Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: (Page 23)

drewb8 - 2011-03-01 4:20 PM
But again, it's not an apples to apples comparison.  For example, nurses in the federal government are more than twice as likely to have a college degree as those in the private sector (24% vs 11%).  Overall about 1/2 the federal workforce has a college degree vs about 1/3 of the private workforce.  More than 1/2 the federal workforce is over 45 while in the private sector it's 38, so you would expect a more experienced engineer, paralegal or surveyor to be paid more.  According to the OMB director, when age and education are held constant there is no statistically significant difference between feds and the private sector.  And I know that when setting wages OPM basically tries to match it to the similar private sector job (though I'm sure you could argue about how well they do that).

There's also no way of knowing whether that chart is reprenstative or if certain occupations were cherry picked to make the article more shocking to the reader.  For example, using the same BLS stats a petroleum engineer would make $93,140 with the gov't but $119,140 in the private sector yet that's not on the chart.

I can agree with you that there is no reason public sector workers should be paid more than private sector ones, but they shouldn't be paid less either.  I saw no one saying 'we need to give all those public employees a bonus!' when times were good and private industry was raking it in.  They didn't share in that prosperity but now are being asked (and are) to make sacrifices when times are bad.  Which is fine, a 3% pay cut like the WI state workers took last year can be the price for increased job security, but I guess main problem is with this idea that seems to have taken hold that public workers are a bunch of greedy, spoiled sloths who are only out to cheat the oublic, and that you can somehow balance the budget on their backs without asking anyone else for any kind of sacrifice.  To me it seems as wrong as the idea that you can solve the problem by just taxing the ^&*^ out of the rich. 

TriRSquared - 2011-03-01 3:01 PM
We agree there

And no one is saying that are "greedy, spoiled sloths who are only out to cheat the public".  However, assuming wages are pretty close, I wonder how these compensation packages compare when you add in benefits?

Aarondb4 - 2011-03-02 11:22 AM
So what is the word after Walker's budget presentation yesterday? Mass layoffs? Or did the dems show up and vote?

Yes, I get my news from CoJ.

Aarondb4 - 2011-03-02 11:22 AM


So what is the word after Walker's budget presentation yesterday? Mass layoffs? Or did the dems show up and vote?

Yes, I get my news from CoJ.

scoobysdad - 2011-03-02 11:50 AM ... The biggest news of the day is that a Republican State Senator was accosted and pinned up against a wall outside the Capitol by union protesters last night and yesterday a Democratic Assemblyman threatened a female Republican colleague on the Assembly floor after her vote on another issue, saying, "You're f***ing dead!"

amyjotris - 2011-03-02 11:18 AM

Too funny..

They "spliced" in a clip from some place else to make it seem as though there was a rowdy crowd in Madison Wi. Look closely for the palm trees in the background (I have yet to see a palm tree in Madison).

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10150420660215398&oid=31709165325&comments

1stTimeTri - 2011-03-02 1:15 PM



HA!  Thanks, AJ!!

WaitingGuilty - 2011-03-02 1:01 PM

One sentiment I keep hearing from conservatives regarding the 2010 election is that Walker "Overwhelmingly" won.

I'm not an expert, but I do have a B.A in Political Science, and never once in my life have I ever heard anyone say that a major election candidate who won on a 52% majority called overwhelming until this WI debate.

Further, I've seen polls this week saying that Barrett would win if the election were held today...by almost the exact margin which Walker won last Nov...52%-47% or somewhere close to that.

scoobysdad - 2011-03-02 2:34 PM Polls are funny things, aren't they? Especially depending on WHO is being polled and how the question is worded. I saw a polling expert on "Today" (that bastion of conservatism) say that when respondents were asked "Do you believe public workers should be allowed to collectively bargain?" the results were 60-40% in favor. When the word "public" was changed to "government" the results were almost exactly opposite. The fact is Gov. Walker DID win and 5% of the popular vote is hardly insignificant. Republicans also won the State Legislature and the Senate seat. By any measure, it was a sweeping Republican victory in a traditionally blue state. As Republican were told repeatedly during the Health Care Bill debate, elections have consequences. What's more, it's hardly like Gov. Walker is going alone on this. The Budget Repair Bill has already been approved in the State Assembly and has majority support in the State Senate. It's not like he's going rogue and issuing monarchical decrees from on high. More debate about the Budget Repair Bill has now been permitted to take place on the Assembly Floor than ANY PREVIOUS BILL in Wisconsin history. (BTW, you know how long debate was allowed on the previous Democratic Governor's Budget Repair Bill, which was unanimously opposed by the then-minority Republican legislature? One hour!) It's time due democratic process was allowed to take place.

1stTimeTri - 2011-03-02 2:39 PM



"due democratic process"?

scoobysdad - 2011-03-02 3:00 PM Yes, Phil. The Budget Repair Bill was debated and passed by the Assembly and advanced to the State Senate for a vote, according to the rules. The only thing preventing a vote is the absence of the Democratic State senators in an unprecedented abdication of their duties as elected representatives.

Bmel - 2011-03-02 2:54 PM Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong on this.  My friend's brother lives in Madison and is thinking of moving out of state because of his concern of the education his toddler children receive because of the bill.  My thought was that since they will now be allowed to fire a bad teacher (nearly impossible to do with the Union) there will be better teachers to teach.

1stTimeTri - 2011-03-02 4:12 PM



Yep - "due democratic process" (a reminder that I'm not affiliated with either party):

http://bluecheddar.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/at-1am-friday-february-25-assembly-republicans-pass-budget-bill-with-seconds-long-roll-call-vote/

TriRSquared - 2011-03-01 2:15 PM

So let's look at some specific jobs where you can compare apples to apples:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm#chart

(On a side note: Federal clergy?)

Job comparison

Average federal salaries exceed average private-sector pay in 83% of comparable occupations. A sampling of average annnual salaries in 2008, the most recent data:

Job	Federal	Private	Difference
Airline pilot, copilot, flight engineer	$93,690	$120,012	-$26,322
Broadcast technician	$90,310	$49,265	$41,045
Budget analyst	$73,140	$65,532	$7,608
Chemist	$98,060	$72,120	$25,940
Civil engineer	$85,970	$76,184	$9,786
Clergy	$70,460	$39,247	$31,213
Computer, information systems manager	$122,020	$115,705	$6,315
Computer support specialist	$45,830	$54,875	-$9,045
Cook	$38,400	$23,279	$15,121
Crane, tower operator	$54,900	$44,044	$10,856
Dental assistant	$36,170	$32,069	$4,101
Economist	$101,020	$91,065	$9,955
Editors	$42,210	$54,803	-$12,593
Electrical engineer	$86,400	$84,653	$1,747
Financial analysts	$87,400	$81,232	$6,168
Graphic designer	$70,820	$46,565	$24,255
Highway maintenance worker	$42,720	$31,376	$11,344
Janitor	$30,110	$24,188	$5,922
Landscape architects	$80,830	$58,380	$22,450
Laundry, dry-cleaning worker	$33,100	$19,945	$13,155
Lawyer	$123,660	$126,763	-$3,103
Librarian	$76,110	$63,284	$12,826
Locomotive engineer	$48,440	$63,125	-$14,685
Machinist	$51,530	$44,315	$7,215
Mechanical engineer	$88,690	$77,554	$11,136
Office clerk	$34,260	$29,863	$4,397
Optometrist	$61,530	$106,665	-$45,135
Paralegals	$60,340	$48,890	$11,450
Pest control worker	$48,670	$33,675	$14,995
Physicians, surgeons	$176,050	$177,102	-$1,052
Physician assistant	$77,770	$87,783	-$10,013
Procurement clerk	$40,640	$34,082	$6,558
Public relations manager	$132,410	$88,241	$44,169
Recreation worker	$43,630	$21,671	$21,959
Registered nurse	$74,460	$63,780	$10,680
Respiratory therapist	$46,740	$50,443	-$3,703
Secretary	$44,500	$33,829	$10,671
Sheet metal worker	$49,700	$43,725	$5,975
Statistician	$88,520	$78,065	$10,455
Surveyor	$78,710	$67,336	$11,374

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, USA TODAY analysis

drewb8 - 2011-03-01 4:20 PM
But again, it's not an apples to apples comparison.  For example, nurses in the federal government are more than twice as likely to have a college degree as those in the private sector (24% vs 11%).  Overall about 1/2 the federal workforce has a college degree vs about 1/3 of the private workforce.  More than 1/2 the federal workforce is over 45 while in the private sector it's 38, so you would expect a more experienced engineer, paralegal or surveyor to be paid more.  According to the OMB director, when age and education are held constant there is no statistically significant difference between feds and the private sector.  And I know that when setting wages OPM basically tries to match it to the similar private sector job (though I'm sure you could argue about how well they do that).

There's also no way of knowing whether that chart is reprenstative or if certain occupations were cherry picked to make the article more shocking to the reader.  For example, using the same BLS stats a petroleum engineer would make $93,140 with the gov't but $119,140 in the private sector yet that's not on the chart.

I can agree with you that there is no reason public sector workers should be paid more than private sector ones, but they shouldn't be paid less either.  I saw no one saying 'we need to give all those public employees a bonus!' when times were good and private industry was raking it in.  They didn't share in that prosperity but now are being asked (and are) to make sacrifices when times are bad.  Which is fine, a 3% pay cut like the WI state workers took last year can be the price for increased job security, but I guess main problem is with this idea that seems to have taken hold that public workers are a bunch of greedy, spoiled sloths who are only out to cheat the oublic, and that you can somehow balance the budget on their backs without asking anyone else for any kind of sacrifice.  To me it seems as wrong as the idea that you can solve the problem by just taxing the ^&*^ out of the rich. 

Brock Samson - 2011-03-03 5:32 AM

Why shouldn't some public sector jobs be paid more than private sector?  Let's look at attorneys.  Specifically, prosecutors.   Why shouldn't prosecutors be paid more than similarly situated private attorneys?

Doesn't the public have an interest in the succesful prosecution of crime?  Doesn't the public have an interest in ensuring convictions, especially in the cases involving the most heinous crimes?

To do this you must ensure that talented people are attracted to, and stay with an agency.  With pay disperity these highest level talented individuals leave, and where do they go?  They become defense attorneys working specifically against garnering a conviction.

Certainly this isn't the case with every job title, but certainly there are specific public sector jobs that may require the best and brightest, and to attract and keep the best and brightest why not pay them more?

Brock Samson - 2011-03-03 6:32 AM
Why shouldn't some public sector jobs be paid more than private sector?  Let's look at attorneys.  Specifically, prosecutors.   Why shouldn't prosecutors be paid more than similarly situated private attorneys?

Doesn't the public have an interest in the succesful prosecution of crime?  Doesn't the public have an interest in ensuring convictions, especially in the cases involving the most heinous crimes?

To do this you must ensure that talented people are attracted to, and stay with an agency.  With pay disperity these highest level talented individuals leave, and where do they go?  They become defense attorneys working specifically against garnering a conviction.

Certainly this isn't the case with every job title, but certainly there are specific public sector jobs that may require the best and brightest, and to attract and keep the best and brightest why not pay them more?

Bmel - 2011-03-02 2:54 PM

Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong on this.  My friend's brother lives in Madison and is thinking of moving out of state because of his concern of the education his toddler children receive because of the bill.  My thought was that since they will now be allowed to fire a bad teacher (nearly impossible to do with the Union) there will be better teachers to teach.

TriJedi - 2011-03-03 8:52 AM What type of teacher gets fired will be determined by who is do the firing. Districts will good leadership will get rid of weaker teachers, but they are the ones who also likely have fewer poor teachers to begin within. Politics will play a part in some schools --the principal's fishing buddy who has been mailing it in for years or the superintendent's neice who has no classroom control probably aren't losing their jobs. When schools begin making cuts it is often by postions and departments, rather than specific teachers. I think one of the first places schools will start making cuts is within support services -- guidance counselors, social workers, etc..

Bmel - 2011-03-03 9:33 AM

That is true TriJedi but it is also true in every profession, every industry, public or private.  Nepitism (sp?) as wrong as it may be is everywhere. 

If the fishing buddy has been mailing it in, then parents know it and there will be a lot more complaints about that teacher.  My son currently has a very bad teacher right now and parents before of us have complained and now the parents in our class our complaining about it, I really worried my two younger boys will have her as a teacher too.  She's been at the school for 15 years and a teacher for 25.

drewb8 - 2011-03-03 9:50 AM
I think you're kind of right.  Yes, there are some jobs that I would be ok with the public workers making more.  One example would be the financial regulators.  There's a situation now where you have all of these brilliant kids who graduate from MIT or CalTech, who in the past would've gone on to become engineers or physicists or whatnot, now going to Wall Street and writing these extremely complex algorithms to deal with stock trading or derivitaves because they are offered obscene amounts of money.  The problem is, only a handful of  people in the country actually understand what they do, and very few if any of those people are regulators.  So you end up with these complex finiancial instruments that hardly anyone can understand or value which was one contributing cause to the recent financial meltdown.  And without paying the regulators wages that are competative with the private sector we will never have people on the public's side to properly understand what's going on.

I agree that gov't wages have to be competative in order to attract high quality workers, but for the avg public sector job - a surveyor, nurse, paper pusher, etc - I don't see why it should have to be more (or less), as long as education and experience are taken into account.  Just out of curiosity - even for a prosecutor, if public sector and private practice paid the exact same amounts, do you think the prosecutor's office would have trouble attracting quality attornies or is there something about private practice that is so enticing that it would be hard even in that situation?  I can tell you when I worked for the gov't I could've made more by moving to private industry and becoming a consultant, but part of my 'pay' was the satisfaction of knowing that I was serving our country and contributing to its betterment and that was important to me, however, I recognize that for most people the bottom line is simply the salary.