Lawmakers Pass Wage Freeze For Non-Union State Employees
Excellent! But there’s a problem.
Thousands of state employees and University of Wisconsin faculty and staff members won’t see any salary increases until July 2011, under budget-cutting action that legislative leaders took Wednesday.
The Legislature’s Joint Committee on Employment Relations unanimously voted to rescind a 2% pay increase that was to take effect in June. The action is final; the full Legislature will not take up the matter.
Here’s the problem.
The wage freeze, expected to save about $33 million over the two-year budget, affects about 7,000 state employees not represented by unions - including all constitutional officers, Supreme Court justices, judges and lawmakers - and 19,500 faculty, academic staff members and senior executives in the UW System.
I’m glad that they did it, but without getting the union employees to concede something, it’s not nearly enough to cover our massive budget deficit. It is, however, a step in the right direction.
I don’t revel in anyone being put under a pay freeze. But many people in the private sector have suffered the same or worse. In this age of “shared sacrifice,” it’s nice to see a tiny bit of sharing.
Hello Owen!
It’s been awhile since I’ve commented at this weblog; things change very fast, including in cyberspace, but I’m glad that your weblog is still up-and-running, and with the same design and formatting!
I know that Sean Hackbarth is from Wisconsin, and just did a web search, regarding him, and Rep. Leah Vukmir - to whom I am writing an e-mail, and BCC’ing him. I will BCC you on it as well; I apologize for how long the letter is, but it pertains to something that is coming up very soon, and which could help the Badger State - during the next two years.
Please let me know if you can help. Thanks so much, and keep up the great work!!
Posted by Aakash on May 27, 2009 at 2349 hrs
The rest of us are taking pay freezes and cuts in part because of the governments inability to sate its’ voracious appetite for tax money. Government needs to share that “love”.
Posted by Steve on May 28, 2009 at 0450 hrs
The unions don’t have to share pain unless they drive their company right out of business. That is a huge task for the Government unions, but they are working on it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 28, 2009 at 0815 hrs
but without getting the union employees to concede something, it’s not nearly enough to cover our massive budget deficit.
Are you of the opinion that adding union employees would have covered the deficit? Or am I reading an inference into that statement you don’t intend to make?
You should also note that all state employees, union or no, are being furloughed and are all in danger of being a part of the 1,1000 lay offs.
Yes, their pain is different, but it would be incorrect to assume they aren’t sharing the pain.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 28, 2009 at 0939 hrs
This is just a start. The state is working with the unions to freeze those raises as well. This could be done unilaterally for nonunion workers very quickly, but because of collective bargaining it will take longer for other employees. Be patient and expect more to be frozen.
Plus, union workers are being furloughed and layed off.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 28, 2009 at 1015 hrs
Fine lefty, they got their toes wet in pain. But there is this:
The Legislature’s Joint Committee on Employment Relations unanimously voted to rescind a 2% pay increase that was to take effect in June. The action is final; the full Legislature will not take up the matter.
The Government makes the law concerning unions. There would have been nothing illegal about extending the pay freeze to them. At least, nothing that was less legal than giving unions preferrence in the Chrysler bankruptcy. They did not give them the pay freeze solely because the union is a large part of the liberal money and powerbase. Playing that kind of favortism can be waved away as the price of politics in the US when the economy is booming, but right now there is no place for it.
It reeks, and is the type of discrimination that is way worse than the discrimination liberals are always accusing every white male of. There is no defense, no recourse. The Government owns the law enforcement establishments in addition to the National guard and Army. The Government will favor who it wants at the expense of anybody it wants regardless of laws in place. That is not America. Being in the Soviet Union was fine if you were a member of the politburo, not so great anywhere else. With the possible nationalizing of the auto industry, a primary goal of which is to keep their workers working, the parallels are beginning mount.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 28, 2009 at 1015 hrs
I listened to a conversation between a laid off worker and a government employee. The government employee was lamenting over not getting her 2% wage increase this year. The tone in her voice was disgusting the way she considers her self being shafted. By the way you still have a job and you are not entitled to a raise.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 28, 2009 at 1249 hrs
#6
The government can not just take away the pay raises that the union got through collective-bargaining.
Period.
Posted by Gregory on May 28, 2009 at 1342 hrs
Minnesota did it a little different, the “two years, no raise” was agreed upon by unions whose contracts were up and state very quickly. Once one union agreed the others fell in line. This avoided furloughs however layoffs are unknown until a final state budget is approved.
My thought has always been that the state should first ask employees who would be willing to take a one month wo/pay furlough? They might get enough volunteers to help out to a point.
I have absolutely nothing against the two years with no increase, but think there could have been some communication with the unions prior to the proclamation and would have avoided potential problems. Two years at the same pay rate is better then no job, I think all but a few understand that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 28, 2009 at 1442 hrs
Gregory,
They can’t just take away secured investor money and give it to union workers from a bankruptcy proceeding either and yet…(three periods)Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 28, 2009 at 1446 hrs
Tuerqas- MATC union employees voluntarily took a wage freeze. Look to others to follow. This is not something that can just be done overnight, at least not without the state breaking contract law, but that is more expensive in the long run.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 28, 2009 at 1521 hrs
John,
It would certainly thaw my opinion of unions in general.
When will the athlete’s unions and actors guild take their pay decreases?Yes, you can say that they are simply being paid what the market will bear, but the for every two steps forward the athletes pay and benefits increase, the union has prevented the step back. The more money any single union or coalition of unions has the more powerfully they defend their (and their member’s) interests and the more self evident it is that the union is no longer needed.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 28, 2009 at 1547 hrs
The more money any single union or coalition of unions has the more powerfully they defend their (and their member’s) interests and the more self evident it is that the union is no longer needed.
Tuerqas (i got it right!)-
I’m good with that statement until the last phrase about the self-evident needlessness of the union. Rather, as a member of a very successful, even powerful union, I know that my organization travels with a target on its back. As any big kid on the block can tell you, that’s when you have to work the hardest to protect yourself.I know what you’re saying (I think). That as a union, a powerful, successful union, the job of looking out for its members has been done. Continuing to do more, especially in a time of economic hardship for others, borders on tyranny, gluttony, greed.
My sense is that as long as there is a threat to the wages and working conditions of its members, a union’s purpose remains.
Posted by Mike on May 29, 2009 at 1007 hrs
Mike,
I do so appreciate when I can come to a complete understanding with a person on the other side of a fence. You pretty much nailed how I feel. Generally, policy disagreements are a matter of degree(drawing a line, if you will), but so many people on either side of any issue will not even admit that. ‘I am right, you are wrong.’My sense is that as long as there is a threat to the wages and working conditions of its members, a union’s purpose remains.
I believe I know where you stand here too. We just disagree with what constitutes ‘threat’. If the athlete’s unions were disbanded, would athletes ‘suffer’? If all unions just did not concern themselves with every triviality, I could stand beside them, if not behind them.
The athlete’s union should have no say in whether drug testing is done(unless it is to make sure they happen). There are rules to play the game and make millions of dollars, don’t break’em. They should have nothing to do with something like that. Worst of all, because it is for the players own good. Do you think Joe baseball fan cares if A-rod is doing drugs? No, he wants to see more home runs. Yet the union is blocking testing…
The UAW has no rights in a bankruptcy proceeding whether they had anything to do with the failure of the company or not. A union is for workers, not unemployed people. At some point the people whose money it is, the owners, the investors, have a right to what is left of their money.
No public sector job should have a union to negotiate with itself. They should have an advocacy dept in the Government whose job it is to negotiate perhaps, but we do not need the entire organizations of ‘bureaucrats’ that all union agents of Government jobs are, as everyone of them has been paid by the Government, and they are being paid by the Government as the first thing they have to fight for is enough of an increase in pay to justify their fees to the workers.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 29, 2009 at 1039 hrs
Mike,
What do you think of a union that happily sacrifices its younger/newer members’ jobs so that its veteran members/leadership don’t have to take a pay cut?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 29, 2009 at 1941 hrs
ATV-
I don’t know of a union that happily sacrifices jobs of any kind.Posted by Mike on May 29, 2009 at 2316 hrs
So Mike, taking the tongue out of the cheek, what do you think of a union that chooses to sacrifice its younger/newer members’ jobs so that it’s veteran members/leadership does not have to take a pay cut? Isn’t that directly counter-intuitive to what a union should do? In theory, it should only choose that option if the pay cuts are to the extent that the veterans cannot live on the new wage.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 03, 2009 at 0720 hrs
Total Entries: 20000
Total Comments: 134041
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 06:26 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 07:25 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 116
Total anonymous users: 2
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 07:35 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).