Another School Shooting (Wrong Narrative Though)

[BjornP]

You’ve made your feelings clear.

That does nothing to change the fact that it is folly to erroneously apply a system that works to mitigate disputes between employers and employees in the private sector to the public sector.

A business needs to remain profitable, competitive, and solvent or the employees will go down with the company. A business needs to make payroll on a limited bank account, or again, everyone on the ship goes down together. These factors all play a huge role in balancing employee demands by limiting them to what is possible within the reality of the marketplace.

Government organizations have none of these balancing limitations. It’s just a free-for-all for the taxpayers dime. The DoE doesn’t have to stay in the black. They don’t even have to worry about where extra funds to meet demands will come from. The taxpayers will pay whatever, and if we can’t take it from them today just tack it on to our $20trillion debt.

So you passions aside, it’s clear you’re trying to misapply a power dynamic that is balanced for the private market to the public sector - and that’s unwise.

Your fiery passion about the size of your taxes trumping your fellow citizens' liberties must be why you've convinced yourself that federal, state and local governments either don't have budgets for public education, or that unions don't even need to bother negotiate their pay - they just demand and government says yes because all those fat cats don't care about your money...since they're apparantly all citizens and taxpayers of some other country than yours. Which is why your public school teachers must now make 300$/h...you know, since they can just keep on asking for higher, higher and higher wages. Yup. I bet that's reality.

[DBTrek]

Your derision would be more compelling if you followed things like the current teacher strike in W. Va. and looked at how they plan to meet the pay increase demands.

Of course, that would require research and thinking on your part, so I’m not holding my breath.

[BjornP]

Your derision would be more compelling if you followed things like the current teacher strike in W. Va. and looked at how they plan to meet the pay increase demands.

Of course, that would require research and thinking on your part, so I’m not holding my breath.

You mean this?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/ed ... 39f9868fa5

The pact announced by Gov. Jim Justice (R) gave teachers a 5 percent raise. The proposed pay increase passed West Virginia’s House of Delegates, Randolph said, but comments from some state lawmakers caused concern.

Not changing anything. Either people have liberty, or they don't. You don't want people to have liberty, and your best argument for why they shouldn't have liberty is that it might cost you a little more in tax dollars. If your Seattle government is forced by law to accept anything the public teachers unions demand, then yeah, sure.... that's bullshit. Your government negotiators obviously should have the ability to decline unfair demands (which I doubt they don't have). The right to strike, to unionize, in itself, though? That's not your problem.

[Fife]

Don't you see, DB??

State employee's "Liberty" = Legal right to Muh Gibs.

Or, in other words, "Fuck you, pay me."

Seriously, though, if one accepts the legitimacy of government schools ab initio, a lot of the Nord logic can be bent around some to follow.

Eliminate the government schools, and we'll have some actual education discussion to be had.

Eliminate all state programs for which state employees are wont to unionize and thereby rob the treasury, and suddenly public unions aren't a problem anymore.

[Speaker to Animals]

Don't you see, DB??

State employee's "Liberty" = Legal right to Muh Gibs.

Or, in other words, "Fuck you, pay me."

Seriously, though, if one accepts the legitimacy of government schools ab initio, a lot of the Nord logic can be bent around some to follow.

Eliminate the government schools, and we'll have some actual education discussion to be had.

Eliminate all state programs for which state employees are wont to unionize and thereby rob the treasury, and suddenly public unions aren't a problem anymore.

You guys are really talking about trying to destroy the democratic party, but beating around the bush.

[DBTrek]

You mean this?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/ed ... 39f9868fa5

The pact announced by Gov. Jim Justice (R) gave teachers a 5 percent raise. The proposed pay increase passed West Virginia’s House of Delegates, Randolph said, but comments from some state lawmakers caused concern.

No Bjorn, because that's magic thinking. "Oh, well the government just gives the teachers 5% more. Take an extra 5% from the magic money tree, hand it to the teachers."

I mean this:

Last week, Gov. Jim Justice and the union leaders agreed that teachers and service personnel would receive a 5% pay raise. The House approved the proposal, but the Senate passed a 4% raise. Union leaders say the teachers won't return to work until they get a 5% raise.

There is a $6.9 million difference between the two proposals, according to new projections from the governor's office and the House finance committee. Earlier, Democrats in the Legislature said new revenue projections show the money is there, and that a 5% raise would amount to $13 million more in spending than a 4% bump.

"We're seeing a rising economy here," the governor's chief of staff, Mike Hall said before committee. "The governor's basically following that belief."
"We are only talking about a minuscule amount of money," state Sen. Robert Plymale, a Democratic committee member, said referring to the $6.9 million difference.

But state Sen. Craig Blair, a Republican committee member, said a "knee jerk reaction" led to the revenue revision.
" I'm still concerned -- very concerned for that matter --that the numbers are not accurate" he said.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/05/us/west- ... index.html

They don't have the effing money, Bjorn. They. Don't. Have. The. Money.

In the private sector, there would be no raise, because there is no money to pay the raise. Nor would a CEO be inclined to say "Well, sales will probably be up next year, I mean, I project that's probably the case, so give all the workers 5% more."

The fundamental balancing mechanisms of the labor vs. management union system are ABSENT from government agencies. I can only phrase that truth in so many ways.

I'm not buying that "liberty" encompasses government workers ganging up on people who have no representation at the bargaining table and taking their current and future wealth.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Bull-pucky.

The private sector makes decisions for spending based on projected revenues all the damn time.

[DBTrek]

Bull-pucky.

The private sector makes decisions for spending based on projected revenues all the damn time.

Weakest obfuscation yet. Let’s phrase company-wide 5% raises with the abstract term “decisions for spending”. Companies forecast revenue all the time when budgeting, right? So we’ll employ this abstraction to imply that private business, like government, will also hand out mass 5% raises to employees while knowing if their forecasts are wrong that’s it for the company. Companies are constantly putting themselves in “employee raises now, revenue later” situations, y’all. It’s just a spending decision.


Unless you’re the government. In that case your forecasts can be as wrong as you like, and the “company” will still be around. Employees will still be paid. There are no private sector constraints like remaining solvent or profitable to curtail employee demands.

I can tell how badly you guys are on the ropes by the increasing desperation and dishonesty of your counter arguments.
/shrug

[Speaker to Animals]

If the company projects revenue growth that never materializes, then they lay off lots of employees. Not only do those employees not get to keep the raise, they have to find another job.

BIG difference there.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Bull-pucky.

The private sector makes decisions for spending based on projected revenues all the damn time.

Weakest obfuscation yet. Let’s phrase company-wide 5% raises with the abstract term “decisions for spending”. Companies forecast revenue all the time when budgeting, right? So we’ll employ this abstraction to imply that private business, like government, will also hand out mass 5% raises to employees while knowing if their forecasts are wrong that’s it for the company. Companies are constantly putting themselves in “employee raises now, revenue later” situations, y’all. It’s just a spending decision.


Unless you’re the government. In that case your forecasts can be as wrong as you like, and the “company” will still be around. Employees will still be paid. There are no private sector constraints like remaining solvent or profitable to curtail employee demands.

I can tell how badly you guys are on the ropes by the increasing desperation and dishonesty of your counter arguments.
/shrug

You are certainly right that, in the private sector, raises for low level employees are not always (or even often) a budget priority.

The obvious corollary is that we should restrict public sector employees' ability to bargain for wages.