Political ThreadsThis section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:
Just because you're in bad financial shape doesn't mean you don't have a government to operate. The deal looked to be a decrease in pay for healthcare offset somewhat by an incremental pay increase over the next 3 years. For many or most it's likely a net pay cut.
40% of the union members earn less than 30,000/yr.
This union represents those that work in the jail, nursing home, county health system, sheriff office etc…not exactly a lot of high paying jobs…and yet they show up day to day and get it done.
For this, you're outraged because you read a misleading FOX News story.
Just because you're in bad financial shape doesn't mean you don't have a government to operate. The deal looked to be a decrease in pay for healthcare offset somewhat by an incremental pay increase over the next 3 yearsFor many or most it's likely a net pay cut.
40% of the union members earn less than 30,000/yr.
This union represents those that work in the jail, nursing home, county health system, sheriff office etc…not exactly a lot of high paying jobs…and yet they show up day to day and get it done.
For this, you're outraged because you read a misleading FOX News story.
-spence
"Just because you're in bad financial shape doesn't mean you don't have a government to operate"
I didn't say the govt should shut down when it's in terrible financial shape. But when you're in terrible financial shape, you take steps to get your financial house in order.
"For many or most it's likely a net pay cut."
Speculation on your part. Even if that's true, and it's a big 'if', that's what happens when those who pay your salary are broke. A pay cut is better than a pink slip.
"40% of the union members earn less than 30,000/yr."
The state is bankrupt Spence. If the taxpayers can't afford to pay 40% of the union $30k a year (plus insanely cheap healthcare, which you conveniently left out), then they have to find ways to spend less. Simple as that.
"yet they show up day to day and get it done"
They also ensured that pro-union politicians would get elected, and thus perpetuate the downward spiral.
As I said, honest people have been warning about this for as long as I have been alive. Unions didn't want to hear it. If they had listened back then, the required fix would not be as severe.
You can't have more than there is. And you reap what you sow.
I didn't say the govt should shut down when it's in terrible financial shape. But when you're in terrible financial shape, you take steps to get your financial house in order.
The county seat of Will County is the fastest growing city in Illinois.
Quote:
Speculation on your part. Even if that's true, and it's a big 'if', that's what happens when those who pay your salary are broke. A pay cut is better than a pink slip.
No, it's math. Let's say your healthcare cost only 10,000 a year. If you're paying 5 wait now 10 percent of that per year the few percent of a 30,000 dollar salary isn't going to mean squat. Even with best case scenarios for wage increases you're not talking a lot more per month…
Does your health insurance cost more? Then you're screwed.
Quote:
The state is bankrupt Spence. If the taxpayers can't afford to pay 40% of the union $30k a year (plus insanely cheap healthcare, which you conveniently left out), then they have to find ways to spend less. Simple as that.
The union deal is with the county and not the state.
Quote:
They also ensured that pro-union politicians would get elected, and thus perpetuate the downward spiral.
As I said, honest people have been warning about this for as long as I have been alive. Unions didn't want to hear it. If they had listened back then, the required fix would not be as severe.
You can't have more than there is. And you reap what you sow.
And you can't grow if you can't provide basic services to the local economy. If anything this is trickle down economics. Invest in the infrastructure which promotes business growth.
The county seat of Will County is the fastest growing city in Illinois.
No, it's math. Let's say your healthcare cost only 10,000 a year. If you're paying 5 wait now 10 percent of that per year the few percent of a 30,000 dollar salary isn't going to mean squat. Even with best case scenarios for wage increases you're not talking a lot more per month…
Not sure what you're saying here, but didn't the county's offer call for those making $30,000 to pay 4.3 percent of salary for health insurance, and the higher ratios, 10% and 13.7% to apply for increasingly higher salaries?
Does your health insurance cost more? Then you're screwed.
Isn't Obamacare going to fix that?
And you can't grow if you can't provide basic services to the local economy. If anything this is trickle down economics. Invest in the infrastructure which promotes business growth.
Woa? Does that sound strange…I'll bet it does.
-spence
Wait, I thought you began by saying the county seat of Will County is the fastest growing city in Illinois? Wouldn't that be unlikely or "strange" to happen if the trickle down of providing basic services to the local economy and investment in the infrastructure to promote business growth wasn't already occurring?
Spence, what you are doing in this thread, as usual, is throwing one pro-union talking point after another, out there, hoping something will stick. When you rpoints are shown to be irrelevant, you simply move down your list to the next desperate explanation. It never occurs to you that if eeberything you say can be so easily refuted, perhaps you are on the wrong side of the issue.
My favorite...the county here, offered salary increases of 14.5%. In return, they asked employees to pay 10% of the cost of their healthcare (still a fraction of what those in the private scetor pay).
Your response? "Just because you're in bad financial shape doesn't mean you don't have a government to operate"
So in your mind, offering a 14.5% raise with increased healthcare copays, is equivalent to shutting the government down and firing all these people? How does one get so far detached from reality? Do you really, seriously, work in business in some capacity? Do your customers realize that you cannot differentiate between giving your employees a 14.5% raise, and shutting down th eoperation?
Spence, what you are doing in this thread, as usual, is throwing one pro-union talking point after another, out there, hoping something will stick. When you rpoints are shown to be irrelevant, you simply move down your list to the next desperate explanation. It never occurs to you that if eeberything you say can be so easily refuted, perhaps you are on the wrong side of the issue.
I haven't thrown out a single talking point Jim, I'm just detailing what's actually in the proposal.
Also, you haven't refuted anything yet.
Quote:
My favorite...the county here, offered salary increases of 14.5%. In return, they asked employees to pay 10% of the cost of their healthcare (still a fraction of what those in the private scetor pay).
Your response? "Just because you're in bad financial shape doesn't mean you don't have a government to operate"
So in your mind, offering a 14.5% raise with increased healthcare copays, is equivalent to shutting the government down and firing all these people? How does one get so far detached from reality? Do you really, seriously, work in business in some capacity? Do your customers realize that you cannot differentiate between giving your employees a 14.5% raise, and shutting down th eoperation? .
The likely reason they have a low contribution to their health care premium is because most are so low wage to begin with. It's called a...are you ready?
"COMPENSATION PACKAGE"
When my wife worked at an autism non-profit they had excellent health benefits. Why? Because the pay was pretty low...
Compared to other union stories this one is a snooze...With all the serious stuff in the world you're going on a rampage against prison guards and nursing home workers.
Well, you said that the 14.5% raise, when coupled with the hike in out-of-pocket healthcare costs, wouldn't amount to "squat". I think we now know that's not true, don't we? Isn't it, in fact, a significant net increase?
Spence, you claim to work in business or finance, although I cannot begin to imagine in what capacity. If an entity is spending more than it takes in, does it not need to address that at some point? At some point, doesn't mathematical reality trump idealism when you are drowning in red ink?
You can go on and on and on about how these people are being mistreated, and how awful it is that their salaries are so low. What you never do, what no liberal ever does, is propose a specific, somewhat-realistic way to pay for the goodies you feel obligated to distribute on my behalf.
Not sure what you're saying here, but didn't the county's offer call for those making $30,000 to pay 4.3 percent of salary for health insurance, and the higher ratios, 10% and 13.7% to apply for increasingly higher salaries?
Correct, when I said "that" I mean of the salary and not the premium.
Quote:
Isn't Obamacare going to fix that?
It should address it but not overnight.
Quote:
Wait, I thought you began by saying the county seat of Will County is the fastest growing city in Illinois? Wouldn't that be unlikely or "strange" to happen if the trickle down of providing basic services to the local economy and investment in the infrastructure to promote business growth wasn't already occurring?
I never said the unions needed to get what they wanted to create growth. Rather, as far as IL goes they appear to be in a better position than most.
The county seat of Will County is the fastest growing city in Illinois.
No, it's math. Let's say your healthcare cost only 10,000 a year. If you're paying 5 wait now 10 percent of that per year the few percent of a 30,000 dollar salary isn't going to mean squat. Even with best case scenarios for wage increases you're not talking a lot more per month…
Does your health insurance cost more? Then you're screwed.
The union deal is with the county and not the state.
And you can't grow if you can't provide basic services to the local economy. If anything this is trickle down economics. Invest in the infrastructure which promotes business growth.
Woa? Does that sound strange…I'll bet it does.
-spence
"No, it's math. Let's say your healthcare cost only 10,000 a year. If you're paying 5 wait now 10 percent of that per year the few percent of a 30,000 dollar salary isn't going to mean squat."
Using your assumptions, let's say one makes $30,000 a year. Health insurance costs $10,000 a year. And the county is asking that your share of paying for that, increases from 5% to 10% of the cost.
Today, your share of healthcare costs is 5% x $10,000 = $500 a year.
Going forward, your share is 10% x $10,000 = $1,000 a year. So your net pay is reduced by $500 a year, since your out-of-pocket expenses have increased by $500 a year.
Now, at some point (article didn't say how long it would take) your $30,000 salary increases by $14.5%. That is an annual raise of $4,350. That raise is offset by the $500 more a year you pay for healthcare, so the net annual increase is $4,350 - $500 = $3,850.
To someone making $30,000 a year, that increase is certainly not "squat'".
"No, it's math. Let's say your healthcare cost only 10,000 a year. If you're paying 5 wait now 10 percent of that per year the few percent of a 30,000 dollar salary isn't going to mean squat."
Using your assumptions, let's say one makes $30,000 a year. Health insurance costs $10,000 a year. And the county is asking that your share of paying for that, increases from 5% to 10% of the cost.
Today, your share of healthcare costs is 5% x $10,000 = $500 a year.
Going forward, your share is 10% x $10,000 = $1,000 a year. So your net pay is reduced by $500 a year, since your out-of-pocket expenses have increased by $500 a year.
Now, at some point (article didn't say how long it would take) your $30,000 salary increases by $14.5%. That is an annual raise of $4,350. That raise is offset by the $500 more a year you pay for healthcare, so the net annual increase is $4,350 - $500 = $3,850.
To someone making $30,000 a year, that increase is certainly not "squat'".
What did I miss, Spence?
You didn't do your homework. The 10% number is an average of all Will County employees. The county uses a progressive scale so the lower earners pay less and the higher earners pay more, but the proposal had the lower earners paying a higher ratio of their salary to health care.
Not every county employee is part of the union and I think we'd both agree it's a safe wager that the union represents the bulk of the lower earners.
So in effect the deal appears to have been disproportionately impacting the lower wage unionized employees and as such they didn't like it.
You didn't do your homework. The 10% number is an average of all Will County employees. The county uses a progressive scale so the lower earners pay less and the higher earners pay more, but the proposal had the lower earners paying a higher ratio of their salary to health care.
Not every county employee is part of the union and I think we'd both agree it's a safe wager that the union represents the bulk of the lower earners.
So in effect the deal appears to have been disproportionately impacting the lower wage unionized employees and as such they didn't like it.
-spence
Oh, I see.
So when you said they wouldn't get "squat", I'm sure you did a similar calculation using the accurate specifics for the lowewr wage earners. Can you send me a link that has the assumptions that you used for the lower workers? I want to make sure that I understand.
"they didn't like it."
They don't have to like it. They have to either accept it, or find another job with pay they like more. Average wages are down bigtime since Obama took control. No one likes that. But rational people realize that the economy stinks, and wages go down in a stinky economy (unless you are in a union, I oresume, in which case it's never acceptable to get anything other than a blank check).
Spence, show me a proposal that makes those people "happy" that doesn't bankrupt the citizenry. If you can't do that, then I wish you and your union bretheren would accept what everyone else accepts...that none of us makes as much as we would like.
Gimme, gimme, gimme...
Last edited by Jim in CT; 12-05-2013 at 01:49 PM..
So when you said they wouldn't get "squat", I'm sure you did a similar calculation using the accurate specifics for the lowewr wage earners. Can you send me a link that has the assumptions that you used for the lower workers? I want to make sure that I understand.
"they didn't like it."
They don't have to like it. They have to either accept it, or find another job with pay they like more. Average wages are down bigtime since Obama took control. No one likes that. But rational people realize that the economy stinks, and wages go down in a stinky economy (unless you are in a union, I oresume, in which case it's never acceptable to get anything other than a blank check).
Spence, show me a proposal that makes those people "happy" that doesn't bankrupt the citizenry. If you can't do that, then I wish you and your union bretheren would accept what everyone else accepts...that none of us makes as much as we would like.
Gimme, gimme, gimme...
Yea, those greedy nursing home workers that get to change the bed pans of those who can't afford to be at club med. Will County should be outsourcing the jobs to the lowest bidder. Perhaps they could save a dollar an hour.
No, it's math. Let's say your healthcare cost only 10,000 a year. If you're paying 5 wait now 10 percent of that per year the few percent of a 30,000 dollar salary isn't going to mean squat. Even with best case scenarios for wage increases you're not talking a lot more per month…
-spence
Actually, what employees paid under the old contract was 1% of their salary for health insurance and 2% for family coverage. So under the old contract, if insurance only cost $10,000/year, a single person whose salary was $30,000 would pay only $300/year for insurance, and for family coverage the cost would be $600/year. Wow, that is nice?
The County's proposal for a new contract was 4.7%, not of the salary for someone making $30,000, but 4.7% of the insurance cost. So, the cost for a $30,000/year employee's $10,000 insurance would by $470 per year. Wow, still pretty nice. Times are tough, but I guess asking someone to pay an extra $170/year for insurance is just too mean. Actually, $300 a MONTH ain't too bad nowadays. But public employees do deserve a better deal than the rest of us. A really much better deal.
Apparently they've settled. Would be interesting to see how that turned out.
And you can't grow if you can't provide basic services to the local economy. If anything this is trickle down economics. Invest in the infrastructure which promotes business growth.
Woa? Does that sound strange…I'll bet it does.
Then later you said: "I never said the unions needed to get what they wanted to create growth. Rather, as far as IL goes they appear to be in better position than most.
-spence
Why would you throw in a comment, then, that had nothing to do with the thread? And it might well be that Will County is in better position than most because it tries to keep its costs under control. In regard to the pre-strike negotiations the County Executive, Walsh, said "I have a responsibility to all residents and taxpayers of Will County. There is only so much money for the County's many needs. We must not only address our employees salaries and benefits requests, but also invest in critical infrastructure projects that benefit all our residents. We have a responsibility to be good stewards of the revenues that come into the county. That means not letting our buildings fall into further disrepair or failing to make investments for the future."
I assume you meant Will County, not IL when you said they appear to be in better position than most. Illinois is far from being in better position than most. Even the Illinois Democrats are seeing the light of fiscal necessity. The Democrat governor just signed a pension reform into law, which the unions, of course, will fight: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...5?feedType=RSS
So the executive of Will County was looking out for growth in ways you approve and bargaining a contract that aimed for fiscal responsibility.
At least . . . I guess so. Politicians are such in your face liars now . . . and unions fight lying fire with lying fire . . . I guess.
Why would you throw in a comment, then, that had nothing to do with the thread? And it might well be that Will County is in better position than most because it tries to keep its costs under control. In regard to the pre-strike negotiations the County Executive, Walsh, said "I have a responsibility to all residents and taxpayers of Will County. There is only so much money for the County's many needs. We must not only address our employees salaries and benefits requests, but also invest in critical infrastructure projects that benefit all our residents. We have a responsibility to be good stewards of the revenues that come into the county. That means not letting our buildings fall into further disrepair or failing to make investments for the future."
I assume you meant Will County, not IL when you said they appear to be in better position than most. Illinois is far from being in better position than most.
Jim was asserting that IL's fiscal state as a whole was troubling, which is true, my comment was that Will County appears to be on a better trajectory than the state, which you assumed correctly.
Ultimately, this thread that Jim started is about the appearance of rampant union excess. While this certainly does happen I don't see that's the case with this story. Collective bargaining on it's own isn't evil. By my read the union is just trying to keep pace with the times. Government workers aren't the free market. My corporation has to answer to shareholders, the county to voters who have a much different formula for earned value.
I assume you meant Will County, not IL when you said they appear to be in better position than most. Illinois is far from being in better position than most.
seems to coincide with the construction of a(another) casino...casino tax revenue will be important once all of the cigarette smokers die.....if Exeter RI got a casino tomorrow, they'd be the fastest growing "city" in RI for quite sometime...
the New Bedford mayor was on 10 News Conference last weekend, he was asked why casinos and pot distribution centers weren't at the top of the list for economic development in New Bedford....he has some excellent...obvious...answers
here in RI...our governor declared on a previous 10 News Conference that gay marriage would be the catalyst for economic development in RI....I think RI unemployment rate just ticked back up....
Hybrid Mode
