Pawlenty to state workers: Take 48 (unpaid) days off
“Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty wants state workers to take up to 24 days of unpaid leave during each of the next two years.”
Huh?
I am of the mind that furloughs are a much better option than pay cuts or layoffs, but 24 days in two years?
The union responds calling the plan a “bomb.”.
Who can pay their bills after the loss of one month’s pay,” states a message on AFSCME’s website. “Worse yet, he’d [Pawlenty] give managers the right to arbitrarily decide who gets furloughed, when they get furloughed, and for how long. That’s an invitation for the boss to play favorites. It’s also an attempt to balance the budget on the backs of AFSCME state employees who earn $37,000 on average.”
A commenter weighs in,
While I tend to agree that the average public worker does his/her best to earn their pay; I have to point out a couple of things. Right … read more now, private-sector employees are losing jobs and having pay/benefit cuts at an alarming rate while public employees in MN so far have been pretty stable. Public employees almost always have health ins while private employees are losing it in many cases (in many small-town/rural areas, public emp are the ONLY workers who get emp health ins). In small-town/rural areas particularly, public employees are paid substantially more for the same occupations than private. If you want to look for reasons there is resentment, you will find them. I’n not saying public emp are overpaid or coddled, but I am pointing out that there is a disparity that people can see and it is causing some of the resentment you hear.
What do you think?
6 Comments
I was a state employee for 5+ years and during that time I saw exactly what everyone else complains about…a culture of people who feel that they are entitled to earn the wage set by the union. Before you go jumping down my throat, I want to say that there are a good number of people who work for the state who do their jobs and do it well but in my experience in two different state-operated locations, the majority were happy to do the bare minimum (or less) knowing that they were protected after 6 months.
Being that I didn’t care for the fact that even though I worked my ass off (and was somewhat rewarded for my work), the guy staring at the screensaver (activated after 15 minutes of inactivity) was going to get the same step raise that I was and it would take months upon months of work by superiors to get him removed, I moved on to the private sector. Even if he had been removed, as I had seen at my first state job, he had the opportunity to come right back in another department and possibly have an even better paying job.
I don’t agree with 24 days/year furlough, especially when it’s controlled by management. Everyone plays favorites, even if they don’t mean to, and I don’t think it’s fair to screw people over like that. That said, I also don’t believe that state employees should be permitted to continue to get raises for anything (COL or otherwise) if they don’t perform up to the standards set. There has to be some give and take and I think that the unions really need to step back and take a look at the options. Either bring yourselves more in line with how the private sector handles wage increases and retention or suffer the consequences.
It’s a mixed bag and it’s a difficult position to be in. As someone who has worked on both sides, I feel that this option is much better than having state employees worry about unemployment and then no paycheck while the economy wrestles with itself.
I wish all of my friends who still work for the state the best. I hope that they make it through this tough time just like everyone else. It will eventually get better and things will improve. We can only move up from here, right?
Well, I had a lot to say on this subject, obviously, but Bill beat me to it.
Instead of forcing everyone to take 24 unpaid days off they should put some effort into replacing or removing the people that are costing them money but providing nothing in return. I could make a list to start.
First, this is a scare tactic by management in contract negotiations. And it is a negotiation, so this will never happen.
That said, I’m very upset by the proposal. Our negotiation team went in willing to work with management. They did not ask for raises in their first proposal and wanted to work with management to find a solution in these tough times. But management clearly saw it another way and decided to be adversarial.
Additionally, many areas are already short staffed. Sure there is some dead weight, there is at every job, but we have had hiring freezes off and on for the past couple years. Many positions are not filled. While forcing people to take time off, less work will get done and the backlogs will increase substantially. This will lead to longer waits for people getting health benefits, or their drivers license, or their unemployment. Some areas, like the hospitals for sex offenders and the mentally ill, will have such low staff levels that it will become a danger to the patients and to the public.
Kassie,
I don’t want to sound like I don’t care (I really do) but you’re just reiterating the tiresome union line. I heard the same exact rhetoric for many years and I knew it was all a huge load of nonsense (as you said, scare tactics–they just exist on both ends of the spectrum).
It’s time for the unions to come into line with the way workforces should operate in 2009. Harkening back to the unfair pay scales and treatment from 100+ years ago isn’t prevalent enough for the unions to get away with what they do today. Drop the standardized step increases and move to merit-based pay. Drop the exorbitant vacation and sick policies (unlimited sick time accrual really?) but keep the better than average insurance coverage. It’s a fair trade and one that would save millions.
As an observer with no dog in the fight (other than perhaps an ideological one) (oh, and my tax dollars, I guess), I’m generally with David in that furloughs are preferable to layoffs, but 24 days in a year is a frickin’ lot.
And this is where I get lost in the world how unions work, so I’ll just say that I hope that some sort of happy medium can be found.
Bill,
The union went in saying, “we aren’t asking for pay increases. We just want a fair contract.” Management basically laughed in their face and proposed this with other crazy ideas.
And it isn’t just union lines I’m dropping. I work in the same area as MinnesotaCare. They are short staffed right now. They are not allowed to hire, even though they have open positions. Applications are way up due to the economy. Now add each worker taking an additional 24 days off a year and we have even greater backlogs. People won’t get coverage timely. That’s all there is to it. It is bad service to the public.
And it isn’t like management is saying that if we take furloughs there won’t be lay offs. They are saying there is no choice for the furloughs and we may still lay people off.
Of all of the State of MN’s budget, employee compensation is 4%. How much will this save? they could lay off every state employee and still not meet their budget goals. They are just being assholes.