Odd doings in California

docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <mPidnc0hp6H0TlzVnZ2dnUVZ_t7inZ2d@earthlink.com> ,
> HeyBub <heybub@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>> docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>>> In article <SPOdnTAMp_QP2VzVnZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
>>> HeyBub <heybub@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> So, call up an employee record. Change the hourly rate to the
>>>> minimum wage. Punch the "save" button.
>>>>
>>>> At 30 seconds for each employee, and using 50 trained monkeys, the
>>>> task could be done in less than a week.
>>>
>>> ... proving, yet again, H L Mencken's assertion that 'For every
>>> complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat and
>>> wrong.'
>>>
>>
>> And as Ronald Reagan said: "Those who think there are no simple
>> answers just haven't tried hard enough."
>
> It was not postulated that 'there are no simple answers'... it has
> been pointed out that dealing with Civil Service pay rates might not
> be as readily accomplished as those who've never read a few pages of
> OMB regulations (or similar documents which form the basis of Civil
> Service payroll systems code) would wish to believe.
>

Oh. I thought H.L. Mencken postulated such and that by quoting him, you were
offering that insight into the issue.

I suggest that your reliance on the complexity of civil service regulations
as evidence sufficient that "simple" changes are impossible is worse than
tunnel vision - it is blank-wall vision. OMB regulations are not a suicide
pact.

For example, the first solution that comes to mind is "cashier the lot." Of
course the millions of state employees could sue the state, but first they'd
have to find a court that was open...

If that's too drastic, a more modest approach would be sequester the
paychecks of the state legislators. Alternatively, pick a large, but
sympathetic group (single mothers, handicapped children, disabled veterans,
monkey farmers, etc.) and withhold their money.

Then, too, there's the Texas solution: Beat the leaders of the opposition so
badly they're unable to even lie down. If that offends one's sensibilities,
the opposition leaders could be disappeared.

These are solutions that take about, oh, a quarter-hour to implement. More
responses would be available if you opened the window to an hour. Even more
if you said "What can we do in a day?"

<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:g9u1fc$r95$1@reader1.panix.com...
> In article <l7ednQVqPuS6cFzVnZ2dnUVZ_orinZ2d@posted.mid-floridainternet>,
> Rick Smith <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
> >
> ><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message
news:g9smpd$67m$1@reader1.panix.com...
> >> In article
<ho6dnds1GsRlS1zVnZ2dnUVZ_o7inZ2d@posted.mid-floridainternet>,
> >> Rick Smith <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> ><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message
> >news:g9sda3$173$1@reader1.panix.com...
> >> >> In article
> >> ><9bb64803-91f2-4cb0-bb67-bed24bec577e@v13g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> Richard <riplin@azonic.co.nz> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> [snip]
> >> >>
> >> >> >While I may be further away than most here, I think that the
problem
> >> >> >is not that at all. It is probably quite easy to change the rates.
> >> >>
> >> >> Mr Plinston, as both Mr Tees and I have tried to point out... paying
> >Civil
> >> >> Service employees is not only a matter of rates.
> >> >
> >> >The particular situation in California, as I recall, falls under
> >> >the Governor's emergency powers and, as such, the solution
> >> >depends a great deal upon what may be suspended. Thus,
> >> >Mr Dwarf, it may not be as complex as regular payroll.
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >> In the admission that 'it may not be as complex as regular payroll'
might
> >> lie the situation of 'it is less complex than regular payroll', 'it is
> >> more complex than regular payroll', 'it may not be at the moment but
might
> >> when the next set of quarterly financials are generated'...
> >
> >While I admit, Mr Dwarf, to being unfamiliar with all forms
> >of logic. A form with which I am familiar would preclude
> >any other than what I wrote.
> >
> >Given that R is the complexity of regular payroll measured
> >by the number of rules and that S is the complexity of the
> >number of rules suspended; then R minus S 'may not be
> >as complex as' R, or ((R - S) <= R), seems to be the only
> >logical conclusion.
>
> Consider, Mr Smith, that persons earning only (salary) or greater are
> eligible )by law ) for participation in (program). Several thousand
> people, due to a decrease in salary, are suddenly no longer eligible to
> participate and their previous participations are to be changed to a
> different status.
>
> I would say that the change in salary, mandating this 'waterfall' of other
> changes, makes things more complex, not less.
>
> In other words... Mr Smith, you seem to be stating that the change in
> salary is represented as the subtracting of S ( ' - S'). This is where we
> differ, perhaps, in that given a system as complex as a Civil Service
> payroll system a change in salary might well have results that are other
> than simply minus or plus... the delta's the thing.

Consider that what was raised was a particular situation
in California; not a general case. While our understandings
may be quite different, my understanding of 'this situation'
is that salary, wage, benefits, etc., are not changed. What
does change is the amount to be paid until the budget is
approved.

"donald tees" <donaldtees@execulink.com> wrote in message
news:E_OdnYVVIIpG9V_VnZ2dnUVZ_oDinZ2d@golden.net.. .
> Rick Smith wrote:
> > <docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message
news:g9sda3$173$1@reader1.panix.com...
> >> In article
> > <9bb64803-91f2-4cb0-bb67-bed24bec577e@v13g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
> >> Richard <riplin@azonic.co.nz> wrote:
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >>> While I may be further away than most here, I think that the problem
> >>> is not that at all. It is probably quite easy to change the rates.
> >> Mr Plinston, as both Mr Tees and I have tried to point out... paying
Civil
> >> Service employees is not only a matter of rates.
> >
> > The particular situation in California, as I recall, falls under
> > the Governor's emergency powers and, as such, the solution
> > depends a great deal upon what may be suspended. Thus,
> > Mr Dwarf, it may not be as complex as regular payroll.
> >
> >
> Then why use a computer? If it is that simple, just withdraw a few
> million from a bank account, and start handing it out.

As I understand the situation in California, a computer
must calculate total payroll 'as if' it were paid, but the
amounts actually paid could be nearly as simple as you
suggest.

Once the budget is approved, all amounts not paid previously
will be paid.

In article <CsydnUsqeJ9GAV_VnZ2dnUVZ_tPinZ2d@posted.mid-floridainternet>,
Rick Smith <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:g9u1fc$r95$1@reader1.panix.com...
>> In article <l7ednQVqPuS6cFzVnZ2dnUVZ_orinZ2d@posted.mid-floridainternet>,
>> Rick Smith <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
>> >
>> ><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:g9smpd$67m$1@reader1.panix.com...

[snip]

>> I would say that the change in salary, mandating this 'waterfall' of other
>> changes, makes things more complex, not less.
>>
>> In other words... Mr Smith, you seem to be stating that the change in
>> salary is represented as the subtracting of S ( ' - S'). This is where we
>> differ, perhaps, in that given a system as complex as a Civil Service
>> payroll system a change in salary might well have results that are other
>> than simply minus or plus... the delta's the thing.
>
>Consider that what was raised was a particular situation
>in California; not a general case. While our understandings
>may be quite different, my understanding of 'this situation'
>is that salary, wage, benefits, etc., are not changed. What
>does change is the amount to be paid until the budget is
>approved.

If a salary is an amount paid, Mr Smith, and you understand that salary
does not change while the amount to be paid changes then it seems there's
a violation of the Aristotelean Principle of Non-Contradiction... but be
that as it may, what is being pointed out is that salary is but one part
of a Civil Service compensation package and the changing of salary may,
because of the way computer programs have been written and maintained over
decades, may be a task a bit more complex with results far more profound
than a mere 'all ya gotta do is get monkeys to pound keyboards.'

DD

In article <ueGdnbL-hPJEBl_VnZ2dnUVZ_ojinZ2d@earthlink.com>,
HeyBub <heybub@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>> In article <mPidnc0hp6H0TlzVnZ2dnUVZ_t7inZ2d@earthlink.com> ,
>> HeyBub <heybub@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>>> docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>>>> In article <SPOdnTAMp_QP2VzVnZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
>>>> HeyBub <heybub@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>> So, call up an employee record. Change the hourly rate to the
>>>>> minimum wage. Punch the "save" button.
>>>>>
>>>>> At 30 seconds for each employee, and using 50 trained monkeys, the
>>>>> task could be done in less than a week.
>>>>
>>>> ... proving, yet again, H L Mencken's assertion that 'For every
>>>> complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat and
>>>> wrong.'
>>>>
>>>
>>> And as Ronald Reagan said: "Those who think there are no simple
>>> answers just haven't tried hard enough."
>>
>> It was not postulated that 'there are no simple answers'... it has
>> been pointed out that dealing with Civil Service pay rates might not
>> be as readily accomplished as those who've never read a few pages of
>> OMB regulations (or similar documents which form the basis of Civil
>> Service payroll systems code) would wish to believe.
>>
>
>Oh. I thought H.L. Mencken postulated such and that by quoting him, you were
>offering that insight into the issue.

Mr Mencken postulated that a complex problem has a simple solution which
is wrong... he did not, to my knowledged of his works, postulate that no
problem has a simple solution which is right or that all problems have a
simple solution of any kind at all.

>
>I suggest that your reliance on the complexity of civil service regulations
>as evidence sufficient that "simple" changes are impossible is worse than
>tunnel vision - it is blank-wall vision. OMB regulations are not a suicide
>pact.

The regulations are not a suicide pact and nowhere was it stated that they
might be... the regulations, however, might have the force of Law and as
much as he'd like to believe it the Governor's emergency powers might not
extend to the ability to suspend such Law as immediately as he might
desire.

>
>For example, the first solution that comes to mind is "cashier the lot." Of
>course the millions of state employees could sue the state, but first they'd
>have to find a court that was open...

That a court is not open does not prevent a judge from issuing a order...
and it might be that more than one court has jurisdiction over the status
of hire of the employees involved. These are not simple situations.

>
>If that's too drastic, a more modest approach would be sequester the
>paychecks of the state legislators. Alternatively, pick a large, but
>sympathetic group (single mothers, handicapped children, disabled veterans,
>monkey farmers, etc.) and withhold their money.

Selective enforcement of a law is - despite the unremarkably frequent
occurrence thereof, as anyone who has been stopped 'for being in the wrong
neighborhood' might know - not smiled upon during legal reviews, appeals
and other bits of the Justice System as she is wrote. 'All ya gotta do
is' might work as well in the bureaucracy of Government as it does in the
bureaucracy of other Large Organisations.

>
>Then, too, there's the Texas solution: Beat the leaders of the opposition so
>badly they're unable to even lie down. If that offends one's sensibilities,
>the opposition leaders could be disappeared.

Ahhhhhh, the good old One Party Rule model... no need to change the United
States to such a system, you can find like-minded practioners in Cuba or
Beijing who might welcome those of their own political bent.

DD

In article <ui54c4dmhuga1qe3jg4iqa0v5i4l3ubit1@4ax.com>,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 01:48:42 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:
>
>>In article <p3f3c4lb9ppa404mudo5hmhk88e8h7dtij@4ax.com>,
>>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>>>On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 09:39:11 -0500, "HeyBub" <heybub@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>>There's a field for hourly rate for every employee and virtually every
>>>>employee has had their rate changed once upon a time.
>>>>
>>>>So, call up an employee record. Change the hourly rate to the minimum wage.
>>>>Punch the "save" button.
>>>>
>>>>At 30 seconds for each employee, and using 50 trained monkeys, the task
>>>>could be done in less than a week.
>>>
>>>This sounds like an 'all ya gotta do' solution. One SQL statement (with
>>>appropriate ODBC
>>>driver) could change everyone's rate to the minimum. It would take
>>>milliseconds per
>>>employee.
>>
>>If the system supports SQL, perphaps so... on the other hand I've run
>>across a payroll system - not too large, around 60K employees every two
>>weeks - that runs primarily on flat files. Documentation and research are
>>accomplished by a combination of file searches and prayers.
>
>The Windows machine before you contains a Microsoft ODBC driver for Flat
>Files. Just go to
>Control Panel\Admin\Data Sources. I used it to compare before and after
>files from a
>mainframe regression test on the payroll of a major retailer with 400,000 active
>employees. It was pretty fast. The mainframers couldn't believe their eyes.

The payroll system I mentioned did not run on a Windows machine, either
before, beside or after me. Primarily flat files and handcrafted COBOL
code... no SQL, no ODBC. Internal sorts, MOVE CORR, paragraph names like
NAY-NAY, NAY-YEA, YEA-NAY and YEA-YEA all implemented into Prod and all
running for a quarter-century.

To praphrase Edward G Robinson's question to Charleton Heston... 'Where's
ya partitioned database now, Moses?'

>
>>>Consider 1.5 overtime pay mandated by the Fair Labor Standards Act
>>>(FLSA). IT workers are
>>>exempt if they make over $27.63/hr; managers are always exempt.
>>
>>I believe FLSA mandatory-overtime exemption is not only for IT workers, it
>>is for *any* worker whose base rate is more than (y) times the current
>>Federal minimum wage... I think y = 5 but my memory is, admittedly,
>>porous.
>
>The test is based on wage rate ONLY for IT workers. For others, it is
>based on vagueries.

Perhaps it is time to refamiliarise myself with the statute....
naaaaahhhhh, there's better ways to spend my time.

>
>>Calling someone a Manager is a recent (recent = past twenty-five years or
>>so) way to get around overtime payments, as well... there have been a few
>>lawsuits about this.
>
>It is NOT based on job title.

That's what how some of the lawsuits have been decided... when people have
the time and resources to file and persue them, that is. Did you know
that there are parts of the USA where people seem to believe that 'I don't
care what the law says' is pronounced 'so sue me'?

DD

docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
> The regulations are not a suicide pact and nowhere was it stated that
> they might be... the regulations, however, might have the force of
> Law and as much as he'd like to believe it the Governor's emergency
> powers might not extend to the ability to suspend such Law as
> immediately as he might desire.

Wrong. All states, and the federal government, have laws that simply state
the governor can suspend or modify any existing law or regulation in an
emergency. Further, it is the governor who declares when something is an
emergency. For example, here's California's:

Government Code 8571. During a state of war emergency or a state of
emergency the Governor may suspend any regulatory statute, or statute
prescribing the procedure for conduct of state business, or the orders,
rules, or regulations of any state agency, including subdivision (d) of
Section 1253 of the Unemployment Insurance Code, where the Governor
determines and declares that strict compliance with any statute, order,
rule, or regulation would in any way prevent, hinder, or delay the
mitigation of the effects of the emergency.

(There are other paragraphs expanding on the above. See:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacode...8565-8574.html )




>
>>
>> For example, the first solution that comes to mind is "cashier the
>> lot." Of course the millions of state employees could sue the state,
>> but first they'd have to find a court that was open...
>
> That a court is not open does not prevent a judge from issuing a
> order... and it might be that more than one court has jurisdiction
> over the status of hire of the employees involved. These are not
> simple situations.

As a connoisseur of quotes, I'm sure you'll recognize this one from Andrew
Jackson: "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."

>
>>
>> If that's too drastic, a more modest approach would be sequester the
>> paychecks of the state legislators. Alternatively, pick a large, but
>> sympathetic group (single mothers, handicapped children, disabled
>> veterans, monkey farmers, etc.) and withhold their money.
>
>>
>> Then, too, there's the Texas solution: Beat the leaders of the
>> opposition so badly they're unable to even lie down. If that offends
>> one's sensibilities, the opposition leaders could be disappeared.
>
> Ahhhhhh, the good old One Party Rule model... no need to change the
> United States to such a system, you can find like-minded practioners
> in Cuba or Beijing who might welcome those of their own political
> bent.
>

It's not one-party rule. Any party is welcome to use the tactic. Of course
those that don't like the idea are free to appeal. In a few years they might
get a favorable decision.

"HeyBub" <heybub@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
news:doOdndtsMLUJH1nVnZ2dnUVZ_srinZ2d@earthlink.co m...
> docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>>
<snip>>
>>>
>>> Then, too, there's the Texas solution: Beat the leaders of the
>>> opposition so badly they're unable to even lie down. If that offends
>>> one's sensibilities, the opposition leaders could be disappeared.

I liked the one about the monkeys beating the keyboards, not so sure about
the keyboards being used to beat the monkeys... :-)

>>
>> Ahhhhhh, the good old One Party Rule model... no need to change the
>> United States to such a system, you can find like-minded practioners
>> in Cuba or Beijing who might welcome those of their own political
>> bent.
>>
>
> It's not one-party rule. Any party is welcome to use the tactic. Of course
> those that don't like the idea are free to appeal. In a few years they
> might get a favorable decision.

Or a Civil War even... Ah, yes, I believe that option was exercised in the
then disunited states of America, around the middle of the 19th century.
Here we are racing towards the middle of the 21st century and, apparently,
nothing has been learned... :-)

Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
>

<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:ga1t2q$k5a$1@reader1.panix.com...
> In article <CsydnUsqeJ9GAV_VnZ2dnUVZ_tPinZ2d@posted.mid-floridainternet>,
> Rick Smith <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
> >
> ><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message
news:g9u1fc$r95$1@reader1.panix.com...
> >> In article
<l7ednQVqPuS6cFzVnZ2dnUVZ_orinZ2d@posted.mid-floridainternet>,
> >> Rick Smith <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> ><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message
> >news:g9smpd$67m$1@reader1.panix.com...
>
> [snip]
>
> >> I would say that the change in salary, mandating this 'waterfall' of
other
> >> changes, makes things more complex, not less.
> >>
> >> In other words... Mr Smith, you seem to be stating that the change in
> >> salary is represented as the subtracting of S ( ' - S'). This is where
we
> >> differ, perhaps, in that given a system as complex as a Civil Service
> >> payroll system a change in salary might well have results that are
other
> >> than simply minus or plus... the delta's the thing.
> >
> >Consider that what was raised was a particular situation
> >in California; not a general case. While our understandings
> >may be quite different, my understanding of 'this situation'
> >is that salary, wage, benefits, etc., are not changed. What
> >does change is the amount to be paid until the budget is
> >approved.
>
> If a salary is an amount paid, Mr Smith, and you understand that salary
> does not change while the amount to be paid changes then it seems there's
> a violation of the Aristotelean Principle of Non-Contradiction... but be
> that as it may, what is being pointed out is that salary is but one part
> of a Civil Service compensation package and the changing of salary may,
> because of the way computer programs have been written and maintained over
> decades, may be a task a bit more complex with results far more profound
> than a mere 'all ya gotta do is get monkeys to pound keyboards.'

It seems to me that an amount-paid almost never equals a salary
and the amount-paid may change without a change in salary by
making changes to deductions.

Consider this _simplified_ example for regular payroll:
perform calculate-deductions
compute amount-paid = salary
- function sum (deduction-amount (all))

I see no violation. What I see in this case, is that certain
amounts will be deferred, thus making the amount-paid less
artificially (caused by sociopolitical forces), rather than by
the application of the normal rules.

I find no reason to disagree with the last of your statements,
Mr Dwarf. Upon reflection, it seems we may have had
different 'interpretations' of Mr Plinston's statement, "It is
probably quite easy to change the rates." I understood it
to be a simple statement of fact, much like "It is probably
quite easy to fall off a bike". Something I managed to
demonstrate a few months ago. That is, his statement was
not intended as a recommendation.

On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 01:16:40 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:

>In article <ui54c4dmhuga1qe3jg4iqa0v5i4l3ubit1@4ax.com>,
>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>>On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 01:48:42 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:
>>
>>>In article <p3f3c4lb9ppa404mudo5hmhk88e8h7dtij@4ax.com>,
>>>Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>>>>On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 09:39:11 -0500, "HeyBub" <heybub@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>>>There's a field for hourly rate for every employee and virtually every
>>>>>employee has had their rate changed once upon a time.
>>>>>
>>>>>So, call up an employee record. Change the hourly rate to the minimum wage.
>>>>>Punch the "save" button.
>>>>>
>>>>>At 30 seconds for each employee, and using 50 trained monkeys, the task
>>>>>could be done in less than a week.
>>>>
>>>>This sounds like an 'all ya gotta do' solution. One SQL statement (with
>>>>appropriate ODBC
>>>>driver) could change everyone's rate to the minimum. It would take
>>>>milliseconds per
>>>>employee.
>>>
>>>If the system supports SQL, perphaps so... on the other hand I've run
>>>across a payroll system - not too large, around 60K employees every two
>>>weeks - that runs primarily on flat files. Documentation and research are
>>>accomplished by a combination of file searches and prayers.
>>
>>The Windows machine before you contains a Microsoft ODBC driver for Flat
>>Files. Just go to
>>Control Panel\Admin\Data Sources. I used it to compare before and after
>>files from a
>>mainframe regression test on the payroll of a major retailer with 400,000 active
>>employees. It was pretty fast. The mainframers couldn't believe their eyes.
>
>The payroll system I mentioned did not run on a Windows machine,

Neither did the mainframe payroll system. But its flat files could be accessed with SQL,
guided by a hand crafted schema that was itself a flat file. Old timers didn't believe it
until they saw it.

> Primarily flat files and handcrafted COBOL
>code... no SQL, no ODBC. Internal sorts, MOVE CORR, paragraph names like
>NAY-NAY, NAY-YEA, YEA-NAY and YEA-YEA all implemented into Prod and all
>running for a quarter-century.

Don't be so confident. Flat files are a very soft target.