SHARE THIS SHOW:
RELATED CONVERSATIONS:
RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
Governor Ted Kulongoski's "reset" cabinet has released its recommendations for rebalancing Oregon's budget. The state faces more than a half-billion dollar shortfall in the current biennium, and all state agencies must make a 9 percent cut in their budgets over the next year. With no easy answers at hand, some — including the governor — are suggesting that Oregon's public employees should pay a portion of their benefits, already among the most generous in the nation, to free up much-needed dollars. But union representatives for state workers cite a recent report showing that their members' total compensation is on par with the private sector, and that public employees are being unfairly targeted in tough economic times.
Are you a state employee? Do you work in the private sector? How do you think the "reset" cabinet should address the budget shortfall?
Photo credit: Andres Rueda / Creative Commons
-
So, what you are saying is that the contract you signed, agreed to, abided by, and lived under for years should be nullified because new employees do not have access to the same terms
That is like saying that the home loan you got at 5%, should go up to 15% when the interest rate goes that high because new home buyers can't get then interest rate you got.
FAIRNESS is honoring the contract you signed and agreed to. Unless you want to tell people when you hire them, "It doesn't matter what we promise you now to keep your wages down, we have the right to take it back later on, if it works in our favor by then, and it will."
-
IF Law reinforces INEQUALITY, Then that law is UNJUST.
If Slavery in the Antebellum South was allowed simply because the slave 'signed' his X on the slave owner's contract, should that contract be allowed despite Emancipation?
Jim Crow Laws permitted inequality for generations in the South. It was Law, but Bad Unjust Law run by Bad Administrators and Bad Governance.
Humanist know unjust laws MUST be overturned.
-
Just read the article from the Statesman Journal about the equality of pay between public employees and private sector employees. Based on the relevant report it is clear that the total compensation is similar. The difference lies in how it is paid. Private employees get paid more in actual paycheck while public employees give up the extra money to get the paid medical benefit and partially paid retirement benefit. There is no easy way to fix the budget issue. One favorite idea of some like Bill Sizemore is to privatize much of the work being done by the state employees. Looking around at other states where this has been done I see that on average it does not save money for the state and in certain situations results in an increase in fraud and crime as the private employers do not have the same checks and balances in place that the government agency uses.
-
I went to the Statesman Journal site and think I found the article you were talking about- from June 14th, right? It did say that public vs. private compensation is comparable, but it wasn't clear to me that the study included retirement benefits. To me, the single biggest area of public employee pay that needs to be looked at is retirement benefits. State employees do a lot of very important jobs and they should be fairly compensated while they are working. But it seems crazy to continue to pay people after they retire. It would be great if Think Out Loud or OPB could do a piece on how Oregon, other state governments, and the feds got to the place where continuing to pay a high percentage of an employee's ending salary is considered normal. Completely strange to think the state would pay people anywhere near as much in retirement as when they were actually working. They should provide the pay and benefits needed to attract quality workers and let workers pay into a retirement plan of some kind, but once they stop working for the state, no more paychecks. Essentially the structure should be the same as for a young person joining the private-sector workforce today. By the way, it is possible that if the state stopped paying retirement benefits, they would be forced to pay higher annual salaries to attract good employees. One way or another, it is clear that the current system is unsustainable and needs major change.
-
The Largest Private Employer in the US is Walmart.
The Largest Public Employer is the US Post Office.
Who compensates more?
The Average Walmart Employee makes under $25K. The Average Postal worker makes just over $35K
The Average Walmart employee has NO health benefits. The Postal worker has a pretty generous package similar to a US Representative.
The Average Walmart employee has an employee funded limited IRA. The Postal worker can retire after 20 years with generous benefits; at 30 years it is nearly full salary for pension.
The Postal worker if he/she is transferred, will be able to sell their home on the market OR the Postal service will buy the house at full market value.
We all should work for the US Post Office. Only its model is unsustainable and operates on deficits for decades and is theatened by UPS and FedEx.
The Post Office ignored the whole email thing and new wireless technology and all of a sudden, NO ONE is using the Mail except Junk Mail Solicitors.
By Comparison, Walmart is the Largest Retail Store, Largest Toy Store, largest Seller of Media, Largest Seller of Groceries, Largest Seller of Produce, Largest Seller of Clothing, and Largest Seller of Sporting Goods in America.
Public employees are paid too much to provide DMV Customer Level Service.
-
I have said this before in open forums and have had my comments ignored. I was a state employee. What I saw horrified me. There is SO much fraud, waste and outright abuse of taxpayer dollars by some state employees! And I might hazard an opinion here for which I will no doubt be dissed if not outright flamed - one of the ways that some of these people justify their actions is that they are paid so poorly. When I went back to the private sector my income increased by over 12k annually and I am NOT among the more well paid in this community - believe me. No way! The other thing that needs to be audited is what the State is paying for benefits. No. Not cut the benefits to already underpaid (in most cases) state workers or tax said benefits - I am talking about negotiating better insurance rates. As an example to pay premiums that are over 20 times the semi-annual benefit for one type of insurance is UNCONSCIONABLE. In my opionon the state is getting ripped off by insurance scams and it is taxpayer money fueling those scams. I have called repeatedly for an audit of what the state pays various vendors and I have called repeatedly for internal audits of how some state employees are misusing taxpayer funds. I have been repeatedly and completely ignored. It is my belief that any budget "survival" plan needs to include reining in costs. Before you flame away please do yourself and me a big favor and actually read for comprehension what I have posted here, because I am not indicting all state employees but some of them and some of that group are pretty high profile. I am NOT calling for taxes on benefits to largely underpaid state workers what I am calling for is a thorough audit of one section of the state budget which is WHAT the state is paying various insurance companies to compare with WHAT benefits are being provided for often completely and utterly outrageous premiums.
-
During my 30 years of state employment I did not experience rampant fraud, waste, and abuse of taxpayer money by my fellow employees. Perhaps it was the agency culture where you worked, but it was not the norm at the agencies where I was employed. I would venture to say that the occurrence of employee fraud is pretty much the same in public employment as it is in the private sector.
Now that I am retired, I am paying the entire PEBB medical and dental insurance premiums out of pocket. OUCH!
-
Would parsimony be served by better whistleblower protection? If so, how should that work?
Vendor arrangements, like the tax system, might provide a complex and varied tapestry for further study. Practices in those domains aren't primarily due to "state worker" behavior.
(People I know in state government must double-check that all the i's are dotted and the t's crossed any time a dollar is spent. Employees would expect to be disciplined and/or prosecuted for anything inappropriate. I would be surprised if the Attorney General's office didn't want to learn specifics regarding any serious allegations implied by the above post.) -
During my 30 years of state employment, modest salaries were generally offset by benefits. Base salary cost-of-living-adjustments were usually below the inflation rate, but health insurance coverage, retirement benefits some 30 years out, and additional paid holidays were granted in compensation.
Please recall that the 6% retirement contribution used to be the employee's responsibility. At the end of the six-month probationary period, the new employee was given a one-step pay increase to offset the initiation of retirement contributions. During salary negotiations in the mid-1970s, employees agreed to freezing their base salaries while employers agreed to pick up the retirement contribution -- in essence, putting more money in the hands of the employees without increasing payroll taxes. At the time, it was a win-win situation.
Also consider that state employee compensation is generally two years behind real world circumstances. Salaries and benefits negotiated during a flush period will be in effect for the biennium, regardless of economic downturns. Conversely, salaries and benefits negotiated during tough economic times will remain modest for the biennium despite an economic rebound. Anyone remember the "Dot Com Boom" of the 1990s? I do -- my salary was frozen while the economy soared.
My suggestion for the governor and legislature is to eliminate the income tax "kicker" and place the money into a rainy day fund. Employees should once again make their own 6% contribution to their retirement accounts after a one-time 6% base salary increase (turn back the clock to the 1970s). State employees will have to bite the bullet and pick up more of their medical insurance premiums.
Just because the recession has put private sector employees out of work doesn't mean work loads have lightened for state employees. The state statutes haven't gone away. Demand for public services has exploded for some agencies. Furlough days only create taller stacks of work on desks.
State employees will have to make concessions during tough economic times, but they shouldn't be political scapegoats to assuage the frustrations of the private sector.
-
As a state worker, may I respectfully acknowledge the Governor's recent suggestion to "keep your pay in line with your counterparts in the private sector." Recent national data indicate that I might get a substantial raise (perhaps 30% to 40%). With a higher salary I'd cheerfully spend more in the local economy.
But where would the state get the money? Would tax dodgers have to pay their taxes? Could the state replace expensive proprietary computer software with free, open source equivalents? Or might the state's commercial suppliers accept an across-the-board cut (of roughly 5%) as many state employees already have?
-
Could the state replace expensive proprietary computer software with free, open source equivalents? -- Powdermilk — Sat June 26th 2:50p.m.
Good point -- if the Oregon University System can afford a site-license for Microsoft Office, then why can't the State Government use off-the-shelf software suites, too? Surely a site-license for such applications as Quickbooks and Office would be more economical than paying someone to write, test, and debug specialized proprietary software.
-
My experience was the state uses Microsoft Office where it can.
However, proprietary software is often necessary to implement statutes and rules. The statutes change after every legislative session, and the patchwork of additions and revisions can be way too convoluted for generic off-the-shelf software.
-
Sunday's Statesman-Journal had an op-ed from DCBS worker Barbara Hopkins, who writes in part:
"Pay state workers on a par with private-sector workers, the governor said in his speech, implying that our compensation is out of line. Except, studies by his administration show we are already paid less than private-sector workers who do similar work...
"When I went to work for the state, I took a pay cut but got better benefits. I started as a custodian in Portland and transferred to Salem, where there were more opportunities. In three years I was doing white-collar work again, but it took me 12 long years to match what I earned in the private sector.
"I like my job, but I am hardly overpaid. After 18 years, my regular pay is $38,800 plus a 5 percent lead-worker differential minus unpaid furloughs. In fact, 60 percent of Oregon's state and university workers earn less than $40,000, and 28 percent earn less than $30,000, qualifying some state workers with families for food stamps.
"Given those wages, our health and retirement benefits are not excessive. They reflect a conscious — and responsible —choice on our part to accept more compensation in benefits than cash.
"Pension benefits were reduced significantly in 2003, and I suspect PERS would not be an issue but for how fast and loose Wall Street played with the economy, causing "The Great Recession" and eating into our retirement reserves. How fair is it for us to pay twice for what greedy bankers did?
"The governor acknowledged Friday that nobody is better at containing health-care costs than the State Public Employees' Benefits Board — and in almost the same breath said state workers ought to be pay a share of future premiums so we will be motivated to contain costs — even though our reduced salaries amount to a contribution to health coverage already"
The piece is at
http://www.statesmanjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/201006270312/OPINION/6270339
-
I come to this issue as a life-long Democrat. I did seasonal government work in my youth but otherwise have worked in the private sector. My opinions/perceptions:
1. I hate the argument that public sector pay should be comparable to private sector pay. The jobs aren't comparable. Public sector employees don't have to justify their usefullness, expenditure of time or pay against a bottom line and have far more job security. I seriously doubt that the workplace pressure and stress is anywhere near comparable.
2. I am increasingly troubled by the power of public employee unions. They seem to seek more, and more and more, without regard for the public interest, while people on the other side of the bargaining table are just spending someone else's money and don't seem to provide an effective counter balance. I find it ironic that the only place where unions seem to remain strong these days is the public sector, where the traditional justifications for unions don't really seem to exist because the people setting the pay and working conditions are not purely profit motivated.
3. Anecdotal evidence, which is all most of us have to go on, does seem to suggest that public employees are treated way too generously. Everyone seems to know a public employee (a teacher, a wildlife biologist, etc.) who retired at 50 or so with nearly full pay, while those of us in the private sector are still sweating hard and worrying about building a 401k. Some of them then continue to do their old job as "contractors" and collect both their pension and a paycheck. Meanwhile, we can't get the laws enforced because the agencies all say they don't have enough money. It's enough to get even a true-blue Democrat to join Oregon Taxpayers United.
Thanks for the forum to vent.
-
I agree with wpetio.
The assertion that public workers do not make as much as those
working in the private sector is a myth. In a recent article The
Economist (an international news magazine) referenced a study that
showed that the average state and local employee in the United States
has an income that is 34% higher than in the private sector and
benefits that are 70% higher.
Public sector workers are almost never fired. They are paid based on
seniority rather than performance.
As part of their contract, public workers in Oregon typically get step
increases in salary every year until they reach the top of their
pay scale. Pay raises that government workers get as a result of
collective bargaining every two to three years are typically in
addition to this. In many cases government managers get the
same benefits they negotiate with government unions.
Many government employes in their early to mid 50's are able to
retire after thirty years of service collecting pensions of between
70% and 100% of their final salaries. To fund such pensions in the
private sector would require a fund of between $1,000,000 and
$2,000,000 effectively making these people "pension millionaires."
As a result of these generous pensions many government retirees
will eventually collect more in pension payments than they earned
while working.While collecting their pension many of them will get
new jobs in state and local governments, often in the same agencies they retired
from, and "double dip," enabling them to be paid both a wage and a
pension at the same time.
We can not afford this system. -
Often public workers are given enormous tasks with little resources, than belittled for inefficiency. My mom works for Oregon DHS as a case manager for families in need. Oregon has gotten every penny’s worth with my mom, she skips lunch, works well past the end of her work day, and often goes in on weekends to try to meet the needs of her clients and serve Oregon well. Despite her ever-growing case-load, pay-freezes, and bad bosses, she enjoys her work because she enjoys connecting families with resources and opportunities. It seems to me that rather than picking on state workers who are already doing a whole lot for very little, the Governor should ask the state workers (the actual workers, not the supervisors) to identify where there is waste and how procedures can be improved. My mom would be able to point out policies and procedures that waste money. One of the problems is that the leadership (not union represented) tend to be “yes men and women” who are not encouraged to think creatively about solving the state’s problems. State workers are an easy target, rather than examining and fixing the state’s systems, evaluating leadership and considering tax revenues .
-
At each contract bargaining that I have attended, the total compensation package is put on the table, salary and benefits, despite the misinformation the Governor provided at the City Club on Friday. Historically, state employee compensation has weighed more heavily towards benefits like health care and retirement contributions because health care provisions represent a greater value to the lower paid staff, some of whom qualify for food stamps, and retirement contributions represent a greater value overall. Somewhat akin to the allegory of the grasshopper and the ant, state employees have opted more responsibly for compensation that fits the bigger picture rather than immediate and short term gain. Now that most private workers have gone the other way, working at jobs with little or no health care coverage or retirement, state employees draw the envious glare of others and appear to have compensation that is out of line. It isn't, especially in Oregon where, again at contract bargaining, reviews of total compensation show the total mix to be in par with comparable jobs.
Let's be clear here that, while the Governor portrays this deceptively as a fairness issue by calling for changes in how health care and retirement contributions are made, that at the end of the day this represents a clawback, a further reduction in compensation for state employees, in addtion to the salary freezes, pay reductions forced changes to retirement benefits that have occurred during Kulongoski's tenure. It may be that state revenues force another round of givebacks but let us negotiate the mix and not in the public realm where misinformation, envy and plain spite are common.
State employees deliver value to Oregonians and after doing that spend their money in the communtiites where they live across the state. The loss of this multiplier effect will have every bit an adverse impact on the Oregon economy as any cutback from any private employer.
-
If government employees on average are, as many propose, already inefficient, won't reducing benefits effect productivity further? Either way, you don't fix the unrelated topic of efficiency by penalizing employees across the board. It is like telling the 'troops,' 'you are not doing such a good job with the war, so no benefits for you.'
Oddly, issues like these, make a good case for socialized health-care. What a potential way to level part of the playing field between public and private sector employment.
Back to the soldiers, who are by-the-way public employees, few people seem to complain that they are overcompensated. If we are talking anecdotes, a relation is retiring from the army at a very early age, in nine months, with a great package. This 'troop' is hardly the pinnacle of intelligence and hard work. But, the efficiency of our soldiers is also another issue.
If you want efficiency in government create it through new ideas, new incentives, new systems. You will never do so by punishing people willy-nilly
-
P.S. Don't workers often go into the public sector because of the perception of security the benefits of the job provides. This security is often the one recruiting tool the public sector has, it is also one of the reasons the benefits exist in the first place, considering government work is essentially not-for-profit. If we are not replacing these benefits with something, with some other incentive, it seems like the gripes many propose will only get worse. And, the quality of the applicants will decrease, unless out of desperation people are seeking any work they can get.
-
as the joke went in the former Soviet Union:
"We will pretend to work as long as they pretend to pay us."
State government cutbacks will be extremely painfull, but the gilded days for state employees are over. Everybody is now in the same food chain and if the state can't afford the freight, they can no longer pay competetive salaries.
I think the states should cut salaries and benefits immediately by 50% and go 2 for 1. For the former full salary for 1, you can hire 2 people. Notice that unemployment is a problem right now. people will work for much less. For the gripers, its better than nothing and a whole lot of talented folks have nothing right now.
State budgets are going to lag for years. There is NO WAY that a state can preserve the old pay scales. Get over it and get on with wages appropriate for the new recession reality.
-
Employee cost is a canard designed to cover and forestall solving the real problem. There are, due to special interests and no fiscal responsibility by Salem simply too many public sector employees for the private sector to support in good times, or bad. If only government been run the exact same way that the private sector had to just to survive. Perhaps things would be different; maybe not. Today, there will be mandatorily cuts in the size of government, and these feeble politicians unwilling to see the paradigm shift will throw the state workers under the skids rather then simply eliminating entire segments of the luxury of government…
I have no problem with the compensation package of state workers if they are properly managed. It is clear that the problem is there are simply too many employees of government for the private sector to support.
-
I work as a fire fighter seasonally for the Oregon Department of Forestry. I recieve no retirement benefits and less pay than my counterparts in the private sector. Pay step increases have been frozen and several foresters have been laid off from the department. I make less than $17,000 a year as a state employee and depend on the health care benefits that I get for 4 months out of the year. Haven't we sacrificed enough?
-
I work in technology and have several colleagues with similar tenures in that field currently working in the private sector. If you want to do a dollar for dollar compensation comparison--I made more in 2006 than I do in 2010 and I've added a Masters degree in that period and my total compensation lags behind my former coworkers. In my time with the state I've found it disheartening to read so many comments about the over compensation of public employees. There's no question public employment for Oregon a great deal at the bottom of payscale, but the attorneys, technologists, engineers, and psychairitrists (to name a few) leave a lot on the table and in return get to endure comments about how lazy and overpaid we are.
-
It's the pensions! The private sector transitioned from defined benefit to defined contribution 20 years ago. The public sector has not only maintained defined benefits, but expanded them by guaranteeing returns far in excess of inflation and investment returns.
Services recipients, predominately our school children, tax payers, and new public employees are being treated unfairly as the boomers retire with pensions completely out of line with the rest of the economy.
-
I'm a public employee (City Planner). Although there are similar jobs in the private sector, many government-specific positions are simply not duplicated in the private sector. It is a very unique skill-set; in some cases one that cannot be learned quickly. Believe me, my graduate school education in no way prepared me for this.
People who say government should be run like a business have never worked in government. We can't simply change our mind one day and do something different. The systems put in place to ensure consistency and transparancy don't allow it. If we don't have a plan in place before we do anything, people jump all over us for being reckless.
Yes, there is corruption out there. It's everywhere. But it's not caused by government. It's caused by people, some of whom happen to work in government. You just don't hear about it in the private sector because they are better equipped to keep that sort of thing under wraps. I have yet to see any sort of corruption (by public employees) in my experience with multiple Oregon jurisdictions. Some of the behavior I have witnessed and heard about by elected officials, however, would not meet such a high standard.
We should be thankful that corruption in Oregon is the exception to the rule here in Oregon, and that includes public employee pay. You get what you pay for, and in my experience the taxpayers of Oregon are getting a fair shake.
Those who would suggest we drastically cut pay for public employees will get a quick lesson in supply and demand economics. Government jobs will no longer be desired, which means that good employees will leave in search of better opportunities. Before you know it, the only people left in government will be there because nobody else wants those jobs. Think of all the migrant workers out in the fields because nobody else wants the work...that's who will fill government jobs if wages are not competitive.
-
Also, many of our industrial giants of the 70's and 80's declared bankruptcy in order to cap and hand-off their unsustainable pensions. This will happen with the States eventually. Gen X and Gen Y are not going to put up with the tax levels necessary to keep these pensions properly funded.
-
Until last year I worked in the private sector. My employer paid 100% of the health insurance for the worker (but nothing for spousal or family coverage.) I also got bonuses based on profits, a hefty year-end bonus and matching contributions to my 401k. Since going to work for the public sector, I have taken a significant paycut. And, of course, I no longer get bonuses.
Although the current public employee retirement package is more generous, I am a long way from retirement and those benefits may or may not be there by the time I retire. What is important to me right now is my take-home pay. With 3 kids, we qualify for food stamps off the amount I now make. This is distressing, considering that I have 2 college degrees and do a professional-level job. Where in our budget could we possibly take the money to pay health insurance costs, too?
I also saw much more "waste" in the private sector - there was not the same emphasis on saving supplies, running out the last drop of toner, not paying for travel, etc. And the boss lived much "higher on the hog" than my public-sector boss! I think people look at the taxes they pay as a give-away, but they don't realize that all those private sector costs are built into every single thing they buy each day. It's much more obvious when it's paid in a single lump once a year (taxes).
-
I was a state employee when the 6% retirement pickup was added. Folks tend to forget that was done in lieu of more cash compensation and actually gave the state more bang for the buck -- they did not have to pay FICA/MCARE on the money that went to pensions. Again -- this pickup was in lieu of immediate return.
Seems to me state employees pay the same copays, coinsurance other folks do. Also you usually had to pay for family coverage. Depends on the health care options you choose.
Step increases aren't that big. I was at the top of my grade (no more step increases, nothing to promote into) and still could not have afforded home ownership. I left civil service because I could not afford to stay. What I did was necessary work but you wouldn't have known it from the compensation.
Oh -- and why doesn't the kicker work both ways? If we are getting money back when collections exceed estimates why aren't we paying more when they fall short? That whole system is insane.
-
"Reset"?
Why has it come down to putting the working classes, both public and private, at each others throats, demanding that each be cut more to finance our governments at all levels?
How about a "reset" over the last thirty years? For 30 some years wealthy Conservative Republicans have demanded and gotten cuts in their share of financing our governments. They have gotten huge cuts in their taxes on Capital Gains, Dividends, Income, Estate-Inheritance Taxes, and in Deductible Loan Interest Payments on their numerous homes and second, third, and fourth vacation homes. And that has shifted the load onto the backs of the working classes.
The working classes pay for the Public Schools, the Public Community Colleges, and the State Universities, to train workers and managers to run the businesses owned by wealthy Conservative Republicans, with never even a hint of a "thank you" from those wealthy Conservative Republicans.
When will the working classes get a break, and get a "reset" to a more level playing field?
Let's "reset" back to the Liberal years when the working classes were respected and economics were more evenly distributive of the wealth created.
A real "reset"!
-
In relationship to the budget at the State of Oregon, we need to look at the number of managers that are currently in place. There are between 1-3 managers to every 3.5 to 6 employee workers. This is the problem with the budget in the State of Oregon. Futhermore the State pays an average of $40,000 per employees and 80,000 per manager. If we calculate the simple math, we can clearly see the problem. I work in the private sector and do not see why this is so.
Also why is the governor laying off State workers and hiring new managers?
-
Details of specific situations would help here. If the gross ratio is accurate, another possible interpretation of the same data would be that in some situations Oregon asks managers to get things done with hardly any staff. Giving a small handful of people statewide responsibility for an important task may mean that they're spread rather thinly.
Having managers and professionals spend time sorting and carrying out trash, hunting for abandoned boxes to use for sorting papers, trying to fix broken equipment, doing clerical work to support quirky "electronic" systems, etc., may not enhance the efficiency of managerial and professional work ... but if no staff are available, either time must be spent on such tasks or the tasks don't get done.
An appropriate "whistleblower" arrangement could enhance efficiency, if effective action followed the reporting of problems. But effective action requires appropriate staffing. (From my own observations, bringing in contractors has often made things worse ... but that's another issue.)
-
A bit of a historical perspective about pensions. Since it's inception, employee contributions were matched by their employer, something most private employers did. In 1979, public employees were contributing 6% and that was matched. But inflation was 18% in '79 and we were offered this deal: take 6% PERS picked up by the State and no raise in salary. So we took one-third of the amount to stay even. Years later, of course, we have been chastised for getting our retirement "paid for."
The spokesperson was correct, the OEBB health benefit plans all have a deductible, all have co-pays, and only the employee has had the plan paid for, if the budget allows. For families, the full cost comes from the employee.
The real problem, however, is that Measure 5 of 1990 has come to roost. Suddenly taking the school budgets and making the state responsible for them should have bankrupted the state immediately. Instead, the rising economy brought in more income tax. In 1989, businesses paid 2/3 of the taxes. Now, individuals pay 2/3 of the taxes. So paychecks declined as business profits rose in the last decade and there are consequences for the actions of the public being an employer and saying "cut the workers' pay!" when they would not want their own pay cut by someone else.
-
I have worked in the public and private sectors and I've discovered that both classes of workers are losing ground in terms of pay, benefits and pension. I left the public sector in 1988 because I was never compensated as much as I wanted. I earned at least 35% more working in the private sector. I include benefits, pension and salary together for comparison.
One problem is too many executives and managers receive excessive pay, benefits, pensions and bonuses. Anybody in an organization who earns more than 100 times the compensation of the lowest-paid employee might be compensated too well, and the lowest-paid employee is compensated too little.
I'm cynical because I've had managers take credit for my work. They'd get the bonuses and I'd get more responsibility with no increase in compensation, benefits or status. I found new jobs that compensated me better.
-
Your guest's assertion that state employees enjoy a "Constitutional guarantee" that shields them from various types of dismissal is dubious, at best.
But, for the sake of argument, let's assume this assertion of explicit Constitutional protection is accurate. Assuming such, one can measure, as you put it Emily, the inherent monetary/market value of this attribute (under the Constitutional assumption) be mapped to characteristics of private sector jobs?
It can indeed! The job security afforded state employees maps to but does not fully offset the salary, bonus and/or stock compensation vehicles available to private sector employees.
In addition to the public/private comparison, there is a powerful and valid reason for job security guarantees - Constitutional or negotiated/contractual. That is that state employees a subject to the changes in political outcomes, meaning that today's employees may report to Dudley appointed agency and department managers if Mr. Dudley wins in November. Political changes occur on their own cycle, regardless of the course of the "business cycle".
Let's try to compare apples to apples.
-
We are asking the wrong question. Why would we ask public employees to give up health care and pensions because private sector employees have lost those benefits over the past decades? Why wouldn't we fight for healthcare and pension protection, or reasonable social security benefits, for all workers.
When the US economy was healthy, before the Reagan era of tax cuts, union busting and benefit slashing, unionized private and public employees had decent pay, decent health care and decent pensions. Those benefits were put in place in reaction to the Great Depression.
This so-called Great Recession was caused by the same unregulated greed as the Depression of the 30s and yet we are not even asking the question of how great are the profits, salaries, and bonuses of the executives and employees of the very corporations which caused the Recession and got bailed out with our taxpayer money. We need to change the discussion and stop pitting workers against workers.
Barbara Dudley, Co-Chair
Oregon Working Families Party
-
I have not heard the entire discussion today, but most of the people and callers I have heard seem to be missing the point: governments cannot continue to offer benefits in the same ways they historically have. It is unsustainable.
Health insurance premiums grow largely based on the usage of employees. In the local government I work for, medical insurance premiums increased by about 17% from 2009 to 2010. In terms of dollars, that's over $2.4 million.
The choice is to continue to erode services and layoff staff to maintain benefit plans that do nothing to prevent informed consumerism or healthy lifestyles or to redesign benefit plans so that employees do choose more wisely. And yes, that is based on increased participation in the cost of the plans.
Also, it is not accurate to say that public employees are slaves, are underpaid, etc. Retirement benefits are still good, as are leave packages and policies.
When will people take more responsibilities for their actions? The entitlement mentaility has got to go, and if public sector workers feel they are being treated unfairly, they should find employment elsewhere.
-
The oldest trick the public service uses, it to claim that they have private sector counterparts with whom their pay is measured. The problem is that they compare themselves to the highest paid executives in the highest copmpensation level that exists in the private sector, and not to any actual equal positions witin average private sector employees.
-
I moved from the public sector (county and city jobs) to the private sector. In what's a fairly entry level position, I no longer have to work evenings and weekends, make about the same as I did as a supervisor with government, receive good healthcare benefits, with about the same contributions from me. I receive a 401k match that wasn't far behind PERS, until it was temporarily cut for the recession this year. I enjoyed the stability of government employment, until we were hit with layoffs. And no severance. A similar layoff in the private sector probably would have come with 6 months severance.
The argument for cutting government benefits seems to be about dragging down as many people as possible to the lowest common denominator. Why not find ways to make healthcare affordable to small and medium-sized businesses?
-
As a former public sector employee I can tell you that I made considerably less than I would have in the private sector. Yes, I had my monthly healthcare benefit paid for me, but I also had co-pays and deductable to meet. There was no 'free ride' on the taxpayers of this state. I worked long hours to meet the needs of those I served. I participated in many off hour community and school projects. So why did I do it? I guess I felt that giving something back to the state and the people who live here was an important ideal and vision to have. However, when I read and hear comments that deride and denagrate the bottom line workers who keep this state running I wonder why anyone should bother. Let the schools, roads, health care, business infrastructur, and others go to hell in a hand-basket and see how these same individuals would be hollering and clammoring for the state to 'do more'. It is not a low level public worker who is causing the problem with our economy, it is over users of the system, and businesses who do not pay their fair share of taxes that is the problem.
I work in the private sector now, and while I get more compensation I still have a decent retirement plan (and I still have my medical paid for, with co-pays and deductables on me), I see misuse and mismanagement here too. So, what is the answer? It is time to stop blaming everything on public employees and what benefits they may get. They provide a valuable service to everyone. Maybe it is time to look at the private sector and make sure taxes are paid, workers are given decent benefits and retirements also...and stop the corporate greed that is going on around this country. I have not seen any top level administrators and managers taking a cut in pay or benefits. The 'golden parachutes' still exist.
The grass always looks greener on the other side...until you get there are see all the cowpies that are fertilizing the field. Stop looking for a public worker scapegoat, and start looking in your backyard. Maybe then a solution will be discovered that benefits all, and not only a few.
-
My son and daugher in law are state workers. They have both just finished their master's degrees and have $100,000 of debt between them. They have started at wages that are barely a living wage. She is a school teacher in a small community and after five years of work earns only $18.00 an hour. ( By the way, she has had to paint her own classroom for the past 3 yrs. due to a shortage of funds.) He has started out at $20.00 an hour with $45,000 in debt to pay off, an old car needing repair, and no savings. They will both have to work full time to be able to afford a family and may never be able to own a home and fully pay off their debt at their low wages. Benefits are truly needed as incentive and a real need, to be able to live a lower middle class life.
-
The issue with the State of Oregon budget is not the employees benefit package, however it is the 1-3 managers to every 3.5 - 6 employees. The employees are paid an average if $40,000 salary while the managers are paid an average of $80,000 annually. In addition, the governors office is laying off State workers and hiring more managers. There is also excessive travel involved within the State of Oregon relating to the managers. I for one have always worked in the private sector and I can honestly attest that if a college educated state employee were to accept a job in private industry there salary would be increased at least 25%. The State of Oregon needs to reduce its budget by reducing the number of managers they currently have on staff. This would solve the governors budget problem. Why is this so difficult to figure out? Let's look at the real issue here!
-
I am a retired Social Worker with the state. My Points:
1. When there is stress the stressed groups tend to lash out at each other--a Versus mentality. We need to get away from that. We all need good health care.
2. In public jobs, retention is essential. I can't imagine agencies functioning without most workers needing at least four years experience. Also, workers do a better job when they know their families have health insurance.
3. If we had Universal Health Care, we could bargain for lower rates on drugs, etc. I've visited France and Canada this year. Health insurance and drug costs are only a fraction of what they are here--and everyon has basic health insurance. Insurance needs to be for people--not profits.
4. Many times I have given up cost of living increases to have health insurance and a decent retirement. And retirement for state employees, now, is not extravagent. The crisis for retirement benefits is largely the result of the lack of regulations on financial companies.
5. Many public employees have very low wages. I've heard clerical staff say it is difficult even to pay for their apartment. These folks, especially, need good benefits--especially single parents.
6. And lastly, ask "Who are our heroes?" I would suggest thinking about the caseworker who works late at night to make sure a child is safe and secure, the nurse who not only has technical skills, but must have a caring manner; the fireman, policmen, prison worker, hospital aide, the workers who make sure our food, and roads are safe, and all the staff that support them. Public workers provide health and safety and keep our systems working. Stories of courage and dedication happen many times a day.
Thanks for Caring
-
What is often ignored in the public/private debate is the public + private problem for the many employees who, by the time they retire, have worked in both sectors. The issue is generally called the "Social Security Takeaway," based on the Social Security principle that public employees should not have both public and private pensions: so-called "double dipping." The principle, though, ignores the fact that both types of pensions are generally based on time worked; and, of course, private retirees are permitted to have pensions for time covered from more than one private employer. As I understand it, the formula reduced--and probably still reduces--Social Security checks by two-thirds of the value of the government pension. Thus, in spite of paying into the Social Security system for years, even a few years in a public sector job can seriously erode the combined pensions, as it has for me. These double-sector workers are thus paid benefits for fewer years than fair for their total working life. It's something to think about when looking for a job, but most people don't find out about it until they meet with Social Security after they retire.
-
One problem I see in this discussion, as with most issues, is that people are basing their arguments on anecdotal evidence or different studies that provide them with different sets of "facts." Based on what they are referencing, I can't disagree with most people's conclusions. I wonder, however, about the accuracy of their "facts." Why is it so hard to get a set of facts that look at the bigger picture that we can all agree on? Until we do that, I'm afraid we will be talking past each other, raising the Us vs. Them walls, and never really making progress. Also, a number of people have pointed out that we have corruption, mismanagement, waste, and inefficiency in both the public and private sector. It's individual people taking advantage of their "power," but certain systems can promote less accountability than others. Let's get our facts straight and consistent, audit/evaluate to make sure the job we're paying for is getting done (and in an efficient and effective manner), be thankful for all those--both public and private--that do a great job, and start rooting out the overpaid and inefficient whether at the top, bottom, or in the middle.
-
After reading many comments, and at the risk of sounding too harsh, I still think points are being missed:
* All employees, private or public, have the right to select their profession and employer. If the total compensation package is not adequate, they can leave. A little research can reveal expected compensation for almost any career - stop complaining and start acting.
* The State of Oregon has a budget imbalance - period - all employees compensated by the State need to understand that either temporary compensation reductions are required, or coworkers will be let go - I see no other realistic solution.
All my employees would love to have 50% more compensation, and twice as many co-workers. However, this would drive my company out of business!
-
I appreciate having this forum available to add my comments. This subject makes me very angry and hits close to home.
My husband, due to construction industry cutbacks 6 years ago applied for a state job at the DMV because that was the one job for which he had transferrable skills. He started out at about $11.00 an hour. This was about half what he made previously in wages.
In the interim things have changed. Everyone ranted and raved about illegal aliens so they instituted stiff regulations. Homeland security instituted more regulations. Now, he makes a whopping $14.00 an hour 6 years later, and, in effect, the DMV is the front line security in Oregon. We can deal with the freezes in pay and the years with no raise, its the constant ridicule and scorn from the "private sector" that is hard to handle.
Some very hateful and vociferous talk show hosts create a lot of animosity toward State employees, and every day people feel they have the right to swear, yell, insult, and even throw things at the DMV employees because they are "state employees" who make more than anyone else and it is their fault that things aren't going right.
I want to know who the State Employees are, on the front lines, that get an "average of $40,000" a year. There is not one non-management employee at this DMV that makes $40,000 a year. The managers barely make that. These are real people who are taking the crap and abuse from the "public" for whom they serve. Not fortune seeking players who are laughing behind their big fat paychecks. These are not the people making the policies. These are people who are charged with observing the rulings of the governor and legislature, but take the abuse every single day because people feel they have the right.
-
Comments are now closed.
We have a serious equality problem with public servants and teachers. All NEW HIRES sign contracts with markedly diminished benefits and retirement allowances compared to their older cohorts.
Should older workers be more entitled to a Defined Benefit Pension solely because they were fortunate enough to be born earlier?
In FAIRNESS, everyone should have an EQUAL benefits and pay package. And promotions should be based on merit not seniority. IF we can't afford the Cadillac Plan for all, perhaps we should equalize everyone to Chevy's. In the long term, it would be seen to be just and equitable.
Haircuts for all. Not Pompadours for Some.