Judge complaining about not getting a raise.

[His Divine Shadow]

Judges are public servants paid with tax payer money, they should be glad they got jobs IMO.

[mr friendly guy]

Judges are public servants paid with tax payer money, they should be glad they got jobs IMO.

Why? The government is required to perform certain functions, and they need to hire certain people to help them carry out those functions. These people need to be paid for the jobs they do. The main way the government is going to raise funds is by tax payers money. So whats the big deal?

[His Divine Shadow]

Because I really don't think being a public employee should ever lead to a really well paying job, hell not even being a president or minister should really pay alot of money either. Frankly all the people in government giving themselves cozy jobs makes me really glad everytime I can read something that fucks them over in some way.

[Teleros]

The problem is that if they're paid bugger all, a lot of very good people who would otherwise take the jobs won't take them, because they can make pots more money in the private sector.

[Stravo]

The problem is that if they're paid bugger all, a lot of very good people who would otherwise take the jobs won't take them, because they can make pots more money in the private sector.

I'm sure some of these folks are the same people who will bitch and moan when they have a horrible experience at the DMV/Post Office/Courthouses. The usual "They're lazy." line always comes up. Would you work hard in a substandard paying job? Apparently to some folks here the mailman should be grateful he has a job and STFU.

Well the old saying you get what you pay for comes to mind.

[Resinence]

So basically, what alot of people in this thread are saying is;

"People who work for the government should earn MUCH less than the private sector requiring the same qualifications, simply because they have job security."?

I'm sorry, but working for the government does not make someone in debt to society THEY DON'T OWE YOU SHIT. And they have a right to earn what their peers with similar qualifications earn. Or they don't? Care to explain why?

"Because they work for the government" is not an argument. Explain why they should earn less than joe blow.

[Darth Wong]

HDS is knee-jerking in his usual immature way, but there is a kernel of truth to what he's saying. Civil servants shouldn't be treated like shit, but they should not have ironclad job security either. Why should they enjoy such special protection?

[Teleros]

Hmm, well I suppose you could argue that it might help avoid a bipartisan civil service (ie if they have job security they can't vote for the party not offering it, as they already have it). Although I think it's just a case of feathering nests and unlikely to change either (who ultimately is responsible for reforming the civil service? Yep - the civil service).

[General Zod]

Because I really don't think being a public employee should ever lead to a really well paying job, hell not even being a president or minister should really pay alot of money either. Frankly all the people in government giving themselves cozy jobs makes me really glad everytime I can read something that fucks them over in some way.

I seem to recall an article posted here awhile back saying that soldiers with financial troubles were getting their security clearances revoked. . .because guess what? If you have to worry about whether you're going to go in debt or not you become a liability if you start taking out loans from less than savory sources. People in positions of authority shouldn't get paid so little that being offered a few hundred grand from a some private individuals to get a regulation changed looks promising. . .

[Bob Gaussington]

HDS is knee-jerking in his usual immature way, but there is a kernel of truth to what he's saying. Civil servants shouldn't be treated like shit, but they should not have ironclad job security either. Why should they enjoy such special protection?

For judges? It is supposed to keep the threat of being fired from changing their mines on court cases.

[aerius]

I'm sure some of these folks are the same people who will bitch and moan when they have a horrible experience at the DMV/Post Office/Courthouses. The usual "They're lazy." line always comes up. Would you work hard in a substandard paying job? Apparently to some folks here the mailman should be grateful he has a job and STFU.

The problem with lazy workers in civil service isn't due to pay, it's because we have guaranteed job security, that's the root of all our problems. We can sit on our asses all day every day and have practically zero chance of being reprimanded or fired. We know that we don't have to do any work, and after a while human nature catches up with many of us and we just sit on our butts at work and collect a paycheck. They could pay us $50 million a year and we'd still be sitting around doing nothing, because we don't have to and we know it.

As for the mailmen, they have very cushy wages. They make as much money as my dad did when he was working as an engineer. So yes, the bastards should be grateful and just STFU.

[Darth Wong]

HDS is knee-jerking in his usual immature way, but there is a kernel of truth to what he's saying. Civil servants shouldn't be treated like shit, but they should not have ironclad job security either. Why should they enjoy such special protection?

For judges? It is supposed to keep the threat of being fired from changing their mines on court cases.

So what do you do if a judge is completely out to left field? Like the Ontario court judge a few years ago who ruled that a rapist was not guilty by reason of being so drunk that he couldn't have known what he was doing?

[Bob Gaussington]

There are ways to remove judges, it just takes effort. All fifty states have a process of impeachment, though it is rarely used.

In sixteen states, the legislature can petition the governor to remove a state judge.

A few states can have a recall election in which the judge is taken out.

Finally, all fifty states have judicial review boards which judge the efforts of judges and state lawyers.

[Darth Wong]

There are ways to remove judges, it just takes effort. All fifty states have a process of impeachment, though it is rarely used.

In sixteen states, the legislature can petition the governor to remove a state judge.

A few states can have a recall election in which the judge is taken out.

Finally, all fifty states have judicial review boards which judge the efforts of judges and state lawyers.

So you are agreeing, then, that it is wrong to have ironclad job protection. You need a way to get rid of employees you don't want.

[Bob Gaussington]

There are ways to remove judges, it just takes effort. All fifty states have a process of impeachment, though it is rarely used.

In sixteen states, the legislature can petition the governor to remove a state judge.

A few states can have a recall election in which the judge is taken out.

Finally, all fifty states have judicial review boards which judge the efforts of judges and state lawyers.

So you are agreeing, then, that it is wrong to have ironclad job protection. You need a way to get rid of employees you don't want.

Of course. Do you understand why it is necessary for judges to have some protection though?

[Darth Wong]

So you are agreeing, then, that it is wrong to have ironclad job protection. You need a way to get rid of employees you don't want.

Of course. Do you understand why it is necessary for judges to have some protection though?

No. You have simply stated it as a fact. When given just ONE working example, you immediately listed ways to get rid of the unwanted employee. Explain to me again why "protection" is necessary.

[Shroom Man 777]

In case if a douchebag in charge wants to replace the judges with brownnoser cronies?

[His Divine Shadow]

Because I really don't think being a public employee should ever lead to a really well paying job, hell not even being a president or minister should really pay alot of money either. Frankly all the people in government giving themselves cozy jobs makes me really glad everytime I can read something that fucks them over in some way.

I seem to recall an article posted here awhile back saying that soldiers with financial troubles were getting their security clearances revoked. . .because guess what? If you have to worry about whether you're going to go in debt or not you become a liability if you start taking out loans from less than savory sources. People in positions of authority shouldn't get paid so little that being offered a few hundred grand from a some private individuals to get a regulation changed looks promising. . .

Yes I realize I'm not really being rational here but one sees so much crap going around, especially in politics and high positions. Nothing against the mailman or solider mind you, but the "fat cats" who shoe themselves into nice cozy positions of power and give their former frat buddies equally well paying and useless jobs is whats popping into my mind and coloring my views here to the cynical in the extreme.

[Darth Wong]

In case if a douchebag in charge wants to replace the judges with brownnoser cronies?

But as already pointed out, there is a mechanism for doing precisely that, and you need such a mechanism in case you have a judge who's off his rocker.

[General Zod]

Yes I realize I'm not really being rational here but one sees so much crap going around, especially in politics and high positions. Nothing against the mailman or solider mind you, but the "fat cats" who shoe themselves into nice cozy positions of power and give their former frat buddies equally well paying and useless jobs is whats popping into my mind and coloring my views here to the cynical in the extreme.

Grunts in government positions should most definitely not be receiving a cushy salary with no risk of losing their job, but for someone in a position of considerable influence financial security should be the last thing they have to worry about. I certainly wouldn't put much trust in a judge that's struggling to pay his mortgage and loans off to be anything but corrupt.

[Bob Gaussington]

In case if a douchebag in charge wants to replace the judges with brownnoser cronies?

But as already pointed out, there is a mechanism for doing precisely that, and you need such a mechanism in case you have a judge who's off his rocker.

I agree that there is a need for removing bad judges and I've shown you how that is done. I just want to make sure you understand the concept of an independent judiciary.

[The Kernel]

I'd like to point out that $165k is hardly an exorbitant salary for a judge. Most of my friends who are corporate lawyers and a couple of years out of law school make around $130k, and they'll probably hit $200k before they are 30.

[Darth Wong]

In case if a douchebag in charge wants to replace the judges with brownnoser cronies?

But as already pointed out, there is a mechanism for doing precisely that, and you need such a mechanism in case you have a judge who's off his rocker.

I agree that there is a need for removing bad judges and I've shown you how that is done. I just want to make sure you understand the concept of an independent judiciary.

A partially independent judiciary. You keep throwing out absolute terms even though you acknowledge the need for limitations on this independence.

[Bob Gaussington]

But as already pointed out, there is a mechanism for doing precisely that, and you need such a mechanism in case you have a judge who's off his rocker.

I agree that there is a need for removing bad judges and I've shown you how that is done. I just want to make sure you understand the concept of an independent judiciary.

A partially independent judiciary. You keep throwing out absolute terms even though you acknowledge the need for limitations on this independence.

An independent judiciary is the idea that a judge should not have to worry about making unpopular decisions. I just want to make sure you're not an idiot who thinks that judges should be fired at will.

[aerius]

I'd like to point out that $165k is hardly an exorbitant salary for a judge. Most of my friends who are corporate lawyers and a couple of years out of law school make around $130k, and they'll probably hit $200k before they are 30.

Whoopdedoo. The chairman of Hydro One or the IESO make a million & change a year while the chairmen of pretty much every Bay Street company will probably make at least 10 times that. A police officer will top out at around $100k after a couple decades of service while a private investigator can pull in several times that after a few years. Again, they ain't doing the same job, why should they get paid the same? People aren't going into civil service to get rich.

Also, unless you're a complete moron with money or live in an exorbitantly expensive location, $165k is enough to live a very comfortable life. $165k is well over twice my current wage and with what I'm making right now and I can easily raise a family and have a stay at home wife in the biggest city in Canada on my salary.