| Author | Post |
|---|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5408 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 29th, 2009 10:51 pm |
|
| The Governor said he would need to layoff 1500 workers to get the same bang as he will with the pay reduction. That would be a 4.5% reduction in staff and it would be a start to the reduction of the size of government.
|
Born Country
Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 20th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 82 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 29th, 2009 06:44 pm |
|
Furloughs before Pay Reduction!!!! Yes! Brainiac wrote:
FURLOUGHS BEFORE PAY REDUCTION !!
There is just no way a reduction in state employee salary can ever be a good thing. A pay grade should never be lowered. If it actually comes to the point where the state absolutely needs to lower what they are paying state employees, they need to go with furloughs, at least this might allow state employees the time to come up with other means to generate income to make up for the lack of it in their main jobs. Furloughs would also help put pressure on the state government to get the workforce back in place. It is a win win situation.
Bill Pfaffenhauser also sounds like he makes sense. The state just needs to get out of their spending habits and with this in mind I believe Colin Bonini is also on the right path. I think elements of both are reasonable and should be considered way before a cut in pay.
Click on this link, then give the pdf file a few seconds to download. This is Colin Bonini's presentation and I think he has some very reasonable ideas, and some very harsh critisism's of the past and current administration.
http://www.delawaresbadhabit.com/delawaresbadhabit.pdf
Last edited on Wed Apr 29th, 2009 06:44 pm by Born Country
|
Brainiac
Member
| Joined: | Tue Apr 21st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 18 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 29th, 2009 05:08 pm |
|
FURLOUGHS BEFORE PAY REDUCTION !!
There is just no way a reduction in state employee salary can ever be a good thing. A pay grade should never be lowered. If it actually comes to the point where the state absolutely needs to lower what they are paying state employees, they need to go with furloughs, at least this might allow state employees the time to come up with other means to generate income to make up for the lack of it in their main jobs. Furloughs would also help put pressure on the state government to get the workforce back in place. It is a win win situation.
Bill Pfaffenhauser also sounds like he makes sense. The state just needs to get out of their spending habits and with this in mind I believe Colin Bonini is also on the right path. I think elements of both are reasonable and should be considered way before a cut in pay.
Click on this link, then give the pdf file a few seconds to download. This is Colin Bonini's presentation and I think he has some very reasonable ideas, and some very harsh critisism's of the past and current administration.
http://www.delawaresbadhabit.com/delawaresbadhabit.pdf
|
Lavitakus
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1311 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 29th, 2009 04:05 pm |
|
Skjuda wrote: I do not know what a POD is or represents but I am interested to learn.
One of our more profound posters. Usually in a situation like this he would always state the obvious. "Thus, we are all doomed".
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 29th, 2009 04:47 am |
|
Fred wrote: Hartlyboy wrote:
There is clearly a revenue decline the State has to work with in coming up with a balanced budget for 2010 but there is not a $750 million hole between the 2009 revenue/budget and FY 2010. The big number they are making you all dance to comes from comparing 2008 revenue with the combined decline in revenue for two years from that date.
The numbers are projections, and as such are subject to many factors that we don't know...but the numbers ARE going to be in the 500-750 million range.
However...what do you think makes more sense....plan the budget and wage cuts based on the 500 million and then jack them up, or put out the worst case scenario and then ratchet it down if the outlook improves?
Since you KNOW the shortfall is going to be 500-700 million , I have to assume you work in the budget office . That's great, because now you can explain how the 2009 to 2010 revenue decline,which your office described in Markell's dog and pony show as being 200 million, requires $750 million of taxes and pay cuts on employees.
And, no , I don't think it's a good idea to tax heck out of everyone at twice the rate needed because worse news might come true. It is not a good idea to give politicians , especially Dover Democrats , more money than we absolutely have to or it will just get frittered away as we've seen over the past 8 years.
Also, I really don't think you or I are really naive enough to believe the legislators are going to cut state employee pay by 8%. They are the diversion like a magician uses to slip the bunny into the hat. While they all complain about how unfair and all that such a cut would be, who are the legislators who have come out and said we'd vote for that? Several I've talked to think Jack, the clever boy, passed them a hot potato and is forcing them to come up with new revenue so they don't have to face the workers. Delaware taxpayers, on the other hand, will vote them back in regardless of what they do as long as they call it a 'crisis'.
Last edited on Wed Apr 29th, 2009 04:49 am by Hartlyboy
|
Skjuda
Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 29th, 2009 03:41 am |
|
I do not know what a POD is or represents but I am interested to learn.
It just irks me that someone would want to add a sales tax knowing full well how it effects people. We have a perfectly good Gross Receipts tax already in place just waiting to be fully appreciated. Why not eliminate the 50k exeemption and raise the rate by 200 percent? 200 percent would still be well over half what the sales tax in NY is currently.
Hiring a few accountants to audit corporation records for GRT would increase our revenue 10 fold. But Wagner would not know an audit if it bit him on the nose.
|
Born Country
Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 20th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 82 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 28th, 2009 07:41 pm |
|
Pay cuts aren't temporary either and everyone knows it. The problem is the Governor says they are "very temporary." No one trusts him b/c he's done NOTHING yet to earn the trust he seeks. Fred wrote: "Temporary" taxes tend to be anything but. Didn't we just end, in the past few years, the tax on phone lines imposed to pay for the Spanish American War? While I feel state workers' pain in having to pay for more of their health care AND a pay cut, I am not sure that increasing taxes, or a new tax, would ever get repealed.
I don't buy that there is this big squadron of state workers that could be cut with no impact to the state. While there are certainly some, feretting out them, especially by those who have a vested interest in protecting them, would be a futile exercise.
I do think that there should be a better procedure for hiring vacancies. Yes, we can probably eliminate positions through careful planning, and those that are leaving may well be clumped together causing real problems, but that can be handled through some sort of exception to policy process.
|
Lavitakus
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1311 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 28th, 2009 06:04 pm |
|
Filly- If a non state worker making less than $60,000 dollars cannot afford to give 1% back to the state and a retiree making less than $60,000 cannot afford to give up a real estate tax break, how is a state worker supposed to be able to give 10% of their income back to the state? Don't we live in the same neighborhoods, pay the same utilities, and shop in the same grocery stores?
The state is a corporation. If you separate the two then you would get somewhere. When was the last time you saw a corporation shop in a grocery store?
Here's something that I had lying around. It's similar.
http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=9677
Last edited on Tue Apr 28th, 2009 06:08 pm by Lavitakus
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 8242 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 28th, 2009 06:03 pm |
|
Hartlyboy wrote:
There is clearly a revenue decline the State has to work with in coming up with a balanced budget for 2010 but there is not a $750 million hole between the 2009 revenue/budget and FY 2010. The big number they are making you all dance to comes from comparing 2008 revenue with the combined decline in revenue for two years from that date.
The numbers are projections, and as such are subject to many factors that we don't know...but the numbers ARE going to be in the 500-750 million range.
However...what do you think makes more sense....plan the budget and wage cuts based on the 500 million and then jack them up, or put out the worst case scenario and then ratchet it down if the outlook improves?
Last edited on Tue Apr 28th, 2009 06:53 pm by Fred
|
Lavitakus
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1311 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 28th, 2009 05:58 pm |
|
Skjuda wrote: Let me begin with your ideal of a sales tax that will be temporary in nature. Historically any tax that has been imposed has never gone away and there is no reason to believe the morons in congress once they have tasted a sales tax will let it go. Like pigs to the trough they will waddle to and start spending like there is no tomorrow. Once started it will only go up and up. Second a sales tax taxes the poor at a higher rate than the wealthy, which if I did my homework correctly you are one of them. While people like you can safely purchase large items through corporations, tax havens etc.. the rest of us poor folk are stuck paying this sales tax.
Most if not all states that have a sales tax have what is called exemptions for companies and corporations so they do not have to pay the tax. So while the poor are paying the bulk your rich greedy buzzard republican friends and you are soaking the money up hand over fist. Those times have left the building and a more ethically friendly environment has taken hold. Thank goodness it happened before it was too late.
Anytime you mess with peoples pay it has an adverse reaction to moral, customer service, etc... Throughout history there are examples of wage reductions causing major problems from strikes to outright loss of property from shall we say less than righteous employees. The educated man knows this and realizes that the governors ploy to reduce wages is just that a ploy. While people like you and your greedy friends are feeding at the trough, the governor and his friends are quietly getting legislation passed that would not have been possible just a few years ago. Opening up the slots to more business will create some competition and break the hold casinos have on congressional members. It does not take a genius to figure out the senators who are benefiting from the slots and it is in thier best interest to keep it to 3.
So while you play the only cards left to you by the brilliant democrats the rest of us are laughing at you and your greedy friends. The times when congresspeople can enrich themselves off the taxpayer has come to a close or so close to closing that nothing short of a economic miracle recovery will deter.
So please before you give ideals that make most of us laugh at you take a few minutes and do some research. Sales tax is not in the best interst of the poor and only benefits the rich. Temorary is another word to congress for increased spending.
Where is the POD when you need him?
|
Born Country
Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 20th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 82 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 28th, 2009 05:32 pm |
|
SMITTY711 wrote: I believe that it is about time to stop tenure for the teachers! There's to many teachers that are teaching for the holidays and the summers off. Teachers need to be re-evaluated every two years, and if then a pay raise should be determined. Giving teachers the same percentage is unfair, I'm sure everyone that's reading this know some teachers that you would not want to teach your child. Give the jobs to people who really care about teaching our children.
Not that I trust our Governor any more, but there is a national and state "vision" for addressing this now that actually employs some understanding of the profession. Test the kids as they come in the door of that classroom. Test them when they are about to leave. How much did they learn? How does it compare to their average throughout school? Good teachers have nothing to fear with this common sense plan.
It will continue getting harder to draw A and B students into the profession if salaries do not change to reflect the current demands of the classroom. Mediocre students might actually think that teaching would be "awesome" for the holidays. A and B students are very aware these days that they have far more lucrative options available to them for their college debts- and they might actually be able to afford to go somewhere on vacation! They'll do their "good deeds" some other way. Teacher pay is tied to social history. It was a job a "woman can do." When we already have hard to staff schools in the state, it's quite possibly one of the most ridiculous ideas I've ever heard to cut teacher salaries across the board! There are years when this state has graduated one math teacher and there have been 3 openings in one school alone. It doesn't do much in the way of ensuring that an outstanding candidate who truly cares about doing a great job will even apply to teach my child. It does nothing to ensure that a math teacher from another state will relocate here to teach my child either. But, hey, maybe sometime after my kid graduates, they'll get it all sorted out. 
Last edited on Tue Apr 28th, 2009 07:33 pm by Born Country
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Tue Apr 28th, 2009 04:47 am |
|
And , then, there is the idea of really understanding the 'deficit' Markell and his merry band is selling you that causes all this outlandish talk of tax increases, pay cuts and the like. You have all taken hook line and sinker the big number the Governor has passed on to you and not even objectively looked at the underlying data. Frankly, anyone who buys a snake oil salesman's product without closely reading the label deserves the tummy ache.
There is clearly a revenue decline the State has to work with in coming up with a balanced budget for 2010 but there is not a $750 million hole between the 2009 revenue/budget and FY 2010. The big number they are making you all dance to comes from comparing 2008 revenue with the combined decline in revenue for two years from that date.
Oh, what's the use , whine about your pay cuts and raise taxes. Watch the magic of the General Assembly as they come up with new ways to take care of their voting base and not cut pay but maybe make state employees pay for more of their pensions and benefits , just like people in the real world.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 8242 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 28th, 2009 03:14 am |
|
"Temporary" taxes tend to be anything but. Didn't we just end, in the past few years, the tax on phone lines imposed to pay for the Spanish American War? While I feel state workers' pain in having to pay for more of their health care AND a pay cut, I am not sure that increasing taxes, or a new tax, would ever get repealed.
I don't buy that there is this big squadron of state workers that could be cut with no impact to the state. While there are certainly some, feretting out them, especially by those who have a vested interest in protecting them, would be a futile exercise.
I do think that there should be a better procedure for hiring vacancies. Yes, we can probably eliminate positions through careful planning, and those that are leaving may well be clumped together causing real problems, but that can be handled through some sort of exception to policy process.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5408 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 28th, 2009 01:38 am |
|
| Hate to burst your bubble, but the original sales taxes were introduced by Democrats, not rich Republicans as you claim. I agree that the only one who wishes a new tax upon himself is a fool.
|
Skjuda
Member
|
Posted: Tue Apr 28th, 2009 12:38 am |
|
tspong wrote: Copied below is a guest commentary submitted to the Delaware State News. You can post your opinions by clicking on "Reply."
By Bill Pfaffenhauser
(cut)
The suggestions below are not meant to be cure-alls. Other measures will surely need to be put in place; however, if we want to talk “temporary” and equally sharing the burden, then I believe they need to be seriously considered. The more suggestions that are implemented, the more pay reductions will truly be “temporary” and the more equal the burden will be spread.
• Make “temporary” increases in state income taxes.
• Make a “temporary” sales tax.
• Furloughs versus adjusting base pay rates
• Use “temporary” docking codes to affect “temporary” pay reductions. This would help to deal with a number of related issues.
◦ Reduce the perception of “temporary” pay reductions being a fallacy because it would not necessitate adjusting base pay rates.
◦ Reduce the perception of balancing the budget on the backs of the State Employees because the employees would still have their current pay rate on record. This would show them good intent on the part of the State.
◦ Allow the State to index and manage the pay reduction down to the individual employee level if it so desired.
◦ Both simplify and quicken affecting the “temporary” pay reductions and, when the time is right, reinstate the pay at a graduated rate if so desired.
Cut
Editor’s note: Mr. Pfaffenhauser resides in Milford.
To Mr. Pfaffebhauser - I do not believe you have the intelligence or wit to suggest anything that applies to the state budget! After reading your proposals I was taken aback at how dumb your suggestions are and I could only conclude you are a republican as no respectable democrat would even think of so many outlandish and outdated ideals all at once. The shear thought process must have been taxing for you or you had to have help from your rich republican friends.
I do not mean to belittle you and I respect your right to free speech that is granted to all citizens of the United States of America. However there comes a point when someone has to point out how dumb your ideals are coming across. I reckon you believe that if you say something enough people will believe, sorta the opposite of the boy who cried wolf.
Let me set the record straight and try and educate you on how some of these harebrained ideals sound to the rest of us. Now before we begin let me say I am educated to some degree but not near as much as some in this country. I have some learning to do also but I am educated enough to see how your ideals jsut do not make sense.
Let me begin with your ideal of a sales tax that will be temporary in nature. Historically any tax that has been imposed has never gone away and there is no reason to believe the morons in congress once they have tasted a sales tax will let it go. Like pigs to the trough they will waddle to and start spending like there is no tomorrow. Once started it will only go up and up. Second a sales tax taxes the poor at a higher rate than the wealthy, which if I did my homework correctly you are one of them. While people like you can safely purchase large items through corporations, tax havens etc.. the rest of us poor folk are stuck paying this sales tax.
Most if not all states that have a sales tax have what is called exemptions for companies and corporations so they do not have to pay the tax. So while the poor are paying the bulk your rich greedy buzzard republican friends and you are soaking the money up hand over fist. Those times have left the building and a more ethically friendly environment has taken hold. Thank goodness it happened before it was too late.
Anytime you mess with peoples pay it has an adverse reaction to moral, customer service, etc... Throughout history there are examples of wage reductions causing major problems from strikes to outright loss of property from shall we say less than righteous employees. The educated man knows this and realizes that the governors ploy to reduce wages is just that a ploy. While people like you and your greedy friends are feeding at the trough, the governor and his friends are quietly getting legislation passed that would not have been possible just a few years ago. Opening up the slots to more business will create some competition and break the hold casinos have on congressional members. It does not take a genius to figure out the senators who are benefiting from the slots and it is in thier best interest to keep it to 3.
So while you play the only cards left to you by the brilliant democrats the rest of us are laughing at you and your greedy friends. The times when congresspeople can enrich themselves off the taxpayer has come to a close or so close to closing that nothing short of a economic miracle recovery will deter.
So please before you give ideals that make most of us laugh at you take a few minutes and do some research. Sales tax is not in the best interst of the poor and only benefits the rich. Temorary is another word to congress for increased spending.
Now before Fred and others take me to the carpet for not putting forth recomendations to fix the crisis I propose the following.
1 - cut all state workers pay by 20 percent or more therefore creating an employee turnover and reducing the amount of viable retirees. Thsi will save rough 100 billion over 10 years.
2 - every year from here on out increase the bottom 20 percent 4 percent and the rest 1 percent. This will help to close the huge gap we have in managerial salary versus the real workers of the state.
3 - Open slots to anyone who wants to start a casino. Open up the competitive nature of our capitalist society and make it work for the people.
4 - Consolidate the school districts into 4 or 5 and eliminate the department of education in its entireity. Allow the Office of Technology the pleasure of keepng the records in a database. Any contracts awarded should be open to the public through the database. This includes contractors and special interest groups.
Those are just a few that would solve our present fiscal problems and lift us out of this dismal time. So in closing I again ask that if you want to suggest something do some homework and stop making the rest of us laugh.
skjuda
|
Two Cents
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1464 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 27th, 2009 11:12 pm |
|
tspong wrote: Copied below is a guest commentary submitted to the Delaware State News. You can post your opinions by clicking on "Reply."
By Bill Pfaffenhauser
Because the positions being vacated are under terms other than a planned/orderly work force reduction, it means that a number of the people leaving are senior staff. This leaves behind mostly junior people and the deadwood that couldn’t or wouldn’t be eliminated as part of the recovery plan. (1) The effect of this is that the remaining productive employees will not only need to pick up an inordinate part of the slack, but that they will be rewarded with financial burdens above and beyond the rest of the State’s citizens. Imagine the effect on moral and productivity. (2)
The underlined parts (1) and (2) disturb many taxpayers. When the unions that represent the state employees and those who have had friends and family members placed in jobs as political favors get together and decide that the deadwood must go right now, perhaps the state would be able to pay better wages to the productive personnel remaining. This may indeed require that the remaining employees do more real work than they are accustomed to, but they too can face the job or an exit.
|
tspong
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3357 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 27th, 2009 09:37 pm |
|
Copied below is a guest commentary submitted to the Delaware State News. You can post your opinions by clicking on "Reply."
By Bill Pfaffenhauser
After having had some time to consider Governor Markel’s State of the State Address, I would like to offer some suggestions as a State Employee and request that they be included with any discussion regarding State Employee benefits and/or compensation.
Before beginning I’d like to offer the understandings and premises used in formulating the suggestions. These are noted so that you may know the suggestions were not haphazardly or thoughtlessly conceived:
• The current economic situation and the budget short fall it has created for the State.
• The fiscal/fiduciary responsibility that our government has to manage the shortfall so that we continue to operate with a balanced budget.
• The State is doing many things above and beyond those impacting its employees in order to meet its fiscal/fiduciary responsibility.
• Part of the proposed solutions for addressing the budget short fall includes, but is not limited to, the following adjustments to employee compensations:
1) As a continuation of the compensation policy for the past two years, there will be no raises for the forthcoming fiscal year. Effectively netting three years in total with no increase compensation.
2) Increased income taxes (proposed)
3) Elimination of most ancillary benefits including, but not limited to, the following:
◦ Loss of subsidized IT network connectivity for the purpose of supporting production systems (already implemented)
◦ Loss of reimbursements for Weight Watcher membership fees (already implemented)
◦ Loss of Deferred Compensation employer contributions (already implemented)
4) Increased benefit costs to the employees (already implemented with the forthcoming open enrollment period)
5) Reduction in annual compensation (proposed)
Getting to the point, I understand and support all of the pay policy changes with the exception of one. The reduction in pay as currently proposed. My problem is that the term “temporary” leaves perceptions that, if polled, I believe most State Employees would agree with:
1) The term “temporary” pay reduction is a misnomer for a loss of pay that many employees with more than 12 or so years of service will never see restored. This is because of the following:
◦ The State’s rate of increases has historically been two percent or less even in the prosperous years
◦ A belief that the absence of pay raises will probably continue for the next two to three years. Effectively allowing for a five to six year period overall with no pay increases.
◦ A belief that once pay increases return they will be at a rate significantly less than they have been in the past, which as noted before has been two percent or less.
2) The State is balancing the budget on the backs of the State Employees. This is based upon the fact that State Employees will be facing a kind of double jeopardy when it comes to their compensation. Not only will they be subject to any and all financial impacts levied against all citizens of the State, but they will experience them above and beyond the ones that have already been levied against them and additional ones as proposed.
The suggestions below are not meant to be cure-alls. Other measures will surely need to be put in place; however, if we want to talk “temporary” and equally sharing the burden, then I believe they need to be seriously considered. The more suggestions that are implemented, the more pay reductions will truly be “temporary” and the more equal the burden will be spread.
• Make “temporary” increases in state income taxes.
• Make a “temporary” sales tax.
• Furloughs versus adjusting base pay rates
• Use “temporary” docking codes to affect “temporary” pay reductions. This would help to deal with a number of related issues.
◦ Reduce the perception of “temporary” pay reductions being a fallacy because it would not necessitate adjusting base pay rates.
◦ Reduce the perception of balancing the budget on the backs of the State Employees because the employees would still have their current pay rate on record. This would show them good intent on the part of the State.
◦ Allow the State to index and manage the pay reduction down to the individual employee level if it so desired.
◦ Both simplify and quicken affecting the “temporary” pay reductions and, when the time is right, reinstate the pay at a graduated rate if so desired.
Two last considerations for any compensation discussion:
1) The generally accepted policy of not refilling positions currently being vacated. Although I have no problem with reducing positions, it is what those reductions mean going forward that disturbs me. Because the positions being vacated are under terms other than a planned/orderly work force reduction, it means that a number of the people leaving are senior staff. This leaves behind mostly junior people and the deadwood that couldn’t or wouldn’t be eliminated as part of the recovery plan. The effect of this is that the remaining productive employees will not only need to pick up an inordinate part of the slack, but that they will be rewarded with financial burdens above and beyond the rest of the State’s citizens. Imagine the effect on moral and productivity.
2) Being that I’m not an economist however; what if all the proposed changes to State Employee compensation are implemented? Isn’t there the potential of further aggravating the State’s budget shortfall? This is based upon the fact that 30,000+ citizens will now have less expendable wages to help stimulate the economy with a worst case scenario being that they may no longer be able to honor all the good faith commitments they made in the past. Commitments that were based upon an assumed financial stability that has been taken from them by greedy unscrupulous people who, ironically, still enjoy the fruits of their dubious labors while others struggle to make up for their misguided ways.
These are desperate times that I and many other State Employees are willing to correct; however, the State needs to act equably and responsibly versus spewing political rhetoric to appease the masses and offering solutions that are short sighted, unfair, and not well thought out.
Editor’s note: Mr. Pfaffenhauser resides in Milford.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 8242 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 27th, 2009 05:19 pm |
|
Teaching kids has so many variables that while I support a pay for performance concept, I am not sure how you handle the numerous exceptions. What about special education? What about the various classes or teachers that would not be tied to state testing? Take music or gym teachers....do you want more standardized testing in these areas as well? Do you have different standards for those who teach Advanced Placement kids versus the non-college prep kids?
The focus on teachers always seems to be on a vision of a third grade teacher who has the kids for all the subjects...but I'm not sure that is applicable in the middle school, and certainly not in the high school.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5408 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 27th, 2009 02:17 am |
|
| I wasn't aware that grade and high school teachers earned tenure.
|
SMITTY711
Member
| Joined: | Fri Dec 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 6 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 27th, 2009 12:58 am |
|
I believe that it is about time to stop tenure for the teachers! There's to many teachers that are teaching for the holidays and the summers off. Teachers need to be re-evaluated every two years, and if then a pay raise should be determined. Giving teachers the same percentage is unfair, I'm sure everyone that's reading this know some teachers that you would not want to teach your child. Give the jobs to people who really care about teaching our childen.
|
Rightwinger
Member
| Joined: | Tue Apr 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 605 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 25th, 2009 02:39 pm |
|
How many state workers have been issued a state vehicle
which is not necessary?
How many overseas trips did Ruthless Ann take which were
"State paid vacations" and not really necessary?
How many lazy druggies are receiving welfare in this state?
How many women are popping out illegitimate children
and getting paid to do so?
The pay cuts for State workers will only hurt productivity
and morale. This is not going to help the economy in our
state !!!
DUMB DEMS!!!
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Fri Apr 24th, 2009 11:03 pm |
|
Playing the Game wrote: Then you agree HB that the road to lower taxes and reducing the defecit is through the elimination of positions and services. Pay cuts accomplish nothing in the long run to reduce the cost and scope of government.
Yes, I don't think it realistic to expect costs to go down until people are ultimately reduced -and I don't think we should expect as the beneficiaries of those lower costs to have the same level of service or hand-holding we currently have. To a degree we are responsible for the current state of expenditures because too many of us clap like trained seals when Dover comes up with another wonderful benefit -even if it doesn't 'benefit' us. It doesn't take long for that to add up to a burden to carry financially.
|
dover-diva
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1973 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 24th, 2009 02:05 pm |
|
Playing the Game wrote: Then you agree HB that the road to lower taxes and reducing the defecit is through the elimination of positions and services. Pay cuts accomplish nothing in the long run to reduce the cost and scope of government.
Today's DSD has Colin Bonini, and K. Peterson finally speaking out re: too much spending and too many school districts. Gee, did they think of this themselves??Maybe they read thes forums too.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5408 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 24th, 2009 12:21 pm |
|
| Then you agree HB that the road to lower taxes and reducing the defecit is through the elimination of positions and services. Pay cuts accomplish nothing in the long run to reduce the cost and scope of government.
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Fri Apr 24th, 2009 01:43 am |
|
Reasoning18 wrote: Two Cents: Used to be for security and benefits. As for all the state employee cuts (staffing as well as pay), all this will be just fine with all those who are not employed by the State until the first time they need a State service and can't get it exactly when, or as quickly as, they want it. The ball is in the legislature's court now. We'll just have to wait and see.
Pay cuts to state employees are not something those of us outside that circle take any glee in, but don't overestimate the angst we'll have about not getting a state service as quickly as we do now. A great many of us could care less about that and would trade a longer wait for less taxes any day.
|
Born Country
Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 20th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 82 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 23rd, 2009 08:30 pm |
|
I'm trying to understand how this "one size fits all" pay cut is any different than levying a flat tax on a select group of the population? I thought the folks in charge are the ones who are always speaking out about the flat tax unfairly punishing people as they move down the pay scale.
Today, the Governor is quoted saying "It is difficult for children to get off to a good start in life when their parents are in danger of losing the family home." (This is in reference to proposed legislation on predatory lending. Before anyone beats on me, I think this is noble and good. I have taken a lot of heat in my career for standing up for disadvantaged children who needed an advocate!) The point I would like to make is that Governor Markell is the "financial predator" at this moment who is creating this exact scenario for many state workers and their families. Does he have the ability to see this? Is he willing to make adjustments to his proposal?
|
tspong
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3357 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 23rd, 2009 07:07 pm |
|
Copied below is a letter to the editor submitted to the Delaware State News. You can post your opinions by clicking on "Reply."
Well, Well, Well, Governor Markell wants to balance the budget.
I am a school teacher. Three years ago I worked to obtain my National Board Certification. The time and work involved is excruciating. I would work on it every weekend, stay up until 2 and 3 in the morning, get up some other times at 4 in the morning to work on it. I would go to state run meetings, local district meeting and small informal get togethers just to work on this project. I passed.
The state promised anyone who passed a 12% pay hike for 10 years. Now the govenor wants to take away my 12% raise AND lower my pay by an additional 10%. So that adds to a 22% pay decrease for me but that’s not all. In two years I expect to retire. My retirement benefits are determined by my highest three years of pay. My last two years working will not be highest pay though. In effect, the proposed pay cut for state employees will affect not only my pay check this year (and maybe next?) but it will affect my benefits for the rest of my life.
A 22% pay cut means that for every 5 days that I work, I will not get paid for 1.
I want to know how is that sharing the load?
Mecedes DiNunzio
|
Reasoning18
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jul 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 21 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 9th, 2009 01:54 am |
|
| Two Cents: Used to be for security and benefits. As for all the state employee cuts (staffing as well as pay), all this will be just fine with all those who are not employed by the State until the first time they need a State service and can't get it exactly when, or as quickly as, they want it. The ball is in the legislature's court now. We'll just have to wait and see. Last edited on Thu Apr 9th, 2009 01:55 am by Reasoning18
|
dover-diva
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1973 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 8th, 2009 07:54 pm |
|
mattami wrote: dover-diva wrote: mattami wrote: You know alot of waitresses that are state employees to do direct comparison's with eh?
Compare the pay for a state accountant to a private accountant, state mid-level adminstrator to a private mid-level administrator. There are always individual exceptions but overall in most cases leaving the state work force to go to work for private industry can be quite lucrative.
dover-diva wrote:
That is not always true. Depends on which "private sector". If it's a fortune 500 company, maybe, but more than a number of the people working in the private sector, are minimum wage, working on commission, waitresses, medical aides etc.
Waitresses as state employees??? Do you??
You know alot of waitresses that are state employees to do direct comparison's with eh?
Wow I am so not attacking waitresses as you are trying to spin it because you missed the point.
WOW you SO are. That was the 1st sentence of your response. Reread.I didn't miss the point and stated so in my response.
|
mattami
Member
| Joined: | Thu Apr 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 68 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 8th, 2009 05:46 pm |
|
dover-diva wrote: mattami wrote: You know alot of waitresses that are state employees to do direct comparison's with eh?
Compare the pay for a state accountant to a private accountant, state mid-level adminstrator to a private mid-level administrator. There are always individual exceptions but overall in most cases leaving the state work force to go to work for private industry can be quite lucrative.
dover-diva wrote:
That is not always true. Depends on which "private sector". If it's a fortune 500 company, maybe, but more than a number of the people working in the pivate sector, are minimum wage, working on commission, waitressing, medical aides etc.
Waitresses as state employees??? Do you??
I happen to "know" a lot of waitresses and many others. You chose to miss my point. A waitress makes $2.74/ hour, plus tips. Depending on where YOU eat maybe they are better tips.
Where I eat, the people are likely to make $12, $24, or on a good day $60. But that figure fluctuates daily.
However, the employer still rounds their figures up to $15.00 / hour for the tax man. Yes they pay all the other little things too. They usually pay for their lunch, they take guff from people, they must pay the bill for the dishonest person who walks out without paying or if they got the wrong check.
Now you came from a family of teachers who feed themselves very well at the public trough.
Wow I am so not attacking waitresses as you are trying to spin it because you missed the point.
But since you've taken an interest in me. I might as well give you a clearer picture about my background.
My parents were the first in their families to go to college. Mom was a national merit scholar finalist that worked 2 years then became a stay at home mom when they decided to have a family. She made our clothes and we had a big garden to supplement the groceries. We burned wood for heat and everyone helped split and stack. One summer, as a family, we tore down an old barn for the free wood and my dad used the lumber to build our garage. Dad biked or ran to work for his health and to save a few bucks by having one car. Mom went back to work as a teacher after retooling her education credentials at school when I left for college. Both are now retired and living modestly and they managed to sent 3 kids to college on one teachers salary. Brother taught computer science to high school kids. One of his high school students got a summer job programming the language my brother taught him and made more per hour then a teacher. Recently, my brother left teaching and got a programming job and does much better. Sister is now using her teaching career as a placeholder job until she can finish her new degree and get a job where she can afford to stop living in my parents basement. She's been teaching for 7 years. As for me, my field does not pay very well. So when I got my first job in my field I lived in a pop-up camper for a year and lucky for me my wife said "yes" and we could afford an apartment...cause she wasn't doing the camper thing! haha.
So now you have a better picture so you don't have to make assumptions and digs, you can really judge me! Have at it.
Last edited on Wed Apr 8th, 2009 05:49 pm by mattami
|
dover-diva
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1973 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 8th, 2009 04:55 pm |
|
mattami wrote: You know alot of waitresses that are state employees to do direct comparison's with eh?
Compare the pay for a state accountant to a private accountant, state mid-level adminstrator to a private mid-level administrator. There are always individual exceptions but overall in most cases leaving the state work force to go to work for private industry can be quite lucrative.
dover-diva wrote:
That is not always true. Depends on which "private sector". If it's a fortune 500 company, maybe, but more than a number of the people working in the pivate sector, are minimum wage, working on commission, waitressing, medical aides etc.
Waitresses as state employees??? Do you??
I happen to "know" a lot of waitresses and many others. You chose to miss my point. A waitress makes $2.74/ hour, plus tips. Depending on where YOU eat maybe they are better tips.
Where I eat, the people are likely to make $12, $24, or on a good day $60. But that figure fluctuates daily.
However, the employer still rounds their figures up to $15.00 / hour for the tax man. Yes they pay all the other little things too. They usually pay for their lunch, they take guff from people, they must pay the bill for the dishonest person who walks out without paying or if they got the wrong check.
Now you came from a family of teachers who feed themselves very well at the public trough.
|
mattami
Member
| Joined: | Thu Apr 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 68 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 8th, 2009 04:28 pm |
|
Two Cents wrote: Then why is it that people seemingly stand in line waiting for state employment opportunities to become available? Throughout my work life, I was always interested in working where the pay was best. State employees need to stop complaining -- they are the people who have stranded themselves in those jobs.
Better pay was your only consideration? Interesting.
|
Two Cents
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1464 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 8th, 2009 04:19 pm |
|
| Then why is it that people seemingly stand in line waiting for state employment opportunities to become available? Throughout my work life, I was always interested in working where the pay was best. State employees need to stop complaining -- they are the people who have stranded themselves in those jobs. Last edited on Wed Apr 8th, 2009 04:19 pm by Two Cents
|
mattami
Member
| Joined: | Thu Apr 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 68 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 8th, 2009 04:07 pm |
|
You know alot of waitresses that are state employees to do direct comparison's with eh?
Compare the pay for a state accountant to a private accountant, state mid-level adminstrator to a private mid-level administrator. There are always individual exceptions but overall in most cases leaving the state work force to go to work for private industry can be quite lucrative.
dover-diva wrote:
That is not always true. Depends on which "private sector". If it's a fortune 500 company, maybe, but more than a number of the people working in the pivate sector, are minimum wage, working on commission, waitressing, medical aides etc.
|
dover-diva
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1973 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 8th, 2009 03:57 pm |
|
That is not always true. Depends on which "private sector". If it's a fortune 500 company, maybe, but more than a number of the people working in the pivate sector, are minimum wage, working on commission, waitressing, medical aides etc.
|
mattami
Member
| Joined: | Thu Apr 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 68 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 8th, 2009 03:48 pm |
|
TruthwillOut wrote: DE19899 wrote: Fred wrote: And, in case you haven't figured it out, in times of economic distress many state programs are needed and used MORE than in economic times. Cutting those areas will make the economic distress even worse.
And the state employees that run those programs will have an increased workload, working for 10% less, and covering for empty positions because of the hiring freeze. That sure sounds like a good plan, doesn't it Fred? /sarc
Welcome to the real world where this happens all the time in the private sector.
Private sector's salaries are higher to compensate for those conditions.
|
TruthwillOut
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 17th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 560 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 8th, 2009 02:33 pm |
|
DE19899 wrote: Fred wrote: And, in case you haven't figured it out, in times of economic distress many state programs are needed and used MORE than in economic times. Cutting those areas will make the economic distress even worse.
And the state employees that run those programs will have an increased workload, working for 10% less, and covering for empty positions because of the hiring freeze. That sure sounds like a good plan, doesn't it Fred? /sarc
Welcome to the real world where this happens all the time in the private sector.
|
DE19899
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 4th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 43 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 8th, 2009 01:23 pm |
|
Fred wrote: And, in case you haven't figured it out, in times of economic distress many state programs are needed and used MORE than in economic times. Cutting those areas will make the economic distress even worse.
And the state employees that run those programs will have an increased workload, working for 10% less, and covering for empty positions because of the hiring freeze. That sure sounds like a good plan, doesn't it Fred? /sarc
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 8242 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 8th, 2009 03:09 am |
|
That doesn't make sense, though.
If they lay off workers, they will have to pay the workers unemployment...it won't be the full amount, of course, but it will certainly cut into the savings you get by simply hacking 8% of the salary. Add in the amount for early retirements, buy outs, and the like, and it will cost you more...maybe it would work out in the long term, but they still have to pay for these things in the short term.
And, in case you haven't figured it out, in times of economic distress many state programs are needed and used MORE than in economic times. Cutting those areas will make the economic distress even worse.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5408 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 8th, 2009 12:55 am |
|
| Stop being reasonable. Fred will have a stroke and the Demoidiots in Dover will give a big Harumph.
|
taxpayertoo
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 159 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 8th, 2009 12:16 am |
|
| They should have thought about the fact that they will have to pay unemployment benefits when the State can no longer afford the payroll. A payroll for salaries which the State decided were fair compensation for the jobs. Do what any employer would do! - cut back non-essential programs, layoff workers and PAY them unemployment benefits. Hire the employees back in different areas when jobs become available through attrition. Stop relying on gambling, cigarettes, alcohol taxes, etc. to pay our bills. Put on a small sales tax - other states charge a sales tax for a reason - it pays the bills respectably. Last edited on Wed Apr 8th, 2009 12:17 am by taxpayertoo
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 8242 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 7th, 2009 06:35 pm |
|
The main difference is that they are telling you upfront what they are about to do, and the reasons they are doing it.
I don't like it and there are bound to be repercussions...and laying off state workers isn't going to help much, as the cost savings are offset to some extent by unemployment benefits that the state has to pay.
|
Filly
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 31st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 15 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 7th, 2009 04:53 pm |
|
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I'm interested in all ideas out there. It's the only way to come up with a plan that might work.
What is the difference between the robber barons on Wall Street taking our money and the state taking our money and claiming they are doing it "for us" when in fact this specific budget will really hurt us? Doesn't absolute power corrupt wherever it is found?
I do like Obama. The quality I admire the most about him is his willingness to say he's made a mistake. It's refreshing and demonstrates an ability to self reflect even though we won't always agree on the outcome.
I admit Markell is in a tougher spot right now b/c he's required to balance the state budget, unlike the feds who borrow. As a voter, I will not give him permission to ram through poorly examined ideas or excuse him from making tough calls in favor of a political illusion of fairness. Also, I do not give him permission to do to the workers he leads as he has not done to himself. He doesn't meet my criteria for a true leader at this time.
Last edited on Tue Apr 7th, 2009 04:57 pm by Filly
|
Mendavor
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 8th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 562 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 7th, 2009 04:17 pm |
|
Filly wrote: Cobra, I bet you are just the guy to propose more spending cuts  I am as scared to death of total Democratic control of anything as I was of total Republican control. When political opposites debate in a healthy way, it weeds out a lot of crap policy. We need you guys! Just know this. President Obama is on the right path. It's not cuts or the lack of them and it's not the spending in and of itself. It is the process of the government gaining control over the very things that a capitalist society has wrought upon the downtrodden masses. In case you don't know who that is, it is we. Read the wisdom of Lenin amnd know that our only hope for suvival is world socialism.
When feudalism was overthrown and “free” capitalist society appeared in the world, it at once became apparent that this freedom meant a new system of oppression and exploitation of the working people.
Lenin, The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism (1913)
|
Filly
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 31st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 15 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 7th, 2009 04:12 pm |
|
| Cobra, I bet you are just the guy to propose more spending cuts I am as scared to death of total Democratic control of anything as I was of total Republican control. When political opposites debate in a healthy way, it weeds out a lot of crap policy. We need you guys!
|
Cobra
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 24th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 520 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 7th, 2009 02:11 am |
|
| Hrumph! So much for Obama's dictatorship of the proletariat.
|
Filly
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 31st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 15 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 7th, 2009 01:42 am |
|
What is the reasoning that went into this?
If a non state worker making less than $60,000 dollars cannot afford to give 1% back to the state and a retiree making less than $60,000 cannot afford to give up a real estate tax break, how is a state worker supposed to be able to give 10% of their income back to the state? Don't we live in the same neighborhoods, pay the same utilities, and shop in the same grocery stores?
|
Current time is 06:23 am | Page:   1 2 3 |
|