The Privileged Class

[dgs49]

Government employees in Wisconsin are rioting in the streets, because the newly-elected government threatens to remove their longstanding “collective bargaining” rights. Sympathetic, outraged journalists look on and report the chaos. Madison teachers call in “sick” in such numbers that classes must be cancelled, and there is a threat of an epidemic of Blue Flu. The Progressives are shocked and horrified!

The governor or New Jersey receives death threats for explaining the State’s fiscal problems to a firefighter at a local Town Hall meeting.

In Pennsylvania, outraged employees of the State’s liquor stores lobby feverishly, write letters to local newspapers, and predict widespread death in the Pennsylvania streets – the inevitable result, they predict, of turning over the running of liquor stores to private entrepreneurs.

As Limbaugh would describe it, “all across the fruited plain,” government employees and their sycophants in the media decry the popular, conservative-led movement to…what?...make the compensation, benefits, and job security of government employment slightly more in line with that of comparable positions in the private sector.

Does anyone dare to say it: Collective bargaining in the public sector has been an unmitigated disaster for the taxpaying public? Not only is it conceptually absurd, but its real-life products (the labor contracts) have grown more and more unreal as time goes by.

On the employee/worker side, you have employees in a monopolistic institution who can threaten to withhold vital services to the public to get what they want – and generally pay no personal price for it (usually, they get backpay for any lost paychecks, and teachers get paid for the full academic year, regardless). On the management/employer side, you have people who are playing with “funny money” that – at least in their own minds - arises from an inexhaustible source, and management negotiators often know that they will reap the rewards of any generous settlement in their own compensation and benefit packages before the ink is dry on the new contract.

Clearly, this is NOT a scenario for which collective bargaining is appropriate: one where both the employees and the employer are negotiating to advance their vital interests, and an ill-considered settlement can threaten the very existence of the enterprise. If the employees go on strike, they lose paychecks and cannot collect unemployment, and the enterprise generally loses its production capacity, potentially antagonizing customers and losing business to competitors.

But inevitably in the public sector, we now have an entire class of state and local government employees (millions strong) who have never had to experience the shift from defined-benefit pension plans to “401k’s” as the private sector did, who never had to start paying substantial portions of their health insurance costs as the private sector does, and who have never had to live with the more-or-less constant concern about job loss, as most private sector employees do. And in recent decades when private sector employees have had to live with “flat” or declining salaries due to minimal inflation, global competition, and strained corporate revenues, public sector employees have continued to experience annual contract-mandated “step increases” and cost-of-living increases, regardless of the economic climate for those not suckling at the public teat.

These are the employees who know that they can call in “sick” so that they have time to stage mass demonstrations to save their money and perks, because they know that their government employers would NEVER have the nerve to question the veracity of their assertion of illness, regardless of proof to the contrary. Try doing that if you work for a private employer. See how long you continue to draw a paycheck after you call in sick, and your hale and hearty face appears at an anti-company demonstration on the 11 o’clock news.

On the margins of this endemic insanity we have a cornucopia of lesser-publicized abuses. We have “management” employees who reap mountains of overtime compensation for the occasional after-hours telephone call. We have firefighters, prison guards, and police who double their compensation through “casual” overtime (employees regularly call in sick to ensure a steady stream of extra shifts). We have managers who conspire with employees to maximize overtime during the last years before retirement, thus mandating inflated pensions calculated on total compensation in the last years of work. We have managers and line employees who get paid at retirement for months of unused sick leave – a practice that is unheard of in the private sector. And the sick leave is paid at the highest rate, even though it was generally accumulated when the employee was making much, much less.

No sane and cogent person can witness these developments and fail to recognize that the situation has become untenable and, in the current vernacular, “unsustainable.” The taxpaying public WILL NOT accept confiscatory taxes in the future to continue to support public employees and retirees whose compensation has far outstripped that of comparable private sector employees (who generally work longer and harder), and who howl like banshees when they are asked to pay a couple dollars a month toward their health insurance, and who retire at age 53 with lifetime health security and generous pensions (and who often come back as highly-compensated “consultants” or employees at other government entities, to suck even more from the inexhaustible government breast).

Unfortunately, we, the taxpayers do not have the time, the organizational support, or the broad-based knowledge of the facts to mount public demonstrations to voice our collective opinions. We must rely on the occasional elected official who has the integrity and honesty to rein in the chronic abuses and virtual theft. And these public servants can only be elected with “super” majorities of support, as the millions of government workers and their dependents – as much as 25% of the electorate in places like NYC – vote in lock-step for the mainly-Democrat enablers who created this mess.

We also rely on the Fourth Estate to put these complaints and demonstrations into proper perspective. Yet it is almost never reported that of the “500 State Employees” who were reported as having lost their jobs six months ago, all but 20 have either retired to a generous and early government pension, or been hired by some other agency of the same government. We always read about the demand by the Government (e.g., school district) that the employees pay more for their health insurance, but never read what large private sector employers are asking of their employees in the same geographical area, for comparison. They report that the School District has agreed to three percent increases in salaries for the years of the contract, but they never mention that the employees also get 3-4% “step increase” (virtually) every year, which makes the actual compensation increase twice what was reported by the unions.

God bless the recent wave of Republican governors and legislators for having the courage to confront this “unsustainable” and massive problem. I hope the voting public takes the time to understand what’s really going on.

[Big RR]

The governor or New Jersey receives death threats for explaining the State’s fiscal problems to a firefighter at a local Town Hall meeting.

Not sure why this is here; the complaints were not about what the governor said by how he said it. The guy is a loudmouth and a bully, and the absolute antithesis of what the chief executive of any organization, let alone a state, should be. Yelling, screaming, and threatening people just begets the same behavior; a little respect gets some respect in return.

[dgs49]

Governor Christie's hard-edged communication style is very common (and generally admired) in New Jersey. The threats are because he is telling the government employee unions that the party is over.

Any of you who are following the events in Wisconsin - and now the Administrations' weighing in - can see the fruits of the unions' having spent hundreds of millions to get Dem Progressives elected.

Again, who is speaking for the taxpayers?

[dgs49]

Michelle Malkin
Apocalypse Now: Wisconsin vs. Big Labor

“…State government workers in the Badger State pay piddling amounts for generous taxpayer-subsidized health benefits. Faced with a $3.6 billion budget hole and a state constitutional ban on running a deficit, new GOP Gov. Scott Walker wants public unions to pony up a little more. He has proposed raising the public employee share of health insurance premiums from less than 5 percent to 12.4 percent. He is also pushing for state workers to cover half of their pension contributions. To spare taxpayers the soaring costs of Byzantine union-negotiated work rules, he would rein in Big Labor's collective bargaining power to cover only wages unless approved at the ballot box.”

“…the benefits concessions Walker is asking public union workers to make would still maintain their health insurance contribution rates at the second-lowest among Midwest states for family coverage. Moreover,…the new rate would also be less than the employee contributions required at 85 percent of large Milwaukee-area employers."

“…thousands of Wisconsin public school teachers…lying about being "sick" and shutting down at least eight school districts across the state to attend capitol protests (many of whom dragged their students on a social justice field trip with them).”

[Big RR]

Governor Christie's hard-edged communication style is very common (and generally admired) in New Jersey

For the life of me I don't know one person who admires it or doesn't think he's a jerk because of it. FWIW, I think it overshadows his message, such as it is.

[dgs49]

You need to get out more.

Visitors to New Jersey are always struck by their confrontational communication style.

New Jerseyites who travel "abroad" in the U.S. are known for this. Also, it is fairly common around the country to hear statements to the effect that the person "must be from New York" (which in Flyover country includes northeast NJ) when they see someone being particularly rude.

You really need to get out more.

[Big RR]

And you need to get to NJ; while I'm sure there are some imbeciles who think he's tough, most people recognize him as he jerk he is.

[Jarlaxle]

Liz works with a guy originally from Jersey. Direct quote, "Yeah, Christie is an asshole. I'd vote for him anyway, he's the kind of asshole that shithole of a state needs!"

[rubato]

Hey, I know how to make the world a better place. Let's punish government workers, revile them, teach people to hate and despise them, and cut their salaries until only the most degraded, ambitionless and unfit people will take those jobs. Then we can blame them for everything.

That's the way.


yrs,
rubato

[dgs49]

In the strange and eerie Rubo-world, "punishment" is expecting someone to accept the same employment conditions that those who pay their salary experience.

"...cut their salaries..." Where, oh where, praytell, did you see anyone mentioning cutting government employee salaries?

I don't hate and despise government employees (generally), but I do hate and despise their unions, who, by all rights, should not exist.

[Scooter]

I read the excerpt of that screed from Michelle Malkin, and I was going to preface my response with, "assuming that Malkin's version of the facts is accurate (because, after all, there is a first time for everything)..."

I take it back though, because apparently there isn't a first time for everything, because the salient fact that Malkin chose to omit was that Wisconsin public sector workers had ALREADY AGREED to the health and pension benefit concessions which the Governor had proposed. and she was, how shall I say, somewhat less than fulsome of her explanation of what he has proposed in attempting to destroy the ability of state workers to continue to bargain collectively.

I suppose lying is one way of trying to make your position appear reasonable.

[dgs49]

Dear Scoots:

Any thoughts on thousands of state employees calling in "sick" to participate in these demonstrations?

How about the President and the national Democrat Party busing in thousands of outsiders to demonstrate? What is Barry's legitimate interest in this battle? Didn't he say something in the SOTU about "shared sacrifices"? Shared by whom, exactly?

Do you think that Gub'mint employees should have pay and benefits that are comparable to what are being provided in the Real World? Would you for a moment concede that the imbalanced environment for collective bargaining in the public sector (as I described in earlier postings) has resulted in a "class" of employees who believe that they have no need to consider the overall economic environment, or the burdens that are placed on present or future taxpayers, but only their own personal interests? Future generations be damned?

Just wonderin'.

[Big RR]

Would you for a moment concede that the imbalanced environment for collective bargaining in the public sector (as I described in earlier postings) has resulted in a "class" of employees who believe that they have no need to consider the overall economic environment, or the burdens that are placed on present or future taxpayers, but only their own personal interests?

Imbalanced? Considering public employees usually do not have the right to strike, what imbalance is there? And as for the burdens placed on future taxpayers, those are represented by the negotiators representing the officials elected by those same taxpayers to represent their interest. and FWIW, the concsessions were already agreed to by the public sector employees, so why interfere with their right to choose to bargain collectively?

[oldr_n_wsr]

All I know is if I had a chance to go back and do it all over again, I would have found some public sector job (cop, fireman, etc). Everyone I know who had a public sector job is now retired (we're all around 52yo) and dont' have to work ever again although some do have part time jobs.

[Lord Jim]

And you need to get to NJ; while I'm sure there are some imbeciles who think he's tough, most people recognize him as he jerk he is.

Uh...well...not exactly....

Unless of course "most people" in New Jersey are in the habit of supporting and approving of the job done by people they "recognize" as jerks:

New Jersey voters approve 52 - 40 percent of the job Gov. Christopher Christie is doing and say 54 - 35 percent that his first year in office is a success, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

This compares to a split 46 - 44 percent job approval in a December 21 survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University.

In today's survey, Republicans approve of Gov. Christie 82 - 11 percent and say 85 - 10 that his first year is a success. Independent voters also approve 55 - 36 percent and give him a 59 - 30 percent thumbs up for his first year. Democrats disapprove 66 - 27 percent and say 59 - 27 percent the governor's first year has been a failure.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1299.xml?ReleaseID=1556

[Big RR]

Unless of course "most people" in New Jersey are in the habit of supporting and approving of the job done by people they "recognize" as jerks:

Look at the people who get elected and reelected in NJ and you will see this is absolutely what is done.

[Grim Reaper]

“…State government workers in the Badger State pay piddling amounts for generous taxpayer-subsidized health benefits. Faced with a $3.6 billion budget hole and a state constitutional ban on running a deficit, new GOP Gov. Scott Walker wants public unions to pony up a little more. He has proposed raising the public employee share of health insurance premiums from less than 5 percent to 12.4 percent. He is also pushing for state workers to cover half of their pension contributions. To spare taxpayers the soaring costs of Byzantine union-negotiated work rules, he would rein in Big Labor's collective bargaining power to cover only wages unless approved at the ballot box.”

And it's Governor Walker's fault that things are in a deficit. He put in 140 million in tax breaks for businesses, and then started looking at (a select few) public unions to make up for it.

Also, his bill would allow him to sell off public assets to his business buddies with no bidding required and at whatever price he sees fit.

[Grim Reaper]

How about the President and the national Democrat Party busing in thousands of outsiders to demonstrate? What is Barry's legitimate interest in this battle? Didn't he say something in the SOTU about "shared sacrifices"? Shared by whom, exactly?

Is there any proof of this or are you just trying to scare up support?

I see where some Teamsters in NY are offering to bus in people, but nothing involving the President or the DNC.

He has proposed raising the public employee share of health insurance premiums from less than 5 percent to 12.4 percent. He is also pushing for state workers to cover half of their pension contributions.

And here's a nice little bit of smoke and mirrors that Governor Walker has gotten away with.

Public employees pay for 100% of their insurance premiums. The 5% is how much of their paychecks go to their pension plans. But the pension plans are 100% supported by that deduction.

[dgs49]

Interesting point.

IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR, it can fairly be said that the employee "pays for" hidden benefits and costs such as the "employer contribution" to SS, health benefits, life insurance, the "employer match" of the 401k allocation, and so forth.

This is valid because when an employer makes the decision to hire someone, the cost of that hiring is the complete cost of putting her on the payroll, including all forms of compensation and benefits, and unless the employer believes that this employee can provide sufficient value-added to the enterprise, she won't be hired. Similarly, when an employer decides that the employee no longer adds that value, the employee may be terminated. As a result, the employee can fairly say that she earns or pays for all of her pay and benefits, whether they show up in her paycheck or not.

But this is not the case in the public sector. The addition of a public sector employee is nothing more than an additional expense to the agency, and in no sense can it be honestly said that she adds value to the government instrumentality that hires her.

And since compensation in the public sector cannot (generally) be tied to any tangible economic value (e.g., what is the value of a firefighter playing ping pong in the firehouse, waiting for an alarm?), it can only be fairly determined with reference to compensation for similar work and qualifications in the private sector.

This can be certainly problematic because much of government work simply has no private counterpart. Border guard? Policeman? Teacher? But there is no alternative to trying to establish a "market value" with reference to the private sector - everyone in Government is "overhead."

And the fact is, the overwhelming trend in the private sector as been for employees to start biting the bullet and paying directly for some costs that had heretofore been paid indirectly (i.e., "by the Employer"). Most poignantly, there are two areas of exploding cost that Employers simply cannot continue to absorb: (A) Defined-benefit pensions in the face of longer lifespans, unrealistic portfolio earnings assumptions, and exploding healthcare costs, and (B) the unprecendented and ever-escalating cost of health insurance.

With 90% of the taxpayers having suffered through their conversion from defined benefit pensions to 401k's, and having been forced to absorb a direct assessment of a portion of their health insurance costs, what possible justification can there be to allow Public Sector workers to go forward, unaffected by these economic developments have that negatively impacted everyone else?

There are two (2) reasons why public sector employees have been able to avoid these otherwise-inevitable hits to their total compensation: First, Democrat politicians have decided that government employees are their most reliable electoral supporters, and are determined to buy as many of their votes as possible with taxpayers' money, and Second, collective bargaining in the public sector is a sham, with two disinterested parties negotiating to divide up a limitless pool of Other Peoples' Money.

It ain't fair, and it won't continue.

In the immortal words of President Barack Hussein "Barry" O'Bama, "We won."

Deal with it.

[Grim Reaper]

But this is not the case in the public sector. The addition of a public sector employee is nothing more than an additional expense to the agency, and in no sense can it be honestly said that she adds value to the government instrumentality that hires her.

So, you're saying that not a single public sector employee adds value?

And since compensation in the public sector cannot (generally) be tied to any tangible economic value (e.g., what is the value of a firefighter playing ping pong in the firehouse, waiting for an alarm?), it can only be fairly determined with reference to compensation for similar work and qualifications in the private sector.

The value of a firefighter is in the fires that he or she puts out. Not in what they do when there are no fires to fight. Or do you expect these people to sit staring at a wall all day?

And the fact is, the overwhelming trend in the private sector as been for employees to start biting the bullet and paying directly for some costs that had heretofore been paid indirectly (i.e., "by the Employer"). Most poignantly, there are two areas of exploding cost that Employers simply cannot continue to absorb: (A) Defined-benefit pensions in the face of longer lifespans, unrealistic portfolio earnings assumptions, and exploding healthcare costs, and (B) the unprecendented and ever-escalating cost of health insurance.

Saying it's an indirect payment is disingenuous at best. You're painting a pretty picture and hoping no one looks at the source material. If the costs are taken from the paycheck, then it can't be called indirect. It's their money being pulled out to pay for this stuff.

And perhaps we should look at why health insurance is increasing instead of trying to stomp on other people's benefits.

It ain't fair, and it won't continue.

This is another bit of amazing word play.

It's not fair? Then why don't you look around and see where your own benefits went instead of staring at the guy across the street and trying to take his.