From the New York Times, Sunday February 27, 2011:
“For state workers in Indiana, the end of collective bargaining also meant a pay freeze in 2009 and 2010 and higher health insurance payments. Several state employees said they now paid $5,200 a year in premiums, $3,400 more than when Mr. Daniels took office, though there are cheaper plans available. Earlier in his tenure, Mr. Daniels adopted a merit pay system, with some employees receiving no raises and those deemed to be top performers getting up to 10 percent.”
Holy cow, sounds like the real world to me. Sounds like an employer adjusting to difficult financial times. Sounds like the Fortune 500 company I retired from a year ago as a matter of fact, oh wait that company also suspended the 401(k) match, cut bonuses and trimmed retiree benefits.
Granted, some companies go too far in sticking it to workers in the quest for that almighty penny per share in earnings, but the other end of the spectrum demonstrated by various states is worse because it affects every resident in a state. You simply cannot go merrily along accumulating more debt and liabilities and treating employees as you would social agency clients, which is exactly what some states do…while raising taxes.
Why is it so hard for some people to grasp that government employees should be treated no better and no worse than the private sector employees of their state? That includes pay, benefits, performance measures and work rules. Certainly there are unique jobs in government and that must be considered, but overall there needs to be parity in cost and value.
Related Articles
- NYT: Ind. shows what’s at stake for Wis. unions (msnbc.msn.com)
QUINNSCOMMENTARY 