Mythbusting attacks against public workers

[kevbone]

What JayB is trying to say is they go to places where they can pay their employees as little as they can to generate the highest profit possible for themselves.

 

You sound like that is a bad thing.

[j_b]

Paying employees as little as you can (i.e. not paying them a living wage) is indeed a bad thing. I never thought that would have to be said but little surprises me in these parts anymore.

[rob]

Paying employees as little as you can (i.e. not paying them a living wage) is indeed a bad thing. I never thought that would have to be said but little surprises me in these parts anymore.

 

Yeah, so sad how many people think this is OK. Treating your employees as poorly as possible to maximize your own profit? So greedy.

[j_b]

War on Public Workers

Amy Traub

 

[..]

 

decades-old assault on government employees has acquired new potency at a time of widespread economic suffering and populist rage. But the attacks have little basis in reality. A recent study by the Center for State and Local Government Excellence and the National Institute on Retirement Security finds that when such factors as education and work experience are accounted for, state and local employees earn 11 to 12 percent less than comparable private sector workers. Even when public employees' relatively decent pensions and health coverage are included, their total compensation still lags behind workers in private industry. A separate analysis by the Center for Housing Policy finds that despite recent declines in home prices, police officers and elementary school teachers still don't earn enough to buy a typical house in two out of five metro areas. Firefighters and librarians are unable to afford the median home in the New York, Los Angeles and Chicago metro areas. Nationwide, a school bus driver's wage isn't enough to pay rent on a standard two-bedroom apartment.

 

[..]

 

The lavish lifestyle of public workers is a myth, but the right-wing mythmakers know it's a powerful talking point. By attacking public workers, they can demonize "big labor" and "big government" at the same time, while deflecting attention from the more logical target of Middle America's rage: the irresponsible Wall Street traders, whose risky, high-profit business practices brought down the economy, and the lax regulators who let them get away with it.

 

At its heart, the scapegoating of public employees is an insidious way to divide public and private sector workers who share many of the same interests. The Manhattan Institute's Nicole Gelinas, for example, cynically argues that cutting pensions for transit employees is an act of "pure social justice" because it might spare minimum-wage workers higher subway fares. Absent is any disussion of raising the minimum wage or of more progressive means of funding the transit system. Low-wage workers aren't Gelinas's real concern; they're just a rhetorical device in her assault on public employees.

 

The desired result is clear: there will be less pressure to address the decades-long erosion of pay and benefits for most working people in the private sector if public anger can be focused on the bus mechanic who still has health coverage. With a slim majority of all union workers employed in the public sector, the conservative class war amounts to dragging unionized public employees down to the level of contingent no-benefits workers before they can leverage their power to help private sector workers raise their own workplace standards.

 

Then there's the "big government" angle. To the right, the budget crises engulfing American cities and states stem from one cause: as Nick Gillespie of Reason repeats ad nauseam, "They spend too much!"—especially on the supposedly lavish compensation of public workers. This simplistic narrative ignores how the nation's deep recession has shrunk city and state tax revenue and omits the fact that plummeting stock markets have decimated government pension funds. To the extent that conservatives succeed in reducing fiscal woes to a case of runaway spending, politicians find it easier to address budget shortfalls with public sector furlough days, wage freezes, layoffs and benefit cuts than with progressive tax increases that, many economists conclude, would cause the least harm to the recovery.

 

http://www.thenation.com/article/war-public-workers

 

 

[billcoe]

Paying employees as little as you can (i.e. not paying them a living wage) is indeed a bad thing. I never thought that would have to be said but little surprises me in these parts anymore.

 

OK -time to put up or shut up, how much more than your competitors are you paying YOUR employees? Maybe I should walk away from this and go to work for you, oh blessed great employer jb who does so much for so many. I must have been wrong about you as strictly based on your posts you sound like a know-nothing parasite.

 

How many employees do you have?

[kevbone]

Paying employees as little as you can (i.e. not paying them a living wage) is indeed a bad thing. I never thought that would have to be said but little surprises me in these parts anymore.

 

Brother...I am as left wing as they come but, it is also the responsibility of the person who "agrees" to the job being offered to say yes or no to it for whatever $$$$ is agreed upon. That is capitalism. On the other hand run-away capitalism is a bad thing.

[Nitrox]

Paying employees as little as you can (i.e. not paying them a living wage) is indeed a bad thing. I never thought that would have to be said but little surprises me in these parts anymore.

 

Brother...I am as left wing as they come but, it is also the responsibility of the person who "agrees" to the job being offered to say yes or no to it for whatever $$$$ is agreed upon. That is capitalism. On the other hand run-away capitalism is a bad thing.

 

You're beginning to sound like a "regressive".

[j_b]

Paying employees as little as you can (i.e. not paying them a living wage) is indeed a bad thing. I never thought that would have to be said but little surprises me in these parts anymore.

 

Brother...I am as left wing as they come but, it is also the responsibility of the person who "agrees" to the job being offered to say yes or no to it for whatever $$$$ is agreed upon. That is capitalism. On the other hand run-away capitalism is a bad thing.

 

It's the role of collective bargaining to arrive at an agreed upon compensation. Asking employees to negotiate on their own isn't serious. Even 19th-early 20th century workers understood that, which is the reason why we have vacations, the 8-hour day, no child labor, etc ... or at least what's left of it after 30+ years of regressive policies.

[Off_White]

Paying employees as little as you can (i.e. not paying them a living wage) is indeed a bad thing. I never thought that would have to be said but little surprises me in these parts anymore.

 

OK -time to put up or shut up, how much more than your competitors are you paying YOUR employees? Maybe I should walk away from this and go to work for you, oh blessed great employer jb who does so much for so many. I must have been wrong about you as strictly based on your posts you sound like a know-nothing parasite.

 

How many employees do you have?

 

I tend to agree with JB on more things than not, certainly on this particular post, so as a business owner and employer I thought I'd share my employment practices.

 

I've got 5 employees, and I pay them as much as I can, including health insurance, dental insurance, vacation pay, sick pay, and flexibility with regards to unpaid time off. I think I'm roughly 10 to 15 percent over the competition in terms of total compensation, but folks in construction aren't always that forthcoming about this topic. A few years back I did have a conversation with one of my best competitors, and he did share info based on my promise that I wouldn't try and steal any of his people, so I'm not completely whistling in the dark.

 

My employees are my greatest single business asset, and I want them to feel both valued by me and proud of their work. Perhaps more importantly than the compensation numbers, I encourage everyone to do their best and follow their own sense of how best to do things. Empowering the employees with authority over their own work is a good thing for them, the clients, and the company.

 

Funny thing is, this is also a successful business strategy. Employee satisfaction and retention matters. My clients appreciate having the same folks they've come to know and love come back to work on their homes, and they notice the respect and attitude that flows throughout the company. In an industry where 95% of businesses fail on a ten year cycle, we're at 22 years and looking to weather this particular downturn just fine. Oh, I'm sure I personally could make more money by paying my employees as little as possible, but we wouldn't be doing the same work for the same people. I wouldn't be as happy or proud of my company either.

[ivan]

Paying employees as little as you can (i.e. not paying them a living wage) is indeed a bad thing. I never thought that would have to be said but little surprises me in these parts anymore.

 

Brother...I am as left wing as they come but, it is also the responsibility of the person who "agrees" to the job being offered to say yes or no to it for whatever $$$$ is agreed upon. That is capitalism. On the other hand run-away capitalism is a bad thing.

 

It's the role of collective bargaining to arrive at an agreed upon compensation. Asking employees to negotiate on their own isn't serious. Even 19th-early 20th century workers understood that, which is the reason why we have vacations, the 8-hour day, no child labor, etc ... or at least what's left of it after 30+ years of regressive policies.

word. workers only have bargaining power when collectively organized. historically, big business owners always sought to divide and conquer their employers, often violently, and sure as hell didn't provide any opportunity for "negotiation" w/ the vast majority of their workers. does that make me a communist to think, nitro? is it possible to be pro-union w/o being percieved as a das-kapital quoting krazy?

[ivan]

I tend to agree with JB on more things than not, certainly on this particular post, so as a business owner and employer I thought I'd share my employment practices.

 

I've got 5 employees, and I pay them as much as I can, including health insurance, dental insurance, vacation pay, sick pay, and flexibility with regards to unpaid time off. I think I'm roughly 10 to 15 percent over the competition in terms of total compensation, but folks in construction aren't always that forthcoming about this topic. A few years back I did have a conversation with one of my best competitors, and he did share info based on my promise that I wouldn't try and steal any of his people, so I'm not completely whistling in the dark.

 

My employees are my greatest single business asset, and I want them to feel both valued by me and proud of their work. Perhaps more importantly than the compensation numbers, I encourage everyone to do their best and follow their own sense of how best to do things. Empowering the employees with authority over their own work is a good thing for them, the clients, and the company.

 

Funny thing is, this is also a successful business strategy. Employee satisfaction and retention matters. My clients appreciate having the same folks they've come to know and love come back to work on their homes, and they notice the respect and attitude that flows throughout the company. In an industry where 95% of businesses fail on a ten year cycle, we're at 22 years and looking to weather this particular downturn just fine. Oh, I'm sure I personally could make more money by paying my employees as little as possible, but we wouldn't be doing the same work for the same people. I wouldn't be as happy or proud of my company either.

hippy!!!

 

size matters i reckon. seems much easier for small companies to treat their employees well - the bigger the organization, the more impersonal the relationship between owner and employee becomes, and the easier to screw them. kinda like slavery in that regard, perhaps? reading narratives of former slaves, there seems a similiar trend - satisfaction w/ servitude was much more common in small settings, much less so on huge plantations.

[pink]

Paying employees as little as you can (i.e. not paying them a living wage) is indeed a bad thing. I never thought that would have to be said but little surprises me in these parts anymore.

 

OK -time to put up or shut up, how much more than your competitors are you paying YOUR employees? Maybe I should walk away from this and go to work for you, oh blessed great employer jb who does so much for so many. I must have been wrong about you as strictly based on your posts you sound like a know-nothing parasite.

 

How many employees do you have?

 

I tend to agree with JB on more things than not, certainly on this particular post, so as a business owner and employer I thought I'd share my employment practices.

 

I've got 5 employees, and I pay them as much as I can, including health insurance, dental insurance, vacation pay, sick pay, and flexibility with regards to unpaid time off. I think I'm roughly 10 to 15 percent over the competition in terms of total compensation, but folks in construction aren't always that forthcoming about this topic. A few years back I did have a conversation with one of my best competitors, and he did share info based on my promise that I wouldn't try and steal any of his people, so I'm not completely whistling in the dark.

 

My employees are my greatest single business asset, and I want them to feel both valued by me and proud of their work. Perhaps more importantly than the compensation numbers, I encourage everyone to do their best and follow their own sense of how best to do things. Empowering the employees with authority over their own work is a good thing for them, the clients, and the company.

 

Funny thing is, this is also a successful business strategy. Employee satisfaction and retention matters. My clients appreciate having the same folks they've come to know and love come back to work on their homes, and they notice the respect and attitude that flows throughout the company. In an industry where 95% of businesses fail on a ten year cycle, we're at 22 years and looking to weather this particular downturn just fine. Oh, I'm sure I personally could make more money by paying my employees as little as possible, but we wouldn't be doing the same work for the same people. I wouldn't be as happy or proud of my company either.

 

i basically take what's left over with my business, does your wife work OFF???

[pink]

I tend to agree with JB on more things than not, certainly on this particular post, so as a business owner and employer I thought I'd share my employment practices.

 

I've got 5 employees, and I pay them as much as I can, including health insurance, dental insurance, vacation pay, sick pay, and flexibility with regards to unpaid time off. I think I'm roughly 10 to 15 percent over the competition in terms of total compensation, but folks in construction aren't always that forthcoming about this topic. A few years back I did have a conversation with one of my best competitors, and he did share info based on my promise that I wouldn't try and steal any of his people, so I'm not completely whistling in the dark.

 

My employees are my greatest single business asset, and I want them to feel both valued by me and proud of their work. Perhaps more importantly than the compensation numbers, I encourage everyone to do their best and follow their own sense of how best to do things. Empowering the employees with authority over their own work is a good thing for them, the clients, and the company.

 

Funny thing is, this is also a successful business strategy. Employee satisfaction and retention matters. My clients appreciate having the same folks they've come to know and love come back to work on their homes, and they notice the respect and attitude that flows throughout the company. In an industry where 95% of businesses fail on a ten year cycle, we're at 22 years and looking to weather this particular downturn just fine. Oh, I'm sure I personally could make more money by paying my employees as little as possible, but we wouldn't be doing the same work for the same people. I wouldn't be as happy or proud of my company either.

hippy!!!

 

size matters i reckon. seems much easier for small companies to treat their employees well - the bigger the organization, the more impersonal the relationship between owner and employee becomes, and the easier to screw them. kinda like slavery in that regard, perhaps? reading narratives of former slaves, there seems a similiar trend - satisfaction w/ servitude was much more common in small settings, much less so on huge plantations.

 

you haven't a clue ivan??? but i think u mean well stud

[Nitrox]

word. workers only have bargaining power when collectively organized. historically, big business owners always sought to divide and conquer their employers, often violently, and sure as hell didn't provide any opportunity for "negotiation" w/ the vast majority of their workers. does that make me a communist to think, nitro? is it possible to be pro-union w/o being percieved as a das-kapital quoting krazy?

 

What happens when the collective bargaining (or leveraged bargaining) of a union creates a wage that makes the end product uncompetitive in the market place? What happens when a public workers union gets a public official elected and then it comes time to bargain for said union's wages?

 

If you think large corporations have exploited the workforce then I could easily build a case that large unions have not only exploited the worker but also the large corporations. Large unions have milked corporations dry and then left the works unemployed when the company couldn't (or wouldn't) afford them any more. Public employees unions fit in this bill as well, coffers filled to the brim but refuse to cover the union members they forced to go on strike. Coffers so full they could donate enough to swing an election. Coffers so full but won't cover the pay raise they scream for in a budgetary deficit.

 

j_b isn't espousing fair wages though, he's got his eyes set on wage control and socialized industry. He just won't admit it because then he loses the support of normal left leaning people. Why do you think he has hinted at "reasonable restrictions" on free speech? Its all just part in parcel.

 

 

 

[billcoe]

One thing jb and I could probably find many points of agreement on is the role of globalization in forcing down and lowering US wages. I've sadly seen many jobs go to China in the name of lowering costs for us consumers and increasing company profits. It's a good thing on the one hand (who goes to the store and wants to pay more for all of their items?) and it's damn scary and extremely worrisome to me at the same time. I don't know what to do and I have conflicting thoughts: protectionism has been shown to have real bad outcomes for the total economy and who wants to pay over $5,000 for a wide screen TV that they can get off the shelf (made in China) for $890?

[ivan]

word. workers only have bargaining power when collectively organized. historically, big business owners always sought to divide and conquer their employers, often violently, and sure as hell didn't provide any opportunity for "negotiation" w/ the vast majority of their workers. does that make me a communist to think, nitro? is it possible to be pro-union w/o being percieved as a das-kapital quoting krazy?

 

What happens when the collective bargaining (or leveraged bargaining) of a union creates a wage that makes the end product uncompetitive in the market place? What happens when a public workers union gets a public official elected and then it comes time to bargain for said union's wages?

 

If you think large corporations have exploited the workforce then I could easily build a case that large unions have not only exploited the worker but also the large corporations. Large unions have milked corporations dry and then left the works unemployed when the company couldn't (or wouldn't) afford them any more. Public employees unions fit in this bill as well, coffers filled to the brim but refuse to cover the union members they forced to go on strike. Coffers so full they could donate enough to swing an election. Coffers so full but won't cover the pay raise they scream for in a budgetary deficit.

 

j_b isn't espousing fair wages though, he's got his eyes set on wage control and socialized industry. He just won't admit it because then he loses the support of normal left leaning people. Why do you think he has hinted at "reasonable restrictions" on free speech? Its all just part in parcel.

 

 

of course unions aren't panaceas - they've become large organizations like the companies too, and require intelligble participation by their members to balance out the power they've acquired - i'm not smart enough to percieve the path to the perfect world, economically speaking - ya'll can feel free to scream yerselves silly over that - i just figure unions are the lesser evil though, and am active in my own local in an attempt to understand it and use it to my benefit.

 

read "nickle and dimed" last month - interesting short book by a journalist who spent a couple months "undercover" trying to live the life of a minimum/low-wage earner and the obvious conclusion of course is that it's essentially impossible to live w/n any decent standard, no matter how good a worker you are. my gut tells me that, if a guy puts in a full week, works hard, no matter if he's doing heart-transplants or just cleaning the floor after the operation's done,that he ought to be able to have stable housing, food ont he table, healthcare and the abilty to spend the last decade or two of his life in comfortable retirment. i'm not dedicated to any particuliar approach to getting to that result.

[JosephH]

Speaking about the importance of a solid education in the coming decades:

 

Globalization means if you have the skill set of a Guatemalan day laborer, you're going to get paid roughly the same as one whether you live in Guatemala City or Brooklyn...

 

 

[ivan]

you haven't a clue ivan??? but i think u mean well stud

illuminate me then, esse - i'm not the dumbest person in the room most likely, and i've worked a variety of jobs, some w/ good owners/bosses, some not...what is it that you see/understand that i don't?

[pink]

you haven't a clue ivan??? but i think u mean well stud

illuminate me then, esse - i'm not the dumbest person in the room most likely, and i've worked a variety of jobs, some w/ good owners/bosses, some not...what is it that you see/understand that i don't?

 

u can't even drill a bolt ladder monday

[ivan]

hmmm....but on a tuesday?

 

perhaps if i change what i'm drinking i'll be able to understand you?

[Fairweather]

unions are clearly bad - otherwise the state of public education would place our pupils in the international top tier.

 

Fixtit.

[ivan]

unions are clearly bad - otherwise the state of public education would place our pupils in the international top tier.

 

Fixtit.

the krauts have top tier public schools n' organized teachers and there sure are plenty of shitty private schools in our country too

[JayB]

word. workers only have bargaining power when collectively organized. historically, big business owners always sought to divide and conquer their employers, often violently, and sure as hell didn't provide any opportunity for "negotiation" w/ the vast majority of their workers. does that make me a communist to think, nitro? is it possible to be pro-union w/o being percieved as a das-kapital quoting krazy?

 

What happens when the collective bargaining (or leveraged bargaining) of a union creates a wage that makes the end product uncompetitive in the market place? What happens when a public workers union gets a public official elected and then it comes time to bargain for said union's wages?

 

If you think large corporations have exploited the workforce then I could easily build a case that large unions have not only exploited the worker but also the large corporations. Large unions have milked corporations dry and then left the works unemployed when the company couldn't (or wouldn't) afford them any more. Public employees unions fit in this bill as well, coffers filled to the brim but refuse to cover the union members they forced to go on strike. Coffers so full they could donate enough to swing an election. Coffers so full but won't cover the pay raise they scream for in a budgetary deficit.

 

j_b isn't espousing fair wages though, he's got his eyes set on wage control and socialized industry. He just won't admit it because then he loses the support of normal left leaning people. Why do you think he has hinted at "reasonable restrictions" on free speech? Its all just part in parcel.

 

 

of course unions aren't panaceas - they've become large organizations like the companies too, and require intelligble participation by their members to balance out the power they've acquired - i'm not smart enough to percieve the path to the perfect world, economically speaking - ya'll can feel free to scream yerselves silly over that - i just figure unions are the lesser evil though, and am active in my own local in an attempt to understand it and use it to my benefit.

 

read "nickle and dimed" last month - interesting short book by a journalist who spent a couple months "undercover" trying to live the life of a minimum/low-wage earner and the obvious conclusion of course is that it's essentially impossible to live w/n any decent standard, no matter how good a worker you are. my gut tells me that, if a guy puts in a full week, works hard, no matter if he's doing heart-transplants or just cleaning the floor after the operation's done,that he ought to be able to have stable housing, food ont he table, healthcare and the abilty to spend the last decade or two of his life in comfortable retirment. i'm not dedicated to any particuliar approach to getting to that result.

 

I've never heard a defensible case for public employees unionizing, which is probably why FDR, Fiorello LaGuardia, and George Meany were all strongly opposed to it.

 

I can see how public sector unions serve the private interests of public sector employees, but it's never been clear how the public benefits from them.

 

What's your argument?

 

 

[JayB]

Paying employees as little as you can (i.e. not paying them a living wage) is indeed a bad thing. I never thought that would have to be said but little surprises me in these parts anymore.

 

-What is a living wage and what's your solution for people with a marginal productivity that places them below that threshold?

 

The higher you crank the "living wage" the fewer and fewer people there are that can pass over that bar.

 

The only options are warehousing people who cost more to employ than their output is worth on welfare, instituting a negative income tax, or abolishing the minimum wage. Or some combination of the three.

[JosephH]

Or - seeing how globalization appears to be working and leveling the playing field - we just take our place along side every other struggling third world country given our unwillingness to foster a healthy, highly-skilled workforce.

 

That was another of Thurow's comments that day:

 

we have 15,000 local school boards all cranking out a lousy product.

 

His point being no nation can run a decent school system with everyone doing their own thing with no national standards of achievement.

 

P.S. Oh, and it isn't the teachers who are to blame - it's the parents.