Reason.com: Expansion of the Govt Payroll

[Popeman38]

http://reason.com/archives/2010/01/12/class-war

(yes, I realize 90% of this board will summarily dismiss this article as right wing propaganda, but they will not be able to provide any statistical support for their reason for dismissal)

How public servants became our masters

Steven Greenhut from the February 2010 issue

In April 2008, The Orange County Register published a bombshell of an investigation about a license plate program for California government workers and their families. Drivers of nearly 1 million cars and light trucks—out of a total 22 million vehicles registered statewide—were protected by a “shield” in the state records system between their license plate numbers and their home addresses. There were, the newspaper found, great practical benefits to this secrecy.

“Vehicles with protected license plates can run through dozens of intersections controlled by red light cameras with impunity,” the Register’s Jennifer Muir reported. “Parking citations issued to vehicles with protected plates are often dismissed because the process necessary to pierce the shield is too cumbersome. Some patrol officers let drivers with protected plates off with a warning because the plates signal that drivers are ‘one of their own’ or related to someone who is.”

The plate program started in 1978 with the seemingly unobjectionable purpose of protecting the personal addresses of officials who deal directly with criminals. Police argued that the bad guys could call the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), get addresses for officers, and use the information to harm them or their family members. There was no rash of such incidents, only the possibility that they could take place.

So police and their families were granted confidentiality. Then the program expanded from one set of government workers to another. Eventually parole officers, retired parking enforcers, DMV desk clerks, county supervisors, social workers, and other categories of employees from 1,800 state agencies were given the special protections too. Meanwhile, the original intent of the shield had become obsolete: The DMV long ago abandoned the practice of giving out personal information about any driver. What was left was not a protection but a perk.

More at link

Basically, the state of California is leading the way towards the re-unionization of the country. Some very interesting stats:

According to a 2007 analysis of data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics by the Asbury Park Press, “the average federal worker made $59,864 in 2005, compared with the average salary of $40,505 in the private sector.” Across comparable jobs, the federal government paid higher salaries than the private sector three times out of four, the paper found. As Heritage Foundation legal analyst James Sherk explained to the Press, “The government doesn’t have to worry about going bankrupt, and there isn’t much competition.”

These huge pension increases have eaten away at public finances, most spectacularly in California, where a bipartisan bill that passed virtually without debate unleashed the odious “3 percent at 50” retirement plan in 1999. Under this plan, at age 50 many categories of public employees are eligible for 3 percent of their final year’s pay multiplied by the number of years they’ve worked. So if a police officer starts working at age 20, he can retire at 50 with 90 percent of his final salary until he dies, and then his spouse receives that money for the rest of her life. Even during the economic crisis, “3 percent at 50” and the forces behind it have only become more entrenched.

Then there’s the bizarre story of Armando Ruiz, a part-time trustee for the Coast Community College District in Southern California. Ruiz also worked full time as an administrator with the South Orange County Community College District. Ruiz wanted to run for re-election as a trustee and use the “incumbent” label on his ballot, but he also wanted to take advantage of a strange California law that dramatically increases an employee’s pension payout if he retires from two jobs on the same day.

“Ruiz ‘retired,’ effective Oct. 31, as a part-time trustee of the Coast district and as a full-time counselor at Irvine Valley College,” Register columnist Frank Mickadeit reported in 2008. “Even though the trustee gig pays just a $9,800 annual stipend, he was able to calculate his state pension as if he had been paid $106K a year for that ‘job’ plus the $106K a year he got for his real job at Irvine. So, based on a $212K salary he never really made, his pension will work out to about $108K a year for life. Otherwise, the pension would have been $59K—$54K for the real job; $5K for the trustee job. Even though Ruiz was officially retired from the Coast district board, he was still listed on Tuesday’s ballot as an incumbent. A cynical person might say that by waiting to ‘retire,’ just days before the election Ruiz knew it would be too late to change the ballots. And incumbents rarely lose such elections.”

The United States had 2.3 state and local government employees per 100 citizens in 1946 and has 6.5 state and local government employees per 100 citizens now. In 1947, Hodges writes, 78 percent of the national income went to the private sector, 16 percent to the federal sector, and 6 percent to the state and local government sector. Now 54 percent of the economy is private, 28 percent goes to the feds, and 18 percent goes to state and local governments. The trend lines are ominous.

[Larry]

Having trouble figuring out what point you're trying to make. Other than your belief that somehow a government program exhibiting mission creep somehow indicates that Unions (which I guess you believe are evil) are taking over the world.

[twa]

The trend in the last part is the main issue I have,the insulation from laws and regs the rest of us face is a minor issue.(in effect a protected class of people)

We are approaching a tipping point on the private vs public sector that is unsustainable from a financial aspect.

If we haven't already passed it

[Popeman38]

Having trouble figuring out what point you're trying to make. Other than your belief that somehow a government program exhibiting mission creep somehow indicates that Unions (which I guess you believe are evil) are taking over the world.

You obviously didn't read the full article. I didn't say evil unions are plotting to take over the world. I said California is leading the way to the re-unionization of America. You want to see the results of massive union power on a company? Look at UAW and GM. Unions are vitally important to certain professions: Police, Fire Fighters, Nurses.... But do we really need a teachers union? Or a plumbers union? Or grocery unions?

Additionally, the article mainly focused on how the govt was not mission creeping but flat out bloating itself.

[The Evil Genius]

What comparable jobs? Janitors? Secretaries? Or actual journeyman or management level positions?

I can tell you one thing, most professionals at the state and federal level make considerably less than the private sector. Especially here in California. Ask Predicto how much he loses being a lawyer for the state.

The sole upside to the state public sector jobs here is the protection from being laid off (usually) and the decent retirement options.

Moreover - if state and federal jobs are so overpaid - how come everyone doesn't flock to them. There are still vacancies you know.

[Popeman38]

The trend in the last part is the main issue I have,the insulation from laws and regs the rest of us face is a minor issue.(in effect a protected class of people)

We are approaching a tipping point on the private vs public sector that is unsustainable from a financial aspect.

If we haven't already passed it

Exactly. If we ever reach 50% govt employees, we will financially be insolvent. And at the rate of growth (both employee and financial obligations) we will bankrupt ourselves trying to support govt employees (active and retired). Retiring at 90% of your final years pay after 20-30 years? Come on. :doh:

[Popeman38]

What comparable jobs? Janitors? Secretaries? Or actual journeyman or management level positions?

I can tell you one thing, most professionals at the state and federal level make considerably less than the private sector. Especially here in California.

The sole upside to the state public sector jobs here is the protection from being laid off (usually) and the decent retirement options.

According to a 2007 analysis of data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics by the Asbury Park Press, “the average federal worker made $59,864 in 2005, compared with the average salary of $40,505 in the private sector.”

It is the average of all fed employees

[The Evil Genius]

Retiring at 90% of your final years pay after 20-30 years? Come on. :doh:

Who does that? Oh yeah, the only ones that I know of are in the criminal or fire protection services field (firefighters, prison and police forces).

The best a normal state worker here can do it retire at 63 (or later) with 2.5% of their pay times the number of years he/she worked for the state.

Most will retire with less than 50% of their pay. Of course, they have been paying in 5% of their salary every month into retirement for those 20 years. Where did that money go?

[DRSmith]

You obviously didn't read the full article. I didn't say evil unions are plotting to take over the world. I said California is leading the way to the re-unionization of America. You want to see the results of massive union power on a company? Look at UAW and GM. Unions are vitally important to certain professions: Police, Fire Fighters, Nurses.... But do we really need a teachers union? Or a plumbers union? Or grocery unions?

Additionally, the article mainly focused on how the govt was not mission creeping but flat out bloating itself.

GM was poor mangement, where people did not want to take a hit on the next quarters numbers and bonuses so they gave in.

I am a union guy and just because the union asks for something does not mean you give it to them and if both sides have to suffer some pain to make sure you have contracts that keep companies profitable then so be it.

What both sides have to do is start going to the table looking for the best interest of all not just one group.

[The Evil Genius]

According to a 2007 analysis of data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics by the Asbury Park Press, “the average federal worker made $59,864 in 2005, compared with the average salary of $40,505 in the private sector.”

It is the average of all fed employees

And where is the education comparison between the two?

[DRSmith]

According to a 2007 analysis of data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics by the Asbury Park Press, “the average federal worker made $59,864 in 2005, compared with the average salary of $40,505 in the private sector.”

It is the average of all fed employees

So the question becomes why so little money flowing the private sector?

You want the private sector to expand and the middle and lower class to do better pay them more.

[Madison Redskin]

According to a 2007 analysis of data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics by the Asbury Park Press, “the average federal worker made $59,864 in 2005, compared with the average salary of $40,505 in the private sector.”

I can't believe you think that statistic is meaningful. Does the government employ people to pluck feathers from chickens, pick fruit, wait tables, etc? You should compare salaries of federal government workers to salaries of people in the private sector doing the same kinds of jobs.

[The Evil Genius]

I can't believe you think that statistic is meaningful. Does the government employ people to pluck feathers from chickens, pick fruit, wait tables, etc? You should compare salaries of federal government workers to salaries of people in the private sector doing the same kinds of jobs.

Not only that. Compare them to professional level positions. Comparison of low level positions tells nothing.

Hell, compare the salary of the head of Caltrans to that of the head of another large corporation (20,000+ employees) that does construction (among other things).

The Caltrans Executive Director makes roughly $120,000 a year.

[twa]

So the question becomes why so little money flowing the private sector?

You want the private sector to expand and the middle and lower class to do better pay them more.

You mean like increasing the minimum wage and union rates?

Yeah that worked out real well:hysterical:

[Popeman38]

Who does that? Oh yeah, the only ones that I know of are in the criminal or fire protection services field (firefighters, prison and police forces).

The best a normal state worker here can do it retire at 63 (or later) with 2.5% of their pay times the number of years he/she worked for the state.

Most will retire with less than 50% of their pay. Of course, they have been paying in 5% of their salary every month into retirement for those 20 years. Where did that money go?

In 1999, with the economy booming, a new law increased allowable benefits for public safety workers -- police officers, prison guards and firefighters -- by 50 percent. Under the change, these employees could retire at age 50 with lifetime pensions up to 90 percent of their salary, depending on the number of years worked

That plan, called "3 percent at 50," has been adopted by a majority of public agencies in the state, including all local agencies with public-safety employees.

Three years later, a new law opened the door for non-safety public workers to negotiate terms allowing them to retire at age 60 with pensions up to 90 percent of their salary, a plan known as "3 percent at 60."

[The Evil Genius]

Three years later, a new law opened the door for non-safety public workers to negotiate terms allowing them to retire at age 60 with pensions up to 90 percent of their salary, a plan known as "3 percent at 60."

What state is this? It's not California - as the author implied.

I wish I had 90% staring me in the face! :evilg:

Here is the retirement benefit link on Calpers (which the state of California uses).

http://www.calpers.ca.gov/index.jsp?bc=/member/retirement/service-retire/benefit-charts/stateformulacharts.xml

The majority of state workers fall under the 2% at age 55 link. It maxes out at 2.5% at age 63.

[Madison Redskin]

Not only that. Compare them to professional level positions. Comparison of low level positions tells nothing.

Hell, compare the salary of the head of Caltrans to that of the head of another large corporation (20,000+ employees) that does construction (among other things).

The Caltrans Executive Director makes roughly $120,000 a year.

Same goes for lawyers. For example, Assistant US Attorneys make about 25% of what they could in the private sector. My brother is a 6th year associate at a large law firm, makes somewhere around $300K per year in salary and bonuses, and is thinking about leaving to become an AUSA making about $70K per year. Many AUSAs are just like my brother; they are highly intelligent and hard working people who are interested in public service and will serve the public at a steep discount.

I thought about applying to the SEC in law school, but I got an offer for a $115K job in the private sector and, at the time, the SEC was paying its entry level attorneys something like $60K.

[deejaydana]

California is reaching a tipping point as someone else stated. Some of the pension deals are going to weigh heavily upon what the state can do financially going forward. And yes, the Unions have far too much power. All they have to do is lean on politicians (or contribute to them) and they cave.

[Popeman38]

What state is this? It's not California - as the author implied.

I wish I had 90% staring me in the face! :evilg:

Here is the retirement benefit link on Calpers (which the state of California uses).

http://www.calpers.ca.gov/index.jsp?bc=/member/retirement/service-retire/benefit-charts/stateformulacharts.xml

The majority of state workers fall under the 2% at age 55 link. It maxes out at 2.5% at age 63.

3% at 50/60

2% at 55

2.5% at 63

There is no difference in the principles of this plan. Why should a public sector employee be entitled to a salary and benefits for the rest of their lives? And should they die first their spouses lives? That is an unsustainable pipeline of the public budget. Regardless of the semantics used to argue it. Private sector realized long ago that pensions were unsustainable. Hence the 401(k) movement. Why should a private sector employee have to invest for his retirement while a public sector employee qualifies for his automatically. Even if the % is reduced, the overall cost is increasing as the public work force expands. Seriously, 50% of some county budgets are going to pensions. Guess who has to bear that brunt? The private sector employee, in the form of higher taxes. The public sector pension increases based on cost of living, which is affected by? That's right, the tax rate.

[DRSmith]

You mean like increasing the minimum wage and union rates?

Yeah that worked out real well:hysterical:

Yes because it so much better to take large amount of money and put it in the hands of a few ceos rather than spreading part of that out over a large population that would be buying stuff and creating jobs.

[The Evil Genius]

3% at 50/60

2% at 55

2.5% at 63

There is no difference in the principles of this plan. Why should a public sector employee be entitled to a salary and benefits for the rest of their lives?

Because it was guaranteed to them when they started. Moreover, they have been paying into that plan on a monthly basis for the x amounts of years they worked.

Now, if you want to talk about changing the plan for future workers, then that's another issue. But don't expect to be able to continue to recruit well when pay is considerably less than the private sector (at comparable professional level positions) and the retirement system is no longer attractive.

[twa]

Yes because it so much better to take large amount of money and put it in the hands of a few ceos rather than spreading part of that out over a large population that would be buying stuff and creating jobs.

How about you just give away money from what you EARN?

You want to take money from CEO's?...support the small/independent businesses with your dollars.

[ACW]

reason is NOT right wing, any more than Mother Jones is.

[DRSmith]

How about you just give away money from what you EARN?

You want to take money from CEO's?...support the small/independent businesses with your dollars.

Nah I am all good with the idea of the bonus taxes and laws, and supporting companies that pay their employees a good wage.