Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
DWCAP
ParticipantI think this belongs right up there with ‘Hope for Homeowners’. Another giant boondooggel that will not do what it is intended to do, will hurt us in the long run, gives hope that is both misplaced and temporary, and will be very expensive. All it does do effectivly is give the elected leadership cover and really nice sound bites for the talking heads to coo over. Oh and good catch Coop, seems like they cant decided if it is $75B or $200B.
Id like someone to ask Obama how many future homeowners this will hurt. ‘Sure, this could help up to 9 million current homeowners (using GOV math), but how many future homeowners will now have to pay more for the same thing, lowering the future quality of life for our children?’
Let him gag on that one.
ParticipantThey won the furlow lawsuit. basically a 9% paycut for effected state workers. Other than that…….?
ParticipantThey won the furlow lawsuit. basically a 9% paycut for effected state workers. Other than that…….?
ParticipantThey won the furlow lawsuit. basically a 9% paycut for effected state workers. Other than that…….?
ParticipantThey won the furlow lawsuit. basically a 9% paycut for effected state workers. Other than that…….?
ParticipantThey won the furlow lawsuit. basically a 9% paycut for effected state workers. Other than that…….?
Participant[quote=jennyo]The layoff process is arcane. There are rules about bumping and seniority which is why it takes so long. For instance, if a department determines that one of its functions is no longer needed (or a law is passed eliminating the function), they would have to go through their entire staff to determine seniority (based on years of state employment). If an employee in the eliminated unit had more seniority than one in an area that was going to continue operating, the higher seniority person would “bump” the other one of of their position, and then the bumping would continue through the staff until someone actually got laid off. By that time, the person getting laid off probably has another job lined up.
[/quote]This is exactly what I am talking about. Supervisors should be able to let go those whom they see fit, and not be forced to take someone from a different department with no training in that dept at the expense of a good, trained, employee. Firing people based solely on when they joined is the stupidest reason I could think of to fire someone. Plus it shoots the state in the foot, protecting baby boomers that are on their way out at the expense of the next generation of state workers. If there is a real problem, like someone got fired for their race, gender, etc etc then I am sure the state is more than equiped with lawyers willing and able to mediate it.
Participant[quote=jennyo]The layoff process is arcane. There are rules about bumping and seniority which is why it takes so long. For instance, if a department determines that one of its functions is no longer needed (or a law is passed eliminating the function), they would have to go through their entire staff to determine seniority (based on years of state employment). If an employee in the eliminated unit had more seniority than one in an area that was going to continue operating, the higher seniority person would “bump” the other one of of their position, and then the bumping would continue through the staff until someone actually got laid off. By that time, the person getting laid off probably has another job lined up.
[/quote]This is exactly what I am talking about. Supervisors should be able to let go those whom they see fit, and not be forced to take someone from a different department with no training in that dept at the expense of a good, trained, employee. Firing people based solely on when they joined is the stupidest reason I could think of to fire someone. Plus it shoots the state in the foot, protecting baby boomers that are on their way out at the expense of the next generation of state workers. If there is a real problem, like someone got fired for their race, gender, etc etc then I am sure the state is more than equiped with lawyers willing and able to mediate it.
Participant[quote=jennyo]The layoff process is arcane. There are rules about bumping and seniority which is why it takes so long. For instance, if a department determines that one of its functions is no longer needed (or a law is passed eliminating the function), they would have to go through their entire staff to determine seniority (based on years of state employment). If an employee in the eliminated unit had more seniority than one in an area that was going to continue operating, the higher seniority person would “bump” the other one of of their position, and then the bumping would continue through the staff until someone actually got laid off. By that time, the person getting laid off probably has another job lined up.
[/quote]This is exactly what I am talking about. Supervisors should be able to let go those whom they see fit, and not be forced to take someone from a different department with no training in that dept at the expense of a good, trained, employee. Firing people based solely on when they joined is the stupidest reason I could think of to fire someone. Plus it shoots the state in the foot, protecting baby boomers that are on their way out at the expense of the next generation of state workers. If there is a real problem, like someone got fired for their race, gender, etc etc then I am sure the state is more than equiped with lawyers willing and able to mediate it.
Participant[quote=jennyo]The layoff process is arcane. There are rules about bumping and seniority which is why it takes so long. For instance, if a department determines that one of its functions is no longer needed (or a law is passed eliminating the function), they would have to go through their entire staff to determine seniority (based on years of state employment). If an employee in the eliminated unit had more seniority than one in an area that was going to continue operating, the higher seniority person would “bump” the other one of of their position, and then the bumping would continue through the staff until someone actually got laid off. By that time, the person getting laid off probably has another job lined up.
[/quote]This is exactly what I am talking about. Supervisors should be able to let go those whom they see fit, and not be forced to take someone from a different department with no training in that dept at the expense of a good, trained, employee. Firing people based solely on when they joined is the stupidest reason I could think of to fire someone. Plus it shoots the state in the foot, protecting baby boomers that are on their way out at the expense of the next generation of state workers. If there is a real problem, like someone got fired for their race, gender, etc etc then I am sure the state is more than equiped with lawyers willing and able to mediate it.
Participant[quote=jennyo]The layoff process is arcane. There are rules about bumping and seniority which is why it takes so long. For instance, if a department determines that one of its functions is no longer needed (or a law is passed eliminating the function), they would have to go through their entire staff to determine seniority (based on years of state employment). If an employee in the eliminated unit had more seniority than one in an area that was going to continue operating, the higher seniority person would “bump” the other one of of their position, and then the bumping would continue through the staff until someone actually got laid off. By that time, the person getting laid off probably has another job lined up.
[/quote]This is exactly what I am talking about. Supervisors should be able to let go those whom they see fit, and not be forced to take someone from a different department with no training in that dept at the expense of a good, trained, employee. Firing people based solely on when they joined is the stupidest reason I could think of to fire someone. Plus it shoots the state in the foot, protecting baby boomers that are on their way out at the expense of the next generation of state workers. If there is a real problem, like someone got fired for their race, gender, etc etc then I am sure the state is more than equiped with lawyers willing and able to mediate it.
Participant[quote=jennyo]
Also, can’t get savings in schools – Prop 98 sets a minimum guarantee. So even if enrollement declines, funding stays flat and just doesn’t grow. That’s why you hear teachers unions yelling about “cuts” when really they just aren’t growing at previous levels.[/quote]Oh you could get funds from the schools, prop 98 allows 3 different formulas to fund, and this year the GUbinator is using the least used one. It will cut 7 billion in future school spending, I think by mostly not allowing preprogramed increases to take effect.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/14/MNS4159KA4.DTL&type=printableParticipant[quote=jennyo]
Also, can’t get savings in schools – Prop 98 sets a minimum guarantee. So even if enrollement declines, funding stays flat and just doesn’t grow. That’s why you hear teachers unions yelling about “cuts” when really they just aren’t growing at previous levels.[/quote]Oh you could get funds from the schools, prop 98 allows 3 different formulas to fund, and this year the GUbinator is using the least used one. It will cut 7 billion in future school spending, I think by mostly not allowing preprogramed increases to take effect.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/14/MNS4159KA4.DTL&type=printableParticipant[quote=jennyo]
Also, can’t get savings in schools – Prop 98 sets a minimum guarantee. So even if enrollement declines, funding stays flat and just doesn’t grow. That’s why you hear teachers unions yelling about “cuts” when really they just aren’t growing at previous levels.[/quote]Oh you could get funds from the schools, prop 98 allows 3 different formulas to fund, and this year the GUbinator is using the least used one. It will cut 7 billion in future school spending, I think by mostly not allowing preprogramed increases to take effect.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/14/MNS4159KA4.DTL&type=printable -
AuthorPosts
