The Wall Street Journal has a chart showing that "state and local government workers" clearly do better that "private-industry workers." According to the Journal, state and local government workers make $26.25 cents an hour, compared to the $19.68 an hour that workers in private industry average. This chart clearly feeds the narrative that public-sector workers are - depending on you point of view - "better-paid" or "overpaid."It is not true. Such a shame; the WSJ used to be a reliable source for honest journalism; not so much any more. From the New York Times - the venerable 'gray lady' presents a more accurate picture:
For the real story, an analysis and comparison was made by the New York Times on Saturday, February 19th, 2011, which makes a much more accurate - and frankly a much more HONEST apples to apples look at the employees in Wisconsin that are at the center of the current national controversy.
The WaPo opinion writer E.J. Dionne further points out that the pro-labor Economic Policy Institute (well respected for accuracy despite their bias) figured out that the greater the level of education, the more that the public sector is paid LESS than the equivalent private sector. (I believe Hass, this would be something you could speak to from your personal experience here in Minnesota and elsewhere.) Here is the EPI's chart to put it in visual terms:
The Miami Herald sums it all up pretty well here.
"the buildup of global capital that overheated the American housing sector and got packaged into seemingly riskless financial products that then brought down Wall Street, paralyzing the economy, throwing millions out of work, and destroying the revenues from state income and sales taxes even as state residents needed more social services? The answer to that in not to end collective bargaining for public employees. A plus B plus C does not equal what Gov. Scott Walker is attempting in Wisconsin.Which is the same old tune the Conservatives like to whine as well.....that it is the left that takes advantage of crises to get what they want. The louder the whine from them, the closer it pays to look to catch them doing exactly that; like the Wisconsin controversy, a perfect example. Because it seems every time the Right can't pass a fact check or a good scrutiny of their purported analyses.....they know the real story, they just aren't telling it to their base.
In fact, it particularly doesn’t work for what Walker is attempting in Wisconsin. The Badger State was actually in pretty good shape. It was supposed to end this budget cycle with about $120 million in the bank. Instead, it’s facing a deficit. Why? I’ll let the state’s official fiscal scorekeeper explain:
“More than half of the lower estimate ($117.2 million) is due to the impact of Special Session Senate Bill 2 (health savings accounts), Assembly Bill 3 (tax deductions/credits for relocated businesses), and Assembly Bill 7 (tax exclusion for new employees).”In English: The governor signed two business tax breaks and a conservative health-care policy experiment that lowers overall tax revenues. The new legislation was not offset, and it turned a surplus into a deficit. As Brian Beutler writes, “public workers are being asked to pick up the tab for this agenda.”
But even that’s not the full story here. Public employees aren’t being asked to make a one-time payment into the state’s coffers. Rather, Walker is proposing to sharply curtail their right to bargain collectively. A cyclical downturn that isn’t their fault, plus an unexpected reversal in Wisconsin’s budget picture that wasn’t their doing, is being used to permanently end their ability to sit across the table from their employer and negotiate what their health insurance should look like.
That’s how you keep a crisis from going to waste: You take a complicated problem that requires the apparent need for bold action and use it to achieve a longtime ideological objective. In this case, permanently weakening public-employee unions, a group much-loathed by Republicans in general and by the Republican legislators who have to battle them in elections in particular.
If you read Walker’s State of the State address, you can watch him hide the ball on what he’s doing. “Our upcoming budget is built on the premise that we must right size our government,” he said. “That means reforming public employee benefits — as well as reforming entitlement programs and reforming the state’s relationship with local governments.” Not a word on his actual proposal, which is to end collective bargaining for benefits.
If all Walker was doing was reforming public employee benefits, I’d have little problem with it. There’s too much deferred compensation in public employee packages, and though the blame for that structure lies partially with the government officials and state residents who wanted to pay later for services now, it’s true that situations change and unsustainable commitments require reforms. But that’s not what Walker is doing. He’s attacking the right to bargain collectively — which is to say, he’s attacking the very foundation of labor unions, and of worker power — and using an economic crisis unions didn’t cause, and a budget reversal that Walker himself helped create, to justify it.
And it’s not as if public employees aren’t hurting. In the Wisconsin budget report I quoted earlier, the state’s fiscal bureau goes on to survey the state of the economy. “Going forward, Global Insight expects private sector payrolls to grow by 2.1 million in 2011, 2.6 million in 2012, and 2.5 million in 2013. Projected cutbacks in the number of public sector employees, however, are expected to partially offset those private sector gains. In 2010, the number of state and local government employees fell by an estimated 208,000 positions. In 2011, those cutbacks are expected to total an additional 150,000 positions.” In other words, private jobs are coming back, but state and local jobs are still being lost. Public-employee unions are on the mat. Walker is trying to make sure they don’t get back up."
Most of the discussions I have been listening to concern benefits inequities not wage inequities. Regardless of what Walker says that seems to be what the state workforce is most concerned about. Not suprisingly, that is also what the private labor force is most upset about - hence the impending class warfare.
ReplyDeleteI don't know about Wisconsin but in Minnesota - at least where I live - state and county social workers make far more than equivilant social workers employed by private agencies - and in the case of school social workers, for far fewer days at work. nevertheless, the big disparity continues to be in benefits.
So often we try to solve problems by going from one extreme to another. This move of Walker's is a classic example. Busting the public employee unions is not a solution. Leveling the playing field is. In Minnesota, for instance, eliminating the penalty imposed upon school districts levels the playing field. Dumping teachers' unions does not. That merely introduces new problems into the equations. In Wisconsin Walker will soon learn that.
I like the story, but it's a bit long.
ReplyDeleteLeslie, what private agencies employ social workers? And why would there be discrepancies in the days that private social workers are employed versus public agency social workers?
ReplyDeletePerhaps more significant to the discussion, specifically tot he data I cited here - is there a difference in academic backgrounds required between private and public sector social workers?
And......could you elaborate please how the playing field could be leveled and what the penalties are that you describe? Also, would you consider the description of classrooms described by our other commenter, Hass (Mr. Hasslington) to be correct? If so, it would seem we are in need of more, not less school spending for education, in both supplies and equipment, and student / teacher ratios.
DG,
ReplyDelete1. Social workers can be licensed to work as therapists. As such, they can be employed in both public (Usually County Social/Human Services) and private clinic settings. In Winona, some collaborative programs involve employees of both in a single setting. County social workers who may work in a collaborative program alongside of an employee of a private clinic are often encouraged not to talk about their salaries and benefits to the clinic's employees - it makes for an uncomfortable working relationship.
2. School districts pay penalties if they don't settle with unions by a deadline date (in January, I think, of the contract start year). That fine can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. There is no such penalty for unions who remain "firm."
3. The "days worked" discrepancies are in the days worked by social workers who are employed by school districts (It's the same issue that arises when comparing teachers' salaries with those of other comparable human services professionals.)
If I understand you correctly Leslie, you have what seems like an unfair pressure on you to settle that doesn't work equally or fairly on the teachers side of the equation?
ReplyDeleteI imagine that you have to be careful as to what you can say on this subject, so I am trying not to put you in an awkward position by asking a question that places you behind the 8 ball, so to speak.