Sound Politics Public Blog: Raises for State Employees?

December 15, 2009

Raises for State Employees?

Disclaimer #1: I am an employee of the State. Disclaimer #2: I am not a spokesman for the State. Disclaimer #3: For most State employees, it's just a job, not a political statement, and plenty of Republicans are State employees. Disclaimer #4: I am a Crunchy Con. Disclaimer #5: I worked in the private sector for...about 34 years, and have worked in the public sector for only 8 years.

State Senator Joseph Zarelli, R-Ridgefield, has sounded the alarm: some State employees are slated to get raises in 2010:

"What does it say to the average Washingtonian who is fearful of becoming unemployed that his or her taxes are going to pay 5 percent annual salary increases for state workers?" asked Zarelli, the ranking Senate Republican on budget matters. - Raises in sight for some state employees,
BY BRAD SHANNON; The Olympian, December 15, 2009

He says that like State employees are not fearful of becoming unemployed, too, which many are. But, setting aside questions about raises for legislators, like Sen. Zarelli, is this true? Yes, some State workers are slated to get raises in 2010. What's more, it's a good deal for taxpayers, because the type of raise that Sen.Zarelli is complaining about is the "step raise":

Under step pay rules, classified workers can receive increases of 2.5 percent for each step on the anniversary of their job-hire date, and workers typically climb two steps a year - until they reach the top, Personnel Department spokesman Andy Colvin said. - Raises in sight for some state employees, BY BRAD SHANNON; The Olympian, December 15, 2009

I don't know where the "workers typically climb two steps a year" comes from. In the agency where I work, we get only one step raise per year. But one step raise per year or two, how is this a good deal for taxpayers?

(Washington Federation of State Employees spokesman Tim Welch) also called step pay an "accounting" or "actuarial tool" for keeping down costs of adding new workers by phasing in their pay over time. The raises help retain good employees and are used by most large employers as a way to reward new workers as they become more experienced and productive, he added.- Raises in sight for some state employees, BY BRAD SHANNON; The Olympian, December 15, 2009

Welch's explanation doesn't quite match my experience. Prior to going to work for the State, I never got any step raises. Following the traditional 6-month probationary period, my pay was increased to the rate assigned to the position. After that, I earned raises through merit.

In State service, however, we start out significantly below the pay rate assigned to our position, and each year receive an incremental increase, or step raise, until we reach the rate assigned to the position. This reduces the cost that taxpayers pay for the position by deferring the jump to the full wage, phasing it in over several years.

Sen. Zarelli doesn't like that. One could play coy and suggest that he's for paying the full rate immediately following the 6-month probationary period, but we all know that he does not want that.

Undoubtedly, what he wants is to pay State employees less than the market rate. But as the old adage goes, you get what you pay for.

Personally, I'd like to see incentive pay and merit raises. But in a union environment, that's not likely. So, since I work for the taxpayers, and take my job of saving taxpayers' money very seriously--for the FY ending June 30, 2009, we saved taxpayers $384 million--I just do the best job that I can.

As for Sen. Zarelli's complaint, it smacks of political grandstanding. If all he wants is to get some headlines and maybe gain a few votes, net of the votes he will lose from the Republican State employees he alienates, then by all means, complain.

But nobody should mistake his complaining as being in the best interests of his constituency.

Posted by RodVanMechelen at December 15, 2009 06:07 PM | Email This

Comments

1. It might be grandstanding--who knows what his motives are or what lies inside his brain. I do know that his comments are likely to be well received by the average voter who works in the private sector.

Not only is the unemployment rate still over 9.3 percent but many people are having their hours cut. I work at a union job and I thought it was a relatively recession-proof industry, but for the past couple months part-time employees have been regularly sent home after 5 hours work due to lack of work.

I don't think the average government employee realizes what life is like for private sector workers these days. I think it would pay dividends down the road if pub. employee unions would opt not to exert all their political leverage right now and dial back expectations a little. But of course, it probably won't happen.

Posted by: travis t on December 15, 2009 11:18 PM

2. When I was with the State, people were able to jump up the scale by negotiating and getting a minor job description change to justify it. That was from 1973 to 1976. I don't know if it is the same.

Posted by: swatter on December 16, 2009 06:35 AM

3. At DSHS I have never seen any scale jumping and was unaware there was such a thing until now.

Travis, I mostly agree with you. I really wish that WFSE (the union) would back off. But I am a Republican and WFSE is not, so even though I have been a dues-paying member from day one, my opinion on matters like this counts for little.

And you're right, many State employees have never held a private sector job. There are also many retired veterans, far in excess of what you find in the private sector, who, their courageous service notwithstanding, are also unfamiliar with the rigors of private sector employment.

Nonetheless, we do see a lot of layoffs, and it's just like private sector jobs I've worked, with people keeping their heads down and hoping that the pink slip fairy won't come to visit them.

The real unemployment rate is even worse than 9.3%. When you factor in so-called "discouraged workers," or people whose unemployment benefits have run out and are still unemployed. The BLS calls this U6, and the current U6 rate is around 15.9%. In the past, it was almost impossible to get this fact taken seriously, but now that we have prominent figures, like Rush, who are talking about it, I am hopeful that the mainstream media will take note.

But I am certain that you are right that Zarelli's rhetoric will be well-received by most voters. Lurid lies generally do capture a devoted chorus; witness the people who, to this day, believe that Bush was somehow connected to the 9-11 attack.

Posted by: Rod Van Mechelen on December 16, 2009 03:40 PM

4. It is well known that public employees do not realize nor care about rendering services for a fair compensation as the Private Sector must do. It is calculated that public employees, including benefits, are making 1 1/2 times more than their Private Sector counterparts. They are well protected by the runaway Unions holding hands with runaway Government that is the core reason for the runaway costs/taxes, excessive restrictive regulation and job and Liberty destroying environment. Yes, Big Government and Unions are the most destructive forces our Economy and Liberty face.

Posted by: Daniel on December 16, 2009 05:03 PM

5. Members of the military are "public employees." Police and firefighters, who are not only members of unions but also put their lives on the line to protect Daniel, are "public employees." Think they don't care?

I don't know about the Daniel's assertion that "It is calculated that public employees, including benefits, are making 1 1/2 times more than their Private Sector counterparts." He doesn't indicate who has done this calculation.

But I do know that the assertion that public employees don't care is a myth.

As myths go, it is popular on the right. I used to believe it, too. But then I became a public employee and found out that it's a myth. I speak from firsthand experience and observation. The degree to which an employee cares depends on the person, not the place.

When I worked at Microsoft, from 1988-1991, I sometimes overheard executive conversations in the restroom. There was no general attitude of care there "about rendering services for a fair compensation."

When I worked at Merrill Lynch, from 1986-1987, there was certainly no general attitude of care there "about rendering services for a fair compensation."

When I worked at US West, 1998-2000, many people there took great pride "about rendering services for a fair compensation." But then Qwest took over, we were specifically instructed to engage in illegal cramming, and everybody who refused (including me) was laid off. The attitude at Qwest, before former-Qwest CEO Joe Nacchio was sent to prison, hardly reflected care "about rendering services for a fair compensation."

Yes, there are people where I now work, State employees, who do not care care there "about rendering services for a fair compensation." But most do.

What is sometimes acknowledged but generally ignored is that public employees are always expected to deliver more services with less money. Even during good times. Also, there are very few profit centers in public service. Yes, there are some, like the Washington State Department of Printing. But, unlike the private sector, where some departments, like Finance and Administration and HR are viewed as expenses while other departments are viewed as profit centers, almost all agencies and departments are viewed solely as expenses.

This view has consequences. It is very hard to justify spending more money to increase efficiency. We would all like to fix streets sooner, upgrade and expend sewerage treatment plants more often, decrease call center hold times, increase service delivery quality, and all those good things. But how do you pay for those things? With tax "revenue." That means holding costs down, which results in fewer increases in efficiencies and effectiveness. That might look like not caring "about rendering services for a fair compensation," but appearances can be deceiving.

In the department where I work, our cost/revenue per FTE is not only better than any other state, but also superior to any private sector competitor. Not everybody in my department cares "about rendering services for a fair compensation," but our management does, and most of our front line people do, too.

Posted by: Rod Van Mechelen on December 16, 2009 06:00 PM

6. Well, Rod...You sure are a Shill/supporter for the all wonderful, benevolent Big Government. At least, you did admit that there were some Government employees that did not care about rendering an honest service that reflects their excessive pay. The reality is, excluding the military, almost ALL Government employees don't care a about rendering a service to truly reflect their pay. I know of NO Government employee who would say that he was paid too much, has too many benefits and please, reduce his compensation. What a Joke! Yes, Government employees, as a whole, including benefits, make 1 1/2 times more than their Private Sector counterpart. This is a very Dangerous situation when, Government jobs are more lucrative and more secure than, the Private Sector jobs. Did you ever hear the old refrain of when, the ship gets top-heavy it will soon go belly up and sink?

The Bottom Line: Private Sector jobs and compensation are controlled by competition/marketplace where Government jobs are not. On that basis, Private Sector jobs are going to be far more fair and realistic in their services representing just compensation.

Posted by: Daniel on December 16, 2009 06:40 PM

7. Rod I am not totally unsympathetic. My father was a state employee and I saw how hard he worked.

It would be worth it's weight in PR gold if WA employees would forgo raises in this economy. But again, it's not likely to happen.

Posted by: travis t on December 17, 2009 06:32 AM

8. @6: The reality is, excluding the military, almost ALL Government employees don't care a about rendering a service to truly reflect their pay.

I'll be sure to tell that to the firefighters, paramedics, police officers, etc. that I know. They'll really appreciate that.

Seriously, Taliban Dan, are you brain damaged? Did you deprive yourself of oxygen for a bit too long at some point in your life? I may not agree with everything that Rod says here, but at least he actually made points based on some amount of evidence.

Posted by: demo kid on December 17, 2009 11:10 AM

9. What an Idiot you are...dimwit kid. Do you think the firefighters, paramedics, police officers are some sort of supreme beings and should be paid more than their Private Sector counterparts? That these people are far more important and deserving than those who work in the Private Sector and who pay the bills and wages to these people to make 1 1/2 times more than they do for performing similar jobs? Do you think wages of private security people should be far less, which they are, than the wages of the Government police? What a Joke you are!

Posted by: Daniel on December 17, 2009 12:22 PM

10. Dan, Dan, Dan, working for 8 years as a low level government bureaucrat hardly makes me a "Shill/supporter for the all wonderful, benevolent Big Government." Particularly since, for decades, I have very publicly advocated for small government, self-reliance, etc. Moreover, I also "own" one of the oldest Conservative websites: The Backlash! @ backlash.com

Actually, it was one of the first 18,000 websites. Today there are more than 234 million websites, but back when I started The Backlash! @ backlash.com, there were only about 18,000 sites in existence. Consequently, my pro-conservative, libertarian-leaning, anti-big government, pro-family, anti-pop-feminist writings had an international readership for many years. To call me a shill of big government is simply goofy.

What do you have, Dan, besides mudslinging and prejudice, to back up your assertions, like this one:

"The reality is, excluding the military, almost ALL Government employees don't care a about rendering a service to truly reflect their pay."

Before I went to work for the State, I probably would have agreed with you, Dan. Working at DSHS, however, which employs a lot of conservative Republicans (which may explain why the mainstream media seldom finds anything good to say about the agency), has opened my eyes.

"Yes, Government employees, as a whole, including benefits, make 1 1/2 times more than their Private Sector counterpart."

Okay, I challenge you to demonstrate this. Here is a link to the employee pay scales: General Service Salary Schedule for Represented Employees

I am a Medical Assistance Specialist 3 (MAS3). MAS3 pay falls into Range 42. I work in Coordination of Benefits (COB), where, for the FY ending June 30th, we saved the taxpayers of Washington State $384 million. For the FY ending June 30th, we had 23.5 MAS3s, who, in addition to saving taxpayers $384 million, provided telephone assistance, education and advocacy, case research and review, paid and adjusted thousands of claims, and more to thousands of Washington State taxpayers and providers' offices.

I have shown you the money. Now, you show me the money. How much do my counterparts in the private sector make?

Before you start, I should note that while our caseloads continue to grow, the number of Caseload Managers (MAS3s) is dropping to 20.5.

Now, we might also ask whether Dan, himself, is a shill? For all we know, Dan is an executive at HMS, a company that is not only quietly monopolizing the government sector coordination of benefits specialty, but is turning into a virtual multi-state private government.

How are they doing this?

HMS tracks millions of Americans, keeping record both of their enrollment in state Medicaid programs, and their private health insurance subscriptions, profiting from private health insurance information as they track citizens where ever they move within the 38 or 39 states they cover.

When a citizen who is on Medicaid moves from one state in which they operate to another, HMS tracks them and, if they enroll in their new state's Medicaid program, HMS already has all of their private health insurance information on file.

This is very efficient. More efficient than most states can offer, because, unlike HMS, state Medicaid programs are not allowed to share this information with other states. Yet HMS, a private company, records and tracks it all.

The efficiency is very appealing. But it gives a private corporation the kind of jurisdiction generally reserved to the Federal government. Is this what Dan favors? Is he a shill, or even employed by, HMS?

"The Bottom Line: Private Sector jobs and compensation are controlled by competition/marketplace where Government jobs are not."

In the case of HMS, this is an interesting assertion. On the one hand, HMS holds a near-monopoly. Yet, it is a private sector company, whose employees hold private sector jobs, which means their pay scale, including benefits, should be less than mine. Reviewing job postings on their website, I don't see anything that is fully comparable to what I do, but all of their job postings say the following about pay:

Excellent compensation -- in addition to a competitive salary, we offer a comprehensive benefits package that includes all you would expect plus a few pleasant surprises, such as a 401(k) plan with generous employer match, flexible spending plans, and much more.

That sounds a lot more exciting than the kind of statement about salary you find in job postings for my position.

Posted by: Rod Van Mechelen on December 18, 2009 05:24 PM

11. So your position on average, Rod, pays about $36,000 per year. According to Salary.com a medical billing clerk in downtown Seattle working for a company of 100-500 employees would earn around $32,000 per year.

Seems the average for your grade is more than you'd earn in the private sector. So explain to me again how it's saving money to pay a public employee to do the job?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 18, 2009 09:30 PM

12. danielle:
I know of NO Government employee who would say that he was paid too much, has too many benefits and please, reduce his compensation.

are you retarded? i know NO private employees who would say that either...

however, had you bothered to do a search, instead of posting nonsense, you'd have seen a number of examples of government employees (state senators, governors, etc) that actually have reduced their salaries in response to the recession. but once again, your idiocy trumps Truth-iness. hilarious.

shanghai'd anne:
a billing clerk is not equivelant to an MAS3, which is a supervisor position.

Posted by: mike on December 19, 2009 12:13 AM

13. Rod...The bottom line is this...Private businesses are profit driven and they are what built this country and continue to sustain it. They are able to exist and make a profit only because, they are providing value and service better than the next competitive entity. By doing so, the consumer, will get the best dollar value for product and services rendered. This is the basis for the Capitalist System, as old as time when, man first started to barter and exchange goods/labor. The Capitalist System has proved itself vastly Superior throughout history to benefit Mankind the most. Why? Because, of the pressures of competition makes for better efficiencies in providing the most cost effective and the greatest value in goods and services. The Government has no competition and will not allow any competition to Government whatsoever. Therefore, the Government will never be as cost effective or as efficient in providing services especially, when you include the under motivated, overpaid, Union protected Government employee. The need for Government is for one purpose...To provide the Rule of Law and to protect Society from abuses, Domestic and Foreign and NO MORE! Naturally, we all know that Government has gone far beyond its basic purpose at great cost to our substance and Liberty. Anybody, who thinks Government can do a better job than what the Private Sector can offer, is seriously Mistaken!

Posted by: Daniel on December 19, 2009 12:47 AM

14. mike...In the Private Sector the employees will not only will take a reduced salary, they will go to part-time work. Plus, in the Private Sector employees will be laid-off. Any Idiot knows that during a recession, the Private Sector suffers far, far greater job loss than Government. There is no comparison of job losses between what Government will sacrifice as to what the Private Sector sacrifices. So get...REAL! Naah, that's asking too much...You're a Liberal!

Posted by: Daniel on December 19, 2009 01:05 AM

15. Shanghai Dan wrote:

So your position on average, Rod, pays about $36,000 per year. According to Salary.com a medical billing clerk in downtown Seattle working for a company of 100-500 employees would earn around $32,000 per year.

That's about what our medical billing clerks (MAS1s) make, too.

I'm not a medical claims billing clerk, but a caseload manager in COB. COB at DSHS combines a few functions into the caseload manager position. We do pay on some medical claims, those in which COB with private insurance is involved, but that's only a small portion of our job. Hence, our pay is higher.

Posted by: Rod Van Mechelen on December 19, 2009 05:47 AM

16. Notice that Daniel responds not with facts and figures, but with ideological arguments. Daniel, ideologically I agree with most of what you say. Being a conservative, however, I am beholden to the facts.

Daniel wrote:

Rod...The bottom line is this...Private businesses are profit driven and they are what built this country and continue to sustain it.

Duh!

Private businesses are profit-driven, but what Jesse Ventura, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly and others get, that you evidently do not, is that "private businesses," like Microsoft, no longer rely on the free market to get ahead, and that there is a massive effort underway, which includes the active support of a myriad of corporations, to undermine the free market system and integrate us into a new global feudal system.

Daniel wrote:

They are able to exist and make a profit only because, they are providing value and service better than the next competitive entity.

In Galt's Gulch, maybe, but not in America, not anymore. Take Microsoft as an example of a company that got to where they are today not by offering "value and service better than the next competitive entity," but by fielding meaner, tougher, more aggressive lawyers than anybody else.

When I worked at Microsoft, I told the then-dOEM Sales Manager, Joachim Kempin, that the per-processor agreements were illegal. Unfortunately for my career and their defense, I did it via email, so when the DOJ scoured their email archive and found my email, they used that in the case against Microsoft. Like most other major corporations these days, Microsoft relies on a host of lawyers to short-circuit the free market. This is why so many former competitors hate Microsoft. Not because Microsoft won in the marketplace, but because they used lawyers and lawsuits to bury the competition.

Daniel wrote:

This is the basis for the Capitalist System, as old as time when, man first started to barter and exchange goods/labor.

You're confusing capitalism, which is based on mercantilism, which is based on aristocracy, feudalism and favoritism, with the free market.

Daniel wrote:

The Government has no competition and will not allow any competition to Government whatsoever. Therefore, the Government will never be as cost effective or as efficient in providing services especially, when you include the under motivated, overpaid, Union protected Government employee.

You're lumping all aspects of all governments into one imaginary entity. That's a major mistake made on the Right. We tend to ignore the gradations and nuances. A fact that cost Dino Rossi the election. He threw mud at State workers, and lost the election because of it. How? Because a lot--at least 25% and maybe 49%--are Republicans. And when he started attacking State workers, he lost thousands of votes, more than enough to cost him the election.

"The Government" of which you speak is found in the halls of the legislature, and includes Senator Joe Zarelli. The government, for which I work, is an agency which can neither allow nor disallow competition. In the real world, companies employ lobbyists to...uh...lobby The Government to force agencies to compete. And, while private companies can invest profits and investors' money to increase their efficiencies, government agencies can only do so through cost-containment. Which is why, so far, HMS has been unable to woo The Government to give them the business, because our costs are much lower than theirs.

Can we ever expect Daniel to respond with facts and figures, to show us the money, as I have done? Or will he continue to retreat into ideological arguments, which serve little purpose here because, with me as with most others here, in that respect he is simply preaching the choir. Preaching to the choir has its place, but at the grownups' table, where we try to hammer out how to advance our cause in the real world by facing facts and dealing with the realities of our lives, it's just a waste of time.

Worse than a waste of time, it's what the Left wants, because it effectively divides us, which leaves them free to conquer us.

Which is why I wonder what kind of a shill Daniel is. A shill for HMS, a shill for the Left, or both?

Posted by: Rod Van Mechelen on December 19, 2009 06:21 AM

17. Mike wrote:

shanghai'd anne:
a billing clerk is not equivelant to an MAS3, which is a supervisor position.

In Claims Processing, where the billing clerks work, lead workers are MAS3s. In COB, where I work, MAS3s are caseload managers. Our lead workers are MAS4s and our supervisors are MAS5s. MAS4s and 5s do all the work that 3s do, plus train, provide policy support, supervise, and a lot more.

I started out as a billing clerk, but I enjoy COB because while mudslingers like Sen. Zarelli talk about saving taxpayers money, I actually do it, saving taxpayers money.

Posted by: Rod Van Mechelen on December 19, 2009 06:29 AM

18. Rod,

Thanks for setting Mike straight (he has a habit of making stuff up). Lead workers in claims processing are MAS3, and paid on-par with what a downtown Seattle worker doing the same work would earn.

What's a big problem with State wages is the prevailing wage concept; you earn the same pay wherever you work/live. In private industry, the company weighs locating in a lower-cost area (say like Centralia or Moses Lake) where wages are lower, but the talent pool is smaller. With the State, that MAS3 living in Colville (most definitely overpaid for that region) earns the same as the MAS3 living in Seattle (paid on-par in that region).

Having one salary schedule for the entire State makes no sense, since the cost of living is not the same across the entire State.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 19, 2009 08:12 AM

19. Rod...When I say, "The bottom line is this...Private businesses are profit driven and they are what built this country and continue to sustain it". It is a basic Truth that cannot be denied. Naturally, you will have businesses that will try to monopolized, price fix etc. But, that is why we have Government to protect Society from abuses whether, domestic or foreign. It is up to Government to keep the marketplace Free and Competitive.

When, I wrote..."This is the basis for the Capitalist System, as old as time when, man first started to barter and exchange goods/labor". Your claim that mercantilism is based on aristocracy, feudalim and favoritism, with the free market, is a LIE! Capitalism/Free Market are one and the same. Anything else involved such as, aristocracy, feudalism and favoritism is a Corruption afflicting Capitalism/Free Market. It is much like your example of Microsoft trying to control and enslave the Market Sector that they are involved in. Again, it is up to Government to keep the marketplace Free and Competitive.

When, I said..."The Government has no competition and will not allow any competition to Government whatsoever. Therefore, the Government will never be as cost effective or as efficient in providing services especially, when you include the under motivated, overpaid, Union protected Government employee". Yes, that is a true statement about Government...Period. For you to object to this True statement by rambling about Dino Rossi and his political mistakes, the existence of lobbyist and HMS has nothing with the Truth that I have said. You are just throwing dirt, red-herrings and pure Blab to confuse and obfuscate the simple value of what I said. Guess What? That is the typical egregious tactic of the LEFT! For you to call yourself a Conservative is in serious doubt. A Conservative doesn't blindly cling to the Republican party or any other party. A Conservative is an independent Individual who is capable of Individual thought and is able to stand alone if need be. A Conservative does not need to belong to a collective in order to feel he is right or has value. You, Sir...If you have any Conservative blood in your veins...It is Highly Contaminated by an abundance of Liberal Blood!

Posted by: Daniel on December 19, 2009 09:13 AM

20. Daniel wrote:

Your claim that mercantilism is based on aristocracy, feudalim and favoritism, with the free market, is a LIE!

Yes, you're right, Daniel, that is a lie, because I never wrote that. Here is what I wrote:

You're confusing capitalism, which is based on mercantilism, which is based on aristocracy, feudalism and favoritism, with the free market.

Not only are you confused about capitalism, but evidently you are also confused about appositive phrases. Here is the definition of an appositive phrase:

An appositive phrase is a type of noun phrase that follows the noun or pronoun it modifies and amplifies or restricts its meaning.-The Mayfield Handbook of Technical & Scientific Writing

In my sentence above, "which is based on mercantilism, which is based on aristocracy, feudalism and favoritism," is the appositive phrase. It modifies the noun, "capitalism." Clearly, inserting an appositive phrase in the sentence made it too complex for you to follow the meaning. So, here is how the sentence would look like without the appositive phrase:

You're confusing capitalism with the free market.

Another way to put that would be, you're confusing capitalism with free enterprise. The two are very different.

Posted by: Rod Van Mechelen on December 19, 2009 02:19 PM

21. Nut burger...er, I mean, Daniel wrote:

Rod...When I say, "The bottom line is this...Private businesses are profit driven and they are what built this country and continue to sustain it". It is a basic Truth that cannot be denied.

The first time you posted that, I responded with, "Duh!" What part of "Duh!" don't you get?

Posted by: Rod Van Mechelen on December 19, 2009 02:24 PM

22. Arrogant, Liberal Rod...Don't try and Hide behind your Phony rhetoric of the so-called meaning and your so-called intent. I know what an appositive phrase is. So don't give me your BS. You made an Idiotic Statement that Capitalism is based on mercantilism, which is based on aristocracy, feudalim and favoritism, with the Free Market. Capitalism is NOT based on mercantilism, which is based on aristocracy, feudalism and favoritism, with the free market...PERIOD! It was your Statement, it was your LIE...Period!

Remember...You're a Liberal and Liberals really don't know what Capitalism is and the value and benefits to Mankind even, when it's explained to them. What a Joke you are!

Posted by: Daniel on December 19, 2009 03:06 PM

23. Daniel wrote:

Capitalism/Free Market are one and the same. Anything else involved such as, aristocracy, feudalism and favoritism is a Corruption afflicting Capitalism/Free Market. It is much like your example of Microsoft trying to control and enslave the Market Sector that they are involved in. Again, it is up to Government to keep the marketplace Free and Competitive.

How are capitalism and free market synonymous? That's like saying that car and highway are synonymous. But, obviously, they are not: one is a vehicle, the other is the infrastructure. Same thing with capitalism and free market. Capitalism is a vehicle, free market is an economic infrastructure. Socialism is another economic infrastructure, and the so-called "mixed economy" is, too. This is econ 101. Historically, capitalism has it's roots in mercantilism: Merchant capitalism and mercantilism. Mercantilism was rooted in feudalism and favoritism. That's a matter of historical fact and is Econ 100. To deny it, is to demonstrate your ignorance of history ... and economics.

Daniel pronounced:

"When, I said..."The Government has no competition and will not allow any competition to Government whatsoever. Therefore, the Government will never be as cost effective or as efficient in providing services especially, when you include the under motivated, overpaid, Union protected Government employee". Yes, that is a true statement about Government...Period.

Upon what facts do you base this glittering generality of multiple assertions. Are you just going to keep making assertions without offering any facts, like liberal progressives? Hey, you're not a closet liberal progressive, are you?

Posted by: Rod Van Mechelen on December 19, 2009 03:06 PM

24. Rod...I will continue to State: You're a Liberal. You don't have the capacity for honesty or understanding of basic Truths. You are a waste of time and a wasted read. Nuff Said!

Posted by: Daniel on December 19, 2009 03:12 PM

25. There we have it. Unable to engage in discussion, able only to point fingers and sling mud, Daniel...points fingers and slings mud: argumentum ad hominem.

Posted by: Rod Van Mechelen on December 19, 2009 03:30 PM

26. Rod,

The fundamental truth is that State workers are fairly compensated (or even - as we see with the MAS3 and billing clerk comparison - slightly better) as compared to private industry workers in the highest-cost city in the State.

We know the retirement, health, and other benefits (days off, for instance) are better for State workers too.

And we know that prevailing wage artificially bumps up the costs we pay in all non-Seattle jobs.

Right now, private industry is laying off, cutting back hours, and freezing wages. Yet Government insists on raising already well-compensated employees. What will those employees do if they did not receive a wage - quit and go find employment in the 10%+ unemployment market?

It may be just a few percent, and may only be a few hundred million in the State budget, but the symbolism would be immense. The State union could prove that it cares about the State and those who pay the bills (taxpayers), rather than just putting a few bucks in the pockets of their members and lining the pockets of the union leadership.

But when you own the Governor and own the Legislature, well, who cares what pains the taxpayers face, we'll just bleed them for more dollars.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 19, 2009 04:35 PM

27. Final Note: Just because, you can Google something, doesn't mean it is truly representative of the subject or the Truth. The World and the Internet is filled with misrepresentations and Deceit. You have to have common understanding and commonsense in order to filter out the BS from the Truth. A Liberal doesn't have that capacity. A Liberal is well known for being Unwise and an Easy Believer of almost any BS and Scam that comes down the pike. Liberals are the useful Idiots of Tyrants. They are slave-minded and supporters of Socialism. Liberals are the Enemies of Freedom and therefore, the Enemy of America or any Free Nation. They will always be a threat to Mankind as a whole.

Posted by: Daniel on December 19, 2009 04:51 PM

28. shanghai'd anne,

are you conveniently forgetting that the state has already gone through layoffs and furloughs, as have most cities, and are looking at more?

danielle, should bernie sanders be tried as an enemy of america? you really are a friggin Idiot.

Posted by: mike on December 19, 2009 05:40 PM

29. Remember mike...You're a Liberal

Bernie Sanders is a proved Enemy of America. He wants single payer Health Care and should be voted out of office just, like all Liberals.

Posted by: Daniel on December 19, 2009 11:31 PM

30. danielle, thank you for proving my point. you're beyond lunacy...

Posted by: mike on December 20, 2009 10:54 AM

31. The Tragedy is...That you are such a Simplistic DOLT, that the value of all that has been said has passed over your head. You haven't a CLUE! You're a...Liberal!

Posted by: Daniel on December 20, 2009 11:03 AM

32. Shanghai Dan wrote:

The fundamental truth is that State workers are fairly compensated (or even - as we see with the MAS3 and billing clerk comparison - slightly better) as compared to private industry workers in the highest-cost city in the State.

Shanghai Dan either missed my original reply to that apples-to-oranges comparison, or ignored it:

That's about what our medical billing clerks (MAS1s) make, too. I'm not a medical claims billing clerk, but a caseload manager in COB.

Shanghai Dan wrote:

We know the retirement, health, and other benefits (days off, for instance) are better for State workers too.

Better than many, that's true, but I had better benefits, including days off, at both Merrill Lynch and Microsoft.

Shanghai Dan wrote:

And we know that prevailing wage artificially bumps up the costs we pay in all non-Seattle jobs.

We almost concur. The reason I say "almost," is you're making a false generalization: Costs in "non-Seattle" areas aren't uniformly lower than Seattle. Olympia, for example. When I moved from Bellevue to Olympia, I was disappointed to discover that not only are costs not lower in Olympia than they are in Seattle, but that sometimes they are even higher.

Shanghai Dan wrote:

Right now, private industry is laying off, cutting back hours, and freezing wages. Yet Government insists on raising already well-compensated employees. What will those employees do if they did not receive a wage - quit and go find employment in the 10%+ unemployment market?

First, when you use the term "private industry," you're making a false generalization. Second, even for the private companies that are laying off, cutting back hours, and freezing wages, there are almost certainly some employees who are getting raises; e.g., new employees who successfully complete their probationary period. Third, State government is "laying off, cutting back hours, and freezing wages," too.

My whole point, which you ignore, is that Sen. Zarelli is attacking a practice that saves taxpayers money. Because he wants to change the practice? I'm sure that for his political gain he would love to accomplish that, but that would just be a bonus. His main purpose is to blame Gov. Gregoire for it. The truth, however, is that the practice of step raises not only saves taxpayers' money, but dates back many, many years before Gregoire was governor.

Ideologically and politically motivated opponents will ignore these things. Conservatives--those with integrity, and especially those who embrace the values, virtues and principles espoused by Russell Kirk, Edmund Burke and, most especially, Rod Dreher--will accept what is true and factual, no matter the political consequences or repercussions.

And what is true and factual in this case, is that step raises save taxpayers money, and that Sen. Zarelli's attacks on the practice and on the governor for not stopping it, are politically motivated and contrary to the best interests of the taxpayers of Washington State.

Posted by: Rod Van Mechelen on December 21, 2009 04:37 PM

33. Daniel wrote:

Final Note: Just because, you can Google something, doesn't mean it is truly representative of the subject or the Truth. The World and the Internet is filled with misrepresentations and Deceit.

As Daniel's posts so amply demonstrate.

Posted by: Rod Van Mechelen on December 21, 2009 04:40 PM

34. Daniel wrote:

Bernie Sanders is a proved Enemy of America.

On this, we concur, although I am unaware of any laws that he has broken.

Posted by: Rod Van Mechelen on December 21, 2009 04:48 PM

35. The broken clock...er, Daniel wrote:

The Tragedy is...That you are such a Simplistic DOLT, that the value of all that has been said has passed over your head. You haven't a CLUE! You're a...Liberal!

Frankly, everybody, I think Daniel is a mole, a progressive from the Democratic Underground here to disrupt productive discussion with unreasoned dissent.

Posted by: Rod Van Mechelen on December 21, 2009 04:52 PM

36. Rod...You appear to take a great deal of time to make a reply to Shanghai Dan and me. It takes days. How come? It shouldn't take a great deal of effort for such an articulate wordsmith as yourself to give a more timely reply. By the time you reply, this thread has been dead for over a day.

When, I say that a Government employee makes 1 1/2 times more than the Private Counterpart, I'm including not just wages, I'm including benefits as well. But, lets go further. Lets include the productivity of the Government employee to the Private Sector worker. Dare I say, that the Private Sector worker is well known to be more Productive than, the Government employee? That it can take more than one Government employee to handle the workload of one Private Sector employee? The answer is...Yes it Can! We all have seen City workers on an outside project such as, road or some other maintenance where, upwards of five workers are standing around while maybe, just one worker is actually working. We all had to wait unnecessarly long for whatever Government business we had to take care of while, the Government workers slowly oozed along in giving their surly service to the waiting public.

Yeah, Right!...I'm a mole, a progressive from the Democratic Underground here to disrupt productive discussion with unreasoned dissent. If that were true, my comments would be at the level of mike, dimwit kid and you as well. I'm not claiming nor supporting Government workers as though they are equal to Private Sector workers as you are. Only a Liberal would do that.

Posted by: Daniel on December 21, 2009 06:35 PM

37. Rod wrote:

Shanghai Dan either missed my original reply to that apples-to-oranges comparison, or ignored it:

Sorry, I saw you post the following and assumed it was correct:

In Claims Processing, where the billing clerks work, lead workers are MAS3s.

Meaning that lead claims processors are MAS3s, and make about the same as a billing clerk in private industry. Is that not correct?

Better than many, that's true, but I had better benefits, including days off, at both Merrill Lynch and Microsoft.

Better than most; Fortune 50 companies aren't the primary employers in this State. Most are small businesses where health insurance has significant employee contributions, 401K/retirement accounts are rare, days off are much more limited, etc.

You're generalizing from big exceptions (Microsoft - whom I have contracted for - and Merrill Lynch) to the rule. And both of those companies have had significant layoffs as well.

Costs in "non-Seattle" areas aren't uniformly lower than Seattle. Olympia, for example. When I moved from Bellevue to Olympia, I was disappointed to discover that not only are costs not lower in Olympia than they are in Seattle, but that sometimes they are even higher.

Housing costs are highest in Seattle, second in Bellevue. Olympia housing costs are lower, as are sales taxes.

First, when you use the term "private industry," you're making a false generalization.

How so? Most private companies are laying off or at least freezing hiring; it's why unemployment is so high.

Second, even for the private companies that are laying off, cutting back hours, and freezing wages, there are almost certainly some employees who are getting raises; e.g., new employees who successfully complete their probationary period.

Most assuredly, a small percentage, sure. You can always find exceptions. However, unless you're capped out in your pay grade in the State, you're getting those raises, correct? Meaning that wage freezes are common in private industry and raises are common in State employment.

Third, State government is "laying off, cutting back hours, and freezing wages," too.

How many in the last year, for example? Washington unemployment went from 5% to 10.2% in the last year; assuming 2 million workers, that's 104,000 jobs lost.

There were about 66,000 State employees 12 months ago; have there been 3,400 layoffs in the State employee rolls? Is the State employment now down around 62,000?

My whole point, which you ignore, is that Sen. Zarelli is attacking a practice that saves taxpayers money.

How does it save money? That has not been shown. You assert it but it has not been shown. In fact, we see salaries in State work comparable to those in Seattle. Additionally when all other businesses are laying off at pretty high rates, cutting or freezing wages, reducing benefits, State employment continues on.

So how does it save money?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 21, 2009 08:36 PM

38. Rod,

You can check the cost of living here. Olympia is about 12.7% lower in cost of living than Seattle. So note that I was comparing the highest income/expense region to the State requirements; living/working in other areas should reduce the income of our MAS3-level person. The fact that Government salaries are equivalent to the highest-paid area in our State shows it's out of whack. At the very least prevailing wage needs to be immediately dumped - it's literally a waste of money everywhere except, perhaps, Seattle.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 22, 2009 06:39 AM

39. Instead of articulating a reasoned response or providing any facts or studies to substantiate his claims, Daniel grumbled:

Rod...You appear to take a great deal of time to make a reply to Shanghai Dan and me. It takes days. How come? It shouldn't take a great deal of effort for such an articulate wordsmith as yourself to give a more timely reply. By the time you reply, this thread has been dead for over a day.

This will be hard to believe, I know, but my life doesn't revolve around this blog. I have a job, I run an email news list, I sit on 2 boards, chair 2 committees, secretary on another one, plus I went to my first pro football game on Sunday, and the SeaGals were great!!!

Next, Daniel further dodges and obfuscates with bloviating, blather, statements of the obvious, while again brandishing stereotypes as if they were unassailable statements of fact, rather than providing actual facts and figures to back up his previous unsubstantiated assertions, including:

Dare I say, that the Private Sector worker is well known to be more Productive than, the Government employee?

Where's your proof, Daniel? Remember, members of the Armed Services are "government workers," too.

That it can take more than one Government employee to handle the workload of one Private Sector employee?

Proof, Daniel?

The answer is...Yes it Can! We all have seen City workers on an outside project such as, road or some other maintenance where, upwards of five workers are standing around while maybe, just one worker is actually working.

Proof, Daniel? I've seen private contractor road workers "on an outside project such as, road or some other maintenance where, upwards of five workers are standing around while maybe, just one worker is actually working," too. What does it prove?

We all had to wait unnecessarly long for whatever Government business we had to take care of while, the Government workers slowly oozed along in giving their surly service to the waiting public.

Sure, and we've all had similar experiences with private sector employees who were surly and slow, too. Conservatives recognize and embrace what is true and factual; ideologues, on both sides, only see what they want to see.

Daniel makes an unpersuasive denial:

Yeah, Right!...I'm a mole, a progressive from the Democratic Underground here to disrupt productive discussion with unreasoned dissent. If that were true, my comments would be at the level of mike, dimwit kid and you as well.

Progressive and liberal extremists have done that before, masquerading as right-wing extremist nut burgers in order to portray the right as incapable of intelligent and well-informed discourse. They used to call into Rush all the time; maybe they still do, but the screeners no longer let them through. But I forget what Rush called them.

And finally, Daniel once again portrays himself as a right-wing extremist:

I'm not claiming nor supporting Government workers as though they are equal to Private Sector workers as you are. Only a Liberal would do that.

That's the kind of extremist nonsense that a right-wing ideological nut burger, or a left-wing operative trying to pass himself off as one, would spout.

Posted by: Rod Van Mechelen on December 22, 2009 03:44 PM

40.

My, my, aren't we getting a little over excited...eh, Rod? You seem to be quite the emotional one. Isn't that a characteristic of a Liberal?

When, I said that the Private Sector worker is well known to be more Productive than, the Government employee...You want proof? How Ridiculous, that you would require proof on something that is well known and demonstrated to the vast majority of Citizenry every-time they need any service from a Government employee. It is common knowledge. The public employee is supported by Big Unions and Big Government. In the Private Sector, employees must compete in productivity against other competitive entities. Therefore, they are under more pressure to do their best or lose their jobs and or their company goes out of business. Government doesn't have the competition nor the pressure of performing at the highest standards. Rarely is a Government employee ever held accountable when, compared to the Private Sector and outright FIRED! All this is common knowledge and commonsense. This common knowledge/commonsense is more than proof enough. For you to want further proof on this matter, is further telling that you are a Liberal rather than a Conservative. You can't connect the DOTS!

No...The rest of your Blab attacking my, go without saying positions, is just as Ridiculous as needing proof as to whether, Private employees are more efficient than Government employees. Yes, you are a Liberal. Nobody, so Delusional as yourself, can be anything else but, a Liberal. Nuff said.

Posted by: Daniel on December 22, 2009 05:41 PM

41. Shanghai Dan on December 21, 2009 08:36 PM wrote:

Rod wrote: Shanghai Dan either missed my original reply to that apples-to-oranges comparison, or ignored it...

Sorry, I saw you post the following and assumed it was correct:

Rod wrote: In Claims Processing, where the billing clerks work, lead workers are MAS3s.

Meaning that lead claims processors are MAS3s, and make about the same as a billing clerk in private industry. Is that not correct?

Lead workers. But by a wide margin the majority of billing clerks in Claims Processing are MAS1s, though some are MAS2s, and both make less than MAS3s.