Sometimes stupid loses

On 5/5/2011 9:30 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-05-05 06:04:40 -0700, PeterN said:

On 5/5/2011 8:08 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-05-05 04:15:39 -0700, PeterN
said:

On 5/4/2011 6:56 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-05-04 15:32:56 -0700, tony cooper

said:

On Wed, 04 May 2011 16:31:55 -0400, John A.
wrote:

On Wed, 4 May 2011 14:03:05 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2011050314393070933-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...


In California (with State/Government agency Bargaining Units
particularly)
if there is at least 50% of any employee classification has
membership in
a Bargaining Unit or Union, any employees of the same
classification who
opt out of Bargaining Unit or Union membership, are required to
pay
"Fair
Share fees". This is because the Bargaining Unit can claim those
non-members are benefitting from the good faith bargaining of the
Bargaining Unit, or union.

That's essentially the way it is in Connecticut, too.

The result is (obviously) that as a practical matter it forces
employees to
join the union, whether they want to or not, since they have to pay
the same
fees anyway. If you don't join the union you don't get
representation, use
of the credit union, or any other real or imagined benefits, but
you
still
pay as if you were a member.


Would Bill prefer to waive all pay scale, and benefits the
Union has
negotiated for his job classification, and negotiate on his own
for
the
best deal he can come up with? I don't think so.

The "Fair Share" clause basically states that if an employee is
going to
benefit from the negotiations of the Union, they owe the Union a
"Fair
Share" of the Union dues, not the full dues. This also means that

In Connecticut (for state employees) it WAS the full dues, and I
assume it
still is, though it's many years since I've retired.

is there are any work related grievances, or other work related
disputes,
he is going to have to deal with management on his own, without
union
representation since he is not a member.

That of course is true. So it comes down to: Do you believe the
employer
will treat you fairly if you are a good, productive, reliable
worker, or do
you not? Any employer needs, and a good employer will properly
reward, good
employees. He does this as much for his own best interests as for
theirs.

Public service unions have a big advantage in that the employer
cannot
simply move to another state, since the employer *is* the state.
Where you
have particularly greedy and ever-demanding unions such as you
evidently
have in California, inevitably you get the California result: Taxes
have to
be increased again and again to support the unions and their
payroll
bloat,
extravagant pensions etc., squeezing taxpayers including
corporations to the
point that businesses leave the state in order to survive, the tax
base is
gradually lost, and you have state in desperate straits
financially,
if not
looking at bankruptcy.

Connecticut is in somewhat the same fix. Now we have a Democrat
governor and
he's going to increase taxes on everything that moves. Part of
this of
course is the general financial mess the whole country is in,
but the
biggest part is that the state has just spent too much money, and
will not
substantially cut its spending even now. And much of this is the
work of the
state unions.

Sounds pretty bad. What percentage of the state budget do wages etc.
for union members make up?

In Florida, it's not the wages of the public service workers but the
retirement benefits that is the problem. Many of the public service
workers have not had to contribute to their retirement programs, the
retirement benefits are very generous, and they can "double-dip".
The legislature wants them to contribute a figure - between 3 and 5
percent - of their income to their own retirement fund. I'm in favor
of that.

I'm also in favor of eliminating "double-dipping" where a person can
retire from one state job, take up to 80% of their previous salary in
retirement benefits, and take another state job at full salary. Let
them take the second job, but hold the retirement benefits until they
retire from all jobs.

In my case we contributed 8% of our income to the CaPers pension plan,
and there is also a State contribution. Additionally we were able to
make use of 401K & 457K plans.
For Health & Safety categories (Law enforcement & Fire fighters)
earliest retirement age is 50 with 3% per year of service, based on
last
12 months final salary retirement benefit, with a 90% cap.
Other state employees are usually looking at 2.5% at 60 or 65
depending
on contract.

In my case with 25 years, I get 75% of my final 12 months salary as a
Lieutenant. I am fully vested with CalPers Blue Cross at $0 cost to
me.
My only other monthly deductions are $13.37 for dental & $7.53 vision
coverage.

I have been offered "retired annuitant" jobs with my agency. I have
chosen not to accept any of those, even though I would be able to work
up to 960 hours per year. It is cost effective for the State to use
retired annuitants, since there are no additional costs for medical,
dental, & retirement coverage, that is handled by CalPers, not the
general fund.


Here there is a "tradition" to give major overtime assignments to
retiring officers. In many cases the OT is equal to, or greater than
normal salary. Due to union pressure toll collectors have been given
peace officer status. this means twenty year retirement based upon
average final salaries. Most retire with pensions larger than their
average earnings while working. When it comes to other workers: After
three years, the ticket collector on our commuter rail system earns
over seventy-five thousand per year. Most maintenance workers earn
more than their non=union supervisors.

Retired annuitants for the State of California are considered as
"contractors" without benefits, limited to 960 hours per year. They
receive their full pension benefits as they work those 960 hours at the
pay scale of the position they are working. There is no time and a half
pay rate for overtime. Once the 960 hour are worked, they are done for
the calendar year. As a result you might find some annuitants working
2-3 days per week, and some exhausting the 960 hours in six months.

In my case, regardless of a lower gross income from pension, I have
lower payroll deductions for medical, dental, Fed & State withholding,
and no deductions for pension & 457K. So my net income from pension is
considerably higher than before my retirement.
Then I also have a few other sources of income.

One thing in your above remarks I find baffling, is your statement that
toll collectors are given peace officer status in NY. I find that hard
to believe. In California they would have to train to meet Commission on
Peace Officer Standards & Training, or CPOST.
The only "non-police" certifications provided by CPOST are Records
Supervisor, and Public Safety Dispatcher.
"Police" certification includes; Basic Cert., Intermediate Cert.,
Advanced Cert., Supervisory Cert., Management Cert., Executive Cert.,
Reserve Officer Cert., Specialized Investigator's Cert., and Coroner
Certificate.

I am certain N.Y. must have a similar certification process, and on the
surface it does.

http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/o...ctrainguid.pdf





http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/o.../policereg.htm

...but who knows? Maybe they do send their "toll collectors" off to the
various academies for training & certification to mean the minimum
standards N.Y. State requires.

We certainly don't have any CPOST certified "toll collectors" in
California.
Here is an important minimum standard for certification as a Peace
Officer in California;

http://post.ca.gov/pc-832-arrest-and...fications.aspx






http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triborough_Bridge_and_Tunnel_Authority_Police


there is an interesting discussion of this at:

http://www.realpolice.net/forums/archive/t-91157.html

That is interesting, and somewhat screwy, in that the TBTA seems to be
using sworn Peace officers as "toll collectors" where that job
designation is being phased out. (I assume they are either doing away
with non-PO "toll collectors" or are moving to a fully automated system.)
They are also giving their towing and snow clearing employees peace
officer status, or perhaps assigning TBTA cops to those jobs). While
this might give them a larger pool of officers in the event of an
emergency, this seems like a bit of overkill and unnecessary expense for
the tax payer, given that all of them have to be certified by the NY DCJS.
What next, the guys filling potholes, and painting the bridges to be
given Peace Officer status?
So far no CalTrans workers, or any of the various SF bridge authority
toll collectors, have Peace Officer status. Phew!



they are moving towards an automated system. And yes, it is a totally
unreasonable cost to the taxpayers. The whole purpose was to give the
toll collectors twenty year retirement, based upon "stress." The
taxpayers didn't buy it, so they gave them PO status.
Abuse of the system here is out of control.

--
Peter