• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Voting on Compensation

Should there be a public vote on employee compensation

  • Total voters
    16
P

Patrickt

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 28, 2006
Messages
3,609
Reaction score
1,100
Location
Oaxaca, Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I think compensation packages for people working in the government--appointed or elected--should be voted on. Would Bell, California, have been paying city employees $500k if they'd voted? I don't think so. Would bus drivers collect $150k in pay and overtime is there was a vote? I don't think so.

My personal favorite was the contract that said employees got 30 minutes of overtime if they received a work-related phone call at home. "Hey, Chuck, you going bowling tonight?" "Nah, it's my night to spend all night calling people from work."
 
For elected and appointed officials yes voters should vote on their pay. For teachers, secretaries, security guards, police,firefighters, janitors and etc should be dictated by what ever the fair market wage is for those workers.
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
For elected and appointed officials yes voters should vote on their pay. For teachers, secretaries, security guards, police,firefighters, janitors and etc should be dictated by what ever the fair market wage is for those workers.
Click to expand...

Public Union wages have nothing to do with fair market.
 
Just as long as taxes are compensated for the income. Meaning the money must come from somewhere either raising taxes or cutting something else to make for the change in income people would vote for. Unless, it's for less then the current amount of income.
 
I voted yes, but this also extends to all civic employees including Senators, Representatives and others feeding off the taxpayers.

revwargadsden_clr.gif

Anyone besides me wondering why the new Congress hasn't voted themselves a pay cut to help balance our budget? WTF?
 
Last edited:
Patrickt said:
I think compensation packages for people working in the government--appointed or elected--should be voted on. Would Bell, California, have been paying city employees $500k if they'd voted? I don't think so. Would bus drivers collect $150k in pay and overtime is there was a vote? I don't think so.

My personal favorite was the contract that said employees got 30 minutes of overtime if they received a work-related phone call at home. "Hey, Chuck, you going bowling tonight?" "Nah, it's my night to spend all night calling people from work."
Click to expand...

Voting on compensation as you're suggesting is a very reactionary measure. What we should do is work towards our elected officials figuring out a better way to vote on compensation. And I don't know about you, but I'm content voting once every two years on a federal level.
 
Yes, provided it is an approval or rejection of a proposed budget. And I think they should be separated by Departments.
 
repeter said:
Voting on compensation as you're suggesting is a very reactionary measure.
Click to expand...

How is this measure reactionary?

What we should do is work towards our elected officials figuring out a better way to vote on compensation.
Click to expand...

Do you mean like a super-majority vote would be required or do you have an idea what other method could be used by the politicians?

And I don't know about you, but I'm content voting once every two years on a federal level.
Click to expand...

The OP mostly deals with issues handled by the States not Federal. I for one do not think a biannual election is sufficient.
 
Shadow Serious said:
How is this measure reactionary?
Click to expand...

The OP specifically mentioned the problems of Bell, California. While I agree the problems there are very real, handing the problem off to the laymen would be rash, and ill-advised.

Shadow Serious said:
Do you mean like a super-majority vote would be required or do you have an idea what other method could be used by the politicians?
Click to expand...

I don't see why we can't have a relatively independent third-party come in, appraise the situation, and set compensation levels. It'd take some time, and we'd have to find a group sufficiently objective, but I think that'd warrant a more thorough look than voting on compensation.

Shadow Serious said:
The OP mostly deals with issues handled by the States not Federal. I for one do not think a biannual election is sufficient.
Click to expand...

I was referring to voting in its totality. Voting, in its entirety, should require research, analysis, and a good thorough look. Increasing the amount we load doesn't necessarily mean we'll spend more time researching what we're voting about. Further, most people don't do a whole amount of research before voting (as an example, I know people who voted based almost exclusively on race, and gender), and I wouldn't trust the laymen to be able to decide how much, say, teachers earn.
 
repeter said:
The OP specifically mentioned the problems of Bell, California. While I agree the problems there are very real, handing the problem off to the laymen would be rash, and ill-advised.
Click to expand...

I am sorry if I wasn't clear. How is the proposal that the Voters should be able to approve or disapprove a proposal for the increase of salary or benefits package to Government Workers reactionary? I mean that such a proposal is a change in status quo and not to a prior state real or imagined but to something more different. Strictly a reactionary would want to go back to the Patronage System that existed before by definition:

Reactionary - Definition


I don't see why we can't have a relatively independent third-party come in, appraise the situation, and set compensation levels. It'd take some time, and we'd have to find a group sufficiently objective, but I think that'd warrant a more thorough look than voting on compensation.
Click to expand...

In other words, you want a less democratic process to determine the worth of Government Employees who are being paid by the taxpayers and be judged on what principals? What group would be so unbiased that a "third-party" would give a fair result? And keep in mind with Collective Bargaining it wont have to do with individual merit.


I was referring to voting in its totality. Voting, in its entirety, should require research, analysis, and a good thorough look. Increasing the amount we load doesn't necessarily mean we'll spend more time researching what we're voting about. Further, most people don't do a whole amount of research before voting (as an example, I know people who voted based almost exclusively on race, and gender), and I wouldn't trust the laymen to be able to decide how much, say, teachers earn.
Click to expand...

This is most certainly true, but this would be a check against a government who gives too lavish a salary to its employees. And one doesn't need to know in detail when the elected officials try to hide an Elephant in a room by putting it under the Rug as it were. Furthermore, people do not put much time in choosing their votes for many reasons one could be that the options are restricted such as no real choice, or that their vote will not count. On the approval of the ballot for wage increases there is at least a clear choice on that even if those voters will not believe their vote will not count.
 
Shadow Serious said:
I am sorry if I wasn't clear. How is the proposal that the Voters should be able to approve or disapprove a proposal for the increase of salary or benefits package to Government Workers reactionary? I mean that such a proposal is a change in status quo and not to a prior state real or imagined but to something more different. Strictly a reactionary would want to go back to the Patronage System that existed before by definition:

Reactionary - Definition




In other words, you want a less democratic process to determine the worth of Government Employees who are being paid by the taxpayers and be judged on what principals? What group would be so unbiased that a "third-party" would give a fair result? And keep in mind with Collective Bargaining it wont have to do with individual merit.




This is most certainly true, but this would be a check against a government who gives too lavish a salary to its employees. And one doesn't need to know in detail when the elected officials try to hide an Elephant in a room by putting it under the Rug as it were. Furthermore, people do not put much time in choosing their votes for many reasons one could be that the options are restricted such as no real choice, or that their vote will not count. On the approval of the ballot for wage increases there is at least a clear choice on that even if those voters will not believe their vote will not count.
Click to expand...

So

Lets combine this proposal with the elimination of unions

Is their going to be a vote on each individuals teachers or secretaries compensation?
 
To be fair cutting the salaries of all Congresspeople would do almost nothing to balance the budget. I'd like to do it on a sieve basis: those who are true to their principles won't mind working for the people on $40,000 a year.

Then again, they get millions upon millions from big business...
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
So

Lets combine this proposal with the elimination of unions

Is their going to be a vote on each individuals teachers or secretaries compensation?
Click to expand...

It wasn't my proposal I was responding to Repeter saying it was reactionary and a bad idea. I would agree with the proposal as far as establishing base salary and I believe that any increase over that must be based on the degree the Government Worker goes above the Minimal Standards. Personally, I do not think that teachers in general should be directly employed by the Government. And even if teachers should belong to some sort of organization that has the basic functions of Unions the traditional Union is not appropriate since the instruction of youth cannot be done very successfully as an assembly line model which the traditional Union assumes.
 
SirPwn4lot said:
To be fair cutting the salaries of all Congresspeople would do almost nothing to balance the budget. I'd like to do it on a sieve basis: those who are true to their principles won't mind working for the people on $40,000 a year.

Then again, they get millions upon millions from big business...
Click to expand...

simple rule: they get median income for the nation at large, and a housing allowance to let them rent somewhere in DC.
 
answer to poll:

Yes.

Caveat:

Bill presenting compensation legislation must include an abstract that specifies the average compensation per employee and the comparison of that wage with the local population's mean wages for comparable free-market positions, with all data sourced from the census bureau or other reliable origin.

The politicians have proven they're too corrupt to be allowed to negotiate wages with kickbacking public employee unions.
 
Two strange, unknown things
fairness
equality
We wish to control the masses, the employees, but how about the wealthy elite, the wealthy, who controls them ???
They surely cannot be trusted to control themselves.
The wealthy overcharge for their goods and services, this is why they are that way.
 
jamesrage said:
For elected and appointed officials yes voters should vote on their pay. For teachers, secretaries, security guards, police,firefighters, janitors and etc should be dictated by what ever the fair market wage is for those workers.
Click to expand...

Again, I agree.
It is possible for a lib and a con to agree on many things.
For centuries, our elected officials have been able to vote themselves raises, maybe at one time this concept worked, but not today, they have become too greedy...Its not the base salaries as much as the related costs(healthcare, supporting cast, pensions)..
 
I don't think so. I doubt voters would put much thought into it. Pay for teachers and other civic employees needs to balance many different concerns that the public is unlikely to become informed upon. Better to have the legislature vote. Presumably the votes are recorded, so the public can correct any improper decisions through elections.
 
Shadow Serious said:
I am sorry if I wasn't clear. How is the proposal that the Voters should be able to approve or disapprove a proposal for the increase of salary or benefits package to Government Workers reactionary? I mean that such a proposal is a change in status quo and not to a prior state real or imagined but to something more different. Strictly a reactionary would want to go back to the Patronage System that existed before by definition:

Reactionary - Definition
Click to expand...

I'm aware of the many definitions of reactionary, and I should have been more specific. I meant reactionary as in he is reacting to one problem (the problem of Bell as an example), and wants to apply new rules and legislation on that basis. I feel its comparable to seeing Jared Loughner, and than saying we need to take away guns from the people.

Shadow Serious said:
In other words, you want a less democratic process to determine the worth of Government Employees who are being paid by the taxpayers and be judged on what principals? What group would be so unbiased that a "third-party" would give a fair result? And keep in mind with Collective Bargaining it wont have to do with individual merit.
Click to expand...

Collective bargaining would have to go. Lets imagine Wisconsin, and they implement their new bill. Afterwards, I'm sure there is some private school or company out there with the proper background to tell you how much the services provided by the teachers in Wisconsin warrant in terms of compensation. Same with police, firemen, etc. Its not necessarily about getting the cost of those jobs down, honestly that never really seemed to be Walker's goal in this, but it would be more accurate in terms of the fiar market value of the jobs those people have. And screw the unions in there too, they aren't helping anymore.

Shadow Serious said:
This is most certainly true, but this would be a check against a government who gives too lavish a salary to its employees. And one doesn't need to know in detail when the elected officials try to hide an Elephant in a room by putting it under the Rug as it were. Furthermore, people do not put much time in choosing their votes for many reasons one could be that the options are restricted such as no real choice, or that their vote will not count. On the approval of the ballot for wage increases there is at least a clear choice on that even if those voters will not believe their vote will not count.
Click to expand...

I agree that this would serve as an important check on government, but there are probably more effective checks, which don't give voters one more thing to potentially screw up on. I'm pessimistic when it comes to the voters ability to make decisions about government. I trust them as far as getting someone else into office, and thats about it.
 
earthworm said:
Two strange, unknown things
fairness
equality
We wish to control the masses, the employees, but how about the wealthy elite, the wealthy, who controls them ???
They surely cannot be trusted to control themselves.
The wealthy overcharge for their goods and services, this is why they are that way.
Click to expand...

Mayor Snorkum doesn't understand why you wish to control either the "masses" or anyone else, including those with more money than you can count.

This thread is about how the public should be able to determine how much compensation public employees should receive. It's been proven, repeatedly, that elected officials are completely corrupt and willing to hand public employee unions any package the union leaders desire in exchange for campaign cash and perks.

One solution to that problem is to remove the ability of the politician to negotiate wages with unions.

One aspect of that problem is that the unions deny Americans their freedom of choice to decline union membership in employment. This denial puts hundreds of millions of dollars in union coffers and is used to further the corruption of the political landscape, and often employees forced into unions have to see the money taken from their unwilling hands used to support politicians they do not support. Again, this is corruption at it's worst, and completely against the principles this nation was founded upon.

There's no need to control the "masses".

There's no need to control the "rich".

The ones needeing to be controlled are the politicians who can't be trusted to heed the Constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom