Public employee union membership in Wisconsin has crashed in the last year

[Torie]

Yes, by about 55% or something so this article says. Sure some of that may be due to layoffs, but per another article on this from the WSJ, it appears that the bulk of it was due to the law change that members needed to agree that their dues would be deducted from their paychecks. With that change, it appears that a majority of the members (or close to it) said no, we don't want our paychecks docked for dues, and in the case of one union, it then proceeded to kick those members out.

It is not surprising that both sides view the Wisconsin recall as ground zero. This is a potential game changer. One poll says 55% of Wisconsin voters now agree with Walker's union reforms. At stake is one of the Democrats' major, if not the major, sources of funds.

California will have a somewhat similar initiative on the ballot this November in essence. Dues can't be used for political campaigns without the permission of the member.

[Torie]

Public employee unions are a very different thing than private company unions in my mind. Taxpayers are footing the bill for the former. The higher the cost of government services, the less the amount of services. That does not foster equality. It exacerbates inequality. In addition, almost uniquely these days, public employee unions have the defined benefit pension plans which tend to be off balance sheet, or have unrealistic assumptions, leading to a fiscal meltdown when the off balance sheet liabilities go on balance sheet, and there is a cash flow crisis. That can lead to bankruptcy, and all the dislocations and mass layoffs attendant thereto.

I just thought I would toss that into the mix, since it seems the distinction has not been mentioned in the above polite fisticuffs.

[Torie]

The higher the cost of government services, the less the amount of services.

Not if salaries become so low as to be uncompetitive with the private section, in which case you get people not qualified to do their jobs.

True, but at the moment, public sector employees make about 40% more or something vis a vis private sector equivalents on average, with a lot more job security. When it flips the other way, get back to me.

[Torie]

The higher the cost of government services, the less the amount of services.

Not if salaries become so low as to be uncompetitive with the private section, in which case you get people not qualified to do their jobs.

True, but at the moment, public sector employees make about 40% more or something vis a vis private sector equivalents on average, with a lot more job security. When it flips the other way, get back to me.

Got a link?

I just knew that you were going to ask that. Well here is one paper to look at.  And here is another one for Ohio. I heard the 40% figure from a pretty reliable guy on the phone, actually. Yes, I should have verified it. There is of course a lot of debate about just who is doing what to whom. Some places may be far more out of line than others. CA in particular seems to be a cesspool.

I told you about the Glendale situation didn't I (about 100 policeman and fire fighters there make over 200K per year (a few over 300K), before factoring in the value of fringe benefits)? That one I have seen from a pay sheet of all the employees who make over 100K per year, before factoring in the value of fringe benefits) from the city of Glendale itself.  About 450 Glendale employees make over 100K in take home pay, or something like that. The list was very long.

In all of this comparison analysis, one needs to be sure to factor in the value of fringe benefits. For fire fighters and policeman in CA, that is about equal to either 40% or 70% of their take home pay, I forget which now. That figure I got from a guy who makes his living dealing with that issue now.

Oh, and here is another one for federal employees. The USA Today article says that for federal employees, they make twice as much as the private sector equivalents.

[Torie]

It's funny how widely studies differ on this subject because of number massaging on both sides. Everything I've read says that public sector employees are dramatically underpaid compared to private sector employees based on their level of education.

Here's my recollection of what I read: at low levels of education, salaries are equivalent, but benefits make public employment a better deal. At higher levels of education, public service can't come close to competing with private sector employment. So jobs requiring good skills are tough to fill. Torie, I'm guessing you never considered becoming a public defender for the 40% higher salary.

No, but in the private sector, some lawyers are far more equal than others. I fooled enough folks into thinking that I had skills that were worth paying $350 per hour for, and there were times when I was stuck in trial for a month (it was hell), where I billed about 300 hours in a month. What can I say? 

[Torie]

No, but in the private sector, some lawyers are far more equal than others. I fooled enough folks into thinking that I had skills that were worth paying $350 per hour for, and there were times when I was stuck in trial for a month (it was hell), where I billed about 300 hours in a month. What can I say?  

The DMV doesn't need Torie-quality employees to get the job done, but the SEC and federal courts might...

Obama needed me to argue for the Constitutionality of the mandate before SCOTUS actually. That Solicitor General is a beta.  I can't disagree with anything that you said, but you didn't mention the federal employee thing. I gave you a trifecta of articles. The best things come in threes. Just ask any interior decorator.  

Of course federal employees aren't unionized!  So in a legal brief, I would have to play that card rather carefully wouldn't I? So many sand traps, so little time. Life is at once beautiful and complex. I love it.

[Torie]

Can anyone direct me to some quotable quotes which represent bureaucracy and the public functionary in a positive light?  I searched but alas the results are mostly the unappreciative kind.

[Torie]

Oh, and here is another one for federal employees. The USA Today article says that for federal employees, they make twice as much as the private sector equivalents.

It doesn't say equivalents - it says compared to private sector workers as a whole.

Given what federal agencies do and where they're located, we'd need to know education levels and cost of living. Washington D.C. is among the best-educated metros in the country for a good reason. The federal government has a lot of scientists, regulators, specialists, doctors, etc. The private sector has a mix of doctors, lawyers, burger flippers, and Wal*Mart greeters. Many of the federal government's employees live in places like Montgomery Co., Maryland where they could easily be snapped up by a private company at a higher salary. Despite Sen. Byrd's best efforts they aren't living in cheap cost-of-living private-sector metros like Kansas City or Fresno.

Oh you did look at the federal employee story. My bad. Well then the headline sucks, because it says "counterparts."  Anyway, it says that as to the delta function, since 2000 federal employee pay has zoomed up while private sector pay has stagnated. Is that because the skill and education gap has grown ever larger during that period?

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hey Dead0man, you just got a compliment!  

I will deal with you later Beet. I need to get some chores done, and well those paragraph of yours were looong.  Sometimes it is better to have short punchy ones, with multiple little knife thrusts, rather than just take a big swing, hoping to hit one out of the park. jk.