Didn't take Walker long

[zsdersw]

Neither was mine. They had to create a new position and he negotiated the salary just like I did. So what?

So... when the company is in a dire financial condition is not the time for them to agree to pay increases.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Instead of complaining about the article, anybody ever consider googling?

http://www.fox11online.com/dpp/news...inistration-hire-of-brian-deschane-questioned

He clearly got the job because his father made big contributions to Walker's campaign. Being a college dropout with no experience in environmental regulation, he's obviously not qualified. It's a clear case of nepotism.

Clearly I shouldn't have gotten my job either then because I got hired here with no industry experience! Oh, yeah, and my dad worked here(he didn't directly hire me) and was my direct boss for a short while too. NEPOTISM!!! Oh wait, I dropped out of college too! Clearly I should not have gotten a job at this company(and then proceed to work my way up). Psstt - I got a raise quickly too... just sayin'

Again, it may look and smell bad but it's what you get when gov't gets so big people can't keep an eye on it all.

 

[HumblePie]

So... when the company is in a dire financial condition is not the time for them to agree to pay increases.

$80K a year is not going to break a government. You don't know how payroll and business works if you are even making this statement for the majority of the workers.

Sometimes the job needs to be done. I am NOT saying this kid is qualified for the position nor am I saying that he is not. That is solely up to the discretion of people that hired him. It could be he has other qualifications that we just don't know about. It could be he is not doing a good job or not doing a job at all. In which case he needs to be fired.

You and I are not equipped to make that assessment. All your wailing and whining on this issue over a guy that scored a lousy $80K a year job because of a connection his father has it retarded. Only because this is a government position is this even being blown up to this degree.

It's not like his job and performance can't be scrutinized by the public. His is a government position job and performance can be reviewed to an extent by anyone that wants to find the public records of his performance. Now 6 months to a year from now and he isn't doing what he is supposed to be doing while still holding the job, then you can start getting upset and rightfully so. Until then anyone that complains on this sounds like a kid crying over the next door neighbor having a bigger lollipop.

 

[zsdersw]

Clearly I shouldn't have gotten my job either then because I got hired here with no industry experience! Oh, yeah, and my dad worked here(he didn't directly hire me) and was my direct boss for a short while too. NEPOTISM!!! Oh wait, I dropped out of college too! Clearly I should not have gotten a job at this company(and then proceed to work my way up). Psstt - I got a raise quickly too... just sayin'

Again, it may look and smell bad but it's what you get when gov't gets so big people can't keep an eye on it all.

I doubt your company's budget is in the red like Wisconsin's.

 

[HumblePie]

Clearly I shouldn't have gotten my job either then because I got hired here with no industry experience! Oh, yeah, and my dad worked here(he didn't directly hire me) and was my direct boss for a short while too. NEPOTISM!!! Oh wait, I dropped out of college too! Clearly I should not have gotten a job at this company(and then proceed to work my way up). Psstt - I got a raise quickly too... just sayin'

Again, it may look and smell bad but it's what you get when gov't gets so big people can't keep an eye on it all.

Nepotism is against the law for government positions. For private industry it is not.

 

[JSt0rm]

$80K a year is not going to break a government. You don't know how payroll and business works if you are even making this statement for the majority of the workers.

Sometimes the job needs to be done. I am NOT saying this kid is qualified for the position nor am I saying that he is not. That is solely up to the discretion of people that hired him. It could be he has other qualifications that we just don't know about. It could be he is not doing a good job or not doing a job at all. In which case he needs to be fired.

You and I are not equipped to make that assessment. All your wailing and whining on this issue over a guy that scored a lousy $80K a year job because of a connection his father has it retarded. Only because this is a government position is this even being blown up to this degree.

It's not like his job and performance can't be scrutinized by the public. His is a government position job and performance can be reviewed to an extent by anyone that wants to find the public records of his performance. Now 6 months to a year from now and he isn't doing what he is supposed to be doing while still holding the job, then you can start getting upset and rightfully so. Until then anyone that complains on this sounds like a kid crying over the next door neighbor having a bigger lollipop.

a 60k a year teacher isnt going to break the government either then. You cant have your cake and eat it too.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I doubt your company's budget is in the red like Wisconsin's.

No, it wasn't but I hardly think that has bearing on the current hissy fit the leftists are throwing - especially since the job would have been filled with or without this guy.

 

[HumblePie]

I doubt your company's budget is in the red like Wisconsin's.

Let's fire every single government worker then! That will solve the budget crisis! I mean if no one is working on the issue that means no one gets paid more than they should right? I mean that will solve it in the end right?

 

[HumblePie]

a 60k a year teacher isnt going to break the government either then. You cant have your cake and eat it too.

Who's complaining about a SINGLE teacher? Hyperbole FTW!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Nepotism is against the law for government positions. For private industry it is not.

Sure, and in my case it really wasn't anyway. Sure, I got the chance because of who I knew, but it wasn't his decision to hire me. And in the case of this thread - you are correct -there is no nepotism involved anyway.

 

[JSt0rm]

Who's complaining about a SINGLE teacher? Hyperbole FTW!

Do you see the hypocrisy? probably not. lol idiots

 

[zsdersw]

$80K a year is not going to break a government. You don't know how payroll and business works if you are even making this statement for the majority of the workers.

Of course it's not going to break it, but that's not the point. The point is you don't give out raises for newly created positions in a time when you should be looking to cut positions.

Sometimes the job needs to be done. I am NOT saying this kid is qualified for the position nor am I saying that he is not. That is solely up to the discretion of people that hired him. It could be he has other qualifications that we just don't know about. It could be he is not doing a good job or not doing a job at all. In which case he needs to be fired.

You and I are not equipped to make that assessment. All your wailing and whining on this issue over a guy that scored a lousy $80K a year job because of a connection his father has it retarded. Only because this is a government position is this even being blown up to this degree.

It's not like his job and performance can't be scrutinized by the public. His is a government position job and performance can be reviewed to an extent by anyone that wants to find the public records of his performance. Now 6 months to a year from now and he isn't doing what he is supposed to be doing while still holding the job, then you can start getting upset and rightfully so. Until then anyone that complains on this sounds like a kid crying over the next door neighbor having a bigger lollipop.

No, this is about handing out raises to people for newly created positions at a time when there should be fewer positions; when government should shrink.

 

[HumblePie]

Do you see the hypocrisy? probably not. lol idiots

Umm, first off, when have I complained about a single teacher and what the make? Nor is it relevant to the topic at hand. That is pure strawman misdirection you put out there.

However, you are trying to allude to the current debate about unions. The debate isn't that teachers are making too much, it's that UNIONS are making too much. And that teachers are not being paid, hired, and fired based on performance at all. That is all based on union seniority. Which is really does not have anything in common with the topic at hand either.

So unless you are trying to refer to a specific instance then your post is strangely moronic.

 

[Bowfinger]

Sure, and in my case it really wasn't anyway. Sure, I got the chance because of who I knew, but it wasn't his decision to hire me. And in the case of this thread - you are correct -there is no nepotism involved anyway.

No, it's cronyism at best, bribery at worst. But you're right, at least it wasn't nepotism, so it's all good ... to nutter apologists, at least. What a bunch of hypocrites.

 

[zsdersw]

Let's fire every single government worker then! That will solve the budget crisis! I mean if no one is working on the issue that means no one gets paid more than they should right? I mean that will solve it in the end right?

Actually, let's cut what we don't need and freeze the salaries for those we do.

 

[zsdersw]

No, it wasn't but I hardly think that has bearing on the current hissy fit the leftists are throwing - especially since the job would have been filled with or without this guy.

I'm not a leftist, and I'm not throwing their hissy-fit. The job appears newly created and shouldn't have existed in the first place. What's wrong with placing more work on existing employees?

 

[HumblePie]

Of course it's not going to break it, but that's not the point. The point is you don't give out raises for newly created positions in a time when you should be looking to cut positions.



No, this is about handing out raises to people for newly created positions at a time when there should be fewer positions; when government should shrink.

Ahh, then why all the focus on the kid? If this is your true argument you may have some merit. However, sometimes you have to spend a little to save more. I'm not saying this position that was created is one that is needed. I have no clue if it is or not. Again, that is not my field of expertise to decide upon. But if it was deemed needed, either the kid or someone else was going to have to fill the position as CADsortaGUY stated earlier.

So if your new argument is the position is not needed at all then now the burden of proof is on you to show that. Prove me that your statement is true and I'll agree the kid needs to go back to his old job at the $67K mark. Unless you can also prove both positions are not needed at all.

But broad sweeping claims of needing a freeze on everything to solve the problem is not proof but your sole opinion. One of which I will differ than you on.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

No, it's cronyism at best, bribery at worst. But you're right, at least it wasn't nepotism, so it's all good ... to nutter apologists, at least. What a bunch of hypocrites.

You didn't read what I've posted. go figure...

 

[JSt0rm]

Umm, first off, when have I complained about a single teacher and what the make? Nor is it relevant to the topic at hand. That is pure strawman misdirection you put out there.

However, you are trying to allude to the current debate about unions. The debate isn't that teachers are making too much, it's that UNIONS are making too much. And that teachers are not being paid, hired, and fired based on performance at all. That is all based on union seniority. Which is really does not have anything in common with the topic at hand either.

So unless you are trying to refer to a specific instance then your post is strangely moronic.

I thought the issue was that the state government was broke and they couldn't afford to pay the teachers and their benefits anymore so they needed to take these drastic union busting measures. Are you saying that's false?

 

[Bowfinger]

[ ... ]
However, you are trying to allude to the current debate about unions. The debate isn't that teachers are making too much, it's that UNIONS are making too much. And that teachers are not being paid, hired, and fired based on performance at all. That is all based on union seniority. Which is really does not have anything in common with the topic at hand either. ....

On the contrary, this story is exactly about hiring based on factors instead of performance. Therein lies the hypocrisy.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I'm not a leftist, and I'm not throwing their hissy-fit. The job appears newly created and shouldn't have existed in the first place. What's wrong with placing more work on existing employees?

Didn't say you were either of those.

I agree.
Nothing.

...as long as it's a consistent position and applied across the board.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I thought the issue was that the state government was broke and they couldn't afford to pay the teachers and their benefits anymore so they needed to take these drastic union busting measures. Are you saying that's false?

If you are suggesting that the position should not have existed - I could agree.
However, would you have had that position if it wouldn't have been brought to light? Basically - are you calling for the elimination of the position - or looking to score political points based on X,Y,Z?

 

[HumblePie]

On the contrary, this story is exactly about hiring based on factors instead of performance. Therein lies the hypocrisy.

Again, I have no problem with hiring someone at all for a position regardless of the factors of the hiring process. That's a determination to be made by the person doing the hiring if the person they are hiring can do the job. The onus on is the person hiring. However, once a person is hired they must perform or be fired. That is the part where the onus is back on the employee. When an employer can no longer fire an employee who doesn't perform because of factors that prevent them THAT is a problem. It is completely different and there is no hypocrisy there at all.

The union busting laws have no words or dictation related to hiring practices at all. They have to do with allowing the government to make decisions to fire or retain based off performance and not union seniority among other things. Completely separate issues.

 

[zsdersw]

Ahh, then why all the focus on the kid?

I never focused on the kid.

If this is your true argument you may have some merit. However, sometimes you have to spend a little to save more. I'm not saying this position that was created is one that is needed. I have no clue if it is or not. Again, that is not my field of expertise to decide upon. But if it was deemed needed, either the kid or someone else was going to have to fill the position as CADsortaGUY stated earlier.

So if your new argument is the position is not needed at all then now the burden of proof is on you to show that. Prove me that your statement is true and I'll agree the kid needs to go back to his old job at the $67K mark. Unless you can also prove both positions are not needed at all.

But broad sweeping claims of needing a freeze on everything to solve the problem is not proof but your sole opinion. One of which I will differ than you on.

Let's consider the fact that this position was created to help with the "transition issues" of turning the Department of Commerce from a public entity to a public-private entity. Essentially a middle-management job. I'm not aware of any company or government that hasn't survived a cut in middle-management or, conversely, needed more middle-management.

Aside from that, the burden of proof is on the need for government positions to even exist in the first place, not on the need to cut them.

 

[HumblePie]

I never focused on the kid.



Let's consider the fact that this position was created to help with the "transition issues" of turning the Department of Commerce from a public entity to a public-private entity. Essentially a middle-management job. I'm not aware of any company or government that hasn't survived a cut in middle-management or, conversely, needed more middle-management.

Aside from that, the burden of proof is on the need for government positions to even exist in the first place, not on the need to cut them.

Then why raise the cry and hullabaloo over this in the first place? If that was your sole point then make it first and clearly. You think that the government in WI should not be hiring anyone. Yay great! Opinion stated and point made. Instead you did argue about the merits of the kid and other crap that had absolutely nothing to do with what your opinion there being any new government positions in WI.

Do you not see how silly that was?