How does Collective Bargaining and Tenure/Seniority support our common goal of We want an "Excellent" State to live in for a "Reasonable" Cost?
Collective Bargaining (CB) supports the goal in the following ways:
- CB helps to ensure that total compensation (ie wages & benefits) for MN Public sector positions is higher than that in neighboring States, and competitive with Private sector positions. This encourages highly qualified employees to move to MN to apply for these positions. Therefore enabling the quality of Public services to be higher than neighboring states, which improves the Quality of life in MN well beyond the small investment.
- CB and the resulting contracts are critical to maintaining a multi-year vision and attaining the goals that are aligned with it. The political atmosphere is too volatile from year to year, and the goals change arbitrarily depending on who is lobbying for what. Without the CB and contracts, stability would suffer and the State would waste far more money transitioning from one whim to the next.
- By raising the MN Public workers CB slightly, it helps to ensure the Private sector wages are somewhat better than neighboring states. Therefore MN attracts better employees and companies, which improves our ability to compete and our tax base. Which allows for great Public and Private hobbies, education, entertainment, etc. Which draws more great people and companies.
- T/S is critical to ensure Professionals are able to stand up to their penny pinching, fickle and inexperienced Managers. Without this the Public would be put at risk because bad decisions would be made in the name of saving a few bucks or because of some hair brained flavor of the week idea. This could damage our quality of life .
- Years of experience and education are the the best indicators of an employee's knowledge, capability, etc. Without T/S the Management would fire these more experienced and educated employees in order to meet their budgets. Losing these incredibly capable employees would damage many aspects of MN.
- Without T/S, many highly qualified Teachers and other Professionals would change jobs too often and this would cause discontinuity and excessive replacement/training costs within the School District or Agencies. With T/S, these employees stay in their jobs even when the going gets tough. (ie demographic shifts, funding cuts, etc)
So did I do okay? What would you add to the list?
5 comments:
The only thing I would add is that you seem to have the union mindset pretty well pegged, meaning you have completely lost touch with all reality!
Let me take just one example, the notion that without seniority, government employees would frequently leave for better positions and thus we would incur huge "training costs." Private employers constantly adjust their wages so that they retain the most valuable employees (individually) and, overall, pay wages that keep turnover below the retraining and disruptive costs. By treating every union employee as an equal cog in the employment machine, performance doesn't get rewarded (so you get less of it) and therefore we never get to balance retraining against increased wage costs. The result is the loss of good teachers (my prime concern) and allowing poor teachers to stay at vastly inflated salaries.
Nice try, but perhaps no one would comment because your premise is simply preposterous on its face?
J. Ewing
First... some whining... My first attempt at replying went poof, hopefully this attempt goes faster and better.
A reminder: I believe in assuming the other party is honest and acting with good intent when trying to understand opinions and beliefs that conflict with my own. There is always a real chance that I have a blind spot that is keeping me from true understanding and wisdom. If my cup is full because I think I know it all, how would I learn anything new. With this in mind, here are some thoughts.
A key question in this discussion is whether concepts that work excellently in the Private sector will work as well in the Public sector?
In the Private sector, Businesses, Managers and Owners get to decide which markets they want to participate in. Therefore they can choose to serve one customer group and ignore another. They can set visions and 5 year plans which provide stability, and enable effective decisions and actions. Also, profitability is the key driver and measureable for all activities. Therefore Managers are highly motivated to reward high performing employees, even if they are expensive and somewhat frustrating at times.
In the Public sector, they have to address the needs of all customers that come to them. (whether they want to or not...) The vision and plan for the Organization can change with every election. And your upper level ever changing Managers have agendas that are completely opposite of one another. Finally, they have no consistent over riding goal to drive their decisions to consistency because Liberals & Conservatives see success totally differently.
Therefore it is likely that Public Managers and Administrators may not be as motivated to reward or keep high performing employees, even if they are expensive and somewhat frustrating at times. They may be tempted to fire the good heads so they have more heads to deal with the multitude of challenges from the multitude of customers and their unique needs that they feel MUST BE ADDRESSED... Or to meet that latest budget hachet job that occurred when the Conservatives got in.
If this is correct, then C/B, contracts and T/S serve a very valid purpose. They slow the whipsaw effect and waste that would occur if the Political changes could occur instantaneously.
To bad us citizens can not come to an agreement what an Excellent State/Country looks like. Then we could work steadily towards that Vision/Mission. Instead of zig zagging, starting stopping, back forth, etc.
China has this in place... But I don't think that would float over here too well.
I'm sorry, but I just have to disagree with your fundamental premise that public employees are trying to serve "customers." I will grant that many of them are honest, fine and even highly competent individuals, but the minute they accept a government job (in most cases), and especially if it is unionized, they become one interchangeable cog in the bureaucracy whose principle mission is to survive and grow based on its good intentions and NOT on its actual performance against its stated goals. They get paid the same whether they satisfy their "customers" or not, and get paid more if they stay long enough. Of course, the "board of directors"-- the taxpayers-- is never considered in setting the objectives, since the object is to spend the taxpayer's money as quickly and easily as possible. It's simply the nature of "the system" that this is so, and has nothing to do with the good people in it.
Just to be clear, I would happily pay teachers more than they were now making if they were in a system where they were individually rewarded for top-notch results rather than longevity.
J. Ewing
Same old problem...
My generation and those before me created our current Government and Society. We have the power to dismantle and change it whenever we want. We just need enough like minded indivduals with a common vision to make this happen.
If 1 in 5 people work for the Government in some way. That means a vast majority do not. Now what is the vast majority willing to give up to make a change? (ie more tax dollars, "essential" services, social security checks, short wait times, etc)
As for focus on serving the customers, most Public servants I know are incredibly focused on serving the customer that is right in front of them.
Teachers focus on the needs of Students and Parents.
Police focus on accident victims, criminals, etc.
Firepersons show up and care for those in need.
Service center employees help me in a professional manner everytime I need tabs, passports, etc.
School Board members spend hours listening to the concerns of many stakeholders.
City personnel help me with permits.
DOT personnel are out there working hard to keep my streets passable and safe.
Both sides of the Wisc legislators are trying to meet the demands of their constituents as they see them.
I think the Public sector is very focused on satisfying the customer in general. Maybe to a fault since they have a hard time saying no to anything.
"Now what is the vast majority willing to give up to make a change?"
I'm willing to give up being overtaxed to provide inferior government services. No, really. Government unions could be prohibited today and, other than the unlawful riots and thuggery that would follow, there would be no change visible to the remaining 90% of us.
As for the rest, yes, as I have already acknowledged, the vast majority of "public servants" are altruistic and competent. If they were not represented by a union they would be as much or more so. As it is, one always has to wonder whether they have earned their pay or if it is the result of some corrupt union (to the degree that's not redundant) practice. Just think, if the WI teachers didn't belong to a union, the salary of their union head-- $480,000-- would pay for six more teachers, who would actually teach!
J. Ewing
Post a Comment