User profile

mannyk

Hill said: "On the other hand, we certainly feel like keeping employees we have, and adjusting contracts in place, makes more sense to us than layoffs."

Yeah, it is nice to reduce payroll without reducing workforce. Nice for the employer.

How much of the taxpayers' money did Gibbons waste in setting up the bureaucracy for this fund--the sole purpose of which is to make a cheap political point.

P.S. Thanks to the teachers. We know they're not in it for the money, but that doesn't mean that they don't deserve to make a living wage. So all the haters here think that teachers are selfish unless they want to work for free?

mikegino: I'm pretty sure Berkley was born in New York and grew up there and then in Las Vegas. WTF are you talking about?

nevadaappleslices:

I also did not buy a house that I could not afford: my UNLV Assistant Professor salary was simply not enough. But I wonder how many more foreclosures there will be from state employees who responsibly budgeted what they could afford in a mortgage only to have salary cut by 11% + effective extra 2-4% cut for increased medical. I AM one of those people to live paycheck to paycheck. But I have a small car, never eat out, go to movies, etc., don't have cable tv, etc.

nevadaappleslices is either:
1) independently wealthy (or has a spouse who is wealthy)
2) a liar who is does not actually have his salary on the chopping block.

The latter seems a lot more likely.

And, DeerFoot, where do you get the idea that there have been such high pay raises for state employees? We got zero increase this year at UNLV, and our merit-based pay increase were cancelled. As far as I remember: since 2005 there was one 2% increase and one 4% increase and that is it. My rent is increasing at a higher rate than that. An 11% cut brings me back to 2004, not 2007. Problem is, things cost more now.

Plus, increases to the health care premiums amount to another $2300 a year for me (to cover me & my family), which is equivalent to an ADDITIONAL 4% paycut. Somehow I think nevadaappleslices failed to mention this since it doesn't actually effect him.

And nevadaappleslices: if an 11% paycut is really no big deal, then how about taxing everyone in Nevada 3%? That would be asking A LOT less of everyone in the state rather than asking state employees to absorb all the budget gap. Why tax teachers 11% and tax everyone else 0%? If you're worried about state salaries being to high, then how about cutting the salaries of those state employees with salaries over 100K at a higher rater than those with below 60K and those below 40K?

The 11% solution is just lazy. Gibbons just passing the buck to the legislature on this one.