last night's elections...

_

mikepegg44 wrote:

fair enough. A review system and a ROWE system are two different things. I think it is far worse simply rewarding people for years of service and protecting terrible workers than the chance that a supervisor might not "get it".
Well, look at it this way...I routinely get great reviews, but because I have maxed out my job class and there have been no raises for cost of living, I now make less today than I did when I started and have been forced to take on twice as much work because other people(who are still employed and make the EXACT same amount I do) are incompetent but cannot be fired.
Again, academia isn't the only area covered by unions in the public sector...shouldn't firemen who go above and beyond be rewarded for their service rather than paid the same amount as the people they routinely cover for? Policemen, support staff workers, PHNs...I can go on an on...
No system is perfect, however I would much prefer one that rewards good employees rather than protects the bad ones...We just look at it differently.

I would rather reward both the good & bad employees than fuck over both the good & bad employees. I think systems like you are talking about are more likely to fuck over good employees - and more likely to reward bad employees. And we seem to be forgetting that systems like the ones you oppose were largely put in place to keep people from getting promoted based on favoritism, etc.

I have the same problem you're having, where we haven't gotten any raises and we actually make less each year - but I'm NOT covered by a union. So I don't really think you can blame the unions.

I absolutely think it's a bad idea to get rid of firefighter and police unions. Then they'll just fucked even more that they already are and the public they serve will really be screwed.

_

mikepegg44 wrote:

_ wrote:

I'm not sure how a thread about voters' voices on the rights of collective bargaining units & constitutional rights for fertilized eggs became about the very specific concept of performance-based pay, particularly for teachers. The elections were about SO much more than that.

it seems to be the thing people disagree about. I don't know too many people (whether they are pro-choice or not) that think it is a great idea that have legislation that spells out when life begins as the moment of conception.

teachers were just the example that was brought up.

Unions in the public sector are as guilty as any politician in terms of money wasting. And the fact that the voters of Ohio don't see this is disconcerting for me.

If you would like to make a point about any of the other topics feel free, no one will stop you from posting about it, and no one will stop anyone from replying to your point.

I think we let you frame the debate about unions when you pulled one sentence/concept out of the law and made the conversation about that. But I'm too tired to try to reframe it right now. So carry on, I guess.

Monster Rain

If you don't evaluate your employees, how do you determine if someone deserves to be fired or promoted?

_ wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

fair enough. A review system and a ROWE system are two different things. I think it is far worse simply rewarding people for years of service and protecting terrible workers than the chance that a supervisor might not "get it".
Well, look at it this way...I routinely get great reviews, but because I have maxed out my job class and there have been no raises for cost of living, I now make less today than I did when I started and have been forced to take on twice as much work because other people(who are still employed and make the EXACT same amount I do) are incompetent but cannot be fired.
Again, academia isn't the only area covered by unions in the public sector...shouldn't firemen who go above and beyond be rewarded for their service rather than paid the same amount as the people they routinely cover for? Policemen, support staff workers, PHNs...I can go on an on...
No system is perfect, however I would much prefer one that rewards good employees rather than protects the bad ones...We just look at it differently.

I would rather reward both the good & bad employees than fuck over both the good & bad employees. I think systems like you are talking about are more likely to fuck over good employees - and more likely to reward bad employees. And we seem to be forgetting that systems like the ones you oppose were largely put in place to keep people from getting promoted based on favoritism, etc.

I have the same problem you're having, where we haven't gotten any raises and we actually make less each year - but I'm NOT covered by a union. So I don't really think you can blame the unions.

I absolutely think it's a bad idea to get rid of firefighter and police unions. Then they'll just fucked even more that they already are and the public they serve will really be screwed.

_

Jason P wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

take mlb for example ... do we pay each players strictly on stats like hits, rbis, runs? ... some players get more rbis cuz the guys in front of him in the lineup get on more ... some players get more runs because guys behind them hit better ... also, how do you judge defense? ... how do you factor in leadership in the clubhouse and willingness to help other players?

That is why it is important to have good leaders making the evaluations.

Yeah, but we don't.

_

Monster Rain wrote:

If you don't evaluate your employees, how do you determine if someone deserves to be fired or promoted?

_ wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

fair enough. A review system and a ROWE system are two different things. I think it is far worse simply rewarding people for years of service and protecting terrible workers than the chance that a supervisor might not "get it".
Well, look at it this way...I routinely get great reviews, but because I have maxed out my job class and there have been no raises for cost of living, I now make less today than I did when I started and have been forced to take on twice as much work because other people(who are still employed and make the EXACT same amount I do) are incompetent but cannot be fired.
Again, academia isn't the only area covered by unions in the public sector...shouldn't firemen who go above and beyond be rewarded for their service rather than paid the same amount as the people they routinely cover for? Policemen, support staff workers, PHNs...I can go on an on...
No system is perfect, however I would much prefer one that rewards good employees rather than protects the bad ones...We just look at it differently.

I would rather reward both the good & bad employees than fuck over both the good & bad employees. I think systems like you are talking about are more likely to fuck over good employees - and more likely to reward bad employees. And we seem to be forgetting that systems like the ones you oppose were largely put in place to keep people from getting promoted based on favoritism, etc.

I have the same problem you're having, where we haven't gotten any raises and we actually make less each year - but I'm NOT covered by a union. So I don't really think you can blame the unions.

I absolutely think it's a bad idea to get rid of firefighter and police unions. Then they'll just fucked even more that they already are and the public they serve will really be screwed.

No one's saying to not evaluate employees at all. And it's not really that difficult to tell if someone needs to be fired. Promotions are more complicated, but I think the systems y'all are talking about would actually prevent good employees from being promoted more than anything.

mikepegg44

_ wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

fair enough. A review system and a ROWE system are two different things. I think it is far worse simply rewarding people for years of service and protecting terrible workers than the chance that a supervisor might not "get it".
Well, look at it this way...I routinely get great reviews, but because I have maxed out my job class and there have been no raises for cost of living, I now make less today than I did when I started and have been forced to take on twice as much work because other people(who are still employed and make the EXACT same amount I do) are incompetent but cannot be fired.
Again, academia isn't the only area covered by unions in the public sector...shouldn't firemen who go above and beyond be rewarded for their service rather than paid the same amount as the people they routinely cover for? Policemen, support staff workers, PHNs...I can go on an on...
No system is perfect, however I would much prefer one that rewards good employees rather than protects the bad ones...We just look at it differently.

I would rather reward both the good & bad employees than fuck over both the good & bad employees. I think systems like you are talking about are more likely to fuck over good employees - and more likely to reward bad employees. And we seem to be forgetting that systems like the ones you oppose were largely put in place to keep people from getting promoted based on favoritism, etc.

I have the same problem you're having, where we haven't gotten any raises and we actually make less each year - but I'm NOT covered by a union. So I don't really think you can blame the unions.

I absolutely think it's a bad idea to get rid of firefighter and police unions. Then they'll just fucked even more that they already are and the public they serve will really be screwed.

I am not advocating for the removal of all aspects of unions, but I do think the things that can be collectively bargained should be limited for public employees... But that is why we are a democracy, the people of Ohio disagree and they made it known. good for them for getting involved. Although I cannot help but think how many of my afscme dues were spent fighting it.
I believe the single largest donor to campaigns in 2010 was AFSCME, 87 million, to fight things like RIGHT TO WORK laws that make it so the union cannot automatically take your money from your check, or force you to pay a fair share if you do not want to be in a union. Why would the union have to do this if what they offer is such a good product?
for all those who defend public employee unions and aren't in them, I sure hope you know all the aspects of what you are defending, because if you think more people would get fucked over by a ROWE environment than what happens now you are sadly mistaken. Come spend a month with me, I know for a fact you will change your tune when you see the same employee call in sick once a week and me not able to do a damn thing about it.

_

mikepegg44 wrote:

I am not advocating for the removal of all aspects of unions, but I do think the things that can be collectively bargained should be limited for public employees... But that is why we are a democracy, the people of Ohio disagree and they made it known. good for them for getting involved. Although I cannot help but think how many of my afscme dues were spent fighting it.
I believe the single largest donor to campaigns in 2010 was AFSCME, 87 million, to fight things like RIGHT TO WORK laws that make it so the union cannot automatically take your money from your check, or force you to pay a fair share if you do not want to be in a union. Why would the union have to do this if what they offer is such a good product?
for all those who defend public employee unions and aren't in them, I sure hope you know all the aspects of what you are defending, because if you think more people would get fucked over by a ROWE environment than what happens now you are sadly mistaken. Come spend a month with me, I know for a fact you will change your tune when you see the same employee call in sick once a week and me not able to do a damn thing about it.

I'm not ignorant about unions. I've been in unions before, even in this very same job. You sure are confident that your opinion is the only logical opinion if you know for a fact that I would change my tune if I spent a month with you. (I doubt that I would.) Perhaps you should spend a month with people who don't have collective bargaining rights. Maybe you would change your tune. No system is perfect, so you can go ahead a say things aren't perfect under the unions and you'd be right. But I think things are better when people have collective bargaining rights than when they don't.

This reminds me of the abortion debate. Or the debate about vaccines. We have the luxury of saying we don't need abortion rights or vaccines or unions because we've never had to live in a world without those options. There's a reason why people died for our right to have unions. And it's not because life is better without them.

gimmesometruth27

if you like having weekends, child labor laws, sick pay, leave of absence, paid vacation, worker's compensation, and mandated safe working conditions, then you should thank a union. without unions none of us would have any of those things....

mikepegg44

_ wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

I am not advocating for the removal of all aspects of unions, but I do think the things that can be collectively bargained should be limited for public employees... But that is why we are a democracy, the people of Ohio disagree and they made it known. good for them for getting involved. Although I cannot help but think how many of my afscme dues were spent fighting it.
I believe the single largest donor to campaigns in 2010 was AFSCME, 87 million, to fight things like RIGHT TO WORK laws that make it so the union cannot automatically take your money from your check, or force you to pay a fair share if you do not want to be in a union. Why would the union have to do this if what they offer is such a good product?
for all those who defend public employee unions and aren't in them, I sure hope you know all the aspects of what you are defending, because if you think more people would get fucked over by a ROWE environment than what happens now you are sadly mistaken. Come spend a month with me, I know for a fact you will change your tune when you see the same employee call in sick once a week and me not able to do a damn thing about it.

I'm not ignorant about unions. I've been in unions before, even in this very same job. You sure are confident that your opinion is the only logical opinion if you know for a fact that I would change my tune if I spent a month with you. (I doubt that I would.) Perhaps you should spend a month with people who don't have collective bargaining rights. Maybe you would change your tune. No system is perfect, so you can go ahead a say things aren't perfect under the unions and you'd be right. But I think things are better when people have collective bargaining rights than when they don't.

This reminds me of the abortion debate. Or the debate about vaccines. We have the luxury of saying we don't need abortion rights or vaccines or unions because we've never had to live in a world without those options. There's a reason why people died for our right to have unions. And it's not because life is better without them.

guess we will have to agree to disagree on the issue. I am old enough to have had plenty of jobs that weren't union. Including a trade. I understand their usefulness, and as I said, do not advocate elimination of them from the private sector...I just think unions in public areas are a dangerous thing and a situation where abuse and intimidation on behalf of the union leaders is disgusting. I have found this out from working within one. not from lumping public employee unions of today with the unions from the early 1900's...Things like the DAVIS BACON act have no business existing today.