Media quotes show timeline of labor cost debacle

by In the news Tuesday, June 29. 2010

Media quotes show timeline of labor cost debacle HOUSE DEMS DEFEND STATE LABOR COSTS AS SCHOOLS CUT DAYS, TEACHERS, PROGRAMS
By Oregon House Republicnas

Governor Finally Acknowledges Impact of Labor Costs on State Budget…
“‘I’m just going to rip the Band-Aid off this one and say it: Increasing labor costs will be a big contributor to future deficits if we do not change the way we budget and provide compensation for public employees.’

“The costs to the state for the Public Employees Retirement System will increase by more than $350 million in the next two years and by almost $1 billion more by 2017, he noted. And health care costs are rising more than 10 percent a year.”
(Gov. Ted Kulongoski says recession forces Oregon state government to rethink how it operates, The Oregonian, Michelle Cole, 6/26/2010)

…Something Republicans Have Been Saying for Years.“‘You have to go where the money is, and the money really is in the cost for payroll,’ said Rep. Dennis Richardson, R-Central Point. Richardson said he’s been warning for years that the state was spending — and hiring – ‘at a pace that made no sense given its revenue stream.

“Lately, he said, the state has relied on one-time federal bailouts and a tax increase on businesses to stay afloat. Now, he said, others, including the governor are coming to the conclusion that that’s no way to budget. “‘You can’t keep kicking the can down the road,’ Richardson said.
(Recession makes pay, benefits for Oregon state workers latest target, The Oregonian, Harry Esteve, 6/19/2010)

Schools Looking to Cut School Days, Teachers, Programs…
“Skip textbook purchases. Dip into reserves. Keep vacant jobs open. Those are among the first ways that school districts try to trim budgets. But for most Oregon districts, those options have been exhausted.

“Now, many school leaders face a third consecutive year of reductions and are planning cuts that will hit the core of Oregon’s K-12 education system — school days, teachers and programs.”
(Oregon schools consider eliminating programs and restructuring to cover state funding shortfall, The Oregonian, Kimberly Melton, 6/28/2010)

…As House Dems Defend State Labor Benefits, Pension Costs.
“House Speaker Dave Hunt, D-Gladstone, said he’s looking forward to the reset panel’s recommendations. But he said it won’t make sense to cut pay or benefits for state workers if it’s clear that their compensation is on par with their private sector counterparts.

“Instead, he said, lawmakers and the next governor will have to make difficult choices of cutting back on services the state provides.”
(Recession makes pay, benefits for Oregon state workers latest target, The Oregonian, Harry Esteve, 6/19/2010)

Dems Claim Public-, Private-Sector Labor Costs Are Comparable…
“Oregon’s front-line workers have bargained a wage and benefit package comparable to other states and to the private sector. These workers have demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice by accepting wage freezes and unpaid furloughs. We will continue to ask them – through the collective bargaining process – to do their share, but we will not use them as convenient scapegoats.”
(News Release: Statement from House Majority Leader Mary Nolan on Governor’s City Club Speech, House Majority Office, 6/25/2010)

…But the Facts Say Otherwise.
“The money involved is not chump change. According to the Oregon Labor Market Information System, which keeps track of employment using definitions set by the federal government, there are roughly 77,000 state jobs in Oregon. In addition, the state pays a large chunk of the money spent on salaries and benefits in K-12 public education. State employees, at least, are paid better and receive more in benefits than their counterparts in private business.

“Thus, while the average base salary for one group of about 51,000 state employees is about $50,000, according to The Oregonian newspaper, benefits add another $22,000. In fact OLMIS statistics show that total benefits for state employees averaged $13.65 per hour in 2009, while those for private sector workers came in at just $8.02 per hour. The salary gap is every bit as large, meanwhile. Overall, wages and salaries, not including benefits, averaged $26.01 per hour for public employees last year, compared with $19.39 per hour in the private sector.”
(Look who’s talking about labor costs, Bend Bulletin, Editorial, 6/23/2010)

Related posts:

Posted by In the news at 06:00 | Posted in Measure 37 | 62 Comments |

Email This Post |

Print This Post

Back to Home Page

Ron Marquez

…..”…As House Dems Defend State Labor Benefits, Pension Costs.”…..

…..”…But the Facts Say Otherwise.”…..

The unions can count on Davey and Petey and the rest of the Dems to keep the gravy train rolling.

What might stop it ?? A Chris Christie type in the governor’s chair and Republican majorities in both chambers of the legislature.

If you’re holding your breath waiting for it to happen, you might want to put your affairs in order.
Bob Clark

Leaders like Dave Hunt and Jeff Merkley have proven themselves fiscally imprudent, having put us in a big public debt hole. It used to be not too long ago public sector employee salaries were at a discount to the private sector, and this is justifiable because public sector jobs are less risky for the employee than the private sector counterpart. Government hardly ever fires an employee once they clear the one year probationary period, and so, public employment benefits should actually be lower than comparable private sector work. But this logic seems to escape lame leaders like Dave Hunt.

How bout deferring Milwaukee light rail project, saving the state an immediate 100 million dollars. These light rail projects still lose large amounts of money even if receiving federal capital construction dollars. The maintenance burden is helping drive Tri Met to fiscal insolvency. So, here is the sad priorities of our Democratic party leaders: Cut education investment in our future generation, and instead throw large sums of scarce tax dollars into large money losing projects like the Milwaukee light rail line and the high density concrete highrise housing developments prescribed to surround this boondoggle.

The solution is to deregulate our stiffenling land use laws, streamline government, cut the renewable mandates, and hang the sign out saying we are going to be a competitive place for expanding and locating business. This is the best we can do in a time of fiscal austerity.
Anonymous

Does the state spend too much on personnel? Maybe it does. But it is a drop in the bucket compared to the real expenditures: out of control entitlements. Even with federal matching funds, Oregon is spending BILLIONS more today on programs like Medicaid than it did just a few years ago – and what do the liberals want to do? Expand eligibility and enroll more people into OHP and “Healthy Kids.”

We could cut personnel costs in half and we’d still be sinking fast. We need to slash entitlements.

Oh, and spending is only half the problem. The other half is a revenue problem. And no, I do NOT mean raise taxes. In fact, I mean just the opposite. History shows that EVERY TIME taxes are cut and simplified, economic growth results in increased revenues. It happened when JFK cut taxes. It happened when Reagan cut taxes. It happened when GWB cut taxes. Every time, lower taxes brought in more revenues. And the only reason we still had (federal) debt was that, every time, Congress SPENT MORE MONEY.

We need to slash the spending AND we need to cut taxes to rescue the economy.

valley p

“History shows that EVERY TIME taxes are cut and simplified, economic growth results in increased revenues.”

History shows no such thing. Economic growth is the norm. Cutting or raising taxes by small increments does nothing to influence growth one way or the other. Clinton raised taxes and the economy boomed.

“In fact OLMIS statistics show that total benefits for state employees averaged $13.65 per hour in 2009, while those for private sector workers came in at just $8.02 per hour. ”

What? The average wage for private sector workers is below the minimum wage ($8.40 in Oregon)? How and when did that happen?

Steve Plunk

That’s benefits, not wages being cited.

valley p

Thanks…my bad.

Ronald Marquez

…..”Does the state spend too much on personnel? Maybe it does. But it is a drop in the bucket compared to the real expenditures.”…..

…..”We could cut personnel costs in half and we’d still be sinking fast.”…..

Anon, using the figures in the last two paragraphs of the article…..

77,000 (jobs) X 72,000 (wages + benefits) = $5.544 billion total compensation. Not hardly “a drop in the bucket”. Even a 10% cut would come close to plugging the $577 million hole in the state budget we have now.

Also from the article above …..”In addition, the state pays a large chunk of the money spent on salaries and benefits in K-12 public education.”…..

The governor’s 2009-2011 budget for K-12 education is $6.39 billion which accounts for 68% of the $9.4 billion total K-12 budget. Over 80% of the Beaverton School District (where I live) budget goes to salaries and benefits. If that percentage is representative of districts state wide, a little quick math will reveal salaries and benefits eat up over $7.6 billion of the total K-12 $9.4 billion budget.

Bottom line…..employee costs state wide are a whole lot more than a drop in the bucket.

eagle eye

Compare comparable jobs in the private and public sector, total compensation (salary + benefits). Then, compare public employees in Oregon with those in other states. Do an honest comparison and see how it turns out, without preconceptions or an ax to grind. And go from there.

I am not impressed by a comparison of the average state worker with the average private worker. It all depends on what they are doing and what the qualifications are for the jobs.

I know, Rupert will say that school teachers are no more skilled than hot dog vendors. The DMV workers (who get to decide whether my aging neighbor keeps his drivers license) are no more skilled than 18 year old burger flippers. But this is the kind of talk that has helped get conservatives where there are.

Steve Plunk

Building a straw man and calling him Rupert is an intellectually dishonest way to argue your point.

Teachers and DMV clerks both have skills but the question is are we paying too much for those skills. Many conservatives say we are and I concur. Averages of other states are immaterial. We can pay less and still get near the same quality of teacher and other public employees. Since we are essentially broke I suggest we reduce those wages and benefits until a closer measure of parity with the private sector is attained.

eagle eye

see below. Who is being dishonest here?
a retired professor

Yes, you can lowball and still get by. That’s what Oregon has done with the public universities for decades. And guess what, it shows, in different ways at the various campuses. Maybe it’s good enough for Oregon.

I doubt that you’re going to have much luck selling that for K-12, that is something people in Oregon still care about. It might work in some areas of the state, but not in Eugene or the Portland area, probably not in most of the valley.

a UO student

So please explain, how does low funding at the state campuses “show”?

a retired professor

At UO and OSU, in national surveys, the academic rankings of the departments have been dropping for years. So they have less to offer intellectually and academically than they used to. The top students in Oregon overwhelmingly leave the state for college, and they tend not to come back. It would be nice to keep some of them in state by offering more at the state universities.

Furthermore, the Oregon schools have trouble getting the top faculty in the hiring market, and keeping them here when they get recruited by other places.

So, I hear tech entrepreneurs here who say they do their startups in California, because the talent base just isn’t here in Oregon. Whereas other “developing” states have done better building up their competitive level. I’m sure that there are other factors, but the mediocre higher ed situation has to be part of it, seems to me.

Also, the academic programs are run with a lot of cut-rate practices.

At the smaller campuses, I know less about what goes on, except I know that campuses like Southern, Eastern, PSU have terrible graduation rates. For whatever reason, Western does a lot better with a similarly qualified student body. But the others I named are very inefficient when it comes to producing graduates. It costs about twice as much per graduate as at UO and OSU.

You could say that this reflects the student bodies at the smaller campuses (and PSU), but that can’t be the whole story. In other states, the smaller, “secondary” campuses do a much better job of graduating their students (though not as good as their “main” campuses).
So What?

U of O and OSU are STILL full of dummies going to school; with more on the way. And enrollements are way up in recent years. Maybe if these dummies studied a little harder they would be going to better schools like the U. of Washington, Stanford or Cal Tech. That’s too bad for them. Besides, there are no jobs here anyway; so most will be gone after they finich college.
And if things are so bad, why did you stay until you could retire gramps?
a retired professor

OK, you’re right, Oregon students are all dummies; it’s hopeless to try to keep (some) of the best ones in state; there are no jobs here anyway and never will be and never can be. I stand corrected. You are the one who is grump grump grump. Are you 87 years old?

I simply stated what I see as some facts. Take it or leave it. As I’ve said, Oregon is basically getting the higher education it wants, so why worry?

Why did I stay here? In the first place, things were not so bad for me. I kept research funding going, (I still do), I kept doing my research, I managed to teach courses that were rewarding for me and apparently, to most of the students.

I stayed for personal reasons, and because I like the natural environment here. Without those things, I would have left, having had several good opportunities along the way, including one about 5 years before I retired from teaching.

When I was recruited to come to UO — from a good position in the East — UO seemed like a place that was on the rise. There was every reason to think it should be back then. That turned out to be a mistaken judgment.

I don’t regret my decisions, but knowing what I know now, I would probably have made different ones. Life is full of ifs.
a UO student

I must be one of those dummies. Funny, I can at least spell most of the time. I was one of those guys that didn’t get into Stanford or Caltech. 1360 SAT, about 93 percentile of those taking the test, but not up to the level of most people at those schools, you generally have to be in the top 1-2% (or higher). I could have gone to a less prestigious private school but my family didn’t really have the money, so I opted for UO. Science major, physical science. UO has been/is pretty good, it would have been nice to have more of the top students here, most people like me from my suburban high school went out of state, the prof is right. For what it works with, UO has been pretty good for me.

Question, prof: why do you think graduation rates are so low at those other Oregon campuses you mentioned?
a retired professor

I don’t know why the graduation rates at Southern and Eastern are so low. PSU is easier to understand, a large commuter school, they’ve watered down their financial base there by letting in any and all comers, probably watered down the programs. Southern, Eastern, and Western all have lower SATs (on average — there’s a big range, of course, with some high scorers at all the schools). That correlates with lower graduation rates. But as I said, Western has a much better rate, and other similar-looking schools in other states do too. Maybe it’s financial hardship at Southern and Eastern, maybe they have higher standards — I doubt it! — maybe it’s watered-down teaching resources, maybe it’s something in the water. It would take someone who really knows what’s going on in those schools to explain.

Rupert in Springfield

>Do an honest comparison and see how it turns out, without preconceptions or an ax to grind. And go from there.

Sigh, its been done. Bureau of Labour Statistics for one. Ive mentioned it here countless time, cited the source.

It’s time to move on from this “do a study” nonsense. You are aware of the studies. They have been pointed out to you and they do apples to apples comparisons, public sector employees make more.

>I know, Rupert will say that school teachers are no more skilled than hot dog vendors.

No, what I would say is that given the absurd state of our schools, hot dog vendors would probably get no worse results. That’s what I have said in the past, Id pretty much stick with it.

Doesn’t take a whole lot of skill to get the low graduation rates we do. No need to pay top dollar for bottom of the barrel results.

I think its time to move on from your endless whining for studies when they have been cited to you countless times in the past and obviously you didn’t check into it.

If we look at average pay, public sector makes more, way more if you include benefits.

If we look at specific jobs, say school teachers (private school teachers make 60% of what public do) or guy mowing the lawn (state workers get union scale, private sector maybe $10 an hour) or the classic burger flipper jobs (counter person at DMV vs. counter person at McDonalds, McDonalds being the more skilled position since they can actually resolve a problem with your order, DMV clerks tend to stare into space).

eagle eye

Well, the other side says they have their studies too. So,

“Do an honest comparison and see how it turns out, without preconceptions or an ax to grind. And go from there.”

That obviously excludes people like you from the discussion. Which is why you never have any influence.

I would like to hear what they have to say. I’m open to persuasion from all sides.

But comparing school teachers to hot dog vendors doesn’t cut it.

By the way, I don’t believe your going to get many teachers in the public schools for what the Catholic and fundamentalist schools pay.

Go ahead and put vouchers on the ballot again.

ed anderson

how convenient the Governor Ted finally realize that his and the legisaltures policies are bankrupting the state just as he is going out of office

Rupert in Springfield

You know, I wouldn’t mind that one bit if there was just a single word of acknowledgment from Ted.

“Yes – conservatives warned us we were spending too much money, yes, they have warned us for years. No we did not listen and we spent like crazy. Yes, they were right and we were wrong, our spending did get us in trouble just as they warned us about”

Rupert in Springfield

I think what will be interesting is to watch how liberals will turn on a dime in the face of this.

For years liberals have tried to deny the basic problem – that Oregon government has grown wildly in size compared to any conceivable ability to pay for it.

Now that Ted has basically admitted this fact, it will be fun to watch those who denied the fundamental problem forever act like they understood it all along.

It will be just like when Bush was president and Democrats were all worked up about excessive spending. Now they don’t care a whit about that.

valley p

“Sigh, its been done. Bureau of Labour Statistics for one. Ive mentioned it here countless time, cited the source.”

Yep. and every time you have done so I have pointed out the flaws. In particular, the comparison of teacher pay includes semi-volunteer religiously motivated teachers. 80% of private schools are religious based, and half of those are Catholic (with mostly nun teachers who live by a vow of poverty). Its not apples to apples. Its not even apples to oranges. Its apples to granola.

“That’s what I have said in the past, Id pretty much stick with it. ”

I applaud you for your stick to-itiveness. It doesn’t matter how wrong you are. You stick by your convictions. That is admirable in a way. Like a captain on a sinking ship, you will go down with it.

“For years liberals have tried to deny the basic problem – that Oregon government has grown wildly in size compared to any conceivable ability to pay for it.”

It has not grown wildly in size. It has grown to reflect population and economic growth. It has grown to take on the stuff we have asked of it, including taking over for local funding of schools and doubling the prison population. And it has not grown beyond our ability to pay. It has grown beyond our willingness to pay. There is a huge difference.

“It will be just like when Bush was president and Democrats were all worked up about excessive spending.”

Correction. We were “worked up” about excessive spending (and people dying) on an unnecessary war, excessive tax cuts for rich people, and adding to entitlement spending without paying for it. A+B+C equaled historically high deficits when we did not need deficits economically. A+B+C+ absence of regulatory oversight of the financial industry resulted in a stupendous economic crash, which resulted in the budget problems in Oregon and nearly every other state, conservative and liberal alike. Which has led to why we now need deficits economically.

Anonymous

What is important to realize is that not all state employees are paid too much, or too little. There is a lot of variation. For instance, we have some university staff making millions of dollars – is it too much? Well, when we are talking about an athletic director, and when a winning team makes tens of millions of dollars back for the school, maybe the compensation is sound. But when we have (and yes, I am totally making this up for discussion) a chair of a liberal arts program making several hundred thousand, maybe that is too much. On the other end, there are program managers and policy analysts for agencies like DHS, DAS, DEQ, etc, in Salem making $50k a year – maybe we should spend a little more to encourage some successful private sector leaders to choose public service where they can more efficiently manage programs and save money. But then, a typical DHS policy analyst has an assistant section manager, a section manager, an assistant administrator, a deputy administrator, an administrator, an assistant director, a deputy director and a director above them in the chain of command – can we cut some of that? Especially since DHS deputy directors are often retired legislators or legislative staff who used the session to create high dollar jobs they could squat in for three years in order to maximize PERS?

a retired professor

Hah, a liberal arts department chair making several hundred thousand! Yes, maybe that would be too much, it is also dreamland, as you acknowledge.

The market controls the salaries for the coaches, but don’t think that a winning team brings in “tens of millions for the school”. It brings money in for the athletic program (most of whose teams are losing money, all but football and men’s basketball). And at most schools — except UO in Oregon — the athletic program is a money loser, ask them at OSU.

Anonymous

http://www.jobs-salary.com/professor-salary_1.htm

These are just currently open jobs. Yes, a few professors out there can make a ton of money, depending on the school, depending on the department, and depending on the actual position. And note, these salaries do not include things like research stipends, grants, or additional bonuses for things like faculty leadership roles.

I would like to see a list of the salaries of all UO professors. I don’t know if any UO liberal arts profs are making more than $200,000 – but I would bet there are several UO faculty members besides the athletic director making more than half a million.

a retired professor

Those postings give the salary at the top end of the posted range. Usually they would be filling the position at a salary close to the middle of the range. As you say, things vary depending on the school, the department, etc. Music professors don’t make what finance professors make. Stanford, Columbia, etc. pay a hell of a lot more than our dear UO or OSU.

You mention grants, most of that money does not go to augment the recipient’s salary (except in the summer where 1-3 mos. salary can be taken and often is). Most of the money goes to pay research personnel, equipment, etc.

If by “liberal arts” you mean philosophy, English, history etc. I can guarantee that nobody in those departments at UO is making anywhere close to $200K. There would be a few over $100K. There might be a very few people in the sciences making in the mid 100s, is my guess. In areas like finance or law, there might be a few people over $200. I don’t know, I haven’t bothered to access the list, which is available if you know where to look.

But professors at UO making $500K from the state salary line? Not a chance! (I make that qualification because it’s possible somebody is making that much with consulting or a hit textbook; I have no way of knowing.) The top compensation package, apart from the athletic department, is for the president, and that is in the range of $500K.

David Appell

“Labor costs” are otherwise known as “personal income.”

Don’t we all want citizens (=consumers) to make the most amount of money possible? Isn’t that the essence of capitalism — sell your labor at the highest possible price the market will bear?

valley p

No silly. You missed Hooveromics. We are supposed to make people, especially working people, poorer and poorer until they become so poor that they will work for room and board and thank their lucky stars. Only then can we achieve high growth and prosperity.

Steve Plunk

You both have it wrong. In a free market each party negotiates in their own best interests. The public sector negotiations take place with surrogates negotiating for the taxpayers. These surrogates seldom have the same interests as the taxpayers and easily fold to the demands of the employee representatives. It’s an unfair system that has long been gamed by the public employees.

Nobody wants to make anybody poor but like our governor has just said this is unsustainable. The coming layoffs will impact the newer state employees while the older ones will shuffle off to PERS retirement land cash in hand. They will be fat and happy while the next generations finance their excess. Tell your grandchildren what a nice mess your policies have left them.

David Appell

> It’s an unfair system that has long been gamed by the public employees.

That’s absurd. The state also has tremendous power. Maybe you’ve never known a striking worker, Steve, but their position is born of tremendous courage and self-sacrifice. In fact, such courage is responsible for the fact that you yourself are not expected to be, today, working a 80-hr week, or that you weren’t expected to go to work at 13 years old….

It is, frankly, sad and tragic that you do not understand this….

Rick Hickey

I have a buddy who MOWs the grass for the state. He gets $14.85 p/hr. PLUS full Medical, Dental, Vision, Disability & Life insurance all paid for AND Paid holidays, vacations and sick days and more.
He takes 2-3 hr. lunches all the time and shows up late and leaves early and nobody is bothered by it.

I have another buddy who Mows grass for a local small company. He gets $10 p/hr. and NOTHING else! 0, nada. He was late ONE time and was written up and almost fired and gets only 45 min. for lunch.

Reminds me of my Son’s 2nd grade 400lb. Teacher. He has a cot in the cubicle out back and my Son tells me he is almost never there. So of course WE pay for his 2 assist.s as well to do his job.
I had to ask him at the end of the year privately, he said only 2 more years until FULL 105% of reg. pay P.E.R.S. at only 54 yr.s old.

My Buddy mowing for a private employer tells me he was paid more & had Benefits 20 yr.s ago, than now. He said almost every position is filled by guys that do not speak English, earn the same pay as him BUT flash cash all the time and have nice Homes & Cars. They BRAG that they are Illegal aliens and pay NO taxes thanks to claiming 8 kids on thier W-2.

To survive should he get a fake S.S.# from his work buddies and LIE on his taxes also OR get a Gov’t job? He can’t keep competing with 3rd world thieves and he doesn’t want to be owned by Big Brother. Any suggestions please?

Anonymous

“I have another buddy who Mows grass for a local small company. He gets $10 p/hr. and NOTHING else! 0, nada. He was late ONE time and was written up and almost fired and gets only 45 min. for lunch.”

Where I come from we call that a shitty job.

“Any suggestions please?”

Tell your buddy to fill out a FAFSA application and go back to school.

“My Buddy mowing for a private employer tells me he was paid more & had Benefits 20 yr.s ago, than now.”

Sounds like an ambitious guy.

“He said almost every position is filled by guys that do not speak English, earn the same pay as him BUT flash cash all the time and have nice Homes & Cars. They BRAG that they are Illegal aliens and pay NO taxes thanks to claiming 8 kids on thier W-2.”

Your buddy can’t be making too much more than $20,000/yr at that wage? Taxes? His tax burden is small.
a retired professor

Why doesn’t your buddy who has been treated so badly apply for a job mowing grass for a public agency? Oh, he doesn’t like Big Brother. Well, I guess he’ll have to keep competing with the illegals. It’s a free country.

Steve Plunk

Many of us find the idea of working for a public agency repugnant. That stereotype of workers leaning on shovels is a deserved one. Some of us also see the coming collapse of the public sector bubble. The retirees are siphoning tax dollars away at such a pace current employees will have to be laid off. The governor is now seeing this and has admitted it is unsustainable. Why work for a public agency only to be laid off shortly?

a retired professor

I think that most people don’t see it that way. Anyhow, as I said, it’s a free country. He’s free to work for $10/hour in Oregon, to move to another state that suits him better, or to leave the country for that matter. I don’t feel too sorry for such a person, if he thinks a better job, say a SEIU groundskeeping job at UO, is beneath him.

The current Governor did more than anyone to reform the state retirement system. Some of what he tried to do was invalidated by the courts. Yes, we still have courts in Oregon. And by the way, people of your thinking have done very poorly at getting like-minded people elected as judges.

I agree somewhat that the state is not to be trusted. That was the biggest reason I opted out of the PERS system in 1997.

Steve Plunk

I certainly agree our elected judiciary has fallen short in protecting the citizens and the future of the state. Every time I read my voters pamphlet I have a hard time figuring out where those judges stand on the issues. Heck, even the US Senate has a hard time with judges they confirm. I wonder now that our chief executive has determined the system unsustainable if some of those judges might understand the stakes.

We all have the option of moving elsewhere but we also have the option of changing things here. I choose to make an effort for change. Others may stay because of family or they were born here.

An SEIU job may not be beneath any of us but being a part of union that has done so much to damage this state and country is something many consider objectionable. Joining the union has become like joining the Mafia. It warps a person’s sense of right and wrong while preying on the public.
valley p

“That stereotype of workers leaning on shovels is a deserved one. ”

Maybe so, but since most road work is done by private contractors, the blame may be in the wrong place. Besides that, have you ever worked on a road crew shoveling asphalt in 95 degree heat? I bet you would do your share of shovel leaning over the course of an 8 hour day.

“The retirees are siphoning tax dollars away at such a pace current employees will have to be laid off. ”

Careful with that one. Have you been to a tea party rally lately? An awful lot of retirees are likely in the crowd.

“Why work for a public agency only to be laid off shortly? ”

I don’t know…why work anywhere without a guarantee of long term employment? Does the private sector give you a long term contract when they hire you? Do you give long term guarantees to your workers?

“Every time I read my voters pamphlet I have a hard time figuring out where those judges stand on the issues.”

That could be because judges don’t take stands “on the issues.” They take stands on how they go about interpreting and judging what is placed in front of them.

“Joining the union has become like joining the Mafia.”

Really? Public workers are sworn to Omerta? They will end up in the river if they rat? You have a way with overstating your case.
Steve Plunk

Another thorough “Fisking”. It’s a cheap way to debate in my opinion but your best efforts fail to impress so I guess it’s what you got.

That stereotype I mentioned is a stereotype based upon the old image of road workers. They used to be public employees until the work was contracted out. Today that stereotype applies to clerks at the DMV standing around in their union t-shirts while the lines back up or maybe the five ODOT inspectors standing around watching the private road crew do it’s work. The point, which you consistently fail to understand or purposely ignore, is modern public sector work rules and management styles have lead to a public sector that is bloated and inefficient.

The Tea Party rallies do have some retirees but not many are PERS retirees.

Once again you miss the point about electing judges. Oregon citizens are at a disadvantage since judicial candidates don’t really campaign much and we are left with the voters pamphlet as our reference source for choosing who to vote for. The issues we wonder about are legal issues and legal philosophies. That’s not that difficult to understand.

Public workers are sworn to Omerta but in many ways they are like the Mafia. They improperly influence politicians with money and threats. They threaten those citizens who would question their authority. They know what damage they are doing to society yet justify it the same way the mafia justifies killing “soldiers” of different families. In the case of police unions they actually have a code of silence to protect one another. The analogy is apt, overstated perhaps but no more than the union overstatements during elections or labor negotiations. Knowing liberals will overstate their case I feel an obligation to sometimes overstate my own.
a retired professor

Different people will have varying opinions about who damaged the state. Many will say it was Oregon’s benighted business class — the forest industries that raped the forests, the dullard entrepreneurs we seems to attract here. Others will have their own opinion, including those who constantly complain about the unions. Some people even blame me for their troubles, because I gave them a bad grade! Perhaps I should tell them that their troubles are really due to SEIU.

I think the voters know perfectly well what they are doing when they vote for judges. When outside-the-mainstream judicial insurrectionists run, they usually get slaughtered.

I don’t think the judges are going to change their opinion of the law just because the Governor has said that we have a serious problem. (I don’t think the Governor has any illusions either about getting the courts to reverse its decisions.)

Whatever their virtues and faults, comparing the unions to the Mafia just makes you sound link a crackpot.

Instead of making wild comparisons and accusations, why not just convince your fellow citizens to demand better terms from the unions? And be willing to take a few strikes to back it up. Or do other things, like contracting out work when the union performance isn’t up to snuff. (That has been done quite a bit at UO, by the way, mainly with the maintenance and building crews, with good effect. By and large, I have been quite satisfied with the unionized office personnel, and I think that opinion is shared widely.)

You may think this kind of talk is no different from what the unions do, but then why do the voters usually listen to the unions instead of guys like you?
Steve Plunk

Because unions have money from forced dues.
each to his own (aka arp)

I think you’re fooling yourself, but maybe that’s just my view.

When the message is right — property tax limitations, general income tax increases — you win. When the message is off (to the voters) — M 66/67, Sizemore for governor, Saxton, even Mannix — you lose. The union money advantage — hey, why doesn’t business pony up the money? — is only important in very close contests. Usually, I don’t think it matters.

I think vp probably has it right about the overpay/underpay at the various skill levels, and I’ve even seen studies (old by now) to back it up.

It’s going to be tough, though, to sell the electorate on reducing pay and benefits for, say, leaf cleaners at public agencies.

And, of course, you’ll have to deal with the unions. There was one SEIU strike at UO a number of years back, I think it was system-wide. The place was a pigpen after a week. It did save a little money. But to really rein in the unions, you’d need the whole state behind it. A tough sell.
valley p

“The point, which you consistently fail to understand or purposely ignore, is modern public sector work rules and management styles have lead to a public sector that is bloated and inefficient.”

Correction. As one who spent 11 years in the public sector, does a lot of consulting work for the public sector, and teaches part time at public universities, I know first hand how inefficient the public sector can be and is. I just have a very different take on the issue. First, I don’t demonize public sector workers. Among them are very hard working and dedicated people, lazy, shiftless people, and all point in between. They are neither better nor worse than people of comparable education and skill in the private sector.

Second, the public sector is way *underpaid* at the upper management levels, somewhat *overpaid* at the lower skill levels, and *about right* at the mid skill levels in comparison with the private sector. Treating it all with a wide brush leads to stupid ideas like cutting everyone equally.

Third, I think the best thing we could do long term is serious civil service reform. Hiring, firing, promotions, bonuses, and so forth need to be loosened up to improve individual and group productivity. Some agencies have done this to great effect. Unfortunately Democrats won’t take on reform for obvious reasons and Republicans won’t even propose it because an efficient government is that last thing they seem to want. It would ruin the argument that government can’t do anything right and should just be made small enough to drown in a bathtub.

“Knowing liberals will overstate their case I feel an obligation to sometimes overstate my own. ”

Oh OK. Liberals made you do it. That absolves you of responsibility. Its a good thing you have us around then.
Steve Plunk

Liberals didn’t make me do it but they did lower the bar. It absolves of nothing. I admitted my use of hyperbole at times. It’s like slumming with the lefties.
valley p

My mother used to say, “if Billie down the street jumps off a cliff, then should you follow him?”

Of course there were no cliffs within 250 miles of Chicago high enough where you couldn’t survive the fall, but I got her point.

vbayle

PwuxRP hlfqnuwtbwsb, [url=http://mszzhrpvjhuz.com/]mszzhrpvjhuz[/url], [link=http://pmqxequyijsm.com/]pmqxequyijsm[/link], http://xwodtbccszkd.com/

a UO student

Just out of curiosity, I found this old job announcement for a UO groundskeeper. Maybe some people would consider this just a job for another UO dummy, but it doesn’t sound to me like they’re looking for someone who would work for $10 an hour. With benefits, it might pay double that or even more. Even with the furlough days. For what is required, the pay doesn’t seem that excessive. I guess I could say a lowly groundskeeper doesn’t deserve medical benefits, but I might be a lowly entry-level person soon and I hope I don’t have to go on medicaid if I get sick.

http://hr.uoregon.edu/jobs/classified.php?id=3226

Rick Hickey

VALLEY P, Wow you are also from chicago as am I? Yet a far lefty, how? Maybe our parents? I had one Dad who was a very successful biz owner and loved it, then he died from cancer. My 2nd Dad worked for Big Brother all his life and hated it.

And yes my Mom said the same thing until I got older and then she would say – would you jump off the Hancock building, if all your friends did too?. No cliffs but lots of tall buildings.

David Appell

> I had one Dad who was a very successful biz owner and loved it, then he died from cancer.

God bless him. And do you think you will die any better?
valley p

Yes Rick, I’m a south-sider. Hale from an argumentative family of under educated Greek immigrant small business owners. Politics ranged from hard right racists to Roosevelt democrats (though still racists, as was just about anyone on the south side in those days). To my knowledge I am the first in the large extended family to work for big brother, and that was only for a while. I’ve spent most of my adulthood in business for myself.

Side story. My uncle lived in a brick apartment building that was torn down to make way for the Hancock. He was a bit of a playboy and my mom had to scurry my brother and I out of there when his 40th birthday party got a bit out of hand.I recall a cab ride to one of my aunts.

I don’t consider myself “far left.” I consider my self about 2 or 3 clicks left of center, and I type out that way on the PEW ideology test. Classic liberal, not socialist. I only seem far left on Catalyst due to the local tilt of the earth.

To UO student: I think you put your finger on the real issue. What should what is left of the blue collar world make in America? A UO landscaper would do fairly hard, but not terribly hard physical work daily and weekly. It takes some skill, but not a lot of education unless one is supervisory. It seems to me we would want to live in a nation where people who work hard make enough to take care of their families, can buy a modest house, a car, take a vacation, have health insurance, and have a retirement plan. This is not asking for the moon. Yet conservatives, at least around these parts, spend a lot of energy begrudging people who don’t make much more than a modest income just because they work in the public sector or are in a union. I don’t get it. I thought the point of having an affluent nation was to have a solid middle class rather than a large impoverished class. But every policy advanced by conservatives seems designed to chip away at the middle class. And every effort to improve things for the middle class is resisted fiercely, as if it will be the end of America. Its getting weirder and weirder.

I think there is no future in this sort of politics because you can’t scapegoat working people for very long before they will turn on you.

Rick Hickey

David, My 2nd Dad also died of cancr and according to the american cancer society, all men have the odds of 1 in 2 of getting some type of it and yes I probably will also. But I would rather be hit head-on by a semi at 70 mph or shot by a mexican mafia member in the head(very possible).
God bless both of them.

Valley p, what irony as my 1st dad most likely was one who tore that building down as that was what his company did. Watching “America’s Got Talent” with the family, I miss the midwest. In Chicago they had tons of very talented people. In Portland they were just un-talented and very very strange.

AND a “solid middle class” was here for most of the 1900′s when we all made it on our own. How are guys making $10/hr. competing with illegal labor, supposed to pay enough taxes to support the Gov’t workers getting twice the overall money? Private employers pay with profits, Gov’t pays with our taxes. Federal & State Gov’t budgets have far surpassed inflation and population growth to the extreme for the last 20 years now. Even Gov. Ted woke up lately and admitted this! How much longer can we borrow Trillions to fund gov’t services? Obviously it is not working here and never has anywhere else silly.

Temporary, I said TEMPORAY solution…no more immigration – unless they have lots of their own money to pitch in here AND China, India, etc. You will pay a small but effective export “Lucky Tax”. Because you have been lucky to have the chance to sell your stuff to the richest nation on earth and now it is out of balance and too many here are suffering from it. Result? tens of millions of good paying jobs are back and same do NOT need Gov’t services…10 million jobs + tax revenue + millions off unemployment, food stamps, etc. = Profit for all, not debt.

David Appell

Rick Hickey wrote:
> no more immigration

Yet why, Rick, do you think there continues to be 1-2M immigrants a year into this country, year-after-year, decade-after-decade?

Because it’s what the business class wants. It’s how they keep their labor costs so low, and how, in turn, you buy your vegetables for so cheap.

Who will pick these vegetables if not the immigrants — illegal and nonillegal? Who else will work for $2/hr, sleeping in shacks?

Wake up.
valley p

The middle class began to unravel in the mid to late 70s. Its a complex story, but includes automation, the rise of Japan and Europe from the ashes, The gradual breaking of private sector unions, and the inability of our education system to completely make up for the decline of good paying jobs that did not require much education.

In my left of center world, guys making $10 are not supposed to pay for government. It is supposed to be paid for by those who can afford the tab. “Illegal labor” should be reduced by making it a lot harder for employers to higher anyone without documentation. And by…yes….legalizing illegals who have been here for a large number of years and have clean records. Beggaring those with decent wages is not going to make your $10 an hour friend any richer, and takes away one opportunity he would have with his limited skills to better his position (i.e. compete for the $20 an hour job). Pitting the working class against the working class is not a solution.

Government spending has been in line with the growth of the economy. People demand more services than they did 30 years ago. It costs money. Government is not a static set of services. it changes and adapts with the times. We are not going back to the days of no food inspections, dirty water dumped into rivers, filthy car engines, and so forth.

How much longer can we borrow? Probably a long time actually. Though we don’t have to. We could balance the budget tomorrow if we did away with some things, like wars and global military occupation, and if we could convince old people to live on less, and if we raised taxes on ourselves to pay for what we use. But coming out of a bad recession, we are better off continuing to borrow a while longer until the private sector starts creating decent jobs again.

No more immigration? Even legal immigration? Good luck with that one. You will cut off a lot of talent. Half of silicon valley are immigrants. Its one of our major competitive advantages.

David Appell

> The middle class began to unravel in the mid to late 70s.

Absolutely. Real wages rose for about 150 yrs before this. After this, the middle class how to borrow to keep up — for about 3 decades now.

For a detailed study, watch “Capitalism Hits the Fan”
Richard Wolff
http://www.capitalismhitsthefan.com/

Available on any torrent near you.

a retired professor

So — to take the UO landscaper as an example — do you think that person is making too much, given the job description (at that useful link)?

Do you think UO/the state should be hiring illegals to do the work at $10/hr?

eagle eye

Suppose it could be shown that the landscaper is making above-market compensation for comparable work? Should the extra money be used instead for other purposes? Perhaps to raise Oregon professor salaries to competitive levels? Perhaps to alleviate tuition increases?

a retired professor

Surprised anyone would ask, but I don’t think many tenure-track faculty would want to raise their own salaries at the expense of landscapers’ and secretaries’ health insurance. There are other ways to deal with the salary issues. A long story.

Ditto tuition increases, a long story, maybe another day.

eagle eye

Would be interested to hear more.

David Appell

> Do you think UO/the state should be hiring illegals to do the work at $10/hr?

I think this is a very complicated, yet simplistic question. There is no one answer at no one time.

eagle eye

A little hard to see how a question can be both complicated and simplistic at the same time. Sounds like the prof asked a zinger question!

So tell us: do YOU “think UO/the state should be hiring illegals to do the work at $10/hr”?

David Appell

> So tell us: do YOU “think UO/the state should be hiring illegals to do the work at $10/hr”?

I don’t know. Maybe. $10/hr sounds very cheap. Who is going to work for that except someone desperate, which is, sad to say, an illegal immigrant? The job needs to be done. Are Americans applying for it? Do you even know?

– David
eagle eye

I don’t know for sure, but if you look at the link to the job posting (UO student, post 9.3), it says “archive”. I bet anything it has been filled, given the unemployment rate in Eugene, but not by an illegal — who would have trouble filling out the application (and besides, I doubt that UO is hiring illegals, but I have no way of knowing for sure). The landscaping at the UO campus looks pretty good, even if it’s a bit spotty, I doubt that positions are going unfilled.

I don’t think they could get anyone like they advertise for at $10/hr, unless it was someone desperate for the medical benefits.

Pingback: mindcareers.com
Pingback: mindcareers.com

Media quotes show timeline of labor cost debacle

Get Email Updates:

Links of Interest

Archives

Information

Stay Tuned...

Media quotes show timeline of labor cost debacle

Subscribe to this blog

Subscribe Via Email

Get Email Updates:

Links of Interest

Archives

Information

Stay Tuned...