No bias- that is exactly what I am saying. Some village officer is NOT worth 175K plus a pension and very generous healthcare. Again, a math problem and why taxes are out of control. Not at all worried who will sign up. With hundreds of applicants per position I'll take my chances. Plus, who gets healthcare after they retire? Nobody else. Many areas in the northeast are over policed. Don't need speed traps on every other road. How did we ever survive without such a Big Brother society?

As for health care? Do you have ANY idea what the private sector is like? More and more even good sized businesses only offer plans with significant deductibles. In other words, if you get get sick come up with the first 3-5K or more yourself. I know a few business owners who can only offer this. Are they greedy? No. They just don't earn enough to do much more. See, unlike in government these business can't just raise prices (taxes) to offer gold plated plans.

What do you pay in premiums? I'll bet they are way, way less than the $150-250 per WEEK becoming more common.

The problem here is the world around you has changed, is changing and will continue to change. You've been insulated from reality for too long and are only now discovering what the real world has gone through. Whether this is fair, corporate greed, a global economy or any multitude of factors doesn't change that your compensation should be based not on what you unilaterally deem yourself entitled to via a long outmoded model, but by the taxpaying public's means.  You confuse 'jealousy" with fairness. Ya can't have what we don't.

If you think it's bad in the NE don't move to GA.
There's usually at least 4-5 cops running radar in my 10 square mile town during the day. Usually it's just the town PD (they have 47 total employees) but I've regularly seen guys from 3 other agencies running radar in town too.

Now, what do you KNOW about this reported officer with the 175K a year pension?
I am guessing that if they were making that kind of bank while working
a: they weren't working for a "village", most of which pay their officers fairly low wages and/or
b: the officer was working at an admin level making admin pay.
The pension is based off of salary while working.
Newsflash, admins make more, so their pensions are higher.
Or, the guy worked in an area with a high cost of living and received a salary that was commensurate with that cost of living.
Like I said, your option seems to be to want to pay them significantly less than they're making, and good luck getting anyone to want that kind of pay in a high cost of living area and still expect them to be clean as a whistle with no corruption cropping up like you see in third world countries.
Does your retiree get retired health care? You're putting facts out there without any proof of what the retiree is actually getting.
Did some agencies back in the day pay for retiree health care? Absolutely. In my experience, the guys who retained that benefit are all pretty much elderly and retired out.
Current officers are much less likely to be working for an agency that still offers that as a  retirement benefit.
If I want to keep my health insurance upon retirement I have to pay 80% of the tab.
The local governments here have all banded together into a health consortium and negotiate rates as a group.
Does that shield us somewhat from the costs spikes? Sure..but it's no different than any other group of several hundred people negotiating the rates they pay.
Like I said, we don't even get vision and dental. It's a pretty standard BC/DS offering, hardly the "gold plated plans"

Now, as to your gripe about staffing,I'll say it again: we are UNDERSTAFFED, not over-staffed. You only think of officers doing speed enforcement because that's all the typical citizen sees police doing. That's a very narrow slice of what we do, and if you think that's ALL we do, you're sorely mistaken. It's something we do between calls, or as part of a grant-funded effort. Trafffic complaints are among the single largest category of complaints we receive from the public. It makes sense that we dedicate a certain amount of effort to addressing those complaints

We can't have what you don't, eh? That sure sounds like jealousy to ME.

Suffolk County PD has a top base pay of $111,500 and guys routinely make $200k+ with OT.
They still recently saw a almost 35% drop in applicants for their hiring exam because of increased steps to top pay. I'd love to see the drop if they lowered pay.

When I started 29 years ago we had something like a 12 step plan.
Took you around 19 years to get to the final step.
Of course we didn't have 20 year retirement back then; you had to work til December of your 60th year to draw a pension.
And in fact you had a fair number of geriatric officers working, as I mentioned earlier.
Those steps have been whittled back to an academy rate, a hire rate, and a working rate that you hit by year 3 or so.
After that you get a bit of extra thrown into your gross based on longevity. You accrue more the longer you work, just like accruing more leave time the more years you have on.

I would imagine that the 40% drop in applicants can also be blamed on the race relations drama of the last few years ever since Tray Tray met his maker thanks to Zimmerman.

I had to edit my post above, I found the old article and it was 35% not 40%
ETA: A lot of that 35% is guys from my old job with 5 years or more on who don't sign up for their exam anymore. They'd have to take a 50% cut in pay if they got hired there because their time doesn't carry over, then it takes them another 12 years to get to top step there.

This thread was originally started as a pension discussion thread of not really anyone in particular. Look at the article from yesterdays Albany Times Union 2 people are leaving NY for every one that comes to NY.

Its just a matter of time before the inevitable collapse.

The pension wasn't 175K- the last pay was. That's insane. Just retired, so pension is unknown.

Understaffed? I can't drive anywhere in the Northeast without constantly seeing police cars--and those are just the marked ones.  How ever did we get by without Big Brother? Traffic complaints are, IMHO, usually made by the same stupid people who cause accidents via ineptitude and general doddering. They seem to love a good 'ol nanny state.  I'll pass.

As for "jealousy". Nope. If you did that with YOUR money I'd be fine. But, when places in the NE have the highest taxes anywhere and residents' income tends to stagnate shouldn't public pay be reflective of those paying taxes? In other words, you should get what they get. No more and no less. Why should taxes rise at multiples of inflation to fund salaries and benefits when the average person is lucky to keep up with inflation?

I do kinda laugh at the "You better pay them or else they might steal" comments. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of ethics.

Probably 50% of that.

Just change the verbiage and add NYS  

http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2016/12/20/calpers-cuts-pension-benefits-for-first-time.html

At least--if not more, not to mention some kind of healthcare.

If we assume, say, 90K and the individual lives for another 40 years +/- and leave off the healthcare costs and COLAs for ease of calculating that leaves a gross total of at LEAST 3.6 million dollars. We'd need more info to determine the present value cost, but no doubt it would be substantial. Of this net sum the individual likely contributed a modest amount. The rest is carried by investment returns if lucky and tax payers, who don't get anything close to it and cannot "retire" in their 40s. This isn't jealousy as the other gentlemen claims, but a math problem. These pensions and benefits don't exist elsewhere for a reason, that being the tremendous expense. Resentment may be a better word. People forced to pay confiscatory taxes so a select few can retire early and in comfort are not usually thrilled.

Shhhhssssh....can't talk about math and numbers here. It alarms them too much. Before you know it they'll claim "jealousy" or the like.


This is a harbinger of things to come. There are HUGE deficit and deficiencies out there. But the tip of an iceberg. This is far, far from over. The markets don't ride high forever and unrealistic assumptions eventually crash. What happens when insatiable public unions confront a taxpayers revolt??

Talk math all you want, doesn't bother me. I've been preparing for it to collapse since the day I started working. I used to laugh at co-workers who's sole plan for retirement was the pension.

Smart. Very smart.

Look at the rise in multi-employer plans failure. No doubt some of this is due to greed and/or stupidity, but much is simply the result of arguably all but intentional blinders. Generous benefits were given in a time when the pay frankly sucked. Now that pay is much higher and often better than the private sector the total compensation is un-affordable. The much vaunted "California Rule" is being chipped away (link below). There just isn't enough money to pay for all that was "promised", at least not without inflicting confiscatory taxes.

Links:  http://www.pionline.com/article/20170103/ONLINE/170109974/second-california-appeals-court-rules-pension-benefits-can-be-reduced

         http://investorplace.com/2017/01/calpers-pension-funds-asset-allocation/view-all/#.WG-yiLHMzLs

The ethics thing is what happens in third world countries that under-pay their government employees.
We try to screen out unethical officers, but human nature being what it is, if you deliberately under-pay officers for what it costs to live in those areas, then pass laws that require that the officer live in that area as a condition of employment, as some agencies do, what do you think the result will be?
175K, I get it that it was his pay, but as Ext has pointed out, those types of salaries are the norm in high cost of living parts of the state. Law enforcement is not a M-F 9-5 40 hr a week job. Most of us have salaries well above our base pay because that's the reality of the job.

Yes, under-staffed. I already explained why you see the cars you do that you assume are enforcing V & T laws.

So you think that our pay should be pegged to what a McDonalds worker makes ( for instance )? Why? How is that NOT a matter of jealousy

Like I pointed out, if you don't have fairly early retirements for officers you wind up with a bunch of older officers who are trying to hang on til they can draw a pension.
A bunch of older officers doing a younger person jobs will result in a bunch of older officer being medically retired and not drawing the regular pension.
Hey Extorris, tell us again how medical retirement or 207C differs from a regular retirement pension.....you think the regular pension is costly? Wait til half your force is retiring on 207C.

Thousands more per month.

Never said "McDonald's" wages. What I said is commensurate with the community, meaning in line with and not light years better. 175 is NOT typical in any place I know for all but highly educated and skilled professionals, like doctors. Regular people don't "retire" in their 40s. Not saying you can't, but don't expect the rest of us to pay for it. Find another job until 62--the exact same as roofers, construction workers and laborers would have to do.  Working for 20 and being paid for perhaps 60 is insane.

So you think that our pay should be pegged to what a McDonalds worker makes ( for instance )? Why? How is that NOT a matter of jealousy.

Come on man ,seriously this is your response ?  Why would grown men be jealous?

Unfortunately most people are fucking clueless especially those in charge.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/27/nyregion/new-york-citys-pension-system-in-danger-of-operational-failure-report-says.html?_r=0

If I wanted to work until 62, I would not have quit my construction job and taken a pay cut to get a better retirement.

I already addressed that, and probably more than once by now.
You wont find officers retiring and getting another job and deferring on collecting their pension.
They'll hang on and keep working and you'll wind up with a bunch of geriatric officers working, or worse yet a bunch of older officers going out on 207C which will cost the taxpayers even more than a standard pension.
You keep harping that officers are getting better pensions that Joe Average Citizen. The public created police forces to deal with people and issues they didn't want to deal with themselves.
You go work the job for 20 years and get back to us about what you think an appropriate level of compensation is both while working and retired.

All police I've known take retirement with a pension and then find another job. They then collect 2 or even 3 paychecks.

We can agree to disagree. I do not put law enforcement on some sort of pedestal as you do.

I'll just stand by my argument based on math, facts and figures. All the high pension states are in deep trouble, have confiscatory taxes or both. Police departments have morphed well beyond what they once were and, to me at leat, are edging us closer to a police state, especially in deep blue states.

Wow what an attitude.  I mean we are having a conversation which it is not the intent to disparage anyone here but to have a spirted debate  Some of the post are questionable, I agree but I'm having a hard time with your post. To me and I could be wrong but you always circle the wagons. Honestly you sound like a die hard union member and uninformed about the dire situation this state is in. I.e. Scum hole is touting a $10 Billion Dollar construction program for JFK. In addition he is pushing for free college education and now wants to close the Indian Point Nuclear facility. NY is very proud of itself that last year they issued $5 Billion in bonds. Do you know what that means? Debt which must be paid back at some point in time pure and simple. The Tappan Zee Bridge needed to be replaced but at what cost? In 2013 the budget was $3.9 Billion Dollars and where do you think that came from and what do you think the budget is now? Most of the public Benefit Corporations have been raided by the Governor with very little oversight.

Edit Spelling

Indeed. I find it incredibly ironic that some here professing to be more "red state" and/or conservative suddenly become deep, deep blue when confronted with the hard cold reality that public unions are a big factor in Democrat power, high taxes and low freedom. Can't have it both ways.

I am far from anti union, but do not support public unions for the myriad reasons set forth above. Either way, I did what I set out to do: Shed some light on how growth of public unions gave rise to high taxes, low freedom and even the Un-Safe act. I have little doubt most who take the time to read through all this crap will conclude public unions are an anathema to everyone not in one.

I've leave with these links, which I think are funny.

"I am hero and deserve"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmC26RuO26g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmC26RuO26g

Police do that now because they are able to. if they were not allowed to collect until some future age as has been suggested, they wont retire until such time as they can collect.
End result will be that you have a bunch of geriatric officers.
When I started, you couldn't retire with a  pension until December of your 60th year. We had a fair number of older geriatric cops back then and quite frankly it was a simpler time in many ways.
Police agencies reflect the communities, states and the nation in general. We don't live in Mayberry, no matter how much some people want to insist that we do.
Leave it to Beaver, Father Knows Best, Andy Griffith etc were all  TV fantasies, not real life.
Those older guys wouldn't likely hack in in todays career field
Twenty year retirement plans were created for a reason.

I'm not putting LE up on a pedestal, I'm looking at things realistically.
What you're doing is approaching the problem with your own biases and misconceptions. Don't say that you aren't, because it is obvious that you do.

I don't have an "attitude". Really now. I'm telling it the way it is. On the other hand you two guys keep rolling out the same tired anti police, anti-pension arguments no matter how many times I counter those with facts about how things really work. If I circle the wagons its because comments like yours are nothing new to this site; I've seen them countless time from people who are simply uninformed

I already said that Cuomo is hanging off Trumps coattails trying to squeeze as much of Trumps infrastructure funding into NYS as possible. I already pointed out that the totality of Trumps infrastructure spending could go to NYS and not put a dent in the nations problems. I mean, it's great that Trump wants to acknowledge the issue, but a trillion or two wont go too far once you start breaking ground on big projects across fifty states.

Breaking up unions and depressing public sector wages will fix none of the issues that you bring up at the end of your post.


When you guys stop making the assumptions that all unions are the same, that all unions are nothing but fundraising machines for Dems, then we can talk a bit more. My union is 50 or 60 people. It represents the individuals during disciplinary issues and the membership during contract talks. We are not affiliated with any major union entity, although we hire outside people for some representation issues at contract times. Almost all of the out-going funding amounts to smaller dollar amounts that we vote on to disperse to persons and organizations within the local community , for various good causes. So, you see, not all unions are automatically evil.
You guys need to get over your predisposition of looking at all unions as being big AFL CIO Teamster type unions.

I'm not anti cop or pension . honestly the system is stacked against the taxpayer and they are afraid to really speak their minds . Most taxpayers are not happy with the POPO situation with pension and benefits . Who is the public servant and who is servant to the public worker?. I want to ask you and off top question who owns the SUNY and CUNY?

You need to look at the issue through a far, far wider lens. If the only public union was your small one we'd likely have no issue. In fact, the majority of your arguments center on your example. You also falsely keep saying I am "anti union", even though I have repeatedly said I have no problem with private sector unions since they bear market pressures and economic reality.  You must look beyond your small department and see the true scope of danger and how public unions are making states bluer, higher taxed and ever more less free. EVERY state with strong PUBLIC unions is heavily Dem., high taxed and low freedom. For you to deny this would erase any credibility. I've seen estimates that on a national level Public unions outnumber private one some FIVE TO ONE.  

Example right from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:  https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2015/union-membership-rate-in-private-industry-and-public-sector-in-2014.htm

This quote sums it up:

In 2014, public-sector workers had a union membership rate of 35.7 percent. That was more than five times the rate for private-sector workers, 6.6 percent. Ten years earlier, the union membership rate for public-sector workers was 36.4 percent, and the rate for private-sector workers was 7.9 percent.

But this is far from the actual situation. Lights years apart. On a regional/nationwide level unions, ESPECIALLY public unions support Democrats by a staggeringly higher margin. Look at Diblasio and Cuomo on all fours for them:

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20160727/POLITICS/160729875/mayor-bill-de-blasio-and-gov-andrew-cuomo-at-democratic-national-convention-in-philadelphia-voice-support-for-labor-movement-and-building-new-york-projects-with-union-workers

Union support for democrats is unassailable: http://fortune.com/2016/10/18/hillary-clinton-democrats-labor-unions/

Look-- I mean REALLY look at the charts here and see the difference:  

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=P04

If you wish to be credible in these discussions you'll have to look at the world from a much larger lens. The issues weren't created by your department. On a national level, however, public unionism is soon followed by entrenched Democratic power, extremely high taxes and, ultimately, less personal freedom which Democrats love. How do you think CA, NY, NJ and CT all got in a pissing match to see who could be the most anti 2nd Amendment? You don't see this crap in places not run exclusively by Democrats, or do you deny this?

I have nothing personally to do with either SUNY or CUNY. They are public colleges. What else is there to say. CUNY is at least four hours away; not my problem. My oldest went to SUNY Geneseo which seemed to be a decent school academically.
I'm more concerned with my local community college that went from being a  day commuter true community college where local kids could get a  two year degree to being a  residential college that ships in kids from NYS who spend their semesters involved in various criminal enterprises and flunking out on full scholarships while local white kids can't get jack for scholarships or grants if they're from intact nuclear middle class families.
Why do you even bring up public universities. Yeah it is extremely off topic

Look, regardless of your claims, you're anti-union. You try to modify your position by saying you're only anti-union for public sector employees.
Public sector employees are no different than private sector employees as having the same labor and negotiating issues. End of story.
I don't need to view anything through a wider lens. I use my own experiences to judge the issues.
We aren't going to agree on this issue. Just drop it. You aren't going to change my position nor I yours.

I've already pointed out that if the GOP had candidates and office holders who were more pro-labor, the Dems wouldn't have a lock on that demographic. The reality is that they do BECAUSE of the attitudes of many GOP office holders towards labor. It's a  self-created problems. the unions that do endorse and financially support candidates are going to support those candidates who support them.
It's no different than you or I not sending campaign donations to Schumer, Clinton etc etc

I agree with you on many things but I want to shed some light on something with the CUNY and SUNY question. I want you to see a bigger picture and how the state population is effected. These universities are funded by the state of NY. Would you say that is a fair statement? Ok with that being said the universities are owned by two authorities and are leased back to the state. You do understand that ? So the circle of money continues to expand we have monopolies but unfortunately this is an oligopoly. So lets use an example and say someone works for a discreet agency out of Albany .You know the capital district where all the decisions are made which effects you, me and our families.  One of the assignment would be to oversee various money issues at whatever campus, court house or whatever . Do you think someone as an advisor is a billing commodity at several hundred dollars an hour billed back to the universities by the authorities? Of course this depends on the level of management being provided. The same applies to the OCA the Unified Court System and many more agencies operating within this oligopoly.  Your a front line worker like me and I don't expect you or anyone else to really understand this, but this is normal operational procedures in the sate which runs into the Hundreds of Millions of Dollars a year and upwards of Billions of debt and that's just one agency. Could you imagine that responsibility that individual has along with trust at that level?

Edit

Exactly. Whenever there is a monopoly things go bad for consumers. Very bad. Exactly what those supporting public unions consistently miss. TC556 is likely a decent fellow, but he lacks the education and world experience to see a much larger picture beyond his small department. I mean no insult by this. Merely an observation.  As recently as the 1950s/60s even Democrats knew unions and public employee did not mix. Only due to political pressure and the desire for more Democratic voters did this change--exactly what the Dem party is doing now with the poor, semi-legal immigrants and wackos. They will sell America's soul to get more votes, even if this means the US becomes a 3rd world crap hole. They just do not care.

In his recent book, Government against Itself:  Public Union Power and Its Consequences, City College of New York-CUNY and Manhattan Institute Senior Fellow Daniel DiSalvo documents the government inefficiencies and conflicts of interest inherent in public sector unionization, which comes at the expense of workforce accountability and fiscal restraint. Central to this conflict is the role of collective bargaining negotiations between government union leaders and elected officials or career
bureaucrats.  

Government unions use this process as a tool to increase their power and compensation for their members at the expense of the taxpaying public. Government unions make campaign
contributions to the very politicians whose staff sits on the other side of the bargaining table, which gives them significant leverage. And politicians can pay back the unions with higher
wages funded by taxpayers. This creates an upward ratchet effect that makes government employee compensation point upward, not because of market pressures, but because of
political dynamics.

A Democratic president like FDR had good reason to be wary of unions in government. As the costs of paying salaries and benefits for government workers balloons, this means that
without further taxation or public borrowing there is less money in state and local government budgets available to spend on public services like police and fire protection,
road maintenance, public safety, and other priorities. For example, New York City now pays out more for retired than active police officers each year.
More broadly, states where citizens complain the loudest that their taxes are too high correlate almost perfectly with the states where public employee unions are strongest. That union strength in turn leads to government growth.

TC556 has ducked and evaded, but has yet to so much as try to contest the unassailable connection between public unions and states with high taxes, low freedom and anti 2nd A gun laws. In short, he takes his self interest above all else. Why worry about unconstitutional gun laws when as a LEO you don't have to follow them?

Shots Fired!



"TC556 is likely a decent fellow, but he lacks the education and world experience to see a much larger picture beyond his small department."

So that is how you "win" your argument?  "I must be right because you aren't smart enough to understand?"  That's pretty lame.

Nah

Edit: link added for torture effect

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/chicago-new-york-in-worst-financial-shape-among-large-us-cities/ar-BBy3Soe?li=AA4Zjn&ocid=spartandhp

Didn't say he isn't smart enough to understand. His entire argument has been centered around his small department. Intellect has nothing to do with this. My point was and remains there is a far larger picture which despite innumerable examples and facts he keeps ignoring. Willful blinders to the situation beyond a 50 person department evidences a smaller world view.

What does this have to do with the thread topic.

Typical response of a Democrat: " I know better than you; you lack the education to understand the issue". I'm quite surprised that you would try that lame excuse.

I already pointed out that FDR opposed unions because they threatened his monopoly on power.
Not exactly a reason to support his views on the issue

I haven't ducked or evaded anything. I've pointed out that not every union fits the description you two anti-unionists want to fit them into, and there are still legitimate needs for a union.
There's more of a connection with high population states that are expected to provide a wide array of services vs a low population state that gets away with providing far fewer services to a much smaller population. Once those low population states grow in population, the need for more services becomes evident. The long term residents of those states clamor that the new residents are bringing the taxes and regulation with them, but the reality is as I describe it: more heads, more need for more rules, more services. It's like the westward expansion: the initial pioneers, mainly men, got along with few amenities. As the population grew in the newly settled areas, the increased population brought a more refined definition and execution of "civilization" with them. So it's not unions per se that create high taxes and regulations. It's a by-product of a growing society and economy. Look at China where for a few decades it was a free for all as far as regulations and pay, reflected in low wages, lax environmental and worker safety rules. Now the workers and general society are demanding higher pay, better safety and environmental standards, etc.
But keep making your assumptions up as you go along. They're entertaining, if poorly thought out.

It's actually a 100 person agency; the Corrections side split off 20 years ago and formed their own union.
Given that the average LEA is less than 25 people, it's a pretty typical size for an agency outside a major metro area

My argument revolves around my personal experience and knowledge.

The two of you are posting the most in arguing against my views are presenting arguments about appropriate levels of government operations based upon assumptions made from how much traffic enforcement you see along the roadsides. It's a pretty typical mistake that many non-LEOs make because that's all they associate with LE activities because that tends to be the primary interactions the general population has with law enforcement. But when the criticism of me is that I have a limited basis of knowledge  to analyze the pension and union issues, but you guys are focusing on a fairly limited level of personal knowledge and information in discussing LE activities, I find that ironic that I'm the one being described as uninformed.. Like I said, there's so much more than that in what we do...but even that is drifting from the topic of the thread. Given that one of you is even a pensioner in the very system he is criticizing, the criticism is fairly hypocritical.

You guys are making the same arguments over and over that I've seen in numerous anti-police and anti-union threads on this forum. try another tactic, because you aren't convincing me of a need to change my view on the issue

So I gave you a small example in part of how the state is run financially which you totally blew off. I served the example up on a silver platter and you failed to acknowledge that there is a problem. I have even seen links embedded in this thread informing everyone that the pension are in trouble in cities throughout the country. You keep falling back to this LEO position like you know best about pensions. The truth is you do know about your pension but that's all you know. The other OP was spoon feeding you fact based up to date and historical financial data and you again failed to acknowledge a problem with union monies and state financials . One of the biggest problems is the rank and file front line worker they simply don't care or even give two shits about financials. Its the politicians with the giveaways with very little over-site creating enormous financial problems which will blow -up on you me and our families. One starts to wonder where is the line drawn with the FSA?  Buffalo Billions ,Start-up NY and now have a proposal for free college the shutting down of the Indian Point Plant the Tappan zee Bridge and the JFK proposal and on and on. As long as your untouched it doesn't matter now does it . I don't know TC I'm concerned about people that are in a position of authority top to bottom some are mature others never grow -up. This always goes back to the old saying " Whos in charge the adults or the children? "   I'm not bashing you at all I'm putting a sharp stick in the eye of the state for fucking the taxpayer.

Edit: Basically there is not enough money for everyone

http://nypost.com/2014/03/21/andrew-cuomos-confused-property-tax-cut/


http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/cuomo-proposes-200m-paved-trail-new-york-state-article-1.2942559


http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/politics/albany/2017/01/10/cuomo-blasts-municipalities-over-property-taxes/96401046/

Putting aside my distaste for revenue driven law enforcement (Doesn't make me anti law enforcement, but if I hear of attempts to enforce unconstitutional gun laws I could get there) I have yet to see any acknowledgment that there are any, never mind fundamental, differences between PUBLIC and PRIVATE sector unions!

Do you seriously think there is no difference? That the monopoly given government workers and their removal from market based pressures plays no factor whatsoever? Really?  Do you similarly posit I am unable to be supportive of unions in the private sector yet simultaneously against them in the public sector? Is such mutually exclusive?

Lest you think this is all Republican crap allow me to elucidate. I seriously doubt you'll even click on the links--but others seeking illumination just might and that in and of itself is worthy.

Bloomberg (wow, he's conservative!!) on the impossibility of government unions not being political:

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-01-11/friedrichs-case-shows-public-unions-can-t-be-neutral

2011 NY Times Op Ed noting even legendary early labor leaders like George Meany noting the impossibility of unions in government:

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/02/18/the-first-blow-against-public-employees/fdr-warned-us-about-public-sector-unions

How "negotiating" with public unions really works:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/06/the-problem-with-public-sector-unions-and-how-to-fix-it/258212/

Dangers of public unions with astoundingly prescient quote by a 1943 New York court case:

http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-trouble-with-public-sector-unions

The quote:
To tolerate or recognize any combination of civil service employees of the government as a labor organization or union is not only incompatible with the spirit of democracy, but inconsistent with every principle upon which our government is founded. Nothing is more dangerous to public welfare than to admit that hired servants of the State can dictate to the government the hours, the wages and conditions under which they will carry on essential services vital to the welfare, safety, and security of the citizen. To admit as true that government employees have power to halt or check the functions of government unless their demands are satisfied, is to transfer to them all legislative, executive and judicial power. Nothing would be more ridiculous.

Just in case we have forgotten ,let me remind everyone that this piece of shit is destroying our property values.

Please read the article.

http://nypost.com/2017/01/22/is-cuomo-going-to-abandon-new-york-taxpayers/