Union thugs go down in MI

[Brainfade]

lol. A rich person paying off 20-30 million dollars to effect the lives of millions of people? That is voluntary contribution for you? To me it is a rather simple case of corruption, trying to further one's own interest. Voluntary contributions would have been 20 million to Red Cross. No questions asked then. Pardon me for being cynical here but maybe a bit of gripe you have against Unions is how they are one of the few bastions that can stand toe to toe against PACs?? :winky: And I would agree to let them have lifetime benefits. Period. Those are one of the few perks a teacher has. I doubt any of us, certainly not me, does half of what an average teacher does and gets paid a pittance. At the end of the day these teachers are the ones raising next generation and they make as much as an Administrative Assistance in most private companies. I dont have a problem with them having extra benefits.

Again. Communication breakdown. (1) I did say that PACs have to be regulated better, and that I don't like the way they influence elections. I said the contributions were voluntary, unlike union contributions, which are mandatory in a unionized company in a non-RTW state. That is what I was against - forcing workers to join the union. (2) Did you miss the part where I said that teachers must be paid more? Like the rest of you professionals. That the payment must be on the front-end and be based on performance. Make their starting salary $80,000. I am all for it. Promote them if they're good. Give them raises based on performance. Offer them a 403(b) plan. Let them contribute some towards their retirement and healthcare for life. Let the good ones rise and make more money, and retire comfortably. Like in the industry. Let the bad ones go. The current system favors the bad ones, ones cannot be fired because of ... cough cough ... the teacher-union's clout. Thich is part of the reason the good ones get paid pittance. At my college, we train teachers. We deal with the public school system everyday, and it is appalling.

[Lurker]

Again. Communication breakdown. (1) I did say that PACs have to be regulated better, and that I don't like the way they influence elections. I said the contributions were voluntary, unlike union contributions, which are mandatory in a unionized company in a non-RTW state. That is what I was against - forcing workers to join the union. (2) Did you miss the part where I said that teachers must be paid more? Like the rest of you professionals. That the payment must be on the front-end and be based on performance. Make their starting salary $80,000. I am all for it. Promote them if they're good. Give them raises based on performance. Offer them a 403(b) plan. Let them contribute some towards their retirement and healthcare for life. Let the good ones rise and make more money, and retire comfortably. Like in the industry. Let the bad ones go. The current system favors the bad ones, ones cannot be fired because of ... cough cough ... the teacher-union's clout. Thich is part of the reason the good ones get paid pittance. At my college, we train teachers. We deal with the public school system everyday, and it is appalling.

That would mean raising taxes. You prepared to pay more taxes so Teachers, Cops, Firefighters make as much as we do??

[Brainfade]

That would mean raising taxes. You prepared to pay more taxes so Teachers' date=' Cops, Firefighters make as much as [b']we do??

"We" nahin, saheb. "You." Hum bhi ek gareeb shikshak hai, albeit kaalej mein padhaate hain. Par koi shikaayat nahin ... Kaafi acchhee zindagi hai! To answer your questions: (1) I am surprised that you take the Democrat tack of "Spend more, raise taxes." Rebudgeting bhi to kar sakte hain? Take it out of the savings you would accrue from nixing their lifetime benefits and pay them up-front. Let them get their money now and save it to feed their retirement years - like you and me. (2) Cut wasteful spending in these departments. E.g., Fire 20% of fat-cat "middle-management" admininstrators. That will pay for a lot of good teachers. (3) And after (1) and (2) are done, if taxes *have* to be raised, so be it. In any case, teachers are paid out of local property taxes, and not the behemoth federal government. Am willing to shell out an extra 0.5 - 1% on the property tax assessed on my house - if (1) and (2) are done first. PS: Speaking of teachers being hired and salaried by local governments, I couldn't help but laugh at Pres. Obama's ridiculous opening statement in the first debate "I will hire 100,000 teachers." Say what? The federal government doesn't do that, bade miya!

[Lurker]

(1) I am surprised that you take the Democrat tack of "Spend more, raise taxes." Rebudgeting bhi to kar sakte hain? Take it out of the savings you would accrue from nixing their lifetime benefits and pay them up-front. Let them get their money now and save it to feed their retirement years - like you and me.

Actually I dont have any problems with this. You can lay a line in sand and say Teachers coming after 2012 would take benefits in a certain way. Those who are already working would have their benefits in a certain way. The issue may be if you have Republicans want a blanket to say restructrure for everyone.

(2) Cut wasteful spending in these departments. E.g., Fire 20% of fat-cat "middle-management" admininstrators. That will pay for a lot of good teachers.

What are some of these wasteful spendings you talk of CA? Somehow these are almost excuses and not reasons.

(3) And after (1) and (2) are done, if taxes *have* to be raised, so be it. In any case, teachers are paid out of local property taxes, and not the behemoth federal government. Am willing to shell out an extra 0.5 - 1% on the property tax assessed on my house - if (1) and (2) are done first.

You are the least of the worry, so you can save 1% :giggle: The big issue are the big earners, they will be miffed for paying extra. FOr the record I dont mind paying extra for Teachers, Cops, Firefighters.

[yoda]

Right to work means end of labor unions, means going back to bosses screwing employees and in case of blue collar workers, given that a lot of their skills are tied to the company/type of machinery they operate on, they end up being bonded laborers. This ofc doesn't apply to teachers unions, I am talking your Detroit auto workers, etc.

[Brainfade]

What are some of these wasteful spendings you talk of CA? Somehow these are almost excuses and not reasons.

From my local public school / state system, I will give you 3 obvious ones (in addition to the life-time pension/healthcare promises, bad tenured teachers being overpaid etc. that are a direct consequence of teacher-union clout): (1) Forced bussing: Our schools forcibly bus students from one part of the district to another in the name of having diversity at each school. Cost estimate = $5 million p.a. Enough to hire 100 new teachers or 200 new teaching assistants. (2) Our state's student body grew 11% over the past 8 years. Number of non-education related administrators (i.e., mid-level managers/bureaucrats. Does not include support staff, counselors, librarians, principals, asst. principals etc.) grew 18%. While teachers average < 50,000 p.a., these administrators pull six figures. Even if we kept the numbers growing at the same rate as students, we could pay teachers more or hire more teachers. The kicker is that student performance standards have shown no improvement. (3) The board hired a new superintendent on a 3-year contract. Salary $300K. After 1.5 years, they felt his working style was too abrasive. So, they fired him without cause and hired an interim. They have to keep paying the first guy until his contract runs out *and* pay the interim guy. The amount of money wasted here was enough to sponsor a math/reading/science program for underprivileged students in at least half the county. There are many minor wastages - non-instruction related expenses, teachers being forced to spend inordinate amount of time doing paperwork and less time teaching, emphasis on social rather than instructional activities etc. - that I cannot specifically address as I don't have hard numbers to back me up. It's easy to spend other peoples' money, isn't it?

[Brainfade]

Right to work means end of labor unions' date=' means going back to bosses screwing employees and in case of blue collar workers, given that a lot of their skills are tied to the company/type of machinery they operate on, they end up being bonded laborers. This ofc doesn't apply to teachers unions, I am talking your Detroit auto workers, etc.[/quote'] Why end of labor unions? Those who want to join can till join. Could this force unions to do what they are supposed to do for their members (and not for their goons), and attract enough membership for the right reasons?

[Brainfade]

Watch the documentary "Waiting for Superman." It's on Netfilx.

[Lurker]

(1) Forced bussing: Our schools forcibly bus students from one part of the district to another in the name of having diversity at each school. Cost estimate = $5 million p.a. Enough to hire 100 new teachers or 200 new teaching assistants.

I don't have a problem with this.

(2) Our state's student body grew 11% over the past 8 years. Number of non-education related administrators (i.e., mid-level managers/bureaucrats. Does not include support staff, counselors, librarians, principals, asst. principals etc.) grew 18%. While teachers average I have some problem with this. Depending on the school districts, I have heard opposite side of arguments too. As in these days students need lot more facilities. For example exposure to a Pshyiatrist (sp?) to avoid issues like Connecticut shooting. It was not needed earlier. In general most institutions have more coaches, junior coaches stuff like that. I am not saying thats all hunky dory but there are reasons on other side. That is what typically happens in many Senior roles. My CIO was fired recently, he made his severance package of 11 months. For senior roles these contracts are not surprising. If anything most of the Private company use this lot more than say school. Again, not justifying it but if one is looking at Privatization for answer this is a bit of a moot point CA.

[Brainfade]

I don't have a problem with this. I have some problem with this. Depending on the school districts, I have heard opposite side of arguments too. As in these days students need lot more facilities. For example exposure to a Pshyiatrist (sp?) to avoid issues like Connecticut shooting. It was not needed earlier. In general most institutions have more coaches, junior coaches stuff like that. I am not saying thats all hunky dory but there are reasons on other side.

I excluded coaches, psychologists from that number - note that I classified them under educational staff. I see their value. Here's what I said ... "Does not include support staff, counselors, librarians, principals, asst. principals etc." So, I am talking about increasing numbers of mid-management bureaucrats only - the ones that have NO role in the school.

That is what typically happens in many Senior roles. My CIO was fired recently, he made his severance package of 11 months. For senior roles these contracts are not surprising. If anything most of the Private company use this lot more than say school. Again, not justifying it but if one is looking at Privatization for answer this is a bit of a moot point CA.

Not looking for privatization. Looking for accountability. This is not shareholders' money going to waste. This is tax-payers' money - money that was paid to the govt with no choice. So, the answer is not to throw more money at the schools, but to use the available money where it is needed - to incentivize good teaching, encourage the good teachers and get rid of the bad ones.

[Lurker]

I excluded coaches' date=' psychologists from that number - note that I classified them under educational staff. I see their value. Here's what I said ... [b']Does not include support staff, counselors, librarians, principals, asst. principals etc. So, I am talking about increasing numbers of mid-management bureaucrats only - the ones that have NO role in the school.

Not looking for privatization. Looking for accountability. This is not shareholders' money going to waste. This is tax-payers' money - money that was paid with no choice. So, the answer is not to throw more money at the schools, but to use the available money where it is needed - to incentivize good teaching, encourage the good teachers and get rid of the bad ones.

I don't think you will have any issue with Liberals if your question is to stop putting money in positions that don't exist. Why would I define the guy who made 300K and continues to make it after he left?? He is not putting money in my pocket, is it? My assertion was that if you have issues with that, you will find ton more issues in Private companies. Most private companies have positions that dont require people. Most private companies hire people at senior level and continues to get paid. Folks like me get disullusioned when I see teachers and small fishes being Accountable and yet the same folks who hold them responsible say nothing against Wall Street. Let the same voice be reasonable for ALL and then we can talk efficiency within school system too.

[Brainfade]

I don't think you will have any issue with Liberals if your question is to stop putting money in positions that don't exist. Why would I define the guy who made 300K and continues to make it after he left?? He is not putting money in my pocket, is it? My assertion was that if you have issues with that, you will find ton more issues in Private companies. Most private companies have positions that dont require people. Most private companies hire people at senior level and continues to get paid. Folks like me get disullusioned when I see teachers and small fishes being Accountable and yet the same folks who hold them responsible say nothing against Wall Street. Let the same voice be reasonable for ALL and then we can talk efficiency within school system too.

You're right. But consider this - shouldn't Wall Street fat-cats be held accountable by their investors, i.e., shareholders? OTOH, Government-employee fat-cats need to be held accountable by their investors, i.e., taxpayers. I don't have a role in ensuring that Citigroup's CIO is held accountable - I have no stake there. I have a role in ensuring that the bad teachers in my school district are held accountable; I do have a stake there. And it grates me no end when schools keep asking for more and more tax money when they cannot even (a) pay their teachers well and (b) be good custodians of the money they already have.

[Lurker]

You're right. But consider this - shouldn't Wall Street fat-cats be held accountable by their investors' date= i.e., shareholders? OTOH, Government-employee fat-cats need to be held accountable by their investors, i.e., taxpayers. I don't have a role in ensuring that Citigroup's CIO is held accountable - I have no stake there. I have a role in ensuring that the bad teachers in my school district are held accountable; I do have a stake there. And it grates me no end when schools keep asking for more and more tax money when they cannot even (a) pay their teachers well and (b) be good custodians of the money they already have.

Are they?? So let me ask you this. Investment Bankers knew the real estate bubble, had information on the whole situation, held back this information, in fact made money by short term buying and in many cases dumping the bleeding companies as blue chip. In the process they nuked their own investors, tanked the economy and made away with billions. How have they been held accountable, remind me please.

[The Outsider]

Are they?? So let me ask you this. Investment Bankers knew the real estate bubble, had information on the whole situation, held back this information, in fact made money by short term buying and in many cases dumping the bleeding companies as blue chip. In the process they nuked their own investors, tanked the economy and made away with billions. How have they been held accountable, remind me please.

What? There were a handful of companies which anticipated the bubble and adjusted their positions accordingly, most prominent being Goldman Sachs. Where did you get this information that Investment Bankers knew about the real estate bubble? Kuch bhi bolna ka kya?

[yoda]

Why end of labor unions? Those who want to join can till join. Could this force unions to do what they are supposed to do for their members (and not for their goons)' date=' and attract enough membership for the right reasons?[/quote'] Unions are effective only when they are as their name suggests, a union. They become a toothless org. against the power of the employers when membership is voluntary - which essentially means company can hire anyone if the union decides to strike for example. Unions were created for a reason and that is to fight against ruthless ownership. If Owners had behaved reasonably always, there would be no need for organized labor in the first place.

[Lurker]

What? There were a handful of companies which anticipated the bubble and adjusted their positions accordingly' date=' most prominent being Goldman Sachs. Where did you get this information that Investment Bankers knew about the real estate bubble? Kuch bhi bolna ka kya?[/quote'] Shwetabh - just curious as to who do you hold responsbile for the whole real estate fiasco?

[Brainfade]

Shwetabh - just curious as to who do you hold responsbile for the whole real estate fiasco?

http://online.barrons.com/article/SB122246742997580395.html

To: Washington, D.C. From: Wall Street Re: Credit Crisis Dear D.C., WOW, WE'VE MADE QUITE A MESS OF THINGS here on Wall Street: Fannie and Freddie in conservatorship, investment banks in the tank, AIG nationalized. Thanks for sending us your new trillion-dollar bailout. We on Wall Street feel somewhat compelled to take at least some responsibility. We used excessive leverage, failed to maintain adequate capital, engaged in reckless speculation, created new complex derivatives. We focused on short-term profits at the expense of sustainability. We not only undermined our own firms, we destabilized the financial sector and roiled the global economy, to boot. And we got huge bonuses. But here's a news flash for you, D.C.: We could not have done it without you. We may be drunks, but you were our enablers: Your legislative, executive, and administrative decisions made possible all that we did. Our recklessness would not have reached its soaring heights but for your governmental incompetence. THIS MEMO PROVIDES A BRIEF HISTORY OF your actions that helped create this crisis. 1997: Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's famous "irrational exuberance" speech in 1996 was somehow ignored by, um, Fed Chairman Greenspan. The Fed missed the opportunity to change margin requirements. Had the Fed acted, the bubble would not have inflated as much, and the subsequent crash would not have been as severe. 1998: Long Term Capital Management was undercapitalized, used enormous amounts of leverage to purchase all manner of thinly traded, hard-to-value paper. It failed, and under the authority of the Federal Reserve a "private-sector" rescue plan was cobbled together. Had these bankers suffered big losses from LTCM, they might have thought twice before jumping into the exact same business model of undercapitalized, overleveraged, thinly traded, hard-to-value paper. Instead, they reaffirmed Benjamin Disraeli's famous aphorism: "What we learn from history is that we do not learn from history." 1999: The Financial Services Modernization Act repealed Glass-Steagall, a law that had separated the commercial-banking industry from Wall Street, and the two industries, plus insurance, came together again. Banks became bigger, clumsier, and hard to manage. Apparently, risk-management became all but impossible, even as banks had greater access to larger pools of capital. 2000: The Commodities Futures Modernization Act defined financial commodities such as "interest rates, currency prices, and stock indexes" as "excluded commodities." They could trade off the futures exchanges, with minimal oversight by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Neither the Securities and Exchange Commission, nor the Federal Reserve, nor any state insurance regulators had the ability to supervise or regulate the writing of credit-default swaps by hedge funds, investment banks or insurance companies. 2001-'03: Alan Greenspan's Fed dropped federal-fund rates to 1%. Lulled into a false belief that inflation was not a problem, the Fed then kept rates at 1% for more than a year. This set off an inflationary spiral in housing, and a desperate hunt for yield by fixed-income managers. 2003-'07: The Federal Reserve failed to use its supervisory and regulatory authority over banks, mortgage underwriters and other lenders, who abandoned such standards as employment history, income, down payments, credit rating, assets, property loan-to-value ratio and debt-servicing ability. The borrower's ability to repay these mortgages was replaced with the lender's ability to securitize and repackage them. 2004: The SEC waived its leverage rules. Previously, broker/dealer net-capital rules limited firms to a maximum debt-to-net-capital ratio of 12 to 1. This 2004 exemption allowed them to exceed this leverage rule. Only five firms -- Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and Morgan Stanley -- were granted this exemption; they promptly levered up 20, 30 and even 40 to 1. 2005-'07: Unscrupulous home appraisers found that they could attract more business by inflating appraisals. Intrinsic value was ignored, so referrals kept coming in. This helped borrowers obtain financing at prices that were increasingly unsupportable. When honest appraisers petitioned both Congress and the bureaucracy to intervene in the widespread fraud, neither branch of government acted. THERE'S ACTUALLY A LOT MORE we could add to these items. We could mention impotent supervision of Fannie and Freddie by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight; the negligent oversight on ratings agencies; the Boskin Commission's monkeying around with how inflation gets measured; the "Greenspan Put," etc. We could mention former Fed Governor Edward Gramlich, who warned about making home loans to people who could not afford them, and who said the runaway subprime-mortgage industry would create problems in housing and the credit markets. But Gramlich was up against a Fed chairman who apparently believed that markets can regulate themselves. (Gramlich died last year, three months after the housing bubble started to deflate.) We on Wall Street do not deny our part. We created these securities, we rated them triple-A, we traded them without understanding them. Now that they have gone bad, we are real close to getting the rest of the country to take them off our hands. Thanks, D.C. None of this would have been possible without you. Very truly yours, Wall Street

[Lurker]

http://online.barrons.com/article/SB...997580395.html

A Wall Street article defending Wall Street, and holding everyone else responsible lol. Sorry CA I will pass. This is where this becomes a partisan issue. If you truly beleive that those are the points that caused the market to collapse and NOT the investment banking, we are too far apart to even begin a conversation :nice:

[The Outsider]

Shwetabh - just curious as to who do you hold responsbile for the whole real estate fiasco?

Politicians who left the entire system without checks and balances, banks who exploited this, and the people who let themselves be exploited in that order.

[Lurker]

Politicians who left the entire system without checks and balances' date=' banks who exploited this, and the people who let themselves be exploited in that order.[/quote'] lol. You included the entire United States in there, didnt you? What are your thoughts on regulations like SOX?