Basically, Everyone Hates Public Sector Workers Now

The Business Insider ^ | 6-7-2010 | Joe Weisenthal

[blam]

Basically, Everyone Hates Public Sector Workers Now

Joe Weisenthal
Jun. 7, 2010, 7:45 AM

NJ Governor Chris Chrisite giving a schoolteacher what-forImage: YouTube

There's no question that stories about the pay of public sector workers (especially the unionized ones) resonate intensely with folks.

During a time when everyone's talking about austerity, and state and city governments face widespread solvency concerns, it's a great time to take pot shots at those who work for the government.

And as POLITICO notes, everyone's taking part in the sport:

Republicans around the nation have cheered New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, whose shouting match over budget cuts with an outraged teacher—“You don’t have to” teach, he told her without sympathy—became a YouTube sensation on the right last week.

And even Democrats, like the nominee for governor in New York, Andrew Cuomo, have echoed the attacks on unions.

Christie is merely the most florid voice for a calculated, national effort to fundamentally reshape the debate on the labor costs that account for the bulk of government spending at every level. And at the core of the shift is a perception among many political leaders that public anger at civil servants is boiling over.

“We have a new privileged class in America,” said Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, who rescinded state workers' collective bargaining power on his first day in office in 2006. “We used to think of government workers as underpaid public servants. Now they are better paid than the people who pay their salaries.”

The big problem is the perceived lack of equality in sharing the pain. Private sector workers have seen layoffs and big paycuts. That's happened a bit in the public sector, but it's been far less visible, and the fact that the public sector is more unionized

[snip]

[billorites]

Christie's outstanding. He appears fearless.

We'll see if folks in NJ deserve such leadership.

[Psycho_Bunny]

Unions are the barbarian hordes of our time.

[AtlasStalled]

“Everyone Hates Public Sector Workers Now”

Now? No, I always have.

[Wonder Warthog]

Actually, as a matter of policy, people who work for government SHOULD be paid less than for equivalent work in the private sector. I would make it a blanket 5%. Unions, no unions, no matter.

[ZULU]

Christie is a good governor for New Jersey - sort of.

He has taken on the NJEA and the PBA, the FOP nd the CWA = and that’s good.

But Christie is anti-Second Amendment and pro-illegal aliens.

New Jersey Republicans are generally a strange breed, impactred overmuch by the New York and Philadelphia political areas.

[IamConservative]

Unions had a place at one time, but no more.

I can’t fathom to this day why a municipality or state would ever give public servants collective bargaining rights. Perhaps Christie could have said it more delicately, but if you don’t want to serve, get out..

[DGHoodini]

I disagree. I think most union members are decent hard working people, who, aren’t going to turn down a better financial packet, but don’t expecty to get more than they rightfully deserve.

It’s the Union DemoMobster “Leaders” and their enforcers that need to be hacked to pieces.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”“We have a new privileged class in America,” said Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, who rescinded state workers’ collective bargaining power on his first day in office in 2006. “We used to think of government workers as underpaid public servants. Now they are better paid than the people who pay their salaries.” The big problem is the perceived lack of equality in sharing the pain. Private sector workers have seen layoffs and big paycuts. That's happened a bit in the public sector, but it's been far less visible, and the fact that the public sector is more unionized “

We wouldn't even be having this discussion on public sector unions if McCain had won, he'd be getting all the blame for the economy and debt while working with democrats(even worse than with Bush probably) to increase government . Having democrats in charge of everything gives a focus against socialism for the first time in 16 years (1994.)

[Ronin]

Bingo. I don’t hate unions because, from what I can see, they were needed at one time and did good work.

The problem with organizations like unions is that they never EVER reach the point where they are willing to say, well, we got everything we wanted, let’s close this thing down and go home.

Nope, somehow they continue to grow, hire paid staff, which somehow manages to recruit more paid staff, buy buildings, vote pay raises for the paid staff, etc.

In order to keep this sweet racket going they CONSTANTLY have to look for and find MORE grievances to agitate against or the chumps that pay the union dues will get wise and send them packing.

[Uncle Chip]

Unions are the barbarian hordes of our time.

And the unionized tenurized public sector employees at all levels are the privileged untouchable aristocracy who rule with them over us. When will we wake up????

[GOPJ]

Having democrats in charge of everything gives a focus against socialism for the first time in 16 years (1994.)

It'll also strengthen our resolve to make necessary changes when we retake power.

[Thurston_Howell_III]

Exactly. My mother was in a union for 30 years, she received the union newsletter once a month which always told her who she should be voting for in the local, state and federal elections.

[Rome2000]

The union bosses yes, the workers only if necessary

[dfwgator]

people who work for government SHOULD be paid less than for equivalent work in the private sect

Then you'll get what you pay for.

I would rather pay somebody who knows how to run a lean organization a lot of money if it winds up saving money in the end.

[kittymyrib]

Union members are the biggest pigs at the trough, and expect the amount of slop to magically increase every year just because the union signed a contract. With BO, a union shill in office, they can be assured that the dwindling number of U.S. taxpayers will foot the bill.

[Vigilanteman]

Correct. The security of a public sector job versus a private sector job is worth at least a 5% reduction in pay when comparing equivalents. And that's before you even start comparing benefit packages.

I'm a professional economist and can tell you that equilibrium would be reached only when the qualified candidates to openings ratio begins to even out between public and private sector employees.

Right now, it isn't even close.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Then you'll get what you pay for. I would rather pay somebody who knows how to run a lean organization a lot of money if it winds up saving money in the end."

The purpose of government is not to save money. There is nothing more dangerous than "competent government"....see Nazi Germany. I have yet to see even ONE bureaucrat actually interested in "saving money".

[dools007]

I agree. Voters were acting like drug addicts who hadn’t hit bottom and therefore felt no sense of urgency toward fixing themselves.

The Usurper and his band of angry commies have unmasked themselves and are showing us the dismally broken world they have planned for us all.

[pgkdan]

**********If things don’t snapback soon, it feels as though the dam is about to break on this, and that in states like New Jersey, Illinois, California, New York, and others, the backlash against public sector workers — whether fair or not — is about to bite.****************

__________________________________________________

Whether things improve or not this has GOT to stop. Fox ran a report this weekend that basically concluded that if public sector salaries and benefits were reigned into parity with the private sector the savings to munis, states and the feds would be tens of billions of dollares. Enough to make up the deficits most states are facing.