Superman,
First, no names were used(unless you are opposed to "government lover"
, which was an attempt at humor)
Second, I don't think you're an idiot, I do think that you are the one who has been indoctrinated, yes, I think you have the blinders on.
Third, and perhaps to make point two, your first paragraph example makes little sense to me. You claim you did not have enough support staff to properly analyze prevailing wages? Then you assume that this always leads to increased costs? If you don't know if you're right or wrong, how would you know if you're high or low????
I am sure you'll refer to me as naive here but why should the state even be involved in such things?? The state feels contractor employees should make a different amount when working on government contracts than private ones? The way I see it, your state created a problem that didn't exist, then underfunded it's solution center.. Classic
In the "real world" these jobs would just go out for bid and the best value would win, but I guess that would be to simple.
In other words, I'm not expecting any calls from GM telling that when we I run c-body door pillars next Wednesday I need to be sure to pay my guys $18.50 an hour cause they have decided that's what the labor should command from my business. Why do you think this NEVER happens in the real world? The premise, to me, is asinine. You're saying your department was underfunded and therefore unable to properly perform it's function, where as I am saying perhaps the department has no reason to exist.
Since it was obviously not to save money, what was the point of this position? I am guessing to ensure "fairness" to the workers. A slap in the face to employers by basically saying they otherwise are not.
BTW, I think you take me more venemous than I really am, I just like a spirited debate.