Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Connecticut
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-27-2011, 07:53 PM
 
943 posts, read 4,248,640 times
Reputation: 440

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by JayCT View Post
In the last couple of years a lot has changed. When I recently compared what I made to what a similar level state worker makes and then compared what I paid for my benefits to what they paid, a state worker friend of mine was shocked. The salaries were surprising close and I paid significantly more than they did for benefits of much lower quality. When my state worker friend saw that he decided to vote for the change. Jay
Fair enough, but comparing state workers to private workers is comparing apples to oranges. Private sector employees stay with their employer for maybe 5 years on average, state employees, at least 20, most 30 plus. Most tasks performed by state employees are not transferrable because of their specific nature relative to that state.

When individuals take on a job with the state they are sacrificing their career potential (ie, salary potential) for a lifetime of stable pay and benefits. It is a marriage in many ways and yes there is give and take and this is the time to give, but shouldn't you be able to have a limit?

If you made 1 million dollars a year, would you permanently give your employer back 100000 in 2009 and then 200000 in 2011 just because you make more than everybody else? If you vote against the 200000 dollar increase, does that make you selfish and not caring for others. The governor always has the "concession or layoff" tool in his back pocket, so pretty much whenever he uses it employees should just give in. Once those great benefits your friend has, are gone, it is gone forever. Why do people think that is selfish to want to preserve them (by the way these benefits are for your family too)?

People make the argument of "I don't have it that good."Is the argument against state workers having too much or should the argument be against you having too litttle? People say pensions are cushy and unsustainable. They look that way after years of neglecting the fund by the state. It's easy to hate the state worker, but nobody wants to be rational either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-27-2011, 08:05 PM
 
8,777 posts, read 19,776,588 times
Reputation: 5290
Quote:
Originally Posted by ogplife View Post
Fair enough, but comparing state workers to private workers is comparing apples to oranges. Private sector employees stay with their employer for maybe 5 years on average, state employees, at least 20, most 30 plus. Most tasks performed by state employees are not transferrable because of their specific nature relative to that state.
I totally understand what you're saying here. But, you can look at federal employee compensation and benefits to get a guideline for what is realistic in today's market. Trust me, CT employees are well taken care of compared to many of the federal agencies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2011, 08:51 PM
 
Location: NJ
18,665 posts, read 19,906,251 times
Reputation: 7313
ogplife, State voluntary attrition is lower than private because the employees know they are getting above average compensation/benefits. Its not sacrifice, except for the taxpayers footing the bill.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2011, 08:57 PM
 
Location: Connecticut
34,700 posts, read 56,496,602 times
Reputation: 11162
Quote:
Originally Posted by ogplife View Post
Fair enough, but comparing state workers to private workers is comparing apples to oranges. Private sector employees stay with their employer for maybe 5 years on average, state employees, at least 20, most 30 plus. Most tasks performed by state employees are not transferrable because of their specific nature relative to that state.

When individuals take on a job with the state they are sacrificing their career potential (ie, salary potential) for a lifetime of stable pay and benefits. It is a marriage in many ways and yes there is give and take and this is the time to give, but shouldn't you be able to have a limit?

If you made 1 million dollars a year, would you permanently give your employer back 100000 in 2009 and then 200000 in 2011 just because you make more than everybody else? If you vote against the 200000 dollar increase, does that make you selfish and not caring for others. The governor always has the "concession or layoff" tool in his back pocket, so pretty much whenever he uses it employees should just give in. Once those great benefits your friend has, are gone, it is gone forever. Why do people think that is selfish to want to preserve them (by the way these benefits are for your family too)?

People make the argument of "I don't have it that good."Is the argument against state workers having too much or should the argument be against you having too litttle? People say pensions are cushy and unsustainable. They look that way after years of neglecting the fund by the state. It's easy to hate the state worker, but nobody wants to be rational either.
First of all, I know how the state works. DW worked there for many years and hated it. She worked her butt off and the idiot doing the same job in the main office but who spent half her time cutting out coupons after she filed her nails, got the same pay and same raise as her. DW actually got in trouble for doing more work than she had to. At the state you are trained for just one job because the union requires that you be used for only one job. If there is another task, the state has to hire another worker. That is wrong. It is time that changed as well.

Also you would not be giving up your stable job or your pension by voting for this deal. But you are giving up the jobs of 7.500 other people. That does make you seem kind of selfish.

As for the marrage analogy, remember the words "in sickness and in health". Well this is the sickness part of that. Jay
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2011, 09:32 PM
 
8,777 posts, read 19,776,588 times
Reputation: 5290
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobtn View Post
ogplife, State voluntary attrition is lower than private because the employees know they are getting above average compensation/benefits. Its not sacrifice, except for the taxpayers footing the bill.
Were these state employees getting above average comp/benefits compared to the private sector 12 years ago? How about 5 years ago?

Not a chance, bub.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2011, 10:03 PM
 
Location: NJ
18,665 posts, read 19,906,251 times
Reputation: 7313
They were, Stratford. In the private sector, one does not clock out on time, and since 90% are non-exempt, that extra time reduces the comparative wage level. The numbers tell the story-voluntary attrition stunningly low in public sector.

In the private sector, one pays more than a pittance for less luxurious Health Care.

In the private sector, one works both MLK Day and Presidents Day.

In the private scetor, one does not cash out unused sick pay. Sick Pay is a contingency for the sick, not extra vacation time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2011, 10:28 PM
 
8,777 posts, read 19,776,588 times
Reputation: 5290
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobtn View Post
They were, Stratford.
Maybe now they do, but not then. It isn't refutable. It's a fact.

You remind me of a few old coots in my town that regularly write letters to the newspaper editor. All they do is bit** and moan and hang out the woe is me shingle. You're not in Stratford by any chance?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2011, 03:04 AM
 
943 posts, read 4,248,640 times
Reputation: 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobtn View Post
They were, Stratford. In the private sector, one does not clock out on time, and since 90% are non-exempt, that extra time reduces the comparative wage level. The numbers tell the story-voluntary attrition stunningly low in public sector.

In the private sector, one pays more than a pittance for less luxurious Health Care.

In the private sector, one works both MLK Day and Presidents Day.

In the private scetor, one does not cash out unused sick pay. Sick Pay is a contingency for the sick, not extra vacation time.
So it is a bad thing to have affordable healthcare, 12 holidays and receive 1/4 (that what most agencies give) pay for sick days, for not abusing that time? Once again are these things terrible (in return for 20 plus years with an employer) or should you should be fighting for the same? FWIW private sector employees don't get 12 "guaranteed" days off, but they get at least those amount of days off in professional positions. I work at a college and every major holiday, the employer gives FTE's Friday afternoon to Tuesday off (class resume Wednesday).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2011, 08:51 AM
 
Location: NJ
18,665 posts, read 19,906,251 times
Reputation: 7313
Sick pay buyouts are stupid. Health Care co-pays should be in line with private sector employees, and pensions should be replaced by defined contribution plans. W/O that stuff, mass layoffs (long overdue) will achieve the same goals, of reducing gov't employee cost inflation by changing the numerator (quantity of employees).

BTW, Malloy's speech to the Business Council started fairly honestly. He did say its about ending the 25 year (not 22 now) jobless streak, a time in which per he, even Michigan, the next worse state, fared better. He is correct to understand runaway state costs, such as employees, must be curbed. Now hopefully he follows through with Plan B since the union kissed their gift horse in the mouth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2011, 09:05 AM
 
Location: Albuquerque
1,899 posts, read 3,489,327 times
Reputation: 1281
I hear there's talk of "redoing the voting" until it passes. Maybe if Obama gets re-elected and things don't improve we can "redo" that too. Maybe bring Hugo Chavez up here when he's feeling better and have him run the union voting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:




Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Connecticut

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top