The Journal Times gets one right in this commentary opposing the Racine County Board's two tiered health insurance compensation program.
In a nutshell, the board has eliminated health insurance for any new county supervisors while keeping it for incumbent supervisors. This is no small matter insofar as the insurance is worth far more than the monetary compensation. So the board has created considerable incentives for themselves to continue as supervisors while creating disincentives to any challengers. Not only is this wrong, I have a hard time believing it could be legal.
If nothing else, we should vote out anyone who is benefitting from such a corrupt program.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
Oh, it's legal. Private sector has had multi-tiered compensation for a while now, especially where obstuctionist unions are prevelant. The new hires have more modest compensation and benefits.
To provide taxpayer paid health insurance for part time "supervision" is over the top, and unnesessary. I'm pretty sure we can find enthusiastic and competent supervisors sans this bennie. But then again, don't be suprised if you hear we need to continue this to remain "competitive." It's the old RUSD/teacher union argument.
Oh, it's legal. Private sector has had multi-tiered compensation for a while now, especially where obstuctionist unions are prevelant. The new hires have more modest compensation and benefits.
To provide taxpayer paid health insurance for part time "supervision" is over the top, and unnesessary. I'm pretty sure we can find enthusiastic and competent supervisors sans this bennie. But then again, don't be suprised if you hear we need to continue this to remain "competitive." It's the old RUSD/teacher union argument.
Yes GH, private sector union folk will often sell new hires down the river, but this is different. It is public. A two tired compensation program for elected officials discourages people from entering the fray. Could the board raise their comp level even higher and require new supervisors to pay for the privilege of joining the board? At some point I would hope this kind of thing is illegal.
It is only illegal if taxpayer-funded attorneys for the people in office lose in court.
The incentive for the sitting member is certainly strong..it can however be used as a club to bludgeon the incumbent with by any challenger..and could result in the incumbent sheepishly declining the benefit. Also within a few election cycles the majority would have retired or been voted out of office and the remaining new majority can void the benefit to the minority. I support this change..but would've agreed it should have been across the board.
More GearHeadedness! So the unions are to blame for bending to management demands for benefit concessions for new hires, but the corporations that make those demands are blameless. This GOPocrisy and equivocation is priceless!
I agree with the JT as well, but do you really believe that comparing part-time Supervisors to full time teachers is an apt analogy? Do you really believe RUSD would be able to hire teachers without providing healthcare?
So, one for all and all for one?
No, everyman for himself and healthcare for none!
Cranley makes a baseless idiotic argument as usual. Corps have insisted on two-tier comp plans because union comp scales are not sustainable. It does the corp no good if the cost of their product is higher than they can price it at for a willing market. Companies with high costs become not viable, the stock tanks and the very people you support lose their jobs. I've never understood how union thugs bashing their own company ever saved or created a job. Usually it just hacks off management and they relocate to a more supportive (non-union) environment.
Labor and personell costs can be a huge percent of a manufactured product. And at RUSD they are 85% of the budget! So for the district to put out an educatonal product the taxpayers can afford in a declining tax base, compensation would be a logical place to start. No, they still should provide health and other benefits, but don't kid yourself. It's high time they paid their "fair" share, which is still not even half of what the rest of us pay for far more modest coverage. Obviously, it should be dropped as well for part time supervisors.
Really Gearheaded? That's funny because most of our developed trading partners have higher rates of unionization than we do, Canada, Japan, all the northern European countries. These countries all have high standards of living and a solid middle class, workers are paid well and have good benefits. In Germany the unions have a seat on the corporate board and Germany has a thriving manufacturing sector with strong exports.
You know what these countries don't have? Obscene CEO, management and board compensation that is now completely out of proportion with the rest of the world and with our own history.
I'm pretty sure we can find enthusiastic and competent managers sans this compensation. But then again, don't be suprised if you hear we need to continue this to remain "competitive." It's the old bailed out Wall Street Bankster bonus argument.
Ya know where they don't have unions? China. If you try and form a union there to mitigate the inhuman working conditions you go to prison for 12 years. Oh you're in good company GH. Who are the "thugs" in China, the exploited workers working 18 hour days at $0.39/ hour to make your I-Pod or the dictatorial polit bureau of the Fascist Party?
I go non-union whenever I can for services I purchase. End up with people thrilled with their job who show up on time and provide exemplary service. I prefer to spend my money this way, instead of sullen union thugs who don't give a damn about their job or employer. All of this service comes from our local area, BTW, (not your red-hering China) and as far as I can tell they are doing just fine. Maybe better since they are waxing their union competition. And you still haven't made a cogent argument defending unsustainable public wages and benefits in a declining tax base. I won't hold my breath.
I have made that argument, repeatedly, your ideological regidity has simply made you deaf and blind to it.
GearHead, I have been following your demolition of sean's "arguments" on the past few threads with much glee. Thanks! I owe you a beer.
sean, are these "repeated arguments" contained in this comment thread or are you referring to your entire body of ramblings? Your thoughts tend to be so ill-formed and weak they are easily hidden inside a poorly framed and pejorative covered wrapper. Maybe if you briefly summarized them it would help.
Thanks Nemo. Debunking liberals is much like shooting fish in small barrels with all of the water drained out. Almost unfair! I'd be happy to collect on the brewski. I like IPA's. Denis can tell you how to contact me. Cheers!
I like this idea of a beer summit if you don't mind me worming in on your idea Nemo.
A beer summit it is! If it's alright with everyone, Friday's work well for me...Just not this Friday (shameless website promotion here) or next. How about Friday, February 3rd (the Friday before the Packers were suppose to play in the Superbowl (sigh))? Would that bar where the last "Free Racine" summit was held some years ago work?
That works for me. Time?
What time Denis?
Sorry guys, Fri the 3rd doesn't work for me. Another time?
Friday, February 17th?
Good
Aaargh, can't make that either, but don't let me interfere with the outing.
Nemo, email Denis. He'll give you my contact info, and we'll figure out where to go for the beer. Looking forward to meeting you.
I am happy to put you two in touch but I don't have a way of contacting Nemo. My business # is 262-619-1780, home is 262-752-1451 or I can be e-mailed through my business dimplesimports.com, if this helps facilitate a beer summit.
Anyone can contact me here: nemo at knottlane dot com.
Denis, would you be free on an upcoming Wednesday or Thursday?
This Thu would work just fine for me.
Post a Comment