As another election day nears, Ohioans will be facing one of the most controversial choices to come down the pike in many years. Issue 2 has become one of the most divisive political hot potatoes that I have seen and all indications are that its proponents and opponents will be further estranged regardless of its outcome.
While many of us have followed Issue 2 from its inception as Ohio Senate Bill 5, the firestorm that has ensued over the past ten months has caused me to take a hard look at what I really believe but more importantly, why I believe it.
Being raised in a blue collar unionized home instilled no particular ideologies in me as my parents had typical lower middle class hodge-podge political leanings, or as many Americans now call it “Independent”. I did however come away with a work ethic that understood that there were no guarantees in this life and that I was not promised any outcomes good or bad. When I eventually became a small business owner and much more importantly, a Bible believing follower of Christ, my philosophies understandably evolved. I now clearly identify myself as a social and fiscal conservative because I concluded it most clearly aligned itself with my life experience, historical understanding and faith.
Reconciling faith and politics can be dangerous without an understanding that God transcends all of our petty opinions but with that being said, worldview remains an important component in an attempt to live a consistent life.
So as I attempted to analyze Issue 2 and the choice to repeal or endorse SB 5, I had to look through this prism that I call my worldview which does include many staunch ideological beliefs. Issue 2 was only reaction to SB 5 so understanding the bill is the real debate. In my attempt to become educated on the topic, I listened to the various news stories, blogs and websites but also made a deliberate attempt to spend more time on the side I was inclined to be opposed to, that is the union perspective. I must however acknowledge that I have a close friend who was involved in the direct drafting of some of the legislation and did receive many “inside” perspectives on the whole chain of events and processes.
There are clearly dozens of sub-issues and the debate has the potential to go in so many directions. That is why I believe it is so divisive and why foolish things have been said on both sides. One point often leads to another point and so forth but after months of introspection, I kept coming back to the same simple conclusion that the bill is generally fiscally conservative. In the process though, my opinion was shaped by some of what I believe to be the more important points of the debate which I have detailed below.
The current system involves little to no accountability
The basic process of public employee collective bargaining consists of contract negotiations between the workforce (via a union) and a governmental administrative unit. Typically both sides dig their heels in until arbitration when a legally enforced compromise is in effect forced on both sides. This results in both sides making concessions where workers get less than they wanted but never less than they already have and management giving something smaller than originally desired by the workers.
The problem with this is that it becomes a perpetual upward movement and overall costs can never be truly cut. We are routinely told that union workers made several concessions to save money but they receive benefit somewhere else. Why would one even negotiate if they ended up taking less? That’s not how the process works.
By allowing management and ultimately elected officials more say in the process and the ability to control costs in more areas, taxpayers are now involved. If constituents do not approve of increases or cuts, they can factor this into their vote. As it stands, elected officials do not have final say when arbitration trumps their actions. SB 5 opposition campaign ads have asked “do we really want politicians deciding what we spend on safety services”? My answer is absolutely. This is what the intent of a democratic republic is. Elected officials are to be directly accountable to the citizenry for the performance and function of government.
The theory that SB 5 supporters hate public workers is illogical
Passions have been running way too hot for my tastes on both sides but are clearly driven by efforts to win arguments in 30 second sound bites. While there has been a combative attitude between public workers and SB 5 supporters, it is due to their disagreement over the proposed changes and not because of job titles. It is simply irrational to believe that SB 5 was created out of jealousy or even hatred of public workers. With the possible exception of anarchists, who believes public workers are not a necessary function of government? There may be disagreements in regards to scope of services and more often spending, but not the mere existence of such workers.
The notion that politicians would use so much political capital just to be vindictive is mentally vacuous. In fact, politicians have a lot to gain by maintaining a governmental work force that consists of qualified and professional employees. It does not serve their interest to be viewed poorly unless they are acting on what they believe to be right or beneficial to their constituents.
I certainly have concern for public employees as I have two brother in-laws and two nephews who are fire fighters, as well as numerous friends and family who are teachers, police officers and even utility workers. That does not mean however that I can throw away logic and what I believe for a few more dollars to go their way. There is a much bigger picture that must be understood.
Management is not a bad guy
The concept of merit pay and performance standards has been ridiculed by many SB 5 opponents but there must be a tangible way to determine who are the most efficient and effective employees. The legislation itself does not clearly define the methods to determine these issues. It does however promote a system where additional needed accountability can be implemented.
I freely admit that the particulars for judging merit and performance can be complicated, particularly for positions like teachers, but management is the proper way to accomplish this. While it makes good sense to include actual employees in the process, ultimately management should be the liaisons to elected officials. It is much better for something like a department budget to be ironed out between these parties rather than a union. An effective management will naturally attempt to retain the resources and funding that is required to keep a satisfied work force, and at the same time be concerned for the fiscal health of the entire branch it represents.
In a recent televised debate, the spokesman for the opposition (thinking he was clever) asked Senator Keith Faber if he also supported performance and merit analysis for politicians. The correct reply should have been “yes we do… in fact it’s already in place and we call it an election”.
SB 5 opponents have strange bedfellows
Perhaps one the most surprising results of the whole SB 5 debate is the alliance between radically opposed political adherents. It’s not every day that we see self-professed conservative republicans protesting alongside the likes of Jesse Jackson, Jimmy Hoffa Jr. and various left wing ideologues. It’s clear that national unions like AFL-CIO and SEIU have long sympathized with the far left but even local FOP and IAFF charters were endorsing neo-Marxist organizations like Progress Ohio for their opposition to SB 5.
It’s likely this resulted from each effectively using one another to further their goals in defeating the bill but something still feels very wrong when two polar opposites unite. Historically, the far left would clearly be the supporters of such opposition so it is enigmatic when professing conservatives agree and even join forces.
It’s not about the children or public safety
While watching the protest at the State House this past winter, one could hear chants from teachers yelling that they were fighting for the rights of children. Recent campaign ads utilized clips of police officers and fire fighters in the line of duty. When compared to the actual legislative language, I must conclude all this is just imagery intended to scare voters. Ultimately it diverts discussion from the budgetary intent of SB 5 to a more emotion based rationale. Why haven’t we seen visuals of disrupted water service or piling up trash heaps since other workers like utility services and refuse collection could also be affected? Is it because they are less important or is it because they do not evoke the same public sympathies?
Even if the argument was truly about safety, then why wouldn’t all public safety departments be fighting for significant increased spending on new precincts, fire houses, equipment and personnel? This would obviously increase response times and therefore improve safety. The standard is always defined where things currently are but if something like a budget crisis requires a retraction, then arguments like this come up.
SB 5 does not specifically call for the reduction in equipment and safety spending but may allow agencies to determine how they allocate funding for such items rather than through union contracts. Opponents would have us believe that the answer will always be “no” but by having elected officials more involved; the taxpayers will be the ones who decide the level of safety services they want.
The common thread is unionization
As the various debates are made, the end point to every argument always seems to boil down to whether or not one supports union control. While many opponents have called the legislation “union busting”, it will in no way deter union money and support still going to Democrats. The simple fact is that unions will maintain their influence in the process even if Issue 2 is passed. Yes, collective bargaining would be reformed but not eliminated.
My personal view is that unions are intrinsically anti-free market but that can be left for another debate. We must however decide if it is ultimately better for the entire system or only better for particular public employees. Like it or not, the primary intent of SB 5 is to gain more control over unionized public employee spending because management already has that ability with non-union employees. The Department of Administrative Services estimates that SB 5 will save taxpayers about 1.2 billion dollars over the next fiscal cycle with savings coming from details like the 15% and 10% mandates for employee contributions for health and retirement benefits.
Local, State and Federal governments are broke. If reductions are not made across the board somewhere, then harder choices will need to be made and that translates to layoffs. How will that be good for public employees or taxpayers?
I believe it is highly likely that Issue 2 will be defeated and if that is the case, it will clearly be due to the high numbers of self-proclaimed fiscal conservatives who opposed it. It seems as though many accept the realities of reduced compensation, benefits and jobs in the private sector but fight the same market forces when it threatens unionized public workers. It is understandable that no one wants to pay more but conservatives supporting the status quo in government spending is obvious hypocrisy.
At the end of the day, SB 5 allows local and state agencies to control operating costs and is why I will be voting Yes on Issue 2.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Simple Math Clarifies Misconception
I've been seeing a lot of Facebook friends re-posting a canned comment comparing the pay of our elected federal officials to the military. It concludes by stating this is where the cuts should be made.
After thinking about this, I did some basic math and discovered that by reducing the salaries of the president, house and senate members down to the average military service person's $38,000 per year, it would save us approximately $75 million dollars annually. The federal debt clock reports that we accumulate 3.8 billion in debt every day, therefore cutting these salaries would save a paltry 28 minutes of debt accumulation. At this rate of reduction, it would require 17,520 equal cuts elsewhere to simply negate the annual debt accumulation.
While many Americans would share a common apathy towards politicians, simply lowering their wages would only be symbolic. In the grand scheme of our budgetary and debt crisis, it would essentially make no impact. If nothing else, it demonstrates the incredible financial hole we have dug for ourselves and how much of a behemoth our federal government has become.
True public service jobs such as non-commisioned officers in the military do make a relatively modest wage but this is exactly what makes our military so special. Most are not entering to make money but rather to serve a grander ideal. Some may utilize it for college tuition, some for advancement through the ranks, but it is essentially a sacrifice, hence the term service. Once sacrifice is removed from the equation, then motives can become questionable. This is not to say they aren't worth more pay, but as a true volunteer military, it would likely blur the service aspect of it's intent.
Elected officials are reported to be public servants as well, but most would agree today's reality is anything but that. Pay and benefit perks may provide some degree of comfort for politicians, but the rampant corruption comes from the power they have and power comes primarily from the ability to spend. Due to their experience and influence within the system, most politicians would likely garner higher paying jobs after leaving office than while they're in making it unlikely that lowering their salaries would dramatically impact our budget, debt or political system.
After thinking about this, I did some basic math and discovered that by reducing the salaries of the president, house and senate members down to the average military service person's $38,000 per year, it would save us approximately $75 million dollars annually. The federal debt clock reports that we accumulate 3.8 billion in debt every day, therefore cutting these salaries would save a paltry 28 minutes of debt accumulation. At this rate of reduction, it would require 17,520 equal cuts elsewhere to simply negate the annual debt accumulation.
While many Americans would share a common apathy towards politicians, simply lowering their wages would only be symbolic. In the grand scheme of our budgetary and debt crisis, it would essentially make no impact. If nothing else, it demonstrates the incredible financial hole we have dug for ourselves and how much of a behemoth our federal government has become.
True public service jobs such as non-commisioned officers in the military do make a relatively modest wage but this is exactly what makes our military so special. Most are not entering to make money but rather to serve a grander ideal. Some may utilize it for college tuition, some for advancement through the ranks, but it is essentially a sacrifice, hence the term service. Once sacrifice is removed from the equation, then motives can become questionable. This is not to say they aren't worth more pay, but as a true volunteer military, it would likely blur the service aspect of it's intent.
Elected officials are reported to be public servants as well, but most would agree today's reality is anything but that. Pay and benefit perks may provide some degree of comfort for politicians, but the rampant corruption comes from the power they have and power comes primarily from the ability to spend. Due to their experience and influence within the system, most politicians would likely garner higher paying jobs after leaving office than while they're in making it unlikely that lowering their salaries would dramatically impact our budget, debt or political system.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
SB5 Exposes Fundamental Problems
The Ohio Senate chamber has been packed for multiple days by people wishing to express their opposition to Senate Bill 5 that was proposed by Senator Shannon Jones. The bill could effectively dismantle collective bargaining and binding arbitration for public employees via their unions. I am even personally aware that Governor Kasich and Senator Jones have been advised and are considering private security due to the threats their positions may possibly bring.
Many of my friends and family have expressed their vehement stand against SB5 by attending rallies at the State House or by commenting on social networks like Facebook. Some of these are traditional conservatives who would not typically be involved, but they believe their livelihoods could suffer. The common thread among them is that it must be stopped so public employees can have a reliable future.
Well, I'm not writing this to argue the merits or downfalls of unions, but it has caused me to take a serious look at what is really occurring here. If we cut through all the talking points, it's about protecting their own interest. I do not fault anyone for planning their material existence and future through career choice, wages or retirement, but we must start looking at hard cold realties.
Municiple, State and Federal governments are broke. They spend more than they take in and have grown more than the private sector can support. These facts cannot be disputed. I don't care what someone's political ideologies are at this point; we must make cuts in terms of spending and scope of services. Cuts must be across the board and go from the bottom to the top and some programs may even warrant complete termination. Simple budget cuts however, are not going to solve long term problems. It's time to fundamentally analyze the role of government and what we expect from it.
Whether we chose to admit it or not, we all have become overly dependent on government in many areas. The list is long and includes basic services, entitlements, and education. There is a fine line to walk in regards to balancing the role between what is most needed and what is not, yet the conversation must begin to make some of these sustainable. Something they have not been to date.
My public sector and unionized friends must try to understand, my frustration is not with them or the services they provide but rather how our government and we as taxpayers unconditionally fund them. We all must understand that the largest expenditures are typically in entitlements (primarily Medicare) and retired worker packages.
Since we are focusing on SB5, the purpose of every contract negotiation centers around money. That is wages, salary, benefits, pensions and retirement. Work conditions and productivity expectations are also included but this correlates to money too from a managerial standpoint. If the State is to get a handle on some of its largest expenditures, then it is certainly understandable why we must address costs that are unsustainable.
No matter how rediculous, some would have us believe that this is being driven by a petty dislike of public workers or unions. Let's be serious! The sponsors of SB5 and those who support it are not trying to shaft public workers. In fact, most appreciate the fine services provided by Police Officers, Firemen, and Teachers. We simply cannot accept the continuation of digging a hole of debt for promises that should never have been made from the beginning.
If we examine retirement packages, "30 and out" is attractive but how fiscally realistic is it? With life expectancies into the 80 range, that calculates to 30 years worked and 30 additional years of legacy costs. Adjusted for inflation, that means a worker earns about 60 years worth of wages and benefits in 30 years. That sheds a little light into the mantra overworked and underpaid. Workers must see the big picture. We earn a salary; it typically has periodic increases (at least over 30 years), factor in cost for vacation and paid time off, we receive benefits like health, vision, dental, possible life insurance and disability coverage, and employer provided retirement contributions. At retirement, even with wage adjustments of 90, 80 or 70% of salary, other benefits cost continue to rise and that can make 30 years of retirement benefits cost as much if not more than the 30 years worked.
In January of 2009, a "Troutspout" post proposed that public employees pay more into their benefits packages more in line with private sector trends. This is one of the key provisions that SB5 proposes. It could save far more money than laying off workers. Government administrations however, are attracted to the threat-like tactics of reducing essential services in order to increase revenues through higher taxes or by receiving federal funds which in turn solves nothing.
Public employee costs are only one of many areas that need addressed. It is however a large piece of the pie and justifies examination and possbile cuts. This will understandably be tough and painful for those that it affects (which will be all of us), but isn't that what the private sector has been dealing with for the last few years? No one is immune from bad practice and policy.
Many of my friends and family have expressed their vehement stand against SB5 by attending rallies at the State House or by commenting on social networks like Facebook. Some of these are traditional conservatives who would not typically be involved, but they believe their livelihoods could suffer. The common thread among them is that it must be stopped so public employees can have a reliable future.
Well, I'm not writing this to argue the merits or downfalls of unions, but it has caused me to take a serious look at what is really occurring here. If we cut through all the talking points, it's about protecting their own interest. I do not fault anyone for planning their material existence and future through career choice, wages or retirement, but we must start looking at hard cold realties.
Municiple, State and Federal governments are broke. They spend more than they take in and have grown more than the private sector can support. These facts cannot be disputed. I don't care what someone's political ideologies are at this point; we must make cuts in terms of spending and scope of services. Cuts must be across the board and go from the bottom to the top and some programs may even warrant complete termination. Simple budget cuts however, are not going to solve long term problems. It's time to fundamentally analyze the role of government and what we expect from it.
Whether we chose to admit it or not, we all have become overly dependent on government in many areas. The list is long and includes basic services, entitlements, and education. There is a fine line to walk in regards to balancing the role between what is most needed and what is not, yet the conversation must begin to make some of these sustainable. Something they have not been to date.
My public sector and unionized friends must try to understand, my frustration is not with them or the services they provide but rather how our government and we as taxpayers unconditionally fund them. We all must understand that the largest expenditures are typically in entitlements (primarily Medicare) and retired worker packages.
Since we are focusing on SB5, the purpose of every contract negotiation centers around money. That is wages, salary, benefits, pensions and retirement. Work conditions and productivity expectations are also included but this correlates to money too from a managerial standpoint. If the State is to get a handle on some of its largest expenditures, then it is certainly understandable why we must address costs that are unsustainable.
No matter how rediculous, some would have us believe that this is being driven by a petty dislike of public workers or unions. Let's be serious! The sponsors of SB5 and those who support it are not trying to shaft public workers. In fact, most appreciate the fine services provided by Police Officers, Firemen, and Teachers. We simply cannot accept the continuation of digging a hole of debt for promises that should never have been made from the beginning.
If we examine retirement packages, "30 and out" is attractive but how fiscally realistic is it? With life expectancies into the 80 range, that calculates to 30 years worked and 30 additional years of legacy costs. Adjusted for inflation, that means a worker earns about 60 years worth of wages and benefits in 30 years. That sheds a little light into the mantra overworked and underpaid. Workers must see the big picture. We earn a salary; it typically has periodic increases (at least over 30 years), factor in cost for vacation and paid time off, we receive benefits like health, vision, dental, possible life insurance and disability coverage, and employer provided retirement contributions. At retirement, even with wage adjustments of 90, 80 or 70% of salary, other benefits cost continue to rise and that can make 30 years of retirement benefits cost as much if not more than the 30 years worked.
In January of 2009, a "Troutspout" post proposed that public employees pay more into their benefits packages more in line with private sector trends. This is one of the key provisions that SB5 proposes. It could save far more money than laying off workers. Government administrations however, are attracted to the threat-like tactics of reducing essential services in order to increase revenues through higher taxes or by receiving federal funds which in turn solves nothing.
Public employee costs are only one of many areas that need addressed. It is however a large piece of the pie and justifies examination and possbile cuts. This will understandably be tough and painful for those that it affects (which will be all of us), but isn't that what the private sector has been dealing with for the last few years? No one is immune from bad practice and policy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)