HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

packerboy wrote:I dont disagree Lee but its good for everyone to hear because those attitudes exist out there.

Its good for ChrisK and his fellow workers to hear so they know what they are up against.

In my experience working in the public sector and in dealing with those that do on a regular basis, I have a way differnet opinion than hockeygod's.

I get way better service and response and much more courtesy from the fine , dedicated people working for the state, the U of M and various counties than a I do when I call up my bank which is now a nationwide , faceless conglomorate that doesnt give a Boof that I have been a customer for 30 years.

I have 2 kids in public colleges. We get great response and sevice anytime we need it. The kids say the same.

The private sector has at least as many issues a does the public as far as givng people their money's worth.

But you are always going to hear about how "my tax dollars pay your salary" and blah blah.

Sorry Joe, it looks like I'd deleted my response at the same time you were responding to it. Since you read it, the reason I deleted it after I posted it was; I gave it a second thought and came to a decision that sometimes it's not necessary to get into a battle of wits with someone lacking them. In other words, some minds are too closed to be re-opened.

hockeygod wrote:lets face it Chris, you have a very easy job

What does Chris do (Chris, don't answer)? He has an "easy job"... what is his job? I bet you don't know what he does, and it's that sort of leap to judgement that pretty much sells the validity of unions today. "Well, they only make $xx,xxx... they must be worthless. Can 'em. We'll find somebody to it for $x,xxx".

Honestly, hockey. I would like you tell us all what Chris' job is.

I think it's a bit harsh as well....34K c'mon unless your just out of school (College) and entering the work force and have yet to establish yourself, and, or have a family that would not go very far! what with housing, food and fuel cost's.....take all that out of what maybe $500/wk after tax? now lets throw insurance, education cost, etc.. entertainment is all but out of the question.
Yeah you can say go get a real job?? but do you want the south of the border workers taking those jobs too!


I see the point on the I team investigation, but I tend to lean that towards media sensationalism...there are always bad apples...but there are many more good.
Good luck Chris!

Chris is a clerical and support staff worker, who most likely works in some cubical thinking his (or her) job is so vital that the world can't revolve with the job getting done but basicly the paperwork that is generated by Chris goes mostly unnoticed by those above him and only 10% (Dept. of labor and statistic) of it will ever be accessed by anyone else. his biggest contribution is going to a computer terminal to lookup a piece of information needed by a student and this question which chris answered will be one of about 30 he handles all day. I just find it strange that the teamsters at the U and AFSCME workers at the U both found similar contract offers were good enough to accept while clerical workers feel there jobs are so vital that they should get more.

hockeygod, If we (the state or other govt entities) dont pay people close to what they can make in the private sector, who is gonna do those jobs.

I know, people that cant speak English (Or even Anglitch) like at McDonalds or other private sector places.

Millions of people who are in the private sector meet your description of what you think ChrisK does.

hockeygod wrote:Chris is a clerical and support staff worker, who most likely works in some cubical thinking his (or her) job is so vital that the world can't revolve with the job getting done but basicly the paperwork that is generated by Chris goes mostly unnoticed by those above him and only 10% (Dept. of labor and statistic) of it will ever be accessed by anyone else. his biggest contribution is going to a computer terminal to lookup a piece of information needed by a student and this question which chris answered will be one of about 30 he handles all day. I just find it strange that the teamsters at the U and AFSCME workers at the U both found similar contract offers were good enough to accept while clerical workers feel there jobs are so vital that they should get more.

So in other words, you don't know what he does. You "most likely" know what he does.

Also, you are aware that AFSCME is representing the clerical workers, correct? What's with the "AFSCME workers at the U both found similar contract offers were good enough to accept"? Clearly not the case.

Your absolutly right about paying them what they could get in the private sector. but with the skill set that is required to to do the job that the clerical workers do right now they are being paid right around what the private sector would pay them. You also have to remember that when you add in there benifit package along with step increases (something unique to public employees) it is costing the U about $60,000 a year to retain these people on the payroll where in the private sector it would cost about $46,000 to retain a similar worker

Well hockeygod, if they are being paid (considering benefits) more than they would get in the private sector and are on strike , I agree that would be ridiculous.

But I doubt thats the case.

From Govs link one example of what some do...

"I run the Civil Engineering Machine shop. I am a tool and die maker. I assist graduate engineers to assemble and machine their research project. A main portion of my duties is to keep them safe, keep tools in working order and get building repairs done, both in Civil Engineering and Shepherd Labs. Since I am the only machinist, this work will not be done."

With this persons experience he could make 50-60K in the private sector, so if he leaves will someone with his experience take this job? Doubtful.

Govs93 wrote: So in other words, you don't know what he does. You "most likely" know what he does.

Also, you are aware that AFSCME is representing the clerical workers, correct? What's with the "AFSCME workers at the U both found similar contract offers were good enough to accept"? Clearly not the case.

I guess I should have clarified, the AFSCME technical workers settled, not local 3800 who are on strike . loca 3800 workers do pretty much the same things for all of the departments all over the U, My nephew works in the Alumni center and I listed what he does, I Know people that are on strike that work in the vetranary center, this is what they do. can it be much different in the library? they are union workers that are bargining as a unit, this is what this unit of clerical workers do.

Can't Never Tried wrote: With this persons experience he could make 50-60K in the private sector, so if he leaves will someone with his experience take this job? Doubtful.

If this person thinks he will get so much more money in the private sector (i doubt it) than he should go have at it. There will be someone else to step into the job at the U who will be happy with what there getting paidand the benifits offered. If there isn't then the U will have to raise the payscale for that position. Until there is catastophic failures at filling these positions then I don't see a wage problem at the U.

Thats a good busines plan hockeygod.

Pay your employees as little as possible and when they leave because they arent being paid fairly, hire someone new who will do the job for awhile and then leave for the same reason.

Turnover is good to some degree but you will never have a long term, experienced, competent corps of workers. Your service to your customers will be bad.

hockeygod wrote:

Can't Never Tried wrote: With this persons experience he could make 50-60K in the private sector, so if he leaves will someone with his experience take this job? Doubtful.

If this person thinks he will get so much more money in the private sector (i doubt it) than he should go have at it. There will be someone else to step into the job at the U who will be happy with what there getting paidand the benifits offered. If there isn't then the U will have to raise the payscale for that position. Until there is catastophic failures at filling these positions then I don't see a wage problem at the U.

1st off I said they would get paid more, based on the job description given, and my knowledge of that industry... he would no question!
But!!
Like the bridge huh! let's wait for a failure then say geez I guess we have a problem...better look at all the bridges now! I guess we neglected to address that issue...or we took the cheap route!

Still even if you were single that's not that much money, what's rent 33% of your gross pay?? at minimum.

I'm sure your doing just fine at the law firm...would you survive on that 34K??

some jobs are very thankless and are helped by turnover thus bringing in fresh blood who will hopefully have some enthusiasum for the job. These are some of those jobs that were never meant to be lifetime careers and are paid as such. We all have used stepping stones throughout our lives to get where we are, these jobs were meant to be stepping stones and although the jobs haven't changed dramatically some people believe that the pay should grow to be that of a career position. We have plenty of such positions at our firm where turnover is welcomed and we show that by what we pay. if someone wants to advance we tell them what they have to do to make more money and have opportunitties for such advancement but we will not over pay someone for a non vital position. especially if they have been in that same position for a number of years because it shows a lack of ambition on there part.

hockeygod wrote:some jobs are very thankless and are helped by turnover thus bringing in fresh blood who will hopefully have some enthusiasum for the job. These are some of those jobs that were never meant to be lifetime careers and are paid as such. We all have used stepping stones throughout our lives to get where we are, these jobs were meant to be stepping stones and although the jobs haven't changed dramatically some people believe that the pay should grow to be that of a career position. We have plenty of such positions at our firm where turnover is welcomed and we show that by what we pay. if someone wants to advance we tell them what they have to do to make more money and have opportunitties for such advancement but we will not over pay someone for a non vital position. especially if they have been in that same position for a number of years because it shows a lack of ambition on there part.

You sound like management yet you don't know the difference between "their" and "there"? Let us know what your company is...so I can avoid it like the plague and spend my money with a company which cares about their customers and employees.

You're losing more credibility with each subsequent post. Keep posting.

Lee

hockeygod wrote:some jobs are very thankless and are helped by turnover thus bringing in fresh blood who will hopefully have some enthusiasum for the job. These are some of those jobs that were never meant to be lifetime careers and are paid as such. We all have used stepping stones throughout our lives to get where we are, these jobs were meant to be stepping stones and although the jobs haven't changed dramatically some people believe that the pay should grow to be that of a career position. We have plenty of such positions at our firm where turnover is welcomed and we show that by what we pay. if someone wants to advance we tell them what they have to do to make more money and have opportunitties for such advancement but we will not over pay someone for a non vital position. especially if they have been in that same position for a number of years because it shows a lack of ambition on there part.

I'm sure this information is on your Employment application
I can just see it..........
Wanted position for:
"Non vital job..... you won't get promoted or paid more for doing it well, being dependable, and loyal, in fact you will be admonished for staying in the position to long, because you will be deemed lazy"
That's sad

hahahahha, you sound as though you disdain management. Are you surprised by the conservative leanings of my posts that I am in management (a partner). Isn't it funny how people hate Lawyers and Management until they need them to turn a huge profit or sue someone. Then they want the most nasty bloodthirsty person they can find. It's the same way in most larger business' where we are required to make a profit. Just because the U isn't required to make a profit dosen't mean they should give away the store...oh and our firm. We (not me but our firm) represents various unions all over the country along with our other clients.

Hockeygod raises some good points and at least has the guts to bring up other sides of the issue at hand instead of, "we support you Chris" etc. Whether you like or support ChrisK personally or not is not the issue - has the State's offer and bargaining been fair is the issue. Reading the Strib's article this AM, it appears to me the strikers have nothing to gain in this ill advised stand and have already lost in wages what would have taken them over two years to gain with what they were seeking. If you are doing it for principle then have at it, but economically it make no sense.

AY

hockeygod wrote:hahahahha, you sound as though you disdain management. Are you surprised by the conservative leanings of my posts that I am in management (a partner). Isn't it funny how people hate Lawyers and Management until they need them to turn a huge profit or sue someone. Then they want the most nasty bloodthirsty person they can find. It's the same way in most larger business' where we are required to make a profit. Just because the U isn't required to make a profit dosen't mean they should give away the store...oh and our firm. We (not me but our firm) represents various unions all over the country along with our other clients.

I don't disdain management. I disdain ignorant people who think they know more than they actually do. (Hint; you)

Way to toot your own horn there, Bubba, but I'm not impressed by what you do. You represent the worst of your profession and could take a lesson from someone else on this Board who has the common sense you apparently lack.

By the way, I need an email from you on who the other individual is who's also posting under your IP. Failing that, I'll ban the IP. Good enough for you?

Lee

I know many, many attorneys. Many are very close friends of mine.

I have yet to meet one of them that was capable of handling the public sector job I had many years ago.

And I dealt with the attorneys almost on a daily basis in that job and most (not all) were lacking in knowledge and demeanor in doing their job. The public sector workers were more knowledgeable (generally).

And again, Angus, you are wrong.
The issue on this board, this thread is about ChrisK (who many on here consider a friend).

The other issue was brought into this thread. Most, if not all, including hockeyattorney, are not qualified and/or knowledgeable to make decisions regarding this current issue.
The biggest problem is that there is no right or wrong. Laborers, regardless of titles and employer, are entitled to be properly compensated. Hockeyattorneys perception (as well as mine) of what these workers do is not pertinent. Their employer obviously needs someone to perform these jobs. If they aer overpaid or not required, then we (the taxpayers) have not been properly represented, and God forbid, the Board of Regents are not doing their job, but rather have been standing around leaning against a shovel.

We all are capable of leaning agianst the shovel.

Adn I am management and represent management. But unlike some, realize that people willing to get up every morning and work, ahve a value. And deserved respect whether we believe they make more or less than what we perceive them to be worth.

An attorney taking 1/3 of a personal injury award (PLUS out of pocket expenses); is that worth it?
Obviously, sometimes yes. But does it cause frivolous lawsuits? Does an attroney's greed make our economy, our judicial system, our world better?

As I mentioned elsewhere, all of us need to keep a mirror close by.

elliott70 wrote:As I mentioned elsewhere, all of us need to keep a mirror close by.

Agreed. I'm not sure hockeyattorney is aware that he's preaching to several different levels of management in different fields and sectors (both private and public) on this "bored". If you're concerned about impressions that the public has regarding lawyers, for many it's the ability they seem to have to skirt the truth and "muddy the waters", so to speak. They tend to try and make people believe things that just aren't there. One of the ways they do that? Broad generalizations.

- Disagree? You disdain managemet
- Thankless job? Anybody can do it.


The fact of the matter is that for those who have the ability to see the forest for the trees (including those of us in management), we see that sweeping judgments toward a particular segment can often times end up in situations similar to what we're seeing at the U now.

Ignorance is bliss and I agree that we really dont what we are talking about (never been detriment to discussion here before) because we dont have the facts and figures.

But we do have people in the know if given some info.

So, what does a secretary/clerk typist or whatever the title who can hammer out 100 wpm with 5 years into the job make?

Then hockeygod can tell us what someone in his office makes and we can have at it.

There is no reaon to vilify any poster (unless I am the one doing it), lets get the facts.

packerboy wrote:Ignorance is bliss

Boy we could have fun with that
Not to go off topic but anyone else notice the Bored is a bit crabby this week???

Can't Never Tried wrote:

packerboy wrote:Ignorance is bliss

Boy we could have fun with that
Not to go off topic but anyone else notice the Bored is a bit crabby this week???

Blame it on these guys:

I think its the change in the weather.