Agh.... my .mac account will be hit by spam. (should've noticed which e-mail addy I sent it from) In general, I think unions have their place in society. Nobody can deny that they have their positive aspects, nor can anyone deny that they do have their negative sides. Unions have had positive effects of increasing workplace safety, increasing wages in underpaid positions, and increasing benefits. On the flip side, they can be faulted for being intransigent at times over seemingly trifle issues and have been known to bargain for unreasonable pay. Again, I do appreciate people's input. It's interesting to see how people react to the idea of union organization in the tech industry. Tell you the truth, I'm far from formulating a position on the subject as I don' think I have even an inkling of what the ramifications could be. --The following is REALLY off topic so be warned! :) I must respectfully disagree with the PERS stance. PERS is in no financial trouble and is completely liquid. However, I do see a lot of people upset with the PERS system. Many individuals feel that Tier 1 PERS was way too generous. The SEIU negotiated with the state when PERS was founded for the return. It was a give and take negotiation where the state bargained for lower than industry standard wages, and in return gave deferred compensation. During the 90's there was no complaints as the stock market was doing extremely well. It was only during the current bienium where many detractors spoke up when the state budget began to have its troubles. I tend to get irked when individuals say that or act like the state workers don't deserve the retirement benefits. These state workers work hard and are often under-appreciated. The problem is there is no way to have Tier 1 or 2 PERS rescinded for current employees. If the legislature decides to try to alter Tier 1 or 2 for existing employees, then an even worse problem crops up. Litigation. Normally, the Department of Justice would handle such issues. But, since every single DOJ employee is on PERS, they would all be consequently conflicted out. The state would subsequently have to hire outside counsel at a cost of between $200-$300 per hour per attorney plus other costs. Needless to say, it would likely cost the state millions. And in the end, the courts would most likely rule in favor of the workers as it's really a contractual issue. However, this does not prevent the legislature from changing retirement plans for future hires. But, will the state be willing to pay higher salaries in return?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Oct 07 2002 - 18:52:52 PDT