[Leorocky]

Why would the end of easing mean inflation is aorund the corner? The narrative the past several years is that the Feds actions would cause inflation and now they are stopping. Inflation has been very mild the entire time. Higher rates, if in the cards, certainly isn’t going to cause inflation.

[Leorocky]

The primary point in this discussion is this simple fact:

When a teacher needs to be let go for whatever reason its LIFO regardless of performance.

This is wrong. Every profession from teacher to CEO has poor performers. The crux of the lawsuit is that by protecting based on seniority, including the poor performers, you “damage” the kids. And not only do you impact one set of kids or one class, you expose decades of kids to the poor performers.

Is it unconstitutional? I have no idea. We do seem to subscribe to the concept of disparate impact in employment law, or at least our government does. This seems similar.

Some quick thoughts on some of the ancillary issues raised in this thread:

Are there “drama” Moms who try to usurp teachers? You betcha. The same type of person exists in the boardroom, the factory and every other type of workplace.

If it’s true that poor performing schools usually have the newer teachers that’s a clear example of the union ignoring the best interests of the kids. The “good” teachers should be assigned to the schools that need them the most.

Teachers don’t need job protection more so than any other profession. People who say things like “teachers will get fired just because…” have never worked in Management in the private sector. Sure it’d be nice to just be able to fire whoever you like, but reality is a complete 360. You have to get through HR and then the outside attorneys. Even layoffs these days are scrutinized for “disparate impact”, i.e. if you’re laying off 100 people and 75 are over 40 years old or female etc. you’re going to be told to go back to the drawing board.

[Leorocky]

And it was up to the union members and their bought and paid for politicians to oppose those sales pitches. of course when you havent contributed your fair share and your bought and paid for pols dont make the employer contribution the Wall St sales pitch looks very tempting.

The responsibility for the pension crisis lies almost entirely with the public sector, and no amount of whitewashing will change that. (I wouldnt actually call it a crisis, I’d call it an inevitability)

[Leorocky]

Why would you expect an individual to have any leverage over a corporation? Your leverage lies in how much the employer needs you – your skills. And yes “skills” are more than just technical know how and level of education It’s how you carry yourself, how you communicate, how you look and *gasp* who you know.

People don’t just get placed “in control of funds” unless they literally inheret a company or position. Those people have worked their way up the ladder and are trusted to be in those positions. The people you speak of bring profits to the table. The very reason for the existence of the corporation.

I honestly have never heard anyone say that labor/employment is a free market. You’ve advocated for a more free labor market numerous times. I would suggest its far from a free market but it works pretty well. As long as you require corporations to “bargain” with unions you will see corps do everything in their power to prevent unions.

As always, we’re threatened with crime and violence if we dont go along with ever increasing giveaways.

[Leorocky]

I already responded about Taibbi’s article. It did a grest job explaining how elected officials, who are often supported and funded by unions, diverted funds elsewhere. Also, through “bargaining” the unions and pols mismanaged the money, allowed all kinds of abuse and generally didnt fund or discount the pensions realistically.

None of this is the fault of the private sector or Wall St.

[Leorocky]

I’m not complaining at all. I’m just not going to allow one poster to continually put forth radical opinions as if they were fact.

Maybe I have “taxpayer regret” as I feel public sector unions are fleecing us. You’ve no doubt noticed the increasing scrutiny on public pensions around the country? Get rady for a lot more of it. It’s not as if you can accuse me of making this up for sh*ts and giggles.

As far as laws I’m more than happy to support right to work and ending collective bargaining in the public sector and I have and will continue to make my reps aware of how I feel on this.

It wasnt I who brought up the concept of a free market. You can’t have it both ways.

[Leorocky]

The balance of power for the employee is simple – it’s called a skill. The more skilled you are the higher your wage – right? People who work at Wal-Mart are largely unskilled. $9/hr (or whatever the wage is) is certainly fair. I have no problem with Wal-Mart’s workers organizing and asking for higher wages etc but Wal-Mart shouldn’t have to make any concessions if they don’t feel it’s in the best interest of the business. In Wal-Mart’s case their selling point is low prices, not customer service or quickly stocked shelves or good looking employees. There are tens of millions of people qualified to work at Wal-Mart in this country. Why would Wal-Mart raise wages when they could easily replace their employees?

Our government has required that employers bargain with unions – based on everything you’ve said so far it sounds like you’d agree this is anti “free market”? Now if people came to Walmart to see Dick, Jane and Harry or if those employees were somehow vital to Wal-Mart’s success you’d see Walmart bending over backwards to keep them happy – same thing you see with more skilled and highly skilled workers.

And I hope you are not suggesting that if government benefits somehow disappeared tomorrow that Wal-Mart would be forced to pay a higher wage. That is not the case, but again it would be more like the “free market” you seem to want.

[Leorocky]

By starting a company no one is taking anything, they are creating – wealth, jobs etc. I’d love to pay based on what I use but as I said before – how will all those poor people pay for all those benefits they get?

Employers are not required to “cover” anything when it comes to employees. A job pays a fair wage for the value added and may or may not have extra benefits (again, depends on the work and value add) It is everyone’s individual responsibility to prepare themselves for and to find work that takes care of them. The existence of government benefits does not mean employers are “taking”. Government benefits are an independent entity designed to help people who can’t otherwise make it regardless of whether they work full time or not at all.

[Leorocky]

LOL.

“it doesn’t mean you’re paying the full cost of what you are using.”

So people who use food stamps etc., are paying for what they are using?

Please explain to me how a lifelong taxpayer who starts a business and then pays a fair wage is somehow not paying for what he is using….

[Leorocky]

I *am* a taxpayer. I’ve already paid for and continue to pay for all of that. In this scenario, I’ve paid my legally owed taxes both prior to being a business owner and after (it’s kinda hard to get a loan when you have IRS liens, etc). As long as I pay my employees minimum wage I am doing everything correctly.

BTW, I never said I wanted all the rewards. I never said or inferred that I wouldn’t pay a fair wage, I simply said that it was up to me as the business owner. Certainly if I underpay my workforce my business will suffer. You think that every business owner is out to stiff their employees. That guides your entire existence and thought process. You view “capital” as the enemy. When in fact capital can be your neighbor, your father in law or some 24 year old geeky Harvard grad.

[Leorocky]

Of course, but not by force or the threat of harming my business

[Leorocky]

Yep. Governments are not “capital”. Of course the response will be that public workers are the best and brightest and that public employers are graciously offering the guarenteed raises and overly generous pensions and arent forced to bargain with them.

These people never wonder what happens when the “labor” becoames as or more powerful than the capital – they just view it as theirs to take.

I never realized that in America I could invent a great product or service, work to develop it, convince a bank to loan me money (along with my own hard eanred money), start an actual company, employ people but then be forced to share “power” with them. Truly fascinating, err…..

[Leorocky]

pension issues are almost entirely caused by 2 things:

underfunding – actual decision’s by politicians to use the money elsewhere

one sided “bargaining” by unions with pols they donated money to and got elected – think pension spiking, credits for uniform allowances, cities purchasing or outright granting time or benefits to people, double dipping etc

the article made it very clear that pensions investing in hedge funds and PE was a relatively new phenomenon. Wall St has not taken over any pension funds. Again, managers make descisions to invest ins tocks, bonds etc. I’m not sure what “market distortions” are.

[Leorocky]

Several things here…

If you consider taxpayers to be the employers of the public sector that’s fine, but during any *pension holiday* we paid our legally owed taxes. That money was then mismanaged and the unions were fine to turn a blind eye to it as long as they got to “bargain” for a sweeter deal down the road.

As far as the Taibbi article it attempts to paint a picture of big bad Wall St taking over these pensions. Nothing could be further from the truth. The article does highlight decades of underfunding and overpromising by states and local governments and unions. Any money given to Wall St is a conscious decision by governments. I wish the unions would shift their “bargaining” focus to the underfunding and the management of the money instead of continuing to look for ways to enhance their pensions – pensions which increasingly won’t be there for them.

The best part? Hedge funds and PE funds aren’t the magic bullet of performance everyone thinks they are. For every hedge fund that returns 30% there are dozens, if not hundreds more, that are mediocre or underperform. Many of these pensions find themselves having to play catch up thanks to the underfunding. Instead of being responsible and lowering benefits they are chasing yield. And Wall St is more than happy to woo them as clients. Guess how that ends.

Cause we all know that Wall St forced people to buy overpriced homes with exotic loans they couldn’t afford, right?

[Leorocky]

You realize that means jacking up the contributions (both employer and employee) at least 5x, right? Assuming you just want to invest the money in Treasuries. Which means more taxes, which comes from where?

You just wont get the growth that’s needed to make the numbers work.

So yea, the pension, like the rest of the government, is 100% dependent on the private sector.

[Author]

Posts