Why Yes, I'll Legally Discriminate Against You

Disclaimer: I am not trying to be funny, snarky or offensive with this post.

As most of you know, either on this blog or on Facebook, I have no problem shooting my mouth off on things that bug the crap out of me. One of the things that has been bugging me and fact, always bugs me, is a silent side issue when the hot button topic of gay marriage rears its non-ugly head.

For those of you who may have been unconscious or been preparing for the apocalypse, this week the Supreme Court has taken up the thorny issue of gay marriage. While I have a basic idea of where everyone in my blog world and/or Facebook stands and everyone has a basic idea on where I stand (fence straddler, my main beef now is the word "marriage", and it took a lot of years to get to this point), this point isn't about that.

It's about the one last legal form of discrimination that is tolerated: discrimination against single hetero couples.

I won't go into the history of gay marriage and/or civil rights for gays because you already know what they can and can't legally do. However, what is being battled for by the gay community seems to disappear under the water when it comes to others.

For example: gays/lesbians in a civil union/domestic partnership in this state were always able to put their partner on their health insurance. That has changed slightly as in this state gays/lesbians can now get married. Of course, the state put the caveat in that in if you are gay and were in a civil union/domestic partnership and you wanted to keep your partner on your health insurance, you had to get married. No marriage, no insurance. Come to think of it, isn't this exactly what gay people are telling the guv'ment NOT TO DO: INTERFERING WITH THEIR PERSONAL LIFE.

However, because we don't have the concept of common-law marriage in Connecticut, a hetero man or woman who wanted to put their boyfriend or girlfriend on their health insurance can't. Even if they're in a long term committed relationship (just like gays/lesbians could be) and don't want to get married (just like some gays/lesbians might choose), they can't.

So explain to me, without using the tired cliche (at least to me) of  "well, they can always get married"*, why it's okay to discriminate and treat hetero non-married couples in long term relationships like second class citizens. If it's illegal to discriminate against married couples for certain things and it's growing increasingly illegal to discriminate against gay married couples/gay non-married couples, why is it legal to discriminate against non-married couples?

*No, they don't have to get married. If it's not right for the guv'ment or anyone else to tell the gay community that they can't get married, then it's not right for you or anyone else to tell a hetero couple that they have to get married.

Guns. Don't. Kill. People. Understand?

A very good Facebook friend of mine and fellow writer, KC Sprayberry, came up with a good limitus test for all the idiots who do not believe the following statement to be true:

Guns Don't Kill People, People Kill People

First off, let me give you two definitions of the word inanimate:

1} Not living: not alive.

2} Relating to nouns for non-living things: belong to a category of nouns that refer to things and concepts considered to be without life.

Therefore, a handgun is just that: an inanimate object.

It's made of steel (or some other alloy), contains dozens of working parts, and looks impressive while lying on a table doing nothing.

The limitus test.

Take a handgun, unload it, make sure there's not a round in the chamber and place it on a table. Now yell at the handgun, "Fire!"

Does anything happen after you yell, "Fire!"? Of course not.

A handgun will not work without an external force present. The external force would have to pick up the hand gun, load it, make sure a bullet is in the chamber, take the safety switch off, and squeeze the trigger.

Without that external force present, a handgun remains an object that is as deadly as a leaf falling on your head.

So to say that handguns (or any other kind of gun) kill people simply isn't correct. A handgun is simply an implement of potential destruction, just like any other implement that people may use to harm others. Without an external force present to put things in motion, the inanimate object of potential destruction remains just that.

I have no other comment to add, just because I'm so incredibly upset about the stuff I've read and heard about over the weekend that I'm fighting a raging war within myself over whether or not I should simply tear all the assholes out there a brand new one, either on the blog and/or on Facebook.

Four More Years Of This?

So.

The American people have spoken and have decided that we needed to have another 4 years of:

Us groveling to other countries begging their forgiveness for our past "transgressions".

A pseudo economic recovery that will not touch the American people...unless you're in a progressive business that loves to get free money before going belly up.

Gas prices that will never go south of $3.25, 'cause you know, we love to give our oil away to other countries and we love when other countries can drill on our home turf. And we love to regulate an industry until we bring it to its proverbial knees.

Being told that we don't have terrorists attacks. We have attacks that are born from "spontaneous protests" (Libya) or we have attacks that are "workplace violence related" (Fort Hood).

Of Big Brother and Big Nanny telling us what we can and cannot do, but what we need to buy and have, 'cause you know, we know better than you.

Passive-Aggressive governing.

Reactive governing.

Spend money, go broke, 'cause you know, being fiscally prudent simply isn't us. That's for other people

Yes sir, the American people have spoken loud and clear, and what they said is something that I didn't think would actually happen.

I want someone to take care of me 'cause life is hard and I can't handle taking responsibility for myself.

Y times Z times 1 1/2 equals 0

No, this isn't some new math formula pulled from one of my daughter's homework assignments.

This is a math formula that was pulled from this year's state budget.

For those of you who are unfortunate enough to live in Connecticut, what I'm about to say is depressingly familiar, so please bear with me as I bring everyone else up to speed.

This year we elected a Democratic guv'nor who promised that he would find a way to balance a budget that was dripping 3 billion dollars in red ink. He did it with very modest spending cuts (big surprise there) and very heavy tax increases (no surprise there).

One of the taxes that he decided to increase was the state income tax, which he made effective this past July 1st. He also decided to that since we were bleeding so much red ink that the new rate should be retroactively applied back to January 1st.

You can probably guess what the unintended consequences are, but for the sake of this post, not only will I elaborate but I will make your jaws collectively drop to the floor with a large thud. I will also concentrate my explanation on the public sector, because not only was the pain harshly inflicted there, but the math formula that this post is called became frightening clear.

Because the guv'nor decided that the new income tax rate should be retroactively applied, people started having extra taken out of their paychecks, which created a myriad of problems. There were a lot of glaring glitches involved the retroactive application of the new income tax rate, but none were more glaring that the highly abnormal amount of tax taken out if you did anything out of the ordinary.

In other words, if you worked just your standard schedule, you either had too little (like me) or the proper amount of taxes taken out. But if you work above and beyond that standard schedule, like overtime, the system burped and took too much out.

Confusing? Absolutely!

What the system did was this: it looked at your gross wages for the pay period (bi-weekly), projected a new annual salary for you and bumped you up to a higher tax bracket if need be. In other words, if you did say 10 hours of overtime, it would project a new annual salary based on those 10 hours and tax you accordingly.

Using those 10 hours as an example, let me show you how this would be applied using the new math formula.

Y is the amount of hours worked, which equals 10.
Z is the regular hourly amount, which equals $23.76.
You then multiply that dollar amount ($237.60) by 1 1/2, which gives you what you actually earned for working those hours of overtime ($356.40).

0 is what you wind up with after the new tax rate is applied.

That's right boys and girls, because of this monumental glitch, you worked 10 hours of overtime for free.

I repeat, you worked for free. Your hard earned dollars went towards fulfilling your tax debt, whether you have one or not, instead of going into your pocket.

And the only way that you might see that money, is after you file your income tax return on April 15th, which is the excuse that the Office of State Comptroller's, who knew about the glitch and chose to do nothing about it, gave when they were getting questions about it.

So in the end, an improbable formula of Y x Z x 1 1/2 = 0 is the harsh reality for not only the bulk of the people who work in Connecticut's public sector, but probably for those who work in the private sector as well.

Of course, this particular glitch is supposed to be gone by the time January rolls around.

Yah.

Welcom to the modern version of taxation without representation, which is practiced in this state with an almost orgasmic glee by the Democrats. And remember gang, a case of good quality beer is cheaper than three packs of cigarettes. At least in this state.

D'OH!!!!

Three Improbables Equals One Confused Electorate

Hey gang!

Not sure what's going on in your neck of the woods for political whoopee, but here in Connecticut during the odd number years, we have our stale municipal elections.

I really shouldn't say stale, 'cause in my town politics are anything but stale an this current election season is a good example of that.

The current mayor of our town is running for re-election, or rather, he's running to be elected in his own right. Ya see, prior to becoming mayor, he was the deputy mayor (or town council leader, not sure which) of our fair town. But when the previous mayor found a job opportunity out of state, that left a vacancy to be filled, which was filled by the second in line, which was him.

Before I continue, I should let everyone know up front that I was a high school classmate of the current mayor and during those four years, I developed a rather low opinion of him. The preceding 28 years has done nothing to change that current opinion. I should also let everyone know that I am a registered Republican and the current mayor is also a Republican.

Having said that, let's take a good look at the current campaign mantra, so that we can understand why this member of the electorate is currently confused about it.

1} No Tax Increase! Got no problem with that here. If the town is being run in a fiscally prudent manner and you're able to stick to your budget, then no tax increase is a very good thing.

2} No Cuts! Okay, here's where I get a little confused. What are you not going to cut? Are you not going to cut the budget? Town services? Employees? Are you implying that perhaps the budget is a little out of whack yet streamlining isn't the answer? Do you plan on not cutting spending?

I should not that to put those two points in proper perspective, one of the ways that he wants to balance the budget is to use the town's rainy day fund. Now I don't know about your state, but my state has done that for the past couple of budgets and the end result has been a budget out of whack by $2 billion dollars.

3} Hold The Line! Now if I'm already confused after reading the first two points, I'm downright befuddled with this particular campaign promise.

What is it exactly that you want to hold the line on? Excessive spending? Excessive waste? New laws? Maintaining the status quo? If you're maintaining the status quo, which status quo are you trying to hold? No taxes? No cuts?

Now fortunately (or unfortunately), I haven't been able to figure out what the opposition's campaign promises are, simply because all of his rhetoric is buried inside the American flag that is plastered on his signage. About the only thing I do know is that he doesn't plan on using the rainy day fund to balance the budget.

Could it be that in some kind of perverse Night Gallery scenario, that on the local level a Democrat is more grounded in reality than a Republican?

Stranger things have happened.

Like me getting published.

D'OH!

Or this classic cult Billboard chart favorite from the 60's.

I Guess No One Will Be Getting Pink Slipped

About a week ago, I wrote about the tense labor negotiations going on between the 13 labor unions and the governor's office as it applies to the current $3 billion dollar deficit that the state is facing. In the comment section of the post, I promised to update everyone should anything change.

Things changed.

Last Friday (May 13th), negotiations came to successful conclusion as an agreement worth $1.6 billion dollars in concessions was reached. I don't know all the details that I will be voting on in the next couple of weeks, but the basic outline (courtesy of the Hartford Courant) is as follows:

1} The state agreed to a 4 year no layoff agreement that covers through 2014 (the current one was set to expire June 30th, 2011). In exchange, the union agreed to a 2 year hard wage freeze for all employees and managers. This includes yearly raises, yearly cost of living increases, no bonus for being at the top of your salary grade and no semi-annual longevity payments (this last one would save the state about $20 million per year).

2} After those two years, three percent increases starting each July 1st for 2013 thru 2015.

3} Increasing the retirement age for those who retire after 2017 by three years, for all three current retirement plans. There is still a tentative proposal from 2009 in which employees can retire only if their total years of service and age adds up to more than 75. A rumor has it bumping up to 90.

4} There is an agreement with the collective bargaining group called SEBAC (comprised of all 13 state bargaining units) that is set to be reopened on 2017, but this will be extended by five years and there will be some changes made (this agreement covers things like health insurance benefits, and one of the proposals being batted around was to convert our expensive health benefits to something along the lines of what Federal employees pay).

5} Previously, those employees who were in hazardous duty positions (like correctional officers) could retire after 20 years of service. Now if you want to retire, you have to work an additional five years. Great if you're less than fifteen years in, terrible if you're sitting with two years or less.

There are other provisos that were being bandied about, like 12 furlough days and extending the 3% percent contribution to all employees, but those apparently never came to fruition. I will say that even though layoffs won't occur through the traditional sense of the word, they will occur. Although the proper buzz word is "attrition". In other words, if a person retires/terminates/quits/gets merged out of existence, their position will vanish.

I won't say that my work life is peaches and cream right now, but the stress level has dropped considerably. It remains to be seen whether or not the stress level stays where its at or if it increases again because this agreement doesn't get ratified by the rank and file.

Update (5/17): The summary of the agreement that was reached on the 13th can be found here (for how long I do not know, so click it while you can), and most of the points in this post can be confirmed, plus a few others I did not know about.

A: Morally Bankrupt. Q: What Are Labor Unions?

Inspiration for this post is due largely in part to a casual conversation with the legendary Cherry Red M&M

I hate my labor union with a passion that is unrivaled and unmatched with anything else that I don't like.

Connecticut, like most of the other blue states in this country, is deep in debt due to the plethora of stupidity that oozes from the state legislature. And like most blue states, the state legislature is dominated by 'wow-we-have-a-leftover-dollar-lets-spend-it-now' Democratic party, who for the most part are owned by labor unions.

And like most blue states, the labor unions came out with both barrels a-blazin' to get the Democratic candidate for governor Dan Malloy elected. Why? Why to maintain the status quo so that they can continue feeding at the public trough.

See, they figured that once Dan Malloy got into office, all this talk about give backs by the labor unions would cease to be.

Guess what boys and girls, it didn't cease to be.

As a matter of fact, the second they got a whiff about the new governor asking for give backs, their reaction showed just how much they truly cared about their brethren.

"We would rather see layoffs then give back another dollar to the state."

Yeah, that brings a tear to my eye. To think that my labor union, my clerical union run by AFSCME, cared that much about me that they were willing to have a repeat of 2003, in which me and 2,799 of my closet co-workers were pink slipped.

I tell ya, it touches me right here.

Seriously, our state is looking at a gap of 3.2 billion dollars and with no special gimmicks or federal dollars available to use and abuse, the governor-elect will probably attempt to deaden the pain by not only asking for yet more concessions from the state rank and file, but from the managers as well. And I'm sure that somewhere in the mix, a few possibilities that I wrote about over a year and a half ago that were temporary solutions, will probably become permanent solutions.

If the unions (plural as there are 13 bargaining units that the state deals with) hem and haw, the end result will realistically be like 2003, which will be a major whammy to the unions. Because not only will they lose a ton of members, but their wallet and coffers will take a major hit as well.

Ya know, downsizing can be a bitch, but if there is a way to lessen the pain by giving money back and saving jobs of people who really need them, it really shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

As a taxpayer, I want to see a little fiscal sanity applied by my government. I don't want to live in a mini version of a nanny state (i.e. California or New York) which is what this country is slowly turning into.

As a state worker, having been on the receiving end of the debacle of 2003, I have no qualms in doing it to others if need be. But I really don't want to exercise my contractual right to put someone else in the poor house.

So please, open your eyes to the reality of life and take a hard look at the economic meltdown plaguing this state, and for once put the needs of the members first.

Because to put it bluntly, you work for us, we don't work for you.

Thou Art A Hypocrite

Long time readers of this blog know that for the most part I mouth off about my local political scene, simply because my local political scene affects me more than the national political scene. However, there have been the rare occasions over the past two years that I've mouthed off about the national scene. Welcome to the rare occasion.

Scenario #1: A champion bursts onto the national stage, promising hope, change and a new beginning by leading the country away from the road to ruin and back to the land of the superpower. The media, worried about their candidate of choice not being elected, do their utmost to change the vox populi by showing what a truly flawed individual the opposition was. Alas, it was for naught as the unwashed and uneducated masses elected their champion.

Scenario #2: A champion burst onto the national stage, promising hope, change and a new beginning by leading the country away from the road of ruin and back to the land of the superpower. The media, worried about their candidate of choice not being elected, do their utmost to squelch the unsavory stories about their favored son and his political beliefs. Alas, it was successful and the washed and properly educated masses elected their champion.

Being the intelligent readers that I know you to be, I'm sure that you can figure who each scenario is talking about. But what if each scenario was reversed? Would you still feel the same way about the content?

What if scenario #1 was instead talking about the Democrats and not the Republicans and/or the Tea Party movement, and scenario #2 was talking about the Republicans and/or the Tea Party movement? Would you still have the same animosity? Of course not.

It's funny how the perception of a scenario changes simply because of what political party is in charge. In the case of scenario #1, the plausible explanation is that in 2000 a lot of people felt that the country was going in the wrong direction and that electing GWB brought the country back to where it was prior to the previous 8 years of Democratic rule.

On the other hand, with scenario #2, a lot of people felt the exactly the same way when they voted for the current president in 2008. There was a lot of anger among the population over the perceived direction that the country was heading in and people wanted a change

Think about this for a moment. The media was gung-ho about scenario #2 because they didn't like the way the country was being run so they decided to do something about it by tapping into that anger and getting their candidate of choice elected. Because it was a Democrat that got elected, in their minds it was a good thing to tap into that voter anger.

But when the shoe is on the other foot, that's where I get confused. Again there is a movement afoot because there is a lot of anger among the population over the perceived direction that the country is heading in and people are looking for a change. But because it's being associated with the Republican party/conservative politics, all of a sudden it's a BAD THING?

Why is it that righteous voter anger among the Democrats is a good thing and yet that same righteous voter anger is a bad thing when it's among Republicans?

Can you honestly sit there and tell me that if the Tea Party movement was going on within the framework of the Democratic party (the one who thought slavery and Jim Crow laws were a good thing and still treat the Black/Hispanic community like slaves when it comes to an election year) you would be doing the same kind of mocking and denigrating of the people involved that you currently do now of the Tea Party movement?

If you answer "Yes" then you're full of shit, pure and simple. Or at the very least, you're the title of this post.

While I may not be a fan of either the Tea Party movement or the Democratic party, I will admit that there are some elements that I do agree with.

Within the Tea Party movement the biggest element I agree with is the fact that ordinary people are shaking up the establishment and doing what most third parties have been unable to do with any degree of success in our country's history: having a more than realistic shot of getting elected.

Within the Democratic party, the biggest element I agree with (at least on the state level) is the fact that even though the current candidate for governor has all kinds of union endorsements and as a mayor of a large city managed to have a good rapport with the local unions in order to get things done, he is actually promoting fiscal responsibility (like CUTTING SPENDING), which as you know is an extinct animal at the national scene (see Stimulus I and Bailout I for glaring examples).

But overall, shouldn't we be happy about how people who are fed up with the way the country is being run are finally getting off their fat lazy ass to do something about it?

After all, voter apathy is what got us into this mess, should voter stimulation get us out of this?

I mean, wasn't 49% of the electoral voting in the 2008 Presidential election a good indicator that people wanted change? If 49% of the electoral voting was a good thing then, why are people making it out to be a bad thing now?

17 Steps Forward, 237 Steps Backwards (3)

In my previous posts, I bloviated about the economic emasculation of the state worker in 2009 and the economic lobotomization of same in 2010. To finish this dark, dank and depressing series of posts that have showcased the economic pilfering and narrowminded balancing that is bazooka barfing blood faster than the death of a thousand paper cuts on the backs of about 1.4% of the population (about 47,000 employees), I will be offering a few ideas on how the state (HAH!) can spread the joy of vasectomy/tubal ligation to other parties while at the same time offering a realistic probability on each of them happening.

1} No cost of living raises for managers. This was one of the more popular ideas being thrown out by the rank and file, simply because most managers make about as much money as managers in the private sector. It was a major thorn in a lot of people's sides (mine included) last year when they got raises and we didn't. Even though its a mere drop in the bucket (potential savings about $300K), doing it would show that the state is serious about spreading the pain.

Probability: Actually happened. On 7/20/10, the governor announced that no raises were to be had for managers and executives for 2010. Unfortunately, the state university system acted like the company in Dilbert and gave their managers 7% cost of living raises.

2} Slice off a layer of management. The state is wickedly top heavy with management in all areas and at all levels (for item #1, the amount of managers/executives who didn't get numbered over 2,800). Slicing off a layer would free up money that could be applied elsewhere within a particular agency, but would also show that the state is treating its business like a business.

Probability: Not going to happen unless layoffs hit the rank and file, which could be a possibility in two years once the no layoff proviso expires.

3} No longevity bonuses. Longevity in the public sector is roughly the equivalent of getting a bonus in the private sector. The state pays every employee with at least 10 years of service, a bonus twice a year. The amount varies not only from job to job (for example, mine was $97.50), but also on length as well. Parroting the private sector by eliminating this twice a year bonus could produce a potential savings of about $400K a year.

Probability: Could happen. The current governor is finally showing some backbone (too little too late) with the managers, so it might happen in a few months. Also could happen with a new governor as well.

4} Merge smaller agencies with larger ones. This one is a no brainer as well. We have almost two dozen smaller agencies that are simply sucking up money and are better off being merged with a compatible large agency. A good chunk of these agencies were created back in the 70's, when trying to make all things equal to all people was all the rage. Even though all things are basically equal to all people within state government, these old time agencies are still sucking up money that can be applied elsewhere.

Probability: Could happen. The biggest stumbling block is that almost half of these agencies are politically untouchable (Permanent Commission on the Status of Women, Latino Affairs, African-American Affairs, just to name a few). However, they do need to go, and if a couple of agencies were forced this year to close a hospital, a prison and a adolescent services group home due to budgetary reasons, then those smaller agencies (some with less than 25 people with annual budgets up to $1 million) can close as well.

The big 2 ton elephant in the freight elevator of politics is as we all know, is called LAYOFFS. With the economy still running downhill dumping its shit all over the average worker, you know that this is a very realistic possibility. The no layoff proviso that was negotiated last year (2009) will expire in June 2012. Coincidentally, so will most union contracts.

Do you think that the state ain't gonna play hardball come Spring 2012? To quote GEICO insurance, is Sarah Palin among the top three most hated Republicans out there today?

Prediction: I believe that due to the lack of leadership and foresight that has been shown in this state for the past ten years (people, our credit rating has been downgraded to the point where our bonds are hovering around junk bond status), any economic recovery that the nation will experience in the next two years will totally bypass this state.

What this all adds up to be is this: contrary to popular opinion, working for the state isn't the gravy train ride every thinks it to be. More often than not, when the chips are down and the politicians are forced to make the tough decisions, they don't. Instead, they go about slicing and dicing what they know will please the population without looking at the root causes of their laziness and crass stupidity that caused them to take the weenie way out by laying the burden of their crass stupidity on one particular segment of society without considering all the other segments of society for their special kind of stupidity as well.

I think that tired and overused quote used in Forrest Gump really does apply here: Stupid is as stupid does.

17 Steps Forward, 237 Steps Backwards (2)

In part 2, I would like to give to you the gruesome details on what was implemented for FY 2010/11. I know that this will probably put you to sleep, so don't read this unless you had good night's sleep or ingested tons of caffeine.

1} Furlough days. We have another 3 days of unpaid furlough to take for this fiscal year. And of course, the state will use the money for things other than the budget. Like raises (delayed) and cost of living adjustments (which should be delayed but aren't). Color me cynical, but if I'm giving money back to the state to help with the budget, I don't want it given back out to cover contractual raises and bonuses, even with me being an intended recipient.

While furlough days are but a temporary hit to the wallet (next one doesn't hit until Thanksgiving), what the unions agreed to next is what got people up in arms, because its a permanent hit to the wallet, at least for about 1/3 of us.

Info dump: The State of CT gives lifetime medical benefits to their retirees and their spouses.

Problem: The medical benefit fund for retirees is approaching insolvency.

Solution: Another giveback.

Specifically, item 2} The brilliant idea they came up with, and that the union agreed to (in exchange for other things like raises) was to make effective July 1st of this year, all new hires and all current employees who have less than five years of total service, to give back 3% of their gross wages for up to a total of ten years. To give you a basic idea on the minimum amount an employee would give, we'll use as an example my job title (Payroll Clerk) at entry level.

Step 1 (officially, CL 15-1; CL stands for Clerical, 15 is pay grade, and 1 is what step your salary is at) is a bi-weekly salary of $1563.76, of which 3% = $46.91 per pay period. Total for one year would be $1224.35 (this is reached at multiplying the $46.91 by the amount of pay periods in a year, which is 26). And that's not counting things like overtime.

Imagine how thrilling it is to see on the average $1200 (plus a 5 to 6% per year adjustment for raises and cost of living increases) a year for the next five to ten years removed from your paycheck to fund someone else's insurance.

Raise? If you get one, chances are you will never see it. Same goes for cost of living adjustment. Oh, and don't forget for the semi-annual health insurance premium increase, currently pegged at 5% per six months.

YIPPEE!!!!!!

Up next: A few ideas on who else can share the pain and what might be on tap in the future.

17 Steps Forward, 237 Steps Backwards (1)

Ever have one of those days where you're sitting in your chair (or seat cushion, or stool, or hammock, or rock, or tree, or boat) trying to think of something to write about and you have a dopey song running through your brain preventing you from executing said duties of your office?
In my case, I have that stupid song Hocus Pocus by Focus rumbling through my head.

Play it if you dare....BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!

Anywho, I though for today, I would blow off the multiple layers of dust bunnies (mom & dad, grandma & grandpa, children, grand children, great grand children, great-great grandchildren) and drag out a topic that I haven't touched upon in quite some time (like early last year).

Work.

Over a year ago, February '09 to be exact, I gave everyone the 411 on how economically trashed my state is and how they were gonna to attempt to balance the budget on the backs of the 50,000+ state workers without making the hard choices elsewhere.

So.

Let me tell you about the fabulous going away prizes that I and my co-workers won for the 2009/10 fiscal year.

1} Four furlough days. Yes, me and 49,000 of my closest co-workers won an all expense trip (on our dime of course) to spend quality time with our families. In exchange for contributing 4 days our pay towards the state budget, we get......a promise that no layoffs would be considered until 2012.

2} No cost of living adjustments or raises. No qualms with that, both as a taxpayer and a state worker. I actually agree with this although some weenie politicians chose not to share the pain equally, so all correctional employees got their retro raises (but they are getting theirs in the long run).

3} A retirement incentive program. Yes, if you chose to retire in June or July, you were forced...err...coerced...ummm....strongly encouraged with arm jacked up behind your back to participate in the retirement program. What was in it for you? An extra 3 years added on so as to increase your pension. What did the state get? A 3 year delay in paying out your time, which was followed by paying out your time in 1/3 increments for the next three years (2012-14)....maybe.


Up next: The plan for fiscal year 2010/11.

I Didn't Know I Was Back On The Plantation

I have this as an avatar in the chat rooms:

Underneath it, I have this saying: "Labor unions are good eats!"

Disclaimer: I am a dues paying member in good standing. I have also seen more than my fair share of the good, the bad and the seriously ugly, simply due to the particular nature of my current job.

That being said, I hate state labor unions with a passion. Scratch that, as hate isn't that strong of a word. Despise would be a much better word to use.

I'm sure you're sitting there, asking the computer, which in this case is asking me, "G, according to your disclaimer, you're a dues paying member in good standing. Why would you say such a thing?"

A very good question. And hopefully with this post, I'll be able to give you a satisfactory answer to your query. At the very minimum, you'll get to uncover another part of my multi-faceted character.

I work for one of the 51 closed shops in these Fractured States of America. For those of you that don't quite understand what a closed shop is, a closed shop is by definition an entity in which you must be a member of a trade union or a guild in order to work for them.

As for the 51 biggest, the easy way to answer that is to whip out a Rand McNally and turn to the map showing the good old F.S. of A. That will show you the first 50. Number 51 is Washington, DC.

I actually make a distinction between unions for the regular slob (AFL/CIO and Teamsters for example) and the useless money siphoning pits of incompetence that fall under the umbrella of AFSCME (The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees).

In my world, there is a saying among people like myself (clerical and other assorted drones who don't get no respect but are the ones who really run the work place): the tail wags the dog. Which basically is the state version of the inmates running the asylum.

The unions have got most state agencies so thoroughly cowed that they don't even put up a fight when they're right. Literally, they will cave in on an issue and actually pay someone to go away. Thousands upon thousands of dollars are wasted annually because the state pays bad employees to go away.

In the real world, bad behavior will get you fined and that you should thank your lucky starts that criminal charges aren't pressed. In my world, you can get caught doing most anything wrong, get fired, claim some bullshit nonsense and get some local yokel who doesn't live in the real world agree with your bullshit nonsense. The end result is that the taxpayer foots the bill for paying off these idiots to make sure that they go away, if they go away.

My other beef with the whack jobs that run the various labor unions, is that they follow the philosophy of no good deed goes unpunished. They make it a practice to save incredibly bad employees from themselves and help them keep their stupid job, but won't lift a finger to help save the job of a good employee.

I've seen a few very good employees unfairly disciplined and made an example of, simply because the union chose not to put up a good fight. I've even been on the receiving end of such behavior. The good employee makes one small slip up and they're instantly branded as incompetent for the rest of their state career, while the bad employee can perpetually screw up and yet somehow always finds a way to keep their job.

You Can Bet Your Bottom Dollar That Your Bottom Dollar Can't Be Bet

Title of the post has a major disconnect with the content of the post.

Or does it?

Back in February, I made a post about the current state of the State as it pertained to the economic meltdown that was (and currently is) sweeping the nation. Last month, the powers that be (labor unions and the Governor's office) came to an agreement that will save about $637 million in the next two budget years.

So, as a state worker, this is what I got to look forward to for the next two to three years. I'm so blessed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1} To start with, this agreement freezes wages for one year and requires us to take seven furlough days, one before the end of the '08/'09 FY and three in '09/'10 & '10/11. Financial hit: minimum 6% reduction in income.

2} It creates a new retirement incentive program to encourage those who are eligible to retire to do so now. Under this program, three years of service credit will be added on. However, payouts for leave accruals (sick, vacation, comp) will paid out in 1/3 installments starting in 2012. Basically if you retire now, you'll get the last of your money in six years. They did this previously in 2003, and the last payments were made in 2007.

3} All insurance premiums will rise by $350 a year (this should be neat) and co-pays for drugs will increase. Also, generics will be mandatory unless the doctor can medically prove that non-generics are necessary.

4} The establishment of a "Rule of 75", which means that in order for a retiree to start collecting health benefits, the age and years of service must equal or exceed 75.

5} This next one is a goody. All current employees with less than five years of service and all future employees will be required to contribute 3% of their earnings annually to fund retiree health care during the first ten years of their employment. Sound familiar boys and girls? Sort of like what D.C. wants to do with illegal immigrants.

6} No layoffs for two fiscal years. Under this agreement, the protection only applies to employees hired before 7/1/09 and would not bar the Governor from restructuring agencies or eliminating positions, provided the affected employees could transfer to a comparable position elsewhere.

7} It also contains additional provisions in case the economy keeps heading to Sulfur Springs. Like more furlough days and delays in scheduled payments or pension contributions.
~~~~~~~~~~~
We're voting on this garbage today. 'Course, it doesn't do nothing to reduce the ranks of upper management (where there is real savings to be had).

Gotta love it.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Updated (5/9): The majority of the bargaining units approved the concessions. For full details, click here.

Economic Meltdown, Who Ya Gonna Purge?

Disclaimer: While this post will not contain offensive language, it might just bore you to tears. Or make your jaw drop from disbelief. In any event, please read this when you have lots of energy. Thanks.

Today's post will be about the current state of economic destruction as it pertains to the state of Connecticut. On February 4th, our esteemed Governor of Connecticut, M. Jodi Rell, presented the FY2010-FY2011 Biennium budget to the masses for consumption. The budget (click here for the budget highlights, and click here for the more detailed version) is frightfully long on specifics and unfortunately short on happy news.

Since I'm a state worker and thus my immediate future is intimately tied to this budget, I would like to offer my two cents on a few of the items that are being proposed here.

• Consolidation of state agencies: The Governor is proposing to consolidate/eliminate 20 state agencies, with a potential combined savings of approximately $27 million over the next two years. As it stands, most of what these agencies do are duplicated within other agencies elsewhere. In addition to the monetary savings, there is another potential savings....
• Eliminating 865 jobs: The Governor is proposing that 865 jobs be eliminated, through a combination of eliminating vacant positions and layoffs. This is about 1/4 of the total amount of people who were laid off in 2003. This total can possible rise due to another factor....
• Concessions from the state unions: The Governor is proposing a two year wage freeze, along with a two year suspension of binding arbitration (a perpetual budget killer). As expected, the unions immediately started to whine about this, which only goes to show you how out of touch the union leadership is with the rank and file.
• Eliminating Boards and Commissions: The Governor is proposing to eliminate about 70 boards and commissions, plus the 900 appointees that are required to staff them.
• Selling state assets: The Governor is proposing to sell state assets, in order to help with the budget. One example is the leftover/unused property that the state acquired for transportation projects that either never materialized or didn't use all that was required. Potential savings there is estimated to be $6 million.

These are just a few examples of the items being presented to the General Assembly. And just like up in D.C., the General Assembly is dominated by one party. Unlike in D.C., down here the Democrats have a veto proof majority.

And like the gang in D.C., the gang down here is in the hip pockets of the labor unions. Let's hope for once that they remember who they're actually working for: the people who elected them, not the people who buy them.

Anyways, my main concern with this entire budget is that the union is going to attempt to play hardball. I feel that way because the lesson that was painfully learned in 2003 when they last tried to play hardball with the Governor (in this case John Rowland) and 2,800 people lost their jobs, will be once again forgotten and more than 1/7 of the 2003 total will be laid off. By the way, of those 865 job cuts, about 50% of them are paper cuts. In other words, they are vacancies that are being eliminated. The remaining 50% are humans.

It's gonna be a stressful Spring/Summer.

Welcome To My World....Pfft~~~~~~~>

It seems like bad news always enters my life in five year cycles and almost always around the Christmas season.

In 2002, Connecticut was going through tough economic times, much like it is now. The short sighted way to balance the budget was to lay off about 2,800 state employees. Not cutting spending or raising taxes, but laying off 2,800 hardworking people, of which I was one of the lucky ones.

Were any potential savings realized? Of course not. Did this help balance the budget? What do you think? Did the General Assembly wise up and change their ways? Are you serious?

It's now Christmas 2008 and once again the state is facing a ballooning budget deficit ($300 million). And once again, the state is looking at laying off state workers to balance the budget.

People, acting like Chainsaw Al and shedding bodies is not going to save money nor balance the budget. It didn't work last time and it's certainly not going to work this time.

In my personal opinion, this is what has to be done in order to help reduce the deficit.

1) Reduce spending. While across the board spending cuts can be made at all agencies, other cuts can be made at the state level, which can trickle down to the municipal level. Make the municipalities grow up and take responsibility for their actions.

2) All contracts, save for A & R, expire at the end of the 2008/09 FY. Negotiate a wage freeze for a year and cut the percentages of the raises and COLA's {cost of living allowance} given, which currently stands at 6%. Slash it in half.

3) Eliminate longevity payments. Longevity is currently given to employees who have managed to officially survive ten years of employment with the state.

4) Merge small agencies with the larger ones that can basically do the same thing. Eliminate positions that overlap and save money. Right now, the state has about 90+ agencies.

5) Don't rehire retirees back. Let the vacancies by eliminated.

6) STOP DEFICIT SPENDING!!!! Take a hard line and tell people, "NO! You can't have!!"

7) Stop listening to the special interest groups and do what's right for the state, not for the special interests.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This PSA has been brought to you today by the dual combination of an unhappy state taxpayer and a severely stressed out state worker.

It Was Just A Freakin' Election!

Okay, I know this a rarity, a triple post day, something I haven't done since the early summer when I was posting two pages of a short story plus an original post.

But tonight, after reading a few of my favorite bookmarked blogs (one of which I just deleted because the hypocritical fawning over Obama {among other things} made me want to puke, and no it's not any of the ones I follow nor have listed on my blog) gushing over with big old crocodile tears, I just had to respond to it.

People, it was just a freakin' election. God didn't drop a bolt of lightening down from the heavens, anointing Obama as his chosen one to lead the little sheep out from the big bad forest. Get over it.

It wasn't so much as Obama having concrete plans to back up his words, as it was that people were tired of eight years of Republican rule (yes I'm a Republican). So far, Obama hasn't proved to me he can do the job. Shoot, he hasn't proved to anyone that he did anything of merit during his short stint in the US senate or his stint in the Illinois senate.

Until the man can prove he can make the tough decisions, don't anoint him as the savior of the holy grail that is America.

Because quite frankly, I don't think he can make the tough decisions, therefore, he ain't gonna be the savior of the holy grail that is America.

This concludes my take on the 2006-08 election cycle which culminated on the election of Barack Obama as the 44th president of these United States. I will now leave the issue of national politics alone until the next presidential election cycle, which is due to start in 2010.

Political Zealotry 101

This post will unique in a couple of different ways:

1) It's about politics
2) There is no disclaimer but the tone is nevertheless angry.

That said, let's begin at the beginning.

When I originally created my blog, I made a conscious decision not to talk about politics on the national level. People have a tendency to get incredibly anal and totally hysterical while defending Obama (yes, Obama, because I don't see none of this crap with McCain) or when they're bashing GWB.

It seems like if you even remotely bring up any legitimate negative point, the Obama zealots go after you and do a massive gang banger machete attack, leaving you drawn and quartered in the dust. The end result is usually that most people keep quiet for fear of being similarly stomped into the ground.

This is an indisputable fact that the Obama zealots/GWB haters do in the chat rooms. I have both witnessed and experienced first hand these sickening machete attacks.

Because of these experiences, I have purposely stated away from any blog that is politically unbalanced. There are a few blogs that I do follow, that although the creators are Obama followers, they aren't nasty or sanctimonious about it.

Yesterday (10/8) I was reading one of my favorite blogs, written by someone who is well balanced politically, which means she is respectful of all viewpoints. The particular post I was reading was what she called, "live blogging". What that means is that she was blogging about a particular event as it was unfolding in front of her, in this case the Presidential debate.

So I was reading some of the snide comments that were being made about both McCain and Palin and I must admit, they were starting to bother me. Normally, I would let this kind of stuff slide in the blog world, due to the fact that I'm a relative newcomer to blogging and I'm trying to build a solid reader base for my blog. It's also a fact (known to my close online friends) that I can really push people's buttons at the drop of the hat.

This time, I decided to ask a legitimate question about a couple of Obama's associates/friends: Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers.

The next day, I find a lengthy response which glosses over my question, and instead lists the same lame and tired arguments that have been put forth by numerous Obama zealots on numerous chat room threads.

I responded to that person's comments by saying that I didn't appreciate being dumped on in someone else's blog, and that I would be more than happy to continue it on their blog or mine.

What I wanted to say, but didn't out of respect to the person whose blog this appeared on, was this.

Listen you hypocritical zealot, I asked a legitimate question and you didn't answer it. So I'll ask it again, this time with more detail put into it and I dare you to explain it away.

Rev Wright: How is Obama's association with this man not relevant to the issue of character? Do you honestly believe that his distancing himself from this man this year, really puts this to rest? How can you believe his assertions that he didn't really know the man's viewpoints? Good lord, the man was Obama's pastor for 20 odd years and that he performed his marriage.

Bill Ayers: The man is a legitimate unrepentant domestic terrorist who co-founded the Weather Underground and admitted to participating in bombing the Pentagon. This jerk is currently polluting the minds of the younger generation as a college professor, and was recently featured in a magazine photo standing on the American flag. Again, how can you honestly believe that Obama didn't know the man's background, when documents and public records say otherwise?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Slight change in the ground rules here: I don't moderate comments, but please try to keep the word count at a respectable level and keep the tone civil. And also, please try to stay on the topic of my two questions. That is all I can ask of anyone who chooses to visit and comment.

One more thing: Be respectable of my views and I'll be more than respectable of yours. Don't try to get into a slug fest with me, because I've seen it all and did it all in the chat rooms, and I have no qualms in applying the same techniques that I used there, here.

FMLA: The Bad Employee's Best Friend

I work in state government, and have been for the past 12 years. Currently, I work in payroll, grouchily creating paychecks for malcontents and incompetents, and dealing with nincompoops for cry for their precious tuition reimbursement money.

All kidding aside, I really do enjoy my job. Have been enjoying my present position for the past 4 1/2 years. Made a ton a new acquaintances and more than few good and close friends. Most importantly, I've earned the respect of the staff members I do payroll for. So much so, that for about six months after I left my previous agency, I had staff members asking me when I was going to come back.

But I digress.

This particular post will touch on one, of many, fascinating things that I've experienced/seen in the past four and a half years of doing payroll: namely FMLA or it's official name, The Family Medical Leave Act of 1993.

Originally designed to help people who are/have become seriously ill, keep their jobs without fear of losing them, it now (at least from where I work) has become the premier tool of abuse for bad employees.

In the public sector (state govt.), abusing/perpetually exhausting your time is grounds for dismissal. Under FMLA, you can do the aforementioned things, and not get fired. Since it's in the labor unions best interests to keep every bad employee working, what do think their first reaction was, once they got around to actually giving this act a thorough reading?

That's right, they advised ALL their union members to apply for it, whether they need it or not. That way, if they abused their time or exhausted their time, they couldn't get disciplined for it. With FMLA, it's virtually impossible to prove that someone is abusing it, no matter how much circumstantial evidence you produce.

Example, say I have problems getting up in the morning because I'm a alcoholic. I get the necessary forms and bring them to my doctor to fill out, saying that I have some kind of bogus medical condition and I can't start my job until 11 in the morning.

Presto, chango! I now have the luxury of showing up late and not get into any trouble for it. Further still, because I'm not there, other people have to pick up my sorry butt and do my job for me.

Just what the doctor ordered, the perfect tool for a bad employee to use and abuse. And because of this, people who have legitimate medical problems/issues/conditions, get looked down upon by people who only see the bad co-workers use and abuse it, and lump them all together.

Politicians. Good intentions, bad execution.