Senate Bill 5 Targets Collective Bargaining for Elimination!

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Politics ▸ Senate Bill 5 Targets Collective Bargaining for Elimination!
LJ's avatar

LJ

Senior Member

16,351 posts
Mar 4, 2011 10:52 PM
ccrunner609;699959 wrote:BS.....I have been around a long time and this tactic to inflate someones salary with not paycheck money is fairly new.

No, it's not.
Mar 4, 2011 10:52pm
J

jc10380

Member

65 posts
Mar 4, 2011 11:23 PM
ccrunner609;699959 wrote:BS.....I have been around a long time and this tactic to inflate someones salary with not paycheck money is fairly new.

The Republicans only bring it out when it is convenient for them. What a joke.
Mar 4, 2011 11:23pm
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Mar 4, 2011 11:46 PM
ccrunner609;699959 wrote:BS.....I have been around a long time and this tactic to inflate someones salary with not paycheck money is fairly new.

Eh, I'm no Republican, but I have employed people before. When someone is doing the paying of the employee, that's the primary metric. Political party has nothing to do with it.
Mar 4, 2011 11:46pm
B

bigkahuna

Senior Member

4,454 posts
Mar 5, 2011 1:12 AM
I'm not necessarily going to call BS, but I too have never heard of considering the entire benefits package when discussing salary. The only time I hear it is when buyouts are being discussed.

When you sit down at an interview, they don't say "You'll be paid this wage/salary, get this many days, have this type of retirement plan.... Let's add it all up, and you are receiving $XXX for the total package"

I agree, this is used to inflate a salary either to brag about it or complain about it. I'm willing to bet that more people than not DON'T know what their entire benefits package is off the top of their head, but can tell you their salary in a heart beat.
Mar 5, 2011 1:12am
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Mar 5, 2011 3:09 AM
bigkahuna;700023 wrote:I'm not necessarily going to call BS, but I too have never heard of considering the entire benefits package when discussing salary. The only time I hear it is when buyouts are being discussed.

When you sit down at an interview, they don't say "You'll be paid this wage/salary, get this many days, have this type of retirement plan.... Let's add it all up, and you are receiving $XXX for the total package"
Naturally, because that's not a strong point of negotiation.

However, when evaluating the value of an employee, it is basically the ONLY metric measured against an employee's value to the company. From the "salary-payer's" perspective, he doesn't care how much of it is salary and how much is the benefit package. He cares what the whole thing costs to him. That's the total compensation package.

Ultimately, it doesn't really inflate anything, because if you use the total compensation package with one, you have to measure it against the total compensation package of the other.
bigkahuna;700023 wrote:I agree, this is used to inflate a salary either to brag about it or complain about it. I'm willing to bet that more people than not DON'T know what their entire benefits package is off the top of their head, but can tell you their salary in a heart beat.
Ask the people paying them every week, though. Those people will know exactly what they pay, overall, to employ that person. When I had an assistant, I knew right down to the half cent what she cost to employ.

Since the taxpayers are the ones paying the salaries, I think that's why it's an issue in this discussion.
Mar 5, 2011 3:09am
LJ's avatar

LJ

Senior Member

16,351 posts
Mar 5, 2011 8:48 AM
bigkahuna;700023 wrote:
When you sit down at an interview, they don't say "You'll be paid this wage/salary, get this many days, have this type of retirement plan.... Let's add it all up, and you are receiving $XXX for the total package"
Actually a lot of places will, people just wont pay close attention to that number
Mar 5, 2011 8:48am
LJ's avatar

LJ

Senior Member

16,351 posts
Mar 5, 2011 9:21 AM
ccrunner609;700072 wrote:Like Bigs said......that doesnt happen. you are making a blanket statement to make your point and you are wrong. I have been employed by major companies like and never once did salary or pay include how much the companiy was into it to hire me.

I worked for a large employment agency as a recruiter and never once was total compensation package ever discussed with the prospective recruit.

I will agree that most people dont know that number. it is used at a political tool to over inflate the value of someones job. As a political tactic its failry new.

If I can find my old contracts I will post them just to prove you wrong. Its very common
Mar 5, 2011 9:21am
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
Mar 5, 2011 9:28 AM
ccrunner609;700072 wrote:Like Bigs said......that doesnt happen. you are making a blanket statement to make your point and you are wrong. I have been employed by major companies like and never once did salary or pay include how much the companiy was into it to hire me.

I worked for a large employment agency as a recruiter and never once was total compensation package ever discussed with the prospective recruit.

I will agree that most people dont know that number. it is used at a political tool to over inflate the value of someones job. As a political tactic its failry new.

It's not "overinflating the value of your job." retirement benefits, healthcare benefits, etc. all constitute valuable consideration exchanged as compensation for services rendered. If anything, the politics of today or citing benefits packages to show the real value of consideration that teachers are receiving for their services.

Now, I agree that retirement benefits, etc. are really more akin to deferred compensation and that might undermine citations to them as present compensation and in that sense the conservative mouth breathers are being dishonest. But, so are you by trying to suggest that valuable consideration shouldn't be counted for the full value of your salary.
Mar 5, 2011 9:28am
Q

queencitybuckeye

Senior Member

7,117 posts
Mar 5, 2011 9:31 AM
ccrunner609;699959 wrote:BS.....I have been around a long time and this tactic to inflate someones salary with not paycheck money is fairly new.

Calling it BS doesn't make it so. LJ is right, you are clueless. The former is unusual, the latter is not. :)
Mar 5, 2011 9:31am
Q

QuakerOats

Senior Member

8,740 posts
Mar 5, 2011 9:31 AM
It is not a political tactic whatsoever; the taxpayer deserves to know how much it costs them to hire an employee -- all inclusive. If there was a half million dollars to work with and your salary was $50k do you think we could hire 10 of you? No; we could possibly only hire 5 of you because your health care and pension benefits and other costs aggregate to a total of $100k. People need to know the ENTIRE story so they can make an informed decision.

The way I look at it is, keeping these incredibly above-market-rate costs for health insurance and pension quiet has been a UNION TACTIC. Not many paid attention to these figures or even had reasonable access to them so the union pushed for major increases in these areas and won. Now that they are the prime component breaking the bank they are finally coming to the forefront. The notion that public sector health insurance can be DOUBLE THE NATIONAL AVERAGE in the private sector is so astounding that it is obviously why the unions wanted it kept off the radar screen. Now that the citizenry are discovering THEIR COST for these compensation packages they are deservedly upset, and as much upset about the cozy model that allowed it to happen in the first place.

These total costs are what need to be 'advertised' because they drive 85 - 90% of the entire budgets. To think it is a political ploy is ridiculous; it is Business 101.
Mar 5, 2011 9:31am
P

pinstriper

Senior Member

225 posts
Mar 5, 2011 9:39 AM
jc10380;699924 wrote: It is baffling to me that the Republicans have their "sheep" so brainwashed about this idea that public employees and their Unions are to blame.

Open your eyes and realize Wall Street caused this, and are not being held responsible. It is an absolute travesty what is happening here. The Government has no conscious what it is doing to the hard working, middle class, public sector worker. 5 years ago, they could not pay enough for someone in the private sector to become a public sector worker. Now, when the economy is down, the private sector wants to complain. Our Unions have made concessions, just like your private companies have.

I'm so sick of this argument. NOBODY is blaming the teachers, we all love teachers. EVERYONE is blamine the UNIONS. Get the UNIONS out of the PUBLIC sector and things will be fine. Teachers will be rewarded on ability, not tenure...teachers will know up front (like private companies) what their benefits will be and not keep "expecting more and more" because some asshole union boss keeps feeding them these lines.
ANother point...who gave the unions the right to define the middle class? I love that this is an attack on the "middle class". Which middle class? The 5% or so that hold Public jobs or the other 95% that hold private sector jobs? FUnny how this attack on the "middle class" results in the other "middle class" paying for it. So this second middle class not only pays for thier retirement and health care, but they pay for the union's definition of "middle class'" also. Hmmmm, makes you wonder what the hell is going on.
Mar 5, 2011 9:39am
Q

QuakerOats

Senior Member

8,740 posts
Mar 5, 2011 9:42 AM
pinstriper;700089 wrote:I'm so sick of this argument. NOBODY is blaming the teachers, we all love teachers. EVERYONE is blamine the UNIONS. Get the UNIONS out of the PUBLIC sector and things will be fine. Teachers will be rewarded on ability, not tenure...teachers will know up front (like private companies) what their benefits will be and not keep "expecting more and more" because some asshole union boss keeps feeding them these lines.
ANother point...who gave the unions the right to define the middle class? I love that this is an attack on the "middle class". Which middle class? The 5% or so that hold Public jobs or the other 95% that hold private sector jobs? FUnny how this attack on the "middle class" results in the other "middle class" paying for it. So this second middle class not only pays for thier retirement and health care, but they pay for the union's definition of "middle class'" also. Hmmmm, makes you wonder what the hell is going on.

Thank you!

And remember, "Working Families" = union worker families ........ per the template.
Mar 5, 2011 9:42am
F

Footwedge

Senior Member

9,265 posts
Mar 5, 2011 9:57 AM
jc10380;699924 wrote:Yeah, but when asked what your salary is, it won't be included. Now, for the sake of argument, everyone wants to throw the "total compensation" for a public employee around.

It's a joke. To hold the public employee, middle class worker responsible for this, and asking them to give up more, when they have already make significant sacrifices is a joke. No public employee is doing their job to get rich. They are doing it to provide a living for their family. It is baffling to me that the Republicans have their "sheep" so brainwashed about this idea that public employees and their Unions are to blame.

Open your eyes and realize Wall Street caused this, and are not being held responsible. It is an absolute travesty what is happening here. The Government has no conscious what it is doing to the hard working, middle class, public sector worker. 5 years ago, they could not pay enough for someone in the private sector to become a public sector worker. Now, when the economy is down, the private sector wants to complain. Our Unions have made concessions, just like your private companies have.
I blame Wall Street too for many things as well......but I think that you would have to agree.....today's America clearly shows that people working for the gobblement...or any public funded operation, make SIGNIFICANTLY more money than the private enterprises do.....enterprises that MUST roll REAL MONEY through their operation...in order keep the workers employed.

I don't know what teachers make....and I agree their job is not easy at times. With that said, people that work for "for profit" companies are under incredible pressure too. And most of us, have taken huge cuts in order to remain employed.
Mar 5, 2011 9:57am
F

fan_from_texas

Senior Member

2,693 posts
Mar 5, 2011 11:04 AM
jc10380;699924 wrote:Yeah, but when asked what your salary is, it won't be included. Now, for the sake of argument, everyone wants to throw the "total compensation" for a public employee around.
Public sector benefits tend to be much better than those in the private sector, which is why comparing salary to salary isn't a fair comparison. Total comp vs. total comp gives a better idea of the numbers.
Open your eyes and realize Wall Street caused this, and are not being held responsible.
Dodd-Frank? Breakdown/sell-off/buy-out of big banks? Limits on exec comp? What do you want?
bigkahuna;700023 wrote:When you sit down at an interview, they don't say "You'll be paid this wage/salary, get this many days, have this type of retirement plan.... Let's add it all up, and you are receiving $XXX for the total package"

I agree, this is used to inflate a salary either to brag about it or complain about it. I'm willing to bet that more people than not DON'T know what their entire benefits package is off the top of their head, but can tell you their salary in a heart beat.

The total comp package is often more difficult to quantify (what's the monetary value in tenure? how do you measure reduced risks of losing your job?), so I agree that it's not something most people know off the top of their head. It's absolutely something employers consider, though.
ccrunner609;700072 wrote:I worked for a large employment agency as a recruiter and never once was total compensation package ever discussed with the prospective recruit.

I don't believe that for a second. So you guys wouldn't talk about vacation days? Or healthcare benefits? Or life insurance? Or anything? Just salary? I'm willing to bet you talked an awful lot about the total comp package, just didn't quantify it into one number.
Mar 5, 2011 11:04am
W

WebFire

Go Bucks!

14,779 posts
Mar 5, 2011 11:54 AM
fan_from_texas;700127 wrote: I don't believe that for a second. So you guys wouldn't talk about vacation days? Or healthcare benefits? Or life insurance? Or anything? Just salary? I'm willing to bet you talked an awful lot about the total comp package, just didn't quantify it into one number.
Probably this. I never saw my total compensation number until it was raise time. :(
Mar 5, 2011 11:54am
Writerbuckeye's avatar

Writerbuckeye

Senior Member

4,745 posts
Mar 5, 2011 12:15 PM
A story out of NY about how 1,500 teachers are paid by taxpayers (with more pay from unions) to do nothing but work on union stuff. So the taxpayers have to pay for an additional teacher to cover the duties of the teacher only working on union stuff.

Tell me again why unions are necessary in the public sector?

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/union_classic_le_en_jrQKCmKdjWQbMAtzqHASxI#ixzz1FkFhLb1X
Mar 5, 2011 12:15pm
believer's avatar

believer

Senior Member

8,153 posts
Mar 5, 2011 12:40 PM
Writerbuckeye;700154 wrote:Tell me again why unions are necessary in the public sector?
Because those eeeeeeevil school boards and administrations will not be fair to individual teachers if they must bargain for salary increases based on performance and merit.
Mar 5, 2011 12:40pm
ptown_trojans_1's avatar

ptown_trojans_1

Moderator

7,632 posts
Mar 5, 2011 4:17 PM
Well, here are my questions. Unions for school teachers and school districts are basically done with, correct? They can still have teacher unions but those unions can't fight for salaries or bargain for new wages, correct?
Does that mean any current agreement with a school district between the union is null and void now? Or does it stay valid through the agreed framework?
If an agreement is due up, how will a school board determine wages and cuts? Will they go off merit/ performance and who decides the system? The state, test scores, the school board?
Will districts base pay off of current salaries or will they just come up with a number and say the teachers must stick to it? If that is the case, how do districts keep teachers in their district if their pay is too low? Will that force more teachers toward better districts and away from poor districts?
Mar 5, 2011 4:17pm
W

WebFire

Go Bucks!

14,779 posts
Mar 5, 2011 4:27 PM
They took the wages part out of the bill, so they still can bargain for wages. Under the original bill, all current contracts had to be let to expire.
Mar 5, 2011 4:27pm
ptown_trojans_1's avatar

ptown_trojans_1

Moderator

7,632 posts
Mar 5, 2011 4:44 PM
Ahh, gotya. So, pretty much, it only deals with pensions and wage cuts throughout the state?
Do, districts have the ability to determine wages now?
I'm just trying to figure out how a particular school district changes because of this law and how it can lower costs for that district.
Mar 5, 2011 4:44pm
Writerbuckeye's avatar

Writerbuckeye

Senior Member

4,745 posts
Mar 5, 2011 4:49 PM
All good questions. I wonder why some intrepid reporter hasn't explored all this and done a story (or better yet a series) on it?
Mar 5, 2011 4:49pm
CenterBHSFan's avatar

CenterBHSFan

333 - I'm only half evil

6,115 posts
Mar 5, 2011 5:02 PM
BoatShoes;700083 wrote:Now, I agree that retirement benefits, etc. are really more akin to deferred compensation and that might undermine citations to them as present compensation and in that sense the conservative mouth breathers are being dishonest. But, so are you by trying to suggest that valuable consideration shouldn't be counted for the full value of your salary.
Wow. Never thought I'd see cheap and easy done by you, BS. Hmmm...
Mar 5, 2011 5:02pm
ernest_t_bass's avatar

ernest_t_bass

12th Son of the Lama

24,984 posts
Mar 5, 2011 11:26 PM
It still has to go through the house.
Mar 5, 2011 11:26pm
Writerbuckeye's avatar

Writerbuckeye

Senior Member

4,745 posts
Mar 5, 2011 11:47 PM
ernest_t_bass;700628 wrote:It still has to go through the house.

Where it should have an easier time passing than in the Senate.
Mar 5, 2011 11:47pm
believer's avatar

believer

Senior Member

8,153 posts
Mar 6, 2011 6:24 AM
Writerbuckeye;700642 wrote:Where it should have an easier time passing than in the Senate.
True...and then on to the governor to sign.
Mar 6, 2011 6:24am