It's time to kick Arnold in the nutz!

[pchang]

And

it turns out it was all a bargaining tactic to get a few more concessions in the budget deal.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Joseph
those guards make 80,000 a year and they want a 37% pay increase. Screw them.

....techically 37% over 5 years.

Joseph, do you have a link to your $80,000?

I'm having a hard time finding current numbers. In 1996, they were making $44,000/year. In 2001, they agreed to salaries that were $666/month lower than CHP officers -- but I don't know what that is.

There was an article in a San Diego paper complaining that many were making over $100,000/year, but that was because of the massive amounts of overtime some are racking up due to a severe shortage of guards.

If the state hires enough guards to work straight time, we wouldn't have to pay overtime.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


....techically 37% over 5 years.

Joseph, do you have a link to your $80,000?

I'm having a hard time finding current numbers. In 1996, they were making $44,000/year. In 2001, they agreed to salaries that were $666/month lower than CHP officers -- but I don't know what that is.

There was an article in a San Diego paper complaining that many were making over $100,000/year, but that was because of the massive amounts of overtime some are racking up due to a severe shortage of guards.

If the state hires enough guards to work straight time, we wouldn't have to pay overtime.

No. It was in our newpaper, the Napa Register about 2 weeks ago when the story first broke about the recall. The story said with an AA or AS degree they the guards made up to 80,000 a year, and with overtime over 100,000. I heard one time they the guards get a lot of OT.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Kidicious
You do know I was joking, right?

Not, we just assumed you were totaly wrong as usual.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Joseph
No. It was in our newpaper, the Napa Register about 2 weeks ago when the story first broke about the recall. The story said with an AA or AS degree they the guards made up to 80,000 a year, and with overtime over 100,000. I heard one time they the guards get a lot of OT.

Do you expect them to have a graduate degree? They deserve high pay because they have a dangerous and stressfull job.

There are a lot of people in this country who get paid a lot more than that for doing jack ****. I guess you think they deserve it because they have MBAs.

Also, I would like to see a source for you numbers. I found one that says that their pay is much lower.

"The union's impact can be gauged by the rising annual prison guard salary (from $14,440 In 1980 to $54,000 in 2002),"

http://igs.berkeley.edu/library/htCa...risonUnion.htm

[rmsharpe]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Haven't you heard? There aren't any rich people left in CA because of high taxes. They all moved to Kansas.

I heard that on Limbaugh or something.

The taxes the Democrats like to pass only stop people from becoming wealthy, not taking away what they already have. So, it only makes sense for the rich to vote for Democrats; it keeps everyone else down.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by rmsharpe

The taxes the Democrats like to pass only stop people from becoming wealthy, not taking away what they already have. So, it only makes sense for the rich to vote for Democrats; it keeps everyone else down.

Agreed. We Dems have to work on that.

I once start a thread on how & if we can switch over from an income-based tex policy to an asset-based taxed policy, but there were just too many ways to avoid a wealth-based tax.

(E.g. I have a Picasso; you have a Renoir. I sell you my Picasso for $1; you sell me your Renoir for $1. Now, we each own a painting valued at $1. Tax that! )

[Dinner]

Originally posted by rmsharpe

The taxes the Democrats like to pass only stop people from becoming wealthy, not taking away what they already have. So, it only makes sense for the rich to vote for Democrats; it keeps everyone else down.

You don't know a damn thing about California's government do you? Most of the budget problem has to do with state propositions which are a type of direct democracy required by the state constitution. If a proposition passes then it has the full force of law and only another proposition can over turn it. The problem is every election there are a half dozen to a dozen propositions which people keep passing to increase mandatory spending and/or cut taxes.

This creates an institutional problem where to government is legally required to spend X amount but the anti-tax propositions mean the state always makes X-Y in income. You literally can't cut the mandatory spending without passing another proposition to repeal the previous proposition requiring the mandatory spending which never happens. So now we're in a position where competing special interests have created a permanently unbalanced budget which can only be fixed by some how raising taxes which is virtually impossible to do as one of the previously passed propositions changed the state constitution so that a 1/3 minority can block all new taxes or spending cuts. Net result complete gridlock.

In short, Sharp, learn what the hell you are talking about before you run your mouth off.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Oerdin

In short, Sharp, learn what the hell you are talking about before you run your mouth off.

Don't do it, Sharpie! The silence in this place would be deafening!!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by rmsharpe

The taxes the Democrats like to pass only stop people from becoming wealthy, not taking away what they already have. So, it only makes sense for the rich to vote for Democrats; it keeps everyone else down.

Oh, I didn't know you were against sales tax. My bad.