Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Those arguing against significant budget cuts have a real logic problem « previous next »
Page: 1 ... 3 4 5

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#60 : April 10, 2011, 06:47:21 PM

Spartan and Biggs both opined - I believe they both hit on the issue - even if not agreeing with you.

Examples?


John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#61 : April 10, 2011, 06:53:00 PM

No, there was no "we". You brought it up. I never discussed it, I merely said that

I didn't say ELIMINATE sick and vacation days, I said REDUCE the amount of PAID days-off until the budget is under control. In the REAL world of business, would you rather have less vacation time and keep your job, or be laid off??

Which is more stressful and could lead to health issues, less vacation pay, or NO FRIGGIN JOB?

Do you not remember posing this question:

"Obviously I'm not for cutting sick days and vacation days"

why not?? Federal employees get an absurd amount of sick days and vacation days. Cut it back from 9 paid sick/personal days to 6 and reduce vacations from 14-21 days by half.

Gawd forbid the poor Federal paper pusher has to work the same hours as a private sector Joe. It is an economic crisis and if your biggest sacrifice is losing a few paid days off, then cry my a friggin river

So since you had a difficult problem following, my response to this question, although extrapolated over more than one post, was twofold:

1. I debased the premise of your reasoning, which suggested that federal workers get more paid time off than private sector workers by explaining to you that most private sector jobs base their alloted time off an a scale in which the longer you work for the company, the more benefits you receive, and that in many instances, private sector workers actually recieve more time off than federal employees do.

2. My answer to "why not??" was in providing you with research that stress and fatigue affect people when they are overworked, and that often has a negative affect on productivity. People are not machines, where simply running them longer means that more gets done. There is a certain human factor that has to be accounted for.

There is a third reason this is not really a fix as well, and that is in your assertion that doing this saves money. I am still not convinced that cutting vacation days by three of four per person is somehow going to bring in any substantive windfall. The real reason this is on your agenda is because as a Libertarian, you are opposed to paid time off as a general concept. Let us not pretend that this is somehow not true. I mean heck, you have pretty much said so yourself.

So time to pull out the labels, huh?

"The real reason this is on your agenda is because as a Libertarian..."

Ad hominem= FAILURE of LOGIC

But I will say "as a general concept" I oppose unearned paid time off. Now you brought up
...most private employers have time off based on a scale dependent on time vested in the company. I've worked places where time off given to employees exceeds Federal employee levels. And executives got even more time off than that.


Ignoring the use of "most private employers" which is wrong, "some" but not "most". See "most" implies a majority, and the fact is the majority of employers have fewer than 15 employees, and don't have scales based on time vested or 50 page employment contracts.

Accepting that "some" employers have a  time off based on a scale dependent on time vested in the company, I do see the benefit in this. This is earned paid vacations. That is the difference, the word "Earned". IMO, there is a HUGE difference between rewarding a loyal and experienced worker with paid vacations, and a Union negotiated contract that guarantees the same benefits to a worker hired 5 months ago, as the loyal 5 year veteran. And in a fiscal crisis, the 5 year veteran is more likely to give up some of his vacation time to prevent layoffs, while the 5 month newbie will probably "head for the hills".




p.s. my suggestion of cutting back on paid time off was meant for Federal office-type workers. Military, security, and law enforcement are completely different and exempt

I don't think I could have made it clearer.

Why are they completely different and exempt, JG? Is it because, as a Libertarian, you feel as though the only thing Govt should do is provide a military and police force?


No, it is because I believe such jobs are enormously more stressful than office jobs. Being shot at, having to work or "be on call" 24/7, often working hours well in excess of 9am-5pm, 5 days a week, having to spend long stretches of time traveling and removed from family and friends, not having set hours or break times, being forced to sometimes work 24-48 hours straight w/o sleep, watching co-workers get injured or killed, etc. etc.

If you don't see the difference between a military or law enforcement job and some guy stamping approvals/denials on Environmental Impact Requests, then there is nothing more to say.

And nice job, once again sticking labels on posters that disagree with you: ad hominem= Failure of Logic.











Biggs3535

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 31400
Online
#62 : April 10, 2011, 07:04:13 PM

1. I debased the premise of your reasoning, which suggested that federal workers get more paid time off than private sector workers

The post suggested no such thing.  What was suggested was reducing paid vacation/sick days to federal employees as another way to cut the budget.  It really wasn't that hard to understand.



2. My answer to "why not??" was in providing you with research that stress and fatigue affect people when they are overworked, and that often has a negative effect on productivity. People are not machines, where simply running them longer means that more gets done. There is a certain human factor that has to be accounted for.

Again, what does this have to do with cutting budgets by reducing PAID leave?  Answer again is...nothing.  Federal workers would still get sick days and vacation days, they just wouldn't get paid for not working, so your stress and fatigue point is useless in this debate.  Again, not really that hard to understand.  But you're an amateur goal-post mover, so you bring up points that have nothing to do with the subject.
: April 10, 2011, 07:10:05 PM Biggs3535


CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#63 : April 10, 2011, 08:46:15 PM

So time to pull out the labels, huh?

"The real reason this is on your agenda is because as a Libertarian..."

Ad hominem= FAILURE of LOGIC

So calling an individual that goes by the moniker "John Galt?" a Libertarian is a label? Well, I suppose you are right. I was painting you with a label. Forgive me for that "reach."

But I will say "as a general concept" I oppose unearned paid time off.

Saying that certainly isn't the same as saying this:

Paying someone for NOT working is the stupidest idea American business (yeah, I know, it's really the unions) has ever come up with.

Isn't this an example of "moving the goalposts?"

Accepting that "some" employers have a  time off based on a scale dependent on time vested in the company, I do see the benefit in this. This is earned paid vacations. That is the difference, the word "Earned". IMO, there is a HUGE difference between rewarding a loyal and experienced worker with paid vacations, and a Union negotiated contract that guarantees the same benefits to a worker hired 5 months ago, as the loyal 5 year veteran. And in a fiscal crisis, the 5 year veteran is more likely to give up some of his vacation time to prevent layoffs, while the 5 month newbie will probably "head for the hills".

Well that's certainly a 180, but i digress. By making this statement, I am assuming that you are not aware of the fact that Federal employee time off is also waged on a scale of time vested as an employee. They start out at 13 days, and max out at 26 days. It's good to know that you don't have a problem with that.

No, it is because I believe such jobs are enormously more stressful than office jobs. Being shot at, having to work or "be on call" 24/7, often working hours well in excess of 9am-5pm, 5 days a week, having to spend long stretches of time traveling and removed from family and friends, not having set hours or break times, being forced to sometimes work 24-48 hours straight w/o sleep, watching co-workers get injured or killed, etc. etc.

If you don't see the difference between a military or law enforcement job and some guy stamping approvals/denials on Environmental Impact Requests, then there is nothing more to say.

And nice job, once again sticking labels on posters that disagree with you: ad hominem= Failure of Logic.

So once again, this is not based on who can save more money, but rather who you feel deserves the time off more. While I certainly don't disagree that Military/Security/Law Enforcement all deserve ample time off, I think that every other human being deserves it as well. As I stated, people are not machines, and cutting three days off per person isn't going to result in some tremendous windfall of savings.
: April 10, 2011, 08:52:36 PM CBWx2


CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#64 : April 10, 2011, 09:20:47 PM

1. I debased the premise of your reasoning, which suggested that federal workers get more paid time off than private sector workers

The post suggested no such thing.  What was suggested was reducing paid vacation/sick days to federal employees as another way to cut the budget.  It really wasn't that hard to understand.

Jeezus, why do I bother. Try and follow here Biggs...

I originally said this in response to his post:

Solid points. Obviously I'm not for cutting sick days and vacation days, but everything else makes a crap ton of sense.

To which JG replied:

"Obviously I'm not for cutting sick days and vacation days"

why not?? Federal employees get an absurd amount of sick days and vacation days. Cut it back from 9 paid sick/personal days to 6 and reduce vacations from 14-21 days by half.

Gawd forbid the poor Federal paper pusher has to work the same hours as a private sector Joe. It is an economic crisis and if your biggest sacrifice is losing a few paid days off, then cry my a friggin river

To which in turn, I replied:

most private employers have time off based on a scale dependent on time vested in the company. I've worked places where time off given to employees exceeds Federal employee levels. And executives got even more time off than that.

Once again, I have done the freaking leg work for you. If you can't keep up with these things, you really should find another hobby.

2. My answer to "why not??" was in providing you with research that stress and fatigue affect people when they are overworked, and that often has a negative effect on productivity. People are not machines, where simply running them longer means that more gets done. There is a certain human factor that has to be accounted for.

Again, what does this have to do with cutting budgets by reducing PAID leave?  Answer again is...nothing.  Federal workers would still get sick days and vacation days, they just wouldn't get paid for not working, so your stress and fatigue point is useless in this debate.  Again, not really that hard to understand.  But you're an amateur goal-post mover, so you bring up points that have nothing to do with the subject.

So these Federal workers are just going to take unpaid time off, rather than quit and look for a private sector job that actually gives you paid time off? The Govt does actually have to have employees, and making them work for less benefits than the private sector is only going to serve towards lessening the caliber employee that takes these jobs. Now I understand that you and JG have this notion that no one with a public sector job is worthy of employment, but there actually are some highly educated and outstanding employees that work for the Federal govt.

Also, I've yet to hear a convincing argument as to how this is supposed to save any significant amounts of money. But why am I telling you this? You are just piggy backing on the convo anyway. As usual.


Biggs3535

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 31400
Online
#65 : April 10, 2011, 09:32:33 PM

1. I debased the premise of your reasoning, which suggested that federal workers get more paid time off than private sector workers

The post suggested no such thing.  What was suggested was reducing paid vacation/sick days to federal employees as another way to cut the budget.  It really wasn't that hard to understand.

Jeezus, why do I bother. Try and follow here Biggs...

I originally said this in response to his post:

Solid points. Obviously I'm not for cutting sick days and vacation days, but everything else makes a crap ton of sense.

To which JG replied:

"Obviously I'm not for cutting sick days and vacation days"

why not?? Federal employees get an absurd amount of sick days and vacation days. Cut it back from 9 paid sick/personal days to 6 and reduce vacations from 14-21 days by half.

Gawd forbid the poor Federal paper pusher has to work the same hours as a private sector Joe. It is an economic crisis and if your biggest sacrifice is losing a few paid days off, then cry my a friggin river

To which in turn, I replied:

most private employers have time off based on a scale dependent on time vested in the company. I've worked places where time off given to employees exceeds Federal employee levels. And executives got even more time off than that.

Once again, I have done the freaking leg work for you. If you can't keep up with these things, you really should find another hobby.


Let's cut to the quick here and see if you understand where you screwed up.  This is from the original post in question:

Cut back on employee paid sick days and vacation days.

From that, your reading comprehension tells you that JG? said to cut sick/vacation days completely.  Hint - that's not what was said.  He said to cut back paid sick/vacation days.  I expect you to see the difference, but I know from past conversations that is an unreasonable expectation on my part.

You inferred something that wasn't said and gone on and on and on about something that wasn't said in the first place.  This is why your stress and fatigue argument never belonged in the conversation - but you didn't realize that because you were arguing a point that wasn't made.




Also, I've yet to hear a convincing argument as to how this is supposed to save any significant amounts of money. But why am I telling you this? You are just piggy backing on the convo anyway. As usual.

You need someone to break down for you cutting back benefits for over 2 million federal employees will help save money on a budget?  You aren't as smart as you think you are.
: April 10, 2011, 09:35:40 PM Biggs3535


dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46058
Offline
#66 : April 10, 2011, 09:47:54 PM

Spartan and Biggs both opined - I believe they both hit on the issue - even if not agreeing with you.

Examples?
Their posts are there to see.  I can see with all the quoting efforts how you could get tired - but hang in there and read what folks are saying.
: April 10, 2011, 09:53:02 PM dbucfan

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#67 : April 10, 2011, 09:54:49 PM

Spartan and Biggs both opined - I believe they both hit on the issue - even if not agreeing with you.

Examples?
Their posts are there to see.

These are the only two I could find:

To get to the short and curlies, if you think this week/budget is a problem, this is but a skirmish compared to what is going to come next year. That is one reason why I think the Dems are being so adamant about it. They are hoping to make the R's so frittish they wont pursue any kind of 'radical' agenda next year. Otherwise, why would they invest so much time and political capital over so miniscule savings relative to the rest of the budget.

I wonder why the Libs didn't pass a budget last year when they had total control?  Nah, it's pretty clear for those with eyes why they didn't.

Now what in the smelly hell do either of those posts have to do with the current topic of discussion? Nevermind. Don't answer that. I don't care anymore.


dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46058
Offline
#68 : April 10, 2011, 09:58:47 PM

post #s 30, 36, 37 and 40.  Now there is no need to respond.  You're welcome

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant
Page: 1 ... 3 4 5
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Those arguing against significant budget cuts have a real logic problem « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools