Perhaps you read the recent USA Today Article that cites the latest BLS statistics on growth of public sector benefits in the wake of slowing private sector pay gains. Apparently, the gap in total compensation (pay plus benefits) has grown since 2007 with public sector at $39.25 /hr and the private sector average at $27.35 / hour.
No doubt my colleagues in the public sector will scoff at these statistics. Why? Because a shortage of local government managers exists nationwide due to the fact that people with college and graduate degrees do not exactly flock to a career in government. Surely these numbers do not reflect the market operating at optimum levels. What do they reflect then?
In fact, a severe shortage of municipal managers looms as far as one can see in the horizon. Even so, pay setting in government rarely reflects best practices, and for that reason, starting pay rates remain depressed in many places. Rather than increase manager pay, elected officials often look for candidates who may not come from public administration schools, but would like to try their hand at local government. Despite the overarching growth of professional models of management in government, many elected officials are still convinced that the guy who owned a few businesses, and is willing to come out of retirement to run the municipality, is still the best choice.
However, these statistics do point to some glaring differences between the public and the private sector, particularly in the area of employee benefits. One difference that might be interesting to examine is the difference in levels of unionization and labor laws, particularly the right of public sector employees to mandatory arbitration provisions. Look out private sector, this is coming your way if the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) swings into gear, and all indicators point to that eventuality. Check out Michael Moore’s post at Pennsylvania Labor and Employment Blog here.
BLS states that labor costs account for half of state and local spending, and benefits consume 34% of those costs. We are at a cross-road in this country because the only area of employment that is realizing a decrease in benefit costs, is the non-unionized sector. Since we all think benefits are important, should we encourage unions? Or, do we prefer to mandate that employers provide some standard of benefits, thereby decreasing the importance of unions? Or, maybe we think the government should take it out of the hands of the unions and employers altogether.
Regardless of how we work out this conundrum, let it be said that if public sector manager jobs are still not lucrative enough for there to be an excess of qualified candidates in the labor market, then they are probably not over-paid. And if managers could negotiate with their unions, without facing unabashedly pro-labor laws in most states, the benefit gap would be substantially smaller. However, who will blame the public sector employee for unionizing when benefits are at stake? What safety net exists for them? We have to work this out, together, public and private, union and non-union. These statistics are thought provoking, but not instructive with respect to the way forward.
Twitter