Out of Sync - Public versus Private Pay in Illinois

[chums101]

I'm embarrassed to live in Illinois

[ajd1211]

Okay, now for a bit of fact. If this were true, how come I make less than what the Illinois Policy Institute says I do? Second, if this were true, how come my brother, and his wife who've been state employees since 2005 make less than what the IPI says they do? Third, one thing the IPI doesn't tell you is that 37.5% of my paycheck is immediately taken out before I even get paid. Third, something else the IPI doesn't mention is that state employees pay 8% of our paychecks to the state pension

[ajd1211]

@ajd1211 fund, something private sector employees don't pay in to. And finally, how is taking away public sector employees pay and benefits change a private sector employee's financial situation and/or retirement? Rather than wanting public employees to take pay and benefit cuts, why don't they go to their employers and ask them why they don't have better wages, or better benefits, or a pension. Don't blame me because you don't like your pay, or that you don't have a pension. It's your employers

[ajd1211]

fault. Not mine. If you had a union as we do, maybe you'd make more. It seems the IPI would rather criticize public employees, rather than improve the lives of private sector workers.

[marbanak]

Nice introduction to the topic. Everyone will have their own sticking point. Here's mine: The pension agreements must be paid way in the future by people who are not yet born. There is something fundamentally unjust about that. At least a pension company willfully takes on that risk. But yet-unborn citizens take on that risk without ever having a say in it.

[JTHELSTROM]

It's always funny to see these union goons chanting about corporate greed by greedily demanding more money and benefits. Worthless tools!

[ramv36]

All I can say to the poor citizens of Illinois is this: The Free State of Missouri is but a short trip across the "berlin wall" of the Mississippi.

Escape the eastern bloc and defect to the West. Let us Show you how much better it can really be.

[TommyHolly1]

I love the Illinois Policy Institute! You guys present facts without getting into all the emotional stuff. Great job on this video!

[ajd1211]

@TommyHolly1 the IPI presents only the facts they believe will help their beliefs. If they wanted you to form your OWN opinion, they would present ALL the facts, which they don't.

[HangProgressives]

Save America KILL all public unions

[ajd1211]

@HangProgressives How will killing public unions save America?

[dijhili]

I hate union members!

[ajd1211]

@dijhili What did union members ever do to you?

[dijhili]

@ajd1211 they are lazy spoiled little brats. Trust me....if you don't agree, watch that clip of the union members from the Detroit Chrysler plant getting busted for drinking and smoking weed on the job!

[ajd1211]

@dijhili I'm a union member, and I'm not a lazy, spoiled little brat! I work hard at my job for my living, and many people would not be willing to do what I do for a job. Oh, and I watched that video of the Chrysler workers getting busted for smoking "weed" on the job. There wasn't any proof in that video proving the were smoking weed. I drive a Chrysler product made at one of the Detroit plants. My vehicle prior was a Chrysler product, and both have served me well.

[dijhili]

@ajd1211 there are some good, decent union members....but very few. LOL...well then you must be ignorant to the "weed" smoking. It's obvious they are, nobody smokes cigarettes in that way. You NEVER pull that hard on a smoke and share one. LOL My company uses union members are I can assure you, they are lazy and spoiled. They would not move a latter unless it was under contract.....and if they get busted for drinking on the job, the union protects them without termination! It's pathetic.

[ajd1211]

@dijhili You must know a thing or two about smoking weed. lol. Sounds like you've had a bad experience with unions. Your ratio is backwards, however. Most union employees are hard working people that want a decent wage for an honest day's work. I worked at a factory that was paying me less to train a guy that was getting paid more than me to learn. Had that facility been union, that wouldn't have happened. Unions level the playing field between management and labor.

[dijhili]

@ajd1211 I was a kid at one point in my life.....lol. Well, it's mostly the union leaders...the true thugs. Unfortunately most of the followers (members) just take their word without looking at the real issue. Unions are known for threatening companies. When we all took a hit in this economy, we lost 401k matching, raises and had 2 weeks furlough, while the same time the union threatened the trade show industry demanding more and more.....their tactics are unethical.

[ajd1211]

@dijhili I was a kid too, and I've never smoked weed a day in my life. Let me ask you a question. How can unions threaten to shut a company down? Unions can't hire anyone, fire anyone, discipline anyone, or keep anyone from patronizing a business.

Let me ask you a question. How is a company taking from a union worker going to imrpove your financial situation? Rather than asking why union employees make better wages than non-union employees, why aren't you asking "they make better wages, why

[dijhili]

@ajd1211 easy....we are using union labor and if we don't pay their demands or find a settlement, the refuse work! Union members generally make more than the equivalent in the private sector, the only difference is that you pay union dues to thugs that use your money for personal and political use.

[ajd1211]

@dijhili The only demands you have to meet are ones your company AGREES to. Unions can't come in, grab you by the shirt, and make demands without having to give something in return. If unions make more in the private sector, who do you think is to blame? The unions, for wanting decent wages for their members? Or private sector employers who make millions of dollars a year while paying their workers slave wages? The unions aren't to blame. The employers are. In my state, it is illegal to use

[ajd1211]

@dijhili union dues for political activities. My union has a separate political donation program members can choose to pay into. I chose to,and I can pull my dues at any time I want.

[ajd1211]

@dijhili shouldn't I? They have a pension, why do I just have a 401K? (which I believe 401k's are scams). They have decent benefits, why shouldn't I? Until you ask the right questions, you'll never receive the answers you want.

As far as unions threatening companies, this couldn't be further from the truth. Look at walmart. They've stated repeatedly that if their employees went union, they'd shut down. Another example of this is a factory I used to work at. They said if the employees ever went

[dijhili]

@ajd1211 God bless Walmart! Love them!

[dijhili]

@ajd1211 exactly how are 401k a scam? By diversifying my various funds, I managed to make quite a bit over the past few years....I guess if you know nothing about the fund or stock market....but even then you can pick a general fund.

[ajd1211]

@dijhili 401k's are scams because they are full of poor performing funds, designed to look like good investments, but in reality, they are loaded with hidden fees the average employee doesn't know about. So when they invest $100 of their paycheck, they are only investing part of that money. The rest is going to pay for fees the mutual fund companies tack on. In addition, companies who "match" the employee contribution most of the time use that money to pay the hidden fees. Plus,

[dijhili]

@ajd1211 that is why you diversify through several funds.I fortunately have no hidden fees. :) ...company pays 100% = great company

[ajd1211]

@dijhili that you know of. Let me as you this. I have a pension. You have a 401k. My pension is guaranteed income for life. Yours is not. Which sounds better?

[ajd1211]

@dijhili the mutual fund managers, bond fund managers, and money market fund managers use their millions and billions in profits to line the politicians pockets who in turn, make laws that are more friendly to the businessese whose employees invest in the 401k's the fund managers manage. All te while, the employees are getting screwed out of their retirements. Read Daniel Solin's book "The Best 401k book you'll ever read."

[ajd1211]

@dijhili union, they'd shut down, and in 2008 when I worked there, they had anti-union posters with closure threats in multiple locations throughout the factory. Unions can lead ad campaigns against companies. That's it. Companies can shut their doors and move to Mexico, India, or wherever. What's unethical is employers sitting on billions of dollars in cash, while laying off workers. Under a union, those workers wouldn't lose their jobs.

[dijhili]

@ajd1211 Teachers unions recently raised the dues to fund the Obama campaign. Union tactics are in VERY poor taste. They recently protested on the property of a construction boss for building a Walmart. Personally, I would have given just one warning shot! I'm sorry, but when everyone else has to sacrifice and the union demands more, that is BS...and it happens to my company all the time. When they damage property and drug tested, they keep their job but cannot work directly for us.

[ajd1211]

@dijhili I don't know about elsewhere, but in my state, it's illegal for that to happen. I disagree. I think companies who scare workers out of organizing are using tactics in poor taste. In lamens terms they're saying "You speak up against my profits, I'll shut down and you'll lose your income!" When unions speak up for employees, those employees aren't in danger of losing their jobs. When companies speak up against unions, the employee is scared into voting no so they'll keep their job.

[ajd1211]

You don't get it. Companies are sitting on billions worth of profits. We wouldn't have to sacrifice if the companies would use some of those profits to invest in their companies and hire more workers. That's why I supported Obama's ARRA plan. It created hundreds of thousands of jobs immediately, and with each job that is created, more jobs will follow suit. Our infrastructure is crumbling and needs repaired. Since CEO's were being selfish, the government stepped up.

[dijhili]

@ajd1211 LOL...just like those shovel ready jobs, Hahahaha...My company just spent $85 million buying 2 other company's. Some people lost their jobs....but it was overhead. Most fortune 500 will site on those billions until we see what happens with Obamacare. Most are scared of it and this current administrations spending habits. Most people in the private sector hate unions, union thugs, union bosses, and how the union protects some of the worthless, lazy, incompetent.

[dijhili]

@ajd1211 why should a company expand and hire more people if they don't need them? Company's that offer great benefits and pay have no fear of people forming a union. You just don't hire for the sake of hiring.....that would be retarded. I can't blame them at all. Obama has no plan....stimulus was a total failure....grew unemployment even higher (9.3%) than his expected 8%, Obamacare just added over $1 Trillion to the debt, not one of his policies has worked. Nadda. Debt reduction plan? Nope!

[dijhili]

@ajd1211 Selfish? LOL....this so called infrastructure are all government contractors, i.e government jobs, so how are CEO's being selfish when they don't provide a service that is flourishing. Why should businesses that have savings spend them on jobs and expansion when they currently are loosing sales? You vision of economics is really twisted up in what the Obama media is telling you. That is not real, my friend. Businesses are scared shitless of Obama...PERIOD!

[ajd1211]

@dijhili You must not understand supply and demand economics. Companies are sitting on record PROFITS. Not savings, PROFITS. Which means the demand is there, but rather than increasing the supply for goods and services, companies would rather take that money and send it to offshore accounts in order to not pay taxes on it. In addition, Obama hasn't been as friendly to big business as the Bush administration was. They don't want Obama as president, and anything that improves the economy makes him

[dijhili]

@ajd1211 I actually have a AA in economics. You don't increase supply without demand so if it is "there" what good does it do the company when they can make even more profits? They send it offshore in fear of what this administration will do. In order to release those profits, a company needs stability in the economy, which we don't have.

[ajd1211]

@dijhili You have an Associate of Arts in Economics and you don't understand supply and demand? Let me ask you a question. Which would make more money, a small business that makes shoes that is not open to expansion? Or Nike, which is global footwear provider? When a business sits on profits, rather than using those profits to increase supply to meet the demand, what good are those profits? Money means nothing if you're not willing to use it. They send the money offshore so they don't have to

[ajd1211]

@dijhili taxes to the US government. If they paid those taxes, the government wouldn't be in so much debt, which means we could provide the tax cuts needed to middle class Americans who would in turn, spend that money on the goods and services those companies provide, which would drive the demand even further. Oh and just FYI, I don't buy bottled water. I've been in a starbucks only once in my entire life, and I bought a more fuel efficient vehicle. Where I live, taking public transportation is

[ajd1211]

@dijhili not an opton because one company handles the public transportation where I live to get me to the other city where I work, and their routes don't coincide wih my work schedule. Oh, and I can point and criticize the CEO because while he's on a Hawaiian vacation, his workers are making slave wages so he can take that trip to Hawaii. And if you don't want me to criticize the CEO, then you shouldn't criticize unions for wanting the company to honor their contracts, even during an economic

[ajd1211]

downturn.

[ajd1211]

@dijhili look good. The demand is there. The money to fund economic growth in the private sector is there. The companies are being selfish, and while working joes like you and me struggle to get by, they're taking their record profits on the corporate jets that they don't pay taxes on, and holding hour long company board meetings while on trips to Hawaii.

[dijhili]

@ajd1211 I'm not struggling....not for the past 2 years. If you think they are selfish for making profits, then stop buying your bottled water, stop buying your starbucks coffee, stop buying you gas and take the bus to help you local government. They have every right to go to Hawaii if they do well, those are the perks of a contract between the CEO and the Board of Directors. You cannot point and cry at the rich for being successful. It's the banker that a bad....they now staff the WH

[ajd1211]

@dijhili rates makes him look bad and increases their chances of getting him out of office next year. That's putting your selfish interests befor the country. That's politics at it's WORST!

[dijhili]

@ajd1211 I disagree....the longer this admin is in charge, the further in trouble we are! That's the way politics works!

[ajd1211]

@dijhili is that why Bill Clinton lead us through the longest economic expansion in our history? He was in 8 years.

[dijhili]

@ajd1211 the reason is that Clinton realized he could not run as a radical left, so he centralized and worked with he republican Congress....and let's remember it's Congress that controls spending.

[ajd1211]

@dijhili Clinton wasn't a radical leftist to begin with. He was a centrist Democrat, that's why he helped to found the Democratic Leadership Council, which is a centrist Democratic organization. I know that Congress controls spending, that's why we're in this mess. Republicans do not believe in opening the purse straps so everyone can benefit. When Clinton pushed through the increase Earned Income Tax Credit, he did it under a Democratic Congress. The GOP didn't take control until 1995.

[ajd1211]

@dijhili Had the GOP controlled Congress, rest assured, the expansion wouldn't have gotten passed. The expansion of the EITC was what helped to spur the growth of the 90's. It gave more money to those who are most likely to spend it, which proves that tax cuts for the wealthy don't work. If you want to spur growth, you give those who are the most likely to spend the money as much of it as possible.