It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Federal Workers Want Pay Raise in Obama's Second Term

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by wtbengineer
 


Ok I will give you that point, there are a few jobs in public service that pay far less than their private sector counterparts.

This is not the norm though is it? We both know it isnt, and you are trying to use the exception to make out the whole.

On the whole, minus a couple of exceptions, the private sector pays minimum wage for the same job .gov employees get 50K plus outrageous benefits packages, and retirements, and over twice as many paid vacation days, and many more paid holidays for.

.gov employees are getting paid from "the peoples" money, they should be paid the average from the private sector, no more, with equal benefits packages. They act like this is "free" money, when it is actually taken from the people.




posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by inverslyproportional
 


A vast majority of government jobs that I'm familiar with are even with or slightly below the private sector pay.

To say that all government employees are paid better for the same job in the private sector is incorrect. Also, if the benefits are a big selling point to a government job then this should be an indicator that unionization is good for the working-class, private or public.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by links234
...should be an indicator that unionization is good for the working-class, private or public.


I don't agree with that correlation, especially in the economic environment we are in. Benefit packages are offered in plenty of lines of business without unions. Unions, just like corporations, are not all bad. There are select few that have given the perception that they are all bad and each side has taken it up as a mantle and rally call.

The calls of the previous poster of balance is a sound call. Making long-term, rigid commitments with tax-dollars and unions unwilling to bend when the economy falters is a cause of concern. Such rigid utilization of capital (in this case, tax revenues in portion) is an economic model that is on its way out in my opinion.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by inverslyproportional
 


Well, you may have a point there too. While I am paid less than I could be in private industry, there are many non-professional people that make similar incomes to mine. Not as much maybe, but ballpark, just because they've been there for 20 - 30 years. And some of those jobs are of the type that would never pay more than poverty level outside of govt. The problem is for me, we all get treated the same. If we get furloughed or laid off, the ax comes down indiscriminately. I went to school and worked my butt off and have huge debt because of it to get my job. To me it's not really fair to be in the same position as some of these people.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 08:26 AM
link   
Yes, because a lot of people having more money in their pockets will be sooo baaad for the economy and all those capitalists looking to sell products or services. Boo Obama, Boo you communist unions and your demands for more money.



new topics

top topics
 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join