HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lmh@world.std.com (Larry M Headlund)
Subject: Re: Wages for State Workers
Summary: raise as COLA discussed 
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 22:39:42 GMT

In article <1erfcrINN6kt@transfer.stratus.com> jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com writes:
>In article <By1HqJ.EMt@world.std.com> lmh@world.std.com (Larry M  
>Headlund) writes:
>> 	The general state employee's have not received any  cost-of-living
>> or other general increase for four years, managers for six.
>> 
>
>Agreed. However, the problem I have with this raise (and with most
>raises given to public employees for that matter) is that is is
>across the board, for everyone.  All the workers get a 13% pay
>raise: those who have worked very hard and done outstanding jobs
>get 13%. Those who have down average jobs get 13%. Those who did
>poor jobs get 13%.   I don't think this is a good nor a fair way
>to handle such things.  I would like to see more positions being
>given merit raises.
>
>
	This general raise is across the board to compensate for inflation.
Since this is civil service,  your pay is determined by your civil service
classification.  That is,  if you study,  assume more responsibility,  
perform a more demanding job,  etc.  you are advanced to a higher grade.
Every person gets the pay set for their grade.
	When you hear that X % of state employees have gotten raises in
the last five years,  it is these step raises that is being refered to.
Each grade has qualifications including education and experience 
required to attain that grade.
	Why all the rules?  Why not just reward the good and punish the
bad?  Mainly to be objective.  That is,  so that the politicians can't
coerce goverment employee's or reward their friends without restriction.
Many large private organizations have similar schemes to restrain 
nepotism and favoritism.
	By the way,  one of the motives behind the movement to privatize
goverment services is to bypass this civil service structure.  While 
this may result in some efficiencies,  it could be back the problems
of the "spoils system" that civil service was designed to prevent.
TANSTAAFL.


-- 
Larry Headlund  lmh@world.std.com    Eikonal Systems (617) 482-3345
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 16 Nov 92 15:42:07 GMT
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <1992Nov14.044144.14328@oldcolo.com> swoodcoc@oldcolo.com  
(Steven Woodcock) writes:
>    I agree with you that people should take care of themselves, and  
that
> (if they're not able) each individual in our society has an  
obligation to
> help the less fortunate.  You're absolutely spot on.
> 
>    But your solution sucks.  You propose that, because society has  
an
> obligation to help those who are less fortunate, that the  
individuals who
> comprise society must be FORCED to do so.  Your solution is to TAKE  
my
> money to help those less fortunate than I, not to CONVINCE me that  
it's 
> the right thing to do.  Basically, you believe that the end  
justifies the
> means.

But why stop there?  Every road should be a toll road, built
by a private company, right?  I mean, after all, why force
me to give up some of my money to pay for roads. I'll pay only
for those that I chose to use.  And these damn National Parks.
Why force me to pay for them?  Why, we can even make money by
selling them off to the oil or mining companies.  

While we are a society of individuals we are also a society. When
we as a society decide to do something (in most cases, this
decision being made by our elected representatives), there are always
going to be some who disagree with this decision. However, part
of their obligation as members of this society (and who benifit
from being part of that society and from decisions that they
agree with but some other minority does not) is to abide by the
decision of the society (or to work at trying to convice people
to change that decision).  



--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker)
Subject: Re: Butt-Fucked in Massachussetts
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 19:35:53 GMT

drd@siia.mv.com (David Dick) writes:

>In <By1HqJ.EMt@world.std.com> lmh@world.std.com (Larry M Headlund) writes:

>>In article <BxzHz8.HMq@world.std.com> rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker) writes:

>[some vituperation elided]

>>>  The vast majority of the middle class
>>>(or what is left of it) do *not* want to support the basket cases of the
>>>world through tax financed government programs. In additon to being
>>>unloved and immoral, this approach is fraudulent, since 60 cents(at least)
>>>of every dollar raised in taxes for the comfort of the poor, ends up in
>>>the burocracy anyway.  Besides how many of you wan't to support slutty
>>>young woman in their occupation of making babies they can't afford to feed
>>>and educate. Screw'em and let them starve.

>>	Assuming you are refering to income transfer payments,  the ratio
>>of direct benefits to administration is more like 4 to 1.  And if you reduce
>>administration costs then you are also eliminating the oversite that 
>>catches cheats.

>*reducing* administration costs does not necessarily mean 
>*eliminating* the oversite that catches cheats.

>A better way to put it would be to say that some of the administrative
>cost is necessary to catch cheating, in order to avoid either
>higher total costs, or less of the funds going to the intended recipients.

>David Dick
>Software Innovations, Inc. [the Software Moving Company]
If I ran a charity with a 25% overhead, I would be indicted for fraud.

The UJA and CJP manage to do their charitable work with about 8 or 9%
overhead.

Let me make a modest proposal. Elimnate the transfer payments entirely. If
there is money in the society to help the unfortunate it can be brought
out with a much lower overhead by private means.

Of course this will never fly, for there are tens of thousands of people
here in the  P.R. of M (People's Republic of Massachussetts) who pretend
to work at alleviating the misery of the poor and discombobulated. This
does not produce the desired result as the poor are still poor and getting
poorer, the crime rate is rising, the illegitimacy rate is rising and
children are still be abused, both because of the DSS and in spite of the
DSS. Aid to Dependent Children is enabling the next generation of rioters
and looters to survive.

We can save a great deal of money by eliminating the transfers right now.

Conan the Ungenerous "Give a hungry man a fish, you have fed him for
today. Let him starve  and you can forget him for the  rest of your life"
-- Not from Scripture.

Xref: sparky ne.politics:3024 talk.politics.misc:60559
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: ne.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 17 Nov 92 17:18:03 GMT
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <BxutA9.7t3@slipknot.rain.com> robert@slipknot.rain.com  
(Robert Reed) writes:
 I do realize that there is a balance between
> the needs of the poor and the ability of the non-poor to provide  
support.  I
> don't expect anyone to vow poverty to help their fellow citizens,  
but I do
> think we Americans have shown too much self interest and greed  
(especially
> during the '80s) than is good for us.

I'm not sure that greed was the entire (or even the primary
problem). A number of people opposed tax increases on the basis
that that was the only way to make the governement clean up its
act and stop wasting so much money.  However, I do agree with
a statement by George Will, who was reacting to an add for
"now you can get a great video disk machine for $1000" that
"any nation that can afford such expensive toys yet not provide
medical care for its children is undertaxed."   I would certainly
be willing to pay more IF I knew the government was also doing
its best to cut down on the amount of fraud and misuse of
the money they now have.

> Ever hear of the "robber barons"?  Once again let me restate my  
point.  I don't
> deny that governments inherently generate a certain amount of  
waste.  But it's
> never been clear to me that the waste and corruption is any less in  
business
> than it is in government, or that these factors are not inherent in  
the
> bureaucracies that both systems engender once they grow large  
enough.
> 

I certainly hope they are not inherent in the system. It seems that
some of them can be changed easily. For example, a major cause
of government waste is the procurement scheme Congress forces
most of the government to use.  This scheme forces far more 
documentation than normal out of suppliers, detailing the source
of all parts, etc.   This scheme, not contractor fraud, is
the main reason we have the Department of Defense paying
$200 for toilet seats and $75 for hammers.  They can't simply
buy off-the-shelf material; Congress won't let them.  Cleaning up
this kind of thing should be easy (I hope) and effective.


--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: A new tax system ... was Vote...
Date: 16 Nov 92 18:25:20 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <5909@balrog.ctron.com> smith@ctron.com writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.060546.7374@EE.Stanford.EDU>, budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd) writes:
>>Actually, there IS a state without a sales tax. New Hampshire. (unless
>>of course it has passed one since I was an undergrad at Dartmouth.)
>>The fact that NH hasn't a sales tax, coupled with the high taxes "enjoyed"
>>just across the Connecticut River in Vermont was playing havoc with
>>businesses in places like White River Junction, VT, and other
>>border towns.
>
>The great state of New Hampshire not only has no sales tax, it has no income
>tax, and it soundly defeated the Democratics gubernatiorial candidate this
>last election who promised us both - defeated her despite the staggering
>amounts of money and time devoted to her race by Democrats from every state
>in the union except New Hampshire.  I remember passing one car on Rt 101 every
>day covered with Arnie Arneson stickers and sporting _New_Jersey_ plates!
>The Republican, Steve Merrill, "took the pledge", and he got our votes, he
>won by 16 percentage points in a record turnout.

In return for not having an income tax or sales tax, New Hampshire has very
high property taxes (at least that's what I've heard - correct me if I'm
wrong - but they have to get revenue in some way.)  I read in the Economist,
a British news magazine, that Arneson wanted to _eliminate_ property taxes
and replace them with the income tax.  I consider property taxes to be
inherently unfair, for the reason that you can never really own your home;
you'll always be taxed on your property assets, no matter how low your income
might go.  There are people who are destitute because of property taxes.  I
was excited to hear that a state might take the much needed step of eliminating
property taxes and replacing them with the much fairer income tax, and I'm
sorry to hear that the candidate who promised it was defeated.

Note - I don't like sales taxes either, and I'm a little disappointed to hear
that Arnesen wanted those as well as an income tax.  Nevertheless, I think the
sales tax is less bad than the property tax (though it would lose New Hampshire
its advantage over the neighboring states).

   - Dave Borden
     borden@m5.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: lmh@world.std.com (Larry M Headlund)
Subject: Re: Butt-Fucked in Massachussetts
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 00:08:43 GMT

In article <BxzHz8.HMq@world.std.com> rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker) writes:
>The Great and General Court of the Commenwealth of Massachussetts has done
>it again.  They (with their veto-proof Democratic majority) are repaying
>all the effort of those sterling citizens who live off the blood of
>Massachussetts taxpayers by pushing through a 13% raise in wages. When was
>the last time you received a 13% raise in wages comrades?

	The general state employee's have not received any cost-of-living
or other general increase for four years, managers for six.

>
>And that is not all. Jim Broudie the God-Father of the Broudie bunch has
>rammed through a proposal to go to the graduated income tax. This will be
>on the ballot in 1994 where I *hope* the still wise and sane folk of the
>Commonwealth will knock it down for the fifth time.  Broudie and his
>tax-happy friends just don't get it. The vast majority of the middle class
>(or what is left of it) do *not* want to support the basket cases of the
>world through tax financed government programs. In additon to being
>unloved and immoral, this approach is fraudulent, since 60 cents(at least)
>of every dollar raised in taxes for the comfort of the poor, ends up in
>the burocracy anyway.  Besides how many of you wan't to support slutty
>young woman in their occupation of making babies they can't afford to feed
>and educate. Screw'em and let them starve.

	Assuming you are refering to income transfer payments,  the ratio
of direct benefits to administration is more like 4 to 1.  And if you reduce
administration costs then you are also eliminating the oversite that 
catches cheats.

	The remainder of your post is too vile to deserve comment,  except
that when you use the term "basket case" you should contemplate the 
lyrics to _Johnny,  We hardly knew ye_.
 

-- 
Larry Headlund  lmh@world.std.com    Eikonal Systems (617) 482-3345
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Wages for State Workers
Date: 23 Nov 92 20:36:43 GMT
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <By1HqJ.EMt@world.std.com> lmh@world.std.com (Larry M  
Headlund) writes:
> In article <BxzHz8.HMq@world.std.com> rjk@world.std.com (robert j  
kolker) writes:
> >The Great and General Court of the Commenwealth of Massachussetts  
has done
> >it again.  They (with their veto-proof Democratic majority) are  
repaying
> >all the effort of those sterling citizens who live off the blood  
of
> >Massachussetts taxpayers by pushing through a 13% raise in wages.  
When was
> >the last time you received a 13% raise in wages comrades?
> 
> 	The general state employee's have not received any  
cost-of-living
> or other general increase for four years, managers for six.
> 

Agreed. However, the problem I have with this raise (and with most
raises given to public employees for that matter) is that is is
across the board, for everyone.  All the workers get a 13% pay
raise: those who have worked very hard and done outstanding jobs
get 13%. Those who have down average jobs get 13%. Those who did
poor jobs get 13%.   I don't think this is a good nor a fair way
to handle such things.  I would like to see more positions being
given merit raises.


--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  
Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker)
Subject: WBZ running program on Public Employee Slackers
Summary: More Anal Penetration in  PRM
Keywords: Slackers,Goof-offs,Government Inefficiency
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 14:32:27 GMT

WBZ is running a television investigative report on public employee
slacker. The program was described on WBZ radio this A.M. According to the
man who put the investigative report together, workers in the Boston Sewer
Dept. and Workers on the MBTA put in maximum 4 hours work for eight hours
pays. Sometimes they put in as little as 1 hour of work of eight hours of pay.

His description of the various modes of time killing he observed would be
funny I we weren't paying for it.

These are the sort of people who are going to get a 13% raise at your
expense and mine.

You guys wanted a return to "compassionate" government and an end to
trickle down. Well you are going to get. Now instead of trickle down, we
will have screw-up.

Enjoy it comrades

Conan the Libertarian "Taxation is Theft, and Government is a Plunderbund"
-- Lysander Spooner.

Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: boba@miki.pictel.com (Bob Alexander)
Subject: Re: Butt-Fucked in Massachussetts
Organization: PictureTel Corporation
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 13:32:48 GMT

>And that is not all. Jim Broudie the God-Father of the Broudie bunch...

>                          Besides how many of you wan't to support slutty
>young woman in their occupation of making babies they can't afford to feed
>and educate. Screw'em and let them starve.

While I agree that the graduated income tax is a bad idea, I have to say
that your style, spelling, and communication skills leave much to be
desired.

     Bob Alexander                                     boba@pictel.com
       The more the government does, the better libertarianism looks
     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     Organizations don't have opinions; people do.  The above opinions
     do not reflect those of the directors, stockholders, managers, or
     other employees of PictureTel.

Newsgroups: ne.politics,ne.general,alt.privacy,misc.legal,alt.dads-rights,alt-child-support,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: ptrei@bistromath.mitre.org (Peter Trei)
Subject: Massachusetts wants to seize your bank account info.
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 13:48:45 GMT

     Sorry for the scattershot crosspost, but this seems relevant to
all the groups listed.

     According to WBUR, one of the Boston NPR radio stations, the
Massachusetts Department of Revenue is trying to get legislation
passed which would require all Massachusetts banks to turn over to the
Department (presumably on a regular basis) the following information
for EVERY BANK ACCOUNT in the state:

Owner's name.
Owner's address.
Owner's social security number.
Account number.
Balance.

     No warrant, probable cause, or court order would be needed. This
is not a request for information on specific individuals, but a
blanket demand for info on every account in the state.

     The ostensible reason is to track down delinquent child-support
payers. The level of intrusion into the privacy of every citizen seems
(IMHO) far, far beyond what is justified for this (otherwise worthy)
cause.

     Is it legal for the state to use SSNs in this manner? 

     The Massachusetts Civil Liberties Union is already fighting this
move. I'm going to try to contact my state legislators on it.

							Peter Trei
							ptrei@mitre.org

Disclaimer: As far as I know, my employer has no opinion on this issue.

Newsgroups: ne.politics
From: rgoers@iset.scan.mc.xerox.com (Ron Goers)
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Organization: Imaging Science Engineering & Technology, Xerox Corporation
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 21:44:10 GMT

In article <BxoFKG.6DE@world.std.com> lmh@world.std.com (Larry M Headlund) writes:
>In article <BxoDHA.Cp@apollo.hp.com> goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman) writes:
>>In article <Bxo9z3.Kzx@world.std.com> lmh@world.std.com (Larry M Headlund) writes:
>>>	(deleted)
>>>	Also,  I notice you state that a public servant,  for which I read
>>>public employee,  should be willing to accept less of a pay increase than
>>>the norm.  Why?
>>
>>    Because they are overpaid for what they do.  Otherwise, they would be able 
>>    to find a better paying job elsewhere.  I'd keep the freeze in tact
>>    until there is a shortage of them.
>>
>
>	By that logic,  everyone is overpaid for what they do:
>		If they are not overpaid then
>			they can find a better paying job elsewhere
>		They haven't.
>		QED

Be REAL here!  I heard on the radio yesterday that NYS legislators, already the 
HIGHEST PAID in the nation, are drafting another pay raise bill for themselves!
Let's not try to pick apart logic, and twist reality!  Just look at the salary
that YOUR state represenatives are making ...  $75,000 is TOO MUCH for, what
is for many of them, a part-time job.  Look at their voting records!  How many
no-shows are there?  Come on!  Pay me that kind of money for doing next-to
nothing, and I would at least make sure I showed up to vote ...  And why should
these people have their own bank, post office, etc.  Who the %$#$#^** are they?
Let them use the same facilities that everyone else has to use!  The pay and 
the perks are WAY TOO MUCH!  


-- 
| rgoers@iset.scan.mc.xerox.com | Let me sing just 10 true words.          |
|                               | I'd rather sing just 10 true words,      |
|               Charlie Peacock | Than 100 words, that in the end,         |
|            The Secret of Time | Amount to nothing, absolutely nothing.   |
Xref: sparky ne.politics:3056 talk.politics.misc:61012
From: fitz@wang.com (Tom Fitzgerald)
Newsgroups: ne.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 20 Nov 92 04:56:05 GMT
Organization: Wang Labs, Lowell MA, USA

> >|> >This is already happening.  Efficient farming depends on economies
> >|> >of scale.  What is wrong with large farms?  I repeat, farming is
> >|> >a business and as such should meet the same criteria as any other

rh@smds.com (Richard Harter) writes:

> As a general rule, the family owned and operated farm is the most efficient
> agricultural unit.  [With notable exceptions for certain products.]  The
> de facto policy in this country has been to liquidate the family owned farm.

In a bizarre way, the original poster may have been right, but not because
of any clean free-market reasons.  Cumberland Farms has been successful
(and would be massively successful if they weren't so screwed up) because
of economies of scale.  (Cumberland farms, btw, is a huge vertical
monopoly, they own everything from the cornfields that feed the cows, to
the stores that the milk is sold in.)

They illegally drain wetlands and have a team of lawyers to fight off the
state and the environmentalists until it's too late to do any good.  They
dilute their milk with water...  more lawyers.  They stink up the land
around their farms so that their neighbors are forced to sell at a loss,
letting Cumberland farms expand cheaply.  They force store managers to
cover expenses out of their own pockets, and fire them if they complain.

So Cumberland farms may be successful because of economies of scale, but
it's because they've got more lawyers than anybody else, can fight off
lawsuits, environmental charges and consumer-protection charges, and are
large enough to manipulate the land prices in the towns that they operate
in, to their own advantage.

-- 
Tom Fitzgerald   Wang Labs       fitz@wang.com   "I went to the universe today;
1-508-967-5278   Lowell MA, USA                   It was closed...."