NYS CON CON

MC2 5678F589 wrote

campgottagopee wrote

State employee benefits are ridiculous  --- they need to be brought back in line with today's reality

Not as ridiculous as the benefits at Harvey's business.

I don't understand your criticism of this.

It's not criticism. I was just pointing out to camp that some private companies have better benefits than public employment.

I wish all companies would do what you do.

I get pretty upset about people pointing fingers and saying "hey, THOSE guys are getting better benefits than me, and if I can't get those benefits, then nobody should." Whatever happened to worker solidarity?

OK. I was thinking that it maybe it undermines the middle's motivation to support single payer. It probably does.

After years of paying in we're relying heavily on our insurance right now. I feel pretty lucky, in that respect.

MC2 5678F589 wrote

 I was just pointing out to camp that some private companies have better benefits than public employment.
 

LOL -- Really? That's what you were doing?  In that case thanks Einstein

Wouldn't private kickass companies like Harv's be in your "tiny number" argument

Milo Maltbie wrote

....but that's not consistent with the whole MAGA hidden agenda, which is turning out to be just a scam to impoverish working people so banksters can have bigger yachts.  

mm

You're just figuring out NOW that MAGA is a load of BS ??

If the system is sustainable I have no problem with it. But when I have to pay to fund another person's retirement there is something that does not sit well with me.  

tjf1967 wrote

If the system is sustainable I have no problem with it. But when I have to pay to fund another person's retirement there is something that does not sit well with me.

You're paying for another person's retirement every time you pay for any product at any business.

Where do you think companies get the money for those 401(k) matches?

campgottagopee wrote

MC2 5678F589 wrote

 I was just pointing out to camp that some private companies have better benefits than public employment.
 

LOL -- Really? That's what you were doing?  In that case thanks Einstein

Wouldn't private kickass companies like Harv's be in your "tiny number" argument

No. A lot of smaller businesses like Harv's really treat their employees well.

It's generally the huge corporations that fuck employees over. They know that there will always be a mostly unlimited supply of labor and have armies of accountants and actuaries that determine the "fair" (read: most beneficial for the company) labor rate & benefit package.

LOL -- you and your spin crack me up. We are talking about employers (in the real working world) providing health insurance at no cost to their employees, not how employees are "treated". Tiny number? Of course it is.

MC2 5678F589 wrote

tjf1967 wrote

If the system is sustainable I have no problem with it. But when I have to pay to fund another person's retirement there is something that does not sit well with me.

You're paying for another person's retirement every time you pay for any product at any business.

Where do you think companies get the money for those 401(k) matches?

LMAO --- again you haven't a clue. The days of employers matching 401k are dwindling --- stick your head outside of your bubble once in a while. that doesn't mean employees are being treated badly, it's just the reality of where we are in today's business world.

You don't get a match on your 401k contributions, camp?

campgottagopee wrote

LOL -- you and your spin crack me up. We are talking about employers (in the real working world) providing health insurance at no cost to their employees, not how employees are "treated". Tiny number? Of course it is.

Oh, yeah, covering the entire bill is rare.

But I don't think most people (working for companies) are paying $500 a month with $100 copays (for 1 person) like you are.

And again, what are you arguing here, camp? "I've gotten screwed by my company, so everyone else should be screwed, too"? That way, they'll know what it's like in the "real world"?

Why are you trying to make life shittier for people?

There is some evidence that our employees feel well treated, they stay for a long time, a significant percentage who leave are retiring vs going to another company.

But to be devil's advocate about this. I'm sure I've told this story before, but whatev.

We consider benefits part of pay. We have a limited amount of money to pay that is determined by how much we make (duh huh).  If we spend more on healthcare (we probably do) then we have less for salaries and other expenses.

We don't do a 401k match.  Instead we have a system we call "profit sharing." If we get to the end of the year and have a profit we contribute to employees 401ks in an amount that owners determine. It's a percentage of salary, better year, bigger number. Bad year, we don't do it.  Like other companies in really bad years we have layoffs.  In  December of 2008 we laid off 1/3 of the company, cut employee pay by 10% and owner pay by 20%.  We went several years without any increases.

We are assuming that most employees would rather keep their jobs than have a "guaranteed" 401k match.  Plus, when you are a small company layoffs are complicated.  General Motors can probably cut their accounting department by x%.  We have one accountant and we can't function without her.  You need at least one person doing each function.

I'm sure there are other things that other companies provide that we don't.  We just choose to provide health insurance. It's kind of a company tradition or part of our culture. One thing I will say in our defense is that there is not a big gap in salaries between owner pay and top paid employees salaries.

I did some googling but still not sure about the implications of CON CON.  Can someone give me the TLDR?  Especially interested in impacts on the forest preserve.

campgottagopee wrote

MC2 5678F589 wrote

tjf1967 wrote

If the system is sustainable I have no problem with it. But when I have to pay to fund another person's retirement there is something that does not sit well with me.

You're paying for another person's retirement every time you pay for any product at any business.

Where do you think companies get the money for those 401(k) matches?

LMAO --- again you haven't a clue. The days of employers matching 401k are dwindling --- stick your head outside of your bubble once in a while. that doesn't mean employees are being treated badly, it's just the reality of where we are in today's business world.

Also, even if lower level employees aren't getting 401(k) matches, managers and corner office people most definitely are. And a lot of CEO's and COO's and CFO's get pensions (to go along with their stock options).

Also, as tjf has mentioned before, even if we discount 401k's, companies pay for the employer side of social security anyway, so again, you're paying for other people's retirements any time you patronize any business, even ones owned by a single person.

I hate it when I make non-controversial points here and people jump all over them trying to score a "gotcha" moment.

This is one of my major issues with it:

http://www.syracuse.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/09/ny_constitutional_convention_threatens_forever_wild_adirondacks_commentary.html

MC2 5678F589 wrote

you're paying for other people's retirements any time you patronize any business

The way I understand it, this is more true when you by an "American" car vs an "import."

One reason why American companies were so hesistant in the past to embrace smaller cars was that Ford and Chevy have (or had) a much larger pension obligation per vehicle than Honda or Toyota. It's easier to make that up in $30,000 F150 than it is in a $12,000 Chevy Chevette.

Marcski wrote

Milo Maltbie wrote

....but that's not consistent with the whole MAGA hidden agenda, which is turning out to be just a scam to impoverish working people so banksters can have bigger yachts.  

mm

You're just figuring out NOW that MAGA is a load of BS ??

No. I figured out I wasn't rich enough to be a Republican during the GWB administration.

mm

I'm not arguing anything, seems you want to tho. I was simply stating that for a company to cover an employee's total cost of health care not only is very rare (YOUR tiny number argument) but super cool. Then you went off on your usual tangents and tried to spin in into something it wasn't, an argument.

Peace out bro --- just stopped in my office to so some paperwork now I'm off to NYC.  

Harvey wrote

Can someone give me the TLDR?  Especially interested in impacts on the forest preserve.

Everything is on the table in a constitutional convention.  Everybody has some complaint with the current constitution, but the constitution also provides important protections for lots of things, like the Forest Preserve.  I am not aware of any specific proposals that people want to include in a new constitution, or things they want to add or subtract. In a wholesale re-write, you might get some of the things you want (or not), but you will probably have to negotiate away some things you like or accept some things you don't like. Unless you believe the current constitution has failed, that's an unacceptable risk.  

Add in that the convention delegates will be elected more or less the same way as the legislature no one likes, but with an additional 16 delegates most likely from NYC, there isn't any compelling reason for Upstaters to vote for a convention, or anyone for that matter.

mm