January 17, 2002 marks the fiftieth anniversary of President John F. Kennedy’s executive order grantin
g federal government employees the right to organize. Sort of.
The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 or Wagner Act granted many categories of workers the right to organize and bargain collectively, but excluded many others. Agricultural workers and domestic servants, for instance, were left unprotected. Government workers were another.
It was almost 30 years before President Kennedy’s order made it possible for organizations of federal employees to seek recognition and negotiate labor contracts with their employer. It was called “a Wagner Act for public employees,” but the terms were decidedly different. Federal workers are not permitted to bargain over wages and benefits, and are forbidden to strike – arguably the two most critical hallmarks of a labor organization.
Perhaps their most important power is to represent workers in disciplinary hearings. This is no small benefit. Workers who lack a union contract in the United States are “at will” employees who can be peremptorily dismissed without any investigation or hearing. Still, even this right comes with a catch.
The entire federal government sector is by law ‘right-to-work,’ meaning that any government employee can opt out of membership and dues but still demand the union’s representation in a disciplinary procedure. It should come as no surprise that the unions representing federal employees have always struggled to recruit and retain members.
There are important differences between public and private sector workers. Critics point out that citizens cannot ‘opt out’ of most public services they way they can decline a product whose labor costs render it too expensive. But that doesn’t leave them entirely without a voice. After all, while only stockholders get to vote on the CEO of General Motors, every citizen gets a vote for the president of the United States.
That may be the more important qualifier on the rights of federal and other public employees. When workers at a private firm organize, they claim their rights and powers at the expense of a private entity. When public employees do so, they claim their rights and powers at the expense of our elected representatives.
That’s not to say it’s an unreasonable claim: we have an entire bill of rights designed to limit the powers of our democratically elected representatives, lest unpopular minorities be deprived of their legitimate rights. And judging from the tenor of last year’s political debate, government workers certainly seem to be the unpopular minority du jour. It’s a shame that while taxation levels, social security, medicare and defense form the realities of our budget, the rights and livelihoods of our federal employees have become a political football.
Clayton Sinyai
In the public sector the Union advocates for the public worker but who advocates for the share holder (the public)? Too often the Governor and elected officials owe a piece of their very office to the public employee unions because of their political money and support. The bargaining table is rigged in favor of the union employee at the expense of the many shareholder/consumers.
I as a shareholder have no problem with public employee unions but my Governor and elected officials better damn-well represent me at that bargaining table with these unions; otherwise get rid of all public employee unions!
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/federal-pay-continues-rapid-ascent/
I would start looking into ways to limit the compensation of public employees in fairness to the poor. OWS has their focus on the wrong place.
The problem for many states like Illinois is that public employees were given wonderful pensions that cannot be taken away or changed without a constitutional amendment or convention. In Illinois the constitutional convention initiative was defeated by you-know-who! The teachers in my area had students going door-to-door telling us to vote no against the constitutional convention because it would destroy their school. Little did these kids know that they were fighting for retired teachers' pensions. Little did these kids know that they would one day have to foot the bill.
I am all for people making as much money as they deserve. The question is how you determine that so called "just wage".
I would argue that when public employee unions have the governor (CEA) and many elected officials in their pocket then the bargaining table is fixed and will not produce a just wage. You do need to take into consideration the shareholder(voters) and the consumers when considering a "just wage". Paying people more than their work is worth is an injustice to the people who have to write the paycheck and to the consumers who pay more for the service and products!
It is what government statistics are reporting.
For those who disbelieve the extent of what public employees make/cost, it should be an eye opener. The average public employee in 2009 made $40 per hour while the average private employee made $27.50 per hour. Of the $40 per hour about a 1/3 was in benefits which are not taxable.
The public employees are the ones hurting the poor as they suck money out of state, county and city budgets for their pay and benefits so that little is left for other things. And it is getting bigger each year. But for liberals it is all hunky dory because they contribute to the Democrats big time. The four biggest contributors to Democrats are public unions, Wall Street, lawyers and universities. All of which get kick backs from Democrat politicians with favorable distribution of money.
It was reported today that Mitt Romney, "wholeheartedly" supportted by former Vatican ambassors, paid an effective tax rate of 15%, mainly because his income was largely from dividends and investments. What do you think the rate would be for a public employee, earning $28 per hr? Certainly more than 15%!
The $120,000 is for federal employees. The $40 per hour is for all public employees including state, county and city employeees. Both are averages and do not reflect final yearly pay from which most pensions are calculated.
Mr. Sinyai mixed federal employees and public employees in his OP. I did the same but specified the $120 k as federal.
The late, great Pat Moynihan had it right when he decribed the dehumanizing effect of dependency on those it purportedly intends to help. He was intellectually honest and had good intentions. Romney and his ilk have no such intentions.
The person making $27 per hour or about $56,000 a year will probably pay less than $6000 a year in federal income taxes or about 11% if he or she is married filing jointly. The rate is 15% till 68 k and the first 10K are free. Now I am not a tax expert so anyone feel free to correct this.
What hyperbole? Are you implying I am not accurately telling what is reported? There is a word for this that the nuns/priests/brothers who taught me used to describe such behavior. Refute what I say, not throw negatives. We can then have a civil dialogue.
BTW, who determines how much legislators get paid?
The most amazing thing about this is not just the total compensation of $120,000 which is quite extraordinary but the rapid rise of it. In 2000 it was $51.5 K salary and $25 K in benefits or total compensation of $76 K. So in 9 years it rose $44 K or 58%. Just one of the reasons why government spending has gotten out of control in recent years.
And for those who are not familiar with base line budgeting, one should be aware of the ''hyperbole'' used by the press, politicians and recipients of government largess when they say that something is being cut. There is an automatic increase of 5-7% in nearly every budget item built in to the government budgets each year. So if someone comes in and wants to restrict the increase to 3-5% they are accused of cutting the budget when in fact are just slowing the increase. This is done with whatever favorite program there is. It make great rhetoric as politicians, the press, and recipients start complaining.
It is a game that has been played for years and we are near the edge of the precipice but that does not stop the demonization with cries of doom when someone exposes the hypocrisy. Those who propose a sensible solution are shown pushing granny off a cliff in TV commercials. The rest of us are played like suckers in a condo time share scam.
The fact is that, when you consider both salary & benefits, public & private sector workers with similar skills, education levels, and jobs, they make about the same (in some states public sector workers make a bit less).
We've discussed this many, many times on this site. It seems like all the links to evidence proving this point will not move ideologues who oppose the right of workers to unionize.
I at least see Cosgrove giving numbers and analyses. All I see from his opponents is name-calling. I think "ideologue" is in the eye of the beholder.
It's quite remarkable how fundamentalist progressive Catholics get in their arguments over unions, particularly those of public employees. I'm often told that conservative Catholics ignore the need to apply Catholic teaching in particular contexts, and to weigh evidence. Yet all that seemingly goes out the window when the word "union" is raised. Unions are not ends in themselves, but are means to an end - the promotion of the common good. When the common good is threatened (and there is sizeable evidence that the growth in wage/benefit packages among government workers is outstripping their private counterparts), the means must be adjusted.
JFK should have remembered FDR's counsel: No public sector unions. So, my suggestion: let's forget this achievement. FDR would agree with me.
take care
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/03/AR2009060302789.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/20/AR2009062000363.html
These articles describe the benefits from a federal government job. If you read the articles you will see that federal employees not only have much better benefits than nearly everybody in the private sector but amazing job security as well. And they are paid well on top of that. Given that perspecitve, can anyone see the point of Mr. Sinyai's OP above? Why didn't he provide this information? Surely he is aware of it. Surely he knows that such total compensation packages hurt the poor.
And relevant to the data provided. The total average federal salary rose to $123,000 the following year. Raises in salaries for federal employees averaged over 5% per year during the 2000's while private sector raises were about 3%. Thus, the increasing disparity as time goes on. Better pay, better benefits and rock solid security.
Most of the "War Department"'s spending is in obligations to veteran pensions and Defense Department employee benefits. Last time I checked, they counted as government employees, which is exactly what many here are arguing AGAINST cutting.
Repititous and boring.
That is nonsense.
I've just done a google search. The below editorial is from the Washington Post - a notorous bed of right-wing "anecdotes" I guess you'd say. Would you engage the numbers cited therein and tell me how they're wrong?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/29/AR2010052903132.html