The actual legislation that the House and Senate will consider has now been released. Here are a few observations, and a link to a much more in-depth post on this issue that I wrote earlier this week.
The uncomfortable subject of state elected-official compensation has come up. I am likely to need to vote on it sometime soon and I would welcome your thoughts.
Will, Interesting article here, partly on recents trends in union-busting, but also on public employee pensions. Proposes, in the final paragraphs, that perhaps pensions should be put to a vote, just like bonds. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/mayjune_2011/features/the_fallacy_of_union_busting029139.php I’m not certain this would work well, because the public tends to have anti-Keynesian impulses (“I’m cutting back, so should the […]
The pay scales of public employees might be decided by an impartial referee committee that has no vested interest but the public interest (as much as is humanly possible). Politicians should not be directly involved in negotiating with unions. I believe in the very high value of unions. However, it is true that most people […]
Disclaimer: I am a state employee who works in Higher Education. Will, I understand that state employees get a lot of bad press. I understand that a lot of people are angry when they hear about all of the people who get jobs through connections, and get raises beyond what private employees get, etc. But, […]
Today, NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/02/business/02leonhardt.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=leonhardt&st=cse . Summary: it’s not the pay, it’s the pension and disability benefits. And the work rules. Recently, Fortune/CNN: http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2011/02/28/are-public-unions-our-convenient-economic-scapegoats/?section=magazines_fortune . Summary: the unions are (generally) not the cause. Neither article supports the current moves to strip unions of the right to strike and/or engage in collective bargaining.