[Lemmy]

Pseudonym wrote:

What point does it switch over from being more cost effective to supply benefits than wages? I hardly think it as simple a relationship as you describe.

I hope I didn't suggest that it'd be a SIMPLE relationship. It'd be a monumental research project to undertake. I surely don't know what point it would "switch" over. There's no data to test. I wouldn't know where to begin. So I'll grant you, it's theoretical economics on my part. But you can understand the logic.

Pseudonym wrote:

And if we plot their total compensation over a lifetime, where do we find the worst government planning? With wages, the precise amounts have to be there on payday. With benefits, the politicians have been making promises and passing the buck. It seems to me that controls need to be tightened on the latter, not the former.

That position is irrational. Hypothetical: let's suppose management and union are negotiating a cotract. Union asks management for a $1000 per member, per year increase in salary under the new contract. Management crunches the numbers on the insurance, plus the interest on the salary pool, etc, and comes back to the Union with its offer. "We can't do $1000 in salary but we can offer you $600 in salary and $400 in benefits. This will be better for you than $1000 cash because you'll still be getting $1000 in value but you only have to pay income tax on $600". Management's done the math. They know they won't have to pay out all the $600 and they know they can get the $400 benefits package for $200. You'd rather pay $1000 than, say, $700 just because it pisses you off that public sector unions have benefits plans? Does the existence of the plan itself (or lack of similar plans in the private sector) irritate you so much that you'd choose the more expensive option out of spite? And I don't mean you personally, Pseudonym, I mean the union-busting mentality in general.

[ShepherdsDog]

Quote:

It'd be a monumental research project to undertake.

Guaranteeing scads of high paying government positions for economists

[Pseudonym]

I think the situation is more akin to management promising $600 dollars, projecting they'll payout $400, and ending up paying out $800. When it is the pension payments that are radically outside the budgeted limits, you need to cut the pension payments.

[fifeboy]

Well, despite the fact that EyeBrock will probably drive to Saskatoon and arrest me, I give you:


and

[Lemmy]

Pseudonym wrote:

I think the situation is more akin to management promising $600 dollars, projecting they'll payout $400, and ending up paying out $800. When it is the pension payments that are radically outside the budgeted limits, you need to cut the pension payments.

No. You need to hire smarter people in MANAGEMENT so that $400 projections don't turn into $800 costs. That's on management, not union, when management fucks up.

[Thanos]

Lemmy wrote:

...... You need to hire smarter people in MANAGEMENT ....

LOL, that'll be the day. Besides. no one at the top wants smarter management anyway. If they hired or developed (LOL, there's another huge laugh, companies actually 'developing' anyone anymore), it would mean more upper-rank responsibility, especially the responsibility to own up to their own mistakes and fuck-ups which (on any given day) absolutely dwarf in sheer numbers the ones made be the employees. Any serious attempt the get better management would mean that they'd never be able to blame everything on their 'greedy' employees ever again.

Smarter management? You're better off hoping for a lottery win instead, buhhhh-ddy. Business these days means being stuck with a management system, especially at the very top, that tends to rival the disgusting incompetence of the grubby little idiots in the British high command circa World War One. I've seen nothing during any of my working-career time on the front lines with these business-school bastards, that would indicated anything is ever going to happen to the contrary of long-established corporate traditions.

[martin14]

Pseudonym wrote:

We all had a part in creating it - we elected an irresponsible government that made irresponsible promises and did not perform their proscribed duties. I'm sorry, Mr. Public Sector worker, but you're gonna have to take a paycut. Also, I'm sad to say, those politicians that promised you pensions based off of impossible rates of return, well, they lied to ya. Time to button up before the problems get worse.

Greece in a nutshell.