Some San Diege Layoffs coming at San Diego Data Processing…

[briansd1]

[quote=DWCAP]
In my opinion they need to do alot more of this. Monopolies are some of the worst run buisness models, competition is good for all of us.[/quote]

I agree.

My cousin is retired in Florida. She wanted to volunteer at the library. They said that they would call her but never did.

I told her not to hold her breath for a volunteer position. The unions don’t want people to do things that they get paid to do.

Sad to say but it’s all about money these days. Public service is not what it used to be.

I’m sure that there are plenty of people who would love to volunteer in schools and libraries, etc..

[SD Realtor]

CAR I do agree with DWCAP. Reducing city employees along with pensions and such is virtually the only way out of bankruptcy for the city. If you look at the vast spectrum of jobs that the city has it is way way way overbuilt. Does the city need to have plumbers, mechanics for the city vehicles, and a host of other infrastructure needed to maintain the services? On the face of it you may say yes because the private sector will charge the city more for plumbing service. However when you add up the cost of a pension, medical benefits for that city employed plumber and add up the actual hours he works…

It is very very much a no brainer.

Honestly an approach like this, while hurting city employees, in the long run is much much much more fiscally responsible. Creating more demand for the private sector will create more jobs as well. Pension and medical benes are what is bankrupting the city. Contracting those jobs out is costlier in the short run but substantially cheaper in the long run.

[SD Realtor]

CAR I do agree with DWCAP. Reducing city employees along with pensions and such is virtually the only way out of bankruptcy for the city. If you look at the vast spectrum of jobs that the city has it is way way way overbuilt. Does the city need to have plumbers, mechanics for the city vehicles, and a host of other infrastructure needed to maintain the services? On the face of it you may say yes because the private sector will charge the city more for plumbing service. However when you add up the cost of a pension, medical benefits for that city employed plumber and add up the actual hours he works…

It is very very much a no brainer.

Honestly an approach like this, while hurting city employees, in the long run is much much much more fiscally responsible. Creating more demand for the private sector will create more jobs as well. Pension and medical benes are what is bankrupting the city. Contracting those jobs out is costlier in the short run but substantially cheaper in the long run.

[SD Realtor]

CAR I do agree with DWCAP. Reducing city employees along with pensions and such is virtually the only way out of bankruptcy for the city. If you look at the vast spectrum of jobs that the city has it is way way way overbuilt. Does the city need to have plumbers, mechanics for the city vehicles, and a host of other infrastructure needed to maintain the services? On the face of it you may say yes because the private sector will charge the city more for plumbing service. However when you add up the cost of a pension, medical benefits for that city employed plumber and add up the actual hours he works…

It is very very much a no brainer.

Honestly an approach like this, while hurting city employees, in the long run is much much much more fiscally responsible. Creating more demand for the private sector will create more jobs as well. Pension and medical benes are what is bankrupting the city. Contracting those jobs out is costlier in the short run but substantially cheaper in the long run.

[SD Realtor]

CAR I do agree with DWCAP. Reducing city employees along with pensions and such is virtually the only way out of bankruptcy for the city. If you look at the vast spectrum of jobs that the city has it is way way way overbuilt. Does the city need to have plumbers, mechanics for the city vehicles, and a host of other infrastructure needed to maintain the services? On the face of it you may say yes because the private sector will charge the city more for plumbing service. However when you add up the cost of a pension, medical benefits for that city employed plumber and add up the actual hours he works…

It is very very much a no brainer.

Honestly an approach like this, while hurting city employees, in the long run is much much much more fiscally responsible. Creating more demand for the private sector will create more jobs as well. Pension and medical benes are what is bankrupting the city. Contracting those jobs out is costlier in the short run but substantially cheaper in the long run.

[SD Realtor]

CAR I do agree with DWCAP. Reducing city employees along with pensions and such is virtually the only way out of bankruptcy for the city. If you look at the vast spectrum of jobs that the city has it is way way way overbuilt. Does the city need to have plumbers, mechanics for the city vehicles, and a host of other infrastructure needed to maintain the services? On the face of it you may say yes because the private sector will charge the city more for plumbing service. However when you add up the cost of a pension, medical benefits for that city employed plumber and add up the actual hours he works…

It is very very much a no brainer.

Honestly an approach like this, while hurting city employees, in the long run is much much much more fiscally responsible. Creating more demand for the private sector will create more jobs as well. Pension and medical benes are what is bankrupting the city. Contracting those jobs out is costlier in the short run but substantially cheaper in the long run.

[CA renter]

[quote=SD Realtor]CAR I do agree with DWCAP. Reducing city employees along with pensions and such is virtually the only way out of bankruptcy for the city. If you look at the vast spectrum of jobs that the city has it is way way way overbuilt. Does the city need to have plumbers, mechanics for the city vehicles, and a host of other infrastructure needed to maintain the services? On the face of it you may say yes because the private sector will charge the city more for plumbing service. However when you add up the cost of a pension, medical benefits for that city employed plumber and add up the actual hours he works…

It is very very much a no brainer.

Honestly an approach like this, while hurting city employees, in the long run is much much much more fiscally responsible. Creating more demand for the private sector will create more jobs as well. Pension and medical benes are what is bankrupting the city. Contracting those jobs out is costlier in the short run but substantially cheaper in the long run.[/quote]

Okay, I won’t disagree that cities and state governments need to trim costs, and I fully support creating a leaner employee base. Still, if you’ve had any experience with govt jobs, you’ll know that most govt hierarchies are very top-heavy. I’d rather see them eliminate some of the useless administrative/management jobs first.

Personally, I staunch union supporter because I believe we need to balance the needs and desires of the capitalists (corporations, top 1-5% of the wealthy, etc.) against the needs and desires of the workers who actually do the productive work. Without the healthy foundation of the economic pyramid (workers and lower-middle classes), everything will eventually fail, IMHO. It saddens me to see the demise of the unions, and with it, the strength and leverage of the middle class in the USA.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m an ardent consumer and taxpayers’ advocate. There are many areas in govt service where we can significantly cut back. I just wish more people could see beyond the short term, and understand how tearing down the unions and workers “over there” will eventually affect them, too.

[CA renter]

[quote=SD Realtor]CAR I do agree with DWCAP. Reducing city employees along with pensions and such is virtually the only way out of bankruptcy for the city. If you look at the vast spectrum of jobs that the city has it is way way way overbuilt. Does the city need to have plumbers, mechanics for the city vehicles, and a host of other infrastructure needed to maintain the services? On the face of it you may say yes because the private sector will charge the city more for plumbing service. However when you add up the cost of a pension, medical benefits for that city employed plumber and add up the actual hours he works…

It is very very much a no brainer.

Honestly an approach like this, while hurting city employees, in the long run is much much much more fiscally responsible. Creating more demand for the private sector will create more jobs as well. Pension and medical benes are what is bankrupting the city. Contracting those jobs out is costlier in the short run but substantially cheaper in the long run.[/quote]

Okay, I won’t disagree that cities and state governments need to trim costs, and I fully support creating a leaner employee base. Still, if you’ve had any experience with govt jobs, you’ll know that most govt hierarchies are very top-heavy. I’d rather see them eliminate some of the useless administrative/management jobs first.

Personally, I staunch union supporter because I believe we need to balance the needs and desires of the capitalists (corporations, top 1-5% of the wealthy, etc.) against the needs and desires of the workers who actually do the productive work. Without the healthy foundation of the economic pyramid (workers and lower-middle classes), everything will eventually fail, IMHO. It saddens me to see the demise of the unions, and with it, the strength and leverage of the middle class in the USA.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m an ardent consumer and taxpayers’ advocate. There are many areas in govt service where we can significantly cut back. I just wish more people could see beyond the short term, and understand how tearing down the unions and workers “over there” will eventually affect them, too.

[CA renter]

[quote=SD Realtor]CAR I do agree with DWCAP. Reducing city employees along with pensions and such is virtually the only way out of bankruptcy for the city. If you look at the vast spectrum of jobs that the city has it is way way way overbuilt. Does the city need to have plumbers, mechanics for the city vehicles, and a host of other infrastructure needed to maintain the services? On the face of it you may say yes because the private sector will charge the city more for plumbing service. However when you add up the cost of a pension, medical benefits for that city employed plumber and add up the actual hours he works…

It is very very much a no brainer.

Honestly an approach like this, while hurting city employees, in the long run is much much much more fiscally responsible. Creating more demand for the private sector will create more jobs as well. Pension and medical benes are what is bankrupting the city. Contracting those jobs out is costlier in the short run but substantially cheaper in the long run.[/quote]

Okay, I won’t disagree that cities and state governments need to trim costs, and I fully support creating a leaner employee base. Still, if you’ve had any experience with govt jobs, you’ll know that most govt hierarchies are very top-heavy. I’d rather see them eliminate some of the useless administrative/management jobs first.

Personally, I staunch union supporter because I believe we need to balance the needs and desires of the capitalists (corporations, top 1-5% of the wealthy, etc.) against the needs and desires of the workers who actually do the productive work. Without the healthy foundation of the economic pyramid (workers and lower-middle classes), everything will eventually fail, IMHO. It saddens me to see the demise of the unions, and with it, the strength and leverage of the middle class in the USA.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m an ardent consumer and taxpayers’ advocate. There are many areas in govt service where we can significantly cut back. I just wish more people could see beyond the short term, and understand how tearing down the unions and workers “over there” will eventually affect them, too.

[CA renter]

[quote=SD Realtor]CAR I do agree with DWCAP. Reducing city employees along with pensions and such is virtually the only way out of bankruptcy for the city. If you look at the vast spectrum of jobs that the city has it is way way way overbuilt. Does the city need to have plumbers, mechanics for the city vehicles, and a host of other infrastructure needed to maintain the services? On the face of it you may say yes because the private sector will charge the city more for plumbing service. However when you add up the cost of a pension, medical benefits for that city employed plumber and add up the actual hours he works…

It is very very much a no brainer.

Honestly an approach like this, while hurting city employees, in the long run is much much much more fiscally responsible. Creating more demand for the private sector will create more jobs as well. Pension and medical benes are what is bankrupting the city. Contracting those jobs out is costlier in the short run but substantially cheaper in the long run.[/quote]

Okay, I won’t disagree that cities and state governments need to trim costs, and I fully support creating a leaner employee base. Still, if you’ve had any experience with govt jobs, you’ll know that most govt hierarchies are very top-heavy. I’d rather see them eliminate some of the useless administrative/management jobs first.

Personally, I staunch union supporter because I believe we need to balance the needs and desires of the capitalists (corporations, top 1-5% of the wealthy, etc.) against the needs and desires of the workers who actually do the productive work. Without the healthy foundation of the economic pyramid (workers and lower-middle classes), everything will eventually fail, IMHO. It saddens me to see the demise of the unions, and with it, the strength and leverage of the middle class in the USA.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m an ardent consumer and taxpayers’ advocate. There are many areas in govt service where we can significantly cut back. I just wish more people could see beyond the short term, and understand how tearing down the unions and workers “over there” will eventually affect them, too.

[CA renter]

[quote=SD Realtor]CAR I do agree with DWCAP. Reducing city employees along with pensions and such is virtually the only way out of bankruptcy for the city. If you look at the vast spectrum of jobs that the city has it is way way way overbuilt. Does the city need to have plumbers, mechanics for the city vehicles, and a host of other infrastructure needed to maintain the services? On the face of it you may say yes because the private sector will charge the city more for plumbing service. However when you add up the cost of a pension, medical benefits for that city employed plumber and add up the actual hours he works…

It is very very much a no brainer.

Honestly an approach like this, while hurting city employees, in the long run is much much much more fiscally responsible. Creating more demand for the private sector will create more jobs as well. Pension and medical benes are what is bankrupting the city. Contracting those jobs out is costlier in the short run but substantially cheaper in the long run.[/quote]

Okay, I won’t disagree that cities and state governments need to trim costs, and I fully support creating a leaner employee base. Still, if you’ve had any experience with govt jobs, you’ll know that most govt hierarchies are very top-heavy. I’d rather see them eliminate some of the useless administrative/management jobs first.

Personally, I staunch union supporter because I believe we need to balance the needs and desires of the capitalists (corporations, top 1-5% of the wealthy, etc.) against the needs and desires of the workers who actually do the productive work. Without the healthy foundation of the economic pyramid (workers and lower-middle classes), everything will eventually fail, IMHO. It saddens me to see the demise of the unions, and with it, the strength and leverage of the middle class in the USA.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m an ardent consumer and taxpayers’ advocate. There are many areas in govt service where we can significantly cut back. I just wish more people could see beyond the short term, and understand how tearing down the unions and workers “over there” will eventually affect them, too.

[jameswenn]

My company has done work for San Diego Data Processing. They’re almost like a middle man, because they outsource a lot of their work.

They could probably save some money by actually hiring people and doing it themselves.

[jameswenn]

My company has done work for San Diego Data Processing. They’re almost like a middle man, because they outsource a lot of their work.

They could probably save some money by actually hiring people and doing it themselves.

[jameswenn]

My company has done work for San Diego Data Processing. They’re almost like a middle man, because they outsource a lot of their work.

They could probably save some money by actually hiring people and doing it themselves.

[jameswenn]

My company has done work for San Diego Data Processing. They’re almost like a middle man, because they outsource a lot of their work.

They could probably save some money by actually hiring people and doing it themselves.

[Author]

Posts