Robert Reich writes: "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."
Portrait, Robert Reich, 08/16/09. (photo: Perian Flaherty)
The Shameful Attack on Public Employees
06 January 11
n 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 Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. He has written twelve books, including "The Work of Nations," "Locked in the Cabinet," "Supercapitalism" and his latest book, "AFTERSHOCK: The Next Economy and America's Future." His 'Marketplace' commentaries can be found on publicradio.com and iTunes.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |













Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
But one size doesn't fit all in this formula either. I am often aligned with Reich and others because, even though there are exceptions, the "rule" is often not as depicted.
In California, it sickens me to know teachers, firemen, and police that retire with 90% of their pay, (and 110% if they "work" the system a bit) at the age of 55, while the state goes broke and NO PUBLIC SECTOR JOBS have any such retirement plan. Reich may be painting this issue with a broad brush but there's room for blame to go around here.
I am DONE with Republicans but if the Democrats don't grow a pair and go after the wealthy AND the public leaches, the rest of us will not be served.
Let's see some "compromise" on both issues, shall we?
It's quite likely that the formula has recently changed for teacher retirements in California. My information comes from the horse's mouth. I have two friends that are recently retired teachers; A fireman friend/neighbor that retired about five years ago and a Carslbad PD neighbor/friend of a friend that retired last year. ALL of them recieve the amounts I mentioned.
So the question is; Does Social Security at age 62 pay even 45% or do most private sector jobs even offer a pension, or keep people long enough to pay it?
ANSWER? NO!
As for the "summer vacation" issue; WRONG AGAIN. Teachers are paid a SALARY as many professionals in the private sector are, but their SALARY IS A NINE MONTH SCHEDULE not a 50 week schedule. Show me THOSE numbers, why don't you?
It would be so bad but ALL of the folks I know in this category vote REPUBLICAN and decry TAXES!
I agree with you Daniel; One does not preclude the other. I'd like to see us going after the puppet masters and not pitted against each other, but I see more government workers; Police, Fire, Teachers, Soldiers; All decrying tax increases FOR ANYONE and voting for Republicans, that the hypocracy kills me. Government workers; SOCIALISTS if there ever was one, crying foul and drinking the purple Kool-Aid about Democrats, Obama and Socialism. It's sickening!
People in the private sector have hazardous jobs too. It's a CHOICE of vocation. "Personal responsibility" is the mantra; Remember?
Did you ever stop and think that the main reason our jobs are going overseas is because of tax breaks and trade agreements like NAFTA? There will always be people in 3rd world countries willing to work for slave wages. The question is whether US trade policies should enable that race to the bottom, and why wingnuts like yourself want to bring back the days of slavery to America.
OK; You had me on your side (to some extent) with your earlier post but this one you are out of line on.
American workers may not be "better" workers than those who are overseas, but THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE TO BE. That's the whole issue.
People need to be paid A FAIR WAGE no matter where they live and that wage needs to be inline with the circumstances of their environment. It takes more to live in NY than in Missouri so wages reflect that. The same should be true with US versus China, but when jobs are taken from US citizens to pay people in China that are doing just fine on a fraction of our wages, there is no way to compete. Since Americans can't pick up and move to China, we need protections in our laws to level the field. That means import duties and higher taxes on people that benefit from offshore activities and tax breaks for those that don't; The middle class.
Don't give me that "world economy" crap. To compete in anything you need rules that are fair to all.
Kraft Foods bought out the UK chocolate maker Cadbury, promising to retain workers' jobs. It promptly reneged. It also rewarded a spineless British government by moving its tax home offshore. I well understand the need for American workers to be smarter and more educated in order to compete, but you can bet that I don't buy Philly cream cheese or think deregulation will save our skins.
We'd (salaried or hourly employees) have the power if we got together with our co-workers and demanded something better. It's great to comment here but we have to take the discussion offline and directly to the people who affect our situations.
People seem afraid to do this, at least where I work. Everyone just wants to hang on to their job. The layoffs were brutal. We do have a union, but in the past people have been fired for union activities. The union is not very strong.
Each of us out here on our computers has to get over that fear and just confront the situation together with others who are in the same boat at our own jobs.
The resentment is really misdirected just as Prof. Reich points out. Divide and pit the working people against each other. It's an age old strategy that still works brilliantly as you show in your comments.
Teachers have arguably the most important job in the country----our future depends on their skill. They deserve better compensation than what they get.
Unfunded pension liabilities are a big problem in my state. I don't see any way to avoid cutting some retirement benefits, particularly the abusive options Reich mentions. But I also think average retirement ages need to rise, meaning benefits for early voluntary retirees need to be reduced. Otherwise, the Republicans are dead wrong in their attack on public employees.
The most egregious examples of pension abuse should not be put on the shoulders of the average worker who give up a lot to do public service jobs. Those sacrifices continue into retirement.
Now here's a thought: Congress people work in the public sector but cap their own salaries and benefits through Congress (themselves)
Also, when Cty manager got a great salary as did his assistant. In fact his secretary got more $$ than other secretaries (OK - that dates me)
But to clump ALL public sector personel into ONE PUT is (as you can see) a Paradox.
The Republicans SHOULD be held accountable: Their critisim of job creation is NOW on THEM. They cannot just subtract from people's rights to take a pitance off the national deficit.
I hope they run Palin for President so we can all have a good laugh at the debates because she is dumber than Bush (who had a microphone link to probably Rove sticking out of his jacket during debates)
Why in hell would you expect anything other than what these scums of american politicians are doing:
Christ man!
THey TOLD us exactly what they planned to do...a first for politicians of any stripe...too keep finally THIS set of words.
The UPSIDE of all this may show even the Tea Party ignoramuses what they have wrought.
And by their actions shorten the term of our agony; we are just beginning to understand the depth of their depravity.
If Americans DO NOT rise up now you can just stop writing and accept that we are headed for the Christian hell and damnation.
God save me from this form of Christianity.
"You ARE entitled to your own opinion but NOT to your own facts"
And that expression should be shouted to Congress - It will certainly clear up the lies they proffer as facts.
BTW, Mr. Reich, my dad, a legal immigrant, did his homework before writing to the editor (back in the 50's and before going to head up the school, fire, and hospital boards. Guess what? They ran in the black while he was in charge. He stopped all those typewriters from walking off campus each summer.
We should we include the richest? It is their money. I do not want to count their money. I would rather have them investing their money, putting in banks, spending on whatever luxarious crap they want, which wioll eventually benefit everybody. Any normal person (unless he/she lives in a college bubble) will understand a simple truth: if your riches/private property is secure and not overburdened with draconian taxes, economy will prosper. See, we have a fundamental difference: you view capitalism as unavoidable evil that you need to milk in time of crisis with revolutionary taxes. I, and people like me, view the givernment as unvoidable evil (the less the better).
When you start counting capitalists' money and then overtax them, you might kill your hen that brings you golden eggs, or this hen might move out of the country to "grassier" lands.
Anyway, I am not rich, and I drive a junk car. Even though I am public employee, I am not whining, "It's unfair, they have too much." I guess here I am justing casting pearls...
If you took any ten of my fellow high school graduates (comparable and male) and they had to be people in the private sector with 26 years of experience, having won awards for their excellence, and would have to have to have a M.B.A. and or a Ph.D. in the field of choice I bet they would earn more than I do. Not complaining. Just look way, way up there and you will find the real chislers.
Brain Worker. Industrial Union 620 Industrial Workers of the World.
To the proud industrial woobly "Brain Worker": of course, not all of your coursework is worthless. What I would like from us (you and I, who has 20 years of experience teaching philosophy, political science, and history) is to humble ourselves a bit and remember that what we do is in many respects indulgence at societal expense. Prosperous societies (like US and W. Europe) can afford having us. Countries like Botstwana do not. That is what I always tryo to exlain to my students. As for molding students
minds, I guess it is all right as long as you do not pretend to be an intellectual messiah and do not impose anything on them and give them a chance to choose from alernative viewpoints. For example, if you give them for their readings Marx and Hayek, Cornell West and Thomas Sowell, I am with you, and I am all for this type of molding.
I do not know about public schools, but, as a college teacher, I can fully testify that what you wrote here is absolutely true. Worthless meetings, growing paperwork, various reports, petty bickering, simulating vigorous activities, invention of various agendas to show off social activism. If my job is downsized, society will not only lose but will eventually benefit. In fact, it might help move my ass from a chair to attempt something new and fresh and will stimulate my noodles. May be I will start writing honest books instead of postponing a few interesting projects that I am fraid to initiate in order not to offend my left-liberal colleagues.
PROGRAM:
(1) freeze public sector salaries and hirings (Dems sacred cow)
(2) cut public welfare (Dem sacred cow)
(3) cut corporate welfare (Rep sacred cow)
(4) cut military spendings (Rep sacred cow)
(5) flat and simple tax on everybody(13-15%)
Do not be scared, I am just kidding. I am not going to piss against a wind. Just a suggestion from a little man, who quietly sleeps/lives in his college bubble, pretending during a day that he is a multiculti/a bit lib/a bit lefty just to fit in the crowd, but who at night reads Hayek and occasionally does teach-ins for interested folk
I do not agree. Here's why - we could cut close to $100 BILLION from the $664 billion ANNUAL military budget without reducing our security one iota.
Doing so would more than pay for everything else this country needs or wants to do (like making public education as good as it was 40 years ago, repairing our highways, levees & infrastructure generally, developing alternative energy, etc.) AND still reduce the deficit. Just one example of waste, fraud, or abuse in military spending - the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. Since 1996 they've spent $3 BILLION trying to make it work. Result it works for 4 HOURS before catastrophic breakdown. By the way the original budget was $9 billion to purchase 1000 vehicles. They've spent one-third of that and have ZERO functional vehicles. Oh! And let's not forget that the military has had NO use for this type of vehicle since Truman was President.
As a counterbalance to the human tendency to enact their prejudices and resist their ethical duties, might I suggest that school administrators and boards be personally liable under Federal Law for any breaches of the law or infringements of the Constitution for which they vote or which they allow to continue after they are made aware of them. So... say they enact policies that exclude blue-eyed left-handed people or illegal immigrants who work and pay taxes in the district, those people, the individual people, would be subject to prosecution and if convicted serve time in Federal Prison.
What do you think?
"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."
After reading all the comments I see that we have proved Riech's quote correct....now lets stop this bickering about who should be getting the crumbs left over from the feast and start working on the real problem........ the flood of money moving ever faster up stream to the top 1%. While we argue against each other they work the system and take more and more.
The corporatists have convinced much of the public that any organization that protects workers rights or is capable of bargaining collectively against big... businesses' long-unified, perfectly understandable (given the now wide acceptance of the notion that profits are the only legal and moral obligation of any business) practice of trying to pay the lowest possible wages to their employees is BAD.
Of course, it was powerful unions in the 40s, 50s, & 60s that made it possible for working people to become middle-class; it was the larger middle-class that created the boom economy of the 50s, 60s and early 70s. In turn the neutering of the unions has meant the decline of the American middle-class, and the collapse of the American consumer economy.
Organized labor is not the economic problem. Organized corporate interest is the economic problem.
We can wait to see if organized labor is ever again powerful enough to cause an economic problem.
Organized labor caused an economic problem...when?
What I said was we'd wait to see if it ever does.
The little counter telling how many symbols you have left is always wrong.
Example - I just carefully edited my last comment down until the counter said I had 14 symbols left, clicked send, and got a message saying my comment was too long and would not be posted.
Obviously if the counter is wrong, we have no idea what length WILL be posted.
Please fix this
RSS feed for comments to this post