Oregonian blogger Jeff Mapes predicts, no doubt correctly, that public employee salaries and benefits are likely to come under attack again in these tough times.
“There has been a lot of debate in Oregon over whether public employees get an especially cushy deal, particularly when it comes health and retirement benefits,” he writes. “It’s an issue that is growing nationally as well.
“USA Today reports that new federal statistics show that benefits for public employees around the nation now are outpacing those for private employees. Last year, the value of public employee benefits rose by 69 cents an hour, compared to 23 cents for private employees.”
The big reason for the disparity, Mapes correctly notes, is that many public employees still have unions and increasing numbers of private-sector employees don’t. It’s less easy for employers to cut back wages and benefits if they’re locked into a union contract.
“Now that we’re in a particularly nasty recession and Oregon and so many other states are facing huge budget gaps, public employees and their benefits are bound to face more scrutiny,” Mapes concludes.
This poses a paradox that The Eye has often puzzled over: Instead of complaining that public employees have too much, why don’t private-sector employees ask themselves why they have so little – and organize to fight for more? After all, cutting public employees’ wages and benefits doesn’t do anything to help private-sector employees; it just tends to drag all employees down to the same low level.
The explanation, of course, is that conservative politicians are past masters at playing what New York Times columnist and Nobel economics laureate Paul Krugman has called “the politics of resentment” – which, in this case, means persuading working Americans (non-unionized ones) to resent other working Americans (unionized ones) who have a better deal than they have and blame them (the union workers and their unions) for their own rotten deal. It’s a strategy that’s worked well for the past 30 years, so don’t expect conservatives to give it up now.
This article appears in Apr 9-15, 2009.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
The main problem with your argument, Bruce, is that it is way too logical and makes far too much sense. Unfortunately, one group of workers (lower paid, lacking benefits) is prodded to attack another group of workers (who collectively worked together to improve their lot, often at some risk of their jobs). I continue to be saddened to watch reactionaries convince workers that their problems are the fault of other workers, rather than the folks who benefit from such a bloodfest. Hopefully, the EFCA will become law and the playing field will be leveled a bit so that more workers will organize and learn firsthand the incredible benefits that unions provide to workforces and entire communities.
The unfortnate thing is that the American worker wants the benefit of buying cheep goods but also wants high wages. When the union boys quit buying cheep foreign made goods and buy only US goods then maybe US producers can pay better wages.
Unfortunately we are in a global economy.
Having worked for the government and now owner of my own business, this is how I have experienced it. The government officials write laws to determine their salaries and benefits (for them and their staff) without the added pressure of net profits at the end of the year. The individual offices use all of their allotted budgets because they donâ ™t want to lose money for the next year. Iâ ™ve seen the spending spree at the end of the year to ensure the budget is not reduced. My sister worked as a secretary for an appeals court judge in Ohio and made about $43K a year, had great benefits, and the office closed at 12pm the day before a holiday. She did a little paper work, but when she was hired she was told to bring books to occupy her time (there are 5 judges employing 5 secretaries). I worked in the justice system managing a branch of the clerks office and could not run an efficient office. I couldnâ ™t combine jobs or remove unreliable employees who didnâ ™t perform. If the work didnâ ™t get finished, then oh well, weâ ™ll be back tomorrow. As a business owner, I am accountable for the dollars I spend and must also finish the job if an employee doesnâ ™t, no profit, no business. Many businesses, including mine, are experiencing the cash crunch in this economy. It is very difficult to find a bank or other entity willing to carry a deficit. I donâ ™t see how a private sector employer could ever keep up with the government salaries and benefits (especially paid vacation time, sick time and holiday pay) without looking at the bottom line. So, we should be looking at the government and how they are running things. Especially, how the government could aid the private sector in offering comparable benefits for our employees.
Regardless of ‘who has so little,’ the question remains: who will pay for the benefits of the public employees in a period of economic meltdown, when the people who would normally pay are unemployed, under-employed or struggling? I remember the time when public sector jobs were denigrated as second-tier, unattractive and low-paying. Thanks to unionization that is no longer the case.
Like the private sector, however, the public sector fails to adequately plan and project. Contract settlements, made with no concern for an ability to meet the obligations in the future–no long-range planning. Only short term gains are a concern.
All such benefits and settlements are paid for by the customer or taxpayer–and when they don’t buy and can’t pay taxes suddenly there are shortfalls and an inability to fund all of those great salaries and benefits. Everyone from conservative pundits who point fingers at greedy union organizers and members to union organizers who point to unprogressive parsimonious business managers and politicians run from the truth–and that is that everyone shares the responsibility.
I own my own small business and I have no benefits unless I am able to earn and pay for them. I’m tired of paying for benefits that go to others. Almost all of us who do so are.
It is not about why would you settle for anything less, it is a matter of surviving. Like the American auto industry, the public sector is bloated and unimaginative.
Shackled by obligations to itâ ™s union members and antiquated business practices it is just a matter of time before our governments find that they too are in the same boat as the auto industry. Unfortunately our governments will not be able to break the strangle hold of the union contracts by filing bankruptcy.
If our government were to spend the same energy being imaginative, reorganizing and slimming down to run with in their means, as they do looking for new revenue streams imagine how much better off we all would be.
The bulk of the comments here are illustrative of the effectiveness and ubiquitousness of the politics of resentment toward public employees: If you’ve seen four public employees watch paint dry, then surely ALL public employees must be highly paid loafbags who wouldn’t know how to work hard even if they were thrown onto the street without benefits. One supposes that such comments DO illustrate the failures of our public education system. 🙁
I’ve worked in both private (established and startup, large and small) and public sectors and run my own businesses, and I’ve seen hard work and sloth in all (yes, including myself). I’ve seen a great deal of imagination in all. One thing I’ve NEVER EVER seen in the public sector employees (and I challenge anyone to find an example) is grotesque (or even modest) wealth or the ability to write off virtually every little expenditure as a tax offset. Private sector consultants to government can and do accomplish this thanks to Reagan and Clinton, but they’re not government employees now, are they?
Mr. Funke is generally right — this creation of attack dogs from the flesh of oppressed workers has been a highly effective and disturbing tactic. The analysis put forth by Mr. Mapes and Mr. Miller may in fact be logical. I doubt, however, that leveling the playing field will change things. It’s up to the workers themselves, and they’re too busy attacking each other to notice the possibilities in that level playing field.
O-T
Do public sector employees who double dip into pensions count? We don’t count our elected officials as employees, but if we did there would be a few examples of the ‘common man’ who becomes a millionaire in the public sector.
The paint-drying example is one that I hear or read about in one form or another and other anecdotal claims should be taken with a grain of salt.
It always boils down to who is really paying for the benefits employees receive: the consumer and the taxpayer. When they can’t afford to pay any longer what should happen?
“Hopefully, the EFCA will become law and the playing field will be leveled a bit so that more workers will organize and learn firsthand the incredible benefits that unions provide to workforces and entire communities.”
Yeah, the unions already bankrupted and eliminated the U.S. steel industry and now the auto makers are next.