posted by Alan Greenblatt
Here's a plea to all government officials: Come up with a better reason to justify high public-sector salaries and benefits.
The Sacramento Bee today reports that California Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez is boosting staff salary by as much as 22 percent, bringing more than 200 legislative aides above the $100,000 mark.
You can already guess what Nunez's spokesman has to say in defense of the big dollars, right? It's important to pay wages that are competitive in order to retain top talent, blah, blah, blah.
That may well be true, but I would humbly submit that government spokesmen are going to have to craft a new line. A hundred grand still sounds like a lot of money to most people, even in California. Why legislators can't get someone to work for, say, a measly $80k is something many voters will wonder. Particularly at a time of deficits (which is all the time in California).
We all understand that when times are tough in government-budget land, reporters love nothing more than to write stories criticizing public officials for heading off to conventions in nice places. Many county officials shied away from NACo's meeting in Hawaii a couple years back for just this reason.
We're entering an era when government salaries are going to come under increased scrutiny. People will be more reluctant to buy the "have to be competitive" line. They are also growing more skeptical (with reason) about the idea that public employees deserve luxurious benefits because they are paid less than private-sector counterparts.
In these global times, many people's wages are under pressure. Government work, so far, is mainly not outsourced. Therefore, government workers are more secure and so generate some jealousy. We've already seen plenty of stories questioning why government workers still get generous guaranteed pensions when most people are lucky to get a percent or two match into their self-funded 401(k)s.
So the heat will continue to be on public officials to justify big paydays and generous benefits. It's time to come up with some fresh material to do so.
Hey, they're just following Justice Roberts's lead . . he thinks higher pay is required for people making $165k annually with LIFETIME job security and constant ego-stroking from servile minions.
Posted by: JMG | Wednesday, January 10, 2007 at 09:56 AM
I'm not sure I agree with the need to come up with a better line. What I think gets lost in the translation, though, is what some of these jobs equate to in the private sector. In the interest of full disclosure I am a civil servant in an executive department. But I understand the complaints, especially when I see "typical" state workers. However, these aren't the ones making $100k. They are usually the lower skilled, lower educated workers. Let's equate what these legislative aides do with what they might do in the private sector. Although they don't manage a lot of staff they are responsible for knowing and being able to deliver on a wide variety of complicated public policy issues, as well as knowing the legislative process, and, in some cases, managing it. What would an operations manager make at Dell? Or Google? Or Boeing?
Posted by: Jim | Thursday, January 11, 2007 at 11:04 AM
I may agree with Jim in principle about the fairness argument, but the reality is that governments have to take heat for their employee salaries in a way that private sector companies don't. We may take umbrage at a CEO receiving $200 million-plus in severance after six years of zero stock price growth, but only Home Depot stockholders can do anything about it, and probably won't. But the press will write about government salaries and we tend to take a populist stance on this particular issue, so governments have to be sensitive or at least, as I suggest, offer up a newer, more convincing spin.
Posted by: Alan Greenblatt | Thursday, January 11, 2007 at 02:45 PM
I remain of the opinion that it shouldn't really be a "pitch" at all. Government at all levels has to do a better job educating the public about what government does, how we succeed or fail, and how we measure that success or failure. I'm not entirely convinced that government employees (i.e. civil service) should have to justify their pay at all. Shareholders might complain that executive salaries in the private sector are too high, but we also argue that lower skilled private employees don't get paid enough (a populist up swell to raise the minimum wage anyone?). Should the press write about how much Dell pays customer service reps and then expect Dell to justify it?
Further, I find the argument that government employees don't do anything/are lazy/don't want to do (or even care about) their job/are overpaid a little offensive. Yes, we've all had a miserable run in with the DMV, or with whoever is at the front desk at the local clerk's office when we need some type of permit, but haven't we all run into the exact same thing when trying to get a mistake on our (Verizon/Sprint/Internet/Visa) bill corrected?
Posted by: Jim | Friday, January 12, 2007 at 11:12 AM
You can't ignore the fact that government salaries are collected under threat of force -- exactly the opposite of private sector employees who earn their compensation in a competitive market -- there is simply no comparison possible between private and government jobs.
Combine that with an erosion of citizens' rights as government employees and their unions secure ever higher levels of power (McCain-Feingold, Kelo, etc.), immunity (Sandy Berger), salary ($100K+) and benefits (life-time medical and pensions) for themselves.
Fundamentally, it's simply against American ideals that a near-royal class of bureaucrats even exist -- despite how often government lauds its mirage-like accomplishments.
To an average citizen, government employees are looking more like ticks with guns than contributing members to a free American society.
Posted by: MLDinCA | Saturday, January 13, 2007 at 02:40 PM
I think those are overly broad comments that shouldn't be offered offhandedly, much less accepted. What "threat of force?" Certainly not coup d'etat. Strikes? Rarely. "Simply no comparison possible between private and government jobs"? Difficult comparisons to be sure, but it is possible. Do private sector employees actually earn their compensation in a competitive market? What about private sector unions? In fact, if it were true, wouldn't all private sector employees be compensated on some type of commission system? Further, what about the government employees that are not unionized? The post originated because of raises given to legislative staff. Can anyone submit an example of unionized legislative staff?
Why start with the assumption that a "near-royal class of bureaucrats" DOES exist? I disagree with the assumption, but if it were true, why is it "fundamentally (...) simply against American ideals"?
Who exactly is an "average" citizen? The same ones expecting their garbage picked up on time? Their police responsive? Their schools competitive? Is it fair to say that the "average" citizen wants these things, but doesn't want to pay for them? What is a "tick with a gun"?
Posted by: Jim | Friday, January 19, 2007 at 12:47 PM