A blog by a "sucker" and a "loser" who served her country in the Navy.
If you're one of the Covidiots who believe that COVID-19 is "just the flu",
that the 2020 election was stolen, or
especially if you supported the 1/6/21 insurrection,
leave now.
Slava Ukraini!
President* Donald Trump is canceling pay raises due in January for most civilian federal employees, he informed Congress on Thursday, citing budget constraints.It's pretty despicable, but Trump is only following the GOP cookbook:
House Rules #1, #2 and #6 apply to all comments. Rule #3 also applies to political comments.
In short, don't be a jackass. THIS MEANS YOU!
If you never see your comments posted, see Rule #7.
All comments must be on point and address either the points raised in the blog post or points raised by commenters in response.
Any comments that drift off onto other topics are subject to deletion.
(Please don't feed the trolls.)
中國詞不評論，冒抹除的風險。僅英語。
COMMENT MODERATION IS IN EFFECT UFN. This means that if you are an insulting dick, nobody will ever see it.
The tax cuts for the top brackets are going to increase tax revenue any day now. Just like always!
ReplyDeleteMy dad worked for the Forest Service for thirty years, and I made a few bucks fighting forest fires for them when I was young. My dad had his complaints about the way it was being run, but none of them that I remember had "waste, fraud, and abuse" as their main thrust.
ReplyDeleteAll of the government employees affected by his policy that I know of are being paid at the low end of the earning scale for their fields.
And there's a couple million of them, and a lot of them probably vote.
-Doug in Oakland
And those Government workers will lose those wonderful benefits that are much, much better than what the Private Sector gets.... But there are about three times the number there should be. But they don't vote for the RNC type folks anyway, so no loss there.
ReplyDeleteIf the Federal benefits are so much better than the private sector why not improve the private sector's? I was a Fed for over 30 years. The benefits were decent, nothing like private sector executive golden parachutes or anything, but really decent, comparable to those at major corporations. The Republicans have been running against the civil service since at least the Reagan administration so it isn't surprising to me that some people who have heard the lie often enough, loud enough and long enough parrot the party line without any real idea what it means. It means they want to pay as little as possible for as few people as possible and when things stop working the over staffed, over paid under worked civil service can take the blame. I want the lowest paid least qualified people I can find predicting your weather, building atomic bombs, caring for you or your family in a VA hospital. Sounds fine for you. Not me.
ReplyDeleteI think it is called "Trickle down Economics". 'Cept the only thing that's trickling down is the Repubs pissing on the working class.
ReplyDeleteA little history (abridged version). Labor unions started as early as the 1880's to demand better pay and working conditions. It was followed in 1914 by Congress passing bills designed to set a minimum wage for workers, Extra pay for overtime, and child labor laws.
Labor unions grew in power and number from the Civil War through World War I, as the need for factory workers and other laborers continued to increase. They lost ground during the Roaring '20s, however, when the economy grew so much that the need for organization seemed unnecessary.
In the 30's Labor's strength began to grow again as workers sought protection from companies that tried to curtail the gains workers had made. WWII saw somewhat of a freeze in worker demands as laws were passed for national defense that forbade striking in factories that were essential to the war effort.
Labor leaders became complacent and corrupt, noticeably in the post war period. Workers also began to rely more on laws that Congress passed that gave them protection. Private companies began to offer incentives such as pension plans, guaranteed time off, etc. to retain and recruit in the labor force. Those in public service lagged behind substantially in obtaining the same benefits.
Under the Reagan administration, and even before, public servants were seen as overpaid, compared to the public workers, as inflation was eating away at their wages, while public servants were getting cost-of-living adjustments. Thus began the large urge to cut government spending at the expense of public workers.
This is an overview, very simplistic of course, of why public employees are currently seen as having better pay and benefits than the private sector. Perhaps if, in the private world, companies would begin to pay fairer wages to their workers there would be less public vs private angst. And I'm not talking about Mom and Pop operations, I'm talking large corporations. Companies that keep the production costs down by paying low wages to workers who build, design, and sell products; while giving CEO's huge amounts of the profits the company earns, as well as lucrative stock options.
When you think about it, which group is more important to the company? Workers? Management? In reality they both are necessary equally, for without one, the other would flounder and the company would cease to exist. So why not reduce the pay gap between the two?
Just being in a philosophical mood,
Dale
Another thing about labor laws... when the rich want fewer of them, it takes an investment of money so that "news" people can spew propaganda. When workers want more labor laws, it generally requires an investment in blood, freedom, and protester lives.
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_worker_deaths_in_United_States_labor_disputes
Anybody see any rich people dying over their cherished notions of fewer worker protections?