In 1968, 1,300 sanitation workers in Memphis went on strike. The Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. came to support them. That was where he lost his life. Eventually Memphis heard the grievances of its sanitation workers. And in subsequent years millions of public employees across the nation have benefited from the job protections they've earned.
But now the right is going after public employees.
Public servants are convenient scapegoats. Republicans would rather deflect attention from corporate executive pay that continues to rise as corporate profits soar, even as corporations refuse to hire more workers. They don't want stories about Wall Street bonuses, now higher than before taxpayers bailed out the Street. And they'd like to avoid a spotlight on the billions raked in by hedge-fund and private-equity managers whose income is treated as capital gains and subject to only a 15 percent tax, due to a loophole in the tax laws designed specifically for them.
It's far more convenient to go after people who are doing the public's work -- sanitation workers, police officers, fire fighters, teachers, social workers, federal employees -- to call them "faceless bureaucrats" and portray them as hooligans who are making off with your money and crippling federal and state budgets. The story fits better with the Republican's Big Lie that our problems are due to a government that's too big.
Above all, Republicans don't want to have to justify continued tax cuts for the rich. As quietly as possible, they want to make them permanent.
But the right's argument is shot-through with bad data, twisted evidence, and unsupported assertions.
They say public employees earn far more than private-sector workers. That's untrue when you take account of level of education. Matched by education, public sector workers actually earn less than their private-sector counterparts.
The Republican trick is to compare apples with oranges -- the average wage of public employees with the average wage of all private-sector employees. But only 23 percent of private-sector employees have college degrees; 48 percent of government workers do. Teachers, social workers, public lawyers who bring companies to justice, government accountants who try to make sure money is spent as it should be -- all need at least four years of college.
Compare apples to apples and and you'd see that over the last fifteen years the pay of public sector workers has dropped relative to private-sector employees with the same level of education. Public sector workers now earn 11 percent less than comparable workers in the private sector, and local workers 12 percent less. (Even if you include health and retirement benefits, government employees still earn less than their private-sector counterparts with similar educations.)
Here's another whopper. Republicans say public-sector pensions are crippling the nation. They say politicians have given in to the demands of public unions who want only to fatten their members' retirement benefits without the public noticing. They charge that public-employee pensions obligations are out of control.
Some reforms do need to be made. Loopholes that allow public sector workers to "spike" their final salaries in order to get higher annuities must be closed. And no retired public employee should be allowed to "double dip," collecting more than one public pension.
But these are the exceptions. Most public employees don't have generous pensions. After a career with annual pay averaging less than $45,000, the typical newly-retired public employee receives a pension of $19,000 a year. Few would call that overly generous.
And most of that $19,000 isn't even on taxpayers' shoulders. While they're working, most public employees contribute a portion of their salaries into their pension plans. Taxpayers are directly responsible for only about 14 percent of public retirement benefits. Remember also that many public workers aren't covered by Social Security, so the government isn't contributing 6.25 of their pay into the Social Security fund as private employers would.
Yes, there's cause for concern about unfunded pension liabilities in future years. They're way too big. But it's much the same in the private sector. The main reason for underfunded pensions in both public and private sectors is investment losses that occurred during the Great Recession. Before then, public pension funds had an average of 86 percent of all the assets they needed to pay future benefits -- better than many private pension plans.
The solution is no less to slash public pensions than it is to slash private ones. It's for all employers to fully fund their pension plans.
The final Republican canard is that bargaining rights for public employees have caused state deficits to explode. In fact there's no relationship between states whose employees have bargaining rights and states with big deficits. Some states that deny their employees bargaining rights -- Nevada, North Carolina, and Arizona, for example, are running giant deficits of over 30 percent of spending. Many that give employees bargaining rights -- Massachusetts, New Mexico, and Montana -- have small deficits of less than 10 percent.
Public employees should have the right to bargain for better wages and working conditions, just like all employees do. They shouldn't have the right to strike if striking would imperil the public, but they should at least have a voice. They often know more about whether public programs are working, or how to make them work better, than political appointees who hold their offices for only a few years.
Don't get me wrong. When times are tough, public employees should have to make the same sacrifices as everyone else. And they are right now. Pay has been frozen for federal workers, and for many state workers across the country as well.
But isn't it curious that when it comes to sacrifice, Republicans don't include the richest people in America? To the contrary, they insist the rich should sacrifice even less, enjoying even larger tax cuts that expand public-sector deficits. That means fewer public services, and even more pressure on the wages and benefits of public employees.
It's only average workers -- both in the public and the private sectors -- who are being called upon to sacrifice.
This is what the current Republican attack on public-sector workers is really all about. Their version of class warfare is to pit private-sector workers against public servants. They'd rather set average working people against one another -- comparing one group's modest incomes and benefits with another group's modest incomes and benefits -- than have Americans see that the top 1 percent is now raking in a bigger share of national income than at any time since 1928, and paying at a lower tax rate. And Republicans would rather you didn't know they want to cut taxes on the rich even more.
Robert Reich is the author of Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future, now in bookstores. This post originally appeared at RobertReich.org.
that is not a TRUE statement = it is a FALSE statement
and Reich convienently leaves out fact their pensions can start at age 50
I know someone who retired after 15 years of service! at 50,000 a year!
Show me one public sector lawyer with 30 years of service that makes more than a private sector counterpart with the equivalent experience. Or a public sector doctor. Or a public sector accountant. Or a public sector computer programmer. Ad infinium for every professional position out there in the public sector.
Your "I know someone" statement, if it's actually true, may be an exception to the rule. But knowing one person who got a sweet deal doesn't mean your statement holds true for the millions of OTHER public sector workers out there. That's like me saying I know a rich guy, so everyone must be rich.
Your statement is a fail, and Reich is right on the money.
Seems Mr. Reich is the only person who speaks the truth ... and you actually understand him.
He needs to be front and center on every media network. We know that won't happen because those in power want to keep the public divided and in the dark.
Here is a question for all of those who advocate for further increases in taxes on the most productive members of society. What should the tax rate be for the highest earners?
First, most of todays Progressives are not reprsentative of the Democratic Party - according to most posts they hate Obama and the Democrates only slightly less than the Tea baggers - as evidenced on these blogs pre-November - even calls for more Repubs. to make some power statement to the Dem party.
I did have a link to tax history - you might try researching that befor pointing fingers at who actually raises and who actually lowers taxes and on which parts of society and who has actualy raised and lowered deficits. The greatest boom era and money maker for industry in this country was when the upper earners paid the highest percentage. Goldwater for example knew this, being a successful merchant businessman in the 40s through the 60s - he knew it takes a healthy and monetarily robust work force to support successfull industry and provide those wealthy lifestyles of the top and to maintain a consistant economy -
the reverse of "trikle down" supply side Milton Freidman Reagonomics that has only re-distributed, no, I'll say stripped, all the hard earned work force money to the top in just a few short 40 years leaving us where we are today.
This is all just history repeating itself anyway - nothing new happened in these last 40 years that did not happen pre-Depression - those that could deregulated and then stole from the rest - plain an simple - and being unsustainable it burst.
I have never ever heard "why don't teachers make as much as pro-athletes"? That is just "spin" - come on, fess up, you just made that up didn't you? Otherwise suggest you broaden your circle out of whatever forest you are in.
I have worked both private sector and public service in the same industry for almost 30 years - there is no great wealth to be made in the public sector and anyone going in knows that - everything is a trade off and public service is truly a calling.
But lets be accurate - unions are from the private sector - that have all been stripped by Reagonomics.
Odd isn't it that the wealthiest era in our nations history for both the working class and the rich was when unions rulled and the wealthy paid the highest tax rates?
Goldwater understood this at least - though I was a young conservative at that time, and did not then even agree with all of the Goldwater platform, he did at least know from personal merchant experience that industry needs a monetarily robust work force to support the wealthy.
History - try it some time. We did not fight against "over" taxation, we found against taxation without representation - something like we have today with corporations running the GOP and the Dems both?
I live in a town where 2/3 of the police force earns in excess of $150,000 and where the chief of a 170 person force earned more than the New York City Police Commissioner! These 'public servants" get 80 days off per year, full health care and six figure pensions and health care in retirement.
The municipal unions with the collusion of self serving politicians have raped the taxpayers. Unlike the private sector where the employer has a reason to resist outrageous demands politicians have acted like a mob of vote buying Santa Clauses and for years the taxpayers just said "Thank you!".
Now, there are abusers in all walks of life, but please do not hold them up as the norm and demonize everyone else.
Please consider the state of California. Determine the number of unionized state employees hired within the last 4 years who havewith pensions. Do the same for unionized employees employeed elsewhere in the same time frame. Categorize both sets of employees by jobs and job classifications. Examine the results.
Now determine the amount of money employees in each subset of similar jobs and job classications will receive in pensions. Calculate the amount of the average pension to be received by unionized state employees and non-unionized employees in essentially the same jobs.
Compare the figures you get with those published in any of the leading publications that have dealt with this issue.
I am persuaded that you will learn that the cost of the pensions for the unionized state employees is much greater than those for unionized employees who do not work for the state.
Now all these workers have the right to membership in unions that will defend their rights and interests. What appears to have happened is that the governor and legislature have met the "demands" of unionized state employees to a great extent to assure themselves the political support of those union members.
"Compare apples to apples and and you'd see that over the last fifteen years the pay of public sector workers has dropped relative to private-sector employees with the same level of education. Public sector workers now earn 11 percent less than comparable workers in the private sector, and local workers 12 percent less. (Even if you include health and retirement benefits, government employees still earn less than their private-sector counterparts with similar educations.)"
So even ONCE YOU ACCOUNT for the cost of the pensions and the health insurance generally provided to government employees, you'll find that they are getting paid less than the equivalent private sector employee.
Reich is 100% on the mark with the statement you so handily dismiss.
Why do toll both workers make $80K? Why is overtime pay calculated into retirement pay? They also get to choose their boss. Even the progressive hero FDR didn't approve of public unions due too many conflicts of interest. It is no coincidence that the states that have been the most generous to public (and private) unions are the ones that are bankrupt. NJ, CA, NY, IL.
What is all this nonsense about the rich not paying their fair share? If more than 1/2 the population is not paying fed income tax and the other 1/2 is paying for all of it- how is that "fair." The reason why the rich should not "sacrifice" is that they have been sacrificing for the last 50 years. The poor haven't paid one dime and the middle class paid only a minuscule amount. Look no further to the millionaire (200K+) tax laws (or threat thereof) enacted recently to bolster state coffers that backfired. These "rich" people left MD, NJ, NY, OR, and WA and headed to TN, TX, and FL and the states have taken in less revenue than before and likely lost and employers who moved jobs or closed shop all together creating more unemployment.
If you can convince your employer in a federal job to let you make $150,000 in overtime, that's it, it's JUST overtime, not a portion of your pay. If your annual salary for that year is $50,000 then your pension is based on $50,000.
Most states also do not have a provision allowing for OT to be calculated as salary for their workers.
Cost of living allowances" are a product of the government. When a company has a bad month, quarter or year, there are no raises, bonuses, etc, and prices can't automatically be raised to bring in more revenue......... If you receive benefits or salaries from A government, you just pass a cola bill and send Joe Taxpayer the bill.......I see so many public workers and teachers retiring in their MID-50s, with their defined benefits........they vote for politicians(their bosses) who protect their cushy contracts.
Now, SS retirement age is being raised higher and higher, yet public retirement ages are the new 3rd rail......Lets at least see them have to work and contribute until they are, like 62..Would that piss you off, too?
Cost of living allowances are something given to a few employees of the government who are not doing a job important enough to qualify for higher pay (and therefore a higher rank, which ALL government employees have, even though it's more limited than in the military) but which the government cannot fill within a given area. Many inter-state and international corporations do the same thing when having people do similar work within widely dispersed areas when they have trouble filling the job in the higher cost of living area.
And when an employee has done nothing to make the company do well (even if it did well in spite of them...) THEY do not get bonuses. And many companies STILL offer bonuses to employees who do well even when the rest of the company is suffering.
You seem to think that all this stuff only occurs in the government, but it does NOT, it occurs in BUSINESS as well. And the fact of the matter is that the government is simply trying to get the best people they can to fill the job, JUST LIKE BUSINESS!
Your "argument" holds no water when it comes to Social Security, which is a government "retirement" program. You are taxed on the amount of money you earn each pay period; you must have worked a specified number of quarters to be eligible for SS; when you may begin drawing full SS depends on your age.
Let me restate that I have nothing against the benefits and pensions that have been negotiated. For me the issue is that our elected representatives have a earned D-, if not an F, mark in explaining to the taxpayers (1) what the costs of those benefits and pensions will be and (2) how the government plans to pay for them
Where I come from we don't elect our representatives because they are pretty or handsome, because they wear nice clothes or drive the better models of automobiles. We elect them in part because of their experience, in part because we believe they will represent OUR interests and if it comes to choosing between our (parochial, perhaps) interests and the interests of the majority of the people in our states, we hope they will use their good judgment and vote so as to provide the greatest good for the greatest number.
Second, Social Security is NOT a retirement program, it's an INSURANCE program.
Third, the pensions as already negotiated are what we're talking about!
Its all just a sing of the current economy, which will change again for the better. If we were not in a recession and everyone really understood that private incomes, benefits and pensions are NOT as good as private sector and the private sector was stable we would not even be having this conversation.
We would instead be wondering instead why would anyone want to work in the public sector?
Having worked both private and public I will say it is a calling, and unless you have that calling you cannot understant that.
Private sector is much cushier, better pay, better hours, better benefits, some respect at least. Public sector gets threats all the time, gets reduculed for every overtime hour, etc, etc. jsut for enforcing the rules set py the citizens elected officals to protect the community - no walk in the park scooping up mountains of cash by comparison by any means or stretch of the imagination as some seem to be attempting to paint it.
And if you were seeing dead weight then you were in an unusual government job, because in every government job that I've seen it's usually people working too many hours for too little pay and CONSTANTLY undermanned.
In some government agencies there are two classes of employees: exempt and non-exempt. Exempt employees receive a fixed annual salary and are expected to work as long as it takes to complete the job. That may entail a 40-hour work week; it may require a 60-hour work week.
Non-exempt employees receive a nominally fixed annual salary according to their grade (and perhaps, step within grade). However, if they work more than 40 hours in a single pay period by law they are paid time-and-a-half, or double time, depending on whether they worked overtime, or on a legal holiday. 15-20 minutes before the work day ends one often sees non-exempt employees quitting work and preparing to leave, not considering that they owe their employer - the government - that 15-20 minutes.
I have held a government job - exempt - for 35 years. I have rarely supervised non-exempt employees who spend the15-20 minutes preparing to leave work willing to complete a particular task that workday. Not only do they leave exactly at the work day's end; many will try to record that quarter of an hour and accumulate enough15-minute periods to be paid overtime.