Misspellings Corrected
A Madison company has paid to fix a highway sign south of Wausau with three misspellings.
The word “business” and the names “Rothschild” and “Schofield” were misspelled on the sign along I-39. The word “exit” was the only word spelled correctly.
WSAW-TV reported that Decker Supply Company, the Madison company which made the sign, fixed the errors at its own expense over the weekend. The sign had been installed by a separate company.
So, another example of how great privatization is. Remember the MJS also reported earlier this year that costs of privatization for road signs were triple if they kept it a public service.
Nice tax savings, eh?
Posted by capper on July 26, 2009 at 1938 hrs
Yea, because government worker union goons have never, EVER, made one single mistake in the history of government worker union goonery.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2009 at 2029 hrs
So, Mr. PP wants his mistakes to cost three times as much. Nice.
Posted by capper on July 26, 2009 at 2032 hrs
Capper…..you’re such an AFSCME goon. I don’t know many people that are arguing for privatization simply for privatization’s sake. It has to be cost effective. If the case you reference above is true, then it was a bad decision. In this case the company fixed it at their cost. If government didn’t have to pay the bloated personnel costs of unions, especially in Milwaukee County, then keeping the task “in public service” might make more sense.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2009 at 2038 hrs
Calvin, you are so funny. Even with the “bloated personnel costs,” the public sector was one third the price.
But the personnel costs are high, and most of it is health care. Time to lower the costs of that, right? I presume then you back single payer coverage.
Oh, and Calvin, your boy Walker is advocating just that very thing.
Posted by capper on July 26, 2009 at 2045 hrs
Capper,
I’ve already commented on your blog and will further highlight some stuff in the morning on your idiocy regarding what is the private sector and what is a government contractor. I know it’s so hard to recognize when it’s not being done by county workers…
But all this shows is we have some moronic sign builders, who no doubt are big contributors to someone in this state.
Posted by Kevin Binversie on July 26, 2009 at 2127 hrs
And as I answered before, it kind of goes to prove my point, doesn’t it?
Posted by capper on July 26, 2009 at 2130 hrs
capper, you ignorant slut. Government workers have cost me and you and generations of taxpayers a great deal more than your tired old “three times as much” union line.
Nice try though. Now, go back to stuffing envelopes with Scott Walker hate mail.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2009 at 2209 hrs
Whoever made the sign, aren’t you at all concerned that somewhere in your state there’s someone whose JOB it is to make signs - and whose English is so poor that three of the four words on this one got misspelled?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2009 at 0049 hrs
Actually it is very irresponsible thing which are made by government; we should talk strong steps towards it.
Posted by Cheshire dentists on July 27, 2009 at 0125 hrs
Well Capper, your first comment reads that the public sector costs three times more than the private sector. If the always right (especially when reporting on things they are against) MJS worded their report as well as your first comment, you may have misunderstood…
I would really like to see the numbers MJS used in that article. Government and media are so pro-union that it is, frankly, hard to believe any privatisation measure could have passed if the costs were triple that of the present work. What reasoning was used, none? After all, it would have been a Government office that passed the privatisation measure, wouldn’t it? Your pro-Government stance seems to have a problem since it was surely not private businesses that forced the Government to privatise.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2009 at 0809 hrs
Moving all county functions to private companies or turning those that need to government run over to the state is the best idea I’ve heard for Milwaukee in a long time.
If you have a fully incorporated county - there’s really no need for county government.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2009 at 1046 hrs
Public school, union-educated sign makers??
I think we should have patted them on the back and said, “The colors are very pretty…and you got most of the letters right! We’ll just pay you again to do it over because you tried your best.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2009 at 2331 hrs
TUERQAS-
A mere typo.
Bill-
Did you ever think how much that will increase taxes? You’re talking about creating two dozen administrations to cover what one is doing.
Posted by capper on July 27, 2009 at 2336 hrs
Capper, answer the serious question. What reasoning was used to privatise if costs were really triple? It wasn’t the sign maker’s union. Or was it? Who was the misspelled sign made by, a union or non-union shop? If it was union, we have our answer as to why a Government agency went to a private source even though the cost was triple.
One thing I am fairly certain of: A Democratic majority does not take work out of union hands and put it in to non-union hands ever, for any reason. Someone you continually champion is the problem here, either Government or union.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2009 at 0749 hrs
When the source of a report that says government employees can do the work for 1/3 of the cost of a third party contractor, a bunch of thoughts come to mind.
1) Was the cost comparison apples to apples. The full cost of the sign vs the incremental cost of additional government employees. I’ve seen these studies so many times, and they seldom are. Actually a part of my job used to be comparing cost comparisons, and pointing out the discrepencies. There is absolutely no way, that for something as simple as making a sign, there could be that kind of discrepency in either direction.
2) If somehow true, it begs even more questions. Why was the cost reduction for having the government stop doing it so low? Did we keep around a bunch of people on the payroll we don’t really need (that would be a shocker
3) Did we load up the RFP with all the same crap that we require of half of our government purchases. (i.e. Has to be a union shop, paying fantastic wages, with minority ownership, cadilac benefits, ......) or did we just say, how much for a sign…don’t care where you make it, how you make it, just get me a nice sign for a great price.
4) If all of the above were false, how quickly can we fire the moron in purchasing that can’t get a better price for a product from a firm with half of the cost structure?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2009 at 1414 hrs
Total Entries: 19998
Total Comments: 134037
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 05:43 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 12:32 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 105
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 03:51 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).