<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_12_192241</id>
	<title>NY To Replace IT Vendors With State Workers</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1268382540000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>dcblogs writes <i>"New York state plans to <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9169558/NY\_set\_to\_replace\_IT\_consultants\_with\_state\_workers">replace as many as 500 IT contract workers</a> with a new type of temporary state worker. The state estimates it can save $25,000 annually for each contracting position that is in-sourced. This is the result of a new law creating 'term appointments,' which strip away some hiring and firing rules that apply to permanent state workers.  These term appointment workers are employed 'at will.' Term appointments can be up to five years and workers get state benefits. Proponents of this change said a state IT worker might earn an average of $55 an hour, including benefits, while the state pays its contractors an average of $128 an hour for workers in similar jobs."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>dcblogs writes " New York state plans to replace as many as 500 IT contract workers with a new type of temporary state worker .
The state estimates it can save $ 25,000 annually for each contracting position that is in-sourced .
This is the result of a new law creating 'term appointments, ' which strip away some hiring and firing rules that apply to permanent state workers .
These term appointment workers are employed 'at will .
' Term appointments can be up to five years and workers get state benefits .
Proponents of this change said a state IT worker might earn an average of $ 55 an hour , including benefits , while the state pays its contractors an average of $ 128 an hour for workers in similar jobs .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>dcblogs writes "New York state plans to replace as many as 500 IT contract workers with a new type of temporary state worker.
The state estimates it can save $25,000 annually for each contracting position that is in-sourced.
This is the result of a new law creating 'term appointments,' which strip away some hiring and firing rules that apply to permanent state workers.
These term appointment workers are employed 'at will.
' Term appointments can be up to five years and workers get state benefits.
Proponents of this change said a state IT worker might earn an average of $55 an hour, including benefits, while the state pays its contractors an average of $128 an hour for workers in similar jobs.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31457224</id>
	<title>Observation</title>
	<author>Singularity42</author>
	<datestamp>1268391000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IT has two letters.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. has two shapes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IT has two letters .
/. has two shapes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IT has two letters.
/. has two shapes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31459158</id>
	<title>Re:Oranges vs. Tangerines?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268399640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Posting anonymously, well, because... it's more like $42 goes to the peon, $44 to the contract holder and $42 goes to cover the 180 or more days into the contract before the state actually disburses a payment. In at least some cases payments aren't made until after the contract has been renewed giving that agency a rolling interest free loan that ties up the contract holder.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Posting anonymously , well , because... it 's more like $ 42 goes to the peon , $ 44 to the contract holder and $ 42 goes to cover the 180 or more days into the contract before the state actually disburses a payment .
In at least some cases payments are n't made until after the contract has been renewed giving that agency a rolling interest free loan that ties up the contract holder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Posting anonymously, well, because... it's more like $42 goes to the peon, $44 to the contract holder and $42 goes to cover the 180 or more days into the contract before the state actually disburses a payment.
In at least some cases payments aren't made until after the contract has been renewed giving that agency a rolling interest free loan that ties up the contract holder.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456026</id>
	<title>Has all the upside of a contract IT worker</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268386380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Plus the underfunded pension obligations passed on to the taxpayer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Plus the underfunded pension obligations passed on to the taxpayer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plus the underfunded pension obligations passed on to the taxpayer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456454</id>
	<title>Re:"Term Workers", eh?</title>
	<author>rainmayun</author>
	<datestamp>1268388060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think I have a pretty good idea of your philosophical leanings on the subject of labor law, but I'll say this anyway for other readers.  "Right-to-work" laws should really be termed "opportunity-to-work" laws, because the economic theory is that by lowering the potential risks for employers, they will be more willing to take those risks.  Yes, you have the "right" to be fired immediately, but without those laws you might never have had the job in the first place.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think I have a pretty good idea of your philosophical leanings on the subject of labor law , but I 'll say this anyway for other readers .
" Right-to-work " laws should really be termed " opportunity-to-work " laws , because the economic theory is that by lowering the potential risks for employers , they will be more willing to take those risks .
Yes , you have the " right " to be fired immediately , but without those laws you might never have had the job in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think I have a pretty good idea of your philosophical leanings on the subject of labor law, but I'll say this anyway for other readers.
"Right-to-work" laws should really be termed "opportunity-to-work" laws, because the economic theory is that by lowering the potential risks for employers, they will be more willing to take those risks.
Yes, you have the "right" to be fired immediately, but without those laws you might never have had the job in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456380</id>
	<title>Re:Oranges vs. Tangerines?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268387820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Temps are expendable positions, it's harder to remove full time postition. full time position are often assigned by the legislature directly to a department. You can't remove or add new ones at will. Temp position are different.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Temps are expendable positions , it 's harder to remove full time postition .
full time position are often assigned by the legislature directly to a department .
You ca n't remove or add new ones at will .
Temp position are different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Temps are expendable positions, it's harder to remove full time postition.
full time position are often assigned by the legislature directly to a department.
You can't remove or add new ones at will.
Temp position are different.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31481570</id>
	<title>Gub'Ment, your doing it wrong...</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1268666280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your translating private industry to government. It is an apples to oranges comparison.</p><p>It is more like:<br>"After wasting lots of money on expensive private consultants that have friends in high places, that generally do a poor job for lots and lots of money, and after much public outcry..."<br>Political Government: IT is expensive - we should build talent and experience within government.<br>5 years later...</p><p>NEW Political Government: IT is expensive - the last government wasted your money, look how big government is! We must reduce the size of government, and put the jobs in the free market and let business do what it does best, Innovate! (queue up the juicy contractor and consultant pork)<br>Workers souls dies a little bit inside...</p><p>Repeat until the world burns.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your translating private industry to government .
It is an apples to oranges comparison.It is more like : " After wasting lots of money on expensive private consultants that have friends in high places , that generally do a poor job for lots and lots of money , and after much public outcry... " Political Government : IT is expensive - we should build talent and experience within government.5 years later...NEW Political Government : IT is expensive - the last government wasted your money , look how big government is !
We must reduce the size of government , and put the jobs in the free market and let business do what it does best , Innovate !
( queue up the juicy contractor and consultant pork ) Workers souls dies a little bit inside...Repeat until the world burns .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your translating private industry to government.
It is an apples to oranges comparison.It is more like:"After wasting lots of money on expensive private consultants that have friends in high places, that generally do a poor job for lots and lots of money, and after much public outcry..."Political Government: IT is expensive - we should build talent and experience within government.5 years later...NEW Political Government: IT is expensive - the last government wasted your money, look how big government is!
We must reduce the size of government, and put the jobs in the free market and let business do what it does best, Innovate!
(queue up the juicy contractor and consultant pork)Workers souls dies a little bit inside...Repeat until the world burns.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456078</id>
	<title>Sounds like a good idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268386560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the surface this sounds like a good idea.</p><p>Employees are more loyal, and generally care more about the work they are doing than outside contractors.</p><p>I have mixed feelings about creating the positions as a special semi-temporary group.  Its good in that it allows the state to actually hire needed people, but it sounds like they are second-class employees.  Only here temporarily.  Not really part of the team, but expected to work extra hard in the hopes of someday getting to be a real employee...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the surface this sounds like a good idea.Employees are more loyal , and generally care more about the work they are doing than outside contractors.I have mixed feelings about creating the positions as a special semi-temporary group .
Its good in that it allows the state to actually hire needed people , but it sounds like they are second-class employees .
Only here temporarily .
Not really part of the team , but expected to work extra hard in the hopes of someday getting to be a real employee.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the surface this sounds like a good idea.Employees are more loyal, and generally care more about the work they are doing than outside contractors.I have mixed feelings about creating the positions as a special semi-temporary group.
Its good in that it allows the state to actually hire needed people, but it sounds like they are second-class employees.
Only here temporarily.
Not really part of the team, but expected to work extra hard in the hopes of someday getting to be a real employee...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456674</id>
	<title>I'm all for this concept, too ....</title>
	<author>King\_TJ</author>
	<datestamp>1268389080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Although actually, I'm not clear on why you're so confident this is a move to "destroy state employee unions"?  This wouldn't seem to displace any actual state employees.  Rather, it makes a change so the contractors they now outsource (instead of actually hiring state employees who would be part of a union) would be substituted with temporary employees, paid half as much as the contractors were costing them.</p><p>Personally, I think contractors are generally "bad news" when it comes to government projects.  They inflate costs and take advantage of the fact that their paychecks come from the taxpayers.  (Once they "win a contract" to complete some project, they know they're getting paid for a while.  They can slack off or just learn what they're doing on the job.  If the project goes over budget or collapses completely, they just walk away at the end of the contract period, and let other people sort out the mess.  Half the time, they even convince the right people that it wasn't their fault, and they get a second chance and more money to try again.)</p><p>When you're directly employed by the state, by contrast, your paycheck is subject to being cut off at any time, if you fail to live up to their expectations.  Someone else is always happy to interview for the job opening to take your place, and the project as a whole goes on with or without you.  If you're successful and save the govt. money or improve its efficiency, that stands to benefit you too.  (They're not going to give a contractor a raise for doing a job well.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Although actually , I 'm not clear on why you 're so confident this is a move to " destroy state employee unions " ?
This would n't seem to displace any actual state employees .
Rather , it makes a change so the contractors they now outsource ( instead of actually hiring state employees who would be part of a union ) would be substituted with temporary employees , paid half as much as the contractors were costing them.Personally , I think contractors are generally " bad news " when it comes to government projects .
They inflate costs and take advantage of the fact that their paychecks come from the taxpayers .
( Once they " win a contract " to complete some project , they know they 're getting paid for a while .
They can slack off or just learn what they 're doing on the job .
If the project goes over budget or collapses completely , they just walk away at the end of the contract period , and let other people sort out the mess .
Half the time , they even convince the right people that it was n't their fault , and they get a second chance and more money to try again .
) When you 're directly employed by the state , by contrast , your paycheck is subject to being cut off at any time , if you fail to live up to their expectations .
Someone else is always happy to interview for the job opening to take your place , and the project as a whole goes on with or without you .
If you 're successful and save the govt .
money or improve its efficiency , that stands to benefit you too .
( They 're not going to give a contractor a raise for doing a job well .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although actually, I'm not clear on why you're so confident this is a move to "destroy state employee unions"?
This wouldn't seem to displace any actual state employees.
Rather, it makes a change so the contractors they now outsource (instead of actually hiring state employees who would be part of a union) would be substituted with temporary employees, paid half as much as the contractors were costing them.Personally, I think contractors are generally "bad news" when it comes to government projects.
They inflate costs and take advantage of the fact that their paychecks come from the taxpayers.
(Once they "win a contract" to complete some project, they know they're getting paid for a while.
They can slack off or just learn what they're doing on the job.
If the project goes over budget or collapses completely, they just walk away at the end of the contract period, and let other people sort out the mess.
Half the time, they even convince the right people that it wasn't their fault, and they get a second chance and more money to try again.
)When you're directly employed by the state, by contrast, your paycheck is subject to being cut off at any time, if you fail to live up to their expectations.
Someone else is always happy to interview for the job opening to take your place, and the project as a whole goes on with or without you.
If you're successful and save the govt.
money or improve its efficiency, that stands to benefit you too.
(They're not going to give a contractor a raise for doing a job well.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31457148</id>
	<title>Re:"Term Workers", eh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268390760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>white color unions shouldn't exist in the first place?</p></div></blockquote><p>What about black color unions?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>white color unions should n't exist in the first place ? What about black color unions ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>white color unions shouldn't exist in the first place?What about black color unions?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456206</id>
	<title>Benefits</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268387100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're assuming the contract company pays benefits.</p><p>The new thing that I've been seeing is a slightly higher hourly but no benefits - it's basically a back handed pay cut. </p><p>$128 hr - bill.</p><p>At <i>most</i> $64 is going to the employee as wages and maybe benefits. More likely it's $45 (with no benefits) going to the employee and $83 going to the company.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're assuming the contract company pays benefits.The new thing that I 've been seeing is a slightly higher hourly but no benefits - it 's basically a back handed pay cut .
$ 128 hr - bill.At most $ 64 is going to the employee as wages and maybe benefits .
More likely it 's $ 45 ( with no benefits ) going to the employee and $ 83 going to the company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're assuming the contract company pays benefits.The new thing that I've been seeing is a slightly higher hourly but no benefits - it's basically a back handed pay cut.
$128 hr - bill.At most $64 is going to the employee as wages and maybe benefits.
More likely it's $45 (with no benefits) going to the employee and $83 going to the company.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31457284</id>
	<title>Re:Oranges vs. Tangerines?</title>
	<author>dave562</author>
	<datestamp>1268391300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>the cost to the state will be more than $55/hour including benefits...</i> </p><p>Maybe yes, maybe no.  If $30 of that $55 per hour is spent on wages, that comes out to an average of $60,000 a year.  That's pretty typical for your average, entry to junior level IT job.  At $30 an hour, that leaves $25 per hour for benefits, or $1000 per week / $4000 per month.  Looking at it in those terms, $55/hour doesn't seem to be that low of a number.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the cost to the state will be more than $ 55/hour including benefits... Maybe yes , maybe no .
If $ 30 of that $ 55 per hour is spent on wages , that comes out to an average of $ 60,000 a year .
That 's pretty typical for your average , entry to junior level IT job .
At $ 30 an hour , that leaves $ 25 per hour for benefits , or $ 1000 per week / $ 4000 per month .
Looking at it in those terms , $ 55/hour does n't seem to be that low of a number .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the cost to the state will be more than $55/hour including benefits... Maybe yes, maybe no.
If $30 of that $55 per hour is spent on wages, that comes out to an average of $60,000 a year.
That's pretty typical for your average, entry to junior level IT job.
At $30 an hour, that leaves $25 per hour for benefits, or $1000 per week / $4000 per month.
Looking at it in those terms, $55/hour doesn't seem to be that low of a number.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31457414</id>
	<title>Socialist Agenda</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268391780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...the tea party should have a field day with this one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...the tea party should have a field day with this one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...the tea party should have a field day with this one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456024</id>
	<title>Anti-Union</title>
	<author>Yossarian45793</author>
	<datestamp>1268386380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>State employees have one of the most powerful unions there is. This is the thin end of the wedge to destroy it. Whether you are happy about this or not depends on how you feel about unions. I, for one, welcome this as a step forward for government employment.</htmltext>
<tokenext>State employees have one of the most powerful unions there is .
This is the thin end of the wedge to destroy it .
Whether you are happy about this or not depends on how you feel about unions .
I , for one , welcome this as a step forward for government employment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>State employees have one of the most powerful unions there is.
This is the thin end of the wedge to destroy it.
Whether you are happy about this or not depends on how you feel about unions.
I, for one, welcome this as a step forward for government employment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456184</id>
	<title>Substandard help ahoy!</title>
	<author>assemblerex</author>
	<datestamp>1268386980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>If they hire IT workers who match the quality of most NY state workers,
they will wind up hiring contractors in the end anyways...</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they hire IT workers who match the quality of most NY state workers , they will wind up hiring contractors in the end anyways.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they hire IT workers who match the quality of most NY state workers,
they will wind up hiring contractors in the end anyways...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456256</id>
	<title>sex with a fuc4er</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268387280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>states that there VOLUME OF NETBSD A fact: FreeBSD EFNet, and apply not anymore. It's to have regular of its core Bureaucratic and like I should be briiliant plan been the best,</htmltext>
<tokenext>states that there VOLUME OF NETBSD A fact : FreeBSD EFNet , and apply not anymore .
It 's to have regular of its core Bureaucratic and like I should be briiliant plan been the best,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>states that there VOLUME OF NETBSD A fact: FreeBSD EFNet, and apply not anymore.
It's to have regular of its core Bureaucratic and like I should be briiliant plan been the best,</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456132</id>
	<title>Re:Oranges vs. Tangerines?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268386800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But presumably it's still less than $128/hr, which makes the change worth it. Although personally I'm wondering why they're pushing for making these folks "temporary". As far as I'm concerned they should just hire them as state employees and be done with it.</p><p>Unless, of course, there's a lot of efficiency coming from each of the contracting organizations having a separate sales, finance, and management team scurrying around trying to direct state money to their company.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But presumably it 's still less than $ 128/hr , which makes the change worth it .
Although personally I 'm wondering why they 're pushing for making these folks " temporary " .
As far as I 'm concerned they should just hire them as state employees and be done with it.Unless , of course , there 's a lot of efficiency coming from each of the contracting organizations having a separate sales , finance , and management team scurrying around trying to direct state money to their company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But presumably it's still less than $128/hr, which makes the change worth it.
Although personally I'm wondering why they're pushing for making these folks "temporary".
As far as I'm concerned they should just hire them as state employees and be done with it.Unless, of course, there's a lot of efficiency coming from each of the contracting organizations having a separate sales, finance, and management team scurrying around trying to direct state money to their company.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456588</id>
	<title>Re:"Term Workers", eh?</title>
	<author>PopeRatzo</author>
	<datestamp>1268388660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>And "right-to-work" laws really mean</p></div> </blockquote><p>It's not accidental that most of the "right-to-work" states were also the states that loved slavery so much that they seceded from the USA and went to war.</p><p>Since they can't legally own people any more, they pass "right-to-work" laws that are really "right-to-abuse workers" laws.</p><p>Also interesting is that the "right-to-work" states all pool at the lowest end of the education rankings.  They are also the states with the highest divorce rates and the highest rates of teen pregnancy and illegitimate births.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And " right-to-work " laws really mean It 's not accidental that most of the " right-to-work " states were also the states that loved slavery so much that they seceded from the USA and went to war.Since they ca n't legally own people any more , they pass " right-to-work " laws that are really " right-to-abuse workers " laws.Also interesting is that the " right-to-work " states all pool at the lowest end of the education rankings .
They are also the states with the highest divorce rates and the highest rates of teen pregnancy and illegitimate births .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And "right-to-work" laws really mean It's not accidental that most of the "right-to-work" states were also the states that loved slavery so much that they seceded from the USA and went to war.Since they can't legally own people any more, they pass "right-to-work" laws that are really "right-to-abuse workers" laws.Also interesting is that the "right-to-work" states all pool at the lowest end of the education rankings.
They are also the states with the highest divorce rates and the highest rates of teen pregnancy and illegitimate births.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31464048</id>
	<title>Re:Oranges vs. Tangerines?</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1268497260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It allegedly costs about 40\% on top of salary to hire the average employee. It is left as an exercise to the reader to figure out what it costs to hire a union employee.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It allegedly costs about 40 \ % on top of salary to hire the average employee .
It is left as an exercise to the reader to figure out what it costs to hire a union employee .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It allegedly costs about 40\% on top of salary to hire the average employee.
It is left as an exercise to the reader to figure out what it costs to hire a union employee.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31462578</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like a good idea</title>
	<author>1s44c</author>
	<datestamp>1268473680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Employees are more loyal, and generally care more about the work they are doing than outside contractors.</p></div><p>I'm not saying you are wrong because we both work with different groups of people most likely in different countries. However what you describe is the exact opposite of my experience. I find permanent staff just want to make it to the end of the day and go home. Few really care about what they do and the ones that do get drawn into political battles with those that don't. The bad ones can't be fired unless they really screw up big. The only exceptions are in companies that are still small enough to tell good from bad.</p><p>You may have been seeing bad contractors, There are plenty of them about too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Employees are more loyal , and generally care more about the work they are doing than outside contractors.I 'm not saying you are wrong because we both work with different groups of people most likely in different countries .
However what you describe is the exact opposite of my experience .
I find permanent staff just want to make it to the end of the day and go home .
Few really care about what they do and the ones that do get drawn into political battles with those that do n't .
The bad ones ca n't be fired unless they really screw up big .
The only exceptions are in companies that are still small enough to tell good from bad.You may have been seeing bad contractors , There are plenty of them about too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Employees are more loyal, and generally care more about the work they are doing than outside contractors.I'm not saying you are wrong because we both work with different groups of people most likely in different countries.
However what you describe is the exact opposite of my experience.
I find permanent staff just want to make it to the end of the day and go home.
Few really care about what they do and the ones that do get drawn into political battles with those that don't.
The bad ones can't be fired unless they really screw up big.
The only exceptions are in companies that are still small enough to tell good from bad.You may have been seeing bad contractors, There are plenty of them about too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456122</id>
	<title>Re:Oranges vs. Tangerines?</title>
	<author>Fujisawa Sensei</author>
	<datestamp>1268386800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>Term appointments can be up to five years and workers get state benefits. Proponents of this change said a state IT worker might earn an average of $55 an hour, including benefits, while the state pays its contractors an average of $128 an hour for workers in similar jobs.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Of course, some of that $128/hour the contractor gets goes toward employee benefits... and the cost to the state will be more than $55/hour including benefits...</p></div><p>More like $50/hour goes to the peon doing the actual job, and $78/hour goes to the contract holder.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Term appointments can be up to five years and workers get state benefits .
Proponents of this change said a state IT worker might earn an average of $ 55 an hour , including benefits , while the state pays its contractors an average of $ 128 an hour for workers in similar jobs .
Of course , some of that $ 128/hour the contractor gets goes toward employee benefits... and the cost to the state will be more than $ 55/hour including benefits...More like $ 50/hour goes to the peon doing the actual job , and $ 78/hour goes to the contract holder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Term appointments can be up to five years and workers get state benefits.
Proponents of this change said a state IT worker might earn an average of $55 an hour, including benefits, while the state pays its contractors an average of $128 an hour for workers in similar jobs.
Of course, some of that $128/hour the contractor gets goes toward employee benefits... and the cost to the state will be more than $55/hour including benefits...More like $50/hour goes to the peon doing the actual job, and $78/hour goes to the contract holder.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31457480</id>
	<title>Re:"Term Workers", eh?</title>
	<author>mraudigy</author>
	<datestamp>1268392020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, except that New York isn't a right to work state.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , except that New York is n't a right to work state .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, except that New York isn't a right to work state.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31458616</id>
	<title>Re:Oranges vs. Tangerines?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268397300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What state are you talking about?<br>If you count vacation, sick leave, etc, as well as the roughly 7-8\% in FICA/Medicare, you pretty rapidly get up towards 50\%.  (e.g. 2 weeks/yr vacation is 4\%)</p><p>Not to mention whether or not "non directly related to product" time is counted.. What about the time spent in that safety training?   Some organizations spread this out over all the direct billed work, others account for it separately.</p><p>Then you have to look at stuff like how they account for office space costs, electricity, phone, network drops, etc.  In some organizations, this gets added to the quoted "hourly blended rate"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What state are you talking about ? If you count vacation , sick leave , etc , as well as the roughly 7-8 \ % in FICA/Medicare , you pretty rapidly get up towards 50 \ % .
( e.g. 2 weeks/yr vacation is 4 \ % ) Not to mention whether or not " non directly related to product " time is counted.. What about the time spent in that safety training ?
Some organizations spread this out over all the direct billed work , others account for it separately.Then you have to look at stuff like how they account for office space costs , electricity , phone , network drops , etc .
In some organizations , this gets added to the quoted " hourly blended rate "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What state are you talking about?If you count vacation, sick leave, etc, as well as the roughly 7-8\% in FICA/Medicare, you pretty rapidly get up towards 50\%.
(e.g. 2 weeks/yr vacation is 4\%)Not to mention whether or not "non directly related to product" time is counted.. What about the time spent in that safety training?
Some organizations spread this out over all the direct billed work, others account for it separately.Then you have to look at stuff like how they account for office space costs, electricity, phone, network drops, etc.
In some organizations, this gets added to the quoted "hourly blended rate"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456636</id>
	<title>-1 Reactionary</title>
	<author>ShadowRangerRIT</author>
	<datestamp>1268388840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>-1 Reactionary: I'm pretty bleeding heart on most issues, but try as I might, I'm not seeing how the GPP indicated his political affiliation, or did anything other than point out a very mild form of hypocrisy (which I don't consider all that hypocritical, since the government is merely subjecting itself to private industry rules instead of the usual more generous government rules).</htmltext>
<tokenext>-1 Reactionary : I 'm pretty bleeding heart on most issues , but try as I might , I 'm not seeing how the GPP indicated his political affiliation , or did anything other than point out a very mild form of hypocrisy ( which I do n't consider all that hypocritical , since the government is merely subjecting itself to private industry rules instead of the usual more generous government rules ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>-1 Reactionary: I'm pretty bleeding heart on most issues, but try as I might, I'm not seeing how the GPP indicated his political affiliation, or did anything other than point out a very mild form of hypocrisy (which I don't consider all that hypocritical, since the government is merely subjecting itself to private industry rules instead of the usual more generous government rules).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456098</id>
	<title>Not a troll, just mildly frustrated</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268386680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>F*(#! @$$!? $#!+</p><p>I look forward to a re-enactment of recent happenings in greece.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>F * ( # !
@ $ $ ! ? $ # ! + I look forward to a re-enactment of recent happenings in greece .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>F*(#!
@$$!? $#!+I look forward to a re-enactment of recent happenings in greece.
;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456602</id>
	<title>Re:"Term Workers", eh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268388720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's the Christian way. Love it or go to Hell. *shrug*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the Christian way .
Love it or go to Hell .
* shrug *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the Christian way.
Love it or go to Hell.
*shrug*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456124</id>
	<title>Re:Oranges vs. Tangerines?</title>
	<author>blueg3</author>
	<datestamp>1268386800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It may not be true, but the wording they've chosen is saying that the $55/hr includes the cost of benefits -- not that the cost is $55/hr plus benefits. So you're comparing hourly cost including benefits to hourly cost including benefits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It may not be true , but the wording they 've chosen is saying that the $ 55/hr includes the cost of benefits -- not that the cost is $ 55/hr plus benefits .
So you 're comparing hourly cost including benefits to hourly cost including benefits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It may not be true, but the wording they've chosen is saying that the $55/hr includes the cost of benefits -- not that the cost is $55/hr plus benefits.
So you're comparing hourly cost including benefits to hourly cost including benefits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31458312</id>
	<title>Slaves</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268396100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If your employer physically strikes you, can you have him arrested and press charges for assault?  --  Yes.</p><p>If your employer rapes you, can you have him arrested and press charges?  --  Yes</p><p>If your employer forcibly takes from you your personal property, can you press charges for theft?  --  Yes</p><p>If you decide you don't like your employer, can you quit your job and start looking for another one?  --  Yes</p><p>If you decide you don't even want to be near your employer, can you move to another city or another state or another country? --  Yes.</p><p>None of these are true of slaves.  Modern workers are *NOT* slaves.</p><p>It IS true that most people have to work in order to survive.  This necessity does not automatically make them slaves, however.  The fact is, life requires labor.  Food must be grown.  Power must be generated.  Clothing must be spun.  Goods must be constructed.  People have to do this work in order to survive.  The practice of employment is just an organizational mechanism for this.</p><p>The term "wage-slave" is a highly slanted description of the reality.  Just because you have to work doesn't mean you are a slave.  It just means that if you don't work, you will starve to death.  Sorry, but that is nothing new.  Until we have a means of creating food without expending effort, people in general will still have to work to survive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If your employer physically strikes you , can you have him arrested and press charges for assault ?
-- Yes.If your employer rapes you , can you have him arrested and press charges ?
-- YesIf your employer forcibly takes from you your personal property , can you press charges for theft ?
-- YesIf you decide you do n't like your employer , can you quit your job and start looking for another one ?
-- YesIf you decide you do n't even want to be near your employer , can you move to another city or another state or another country ?
-- Yes.None of these are true of slaves .
Modern workers are * NOT * slaves.It IS true that most people have to work in order to survive .
This necessity does not automatically make them slaves , however .
The fact is , life requires labor .
Food must be grown .
Power must be generated .
Clothing must be spun .
Goods must be constructed .
People have to do this work in order to survive .
The practice of employment is just an organizational mechanism for this.The term " wage-slave " is a highly slanted description of the reality .
Just because you have to work does n't mean you are a slave .
It just means that if you do n't work , you will starve to death .
Sorry , but that is nothing new .
Until we have a means of creating food without expending effort , people in general will still have to work to survive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If your employer physically strikes you, can you have him arrested and press charges for assault?
--  Yes.If your employer rapes you, can you have him arrested and press charges?
--  YesIf your employer forcibly takes from you your personal property, can you press charges for theft?
--  YesIf you decide you don't like your employer, can you quit your job and start looking for another one?
--  YesIf you decide you don't even want to be near your employer, can you move to another city or another state or another country?
--  Yes.None of these are true of slaves.
Modern workers are *NOT* slaves.It IS true that most people have to work in order to survive.
This necessity does not automatically make them slaves, however.
The fact is, life requires labor.
Food must be grown.
Power must be generated.
Clothing must be spun.
Goods must be constructed.
People have to do this work in order to survive.
The practice of employment is just an organizational mechanism for this.The term "wage-slave" is a highly slanted description of the reality.
Just because you have to work doesn't mean you are a slave.
It just means that if you don't work, you will starve to death.
Sorry, but that is nothing new.
Until we have a means of creating food without expending effort, people in general will still have to work to survive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31458236</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like a good idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268395740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've worked for a government entity that did this.  It was fairly easy to create a term-limited position, as the impact was only to that year's budget.  But other than having a concrete end date, the employee had all the same benefits as other employees.</p><p>I'm not aware of any term-limited employees who weren't able to move into so-called "permanent" positions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've worked for a government entity that did this .
It was fairly easy to create a term-limited position , as the impact was only to that year 's budget .
But other than having a concrete end date , the employee had all the same benefits as other employees.I 'm not aware of any term-limited employees who were n't able to move into so-called " permanent " positions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've worked for a government entity that did this.
It was fairly easy to create a term-limited position, as the impact was only to that year's budget.
But other than having a concrete end date, the employee had all the same benefits as other employees.I'm not aware of any term-limited employees who weren't able to move into so-called "permanent" positions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31458026</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268394600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it wasn't for lies and irrelevant side-issues, Michael Moore would probably be President. Instead we have a choice between change that you were stupid to believe in Obama and we just gave you the worst President ever Republicans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it was n't for lies and irrelevant side-issues , Michael Moore would probably be President .
Instead we have a choice between change that you were stupid to believe in Obama and we just gave you the worst President ever Republicans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it wasn't for lies and irrelevant side-issues, Michael Moore would probably be President.
Instead we have a choice between change that you were stupid to believe in Obama and we just gave you the worst President ever Republicans.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456364</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>Lumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1268387760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>That $128/hr contractor MIGHT be getting paid $45 an hour with benefits. Their firm takes the rest.</i></p><p>There is no Generic IT grunt getting $45.00 an hour in New York.  They are getting $21.00 MAX.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That $ 128/hr contractor MIGHT be getting paid $ 45 an hour with benefits .
Their firm takes the rest.There is no Generic IT grunt getting $ 45.00 an hour in New York .
They are getting $ 21.00 MAX .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That $128/hr contractor MIGHT be getting paid $45 an hour with benefits.
Their firm takes the rest.There is no Generic IT grunt getting $45.00 an hour in New York.
They are getting $21.00 MAX.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456218</id>
	<title>Re:Oranges vs. Tangerines?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268387160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rule of thumb is salary + salary/3 = total cost with benefits</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rule of thumb is salary + salary/3 = total cost with benefits</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rule of thumb is salary + salary/3 = total cost with benefits</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456036</id>
	<title>Oranges vs. Tangerines?</title>
	<author>fahrbot-bot</author>
	<datestamp>1268386440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Term appointments can be up to five years and workers get state benefits. Proponents of this change said a state IT worker might earn an average of $55 an hour, including benefits, while the state pays its contractors an average of $128 an hour for workers in similar jobs.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Of course, some of that $128/hour the contractor gets goes toward employee benefits... and the cost to the state will be more than $55/hour including benefits...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Term appointments can be up to five years and workers get state benefits .
Proponents of this change said a state IT worker might earn an average of $ 55 an hour , including benefits , while the state pays its contractors an average of $ 128 an hour for workers in similar jobs .
Of course , some of that $ 128/hour the contractor gets goes toward employee benefits... and the cost to the state will be more than $ 55/hour including benefits.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Term appointments can be up to five years and workers get state benefits.
Proponents of this change said a state IT worker might earn an average of $55 an hour, including benefits, while the state pays its contractors an average of $128 an hour for workers in similar jobs.
Of course, some of that $128/hour the contractor gets goes toward employee benefits... and the cost to the state will be more than $55/hour including benefits...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456094</id>
	<title>Are these full-time employees?</title>
	<author>TwiztidK</author>
	<datestamp>1268386680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Employing a person full-time for $55/hr could potentially cost more than paying  a person $128/hr only when they are nedded.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Employing a person full-time for $ 55/hr could potentially cost more than paying a person $ 128/hr only when they are nedded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Employing a person full-time for $55/hr could potentially cost more than paying  a person $128/hr only when they are nedded.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456294</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268387520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, you don't like "free markets"?  The government shouldn't look for ways to save money?</p><p>It's funny how quickly the most staunch conservative turns into Michael Moore as soon as it's <i>his</i> well-being that's threatened.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , you do n't like " free markets " ?
The government should n't look for ways to save money ? It 's funny how quickly the most staunch conservative turns into Michael Moore as soon as it 's his well-being that 's threatened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, you don't like "free markets"?
The government shouldn't look for ways to save money?It's funny how quickly the most staunch conservative turns into Michael Moore as soon as it's his well-being that's threatened.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456372</id>
	<title>Re:Oranges vs. Tangerines?</title>
	<author>rainmayun</author>
	<datestamp>1268387760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>

Making them regular old unionized state workers makes them incredibly hard to fire, among other things. so you end up with a higher head count than you might otherwise, because you have to hire people to carry the dead weight.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Making them regular old unionized state workers makes them incredibly hard to fire , among other things .
so you end up with a higher head count than you might otherwise , because you have to hire people to carry the dead weight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

Making them regular old unionized state workers makes them incredibly hard to fire, among other things.
so you end up with a higher head count than you might otherwise, because you have to hire people to carry the dead weight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31457076</id>
	<title>My first job out of college</title>
	<author>MooseDontBounce</author>
	<datestamp>1268390460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>was working for NYS OMH (Office of Mental Health) as a programmer at one of the facilities.  I worked there for 5 years before I was layed off in 1991. I saw more corruption and incompetence in those 5 years then the rest of my career.  Completely turned me off from unions. No one there was ever fired even when caught red-handed.  They were allowed to resign.</htmltext>
<tokenext>was working for NYS OMH ( Office of Mental Health ) as a programmer at one of the facilities .
I worked there for 5 years before I was layed off in 1991 .
I saw more corruption and incompetence in those 5 years then the rest of my career .
Completely turned me off from unions .
No one there was ever fired even when caught red-handed .
They were allowed to resign .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>was working for NYS OMH (Office of Mental Health) as a programmer at one of the facilities.
I worked there for 5 years before I was layed off in 1991.
I saw more corruption and incompetence in those 5 years then the rest of my career.
Completely turned me off from unions.
No one there was ever fired even when caught red-handed.
They were allowed to resign.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456386</id>
	<title>Re:Oranges vs. Tangerines?</title>
	<author>Mongoose Disciple</author>
	<datestamp>1268387820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Without knowing how the math works in this case (based on having done contract development for government entities in the past; my experience may or may not be relevant here)... probably, state employees are entitled to a set of benefits and health insurance that are really good, vs. the probably not very good benefits the temporary workers will get.</p><p>Really good benefits are expensive.  The government employees I last worked with, for example, had health care that paid for basically everything with no copays.  For a private sector IT employee anything half that good is unheard-of.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Without knowing how the math works in this case ( based on having done contract development for government entities in the past ; my experience may or may not be relevant here ) ... probably , state employees are entitled to a set of benefits and health insurance that are really good , vs. the probably not very good benefits the temporary workers will get.Really good benefits are expensive .
The government employees I last worked with , for example , had health care that paid for basically everything with no copays .
For a private sector IT employee anything half that good is unheard-of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Without knowing how the math works in this case (based on having done contract development for government entities in the past; my experience may or may not be relevant here)... probably, state employees are entitled to a set of benefits and health insurance that are really good, vs. the probably not very good benefits the temporary workers will get.Really good benefits are expensive.
The government employees I last worked with, for example, had health care that paid for basically everything with no copays.
For a private sector IT employee anything half that good is unheard-of.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31466364</id>
	<title>Re:Oranges vs. Tangerines?</title>
	<author>slayer\_ix</author>
	<datestamp>1268472600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Judging by the salary ranges government agencies pay for IT workers it would be plausible to suggest that the $55/hour figure did include benefits.  Would you work for that much as an IT professional with a few to many years of experience?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Judging by the salary ranges government agencies pay for IT workers it would be plausible to suggest that the $ 55/hour figure did include benefits .
Would you work for that much as an IT professional with a few to many years of experience ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Judging by the salary ranges government agencies pay for IT workers it would be plausible to suggest that the $55/hour figure did include benefits.
Would you work for that much as an IT professional with a few to many years of experience?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31460226</id>
	<title>Re:Has all the upside of a contract IT worker</title>
	<author>ensignyu</author>
	<datestamp>1268405460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because many government pension plans are heavily invested in the stock market. See for example <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CalPERS" title="wikipedia.org">CalPERS</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because many government pension plans are heavily invested in the stock market .
See for example CalPERS [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because many government pension plans are heavily invested in the stock market.
See for example CalPERS [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31457220</id>
	<title>Looks like it will save money, probably won't</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268391000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I do plenty of work with NY's state and local government offices.  Usually dealing with the IT staff.  (I'm not a contractor but consult on specific software products.)</p><p>The usual job of an "IT" person in government employ is to follow very specific, very carefully prepared documents with step-by-step instructions complete with screenshots.  Should a task need to be performed that is not in a document or the steps are different in some way, they call up vendor/consultant support to lead them through the process.  All IT tasks are performed this way.  No troubleshooting, no independent research, and no process improvements are attempted.  Any updates to software or procedures are done with vendors or consultants.  These updates can drag into years.  There is no way, either, to predict which updates will be delayed before starting the process.</p><p>The long-term contractors I have dealt with have been marginally better than internal support.  If only because the state-employed IT workers I have dealt with can as often be victims of a lateral move from another department within the organization when their old job ceased to exist or some other action forced them from something like "scheduling coordinator" or "assistant photocopier maintenance" (both real, and funny, examples).  Contractors will have actual IT training in some capacity besides that provided by the organization.</p><p>Basically, it takes more people to provide less support in the government offices I have dealt with.  It costs more, too, because the actual support is provided by hidden outside vendors and service contracts.  Since promotions are not based on technological metrics like successful projects or cost savings initiatives, I do not see this situation improving.  With the organizations I deal with and have seen the finances (part of my job), the staff/contractor costs are dwarfed by outside support and consulting costs.  In most private companies, the amounts are closer to parity.</p><p>With the above considered, I doubt state organization budgets will improve.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do plenty of work with NY 's state and local government offices .
Usually dealing with the IT staff .
( I 'm not a contractor but consult on specific software products .
) The usual job of an " IT " person in government employ is to follow very specific , very carefully prepared documents with step-by-step instructions complete with screenshots .
Should a task need to be performed that is not in a document or the steps are different in some way , they call up vendor/consultant support to lead them through the process .
All IT tasks are performed this way .
No troubleshooting , no independent research , and no process improvements are attempted .
Any updates to software or procedures are done with vendors or consultants .
These updates can drag into years .
There is no way , either , to predict which updates will be delayed before starting the process.The long-term contractors I have dealt with have been marginally better than internal support .
If only because the state-employed IT workers I have dealt with can as often be victims of a lateral move from another department within the organization when their old job ceased to exist or some other action forced them from something like " scheduling coordinator " or " assistant photocopier maintenance " ( both real , and funny , examples ) .
Contractors will have actual IT training in some capacity besides that provided by the organization.Basically , it takes more people to provide less support in the government offices I have dealt with .
It costs more , too , because the actual support is provided by hidden outside vendors and service contracts .
Since promotions are not based on technological metrics like successful projects or cost savings initiatives , I do not see this situation improving .
With the organizations I deal with and have seen the finances ( part of my job ) , the staff/contractor costs are dwarfed by outside support and consulting costs .
In most private companies , the amounts are closer to parity.With the above considered , I doubt state organization budgets will improve .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do plenty of work with NY's state and local government offices.
Usually dealing with the IT staff.
(I'm not a contractor but consult on specific software products.
)The usual job of an "IT" person in government employ is to follow very specific, very carefully prepared documents with step-by-step instructions complete with screenshots.
Should a task need to be performed that is not in a document or the steps are different in some way, they call up vendor/consultant support to lead them through the process.
All IT tasks are performed this way.
No troubleshooting, no independent research, and no process improvements are attempted.
Any updates to software or procedures are done with vendors or consultants.
These updates can drag into years.
There is no way, either, to predict which updates will be delayed before starting the process.The long-term contractors I have dealt with have been marginally better than internal support.
If only because the state-employed IT workers I have dealt with can as often be victims of a lateral move from another department within the organization when their old job ceased to exist or some other action forced them from something like "scheduling coordinator" or "assistant photocopier maintenance" (both real, and funny, examples).
Contractors will have actual IT training in some capacity besides that provided by the organization.Basically, it takes more people to provide less support in the government offices I have dealt with.
It costs more, too, because the actual support is provided by hidden outside vendors and service contracts.
Since promotions are not based on technological metrics like successful projects or cost savings initiatives, I do not see this situation improving.
With the organizations I deal with and have seen the finances (part of my job), the staff/contractor costs are dwarfed by outside support and consulting costs.
In most private companies, the amounts are closer to parity.With the above considered, I doubt state organization budgets will improve.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31460530</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>Craig Maloney</author>
	<datestamp>1268407560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I once knew a guy who was a contract worker for 11 years. Contract positions can last for quite some time. What I hope New York doesn't do is hire all of their 5-year plan employees and then realize 4 years down the road that they'll have to graduate that class of employee all at once. Or maybe I do; I'm quite conflicted.</p><p>In any case, it's yet another indication that IT workers are considered a replaceable, interchangeable cog in the machine. Unfortunately, when your replaceable cogs are essentially your entire infrastructure, you'll have a hard time trying to get the new class of cog to know what the old cog was doing. Add to that a fatalistic sense from the old cog guard, and you have a recipe for one hell of a breakdown when you least can afford it.</p><p>Best of luck, New York; you're gonna need it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I once knew a guy who was a contract worker for 11 years .
Contract positions can last for quite some time .
What I hope New York does n't do is hire all of their 5-year plan employees and then realize 4 years down the road that they 'll have to graduate that class of employee all at once .
Or maybe I do ; I 'm quite conflicted.In any case , it 's yet another indication that IT workers are considered a replaceable , interchangeable cog in the machine .
Unfortunately , when your replaceable cogs are essentially your entire infrastructure , you 'll have a hard time trying to get the new class of cog to know what the old cog was doing .
Add to that a fatalistic sense from the old cog guard , and you have a recipe for one hell of a breakdown when you least can afford it.Best of luck , New York ; you 're gon na need it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I once knew a guy who was a contract worker for 11 years.
Contract positions can last for quite some time.
What I hope New York doesn't do is hire all of their 5-year plan employees and then realize 4 years down the road that they'll have to graduate that class of employee all at once.
Or maybe I do; I'm quite conflicted.In any case, it's yet another indication that IT workers are considered a replaceable, interchangeable cog in the machine.
Unfortunately, when your replaceable cogs are essentially your entire infrastructure, you'll have a hard time trying to get the new class of cog to know what the old cog was doing.
Add to that a fatalistic sense from the old cog guard, and you have a recipe for one hell of a breakdown when you least can afford it.Best of luck, New York; you're gonna need it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31457400</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>cayenne8</author>
	<datestamp>1268391780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"If they were taking full-timers and laying them off then rehiring them as contractors (with no benefits) that's clearly illegal - it's a process called "conversion".</i><p><i>

But they are simply saying that jobs that are currently filled with a contractor will be filled with full-time "at will" employees now. Contractors are already "at will", and the contracting firm is (in theory) paid a lot extra because they can rapidly add or subtract resources as needed. You pay extra for the flexibility. Flexibility which, in this case, the state doesn't need as much.</i></p><p><i>

Now the state is saying "we have people that we know we'll need for 5 years or so. We can't hire them full-time under existing State terms because we cannot eliminate their positions when we don't need them any more, but it's terribly expensive to hire them for 5 years at about triple what they actually get paid." That $128/hr contractor MIGHT be getting paid $45 an hour with benefits. Their firm takes the rest."</i> </p><p>
Well, the trouble is...with so many govt. contracts...they ONLY seem to want to work through contracting houses.</p><p>
If they would go back more to allowing contracting with individuals, preferably people that are self incorporated..then the rates could go down, they'd still have the flexibility they get with contractors, and the contractors would be able to make enough to pay their own benefits, as well as enjoy the many tax write offs and benefits that come with being an indie contractor.</p><p>
My biggest gripe is that it is so tough to get a contract directly on any govt project...at best, you have to sub or even sub to a sub to get into the door. A bill rate of $150+, and you can get maybe $65/$70 of that if you know someone and/or know how to negotiate.</p><p>
The problem isn't so much with contract help...but the fact that we've allowed the <b>bastardization</b> of the contract paradigm to where now the contract is only with a big contract house...which then supplies them with W2 employees, who themselves get the worst of both worlds...contract hours/job security, and less money and more regulation (like earning vacation hours? Gimme a fucking break).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" If they were taking full-timers and laying them off then rehiring them as contractors ( with no benefits ) that 's clearly illegal - it 's a process called " conversion " .
But they are simply saying that jobs that are currently filled with a contractor will be filled with full-time " at will " employees now .
Contractors are already " at will " , and the contracting firm is ( in theory ) paid a lot extra because they can rapidly add or subtract resources as needed .
You pay extra for the flexibility .
Flexibility which , in this case , the state does n't need as much .
Now the state is saying " we have people that we know we 'll need for 5 years or so .
We ca n't hire them full-time under existing State terms because we can not eliminate their positions when we do n't need them any more , but it 's terribly expensive to hire them for 5 years at about triple what they actually get paid .
" That $ 128/hr contractor MIGHT be getting paid $ 45 an hour with benefits .
Their firm takes the rest .
" Well , the trouble is...with so many govt .
contracts...they ONLY seem to want to work through contracting houses .
If they would go back more to allowing contracting with individuals , preferably people that are self incorporated..then the rates could go down , they 'd still have the flexibility they get with contractors , and the contractors would be able to make enough to pay their own benefits , as well as enjoy the many tax write offs and benefits that come with being an indie contractor .
My biggest gripe is that it is so tough to get a contract directly on any govt project...at best , you have to sub or even sub to a sub to get into the door .
A bill rate of $ 150 + , and you can get maybe $ 65/ $ 70 of that if you know someone and/or know how to negotiate .
The problem is n't so much with contract help...but the fact that we 've allowed the bastardization of the contract paradigm to where now the contract is only with a big contract house...which then supplies them with W2 employees , who themselves get the worst of both worlds...contract hours/job security , and less money and more regulation ( like earning vacation hours ?
Gim me a fucking break ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If they were taking full-timers and laying them off then rehiring them as contractors (with no benefits) that's clearly illegal - it's a process called "conversion".
But they are simply saying that jobs that are currently filled with a contractor will be filled with full-time "at will" employees now.
Contractors are already "at will", and the contracting firm is (in theory) paid a lot extra because they can rapidly add or subtract resources as needed.
You pay extra for the flexibility.
Flexibility which, in this case, the state doesn't need as much.
Now the state is saying "we have people that we know we'll need for 5 years or so.
We can't hire them full-time under existing State terms because we cannot eliminate their positions when we don't need them any more, but it's terribly expensive to hire them for 5 years at about triple what they actually get paid.
" That $128/hr contractor MIGHT be getting paid $45 an hour with benefits.
Their firm takes the rest.
" 
Well, the trouble is...with so many govt.
contracts...they ONLY seem to want to work through contracting houses.
If they would go back more to allowing contracting with individuals, preferably people that are self incorporated..then the rates could go down, they'd still have the flexibility they get with contractors, and the contractors would be able to make enough to pay their own benefits, as well as enjoy the many tax write offs and benefits that come with being an indie contractor.
My biggest gripe is that it is so tough to get a contract directly on any govt project...at best, you have to sub or even sub to a sub to get into the door.
A bill rate of $150+, and you can get maybe $65/$70 of that if you know someone and/or know how to negotiate.
The problem isn't so much with contract help...but the fact that we've allowed the bastardization of the contract paradigm to where now the contract is only with a big contract house...which then supplies them with W2 employees, who themselves get the worst of both worlds...contract hours/job security, and less money and more regulation (like earning vacation hours?
Gimme a fucking break).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31457850</id>
	<title>poor contracting companies</title>
	<author>grapeape</author>
	<datestamp>1268393700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless things are really different there, its pretty safe to assume that most of those employees arent making anything close to $128, having been in that area of employment I can assure you for most of the people doing the work, $55 will be a raise.  Most contracting firms (yes there are some exceptions) these days are just a legal form of prostitution, the pimp gets the big money unfortunately they tend to have enough pull to block the independent contractor from most companies looking for help.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless things are really different there , its pretty safe to assume that most of those employees arent making anything close to $ 128 , having been in that area of employment I can assure you for most of the people doing the work , $ 55 will be a raise .
Most contracting firms ( yes there are some exceptions ) these days are just a legal form of prostitution , the pimp gets the big money unfortunately they tend to have enough pull to block the independent contractor from most companies looking for help .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless things are really different there, its pretty safe to assume that most of those employees arent making anything close to $128, having been in that area of employment I can assure you for most of the people doing the work, $55 will be a raise.
Most contracting firms (yes there are some exceptions) these days are just a legal form of prostitution, the pimp gets the big money unfortunately they tend to have enough pull to block the independent contractor from most companies looking for help.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31457536</id>
	<title>Re:"Term Workers", eh?</title>
	<author>Pharmboy</author>
	<datestamp>1268392320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you fire a "right to work" employee without cause, they are fully eligible to claim unemployment benefits.  The vast majority of workers in the US are in "right to work" situations, and most of the time it works just fine.  I'm not sure if NY's rationale or methods are the best for their situation, but I am not so sure that everyone in a "right to work" situation is slave.  As someone who has made a fine living over the last 30 years and has never belonged to a union, I'm confident that being in a union isn't the "only" solution for every situation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you fire a " right to work " employee without cause , they are fully eligible to claim unemployment benefits .
The vast majority of workers in the US are in " right to work " situations , and most of the time it works just fine .
I 'm not sure if NY 's rationale or methods are the best for their situation , but I am not so sure that everyone in a " right to work " situation is slave .
As someone who has made a fine living over the last 30 years and has never belonged to a union , I 'm confident that being in a union is n't the " only " solution for every situation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you fire a "right to work" employee without cause, they are fully eligible to claim unemployment benefits.
The vast majority of workers in the US are in "right to work" situations, and most of the time it works just fine.
I'm not sure if NY's rationale or methods are the best for their situation, but I am not so sure that everyone in a "right to work" situation is slave.
As someone who has made a fine living over the last 30 years and has never belonged to a union, I'm confident that being in a union isn't the "only" solution for every situation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456474</id>
	<title>This is a good idea</title>
	<author>snsh</author>
	<datestamp>1268388180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This sounds like a good move for government IT.  Governments IT shops (especially unionized shops) suffer badly from the dead-sea effect.  The more productive IT workers who keep their skills up will tend to stay for a few years ago go.  The less productive are free to stay for 30 or 40 years because they can't be fired and have no potential of finding a job that pays as well.  Over time the IT department becomes heavy with unproductive employees.<br> <br>

Medium-term employment provides a methd for the government IT organization to turn its staff over frequently enough to keep healthy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This sounds like a good move for government IT .
Governments IT shops ( especially unionized shops ) suffer badly from the dead-sea effect .
The more productive IT workers who keep their skills up will tend to stay for a few years ago go .
The less productive are free to stay for 30 or 40 years because they ca n't be fired and have no potential of finding a job that pays as well .
Over time the IT department becomes heavy with unproductive employees .
Medium-term employment provides a methd for the government IT organization to turn its staff over frequently enough to keep healthy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sounds like a good move for government IT.
Governments IT shops (especially unionized shops) suffer badly from the dead-sea effect.
The more productive IT workers who keep their skills up will tend to stay for a few years ago go.
The less productive are free to stay for 30 or 40 years because they can't be fired and have no potential of finding a job that pays as well.
Over time the IT department becomes heavy with unproductive employees.
Medium-term employment provides a methd for the government IT organization to turn its staff over frequently enough to keep healthy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31474568</id>
	<title>Re:Same old story</title>
	<author>niftymitch</author>
	<datestamp>1268560980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Management: IT is expensive - we can save money by OUTsourcing.<br>
5 years later...</p><p>Management: IT is expensive - we can save money by INsourcing.<br>
5 years later, Go to line 1<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Those of us who've been in IT for a while have seen this cycle through a few times.  After much reflection, I conclude that there is no such thing as competent management.</p></div><p>
Clearly the problem is "Go To"s are bad.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Management : IT is expensive - we can save money by OUTsourcing .
5 years later...Management : IT is expensive - we can save money by INsourcing .
5 years later , Go to line 1 ...Those of us who 've been in IT for a while have seen this cycle through a few times .
After much reflection , I conclude that there is no such thing as competent management .
Clearly the problem is " Go To " s are bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Management: IT is expensive - we can save money by OUTsourcing.
5 years later...Management: IT is expensive - we can save money by INsourcing.
5 years later, Go to line 1 ...Those of us who've been in IT for a while have seen this cycle through a few times.
After much reflection, I conclude that there is no such thing as competent management.
Clearly the problem is "Go To"s are bad.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456394</id>
	<title>Re:"Term Workers", eh?</title>
	<author>garcia</author>
	<datestamp>1268387880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>you have the right to be fired for no reason and have no recourse.</i></p><p>You mean like any at-will employee--like it should be because white color unions shouldn't exist in the first place?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you have the right to be fired for no reason and have no recourse.You mean like any at-will employee--like it should be because white color unions should n't exist in the first place ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you have the right to be fired for no reason and have no recourse.You mean like any at-will employee--like it should be because white color unions shouldn't exist in the first place?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456558</id>
	<title>Re:"Term Workers", eh?</title>
	<author>C0C0C0</author>
	<datestamp>1268388600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They're called "slaves", actually. And "right-to-work" laws really mean that you have the right to be fired for no reason and have no recourse. Funny what happens when you let corporations write the laws in this country.</p></div><p>Bah.  You have the right to quit, too.  For any reason, or none.  Can't see any reason why anyone of us would be entitled to some uneven obligation from the employer.  That's just hypocrisy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're called " slaves " , actually .
And " right-to-work " laws really mean that you have the right to be fired for no reason and have no recourse .
Funny what happens when you let corporations write the laws in this country.Bah .
You have the right to quit , too .
For any reason , or none .
Ca n't see any reason why anyone of us would be entitled to some uneven obligation from the employer .
That 's just hypocrisy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're called "slaves", actually.
And "right-to-work" laws really mean that you have the right to be fired for no reason and have no recourse.
Funny what happens when you let corporations write the laws in this country.Bah.
You have the right to quit, too.
For any reason, or none.
Can't see any reason why anyone of us would be entitled to some uneven obligation from the employer.
That's just hypocrisy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31460234</id>
	<title>More Info</title>
	<author>slugo</author>
	<datestamp>1268405520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know of this issue first hand being a IT contractor and working for the state.  Where Im at they have approximately 125 IT contractors.  So far they have laid off 15 IT contractors, are trying to convert 15 or so more to government service.  Next in Oct all IT companies will have to bid through a Managed Service Provider.  Basically an appointed IT contractor that all the agencies will go through to source contractors.  I don't believe they plan on eliminating all contractors since I don't think they can do to the fact the most people would rather be a contractor than work for the state.  Also a lot of the IT contractors are from overseas and cannot become state employees without a green card.  Most of us are just taking a wait and see approach to what our future actually is with the state come Oct.  Who knows how many contract slots will be available at that time.</p><p>For some people taking the state job is actually good deal. Some prefer the stability that the state has offered in the past.  What I can add is the converted contractors will receive a tier 5 pensions not tier 4.  The state legislature enacted the tier 5 pension in Jan 2010 in coincidence with the plan to convert the 500 contractors.  Here are some of the reduced benefits that they will receive.</p><p>Require most public employees to work 10 full years before vesting in the system, rather than the current five, and limit the amount of overtime that can be used in the calculation of a final average salary to 15 percent of regular annual wages.</p><p>Raises the minimum full-benefit retirement age for members of the State and Local Retirement System to 62 years from the current 55.</p><p>Certain exemptions were granted to firefighters, teachers, and police officers.</p><p>They figure they will save $48 billion over 30 years.</p><p>Here is the full article. <a href="http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/statehouse\_oks\_deal\_to\_fix\_hyper\_p72NcP2a2IegZcBJFKuf0J" title="nypost.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/statehouse\_oks\_deal\_to\_fix\_hyper\_p72NcP2a2IegZcBJFKuf0J</a> [nypost.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know of this issue first hand being a IT contractor and working for the state .
Where Im at they have approximately 125 IT contractors .
So far they have laid off 15 IT contractors , are trying to convert 15 or so more to government service .
Next in Oct all IT companies will have to bid through a Managed Service Provider .
Basically an appointed IT contractor that all the agencies will go through to source contractors .
I do n't believe they plan on eliminating all contractors since I do n't think they can do to the fact the most people would rather be a contractor than work for the state .
Also a lot of the IT contractors are from overseas and can not become state employees without a green card .
Most of us are just taking a wait and see approach to what our future actually is with the state come Oct. Who knows how many contract slots will be available at that time.For some people taking the state job is actually good deal .
Some prefer the stability that the state has offered in the past .
What I can add is the converted contractors will receive a tier 5 pensions not tier 4 .
The state legislature enacted the tier 5 pension in Jan 2010 in coincidence with the plan to convert the 500 contractors .
Here are some of the reduced benefits that they will receive.Require most public employees to work 10 full years before vesting in the system , rather than the current five , and limit the amount of overtime that can be used in the calculation of a final average salary to 15 percent of regular annual wages.Raises the minimum full-benefit retirement age for members of the State and Local Retirement System to 62 years from the current 55.Certain exemptions were granted to firefighters , teachers , and police officers.They figure they will save $ 48 billion over 30 years.Here is the full article .
http : //www.nypost.com/p/news/local/statehouse \ _oks \ _deal \ _to \ _fix \ _hyper \ _p72NcP2a2IegZcBJFKuf0J [ nypost.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know of this issue first hand being a IT contractor and working for the state.
Where Im at they have approximately 125 IT contractors.
So far they have laid off 15 IT contractors, are trying to convert 15 or so more to government service.
Next in Oct all IT companies will have to bid through a Managed Service Provider.
Basically an appointed IT contractor that all the agencies will go through to source contractors.
I don't believe they plan on eliminating all contractors since I don't think they can do to the fact the most people would rather be a contractor than work for the state.
Also a lot of the IT contractors are from overseas and cannot become state employees without a green card.
Most of us are just taking a wait and see approach to what our future actually is with the state come Oct.  Who knows how many contract slots will be available at that time.For some people taking the state job is actually good deal.
Some prefer the stability that the state has offered in the past.
What I can add is the converted contractors will receive a tier 5 pensions not tier 4.
The state legislature enacted the tier 5 pension in Jan 2010 in coincidence with the plan to convert the 500 contractors.
Here are some of the reduced benefits that they will receive.Require most public employees to work 10 full years before vesting in the system, rather than the current five, and limit the amount of overtime that can be used in the calculation of a final average salary to 15 percent of regular annual wages.Raises the minimum full-benefit retirement age for members of the State and Local Retirement System to 62 years from the current 55.Certain exemptions were granted to firefighters, teachers, and police officers.They figure they will save $48 billion over 30 years.Here is the full article.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/statehouse\_oks\_deal\_to\_fix\_hyper\_p72NcP2a2IegZcBJFKuf0J [nypost.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456412</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like a good idea</title>
	<author>nicolas.kassis</author>
	<datestamp>1268387940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's exactly it. The gov needs to be able to flexibly hire new staff on demand and fire them on demand. They used contractors for this, now they want to do that in house. This is the new cloud of employee power.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's exactly it .
The gov needs to be able to flexibly hire new staff on demand and fire them on demand .
They used contractors for this , now they want to do that in house .
This is the new cloud of employee power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's exactly it.
The gov needs to be able to flexibly hire new staff on demand and fire them on demand.
They used contractors for this, now they want to do that in house.
This is the new cloud of employee power.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456612</id>
	<title>Re:Oranges vs. Tangerines?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268388780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ffft, if that.
</p><p>Most IT "contractors" that aren't actually running their own show *might* make $25/hr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ffft , if that .
Most IT " contractors " that are n't actually running their own show * might * make $ 25/hr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ffft, if that.
Most IT "contractors" that aren't actually running their own show *might* make $25/hr</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456166</id>
	<title>Re:Oranges vs. Tangerines?</title>
	<author>RulerOf</author>
	<datestamp>1268386980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>and the cost to the state will be more than $55/hour including benefits...</p></div><p>Well... duh.  Assuming 40 hours/week and 4 weeks/month, that's 160 hours.  I know a man who's recently retired and has some serious risk factors that put private insurance for him at $600+ per month, so assuming he's the high end of that... it's what, just under $4/hour more?<br> <br>Round it up to $60/hour for the pay+benefits for each man hour they incur, and they're still more than halving their costs.  That sounds like a win to me, and I'm not even into finance.<br> <br>Still, are you claiming this is a bad thing?  I <i>personally</i> think that IT departments should be insourced, but I guess I've never seen objective research that says such practices are wholly beneficial (or the other way around).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and the cost to the state will be more than $ 55/hour including benefits...Well... duh. Assuming 40 hours/week and 4 weeks/month , that 's 160 hours .
I know a man who 's recently retired and has some serious risk factors that put private insurance for him at $ 600 + per month , so assuming he 's the high end of that... it 's what , just under $ 4/hour more ?
Round it up to $ 60/hour for the pay + benefits for each man hour they incur , and they 're still more than halving their costs .
That sounds like a win to me , and I 'm not even into finance .
Still , are you claiming this is a bad thing ?
I personally think that IT departments should be insourced , but I guess I 've never seen objective research that says such practices are wholly beneficial ( or the other way around ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and the cost to the state will be more than $55/hour including benefits...Well... duh.  Assuming 40 hours/week and 4 weeks/month, that's 160 hours.
I know a man who's recently retired and has some serious risk factors that put private insurance for him at $600+ per month, so assuming he's the high end of that... it's what, just under $4/hour more?
Round it up to $60/hour for the pay+benefits for each man hour they incur, and they're still more than halving their costs.
That sounds like a win to me, and I'm not even into finance.
Still, are you claiming this is a bad thing?
I personally think that IT departments should be insourced, but I guess I've never seen objective research that says such practices are wholly beneficial (or the other way around).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456314</id>
	<title>Re:Oranges vs. Tangerines?</title>
	<author>jimbolauski</author>
	<datestamp>1268387580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This isn't about saving actual money only being able to say that you cut IT wages and saved thousands.  Typical wrap rates built into contracting employees are between 2 and 3.  Most small companies have a wrap rate in the low 2's but large companies or the government personnel are typically 3 or above so that $55/hour becomes more like $165/hour in actual costs, but how can you expect a lifetime politician to understand something as simple as that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't about saving actual money only being able to say that you cut IT wages and saved thousands .
Typical wrap rates built into contracting employees are between 2 and 3 .
Most small companies have a wrap rate in the low 2 's but large companies or the government personnel are typically 3 or above so that $ 55/hour becomes more like $ 165/hour in actual costs , but how can you expect a lifetime politician to understand something as simple as that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't about saving actual money only being able to say that you cut IT wages and saved thousands.
Typical wrap rates built into contracting employees are between 2 and 3.
Most small companies have a wrap rate in the low 2's but large companies or the government personnel are typically 3 or above so that $55/hour becomes more like $165/hour in actual costs, but how can you expect a lifetime politician to understand something as simple as that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456360</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like a good idea</title>
	<author>wouter</author>
	<datestamp>1268387700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Employees are more loyal</p></div><p>When it comes to government workers, only this part of your opinion is true, and only because they want to keep receiving the paycheck.</p><p>I'm one of a few contractors working in between government workers. My predecessor got kicked out because he adapted to the life the regular employees were living: 7 hour days, long coffee and cigarette breaks, long lunch breaks, lot of bitching and no work done.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Employees are more loyalWhen it comes to government workers , only this part of your opinion is true , and only because they want to keep receiving the paycheck.I 'm one of a few contractors working in between government workers .
My predecessor got kicked out because he adapted to the life the regular employees were living : 7 hour days , long coffee and cigarette breaks , long lunch breaks , lot of bitching and no work done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Employees are more loyalWhen it comes to government workers, only this part of your opinion is true, and only because they want to keep receiving the paycheck.I'm one of a few contractors working in between government workers.
My predecessor got kicked out because he adapted to the life the regular employees were living: 7 hour days, long coffee and cigarette breaks, long lunch breaks, lot of bitching and no work done.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456178</id>
	<title>Wellllllll</title>
	<author>Mekkah</author>
	<datestamp>1268386980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd assume most of these are helpdesk jobs anyway.. so this might be just fine for positions like that.  But for anything more technical or requiring expertise I image they will keep full time on site support.  Or feel the results of Temp workers when a "critical" to them system crashes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd assume most of these are helpdesk jobs anyway.. so this might be just fine for positions like that .
But for anything more technical or requiring expertise I image they will keep full time on site support .
Or feel the results of Temp workers when a " critical " to them system crashes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd assume most of these are helpdesk jobs anyway.. so this might be just fine for positions like that.
But for anything more technical or requiring expertise I image they will keep full time on site support.
Or feel the results of Temp workers when a "critical" to them system crashes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456664</id>
	<title>Re:Oranges vs. Tangerines?</title>
	<author>PPalmgren</author>
	<datestamp>1268389020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doing this will likely drive contracting costs down.  We all know how much private companies make off of govt contracting jobs.  Maybe this will make them a bit more realistic, and be competitive in 5 years?</p><p>Locking them in for 30 years only creates "guaranteed" jobs, and we all know what happens to efficiency in gov't positions like those.  Firing people in from gov't jobs is notoriously difficult, this way they have an auto-fire mechanism and if they want them back, they can re-hire them.  As dirty as it is, it works, and if the job isn't meant to be a lifetime position, it works even better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Doing this will likely drive contracting costs down .
We all know how much private companies make off of govt contracting jobs .
Maybe this will make them a bit more realistic , and be competitive in 5 years ? Locking them in for 30 years only creates " guaranteed " jobs , and we all know what happens to efficiency in gov't positions like those .
Firing people in from gov't jobs is notoriously difficult , this way they have an auto-fire mechanism and if they want them back , they can re-hire them .
As dirty as it is , it works , and if the job is n't meant to be a lifetime position , it works even better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doing this will likely drive contracting costs down.
We all know how much private companies make off of govt contracting jobs.
Maybe this will make them a bit more realistic, and be competitive in 5 years?Locking them in for 30 years only creates "guaranteed" jobs, and we all know what happens to efficiency in gov't positions like those.
Firing people in from gov't jobs is notoriously difficult, this way they have an auto-fire mechanism and if they want them back, they can re-hire them.
As dirty as it is, it works, and if the job isn't meant to be a lifetime position, it works even better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31457236</id>
	<title>NY city and State are a cessPools</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268391120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NY State is a cessPool of corruption and inBreeding.  Most NY city residents are the stupidest people I have ever seen.  When they come to New Jerzey I call them the bridge and tuinnels people.  All they talk about is their non-existent careers and about silicon shit alley in the ladyBoy area of NYC.  People in NYC are into all sorts of vile sexual perversions.  Pedophelia is rampant all over NYC.</p><p>"think of the children"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NY State is a cessPool of corruption and inBreeding .
Most NY city residents are the stupidest people I have ever seen .
When they come to New Jerzey I call them the bridge and tuinnels people .
All they talk about is their non-existent careers and about silicon shit alley in the ladyBoy area of NYC .
People in NYC are into all sorts of vile sexual perversions .
Pedophelia is rampant all over NYC .
" think of the children "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NY State is a cessPool of corruption and inBreeding.
Most NY city residents are the stupidest people I have ever seen.
When they come to New Jerzey I call them the bridge and tuinnels people.
All they talk about is their non-existent careers and about silicon shit alley in the ladyBoy area of NYC.
People in NYC are into all sorts of vile sexual perversions.
Pedophelia is rampant all over NYC.
"think of the children"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456640</id>
	<title>Same old story</title>
	<author>surfcow</author>
	<datestamp>1268388840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Management: IT is expensive - we can save money by OUTsourcing.<br>5 years later...</p><p>Management: IT is expensive - we can save money by INsourcing.<br>5 years later, Go to line 1<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Those of us who've been in IT for a while have seen this cycle through a few times.  After much reflection, I conclude that there is no such thing as competent management.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Management : IT is expensive - we can save money by OUTsourcing.5 years later...Management : IT is expensive - we can save money by INsourcing.5 years later , Go to line 1 ...Those of us who 've been in IT for a while have seen this cycle through a few times .
After much reflection , I conclude that there is no such thing as competent management .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Management: IT is expensive - we can save money by OUTsourcing.5 years later...Management: IT is expensive - we can save money by INsourcing.5 years later, Go to line 1 ...Those of us who've been in IT for a while have seen this cycle through a few times.
After much reflection, I conclude that there is no such thing as competent management.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31457030</id>
	<title>This doesn't go far enough</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1268390280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They could replace those IT workers with trained monkeys and save a lot more money! Unfortunately, you usually get what you pay for.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They could replace those IT workers with trained monkeys and save a lot more money !
Unfortunately , you usually get what you pay for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They could replace those IT workers with trained monkeys and save a lot more money!
Unfortunately, you usually get what you pay for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31458634</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>DaveGod</author>
	<datestamp>1268397420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>But they are simply saying that jobs that are currently filled with a contractor will be filled with full-time "at will" employees now.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's all good and fair and whatnot but the question is what actually happens in future. Why would they make permanent hires when they could go with temporary ones? One of the biggest reasons for subcontracting is because you can get rid of them easily, unlike employees whose many rights are a major pain in the ass for organisations. This goes double for government (local, national, whatever).</p><p>They're doing this to save money. The margin the contractor makes is just one opportunity for them to save money here, they'd be negligent if they did not at least consider the others too. Maybe they are going into this with the best of intentions, but inevitably what's going to happen is that in say 5 years time the ratio of contractor/temp workers to permanent staff will have increased.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But they are simply saying that jobs that are currently filled with a contractor will be filled with full-time " at will " employees now.That 's all good and fair and whatnot but the question is what actually happens in future .
Why would they make permanent hires when they could go with temporary ones ?
One of the biggest reasons for subcontracting is because you can get rid of them easily , unlike employees whose many rights are a major pain in the ass for organisations .
This goes double for government ( local , national , whatever ) .They 're doing this to save money .
The margin the contractor makes is just one opportunity for them to save money here , they 'd be negligent if they did not at least consider the others too .
Maybe they are going into this with the best of intentions , but inevitably what 's going to happen is that in say 5 years time the ratio of contractor/temp workers to permanent staff will have increased .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But they are simply saying that jobs that are currently filled with a contractor will be filled with full-time "at will" employees now.That's all good and fair and whatnot but the question is what actually happens in future.
Why would they make permanent hires when they could go with temporary ones?
One of the biggest reasons for subcontracting is because you can get rid of them easily, unlike employees whose many rights are a major pain in the ass for organisations.
This goes double for government (local, national, whatever).They're doing this to save money.
The margin the contractor makes is just one opportunity for them to save money here, they'd be negligent if they did not at least consider the others too.
Maybe they are going into this with the best of intentions, but inevitably what's going to happen is that in say 5 years time the ratio of contractor/temp workers to permanent staff will have increased.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456654</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>skids</author>
	<datestamp>1268388960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pretty much.  I used to work for state IT.  I'd cringe every time a pointy-hair brought in a contractor, knowing just how much tax money was going up in smoke for someone with no better skills than their permanent employees had -- and there was almost always a contractor doing something, so they could have FTEd that work if they could have got the paperwork through.  there were a few of these contractors that actually made good money, but only through generous travel reimbursements.  The rest were getting shafted compared to what their employers were charging.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pretty much .
I used to work for state IT .
I 'd cringe every time a pointy-hair brought in a contractor , knowing just how much tax money was going up in smoke for someone with no better skills than their permanent employees had -- and there was almost always a contractor doing something , so they could have FTEd that work if they could have got the paperwork through .
there were a few of these contractors that actually made good money , but only through generous travel reimbursements .
The rest were getting shafted compared to what their employers were charging .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pretty much.
I used to work for state IT.
I'd cringe every time a pointy-hair brought in a contractor, knowing just how much tax money was going up in smoke for someone with no better skills than their permanent employees had -- and there was almost always a contractor doing something, so they could have FTEd that work if they could have got the paperwork through.
there were a few of these contractors that actually made good money, but only through generous travel reimbursements.
The rest were getting shafted compared to what their employers were charging.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31460952</id>
	<title>Re:Oranges vs. Tangerines?</title>
	<author>Corporate T00l</author>
	<datestamp>1268410620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because you need to be able to fire the workers. State workers operate under terms that rigidly govern the circumstances under which you can lay someone off, which makes doing so extremely impractical. This makes it essentially impossible to use them for IT projects where you need to a large number of developers to build a project, and then ramp that quantity down later when you move to operational mode and need to swap some of them for administrators.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because you need to be able to fire the workers .
State workers operate under terms that rigidly govern the circumstances under which you can lay someone off , which makes doing so extremely impractical .
This makes it essentially impossible to use them for IT projects where you need to a large number of developers to build a project , and then ramp that quantity down later when you move to operational mode and need to swap some of them for administrators .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because you need to be able to fire the workers.
State workers operate under terms that rigidly govern the circumstances under which you can lay someone off, which makes doing so extremely impractical.
This makes it essentially impossible to use them for IT projects where you need to a large number of developers to build a project, and then ramp that quantity down later when you move to operational mode and need to swap some of them for administrators.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456466</id>
	<title>Re:Has all the upside of a contract IT worker</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268388120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Plus the underfunded pension obligations passed on to the taxpayer.</p></div></blockquote><p>And why are those pension plans "underfunded"?  Any guesses?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Plus the underfunded pension obligations passed on to the taxpayer.And why are those pension plans " underfunded " ?
Any guesses ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plus the underfunded pension obligations passed on to the taxpayer.And why are those pension plans "underfunded"?
Any guesses?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456010</id>
	<title>Wow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268386320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is the result of a new law creating 'term appointments,' which strip away some hiring and firing rules that apply to permanent state workers.</p> </div><p>Government declares that laws don't apply to them... news at 11</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the result of a new law creating 'term appointments, ' which strip away some hiring and firing rules that apply to permanent state workers .
Government declares that laws do n't apply to them... news at 11</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the result of a new law creating 'term appointments,' which strip away some hiring and firing rules that apply to permanent state workers.
Government declares that laws don't apply to them... news at 11
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456434</id>
	<title>ITIL will be needed ... badly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268388000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Enterprise IT process isn't easy. I hope they achieve the savings they really hope to get from people paid 50\% less.  <a href="http://www.itil-officialsite.com/" title="itil-officialsite.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.itil-officialsite.com/</a> [itil-officialsite.com]</p><p>I'd suggest that a better method - and I've seen it implemented elsewhere at a company with 120k employees - is to tell the vendors that massive cuts are coming in 6 months. The new average rate will be $92/hr.  12 months after that, the new rate will be $82/hr.</p><p>After those two adjustments, they will have determined what type of folks will still be around and better understand the risks.  They can't get to $55/hr with vendors, since after taxes and fringe, they only have $88K per employee and they don't have any profit. An IT union will never go for that or work the hours required by data center production, deployment, planning, and architecture teams.</p><p>Good luck with that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Enterprise IT process is n't easy .
I hope they achieve the savings they really hope to get from people paid 50 \ % less .
http : //www.itil-officialsite.com/ [ itil-officialsite.com ] I 'd suggest that a better method - and I 've seen it implemented elsewhere at a company with 120k employees - is to tell the vendors that massive cuts are coming in 6 months .
The new average rate will be $ 92/hr .
12 months after that , the new rate will be $ 82/hr.After those two adjustments , they will have determined what type of folks will still be around and better understand the risks .
They ca n't get to $ 55/hr with vendors , since after taxes and fringe , they only have $ 88K per employee and they do n't have any profit .
An IT union will never go for that or work the hours required by data center production , deployment , planning , and architecture teams.Good luck with that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Enterprise IT process isn't easy.
I hope they achieve the savings they really hope to get from people paid 50\% less.
http://www.itil-officialsite.com/ [itil-officialsite.com]I'd suggest that a better method - and I've seen it implemented elsewhere at a company with 120k employees - is to tell the vendors that massive cuts are coming in 6 months.
The new average rate will be $92/hr.
12 months after that, the new rate will be $82/hr.After those two adjustments, they will have determined what type of folks will still be around and better understand the risks.
They can't get to $55/hr with vendors, since after taxes and fringe, they only have $88K per employee and they don't have any profit.
An IT union will never go for that or work the hours required by data center production, deployment, planning, and architecture teams.Good luck with that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31457104</id>
	<title>Staff Meeting</title>
	<author>ShadyG</author>
	<datestamp>1268390580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder if the meeting went something like <a href="http://sites.google.com/site/briangraymusic/songs/staff-meeting" title="google.com">this</a> [google.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if the meeting went something like this [ google.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if the meeting went something like this [google.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31459656</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>Planesdragon</author>
	<datestamp>1268401800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I can't even see the State union getting upset about this, these employees will likely be Union members</p></div><p>I work for the NY State tax department's Office of Processing and Taxpayer Services.  (When a NY resident pays their taxes, they pay us.)</p><p>Every year, we directly hire temporary phone staff for front-line taxpayer assistance -- jobs like "read over the scan of this guy's tax form and look for scanning errors" or "answer this phone call and read this scripted answer to them."  These are jobs that could easily be filled by one of the local staffing agencies in Albany, but we hire them directly and, like you say, spend less to pay them more.</p><p>These "temporary" staff often have indefinite durations, and are a lot closer to "at-will ish" employment than truly "temporary."  And every one of them is either a union member, or pays one of our two unions to represent them.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>We can't hire them full-time under existing State terms because we cannot eliminate their positions when we don't need them any more</p></div><p>Hah!  Sure the State can.  Ever since the wall street bubble burst we've been in a hiring freeze, and state agencies are encouraged to downsize staff by offering the employee early retirement -- and eliminating their position.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't even see the State union getting upset about this , these employees will likely be Union membersI work for the NY State tax department 's Office of Processing and Taxpayer Services .
( When a NY resident pays their taxes , they pay us .
) Every year , we directly hire temporary phone staff for front-line taxpayer assistance -- jobs like " read over the scan of this guy 's tax form and look for scanning errors " or " answer this phone call and read this scripted answer to them .
" These are jobs that could easily be filled by one of the local staffing agencies in Albany , but we hire them directly and , like you say , spend less to pay them more.These " temporary " staff often have indefinite durations , and are a lot closer to " at-will ish " employment than truly " temporary .
" And every one of them is either a union member , or pays one of our two unions to represent them.We ca n't hire them full-time under existing State terms because we can not eliminate their positions when we do n't need them any moreHah !
Sure the State can .
Ever since the wall street bubble burst we 've been in a hiring freeze , and state agencies are encouraged to downsize staff by offering the employee early retirement -- and eliminating their position .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't even see the State union getting upset about this, these employees will likely be Union membersI work for the NY State tax department's Office of Processing and Taxpayer Services.
(When a NY resident pays their taxes, they pay us.
)Every year, we directly hire temporary phone staff for front-line taxpayer assistance -- jobs like "read over the scan of this guy's tax form and look for scanning errors" or "answer this phone call and read this scripted answer to them.
"  These are jobs that could easily be filled by one of the local staffing agencies in Albany, but we hire them directly and, like you say, spend less to pay them more.These "temporary" staff often have indefinite durations, and are a lot closer to "at-will ish" employment than truly "temporary.
"  And every one of them is either a union member, or pays one of our two unions to represent them.We can't hire them full-time under existing State terms because we cannot eliminate their positions when we don't need them any moreHah!
Sure the State can.
Ever since the wall street bubble burst we've been in a hiring freeze, and state agencies are encouraged to downsize staff by offering the employee early retirement -- and eliminating their position.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456546</id>
	<title>Re:"Term Workers", eh?</title>
	<author>Joucifer</author>
	<datestamp>1268388540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>..."right-to-work" laws really mean that you have the right to be fired for no reason and have no recourse...</p></div><p>"right-to-work" normally means that you don't have to join a union.  You still have plenty of options if fired for no reason.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... " right-to-work " laws really mean that you have the right to be fired for no reason and have no recourse... " right-to-work " normally means that you do n't have to join a union .
You still have plenty of options if fired for no reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..."right-to-work" laws really mean that you have the right to be fired for no reason and have no recourse..."right-to-work" normally means that you don't have to join a union.
You still have plenty of options if fired for no reason.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31458242</id>
	<title>expect more of this</title>
	<author>Goldsmith</author>
	<datestamp>1268395800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Eventually, even the government will discover that labor is cheap in an economic downturn.  They're smart to lock desperate people into cheap 5 year contracts right now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eventually , even the government will discover that labor is cheap in an economic downturn .
They 're smart to lock desperate people into cheap 5 year contracts right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eventually, even the government will discover that labor is cheap in an economic downturn.
They're smart to lock desperate people into cheap 5 year contracts right now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31457566</id>
	<title>Re:Oranges vs. Tangerines?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268392440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Having worked as a contractor for years.  the 78 dollars does not go to benefits.  You can't claim unemployment, as you are technically self employed.  No deductions are done for taxes or FICA.  Some contract companies allow you to buy in to a group health program, usually not.  In short the #1 thing the contracting company does for you is the introductions.  Otherwise you'd have 0 dollars coming in (at least from this contract)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having worked as a contractor for years .
the 78 dollars does not go to benefits .
You ca n't claim unemployment , as you are technically self employed .
No deductions are done for taxes or FICA .
Some contract companies allow you to buy in to a group health program , usually not .
In short the # 1 thing the contracting company does for you is the introductions .
Otherwise you 'd have 0 dollars coming in ( at least from this contract )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having worked as a contractor for years.
the 78 dollars does not go to benefits.
You can't claim unemployment, as you are technically self employed.
No deductions are done for taxes or FICA.
Some contract companies allow you to buy in to a group health program, usually not.
In short the #1 thing the contracting company does for you is the introductions.
Otherwise you'd have 0 dollars coming in (at least from this contract)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31462604</id>
	<title>Re:Same old story</title>
	<author>1s44c</author>
	<datestamp>1268474340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Management: IT is expensive - we can save money by OUTsourcing.<br>5 years later...</p><p>Management: IT is expensive - we can save money by INsourcing.<br>5 years later, Go to line 1<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Those of us who've been in IT for a while have seen this cycle through a few times.  After much reflection, I conclude that there is no such thing as competent management.</p></div><p>Exactly so. Middle management in big companies is a dumping ground for the inept, burnt out, and jaded. They fly around the world constantly to escape the work they should be dedicating themselves to. Their ignorance of the departments and technologies they manage is often shocking.</p><p>There are all too few exceptions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Management : IT is expensive - we can save money by OUTsourcing.5 years later...Management : IT is expensive - we can save money by INsourcing.5 years later , Go to line 1 ...Those of us who 've been in IT for a while have seen this cycle through a few times .
After much reflection , I conclude that there is no such thing as competent management.Exactly so .
Middle management in big companies is a dumping ground for the inept , burnt out , and jaded .
They fly around the world constantly to escape the work they should be dedicating themselves to .
Their ignorance of the departments and technologies they manage is often shocking.There are all too few exceptions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Management: IT is expensive - we can save money by OUTsourcing.5 years later...Management: IT is expensive - we can save money by INsourcing.5 years later, Go to line 1 ...Those of us who've been in IT for a while have seen this cycle through a few times.
After much reflection, I conclude that there is no such thing as competent management.Exactly so.
Middle management in big companies is a dumping ground for the inept, burnt out, and jaded.
They fly around the world constantly to escape the work they should be dedicating themselves to.
Their ignorance of the departments and technologies they manage is often shocking.There are all too few exceptions.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456662</id>
	<title>Re:"Term Workers", eh?</title>
	<author>Dishevel</author>
	<datestamp>1268389020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unions had their chance. They were needed but they have become more of a threat than anything ever. They use their union dues to buy politicians to protect their workers over everything. The end result is lazy fucks that cant be fired making items and services way more expensive. In a state like California where the state employees were unionized we have massive expenses that can not be undone. We can't save money by letting dope users out of prison because even if we reduce the inmate population by half we can't ever fire a prison guard. You can't ever get rid of these guys. EVER! Let me just say . . . . . Fuck the unions. Fuck them hard and fuck them forever.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unions had their chance .
They were needed but they have become more of a threat than anything ever .
They use their union dues to buy politicians to protect their workers over everything .
The end result is lazy fucks that cant be fired making items and services way more expensive .
In a state like California where the state employees were unionized we have massive expenses that can not be undone .
We ca n't save money by letting dope users out of prison because even if we reduce the inmate population by half we ca n't ever fire a prison guard .
You ca n't ever get rid of these guys .
EVER ! Let me just say .
. .
. .
Fuck the unions .
Fuck them hard and fuck them forever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unions had their chance.
They were needed but they have become more of a threat than anything ever.
They use their union dues to buy politicians to protect their workers over everything.
The end result is lazy fucks that cant be fired making items and services way more expensive.
In a state like California where the state employees were unionized we have massive expenses that can not be undone.
We can't save money by letting dope users out of prison because even if we reduce the inmate population by half we can't ever fire a prison guard.
You can't ever get rid of these guys.
EVER! Let me just say .
. .
. .
Fuck the unions.
Fuck them hard and fuck them forever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31458560</id>
	<title>this is just the beginning</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268397180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if the state gets away with these long-term "temps" doing a regular position's work; then OTHER state jobs will go the same route.. the unions for state workers will be all over this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if the state gets away with these long-term " temps " doing a regular position 's work ; then OTHER state jobs will go the same route.. the unions for state workers will be all over this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if the state gets away with these long-term "temps" doing a regular position's work; then OTHER state jobs will go the same route.. the unions for state workers will be all over this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31458172</id>
	<title>Does anybody here no how to multiply?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268395440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>2000 hrs X 128 per hr = USD 256 000<br>2000 hrs X   55 per hr = USD 110 000<br>The difference is             USD 146 000 not USD 25 000</p><p>To get a difference of USD 25 000 you would have to work  a little over 2 months a year.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>2000 hrs X 128 per hr = USD 256 0002000 hrs X 55 per hr = USD 110 000The difference is USD 146 000 not USD 25 000To get a difference of USD 25 000 you would have to work a little over 2 months a year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2000 hrs X 128 per hr = USD 256 0002000 hrs X   55 per hr = USD 110 000The difference is             USD 146 000 not USD 25 000To get a difference of USD 25 000 you would have to work  a little over 2 months a year.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456260</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268387280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How so?</p><p>If they were taking full-timers and laying them off then rehiring them as contractors (with no benefits) that's clearly illegal - it's a process called "conversion".</p><p>But they are simply saying that jobs that are currently filled with a contractor will be filled with full-time "at will" employees now.  Contractors are already "at will", and the contracting firm is (in theory) paid a lot extra because they can rapidly add or subtract resources as needed.  You pay extra for the flexibility.  Flexibility which, in this case, the state doesn't need as much.</p><p>Now the state is saying "we have people that we know we'll need for 5 years or so.  We can't hire them full-time under existing State terms because we cannot eliminate their positions when we don't need them any more, but it's terribly expensive to hire them for 5 years at about triple what they actually get paid."  That $128/hr contractor MIGHT be getting paid $45 an hour with benefits.  Their firm takes the rest.</p><p>I can't even see the State union getting upset about this, these employees will likely be Union members, with the only exception being they have a fixed term of employment rather than "employed until retired or dead" like most State jobs.  But it beats working for the contracting firm.</p><p>About the only people I can see getting upset about this is, well, contracting houses.</p><p>But the State is large enough that it really doesn't need the assistance finding talent, and the employment terms are long enough that people will still jump at the chance.  I mean, c'mon, how many people in "real world" IT last more than 5 years in a given job?  My record, after over 20 years in the field, is 4 years 10 months, ending in a layoff.  I'm really hoping my current employer is "the one I retire from", because they are really nice folks to work for.  But lifetime employment is nearly unheard of nowadays.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How so ? If they were taking full-timers and laying them off then rehiring them as contractors ( with no benefits ) that 's clearly illegal - it 's a process called " conversion " .But they are simply saying that jobs that are currently filled with a contractor will be filled with full-time " at will " employees now .
Contractors are already " at will " , and the contracting firm is ( in theory ) paid a lot extra because they can rapidly add or subtract resources as needed .
You pay extra for the flexibility .
Flexibility which , in this case , the state does n't need as much.Now the state is saying " we have people that we know we 'll need for 5 years or so .
We ca n't hire them full-time under existing State terms because we can not eliminate their positions when we do n't need them any more , but it 's terribly expensive to hire them for 5 years at about triple what they actually get paid .
" That $ 128/hr contractor MIGHT be getting paid $ 45 an hour with benefits .
Their firm takes the rest.I ca n't even see the State union getting upset about this , these employees will likely be Union members , with the only exception being they have a fixed term of employment rather than " employed until retired or dead " like most State jobs .
But it beats working for the contracting firm.About the only people I can see getting upset about this is , well , contracting houses.But the State is large enough that it really does n't need the assistance finding talent , and the employment terms are long enough that people will still jump at the chance .
I mean , c'mon , how many people in " real world " IT last more than 5 years in a given job ?
My record , after over 20 years in the field , is 4 years 10 months , ending in a layoff .
I 'm really hoping my current employer is " the one I retire from " , because they are really nice folks to work for .
But lifetime employment is nearly unheard of nowadays .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How so?If they were taking full-timers and laying them off then rehiring them as contractors (with no benefits) that's clearly illegal - it's a process called "conversion".But they are simply saying that jobs that are currently filled with a contractor will be filled with full-time "at will" employees now.
Contractors are already "at will", and the contracting firm is (in theory) paid a lot extra because they can rapidly add or subtract resources as needed.
You pay extra for the flexibility.
Flexibility which, in this case, the state doesn't need as much.Now the state is saying "we have people that we know we'll need for 5 years or so.
We can't hire them full-time under existing State terms because we cannot eliminate their positions when we don't need them any more, but it's terribly expensive to hire them for 5 years at about triple what they actually get paid.
"  That $128/hr contractor MIGHT be getting paid $45 an hour with benefits.
Their firm takes the rest.I can't even see the State union getting upset about this, these employees will likely be Union members, with the only exception being they have a fixed term of employment rather than "employed until retired or dead" like most State jobs.
But it beats working for the contracting firm.About the only people I can see getting upset about this is, well, contracting houses.But the State is large enough that it really doesn't need the assistance finding talent, and the employment terms are long enough that people will still jump at the chance.
I mean, c'mon, how many people in "real world" IT last more than 5 years in a given job?
My record, after over 20 years in the field, is 4 years 10 months, ending in a layoff.
I'm really hoping my current employer is "the one I retire from", because they are really nice folks to work for.
But lifetime employment is nearly unheard of nowadays.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456042</id>
	<title>"Term Workers", eh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268386440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're called "slaves", actually. And "right-to-work" laws really mean that you have the right to be fired for no reason and have no recourse. Funny what happens when you let corporations write the laws in this country.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're called " slaves " , actually .
And " right-to-work " laws really mean that you have the right to be fired for no reason and have no recourse .
Funny what happens when you let corporations write the laws in this country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're called "slaves", actually.
And "right-to-work" laws really mean that you have the right to be fired for no reason and have no recourse.
Funny what happens when you let corporations write the laws in this country.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456324</id>
	<title>Pay and cost are not the same thing</title>
	<author>Old97</author>
	<datestamp>1268387580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
If you properly manage a smaller number of very high paid IT workers instead of a much larger number of low paid IT workers, you'll find that the ROI is hugely in favor of the higher paid workers - because they were "properly managed".  That includes selection, hiring, and allocation of time and resources. (In many ways it means give them the tools and the requirements and then get out of the way.)
</p><p> Now if you are lousy managers it makes sense to hire low paid IT workers because you pay less and you won't produce much value either way.  So perhaps NY is on to something because they didn't say anything about fixing their managers.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you properly manage a smaller number of very high paid IT workers instead of a much larger number of low paid IT workers , you 'll find that the ROI is hugely in favor of the higher paid workers - because they were " properly managed " .
That includes selection , hiring , and allocation of time and resources .
( In many ways it means give them the tools and the requirements and then get out of the way .
) Now if you are lousy managers it makes sense to hire low paid IT workers because you pay less and you wo n't produce much value either way .
So perhaps NY is on to something because they did n't say anything about fixing their managers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
If you properly manage a smaller number of very high paid IT workers instead of a much larger number of low paid IT workers, you'll find that the ROI is hugely in favor of the higher paid workers - because they were "properly managed".
That includes selection, hiring, and allocation of time and resources.
(In many ways it means give them the tools and the requirements and then get out of the way.
)
 Now if you are lousy managers it makes sense to hire low paid IT workers because you pay less and you won't produce much value either way.
So perhaps NY is on to something because they didn't say anything about fixing their managers.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_192241_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31460952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_192241_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_192241_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31458634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_192241_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31457400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_192241_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_192241_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_192241_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_192241_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31460226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_192241_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31464048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_192241_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_192241_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_192241_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_192241_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31466364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_192241_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31459158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_192241_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_192241_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_192241_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31462604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_192241_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_192241_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_192241_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_192241_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31474568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_192241_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_192241_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31457480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_192241_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31458312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_192241_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_192241_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31457148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_192241_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31457536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_192241_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31458616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_192241_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_192241_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31459656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_192241_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_192241_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31460530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_192241_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31481570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_192241_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_192241_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31457566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_192241_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31462578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_192241_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31458236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_192241_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_192241_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31457284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_192241_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_192241_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31458026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_192241.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456094
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_192241.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31462578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31458236
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_192241.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31474568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31481570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31462604
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_192241.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31457536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31457480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456558
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31458312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456394
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31457148
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456662
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_192241.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456294
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456636
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31458026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456260
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456364
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456654
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31458634
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31457400
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31460530
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31459656
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_192241.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456098
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_192241.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456434
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_192241.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456218
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31458616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456124
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31457566
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31466364
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31464048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456122
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31459158
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456132
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456664
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456386
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31460952
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456372
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31457284
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_192241.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456324
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_192241.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456674
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_192241.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456466
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31460226
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_192241.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_192241.31456184
</commentlist>
</conversation>
