me has been very involved in one of our main unions for decades. I've heard countless stories, both good and bad about the trade and the conclusion I've come to is unions are the lesser evil. Anti-union proponents can mentally masturbate as much as they want, but businesses just have way too much power compared to your average worker and that's a fact not subjected to discussion.

Perhaps, but legislation has covered over all the bits that really matter.  At this point, it's all about the money.

Quote from: Habbaku on April 17, 2009, 02:38:48 AM

It is very free-market and no one in their right mind would ever consider banning all unions.  The trouble comes when the union uses its position of representation to attain political power and gets the government to mandate things on its behalf.  That is when it goes out of the realm of the free market and into the realm of mercantilism, which is why unions are so reviled by many.

I take you are an advocate of outlawing lobbies altogether then? Or is just unions that shouldn't have influence on politicians, while businesses are OK?

Quote from: Neil on April 17, 2009, 07:40:10 AM

Quote from: Iormlund on April 17, 2009, 07:38:36 AM
Someone close to me has been very involved in one of our main unions for decades. I've heard countless stories, both good and bad about the trade and the conclusion I've come to is unions are the lesser evil. Anti-union proponents can mentally masturbate as much as they want, but businesses just have way too much power compared to your average worker and that's a fact not subjected to discussion.

Perhaps, but legislation has covered over all the bits that really matter.  At this point, it's all about the money.

It has always been about the money in one way or the other and it is far from over. Unpaid overtime is widespread, for example. And working conditions remain crappy in many industries. Worker oversight over retirement funds is also pretty important.
Another big role the unions fulfill here is education, the two biggest unions and the business guild offer a lot of useful courses to train or retrain workers (I've both taken and taught classes in that programme, which is partly EU funded).
And also they can offer you legal assistance if you happen to have a problem. That's very important because going to court costs a small fortune and employers know this perfectly well.

It might be that Euro unions are useful as opposed to redundant, obsolete parasites.  I don't know.

Quote from: Monoriu on April 17, 2009, 12:28:54 AM
I am a non union member.  Can I work for General Motors, not join UAW, receive lower wages than union members, and survive?

It depends on the state and the company.  In Michigan in order to have a position classified as "Bargained" at GM you must join the UAW.

It is rather silly to make over-generalized statements like "unions are bad" or "unions are good". Some are bad, some are good, most make little difference.

The unions in question, of public service employees in the state of New York (for example) are, however, casebook examples of how bad unions can be.

Look at Strix as a fine example - he is making nearly $80,000 doing nearly unskilled or low skilled work that requires nothing more than a bachelors degree, and the big beef he has with the governor is that the governor doesn't want to give him yet another yearly raise at a time when the state is looking at tens of billions of dollars in budget shortfall.

Every single year, the public service unions force politicians to vote them more and more and more and more and more money. They don't have to do any kind of economic activity to generate that money. They don't have to perform to keep their jobs. There is no connection at all between the job they do, and the money they get paid. Their compensation is 100% based on nothing more than their political power, which is grossly out of line with their actual relevance to  the economy.

I know many people who work for the government in New York. Of course, everyone does, since the government employees so many people in this state. The irony of Strixy being the sudden champion of socialist New York's union system is impressive.

Depends.

In theory, I don't really care that unions are anti-market, since I don't see a problem with balancing out the power of a business owner.

In practice, depends on the union.

Quote from: Savonarola on April 17, 2009, 07:59:31 AM
It depends on the state and the company.  In Michigan in order to have a position classified as "Bargained" at GM you must join the UAW.

:blink:

Where I live unions protect the rights of workers in general, even if you aren't a member and don't pay memebership fees.
Granted, if you need some assistance with a very personal problem, only members will receive help.

Quote from: Faeelin on April 17, 2009, 08:17:40 AM
Depends.

In theory, I don't really care that unions are anti-market, since I don't see a problem with balancing out the power of a business owner.

What about when the business owner is the state?

Quote from: Berkut on April 17, 2009, 08:26:37 AM

What about when the business owner is the state?

Good question. Saying I don't mind seems silly, because as a taxpayer I'll be paying more to cover it.

Saying no also seems silly, since in theory corporations could just pass on the costs as well. Hrm.

Quote from: BVN on April 17, 2009, 08:25:23 AM

:blink:

Where I live unions protect the rights of workers in general, even if you aren't a member and don't pay memebership fees.
Granted, if you need some assistance with a very personal problem, only members will receive help.

Then you don't live in Michigan.   ;)

Michigan still has Union Shops; in order to have a bargained position at a union shop you must join the union within a set period of time (30 days usually.)


Wiki Article:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_shop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_shop)

Quote from: Faeelin on April 17, 2009, 08:37:05 AM

Quote from: Berkut on April 17, 2009, 08:26:37 AM

What about when the business owner is the state?

Good question. Saying I don't mind seems silly, because as a taxpayer I'll be paying more to cover it.

Saying no also seems silly, since in theory corporations could just pass on the costs as well. Hrm.

But that is just it - most businesses cannot simply pass the cost on, since they are in a competitive marketplace.

But the state has no competition. SO you get this disaster where union contracts are made when times are good, and they throw money at the unions because the unions are a political power in their own right and pissing them off (as Patterson is learnign) is a political death setence.

Then when there is a downturn, there is no way to react - the contracts are signed, and why would they ever agree to re-negotiate their sweetheart deal they paid good lobbying money for to begin with?

And the real kicker is that when these unions form, more often than not, they are not at all in response to some injustice in the public service labor conditions - they are almost ALWAYS superior to the private sector, but simply because unions are by default good if you are a Dem, and why would anyone oppose such a thing? So they are welcomed with open arms by the politicians who are essentially the public sectors "bosses", even when they are not at all needed.

Quote from: Berkut on April 17, 2009, 08:43:54 AM

Quote from: Faeelin on April 17, 2009, 08:37:05 AM

Quote from: Berkut on April 17, 2009, 08:26:37 AM

What about when the business owner is the state?

Good question. Saying I don't mind seems silly, because as a taxpayer I'll be paying more to cover it.

Saying no also seems silly, since in theory corporations could just pass on the costs as well. Hrm.

But that is just it - most businesses cannot simply pass the cost on, since they are in a competitive marketplace.

But the state has no competition. SO you get this disaster where union contracts are made when times are good, and they throw money at the unions because the unions are a political power in their own right and pissing them off (as Patterson is learnign) is a political death setence.

Then when there is a downturn, there is no way to react - the contracts are signed, and why would they ever agree to re-negotiate their sweetheart deal they paid good lobbying money for to begin with?

And the real kicker is that when these unions form, more often than not, they are not at all in response to some injustice in the public service labor conditions - they are almost ALWAYS superior to the private sector, but simply because unions are by default good if you are a Dem, and why would anyone oppose such a thing? So they are welcomed with open arms by the politicians who are essentially the public sectors "bosses", even when they are not at all needed.

Yeah, agreed pretty much - spot on here, and what I would say and feel as well. State or other taxpayer funded Union workers often get the better pay and benefits that those paying the freight for don't get,and which would be too expensive, in the real business world. And it's not like these agencies are run most efficiently.

Massachusetts legislators are now trying to do some reforms, but it's kind of laughable that we came to such a mess in the first place. I see some of the reforms and wonder, why has it been like that for so many years already? Basically for some of the reasons you mention.

The sad thing about Patterson taking this beating over it is that it sends a very clear message to New York politicians.

Quit trying to fix things. It isn't allowed. Just smile, wave, and ride the ship on down.

If only we had MORE politicians like Patterson, rather than less.

Who would have ever thought I would be arguing to defend an extremely liberal, Democrat, black governor against a coalition of Raz and Strix championing the cause of socialism and public sector labor unions?

Well, obviously it's because you and Patterson both hold a seemingly pragmatic view on the subject, and being pragmatic means crossing party lines frequently, since both parties exhibit entrenched retardedness.

Quote from: Berkut on April 17, 2009, 09:16:12 AM
The sad thing about Patterson taking this beating over it is that it sends a very clear message to New York politicians.

Quit trying to fix things. It isn't allowed. Just smile, wave, and ride the ship on down.

If only we had MORE politicians like Patterson, rather than less.

Who would have ever thought I would be arguing to defend an extremely liberal, Democrat, black governor against a coalition of Raz and Strix championing the cause of socialism and public sector labor unions?

Massachusetts Governor Duval Patrick fought a long fight to replace police flag details on construction sites with civilian construction flag details. These are the people who direct traffic at construction sites - Mass was the only state that still used police details, the police union fought the change pretty heavily for years. Police earned good overtime type pay for those details; it was thought that was heavy extra costs on all sorts of road or utility construction jobs. Now it turns out that due to State (certainly Union fought for) prevailing wage laws the flag men/women at the sites get as much or more than the police officers did. The civilian flag wavers get more money than many teachers, for directing traffic.

A few years ago I had a small job done on my sleepy side street. Town workers had to replace the sewer line to my house. Police came by and wanted a detail there; not sure if they got it, but they could have if they insisted. That job was being paid by the town, not out of my pocket. But still, that's tax money being paid out. I guess it doesn't matter though, since Union/State prevailing wage laws pay the civie flag wavers very well anyway.

 :lol:  Good old Crapachusetts.

Quote from: Caliga on April 17, 2009, 09:49:19 AM
:lol:  Good old Crapachusetts.

Oh man... this kind of stuff goes on everywhere. And then when we read about it we're somehow amazed! It's like Bizzarro world!

Governor Patrick is under a lot of fire lately. He's made a number of bad moves, annoyed a lot of people among his supporters. So I don't want to give the impression that he's been pushing for so much reform just because he tried to change the flag details.

I´m actually a bit amazed every time I hear about the differences in US unions and ours. Granted I tend to dislike ours as well but damn......

Quote from: Cecil on April 17, 2009, 10:06:19 AM
I´m actually a bit amazed every time I hear about the differences in US unions and ours. Granted I tend to dislike ours as well but damn......

Well, things are a bit different.  US unions take their orders from organized crime, while European unions have been set adrift for the last twenty years, since their central authority in Moscow collapsed.

Quote from: Monoriu on April 17, 2009, 12:28:54 AMI am a non union member.  Can I work for General Motors, not join UAW, receive lower wages than union members, and survive?

I work in the German auto industry and I am not a member of IG Metall (the German UAW) and I am certainly not required to join them either (that would violate the freedom of occupation and association). However, the bargaining on work conditions (hours, salary, etc.) they make applies to me too unless I get promoted to a management position.

I have a 35 hour work week. :frog:

Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 16, 2009, 11:12:12 PM
Seems like we're solidly anti-union in the gay marriage thread; wanted to get a better idea of where we stand on this.

I'm against. My rationale is that, while Strix is claiming that to be against unions is to be against free market, I think it's the other way around: unions subsist by restricting the market, and if their collective bargaining agreements are ever threatened, their recourse is to restrict it further by striking. Unions also encourage disparate pay practices, citing the United Auto Workers' recent grandstanding as an extreme example.

Honestly, I'm stymied as to how unions have managed to keep going; even those unions that offer apprenticeships aren't cost effective for employers or when their training is matched up against comparable outside education.

Summary: I'm against unions because they're mob rule getting in the way of free market.

they have their use.

In a big company, it will be simpler and more cost effective to negotiate one contract rather than 30 000.

However, the management of the big corporations have a tendancy to value short term gains over long ones, and as such, they play the appeasement policy with the unions to avoid a strike rather than holding their own.  But we can't blame the union for the management's incompetence.

In countries/states/provinces where unionization is mandatory and the public workforce includes a large % of the population, the game is however skewed in favour of the union, and that can be nocive.

But as a principle, the simple existence of a union is not a threat to free market in itself.
They are like any kind of business out there, they provide services to their members and negotiate on their behalf with the employer.  Figure it's like when you buy a HP printer in the store, you don't buy it from HP, you don't talk with an HP representative to buy one inkjet printer, you deal with an intermediary who has agreed to represent HP in this matter.


My only problem with the unions is their link to organized crime and the general sympathy, or rather apathy they get from the general population.  If we learn tomorrow that Microsoft has ties to organized crime and is used to blanket money, there would be a gazillion protests and calls for dismantlement.  But when it's the FTQ (and once again, I was right ;) ), it doesn't really bother anyone, not even the politicians.

Here are some observations I have made over the years.   Some might seem a bit trite but I haven't seen them mentioned in the thread so far:

1) Unions that are run well can be a good partner for the business because they can quickly and effectively communicate concerns of workers to management and then those issues can quickly be addressed.  One of the worst things for productivity is an unhappy workforce.

2) Unions that are not run well are an unmitigated disasters for a whole range of reasons that are too long to list here.

3) One of the reasons that businesses do not want unions is because the chances a obtaining a union described in 1 are less then the union described in 2.

4) The one thing most union members dont understand about being in a union is that they give up all their individual rights to sue or take any action in the employment realm.  If the union doesnt support them they are out in the cold.  Unfortunately this happens more then union supporters would like to admit.

5) Public sector unions should not be permitted to strike or negotiate collective agreements.  Collective bargaining only makes sense in the private sector where both sides need to keep in mind the profitability of the company (both in terms of the deal that is struck and in terms of any strike or lock out action during those negotiations).  That does not occur with public sector unions.  Rather then pretend that public sector negotiations are like private sector negotiations there should be a panel appointed to consider the appropriate terms of employment for public sector employees from time to time.  We do that with judges,  politicians and other office holders - why not do that with all public sector employees?  The public sector unions would then be left to do the important work of ensuring that the agreement put into place is adhered to and hopefully functioning as set out in paragraph 1.

6) All the research shows that the people do not unionize because of monetary issues.  They unionize because they think they are being mistreated - ie their supervisor is being a jerk, they are undervalued in the sense that they dont get enough credit for what they are doing and the company has no mechanism set up to allow them to have their concerns addressed. As a result when a company comes under a union certification drive its often their own fault.   

Quote from: Zanza2 on April 17, 2009, 10:45:08 AM

Quote from: Monoriu on April 17, 2009, 12:28:54 AMI am a non union member.  Can I work for General Motors, not join UAW, receive lower wages than union members, and survive?

I work in the German auto industry and I am not a member of IG Metall (the German UAW) and I am certainly not required to join them either (that would violate the freedom of occupation and association). However, the bargaining on work conditions (hours, salary, etc.) they make applies to me too unless I get promoted to a management position.

I have a 35 hour work week. :frog:

I am in the same position.  Under something called the Rand Formula I can choose to not become a union member - however the union will still negotiate my working conditions for me, and I still get to pay union dues.

Unions are linked to organised crime? :blink: :unsure:

Quote from: Tyr on April 17, 2009, 11:02:07 AM
Unions are linked to organised crime? :blink: :unsure:

I am going to assume that is a sarcasm.

Quote from: Barrister on April 17, 2009, 10:56:27 AMand I still get to pay union dues.

I don't pay them a dime as I am not a member.

Thanks for rubbing that in.  <_<

Unions are bad as a concept. In practice they are horribly damaging and suck man ass like it's going out of style. They are organized crime, even if in Sweden they aren't in name. Since the fucking Reds made their protection racket legal.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 17, 2009, 10:53:29 AM4) The one thing most union members dont understand about being in a union is that they give up all their individual rights to sue or take any action in the employment realm.  If the union doesnt support them they are out in the cold.  Unfortunately this happens more then union supporters would like to admit.

That's interesting. I am fairly certain that's not the case here. I can sue my employer for whatever I want. I am not sure if my employer is allowed to, but I would be allowed to negotiate my own work conditions if I felt inclined to do so. I guess their contract with the union forbids them to make special conditions for individual employees, but that's a limitation they entered voluntarily.

Quote from: Zanza2 on April 17, 2009, 11:18:45 AM
That's interesting. I am fairly certain that's not the case here. I can sue my employer for whatever I want. I am not sure if my employer is allowed to, but I would be allowed to negotiate my own work conditions if I felt inclined to do so. I guess their contract with the union forbids them to make special conditions for individual employees, but that's a limitation they entered voluntarily.

Then your system is very different.  What is a union for in your system?  Do they not handle grievances?  Do employers have to deal with both the union and you?  Sounds a bit chaotic to me.

Quote from: Tyr on April 17, 2009, 11:02:07 AM
Unions are linked to organised crime? :blink: :unsure:

  Say it ain't so!  :o

One of my favorite tales of good old fashioned union organization comes from Detroit of the 1920's, related by the Detroit News:

With their numbers swelled by the influx of mobsters from other cities who came to Detroit to cash in on the golden harvest of Prohibition, the Purple Gang prospered. The mob soon branched out into other rackets. During a period of strife in the Detroit area cleaning industry, the Purple Gang was used as terrorists by corrupt labor leaders to keep union members in line and to harass non-union independents. This conflict became known as the Cleaners and Dyers War. Bombings, thefts, beatings, and murder were all methods employed by the Purples to enforce union policy. They were paid handsomely for their services. The labor war ended with the Purple Gang Trial of 1928 in which all of the Purple Gangster defendants were eventually acquitted. The gang emerged from the trial unscathed and became the dominant power in the Detroit underworld. The Purples ruled the Detroit underworld for approximately five years from 1927 to 1932.

The conflict started over something like a 5 cent per shirt price raise the union shops wanted to enforce and ended up with The Purple Gang bombing non-union shops. 

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 17, 2009, 11:02:45 AM

Quote from: Tyr on April 17, 2009, 11:02:07 AM
Unions are linked to organised crime? :blink: :unsure:

I am going to assume that is a sarcasm.

Not at all.  It's totally alien to the British experience of trade unions :mellow:


I'm very pro :)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages-eu.amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2F0586090363.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg&hash=bda33ed98cfd92a70df0caedb1cb8f6a3aa619e8)

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 17, 2009, 11:41:23 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 17, 2009, 11:02:45 AM

Quote from: Tyr on April 17, 2009, 11:02:07 AM
Unions are linked to organised crime? :blink: :unsure:

I am going to assume that is a sarcasm.

Not at all.  It's totally alien to the British experience of trade unions :mellow:

:yes: Yeah that's why Maggie had to break them.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 17, 2009, 11:20:50 AMThen your system is very different.  What is a union for in your system?  Do they not handle grievances?  Do employers have to deal with both the union and you?  Sounds a bit chaotic to me.

As far as I know it works like this: if you have a grievance with your employer you can sue them. We have specific administrative courts that solely work on employment issues. If you are a union member, the union will help you with their own lawyers, give you advice and may even finance your court costs. If you aren't a union member, you fight for yourself.

The unions are mainly there for wage bargaining and general conditions like work hours or so. My work contract just states: "All conditions from the wage bargaining agreement apply."

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 17, 2009, 11:41:23 AM
Not at all.  It's totally alien to the British experience of trade unions :mellow:

I haven't heard about a relation between the unions and organized crime in Germany either.

The fundamental idea of labor organizing to avoid abuse by management is good. The way it's presently manifest in this country isn't. Or, to borrow from the Simpsons:

You can't treat the working man this way.  One day, we'll form a union
   and get the fair and equitable treatment we deserve!  Then we'll go
   too far, and get corrupt and shiftless, and the Japanese will eat us alive!

Zanza, in the Canadian system all workplace disputes are worked out between the Union and the Employer.  The worker in question is a mere witness to what occurred.  The Union has a duty to fairly represent the worker but fair representation does not go as far as doing what the worker wants.  The union is free to tell the worker that it will not arbitrate the workers grievance if the union believes that is the best course for the collective of all the workers.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 17, 2009, 11:53:19 AM
Zanza, in the Canadian system all workplace disputes are worked out between the Union and the Employer.  The worker in question is a mere witness to what occurred.  The Union has a duty to fairly represent the worker but fair representation does not go as far as doing what the worker wants.  The union is free to tell the worker that it will not arbitrate the workers grievance if the union believes that is the best course for the collective of all the workers.

@ Canadian union members: :nelson

Quote from: The Brain on April 17, 2009, 11:56:27 AM
@ Canadian union members: :nelson

I should put that in my signature line after advising unionized employees that they cant do anything outside their union.

Quote from: The Brain on April 17, 2009, 11:43:49 AM:yes: Yeah that's why Maggie had to break them.

Maggie never broke the unions.  She broke their power, certainly, but the same unions who opposed her are still around.  There wasn't ever any union breaking like under, say, Bobby Kennedy.  I can't think of any union or any union leader (democratically elected by the membership) who has been implicated in any organised crime.  That could be a lack of reading, or memory on my part but I think it's sort of held up by a couple of great anti-union films.

In the US you have 'On The Waterfront' a brilliant polemical film against unions and their clear involvement with organised crime. 

In the UK we have 'I'm Alright Jack' a brilliant satire that shows the unions incompetent (led by Peter Sellers in one of his best roles as the communist sympathising shop-steward: 'Ahhh, Russia. All them corn fields and ballet in the evening.', 'We do not and cannot accept the principle that incompetence justifies dismissal. That is victimisation.') meanwhile the company management are corrupt and trying to sell everything to an Arab arms dealer until it's all exposed (including everyone's bad behaviour) by a naive incompetent fool.

Those are two very different backgrounds from which Americans and people like me or Jos look at unions.

Edit: Just saw this brilliant line from 'I'm Alright Jack' that still describes the British worker: 'The natural rhythm of the British worker is neither natural, rhythmic, or much to do with work.' :lol:

I remember the terror I faced in my work when the Poles started arriving and were all hard-working.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 17, 2009, 12:04:01 PM

Quote from: The Brain on April 17, 2009, 11:43:49 AM:yes: Yeah that's why Maggie had to break them.

Maggie never broke the unions.  She broke their power, certainly

Thank you.

Wasnt there also a Carry On movie with a backdrop of a union.  I remember a scene where a supervisor wanted to inspect a work area to see if any work was being done (none was) and the shop stewart quickly showed him the door pointing out that supervision was strictly forbidden.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 17, 2009, 11:02:45 AM

Quote from: Tyr on April 17, 2009, 11:02:07 AM
Unions are linked to organised crime? :blink: :unsure:

I am going to assume that is a sarcasm.

That is not sarcasm, that is truth, and they are under investigation by the SQ.  Didn't the news cross the provincial border?
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/04/08/just-where-are-those-billions-for-infrastructure-going-exactly/


Of course, there will be no formal accusations, even less any kind of sanctions.  It happenned before, it will happen again.
1974 - Commission Cliche revealed ties with many construction unions and the mob.  Among other things, unions were guilty of intimidating workers and entrepreneurs to get their way.

2003- Commission d'Enquête sur la Gaspésia revealed the FTQ was guilty of intimidating workers and entrepreneurs.

2009- La Presse and Radio-Canada (CBC) revealed the head of the FTQ Construction had acummulated 125 000$ in expenses for six months, wich for the most part was unjustified (say for example, a 600$ diner...) and made up of false bills/receipts.  Ties to the Hell's Angels and Italian mafia were revealed in later investigations, for various members of the FTQ.  The head of Montreal public services spent a week on a luxurious yacht in the Caribeans, while the city was giving its biggest contract yet to the owner of said yacht.  Mr Accurso, owner of the Yacht has close ties with the FTQ and all the senior directors of this company seems to have spent time on his yacht at one point or another.  The FTQ never bothered any of Mr Accurso companies...  While us, mere mortals not rich enough to pay caribean cruise, or even St-Lawrence cruise to workers, we have to make do with the assholes they force us to employ whenever we go outside our home region.

As as said, it happenned before, it will happen again.

Quote from: Iormlund on April 17, 2009, 07:40:50 AM
Or is just unions that shouldn't have influence on politicians, while businesses are OK?

Yes, I believe that businesses should run the country, that our Renraku overlords should sell half the country to Japan for greater profits and that the CEOs of the 10 largest countries (sorry, companies) should get prima noctae rights over the serfs working in their factories.

Viper, I was saying that he must be sarcastically wondering whether organized crime is involved in Unions. ;)

For our British friends who wish to think they are immune.  They might want to take a closer look at their stevedoring companies.  Hard to believe organized crime has infiltrated everywhere else but somehow GB has no such involvement.

Wow; just finally got back to this thread (went to bed right after posting it), and yeah, dumb old I should have mentioned that it was the US labor union model in particular that I'm talking about.

The concept has some merit, but it really decries a lack of faith in our own employment laws: the law dictates hiring, firing, and acceptable discipline- the union appeal becomes redundant when you consider OSHA's role in determining quality of working conditions, the NLRB's control of fair business practices, and the EEOC's role in delimiting acceptable causes for application rejection, discipline, and dismissal. The only aspect that isn't boldly outlined by the government is individual pay practice, but it does outline recourse against disparate pay, so for the most part, you can expect to be held to the same pay practices as your superiors.

Labor unions do have a limited right to sue, so all they really do in practice is remove the benefit of our objective labor laws and replace them to an extent with an archaic hierarchical model.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 17, 2009, 12:07:54 PM
Wasnt there also a Carry On movie with a backdrop of a union.  I remember a scene where a supervisor wanted to inspect a work area to see if any work was being done (none was) and the shop stewart quickly showed him the door pointing out that supervision was strictly forbidden.

Possibly.  I can't think of a Carry On union films :mellow:

QuoteFor our British friends who wish to think they are immune.  They might want to take a closer look at their stevedoring companies.  Hard to believe organized crime has infiltrated everywhere else but somehow GB has no such involvement.

I don't know what a stevedoring company is, from what I understand a stevedore is a docker (this is based on The Wire).  While the Dockers' Union is one of the most militant trades unions in the country I can't think of any link to organised crime, at least, certainly not in Liverpool.

Even searching for unions, uk and organised crime in google the best I get is stuff on EU wide organised crime and unions protesting that employers are too close to people smugglers in their lack of interest in migrant workers' documentation.

I am not a member of any union. I think I should join a professional order tho.

Unions in the US are largely ridiculous.  Unions in Europe seem to be moderately useful.  Unions in developing and less stable economies are a must.

I cannot, therefore, vote in this poll.  Too many variables, not enough poll options.

Quote from: fahdiz on April 17, 2009, 12:27:45 PM
Unions in Europe seem to be moderately useful.

You are deceived.

Quote from: The Brain on April 17, 2009, 12:30:00 PM
You are deceived.

Possibly.  But they don't seem as shitty as US unions, at least.

Quote from: Martinus on April 17, 2009, 03:28:13 AM
Ever heard of monopolies?

Yes, and in the US unions are attempts to monopolize the supply of labor.  That which is universally condemned in businesses seems perfectly acceptable to some when undertaken by a union.

This isn't to say that unions don't have their uses, but pretty much the only unions left in the US are closed-shop unions, and those are the most pernicious kind of unions.

Quote from: fahdiz on April 17, 2009, 12:31:35 PM

Quote from: The Brain on April 17, 2009, 12:30:00 PM
You are deceived.

Possibly.  But they don't seem as shitty as US unions, at least.

Few things ever are.

Quote from: grumbler on April 17, 2009, 12:32:20 PM
This isn't to say that unions don't have their uses, but pretty much the only unions left in the US are closed-shop unions, and those are the most pernicious kind of unions.

Ah.  Banned in the UK, I believe.

Quote from: grumbler on April 17, 2009, 12:32:20 PMYes, and in the US unions are attempts to monopolize the supply of labor.  That which is universally condemned in businesses seems perfectly acceptable to some when undertaken by a union.

To counter this, the employers in Germany also kind of unionize and make employers federations. So the metal-workers union negotiates with the metal employers federation (for the auto industry for example). That way you only have two big negotiation blocks representing employees and employers for entire industries. So they have roughly the same bargaining power I guess. Their agreements allow some leeway to allow for differences between companies. On top of that, there are company-specific agreements between union (or rather worker representatives which do not necessarily have to be unionized) and the management.

QuoteThis isn't to say that unions don't have their uses, but pretty much the only unions left in the US are closed-shop unions, and those are the most pernicious kind of unions.

That kind of union sounds like it sucks.

Quote from: The Brain on April 17, 2009, 11:43:49 AM

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 17, 2009, 11:41:23 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 17, 2009, 11:02:45 AM

Quote from: Tyr on April 17, 2009, 11:02:07 AM
Unions are linked to organised crime? :blink: :unsure:

I am going to assume that is a sarcasm.

Not at all.  It's totally alien to the British experience of trade unions :mellow:

:yes: Yeah that's why Maggie had to break them.

I think Thatcher's actions had much more to do with their treason than their thuggishness.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 17, 2009, 10:53:29 AM
All the research shows that the people do not unionize because of monetary issues.  They unionize because they think they are being mistreated - ie their supervisor is being a jerk, they are undervalued in the sense that they dont get enough credit for what they are doing and the company has no mechanism set up to allow them to have their concerns addressed. As a result when a company comes under a union certification drive its often their own fault.  

This is true.  Ironically, if the workplace becomes unionized, none of this changes.  The supervisors who were jerks will still be there (and still be jerks), the workers still aren't going to get the credit they think they deserve, and while there will be a grievance procedure set up, normally it will have specified matters that it will handle--which will be the concerns of the union leaders, not the individual workers.  Any changes will be in the compensation the workers receive.

Quote from: dps on April 17, 2009, 12:43:08 PM
This is true.  Ironically, if the workplace becomes unionized, none of this changes.  The supervisors who were jerks will still be there (and still be jerks), the workers still aren't going to get the credit they think they deserve, and while there will be a grievance procedure set up, normally it will have specified matters that it will handle--which will be the concerns of the union leaders, not the individual workers.  Any changes will be in the compensation the workers receive.

Agreed, the reasons for unionizing dont actually get addressed by forming a union.  Which often comes as a shock to those that brought in the union, especially when they realize that all the rights they once had have also been given away to the discretion of the union - although apparently not in Germany.

Somehow this thread disappeared from the forum. It also tells me that there haven't been new posts for the last 120 days.  :huh:

*bump*

Quote from: Zanza2 on April 18, 2009, 03:32:49 AM
Somehow this thread disappeared from the forum. It also tells me that there haven't been new posts for the last 120 days.  :huh:

*bump*

So it was alla a dream!

Languish is becoming more and more like a daytime soap opera. <_<

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 17, 2009, 12:15:35 PM
Viper, I was saying that he must be sarcastically wondering whether organized crime is involved in Unions. ;)

duh!  sorry  :Embarrass:

Quote from: Zanza2 on April 18, 2009, 03:32:49 AM
Somehow this thread disappeared from the forum. It also tells me that there haven't been new posts for the last 120 days.  :huh:

*bump*

I thought some anti-union types deleted it somehow.

Quote from: grumbler on April 17, 2009, 12:32:20 PM

Quote from: Martinus on April 17, 2009, 03:28:13 AM
Ever heard of monopolies?

Yes, and in the US unions are attempts to monopolize the supply of labor.  That which is universally condemned in businesses seems perfectly acceptable to some when undertaken by a union.

This isn't to say that unions don't have their uses, but pretty much the only unions left in the US are closed-shop unions, and those are the most pernicious kind of unions.

I was under the impression that Closed shops had been illegal for 50 years.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 18, 2009, 04:30:21 PM
I was under the impression that Closed shops had been illegal for 50 years.

It depends on your state.  Any so-called "right to work" state bans the closed shop.  At that point, a union is substantially crippled.

Quote from: ulmont on April 18, 2009, 04:41:46 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 18, 2009, 04:30:21 PM
I was under the impression that Closed shops had been illegal for 50 years.

It depends on your state.  Any so-called "right to work" state bans the closed shop.  At that point, a union is substantially crippled.

What about the federal law that banned them.  Taft-Hartley I think.

According to wiki there are no closed shops but there are union shops, where after a certain amount of time you are required to join the union, opt out by paying the equivalent of union dues, or lose your job.

Quote from: ulmont on April 18, 2009, 04:41:46 PM
It depends on your state.  Any so-called "right to work" state bans the closed shop.  At that point, a union is substantially crippled.

Raz is right; closed shops have been illegal in the US since the Truman administration. 

There's usually confusion about the difference between a closed shop and a union shop.  A closed shop is one where membership in a union is a pre-condition to employment.  Union shops, where one must join the union before a set period of time after gaining employment or be fired, are still permitted except in states with right to work laws.

Beaten by Garbon.  I'll now proudly accept my certificate of redundancy certificate.

Quote from: Martinus on April 17, 2009, 03:52:25 AM
Considering that in the US there are states with the barbaric concept of "at will employment", I would say that trade unions are still very much necessary.

Completely anecdotal here (and I know that the "at will employment" concept is just a button that Marty likes to push to stir the pot, but anyways), but with all of the layoffs that I have been seeing going on all around me here lately one of the down sides that I have been seeing for union workers is that their employers are pretty much hemmed into letting them go completely based on seniority & without any kind of consideration for merit & productiveness -- guys that have been kicking ass & taking names for seven or eight years are sitting home watching "The View" (shudder) while fucktards that have done nothing for twenty years but show up on time & do the bare minimum still get paid to bitch about how something isn't their job, which in turn seems to lead to even more layoffs.

Or something.  In the end I'll have to echo the thoughts already expressed here by a few others -- the few unions here in the US that really care about their members & sincerely work to improve their lot by working with Management(TM) to promote further education & training opportunities are great, but your stereotypical "fuck you, pay me!" unions can blow me.  IMHO their inflexibility is just contributing even more to the economy's downward spiral...

Unions are not only good for workers and good for business, they're good for America.

Seniority is one of those things that I saw in the US (again, in The Wire) that I'm not sure if our unions have.  Does anyone know? :mellow:

Quote from: Savonarola on April 18, 2009, 04:49:14 PM

Quote from: ulmont on April 18, 2009, 04:41:46 PM
It depends on your state.  Any so-called "right to work" state bans the closed shop.  At that point, a union is substantially crippled.

Raz is right; closed shops have been illegal in the US since the Truman administration. 

There's usually confusion about the difference between a closed shop and a union shop.  A closed shop is one where membership in a union is a pre-condition to employment.  Union shops, where one must join the union before a set period of time after gaining employment or be fired, are still permitted except in states with right to work laws.

Yes, and what right-to-work laws do is ban union shops in the states that have them.

Part of the confusion over the terms "closed shop" and "union shop" is due to the fact that the closed shop has been against the law for so long that the term "closed shop" has become to be used to refer to what are actually union shops.

Quote from: Savonarola on April 18, 2009, 04:49:14 PMUnion shops, where one must join the union before a set period of time after gaining employment or be fired,

Like the Baltimore PD.

Quote from: Savonarola on April 18, 2009, 04:49:14 PM

Quote from: ulmont on April 18, 2009, 04:41:46 PM
It depends on your state.  Any so-called "right to work" state bans the closed shop.  At that point, a union is substantially crippled.

Raz is right; closed shops have been illegal in the US since the Truman administration. 

There's usually confusion about the difference between a closed shop and a union shop.  A closed shop is one where membership in a union is a pre-condition to employment.  Union shops, where one must join the union before a set period of time after gaining employment or be fired, are still permitted except in states with right to work laws.

Seems like a semantic difference.

Quote from: HVC on April 18, 2009, 06:36:06 PM
Seems like a semantic difference.

And that's what Languish is all about. :thumbsup:

I think the idea of outlawing closed shops was to prevent Unions from blackballing people and therefore preventing them from working. 

Quote from: Savonarola on April 18, 2009, 06:47:45 PM

Quote from: HVC on April 18, 2009, 06:36:06 PM
Seems like a semantic difference.

And that's what Languish is all about. :thumbsup:

I think the idea of outlawing closed shops was to prevent Unions from blackballing people and therefore preventing them from working.

I think the idea was to weaken the power of Unions.

Quote from: HVC on April 18, 2009, 06:36:06 PMSeems like a semantic difference.

Yep. We still effectively have closed shops.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 18, 2009, 07:04:10 PM

Quote from: Savonarola on April 18, 2009, 06:47:45 PM

Quote from: HVC on April 18, 2009, 06:36:06 PM
Seems like a semantic difference.

And that's what Languish is all about. :thumbsup:

I think the idea of outlawing closed shops was to prevent Unions from blackballing people and therefore preventing them from working.

I think the idea was to weaken the power of Unions.

:tinfoil:

Quote from: HVC on April 18, 2009, 06:36:06 PM

Quote from: Savonarola on April 18, 2009, 04:49:14 PM

Quote from: ulmont on April 18, 2009, 04:41:46 PM
It depends on your state.  Any so-called "right to work" state bans the closed shop.  At that point, a union is substantially crippled.

Raz is right; closed shops have been illegal in the US since the Truman administration. 

There's usually confusion about the difference between a closed shop and a union shop.  A closed shop is one where membership in a union is a pre-condition to employment.  Union shops, where one must join the union before a set period of time after gaining employment or be fired, are still permitted except in states with right to work laws.

Seems like a semantic difference.

No, because in a union shop situation, the union contractually has to accept as a member anyone who the employer hires, but under a closed shop, the employer could only hire the people that the union allowed to join--effectively letting the union blackball prospective employees.  In particular, many unions didn't allow minorities, particularly blacks, to join, so the closed shop was often used for racial discrimination, and banning it was a step toward integration--remember that Taft-Hartley came well before the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Quote from: dps on April 18, 2009, 07:39:33 PM
No, because in a union shop situation, the union contractually has to accept as a member anyone who the employer hires, but under a closed shop, the employer could only hire the people that the union allowed to join--effectively letting the union blackball prospective employees.  In particular, many unions didn't allow minorities, particularly blacks, to join, so the closed shop was often used for racial discrimination, and banning it was a step toward integration--remember that Taft-Hartley came well before the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I'll buy that.  :cool:

On principle a union of the workforce is to be desired.  Unfortunately Unions tend to copy the existing corporate model - therefore duplicating all the flaws of said model.

Keep corporations small and unions small.



G.

Quote from: Grallon on April 18, 2009, 08:40:02 PM
On principle a union of the workforce is to be desired.  Unfortunately Unions tend to copy the existing corporate model - therefore duplicating all the flaws of said model.

Keep corporations small and unions small.



G.

Actually, I totally agree with this. When they get too big, it turns into collusion--just like any business sector dominated by one or two players does.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 18, 2009, 07:04:10 PM

Quote from: Savonarola on April 18, 2009, 06:47:45 PM

Quote from: HVC on April 18, 2009, 06:36:06 PM
Seems like a semantic difference.

And that's what Languish is all about. :thumbsup:

I think the idea of outlawing closed shops was to prevent Unions from blackballing people and therefore preventing them from working.

I think the idea was to weaken the power of Unions.

That was the ultimate point of Taft-Hartley; but not necessarily the anti-closed shop provision.  The power to the Union had simply grown to great at that point; Truman vetoed Taft-Hartley, but he used it many times during his presidency.  He even went further and threatened to draft railroad workers while they were on strike.

Quote from: vinraith on April 17, 2009, 11:51:16 AM
The fundamental idea of labor organizing to avoid abuse by management is good. The way it's presently manifest in this country isn't. Or, to borrow from the Simpsons:

You can't treat the working man this way.  One day, we'll form a union
   and get the fair and equitable treatment we deserve!  Then we'll go
   too far, and get corrupt and shiftless, and the Japanese will eat us alive!

That is a great quote. :D

60-70 years ago unions were great for raising wages and improving workplace conditions. But now in a lot of industries competition is such that unions can't improve wages and keep their employers competitive with non union companies and overseas labor. And with OSHA, the effective ending of at will employment through anti-discrimination legislation, and the current legal environment being more receptive to intervening in the employer/employee relationship, it seems a lot of the improvements originally sought by employees are now universally guaranteed.

A great example is the UAW. It claims--and I think with some merit--that its wages aren't out of line with those of non-union US automakers. So I can only assume that its value added to members is in the thousands of pages of regulations negotiated into the contract. While those may seem good for workers, if I was to get a job with an automaker I'd rather go to one that is not Ford, GM, or Chrysler and let OSHA look out for me rather than a union.

I will admitt,  I have family members who are Union members and it's treated them well (one's a Senator), so I am a bit biased. :P

Quote from: alfred russel on April 18, 2009, 10:50:09 PM
A great example is the UAW. It claims--and I think with some merit--that its wages aren't out of line with those of non-union US automakers. So I can only assume that its value added to members is in the thousands of pages of regulations negotiated into the contract. While those may seem good for workers, if I was to get a job with an automaker I'd rather go to one that is not Ford, GM, or Chrysler and let OSHA look out for me rather than a union.

Yes. Here's a breakdown provided by Ford payroll: http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2008/12/13/299179.html

The difference is staggering in the legacy costs. ($16/man-hour UAW, versus $3/man-hour transplant). Also, I could understand a one-to-two dollar difference per man-hour between union and non-union, but three's pushing it.

Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 18, 2009, 11:04:10 PM

Yes. Here's a breakdown provided by Ford payroll: http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2008/12/13/299179.html

The difference is staggering in the legacy costs. ($16/man-hour UAW, versus $3/man-hour transplant). Also, I could understand a one-to-two dollar difference per man-hour between union and non-union, but three's pushing it.

I've never understood the legacy cost angle of this as an excuse for the auto makers. The principle of post retirement benefits is that they are funded when the worker is actually working and invested so that when the worker retires the funds are there to pay him or her. If the legacy costs are a huge burden right now, that means that some combination of the plans were massively underfunded or the funds were put in bad investments.

The majority of the blame for that is obviously with management. But the UAW deserves some flak too--the Pension Guaranty Corporation does not stand behind pension benefit payments over a relatively low amount a year. There are probably a number of UAW retirees that stand to lose a lot of benefits if an automaker goes bankrupt. The UAW could have been on top of this.

Quote from: alfred russel on April 18, 2009, 11:17:37 PM
I've never understood the legacy cost angle of this as an excuse for the auto makers. The principle of post retirement benefits is that they are funded when the worker is actually working and invested so that when the worker retires the funds are there to pay him or her. If the legacy costs are a huge burden right now, that means that some combination of the plans were massively underfunded or the funds were put in bad investments.

The majority of the blame for that is obviously with management. But the UAW deserves some flak too--the Pension Guaranty Corporation does not stand behind pension benefit payments over a relatively low amount a year. There are probably a number of UAW retirees that stand to lose a lot of benefits if an automaker goes bankrupt. The UAW could have been on top of this.

I was about to say the same thing about the legacy costs.  The way legacy costs are framed makes it looks like the US automakers are just victims of their maturity.  In reality they've in effect been holding back on paying their employees full compensation, and now need to scrounge up the money to catch up.  Calling those costs "legacy costs" is extremely disingenuous.  The more apt term would be "deadbeat costs".

Quote from: alfred russel on April 18, 2009, 11:17:37 PM
I've never understood the legacy cost angle of this as an excuse for the auto makers. The principle of post retirement benefits is that they are funded when the worker is actually working and invested so that when the worker retires the funds are there to pay him or her. If the legacy costs are a huge burden right now, that means that some combination of the plans were massively underfunded or the funds were put in bad investments.

The majority of the blame for that is obviously with management. But the UAW deserves some flak too--the Pension Guaranty Corporation does not stand behind pension benefit payments over a relatively low amount a year. There are probably a number of UAW retirees that stand to lose a lot of benefits if an automaker goes bankrupt. The UAW could have been on top of this.

Apparently, the difference is NOT all in pension/retirement. When comparing employees with VEBA (a health reimbursement plan available to Ford employees), they found the Legacy costs WERE THE SAME ($3/man-hour, both union and non), so the pension argument was a red herring.

Even totally discounting legacy costs altogether, union work comes in at $55/man-hour as opposed to transplant labor at $49/man-hour. The UAW work costs almost 20% more, without factoring in the union's healthcare costs.

Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 18, 2009, 11:49:12 PM

Apparently, the difference is NOT all in pension/retirement. When comparing employees with VEBA (a health reimbursement plan available to Ford employees), they found the Legacy costs WERE THE SAME ($3/man-hour, both union and non), so the pension argument was a red herring.

VEBA is a part of retirement costs.

I am a union member...

Fuck, would have siad something insightfull about unions and their role in the labourmarket, but to hangover and still to semi-drunk to think clearly this early sunday morning, so later, much later...

Anyway the thread title presents a false alternative. It's like asking "alcohol: good for fun or bad for health?"

Quote from: Berkut on April 17, 2009, 08:10:36 AM
Look at Strix as a fine example - he is making nearly $80,000 doing nearly unskilled or low skilled work that requires nothing more than a bachelors degree, and the big beef he has with the governor is that the governor doesn't want to give him yet another yearly raise at a time when the state is looking at tens of billions of dollars in budget shortfall.

And a great many law enforcement people whose job doesn't even require a college degree are making more.

As far as the skilled part. This weekend why don't you go knocking door to door on Avenue D at about 11:00 pm by yourself. Let me know how that turns out.  :lmfao:

Parole is a very hard job. It requires you to be a law enforcement officer, a social worker, and a lawyer plus various other things. It requires long odd hours and extreme flexibility in your life. It's also very dangerous. EVERYONE you are dealing with is a convicted felon (and most have multiple felonies).

I am fairly compensated for what I do. The stress and hours associated with the job make it almost impossible to work several jobs at once which is why the state pays us enough to focus on our primary job (we actually have to get is cleared through the regional supervisor for outside employment).

I am a champion of some aspects of Unions. I have worked in a state where you could be fired at will and in the law enforcement field that creates a tremendous amount of pressure and stress that is not needed. Also, as a public safety organization, we cannot go on strike, so union representation is important.

I doubt you could do my job Berkut. Yes, I am sure you could learn it. I don't believe you could hack being out on the streets. Not many people can. That is why we are paid what we are paid.

Why the bitterness Berkut? Did you not get hired by the State at some point? Or is it hard for you to comprehend that skilled labor isn't only based on how well you can read a technical manual?

Quote from: Strix on April 19, 2009, 08:55:30 AM
That is why we are paid what we are paid.

I think you've already clearly demonstrated that that isn't the reason why.

Options are to black and white, not voting.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 19, 2009, 12:16:21 PM
Options are too black and white, not voting.

That was sort of the point.

Quote from: garbon on April 19, 2009, 12:06:50 PM

Quote from: Strix on April 19, 2009, 08:55:30 AM
That is why we are paid what we are paid.

I think you've already clearly demonstrated that that isn't the reason why.

Yes, we clearly want someone of your demeanor and personality to be safeguarding the public from the criminals let out by the more liberal elements of our society.

Good news, you wouldn't even qualify for the job.  :lol:

Quote from: Strix on April 19, 2009, 01:40:12 PM
Yes, we clearly want someone of your demeanor and personality to be safeguarding the public from the criminals let out by the more liberal elements of our society.

Good news, you wouldn't even qualify for the job.  :lol:

Why would I want such a lousy job? :huh:

Quote from: garbon on April 19, 2009, 01:41:57 PM

Quote from: Strix on April 19, 2009, 01:40:12 PM
Yes, we clearly want someone of your demeanor and personality to be safeguarding the public from the criminals let out by the more liberal elements of our society.

Good news, you wouldn't even qualify for the job.  :lol:

Why would I want such a lousy job? :huh:

That's true. Your indecisiveness and lack of moral character would suggest that you're much better suited to probably an Academic job.  Protecting the public safety and providing a useful service to the masses probably wouldn't be satisfying to you.

Than again, according to Berkut, anything requiring less than a Master's Degree is unskilled or low skilled labor at best. So, I am not sure where you fit in that spectrum.

Quote from: Strix on April 19, 2009, 09:56:54 AM
Why the bitterness Berkut? Did you not get hired by the State at some point? Or is it hard for you to comprehend that skilled labor isn't only based on how well you can read a technical manual?

NO bitterness at all, and no, I have never worked for the state.

I simply do not think for a moment that people who work for the state are remotely fairly compensated for what they do, in any measure that is not completely subjective.

I have immense respect for law enforcement, but that doesn't mean that I think any number they can browbeat a politician into is "fair". You guys are paid based strictly on the political consequences for politicians if they refuse to pay you what you demand. That isn't right.

Quote from: Strix on April 19, 2009, 01:46:45 PM
Than again, according to Berkut, anything requiring less than a Master's Degree is unskilled or low skilled labor at best. So, I am not sure where you fit in that spectrum.

Well, you certainly have the blatant lying part of the job down pat. A lack if integrity - is that important to being a parole officer?

Funny that you are lecturing others on their lack of moral character while you lie out of your ass - and you even know you are lying.

Quote from: Strix on April 19, 2009, 01:46:45 PM
That's true. Your indecisiveness and lack of moral character would suggest that you're much better suited to probably an Academic job.

Why the fuck would I want an Academic job?

Quote from: Strix on April 19, 2009, 01:46:45 PMProtecting the public safety and providing a useful service to the masses probably wouldn't be satisfying to you.

Spot on. Only the delusional take comfort in that.

I think that based on the strength of this poll, we can safely abolish unions.

Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2009, 01:48:36 PM

Quote from: Strix on April 19, 2009, 01:46:45 PM
Than again, according to Berkut, anything requiring less than a Master's Degree is unskilled or low skilled labor at best. So, I am not sure where you fit in that spectrum.

Well, you certainly have the blatant lying part of the job down pat. A lack if integrity - is that important to being a parole officer?

Funny that you are lecturing others on their lack of moral character while you lie out of your ass - and you even know you are lying.

How so?

Quote from: BerkutLook at Strix as a fine example - he is making nearly $80,000 doing nearly unskilled or low skilled work that requires nothing more than a bachelors degree, and the big beef he has with the governor is that the governor doesn't want to give him yet another yearly raise at a time when the state is looking at tens of billions of dollars in budget shortfall.

You clearly stated that unskilled and low skilled work requires nothing more than a bachelors degree. That would mean that skilled requires a more advanced degree i.e. a Master's or higher.

Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2009, 01:47:26 PM
NO bitterness at all, and no, I have never worked for the state.

I simply do not think for a moment that people who work for the state are remotely fairly compensated for what they do, in any measure that is not completely subjective.

I have immense respect for law enforcement, but that doesn't mean that I think any number they can browbeat a politician into is "fair". You guys are paid based strictly on the political consequences for politicians if they refuse to pay you what you demand. That isn't right.

It all depends on your union. Parole doesn't belong to a law enforcement union because of the social worker aspect of our job. The bargaining unit I am associated with is Professional, Scientific and Technical Services. If they let us join NYSCOPBA than I'd be making a lot more with better benefits (and wouldn't have the thought of only 60% disability running through my head as I jump fences and wrestle with parolees on the ground).

And, yes, it is right. The point of a free market is to get fair market value for what goods or service you provide. Don't hate a union for getting a good deal. Hate the person who gave it to them. Which is my issue with Paterson. He didn't have to sign the last contract. Governors have refused to do so in the past, and union workers continue the current contract until a new one is worked out (with the new agreement being back dated).

Do you think it right to be able to change the terms of a contract halfway through? No, of course it isn't. If you want to change the terms than you need to negotiate. Paterson is unwilling to do so.

Quote from: Strix on April 19, 2009, 02:30:18 PM
It all depends on your union. Parole doesn't belong to a law enforcement union because of the social worker aspect of our job. The bargaining unit I am associated with is Professional, Scientific and Technical Services. If they let us join NYSCOPBA than I'd be making a lot more with better benefits (and wouldn't have the thought of only 60% disability running through my head as I jump fences and wrestle with parolees on the ground).

And, yes, it is right. The point of a free market is to get fair market value for what goods or service you provide. Don't hate a union for getting a good deal. Hate the person who gave it to them. Which is my issue with Paterson. He didn't have to sign the last contract. Governors have refused to do so in the past, and union workers continue the current contract until a new one is worked out (with the new agreement being back dated).

Do you think it right to be able to change the terms of a contract halfway through? No, of course it isn't. If you want to change the terms than you need to negotiate. Paterson is unwilling to do so.

First of all Strixy you know I greatly respectthe work of parole officers.  Hell my wife is currently working as a probation officer, which basically does the same thing (parole officers only deal with inmates released after 2+ year sentences, which are rare here).  There's also no way I'd call it an unskilled position.

I agree with "don't hat the untion because it got a good deal" - but instead I'll hate the system that gave rise to that deal.  And unfortunately there's only way that system can change - and thats by the government changing the laws.  If the current system is tilted towards public sector unions then you can't expect the employer to get a fair deal by simply renegotiating.  You have to tackle the underlying system.

The Prosecutor wants to change the law? Isn't that treason of the worst kind?

Quote from: Strix on April 19, 2009, 02:11:18 PM

Quote from: BerkutLook at Strix as a fine example - he is making nearly $80,000 doing nearly unskilled or low skilled work that requires nothing more than a bachelors degree, and the big beef he has with the governor is that the governor doesn't want to give him yet another yearly raise at a time when the state is looking at tens of billions of dollars in budget shortfall.

You clearly stated that unskilled and low skilled work requires nothing more than a bachelors degree. That would mean that skilled requires a more advanced degree i.e. a Master's or higher.

I take it that reading comprehension isn't a significant part of your job.  If it is, then I change my vote in the poll because you are clearly grossly unqualified for your job.

Berkut's comment was clearly about your work, not work in general. 

He even said "takle Strix as [an] example" and you still didn't get it!   :lol:

Quote from: Barrister on April 19, 2009, 03:30:44 PM

Quote from: Strix on April 19, 2009, 02:30:18 PM
It all depends on your union. Parole doesn't belong to a law enforcement union because of the social worker aspect of our job. The bargaining unit I am associated with is Professional, Scientific and Technical Services. If they let us join NYSCOPBA than I'd be making a lot more with better benefits (and wouldn't have the thought of only 60% disability running through my head as I jump fences and wrestle with parolees on the ground).

And, yes, it is right. The point of a free market is to get fair market value for what goods or service you provide. Don't hate a union for getting a good deal. Hate the person who gave it to them. Which is my issue with Paterson. He didn't have to sign the last contract. Governors have refused to do so in the past, and union workers continue the current contract until a new one is worked out (with the new agreement being back dated).

Do you think it right to be able to change the terms of a contract halfway through? No, of course it isn't. If you want to change the terms than you need to negotiate. Paterson is unwilling to do so.

First of all Strixy you know I greatly respectthe work of parole officers.  Hell my wife is currently working as a probation officer, which basically does the same thing (parole officers only deal with inmates released after 2+ year sentences, which are rare here).  There's also no way I'd call it an unskilled position.

I agree with "don't hat the untion because it got a good deal" - but instead I'll hate the system that gave rise to that deal.  And unfortunately there's only way that system can change - and thats by the government changing the laws.  If the current system is tilted towards public sector unions then you can't expect the employer to get a fair deal by simply renegotiating.  You have to tackle the underlying system.

You hate Capitalism?

Quote from: grumbler on April 19, 2009, 03:45:55 PM
Berkut's comment was clearly about your work, not work in general. 

He even said "takle Strix as [an] example" and you still didn't get it!   :lol:

I got it. He basically was saying that I am doing unskilled and/or low skilled work because it only requires a bachelor's degree. That reads to me as bachelor degree or lower is unskilled and/or low skilled labor at best but perhaps it reads differently to you.

Quote from: Barrister on April 19, 2009, 03:30:44 PM
I agree with "don't hat the untion because it got a good deal" - but instead I'll hate the system that gave rise to that deal.  And unfortunately there's only way that system can change - and thats by the government changing the laws.  If the current system is tilted towards public sector unions then you can't expect the employer to get a fair deal by simply renegotiating.  You have to tackle the underlying system.

I have no issue if Paterson wants to take a tough stance on government waste and budget issues. My main problem is that he signed the contract than wants to tackle the problem.

Quote from: Strix on April 19, 2009, 04:11:05 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 19, 2009, 03:30:44 PM
I agree with "don't hat the untion because it got a good deal" - but instead I'll hate the system that gave rise to that deal.  And unfortunately there's only way that system can change - and thats by the government changing the laws.  If the current system is tilted towards public sector unions then you can't expect the employer to get a fair deal by simply renegotiating.  You have to tackle the underlying system.

I have no issue if Paterson wants to take a tough stance on government waste and budget issues. My main problem is that he signed the contract than wants to tackle the problem.

Government waste is a completely different issue.

And governments have the ability to change the rules mid-stream.  That's why they are governments.   :huh:

Quote from: Strix on April 19, 2009, 04:11:05 PM
I have no issue if Paterson wants to take a tough stance on government waste and budget issues. My main problem is that he signed the contract than wants to tackle the problem.

The contract was negotiated before the crisis hit and state revenues went in the shitter, right?

Quote from: Barrister on April 19, 2009, 04:13:33 PM

Government waste is a completely different issue.

And governments have the ability to change the rules mid-stream.  That's why they are governments.   :huh:

No, I disagree. A government doesn't have the right to ignore/change contracts that it has signed because they turn out to be a nuisance later. If they start to do so than who would do business with them knowing they aren't negotiating in good faith.

You're a prosecutor, so what happens if I agree to get my car fixed than when I get it back I tell the mechanic, "No, I will only pay $50 for labor and not $55, so suck it up" than drive away in my car?

Will the DA tell me that I was taking a tough stand on outrageous labor prices in the business sector, or will he have something else to say?  :P

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 19, 2009, 04:20:34 PM
The contract was negotiated before the crisis hit and state revenues went in the shitter, right?

No, the government knew what was coming. There were several plans to deal with the cost of offsetting state employee raises but Paterson chose to go after the unions.

Quote from: Strix on April 19, 2009, 04:21:34 PM
No, I disagree. A government doesn't have the right to ignore/change contracts that it has signed because they turn out to be a nuisance later. If they start to do so than who would do business with them knowing they aren't negotiating in good faith.

You're a prosecutor, so what happens if I agree to get my car fixed than when I get it back I tell the mechanic, "No, I will only pay $50 for labor and not $55, so suck it up" than drive away in my car?

Will the DA tell me that I was taking a tough stand on outrageous labor prices in the business sector, or will he have something else to say?  :P

Well since the government has the authority to pass alws in order to re-write contracts, and you do not, I would say there's a very key difference...

Quote from: Barrister on April 19, 2009, 04:25:04 PM
Well since the government has the authority to pass alws in order to re-write contracts, and you do not, I would say there's a very key difference...

And that is the rub right now in NY. No one is certain if the governor has the power to ignore/tear up the contracts or not. He is playing chicken with the Unions hoping they blink before it gets that far. If he goes that route and loses....

Quote from: Strix on April 19, 2009, 04:23:35 PM
No, the government knew what was coming.

When was the contract signed?

Quote from: Strix on April 19, 2009, 02:11:18 PM

Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2009, 01:48:36 PM

Quote from: Strix on April 19, 2009, 01:46:45 PM
Than again, according to Berkut, anything requiring less than a Master's Degree is unskilled or low skilled labor at best. So, I am not sure where you fit in that spectrum.

Well, you certainly have the blatant lying part of the job down pat. A lack if integrity - is that important to being a parole officer?

Funny that you are lecturing others on their lack of moral character while you lie out of your ass - and you even know you are lying.

How so?

Quote from: BerkutLook at Strix as a fine example - he is making nearly $80,000 doing nearly unskilled or low skilled work that requires nothing more than a bachelors degree, and the big beef he has with the governor is that the governor doesn't want to give him yet another yearly raise at a time when the state is looking at tens of billions of dollars in budget shortfall.

You clearly stated that unskilled and low skilled work requires nothing more than a bachelors degree. That would mean that skilled requires a more advanced degree i.e. a Master's or higher.

No, I said the work that YOU do is low skilled and only requires a bachelors degree. But you know that.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 19, 2009, 04:49:48 PM

Quote from: Strix on April 19, 2009, 04:23:35 PM
No, the government knew what was coming.

When was the contract signed?

April or May of 2008.

Quote from: Strix on April 19, 2009, 02:30:18 PM

Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2009, 01:47:26 PM
NO bitterness at all, and no, I have never worked for the state.

I simply do not think for a moment that people who work for the state are remotely fairly compensated for what they do, in any measure that is not completely subjective.

I have immense respect for law enforcement, but that doesn't mean that I think any number they can browbeat a politician into is "fair". You guys are paid based strictly on the political consequences for politicians if they refuse to pay you what you demand. That isn't right.

It all depends on your union. Parole doesn't belong to a law enforcement union because of the social worker aspect of our job. The bargaining unit I am associated with is Professional, Scientific and Technical Services. If they let us join NYSCOPBA than I'd be making a lot more with better benefits (and wouldn't have the thought of only 60% disability running through my head as I jump fences and wrestle with parolees on the ground).

And, yes, it is right. The point of a free market is to get fair market value for what goods or service you provide.

But that is just it - the Union is circumventing the free market. You are not paid based on what the free market is willing to pay you, you are paid based on a completely fake amrket of political bullshit.

QuoteDon't hate a union for getting a good deal. Hate the person who gave it to them.

No, I will simply decide that they system that allowed the stupid deal is broken and needs to be fixed.

Quote
Which is my issue with Paterson. He didn't have to sign the last contract. Governors have refused to do so in the past, and union workers continue the current contract until a new one is worked out (with the new agreement being back dated).

So? It was signed under different terms than what exists now. That is the problem with these contracts - they are signed under certain conditions, with no ability to change if the conditions are not as rosy as everyone insists they will be. You guys end up getting paid as if the gravy train must and will always continue forever - which is not surprising, since your compensation is determined by politics, not any kind of market (free or otherwise). It is just like the people who right budgets when things are dandy, and assume that they will always be dandy forever, and we can afford to commit to ever increasing spending.

Quote
Do you think it right to be able to change the terms of a contract halfway through? No, of course it isn't. If you want to change the terms than you need to negotiate. Paterson is unwilling to do so.

Incorrect, he was and is willing to negotiate, but the unions refuse. So he will just lay them off, and they will repay him by spending incredible funds to make sure he is not re-elected. This is politics, not a market.

You guys are voting yourselves more and more money and sweetheart deals while the ship is sinking.

Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2009, 04:53:08 PM

Quote from: Strix on April 19, 2009, 02:11:18 PM

Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2009, 01:48:36 PM

Quote from: Strix on April 19, 2009, 01:46:45 PM
Than again, according to Berkut, anything requiring less than a Master's Degree is unskilled or low skilled labor at best. So, I am not sure where you fit in that spectrum.

Well, you certainly have the blatant lying part of the job down pat. A lack if integrity - is that important to being a parole officer?

Funny that you are lecturing others on their lack of moral character while you lie out of your ass - and you even know you are lying.

How so?

Quote from: BerkutLook at Strix as a fine example - he is making nearly $80,000 doing nearly unskilled or low skilled work that requires nothing more than a bachelors degree, and the big beef he has with the governor is that the governor doesn't want to give him yet another yearly raise at a time when the state is looking at tens of billions of dollars in budget shortfall.

You clearly stated that unskilled and low skilled work requires nothing more than a bachelors degree. That would mean that skilled requires a more advanced degree i.e. a Master's or higher.

No, I said the work that YOU do is low skilled and only requires a bachelors degree. But you know that.

Ok, Berkut. If you say so than it must be true.

Quote from: Strix on April 19, 2009, 04:56:31 PM
April or May of 2008.

That doesn't sound like "they knew it was coming" time to me.

Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2009, 04:58:32 PM
Incorrect, he was and is willing to negotiate, but the unions refuse. So he will just lay them off, and they will repay him by spending incredible funds to make sure he is not re-elected. This is politics, not a market.

You guys are voting yourselves more and more money and sweetheart deals while the ship is sinking.

Ok Berkut, you obviously know more than the Union heads. Despite the Unions willing to grant concessions in lag pay and agreeing to letting positions go via attrition they are clearly not negotiating with Paterson whose only stance is lose the raises, period.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 19, 2009, 05:00:08 PM

Quote from: Strix on April 19, 2009, 04:56:31 PM
April or May of 2008.

That doesn't sound like "they knew it was coming" time to me.

They did which is why it took so long for the contract to be negotiated and signed. They don't do the budget year to year in isolation which is why they can predict shortfalls in the next few years.

Quote from: Strix on April 19, 2009, 05:06:37 PM

Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2009, 04:58:32 PM
Incorrect, he was and is willing to negotiate, but the unions refuse. So he will just lay them off, and they will repay him by spending incredible funds to make sure he is not re-elected. This is politics, not a market.

You guys are voting yourselves more and more money and sweetheart deals while the ship is sinking.

Ok Berkut, you obviously know more than the Union heads. Despite the Unions willing to grant concessions in lag pay and agreeing to letting positions go via attrition they are clearly not negotiating with Paterson whose only stance is lose the raises, period.

Those don't sound like major concessions to me...


Strix, I don't know the specific issues in NY State employees.  It could well be that Gov. Patterson is being unreasonable, asking for too many concessions.  But your reply of "a contract is a contract, end of story" is quite unconvincing to me.

Quote from: Strix on April 19, 2009, 05:08:59 PM
They did which is why it took so long for the contract to be negotiated and signed. They don't do the budget year to year in isolation which is why they can predict shortfalls in the next few years.

You're saying they *did* know at the time they signed the contract back in April that a major recession was coming that would necessitate deep spending cuts?  Where's your proof for this assertion?

You may be right for all I know but on the face of it the claim is puzzling.  Patterson signs a contract *knowing* he will have to turn around and cut.  What possible reason does he have for that?  Any political good will he gains with the unions is lost right back.  There's no intervening gubenatorial election that he needs union votes for (and can then fuck over).  As administrator of the state he would prefer to have more employees working for lower wages than vice versa.

I have the sneaking suspicion you're not being completely intellectually honest about this one Strix.

Quote from: Strix on April 19, 2009, 04:08:34 PM
I got it. He basically was saying that I am doing unskilled and/or low skilled work because it only requires a bachelor's degree. That reads to me as bachelor degree or lower is unskilled and/or low skilled labor at best but perhaps it reads differently to you.

Nope, you still don't get it.  He said you were doing unskilled and/or low skilled work and your job only required a bachelor's degree.  That's pretty much the only way to read that.  Had he meant that any job that only required a bachelor's degree was unskilled/low skill, he would have said that.

Obviously, he doesn't believe that.  Flying airplanes and fixing tank electronics both require skills, and neither requires any college degree at all.

Now, i don't happen to know what skills your job requires, and only know that I wouldn't do if for only $77k/year, but that is neither here nor there.

Quote from: grumbler on April 19, 2009, 05:46:43 PM
and only know that I wouldn't do if for only $77k/year

Especially if that is one's salary after 7 years of experience...

Quote from: Strix on April 19, 2009, 04:29:43 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 19, 2009, 04:25:04 PM
Well since the government has the authority to pass alws in order to re-write contracts, and you do not, I would say there's a very key difference...

And that is the rub right now in NY. No one is certain if the governor has the power to ignore/tear up the contracts or not. He is playing chicken with the Unions hoping they blink before it gets that far. If he goes that route and loses....

THat is simply not true.

The governor asked the union to agree to forgo raises. This is called negotiating. He never said he would simply refuse to pay them.

The unions basically told him to take a long walk of a short pier, so he said fine, he would go ahead and lay people off - which is perfectly within his power under the contract.

And now the unions are going to exert their political power to make him pay for that. How you can call this a "free market" is rather beyond me. What a conservative of convenience you are...

 :lol: This coming from the guy who stabbed John McCain in the back.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2009, 06:34:32 PM
:lol: This coming from the guy who stabbed John McCain in the back.

I have never once called myself any kind of conservative.

Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2009, 06:20:18 PM
THat is simply not true.

The governor asked the union to agree to forgo raises. This is called negotiating. He never said he would simply refuse to pay them.

The unions basically told him to take a long walk of a short pier, so he said fine, he would go ahead and lay people off - which is perfectly within his power under the contract.

And now the unions are going to exert their political power to make him pay for that. How you can call this a "free market" is rather beyond me. What a conservative of convenience you are...

The truth is that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Paterson asked the Unions to forego their raises for 2009, agree to 10 days of lag pay (employees don't get paid for one day of work each pay period until they have worked for free for 10 days. Money to be paid back at retirement or separation from the State), and agree to a new Tier for retirement. He was also giving no guarantee that he wouldn't come back and ask for more next year.

Basically voiding out the contract.

And, yes, Paterson did say he would refuse to pay them. He retracted that when he realized that he lacked any support to back it up.

The Union attempted to negotiate with Paterson. They agreed to lag pay, and were mulling a new Tier for retirement. They also provided him with a detailed plan on how NY could save money by cutting back on contract labor for jobs that could be done by state employees. The plan proposed by the Union would have not only covered the costs of the raises but increased savings.

Paterson refused to negotiate. Contract work is a great way to pay back political favors and he was unwilling to discuss reducing it in any manner. He basically stated that he would ignore the contract come April 1st. And he was unwilling to offer any assurances to the Union in exchange for them making concessions.

April 1st came and went, and he realized that the Union wasn't going to back down. So, he cut the raises and other pay increases for all non-union and upper management because he could legally do so. And than sent a letter to all Union employees stating he would lay off 8,700 workers by July 1st.  As we speak, the various department heads are determining where they can make cuts in their areas. Parole, for example, is expected to lose 120 positions but the majority will be from DOCS (prisons) and Department of Transportation plus attrition from the various agencies.

It is a free market because employees are able to get paid for their skills and abilities based on what the market is willing to pay. NY has the option of not paying competitive salaries and the employees have the option of going elsewhere. That is the basis of a free market.

It took me 5+ years to get into NYS Parole because they only offer the exam every 3-4 years, and they have a very low turnover. The turnover they do have is mainly because of retirements. NC Probation/Parole doesn't offer competitive wages because they are an "at will State" and they have a 35-40% vacancy rate as a result. In fact, even in these trying times they had to recently increase minimum starting pay because no one was willing to apply. And those that stay past the 5+ years it takes to get vested in their retirements are those unable to get hired elsewhere.

I am not sure how the idea of not being able to get a fair and competitive wage fits into the free market idea but perhaps you will explain it for me.

A salary that leads to zero turnover is probably a little better than competitive.

You are such a good little socialist Strixy.

I love how the governor asking for concessions is "voiding out the contract".

NYS has a very low turnoever because they pay exhorbinant salaries way out line with what the market will bear. Pointing out how that screws over other states who are not capable of over-paying is not helping your argument very much.

Of course, New York isn't really capable of this gross over-payment either, hence the insance budget deficits.

But hey, as long as you guys get yours, that is all that matters.

And tell me again how it can be a "free market" where someone doing your job in the next state over gets half the salary, while in New York, it is the existence of poltically powerful unions that get you guys the double pay and benefits?

It is delicious that you are arguing that it is NC, the state that does NOT have a incredibly powerful union that is NOT the free market!

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 19, 2009, 07:00:56 PM
A salary that leads to zero turnover is probably a little better than competitive.

Why do you hate free markets so much?

At any rate, when economic times get tough, a properly balanced state will break the shit out of these contracts, with massive public support.  Public employees are generally despised as lazy and overpaid by the general public, especially during times of economic uncertainty.  If a politician positions himself properly, he can defeat the unions.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 19, 2009, 05:21:27 PM
You're saying they *did* know at the time they signed the contract back in April that a major recession was coming that would necessitate deep spending cuts?  Where's your proof for this assertion?

You may be right for all I know but on the face of it the claim is puzzling.  Patterson signs a contract *knowing* he will have to turn around and cut.  What possible reason does he have for that?  Any political good will he gains with the unions is lost right back.  There's no intervening gubenatorial election that he needs union votes for (and can then fuck over).  As administrator of the state he would prefer to have more employees working for lower wages than vice versa.

I have the sneaking suspicion you're not being completely intellectually honest about this one Strix.

You are confusing two issues together here.

First, yes, everyone knew that a recession was on the way. They may have not known how severe a recession. The housing market was crashing by 2007 which many realized would lead to major issues in the banking world. This is common knowledge you can look up anywhere.

Second, the budget deficit is effected by the recession but is not caused by the recession. The deficit was already going to be something around $10 billion dollars and the loss of revenue by the recession is adding another $2 billion or so. You can look up the exact figures, and probably look up what was said in 2007-2008. If you look up any budget info you will see that they tend to project out 2-3 years.

The State knew the economy was going to face issues before they signed the contract which is why it took them so long to negotiate it. The Union was basically told to enjoy it because chances are the next one would have no raises in it.

Paterson probably signed it to make issues go away and make his transition easy. I can't speak for him though.

Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2009, 07:02:09 PM
You are such a good little socialist Strixy.

I love how the governor asking for concessions is "voiding out the contract".

NYS has a very low turnoever because they pay exhorbinant salaries way out line with what the market will bear. Pointing out how that screws over other states who are not capable of over-paying is not helping your argument very much.

Of course, New York isn't really capable of this gross over-payment either, hence the insance budget deficits.

But hey, as long as you guys get yours, that is all that matters.

And tell me again how it can be a "free market" where someone doing your job in the next state over gets half the salary, while in New York, it is the existence of poltically powerful unions that get you guys the double pay and benefits?

It is delicious that you are arguing that it is NC, the state that does NOT have a incredibly powerful union that is NOT the free market!

It is a "free market" because the employee is able to take his/her job skills to a place willing to pay for them. It is a "free market" because each State i.e. employer has the ability to pay what is required for them to get the best employees available.

You appear to be arguing that State jobs should have a set ceiling and that in Berkut's Free Market every state would pay according to that set rate. I am confused how that is a free market. Perhaps I am reading what you're posting wrong.

North Carolina is a great example of what happens when a State ignores the "free market" system. Twenty years ago working for the State was the job to have in NC. Wages and benefits were good and the retirement was excellent. North Carolina didn't keep up with the market, so they have priced themselves out of competition. They can barely compete with Virginia, Tennesse, and South Carolina, let alone the Northern States.

I am not sure what you were trying to argue there? Are you saying that low balling state workers is a good business model?

And, yes, Paterson is voiding out parts of the contract by asking for concessions. That is what happens when line X5637 is crossed out. Normally when you negotiate you offer the otherside something. That's what makes it a negotiation. Paterson saying I want to not pay this, that, and these things, and in exchange I won't promise you that next year I won't come again, is not a negotiation.

Tell me Strix, can you honestly say that if you were not a public employee, you would have the exact same stand on this issue?

Quote from: Strix on April 19, 2009, 07:33:01 PM
It is a "free market" because each State i.e. employer has the ability to pay what is required for them to get the best employees available.

That's not true.  The state's determination of what the appropriate pay rate is is subject to approval from the unions, who have the ability through voting, lobbying, physical intimidation and sympathy strikes to impose political and economic costs on the employer.

If the system were totally free then the state would just offer terms and the labor market would either fill the jobs or it wouldn't.

Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2009, 07:39:40 PM
Tell me Strix, can you honestly say that if you were not a public employee, you would have the exact same stand on this issue?

The reason we are arguing is simple. It is hard to separate government waste/corruption/inefficiency from what government employees are paid. Why is it hard? I believe it is hard because the pay ultimately comes from people's tax money.

In any organization you will have those overpaid, those underpaid, those deserving, and those not deserving. I can honestly say that if I were not a public employee that I would have the same exact stand in regards to parole and other law enforcement officials that work for the State. 

As a public employee I can honestly say there are sectors of the state government that are overpaid. I doubt you'd have to scratch too hard to find dirt and issues with SUNY and CUNY.

Unions have pros and cons. I have worked under both systems, and for the type of work I do a Union is a godsend.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 19, 2009, 07:49:23 PM
That's not true.  The state's determination of what the appropriate pay rate is is subject to approval from the unions, who have the ability through voting, lobbying, physical intimidation and sympathy strikes to impose political and economic costs on the employer.

If the system were totally free then the state would just offer terms and the labor market would either fill the jobs or it wouldn't.

You have the cart leading the horse. The State always has the option of setting what pay rate they feel is appropriate. The State doesn't have to sign any given labor contract. And, you are correct, unions attempt to get a fair wage and benefits through votes and lobbying (which is why they exist). If the unions asked for something outrageous than it's doubtful a politician would be willing to back their requests. If the union requests are reasonable than they have a good chance of garnering support.

And the system is totally free, the state can offer terms and the labor market will fill the jobs accordingly. The state adjusts their offer accordingly to get the level of labor that they desire i.e. you pay more for a college degree than a GED. If the labor market isn't willing to accept what is offered than they are free to go elsewhere.

We are also talking about public employee unions. Physical intimidation and strikes don't work as well as they might in the private sector.

But in a free market, the rate that is set for labour is determined by the market, not by votes and political bullying.

There is no way you can call the state of New York public employment any kind of free market. If you insist on saying it is, you are only betraying your inability to understand what the term "free market" means.

It means that if an employer refuses to pay a wage, then the employees recourse is to find some other employer willing to pay that wage - not vote them out of office. In a free market, the only force acting on the employer (withing reason) is the market.

Quote from: Strix on April 19, 2009, 08:12:47 PM

Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2009, 07:39:40 PM
Tell me Strix, can you honestly say that if you were not a public employee, you would have the exact same stand on this issue?

The reason we are arguing is simple. It is hard to separate government waste/corruption/inefficiency from what government employees are paid. Why is it hard? I believe it is hard because the pay ultimately comes from people's tax money.

We are not talking about government waste/corruption/inefficiency, we are talking about how public employees unions are a travesty. There is no need for them, there is no market justification for them, there is no reason for them to exist except so public employees can extort greater than market rates from the government.

It isn't like the government is out there engaged in slave labor or grossly unfair wage or living conditions that they can enforce via some form of monopoly, such that organization of labor is the only recourse.

Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2009, 09:18:41 PM

We are not talking about government waste/corruption/inefficiency, we are talking about how public employees unions are a travesty. There is no need for them, there is no market justification for them, there is no reason for them to exist except so public employees can extort greater than market rates from the government.

It isn't like the government is out there engaged in slave labor or grossly unfair wage or living conditions that they can enforce via some form of monopoly, such that organization of labor is the only recourse.

On the one hand, public unions are less necessary because the government doesn't have the same pressures to hold down wages and have substandard work conditions that private companies have.

But I do think they have a place, because public employees are often are portrayed in a bad light, and their politician bosses don't always have a reason to stand up for them. I would hate to think that a law enforcement officer involved in a questionable shooting wouldn't have anyone to stand up for their job when the media fueled lynch mob came calling.

Quote from: alfred russel on April 19, 2009, 09:41:59 PM
But I do think they have a place, because public employees are often are portrayed in a bad light, and their politician bosses don't always have a reason to stand up for them. I would hate to think that a law enforcement officer involved in a questionable shooting wouldn't have anyone to stand up for their job when the media fueled lynch mob came calling.

And this is key.

Quote from: Strix on April 19, 2009, 08:24:36 PM
The State doesn't have to sign any given labor contract.

The state doesn't have to sign any given contract in the same way that you don't have to buy Girl Scout cookies from me if I threaten to burn down your house if you don't.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 19, 2009, 09:57:15 PM
The state doesn't have to sign any given contract in the same way that you don't have to buy Girl Scout cookies from me if I threaten to burn down your house if you don't.

Christ, you and your Iowa Nazi Girls Scouts must clean up on the ol' cookie sales.

Quote from: alfred russel on April 19, 2009, 09:41:59 PM
I would hate to think that a law enforcement officer involved in a questionable shooting wouldn't have anyone to stand up for their job when the media fueled lynch mob came calling.

I wouldn't.  Besides, it doesn't seem to stop much.

Quote from: PDH on April 19, 2009, 10:55:54 PM
Christ, you and your Iowa Nazi Girls Scouts must clean up on the ol' cookie sales.

:lol:

Quote from: garbon on April 19, 2009, 05:53:22 PM

Quote from: grumbler on April 19, 2009, 05:46:43 PM
and only know that I wouldn't do if for only $77k/year

Especially if that is one's salary after 7 years of experience...

What's depressing is I have 7 years experience, MORE than a bachelor's degree, yet those cheapskates in the Dominion Government pay me less than $77k per year (once you take exchange rate into account)... :(

That is depressing. :(

Quote from: Strix on April 19, 2009, 06:55:52 PM
It took me 5+ years to get into NYS Parole because they only offer the exam every 3-4 years, and they have a very low turnover. The turnover they do have is mainly because of retirements.

I hope your disability benefit covers self-inflicted gunshots to the foot, all three of them.  Lack of turnover and long wait lists are precisely the indicators of a job that pays far above market rates.  You've basically admitted it in those two sentences.

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2009, 12:18:27 AM

Quote from: garbon on April 19, 2009, 05:53:22 PM

Quote from: grumbler on April 19, 2009, 05:46:43 PM
and only know that I wouldn't do if for only $77k/year

Especially if that is one's salary after 7 years of experience...

What's depressing is I have 7 years experience, MORE than a bachelor's degree, yet those cheapskates in the Dominion Government pay me less than $77k per year (once you take exchange rate into account)... :(

Sounds like you need a union.

Quote from: alfred russel on April 20, 2009, 12:34:46 AM

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2009, 12:18:27 AM

Quote from: garbon on April 19, 2009, 05:53:22 PM

Quote from: grumbler on April 19, 2009, 05:46:43 PM
and only know that I wouldn't do if for only $77k/year

Especially if that is one's salary after 7 years of experience...

What's depressing is I have 7 years experience, MORE than a bachelor's degree, yet those cheapskates in the Dominion Government pay me less than $77k per year (once you take exchange rate into account)... :(

Sounds like you need a union.

I have a union.  I'm not a member of it, be the outfit unionized 3-4 years ago.

Government legislated our wages anyways.

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2009, 12:18:27 AM
What's depressing is I have 7 years experience, MORE than a bachelor's degree, yet those cheapskates in the Dominion Government pay me less than $77k per year (once you take exchange rate into account)... :(

I'm also approaching 7 years and make less than 77k.  I only have a Bachelor's, though in engineering that is usually not much of an issue.

Quote from: Strix on April 19, 2009, 06:55:52 PM

It took me 5+ years to get into NYS Parole because they only offer the exam every 3-4 years, and they have a very low turnover. The turnover they do have is mainly because of retirements. NC Probation/Parole doesn't offer competitive wages because they are an "at will State" and they have a 35-40% vacancy rate as a result. In fact, even in these trying times they had to recently increase minimum starting pay because no one was willing to apply. And those that stay past the 5+ years it takes to get vested in their retirements are those unable to get hired elsewhere.

I am not sure how the idea of not being able to get a fair and competitive wage fits into the free market idea but perhaps you will explain it for me.

I agree with DGuller on this: you aren't helping your case.

New York is an at will state too--if NC can't adequately staff their probation/parole officer positions, that isn't because they are at will, it is probably because they don't pay enough. In the private sector, there are very few employment contracts, even for senior level people. Remember those AIG contracts that were in the news? A former CEO was on TV expressing outrage because no American employee, including him when he was CEO, was given an employment contract. Everything was at will, and that isn't unusual.

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2009, 12:36:12 AM


I have a union.  I'm not a member of it, be the outfit unionized 3-4 years ago.

Government legislated our wages anyways.

Have you ever considered being a parole officer in NY?

Quote from: alfred russel on April 20, 2009, 12:46:39 AM
In the private sector, there are very few employment contracts, even for senior level people. Remember those AIG contracts that were in the news? A former CEO was on TV expressing outrage because no American employee, including him when he was CEO, was given an employment contract. Everything was at will, and that isn't unusual.

I take it you are referring to actual employees of the company having an employment contract, as opposed to those who effectively work for the company but are technically "consultants".

Quote from: vonmoltke on April 20, 2009, 12:51:06 AM

I take it you are referring to actual employees of the company having an employment contract, as opposed to those who effectively work for the company but are technically "consultants".

Consultants may have a service agreement in place, but they won't have an employment contract, because they aren't employees. Actual employment agreements tend to be rare.

Quote from: alfred russel on April 20, 2009, 12:56:40 AM

Quote from: vonmoltke on April 20, 2009, 12:51:06 AM

I take it you are referring to actual employees of the company having an employment contract, as opposed to those who effectively work for the company but are technically "consultants".

Consultants may have a service agreement in place, but they won't have an employment contract, because they aren't employees. Actual employment agreements tend to be rare.

Written employment contracts are rare.  Particularly in at will states.  In non at will states written employment contracts are more common because they are a means of employers and employees defining obligations at the time of termination.  In at will states this is obviously not needed because there are no such obligations.

However, all employees have a contract even if it is just verbal or set out in an offer letter.

btw in Canada there is no notion of at will employment and so all employers are advised to have written contracts specifying what will occur on a termination because the terms implied by law (which can be rebutted by written contracts so long as they conform with minimum standards) are very generous for employees.

Quote from: Habbaku on April 17, 2009, 02:38:48 AM
It is very free-market and no one in their right mind would ever consider banning all unions.  The trouble comes when the union uses its position of representation to attain political power and gets the government to mandate things on its behalf.  That is when it goes out of the realm of the free market and into the realm of mercantilism, which is why unions are so reviled by many.

Union are not inherently bad, just as businesses aren't.  They are mere entities.

Big business does the same thing.  It is the political power of big unions and big business that mean the free market will always be an ideal but nothing ever really attainable.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2009, 06:34:32 PM
:lol: This coming from the guy who stabbed John McCain in the back.

How do you reckon you "stabbed" him "in the back?"

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2009, 12:18:27 AM
What's depressing is I have 7 years experience, MORE than a bachelor's degree, yet those cheapskates in the Dominion Government pay me less than $77k per year (once you take exchange rate into account)... :(

They dont have to pay more because they can fill that position at that pay level.

Quote from: grumbler on April 20, 2009, 10:06:07 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2009, 06:34:32 PM
:lol: This coming from the guy who stabbed John McCain in the back.

How do you reckon you "stabbed" him "in the back?"

I didn't do it.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 20, 2009, 10:36:26 AM

Quote from: grumbler on April 20, 2009, 10:06:07 AM
How do you reckon you "stabbed" him "in the back?"

I didn't do it.

It was Colonel Mustard.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 20, 2009, 10:31:13 AM

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2009, 12:18:27 AM
What's depressing is I have 7 years experience, MORE than a bachelor's degree, yet those cheapskates in the Dominion Government pay me less than $77k per year (once you take exchange rate into account)... :(

They dont have to pay more because they can fill that position at that pay level.

You don't say...

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2009, 10:45:57 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 20, 2009, 10:31:13 AM

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2009, 12:18:27 AM
What's depressing is I have 7 years experience, MORE than a bachelor's degree, yet those cheapskates in the Dominion Government pay me less than $77k per year (once you take exchange rate into account)... :(

They dont have to pay more because they can fill that position at that pay level.

You don't say...

So stop comlaining. :P

Quote from: Strix on April 19, 2009, 07:33:01 PM
It is a "free market" because the employee is able to take his/her job skills to a place willing to pay for them. It is a "free market" because each State i.e. employer has the ability to pay what is required for them to get the best employees available.

Neither of these things is true, and neither have the slightest thing to do with the free market.

QuoteAnd, yes, Paterson is voiding out parts of the contract by asking for concessions. That is what happens when line X5637 is crossed out. Normally when you negotiate you offer the otherside something. That's what makes it a negotiation. Paterson saying I want to not pay this, that, and these things, and in exchange I won't promise you that next year I won't come again, is not a negotiation.

I think Patterson is saying that, unless the unions agree to concessions, patterson will, as allowed by contract, terminate employees until the costs of the contract match more closely to the state's resources.  I actually agree with you:  Patterson should not reduce the cost per employee, he should simply slash the number of employees.   Fewer employees will mean, over time, weaker unions, and once the unions are weak the NY government can negotiate contracts that pay reasonable, rather than exorbitant, wages.

Fewer employees will not mean significantly less work done, given slack in the average employee's existing workload.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 20, 2009, 10:36:26 AM

Quote from: grumbler on April 20, 2009, 10:06:07 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2009, 06:34:32 PM
:lol: This coming from the guy who stabbed John McCain in the back.

How do you reckon you "stabbed" him "in the back?"

I didn't do it.

A coupla posts ago, you said that you did!  :lol:

Okay, whatever.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 20, 2009, 11:16:13 AM

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2009, 10:45:57 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 20, 2009, 10:31:13 AM

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2009, 12:18:27 AM
What's depressing is I have 7 years experience, MORE than a bachelor's degree, yet those cheapskates in the Dominion Government pay me less than $77k per year (once you take exchange rate into account)... :(

They dont have to pay more because they can fill that position at that pay level.

You don't say...

So stop comlaining. :P

Never. :p

Well the thing is though that anecdotally I hear that other offices are having a hard time retaining lawyers.  I know even our civil Yukon lawyers have an open spot or two, and seem to have a revolving door of lawyers.  I can only hope that forces the Feds to up our pay - and of course that has nothing to do with the existence of our union.

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2009, 11:55:27 AM
Well the thing is though that anecdotally I hear that other offices are having a hard time retaining lawyers.  I know even our civil Yukon lawyers have an open spot or two, and seem to have a revolving door of lawyers.  I can only hope that forces the Feds to up our pay - and of course that has nothing to do with the existence of our union.

The unfortunate thing is that firms are laying off a lot of lawyers at the moment so those slots may be filled if any of the unemployed (a lot of commercial lawyers) want to turn to a new field of practice.

Quote from: Valmy on April 20, 2009, 10:03:40 AMBig business does the same thing.

No, really?  :mellow:

Quote from: Habbaku on April 20, 2009, 12:11:22 PM
No, really?  :mellow:

Stay tuned for further deep thoughts from Valmy.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 20, 2009, 11:58:47 AM

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2009, 11:55:27 AM
Well the thing is though that anecdotally I hear that other offices are having a hard time retaining lawyers.  I know even our civil Yukon lawyers have an open spot or two, and seem to have a revolving door of lawyers.  I can only hope that forces the Feds to up our pay - and of course that has nothing to do with the existence of our union.

The unfortunate thing is that firms are laying off a lot of lawyers at the moment so those slots may be filled if any of the unemployed (a lot of commercial lawyers) want to turn to a new field of practice.

Well that is the real issue.

The government will always get applicants for its positions.  But at a certain level you have to think/hope that being a government lawyer takes more than being a warm body - that you need some skills and experience in some pretty particualr areas, and you can't fill all your positions with 1st year lawyers.

We'll see.

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2009, 12:13:01 PM
Well that is the real issue.

The government will always get applicants for its positions.  But at a certain level you have to think/hope that being a government lawyer takes more than being a warm body - that you need some skills and experience in some pretty particualr areas, and you can't fill all your positions with 1st year lawyers.

We'll see.

I'd think that in tough times, it's the safer government jobs people will be looking to snap up. It's the boom times when people are looking for the riskier, high-paying gigs. It seems like these days you'd have downward pressure on salaries for servants of the Crown.

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2009, 12:13:01 PM
But at a certain level you have to think/hope that being a government lawyer takes more than being a warm body - that you need some skills and experience in some pretty particualr areas

That's rich.  Government lawyers are either guys who work for the government because they're willing to take less pay to do a job that they feel serves the greater good, or guys who can't get on at a private law firm.  While the former may in fact be quite skilled, the latter is pretty much the defination of a warm body.

Quote from: dps on April 20, 2009, 12:59:36 PM
That's rich.  Government lawyers are either guys who work for the government because they're willing to take less pay to do a job that they feel serves the greater good, or guys who can't get on at a private law firm.  While the former may in fact be quite skilled, the latter is pretty much the defination of a warm body.

:rolleyes:

And how many government lawyers do you know?

Of the, oh, 100s, most of them actually took the job because of the lifestyle.  Its better hours than private sector work (or at least profitable private sector work), with fewer intrusions on your home life.  Many of them never sought a private sector job, while others (like myself) left private sector jobs because government work was perceived as "better".

You're also missing out on experience.  I don't care if you won the gold medal in law school, government work is quite different from any other kind of work.  You could take the smartest lawyer in the world and it's going to take them, 18 months at minimum to be competent, and several years to be really good (I'm still not there yet, but it's getting closer).

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2009, 01:07:53 PM

Quote from: dps on April 20, 2009, 12:59:36 PM
That's rich.  Government lawyers are either guys who work for the government because they're willing to take less pay to do a job that they feel serves the greater good, or guys who can't get on at a private law firm.  While the former may in fact be quite skilled, the latter is pretty much the defination of a warm body.

And how many government lawyers do you know?

Of the, oh, 100s, most of them actually took the job because of the lifestyle.  Its better hours than private sector work (or at least profitable private sector work), with fewer intrusions on your home life.  Many of them never sought a private sector job, while others (like myself) left private sector jobs because government work was perceived as "better".

You're also missing out on experience.  I don't care if you won the gold medal in law school, government work is quite different from any other kind of work.  You could take the smartest lawyer in the world and it's going to take them, 18 months at minimum to be competent, and several years to be really good (I'm still not there yet, but it's getting closer).

It was mostly a joke.  I'm in a good mood, so I deliberately left you an opening to claim that you're a public servant willing to forgo a higher salary in order to serve the greater good.  Had I beeen in a bad mood, I would have just said that all government lawyers are guy who couldn't get an offer from a private firm.

EDIT:  Well, I was in a good mood before having to deal with the way this forum handles quoting a post.   

Quote from: dps on April 20, 2009, 01:11:30 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2009, 01:07:53 PM

Quote from: dps on April 20, 2009, 12:59:36 PM
That's rich.  Government lawyers are either guys who work for the government because they're willing to take less pay to do a job that they feel serves the greater good, or guys who can't get on at a private law firm.  While the former may in fact be quite skilled, the latter is pretty much the defination of a warm body.

And how many government lawyers do you know?

Of the, oh, 100s, most of them actually took the job because of the lifestyle.  Its better hours than private sector work (or at least profitable private sector work), with fewer intrusions on your home life.  Many of them never sought a private sector job, while others (like myself) left private sector jobs because government work was perceived as "better".

You're also missing out on experience.  I don't care if you won the gold medal in law school, government work is quite different from any other kind of work.  You could take the smartest lawyer in the world and it's going to take them, 18 months at minimum to be competent, and several years to be really good (I'm still not there yet, but it's getting closer).

It was mostly a joke.  I'm in a good mood, so I deliberately left you an opening to claim that you're a public servant willing to forgo a higher salary in order to serve the greater good.  Had I beeen in a bad mood, I would have just said that all government lawyers are guy who couldn't get an offer from a private firm.

EDIT:  Well, I was in a good mood before having to deal with the way this forum handles quoting a post.

But evcen if it's a joke I can still play the martyr on Languish, right? :unsure:

STFU Barrista Boy.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 20, 2009, 09:56:26 AM

Written employment contracts are rare.  Particularly in at will states.  In non at will states written employment contracts are more common because they are a means of employers and employees defining obligations at the time of termination.  In at will states this is obviously not needed because there are no such obligations.

However, all employees have a contract even if it is just verbal or set out in an offer letter.

btw in Canada there is no notion of at will employment and so all employers are advised to have written contracts specifying what will occur on a termination because the terms implied by law (which can be rebutted by written contracts so long as they conform with minimum standards) are very generous for employees.

When I get home I'm going to find my offer letter and post the at will language. I'm fairly certain it had a statement that the offer terms were at will employment, I essentially have no rights, and the letter did not constitute a contract. I don't think I'll be home until the end of the week, so I will probably be bumping a long dead thread.

Quote from: alfred russel on April 20, 2009, 04:04:29 PM

When I get home I'm going to find my offer letter and post the at will language. I'm fairly certain it had a statement that the offer terms were at will employment, I essentially have no rights, and the letter did not constitute a contract. I don't think I'll be home until the end of the week, so I will probably be bumping a long dead thread.

You are a bit confused about the meaning of a contract.  the letter is your contract or at least part of your contract.

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2009, 01:07:53 PM

:rolleyes:

And how many government lawyers do you know?

Of the, oh, 100s, most of them actually took the job because of the lifestyle.  Its better hours than private sector work (or at least profitable private sector work), with fewer intrusions on your home life.  Many of them never sought a private sector job, while others (like myself) left private sector jobs because government work was perceived as "better".

You're also missing out on experience.  I don't care if you won the gold medal in law school, government work is quite different from any other kind of work.  You could take the smartest lawyer in the world and it's going to take them, 18 months at minimum to be competent, and several years to be really good (I'm still not there yet, but it's getting closer).

that's really the same situation as with any government workers: you have better work conditions than in the private, so this leads to lower wages.  You won't be laid off because of difficult economic times, the times you have to do overtime or simply time without getting paid will be extremely limited, you don't have the pressure of "making money for the firm" at whatever level you may be and you don't have to ease your guilty conscience of having to defend pedophiles or mobsters.

For all those reasons and some more, I see it as totally normal that any government employee receives a lesser paycheck than comparable jobs in the private sector.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 20, 2009, 04:11:05 PM


You are a bit confused about the meaning of a contract.  the letter is your contract or at least part of your contract.

We will see what the letter says, I don't remember exactly. My memory is that it tries to convey that the letter does not confer any rights and that my employment is at will. It may say that the letter is not a contract, but I'll have to get back to you on that.

I think I might be a day laborer, actually. Today I know what my pay is, but tomorrow it may be arbitrarily adjusted up or down, or even cease. Hopefully we have an implied contract that they at least have to fly me home.

Quote from: mongers on April 20, 2009, 04:53:06 PM


By the sound of it you need to get your workplace unionised.  :P

That would be the way to get my paycheck to cease. :P

Quote from: alfred russel on April 20, 2009, 04:45:06 PM
We will see what the letter says, I don't remember exactly. My memory is that it tries to convey that the letter does not confer any rights and that my employment is at will. It may say that the letter is not a contract, but I'll have to get back to you on that.

I think I might be a day laborer, actually. Today I know what my pay is, but tomorrow it may be arbitrarily adjusted up or down, or even cease. Hopefully we have an implied contract that they at least have to fly me home.

It would be very odd to have a document which sets out what your rights are or, more accurately are not (which is exactly what a contract is) and then have it go on to say that it is not a contract.  I am thinking the at the word "contract" has some meaning in your jurisdiction that is different.

I know that in every day practice I run into people all the time that think they have no "contract" because they think that they need to sign some kind of formal document when in fact every employment relationship is essentially a contractual relationship.  It just so happens that your contract is heavily tilted in favour of the employer.

Unions are a good thing.

How else would my worthless soon-to-be-ex brother in law earn a goodly salary, sufficient to make child support payments when they garnishee his wage? Without a union, he's be making the sort of crappy wage his meagre talents, general drunken surliness and lack of work ethic would deserve - and my wife's sisters' kids can't live on that.

Too bad he works for Chrysler Canada ...  :unsure:

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 20, 2009, 05:08:45 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on April 20, 2009, 04:45:06 PM
We will see what the letter says, I don't remember exactly. My memory is that it tries to convey that the letter does not confer any rights and that my employment is at will. It may say that the letter is not a contract, but I'll have to get back to you on that.

I think I might be a day laborer, actually. Today I know what my pay is, but tomorrow it may be arbitrarily adjusted up or down, or even cease. Hopefully we have an implied contract that they at least have to fly me home.

It would be very odd to have a document which sets out what your rights are or, more accurately are not (which is exactly what a contract is) and then have it go on to say that it is not a contract.  I am thinking the at the word "contract" has some meaning in your jurisdiction that is different.

I know that in every day practice I run into people all the time that think they have no "contract" because they think that they need to sign some kind of formal document when in fact every employment relationship is essentially a contractual relationship.  It just so happens that your contract is heavily tilted in favour of the employer.

I don't know for certain that it says it isn't a contract--I'll get back to you.

A funny/tragic anecdote: at a previous employer, the company bought a major rival. There were some redundancies created, and the employees that got laid off got a two paragraph letter notifying them that they got the axe reading something like this:

"As you may know, this is a very exciting time at our company. With the acquisition of xyz, we are now the largest company in the industry. We will be able to use the best practices from both companies to set a new quality standard that best serves our clients.

The acquisition has created several duplicative positions that will need to be eliminated. Unfortunately, your position has been identified for elimination. We thank you for your years of service to our company, and will providing you with two weeks of severence pay."

And people with years of service really did only get two weeks of severence: but in fairness the company wasn't doing especially well at the time, and didn't have a lot of money to burn.

Quote from: grumbler on April 20, 2009, 11:50:44 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 20, 2009, 10:36:26 AM

Quote from: grumbler on April 20, 2009, 10:06:07 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2009, 06:34:32 PM
:lol: This coming from the guy who stabbed John McCain in the back.

How do you reckon you "stabbed" him "in the back?"

I didn't do it.

A coupla posts ago, you said that you did!  :lol:

Okay, whatever.

I said Berkut did.  He voted Obama after being a McCain guy for years.  It was so sad. :(  It made John cry.

"I didn't cry they tortured me in Hanoi, but I'll cry now!" he said.  Or something like that.

Quote from: alfred russel on April 20, 2009, 05:18:55 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 20, 2009, 05:08:45 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on April 20, 2009, 04:45:06 PM
We will see what the letter says, I don't remember exactly. My memory is that it tries to convey that the letter does not confer any rights and that my employment is at will. It may say that the letter is not a contract, but I'll have to get back to you on that.

I think I might be a day laborer, actually. Today I know what my pay is, but tomorrow it may be arbitrarily adjusted up or down, or even cease. Hopefully we have an implied contract that they at least have to fly me home.

It would be very odd to have a document which sets out what your rights are or, more accurately are not (which is exactly what a contract is) and then have it go on to say that it is not a contract.  I am thinking the at the word "contract" has some meaning in your jurisdiction that is different.

I know that in every day practice I run into people all the time that think they have no "contract" because they think that they need to sign some kind of formal document when in fact every employment relationship is essentially a contractual relationship.  It just so happens that your contract is heavily tilted in favour of the employer.

I don't know for certain that it says it isn't a contract--I'll get back to you.

Most places that I've worked, we've had employee handbooks that lay out the job duties, benefits, working conditions, ect.;  but also have a disclaimer that the handbook does not constitue or create a contract and the the policies set forth in the handbook may be changed by management with or without notice.  A lot of what's in the handbook looks like what would be in an employment contract if the workers at those companies had written contracts, but because of the disclaimer, it's just informational and isn't legally binding.

My company has a document to sign for new hires that states that anyone engaging in acts that may be viewed as attempts to form a union or to bring union representation into the company are subject to immediate termination.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 20, 2009, 06:13:55 PM
My company has a document to sign for new hires that states that anyone engaging in acts that may be viewed as attempts to form a union or to bring union representation into the company are subject to immediate termination.

I don't even think that would be legal in most countries.

:blink:

I thought the NLRA prevented that sort of prohibition.

Quote from: National Labor Relations Act of 1935
RIGHTS OF EMPLOYEES



Sec. 7. [§ 157.] Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section 8(a)(3) [section 158(a)(3) of this title].

Quick! Get me a AFL-CIO lawyer!  :lol:

Someone alert the ACLU.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 20, 2009, 06:30:46 PM
Quick! Get me a AFL-CIO lawyer!  :lol:

When he arrives, plz kill him.  :cool:

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 20, 2009, 06:30:46 PM
Quick! Get me a AFL-CIO lawyer!  :lol:

There's no need for that.

Quote from: Neil on April 20, 2009, 06:16:29 PM
I don't even think that would be legal in most countries.

It isn't legal to have them sign the letter, though.  Ross Perot used to have employees sign all kinds of letters obligating them to do things the employer couldn't obligate them to do (like serve for X years after taking training Y) because he knew they wouldn't discover he couldn't enforce the obligation.

Quote from: alfred russel on April 20, 2009, 12:46:39 AM
I agree with DGuller on this: you aren't helping your case.

New York is an at will state too--if NC can't adequately staff their probation/parole officer positions, that isn't because they are at will, it is probably because they don't pay enough. In the private sector, there are very few employment contracts, even for senior level people. Remember those AIG contracts that were in the news? A former CEO was on TV expressing outrage because no American employee, including him when he was CEO, was given an employment contract. Everything was at will, and that isn't unusual.

Your ignorance of NY and NC state government is not helping yours.

New York is not an "at will" State. The State government cannot terminate union employees "at will" without reasonable cause and due process. This process is outlined in the copy of the contract that each union member receives.

North Carolina is an "at will" State where each employee serves "at the pleasure of the governor". Any state employee can be terminated at any time without due process or reasonable cause. North Carolina employees are prevented from joining or forming unions.

The difference in work environment should be apparent but if it isn't here is a true example. There was a chief who I worked with in NC who would make an officer bring his car to the front of the building at the end of the day so that the supervisor didn't have to walk the 3-4 blocks to get it. That officer could have refused the order to get the car but he would have been fired on the spot because that supervisor was well connected. A supervisor could not get away with that in NY.

EDIT: In NY, the due process required to fire an employee is also covered in the Civil Service laws something that NC does not have.

Quote from: Berkut on April 19, 2009, 09:18:41 PM
t isn't like the government is out there engaged in slave labor or grossly unfair wage or living conditions that they can enforce via some form of monopoly, such that organization of labor is the only recourse.

You obviously haven't worked in North Carolina or any of the southern states.  :lmfao:

Quote from: DGuller on April 20, 2009, 12:24:01 AM
I hope your disability benefit covers self-inflicted gunshots to the foot, all three of them.  Lack of turnover and long wait lists are precisely the indicators of a job that pays far above market rates.  You've basically admitted it in those two sentences.

No, job satisfaction, reduced stress, and a good mission plan are the reasons for a low turnover rate. Law enforcement has a high burn out rate, and reasonable compensation goes a long ways towards reducing stress and creating job satisfaction.

Quote from: Strix on April 20, 2009, 09:05:24 PM


Your ignorance of NY and NC state government is not helping yours.

New York is not an "at will" State.

Strix, sorry for my ignorance. Could you correct the NY State Department of Labor? They seem to be ignorant of this too.

http://www.labor.state.ny.us/workerprotection/laborstandards/faq.shtm#14

Quote from: Department of LaborQ: Can an employee be fired without due cause?

A: Yes. New York State is an "employment-at-will," state.

Quote from: grumbler on April 20, 2009, 11:48:58 AM
I think Patterson is saying that, unless the unions agree to concessions, patterson will, as allowed by contract, terminate employees until the costs of the contract match more closely to the state's resources.  I actually agree with you:  Patterson should not reduce the cost per employee, he should simply slash the number of employees.   Fewer employees will mean, over time, weaker unions, and once the unions are weak the NY government can negotiate contracts that pay reasonable, rather than exorbitant, wages.

Fewer employees will not mean significantly less work done, given slack in the average employee's existing workload.

Actually Paterson lacks the power to fire employees without cause. You should perhaps take the time to read one of the public employee unions contracts with NY state. The only employees he can fire "at will" are upper management (who are not in a union), probationary employees, and non-union workers.

What Paterson will be doing is getting rid of positions and not people.  The 8,700 lay-offs are more of a sham and a logistical nightmare than anything else.  Paterson might cut 150 jobs in Parole but those employees can transfer to other openings in the same organization or can transfer to another organization that has an opening (based on State seniority). So, three KBS (key board specialists aka secretaries) might lose their positions in Rochester but move to openings in Elmira, Farmingdale, and Plattsburgh.

Yes, some people will lose their jobs because the State may run out of alternative openings or they are are unwilling to relocate. Considering NY State hired something like 20,000+ during a hiring freeze I am not sure how many will lose a job if they are willing to make a change.

The main issue will be human suffering and hardship that Paterson will create by basically re-shuffling the state. People will have to up root families or commute great distances which just creates more costs on the everyday worker over a political power play.

I predict single digits for Paterson next poll. I think a new one that just came out (I will see if I can find it) had Paterson behind Cuomo, Guiliani, and Spitzer for re-election as governor of NY.

Quote from: alfred russel on April 20, 2009, 09:19:00 PM
Strix, sorry for my ignorance. Could you correct the NY State Department of Labor? They seem to be ignorant of this too.

http://www.labor.state.ny.us/workerprotection/laborstandards/faq.shtm#14

Quote from: Department of LaborQ: Can an employee be fired without due cause?

A: Yes. New York State is an "employment-at-will," state.

No, the NYS Department of Labor is not ignorant of this too. Just you.

I can add intellectual dishonesty to your ignorance as you purposely left the next sentence out of your quote.

Quote from: NYS Department of LaborWithout a contract restricting termination (such as a collective bargaining agreement) an employer has the right to discharge an employee at any time for any reason.

We are talking about a NYS public employee union which has a collectively bargained agreement with the state.

So, you get +1 to ignorance and have discovered the new ability [intellectual dishonesty]!

EDIT: I bolded that part

Quote from: Strix on April 20, 2009, 09:37:29 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on April 20, 2009, 09:19:00 PM
Strix, sorry for my ignorance. Could you correct the NY State Department of Labor? They seem to be ignorant of this too.

http://www.labor.state.ny.us/workerprotection/laborstandards/faq.shtm#14

Quote from: Department of LaborQ: Can an employee be fired without due cause?

A: Yes. New York State is an "employment-at-will," state.

No, the NYS Department of Labor is not ignorant of this too. Just you.

I can add intellectual dishonesty to your ignorance as you purposely left the next sentence out of your quote.

Quote from: NYS Department of LaborWithout a contract restricting termination (such as a collective bargaining agreement) an employer has the right to discharge an employee at any time for any reason.

We are talking about a NYS public employee union which has a collectively bargained agreement with the state.

So, you get +1 to ignorance and have discovered the new ability [intellectual dishonesty]!

EDIT: I bolded that part

Well shit Strix. NY is at will, and NC is at will. In either state you can have employment contracts that restrict termination, including through collective bargaining agreements. NY is giving you a better deal, probably in a large part because you are represented by a union.

My only point was that NY is at will and NC is at will too. If you didn't say NY wasn't at will, I wouldn't have posted anything.

Which states are not at will?

Quote from: Strix on April 20, 2009, 09:11:07 PM
No, job satisfaction, reduced stress, and a good mission plan are the reasons for a low turnover rate. Law enforcement has a high burn out rate, and reasonable compensation goes a long ways towards reducing stress and creating job satisfaction.

If you need to wait five years to enjoy good mission plan, you're waiting for a job that overpays.  A job that pays a market rate doesn't have lines of potential employees waiting for years.

Quote from: grumbler on April 20, 2009, 08:38:45 PM

Quote from: Neil on April 20, 2009, 06:16:29 PM
I don't even think that would be legal in most countries.

It isn't legal to have them sign the letter, though.  Ross Perot used to have employees sign all kinds of letters obligating them to do things the employer couldn't obligate them to do (like serve for X years after taking training Y) because he knew they wouldn't discover he couldn't enforce the obligation.

Lots of companies pull shit like that, particularly with entry-level employees, because they know that the people in those positions won't know any better (and those that do are planning on just using the job as a stepping stone, and will want to move on asap without creating any waves).

Quote from: dps on April 21, 2009, 12:40:12 AM

Quote from: grumbler on April 20, 2009, 08:38:45 PM

Quote from: Neil on April 20, 2009, 06:16:29 PM
I don't even think that would be legal in most countries.

It isn't legal to have them sign the letter, though.  Ross Perot used to have employees sign all kinds of letters obligating them to do things the employer couldn't obligate them to do (like serve for X years after taking training Y) because he knew they wouldn't discover he couldn't enforce the obligation.

Lots of companies pull shit like that, particularly with entry-level employees, because they know that the people in those positions won't know any better (and those that do are planning on just using the job as a stepping stone, and will want to move on asap without creating any waves).

That is clearly an indication that the free market is not working, and only a union can possibly restore free market principles. Why, if Strix doesn't make enough cash with a guarantee of never being fired, clearly the free market is Teh Brokened.

Strix is big on unions, you know. Comes from being such an ardent Republican and all.

Quote from: Berkut on April 21, 2009, 12:46:33 AM

Quote from: dps on April 21, 2009, 12:40:12 AM

Quote from: grumbler on April 20, 2009, 08:38:45 PM

Quote from: Neil on April 20, 2009, 06:16:29 PM
I don't even think that would be legal in most countries.

It isn't legal to have them sign the letter, though.  Ross Perot used to have employees sign all kinds of letters obligating them to do things the employer couldn't obligate them to do (like serve for X years after taking training Y) because he knew they wouldn't discover he couldn't enforce the obligation.

Lots of companies pull shit like that, particularly with entry-level employees, because they know that the people in those positions won't know any better (and those that do are planning on just using the job as a stepping stone, and will want to move on asap without creating any waves).

That is clearly an indication that the free market is not working, and only a union can possibly restore free market principles. Why, if Strix doesn't make enough cash with a guarantee of never being fired, clearly the free market is Teh Brokened.

Strix is big on unions, you know. Comes from being such an ardent Republican and all.

Actually, the fact that companies will pull shit like this is about the only argument in favor of unions that I can think of.  The problem is, that the kind of people who get this pulled on them because they don't know any better are going to also get crap pulled on them with a union in place, because they're so clueless that they also won't know that they can report this stuff to their union rep.

Quote from: Berkut on April 21, 2009, 12:46:33 AM

That is clearly an indication that the free market is not working, and only a union can possibly restore free market principles. Why, if Strix doesn't make enough cash with a guarantee of never being fired, clearly the free market is Teh Brokened.

Strix is big on unions, you know. Comes from being such an ardent Republican and all.

Heh.  I remember Strix saying several times that he wasn't a Republican.  Kinda like you do.

Quote from: dps on April 21, 2009, 12:40:12 AMLots of companies pull shit like that, particularly with entry-level employees, because they know that the people in those positions won't know any better (and those that do are planning on just using the job as a stepping stone, and will want to move on asap without creating any waves).

:yes: When I worked internally for RHI they had me sign a non-compete agreement, which is legally unenforceable in Kentucky.  I haven't since had any reason to "violate" it, but I'd have no problem doing so if the need arose.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 21, 2009, 03:35:54 AM

Quote from: Berkut on April 21, 2009, 12:46:33 AM

That is clearly an indication that the free market is not working, and only a union can possibly restore free market principles. Why, if Strix doesn't make enough cash with a guarantee of never being fired, clearly the free market is Teh Brokened.

Strix is big on unions, you know. Comes from being such an ardent Republican and all.

Heh.  I remember Strix saying several times that he wasn't a Republican.  Kinda like you do.

You really are almost completely useless. This obsession is a little weird.

Raz seems to have trouble understanding that most ordinary people are not ideological slaves to their party and always think precisely what the platform tells them to think.  :huh:

Quote from: alfred russel on April 20, 2009, 11:02:18 PM
Well shit Strix. NY is at will, and NC is at will. In either state you can have employment contracts that restrict termination, including through collective bargaining agreements. NY is giving you a better deal, probably in a large part because you are represented by a union.

My only point was that NY is at will and NC is at will too. If you didn't say NY wasn't at will, I wouldn't have posted anything.

What I like about Strix is that he not only lacks reading comprehension skills, but that he exploits that lack through arrogant ignorance!  :lol:  Most amusing!

Yes, New York is an "at-will" state, like NC (and Virginia, for that matter).  That does not, of course, mean that employment is completely "at will,"  as express or implied contracts will limit the freedom of employers or employees.

As for Strix's contention that he understands the NY state employment contract better because he read it, I doubt it.  I think that a random guess on the part of a person who has never seen one is likelier to be true than Strix's tortured attempts to interpret those little black squiggles.

Quote from: Berkut on April 21, 2009, 08:09:25 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 21, 2009, 03:35:54 AM
Heh.  I remember Strix saying several times that he wasn't a Republican.  Kinda like you do.

You really are almost completely useless. This obsession is a little weird.

I find it more than a bit creepy.  It is almost like he was the Lone Monkey, trying to make up for the missing 999,999 by random typing.  Every hundredth post of his makes sense.

Quote from: alfred russel on April 20, 2009, 11:02:18 PM
Well shit Strix. NY is at will, and NC is at will. In either state you can have employment contracts that restrict termination, including through collective bargaining agreements. NY is giving you a better deal, probably in a large part because you are represented by a union.

My only point was that NY is at will and NC is at will too. If you didn't say NY wasn't at will, I wouldn't have posted anything.

Well shit alfred, this is a thread about Unions. NY is a union state and therefore not at will while NC is non-union (since state employees cannot unionize) and therefore at will.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 21, 2009, 03:35:54 AM

Quote from: Berkut on April 21, 2009, 12:46:33 AM

That is clearly an indication that the free market is not working, and only a union can possibly restore free market principles. Why, if Strix doesn't make enough cash with a guarantee of never being fired, clearly the free market is Teh Brokened.

Strix is big on unions, you know. Comes from being such an ardent Republican and all.

Heh.  I remember Strix saying several times that he wasn't a Republican.  Kinda like you do.

Ironic isn't it Raz.  :lol:

Berkut is the only being on the planet capable of being his own person and not defined by a party.

I haven't been a Republican for several years now. I am a registered independent.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 20, 2009, 06:13:55 PM
My company has a document to sign for new hires that states that anyone engaging in acts that may be viewed as attempts to form a union or to bring union representation into the company are subject to immediate termination.

In all jurisdictions in Canada the remedy for this kind of practice would be an order by the Labour Board that a union be certified as the bargaining agent for all the employees of the company.

What remedies are there in the US for this kind of practice?

Quote from: grumbler on April 21, 2009, 08:25:42 AM
What I like about Strix is that he not only lacks reading comprehension skills, but that he exploits that lack through arrogant ignorance!  :lol:  Most amusing!

Yes, New York is an "at-will" state, like NC (and Virginia, for that matter).  That does not, of course, mean that employment is completely "at will,"  as express or implied contracts will limit the freedom of employers or employees.

As for Strix's contention that he understands the NY state employment contract better because he read it, I doubt it.  I think that a random guess on the part of a person who has never seen one is likelier to be true than Strix's tortured attempts to interpret those little black squiggles.

Your ignorance would amuse me if it wasn't so sad.   <_<

I direct you to the title of the thread. I further direct you to try to engage your reading comprehension skills. You know that thing you accuse others of not possessing. If you do than you will realize much of the discussion has revolved around comparing and contrasting a union state like NY which is not "at will" because of their collectively bargained agreement with the state and NC which does not have (nor allow) a state worker union that collectively bargains an employment agreement.

Perhaps after you have done so you might add something useful to the discussion rather than ignorant post after ignorant post.

You might also read up on the public employee union contracts of NY so you have a clue about what is being discussed.

Of course, you are incapable of either because you're grumbler.

Quote from: DGuller on April 21, 2009, 12:36:49 AM
If you need to wait five years to enjoy good mission plan, you're waiting for a job that overpays.  A job that pays a market rate doesn't have lines of potential employees waiting for years.

That makes no sense whatsoever. If you have to wait five years for a job to have an opening it means that it's a job worth waiting to get. What a job pays is only one factor in the overall way that a job is rated.

You seem to be arguing that a high turnover/vacancy rate = free market. Perhaps you could explain that concept further.

Quote from: dps on April 21, 2009, 01:24:41 AM
Actually, the fact that companies will pull shit like this is about the only argument in favor of unions that I can think of.  The problem is, that the kind of people who get this pulled on them because they don't know any better are going to also get crap pulled on them with a union in place, because they're so clueless that they also won't know that they can report this stuff to their union rep.

Agreed.  There is no free market without informed choice.

Quote from: Strix on April 21, 2009, 11:57:14 AM
That makes no sense whatsoever. If you have to wait five years for a job to have an opening it means that it's a job worth waiting to get.

Yes, a job that grossly overpays is certainly worth waiting to get, no argument there.

QuoteWhat a job pays is only one factor in the overall way that a job is rated.

Yes, it is only one factor.  However, if other factors are more favorable than average, then pay should be less favorable than average.  If job conditions are great, then there would be many people wanting to get it for those conditions.  Therefore, in a free market, employer would be able to get away with offering lower wages for those jobs, to the point that some of those people considering the job for those great conditions would change their mind once they see the wages.

Quote
You seem to be arguing that a high turnover/vacancy rate = free market. Perhaps you could explain that concept further.

Sure.  In free market system, at market prices, there is a lot of indifference.  When it comes to jobs, it means that you are indifferent between staying on the job and leaving.  If there is no such indifference, and no one ever considers leaving once they get the job, then the job is "too good".  People with the job consider having it to be a windfall, and would go to great lengths to keep it.

Quote from: DGuller on April 21, 2009, 12:41:34 PM
People with the job consider having it to be a windfall, and would go to great lengths to keep it.

Even going so far as to compromise what little political principles they might have?

Surely not that far...

Quote from: Caliga on April 21, 2009, 08:24:39 AM
Raz seems to have trouble understanding that most ordinary people are not ideological slaves to their party and always think precisely what the platform tells them to think.  :huh:

Berkut has the same issue.

Strix really doesn't have a clue what "at-will" means, does he?

Funny story--a former co-worker of mine was very anti-union, because of experiences she had with a union she had belonged to.  She had worked at a grocery store, and she and her co-workers there had voted in a union because they felt mistreated.  Their biggest concern was job secutity.  When the union came in, the union leaders negotiated a contract that still stated that employees were hired at-will and could be terminated at any time without notice at the discretion of management.  The only thing different was that the employees got 1 more week of paid vacation a year, and there was now a union shop in place, so they had to pay $35 a pay period in union dues.  They didn't even get a pay raise, or even a contractually agreed on pay scale--the contract left pay rates to the discretion of management as well.

She had voted against the proposed contract, but apparantly her co-workers were so ticked at the company that they viewed the union leaders as saviours, and when the leaders told them it was a good contract, they bought that line and approved it, though apparantly it was a narrow margin.  She left there as soon as she could find another job.

Of course, most unions don't do that bad of a job representing their members--it's obviously an extreme case--but it is a bit instructive, as well as quite amusing.

Come now guys, we all know that there's no way that Strix can back down on this issue.  He's a guy who's proud of what he does, and feels that he's really contributing to society.  How can he admit that he's overpaid?

No matter how angry Berkut gets or how badly the Languish Professionals undress his arguments, he's not going to budge an inch, because to do so would be to say that he's less valuable.

Quote from: dps on April 21, 2009, 05:15:20 PM
Strix really doesn't have a clue what "at-will" means, does he?

Funny story--a former co-worker of mine was very anti-union, because of experiences she had with a union she had belonged to.  She had worked at a grocery store, and she and her co-workers there had voted in a union because they felt mistreated.  Their biggest concern was job secutity.  When the union came in, the union leaders negotiated a contract that still stated that employees were hired at-will and could be terminated at any time without notice at the discretion of management.  The only thing different was that the employees got 1 more week of paid vacation a year, and there was now a union shop in place, so they had to pay $35 a pay period in union dues.  They didn't even get a pay raise, or even a contractually agreed on pay scale--the contract left pay rates to the discretion of management as well.

She had voted against the proposed contract, but apparantly her co-workers were so ticked at the company that they viewed the union leaders as saviours, and when the leaders told them it was a good contract, they bought that line and approved it, though apparantly it was a narrow margin.  She left there as soon as she could find another job.

Of course, most unions don't do that bad of a job representing their members--it's obviously an extreme case--but it is a bit instructive, as well as quite amusing.

My guess is that you don't have a clue.

In NYS government, union workers cannot be terminated without reasonable cause and without due process, period. I don't really care about your former co-worker because she did not work for NYS nor belong to one of it's unions, so it has no bearing on anything I have been discussing.

Than again, perhaps what you're saying is that "at will" means that management cannot fire a person when they feel like it but only after that employee has done something that can reasonably be construed as a basis for termination and than only after that employee has been afforded due process along with an appeal.

Quote from: Neil on April 21, 2009, 06:09:02 PM
Come now guys, we all know that there's no way that Strix can back down on this issue.  He's a guy who's proud of what he does, and feels that he's really contributing to society.  How can he admit that he's overpaid?

No matter how angry Berkut gets or how badly the Languish Professionals undress his arguments, he's not going to budge an inch, because to do so would be to say that he's less valuable.

The funny part is that according to the "standard" for parole-type work i.e. the federal government. I am not overpaid. I don't make what they do, and I definitely don't get the sweet benefits package available to them.

There are always haters. If someone isn't smart enough to find a job in a field they enjoy and get well paid doing it don't blame me for it.

Quote from: Strix on April 21, 2009, 10:46:44 PM

The funny part is that according to the "standard" for parole-type work i.e. the federal government. I am not overpaid.

LOL ok.  :lol:

Quote from: Strix on April 21, 2009, 10:42:03 PM

Quote from: dps on April 21, 2009, 05:15:20 PM
Strix really doesn't have a clue what "at-will" means, does he?

Funny story--a former co-worker of mine was very anti-union, because of experiences she had with a union she had belonged to.  She had worked at a grocery store, and she and her co-workers there had voted in a union because they felt mistreated.  Their biggest concern was job secutity.  When the union came in, the union leaders negotiated a contract that still stated that employees were hired at-will and could be terminated at any time without notice at the discretion of management.  The only thing different was that the employees got 1 more week of paid vacation a year, and there was now a union shop in place, so they had to pay $35 a pay period in union dues.  They didn't even get a pay raise, or even a contractually agreed on pay scale--the contract left pay rates to the discretion of management as well.

She had voted against the proposed contract, but apparantly her co-workers were so ticked at the company that they viewed the union leaders as saviours, and when the leaders told them it was a good contract, they bought that line and approved it, though apparantly it was a narrow margin.  She left there as soon as she could find another job.

Of course, most unions don't do that bad of a job representing their members--it's obviously an extreme case--but it is a bit instructive, as well as quite amusing.

My guess is that you don't have a clue.

In NYS government, union workers cannot be terminated without reasonable cause and without due process, period. I don't really care about your former co-worker because she did not work for NYS nor belong to one of it's unions, so it has no bearing on anything I have been discussing.

Than again, perhaps what you're saying is that "at will" means that management cannot fire a person when they feel like it but only after that employee has done something that can reasonably be construed as a basis for termination and than only after that employee has been afforded due process along with an appeal.

I can't tell if you're being willfully obtuse, or if you're really just this stupid.

Quote from: Strix on April 21, 2009, 10:42:03 PM
My guess is that you don't have a clue.

In NYS government, union workers cannot be terminated without reasonable cause and without due process, period. I don't really care about your former co-worker because she did not work for NYS nor belong to one of it's unions, so it has no bearing on anything I have been discussing.

My guess is that it is you who is clueless.  I think everyone here understands that you no more understand the protections of your employment contract that you understand the posts you read here.  Your contract will protect you from personally being fired for job performance without due process, but it does not protect you from being laid off by your employer as part of a jobs cut.  No employment contract does that, with the exception of a few professional athlete contracts.  Your contract will ensure that you obtain certain benefits in the event of a termination because of downsizing, but it won't protect you against such termination.

I encourage the governor to begin the downsizing process in accordance with the demands of the union (and you).  It will be a very salutary lesson for everyone involved, and won't much affect the other people in the state because NY state workers are generally inefficient and obviously overpaid anyway.  More work spread to less people will force the remainder to actually earn more of their pay.

Quote from: Strix on April 21, 2009, 10:46:44 PM
The funny part is that according to the "standard" for parole-type work i.e. the federal government. I am not overpaid.

I'm pretty sure going that by government salaries isn't a good way to determine if one is overpaid or not. :lol:

Quote from: Caliga on April 21, 2009, 08:24:39 AM
Raz seems to have trouble understanding that most ordinary people are not ideological slaves to their party and always think precisely what the platform tells them to think.  :huh:

I have trouble understanding lots of stuff.  I'm an under-incorporator!

But not this.  What you said doesn't really have any bearing on what I said.

I interpreted your reply to Berkut regarding him and Strix to mean that you were questioning them on claiming to not be Republicans, even though you perceive them to take Republican-esque positions and therefore must be Republican party ideologues.

I realize the conclusion is a stretch based on that specific post, but I seem to recall you having made similar comments in the past.  I recall you accusing me of being a hardcore Libertarian at one point because I identify with a fair number of libertarian principles, for example.

Quote from: Caliga on April 22, 2009, 07:04:32 AM
I interpreted your reply to Berkut regarding him and Strix to mean that you were questioning them on claiming to not be Republicans, even though you perceive them to take Republican-esque positions and therefore must be Republican party ideologues.

I realize the conclusion is a stretch based on that specific post, but I seem to recall you having made similar comments in the past.  I recall you accusing me of being a hardcore Libertarian at one point because I identify with a fair number of libertarian principles, for example.

I don't think I called you "hardcore", but you have self-indentified with libertarians before.  Nobody here is a "hardcore" libertarian cause nobody is that off the wall.

Quote from: grumbler on April 22, 2009, 06:44:32 AM
My guess is that it is you who is clueless.  I think everyone here understands that you no more understand the protections of your employment contract that you understand the posts you read here.  Your contract will protect you from personally being fired for job performance without due process, but it does not protect you from being laid off by your employer as part of a jobs cut.  No employment contract does that, with the exception of a few professional athlete contracts.  Your contract will ensure that you obtain certain benefits in the event of a termination because of downsizing, but it won't protect you against such termination.

I encourage the governor to begin the downsizing process in accordance with the demands of the union (and you).  It will be a very salutary lesson for everyone involved, and won't much affect the other people in the state because NY state workers are generally inefficient and obviously overpaid anyway.  More work spread to less people will force the remainder to actually earn more of their pay.

It's pretty much you that doesn't have a clue. I think everyone here doesn't understand the protections given public employees for NYS by their unions because they have not enjoyed similar benefits themselves at any point in their lives.

I have never stated that NYS public employees are 100% protected from losing their jobs because that has never been the question at hand. You would like to change the discussion in that direction because you lost the current one regarding if NYS is an "at will" state or not if you are in a union. That was spelled out by the NYS Department of Labor which stated that NYS employment is not an "at will" if it has been collectively bargained. So, I understand the need for you to change what is being discussed because you were proven wrong.

The governor will not being firing 8,700 people he will be cutting jobs.  Perhaps that difference requires more intellectual ability to understand than you possess?  So, I will explain it to you in simple terms that even you should be able to comprehend though I doubt it.

The governor will not be firing 8,700 people. He cannot do so because of a collectively bargained agreement with the various public employee unions. He will be eliminating jobs. Those people whom have their jobs eliminated have the ability because of their contracts with NYS to find another position within NYS if a position is available that they are willing/able to take and willing/able to relocate to if required. This ability to laterally transfer is ranked according to state seniority.

NYS has begun the first step in this process. All department heads have been directed by the governor to make X number of cuts in jobs, and they will send him their recommendations by July 1st.

The next step will be sending 60 day notice (as required per law) to those whose positions have been targeted for elimination.

The step after that will be the reshuffling of employees through out the state to fill any vacancies that exist with displaced workers.

The final step will be separation from the state of any displaced workers that are unable/unwilling to take a new job assignment.

The last benefit provided these workers is the ability to be first in line when their old job or another state job opens. They jump ahead of anyone on the Civil Service list who doesn't have permanent status already (permanent status means they finished their 1-2 year probationary status with the state when initially hired).

That is pretty much the process. Workers aren't individually fired "at will" but rather become the last person without a chair to sit on when the music stops.

Quote from: Strix on April 22, 2009, 08:04:14 AM
It's pretty much you that doesn't have a clue. I think everyone here doesn't understand the protections given public employees for NYS by their unions because they have not enjoyed similar benefits themselves at any point in their lives.

I think the evidence about who doesn't understand the NY state system is pretty obvious.  I argued for Patterson to proceed with state job downsizing, and you told me he couldn't do that.

QuoteI have never stated that NYS public employees are 100% protected from losing their jobs because that has never been the question at hand.

It was with me because when i argued that patterspon should cut jobs if the unions won't agree to cut salaries, you said he couldn't do that.

QuoteYou would like to change the discussion in that direction because you lost the current one regarding if NYS is an "at will" state or not if you are in a union. That was spelled out by the NYS Department of Labor which stated that NYS employment is not an "at will" if it has been collectively bargained. So, I understand the need for you to change what is being discussed because you were proven wrong.

Given that I never argued that NY state was an at-will state for people in unions (in fact, stated explicitly that this was untrue in NY, NC, and Virginia), I guess i am moving on to this point because I won the earlier point and have now pinned you down onto the issue of whether or not Patterson can downsize the NY state employee ranks to compensate for the unions failing to agree with compensation concessions.

I say he can.  Do you disagree?

QuoteThe governor will not being firing 8,700 people he will be cutting jobs.  Perhaps that difference requires more intellectual ability to understand than you possess?  So, I will explain it to you in simple terms that even you should be able to comprehend though I doubt it.

This is what I have argued for, so it seems that the issue is your reading comprehension, not my understanding of the law.

Quote(snip of a bunch of obvious steps pretty much identical with procedures everywhere)

Sounds like Patterson is doing what I recommended.  Let's hope he cuts deeply enough to restore some sanity to the system.

It is too bad that these cuts have to come as a result of the econmic crisis, rather than simply because NYS has a ridiculously over-paid, bloated, and inefficient public employee services.

It is kind of sad that in order to be able to afford grossly over-paying the Strixs of the world, other people have to work for a pittance in sub-contracted jobs.

Mrs. berkut has decided she wants to go back to work - not because we really need the money, but because she misses the work she used to do (social work). Of course, getting one of those cushy jobs with the state where you sit around all day picking your ass and shooting the shit while getting paid is nearly impossible, plus she said she doesn't think she could stand working in such an apathetic atmosphere.

So she is getting a part time job working for Easter Seals doing in home care for kids with disabilities. Her bachelors degree in social work combined with over a decade of experience helping people with developmental disabilities will get her slightly above minimum wage. Which doesn't matter much to her, but you wonder how many people simply cannot afford to do that kind of work, all so the state employees can burn through the states resources doing nearly nothing.

It amazes me that the state has actually managed to create an almost completely perverse system where the more competent you are, the less you will be rewarded, while the lazy and incompetent are untouchable.

Quote from: Berkut on April 22, 2009, 08:37:56 AMIt amazes me that the state has actually managed to create an almost completely perverse system where the more competent you are, the less you will be rewarded, while the lazy and incompetent are untouchable.

That's what government does.  Always been that way, always will be that way. ^_^

Quote from: Caliga on April 22, 2009, 08:39:56 AM

Quote from: Berkut on April 22, 2009, 08:37:56 AMIt amazes me that the state has actually managed to create an almost completely perverse system where the more competent you are, the less you will be rewarded, while the lazy and incompetent are untouchable.

That's what government does.  Always been that way, always will be that way. ^_^

Yeah, you are right, of course.

Quote from: Berkut on April 22, 2009, 08:44:57 AM
Yeah, you are right, of course.

The lazy and incompetent have a much bigger lobby and voting base than the competent.

Quote from: grumbler
I think the evidence about who doesn't understand the NY state system is pretty obvious.  I argued for Patterson to proceed with state job downsizing, and you told me he couldn't do that.

And where exactly did I say this? I stated he cannot fire people "at will" because of the union contracts but I never stated he couldn't eliminate jobs. In fact, I have repeatedly stated that's what he plans on doing and how.

Quote from: grumblerIt was with me because when i argued that patterspon should cut jobs if the unions won't agree to cut salaries, you said he couldn't do that.

Once again, I stated that Paterson couldn't fire people "at will" which is true. He can only eliminate jobs.

Quote from: grumbler]Given that I never argued that NY state was an at-will state for people in unions (in fact, stated explicitly that this was untrue in NY, NC, and Virginia), I guess i am moving on to this point because I won the earlier point and have now pinned you down onto the issue of whether or not Patterson can downsize the NY state employee ranks to compensate for the unions failing to agree with compensation concessions.

Considering almost every post in reply to one of mine insists that I am totally wrong about NYS public employee unions not being subject to being fired "at will" because you allege I have no idea what I am discussing provides evidence enough to the contrary. So, I guess what you were arguing is that what I was stating was correct but, however, that is inconsequential because I am Strix and therefore must be wrong? Very confusing but here is a quote to show perhaps that you were arguing that NYS is "at will".

Quote from: grumblerI think Patterson is saying that, unless the unions agree to concessions, patterson will, as allowed by contract, terminate employees until the costs of the contract match more closely to the state's resources.

Paterson can't terminate employees "at will" but he can eliminate positions which may or may not ultimately result in the loss of displaced employees. Once again, you fail to understand this important distinction.

And, I am not sure how you won the earlier point considering that conceding I was right that NYS is not an "at will" state for public employee union members means I won that point.  :lmfao:

And, by the way, NC doesn't have any state employee unions that have the power to collectively bargain, so the fact that you lumped NY, NC, and VA together just shows how little you understand what is being discussed.

Quote from: grumblerI say he can.  Do you disagree?

I never argued that the governor couldn't eliminate jobs. That is an argument you are trying to create because you failed so badly on the "at will" discussion that you need to divert attention away from it. I have always argued that the NYS governor cannot fire people "at will" which he cannot because of the union contract. You have apparently conceded that I was correct about this, and now wish to move onto a new topic that no one is arguing.

Quote from: grumblerThis is what I have argued for, so it seems that the issue is your reading comprehension, not my understanding of the law.

We are not arguing the pros and cons of eliminating state jobs in this thread. Once again, I refer you to the title of the thread. If you would like to create a thread discussing this topic than feel free to do so.

Quote from: grumblerSounds like Patterson is doing what I recommended.  Let's hope he cuts deeply enough to restore some sanity to the system.

Once again, if you would like to argue this than feel free to create a new topic. We can than discuss how potentially trimming the state tax base by 8,700 people, closing prisons, and reducing health care is good or bad for the state. And, of course, how the governor won't be trimming the jobs but rather accepting the recommendations of the department heads, so it's unlikely that they will remove the waste and inefficient jobs.

QuoteAnd, of course, how the governor won't be trimming the jobs but rather accepting the recommendations of the department heads, so it's unlikely that they will remove the waste and inefficient jobs.

Hey, thanks for pointing out yet another reason why the state employees unions suck. because apparently they specifically protect the most wasteful and inefficient jobs!

The fact that you defend this tooth and nail is really rather sad. Not surprising - very few people are capable of objective reasoning, especially when they are nestled up at the government tit themselves.

I do find your hypocrisy rather amusing. When it comes to things you are not personally vested in, you are ideologically rabid and incapable of critical thought beyond "liberals bad! Lefties evil!" and when it comes to your own personal situation, you suddenly become the champion of the very worst examples of left-wing socialist dogma.

Quote from: Berkut on April 22, 2009, 08:37:56 AM
It is too bad that these cuts have to come as a result of the econmic crisis, rather than simply because NYS has a ridiculously over-paid, bloated, and inefficient public employee services.

It is kind of sad that in order to be able to afford grossly over-paying the Strixs of the world, other people have to work for a pittance in sub-contracted jobs.

Mrs. berkut has decided she wants to go back to work - not because we really need the money, but because she misses the work she used to do (social work). Of course, getting one of those cushy jobs with the state where you sit around all day picking your ass and shooting the shit while getting paid is nearly impossible, plus she said she doesn't think she could stand working in such an apathetic atmosphere.

So she is getting a part time job working for Easter Seals doing in home care for kids with disabilities. Her bachelors degree in social work combined with over a decade of experience helping people with developmental disabilities will get her slightly above minimum wage. Which doesn't matter much to her, but you wonder how many people simply cannot afford to do that kind of work, all so the state employees can burn through the states resources doing nearly nothing.

It amazes me that the state has actually managed to create an almost completely perverse system where the more competent you are, the less you will be rewarded, while the lazy and incompetent are untouchable.

Berkut, as previously stated, feel free this weekend (or any day this week) to go down to Avenue D, Jefferson Avenue, or Genesse Street around 9pm - 12pm and start knocking on doors. You have no idea what my job requires and what I do. I do know that you lack the skills, ability, education, and to be honest the nads to do it.

Enough about me, what exactly is your useless job in life?

Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2009, 09:01:48 AM
The lazy and incompetent have a much bigger lobby and voting base than the competent.

:lol:  I laugh out loud, but inside i am  :cry:

Quote from: Berkut on April 22, 2009, 10:00:28 AM
Hey, thanks for pointing out yet another reason why the state employees unions suck. because apparently they specifically protect the most wasteful and inefficient jobs!

The fact that you defend this tooth and nail is really rather sad. Not surprising - very few people are capable of objective reasoning, especially when they are nestled up at the government tit themselves.

I do find your hypocrisy rather amusing. When it comes to things you are not personally vested in, you are ideologically rabid and incapable of critical thought beyond "liberals bad! Lefties evil!" and when it comes to your own personal situation, you suddenly become the champion of the very worst examples of left-wing socialist dogma.

Hey, once again, thank you for pointing out your total ignorance when it comes to NYS employment. Upper management i.e. those in change of the cuts aren't union workers.  :lmfao:

So, I somehow doubt that people who work directly "at the will" of the governor will side with the union on cuts knowing that they can be terminated without cause.

On a more serious note, I would like to thank Berkut and grumbler for making it like old times. I missed when they were reduced to personal attacks/insults (Berkut) and trying to change the argument so that it fits their point (grumbler) when a thread wasn't going their way.

Missed you guys!  :hug:

Quote from: Strix on April 22, 2009, 10:05:13 AM

Berkut, as previously stated, feel free this weekend (or any day this week) to go down to Avenue D, Jefferson Avenue, or Genesse Street around 9pm - 12pm and start knocking on doors.

Why in the world would I want to do that?

Would that somehow prove how incredibly bad ass I am, so then I could go on the internets and brag about it in a desperate attempt to get someone to take me seriously?

Wait a minute - can't I do that anyway? I don't actually have to BE a bad ass to play one on Languish, do I?

Quote
You have no idea what my job requires and what I do.

Sure I do, you go on about how incredibly dangerous it is and what a kick ass, bad ass dude you are all the time, fighting to protect us from teh black and brown people all the time. You even stick your little tally in your sig, because you are just that Serious and Totally Awesome.

You go down to the Rochester Ghetto and knock on doors from 9pm to 12pm. That is what you do, right? Of course, you are not an ACTUAL police officer or anything like that. Oh no.

Quote
I do know that you lack the skills, ability, education, and to be honest the nads to do it.

Hmmm, skills...I think I could learn how to knock on doors. Ability - yeah, I am guessing that would not be hard to pick up either. Education? Uhh, what is that - 4 year degree from north Carolina State School of Kick-Assedness?

Gnads? Oh gosh no - you have proven here on Languish how incredibly tough and bad ass you are - I am sure I could never measure up to your incredible Chuck Norris-like awesomeness. I would have to work on the racism, bigotry, and such as well.

Quote

Enough about me, what exactly is your useless job in life?

What is more important is that my "useless job" pays me based on what the market says I am worth, rather than on what I can blackmail politicians into paying me, and if I don't produce, I get fired.

But what is relevant to this discussion is your amusing attempts to justify your rabid newly found socialism. Why not just have the honesty to acknowledge you are sucking at the government tit and life is fine?

Quote from: Strix on April 22, 2009, 10:24:52 AM
On a more serious note, I would like to thank Berkut and grumbler for making it like old times. I missed when they were reduced to personal attacks/insults (Berkut) and trying to change the argument so that it fits their point (grumbler) when a thread wasn't going their way.

Missed you guys!  :hug:

LOL, you are the one asking what I do for a living and crowing about how bad ass you are because you are a Parole Officer, Chuck.

Quote from: Berkut on April 22, 2009, 10:30:05 AM

Quote from: Strix on April 22, 2009, 10:05:13 AM

Berkut, as previously stated, feel free this weekend (or any day this week) to go down to Avenue D, Jefferson Avenue, or Genesse Street around 9pm - 12pm and start knocking on doors.

Why in the world would I want to do that?

Would that somehow prove how incredibly bad ass I am, so then I could go on the internets and brag about it in a desperate attempt to get someone to take me seriously?

Wait a minute - can't I do that anyway? I don't actually have to BE a bad ass to play one on Languish, do I?

Quote
You have no idea what my job requires and what I do.

Sure I do, you go on about how incredibly dangerous it is and what a kick ass, bad ass dude you are all the time, fighting to protect us from teh black and brown people all the time. You even stick your little tally in your sig, because you are just that Serious and Totally Awesome.

You go down to the Rochester Ghetto and knock on doors from 9pm to 12pm. That is what you do, right? Of course, you are not an ACTUAL police officer or anything like that. Oh no.

Quote
I do know that you lack the skills, ability, education, and to be honest the nads to do it.

Hmmm, skills...I think I could learn how to knock on doors. Ability - yeah, I am guessing that would not be hard to pick up either. Education? Uhh, what is that - 4 year degree from north Carolina State School of Kick-Assedness?

Gnads? Oh gosh no - you have proven here on Languish how incredibly tough and bad ass you are - I am sure I could never measure up to your incredible Chuck Norris-like awesomeness. I would have to work on the racism, bigotry, and such as well.

Quote

Enough about me, what exactly is your useless job in life?

What is more important is that my "useless job" pays me based on what the market says I am worth, rather than on what I can blackmail politicians into paying me, and if I don't produce, I get fired.

But what is relevant to this discussion is your amusing attempts to justify your rabid newly found socialism. Why not just have the honesty to acknowledge you are sucking at the government tit and life is fine?

:lmfao:

That was good humor. Like I said, you have no idea what my job entails. It's funny to watch you spout ignorance again and again. And, yes, I stick my tally in my sig because it is something I am proud to have done. I make more felony arrests in a year than any police officer and more than an FBI agent will in his lifetime.

Those that can...do, and those that can't...criticize.

You have no idea what are my political beliefs. It's funny to see you try to poke fun at what you can't/don't understand. It just demonstrates over and over how ignorant you are as a person and a poster.

Quote from: Berkut on April 22, 2009, 10:31:17 AM
LOL, you are the one asking what I do for a living and crowing about how bad ass you are because you are a Parole Officer, Chuck.

I am proud of the work I do. You apparently aren't as much. That's ok. Someone has to do that kind of work as well.

Quote from: Strix on April 22, 2009, 09:55:27 AM
And where exactly did I say this? I stated he cannot fire people "at will" because of the union contracts but I never stated he couldn't eliminate jobs. In fact, I have repeatedly stated that's what he plans on doing and how.

I said "I encourage the governor to begin the downsizing process in accordance with the demands of the union (and you).  It will be a very salutary lesson for everyone involved, and won't much affect the other people in the state because NY state workers are generally inefficient and obviously overpaid anyway.  More work spread to less people will force the remainder to actually earn more of their pay.'

You said: "It's pretty much you that doesn't have a clue. I think everyone here doesn't understand the protections given public employees for NYS by their unions because they have not enjoyed similar benefits themselves at any point in their lives."

Since we now both agree that Patterson can indeed do as I suggest, it is pretty clear that it is, indeed, I that 'has a clue."

QuoteOnce again, I stated that Paterson couldn't fire people "at will" which is true. He can only eliminate jobs.

You clarified your statement to match my earlier statement.  You got a clue.

QuoteConsidering almost every post in reply to one of mine insists that I am totally wrong about NYS public employee unions not being subject to being fired "at will" because you allege I have no idea what I am discussing provides evidence enough to the contrary. So, I guess what you were arguing is that what I was stating was correct but, however, that is inconsequential because I am Strix and therefore must be wrong? Very confusing but here is a quote to show perhaps that you were arguing that NYS is "at will".

Quote from: grumblerI think Patterson is saying that, unless the unions agree to concessions, patterson will, as allowed by contract, terminate employees until the costs of the contract match more closely to the state's resources.

Paterson can't terminate employees "at will" but he can eliminate positions which may or may not ultimately result in the loss of displaced employees. Once again, you fail to understand this important distinction.

You are here engaging in distinctions without differences.  You claimed that NY state positions have waiting lists.  Now you aregue that eliminating positions will not eliminate employees.  You cannot have it both ways.

In any case, since the objective here is to save money, and eliminating empty jobs will not reult in savings, I think we can safely assume that the empty positions will be eliminated (with no impact on savings0 even before the filled positions.

And Patterson can do this despite the contract.

QuoteAnd, I am not sure how you won the earlier point considering that conceding I was right that NYS is not an "at will" state for public employee union members means I won that point.  :lmfao:

You still don't have a clue as to what 'at will' means, do you?  :lmfao:  "At will" has nothing whatever to do with union contracts.

QuoteAnd, by the way, NC doesn't have any state employee unions that have the power to collectively bargain, so the fact that you lumped NY, NC, and VA together just shows how little you understand what is being discussed.

The fact that you cannot understand what these states have in common tells me that you simply don't (and won't bother to) get it at all.

QuoteI never argued that the governor couldn't eliminate jobs. That is an argument you are trying to create because you failed so badly on the "at will" discussion that you need to divert attention away from it. I have always argued that the NYS governor cannot fire people "at will" which he cannot because of the union contract. You have apparently conceded that I was correct about this, and now wish to move onto a new topic that no one is arguing.

So you agree that my contention, to which you responded that I didn't get it, was, in fact, correct?

I rest my case.  You do not have to comprehend what "at will" means for your concession that I am correct to have meaning.

You should be proud of what you do, and I am sure we are all really impressed by it, and cannot imagine that anyone other than you could possibly do such difficult work.

That is why we don't constantly tell anonymous people on web-boards about what we do all the time - because we are so ashamed of ourselves. Unlike you.

Hey Strix, how many of the felons you have arrested this year are on parole for violent offenses?

Question: what exactly does a parole officer do?  I really have no idea.  :blush:

Quote from: Caliga on April 22, 2009, 12:04:51 PM
Question: what exactly does a parole officer do?  I really have no idea.  :blush:

He knocks on doors from 9pm to 12pm, apparently.

Quote from: Strix on April 22, 2009, 10:24:52 AM
On a more serious note, I would like to thank Berkut and grumbler for making it like old times. I missed when they were reduced to personal attacks/insults (Berkut) and trying to change the argument so that it fits their point (grumbler) when a thread wasn't going their way.

Missed you guys!  :hug:

And I missed your inevitable personal attacks (like your post cited above) when you ran out of factual counter-arguments.  If you cannot argue the argument, maybe you can argue the opponent's character!  :lol:

My argument in this thread was purely that Patterson should, and could, reduce salary expenditures by reducing employee numbers, if the unions would not support reductions in per-employee expenditures.  Now that you have conceded that he can do this, the fact that you do not comprehend how NY could be an "at will employment" state and still have labor contracts is irrelevant, and we have no others issues in contention.  :cool:

Quote from: Berkut on April 22, 2009, 12:06:25 PM

Quote from: Caliga on April 22, 2009, 12:04:51 PM
Question: what exactly does a parole officer do?  I really have no idea.  :blush:

He knocks on doors from 9pm to 12pm, apparently.

Yep.  $77,000 for three hours a day is pretty good wages.  Works out to about $100 an hour.  Almost a plumber's wages!  :)

Quote from: grumbler on April 22, 2009, 12:14:14 PM
Yep.  $77,000 for three hours a day is pretty good wages.  Works out to about $100 an hour.  Almost a plumber's wages!  :)

Sometimes I wish I had taken my uncle up on his offer when I was in university and joined his plumbing company.  Probably would have made more money with less stress.

Quote from: grumbler on April 22, 2009, 12:14:14 PM

Quote from: Berkut on April 22, 2009, 12:06:25 PM

Quote from: Caliga on April 22, 2009, 12:04:51 PM
Question: what exactly does a parole officer do?  I really have no idea.  :blush:

He knocks on doors from 9pm to 12pm, apparently.

Yep.  $77,000 for three hours a day is pretty good wages.  Works out to about $100 an hour.  Almost a plumber's wages!  :)

9pm to 12pm is a 15-hour night-shift stretch...

Quote from: ulmont on April 22, 2009, 12:19:26 PM
9pm to 12pm is a 15-hour night-shift stretch...

I hope he knocks on more than one door during a shift.

Quote from: ulmont on April 22, 2009, 12:19:26 PM

Quote from: grumbler on April 22, 2009, 12:14:14 PM
Yep.  $77,000 for three hours a day is pretty good wages.  Works out to about $100 an hour.  Almost a plumber's wages!  :)

9pm to 12pm is a 15-hour night-shift stretch...

The US government style manual http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2000_style_manual&docid=chapter_txt-9 disagrees.  But we should let Strix tell us whether he meant that he worked a three hour day or a fifteen-hour day (though, in the latter case, an annualized average of only 27 felons apprehended per four thousand hours of work is pretty freakin' inefficient).

Quote from: grumbler on April 22, 2009, 12:34:36 PM
The US government style manual http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2000_style_manual&docid=chapter_txt-9 disagrees. 

Interessant.

Quote from: grumbler on April 22, 2009, 12:34:36 PM
The US government style manual http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2000_style_manual&docid=chapter_txt-9 disagrees.

The 2008 US government style manual http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2008_style_manual&docid=f:chapter9.wais agrees.

Quote from: garbon on April 22, 2009, 12:44:47 PM

Quote from: grumbler on April 22, 2009, 12:34:36 PM
The US government style manual http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2000_style_manual&docid=chapter_txt-9 disagrees.

Interessant.

Nah, they changed it in the version after the one grumbler cited.

Quote from: ulmont on April 22, 2009, 12:59:48 PM
Nah, they changed it in the version after the one grumbler cited.

It is interesting to me that it was ever that way. No wonder am vs. pm can be confusing. Even our government can't decide what it wants.

Quote from: Berkut on April 22, 2009, 12:00:00 PM
Hey Strix, how many of the felons you have arrested this year are on parole for violent offenses?

I have arrested two murders, several for CPW (criminal possesion of a weapon), a couple rapists, and a few on for robbery. The others were assorted burglary, CSCS/CPCS (sale/possession of drugs), and larceny.

grumbler, you conceded my point about "at will" so I am not sure what you're attempting to argue now other than your usual trying to change the argument to fit the point you were making stuff.

So people get parole for murder and rape?

Quote from: Berkut on April 22, 2009, 01:24:47 PM
So people get parole for murder and rape?

Yep.  In Georgia, until very recently, the "life without parole" sentence was only available for a murder where the death penalty was sought (but, obviously, not granted).

Even if life without parole is an option, it's not always going to be the sentence.

Anyway, I see no point in belittling what Strix does.  Obviously he does an important job.  However, it doesn't mean that he doesn't get overpaid for it.

Quote from: DGuller on April 22, 2009, 01:28:14 PM
Anyway, I see no point in belittling what Strix does.  Obviously he does an important job.  However, it doesn't mean that he doesn't get overpaid for it.

I'm waiting for a meaningful description of what he does before passing judgment. ^_^

Quote from: ulmont on April 22, 2009, 01:27:30 PM

Quote from: Berkut on April 22, 2009, 01:24:47 PM
So people get parole for murder and rape?

Yep.  In Georgia, until very recently, the "life without parole" sentence was only available for a murder where the death penalty was sought (but, obviously, not granted).

Even if life without parole is an option, it's not always going to be the sentence.

Strix isn't in Georgia though.

And I am not talking about sentences of life with or without parole, I am talking about just regular old sentences and whether it is common to get parole for violent crimes, in New York.

Quote from: DGuller on April 22, 2009, 01:28:14 PM
Anyway, I see no point in belittling what Strix does.  Obviously he does an important job.  However, it doesn't mean that he doesn't get overpaid for it.

But nobody has belittled what he does.

Just belittle him, and his uber macho, wanna-be Chuck Norris image of himself.

I have great respect in general for law enforcement. Most of the ones I know would find his posturing (especially as a parole officer) rather amusing.

Quote from: Berkut on April 22, 2009, 01:32:19 PM
Strix isn't in Georgia though.

NY is not known for having a harsher criminal justice system than Georgia, though.

Quote from: Berkut on April 22, 2009, 01:32:19 PM
And I am not talking about sentences of life with or without parole, I am talking about just regular old sentences and whether it is common to get parole for violent crimes, in New York.

440 murderers and attempted murderers were paroled in 2004-07.
http://www.pressrepublican.com/homepage/local_story_084065137.html/

Quote from: ulmont on April 22, 2009, 01:36:02 PM

Quote from: Berkut on April 22, 2009, 01:32:19 PM
Strix isn't in Georgia though.

NY is not known for having a harsher criminal justice system than Georgia, though.

Quote from: Berkut on April 22, 2009, 01:32:19 PM
And I am not talking about sentences of life with or without parole, I am talking about just regular old sentences and whether it is common to get parole for violent crimes, in New York.

440 murderers and attempted murderers were paroled in 2004-07.
http://www.pressrepublican.com/homepage/local_story_084065137.html/

Right, and that was pretty controversial at the time, and even now. For some time (and I thought this was still largely the case - apparently I was wrong) A1 offenders were not paroled.

From that article:

QuoteAlexander said boards are making safe decisions and his agency released parole data as evidence. The return rate for violent felons committing a crime within three years was 1.6 percent from 1999 through 2003. Division records show none of the 456 A1 felons released from 2004 through 2007 were returned to prison for a new crime, including the 440 murderers and attempted murderers in that group.

Pretty impressive that Strix has had 2 murderers already, and some rapists, since in a three year period there were none were returned to prison in the entire state. I guess maybe it has gotten a lot worse this year, or perhaps they give all the really tough ones to Strix.

Or is the next paragraph the answer?

QuoteThose figures do not include parolees sent back to prison in that time for technical violations

Quote from: Caliga on April 22, 2009, 12:04:51 PM
Question: what exactly does a parole officer do?  I really have no idea.  :blush:

In NYS, we are sworn peace officers. This means we are armed and have police powers of arrest. The major difference is that we cannot arrest people for misdemeanors unless they are committed in our presence.

In NYS, a felon is anyone who receives a sentence of a year or more that they serve in prison while a misdemeanor is a year or less served in jail. A felon can be released from prison early and this is called parole. He/she isn't finished their sentence but it was determined by the parole commission to be in the best interests of society to let them out early. There is also a type of felon (usually violent) that finishes 4/5th of their sentence that get placed on Post Release Supervision. This is a set period of time (usually 3-5 years) where they fall under the supervision of parole.

Upon release, the new parolee reports to his supervising officer. The parolee is given a certificate of release with various conditions he/she must obey at his releasing facility. He/she is than given a list of special conditions that he/she must obey from his/her officer upon arrival at their area office.

Parolee's are required to report once per week to their officers at the area office. After 4-5 months on parole this can be changed to bi-weekly, and after a year it can be changed to monthly depending on the parolee's progress.

Parolee's are given a seven days a week curfew. Initially it is usually 8pm to 8am but some officers choose to go with a 9pm to 7am curfew. After a year on parolee it can be adjusted by an hour or so if the officer feels inclined. The curfew can also be adjusted to be more strict e.g. 6 to 6 , 7 to 7, etc, and so on.

Parolee's depending on their crime will periodically have their curfew checked and they will periodically be visited at their homes. Officers check to make sure that curfews are being obeyed, that the residences are free of contraband, and that random searches of the residence and parolee are conducted. The number and frequency of checks are governed by a national standard. So, basically officers will show up at their houses between 8pm and 8am on any given day.

Parole Officers will also conduct community preparations for parolee releases. They check on the residence to make sure it is suitable or they arrange for housing if the parolee is undomiciled coming out of the facility.

Parole Officers are also required to arrange treatment programs for various issues (mental health, substance abuse, domestic violence, anti-anger/anti-aggression, and so on) and monitor the progress of the parolee.

Parole Officers are also required to help arrange for jobs and/or academic/vocational training. We find them jobs, get them in training programs, etc, and so on, and than monitor their progress.

If a parolee begins to violate any conditions of their parole e.g. not getting a job, missing curfew, contact with someone they are forbidden to see, commit a new crime, etc, and so on than Parole Officers are required to prepare a violation of parole report that is sent to the parole commission.

Once the report is complete, the officer forwards it along with a request for an arrest warrant. The area supervisor decides if an immediate warrant is granted, in which case the warrant is given to the parole officer. If an immediate warrant is not required than the report is forwarded to a parole commissioner who decides what should be done i.e. arrest, continue current sanctions, do something new, etc and so on.

Once a parole officer has his/her warrant than they attempt to arrest the parolee. How, where, and when depends on the seriousness of the charges and the nature of the instant offense (what they are on parole for). It can be as simple as arresting them next report day in the office or as complex as kicking their door in at 5am the next morning (a parolee agrees to allow their officers to conduct warrantless searches of their residence and person as a condition of release, so warrants don't become an issue until we start knocking on family members doors).

Once a parolee is arrested and lodged. The officer has 72 hours to serve the violation of parole report/charges on the parolee. After the VoP has been served than a preliminary hearing must be conducted within 15 days (we usually do it within a week). After the preliminary hearing than a final hearing must be conducted within 45 days (we usually do it within a few weeks).

Parole Officers act as the prosecutor at the preliminary hearing. We gather evidence to support our charges, subpoena witnesses, and prosecute the parolee in front of a hearing officer. Parolee can be represented by lawyers (every parolee gets a lawyer in the area I work). Parole Officers only have to prove that probable cause exists on a single charge to send the hearing to Final.

Parole Officers can be witnesses at final hearings but do not have any other involvement with them. They are conducted by a parole revocation specialist in front on an administrative law judge.

Parole Officers do many other functions and things too numerous to list.

So, that is a short of overview to give you an idea what we do in NYS parole.

Quote from: Berkut on April 22, 2009, 01:24:47 PM
So people get parole for murder and rape?

Yes, they do.  :mad:

Quote from: Berkut on April 22, 2009, 01:24:47 PM
So people get parole for murder and rape?

In the state system they can.  The federal system abolished parole.

Quote from: Berkut on April 22, 2009, 01:42:57 PM

Quote from: ulmont on April 22, 2009, 01:36:02 PM

Quote from: Berkut on April 22, 2009, 01:32:19 PM
Strix isn't in Georgia though.

NY is not known for having a harsher criminal justice system than Georgia, though.

Quote from: Berkut on April 22, 2009, 01:32:19 PM
And I am not talking about sentences of life with or without parole, I am talking about just regular old sentences and whether it is common to get parole for violent crimes, in New York.

440 murderers and attempted murderers were paroled in 2004-07.
http://www.pressrepublican.com/homepage/local_story_084065137.html/

Right, and that was pretty controversial at the time, and even now. For some time (and I thought this was still largely the case - apparently I was wrong) A1 offenders were not paroled.

From that article:

QuoteAlexander said boards are making safe decisions and his agency released parole data as evidence. The return rate for violent felons committing a crime within three years was 1.6 percent from 1999 through 2003. Division records show none of the 456 A1 felons released from 2004 through 2007 were returned to prison for a new crime, including the 440 murderers and attempted murderers in that group.

Pretty impressive that Strix has had 2 murderers already, and some rapists, since in a three year period there were none were returned to prison in the entire state. I guess maybe it has gotten a lot worse this year, or perhaps they give all the really tough ones to Strix.

Or is the next paragraph the answer?

QuoteThose figures do not include parolees sent back to prison in that time for technical violations

The key there is new crime. A violation of parole is not a new crime.

Quote from: ulmont on April 22, 2009, 01:36:02 PM
NY is not known for having a harsher criminal justice system than Georgia, though.

Reputation isn't always a reliable guide for how the system works.  For example, NY happens to have one of the most defendant-unfriendly discovery rules in the entire nation.  It can be a very difficult state to represent a criminal defendant.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 22, 2009, 02:02:34 PM
The federal system abolished parole.

But created "supervised release" to run after a prison sentence.  Aside from being assigned up front by a judge rather than on the back end by a parole board, how much difference?

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 22, 2009, 02:04:04 PM

Quote from: ulmont on April 22, 2009, 01:36:02 PM
NY is not known for having a harsher criminal justice system than Georgia, though.

Reputation isn't always a reliable guide for how the system works.  For example, NY happens to have one of the most defendant-unfriendly discovery rules in the entire nation.  It can be a very difficult state to represent a criminal defendant.

Unfortunately, Monroe County is one of the most liberal counties in the state. It is not uncommon for a murder to be reduced to Criminal Possession of a Weapon. As well as other violent crimes to be significantly reduced by plea bargains.

Quote from: Strix on April 22, 2009, 02:06:17 PMUnfortunately, Monroe County is one of the most liberal counties in the state. It is not uncommon for a murder to be reduced to Criminal Possession of a Weapon.

:blink: :blink:

Quote from: ulmont on April 22, 2009, 02:05:24 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 22, 2009, 02:02:34 PM
The federal system abolished parole.

But created "supervised release" to run after a prison sentence.  Aside from being assigned up front by a judge rather than on the back end by a parole board, how much difference?

One very big difference is that a federal prisoner can't be paroled!   ;)
Seriously, under the fed system the best you can get is the modest fixed good time credit.  Under the state system, if the setence is indeterminate (ie not covered by the Pataki violent offender law), you can get early discretionary or conditional release.

That is a very big difference from the POV of the convict and it also means that the Parole Board is involved in making a lot of discretionary calls about release for every prisoner in the system; a task that the Federal Depts of Probation aren't involved in.

Quote from: ulmont on April 22, 2009, 02:05:24 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 22, 2009, 02:02:34 PM
The federal system abolished parole.

But created "supervised release" to run after a prison sentence.  Aside from being assigned up front by a judge rather than on the back end by a parole board, how much difference?

New York uses a similar system. We either have people who are paroled by the parole commission or we have people who have finished their time and get placed on Post Release Supervision. The differences in how both work and function would take quite some time to explain.

What it boils down to is this...someone on parole reaches their Conditional Release date which is the date they must be released from prison. They can be released at a few various earlier times by the parole board but CR is the final date. Once released they go on parole. If they violate than they get returned and get a new CR date (if applicable). However, they get credit for non-delinquent time spent outside prison, and for anytime spent waiting for their new CR date while back in prison. All this time counts towards their final maximum expiration date.

Post Release is different. A person on post release cannot be released before their CR date. A parolee is released with a short time left on their sentence and a period of Post Release (usually 3-5 years but it varies on crime). A parolee MUST finish their entire time on Post Release outside of prison. If a parolee is violated and sent back to prison they get no credit for any delinquent time nor do they get credit for prison time. Prison is basically a "time out" and the PRS clock doesn't start until they get back out. So, unlike normal parole, a parolee cannot just go ahead and finish their time.

For more info on Post Release (in NY) look up Jenna's Law which created it after a murder committed by someone finished parole.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 22, 2009, 02:13:24 PM
One very big difference is that a federal prisoner can't be paroled!   ;)

Right, I understand.  I'm just saying that 10 years in prison + 5 years out under conditions is the same whether you assign the 5 years by a judge and call it supervised release or assign it by a parole board and call it parole.

Quote from: Caliga on April 22, 2009, 02:07:19 PM

Quote from: Strix on April 22, 2009, 02:06:17 PMUnfortunately, Monroe County is one of the most liberal counties in the state. It is not uncommon for a murder to be reduced to Criminal Possession of a Weapon.

:blink: :blink:

There many good reasons why Rochester is only behind Detroit and Baltimore for violent deaths per capita. And a very liberal court system is one of them.

I think it is mostly due to the unions.

I blame the free market.

Quote from: Berkut The most WiseI think it is mostly due to the unions.

Quote from: garbon on April 22, 2009, 02:22:44 PM
I blame the free market.

Unions == free market, so you are saying the same thing.

Quote from: Berkut on April 22, 2009, 02:24:12 PM
Unions == free market, so you are saying the same thing.

I live in California; we've disentangled them...and as such, it is hard for me to use such terminology.

Quote from: Strix on April 22, 2009, 01:23:51 PM
grumbler, you conceded my point about "at will"

What I conceded was that you didn't understand the concept, but that it was immaterial to the point I was making (which you have conceded).

An "at will employment" state is one in which, as I have said before (and you failed to grasp), there are no employer or employee obligations upon termination other than those contained in contracts (explicit or implied).  That is an actual legally-defined term, so your inability to understand it changes its meaning not at all.

Quote...so I am not sure what you're attempting to argue now other than your usual trying to change the argument to fit the point you were making stuff.

The "stuff" that I was "making" is called "persuasive arguments." Even you have been convinced to concede to them, so you might want to try it out, rather than your usual strawmen, ad homs, and red herrings.

Quote from: grumbler on April 22, 2009, 02:36:00 PM
The "stuff" that I was "making" is called "persuasive arguments."  even you should have been convinced to concede to them because of my use of strawmen, ad homs, and red herrings.

I fixed that for you!  <_<

Wow, I remember Monroe County a lot differently. It was a pretty happy time in my life. Of course, I lived way outside of Rochester proper.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 22, 2009, 03:02:53 PM


Wow, I remember Monroe County a lot differently. It was a pretty happy time in my life. Of course, I lived way outside of Rochester proper.

Everyone does - even Strix.

Quote from: Berkut on April 22, 2009, 03:04:32 PM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 22, 2009, 03:02:53 PM


Wow, I remember Monroe County a lot differently. It was a pretty happy time in my life. Of course, I lived way outside of Rochester proper.

Everyone does - even Strix.

Hell yeah. There is a reason that Rochester has over 2,800 crac--er abandoned houses within the city limits.

Quote from: Strix on April 22, 2009, 02:00:09 PM
a parolee agrees to allow their officers to conduct warrantless searches of their residence and person as a condition of release, so warrants don't become an issue until we start knocking on family members doors.

I don't think that's the case here in North Carolina, because the governor recently suggested changes in the system here that included allowing the home of a parolees to be searched without a warrant.  Or maybe it was just in the case where the home was shared with other family members.  I'm not sure.

Quote from: dps on April 22, 2009, 11:15:03 PM
I don't think that's the case here in North Carolina, because the governor recently suggested changes in the system here that included allowing the home of a parolees to be searched without a warrant.  Or maybe it was just in the case where the home was shared with other family members.  I'm not sure.

It's the same in NC. Basically on their release conditions is a rule that states that the Division of Parole (or in NC's case the Department of Community Corrections) has the right to search their person, place, and vehicle without a warrant.

There are some differences. In NC, the person needs to be home which is not the case in NY. Also in NC, the probationer/parolee has the right to say no though in that case he/she can be arrested on the spot for violating the terms of release.

What the governor may be saying is that they could be changing the scope of the condition. In both NY and NC, you are only able to search the parolee's sleeping area and any common areas that he has access e.g. basement, attic, hallways, kitchen, bathrooms, etc. You cannot search the rooms of other family members without consent or a reasonable belief that safety might be an issue e.g. someone hiding behind a closed door, long gun in open view, etc.

To be honest Strix, I do actually respect what you do. While I think you are certainly very over-paid from a market perspective, I don't think you are over-paid from the perspective of value to society for the work that law enforcement does.

The problem I have is this:

1. That "value to society" thing does not apply to 80% of the people covered under the public service unions, including plenty of people in law enforcement who are doing work that can be done by just about anyone, and simply does not deserve the rather incredible amount of money they are making and beenfits they enjoy.

2. I find your claim that your support for the unions is based on anything other than self-interest completely in-credible. I don't think anyone in this thread, yourself included, believe for a moment that your position on the current contract debate would be at all the same if you were not in the union yourself.

3. I would be much more impressed if your sig included the percentage of parolees under your charge who did not re-offend and successfully returned to society, and how much better it is than the average. For that, IMO, is your job. Not crowing about how many you got tossed back into jail. Every single one you throw back in prison is a failure of the parole system, and to some degree, a failure on your part as an officer of that system. It may be necessary, but it isn't anything to be all that proud of - you are a parole officer, not a bounty hunter. Just my opinion, of course.

Quote from: Berkut on April 23, 2009, 08:24:11 AM
To be honest Strix, I do actually respect what you do. While I think you are certainly very over-paid from a market perspective, I don't think you are over-paid from the perspective of value to society for the work that law enforcement does.

The problem I have is this:

1. That "value to society" thing does not apply to 80% of the people covered under the public service unions, including plenty of people in law enforcement who are doing work that can be done by just about anyone, and simply does not deserve the rather incredible amount of money they are making and beenfits they enjoy.

2. I find your claim that your support for the unions is based on anything other than self-interest completely in-credible. I don't think anyone in this thread, yourself included, believe for a moment that your position on the current contract debate would be at all the same if you were not in the union yourself.

3. I would be much more impressed if your sig included the percentage of parolees under your charge who did not re-offend and successfully returned to society, and how much better it is than the average. For that, IMO, is your job. Not crowing about how many you got tossed back into jail. Every single one you throw back in prison is a failure of the parole system, and to some degree, a failure on your part as an officer of that system. It may be necessary, but it isn't anything to be all that proud of - you are a parole officer, not a bounty hunter. Just my opinion, of course.

1) This is an issue that has more to do with society in general than unions at least in NYS in regards to public employees. People complain about the waste and inefficiency of State workers when it is the fault of politicians and societal/legal pressure that determines a lot of the people being hired. NYS uses a Civil Service exam for the first level of screening for new applicants. Don't blame the unions if the State is willing to skip people who score higher on the test for those who score lower but meet other criteria. Also don't blame the unions when upper management wants to add redundant layers of management and labor to departments to further their career goals.

It is easy to blame a union and the masses of workers who belong to it but politicians and upper management are never forced to do anything (at least by public employee unions in NYS) they aren't willing to do.

2) You don't have a choice in NYS. You pay your union dues regardless of membership so only a fool would ignore the added benefits. And, yes, my opinion would be pretty much the same. I expect some sort of integrity from my leaders. Paterson signing a deal than trying to break it less than 12 months later doesn't say a lot for his integrity (of course the coke years and cheating on his wife doesn't either).

3) Once again it has everything to do with societal/political pressures. People are being let out of prison who would never even be considered for parole 5-10 years ago so that NYS government can show that prison populations are low which means they can go ahead and close facilities.  Three of the captures I list were the result of parolee's failing to show for their initial arrival reports. You can hardly blame the parole system if someone doesn't even try. Most current parolee releases are the results of what is known as Conditional Release. The CR date is set by DOCS and the parole commission has no input other than placing some conditions. So, basically, a separate organization, DOCS, is handing people to parole saying you deal with them now.

Contrary to your belief that I am crowing or being boastful the truth is I am not. I am proud of the number of people that have been captured because that means X number of new crimes and victims will not happen. If I were being boastful than I would tell you the manner in which they were caught and all that other associated crap.

Monroe County has a 89% successful completion rate for parole re-entry. It is the highest in NYS.  Re-entry are those parolee's who are released before their CR dates by the parole commission.

If you want to criticize the effectiveness of parole in NYS than I would suggest you do some research on what budget constraints has done to the parole system and parole resources.

Everyone operates under budget constraints though. I am not at all criticizing the effectiveness of the parole system - I hardly know enough about it to do so. I operate under the assumption that it is basically doing a typically mediocre job that all government agencies do barring any further information to suggests that they are especially incompetent.

Quote
It is easy to blame a union and the masses of workers who belong to it but politicians and upper management are never forced to do anything (at least by public employee unions in NYS) they aren't willing to do.

See, this is bullshit. They are forced to do things - Patterson has no shot at re-election, and that is at least in part because he took on the unions (and the health industry and the education industry - a  trifecta of liberal left wing entitlement, any one of which is pretty much untouchable). They will punish him for that. So the problem is that the market is not deciding employment terms - instead it is done via politics and all that entails. Repeating the "nobody was forced to give us a grossly unfair employment deal" is bullshit. Whether they were "forced" or not is a matter of semantics.

The reality is that the public employees have immense political power, and they have leveraged that into deals that are almost breathtaking in their generosity all out of proportion to what is available in the free market - especially in the state of New York, which is historically very liberal. hence the incredibly low turnover and extremely high desire for the jobs you cited earlier that is a textbook indicator that there is NOT a free market.

I find it rather sad that you try to sell this as your convictions objective of your personal position though.

The ironic thing is that it is that liberalness that your normally despise so much that has made your sweetheart deal possible. A liberalism that you have been 100% consistent in decrying...except when it comes to your sweetheart deal. I don't mind that you are taking advantage of the sweetheart deal - we all have to make the best of what is available to us, within reason. But to pretend that you are really a True Socialist when it comes to unions of all things? Please. That dog won't hunt.

Lastly, no, your focus on "how many felons I re-arrested" is hardly the result of societal/political pressures. That is your personal choice.

Quote from: Berkut on April 23, 2009, 09:29:56 AM
See, this is bullshit. They are forced to do things - Patterson has no shot at re-election, and that is at least in part because he took on the unions (and the health industry and the education industry - a  trifecta of liberal left wing entitlement, any one of which is pretty much untouchable). They will punish him for that. So the problem is that the market is not deciding employment terms - instead it is done via politics and all that entails. Repeating the "nobody was forced to give us a grossly unfair employment deal" is bullshit. Whether they were "forced" or not is a matter of semantics.

The reality is that the public employees have immense political power, and they have leveraged that into deals that are almost breathtaking in their generosity all out of proportion to what is available in the free market - especially in the state of New York, which is historically very liberal. hence the incredibly low turnover and extremely high desire for the jobs you cited earlier that is a textbook indicator that there is NOT a free market.

I find it rather sad that you try to sell this as your convictions objective of your personal position though.

The ironic thing is that it is that liberalness that your normally despise so much that has made your sweetheart deal possible. A liberalism that you have been 100% consistent in decrying...except when it comes to your sweetheart deal. I don't mind that you are taking advantage of the sweetheart deal - we all have to make the best of what is available to us, within reason. But to pretend that you are really a True Socialist when it comes to unions of all things? Please. That dog won't hunt.

Lastly, no, your focus on "how many felons I re-arrested" is hardly the result of societal/political pressures. That is your personal choice.

I love that being a public state employee in NYS equals being a socialist. That is good stuff.

And budget constraints play a major role in parole. It means more parolees being released to save money in the prison system, it means less officers to handle parolees because of hiring freezes, it means less resources to deal with the problems of parolees because of budget freezes, and much more.

Most parole officers are carrying 25% more than the national standard considers acceptable. And that number will only increase with the elimination of jobs. And so will the associated issues with reduced standards of supervision.

The result will be more shootings like the one that took place in Syracuse recently and the parolee shot to death in an office in NYC.

Quote from: Strix on April 23, 2009, 09:43:06 AM


I love that being a public state employee in NYS equals being a socialist. That is good stuff.

No, being a champion of a socialist union system that is anti-free market certainly makes you a socialist though. Which is precisely what you are doing. Nice strawman though.

This is exactly what I mean though - you won't hesitate to call everyone else "liberals" and blame the ills of society on "iberals" (see your comment about how Rochester has a high crime rate becaus eof "liberal judges" or whatever), yet at the same time you are the champion of a system that is literally as left wing liberal as anything in New York. There is nothing in this state that is more a example of the socail/liberal bent of New York politics than the public unions.

It is like saying you are pro-life, but really are a huge fan of third trimester abortion, because your girlfriend is in her third trimester and you don't want the kid.

Quote
And budget constraints play a major role in parole. It means more parolees being released to save money in the prison system, it means less officers to handle parolees because of hiring freezes, it means less resources to deal with the problems of parolees because of budget freezes, and much more.

Welcome to the world that everyone lives in. Budget constraints constrain every job in the world. What is rinoic is that the state of New York spends more on this stuff than just about any other state in the union - because *wait for it* it is incredibly socialist (relative to the country at large) and taxes the holy fuck out of its citizens to pay for it.

And if we were talking about anything other than the job YOU work at, you would be decrying the high taxes and waste of the government.

Quote
Most parole officers are carrying 25% more than the national standard considers acceptable.

My wife was working as a social worker for the seriously mentally ill before we started our family. She NEVER had less than 150% the mandated maximum case load she was supposed to be able to handle by law and routinely carried 200%.

What is your point? You have a high case load? Boo-hoo. I bet most social workers would kill to only be 25% over the recommended amount, much less being 150% over the maximum amount. I bet Julie was probably at 4 or 5 times the recommended amount.

All this costs money - you think the parole system should ahve more money? How about all the other social programs the state funds that are also working under budget constraints? Should they all get more money as well? Maybe we could raise taxes on the rich people in New York to pay for it all.

Quote
And that number will only increase with the elimination of jobs. And so will the associated issues with reduced standards of supervision.

So? That is true regardless, and always will be. If they did not cut anything, they would argue that they need more.

how do you think new York should pay for all this? Can you come up with something other than rtite demands to "cut inefficiency" or something unattainable like that?

Are you in favor of massive tax increases in New York to cover the deficit and pay for your raises that nobody forced the state to give you?

Quote
The result will be more shootings like the one that took place in Syracuse recently and the parolee shot to death in an office in NYC.

yeah, the result of us not spending more and more and more and more and more and more money on social programs/education/health care/roads/defense/retirement/law enforcement/arts/etc.,etc.,etc., is always some incredibly dire and terrible to contemplate tragedy.

Which is why the state of New York is up to its ears in debt and no business wants anything to do with it and its economy is shit. Liberal emotive bullshit like what you just posted.

Quote from: Berkut on April 23, 2009, 09:56:31 AM
No, being a champion of a socialist union system that is anti-free market certainly makes you a socialist though. Which is precisely what you are doing. Nice strawman though.

This is exactly what I mean though - you won't hesitate to call everyone else "liberals" and blame the ills of society on "iberals" (see your comment about how Rochester has a high crime rate becaus eof "liberal judges" or whatever), yet at the same time you are the champion of a system that is literally as left wing liberal as anything in New York. There is nothing in this state that is more a example of the socail/liberal bent of New York politics than the public unions.

It is like saying you are pro-life, but really are a huge fan of third trimester abortion, because your girlfriend is in her third trimester and you don't want the kid.

It's called not being shoehorned into a Republican or Democrat. You might have the straight ticket mentality but not all of us share it.

Quote from: Berkut
Welcome to the world that everyone lives in. Budget constraints constrain every job in the world. What is rinoic is that the state of New York spends more on this stuff than just about any other state in the union - because *wait for it* it is incredibly socialist (relative to the country at large) and taxes the holy fuck out of its citizens to pay for it.

And if we were talking about anything other than the job YOU work at, you would be decrying the high taxes and waste of the government.

My wife was working as a social worker for the seriously mentally ill before we started our family. She NEVER had less than 150% the mandated maximum case load she was supposed to be able to handle by law and routinely carried 200%.

What is your point? You have a high case load? Boo-hoo. I bet most social workers would kill to only be 25% over the recommended amount, much less being 150% over the maximum amount. I bet Julie was probably at 4 or 5 times the recommended amount.

All this costs money - you think the parole system should ahve more money? How about all the other social programs the state funds that are also working under budget constraints? Should they all get more money as well? Maybe we could raise taxes on the rich people in New York to pay for it all.

If you don't mind public safety being compromised than it's no big deal for you. You have made your position clear.

Quote from: Berkut
So? That is true regardless, and always will be. If they did not cut anything, they would argue that they need more.

how do you think new York should pay for all this? Can you come up with something other than rtite demands to "cut inefficiency" or something unattainable like that?

Are you in favor of massive tax increases in New York to cover the deficit and pay for your raises that nobody forced the state to give you?

I am all for public safety and I am all for politicians making responsible budget choices. Lay-offs are a political power play and nothing more at this point. 

Quote from: Berkut
yeah, the result of us not spending more and more and more and more and more and more money on social programs/education/health care/roads/defense/retirement/law enforcement/arts/etc.,etc.,etc., is always some incredibly dire and terrible to contemplate tragedy.

Which is why the state of New York is up to its ears in debt and no business wants anything to do with it and its economy is shit. Liberal emotive bullshit like what you just posted.

Yes, a police officer being shot is liberal emo bullshit. Yes, a serial rapist who should never have been released being gunned down after taking a parole officer hostage is emo bullshit.

Who cares about public safety, well, we know you don't anyways.

LOL, and Strix plays the liberal emo card perfectly.

"You don't care about cops being killed! Or children being educated! Or people getting health care! Or criminals being prosecuted! Or veterans being taken care of! Or children starving!"

Strangely silent on how all this should be paid for of course...

The only thing that is sad about this is that unlike most liberals, you are 100% selective - the only thing you insist on being liberal emo about is that you get paid more. So, you know, police officers won't be shot. Which is what will, of course, happen if your union does not get your raises.

QuoteIt's called not being shoehorned into a Republican or Democrat. You might have the straight ticket mentality but not all of us share it.

But that is just it Strixy - this is the ONLY issue I can ever recall you being a radical lefty bleeding heart liberal on, and it is as lefty bleeding heart socialist as it comes.

I am sure that you being a direct beneficiary of the socialist state in this case only is simply a coincidence.

QuoteLay-offs are a political power play and nothing more at this point.

Yeah, Patterson is really making some political hay with his threat to lay off union workers. Tell me Strix, what is his play here? He is a dyed in the wool Democrat who is a historic supporter of all things liberal, like unions. What is his goal, why is he trying to do this since it clearly has nothing to do with the $17 billion deficit and is politically suicidal?

Speaking of law enforcement, I think a lot of us in this thread are this close to being put on sex offender list, for what we're doing to Strix here.

Quote from: DGuller on April 23, 2009, 11:16:49 AM
Speaking of law enforcement, I think a lot of us in this thread are this close to being put on sex offender list, for what we're doing to Strix here.

:lmfao:

The only question I ahve at this point is whether he really believes what he is saying, or if he is just too stubborn to admit he is a hypocrite.

I am not really sure what would be worse.

God save the USSA. :)

Quote from: Berkut on April 23, 2009, 11:05:50 AM

QuoteIt's called not being shoehorned into a Republican or Democrat. You might have the straight ticket mentality but not all of us share it.

But that is just it Strixy - this is the ONLY issue I can ever recall you being a radical lefty bleeding heart liberal on, and it is as lefty bleeding heart socialist as it comes.

I am sure that you being a direct beneficiary of the socialist state in this case only is simply a coincidence.

Pay more attention than. I am as far right as you can go when it comes to crime and foreign policy. The rest just varies. You, along with many others on Languish, assume I am hardcore conservative right and just have issues understanding that isn't how I feel on all issues. It can even get more complex on single issues e.g. I encourage and like immigration and immigrants but I detest illegals.

Quote from: Strix on April 23, 2009, 12:30:01 PM
Pay more attention than. I am as far right as you can go when it comes to crime and foreign policy. The rest just varies. You, along with many others on Languish, assume I am hardcore conservative right and just have issues understanding that isn't how I feel on all issues. It can even get more complex on single issues e.g. I encourage and like immigration and immigrants but I detest illegals.

Assuming everyone is a party ideologue is a Raz schtick, not a Berkut schtick.  :)

Even Hans isn't truly a Republican ideologue, despite his typical posturing on this board.

Quote from: Berkut on April 23, 2009, 11:16:11 AM

QuoteLay-offs are a political power play and nothing more at this point.

Yeah, Patterson is really making some political hay with his threat to lay off union workers. Tell me Strix, what is his play here? He is a dyed in the wool Democrat who is a historic supporter of all things liberal, like unions. What is his goal, why is he trying to do this since it clearly has nothing to do with the $17 billion deficit and is politically suicidal?

No one knows what Paterson's play is here. I doubt even he does. He will not only cost himself but his party as well. My best guess is that alternatives to laying off union members/reneging on raises would effect payback for his supporters and political base, and so he is willing to take a hit that doesn't matter to protect them.

NY spends over $1.5 billion on private contractors. I think it's safe to assume that some of that goes towards paying off political markers. And that cash pool would be one of the first alternatives to be reduced if union workers keep their raises.

Quote from: Strix on April 23, 2009, 12:30:01 PMIt can even get more complex on single issues e.g. I encourage and like immigration and immigrants but I detest illegals.

I could see that, if you swap out "complex" for "hypocritical and ridiculous."

Quote from: Caliga on April 23, 2009, 12:31:45 PM
Assuming everyone is a party ideologue is a Raz schtick, not a Berkut schtick.  :)

Even Hans isn't truly a Republican ideologue, despite his typical posturing on this board.

Berkut has been poaching on Raz's turf. I am just not sure if that means the water heater or laundry area in the basement.  ;)

Quote from: garbon on April 23, 2009, 12:36:13 PM
I could see that, if you swap out "complex" for "hypocritical and ridiculous."

We cannot all be as simple as you.  :hug:

Quote from: Strix on April 23, 2009, 12:35:28 PM

Quote from: Berkut on April 23, 2009, 11:16:11 AM

QuoteLay-offs are a political power play and nothing more at this point.

Yeah, Patterson is really making some political hay with his threat to lay off union workers. Tell me Strix, what is his play here? He is a dyed in the wool Democrat who is a historic supporter of all things liberal, like unions. What is his goal, why is he trying to do this since it clearly has nothing to do with the $17 billion deficit and is politically suicidal?

No one knows what Paterson's play is here. I doubt even he does. He will not only cost himself but his party as well. My best guess is that alternatives to laying off union members/reneging on raises would effect payback for his supporters and political base, and so he is willing to take a hit that doesn't matter to protect them.

Oh yeah, fire the people who are probably doing most of the work, so you guys can get raises.

So again, what is Patterson play here - YOU are the one claiming that in fact this isn't about saving money by a, and I quote, "political power play". Apparently a political power play that has him at a 19% approval rating - who is this "political base" that he is paying back? What an odd claim, since his actual political base is in fact left wing Democrats, unions, etc., etc.

You have no idea of course, because the idea that this is some kind of political thing makes no sense whatsoever, unless he just wants to make himself hated for some insane reason.

The entire "private contractor" thing is a complete red herring, of course. If in fact there are cuts to be made there, they should be made regardless of whether the state employees deserve yet another raise. Of course, private contractors are actually expected to actually produce things, unlike state employees. The claim that the $1.5 billion is safely "assumed" to be nothing but payoffs is funny considering your own employment contract is exactly that.

I agree with the socialist that we should pour tax money on stuff without ever questioning anything in any way.

Quote from: Strix on April 23, 2009, 12:35:28 PM
No one knows what Paterson's play is here.

Quote from: The Very Same Strix who is now saying nobody knowsLay-offs are a political power play and nothing more

Could you make up your mind please?

Quote from: The Brain on April 23, 2009, 12:42:11 PM
I agree with the socialist that we should pour tax money on stuff without ever questioning anything in any way.

That's not what he's saying at all.  He's saying we need to pour tax money on his stuff without ever questioning anything in any way.

Quote from: Strix on April 23, 2009, 12:37:39 PM
Berkut has been poaching on Raz's turf. I am just not sure if that means the water heater or laundry area in the basement.  ;)

ZING  :menace:

Quote from: Habbaku on April 23, 2009, 12:46:00 PM

Quote from: The Brain on April 23, 2009, 12:42:11 PM
I agree with the socialist that we should pour tax money on stuff without ever questioning anything in any way.

That's not what he's saying at all.  He's saying we need to pour tax money on his stuff without ever questioning anything in any way.

You question me? :yeahright:

Quote from: Strix on April 23, 2009, 12:38:38 PM
We cannot all be as simple as you.  :hug:

I just like how sometimes people say their views are "nuanced" and "complex" when they were generated by a coin toss.

Quote from: Berkut on April 23, 2009, 12:43:48 PM

Quote from: Strix on April 23, 2009, 12:35:28 PM
No one knows what Paterson's play is here.

Quote from: The Very Same Strix who is now saying nobody knowsLay-offs are a political power play and nothing more

Could you make up your mind please?

About what? You just posted examples of two different things.

Lay-offs are a political power play because there are alternatives that can be done before they become necessary. Therefore since lay-offs aren't an absolute necessity to balancing the NYS budget than it's hard to say what ultimate play that Paterson is making here.

Expand your mind a little.

Quote from: Berkut on April 23, 2009, 12:41:04 PM
Oh yeah, fire the people who are probably doing most of the work, so you guys can get raises.

So again, what is Patterson play here - YOU are the one claiming that in fact this isn't about saving money by a, and I quote, "political power play". Apparently a political power play that has him at a 19% approval rating - who is this "political base" that he is paying back? What an odd claim, since his actual political base is in fact left wing Democrats, unions, etc., etc.

You have no idea of course, because the idea that this is some kind of political thing makes no sense whatsoever, unless he just wants to make himself hated for some insane reason.

The entire "private contractor" thing is a complete red herring, of course. If in fact there are cuts to be made there, they should be made regardless of whether the state employees deserve yet another raise. Of course, private contractors are actually expected to actually produce things, unlike state employees. The claim that the $1.5 billion is safely "assumed" to be nothing but payoffs is funny considering your own employment contract is exactly that.

Private contractors that work with the State are even more lazy, overpaid, and inefficient than state workers. Most contracts are gotten as the result of political payback and political connections or worse yet the dreaded "low bid" kind that jacks up the costs in overruns and what not.

Apparently you don't read well because I said I don't know what he is playing at. You just want me to state something so you can spout off about how I claim to know what the governor is thinking.  :lmfao:

And I cannot believe you're dense enough not to realize how much political maneuvering took place for Paterson to get the job as governor. He had enough skeletons in his closet coupled with lack of experience that the Republicans could have made it in the Democrats best interest to have someone else take over. And, I also cannot believe you're naive enough not to understand how many political markers are passed out to get Paterson in a position where he could become governor.

Quote from: garbon on April 23, 2009, 12:49:17 PM

Quote from: Strix on April 23, 2009, 12:38:38 PM
We cannot all be as simple as you.  :hug:

I just like how sometimes people say their views are "nuanced" and "complex" when they were generated by a coin toss.

We are talking about my political views and not your sex life.  :P

Quote from: Habbaku on April 23, 2009, 12:46:00 PM
That's not what he's saying at all.  He's saying we need to pour tax money on his stuff without ever questioning anything in any way.

Good point, close more prisons, and reduce the people who watch the freed prisoners that enabled you to close the prisons. Sounds like a win-win for everyone especially during a recession.   :yeah:

Quote from: Strix on April 23, 2009, 01:00:45 PM
We are talking about my political views and not your sex life.  :P

I don't have one. :contract:

Quote from: garbon on April 23, 2009, 01:04:59 PM

Quote from: Strix on April 23, 2009, 01:00:45 PM
We are talking about my political views and not your sex life.  :P

I don't have one. :contract:

You should have given--er called heads instead of tails.

Quote from: Strix on April 23, 2009, 01:07:58 PM
You should have given--er called heads instead of tails.

This is getting boring.

Quote from: garbon on April 23, 2009, 01:09:28 PM

Quote from: Strix on April 23, 2009, 01:07:58 PM
You should have given--er called heads instead of tails.

This is getting boring.

I thought the same thing after your initial post.  :P

Quote from: Berkut on April 23, 2009, 08:24:11 AM
3. I would be much more impressed if your sig included the percentage of parolees under your charge who did not re-offend and successfully returned to society, and how much better it is than the average. For that, IMO, is your job. Not crowing about how many you got tossed back into jail. Every single one you throw back in prison is a failure of the parole system, and to some degree, a failure on your part as an officer of that system. It may be necessary, but it isn't anything to be all that proud of - you are a parole officer, not a bounty hunter. Just my opinion, of course.

I don't think that I can quite agree with this, especially when it comes to those who have committed violent crimes.  I'm not saying that they shouldn't have help to avoid re-offending if they want to reform, but from society's point of view, I'd rather we err on the side of caution and send them back at the first sign of trouble.  For non-violent offenders, the risk is different.

Of course, I'm not sure if violent offenders should be getting out early in the first place.

I bump this thread to post some news about an union initiative in Serbia. Make of it what you wish.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8023415.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8023415.stm)

QuoteSerbian supermarkets come to aid of poor


The shops are called SOS Markets, but they have been dubbed "supermarkets for the poor".

They are the result of an initiative by the Association of Independent Trade Unions in Serbia which is designed to help people cope with the global economic downturn.

The social stores offer cut-price goods to Serbs who are suffering financial hardship.

Some of the discounts are up to 70% compared to the prices charged in other supermarkets, with many goods half the usual cost.

"The government prepared a social programme to deal with economic crisis in Serbia, but it was not enough and that is the reason the union devised this project," says Nebojsa Rajkovic, the general secretary of the Association of Independent Trade Unions.

Do they sell human fingers?