This could be the defining battle in the next few years, not necessarily GOP-DEM or conservative-liberal, but the bloated status of our public (read, taxpayer funded...by the private sector) workforce and their entitlements that are far removed from market forces and realities.

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/91062/

Read the link provided as well.

Good read Manhattan....thanks for posting

I realized this some time ago. Many govt jobs pay surprisingly well, with nice consistent raises. The argument about the pensions is spot on.

It's becoming a form of welfare (not sure how to put it), IMO. In this tough recession, the one sector that has been growing gangbusters is, you guess it, govt. I'd like to know what business could run at those kinds of losses without ever having significant job cuts.

I'm increasingly becoming of the mindset that all the political considerations when I vote is a waste of time and starting to focus almost exclusively on voting for fiscally responsible politicians. At least then I can feel I'm voting for someone who will have at least some kind of measureable positive effect.

gut wrote: I realized this some time ago. Many govt jobs pay surprisingly well, with nice consistent raises. The argument about the pensions is spot on.

It's becoming a form of welfare (not sure how to put it), IMO. In this tough recession, the one sector that has been growing gangbusters is, you guess it, govt. I'd like to know what business could run at those kinds of losses without ever having significant job cuts.

If you run a private for-profit business and sales/profits are down due to a bad economy, one of the FIRST things you do to cut costs and lower overhead is cut back on employee benefits and head count to maintain profit margins and provide a healthy return for your stakeholders.

If you run a non-profit organization funded by taxpayer dollars during a bad economy you keep your staff at existing levels, rabidly protect employee benefits, spend like there's no tomorrow ("use it or lose it"), and then pressure your elected officials to increase your operating budget.

The politicians increase your budget and raise taxes on individuals and for-profit business to pay for it. The for-profit business follow-up by increasing consumer prices and further reducing head count to compensate.

Finally the consumer buys less product from the for-profit business because (a) prices are too high and/or (b) they can't afford it because the company they worked for laid them off due to higher operating expenses (taxes) that were eating into the profit margins.

Fortunately there are taxpayer-funded non-profit organizations like the unemployment office and welfare agencies to help the displaced workers stay afloat until they are fortunate enough to to find a for-profit business who can afford to hire them.

See how that works?

Interesting read. Thank you for sharing. I'm a govt. employee (kinda... teacher) and I know that the time off is great. I don't get paid $70K+, but the benefits are nice, and the retirement is nice as well... as long as I stay 35+ years.

The main thing that's wrong with the government system is having unions in the public sector determining wages & benefits for employees.

There should not be unions when people are working for the people.

Period.

Most of the step increases that come with government employment are because of the union influence. If no unions, you could simply reward employees based on MERIT (a novel concept) as opposed to giving everyone the same increase each year.

The same problem exists in education, where teachers unions are so strong and it ends up hurting kids because bad teachers get protections they should not, while good teachers can't be properly rewarded to keep them in the profession.

If we simply had a merit system at work in both the public and private sectors, things would be much fairer. It would also allow governments to more easily shed positions and programs (now union protected) when income isn't there.

Writer... I somewhat agree with you on education.

Serious question... how would you give merit pay to a teacher? A core teacher, I could see, but how about a non-core teacher?

CC... There are ways that a merit pay system could work, but I'm interested in hearing what some people have to say. There are some districts out there, even in Ohio, that are giving teachers merit pay. It's a nice incentive, in an [extrinsic] incentive lacking profession.

Also, CC, the union negotiations are also based a lot on the power and "pull" a Super has. Also, unity and compassion of a staff plays a huge role. There are many REALLY strong unions out there, that can pretty much get any pay increase they want. Only problem is, is that people then get riffed, but those with "tenure" don't care... normally... in those districts.

Are you telling me we don't have principals capable of watching a teacher at work and evaluating his/her performance, and rewarding them appropriately?

It happens in just about every other sector of our economy, so I have a hard time believing it can't happen in education, too.

Is it subjective? Of course! All job evaluations are. Doesn't mean it can't be done.

And no, student test scores (especially those tests that supposedly measure progress) would not be something I'd use as a basis for giving out pay raises. Too much rote learning is relied on and I think it actually detracts from real education taking place in the classroom.

School districts pay principals and assistant principals pretty darn good money these days; let them earn it by actually evaluating the staffs they are responsible for.

Actually, going off test scores are the way that the "merit" pay systems have been working. Put staff members into "core" teams, and then, for instance, OGT scores are the determining factors, etc.

ccrunner609 wrote:

ernest_t_bass wrote: Also, CC, the union negotiations are also based a lot on the power and "pull" a Super has. Also, unity and compassion of a staff plays a huge role. There are many REALLY strong unions out there, that can pretty much get any pay increase they want. Only problem is, is that people then get riffed, but those with "tenure" don't care... normally... in those districts.

Do you realize that the "super" isnt part of a teachers union? They are administrators. THey are employed by the board and negotiate their pay with them.

Yes, I'm not stupid. The Super can use "scare tactics" in his/her collective bargaining.

The DoD tried to go to w merit based pay system called NSPS. It failed miserably because the pay pools (the money for raises) would run out after the high level employees got their bonuses and raises. Another problem it presented was that it cut what little pay raise you did get in half and gave another portion of it to you as a bonus, which as many people know, is taxed at a higher rate. Finally, the biggest issue was that they could promote you from a GS-11 to a GS-12 under NSPS and give you a quarter of the pay raise.

The gov't just needs to go to a competitive market system. Sure keep some of the benefits, with the biggest being the flex time, credit time, holidays, and paid time off

LJ wrote:another portion of it to you as a bonus, which as many people know, is taxed at a higher rate.

Not true. It is often withheld at a higher rate, but saying it is taxed at a higher rate is inaccurate.

gut wrote:

LJ wrote:another portion of it to you as a bonus, which as many people know, is taxed at a higher rate.

Not true. It is often withheld at a higher rate, but saying it is taxed at a higher rate is inaccurate.

Layman's terms here. You don't have to explain technicalitys to me.

LJ wrote:
Layman's terms here. You don't have to explain technicalitys to me.

It's not a technicality. Your actual tax rate is determined when you file your return. If your bonus is withheld at a higher rate, you get get a bigger refund. Your bonus IS NOT taxed at a higher rate. The rate is determined by your gross income for the year, whether you got that in bonus or salary is immaterial. What people should have issue with is bonus can be withheld while pay rates are rarely cut. But I don't disagree that perception may very well be that you bonus is taxed at a higher rate, and if you get your bonus in January it's a long time waiting for the refund.

LJ wrote:The gov't just needs to go to a competitive market system. Sure keep some of the benefits, with the biggest being the flex time, credit time, holidays, and paid time off

Aw...So you want your cake and to eat it too?

gut wrote:
But I don't disagree that perception may very well be that you bonus is taxed at a higher rate, and if you get your bonus in January it's a long time waiting for the refund.

This is why I said "layman's terms". I know this, but I didn't feel like saying it and explaining it to everyone else.

believer wrote:

LJ wrote:The gov't just needs to go to a competitive market system. Sure keep some of the benefits, with the biggest being the flex time, credit time, holidays, and paid time off

Aw...So you want your cake and to eat it too?

What? I don't even work for the gov't anymore. Haven't for a few years now. I didn't like it. Even so, your comment makes 0 sense.

LJ wrote: This is why I said "layman's terms". I know this, but I didn't feel like saying it and explaining it to everyone else.

So instead you stated something that was completely false? I don't see how that helps anyone.

gut wrote:

LJ wrote: This is why I said "layman's terms". I know this, but I didn't feel like saying it and explaining it to everyone else.

So instead you stated something that was completely false? I don't see how that helps anyone.

Because that is how most people would understand it. Hell, most people don't even know that you aren't even taxed until you file the next year unless you are self employed.

cc: I'm sure they can find some basic parameters under which evaluations could be done. I'm not an expert, but it seems ridiculous to arbitrarily give x percent increase to everyone, regardless of how good/bad/indifferent they are on the job.

I have no problem with giving x percent as a basic cost of living increase, but actual merit increases can be used as well. The problem with the union crap (and it's all crap so far as my experience goes) is that you simply keep rewarding mediocre performances the same as those who do their job adequately or excel.

There has to be a better way.

No doubt there may be some difficulties with merit pay for teachers, but I don't see any reason it can't be done. Virtually every other profession of which I'm aware has found ways to reward high performers. In addition, my experience going through school was that there was fairly universal agreement on who the good/bad teachers were.

If every other profession can do it, and people already tend to agree on who the over/underperforming teachers are, can it be that difficult to reward the good more? Or is there something about teaching that makes it unique from every other profession in the history of the world, such that it is impossible to differentiate the good from the bad?

LJ wrote: Because that is how most people would understand it. Hell, most people don't even know that you aren't even taxed until you file the next year unless you are self employed.

Again, how does telling people something that is wrong help them to understand anything?

gut wrote:

LJ wrote: Because that is how most people would understand it. Hell, most people don't even know that you aren't even taxed until you file the next year unless you are self employed.

Again, how does telling people something that is wrong help them to understand anything?

I'm not arguing with someone over what my implied intentions were.