Topic: Governor John Kasich

[Hts121]

I'm not sure how much of the above posts are legit or simply sarcasm

My post was absolutely serious.  But I wasn't discussing the prevailing wage law.  I was only talking about how he plans (or at least will attempt) to screw our cops, firefighters and other emergency responders out of their right to meaningfully engage in collective bargaining.  That is a topic totally separate from any discussion on the prevailing wage law, which I have mixed emotions about.

[Gramarye]

It is perfectly possible to get a reputation for quality work without being a union member, too.

For almost a decade in the late 90s, my family had one guy that did basically all of the construction/remodeling work we ever needed or wanted done on our house.  To this day, I still have no idea if the guy was a union member, or ever was a union member.  He's retired now.  We heard about him through a referral (far and away the #1 source of business for almost all small businesses).  We hired him, and he did a good job, so we kept on hiring him--and giving him referrals in turn when other people asked us if we knew a guy who could redo a sunroom or bathroom or whatever.  He charged far more than minimum wage, but you know what?  He was worth it, so we paid it.  I'm pretty sure that he was never short of work, though I don't know what life might have been like for him if he'd still been around in 2008.

[Gramarye]

I'm not sure how much of the above posts are legit or simply sarcasm

My post was absolutely serious.  But I wasn't discussing the prevailing wage law.  I was only talking about how he plans (or at least will attempt) to screw our cops, firefighters and other emergency responders out of their right to meaningfully engage in collective bargaining.  That is a topic totally separate from any discussion on the prevailing wage law, which I have mixed emotions about.

The problem with public sector bargaining is that public sector unions are, in many important respects, on both sides of the bargaining table.  They have the ability to vote their bosses in or out.  They can effectively auction off their electoral support.  This has no private-sector analogue, even with unions buying stock in the companies they work for.

The problem with public sector union strikes in critical services is self-evident, but not all public workers work in emergency services.

[GCrites80s]

It is perfectly possible to get a reputation for quality work without being a union member, too.

For almost a decade in the late 90s, my family had one guy that did basically all of the construction/remodeling work we ever needed or wanted done on our house.  To this day, I still have no idea if the guy was a union member, or ever was a union member.  He's retired now.  We heard about him through a referral (far and away the #1 source of business for almost all small businesses).  We hired him, and he did a good job, so we kept on hiring him--and giving him referrals in turn when other people asked us if we knew a guy who could redo a sunroom or bathroom or whatever.  He charged far more than minimum wage, but you know what?  He was worth it, so we paid it.  I'm pretty sure that he was never short of work, though I don't know what life might have been like for him if he'd still been around in 2008.

Handymen are in very high demand and have been for years. Few people can perform quality work across disciplines these days. Everyone's a "drywall guy", a plumber, a flooring guy or some other specialty.

Anyway, you definitely get what you pay for when it comes to labor pools -- up to the point when people are paid a lot AND it's really tough to fire them. There is a sweet spot there, but it's different for each situation and management must find it themselves. An arbitrary rate (such as the prevailing wage) moves the price away from equilibrium.

[GCrites80s]

Perhaps Kasich is trying to get rid of the prevailing wage so that improving the 3C line is cheaper... not.

[Hts121]

^^^Cops, Firefighters, Paramedics, etc. are going to vote for public officials who treat them well and against pulbic officials who do not.  This will not change, regardless if they are entitled to the rights and protections of Chapter 4117 or not.  Kasich can't take away their right to vote, nor their right to political speech.  Also, with the new prohibition on residency requirements, many of the employees aren't even electors anymore, so your concerns have been greatly diminished (if they were ever legitimate at all).

If a Mayor embarks on an effort to diminish minimum manning, shift strength, safety equipment, etc because he/she feels that more $$ is needed to water flower baskets, the emergency responders are going to make him/her pay for it come election time.  The effect collective bargaining has is to provide these employees a means of disputing those changes to the terms and conditions of employment by means OTHER than through elections.

And FYI, only emergency responders are prohibited from striking and not all individuals employed by our political subdivisions are entitled to collectively bargain.... and even those who are entitled to collectively bargain are not entitled to negotiate over every aspect of employment, but rather only those subjects which qualify as mandatory subjects of collective bargaining.

[gottaplan]

Interesting article in WSJ yesterday by Minnesota Gov Tim Pawlenty on taking on public sector unions (not specifically emergency forces though) and how all states need to be tackling this issue sooner than later

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703766704576009350303578410.html?KEYWORDS=pawlenty

[Hts121]

I would have hoped he would have written the article from less of a partisan lens.  He is using all the keywords - i.e. his sarcastic and partonizing "thanks to President Obama" comment - to pull at the heartstrings of conservatives instead of presenting an objective argument.  It's too bad, because I agree with him on a whole.  There are several classifications of public employees that need not and should not be entitled to union protection.  That doesn't mean that we should do away with ALL public sector unions or, as Kasich would do, take away any leverage they have.

[Loretto]

Scary thought, my public school district custodial staff, bus drivers, and cafeteria workers making less money.  Ya gotta think any of them that are the secondary wage earners would decide that Walmart and McDonalds would then be the better option.  Those secondary wage earners usually end up being the ones that aren't the burnt out middle-aged dead heads or equivalents.  Good luck with that parents.

[gottaplan]

Custodial staff?  Seriously?  So you're in favor of people who empty trash & clean the floors making top wages?  How about offer $8/hr and if they pass a background check they are hired?  How does a custodian remotely impact a child's education?  It doesn't, so don't bother trying to explain.  If you think keeping the wages higher will help screen out some weirdos, that logic doesn't work either.

[Hts121]

How much do custodial staff make?  You consider that "top wages"?  Be serious.

Amazing how you all will fight tooth and nail to ensure "Buckley Smith IV's" irrevocable trust is fully protected, but want to take a sh!te on the little guy creating an even larger wealth gap than we have (in which the richest 1% has more money than the bottom 50% COMBINED).  It really is puzzling...

[shs96]

Custodial staff?  Seriously?  So you're in favor of people who empty trash & clean the floors making top wages?  How about offer $8/hr and if they pass a background check they are hired?  How does a custodian remotely impact a child's education?  It doesn't, so don't bother trying to explain.  If you think keeping the wages higher will help screen out some weirdos, that logic doesn't work either.

The head janitor Facilities Director in my high school (back when I was in high school...approaching 15 years ago) made > $100,000.

[gottaplan]

How much do custodial staff make?  You consider that "top wages"?  Be serious.

Amazing how you all will fight tooth and nail to ensure "Buckley Smith IV's" irrevocable trust is fully protected, but want to take a sh!te on the little guy creating an even larger wealth gap than we have (in which the richest 1% has more money than the bottom 50% COMBINED).  It really is puzzling...

Hts - I've warned you before - Don't lump me in with "you all...." 

I make a comment that it's ridiculous to have janitors making more than $8/hr and you respond with a comment about trust funds and wealth gaps?  Get a clue.  You're so quick to paint with a broad brush and "classify" people based on a few posts here?

[jmecklenborg]

When I was at OU the janitors all made over $40,000 and famously spent part of every overnight shift watching porn in our building's auditorium on the big screen.  I alerted the "living wage" coffee shop crowd of this phenomenon but they weren't interested, because the whole living wage thing isn't about paying custodial staff a so-called "living wage", it's a networking tool for the spoiled little kids who lead the effort.   

[LincolnKennedy]

^The best part of this whole discussion is the assumption that it is impossible for janitorial services to be valuable simply because of the nature of the job.  Janitors or Facilities Directors or whatever deal with icky stuff, therefore it is impossible that they should be paid a high wage.

[jmecklenborg]

When I was an adjunct instructor at a community college, I made $17/hr and the janitors made over $20.  That's how screwed up sh!t is. 

[DanB]

When I was an adjunct instructor at a community college, I made $17/hr and the janitors made over $20.  That's how screwed up sh!t is. 

You're right, a good janitor is worth much more than only $3 more per hour than "an adjunct instructor at a community college" !!

[LincolnKennedy]

^For once, I actually agree with DanB.  Why should we take it on faith that janitors must be paid less than teachers?  Bartenders and servers routinely make more money than someone working a job that requires a college degree.  Should we trash them as well?

[Gramarye]

^The best part of this whole discussion is the assumption that it is impossible for janitorial services to be valuable simply because of the nature of the job.  Janitors or Facilities Directors or whatever deal with icky stuff, therefore it is impossible that they should be paid a high wage.

No, they are overpaid because it is a near certainty that someone would be able and willing to competently do the same job for less money, at least if we're talking about people making $100,000+.

I don't know about the $20/hr case; that's at least closer to reasonable.  You'd have to work a lot of hours at $20/hr to break $100k, though.

[DanB]

^For once, I actually agree with DanB. 

Just be proud!

Seriously, all of these so-called college graduates are what is hurting the job pool.  Some of these people would be better off going to a trade school and learning a trade.  There is nothing wrong with that.  Getting an associate degree from a community college does little to prepare them for the world.

[Hts121]

^^Then it would seem that the public employer would be in a good position to negotiate a new wage structure for its janitors.

[LincolnKennedy]

Why don't we eliminate certification for doctors and lawyers and real estate agents and tradesmen?  sh!t, why companies fire a bunch of MBAs and hire people who don't have those degrees and pay them less?

Nobody yet has explained why exactly a $20 an hour janitor or a $100,000 a year Facilities Director is overpaid except to imply that the nature of their work means that they are overpaid.  Someone who works with trash is close to trash, therefore they must be like trash.  I am better than trash.  Any quantitative factor (like a salary) that offends that notion must be wrong and inequitable, since if I know one thing, it is that I have value.

[gottaplan]

.

Why don't we eliminate certification for doctors and lawyers and real estate agents and tradesmen?  sh!t, why companies fire a bunch of MBAs and hire people who don't have those degrees and pay them less?

Nobody yet has explained why exactly a $20 an hour janitor or a $100,000 a year Facilities Director is overpaid except to imply that the nature of their work means that they are overpaid. 

I'll explain it - there are no specific skills or experience required.  No specific language requirements, written or spoken needed either.  Essentially you could pull someone off the street and they could mop floors and empty trash, change lightbulbs, etc.

[AJ93]

with regards to $100k Facilities Director, I'm wondering if the unstated concern was that he was given an inflated salary that may have been based less on the market value of his services and on his specific qualifications than on his tenure and the union contract.

Not that I should put words in SHS's mouth, he's capable of speaking for himself. But that would be my basic concern. If that position was tested in the open market, would someone, with the necessary qualifications, be willing to take the position for something less than that $100K?

[Gramarye]

You are reading that assumption into everyone else's post because you want to see it; you want to ascribe bad motives to anyone who dares disagree with you.  No one has implied any such personally negative thing about anyone (save for the poster who mentioned the janitors watching adult entertainment media on the high school theater's projection screen).

There are many extraordinarily high-wage jobs that I think are overpaid as well.

Also, you talk sarcastically about eliminating certifications for doctors, lawyers, real estate agents, etc.; I'd be willing to talk with you seriously about that, but the tone of your comment suggests that you're not really interested in such a discussion.

[gottaplan]

^For once, I actually agree with DanB.  Why should we take it on faith that janitors must be paid less than teachers?  Bartenders and servers routinely make more money than someone working a job that requires a college degree.  Should we trash them as well?

What bartenders/servers make and are paid are two different things.  High paid bartenders & servers make good money in tips because they are SKILLED at customer service.  Your point is invalid.  Good bartenders & servers are a perfect example.  Should these people be in a union that keeps them all at the same wage level regardless of how good or bad they are at their job?   

[LincolnKennedy]

Custodial staff?  Seriously?  So you're in favor of people who empty trash & clean the floors making top wages?

I considered this statement to be the sentiment that was animating the discussion.

[C-Dawg]

^For once, I actually agree with DanB. 

Just be proud!

Seriously, all of these so-called college graduates are what is hurting the job pool.  Some of these people would be better off going to a trade school and learning a trade.  There is nothing wrong with that.  Getting an associate degree from a community college does little to prepare them for the world.

It's rare I say this, but Dan hit the nail on the head. Way too many kids are going to college, and it's not because they are getting smarter (if anything, high school grads are less prepared for university-level work than at any time in our history). It's because colleges opened the floodgates and started seeing the dollar signs (which is only possible through public subsidization). The whole educational system has become a mess. It's more about providing good jobs for the educators than it is for the students.

I think the raw talent pool is pretty much the same in each generation. It doesn't matter how many people have college degrees. Just because a high number of Generation Y kids have college degrees doesn't mean a high number have the skills and talent to handle a real world job in their major. The standards were just lowered.

[shs96]

with regards to $100k Facilities Director, I'm wondering if the unstated concern was that he was given an inflated salary that may have been based less on the market value of his services and on his specific qualifications than on his tenure and the union contract.

Not that I should put words in SHS's mouth, he's capable of speaking for himself. But that would be my basic concern. If that position was tested in the open market, would someone, with the necessary qualifications, be willing to take the position for something less than that $100K?

Pretty much it.  Like the concept of VORP in baseball.  Value Over Replacement Player.  I can go play shortstop and there is value for playing the position.  But some are paid more than others because the output varies so greatly...not everyone can be a great shortstop.

I would argue there are thousands, if not millions, of people who can be a custodian.  It's like any supply and demand curve.  Lots of supply for people to clean up schools.  So paying them high salaries isn't good business.

[Hts121]

Here's some actual stats to inject into the discussion.  Janitors with 20+ years of experience make, on average, $21,000-$39,000 - http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Custodian_Janitor/Salary

Another chart showing average wage of all janitors to be in the low-mid 20's - http://www1.salary.com/Janitor-salary.html

Average for a "senior" school janitor is $27,000 per http://www.chacha.com/question/what-is-the-average-salary-for-a-school-janitor

And a state-by-state comparison - http://www.salaryexpert.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Browse.School-Janitor-salary-data-details&PositionId=33303&CityId=300&dsp=by%20State

Can we move off of this strawman argument now?

[C-Dawg]

^Thanks for the stats.

[Hts121]

No problem, Carl.  Are you interested in pursuing a career in the custodial arts?

[C-Dawg]

Interesting article in WSJ yesterday by Minnesota Gov Tim Pawlenty on taking on public sector unions (not specifically emergency forces though) and how all states need to be tackling this issue sooner than later

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703766704576009350303578410.html?KEYWORDS=pawlenty

Man, I never thought I'd agree so fully with a Republican, but he made a good argument. This is a gold:

The moral case for unions—protecting working families from exploitation—does not apply to public employment. Government employees today are among the most protected, well-paid employees in the country. Ironically, public-sector unions have become the exploiters, and working families once again need someone to stand up for them.

I see where Kasich and other Republibertarians are coming from on this issue. Fundamentally, there is a huge difference between a public sector union and a private sector union. I just know I'm going to have a hell of a time convincing Democrats of this.

[C-Dawg]

No problem, Carl.  Are you interested in pursuing a career in the custodial arts?

Nobody is impressed by those numbers! People want those mythical 100k janitor jobs!

I knew there was a reason people weren't banging down the doors to become janitors. It can be tough, dirty work with somewhat low pay (though not that bad really). It still probably beats the hell out of fast food.

[Gramarye]

Actually, when the Massillon Perry public school system had an opening for a janitorial position a year or two ago, they had something like 500+ applicants.