Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

We talking those who General Schedule? (GS levels) or those who are hired as contractors by other companies that are contracted by the government? Both? Also have to remember the government also hire people at min wage. Combine all three?

Also if we're talking military pay one can look up the 2016 pay scale for the military. Also the additional pay..BAH, Combat, Sea Duty, Flight pay etc etc etc. Not all military rate those additional pay. Also some of those pay are non taxable. Like Jump Pay and Flight Pay.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
the one where they didn't have access to all contracts, and even the Unions had said the practice is common to peg their wages to the federal minimum wage.

Do you understand the idea of a representative sample?

do you?

We can do better than 2 word posts that don't add anything beyond bickering. Let's make sure posts going forwards in this thread are a) substantive and b) not solely dedicated to arguing. If this can't be managed, I'm going to start issuing warnings

Asterios wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
the one where they didn't have access to all contracts, and even the Unions had said the practice is common to peg their wages to the federal minimum wage.

Do you understand the idea of a representative sample?

do you?

It's what happens when you look at 85-110 collective bargaining agreements and find that 31 would have either a wage increase or renegotiation after a federal minimum wage increase, then make the reasonable assumption that the overall percentage of contracts with similar agreements is probably somewhere around the same.

And of course this is not specific about how much of an increase would happen if the minimum wage increased, or guarantee that any renegotiation would result in a substantial wage increase. So, as stated before, you can't just quote the number of federal employees and assume that all of them are going to get a pay raise.

 d-usa wrote:
Is it taking this long to google some contracts that back up your claim, or should we just go ahead and ignore it?

how about this? https://www.unionfacts.com/article/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Union_Minimum_Wage_report.pdf

if not good just tell me your Union and will look that up.

now if you were with the AFGE such increases are covered under their article's 4 and/or 5 for midterm bargaining increases.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
the one where they didn't have access to all contracts, and even the Unions had said the practice is common to peg their wages to the federal minimum wage.

Do you understand the idea of a representative sample?

do you?

It's what happens when you look at 85-110 collective bargaining agreements and find that 31 would have either a wage increase or renegotiation after a federal minimum wage increase, then make the reasonable assumption that the overall percentage of contracts with similar agreements is probably somewhere around the same.

And of course this is not specific about how much of an increase would happen if the minimum wage increased, or guarantee that any renegotiation would result in a substantial wage increase. So, as stated before, you can't just quote the number of federal employees and assume that all of them are going to get a pay raise.

well for starters the military is the largest Federal Employee I believe and the bulk of them would be effected by the minimum wage increase, since they will not just increase E-1 thru E-6 pays they will increase all pays, and pretty much would be said in most areas, since it does not bode well for someone who was making say $13 an hour to make the same amount as someone who just started at $10.10 an hour.

and then we have Goernment employees which are on the "G" level pay grades, which the only way they get pay raises is if the federal minimum goes up or they go to a higher "G" level pay scale, but even if the lowest "G" level pay scale goes up all "G" level pay scales go up.

your issue is you keep confusing how the Government pays with how the private sector pays, it is not the same.

here is a GS pay rate chart:

http://www.federaljobs.net/salarybase.htm#SALARY_TABLE_2015-GS

Asterios wrote:
even if the lowest "G" level pay scale goes up all "G" level pay scales go up.

{citation needed}

Do you have evidence that this is a mandatory thing, and that a minimum wage increase could not be implemented by removing all scale positions below $15/hour and putting those people into the lowest scale position that pays at least $15/hour? The lowest level, in this case, would cease to exist at all.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
even if the lowest "G" level pay scale goes up all "G" level pay scales go up.

{citation needed}

Do you have evidence that this is a mandatory thing, and that a minimum wage increase could not be implemented by removing all scale positions below $15/hour and putting those people into the lowest scale position that pays at least $15/hour? The lowest level, in this case, would cease to exist at all.

if you read the link it will state all pay levels are based on the base level pay.

as to removing several levels of pay, highly doubt it.

Asterios wrote:
as to removing several levels of pay, highly doubt it.

Why? Why must a minimum wage increase be implemented by "all federal employees get an X% pay increase until nobody is making less than $15/hour" instead of "all federal employees currently making less than $15/hour are moved into the $15/hour bracket"?

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
as to removing several levels of pay, highly doubt it.

Why? Why must a minimum wage increase be implemented by "all federal employees get an X% pay increase until nobody is making less than $15/hour" instead of "all federal employees currently making less than $15/hour are moved into the $15/hour bracket"?

because that would be like making all Enlisted men below a Sergeant, Sergeant First classes and such, the government pay scale is very similar to the military pay scale and civilian government employees working with the military are given a "rank" based on their pay grade.

and I repeat the Government will not remove several pay levels, they will just increase pay across the board, like i aid you keep thinking the Government is like a civilian corporation when it comes to pay, they are not, it is organised and set up a certain way. which is why many go to the public sector since their options in the government are limited.

 Peregrine wrote:
Kill the F-35, stop building aircraft carriers, etc.

To the comment about aircraft carriers... It would seem, based on what little I can find, that the Navy does want to replace the existing carrier fleet with the new Ford Class carrier.

The problem is the 700 million plus dollar, Littoral Combat Ships, that two representatives are largely responsible for forcing the navy to buy (surprise surprise, the representatives in question represent the two districts that build the bulk of these types of ships)

This is going to be short.

GS-5 Step One is paid $16.50 an hour. Like 35K a year before locality adjustment. GS-5 is your foot in the door to GS program

Personally, I think $15 is too high for a federal minimum. State/local situations could warrant it, but the federal should just be the baseline. I think it should be raised to $10 and then tied to inflation. That way we don't have to worry about it.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Personally, I think $15 is too high for a federal minimum. State/local situations could warrant it, but the federal should just be the baseline. I think it should be raised to $10 and then tied to inflation. That way we don't have to worry about it.

problem is inflation is high and with some states going up to $15 it will increase inflation across the board, the problem with this the cost of living is not the same all over the country, so while in some places $10 an hour is not a living wage other places it is, the Federal should be a guideline, and minimum wage should increase but like you said not this much.

Trying to tie it to inflation doesn't work at this point because inflation is like 12 dollars higher than the current minimum wage. That's what we should have done 30 years ago, but the 'boomers dropped the ball like always and thus here we are.

That said, I dunno how much raising the minimum wage is going to accomplish in the long run. I was always skeptical of the "high minimum wage hurts small-businesses" meme until I actually traveled to some Nowheresville USA places. I genuinely don't think alot of those small businesses located in the desolate ass mid-west and the like could survive a 15/hour minimum wage.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Trying to tie it to inflation doesn't work at this point because inflation is like 12 dollars higher than the current minimum wage. That's what we should have done 30 years ago, but the 'boomers dropped the ball like always and thus here we are.

That said, I dunno how much raising the minimum wage is going to accomplish in the long run. I was always skeptical of the "high minimum wage hurts small-businesses" meme until I actually traveled to some Nowheresville USA places. I genuinely don't think alot of those small businesses located in the desolate ass mid-west and the like could survive a 15/hour minimum wage.

even places that are not in the middle of nowhere, yeah $15 an hour in cities like LA or SF or NY, places like those can handle such an increase, but other places cannot, personally i think minimum wage should be handled at a smaller level like city level since they have a better understanding of what their community can handle. Federal raises and even state raises across the board not realizing several communities in those areas cannot handle such an increase.

Asterios wrote:
personally i think minimum wage should be handled at a smaller level like city level since they have a better understanding of what their community can handle.

The problem is that then you completely remove any incentive to increase minimum wage. It's just like what we see with towns giving huge tax breaks to attract businesses and vague promises of "creating jobs", if you don't bid all the way to "we won't ever make you pay taxes for the rest of eternity" then that new factory or whatever goes to the town that did. If you let minimum wage be a local thing then you'll get a bunch of towns setting it as low as possible, regardless of whether or not it's enough to live on, in a desperate attempt to keep themselves an option for new businesses. The only way to avoid this problem is to set the minimum wage at a higher level of government so that everyone plays by the same rules and there's no bidding war.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Trying to tie it to inflation doesn't work at this point because inflation is like 12 dollars higher than the current minimum wage. That's what we should have done 30 years ago, but the 'boomers dropped the ball like always and thus here we are.

That said, I dunno how much raising the minimum wage is going to accomplish in the long run. I was always skeptical of the "high minimum wage hurts small-businesses" meme until I actually traveled to some Nowheresville USA places. I genuinely don't think alot of those small businesses located in the desolate ass mid-west and the like could survive a 15/hour minimum wage.

I agree with this, but at the same time, areas like Seattle are showing that raising the minimum wage does the opposite of hurt the economy. Part of the problem, is that there are folks out there who still believe that Horse and Sparrow, or trickle-down economics works. Personally, I don't think that simply raising the minimum wage is going to solve any of our perceived problems (by perceived, I am talking about legitimate problems, as well as the more political, made-up ones). IMHO, we need to combine wage increases with tax code changes. I find the idea that people who are wealthy enough, are simply gonna stash their money offshore, where there are no taxes paid, and many of our largest corporations are paying essentially less than zero taxes, repulsive. If there needs to be tax breaks for corporations, it should be for bringing jobs back home, instead of shipping them out overseas.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
personally i think minimum wage should be handled at a smaller level like city level since they have a better understanding of what their community can handle.

The problem is that then you completely remove any incentive to increase minimum wage. It's just like what we see with towns giving huge tax breaks to attract businesses and vague promises of "creating jobs", if you don't bid all the way to "we won't ever make you pay taxes for the rest of eternity" then that new factory or whatever goes to the town that did. If you let minimum wage be a local thing then you'll get a bunch of towns setting it as low as possible, regardless of whether or not it's enough to live on, in a desperate attempt to keep themselves an option for new businesses. The only way to avoid this problem is to set the minimum wage at a higher level of government so that everyone plays by the same rules and there's no bidding war.

problem with that like I said is minimum living wage across this country differ, what it costs for a single person to live in New York 2 families or more can live off of in say my hometown in California, minimum wage in California is going up, businesses in say San Francisco may not be leaving, but in Stockton they are, i'm looking at whole shopping centers now where half the businesses are vacant. and several businesses shut down in the past few months. so if we do like you said we do, we will lose businesses in several towns like mine, the big cities won't feel a thing but the rest of the country will become an empty desert.

Can I interest some of my American comrades in here in a system without State-mandated Minimum Wages that works, while empowering workers? I've never gotten why the state has to get involved in the minimum wage business in the first place, surely that's why unions exist?

Unions are satanic. Anything that gives workers bargaining power is anti-capitalist, and if you don't like your working conditions you need to just quit and go find a better job in our not-at-all saturated job market.

Unions lately have been on the negative view of the general public.

Asterios wrote:
Unions lately have been on the negative view of the general public.

Lately? They've been demonised for decades.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Asterios wrote:
Unions lately have been on the negative view of the general public.

Lately? They've been demonised for decades.

once upon a time the Unions used to be good and did good, now they are viewed as being as bad as corporations and such.

Asterios wrote:
Unions lately have been on the negative view of the general public.

Not really.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/12751/labor-unions.aspx

Only 36% disapprove, and that's been declining steadily. There was a big fall in their favrobility after 2008, but they have been steadily recovering. And it's looks liked they've never been above 45% disapprove.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Asterios wrote:
Unions lately have been on the negative view of the general public.

Not really.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/12751/labor-unions.aspx

Only 36% disapprove, and that's been declining steadily. There was a big fall in their favrobility after 2008, but they have been steadily recovering. And it's looks liked they've never been above 45% disapprove.

gots to love them polls with 101% results. as it goes I never trust polls even if they are in my favor since there are only a spot check on a small demographic.

also this:

http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/27/mixed-views-of-impact-of-long-term-decline-in-union-membership/

Asterios wrote:

once upon a time the Unions used to be good and did good, now they are viewed as being as bad as corporations and such.

No, now people of a certain disposition fell into a rhetorical trap utilized by sympathetic politicians. Young Cruz, in particular, made a point about how his opponent's agents acted like "..union boss thugs..."

This criticism is fair, in the sense that unions worked that way in the past...past.

Asterios wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Asterios wrote:
Unions lately have been on the negative view of the general public.

Not really.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/12751/labor-unions.aspx

Only 36% disapprove, and that's been declining steadily. There was a big fall in their favrobility after 2008, but they have been steadily recovering. And it's looks liked they've never been above 45% disapprove.

gots to love them polls with 101% results.

It's called rounding. And are you questioning the validity of Gallup?

 dogma wrote:

Asterios wrote:

once upon a time the Unions used to be good and did good, now they are viewed as being as bad as corporations and such.

No, now people of a certain disposition fell into a rhetorical trap utilized by sympathetic politicians. Young Cruz, in particular, made a point about how his opponent's agents acted like "..union boss thugs..."

This criticism is fair, in the sense that unions worked that way in the past...past.

yeah well me I'm remembering recently when the State Union (CalPers) here made bad investments and expected the Tax Payers to pay for their mistakes when they lost their retirement funds.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:


It's called rounding. And are you questioning the validity of Gallup?

I question all polls.

Asterios wrote:
http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/27/mixed-views-of-impact-of-long-term-decline-in-union-membership/

Actually that supports my claim

It has them at a positive favrobility.



People think that fewer unionized people is a bad thing.



And the vast majority support unionization.

Asterios wrote:
I question all polls.

I don't even know where to start with this one other than I'm not surprised in the least bit.

I mean, someone posts a reputable poll that proves your statement wrong, you counter it with the claim that you question all polls, you follow that claim up with an article filled with polls in an attempt to back up your original claim, said article is filled with polls that prove you wrong.