Ignorance bites California in the wallet

[natty bumppo 297]

CA money comes from IOUs .... did the people forget already?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Time was when government workers received smaller salaries in return for better benefits than they could receive in the private sector. Currently employed government workers are making twice what employees in the private sector receive for similar positions, so that justification no longer applies.

Something has got to give.

Teachers are working professional and if you are going to do a fair comparison, you'd have to look at what other working professionals (with similar educational backgrounds) are making. By that comparison, teachers typically make less than their private counterparts, particularly in math and science, which is why we have such a shortage of math and science teachers.

[natty bumppo 297]

Teachers are working professional and if you are going to do a fair comparison, you'd have to look at what other working professionals (with similar educational backgrounds) are making. By that comparison, teachers typically make less than their private counterparts, particularly in math and science, which is why we have such a shortage of math and science teachers.

and teachers get to be the parent cause parents don't parent ....

[Ali G. 37]

Who is surprised that the 'citizens' do not understand how state government runs? Mind you, it is too bloody complicated. The flow of money should be open and transparent and the OP author said That can't be a good thing.

Damn straight. Including a breakdown in the status of those paying into the system. I would like to know exactly how much money of mine goes to places like Califo0rnia, by means of federal grants, and pays for services used by illegal aliens or anchor-babies.

[Ali G. 37]

Don't blame the unions.

I agree with Steve here. You cannot blame the unions alone for California's woes.

A state with so many rich and mega wealthy individuals, with an economy worth $1.8 trillion, should not be bankrupt. It sounds like certain individuals are not paying their fair share of tax, while others are milking the state dry.

Admit it or not, the state provides billions of dollars in services to those that are illegal aliens or anchor babies. "Well they pay into the system too..". These folks would have to spend and earn close to $120,000 per year, just to make up the $10K it costs to educate a child each year. To make up for all of the other services, they would have to be earning/spending close to $250K per year. How about those with two to four kids, which seems to be the norm within those communities, we are talking about them having to earning/spending close to $500K per annum, just to offset the cost.

Please none lie that a $6 an hour illegal alien in the US is earning or spending anywhere close to that amount.

Edited January 31, 2010 by Booyah

[Peikko 1,575]

Do you even understand the difference between gross and net contributions?

[Ali G. 37]

Do you even understand the difference between gross and net contributions?

I prefer you to tell me. Since my figures or overly simplistic or wrong of course.

After all, what would someone from a country with the second highest standard of living in the world, with a background in economics, know right?

Edited January 31, 2010 by Booyah

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Could be worse. We could be living in New Jersey.

California's problems are similar to GM's: Too many promises to the Unions they can not keep.

The irony is that exorbitant promises to unions is precisely what ails New Jersey as well. They have effectively demonstrated their ability to organize their membership and move elections and the result of that is that they are kowtowed to without any regard for overall health of the state. There is a state mandate that requires school districts (and other municipal/county organizations) to contribute to a pension and health fund for each new employee they hire... and the contribution has to be sufficient to meet future obligations. I guess I don't even need to mention that those obligations are excessive and completely out of wack with the actual supply of teachers and policemen.

Teachers are working professional and if you are going to do a fair comparison, you'd have to look at what other working professionals (with similar educational backgrounds) are making. By that comparison, teachers typically make less than their private counterparts, particularly in math and science, which is why we have such a shortage of math and science teachers.

If there is a shortage, I assume there are job postings out there that go without a single properly-certified applicant?

I'll tell ya, I doubt that's the case.

[Ali G. 37]

Well look, it does depend on which branch of the union. I would never setup a business in the NE, because you have to deal with construction unions and all of that.

Having a union to defend underpaid public servants is one thing, the unions in every other private sector are another. This is not the 20s or 30s. The unions are exactly why it takes so long to build anything up there and costs about 10 times the price of the same building being constructed in Texas. The Australian blue-collar industry is heavily Unionist, however they are there to protect workers from being exploited or killed and they collectively bargain for them. There is no such thing as union shop bla bla bla, let alone this shop getting to decide who is hired or fired or what projects are awarded to whom. That type of unionism has killed the Midwest. Had it not being for economic powerhouses in NYC and other places of the NE, those cities would have become Detroits a long time ago. It certainly isn't union shop xyz, keeping NYC going. Actually considering the way the city looks, sounds like it's them keeping it that way.

Edited January 31, 2010 by Booyah

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Teachers are working professional and if you are going to do a fair comparison, you'd have to look at what other working professionals (with similar educational backgrounds) are making. By that comparison, teachers typically make less than their private counterparts, particularly in math and science, which is why we have such a shortage of math and science teachers.

A lot of people with similar degrees are sweeping floors as well.

We have a shortage of math and science teachers because of local politics, not qualified people looking for the positions. I am an example of that.

Edited January 31, 2010 by Lone Ranger

[scandal 951]

Don't blame the unions.

They're not entirely to blame. But they do have a stranglehold on Sacramento, I don't think there's any question about that at all.

From the LA Times article below:

In 2005, [...] The unions fought back with a $100-million campaign and defeated all four of the governor's proposals.

Just where exactly do unions get $100 million to fund political campaigns? From their members union dues? If their treasuries are that flush, I think that alone speaks to the need to cut them down to size.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/25/lo...ion25-2010jan25

Schwarzenegger's budget plan puts unions in the cross-hairs

His proposals to privatize prisons, curtail teachers' seniority protections and reduce the number of in-home care workers would be major blows to powerful labor interests. They're girding for a fight.

January 25, 2010|By Shane Goldmacher

Reporting from Sacramento — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has put organized labor squarely in his cross-hairs in 2010, opening a fight that will largely determine the shape of his final year in office.

Schwarzenegger's proposals would cut the size of the union workforce, reduce pay, shrink future pensions and roll back job protections won through collective bargaining.

Labor and the unions' Democratic allies are already girding for battle.

"It's a continuing jihad against organized labor," said Steve Maviglio, a Sacramento-based Democratic strategist. "The governor thinks public employee unions are Enemy No. 1."

Among the plans in the governor's budget: privatize prisons, which would strip members from the influential guards union; curtail seniority protections for teachers, a key union-won protection; and reduce the number of sick, disabled and elderly Californians cared for through the state's In-Home Supportive Services program -- almost all union jobs -- while cutting what their caregivers are paid.

Schwarzenegger also wants to permanently lower state workforce salaries by 5% without returning to the bargaining table with public-sector unions. And he would require state workers to chip 5% more into their retirement plans.

"The public sector also has to take a haircut," Schwarzenegger said, arguing his policies would save California billions of dollars, now and in the future.

Matt David, Schwarzenegger's communications director, says the governor's proposed budget makes hard but necessary choices, given a $20-billion deficit.

"This budget wasn't about attacking any specific group," he said. "It was about trying to fix what's broken in this state and prioritize the funding we have so we can protect education."

Yet even in nonbudget proposals, union leaders see an antilabor agenda. For example, Schwarzenegger has pushed to limit seniority protections for teachers and expand charter schools, which are largely staffed by nonunion teachers. He argues both moves would improve the quality of schools.

Union leaders see their members as the targets. "That seems to be his goal, to basically change a unionized sector of the economy to a nonunion sector," said Marty Hittelman, president of the California Federation of Teachers.

The unions have spent millions to thwart some of the governor's past initiatives and hope to do so again.

"To go after unions means tearing down the middle class," said Laphonza Butler, head of United Long Term Care Workers, a branch of the giant Service Employees International Union that represents 180,000 in-home services workers.

Democratic lawmakers, who hold the majority in the Legislature and are the largest recipients of union campaign money, thus far have given the governor's plans a chilly reception.

"I did take note that in his State of the State address [the governor] said that we had only Sophie's choices," said Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco). "Do we harm seniors, do we harm the disabled, do we harm the poor? But you didn't hear him suggest there were tax loopholes we could close to pinch corporations."

State Treasurer Bill Lockyer, a Democrat, explained the legislative balance of power during impassioned legislative testimony last fall: "It's impossible for this Legislature to reform the pension system," he said. "I don't think anybody can do it here -- because of who elected you," he added, making a barely veiled reference to labor's power.

Top Democratic lawmakers have suggested Schwarzenegger is driven by a corporate special interest agenda.

Assembly Speaker Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles) dismissed the governor's prison privatization plan as a sop to "another special interest, and that's the private prisons industry." One company that operates private prisons, the Corrections Corp. of America, donated $100,000 to the budget ballot measure campaign championed by the governor last year.

From his earliest days as a candidate, Schwarzenegger has railed against the grip of "special interests" on Sacramento. More often than not, he has defined them as organized labor.

Joel Fox, a business advocate who worked closely with the governor during his last big union battle in 2005, said that agenda "goes back to his election in the recall."

"He had a mind to fix the problem and restructure the way government operates," Fox said. "The structure right now is heavily controlled by the unions."

In 2005, Schwarzenegger went to the ballot with four measures that would have rolled back pensions, unions' abilities to collect dues and job protections.

The unions fought back with a $100-million campaign and defeated all four of the governor's proposals. Schwarzenegger vowed a more contrite approach en route to his reelection in 2006.

But 2010 has seen a return to confrontation. In part, that's driven by the state's huge deficit. In some state programs, particularly healthcare, most of the money pays directly for services. But in most other parts of the state budget -- schools, prisons, parks -- cutting spending mostly means tackling payroll.

One notable shift from the 2005 battle is that Schwarzenegger has moderated his tone. This year he justified privatizing prisons because it would "save us billions of dollars." In 2005 he vowed to put "the corrupt people in our prisons on the same side of the bars."

The strategy of softening rhetoric while still pressing severe proposals dovetails closely with the negotiating philosophy of his influential chief of staff, Susan Kennedy: Always leave interest groups with something to lose.

The California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. has responded to the governor's plans with a TV ad declaring itself part of the solution for "real reform" in the state's beleaguered prison system. The union stopped short of attacking Schwarzenegger directly.

"It's politically smart not to scream bloody murder for your own pet cause when everyone is being slashed," said Maviglio, the Democratic strategist. But he predicted that Schwarzenegger's "divide and conquer" strategy -- forcing each union to defend its turf simultaneously -- could result in a reprise of labor's united, multimillion-dollar political fight of five years ago.

"It wouldn't surprise me," he said, "to see the same 2005 coalition resurrected."

shane.goldmacher @latimes.com

[Texanadian 10]

Here in Houston, the Teamsters built a new union hall and used non-union workers to build it. They did that because they said it was cheaper and would provide a better cost value to their union members who were paying to build the new hall.

Go figure.

[Ali G. 37]

Here in Houston, the Teamsters built a new union hall and used non-union workers to build it. They did that because they said it was cheaper and would provide a better cost value to their union members who were paying to build the new hall.

Go figure.

Edited February 1, 2010 by Booyah

[natty bumppo 297]

Here in Houston, the Teamsters built a new union hall and used non-union workers to build it. They did that because they said it was cheaper and would provide a better cost value to their union members who were paying to build the new hall.

Go figure.

wait till members learn ... illegals built it ...