Public Servants Will Soon Have Servants -- On Our Dime
Tim Pawlenty in the WSJ on "Government Unions vs. Taxpayers." He proposes three solutions:
Reformers would be wise to adopt three overriding principles.First, we need to bring public employee compensation back in line with the private sector and reduce the overall size of the federal civilian work force. Mr. Obama's proposal to freeze federal pay is a step in the right direction, but it falls well short of shrinking government and eliminating the pay premium enjoyed by federal employees.
Second, get the numbers right. Government should start using the same established accounting standards that private businesses are required to use, so we can accurately assess unfunded liabilities.
Third, we need to end defined-benefit retirement plans for government employees. Defined-benefit systems have created a financial albatross for taxpayers. The private sector dropped them years ago in favor of the clarity and predictability of defined-contribution models such as 401(k) plans. This change alone can save taxpayers trillions of dollars.
The moral case for unions--protecting working families from exploitation--does not apply to public employment. Government employees today are among the most protected, well-paid employees in the country. Ironically, public-sector unions have become the exploiters, and working families once again need someone to stand up for them.
If we're going to stop the government unions' silent coup, conservative reformers around the country must fight this challenge head on. The choice between big government and everyday Americans isn't a hard one.
Well, it isn't for me.
Bookmark.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 14, 2010 9:44 PM
Third, we need to end defined-benefit retirement plans for government employees.
If nobody else gets them, why should government employees?
The moral case for unions--protecting working families from exploitation--does not apply to public employment.
Yes. Unions are bad; unions whose employers don't face market pressures are worse.
Christopher at December 14, 2010 10:19 PM
Sort of related: Mark Perry's Carpe Diem blog has an interesting post today about the highest paid high school teachers in Illinois. How does $191,124 sound for teaching PE 9 months out of the year?
BerthaMinerva at December 15, 2010 9:32 AM
I can say that I think unions were needed at one point. And they even have some points today. But very limited.
And the unions need to be ended for public employees.
Jim P. at December 15, 2010 7:11 PM
And 4: Government employees need to have performance appraisal systems tied to raises, promotions, and terminations, as is done in the business world.
Some goverment organizations, LADWP for one, have no performance appraisal at all.
Tom at December 15, 2010 7:37 PM
When I was in the USAF they had the Airman Performance (APR) system in place. Your APR, in combination with your testing skills on general and specific to your job skills, any awards (such as a Silver Star or Meritorious Service Medal), along with time in grade made up your score for a promotion. They had to mod the APR system because everyone was getting nine's. It still had about a 98% approval rating as a meritocracy system from those in the system.
Meanwhile the GS (Government Service) workers were pretty much promoted for time in grade. The active duty looked at most GS employees as a joke (prior service generally excepted). I won't use the term hate...but the level of respect just wasn't there. Especially when you had to work under them.
As far as firing a GS -- not quite a congressional decision -- it took a lot of work. Something equivalent to How to Fire an Incompetent Teacher.
Jim P. at December 15, 2010 9:56 PM
The whole idea that working for government is "public service," in a way that other jobs aren't, needs to be challenged. Is the Ag Department employee who writes papers about "food policy" really more of a public servant than the farmer who actually grows the food, the logistics executives and railroad employees who worry about getting it to market, and the people at the supermarket who distribute it?
david foster at December 16, 2010 6:29 AM
Leave a comment