I believe in unions. But public-sector unions pose some difficult questions when times are tight and taxpayers are expected to plug a massive hole in the budget.
On the one hand, it is patently unfair to workers to ask them to give up good benefits because of the weakness of private-sector unions. Rather than weaken the public-sector unions, we should be working to rebuild the labor movement in the fix private sector, bring up wages and improve benefits for all.
But reality must set in and right now there is little chance that the average worker will see this happen. At best, it appears, workers can hope for the erosion of benefits to slow or stop. But improving them? Unlikely.
In this climate, taxpayers have every right to wonder whether they should be asked to foot the bill for those juicy benefits.
So where does that leave us?
David Rebovich offers an interesting analysis on Politics NJ, that may help us parse through the difficult issues surrounding the state budget and the public unions:
Many AFSCME workers provide essential services at all levels of government that nearly every citizen and family benefits from at one time or another. Those serving in state institutions have positions that entail 24/7 coverage under challenging circumstances that require patience, discretion, compassion, and the capacity for emotionally and sometimes physically demanding work. Many AFSCME workers earn $25,000 to $30,000 a year, a fact that gets lost in the average salary figures cited above. And, members typically pay into their pension and have deductibles and co-pays for their health care plans. In addition, the workload of many individual employees has increased due to attrition and budget freezes in many agencies. Why then, one AFSCME leader rhetorically asked, can workers be demonized when “…their only concern is showing up for work every day because someone (i.e., elected officials) said that the work is necessary and needs to be done?”
That’s a good point. So too is the common sense claim that government workers, like anyone else, want appropriate compensation and benefits for their efforts. This includes a recognition that employees be rewarded for their years of service and that New Jersey has a high cost of living. Said another AFSCME leader, “If you are going to scapegoat a large number of people in government service, you need to specifically identify a large number of positions that are not necessary.” However, citizens elect politicians who promise to pass laws to create programs that the public supports in principle but then complain about when the realize that the programs have to be paid for by taxpayers.
On these terms, citizens may want to channel their frustration at their elected officials for promising a lot without explaining the costs involved. And, for supporting certain practices, like pension double dipping, and high levels of spending on patronage positions that do not contribute directly to service delivery. Unionized government workers are usually quick to recommend cutting patronage jobs when there is talk about reducing the workforce. The AFSCME officials with whom I spoke were no different but did admit that in a large workforce there are a “few bad apples,” union members or not. These few provide fodder for politicians and talk-show hosts who take to blasting government workers generally, something that the AFSCME folks believe reached a peak this budget season.
But, the AFSCME leaders assert that the union and its members are absolutely for supporting rules, regulations and workload requirements in their contracts and for dealing with “goof-offs” who violate their contracts, fail the public, and give government workers a bad name. As such, AFSCME is committed to good public administration and doing what it takes to improve service delivery and make it cost effective.
Now that’s a message that some politicians did not pay attention to this budget season, and one that union leaders should try to communicate to them and to the general public. It would not be a surprise if many New Jerseyans were sympathetic to AFSCME’s position once they understood what their workers do and how much they are paid. However, the same sentiment may not hold for other government workers, appointed or unionized, who make $75,000 a year or more. There are about 13,000 such state workers who fall into the category, including 8,500 in unions.
Then there is the simple fact that private sector retirement, health care, paid holidays, sick days and vacation plans are no where near as good as what public sector employees enjoy. Besides costs, there is the the question of equity. Should taxpayers pay for government employee benefits that they themselves don’t receive in their own jobs? Along with escalating costs to taxpayers, this is a reason why the legislature and the governor will look at the pension and benefits of state workers this summer with an eye toward reform. In that process, let’s hope that lawmakers remember those who aren’t paid a lot and the benefits that they literally cannot afford to lose.
Hank Kalet 