[atlaw]

Originally Posted by JayCT

If you take the information given in the article you will see that "these people" are making on average just under $80,000 per year. The average raise is about $2,400 per year which is not a lot considering they have not received a raise in a couple of year (a fact that the article conveniently forgets to mention). You are correct that they get a number of days off and a pension but their benefits have been increasingly reduced over the years including paying more for medical and paying a portion of their pension. They leave at 3:30 because they go in earlier. Still I believe they work 35 hours per week which is in line with other government jobs. Like I said, I know talented people who refused to become a manager because it is not worth it. If the state is to retain its talent, it needs to keep up with salaries just like any business. Jay

a true progressive. spend to prosperity, that'll work

[Sigequinox]

Originally Posted by JayCT

If you take the information given in the article you will see that "these people" are making on average just under $80,000 per year. The average raise is about $2,400 per year which is not a lot considering they have not received a raise in a couple of year (a fact that the article conveniently forgets to mention). You are correct that they get a number of days off and a pension but their benefits have been increasingly reduced over the years including paying more for medical and paying a portion of their pension. They leave at 3:30 because they go in earlier. Still I believe they work 35 hours per week which is in line with other government jobs. Like I said, I know talented people who refused to become a manager because it is not worth it. If the state is to retain its talent, it needs to keep up with salaries just like any business. Jay

Apparently, given the condition of the states dismal future, there is not much "talent" to maintain. I'm not even trying to be a jerk, I just don't understand how they deserve the money.


I only got a 4% raise this year and you should see what my performance review looks like. My bosses boss immediately gave me a promotion to keep me interested. I won't get a promotional raise until next quarter because every penny is being invested into the launch of new technology. Moral of the story: companies have to be responsible with their money and find other creative ways to retain employees, government should have to do the same. If they don't like it then they can get a job somewhere else. Quite frankly, their "product" sucks and blanket raises are not merited. But that's liberals for you, I bet the ones who actually put out great work all year got the same raise.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by Sigequinox

Apparently, given the condition of the states dismal future, there is not much "talent" to maintain. I'm not even trying to be a jerk, I just don't understand how they deserve the money.


I only got a 4% raise this year and you should see what my performance review looks like. My bosses boss immediately gave me a promotion to keep me interested. I won't get a promotional raise until next quarter because every penny is being invested into the launch of new technology. Moral of the story: companies have to be responsible with their money and find other creative ways to retain employees, government should have to do the same. If they don't like it then they can get a job somewhere else. Quite frankly, their "product" sucks and blanket raises are not merited. But that's liberals for you, I bet the ones who actually put out great work all year got the same raise.

Amen: Public sector voluntary attrition rates should be publicized, and graphed vs the productive private sector. There should be no raises if it is lower than private sector voluntary attrition, or if the state has raised even a single tax for the prior 5 years. If the state couldn't get by w/o the tax hike, it is not healthy enough to grant raises. That would incentivize cost control in government.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by hartford_renter

80,000 is much higher than the private sector workers are making in CT

The state workers also get pensions and richer health care coverage

For managers, no not really. Jay

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by atlaw

a true progressive. spend to prosperity, that'll work

You really do not know me. But I do try and be reasonable. Jay

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by Sigequinox

Apparently, given the condition of the states dismal future, there is not much "talent" to maintain. I'm not even trying to be a jerk, I just don't understand how they deserve the money.


I only got a 4% raise this year and you should see what my performance review looks like. My bosses boss immediately gave me a promotion to keep me interested. I won't get a promotional raise until next quarter because every penny is being invested into the launch of new technology. Moral of the story: companies have to be responsible with their money and find other creative ways to retain employees, government should have to do the same. If they don't like it then they can get a job somewhere else. Quite frankly, their "product" sucks and blanket raises are not merited. But that's liberals for you, I bet the ones who actually put out great work all year got the same raise.

4% is a lot for today. I have not received that much without a promotion in years. These managers have not received pay raises in a long time (a point the Courant article conveniently forgets to mention). Their pay is out of sync with what is paid to others under them and in similar positions in private positions. It is easy to complain that they do not deserve it but really what do you base that on. The managers I know do the best they can within the rules given them. Despite what you and others think most are hard working and doing the best they can within the rules and regulations they are handed. You really have to wonder about pay scales when up and coming workers refuse a promotion because it is not worth it to them. That does little for morale or productivity. And I am far from liberal. Jay

[MrGompers]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

Wrong. A relative managed on average ten employees (state of Ct) while still being a member of the union. It would have taken a position 2 levels up to disqualify him from being in the union.

Now managed is a loose term, as he readily admitted bad employees were just about impossible to get rid of..due to the union.

One anecdote doesn't indicate a pattern and you should know that already since you told us you have an MBA.

I interviewed for a state job about 12 years ago and it wasn't management and they told me it was a non union job. So using your logic that must mean all state employees are not members of a union.

Management is not eligible to join the union. There are probably exceptions. You can look over the current open state positions here. Non union positions are usually noted in the description.

Employment Connection

I don't know why you continue posting here when you can't even follow basic debating rules. It's getting very old.

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by Sigequinox

Apparently, given the condition of the states dismal future, there is not much "talent" to maintain. I'm not even trying to be a jerk, I just don't understand how they deserve the money.


I only got a 4% raise this year and you should see what my performance review looks like. My bosses boss immediately gave me a promotion to keep me interested. I won't get a promotional raise until next quarter because every penny is being invested into the launch of new technology. Moral of the story: companies have to be responsible with their money and find other creative ways to retain employees, government should have to do the same. If they don't like it then they can get a job somewhere else. Quite frankly, their "product" sucks and blanket raises are not merited. But that's liberals for you, I bet the ones who actually put out great work all year got the same raise.

You're right.

Some 55 year old women working as a clerk at the DMV is certainly responsible for the state's fiscal straights and therefore undeserving of a raise....

As opposed to CEO's with multimillion golden parachutes that they get as they get canned for poor performance. That's money they deserve, right?

And as a liberal, I'll tell you, that if you want to be in control of what you earn, try entrepreneuriship... Otherwise, public or private sector, your paycheck is always at the mercy of others.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

Wrong. A relative managed on average ten employees (state of Ct) while still being a member of the union. It would have taken a position 2 levels up to disqualify him from being in the union.

Now managed is a loose term, as he readily admitted bad employees were just about impossible to get rid of..due to the union.

State agencies are set up where some staff oversee others in groups or teams but they are not considered managers. That is common everywhere, even in private business. Once you get to a certain level, there are state jobs that you can no longer be a member of a union. There are positions that you have people under you and you are approving timesheets. And yes, unions can make it difficult to remove people without just cause but it does happen. This prevents people from being fired for a manager's personal agenda rather than performance. Jay

[BicoastalAnn]

Another company with a (North American) HQ in CT shedding people: Virgin Atlantic

It doesn't say how many cuts will be in CT but if they are not touching front-line staff I bet the HQ in Norwalk will shrink some.