Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low
Author: OldPoleBurner
Date: 06-05-2010 - 12:44

>> "As a public employee I treasure the contract I work under" Do you enjoy that you
>> and your union are causing the government you work for to go bankrupt? I
>> understand the need for railroad unions but I don't understand why government
>> employees with Civil Service protections can organize unions. In California, the
>> state is close to bankruptcy largely due to politicians providing huge benefits to
>> public employees who put them in office through campaign contributions. The system
>> is corrupt and public employee unions are largely to blame.
--------------------------------------------

What a bloody damn crock!

In California, the state is close to bankruptcy largely due to politicians continuing to spend after the checkbook is empty. There is no other reason - period. And don't worry about your taxes going up again - there ain't any more money out there to take. The last tax increase actually lowered revenue and worsened the problem. They are just plain spending too damn much - period.

On what do they spend? Mostly cash and entitlements to buy votes for themselves. With the exception of education, it ain't the unions. The fact is that most (99%) of gov't employee wages and benefits are in line with the private industry going rate for the skills involved (except for education). How do I know - almost 40 years of close involvement with many, in both camps - and I have also worked both in union jobs and in non-union jobs.

The only exception I have noticed, is where seemingly socialistic ideas have taken root (common at certain west coast agencies), such that a public agency pays the same rate to both skilled and unskilled labor - usually at 75% of the skilled going rate.

Naturally, this ends up hurting the agency - in two ways. First, they end up paying a lot more than others for unskilled labor. And second, they have a lot of trouble convincing skilled people to work for 75% of what they can get elsewhere, and thus there is always a chronic skill shortage at such agencies. This skill shortage then forces them to farm out most of the skilled work. Now they end up paying not only the much higher salaries of the outside skill, but also the unconstrained high overhead and fat fat fat profits of the contractor that the skilled labor works for.

More than half the costs of these agencies go to paying outside vendors for what could be done in house far more cheaply, if only they could attract the necessary skills. Just ask your selves how come California's transit agencies are all paying 10 to 20 times for a mile of track that BNSF or UP, or any other private railroad pays; even when unionized track workers are doing both. IT AIN'T the UNIONS, Bro!

SO NO - IT IS NOT as simple as those yellow journals out there are making it out to be. Note that they never actually tell you what the private industry going rate is. They just publish the public sector wage and merely imply it is higher. But if it IS higher than yours, maybe you should change jobs - but beware, California municipalities and agencies have over the years been notoriously unreliable employers - layoffs and rollbacks are common as are C.S. interpretations of the contract. UP is certainly no worse.

As useless as the union I was in actually was to me; still none of the above mentioned stupidities generated by California state agencies can be laid to the unions. They are all caused by socialist politicians doing things their own way.

So if you really want to fix the problem - fix that!

OPB



Subject Written By Date/Time (PST)
  Union Pacific sinks to a new low Robert 06-02-2010 - 14:54
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low Bill B 06-02-2010 - 15:25
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low M. Harris 06-02-2010 - 16:37
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low WAF 06-02-2010 - 18:23
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low OPRRMS 06-02-2010 - 19:19
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low Beaver 06-02-2010 - 19:36
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low OTN 06-02-2010 - 19:41
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low Confused 06-02-2010 - 19:46
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low WAF 06-03-2010 - 08:52
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low E 06-03-2010 - 09:50
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low SP 8800 06-02-2010 - 20:20
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low Jesse 06-02-2010 - 21:02
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low fkrock 06-03-2010 - 09:27
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low Beaver 06-02-2010 - 21:46
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low Conductor 06-02-2010 - 22:33
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low SLOCONDR 06-02-2010 - 22:33
  MESSAGE FOR SLOCONDR smitty195 06-02-2010 - 23:48
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low theconductor 06-02-2010 - 23:20
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low Sam Reeves 06-03-2010 - 10:19
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low WAF 06-03-2010 - 15:42
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low SP8800 06-02-2010 - 22:55
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low Robert 06-02-2010 - 23:26
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low DHB 06-03-2010 - 07:34
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low OTN 06-03-2010 - 10:13
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low Peter D Sr 06-03-2010 - 12:24
  Unions and railroads OPRRMS 06-03-2010 - 12:46
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low Kevin Dunwoody 06-03-2010 - 13:32
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low Mike Swanson 06-03-2010 - 21:45
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low Taxpayer 06-03-2010 - 21:06
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low kEVIN dUNWOODY 06-04-2010 - 11:59
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low OldPoleBurner 06-05-2010 - 12:44
  Answers for Robert (and anyone interested) OPRRMS 06-03-2010 - 17:43
  Re: Answers for Robert (and anyone interested) JWL 06-03-2010 - 18:56
  Re: Answers for Robert (and anyone interested) OPRRMS 06-03-2010 - 20:00
  Re: Answers for Robert (and anyone interested) One more go 'round 06-04-2010 - 12:23
  Re: Answers for Robert (and anyone interested) jwl 06-04-2010 - 12:59
  Re: Answers for Robert (and anyone interested) KIE 06-04-2010 - 17:55
  Re: Answers for Robert (and anyone interested) OPRRMS 06-04-2010 - 21:17
  Re: Answers for the future Severe Duty 06-04-2010 - 22:46
  Re: Answers for Robert (and anyone interested) JWL 06-05-2010 - 09:19
  Re: Answers for Robert (and anyone interested) Tom Moungovan 06-05-2010 - 10:17
  Re: Answers for Robert (and anyone interested) WAF 06-05-2010 - 10:50
  Re: Answers for Robert (and anyone interested) OPRRMS 06-05-2010 - 11:24
  Re: Answers for Robert (and anyone interested) JWL 06-05-2010 - 13:23
  Re: Answers for Robert (and anyone interested) OPRRMS 06-05-2010 - 15:51
  Re: Answers for Robert (and anyone interested) WAF 06-05-2010 - 16:54
  Re: Answers for Robert (and anyone interested) JWL 06-05-2010 - 17:13
  Re: Answers for Robert (and anyone interested) OPRRMS 06-05-2010 - 18:47
  Re: Answers for Robert (and anyone interested) JWL 06-06-2010 - 07:32
  Re: Answers for Robert (and anyone interested) WAF 06-06-2010 - 08:08
  Re: Answers for Robert (and anyone interested) OPRRMS 06-06-2010 - 13:04


Go to: Message ListSearch
Subject: 
Your Name: 
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
 ********    *******   **     **  ********   ******   
 **     **  **     **   **   **      **     **    **  
 **     **  **     **    ** **       **     **        
 ********    ********     ***        **     **   **** 
 **                **    ** **       **     **    **  
 **         **     **   **   **      **     **    **  
 **          *******   **     **     **      ******   
This message board is maintained by:Altamont Press
You can send us an email at altamontpress1@gmail.com