- Joined
- Jun 28, 2006
- Messages
- 3,609
- Reaction score
- 1,100
- Location
- Oaxaca, Mexico
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
For elected and appointed officials yes voters should vote on their pay. For teachers, secretaries, security guards, police,firefighters, janitors and etc should be dictated by what ever the fair market wage is for those workers.
I think compensation packages for people working in the government--appointed or elected--should be voted on. Would Bell, California, have been paying city employees $500k if they'd voted? I don't think so. Would bus drivers collect $150k in pay and overtime is there was a vote? I don't think so.
My personal favorite was the contract that said employees got 30 minutes of overtime if they received a work-related phone call at home. "Hey, Chuck, you going bowling tonight?" "Nah, it's my night to spend all night calling people from work."
Voting on compensation as you're suggesting is a very reactionary measure.
What we should do is work towards our elected officials figuring out a better way to vote on compensation.
And I don't know about you, but I'm content voting once every two years on a federal level.
I voted yes, but this also extends to all civic employees including Senators, Representatives and others feeding off the taxpayers.
Anyone besides me wondering why the new Congress hasn't voted themselves a pay cut to help balance our budget? WTF?
How is this measure reactionary?
Do you mean like a super-majority vote would be required or do you have an idea what other method could be used by the politicians?
The OP mostly deals with issues handled by the States not Federal. I for one do not think a biannual election is sufficient.
The OP specifically mentioned the problems of Bell, California. While I agree the problems there are very real, handing the problem off to the laymen would be rash, and ill-advised.
I don't see why we can't have a relatively independent third-party come in, appraise the situation, and set compensation levels. It'd take some time, and we'd have to find a group sufficiently objective, but I think that'd warrant a more thorough look than voting on compensation.
I was referring to voting in its totality. Voting, in its entirety, should require research, analysis, and a good thorough look. Increasing the amount we load doesn't necessarily mean we'll spend more time researching what we're voting about. Further, most people don't do a whole amount of research before voting (as an example, I know people who voted based almost exclusively on race, and gender), and I wouldn't trust the laymen to be able to decide how much, say, teachers earn.
I am sorry if I wasn't clear. How is the proposal that the Voters should be able to approve or disapprove a proposal for the increase of salary or benefits package to Government Workers reactionary? I mean that such a proposal is a change in status quo and not to a prior state real or imagined but to something more different. Strictly a reactionary would want to go back to the Patronage System that existed before by definition:
Reactionary - Definition
In other words, you want a less democratic process to determine the worth of Government Employees who are being paid by the taxpayers and be judged on what principals? What group would be so unbiased that a "third-party" would give a fair result? And keep in mind with Collective Bargaining it wont have to do with individual merit.
This is most certainly true, but this would be a check against a government who gives too lavish a salary to its employees. And one doesn't need to know in detail when the elected officials try to hide an Elephant in a room by putting it under the Rug as it were. Furthermore, people do not put much time in choosing their votes for many reasons one could be that the options are restricted such as no real choice, or that their vote will not count. On the approval of the ballot for wage increases there is at least a clear choice on that even if those voters will not believe their vote will not count.
So
Lets combine this proposal with the elimination of unions
Is their going to be a vote on each individuals teachers or secretaries compensation?
Public Union wages have nothing to do with fair market.
To be fair cutting the salaries of all Congresspeople would do almost nothing to balance the budget. I'd like to do it on a sieve basis: those who are true to their principles won't mind working for the people on $40,000 a year.
Then again, they get millions upon millions from big business...
Public Union wages have nothing to do with fair market.
For elected and appointed officials yes voters should vote on their pay. For teachers, secretaries, security guards, police,firefighters, janitors and etc should be dictated by what ever the fair market wage is for those workers.
I am sorry if I wasn't clear. How is the proposal that the Voters should be able to approve or disapprove a proposal for the increase of salary or benefits package to Government Workers reactionary? I mean that such a proposal is a change in status quo and not to a prior state real or imagined but to something more different. Strictly a reactionary would want to go back to the Patronage System that existed before by definition:
Reactionary - Definition
In other words, you want a less democratic process to determine the worth of Government Employees who are being paid by the taxpayers and be judged on what principals? What group would be so unbiased that a "third-party" would give a fair result? And keep in mind with Collective Bargaining it wont have to do with individual merit.
This is most certainly true, but this would be a check against a government who gives too lavish a salary to its employees. And one doesn't need to know in detail when the elected officials try to hide an Elephant in a room by putting it under the Rug as it were. Furthermore, people do not put much time in choosing their votes for many reasons one could be that the options are restricted such as no real choice, or that their vote will not count. On the approval of the ballot for wage increases there is at least a clear choice on that even if those voters will not believe their vote will not count.
Two strange, unknown things
fairness
equality
We wish to control the masses, the employees, but how about the wealthy elite, the wealthy, who controls them ???
They surely cannot be trusted to control themselves.
The wealthy overcharge for their goods and services, this is why they are that way.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?