State Budgets and Public Unions
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-02-21/state-budgets-and-public-unions
In Madison, Wisconsin protesters for and against Governor Scott Walker’s plan to end collective bargaining rights for some public employees are gathering for a seventh day. State employees have already largely agreed to accede to the Governor’s demands for stepped up health care and pension contributions, but future collective bargaining rights remains a sticking point. The Republican controlled legislature hoping to vote on the Governor’s plan have been thwarted by Democratic legislators who remain out of state. Join us for discussion on the stand-off and its implications budget battles in other states and the nation’s capital.
Guests
Governor Mitch Daniels
Governor of Indiana, Republican
Chris Edwards
Director, Tax Policy Studies, Cato Institute
Ron Blackwell
chief economist, AFL-CIO
Gerald McEntee
president, American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees,
Ben Manski
member of the faculty, Madison College
spokesman, Liberty Tree, a Pro-Democracy Think Tank
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
By Tim Pawlenty of the Wall Street Journal December 13, 2010
"Federal employees receive an average of $123,049 annually in pay and benefits, twice the average of the private sector. And across the country, at every level of government, the pattern is the same: Unionized public employees are making more money, receiving more generous benefits, and enjoying greater job security than the working families forced to pay for it with ever-higher taxes, deficits and debt."
I couldn' help but reply to Mitch's statement about the undeserved advantages of organized State, County and Municipal workers today. Perhaps their ability to maintain wages while the general middle class has been victimized by corporate centric policies makes them appear more successful than they are. No country can grow and succeed while the disparity between the very wealthy and the majority continues to grow.
The five states that deny collective bargaining also enjoy the lowest SAT scores from their students -- a coincidence?
Ask Daniels and Walker why they are busting unions. Ask them who is paying them to do so.
It should be noted that Mitch Daniels as former OMB director was veer careful in what he said-- federal employees make 50% more than taxpayers, not other workers. This is to say nothing of a comparison of what federal employees who do the same jobs as their private counterparts are paid. Everyone knows a federal prosecutor or scientist at NIH make less than their private sector counterparts.
To compare teacher salaries to all non-teacher salaries is not a valid comparison. A valid comparison would be to other non-public jobs that require a similar level of education. If you lump into the mix jobs that don't require a bachelors degree or continuing education throughout your career it simply isn't valid. Comparison to engineers or computer scientists would be more appropriate. My state requires teachers to earn a Master's degree within 10 years.
Teacher salaries are not where they are because of collective bargaining. Teacher salaries are where they are because that is what the market has demanded. Teachers like everyone else that is selecting a career look at potential income. Do you really want teachers that choose the field because they are not smart enough to do something that pays better ?
Please remind your guest that of the States that do not have collective bargaining they also rank in bottom of half of educational ranking.
Also when he speaks of States over extending themselves with the pensions should there not be a discussion of how the pensions were used to borrow and or invest and the true culprit is the Wall Street debacle?
As for teachers pay, why not discuss how many years it takes a teacher to reach a salary beyond $ 32,000. There may be a need to improve the system and bargining rights, more reason for bargaining.
Please remind your guest that of the States that do not have collective bargaining they also rank in bottom of half of educational ranking.
Also when he speaks of States over extending themselves with the pensions should there not be a discussion of how the pensions were used to borrow and or invest and the true culprit is the Wall Street debacle?
As for teachers pay, why not discuss how many years it takes a teacher to reach a salary beyond $ 32,000. There may be a need to improve the system and bargining rights, more reason for bargaining.
Times have changed and those people that don't change will be left behind. The idea of someone else funding your medical plan and retirement is over. I was amazed that the WI workers were not paying into their medical/retirement plans. The federal, local, and state governments should get out of the medical plans and retirement pension business.
The public sector in WI is not large. Why penalize teachers and public employees and reap a small reduction of budget, and give large incentives to big businesses? I fear our students and communities will suffer as well.
- Contrary to the perception that our state has a large government bureaucracy, Wisconsin ranked 43rd (8th lowest) in 2009 in the number of state employees relative to population, and 38th (13th lowest) in total state and local government employees relative to population
- Wisconsin has the highest ratio of manufacturing jobs to government jobs in the nation, tied with Indiana and double the national average. (Dec 2010)
I teach in the public schools. A Master's degree is required, for which I spent $20,000 of my family's money. Could you please name someone in the private sector who is required to spend this amount of money to keep a job?
This whole thing is about destrying the unions who may contribute to the campaigns of people opposing these governors and other republicans.
I know a 6th grade teacher in Livonia Michigan that is paid 80k, excellent medical and other benefits...the school year is approx 185 school days. Sounds very generous to me.
Unions in the public sector, came online in the 60s to provide some safety for government employees from the kind of politically motivated investigations like HUAC hearings that were conducted by a Wisconsin Senator.
"I live in Detroit and as I watch the Detroit Symphony having to cancel its entire season, I am disheartened. When I read that the dispute is over musicians having to contribute to health care costs, I am disgusted."
--Lisa L
So you're implying that nobody should have the expectation of receiving health care coverage because your family has been deprived of what most fair-minded civilized people in the world consider a right and not a perk.
If you represent the majority of Detroiters, the DS should really close up shop.
I think you know, Lisa L, the rest of America doesn't want to emulate Detroit, which is an American tragedy/travesty. The original idea in this country was along the lines of "a rising tide lifts all boats." Now, the mentality you increasingly find is, "Let's attack the people fortunate enough to be in the lifeboats while the Titanic is sinking."
I am a 53-year old new teacher this year, teaching 4 different sciences. This means that the amount of time I put into planning and organizing results in me making less than minimum wage. I knew going in it would be a great deal of work -- but I do not make a great deal of money, and my job is not "protected" until I've worked for 4 years -- and by then that perk may be gone.
The fundelmental issue is not that public employees are overpaid and have better benefits. The real issue is that private sector employers are not paying their employees fairly and definately not providing adequate benefits. At a time when corporate officers are being paid millions and corporations are sitting on billions while working their employees to death (see productivity increase statistics) is truly disgusting. Instead of attacking public employees and their unions why don't we go after these super wealthy corporations to demand living wages and adequate benefits. Also, it is well past time that conservative politicians quit trying to balance their budgets on the backs of the (nearly non-existant) middle class and poor. It is time to start raising the taxes of the super wealthy and on corporations. In the 1950's the highest tax bracket for the super wealthy was 55%, it is now about 38% (that's the tax rate not what they actually pay). I cannot believe that the top 2-3% of the wealthiest couldn't pay 3-4% more in taxes. It's time for the 90+% of us who are not wealthy to take back our country!
Whenever we are in a recession, the assumption is that taxes must be reduced, which is perverse. Those of us with jobs, particularly those of us who's incomes have gone up can afford to pay more in taxes while others are out of work. When the economy is bad, those who are doing well, who have benefitted from the economy should pay more for public services. Then when the economy improves and everyone is doing well, we should all pay less because the bill is divided more ways.
Yes, it true that wages have remained flat for more than 30 years. I think that somewhere along the way, Americans began to focus on nominal dollars rather than the inflation adjusted dollars. Someone earning $50K in 1984 should be earning around $90K today.
It seems that a negative montra exists that earning a good wage is a bad thing if you belong to a union, but if you are a part of a salaried organization (more likely educated) then the wage is justified. This is wrong. Unions have there bad points but they are simply lobbyists for the wage worker. Lobbyists tend not to get the same level of negativity.
Lets be reasonable here. We are being asked to make sacrifices in order to solve this crisis. Okay...I am all for that as long as everyone makes those sacrifices.
For the middle class (me) and the poor, these cutbacks are life changing and in some cases painful!
For the wealthy the same does not apply. What sacrifices are they making?
Keeping a Lexus or Mercedes 3 years instead of 2? (instead of nursing an 8yo car along)
Taking fewer vacations? (instead of none at all)
Making fewer investments (profitable investments that is)
What is being injured here? Not financial. Pride? Principals?
Ridiculous
I so often hear those from Cato, and similar pro-business, anti-tax, generally conservative think tanks repeat the message that higher taxes will kill business automatically. Is this actually the case, what is the proof?
But at the same time how many industries and groups that demonize taxes, take in money, be it incentives or contracts which are funded by taxes collected by governments. Doesn't anyone see that contradiction?
Virginia is facing a $2.3 billion deficit. It ranks below average in ACT/SAT scores. The extent to which Virginia prospers financially is directly linked to the number of federal government and military jobs its residents have. Please don't hold Virginia out as a paragon of good government.
Shills like this guy from the Cato Institute love to talk about how in the private sector people like him have to work hard to keep their jobs, etc.
First of all, when was the last time you heard of any of these bloviators losing their job?* Second, if he's going to compare his working conditions to those of teachers and other public employees, he should tell us how his salary and benefits compare to theirs.
*For that matter, how many pundits of any stripe have lost a job in recent memory? Juan Williams is the only one that comes to mind - and he was dismissed by NPR! People like the perpetually-wrong William Kristol NEVER get fired no matter how many times they screw up.
Working for a DC area county government, I have a graduate degree, 16 years of experience in a professional position, and earn less than half of the cited number for pay. Please advise me where I can find one of those jobs that pays what you claim! My late mother was in a unionized professional public job in PA. She died with a pension of less than $160/month. Better than private? Better than nothing, but not much to show for many years of hard work for an apparently ungrateful public.
I am not saying people shouldn't receive health benefits. What I'm saying is that the expectation that an employee should have to contribute nothing to those benefits is unrealistic. I know how much those premiums are and it is a huge burden on most companies. If you are making $80,000/year, I think that you probably have enough money to contribute $100 a month to your health insurance premiums. This state is in a mess. But, whatever mistakes the DSO management has made over the last few years, it is too late to fix. I am not saying that they are not culpable, but things are very bad here. We need the DSO-it brings hope to our city. Being without this institution when the dispute essentially comes down to a few thousand dollars a year, I believe the greater good needs to be sought. And, in this case, making sure that the DSO keeps going is the greater good.
After the victory of Citizens United the target moves to Union busting as business interests try to eliminate all tools of "Main Street" to bring some equality to the system.
It is a canard to indicate that public employees have high wages, job safety and high retirement pensions. My daughter in the Texas school system must leave and get a job in the private sector to have a viable social security retirement (teachers don't have social security benefits); my mother who was a school teacher had a pension of $200 a month in 1990.
In Dallas 25% of the teachers are being laid off - what job security do they have?
Outsourcing has already taken away the security and wages of U.S. workers, this last bit of union organizing is all we have left.
When my husband called to tell me the topic of your show, I ran to my car to turn on the radio and listen. I found myself yelling at the radio in my car. Thank you for your questions of Gov. Daniels and you are right he did not say how collective bargaining hurt the budget. It seems as though the issues he was concerned about could/should be some of the topics discussed during bargaining. Of course, if he outlaws them, then he doesn't have to discuss anything! I was particularly disturbed when you stated your question a second time, and he became flustered then stated that government employees used part of their salary to support unions. I thought we had a RIGHT to use our salary as we wish. I didn't know it came with political strings attached!!
Yes, I as a teacher I am not at work today - in my school building. I did bring grading home with me that will take about two hours and I need to create a test that will take another hour. BUT. . . contrary to what has been said, I am not paid for today, I am not paid for my summer break, winter break or any of the other non-school days. Our salary is based on the days in the school calendar. Yes, we get paid in the summer. The school district keeps back some of our wages, earns interest on it, and then offers it to us in equal payments over the course of the year. We don't have a choice, but our salary is based on the days in our contract! I average 10 hour days during the school year, I am paid for eight. I have a master's degree in education - required by the state dept. of education and at my own expense - and 23 years experience. I resent the governor's comparison of our salary with the average salary of Indiana workers. To be fair he should compare it to a worker with a master's degree, but, of course, he wouldn't do that. In the last NINE years, I have only had a $1000 increase in my salary which covered part of the additional cost of health insurance. This doesn't seem outrageous to me.
I am a teacher in Ohio and I don't know of any teacher that got rich from teaching. Not only that most of us spend about 50-60 hours a week preparing for class as well as about minimum of 2 weeks of our summer vacation preparing for the next school year. On top of all that we spend on the average of $500 out of our own pocket for materials. In Ohio the state teachers retirement system has modified the retirement package due to the issues we are seeing in the economy. I understand in Wisconsin the tachers have done the same modifying to their retirement package as well. The money in our retirement is our money we put in there. Some people cried socialism when the president wanted public health insurance, well what do they call wanting to take away our rights. It is not the public employees that brought on these economic problems, you are looking at the wrong people to fix this.
I had to stop listening to the show, the lies and propaganda were coming too fast. I like Dianne, but once again having someone moderate a program who has no or little or no knowledge of the issues creates a travesty. I was a member of a union for state workers, I'm sure some of you will stop reading now, no point in listening to another point of view that would make your brain hurt. Dianne allowed many statements to go by without question which were totally or mostly false, because of her reputation for honesty these statements enter the discussion as facts, how sad. Too bad she didn't have someone educated in labor history and labor law to be her truth detector. Let keep an honest discussion and stop the lies. Labor unions fight for basic human rights like dignity and respect, being heard, being safe.
Unions don't control politics, but they have to lobbie to keep from being left in the dust. This is just another republican tactic to destroy the middle class, the sad thing is most people won't know what happened until it is too late to stop it.
The grass is always greener....
I am an educator, and feel adequately paid for my experience and education. I pay significant portions of my health care and into my pension. I do not complain, and I do not complain about what others have or have not, as I cannot completely understand their job until I have done it.
My contract and union help to secure my job and fair wages. Unlike the private sector, I'm not able to get raises based on performance (which isn't feasible in education), bonuses, commission, promotion, or many other opportunities for increased pay. That's okay, because I understood and accepted those terms when I chose my career.
When times were good, and the private sector was doing well, do you think we saw the benefits? States have cut funding for schools, and schools are working with their unions to make cuts to stay solvent.
My job is my livelihood and my passion. Please don't agree to support a significant piece of legislation without knowing all the facts, and being open to listen to those who are effected by it.
We all have pros and cons to our jobs, please consider all of these when you agree to slash something, just because you feel that it is one area that is better than what you have.
Lisa L, very valid points. I agree that an employee making ~$80K is obligated to contribute a reasonable percentage to an employer-provided health care plan. (However, given these income/benefits cuts, DSO supporters can no longer necessarily expect their symphony to be the top-notch outfit that it once was.)
Do you think that Detroit has historically had income inflation at *many* different levels / income strata (in large part because of historical union leverage)? If so, how did that affect industries/shops outside the direct influence of big labor?