The Nation's Pulse
The Fourth Rail
Public sector employees think they’re untouchable, even if their promised compensation and benefits are breaking the bank.
(Page 2 of 2)
If there is any good news to be found, it’s that the public is rapidly moving away from support of unions. A survey released Tuesday by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press describes “Favorability Ratings of Labor Unions Fall(ing) Sharply.” For the first time since 1985, Americans’ unfavorable opinion of unions, at 42%, is higher than the favorable rating, at 41%. Also, the 41% favorable rating is by far the lowest level of public approval of unions in the 25 years of Pew’s surveys. The trend toward union disapproval is consistent among men and women, blacks and whites, and is clear across Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. Currently only Democrats now show more favorable than unfavorable views of unions but by a much narrower margin than three years ago.
It remains the standard tactic of liberals, government workers, and other leeches off your earnings to demonize anyone who wants to reduce the cost and intrusiveness of government by saying that teachers and policemen will lose their jobs. A few responses are in order: First, both education and law enforcement organizations could reduce bureaucratic bloat if they were forced to cut their budgets. Second, why should it be unacceptable for a teacher or cop to lose his or her job? There is no evidence that hiring more teachers has improved educational outcomes. Indeed some of the most expensive school systems in the nation (on a per-student basis), such as Chicago and Washington, D.C., produce spectacularly bad academic results. Similarly, it can’t be that each additional policeman adds proportionately to our safety…but they add disproportionately to our costs. When times are this tough, America can’t afford to have sacred cows.
The growth of the number of government workers and the cost of each worker threatens not just Americans’ economic future but also our liberty. It is time for citizens to force government at all levels to live within our means. The good news is that much of the problem is at the state and local level, where small numbers of citizens can have bigger impact than on the federal level. Cutting back the metastasizing public sector is the Fourth Rail of politics. It is time for a few well-grounded politicians and citizens to step on that rail before we turn into France — or even worse, into Greece.
About the Author
Ross Kaminsky is a self-employed trader and investor and is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute. He is the host of The Ross Kaminsky Show on Denver’s NewsRadio 850 KOA at 11 AM on most Sundays. You can reach Ross by e-mail at rossputin(at)rossputin(dot)com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (188) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Ross Kaminsky
More Articles From The Nation's Pulse
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/02/25/the-fourth-rail-of-politics
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Former IRS Commissioner Refused to Say That Targeting Conservative Groups is Wrong
Benjamin Brophy | 2:27PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Darin| 2.25.10 @ 6:53AM
FDR had this to say about public unions:
"All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.
Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government.""
indipete| 2.25.10 @ 6:08PM
A great citation. Thanks.
Shemansky| 2.25.10 @ 9:23PM
Very good article in that it points to facts that the in the United States only the upper class men and women can retire because private and public sector middle-class workers are on your own . For years in order to improve improve profits and their stocks big private sector entities have cut compensation levels for employees and created a wage gap in America. The entertainment media and politicians found it more to their advantage to focus on the public sector economics and attack the government because it's easy. Therefore, the public sector workers should become public financial martyrs and like it because in this America there can be only so many people at the top.
Dave C| 2.25.10 @ 10:33PM
Some municipal contracts are so generous that workers will collect retirement payments and free health care for more years than they work to earn the pension. No company or taxpayer can afford to pay people NOT to workforce 25 or more years. Pension payments should start at 65, not 45.
Bill Husein O'Stalin| 2.25.10 @ 7:40AM
Public service employees have become a long term conspiracy against the very public they are supposed to serve.
sean| 2.25.10 @ 3:34PM
I was forced to join the SEIU when I was hired by a State Agency. Since then, I have opted to become a "fee payor' which means that every year, I demand a refund of that portion of my dues that was spent for political purpose the previous year. Every year, I get my refund in April, meaning that the Union had my money for 16 months before I got my refund. I hate the SEIU and would quit in a micro second if I could. I'm good enough to keep my job without belonging to a Union. That said, it is hard for me to feel sorry for cities, counties and state that caved into the Unions years ago and now have to pay pensions. Corporations are rightly scorned for defaulting on employee pensions through bankruptcy and other means. For years, I paid into my pension as I have for social security. I can only hope that I am not cheated out of both by politicians.
Sparky| 2.25.10 @ 8:10AM
The problem with most studies, including the Cato study after an admittedly quick scan, comparing public sector and private sector wages is they are badly constructed. By comparing mean compensation, whether hourly or yearly, does not truly demonstrate what exactly the wage premium paid to government workers is. What is truly needed, and is far more difficult, is an examination of wage premiums for different job functions. What does a lawyer in government employ make compared to a private sector lawyer? A custodian? An economist? A security guard? My guess would be that blue collar jobs are typically overpaid and more highly trained/skilled positions underpaid but my evidence is completely anecdotal.
daveng43| 2.25.10 @ 9:19AM
Yes and the public sector unions represent the blue collar workers. Professionals are on their own and exempted from the Fair Labor Standards Act.
haroldi| 2.25.10 @ 10:10AM
I believe you have your Acts crosswired - the FLSA (aka Wage and Hour) defines issues relating to payment of overtime.
The NLRA does not prohibit "professionals" from being unionized, with the only exceptions generally being "supervisors" and a few other positions. Nurses, doctors, air traffic controllers can organize, but most consider them in professional positions (due to education or certification requirements, amongst other reasons.)
Bram| 2.25.10 @ 10:08AM
Yes your evidence is completely anecdotal.
We now have hundreds of thousands of white collar government employees making six figure salaries. All it takes to make these salaries are promotions to the right pay grade and time in service. No actual improvements to the performance of government itself.
While the bonuses might not match some companies, layoffs are unheard off and the benefits, vacation, and pension plan far surpass private business.
QuietPro| 2.25.10 @ 8:33AM
The arrogance and elitist tone of this article totally astounds me. I've worked in both government and private sector jobs during my adult life. Mr. Kaminsky rails against government employees in this article; implying that they have no right to pensions or other generous benefits that these employees enjoy. Mr. Kaminsky, when you're willing to forfeit your 401k, I'll give up my pension. Bottom line: I EARNED my pension, no taxpayer "gave" it to me, through hard work in protecting the public. Let me repeat that because it sounds vaguely important: I EARNED my pension through work, not a handout from anyone.
I am growing tired of private-sector elitists coming out of the woodwork with your fingers pointed at all levels of government employees. Often this finger pointing is only ENVY, disguised as "anger". Why WOULDN'T I want to have a generous pension and benefits?
When you slash police officers, firefighters, security officers, teachers, plumbers, EMT's, postal workers, etc.....all in the name of "benefits equality" (Which is what you ARE implying in this article)........I wonder what will be going through your head the next time some lazy, freeloading government employee saves your life in an auto accident. Or delivers your mail. Or fix your shower. Or makes a difference in the life of your child. Or arrests criminals while you sleep in bed at night.
Unions have their faults, it's quite true. I'll not deny that they sometimes fight to retain poor workers who should be gone. But they are not evil. Elitists, both government and private, are. Their attitudes such as yours, Mr. Kaminsky.......Those certainly are.
Le Cracquere| 2.25.10 @ 8:39AM
Then fit me for horns and a tail. Why wouldn't you want a generous pension and benefits? Well, news flash: if I hadn't earned them, I WOULDN'T want them. And if your pension and benefits were gained by union negotiations, you didn't earn them--you stole them by committing collective extortion against your betters. That "elitist" enough for you?
Copyleft| 2.25.10 @ 9:29AM
"Your betters"? What a bizarre attitude.
The labor-capital relationship has never been an equal power structure; that's the reason unions form, to give workers enough power to force management to the bargaining table.
Employers pay their workers as little as they can get away with, and workers demand as much pay and benefits as they can wrangle; that's the free-market capitalism you're so fond of. Unions are a part of that process, not a violation of it; they're a way for workers to increase their bargaining power by acting collectively. Yes, that gives them an advantage, but an unfair one? I don't think so.
Their "betters"--what a laugh! The productive class has always been propping up the leeches, as many right-wingers constantly protest... but they've got the roles reversed. It's the CEOs and directors (like those Wall Street big-bonus boys) who are the leeches.
Ryan| 2.25.10 @ 11:38AM
I don't necessarily disagree - at least on the private sector side.
Public sector unions are a different animal, and is the topic at hand.
They wrangle and fight for the one thing that is wrong with the public employment system - near-absolute job security.
Tim| 2.25.10 @ 9:50AM
Monty Burns is that you?
QuietPro| 2.25.10 @ 2:03PM
"My Betters"? Are you kidding me? I think you just made my point about being elitist quite nicely.....
Let me make something clear to you, Le Cracquere- This isn't a caste system we have in this country. No one here on this forum has any "Betters" I can say that I have a "Better" understanding of your attitude now, though.....And it does not comfort me in the least.
Le Cracquere| 2.25.10 @ 6:34PM
So sorry to discomfort, my good man. Did I say"your betters"? My apologies--I was in a rush, and was inexcusably vague. I should have said "your complete and comprehensive betters, who in a better world would have the power to confine their unionized employees and their families to workhouses until every last penny of extorted wages and benefits has been recovered from their verminous hides."
(Gads, where's a Pinkerton when you need one?)
QuietPro| 2.25.10 @ 7:34PM
I can only assume you are quoting literature; perhaps something from Charles Dickens or Upton. Regardless, by the way of your words, you lowering yourself to insulting me by insinuating me as "verminous", only leads me to conclude one thing:
Glenn Beck once said that when your opponent lowers himself to insults, you have won the argument. Hence, I'll move on to the next critic. Thanks for playing.
Robert Pinkerton| 2.25.10 @ 7:37PM
Here I am with a pertinent quotation: "In a mature society, 'civil servant' is semantically equal to 'civil master.'" -- HEINLEIN, Robert A., Notebooks of Lazarus Long
Ross Kaminsky | 2.25.10 @ 8:48AM
"Quiet Pro",
NOWHERE did I say you should give up your pension.
What I said is that governments are underfunding promises...and that the promises are overgenerous in the sense that the system is still set up as defined benefit rather than defined contribution, even while almost the entire sector has moved from the former to the latter to avoid bankruptcy.
Of course you would WANT to have generous pension and other benefits. Just because you WANT something doesn't mean I have an obligation to pay for it any more than my child's wanting chocolate all the time means I should allow that.
The function of public sector unions is simply to bleed taxpayers. For that claim, I offer no apologies.
By the way, I am far from envious of government workers. I like what I do. But, let's take your claim at face value that many people are "envious" of government workers. That in itself is a tremendous argument FOR my point.
Why should it be that we the taxpayers fund payment for jobs which is so overly generous for a given skill level that it makes a similarly-skilled private sector worker envious?
Finally, I didn't call for a wholesale "slashing" of any particular type of government workers, but I absolutely stand by my claim that ending the growth of the number of teachers, cops, etc, or even a modest cut (5%-10%?) would do no harm at all to society.
There is nothing elitist about saying that you, Mr. government worker who has much greater job security than almost anyone, do not have a claim on MY money for overgenerous compensation.
What is really elitist is your view that you are entitled to taking taxpayer money to fund a compensation package which is so overgenerous that it makes people envious. If there's a poster child for a cut in pay and benefits for government workers, it's you.
So, thanks for being my point.
Bostonian| 2.25.10 @ 9:30AM
Mr. Kaminsky, thanks for your article. It is important to reduce wages for current employees and pension promises for new hires, but I doubt that will be enough. Several states, including California and Illinois, have municipal bonds trading at yields that imply substantial risk of default. States that cannot make municipal bond payments probably won't have the money to pay pensions and health benefits for retirees either. In bankruptcy, all creditors need to take a hair cut. I think that is what will need to happen. There is currently no bankruptcy provision for states (as opposed to cities), but I think there will need to be.
JoshInHb| 2.25.10 @ 10:28AM
States are sovereign and could chose to default on or renegotiate their debts at any time.
At least theoretically.
Copyleft| 2.25.10 @ 9:32AM
If private-sector employees are jealous of the generous salaries, benefits, and pensions enjoyed by government workers, the obvious solution would be to push for similar benefits themselves.
Instead, they devote their efforts to tearing down the government workers and trying to drag them down to their own level of underpaid, unappreciated worker-drones.
Gee, haven't I heard this complaint before? Something about how "leftists" operate in trying to destroy the rich...?
Ross Kaminsky | 2.25.10 @ 9:47AM
Can I assume that the use of "left" in your moniker means you have a less-than-adequate understanding of free markets?
Sure, workers could "push for similar benefits", but there are limits to what the market will bear. Look at GM as the poster boy. Unions got control of the work force and bankrupted the company.
In the aggregate, the work force is by definition neither overpaid nor underpaid when contracts are agreed to based on true negotiation.
Because the federal government doesn't worry about bankruptcy or profitability, and because state governments rarely do (though they are being forced to some clarity now), there are not the same kinds of serious negotiations most of the time that you'd see in the private sector.
If a company can't be profitable enough, the workers will simply lose their jobs, so the workers have reason to come to a true market-clearing price. The same is generally not true of government...again, it's getting true at state and local levels now, finally.
The purpose of public sector unions is not to destroy the rich. It is maximize their own power. They do this by maximizing the amount transferred from taxpayers to government workers (both by maximizing pay and by maximizing head count) and then by transferring some of that pay to the union coffers.
I don't blame unions for doing what they do any more than I blame my dog for peeing on the rug. It's their nature.
But I discipline my dog and eventually he stops. We must do the same to public sector unions.
Copyleft| 2.25.10 @ 10:51AM
"Can I assume that the use of "left" in your moniker means you have a less-than-adequate understanding of free markets? "
No, you can assume I have a full and complete understanding of free markets--which is why I'm solidly opposed to having one here in the U.S. I prefer a society with a middle class, thank you.
Tony in Central PA| 2.25.10 @ 11:46AM
OK, let's hear some brilliant ideas to fix all of these badly underfunded public sector benefits. ( Crickets chirping )
Ryan| 2.25.10 @ 11:41AM
My problem isn't so much there as it is with the job security enjoyed by too many people. The government has FAR too low a bar at times in its employment practices, and it is FAR too difficult to trim any dead weight.
There are too many people employed at the government who do NOT earn their benefits.
Tony in Central PA| 2.25.10 @ 11:49AM
Amen. Businesses have to cut staff and terminate unproductive operations all of the time to remain competetive. When does the government ever do this ?
Ripper| 2.26.10 @ 3:14PM
Case in point:
The PA Wine & Spirits stores are run by a union. The Philly area was hit by a snowstorm last weekend, one that was accurately forecast for days. Early this week I stopped by my closest store, and the shelves were bare. I asked why there was no stock. The clerk said that Saturday was a snow day, so they didn't place an order. The obvious question: so why didn't you place it on Friday? One a little more subtle: if you owned this store, would the shelves be empty today?
QuietPro| 2.25.10 @ 1:52PM
Ahhh...NOW the truth comes out. Mr. Kaminsky, I was incorrect about acusing you, and those that share your same opinion, as being envious.
It is FEAR that's driving you. I repeat what I said, this did not come to the front burner of the stove until recently...... until the Great Recession hit. This attack that you have launched on government workers such as myself, trying to disguise yourself as a defender of Capitalist virtues, is nothing more than fear for YOUR OWN job security.
And the claim you make that I feel "entitled" is foolish. Again, do you feel "entitled" to your 401k? No, you earned it. I, also, earned my pension. Furthermore, the last time I looked, I am a taxpayer as well. I pay for my own retirement, as well as that of other government employees. How can you accuse me of living "High on the Hog" when I contribute, also? And these taxes you despise also pay for the military, as well. You attempt to single out civilian workers from the military. But what you can't seem to grasp, (or ignore for convienence,) is this truth: Taxes set aside to fund entities like the Department of Defense pay for EVERYONE....Soldiers, Civilians, Marines, Etc..... So why not just take all their pensions too, hm? Too bad you can't have your cake and eat it, too....
You, Sir, are NOT telling the whole truth. Only what is convienent to make your point.
rb73| 2.25.10 @ 5:32PM
The difference between a 401k and pension is simple: people have to take their own money and save it in a 401k. Pensions take other people's money and save it for themselves.
rockingham| 2.25.10 @ 8:24PM
Here is an extreme example that no public employee latch onto these days. I know someone who started driving an NYC MBTA
bus in 1970. He never paid in one dime for his pension but now gets $32 thousand a year. He put in 21 years and put in double shifts his last year because that year's compensation is what his pension is based on
Someone who just started his MBTA job this year or ten years ago will definitely have to contribute to his pension. But this will still be dwarfed by how much the taxpayers will have pony up for his defined benefit pension which no one gets in private industry anymore
rockingham| 2.25.10 @ 8:04PM
You are vociferous about claiming you earned your pension. Can you please give me a breakdown on what kind of aggregate pension payout you expect and how much your total contribution will be
I am saying your contributions are dwarfed by taxpayer's contributions. Probably by a 6 to 1 ratio at minimum
CAbystander| 2.25.10 @ 10:26PM
Sorry--every cent you have been paid for your government "service" (love that one) came from taxes. Period, end of story. You have NOT paid tax on those earnings. If my employer paid me $1M per year and kept $950K of it--what would I consider that I got paid--$1M or $50K?
Every cent comes from some poor schmuck taxpayer.
We have two political parties in this country--those who pay taxes and those who get paid BY taxes.
keithbrainard| 2.25.10 @ 7:26PM
The Pew study referenced in this article found that more than half of the unfunded liabilities it identifies are associated with retiree health care benefits, not pensions. Retiree health care is a horse of a different color that is going to be resolved separately.
The Pew study also found that about a third of states are doing a good job of managing their pension liabilities, and another third are doing a middling job. The problem is the remaining states, like Illinois and New Jersey, that have chronically failed to pay the required cost of the pension.
Funding a pension is like paying your mortgage, and when you skip a payment, you are kicking the cost down the road to future taxpayers. This is what Illinois and New Jersey have been doing FOR YEARS, and much of the cost of pensions in these states is associated not with the pensions per se, but rather with the cost of not funding them in years past.
Most public employees are required to contribute toward their pensions (five to eight percent of pay in most cases), and more than one-fourth of state and local government workers do not participate in Social Security. The decline of pension coverage in the private sector is a result chiefly of federal regulations and accounting standards that have made funding a corporate pension very difficult. The result is a nation ill-prepared for retirement. The solution to public sector pensions should not be to dismantle them, but to correct abuses and fund them properly, then to move on to the private sector to help restore some decent retirement benefits for them. Wal-Mart can hire only so many greeters.
Bram| 2.25.10 @ 10:14AM
QuietPro: We know the difference between federal and local governments.
No federal employee is ever going to save my life or protect my home. I'll never enjoy an ounce of benefit from the tens of thousands of bureaucrats in the Treasury or Interior Departments.
As for your pension, it's your benefit and my liability. Get a 401K like everyone else.
QuietPro| 2.25.10 @ 1:56PM
Bram-
Again, false. "Your" liability? As I just told Mr. Kaminsky- I pay into the system as a taxpayer as well. Or did you just conviently forget that little fact, like Mr. Kaminsky did?
Hank Denneman| 2.25.10 @ 5:54PM
Wow. You just don't get this. Whatever meager amount of money you are paying for your pension now can't cover a tenth of the benefits that you will receive. But since you work for the government, that isn't your problem. The rest of us in the real world will get to work for decades longer so you can retire at 49 with 90% of your salary guaranteed. That makes your pension my liability. Tell me again what I am getting from you in return?
QuietPro| 2.25.10 @ 7:29PM
You get 24 hour protection from criminals who will forcibly and violently take your money and life for "My Liability". You get educated children from "My Liability". You get mail delivered from "My Liability". You get roads paved and repaired from "My Liability". You get snow plowed from your streets from "My Liability". You get to have your freedoms preserved from foreigners who would like nothing better than to see you dead from "My Liability". You get your life saved from emergencies like fire and heart attacks from "My Liability".
Was that enough for you? Or would you like me to go on? I'm sure I could list far more......but then again, I certainly wouldn't want you to worry about more "Liabilities".
Oh brother, that word is used by people on this thread like a toddler who has just heard his parents curse for the first time......
Fred Garvin| 2.26.10 @ 9:59AM
Except for police and national defense, all of the services you cited -- education, mail, road construction & repair, and snow removal -- have private sector counterparts that deliver better service for less cost than government.
j0112| 2.25.10 @ 7:33PM
I hear it all the time from government workers, "I pay taxes too." What a falsehood. Government workers are actually paying a kickback to their employer. Something that would be illegal in the private sector. Remember QuietPro, before you can pay your "taxes" I must first pay mine.
QuietPro| 2.25.10 @ 7:43PM
j0112-
You're Right! How could I have been so silly? Everyone one of those taxes on the paystubs I've received all my life were actually listed as "Kickback Deduction"! Federal, State, and City, you betcha..... Why, you've figured out the ENTIRE CONSPIRACY! Congratulations!
Bram| 2.25.10 @ 10:35PM
Yes my liability. I pay into it, my wife pays into it, oue employers pay into it. None of us recieve anything back.
Here in NJ it is fashionable to hold serveral state jobs, therby retiring with mutiple pensions funded by taxes on my 401K.
Ross Kaminsky | 2.25.10 @ 8:39AM
"Sparky",
Your question is absolutely valid...and is understood well by the Cato analyst and by me.
There are at least two fairly good answers to your question:
First, the fact that the study looks at the trend in compensation gap rather than at a single year somewhat obviates the question. The state and local public sector employees' compensation has been shown to have gone from below the private sector's average to equal to far above over the last 30 years or so.
In the public sector, Edwards only shows this decade, but nevertheless, the compensation gap has gone from about 65% (federal over private) to 100%. There's simply no way the make-up of the public or private sectors has changed enough in a single-digit number of years to explain this.
You'll also note that I only suggested taking the federal vs private gap down to 75% to save $30 billion a year, and also noted that taking it to 50% more than the private sector would save $60 billion a year. I specifically didn't write about making the federal avg compensation the same as the private sector avg compensation because I don't know the make-up of the work forces well enough -- though I suspect that something closer to equal pay with the private sector average (certainly less than 50% above it) would be appropriate for the federal average.
As far as the state and local public sector, Edwards' calculates that the fact that the workers are unionized results in a "premium", i.e. cost to taxpayers, of about 8%, which means around $65 billion a year in higher costs for the rest of us. Keep in mind that state and local governments have plenty of blue-collar and low-level white collar jobs.
Edwards also notes that "The voluntary quit rate in the federal government is just one-third or less the quit rate in the private sector", a fact which suggests over-payment for a particular set of talents.
For more, see Edwards' comments to criticisms of his federal study here:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org.....e-critics/
By the way, it's interesting to see right here on the Spectator page an example of a specific state (New Jersey) starting to deal with this very problem.
I believe this issue will become very large in American politics, and soon. I believe it's a big winner for conservatives and for taxpayers.
Sparky| 2.25.10 @ 9:08AM
Ross,
Thank you for your time in answering my questions. However, I do still have some concerns. While I do not claim the expertise of the Cato Institute this is a subject I am not completely ignorant in.
"First, the fact that the study looks at the trend in compensation gap rather than at a single year somewhat obviates the question. The state and local public sector employees' compensation has been shown to have gone from below the private sector's average to equal to far above over the last 30 years or so. "
This is an excellent point. However it does not invalidate my overarching point. There are several very good reasons why public sector employee wages could have risen faster than private sector employee wages. It could be a function of reckless political decisions, an argument I think both of us would agree on. It could also be a function of increased governmental regulation of private sector economic activity necessitating more highly skilled, and thus compensated, public sector employees. If the ratio of highly skilled workers is higher in the public sphere we would expect that wages should be higher. Comparing them in total to private sector employees is no more valid that comparing financial sector wages to wages at Wal Mart.
The union presidium is something that is very controversial in most research. It is something truly difficult to quantify because the number of confounds are enormous. Cato cites 15% (Hirsch and Macpherson 2007). I’ve seen numbers higher than this and some lower but the bulk of research clusters around that number. It is interesting to note that Cato pegs public sector wage premium at 8.1%, significantly lower than in the private sector. My best guess for this would be government is much more immune to improperly set wages than private concerns. If a governmental entity sets wages and total compensation too high they can just raise taxes or limit services. If GM sets wages and total compensation too high then they go out of business. Unless they become a de facto arm of the government, which is another problem entirely.
I do not dispute that public sector employees earn more than private sector employees, even when adjusting for comparable job responsibilities. My problem is most, if not all, studies are still comparing average wages across a broad spectrum of job responsibilities which introduces a confound that is not necessary. It would be difficult, but hardly impossible, to do a study comparing local wage premiums for public sector employees when compared to private sector employees of similar job duties and skill requirements. My best guess is the premium would still exist but would be somewhat smaller than raw BLS data indicates. The real killer, in my opinion, is the scale of unfounded pension and medical obligations of most government entities. I think you did an excellent job illuminating that. Even if we through a stroke of a magic pen leveled the wage differences between comparable jobs in the public and private sectors the total compensation costs would still be skewed. And the enormity of these unfunded obligations is the real danger.
Ross Kaminsky | 2.25.10 @ 9:41AM
Sparky,
Again, I understand the theory behind your comments, but I simply don't believe there's any way that a change in the composition of work force can explain such a large change in gov't versus private sector compensation over a single digit number of years.
Again, I accept the possibility (or probability) that there are enough highly skilled federal employees that the average could be justifiably higher than the private sector. But to go from 2/3 higher to 100% higher over a few years can't be explained by work force composition. I believe it's mostly explained by unions.
Ross| 2.25.10 @ 9:51AM
Ross,
I do not disagree. I guess my qualms with the study is do to my experience in Academia (boo hiss). I also think when the confounds are obvious it also makes the inferences drawn from the statistics shakier. I agree with you that public sector labor cost growht is unsustainable and an enormous drag on the true wealth creating parts of the economy. I just wish we had better measures of such things.
Brat Magursky| 2.25.10 @ 9:13AM
I am a local gov't employee but thankfully not a hyper senstive one lest i would need Tebow tissue to combat the railing seen above. A few years back there was a push by the local SEIU to gather up as many county employees as possible. I declined. I felt it far more honorable to stand and fall on the merits of my work instead of being propped up by some union thug. My pension is a joke and my healthcare benefits have been slowly drained by big law and spend crazy local politicians. Am I an anathema ? probably & that is a problem. But what intrigues me is the mind set that employees are the root of the problem which is not true. I work in a State level court office where there are 6,000 open civil cases and twice as many open criminal ones on any given day. Any sensible person should ask what resources are required to support that amount of litigation\adjudication from people to manage it and store it all the way down to the file folders which hold the paper. At 30K\yr for my salary the taxpayers in this county are getting a bargain. It's the attorneys, Judges and upper echelon of the courthouse that really cost. Until that gets addressed this problem gets worse and worse!
Ross Kaminskky | 2.25.10 @ 9:35AM
"Brat",
There is no doubt that within any organization, some people are underpaid and some overpaid based on certain measures. There are, of course, people who believe they are underpaid (and fewer who believe they are over paid) regardless of what an objective observer might say.
I realize it's not much compensation for you if you feel that you are underpaid, but if you're right then you should be able to find a job (at least when the economy recovers) which will compensate you at least as much (on a risk-adjusted basis, that is, i.e. including some value for your job security).
Employees are only the root of the problem in the sense that they cost money. Over-employment and over-compensation is the real problem.
And the real source of that problem is public sector unions.
Doctor Right| 2.25.10 @ 9:52AM
I'm sick to death of the caterwauling and kvetching I hear whenever public sector unions are treated like the rest of us. We in the private sector, who actually contribute to the economy, are subject to the ups and downs of economic cycles - why should these slugs be any different..???
Time to trim the fat. State Governors should take a note from what Governor Christie is doing in New Jersey.
Margie| 2.25.10 @ 6:05PM
Re your comment Chris Christie. Quoting Austin Powers: "Yeah, baaby!"
Tim| 2.25.10 @ 10:00AM
A point that you have missed about "defined benefit pensions" is that governments, in good years, skimmed the profits of the funds for pork and special projects.
This is why there are no public sector 401Ks- because in a year when, for example, the fund returned 11% instead of the expected%, that 3% did not go into the fund, in went into City Hall's cash pool.
Ross Kaminsky | 2.25.10 @ 10:05AM
Hi Tim,
Can I defend my missing that point by saying there are lots of good points I missed? These articles can only be so long...
Another good point I missed is that the average number of hours or days worked by public sector workers is significantly less than private sector workers, which makes the pay gap even bigger than it appears!
Anyway, your point is important and appreciated.
Tim| 2.25.10 @ 10:13AM
I wasn't sure about how clear I was. I helped bargain a contract in 1991 where we tried to go from defined benefit to 401K. The City absolutely would not let go of "their" pension fund. A fund which incidentally required it's own office and staff of unionized people.
I tried to make the argument that 401K or defined contribution would allow us to keep returns well above the mandated 8% in good years (and there were alot of those in the 90s, as well as give us portability with our savings in case we decided to move or change jobs.
No dice. The guys wanted a guaranteed return and they wanted 20 year retirements. The City wanted to reap all of those double digit returns for "special projects" while simultaneously giving itself low interest loans from the pension fund. Very problematic.
saleboter| 2.25.10 @ 10:02AM
Unions have always been much more sucessful in a monopoly environment where they represent all the workers in an industry such as the UAW did before Japan came in and kicked their ass. In the world of global economies government remains the one area that still has a monopoly environment. The only way to breach this is through privatization. Questions such as "Why does it take a $15 per hour government worker with a generous healthcare plan to mow grass when there are thousands of lawn care companies that can do the same thing at half the price?" need to be asked. Running of prisons, hospitals, and many other former government functions are now being done. Many more could be if they were allowed. Imagine the DMV being run as a private business or more than one (for competition for your business.)
Ross Kaminsky | 2.25.10 @ 10:09AM
Hallelujah, Brother Saleboter!
Bram| 2.25.10 @ 10:18AM
Imagine letting UPS, Fed-Ex, and others bid on postal routes!
Let the supposedly great the Euro rail weenies bid on Amtrak routes.
Tim| 2.25.10 @ 10:16AM
I can tell you that the difference between say Bosnia and the US is that in America public employees are (on balance) honest, hardworking and fair.
saleboter| 2.25.10 @ 11:56AM
I would question the hardworking description.
Tim| 2.25.10 @ 3:40PM
I said "on balance". Oh I got a few horror stories, but that would be gossiping.
Marc Jeric| 2.25.10 @ 10:16AM
Show me a strong union and I will show you a dead or dying industry - steel, automibile, textile, apparel, electronics... and of course, schools. There some 45 % teach (mainly self-esteem and political indoctrination - you know eco-nazism, socialism), while 55% administer, develop, congregate, write phony reports, apply for funds, lobby, protect ignoramuses, cry poverty, enforce political correctness and multiculturalism... No wonder we have now 3 generations of ignorant nincompoops who cannnot read, know nothing of history or geography, etc. - and who vote for Abu Hussein from Kenya and his court of komissars.
Dagny Taggert| 2.25.10 @ 2:32PM
Um, level of compensation is only one facet of it. Private sector employees work their asses off to keep their jobs, while gov't employees have much, much less motivation towards productivity since there it is much, much more difficult to fire them. Gov't unionized employees are living off the largesse of the populace--we're effectively paying their salaries--we have the right to be critical. And you have nary a "full and complete understanding of free markets" doofus. Tell me what's "free market" about government union employees.
Shamus| 2.25.10 @ 10:56AM
The Fed has lots of mortgages they can't sell. Why not put them in public sector pension plans? They might be worth something in the long run, and it'd probably be more than unions can get by shaking down taxpayers. And the Fed wouldn't have to torpedo the mortgage markets selling toxic debt.
Ken (Old Texican)| 2.25.10 @ 11:44AM
Ross,
Thank you for your thoughts.
I like President Reagan's solution. Trim the fat and if the Public Service Union doesn't like it and strikes......fire them all.
Among all the gibberish and nit picking above, I sorely missed seeing one simple term.
May I inject it here?
"Incentives" for performance...of needful services.
I recall an article about the "foreign service" in Great Britain at an all time high in employee numbers...after Great Britain had lost its Empire.
Duh...we are getting there with all the "empire building" in every bureaucracy under government.
Example: guess the ratio of "administrators" versus teachers in every city school district.
Pingback| 2.25.10 @ 11:45AM
The Growing Public Sector « The Republican Heretic links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Jeffrey| 2.25.10 @ 12:08PM
I'm a lawyer at a federal law enforcement agency, and I have no desire to ever become a member of a union. Although my parents and grandparents were members of unions, they weren't pro-union by any means. They saw first hand how unions make it impossible to fire poor performers, and the other damage they can do.
That being said, as a lawyer at least, I make signficantly less than my law school class mates who chose the private sector. That remains true when you include the benefit costs. But I don't begrudge them one dime. I don't have to work the 60 or 70 hours a week they do. It's simply a lifestyle choice.
Paul| 2.25.10 @ 10:26PM
Here, here. I finished my PhD in 2005 and had a choice between going on the academic market, or working as a government researcher (and now mgr of research programs). I didn't see myself teaching classes, mentoring students, writing grants, and publishing or perishing for 70 hours a week. Totally a lifestyle choice. Honestly, even as a govt employee, I have to agree with most of what's said here -- too much fat, too many waiting around to retire. On the other hand, across-the-board cuts to public sector salaries will only incite rebellion. We need to find govt jobs which might be better off in the private sector (or eliminated), and we need to protect and enforce high standards for those government jobs that cannot (for various reasons) be outsourced.
Petronius| 2.25.10 @ 2:10PM
Public sector unions had better learn what the UAW refused to face. They must be realistic about the ability and willingness of the citizenry to pay taxes or end up with nothing. Profligate spending by the administration they elected for the purpose of subsidizing their voters deficiencies has already jeopardized public employment as states and municipalities cut back. This situation was caused by the levelers who believe that reversal of fortune is a legitimate purview of government. My union refuses to learn it. And the result is lost mail volume and delivery routes eliminated nationwide. So keep it up. When the sanctioned economy collapses there will be depression followed by a new barter economy. Can you survive?
Paul from SA| 2.25.10 @ 3:10PM
Resentment against them is building.
And they will lash out with riots and violence if you try to take away any of their free stuff.
sinanju| 2.25.10 @ 3:32PM
Mr. Kaminsky, I noticed an editorial a few weeks ago in the WSJ by Dan Henninger--ostensibly about the decline of House Kennedy--in which he stated that it was JFK who started this whole ball rolling in 1962 when he signed executive order #10988 authorizing Federal employees to unionize (following NYC mayor Robert Wagner in 1958), with states and municipalities close behind. This is a very important point I had never known of previously. If AFSCME and AFGE and SEIU owe most of their membership to a presidential executive order then can, say, a President Palin knock the keystone out of this triumphal arch by simply revoking EO #10988?
If such a thing was done, I can imagine in this current climate of desperation and public anger numerous governors and mayors rapidly emulating such an act across the country and dismantling the Evil Empire almost overnight.
Shamus| 2.25.10 @ 3:33PM
The current situation in Greece is largely a result of the government being captured by public unions. California is another example of this. Even Willie Brown says the public unions in California were extremely unrealistic in their demands.
There's nothing wrong with employees getting a fair wage, but when financially unsound decisions are foisted on the public through political connivance, this goes beyond a wage negotiation and turns into a shakedown. The financial stability of cities and states in the US is threatened by the unfunded liabilities of pension and medical benefits. This is going to be a big problem that is hard to solve, not just for the cities and states, but also for the workers who expect to collect benefits.
Owen| 2.25.10 @ 3:58PM
What all of these union members who have negotiated these sweetheart retirement packages are unwilling to recognize now is that they will someday soon be faced with two choices:
(1) They can continue to take the hard line approach, dig their heels in and demand full payment for all of these benefits and end up getting nothing because there will be massive bankruptcy filings by cities and counties across the country in order to free themselves from these obligations. Either that or they will simply dissolve themselves legally and then reorganize as consolidated entities. There will be consolidation among counties (have you ever looked at a map of the US that has all of the county boundary lines on it. It is incredible how many counties there are!) and among cities. Services are going to be drastically, and I mean drastically, reduced if not cut out all together, thereby dramatically reducing the number of these government employees. States are not going to be able to bailout the cities and counties because the states themselves are on the ropes as well. The feds will have to step in and “guarantee”, for whatever that is worth, the long term debt (e.g. bonds) of the bankrupt cities and counties in order to keep the whole system from crumbling. It will not matter how long and hard the unions scream about all of this because it will be unavoidable – they have seen to that.. OR
(2) They can wise up and recognize that Choice (1) is right around the corner and they will come to the negotiating table with a sincere approach to drastically reducing these retirement plans to the point where cities and counties can afford them. That will probably mean 20 or 25 cents on the dollar compared to what they have today. There will still be municipal consolidations and layoffs but at least there will be some money available to pay for these retirement packages in many of the existing entities. It does not matter at this point what the union membership thinks they are “owed”, it only matters what money is available to be paid to them. The money is not there and will not be there, plain and simple. The sooner they realize that the more they will benefit. Something is better than nothing but if it’s nothing they want then it will be nothing that they get.
I don’t know where these union people think or have thought all of the money was going to come from to pay for all of these retirement benefits but apparently they didn’t think it through very thoroughly because if they had they would have realized that the day would come where it was unsustainable. That day is just about here.
David | 2.25.10 @ 4:07PM
Hey QuietPro, the vast majority of private sector employees don't work for employers who offer pension plans. If fortunate enough, they may offer a 401K, in which the employee makes contributions out of the money he earns. If more fortunate, the employer at his discretion may contribute some amount to the employee's 401K.
So how much have you contributed to your pension plan over the years? It is an easy question. You contributed nothing - the government steals taxpayers money to provide you with that benefit.
When you say "I paid for my retirement" aren't you referring to social security and not your pension? So you'll get social security, a pension paid for by the taxpayer, and whatever you decide to save or invest in IRA's.
How many weeks vacation do you get a year? How many sick/personal leave days do you get? How many holidays with pay do you get.? Will you continue to get health insurance when retired?
As to your claim that people who don't like the destructive nature of unions are ENVIOUS, you are wrong. I don't like the fact that government at all levels steals our hard-earned money to pay for your pension when we could invest it or save it for our own retirement.
Copyleft| 2.25.10 @ 5:06PM
As long as you continue to label taxation, a fundamental necessity of any government, as "theft," I doubt your opinions will be taken seriously by grownups.
Mr.Antimoron| 2.25.10 @ 5:57PM
Copyleft,
As long as you continue to make idiotic comments, refuse to address the points made by the commentors and speak in non sequiturs, I will NOT doubt that you're one of the half-wits in government that I used to have to deal with on a daily basis in a previous job.
rockingham| 2.25.10 @ 9:01PM
You are a bit off
All public employees make pension contributions...taken from their paycheck
The real issue is that these pensions are mostly paid for by the taxpayers. We suckers & chumps pick up say 85% of the pension tab and the Gov't worker is paying 15% via his contributions over his working years. This ratio is variable all over the country. There are a zillion pension plans for payroll patriots
citizen| 2.25.10 @ 5:08PM
I think it is fair and appropriate for public sector employees to unionize. I worked in the public sector for many years and I believe that public sector employees should enjoy the same rights to organize and negotiate to advance their cause.
On the other hand I do not think public sector unions should be able to participate in politics. It seems to me that contributing to a politician is in effect helping to hire ones own boss, a boss that is not constrained by the normal methods of acquiring revenue and consequently has no personal stake in the outcome of labor negotiations. Rather this boss has the means to compel his/her customers (i.e. taxpayers) to provide revenue under threat of criminal prosecutions.
If a politician is beholden to a labor union for his/her job and has no constraint on collecting revenue then who is standing up for the rank and file citizens in these negotiations.
David | 2.25.10 @ 5:52PM
CopyLeft, I don't have any problem paying my fair share of taxes. I think everyone should have to pay federal income taxes even if it is as low as 1/2 to 1 percent - everyone should pay something.
What I object to is being raped/having more than my fair share taken from me so that civilian public employees can have the benefit of a pension plan when I do not.
sub| 2.25.10 @ 5:57PM
QuietPro -
The "right" to a pension?? Is that in the Bill of Rights? "Idiot" is the only word I can use here.....
QuietPro| 2.25.10 @ 7:37PM
sub-
Please see my quote above regarding Glenn Beck.......
Next?
Pat| 2.25.10 @ 6:08PM
Wouldn't it be awesome if we all could work for the government - sure, they tried that in the Soviet Union, but the Russians had problems understanding indoor plumbing. In America, it would be different - we'd have virtually no unemployment and everyone would have generous pensions and health benefits. Some wise acre always asks: "Oh yeah, how we would pay for it?". Well, Mr. Smarty Pants, we'd tax the rich of course and when we run out of rich folks, we'd tax the Chinese or close all the Wal-Marts and bring their economy to its collective knees.
Seriously, though, we'd simply tax each other to pay for our pensions and health benefits. It would mean a reduction in our overall standard of living, a nation of paper shufflers wouldn't be living in over-mortgaged McMansions by any means - more like small barracks - but is that really so bad? It would certainly cut down on all these complaints about the government - all of us would be "the government".
Like the Soviet Unions, we'd have a black market problem when we're all government employees - someone has stand on street corners in freezing cold, run out to cars passing by and offer "services" - and drug dealers or plumbers who make house calls wouldn't get government pensions - not that they would actually need them.
Terms like "bloated government" or "government bureaucracy" or "we're from the government and we're here to help you" would pass from everyday language. Parents would lecture their kids with: "Do you want to be a government employee like Mom and Dad or end up a lazy nogoodnik like your Uncle Al in the Black Market?". Crime would disappear, who would you steal from, everyone would be poor but happy with their miniscule pensions and a 3 month wait for an emergency appendectomy down at Washington Mercy Hospital.
JohnR22| 2.25.10 @ 7:01PM
IMO the primary issue isn't the compensation of govt employees vs the private sector. The issue is that govt employees literally CANNOT be fired for poor performance. You can fire them for theft, violence in the workplace, racism, etc...but NOT for poor performance. This is what galls most americans; that govt employees get any pay or any pension for a lifetime of poor performance. I worked in the federal govt as a supervisor for 24 years and I've had plenty of experience. Lots of good people in govt but a HUGE amount of dead unproductive "wood".
rockingham| 2.25.10 @ 8:39PM
Ross Kaminsky
I have a really good research mission for you.
Find out how much civil service laws are in effect in our various states, counties and in Federal employment. My contention is they are mostly out the window and you have to be clued in and guided by a relative or friend to glom onto a Government job these days
This creates a Soviet apparatchik class, only here you will have "to be with" the Democrat party to get that Gov't job. Affirmative action makes it even worse to where you have to be "connected" to get that Government job
Check out the heavily black Federal police forces in DC. Such as the Capitol Hill Police. Whites need some affirmative action to get on with them. Blacks are way over represented there and in many Federal agencies in the DC area. Such as EEOC... very minority dominated. Where is the hiring fairness?
Pingback| 2.25.10 @ 8:55PM
Thursday, 25 February 2010 « Nebraska Redneck links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Melvin Toast| 2.25.10 @ 9:32PM
Our Slogan for 2012
Taxpayer-funded salaries: YES
Taxpayer-funded pensions: NO
Larry| 2.25.10 @ 11:15PM
Sparky, as a former Assistant City Attorney for the City of Dallas, I can tell you I think your guess is fairly educated and correct for the most part. By the end of my 28 year-plus career in Dallas, I was certainly doing well. But in talking to other private sector attorneys who work in private firms of similar size to our own office (about 100 attorneys, numerous staff), my comparable experience at a private firm would have earned me four times what I made with the City.
In working on service contracts over the years in Dallas, I noticed that in general for services like janitorial, many of our contractors were paying only minimum wage (or not much above minimum) in many instances, generally lower than what we would pay that level of employee on our own janitorial or other work forces. Which is why we did (and still do) a lot of privatization, and why we occasionally resorted to a prevailing minimum wage requirement to insure the use of qualified workers on some of our more important service contracts. So yes, the comparisons could stand some refinement as to job classifications. I've downloaded the Cato study, haven't read it yet, but it should be an interesting read.
Larry| 2.25.10 @ 11:30PM
For the rest of you posters out there, I will say this: public employee unions are the greatest danger that local and state taxpayers face today. There is seldom a real need for unions in the context of public employment other than as leverage against the public employer. Eternal vigilance is now the watchword with regard to these unions, and their pernicious influence must be limited.
That having been said, there are still a lot of good public employees out there. Times have changed, yes, and perhaps the day when public service is rewarded with a pension has passed. But I assure you, if you want your local governments to function properly, just as in the private sector, you have to treat your employees well somehow. If not with the promise of a pension, then it must be something else. Otherwise, no one who is honest, smart, dedicated, and sensitive to the needs and interests of taxpayers will bother to work in whatever remaining public jobs there should be in a properly defined scope of limited government.
I realize that things have changed. No one knows that better than I do from my time with the City of Dallas. People who are my friends there are suffering tremendously because of the budget problems Dallas has had, and will suffer even more next fiscal year. But those of us who have served and departed, and who came in on the basis of the promises that were made to us, should not be punished. We will do our best to survive, and we join you in your concerns, because we are taxpayers, too.
Pingback| 2.26.10 @ 12:15AM
Guinness is good for you. – Dublin, Ireland Travel Blog | Ireland Traveling links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Rod| 2.26.10 @ 12:19AM
California public employees can retire at age 50 with 90 percent of average income for the last 3 years. California pension benefits in 2000 cost $320 million; in 2010 pension benefits will cost the state $7.3 billion. In 2010 the average public employees will have paid $124k into his or her retirement account but will collect $3.8 million over the term of retirement.
Curtis| 2.26.10 @ 1:16AM
The key problem is all the admin monkeys and desk dorks who ride thier coattails. "educators" who never deal with kids, "Law enforcement" who never even see a criminal or victim, the medical workers who've never had any patients.
Eventually you eliminate the concept of sacrifice. As pay and bennies go up, the cops who joined to help thier community and do something they loved, are swapped for cops who enforce the law for cash. Domestic mercenaries; they like having power, like making rank, and like collecting the maximum check for the minimum effort. They'd much rather work a desk then a case, but only if the pay and benefits are the same or greater. Teachers who aspire to be administrators so they'll make six figures and not have to deal with snot-nosed kids. lazy, shiftless, and always complaining that they don't make enough money.
Public servant hood isn't supposed to be easy, it isn't supposed to be fiscally rewarding, it isn't even really supposed to be much of a longterm career option.
Its primary rewards are supposed to be in intangibles. The lives you impact, the good you do, the experiences and lessons you rack up, the freinds you make.
We've lost something when we made "service" into just another job. 9-5, with a pension and a 401K. Complaining because we're not paid the same as they guy who hires out for top dollar to help a generic corporation make more money selling widgets online.
Pingback| 2.26.10 @ 4:00AM
The American Spectator : The Fourth Rail | americantoday links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Susan Salisbury | 2.26.10 @ 4:27AM
Here's the problem, as Monk might say. Public employee unions are allowed to elect, and not elect, the people who determine their salaries. Those salaries are not just the result of hard work. They are also the result of political persuasion. The result is government employees in many sectors make a lot more than private sector employees. Just look at teachers. Private school teachers make much less than public school teachers. Further, in comparing their salaries, public employees often fail to consider the value of their usually generous health care and pension benefits. I don't know any private sector employees who have anywhere near the level of pension benefits that public employees do. But the public employees who find this discussion disingenous have one point that none of them have made. The private employees still outnumber the public employees but keep voting for the politicians who give these generous salaries and retirements to the public employees.
Pingback| 2.26.10 @ 5:42AM
The Fourth Rail - INGunOwners links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.26.10 @ 8:10AM
The fourth rail of politics | Worth Reading links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
richard| 2.26.10 @ 8:26AM
Any federal employee who has hired on in the past 20 years is going to be surprised to read in this article that he has a 'defined benefit' retirement.That went out with the Civil Service Retirement System.
Pingback| 2.26.10 @ 9:38AM
Friday, 26 Feb, 2010 – Crossfit Huntsville links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Jim| 2.26.10 @ 1:45PM
No plausible argument can be made for public "services" as "Quiet Pro" does. Police exist many, if not most places, to do ANYTHING but protect and serve (many are nothing but highly-paid speeding ticket issuers.) Ever thought you had been "served" when you went to a govt. facility (driver's license renewal, paying utility bills, etc.) No, quite the other way around - YOU waited while the "servants" did as they damn well pleased. I was renewing my driver's license a year ago, and watched while FOUR "servants" stood behind the counter chatting, while one other "servant" took care of the dozen or so people in line. When was the last time you saw that at Wal Mart or any other non-public (read govt.) institution?
"QP" did NOT earn his pension, he ACCRUED it, which is very different. My father-in-law was very well paid as a chemical engineer for the govt., and he walked away after a very few years in govt. "service" with a pension that pays him as much as he ever made in salary from said govt.
Also, my 401K, when it isn't being eviscerated by govt. - caused inflation and other misadventures, is after all MY money that I put in from MY salary. "QP" never put a DIME in his pension, so it isn't his and more than if he robbed that money from a bank. He thinks "elitists" are arrogant - Leona Helmsley could take lessons from him!
QuietPro| 2.26.10 @ 8:55PM
Jim- I'm going to do you a tremendous service, and get to the bottom of these anger issues you're having. You, Sir, like so many other persons on this individual thread, are more than likely A. Unemployed, B. Underemployed, or more than likely C. You have lost a tremendous amount of your 401k from the Great Recession. Or...... let us explore D. Mis-directed anger.
Regardless, you are feeling a tremendous amount of envy. I CHOSE my profession (Law Enforcement- The same fine laides and gents who willingly put themselves in danger for ungrateful persons such as yourself, everyday.) I CHOSE this because it was my calling. You CHOSE a job, presumably, in the private sector, for your own reasons. No one forced you, and no one forced me. Yet you have the gumption to attack what I earned, merely because you lack for yourself right now. It's called "Envy", Jim.
It is natural for a person to be resentful of another when one is not doing well, which you obviously aren't, judging from the personal attacks you've launched on me. I will also venture to speculate that you've probably had negative contacts with Law Enforcement.....no doubt due to you breaking some law and placing blame on the police, instead of taking responsibility for your actions. You see Jim, I've met people like you before.
So I do wonder; is this really a factual rant against the issue of my pension? Or is this just some mis-directed anger based on the actions of your past? Lie on the couch for a little while and think on that, Jim. Maybe you'll feel better........
Castalia| 2.26.10 @ 2:04PM
First of all, in the system I have worked within for over 11 years (a public university system), the "blue collar" workers have a different union than the "white collar" workers and those at the top of the system, those making mounds of unjustified money from the taxpayers, do not belong to any union. Thus, the elites at the top of the system, which includes the chancellor, vice chancellor, deans, presidents--all of those "executives" who have cozy offices and loads of perks (including free houses, cars, drivers and so on) sap hundreds of millions of dollars from the taxpayer, government and student funded system. Theses "upper level" administrative positions eat up huge amounts of the budget, while all of us union member workers at the bottom are struggling to survive, being asked to do work that is impossible since to afford all those inflated salaries, we are expected to do the work of multiple people. Without union protection, this situation would be much worse. In fact, it is the elitists at the top who aren't in unions who have absolute say in how the money is divided, and they've not only given more than generously to themselves, but they've further crippled the university system so that, due to the part time status and low wages of the workers in the system, it is nearly impossible to get anything done correctly. Not to mention that its becoming increasingly difficult for the students in the system to receive a quality education due to the money being pilfered by "executives."
Yet here I am, 11 years at a job where I'm expected to work miracles, and I'm denied unemployment for the four months a year I am unable to find work (this due to my part time status), I can barely maintain health insurance (the only reason I have it at all is due to the union--and the administration makes sure it's extremely difficult for the employees making the least money to figure out if they are eligible for it), I have no security in my job (the administration insists that they are able to fire people at random without having to justify the cause--except that my union protects me from haphazard firing, though the elite can still get rid of me with only a few months notice and a brief allusion to funds no longer being available to pay me), I am in debt, I cannot afford to pay back my student loans, I cannot find full time employment because so little of it exists (since the administration and the private sector are increasingly only hiring part time employees), there is no communication or cooperation among executives and workers except through the union (they'll just find a way to get rid of you if you address them directly since they believe they are better than everyone else--I won't cite my wealth of evidence for this because it would take all day)--essentially, the system is totally distorted to provide riches for elites at the top, and to make sure those riches are taken not only from taxpayers via the government, but from poor working students who struggle to pay tuition. Meanwhile, the system is collapsing around them and the only thing holding the place together are the unions.
I think unions don't do enough!! The corruption of unions and the undermining of their power by propaganda like that I've just read here, I believe is all designed to create a new structure for American society--those who have everything and those who have nothing and are nothing more than "wage slaves"--and we cannot even live on the meager wages doled out to us from what's left over after the fat cats have their chunks so they can live like royalty while I live in squalor (all the while working my butt off and watching them barely work--unless one can call lunches and social events all day long work). Oh yes--and they aren't held accountable for anything they do. Dare to question their gigantic salaries and what work they actually do and the room will fall silent, people will scramble away from you and in a few months your walking papers are in the mail.
Though I know for a fact my union is dysfunctional and doesn't win many victories, I also know for a fact that without them I would be much worse off. The myth that those who belong to unions are living high on the hog is a myth created by those who want to strip away the power we all have to receive fair wages that allow us to live outside of poverty. But our poverty is the only way the fat cat elitists at the top can live their lifestyles of the rich and famous--not to mention it allows them to wield power over hundreds of thousands of workers who just want to make enough money to survive. The private sector is dealing with the same issues, but without the unions to protect them they are failing--that is why they are, in some cases, making less money than government workers--and if you want the other reasons, go to the "free market" laisse faire capitalists and ask them why they're buying and pilfering our government, why they're sending millions of jobs out of the country, how they can live so lavishly, what they are paying their workers--ask them all of this and one answer they won't tell you is: it's because the workers are no longer protected and so the elites are in a position to do whatever they want to us and our country--again, partly thanks to the union bashing propaganda campaign.
Pingback| 2.26.10 @ 11:38PM
Oklahoma education | Oklahoma Education | Educational New Hampshire links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Lawrence| 2.27.10 @ 12:31AM
A number of years ago (about 1978) I was working for a public sector organization, Florida State Unversity, in a Staff position. A public employees union formed (AFSCME), which I voted against, but I wound up getting represented by them anyway. When I threatened to quit, they moved me to a faculty position. Next year, the UFF union organized the FACULTY. I tried to vote against that, but some faculty members physically blocked my entrance to the voting room. So I quit and have never worked for the public sector again. If more people would do that, public sector unions would not have as much power. FSU continues to solicit me for support, but I would sooner eat live scorpions. To hell with them and their unions.
Ken (Old Texican)| 2.27.10 @ 1:58PM
Thank you, God.....
For lousy self-serving government cry-baby do nothings with a life-long sense of entitlement.
Forgive us, Father, if we dread worst...a bureaucrat "from the gubmint...here to help us".
Finally, Father, help us elect a congress whose first law passed is a ten to fifteen percent cut in government payrolls, (and benefits), per year....forever.
Amen
QuietPro| 2.27.10 @ 8:00PM
And please, while you're at it, save me from the likes of the above listed Texan, who wishes to take from me wealth which is not his; that which I earned, in loving service to this great nation and community. It's one of the Seven Deadly Sins, Ken; it's called ENVY.......
Castalia| 2.27.10 @ 4:17PM
I agree that no one is entitled to anything, so we should not alow those in our government to pass laws since they are not entitled to do so. NO ONE IS ENTITLED TO ANYTHING
Castalia| 2.27.10 @ 4:17PM
I agree that no one is entitled to anything, so we should not alow those in our government to pass laws since they are not entitled to do so. NO ONE IS ENTITLED TO ANYTHING
Castalia| 2.27.10 @ 4:17PM
I agree that no one is entitled to anything, so we should not alow those in our government to pass laws since they are not entitled to do so. NO ONE IS ENTITLED TO ANYTHING
Castalia| 2.27.10 @ 4:26PM
Above postings are some glitch in the system. As I was saying, entitlement is deserved by no person for anything. Marie Antionette knew this when she said, "Let them eat cake." So did every other ruler from the Roman Empire to modern day. So, that means we should just go back in time and let people rape, pillage and plunder--fight it out to get what we can and those left standing can fight the next group coming. That way, no one will have anything unless they're willing to fight and kill for it, and no one will ever again feel entitled to have anything (and no one will ever keep anything long enough to feel entitlement). I wonder why such ideas have failed again and again throughout history when those crying about people feeling entitled are certainly entitled to judge others and decide what's best for all, right? No entitlement means no entitlement for anyone--that means we're not entitled to life, liberty, freedom, happiness, security, ownership--so that means we can all just take what we want!! Thanks for pointing this out you entitlement naysayers--I hope no one is outside your home waiting to strip you of your entitlements!
L Tod Schlosser | 11.4.11 @ 12:29PM
That was a really good post. You made some exceptional points and I am grateful for for your insight! Thanks Again.
L Tod Schlosser
Trackback| 4.21.10 @ 8:07PM
Public Sector Tenders, on Public Sector Tenders, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
سوريا | 6.25.11 @ 12:13AM
thank yuou vere nice
http://www.soryh.com
wow| 10.17.11 @ 12:34PM
Fantastic task I like your type! Would really like to right here your feedback on my website! I am also seeking for someone to help you me make websites!
actos lawsuit
yaz class action | 10.22.11 @ 2:06PM
IN WHAT WAY THE AMERICA ELIMINATES BAD PERSONS MINDS THAT MAKE SATISFY WHAT THEY WANT?
yanyan | 10.10.11 @ 11:37AM
i remember the most important here and i try to share there was a people sayin thaks im glad you share this to me :Dmesothelioma attorney
malibu real estate | 10.11.11 @ 1:55AM
I hardly ever write comments on blogs, but your article urged me to praise your blog. Thanks for the read, I will surely favorite your site and check in occasionally. Cheers.
yanyan| 10.11.11 @ 1:04PM
yeah its quitly amazing i should wrote it something here..but i will wait something for my friend respondmas200
yanyan| 10.11.11 @ 2:31PM
admit, I have not been on this webpage in a long time... however it was another joy to see It is such an important topic and ignored by so many, zoloft lawsuit
balcuizar62| 10.12.11 @ 8:40PM
The topic that your blog deals with demands loads of research.This kind of blog always useful for blog readers.
Yaz lawyer
ruth| 10.17.11 @ 9:50AM
this is good i love it keep it up i will wait for a new topic and for a new issue :D
silver spot price
fiance visa| 10.17.11 @ 8:53PM
No doubt this is an excellent post I got a lot of knowledge after reading good luck. Theme of blog is excellent there is almost everything to read, Brilliant post.
fiance visa
creamer| 10.19.11 @ 8:20PM
Definitely you done a great job. You ideas is so nice and you will inspired all reader to visit it again.
actos lawsuit
love| 10.20.11 @ 5:36AM
I check your blog on a regular basis and love the fact its popular and has frequent visitors Excellent blog thanks for sharing
Actos Cancer
accident attorney dallas| 10.20.11 @ 1:56PM
It contains wonderful and helpful posts. I have read most of them and got a lot from them. To me, you are doing the great work. Carry on this. work at home In the end,
accident attorney dallas
devourment| 11.4.11 @ 1:01PM
this is the best blog i ever read and useful i ever know thanks
L Tod Schlosser
PIERCE| 11.8.11 @ 2:50AM
I really appreciate the kind of topics you post here. Thanks for sharing us a great information that is actually helpful.
filipina girls
chester| 11.11.11 @ 1:24AM
I was just browsing for relevant blog posts for my project research and I happened to stumble upon yours. Thanks for the excellent information! :-)
zoloft lawsuit
Perfect !!!| 11.14.11 @ 3:52AM
Thanks for providing this good informative post and i got a good knowledge from your blog, i think most of the peoples are get good benefited from this information.
mesothelioma lawyer