Last month I opined on the state of public knowledge about labor unions and collective bargaining. I wrote that since a large segment of the population had no real idea what all the hubbub was about, both sides were ”trying to gain the support of this bloc through selective information – or propaganda, to be less charitable.” Now the first reports are in from Wisconsin, and it appears the unions are advancing along that front.
I’m not using “propaganda” in its pejorative sense. Both Gov. Walker and the unions are trying to frame the issue to display the most advantageous picture for their side. So far, more Wisconsinites are admiring the union picture.
Mickey Kaus cites surveys commissioned by Independent Women’s Voice and block quotes a key finding:
Wisconsin voters revealed basic misunderstandings on numerous issues, including how much government union members and taxpayers have been contributing to union pensions, what the fiscal situation in Wisconsin is, how collective bargaining is, or isn’t, done elsewhere, and how dues are collected and used. Building an understanding of these fundamental policy issues is key to building support for reform.
All of this may be true, but it’s all beside the point. The side that has to explain always loses the propaganda battle. The union message is, “They’re taking away our rights!” and no amount of education about the policies and practices of collective bargaining is going to trump it. I remember California voucher supporters in 1993 trying to explain why witches wouldn’t be able to open voucher schools.
This is a serious disadvantage for Walker and the Wisconsin GOP, but it doesn’t have to be disastrous. The unions’ main problem is they think it’s still the Sixties. Rallies and protests are great for the activists, but they have diminishing returns with the masses. Eventually they notice the world hasn’t ended and they move on to other things. Remember the Million Man March? Or the Promise Keepers? No one does.
All this aside, the decisive battles are still legislative (advantage: GOP), judicial (advantage: unions); and implementation, should it get that far (advantage: unions). Prepare for a long war.
Her’s some “food for thought” in contemplating that upcoming war:
So let’s cut to the chase …….
Private sector employers typically contribute 3%-8% of an employee’s cash pay towards retirement, yet the total cost (expressed as a level annual % of cash pay throughout one’s career) of Public Sector Defined Benefit pensions (for a 30-year employee retiring at age 55) ranges from 29% to 58% depending on the richness of the benefit formula (with safety workers generally at the highest end).
More specifically, for the noted formulas, the level annual %s of cash pay are as follows:
2% per year of service w/o COLA – 29%
2% per year of service with COLA – 39%
3% per year of service w/o COLA – 44%
3% per year of service with COLA – 58%
Even after deducting the typical employee contribution of about 5% of pay, that still leaves the employer (meaning TAXPAYERS) contributing 24% to 53% of pay. The middle of these %s is 38.5% vs 5.5% (the middle of the range of what Private Sector employers contribute) or SEVEN (yes SEVEN) times greater.
This is completely absurd, and the very modest “tweaking” at the edges by practically begging employees for a few more percent of pay contributions will NOT even begin solve the HUGE financial problem.
TOTAL COMPENSATION (Cash Pay plus Pensions plus Benefits) should be comparable in the Public and Private Sectors for similar jobs, and with Cash Pay in the Public Sector now AT LEAST equal to (if not greater) than that in the Private Sector, there is ZERO justification for greater Public Sector Pensions and Benefits .
Not for PAST service, but for FUTURE service, Public Sector pension accruals must immediately be brought FULLY down to the level of their Private Sector counterparts. Due to the huge reduction needed, the ONLY way to do this is to freeze the current defined benefit plans for CURRENT (yes CURRENT) workers, and switch everyone into a 401K-style Defined Contribution Plan with an employer contribution in the same 3%-8% range granted Private Sector workers.
Additionally, since Private Sector retirees rarely get any retiree healthcare subsidy before eligibility for Medicare at age 65, similar restrictions should apply to Public Sector retirees.
It’s TAXPAYERS’ money and Civil Servants are NOT more worthy of bigger pensions and better benefits.