Monday, March 7

Oh, I always wanted to be a Teamster. So lazy and surly... mind if I relax next to you?

Now even the new york times is admitting that public employees are drastically overpaid. Not only that, but the times has admitted that when governors have tried to play nice and ask for small concessions in the past, the unions have gotten nasty, and flooded money to attack them preventing any kind of cuts to union benefits. Still the times is not willing to go so far as to admit that there is any kind of problems with unions or with their previous outrageous demands. Still when even the times admits that public employees need to take a pay cut/pay more money into their pension/insurance plans that progress.

Couple of specifics how is that only 2 years the retirement age was raised from 55 to 62? Why were public employees ever allowed to retire at 55? Who considers 55 retirement age except for public employees. Also why are all the cuts to new workers. If the politicians/unions actually cared about protecting worker class people they would force cuts among all union employees. Instead they force all the cuts onto future employees, and because there are so few of them the cuts need to be bigger. So instead of a 3% cut across the board it needs to be a 12% cut to all future employees. That's not protecting families, it's protecting the union members who have already bled the state dry, and will continue to do so because nobody has the political will power to oppose them.


Post a Comment

<< Home