Posted on 09/03/2006 10:39:52 PM PDT by freedomdefender
FOR years it has been a workplace truism: jobs with fat paychecks are found in the private sector, while jobs with ho-hum pay but rock-solid benefits are found with the government. But research by the Employee Benefit Research Institute suggests that the truism has not been true for some time.
As of June 2005, overall compensation costs were 46 percent higher for state and local governments than for private-sector employers, according to the institute’s research analyst, Ken McDonnell.
And when Mr. McDonnell separated the cost of providing current pay from the cost of providing benefits, he found that government employees were doing better on both counts. An hour’s worth of their work cost governments $24.17 in wages and salaries, plus $11.29 in benefits. An hour’s worth of work in the private sector cost employers $17.21 for wages and salaries, plus $7.03 for benefits.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
bttt
With the inroads the unions have made in the public sector, is it any surprise? No wonder SEIU members work so hard to elect democRATs.
Your excerpt left out some rather key points. The private sector includes a lot of low level service jobs. The public sector employs a lot of teachers and other professionals. Therefore, much of the gap is merely reflective of a difference in skills.
That is not to say that pension and benefits are not out of line for public employees, but posting just the quotes you included is selective reporting to deceptively bolster your own agenda - exactly what we accuse the mainstream media of doing.
NYT excerpt?
yeah, this is because the government doesn't pay their employees according to what the economy is doing. Anyone notice the senators taking a pay cut when the rest of america was???Anyone notice politicians losing their pensions or health coverage??
Your excerpt left out some rather key points. The private sector includes a lot of low level service jobs. The public sector employs a lot of teachers.
Actually, the private sector also includes teachers - and private school teachers are paid less. In fact, look at private sector jobs in "professional" or "office" fields and you'll find government workers paid as much or more - and definitely getting better pensions. This article was biased in suggesting that the difference is because of a difference in types of jobs. In fact, if you look at the same jobs in private and public sectors, you'll see gov't workers making out better. NYTimes doesn't tell you that, but it's true.
Yes, you have to excerpt the NYT - But nothing precludes you from paraphrasing what is in this case a very key point. The excerpt implies that the two populations are comparable in skills, when they are not.
What I like about the public sector is that the unions can legally bribe those with whom they will negotiate their salaries by making campaign contributions. Is this a great country or what?
You're right. Gov't employees are usually less qualified than employees in comparable jobs in the private sector - but gov't employees are still paid as much or more, and get better benefits THAN PRIVATE EMPLOYEES IN THE SAME JOBS (IN PRIVATE SECTOR). So public school teachers make more than private school teachers, to give a good example.
I disagree...today technical jobs in the Fed Gov are still running behind industry in terms of salary and benefits and the current pension is defined contribution, just like the vast majority of the private sector pensions.
Personally I think the "private sector does it better" :)
If true, that's a rarity. Most government workers have old-fashioned defined benefit pensions. Many of them kick in at age 55.
Here's a little experiment for you:
Go to salary.com, and find the salary wizard.
Pick a city with a comparable cost of living to Washington DC (where the vast majority of employees work for the government) - say, Chicago.
Now pick a generic professional job, like "Accountant" - select the same level, like "Accountant IV" and see what the pay difference is between the two cities.
You will find that, for that example, the private sector employee in Chicago earns $72,000, and the public sector employee in Washington earns $71,000. Both have 401K style retirement plans. The public employee may have a slightly better medical plan, at a slightly lower price. The private sector employee has far better bonus potential.
Of course, this article does not attempt to make this kind of comparison - instead, they are comparing the government accountant with fast food workers and Walmart greeters.
Pretty good experiment. Hats off!
First, you're only talking about federal government employees. You don't mention state and locals - who almost all have traditional pensions (that they can access starting at 55 in many cases), as opposed to the 401-ks that most taxpayers (who pay their salaries) have to make do with. Second, I think you're wrong that even federal employees have defined contribution plans - but I know that state and locals don't. The cops and firefighters and even bus drivers in my town are much higher compensated than average private-sector employees and ALL have old-fashioned pensions (including medical benefits), while very few private sector taxpayers have such pensions.
You work for the government, don't you?
its a rare private employee who can still retire and get half or three-quarters of his salary plus get medical insurance at age 55.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.