Quote:
Originally Posted by simmer2
The comment I made was likely a little harsher than it needed to be, but what I am saying is from the involvement I have had with government, their bureaucracy is ridiculous. I have nothing against people that work for government, they earn their money just like I do. I feel it is the govt's responsibility to reduce overhead to allow their members to be paid fairly though, otherwise our tax dollars just go up to pay for the increased salaries; the inefficiencies simply get ignored.
Unions like this shouldn't be fighting for increased wages, they should be fighting for the removal of unnecessary overhead.
I am getting away from the main point though, and needless to say, that's not the way to be bargaining.
|
I agree the bureaucracy is pathetic, this offer clearly shows it. You say you have no problem with government workers making money the same as you do, fair enough. Would you be happy or settle for a contract that pays you less than inflation, essentially giving you a pay reduction?
Or what about the increase in inefficiencies created by the disolussioned government workers who feel that they are not respected and the work they do is not being appreciated by their employer? Do you not think that would create even more inefficiencies and overhead? Increased sick leave, stress leave, hiring incompetent workers because the good ones are not attracted to the public sector because they can make much more in the private sector? Would you rather pay a bunch of idiots less money to run government services or pay more money and have competent people running it?
Why shouldn't unions be fighting for better wages and working conditions for there members? Wouldn't that eliminate some of the inefficiencies and overhead? Is it there responsibility or is it the taxerpay/voter to demand that the politicians do there jobs properly?