State Employees Average 65 Hours of Sick Time per Year
Wow.
State employees on average use 65 hours - or a week and a half - of sick leave each year. Lawmakers said they believe that is higher than the private sector and want to see a further analysis of the issue.
“I don’t think I’ve used 65 hours of sick time in my entire working career,” said Sen. Jim Sullivan (D-Wauwatosa). “If I’m running a business or state agency and someone were to call in sick and they weren’t, then they’re lying to the boss. They should be disciplined.”
[...]
Auditors reported last month that the state’s overtime costs rose 15.2% from 2005 to 2007, from $56.5 million to $65.1 million. They found 59 employees who earned more than $100,000 in overtime alone over those three years.
65 hours of sick time is the average? I agree with Sullivan, that’s obscene. Except for a year when I was out for a week to get my appendix out, I maybe use one sick day every other year. And thinking back through my career, I’ve been pretty typical.
Rep. Samantha Kerkman (R-Randall) said lawmakers need to compare the number of sick days that state employees earn with what private-sector workers get. Correctional officers can earn nearly four weeks of sick leave a year.
“That seems like a lot,” Kerkman said.
You think!
Don’t tell me that there aren’t ways to reduce spending in state government.
Isn’t that about the same amount of time that that job killing idiot 9-5 group is trying to force City of Milwaukee employers to provide?
It would take me 10-15 years to use that much sick time.
Perhaps they are using the Dilbert definition: Sick days are vacation days with sound effects…
Posted by on July 18, 2008 at 0717 hrsAuditors reported last month that the state’s overtime costs rose 15.2% from 2005 to 2007, from $56.5 million to $65.1 million. They found 59 employees who earned more than $100,000 in overtime alone over those three years.
Auditors determined the state likely could save money by hiring more employees because it would curb overtime costs, but they said more detailed analysis is needed.
But we want fewer state employees right?
Don’t tell me that there aren’t ways to reduce spending in state government.
Don’t tell me we need to do the I94 North-South expansion.
Posted by on July 18, 2008 at 0718 hrsAuditors reported last month that the state’s overtime costs rose 15.2% from 2005 to 2007,
Somebody hast to cover for all those employees out “sick” 65 hours per year.
Posted by on July 18, 2008 at 0750 hrsI wonder how much sick time those guys with the $100K+ overtime earnings took.
Posted by on July 18, 2008 at 0814 hrsI think most American workers probably don’t get enough sick time or vacation.
Posted by scott on July 18, 2008 at 0835 hrsI get plenty. I just don’t use it because (1) I’m in good relative health, (2) I don’t use it if I just have the sniffles, (3) I don’t lie to my employer, and (4) I want to earn my pay.
And my employer is extremely generous and encouraging about using sick time.
The fact is that if you are getting sick for a week and a half every year, then you either have a chronic illness or are a crybaby. I find it had to believe that the average state worker has a chronic illness.
Posted by Owen on July 18, 2008 at 0839 hrsThe fact is that if you are getting sick for a week and a half every year, then you either have a chronic illness or are a crybaby.
I forgot one… or you are gaming (read: cheating) the system.
Posted by Owen on July 18, 2008 at 0841 hrsBefore getting upset about 65 hours being the average - I’d want to know if they included people who made use of the time under FMLA provisions (e.g. mothers who used sick time pay to cover part of their maternity leave, etc.). That would quickly pull up the average.
I know I used more time than that at least one year - when I had to deal with my dad being hospitalized for a week, and then was very ill myself later in the year.
Posted by on July 18, 2008 at 0843 hrsRichK,
I wonder how much sick time those guys with the $100K+ overtime earnings took.
IIRC, the way some or all of the union contracts work, sick time counts toward a 40 hour week. So what some workers are doing is calling in sick, and then working an extra shift at overtime pay. For example, let’s say that I work M-F 8-5. I call in sick on Friday, but it counts as 40 hours. Then I pick up a shift on Saturday for overtime.
Posted by Owen on July 18, 2008 at 0843 hrsThey better be careful about comparing with the private sector. Most large employers now have moved or are moving to a single Paid Time Off bucket for vacation time and sick leave. That will make it harder to track these “deadbeats”.
Posted by on July 18, 2008 at 0905 hrsPeople who have small children can use up a week of sick time in a friggin’ heartbeat. Your little darlings bring home every bug imaginable from their school or day care center. Then you know what? They won’t accept them back until they’re healthy. Get yourself a couple of little ones and be a single parent, you’re easily looking at a week and half.
Sick time isn’t just for when you get sick--it’s for when you have sick children or parents who need care at home.
I myself probably used up a week and a half over the last year, now that I think about it! Between a bad bout of pneumonia and a six year old at home, I’m sure I had more than a week sick over the previous 12 months.
And I didn’t “lie” to anyone, nor “game” any systems.
Posted by scott on July 18, 2008 at 0923 hrsI wanted to echo Jason. My former employer did not differentiate between sick days and vacation days, there was just PTO (paid time off).
Posted by on July 18, 2008 at 1013 hrsI remember studying that method in college. It is very effective at reducing false sick time without sacrificing it when it’s needed.
It makes total sense. If I get 10 days of vacation and 5 sick days, I’m more likely to want to call in sick to make sure I use it. If I have 15 paid days off, then calling in sick is giving up a vacation day.
Posted by Owen on July 18, 2008 at 1017 hrsAll of my sick days and personal days are lumped into one PTO group. We work a lot long hours in my office and are encouraged to use all of our days off (as we should, it is part of our compensation). If we don’t use all of it at the end of the year we are cut a check based on our daily wage for up to 3 unused days.
I can’t think of a better policy to deal with time off. PTO is part of your compensation package. Denying compensation you are entitled to is crazy.
Posted by on July 18, 2008 at 1028 hrsOne class of PTO is the way to do it.
Posted by on July 18, 2008 at 1047 hrsOf course in addition to the rational explainations offered by scott is the fact that this sick time use seems largely associated with institutions that run 24/7 and have mandatory overtime. Can’t be that after people work double shifts filling in for someone else that they use sick time later in the week to compensate could it?
Seems to me if this much overtime is being used there aren’t enough positions/people to cover the work. All that cut state employee rhetoric from a few years back seems to have had a price.
Oh yeah, and as a former state employee I know one thing. If you use your sick time up, you can’t use it after you retire to pay for health insurance, so anyone “gaming” the system isn’t getting something for nothing. I’d argue they’re giving up something much more valuable if in fact the are trying to use the system to their benefit.
Posted by on July 18, 2008 at 1108 hrsI haven’t called in sick in I don’t know how long, but doctor’s appointments are counted against sick days here, as would any physical therapy, which I may soon be starting for a bum shoulder. Once a week therapy? There’s your 65 hours a year right there. I’m hoping the regimen of exercises the doctor gave me will help, but if not, I’ll be using sick days, or rather parts of them, to go to a physical therapist.
Posted by on July 18, 2008 at 1117 hrsAll of can sit here and draw up scenarios where someone uses 65 hours over the course of a year, but isn’t that high for an AVERAGE?
Posted by Owen on July 18, 2008 at 1127 hrsIt does seem a little high for an average, but not outrageously high. I probably used around 65 hours of sick time last year. In a family with two working parents and a toddler in daycare you are going to burn through a lot of sick time. Whenever your adorable little petri-dish is sick you are duty bound to keep him/her home. I caught some nasty bugs from my kid this year and stayed home from work. I am usually never sick, but having a toddler in daycare is a completely different scenario.
The people that are out for multiple weeks for whatever reason probably skew the average.
Posted by on July 18, 2008 at 1146 hrsIn theory, that may make sense, but it does not explain why the average is so much higher in the public sector than in the private sector - unless you are arguing that there are more single parents, dual working parents, etc. in the public sector.
Posted by Owen on July 18, 2008 at 1209 hrsIt’s totally possible that because of differences in reporting, you’ll see that (one pool of paid time off for instance). It’s also worth pointing out what Lefty said. Anyone working for the state and actually *using* their sick time is shooting themselves in the foot for health insurance when they retire. I’d imagine that most people, because of that, would only use it when the absolutely had to.
Posted by on July 18, 2008 at 1232 hrsit does not explain why the average is so much higher in the public sector than in the private sector
Exactly what is that private sector average Owen?
Posted by on July 18, 2008 at 1234 hrsActually the article states:
Lawmakers said they believe that is higher than the private sector and want to see a further analysis of the issue.
They believe it’s higher and want to see a further analysis. Not that it is higher, especially not “so much” higher.
Could this just be political posturing? It rarely hurts anyone, except those representing capital cities where most of them live, to bash public employees in an election year.
Posted by on July 18, 2008 at 1251 hrsI just did a bunch of interviewing last year before moving to Michigan. What I found in the public sector is that its based length of service and you don’t get Sick days per say you get PTO. So if you have been with the company for 1-5 years you get 80hours of PTO 5-10 you get 120hrs of PTO and then 10 and up you get 160-200hrs of PTO.
So if I call in sick I have to burn a day that I could have used to go on vacation with my family.
Posted by on July 18, 2008 at 1253 hrsthat should read private sector vs public, grrr
Posted by on July 18, 2008 at 1255 hrsit does not explain why the average is so much higher in the public sector than in the private sector
Let’s assume for the moment that it truly is higher than the private sector. My guess as to the reason would be that public employees feel more comfortable using the time alloted to them than private employees. I know people employed in the private sector who agonize about using any of their sick time because they know for a fact that doing so negatively affects their review, raise and promotability. Public employees are probably less likely to be treated that way, and they’re probably more likely to be unionized.
Conversations with these unfortunate friends usually go like this:
Me: Just take a sick day to take care of <family member>.
Friend: I can’t!
Me: Why not? That’s what they’re there for!
Friend: Yeah, but if you take sick days you get knocked on your review. I’ll get a crappy raise.
Me: What?! They can’t do that. Sick time is a benefit that they agreed to when they hired you. They can’t turn around and penalize you for using it now!
Friend: Well that’s how things work around here.
Posted by scott on July 18, 2008 at 1306 hrsYou have to remember that this is the average. Wasn’t there an article last year or maybe this year, that state legislators and their aides don’t take sick leave, even though they are entitled to it. How about Doyle and his staff. You think they take sick leave? How about salaried managers at different institutions and agencies, the doctors at the U.W. Hospital and Clinics and others who get the sick time but don’t use it. You think the Lt. governor, Secretary of State etc… use sick time, I doubt it.
Posted by on July 18, 2008 at 1442 hrs
So, to me, there are many more people who use way more than the 65 hours. Then you add in their vacation time of 2 or more weeks a year, holidays off and then maybe you will see that there is a problem.I also have a PTO pool. My last employer actually gave me UNLIMITED sick days up to 29 consecutive days, after which I would have to go on short-term disability. Since I have taken one day off work for illness in my life, my supervisor would usually kick me a day or two just so I’d get some benefit from the program. I can’t imagine a system like that working with a bunch of public sector “workers” or union members; but I do like the idea of a single PTO pool.
Hey, you make choices. If you knock up the wife, you’re gonna have to take days off to take care of the little’ns. If you don’t, you can go on that cruise with your vacation days. If you’re sick all the time or hurt yourself doing something non-work related, then why in the world should that be an employers problem? A week and a half as an average is absurd.
Posted by Mike Gallo on July 18, 2008 at 1718 hrsI have only made it thru comment 5 and already saw that scott and pjr are actually OK WITH THIS.--not that I am horribly surprised.--
So I will ask those two this question;YTF are you OK with this?
OK back to my regularly scheduled reading...(Which I am almost positive WILL NOT include an answer to the above question, at any point during this weekend)
Posted by on July 18, 2008 at 1723 hrsLawmakers said they believe that is higher than the private sector and want to see a further analysis of the issue.
Does anybody care to guess what this analysis will say?
I’ll save taxpayers at least 150K by coming out and saying it now.
It will conclude that 65 hours should be the norm and will then suggest that the WIDLR enact a regulation that will require all employers in the State of Wisconsin to provide AT LEAST 65 hours--but most likely closer to 80--hours of “sick” time per year.
Which will just be yet another mandate for the “Privilege” of doing business in the Doylieones Republic of Wisconsin....
Anyone think I am wrong?
Posted by on July 18, 2008 at 1741 hrsI have only made it thru comment 5 and already saw that scott and pjr are actually OK WITH THIS.
You must be referring to #2 as that it is the only one of mine in the first five.
OK with what Mike?
That an employee base to small to deliver the regular time hours needed to complete an assigned task will lead to some employees having to work over time?
Seems pretty simple to figure out.
Let’s use the need for 3 shifts 7 days a week for a correctional officer as an example
7 days x 24 hours = 168 hours. You still with me.
Let’s say you only have 4 officers to fill those hours.
How many hours will each officer have to work to provide a full staff for the required hours?
Each officer would have to work 2 hours of overtime, or more likely, 1 officer of the 4 would pick up an extra shift of 8 hours of overtime for the week.
See how that works?
Now if you can figure out how to get 168 hours out of four 40 hour weeks I am all ears.
Or maybe you were referring to the second part of the comment?
Let me be clear.
The I94 North-South expansion is a complete waste of money. Fix what we have and save over $500 million dollars.
Yeah Yeah I know the Feds are going to pay for 80% or so of it, except;
-the Fed highway fund is going to be broke next year.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20095291/-Fed money is not free money it also comes from taxes revenues.
-20% of $500 million is $100 million which the state will likely borrow.
And as Owen so eloquently put it http://www.bootsandsabers.com/index.php/weblog/permalin k/wisconsins_mounting_debt/So which part aren’t you OK with?
Posted by on July 18, 2008 at 1828 hrsI’m not condoning anything - perhaps an audit would be useful. But in this article there’s scant information presented in this article to actually make any comparisons.
First of all, the article never once shares any data from any source that might provide a reference point for use of sick leave in the private sector. It simply states that a couple of legislators think it might be on the high side. Fine, whatever. If three legislators told me it was sunny outside, I’d still grab a damn umbrella when I walked out the door just to be safe.
Secondly, the article states that correction officers use 106 hours of leave on average, a figure that is 63 percent higher than the average for all state employees - a category which the correctional officers are also a part of. I don’t have the data in front of me but it would be interesting to see what that average for state employees is when you take the correction officers out of the pool.
Third, it would also be interesting to compare the sick leave usage of state employees further into their tenure as opposed to those who are just starting. Fact is, unless you’re planning on sticking around in state government your whole life, you’re never going to get to convert your sick leave. If that’s the case, there’s far more incentive to use sick leave from time to time instead of vacation because unused vacation cashes out. Sick leave won’t get you squat.
As has already been discussed in this article and others, part of the issue at hand is employees who game the system - those who can call in sick on Monday but then pick up an extra shift later in the week, work 40 hours, and end up scoring overtime for the last eight because the sick leave counts as work. That’s silly and could probably be negotiated for at the table when contracts are reopened. But that’s only going to be the case for hourly positions.
Another part of the issue is the general unwillingness of the Governor to add FTE positions to the state payroll. Conservatives were largely supportive of that policy, although in certain areas of government, high sick leave use is what you’ll reap when that’s what you sow.
The final point I’ll make is that those of you who think the state can just waive the magic wand and go to a combined sick leave/vacation pool should realize how complicated that will be. If we simply combined the pool as is, every employee would have a minimum of three additional weeks that could be banked and carried over from year to year. That would only compound the cost of sick leave conversion later, since all of a sudden, vacation time would be rolling over indefinitely.
Plus, any change is going to have to be negotiated at the bargaining table, and the price for taking away time off is going to be pay increases. In the early part of the decade, the state actually increased vacation time by a week for most employees because it was, in part, “cheaper” than increasing pay.
Like I said, I’m withholding judgment because there’s not really any information here to draw conclusions. Do an audit and then we can all talk again.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on July 18, 2008 at 1944 hrsLike I said, I’m withholding judgment because there’s not really any information here to draw conclusions. Do an audit and then we can all talk again.
I think what’s getting to most of us is our own experience. As I think back to the 5 or 6 companies for which I’ve worked in different industries, I have never seen that kind of absenteeism due to illness. I agree that we need to see some hard data, but nobody who has spent their careers in the private sector can fathom an average of 65 hours of sick time.
Posted by Owen on July 18, 2008 at 1949 hrsReminds me of the thread on Milwaukee County’s spending, where you simply decided the worst possible outcome based on your own preconceived notions about government.
At least this time you actually relented a bit and came around to the idea of waiting for some actual data to make a comparison. That’s progress.
And I tell you what, if it turns out that similar types of employees use far less sick time in the private sector (can’t really compare a correctional officer to too many people in the private sector), then let’s find ways to reduce it. I kind of like the PTO idea.
Posted by on July 18, 2008 at 2002 hrsSorry if I am repeating a point that is already made - I didn’t see it but may have missed it. You would also need to control for health status in order to compare to other populations. State govt might have more older workers and people with health problems or disabilities than the typical private sector workforce. With the economic downturn, perhaps folks who were uninsurable in the private sector were more drawn to state govt work (assuming you have a more generous benefit package and fewer exclusions?) You might also have larger numbers of people with young kids since (again, assuming) state govt might be more flexible than private sector in some ways?
I tend to agree, without more information—averages in comparable private sector workforces, info on health status, info trended over time (there might be some reason why it has spiked in the timeframe measured), etc—drawing any conclusions is impossible. There may or may not be abuses, you can’t really know with the info provided.
My experience working for a state govt was that it can sometimes be up to the employee how to take the sick leave - sometimes there is a tacit agreement that you can use it for vacation, but if you get sick after you’ve used it up, that was your choice and you either come to work sick or take leave without pay.
Posted by hope on July 18, 2008 at 2129 hrsYes and yes, to Owen and ATV. I think an audit is probably worthwhile, and if there are specific areas of abuse found (e.g. corrections officers using sick leave and then taking overtime for regular hours later in the week), the state should find ways to fix that. Personally, I think the union would have a hard time justifying that particular policy to both politicians and the public at large.
The PTO option could be worthwhile if one can find a realistic way to work out the effects on accrual and health insurance for retirees. Like I said earlier, the biggest obstacle is that sick leave accrues indefinitely and vacation leave does not. And not all employees are entitled to the same amount of vacation, which could render attempts to distribute accrual over both types of leave inequitable.
Also, it always tees me off when journalists use mean numbers instead of median numbers. In this case, a median number for sick leave used by state employees would have been far more useful. Mean numbers are too easily compromised by outliers.
Knowing labor negotiations, small and specific changes will be easier to attain than ones affecting the vast majority of state employees who aren’t abusing the system.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on July 18, 2008 at 2146 hrsAt least some of the difference between public and private sector usage of sick leave could be due to the ways in which sick leave gets used in each place.
As for public sector employees, their contracts (and departmental policies) allow them to use sick leave for a variety of things—bereavement leave, FMLA, medical appointments, sick kids, and some other stuff, in addition to their own illnesses. So there’s a lot of stuff that gets coded as “sick leave” that probably wouldn’t get classified as sick leave in private sector businesses—but might get counted as vacation or unpaid leave or something else.
Beyond that, I know from my own experience that I almost never call in sick for my own illnesses, but I tend to miss at least four or five days a year for sicknesses my two young kids drag home from daycare. As has already been mentioned, they tend to pick lots of things up there, and they’re usually not admitted back until you can demonstrate that they’re healthy. The wife and I split this duty, switching off sick days as needed. But we both torch most of the sick leave we take each year because our kids get sick.
As for me, I’m a lifer in state employment (and not ashamed of it—I work hard and do productive work for the taxpayers), so I am pretty judicious about taking sick leave, because I *do* want to save it for retirement. It’s too valuable a benefit to waste on foolishness, from my perspective. The Recess Supervisor’s mileage may vary—but he wasn’t a lifer, either.
I don’t doubt for a minute that some people game the system. Others undoubtedly use every day they earn each year. But I know people who work in the private sector who do precisely the same thing. Among the people I manage, we actually monitor sick leave use, and work to make sure that folks aren’t abusing the benefit.
Posted by on July 18, 2008 at 2201 hrsThe PTO option could be worthwhile if one can find a realistic way to work out the effects on accrual and health insurance for retirees. Like I said earlier, the biggest obstacle is that sick leave accrues indefinitely and vacation leave does not. And not all employees are entitled to the same amount of vacation, which could render attempts to distribute accrual over both types of leave inequitable.
Again, if we look to the private sector, most are moving to not allowing any type of long term accrual, instead adopting a “Don’t use it, lose it” policy.
Posted by on July 19, 2008 at 0840 hrsI didn’t say I was “OK” with anything. What I’m saying is that I’m more concerned with American workers not having enough sick time to meet the needs of their families than I am about whether someone somewhere is allegedly abusing a sick time system. It’s a question of scale. I just think it’s a far bigger problem.
I’m not proposing any specific remedies, either. But I bet Americans have less paid time off than any other industrialized workers in the world--even as our productivity grows and the economy grows and our wages are stagnant.
I think, frankly, that conservatives are too concerned--obsessed, even--with the idea that someone, somewhere might be sinning, and what can be done to punish them. There’s nothing wrong with the productivity of American workers. We’re not a lazy people. Many of us are, however, overworked. And our families are getting short shrift economically and otherwise.
Posted by scott on July 19, 2008 at 0842 hrsJason: Yes, my employer went from an accrual/buyout type vacation time plan, to a use it or lose it plan.
They found that people would accumulate months and months of this time over a career, and when they retired the organization would pay out cash. it amounted to millions annually, I heard. So they stopped it.
Posted by scott on July 19, 2008 at 0844 hrsI’m not proposing any specific remedies, either. But I bet Americans have less paid time off than any other industrialized workers in the world--even as our productivity grows and the economy grows and our wages are stagnant.
I think, frankly, that conservatives are too concerned--obsessed, even--with the idea that someone, somewhere might be sinning, and what can be done to punish them. There’s nothing wrong with the productivity of American workers. We’re not a lazy people. Many of us are, however, overworked. And our families are getting short shrift economically and otherwise.
Scott: In other words we should be like the French?
And no scott you. don’t. think. you feel.
Who are you to say that we Americans are overworked? Has it ever occurred to you that maybe just maybe Americans work hard because they WANT TO? Perhaps they WANT that new car every couple of years, or that new boat, or whatever? And they realize that if they want it they have to :gasp: earn it?
Posted by on July 19, 2008 at 0901 hrsIn other words we should be like the French?
I sure wish we would become more French in the way we produce electricity.
Posted by on July 19, 2008 at 0935 hrsAgreed, pjr, but they can keep their double-digit unemployment rate and lower standard of living.
Posted by Owen on July 19, 2008 at 0940 hrsthey can keep their double-digit unemployment rate and lower standard of living.
Haven’t been following recent economic and financial news lately have you.
Here’s a nutshell.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JG16Dj03.html
Posted by on July 19, 2008 at 0948 hrsJust for grins.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JG19Dj01.html
Posted by on July 19, 2008 at 0952 hrsAm I missing something? I did not see one reference to the French in that whole article.
It is relevant exactly how?
Posted by on July 19, 2008 at 0957 hrsGee, shucks, pjr… I hadn’t noticed America’s financial problems. Thanks for pointing that out.
Still, I’ll take our occasional troubles over sustained high unemployment, retarded economic growth, and a lower standard of living.
Posted by Owen on July 19, 2008 at 0959 hrsAm I missing something?
A cup of coffee perhaps?
Check out comment #41
Posted by on July 19, 2008 at 1001 hrsI have said it before and I will say it again.
Every last company that made these risky loans to people who had no proof of income, and had no business owning a bicycle much less a home,
DESERVE TO BE BANKRUPT!!!!!They gambled. They lost. They have NO business running to the government wanting a bailout.
Same for the homeowners!
Posted by on July 19, 2008 at 1002 hrsI’ll take our occasional troubles over sustained high unemployment, retarded economic growth, and a lower standard of living.
I am not sure we still have a choice.
Posted by on July 19, 2008 at 1008 hrsGee, shucks, pjr… I hadn’t noticed America’s financial problems. Thanks for pointing that out.
Sarcastic Owen funny!
Posted by on July 19, 2008 at 1010 hrs
Not sure that you’ve noticed this pjr, but things run in cycles and the economy is no exception.
I’m only 34 and even I have figured this out!
A cup of coffee perhaps?
Check out comment #41
I did check it out and I must say that it is among my best work.
THANKS FOR NOTICING pjr!
Posted by on July 19, 2008 at 1015 hrsNot sure that you’ve noticed this pjr, but things run in cycles and the economy is no exception.
I’m only 34 and even I have figured this out!
You would have to be about 150 to have seen this cycle before.
Posted by on July 19, 2008 at 1017 hrsAnd where exactly did I say anything about me seeing it before?
I can’t seem to find that quote.
Posted by on July 19, 2008 at 1022 hrsReferencing the current cycle Mike, not a quote of yours.
Posted by on July 19, 2008 at 1026 hrsFind it yet?
Or shall I give you more time?
Posted by on July 19, 2008 at 1027 hrsIgnore my last quote then sorry!
Posted by on July 19, 2008 at 1028 hrsLook I just happen to believe that all things run in cycles. An extremely simplistic view of the world sure, but if you just sit back and watch, it really can explain a lot!
Posted by on July 19, 2008 at 1030 hrsLook I just happen to believe that all things run in cycles.
And you are exactly right.
Just sitting back and watching lessens your ability to profit by anticipating a probable outcome.
Posted by on July 19, 2008 at 1040 hrsAnd you are exactly right.
Just sitting back and watching lessens your ability to profit by anticipating a probable outcome.
Wow we agree on something cool!
But at the same time the biggest (well one of the biggest risks) is “overthinking” the whole situation. (i.e. Global warming, the stock market, the out come of the next Brewers trade)
As I said before maybe my belief that things are cyclical is a simplistic view of things, however I have also found that sometimes the simpliest view is also the best view.
Posted by on July 19, 2008 at 1238 hrsRecess Supervisor said,
“Personally, I think the union would have a hard time justifying that particular policy to both politicians and the public at large. “
They have no problem trying to justify it, simply claiming that they deserve it because they’re entitled to it.
As I’m sure you know, it’d be a question of whether the politicians would be willing to take it away.
Posted by on July 20, 2008 at 2037 hrsYou’re right. Perhaps what I should have said is that the the union would have a hard time convincing politicians and the public at large of the correctness of their position. Certainly they’ll have no problem making the case. They always find a way to make their case, no matter how flipping stupid it is in some cases.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on July 20, 2008 at 2259 hrs
Ol' Army
