An acquaintance of mine notified me this morning that she'd been laid off at her old job. It didn't bother her too much because the Nevada Department of the Interior had scheduled her for an interview this week for a job in Elko. At first, I was happy for her; then reality set in.
The governor has said much about cutting higher education. We're already short handed in my department at the university, and we've been under a hiring freeze since all but since I was hired on. If they cut our pay but other agencies are allowed to bring on new employees, what kind of a message does that send?
When I sent the governor my letter volunteering to lose my job, I did so under the assumption that it might reduce in reductions in the state workforce. With this new information it appears that the true story might be an issue of reallocating funds from higher education to other departments, which I oppose. It doesn't reduce the burden on the taxpayer to change for what agency a man works; we need to reduce the state payroll and keep it at that level that is the maximum necessary for efficiency. If I take a pay cut or receive a pink slip and this woman gets hired, it's as if I'm paying for her wages out of my pocket.
I guess that when the chips are down, the liberals play the same card- rob from the "rich" and give to the "poor", except that they never bother to really define who the rich and poor are, and even when they try they can't keep their story straight.
The governor has said much about cutting higher education. We're already short handed in my department at the university, and we've been under a hiring freeze since all but since I was hired on. If they cut our pay but other agencies are allowed to bring on new employees, what kind of a message does that send?
When I sent the governor my letter volunteering to lose my job, I did so under the assumption that it might reduce in reductions in the state workforce. With this new information it appears that the true story might be an issue of reallocating funds from higher education to other departments, which I oppose. It doesn't reduce the burden on the taxpayer to change for what agency a man works; we need to reduce the state payroll and keep it at that level that is the maximum necessary for efficiency. If I take a pay cut or receive a pink slip and this woman gets hired, it's as if I'm paying for her wages out of my pocket.
I guess that when the chips are down, the liberals play the same card- rob from the "rich" and give to the "poor", except that they never bother to really define who the rich and poor are, and even when they try they can't keep their story straight.
No comments:
Post a Comment