I'm a public sector employee. You are not my employer. You and I have agreed to live by the

[upaloopa]

rules of the civil service commission. You do not get the right to decide if I go on strike or what I get paid.

I am also a tax payer. My salary is public knowledge. My emails are public property. Everything I do at work is subject to public investigation. From there the courts not you decide if I violated civil service rules or any law.

You as well as I elect the officials that make the decisions that govern the government body I work for.

[cr8tvlde]

1. Good and Very Important Point. Thank you. n/t

[MineralMan]

2. Excellent point!

[xchrom]

3. Du rec. Nt

[dkf]

4. So why hasn't the civil service commission decided to give Chicago teachers what they want?

[mrmpa]

31. Civil Service law pertains to City, State and Federal employees..........

Each governmental entity has specific civil service law to follow. Normally as in Pennsylvania there is the Civil Service Statutes that were written in the early 1900's, they are what state employees and city employees must follow. There are specific statutes within this code there are specific codes that apply to Fire Fighters and Police Officers.

Pennsylvania also has a code (laws) that apply to teachers. The state can pull your License for various offenses. Each school district has a school board, they have a contract they negotiate with teachers, not Civil Service.

As a co-worker once said "I am a public servant, not a slave."

[dkf]

33. I just think its naive to think the civil service commission is the only thing a public worker needs

To account for. Before the days of cuts and impossible budgets that may have been a lot more true than today when the taxpayer hates paying taxes.

Look at how it is now. The public honestly believes that everything can be run by taxing the rich, ie, not them.

[upaloopa]

34. As a percent of all income, the rich do not

pay what the average worker pays. People only want what's fair.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

38. Taxpayers have hated paying taxes since the time of ancient Rome

This is nothing new.

[mrmpa]

44. A lot of public employees are covered by the Civil Service Statutes and........

Union contracts, Police, Firefighter unions +AFSCME and SEIU are some of the unions that represent public employees.

[nadinbrzezinski]

60. Well sparky that attitude will leave you with a much lower standard of living

Look at Enron by the Sea, where the retirement fund was at 105% funding before it got raided by elected officials for a preview of comming attractions.

[JDPriestly]

78. The upper 50% should pay 99% of the taxes.

Why? Because the upper 50% owns 99% of the wealth in our country.

That's why.

It only makes sense. You can't get tax money out of the bottom 50% because the bottom 50% only owns 1% of the country's wealth.

Here is the chart in this article from Daily Kos.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/20/1112142/-Forget-the-top-1-percent-Let-s-talk-about-the-bottom-50-percent-for-a-minute

In theory, you could raise taxes on the lower 50% in terms of wealth, but you would not get much more revenue than you do now.

[porphyrian]

5. Sounds like Florida, but with unions.

Scott has Florida state workers' salaries online here: http://dmssalaries.heroku.com/salaries.

Also, notice that the official state website is a .com rather than a .gov (thanks, JEB!).

[avebury]

6. That works unless you work for a state where

state employees are required to sign a loyalty oath at the time of employment which could create a huge stumbling block to going on strike.

Edited to add that your point does not work in a situation where a state legisature determines what you get paid and when and if you receive a raise.

[Gold Metal Flake]

7. Which states do that, and to whom do the loyalty oaths apply?

Is it to a person or a party?

[upaloopa]

9. I am answering the idea that a tax payer is my employer and as such has the right

to cut my salary or decide if I can go on strike.

The tax payer can take me to court for violation of law or civil service rules and can vote for those that have the power to fire me.

[badtoworse]

11. Taxpayers can also vote in a government that cuts taxes or refuses to raise them.

Such a government may not have the money to give you a raise or may be forced into bankruptcy with negative consequences to the union contract. Governments also have the right to pass laws that make public employee strikes illegal (e.g. NY's Taylor Law)

Your post smacks of an arrogance that would not play well with the general public.

[upaloopa]

12. The general public does not usually support public sector workers. But let them need a service

and then listen to them howl. I read all the time on this board that we need more public mental health services.

What do you want? Services or no services? Put out your own fire or don't call 911.

We get paid for what we do just as anyone does.

On edit: Our union made $12 million in concessions to our county for fiscal 12-13. We also help get the people who are on your side elected. I am in the SEIU and with out union representation in the elections this year you could not come up with the money we raise for candidates.

[badtoworse]

14. You are a service provider and the taxpayers are your clients

Most service providers show more respect for their clients than I see in your postings.

[upaloopa]

17. Well I take many courses through out the year on cultural awareness, diversity training,

ethics, and others designed to teach us respect to those we serve.

If you called me for a service or came to me for a service I would give you the best service I could give.

But if you expect me to kiss your ass on this discussion board because you feel you are entitled, then you can kiss my ass.

I don't burn incense to any man or woman.

[badtoworse]

41. I suggest you take some remedial courses.

I do have a question though: Would you take ownership of this thread in front of the voters/taxpayers in your state or municipality? If not, why not?

[upaloopa]

53. The voters would vote to take away my

salary and benefits no matter what I do.
It is the race to the bottom we have put ourselves in.

[part man all 86]

18. you don't deserve any respect just scorn.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

39. You're just the sort of problem the OP was referring to

Civil servants don't loiter on your plantation waiting to get a chance to show you just how obsequious they are, but you do seem to think that's the case. Get over yourself--you're not that important.

[Ikonoklast]

56. I bet you tell cops that when you get pulled over.

Bet that works well, too.

So transparent, surprised you're still here.

[badtoworse]

70. I have enormous respect for cops and firemen.

11 years ago today, they rushed into the WTC to save people and 403 firemen, police and paramedics didn't come out alive. How many from the private sector would do that? I respect civil servants generally because they provide valuable services - teachers, sanitation workers, road crews, etc do the things that make our lifestyle possible.

I know a number of police and emergency services personnel in my town - they are nice people. I've had to deal with the town a number of times on charity fundraisers I've chaired and always found the people I've dealt with to be friendly and helpful.

My disdain is for the arrogance shown by the poster who started this thread.

[DonCoquixote]

73. actually

the clients are the students, who they ARE looking out for, it is not the students fault their parents are often a bunch of incompotent slobs.

[badtoworse]

75. Clients are the people who pay the bills

Would the teachers continue teaching the students if the taxpayers stopped paying taxes? Assuming their parents had the means, they (the parents) could decide to go to a different service provider, i.e. put their kids in a different school.

Your statement is ridiculous and a great example of public employee thinking that infuriates taxpayers.

[DonCoquixote]

83. actually

the clients are the Americna people as a whole. If the local parents had their way, th3ey would probably make sure science did not get in the way of their local religion, which would mean that countries that had evolved past that probolem would stomp us like grapes when it comes to science, which of course, means tehcnology, which means POWER.

No, the good people in a local board do not have the right to shovelkids to provate schools, we as a nation have a right to demand literacy of everyone.

[badtoworse]

84. actually...

It's parents who decide where their kids get educated.

[madrchsod]

51. afsmce here..we are fighting the democrats and republicans here in illinois

under funding pensions for years and not funding mandatory wage increases...

these were negotiated contracts signed by both sides in good faith. the state has broken their side of the contract.

[Ishoutandscream2]

15. His post smacks of arrogance?

Pot, meet keetle.

[avebury]

20. Agree. Taxpayers do control your salary, either directly

or indirectly. Direct control occurs if a referendum issue or vote is passed requiring any increase in taxes to be approved by the voters. Pay raises, net of reworking a state entitites budget, would then require an increase in budget and therefore would be subject to voter approval in that scenario. Indirect control comes in the form of voting in a legislature that refuses to pass any increase in pay. Another way your compensation can be impacted is your insurance packet. They can freeze your benefit allowance while not taking into account raising insurance rates which might then require more money out of your pocket.

Laws can be passed prohibiting the right of employees to strike. Loyalty oaths might also be used to prohibit strikes. Also, unauthorized absence from work could be grounds for dismissal.

There are far too many people who do not like public sector employees. Republican dominated states will look for any excuse to downsize the public sector and privitize when possible. Shrinking government down to a size where it can be drowned in a bathtub does not apply soley to the Federal Government.

Public sector emploees do not live in a point of time where it pays to be arrogant. If an employee is deemed to be difficult there is a long line of people behind him/her willing to take his/her job.

[upaloopa]

24. You don't understand all you think you do.

The elected officials can negotiate with our union the SEIU. It is called collective bargaining.

That happened last year. Our union negotiators and the board of supervisors negotiated a new contract. Then we voted to accept it or not. We voted to accept it.

It is you with the arrogance to think that you can or should control the lives of other people in your community based on some personal grudge you have against public sector employees.

[avebury]

46. For your information, I AM a public sector employee.

State employees in Oklahoma do have to sign a loyalty oath upon employment. Our state legislature does determine whether or not to grant state employees a pay raise. Oklahoma has a Republican controlled state Government that does not like state employees. If Governor Fallin could have her way she would privatize as much as she could state government function as she is the pocket of big business. There have been efforts to pass legislation that would require any increases in taxes be approved by the voters (which as an aside would, if passed, allowed voters to decide if state employees would or would not get a raise). I do know that unapproved absence can result in job loss. When I talk about the what public employees face I speak from experience as a HR liaison for the Division that I work in. State Employees in Oklahoma are not unionized. There is a Oklahoma Public Employees Association that you can join but it does not carry the same weight as a union.

You may have the benefit of union membership but that is not the case for many public sector employees. For those without the benefit of union membership it is never a good idea to piss of the voters.

[Barry2012]

26. Amen

[CreekDog]

49. Barry?

[MADem]

23. Taxpayers are responsible for contributing the money that pays the salaries of

civil service personnel.

Voters -- and not all voters pay taxes -- are the people who elect the people who make the laws that govern the scope of the employment of the civil service sector.


...that lay in the house that Jack built...

[upaloopa]

28. They cannot effect the C S rules, only the commission

can do that. I said in my op that elected officials govern.

[MADem]

30. Who created the commission? Who makes the laws under which the commission operates?

Who elects the lawmakers?

It's all down to the voters.

[ryan_cats]

8. Yes I do

I'm a public sector employee. You are not my employer. You and I have agreed to live by the
rules of the civil service commission. You do not get the right to decide if I go on strike or what I get paid.

Yes I do, did I force you into this line of work? You chose to work for the gov, for that you get a decent pension, mostly free of worrying about layoffs but if you're a garbageman and you go on strike because you think you deserve $40 an hour, I certainly didn't agree to that.

When you started your job did you not negotiate salarie and benefits, now you want to change, in this economy?

What if police or firemen go on strike and it costs lives, what then?

You have the state worker mentality and I work for the state.

Try working for the private sector, I've been laid off twice that's why I went to the state. Then they instituted furloughs, thanks ahnold. At least we got three Fridays off a month.

[upaloopa]

10. You should know better if you work for the State

[jtuck004]

19. Better than what? Ryan Cats seems to care about the community and neighbors as

much as his/her pocket.

Why does becoming a state employee automatically mean you can't?

[upaloopa]

21. I don't know what you are talking about

[ryan_cats]

80. I thought about this last night

I thought about this last night and what you said reminded me of a boss I had years ago. He used to say that we were lucky to have him and that he'd chosen civil service like it was a sacrifice. That would have been OK if he knew what he was doing but he didn't. His replacement was much better.

You wrote that you had SEIU as your union, do you work for the State of California????

I still think though, that as a taxpayer, I do have a right to question a civil service employee's compensation if they agreed to a compensation package and now want to renegotiate. In CA, when ahnold became gov, he made us take 3 unpaid furloughs a month. We all could see projects that were a waste of money and that is where the cuts should have been, not on state worker's backs. I see his karma has caught up with him. Now, if that is the type of position you are in, then no, we don't have the right to basically screw you out of a substantial part of your salary as the compensation agreement works both ways. Three days a month doesn't seem like much but it affected a lot of people who were/are living paycheck to paycheck.

As a taxpayer, I don't feel you have the right to strike or have wages that are considerably higher than the private sector. The main thing civil service gives you is some sort of stability and for that, you usually end up getting paid a little less than private sector but you usually have a killer benefits package.

I'm bored and tired of the B.S. taxpayers say of us. I don't drive a luxury car and neither do any of my friends who work for the state. I always hear people bad mouthing the DMV as a symbol of the lazy state worker. The problem is that the DMV runs the best it's run since I've been able to drive. It used to be normal to spend up to 3 hours waiting in line, sometimes to be told to go to another line. 12 years or so ago, they suddenly became very efficient, they have appointments and even if you just show up, I have waited for no more than 10 minutes, the only problem I had was when their computers were down. No, I don't work for the DMV.

I'm now looking for private sector work again just to see what's out there. I'm willing to put my career on the line if I see a startup company that I think is going places. I worked for one a long time ago and even though we worked 10-12 hour days, we got an excellent salary and the company gave you stock options. No, it wasn't like Enron where they forced you to invest your 401K in their stock or something like that. What a way to scam your employees.

Back to the point, my problem with your post is that you don't say what your beef is and since everyone here is a taxpayer (unless Mitt is a member) we do think you need to justify your existence if you are asking for more.

Things like the state welching on Colas is a legitimate beef. Changing retirement ages is a legitimate beef. Asking for more money because you didn't work out your compensation agreement is not a legitimate beef. If you're maxed out for your position's salary, then take the tests to get a promotion.

I do not think people like the police or fire department deserve to strike. That puts people's lives and property in jeopardy.

I hope that makes my position clearer.

[LanternWaste]

13. You can of course tell us specifically what right you have that prevents

"Yes I do.."

You can of course tell us specifically what right you have that prevents the author of the OP from striking?

[sabrina 1]

37. No, I think what s/he has is the Democratic mentality.

Funny how none of these 'points' were raised during the Bush years here on DU. Airc, we were screaming for workers to strike, to stop the privatization of the Public Schools, our Health Care system, and everything else they could get their greedy hands on.

They WERE used to trash Unions on the Right, but I do not ever recall seeing them here before.

What happened?

[CreekDog]

50. how do you know he gets a decent pension?

who knows what people will have as pensions when they actually retire, government or not.

[nadinbrzezinski]

63. So what happens, in your mentality,

When government raids those pensions to fund sports parks? See City of San Diego?

I wish life was as simple as you seem to believe.

[ryan_cats]

81. The state should not have the right to screw you out of your mutually agreed arrangements.

The state should not have the right to screw you out of your mutually agreed arrangements and I really hate hearing how much better Sacramento would be if we had a real stadium and a major sports team besides the Kings. We're the Capital of one of the largest economies in the world, we don't need a stadium or a sports team and if the King's owners want a new stadium, they can pay for it themselves.

The condescension literally drips from your second line. You have no idea what I believe.

[nadinbrzezinski]

88. But they have

and the stupid voters voted to REMOVE those pensions in June, that were raided to fund many a project, since our local stupid officials would never ask the voters for slightly higher taxes. It would not be politically feasible.

So now I have a choice for two offices. Vote for my federal Congressman, and vote crook a or crook b... and for city council, vote for crook a or crook b. Nobody has paid the price.

you think san diego is unique? Not at all. It is the proverbial canary in the mine.

Oh and sports franchises do not increase any city standing, really... and if the Padres and Chargers and Kings and whatever other sport franchise want a stadium... guess what? IT IS THEIR DAMN FRACKING BUSINESS... the municipality, any municipality, should have zero to do with it, well maybe beyond the land, and even that one is a big iff. After that, well it should be the PADRES risk, not the city.

And condescension, well I am damn tired of this mentality.

[ryan_cats]

89. So, it sounds like we agree

So, it sounds like we agree. I was never into sports so I don't know why having a team makes a city world class. Does Paris have a team?

Here in Sac, the Maloofs own the Kings. They have lots of moolah but the idiots downtown want to use the old rail yard as the site of the stadium and they wanted the taxpayer to foot the bill to build it and give them the land in some sleazy deal. No way, I would rather have a symphony than basketball. I will laugh if they move the Kings.

I still remember the Raiders move to LA, people talked like it was the end of the world and I basically laughed about it. Then Oakland foolishly took them back, who knows how much money changed hands in backroom deals? Then people in LA were crushed, I don't get it. Yay, the team won one, that makes me a winner because I like them?????

The fact that voters take out their anger at politicians on state workers is one reason I'm looking into the private sector again.

It seems unconscionable to remove pensions. People counted on them, they paid into them and they dang well earned them. That is one nasty trick.

[nadinbrzezinski]

90. Here is a book I highly recommend

Yes, details the mess in San Diego, but these shennanigans are going on all over. In cali, blame Prop 13 for it by the way..

Paradise Plundered

http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=10126

[Ishoutandscream2]

16. K and R!!

[Populist_Prole]

22. I'm a private sector employee; and I agree with you

Everybody's job is important and needed by the job holder, who in turn nourishes "the economy" by his/her spending power.

Over the years I've become to be pissed off by self-important blowhards with either their "do you know who I am!?" or "I pay your salary!". They glare at me like I hit them below the belt if I ask these same types "Well, who pays your salary?"

[part man all 86]

25. This not arrogance this is a statement. I with you upaloopa!

[SleeplessinSoCal]

27. If you're a public sector employee then you must be in the top 2%.

That is the kind of argument I'm hearing.

There are some firefighters who've wound up making more money than they normally would because of layoffs. They earn overtime raising their salaries above $100,000 and some higher ranked officers claim close to $175,000.

Yesterday I had an argument with a man on the street while demonstrating against a power grab in our town. He couldn't let go of this issue of firefighters he know who "live in San Clemente on very expensive property". He eventually wound up throwing around the name Soros. He wouldn't let go of the idea that these firefighters are paid so much and "discuss which days off to trade". And all of this on the even of 9/11. It was galling to say the least.

The most powerful argument that shut him up came when he was asked in a friendly manner what he did for a living. Eventually after being told his risks were postage rates going up vs a beam falling on his head seemed to quiet him to the point where he was thanked and he finally walked away.

It seems to me public sector jobs and social security are what keep a Capitalist country from regularly going into depression.

[Chorophyll]

29. Kick and rec.

I'm with you 100%.

[1StrongBlackMan]

32. I once had a ...

guy that worked for a defense contractor, give one of my employees guff because my employee would not violate policy to give him what he wanted.

When I was called in, and told the guy that "Yes, he really did have to follow the rules", he yelled "I'm a tax-payer, I pay your salary."

I responded, "I notice in your file that you work for {the defense contractor}. They are 100% supported by all of our tax dollars. Does that give me the right to march onto your job and demand that you do anything? Let alone, demand that you do something that violates the clearly posted policy?"

[sad sally]

35. Except for union air traffic employees and postal employees (who really work for an independent

agency even though they report to congress), federal union employees can"t bargain for pay or benefits nor can they go on strike; however, in the case of postal workers, management can't lock them out (but they still can't strike).

[quaker bill]

36. Nice you still have civil service protections

I am a public sector employee, but all of us became "at will" employees two years ago. It is also illegal for us to strike.

[sabrina 1]

42. That's what Unions are for. Everyone should have these protections.

[quaker bill]

74. I get it

In theory at one time, the right for collective bargaining and union representation was the trade off for giving up the right to strike legally. Today it is layoffs, pension and benefit cuts, no raises, revoking the right to collective bargaining and making public sector employees "at will". I can now be fired at a moments notice for any or no reason at all, and have no right to appeal, unless my civil rights have been violated. Since I am a middle aged white male, I am not a member of a "protected class" so I would have almost no basis for an appeal on civil rights grounds. I am fortunately almost old enough to go with ageism, but have to survive a few more years to get there.

I keep my head low, do my job well, and try to never make news.

[Angry Dragon]

40. ............

[taught_me_patience]

43. It might be true

but the way you frame your argument doesn't bode well for changing people's minds... it reeks of arrogance.

[Chorophyll]

45. I'm not really seeing arrogance. I'm seeing frustration.

Either way, it doesn't bother me a bit.

[Egalitarian Thug]

47. K&Fing R!

[madrchsod]

48. well said brother or sister!

[WillyT]

52. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!! - K & R !!!

[whistler162]

54. If I live in your state then yes you are my employee

just as you are your own employee. Much the same as a shareholder of a corporation is the employer, i.e. pays the salaries, of the employees. I may not have a say in the hiring or firing of you but you are still my employee and should handle yourself accordingly.

[upaloopa]

55. No I don't think I will

You have the power of you vote that is all.
I know that voters would vote to take away my salary and benefits.
So you already have your pound of flesh.

[Edweird]

64. I bet that goes over real well at the DMV, unemployment office and when you get pulled over...

I would pay money to be there if you pulled that BS when you go to renew your license, LOL

[ceile]

85. I'm going to create a new word here just for you.

That is one of the douche-baggiest things I have ever read here at DU.

"I may not have a say in the hiring or firing of you but you are still my employee and should handle yourself accordingly."

Get over yourself.

[fishwax]

87. lol -- "you are still my employee and should handle yourself accordingly."

That struck me as funny

It's not really accurate, though -- being an employee of the state doesn't make one an employee of every citizen in the state.

[Earth_First]

57. You need to tone it down a bit...

The arrogance of your opinion is over the top, especially at a place like DU

[Edweird]

58. Uh, no it's not. But thanks for showing us who you stand with.

[Earth_First]

59. I know where I stand,

and it's not next to arrogant union members such as the OP.

The union organizers and members that I know and work with are far from walking right to the 'fuck you' line without actually saying it like the OP does.

[Edweird]

62. Real people paid with their lives to organize. Your ignorant characterization

cheapens the very real physical struggle that people went through to unionize. Pathetic.

[eqfan592]

65. You stand with ignorance.

[YoungDemCA]

61. Well said.

nt

[eqfan592]

66. I stand with you, brother/sister!

[Tigress DEM]

67. OK then

My hubby is also public sector employee.

[Blecht]

68. You're darn tootin'!

Thanks for shooting down a whole bunch of right-wing talking points.

[randome]

69. Interesting take on the subject.

And I agree with you.

[Omaha Steve]

71. Please forgive me for forgetting to reply about this post earlier!

Nebraska laws do not allow public workers like me to strike. Just a short time ago a small group flexed it's muscles and got the unicameral to change state laws. That puts a new burden on unions (read that as expense) to settle for less than an average wage than the outside real workers get. Don't believe me? Ask why the group behind this didn't want pay of public servants compared to private workers at the last moment. They changed the wording just for that reason.

K&R!

OS

[boppers]

72. In the words of FDR:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15445

'Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United 'States Government."'

[eqfan592]

79. In the words of me (in another thread)...

...FDR was wrong on this issue, as you are wrong. As are all the right wing websites that love quote FDR in support of Scott Walkers union busting tactics.

[iemitsu]

76. the civil service is the result of reforms

enacted 100 years ago to address the problems associated with the political "spoils system" where friends of politicians filled government job slots. civil servants are professionally trained individuals who are paid according to experience and education. there are formula to determine the pay of individual employees based on both experience and education.
sure, in bad times no one gets a raise, but that does not mean that public employees, who make less than private sector employees with the same education and experience, should be targeted when times are tough.
public employees are always promised that their work will be compensated fairly "when government funds allow". that never happens.
public employees, as part of bargained compensation, are provided with benefits and a retirement plan. this is part of compensation not some give away by the government. it does not replace better pay.
some seem to think that government employees are getting too much. we have cost society must less and provided much better service than any private sector employees ever have or will.

[JDPriestly]

77. Yes. The local, state or federal civil service laws and regulations are your employment contract.

Remember how certain folks on Wall Street had to get their bonuses in spite of TARP and the financial crisis -- because no one could break their contracts?

Civil service workers have rights under their contracts, and their unions help to enforce those rights and to define some of the terms. That's the way I see it.

[musiclawyer]

82. I see nothing wrong with the post except

that indirectly, voters can at times have an indirect say whether a public sector group can strike ( sanitation/ safety etc). And sometimes voters can limit pay and benefits, albeit indireclty.

But keep in mind that your local public sector employee earns a living doing valuable work--whether it's recording your deed, giving your kid his/her TB shot as he goes off to college, assessing your property, getting your cat out of a tree, responding to your 911 call, coming up with a budget that won't break the bank, paving your road ( in some instances), or making sure the local restaurant and public pool is clean....etc etc. You WANT these people to make a living wage and take pride in their job. You believe in CITIZENSHIP right? Then we want public sector employees, their recognized bargaining units AND management( also public officers and employees) to be accountable but also realize they do not have conflicting missions.

[ceile]

86. K&R! n/t