Voting on Compensation

Krhazy said:

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.

Click to expand...

THAT's how all the states have gotten into the messes they're in with the unions. It doesn't work.

Amendments to state constituitons are required to ensure all government employment positions are open to all qualified candidates and union membership should not be a requirement.

The states have absolutely no business collecting dues for private clubs, and that includes unions. Unions must be responsible for the collection of due from their own members, and must bear the cost of doing so, also.

Public employees should be as subject to summary dismissal for poor job performance and absenteeism as any employee of any Subway sandwich store.

In a word, there should be no difference between how a public employee is treated and how a private employee is treated under the law.

Mayor Snorkum said:

THAT's how all the states have gotten into the messes they're in with the unions. It doesn't work.

Amendments to state constituitons are required to ensure all government employment positions are open to all qualified candidates and union membership should not be a requirement.

The states have absolutely no business collecting dues for private clubs, and that includes unions. Unions must be responsible for the collection of due from their own members, and must bear the cost of doing so, also.

Public employees should be as subject to summary dismissal for poor job performance and absenteeism as any employee of any Subway sandwich store.

In a word, there should be no difference between how a public employee is treated and how a private employee is treated under the law.

Click to expand...

Fairness
Equality
Put all the load on the unions and allow the lawmakers to have millionaire level pensions.....
Yes may union people are, IMO, overcompensated.
I suspect many others "work" a 10 hour week but are paid for 40 hours.....
Too many law-makers do little or nothing.
But we must cut the union people......

Enough sarcasm..
There will always be a need for unions as long as those in power continue with their bad attitudes.

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...

I would prefer it if elected and appointed officials had their pay decided by referendum. However, I think civil servants should have their pay decided by guilds. A guild would set minimum working standards, minimum wages, and contract minimums for a particular industry, but everything else could be decided on a more individual basis.

Article I, Section 6 makes all these notions unconstitutional and moot.

samsmart said:

I would prefer it if elected and appointed officials had their pay decided by referendum. However, I think civil servants should have their pay decided by guilds. A guild would set minimum working standards, minimum wages, and contract minimums for a particular industry, but everything else could be decided on a more individual basis.

Click to expand...

Guilds? Could you explain please?

repeter said:

Guilds? Could you explain please?

Click to expand...

Guilds are a bit of middle-ground between no collective bargaining and full unionization.

A guild is an organization that negotiates for certain minimums in contracts for those in a particular industry. They set minimum rates and minimum benefits for anyone who gets hired in that particular field. Members of a guild have to pay a certain amount of dues to fund it, but members get other benefits such as being able to purchase health insurance through the guild and also as a form of social networking.

Now, people are not forced to join a guild or abide by the minimums put froth by guilds. However, there are consequences for doing so. For example, anyone who works for a businesses who pays lower than the standard minimum set by the guild may find themselves ostracized by guild members until they pay fines to the guild. This is mostly a problem for those starting out in a certain industry, though, as those who have acquired the skills and expertise of their chosen occupation usually works for above guild minimum pay anyways.

A good example of this are the many guilds in the entertainment industry, such as the Screen Actors Guild or the Directors Guild of America. These guilds don't set pay for actors and directors, unlike more labor-oriented unions. Instead, they focus on contract minimums (such as minimum pay and basic benefits) and basic working conditions.

What this does is protect those involved in the guild but gives better leeway for market forces.

So, under a guild, workers would be able to organize to demand certain minimum protections (which gives the benefits of unionization) but would also give individuals and the company they work for more room to negotiate individual contracts (which give the benefits of individual rewards).

samsmart said:

Guilds are a bit of middle-ground between no collective bargaining and full unionization.

Click to expand...

In that case, I completely agree with you about the guild portion of your proposal. The referendum part...I just don't think the voters have the intellectual ability to accurately define how much someone else should make. I'd feel more comfortable with just professionals going over the amount of hours the elected officials put in, difficulty, etc. and then have those professionals render a verdict. At that point, we could send those numbers out on a referendum....maybe.

repeter said:

In that case, I completely agree with you about the guild portion of your proposal. The referendum part...I just don't think the voters have the intellectual ability to accurately define how much someone else should make. I'd feel more comfortable with just professionals going over the amount of hours the elected officials put in, difficulty, etc. and then have those professionals render a verdict. At that point, we could send those numbers out on a referendum....maybe.

Click to expand...

But on the other hand we can't have elected and appointed officials deciding their own salaries. Especially when they also take "campaign donations" from lobbyists for access.

Perhaps something percentage based; for instance, the total budget for salaries for all appointed and elected officials can only make up a certain percentage of the total budget. An increase in the percentage can only be done in referendum.

So that way elected/appointed can only increase their salaries by increasing tax revenues which they can try to do by either 1) cutting taxes to spur spending which increase the generation of other taxes or 2) increase taxes to increase the over all government budget which then increase the percentage they get. But this is balanced by the fact that only a referendum could increase (or possibly even decrease) the percentage of the budget they get for their salaries.

What do you think?

samsmart said:

But on the other hand we can't have elected and appointed officials deciding their own salaries. Especially when they also take "campaign donations" from lobbyists for access.

Perhaps something percentage based; for instance, the total budget for salaries for all appointed and elected officials can only make up a certain percentage of the total budget. An increase in the percentage can only be done in referendum.

So that way elected/appointed can only increase their salaries by increasing tax revenues which they can try to do by either 1) cutting taxes to spur spending which increase the generation of other taxes or 2) increase taxes to increase the over all government budget which then increase the percentage they get. But this is balanced by the fact that only a referendum could increase (or possibly even decrease) the percentage of the budget they get for their salaries.

What do you think?

Click to expand...

Actually, its not a bad idea to tie their personal pay into the state's economic well-being. It would certainly give them the right motivation. However, it should be tied to median income as much as total revenue. Perhaps an average of the two, so they have incentive to work for regular people.

megaprogman said:

Actually, its not a bad idea to tie their personal pay into the state's economic well-being. It would certainly give them the right motivation. However, it should be tied to median income as much as total revenue. Perhaps an average of the two, so they have incentive to work for regular people.

Click to expand...

That would be good. For municipal officials, it could be that combo based in their city. For Congressmen, that combo could be based on their individual district. For Governors and Senators, that combo could be based on their individual state. And for the President and federal executive branch officials, it could be based on the entire country.

Sounds good to me.

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...

Ive been saying this for YEARS! Let the tax payers decide! Excellent poll!!! :bravo: