Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: thames_sider who wrote (10621)	2/2/2006 1:24:21 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 541789

The implicit contract is that you are entitled to that pay, and not meeting the expectation I have always found this an interesting area. Trust me, I know what it feels like to not get what you expect and think you have coming to you. As you know, I'm a retired fed. As you probably don't know, the feds here have a system where each year a board comes up with a proposed pay increase to keep the federal salary scale in line with the private sector. It's just a recommendation. So they announce the recommendation in the news, say three percent. But the president can change it and often did and we would end up getting two percent instead of the three to which we felt "entitled." Pissed me off every time it happened. So don't think I'm not sympathetic to the "take away" perspective. I've lived it. There is a notion in labor law called "past practice." If the official lunch hour is half an hour but over time supervisors have come to look the other way when staff take an hour, then the company can no longer legally restrict the lunch period to half an hour. They have, by past practice, backed into an amended contract that sets the lunch period at an hour. This has always seemed a bad idea to me for a variety of reasons one of which is that it discourages spontaneous generosity or workplace creativity on the part of the employer. Another is that I resist the notion that we have a legal or moral obligation to live up to anyone's expectations solely because they expect it. That's just bizarre. That that we shouldn't do it, only that we're somehow obligated to do it.

To: thames_sider who wrote (10621)	2/2/2006 1:36:53 PM
From: KLP	Respond to of 541789

What really is happening is the government pays $40 now, and estimates that it will pay $80 ten years from now. BUT the people who are in charge of the program, say...Oh, my, if we pay $80 for that ten years from now, we will bankrupt the system. SO, we can "only" pay $60 for "that" ten years from now, whatever "that" is. THEN the harpies come out and start bellowing.....THEY'RE TAKING AWAY MY BREAD AND BUTTER....OH EEEEK, OH EEEK.... Actually no one is supposed to know that maybe in the "proposed 10 years" that things will change again....who knows...maybe the person who is doing the "OH EEK'ING" won't be alive by then. Again, it is the FUTURE proposal that the rates have been set artificially high, and the FUTURE proposal that has been taken down from the Silly and Stupid "High", to an increase of "only 50% instead of the proposed 100% increase.