B. In my view, the problem hasn't been with the public employee unions, but with the public agencies that negotiate with them. For my whole lifetime, the unions have been doing what they are supposed to do -- getting the best deal possible for their members. In 1970 that meant wage rates that were significantly lower than the rough equivalents in private industry, but benefits and retirement plans that were above the then average in private industry (this was when private defined benefits plans were beginning to be on the way out).
By 1990 or so, this had evolved to wage rates that were approximately the same, maybe a little lower, than private industry equivalents, with benefits that were significantly better than equivalents (small absolute improvements combined with big steps backward in private plans).
Today, because of well negotiated COLA agreements, public wages are often better than equivalent private jobs, and the benefits are, on average, very much better. And yes, I know that many public employees haven't gotten COLA since the crash, but neither has anybody else.
Anyhow, my point is that the public employee unions have done exactly what they should have done, but from roughly 1960 to 2000, their negotiating opponents did not do what <i>they</i> should have done, which would have been to NEGOTIATE.
Sometimes, the failure to negotiate was politically motivated, e.g., here in California, <i>every</i> governor, including St Ron and young Moonbeam, regularly caved into law enforcement / prison guards because they represented a substantial voting bloc. But, mostly, it was just laziness on the part of the public officials. If tax revenues are generally going up, it&#039;s easier to just agree to what the union asks for. And any, oh, unfunded liabilities will be someone else&#039;s problem long after the current incumbent is gone (sometimes to higher office).
I won&#039;t dispute that all unions are good (despite never having been a member of one), but I do think that public-sector unions sometimes lead to undesirable side-effects because of a negotiating mismatch -- on one side you have people negotiating for their livelihoods, supported by experienced professionals; and on the other you have elected amateurs who are spending other people&#039;s money.
NICE TIME!
Now you&#039;ve gone and given her a reason for pepper-spraying people in the face!
My FOX-watching Drudge-believing Mom claims he&#039;ll be suing ABC for their harmful editing of the 911 call that made him sound more racist.
Not even kidding.
Your peen is so small that your name would be Anthony Just Anthony.
HOW DID I DO?
<blockquote>claiming psychiatric injury caused by the Nov. 18, 2011, incident.</blockquote>
Incidents happen.
So the blowback was caused by &quot;the incident&quot; too...? The one he initiated?
El Chicharr&oacute;n
A. Yes.
B. In my view, the problem hasn&#039;t been with the public employee unions, but with the public agencies that negotiate with them. For my whole lifetime, the unions have been doing what they are supposed to do -- getting the best deal possible for their members. In 1970 that meant wage rates that were significantly lower than the rough equivalents in private industry, but benefits and retirement plans that were above the then average in private industry (this was when private defined benefits plans were beginning to be on the way out).
By 1990 or so, this had evolved to wage rates that were approximately the same, maybe a little lower, than private industry equivalents, with benefits that were significantly better than equivalents (small absolute improvements combined with big steps backward in private plans).
Today, because of well negotiated COLA agreements, public wages are often better than equivalent private jobs, and the benefits are, on average, very much better. And yes, I know that many public employees haven&#039;t gotten COLA since the crash, but neither has anybody else.
Anyhow, my point is that the public employee unions have done exactly what they should have done, but from roughly 1960 to 2000, their negotiating opponents did not do what <i>they</i> should have done, which would have been to NEGOTIATE.
Sometimes, the failure to negotiate was politically motivated, e.g., here in California, <i>every</i> governor, including St Ron and young Moonbeam, regularly caved into law enforcement / prison guards because they represented a substantial voting bloc. But, mostly, it was just laziness on the part of the public officials. If tax revenues are generally going up, it&#039;s easier to just agree to what the union asks for. And any, oh, unfunded liabilities will be someone else&#039;s problem long after the current incumbent is gone (sometimes to higher office).
I won&#039;t dispute that all unions are good (despite never having been a member of one), but I do think that public-sector unions sometimes lead to undesirable side-effects because of a negotiating mismatch -- on one side you have people negotiating for their livelihoods, supported by experienced professionals; and on the other you have elected amateurs who are spending other people&#039;s money.
You know, reducing an argument to a straw man doesn&#039;t really advance The Discourse..
Thank you for bringing back some fond memories.
Sorry, it&#039;s not damages from UC, just workers comp. No useful precedent for the kids.
Remarkable self-control, I&#039;d say.
that&#039;s why they hired a member of the Established Middle Class (cite: &#039;great british class survey&#039;, bbc):
needed to expand the gene pool.
To lose one&#039;s humanity - a sad thing indeed.
Is people sending him hate-mail in response to an action that got him fired from his job really a &quot;workplace event&quot;?
I think the psychiatric injury happened before the pepper spraying incident.
...I wasn&#039;t aware that you could use pepper spray to stand your ground?