|
|
Post by aztec70 on Feb 22, 2011 13:42:45 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Feb 22, 2011 14:45:18 GMT -8
So its lower annual salaries but bankrupting benefits packages - is that about it?
Don't those taxpayers know that they shouldn't kick when they are being hung with a golden rope?
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Feb 22, 2011 15:05:23 GMT -8
We would not have a problem with bankrupt governments if we had tax revenues. We would have more revenue, without tax rate increases, if we had more people working. We would have more people working if we had not off shored so many jobs. Why did we off shore jobs? Ask a conservative.
May I remind you that Henry Ford paid his employees more that the going rate so that his employees could buy his cars. When business is so short sighted that they have a work force that can not support themselves don't blame it on unions.
|
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Feb 22, 2011 15:20:56 GMT -8
We would not have a problem with bankrupt governments if we had tax revenues. We would have more revenue, without tax rate increases, if we had more people working. We would have more people working if we had not off shored so many jobs. Why did we off shore jobs? Ask a conservative. May I remind you that Henry Ford paid his employees more that the going rate so that his employees could buy his cars. When business is so short sighted that they have a work force that can not support themselves don't blame it on unions. How did that protectionism work out for ya in that Great Depression? Was Ford Unionized? Could he be stopped from firing a slacker if he wanted to? Did he pay them full medical and retirement benefits for as long as they were alive after 30 years or so of service? Equating anything related to Henry Ford to the mess with public unions is ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Feb 22, 2011 15:31:34 GMT -8
We would not have a problem with bankrupt governments if we had tax revenues. We would have more revenue, without tax rate increases, if we had more people working. We would have more people working if we had not off shored so many jobs. Why did we off shore jobs? Ask a conservative. May I remind you that Henry Ford paid his employees more that the going rate so that his employees could buy his cars. When business is so short sighted that they have a work force that can not support themselves don't blame it on unions. How did that protectionism work out for ya in that Great Depression? Was Ford Unionized? Could he be stopped from firing a slacker if he wanted to? Did he pay them full medical and retirement benefits for as long as they were alive after 30 years or so of service? Equating anything related to Henry Ford to the mess with public unions is ridiculous. Was Ford unionized? Not then, he paid so much people rioted to try and get jobs. See any of that today? Question. How do you make a living? |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Feb 22, 2011 16:11:53 GMT -8
How did that protectionism work out for ya in that Great Depression? Was Ford Unionized? Could he be stopped from firing a slacker if he wanted to? Did he pay them full medical and retirement benefits for as long as they were alive after 30 years or so of service? Equating anything related to Henry Ford to the mess with public unions is ridiculous. Was Ford unionized? Not then, he paid so much people rioted to try and get jobs. See any of that today? Question. How do you make a living? Then one could say he paid over the going wage to get the best people that maximized productivity and increased customer satisfaction and if they didn't maximize productivity or keep their customer satisfied, they were out the door. What a concept! How do I make a living? That is a complex answer because I make a living combined with my wife's income, some investments help and my career has changed over the years from digging holes to plant avocado trees to a sales manager now. I don't like to give out too many details over message boards (since you are not the only one reading this) and neither do I want to know what you do for a living. I'm sure there was going to be a point to the question, however, so go ahead and insert the desired answer and we'll see if the planned retort holds any water. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Feb 22, 2011 16:38:57 GMT -8
Sales manager is fine, that is all I wanted. Where, what, when, how and who is not pertinent.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Feb 22, 2011 16:39:35 GMT -8
We would not have a problem with bankrupt governments if we had tax revenues. We would have more revenue, without tax rate increases, if we had more people working. We would have more people working if we had not off shored so many jobs. Why did we off shore jobs? Ask a conservative. May I remind you that Henry Ford paid his employees more that the going rate so that his employees could buy his cars. When business is so short sighted that they have a work force that can not support themselves don't blame it on unions. Go ahead and answer your own question about exporting jobs. You would not like the answer a Conservative would give you. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Feb 22, 2011 16:40:53 GMT -8
Did I miss it, or did someone address the article?
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Feb 22, 2011 16:52:28 GMT -8
Was there anywhere in that article where the virtue in merit pay for high performers and the effect on performance that might be achieved if quick dismissal for poor performers was an option.
Lets just say that the very best teachers are underpaid and the worst are way overpaid. Would busting the Union be an option to consider?
|
|
|
|
Post by azson on Feb 22, 2011 16:53:32 GMT -8
I especially like this, which has gona viral this week:
<<Teachers' hefty salaries are driving up taxes, and they only work 9 or10 months a year! It's time we put things in perspective and pay them for what they do - babysit!
We can get that for less than minimum wage.
That's right. Let's give them $3.00 an hour and only the hours they worked; not any of that silly planning time, or any time they spend before or after school. That would be $19.50 a day (7:45 to 3:00 PM with 45 min. off for lunch and plan-- that equals 6 1/2 hours).
Each parent should pay $19.50 a day for these teachers to baby-sit their children. Now how many students do they teach in a day...maybe 30? So that's $19.50 x 30 = $585.00 a day.
However, remember they only work 180 days a year!!! I am not going to pay them for any vacations.
LET'S SEE....
That's $585 X 180= $105,300
per year. (Hold on! My calculator needs new batteries).
What about those special
education teachers and the ones with Master's degrees? Well, we could pay them minimum wage ($7.75), and just to be fair, round it off to $8.00 an
hour. That would be $8 X 6 1/2 hours X 30 children X 180 days = $280,800 per year.
Wait a minute -- there's
something wrong here! There sure is!
The average teacher's salary
(nation wide) is $50,000. $50,000/180 days
= $277.77/per day/30
students=$9.25/6.5 hours = $1.42 per hour per student--a very inexpensive baby-sitter and they even EDUCATE your kids!) WHAT A DEAL!!!!>>
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Feb 22, 2011 17:06:23 GMT -8
Nice, Azsun.  |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Feb 22, 2011 19:42:52 GMT -8
Did I miss it, or did someone address the article? I doubted the basic premise that seemingly says that since the Wisconsin public sector employees make less than than their private sector counterparts, Wisconsin taxpayers are forever obligated to meet the Union's demands and method of bargaining for non-salary benefits regardless of cost or circumstance. Their CBA is expired. Both the Unions and State are wise to make their CBA agreements last only for so long in order to adjust for new, unforeseen circumstances. Consider Social Security as it was formed when they had tens of workers per retiree and the retirement age was virtually equivalent to the life span of the average American. Soon there will be 2.X workers per retiree and life spans are now a decade plus over the retirement age. Changing demographics means that benefits should change or we collectively face economic ruin. Similar is true for Wisconsin (so says the Wisconsin taxpayer through his GOP representatives anyhow) and they want change. And no changes would ever occur if the Unions can cripple the State when bargaining for pay, health care and retirement benefits with strikes. And why would the average Wisconsin tax payer want to allow this situation to repeat itself again later? The fact that the Unions didn't make the economy tank, make medical costs soar, make the baby boom (as the once productive tax payers move to tax sucking retirees) and life spans longer is absolutely irrelevant. What part of the word "unsustainable" don't some people understand? Sure, they could just glom on tax after tax to pay for the Union demands and chase business and many of their employees out of the state. But then again, the average Wisconsin voter may not want their state to become another California.  |
|
|
|
Post by temeculaaztec on Feb 22, 2011 20:04:30 GMT -8
I especially like this, which has gona viral this week: <<Teachers' hefty salaries are driving up taxes, and they only work 9 or10 months a year! It's time we put things in perspective and pay them for what they do - babysit! We can get that for less than minimum wage. That's right. Let's give them $3.00 an hour and only the hours they worked; not any of that silly planning time, or any time they spend before or after school. That would be $19.50 a day (7:45 to 3:00 PM with 45 min. off for lunch and plan-- that equals 6 1/2 hours). Each parent should pay $19.50 a day for these teachers to baby-sit their children. Now how many students do they teach in a day...maybe 30? So that's $19.50 x 30 = $585.00 a day. However, remember they only work 180 days a year!!! I am not going to pay them for any vacations. LET'S SEE.... That's $585 X 180= $105,300 per year. (Hold on! My calculator needs new batteries). What about those special education teachers and the ones with Master's degrees? Well, we could pay them minimum wage ($7.75), and just to be fair, round it off to $8.00 an hour. That would be $8 X 6 1/2 hours X 30 children X 180 days = $280,800 per year. Wait a minute -- there's something wrong here! There sure is! The average teacher's salary (nation wide) is $50,000. $50,000/180 days = $277.77/per day/30 students=$9.25/6.5 hours = $1.42 per hour per student--a very inexpensive baby-sitter and they even EDUCATE your kids!) WHAT A DEAL!!!!>> I'D TAKE THAT JOB, BUT MY CLASS SIZE AVERAGE IS 42, NOT 30.  |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Feb 23, 2011 9:14:52 GMT -8
Nice, Azsun. ++++ ;D |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Feb 23, 2011 9:18:02 GMT -8
I'D TAKE THAT JOB, BUT MY CLASS SIZE AVERAGE IS 42, NOT 30. My wife teaches a class with a combination of; Low Achievers, English Learners, and Special Ed. Her hourly rate must be through the roof! |
|
|
|
Post by inocuace on Feb 25, 2011 21:45:42 GMT -8
I'D TAKE THAT JOB, BUT MY CLASS SIZE AVERAGE IS 42, NOT 30. My wife teaches a class with a combination of; Low Achievers, English Learners, and Special Ed. Her hourly rate must be through the roof! The point is that 1. Conservatives value only their own wages. 2. Conservatives do not want to pay anyone for their efforts if it involves them having to pay a tax. 3. Conservatives cannot see the value in having their neighbors educated. 4. Conservatives think that they are the only industrious people on earth and if you are in public service you are worth less, because you are somehow deficient. 5. Conservatives assume that you are lazy, simply by the job you have. 6.Conservatives are afraid that someone will get more than they have. 7. Conservatives need something to attack, whether it be Muslims, Arabs, Communists, Gays, the less fortunate, the less religious, the less armed, the less insured, the less American, the less conservative, the less economically productive, the less well, the less pro business, the less like them. 8. Conservatives want to be rich. 9. Conservatives want you to suffer more than they do. If times are good they will ridicule you if you are a public servant. If times are bad they want to get even, because you have a job. 10.Conservatives value money, safety, order, and Reagan, but nothing else. 11. Conservatives fear. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Feb 26, 2011 9:14:21 GMT -8
My wife teaches a class with a combination of; Low Achievers, English Learners, and Special Ed. Her hourly rate must be through the roof! The point is that 1. Conservatives value only their own wages. 2. Conservatives do not want to pay anyone for their efforts if it involves them having to pay a tax. 3. Conservatives cannot see the value in having their neighbors educated. 4. Conservatives think that they are the only industrious people on earth and if you are in public service you are worth less, because you are somehow deficient. 5. Conservatives assume that you are lazy, simply by the job you have. 6.Conservatives are afraid that someone will get more than they have. 7. Conservatives need something to attack, whether it be Muslims, Arabs, Communists, Gays, the less fortunate, the less religious, the less armed, the less insured, the less American, the less conservative, the less economically productive, the less well, the less pro business, the less like them. 8. Conservatives want to be rich. 9. Conservatives want you to suffer more than they do. If times are good they will ridicule you if you are a public servant. If times are bad they want to get even, because you have a job. 10.Conservatives value money, safety, order, and Reagan, but nothing else. 11. Conservatives fear. That is funny unless you believe it. If you believe it, you are sad. |
|
|
|
Post by inocuace on Feb 26, 2011 9:30:50 GMT -8
The point is that 1. Conservatives value only their own wages. 2. Conservatives do not want to pay anyone for their efforts if it involves them having to pay a tax. 3. Conservatives cannot see the value in having their neighbors educated. 4. Conservatives think that they are the only industrious people on earth and if you are in public service you are worth less, because you are somehow deficient. 5. Conservatives assume that you are lazy, simply by the job you have. 6.Conservatives are afraid that someone will get more than they have. 7. Conservatives need something to attack, whether it be Muslims, Arabs, Communists, Gays, the less fortunate, the less religious, the less armed, the less insured, the less American, the less conservative, the less economically productive, the less well, the less pro business, the less like them. 8. Conservatives want to be rich. 9. Conservatives want you to suffer more than they do. If times are good they will ridicule you if you are a public servant. If times are bad they want to get even, because you have a job. 10.Conservatives value money, safety, order, and Reagan, but nothing else. 11. Conservatives fear. That is funny unless you believe it. If you believe it, you are sad. Oh, I believe it alright. I can only draw conclusions from what conservatives write. Most of it is angry fearful or opposed to something-particularly when it involves spending a penny of their own money. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Feb 26, 2011 10:15:45 GMT -8
That is funny unless you believe it. If you believe it, you are sad. Oh, I believe it alright. I can only draw conclusions from what conservatives write. Most of it is angry fearful or opposed to something-particularly when it involves spending a penny of their own money. Sad! I feel sorry for you. What a miserable way to go through life. |
|
