While the frustration with civil servants is certainly understandable, the target of the public's ire is misguided. The problem with going after civil service unions is that they don't really represent anyone who makes big money. When targeting unions that represent teachers and firemen, when attacking their pensions, the gross off the top isn't really worth the taxpayer cost of wasted political session hours. In fact, if the government wants to continue paying wages below average in areas like education and wants to keep cutting benefits for people who are willing to do it, well, can anyone be surprised when we keep falling behind the rest of the world?
Being a civil servant isn’t as glamorous as people have heard. While everyone else was out making their bucks in the dot bombs, were speculating on the housing market, etc. these individuals were working at below average wages with the notion that someday they would have a pension and that they would have decent benefits. They made a deal with their employer when they signed on for their job that these would be the wages they would receive, these were the parameters on which they would receive a raise, and these were the benefits and pensions they would get.
The very fact that they're having to renegotiate these deals shows why the unions are needed in the first place. While some editorial writers argue that civil service has the government over a barrel as the government cannot go out of business when insolvant, so does the civil service worker live over a barrel to the whim of politics. Their wages are cut, their wages grow, someday it comes out in the wash. Unless, of course, they have no means in which to argue for their rights back.
So, say collective bargaining is taken away, what is the worst that can happen? Well, the worst would be that those people in those positions find other, better jobs. Great. New people, lower wages, no problem. Except that there is a law of diminishing returns. While there may be some diamonds in the rough looking for a job or people gung ho enough to always want to run into burning buildings, if government service cannot compete with commercial service for the best and the brightest, what will happen to the service part of civil service?
While there are some jobs that may be menial enough to pay less for, examine government IT departments. The government definitely has unique security needs and needs people who are experienced and savvy. Only, not offering best and brightest pay leaves the employment pool to those who could not find employment elsewhere. Not a great mix for privacy concerns. Or take teachers--remove the livable wage and one is left simply with people who want to work with children. There are good and bad reasons for that motivation.
But even given the very good reasons to offer civil service benefits, the point is, the bloat and waste comes from the top. Blaming a pensioner for the entirety of the deficit is like blaming bank tellers for the financial meltdown and subsequent bailouts. They are simply not in the position to take the budget down and frankly, their wages are small potatoes compared to $117 million in tax breaks the legislature gave to businesses this year. With the entire shortfall being $137 million, the shortfall could've been $20 million.
Conventional wisdom, also known as flawed logic, says that one needs to offer tax breaks to attract businesses to the region. That said, how does the state of Wisconsin anticipate making up that $117 million shortfall? What are the plans, in frank economic terms, to recoup that investment? Is there a five year plan? A ten year plan? How many businesses have agreed to plant their seeds in Wisconsin given those tax terms? And once there, how long do they intend to stay?
For the jobs to be created by these businesses, what percentage of the current Wisconsin population has the skills to take the jobs the new businesses would provide? And what sort of wages might those new employees expect?
For example, Governor Rick Perry brags incessantly about the jobs that he has created in Texas. What he does not say is that most of the jobs are service industry jobs for things like a race track. He doesn’t mention the many toll roads he’s built while regular roads fall into disrepair, nor does he mention the many tech industry jobs that come to Texas from California often also import their own workers to the state, leaving the population about as employed as it ever was.
Before taking a radical action like robbing workers of their right to collectively bargain, people need to hold their political leaders, those who make the real money, accountable for the bad math that put the states in this place. A recession is a recession and has its own unique problems and while raising taxes in a weak economy is problematic, lowering taxes without any means to fund the reduction is irrational.