Why is it the government workers are the last to lose jobs, when they should clearly be first. Then they complain.

I have a friend that has a job with the government.

There is no punishment severe enough.

Hey Cali, want less debt? Quit spending money on the goddamn attractive and successful Mexican Americans.

Seeing how a lot of people are getting a "5 day a week furlough" they should stop biatching. Their paychecks are going to bounce anyway.

works, kicks, replies, etc.

All in all, government employment isn't that bad.

However, it does suck that you have to stand back and play referee to the private sector, aka the people that actually accomplish real things.

But my lawyer friends have the same exact complaint, so meh.

I agree - the furlough idea is ridiculous. It's much more efficient to fire 75% of them, and let the remaining 25% work as hard as if they were at a real job.

Gee could it be that free public services for illegal aliens in LA is actually costing the treehuggers their jobs? Awww I totally feel bad for them.

//Now maybe they'll wake up and assess some taxes.

Wentzbag: Hey Cali, want less debt? Quit spending money on the goddamn attractive and successful Mexican Americans.

But they won't stop coming here. I have a friend that is an EMT near the border and the new thing is they cross the border and intentionally break an arm or something and call 911. once they are admitted to the ER they have documentation that allows them to stay for follow up treatment. by then they have found a place to stay etc. and we are stuck with them.

/not racist just anti-illegal immigration

As a government employee, I can say people are justified complaining about the performance of their government, at all levels... but it's rarely the workers who are to blame.

Yes, some are lazy and "dead weight," but most are not, and yes, government employee unions are a joke and don't serve the interests of either the taxpayers or the workers they represent... but the lion's share of blame for "bad government" should be attributed where it belongs: Bad management and self-serving executives (for whom government jobs are both easy, in terms of work, and oftentimes surprisingly lucrative).

As much as I don't like losing almost $800 a month because Legislators can't get their shiat together, it's better than watching co-workers with no seniority get laid off.

/Those who whine about "government workers" without ever walking a mile in their shoes are speaking from a position of ignorance.

Wentzbag: Hey Cali, want less debt? Quit spending money on the goddamn attractive and successful Mexican Americans.


LOL. Do you have a newsletter?

/Used to work in California politics.
//The number of moonbats controlling Sacramento is scary.

If they really cared about their jobs, they would still come in without pay.

NEWS FLASH:

Everyone is getting it in the pooper. I was in finance, the wife is still in education. I lost my job two weeks ago, her boss asked everyone without tenure for resumes on Friday, becuase her school is considering a round of layoffs.

Mind you - neither of the fine institutions that we work for have actually LOST any money. They're simply "positioning" themselves in case things get bad. In Fact, My company got billions of your tax dollars and enrollment is up in her workplace.

Seriously, What the FARK do you have to do to keep your jobs nowadays?

The goal of most people in getting a government job is to get a regular paycheck, good benefits and a practical guarantee that they will never lose their job and have to find another one, ever. Not many do so because they think they will benefit society, or because they are go-getters. They do tend to have pretty powerful unions though...

titwrench: /not racist just anti-illegal immigration


Seconded. I live in Washington, and if Canadians were sneaking across the border to mooch off of government services, I would be just as pissed off.

/Kind of amusing to think of Canadian landscapers, though.

FTA:

Byars said it didn't make sense to close DMV offices because they collect revenue for the state through licenses and registration fees.

but that objections is answered further down by:

Teresa Correa of West Sacramento found the doors to a Sacramento office locked, preventing her from renewing her vehicle registration. She said she works six days a week, making it difficult to find time to visit the DMV. Now, she said she faces a $35 late fee.

It's not like the DMV is a business; their income is pretty much mandatory. These closures mean more transactions by mail, online, and MORE FINES.

/Gov't worker unions supported the Democrat/liberal "let's have big welfare programs/gov't worker payrolls and pensions/welcome immigrants, especially illegal ones" agenda that led to this mess.

elvindeath: I agree - the furlough idea is ridiculous. It's much more efficient to fire 75% of them, and let the remaining 25% work as hard as if they were at a real job.

So we should, as a bankrupt state, pay unemployment for 20-25% of these people to do nothing. I say we take that furlough day and have them work at the unemployment office to pick up the slack of all the calls they can't even get to, but I don't think California has an unemployment office so there goes my idea.

I guess payback is a real B. Working for the state govt is rarely considered "working" at all.

elvindeath: I agree - the furlough idea is ridiculous. It's much more efficient to fire 75% of them, and let the remaining 25% work as hard as if they were at a real job.



Shirely, you're not serious?

Also a government employee so I'm also getting a kick out of these replies.

/at least my job is in the military
//we don't get furloughs

Solty Dog: If they really cared about their jobs, they would still come in without pay.

I tried to get that message across and learned that the Federal Code of Regulations expressly PROHIBITS government agencies from allowing workers to work during a furlough under most circumstances... and employees who are "salaried" are mandated to "hourly" during the furlough, so to make them work extra results in more cost because they have to be paid overtime.

I shiat you not.

So not only doesn't the furlough save any money (because productivity demands do not shrink), it actually costs more because higher paid salaried employees (who are ordinarily not eligible for overtime pay regardless of the number of hours they're asked to work), suddenly BY FEDERAL MANDATE must be paid overtime (and salaried employees are the highest paid employees in government).

/The only solution, which sucks for a lot of folks, is smaller government that works better... and it can never happen because the people who need to take the biggest cut are the managers and executives who decide what gets cut.

Wentzbag: Hey Cali, want less debt? Quit spending money on the goddamn attractive and successful Mexican Americans.

It's not the Mexican Americans that shouldn't be spent on it's the Mexican NON-Americans we should quit spending money on.

chose? chose?? CHOSE???? yeah riiiiiighhht

How does the powdered milk taste when the teat dries up? State employees are slightly more useful than welfare moms, but they get better bennies and cost of living increases that none of us get. So quit your whining... Don't like it? get a real job.

titwrench: elvindeath: I agree - the furlough idea is ridiculous. It's much more efficient to fire 75% of them, and let the remaining 25% work as hard as if they were at a real job.

So we should, as a bankrupt state, pay unemployment for 20-25% of these people to do nothing. I say we take that furlough day and have them work at the unemployment office to pick up the slack of all the calls they can't even get to, but I don't think California has an unemployment office so there goes my idea.

Of course CA has an unemployment office. It's a federal mandate.

rubi_con_man:
Seriously, What the FARK do you have to do to keep your jobs nowadays?

You know what to do.

\On your knees boy

rubi_con_man: Seriously, What the FARK do you have to do to keep your jobs nowadays?

Simple, earn your keep. Too many people are overpaid to do what essentially is paper pushing. If there is not a measure of hard labor or danger involved, pay should be dramatically reduced. Problem is, most people are greedy money grubbing bastages. They would never dream of volunteering to take a pay cut because they need the big screen tv, 10 bedroom house, oversized ozone raper. If corporate society would learn to live within their means, and a normal means, we wouldn't be in the predicament economically we are in.

If the States need to save money, cut the programs and the employees that work in them. It is just a tax of the employees when you're too chicken (politically) to remove the programs cause you don't want to lose votes. This is nothing more than a tax on certain state employees. And it isn't fairly applied either, elected officials and EMS employees are exempt, which is unfair.

Citation: Mercury News (new window)

thinks_on_feet: titwrench: elvindeath: I agree - the furlough idea is ridiculous. It's much more efficient to fire 75% of them, and let the remaining 25% work as hard as if they were at a real job.

So we should, as a bankrupt state, pay unemployment for 20-25% of these people to do nothing. I say we take that furlough day and have them work at the unemployment office to pick up the slack of all the calls they can't even get to, but I don't think California has an unemployment office so there goes my idea.

Of course CA has an unemployment office. It's a federal mandate.

I recently saw a news report where people were complaining that the unemployment offices are all run out of state. They have "employment centers' which are nothing more than a bunch of computers and telephones to contact unemployment with a couple of employees to answer a few questions but that is it. I don't have definitive proof of this but it has been on the news quite a bit lately. If I find proof I will post it.

thinks_on_feet

I tried to get that message across and learned that the Federal Code of Regulations expressly PROHIBITS government agencies from allowing workers to work during a furlough under most circumstances... and employees who are "salaried" are mandated to "hourly" during the furlough, so to make them work extra results in more cost because they have to be paid overtime.

I'm not sure that that the Feds can tell the states how to deal with their employees, Constitutionally speaking.

Dazrin: Wentzbag: Hey Cali, want less debt? Quit spending money on the goddamn attractive and successful Mexican Americans.

It's not the Mexican Americans that shouldn't be spent on it's the Mexican NON-Americans we should quit spending money on.

Mexico is part of the continent known as North America, but thanks for the support.

Solty Dog: If there is not a measure of hard labor or danger involved, pay should be dramatically reduced.

You can't be serious. You think ditch diggers and coal miners should be the ones controlling the wealth?

titwrench: I recently saw a news report where people were complaining that the unemployment offices are all run out of state. They have "employment centers' which are nothing more than a bunch of computers and telephones to contact unemployment with a couple of employees to answer a few questions but that is it. I don't have definitive proof of this but it has been on the news quite a bit lately. If I find proof I will post it.

You're completely mistaken.

/Fix you hat, the tinfoil is showing.

TigerStar: Free Mexico!!

Oh, are we freeing mexico now instead of leaving Britney alone? Or, are we doing both now? Darfur is there? I'm soo behind on my hipster issues.

I work in the state prison system and we have it far worse than the other state sectors. Not only are we getting a 10% paycut, but we aren't allowed to take the furlough days upfront. Because services must run 24-7, we are being forced to bank our furlough days to take at the "end of the furlough period."

So, not only is my paycheck lowered each month, I have to work the same hours; and at the end of the whole mess, we will all have to take approximately one month off without pay (17 months x 2 furlough days). We get double hit.

The responsible ones will sock extra money away each month to offset that, but I imagine a lot won't. I know plenty of employees that were keeping their heads above water financially, and now will have to forclose, file bankruptcy, etc. Is it their fault for mismanaging their finances so badly? Of course, but it doesn't make it any less depressing. I'm only taking single state incomes into consideration here, mind you. Many, many state employees are married to other state employees, so the impact on their wallets are doubled.

Sad situation all around, but I'm still grateful for my job. I'll still be able to manage and, in a way, I guess this situation is a blessing. I spent several hours last night going through my finances in an attempt to cut out "fluff" that was not essential. It amazed me how much I was spending on pointless crap and entertainment. So, even though my income is taking a hit, I'm reorganizing to not only save a little extra, but to also use money that was going for selfish things on paying down what debt I have in order to offset the initial reduction in salary. Kind of a weird wake-up call in a way.

My glass is always half full, btw. :)

thinks_on_feet: titwrench: I recently saw a news report where people were complaining that the unemployment offices are all run out of state. They have "employment centers' which are nothing more than a bunch of computers and telephones to contact unemployment with a couple of employees to answer a few questions but that is it. I don't have definitive proof of this but it has been on the news quite a bit lately. If I find proof I will post it.

You're completely mistaken.

/Fix you hat, the tinfoil is showing.

NPR ran a piece about just what he is saying. Just last night in fact. Or maybe Thursday?

They really do have employment centers that have just a few employees and banks of phones to sign up with. The employees are just there to answer question on how to correctly use the phones.
Or something along those lines.

thinks_on_feet: titwrench: I recently saw a news report where people were complaining that the unemployment offices are all run out of state. They have "employment centers' which are nothing more than a bunch of computers and telephones to contact unemployment with a couple of employees to answer a few questions but that is it. I don't have definitive proof of this but it has been on the news quite a bit lately. If I find proof I will post it.

You're completely mistaken.

/Fix you hat, the tinfoil is showing.fark you and your lack of reading comprehension. I didn't state this as fact or my belief just what has been on the news as of late. A few local news reports have been done on peoples frustration of not having a place to go to file for unemployment and that is it. So if you are trying to troll you succeeded if you are just an pompous asshole then you are still a success so kiss my ass.

IputTheFUNinFUNERAL

Imagine how much the prison budget would shrink if they LEEGALIZED EET and had to let people in jail for pot go free.

grotto_man: I'm not sure that that the Feds can tell the states how to deal with their employees, Constitutionally speaking.

I'm sure.

I asked the director of my department to mandate all employees exempted from protection under the Fair Labor Standards Act (such as myself) -- folks paid salary and expected to work as many hours as it takes to get the job done -- to come in on furlough days, just to file claims (considered "lowly" work).

I mean, we're required to work as many hours as it takes, so we can be compelled to work, despite getting a pay cut, right?

Wrong.

The answer I got back was "We can't do it because we'd have to pay you you. The furlough changes you to hourly employees during the week of the furlough"

You couldn't make this stuff up.

29CFR541.710 states, in relevant part: (b) Deductions from the pay of an employee of a public agency for absences due to a budget-required furlough shall not disqualify the employee from being paid on a salary basis except in the workweek in which the furlough occurs and for which the employee's pay is accordingly reduced.

/I promise you, I'm not just talking out my blowhole here.

Now they can lazy and surly at home instead of the office.

And fark me for not closing my italics or spacing my rant out so I don't look like an asshole myself.

keep spending money on pork, this becomes inevitable.

I just received a letter from the state of California about an unpaid seat belt ticket I got there 5 years ago. They want me to pay $430 now. Yeaaaah, I'll get right on that. lol

How about I just stay out of your crappy state instead?

If only there was some kind of way to put people into the government who can manage a budget. Maybe something where we could all write names on a slip of paper and put it in a box of some sort.

Nah, that could never work.

/california is a victim of it's own democracy

"I made $200,000 a year between me and my wife, and I don't mind paying higher taxes," the YMCA executive said.

Oh, you were a little inconvenienced so you want HIGHER TAXES? Maybe you could ask someone making $30,000 a year what THEY think of your brainstorm, yuppie twatwaffle.

"It feels like we're being punished because we chose a career in state government," she said.

So you shouldn't have to suffer the same as the PEOPLE WHO PAY YOUR SALARY??? Poor thing! Of course if you REALLY don't like it you could take a job in the private sector....IF YOU CAN FIND ONE!

Simple, earn your keep. Too many people are overpaid to do what essentially is paper pushing. If there is not a measure of hard labor or danger involved, pay should be dramatically reduced. Problem is, most people are greedy money grubbing bastages. They would never dream of volunteering to take a pay cut because they need the big screen tv, 10 bedroom house, oversized ozone raper. If corporate society would learn to live within their means, and a normal means, we wouldn't be in the predicament economically we are in.

Of course then people wouldn't be hired to build houses, make and transport TVs, provide rape counseling to ozone...

The reason we have the standard of living that we do is BECAUSE we have the standard of living that we do. Yes, it really is the chicken and the egg theory, applied to economics, but it works.

titwrench: thinks_on_feet: titwrench: I recently saw a news report where people were complaining that the unemployment offices are all run out of state. They have "employment centers' which are nothing more than a bunch of computers and telephones to contact unemployment with a couple of employees to answer a few questions but that is it. I don't have definitive proof of this but it has been on the news quite a bit lately. If I find proof I will post it.

You're completely mistaken.

/Fix you hat, the tinfoil is showing.fark you and your lack of reading comprehension. I didn't state this as fact or my belief just what has been on the news as of late. A few local news reports have been done on peoples frustration of not having a place to go to file for unemployment and that is it. So if you are trying to troll you succeeded if you are just an pompous asshole then you are still a success so kiss my ass.

Don't bother feeding him, he'll just call YOU a troll.

\thinks_on_feet doesn't

TigerStar: Free Mexico!!

Dear God, no! We have enough crazy in Mexico, do we really need more!?.

/Keep textas
//It's all yours