A University of California Berkeley policy brief (pdf) released last month reveals that public employees in California are neither overpaid nor overcompensated for their jobs.
A Cal press release summarizes the brief.
The key findings of their report, which is available online, include:
- California's state and local government employees are paid 7 percent less than their private sector counterparts, but when benefits are included, total compensation between the two sectors is similar.
- Public sector workers, on average, are more educated: Of full-time workers in California, 55 percent hold at least a four-year college degree in the public sector, compared to 35 percent in the private sector.
- Private sector workers earn 70 percent of their total compensation in wages and 30 percent in benefits such as vacation, retirement benefits and health insurance, while public sector employees' corresponding percentages are 64.3 and 35.7.
- State and local government workers are more experienced: The median age of state and local government workers is 44, compared to 40 in the private sector.
- Public sector workers in California average more hours on the job each year than private sector employees.
- Retirement benefits account for 8.2 percent of public employee compensation and 3.6 percent of private sector compensation, while public workers earn considerably less supplemental pay and vacation time, and their employers contribute much less to legally-mandated benefits.
Claims about overcompensation, in particular public employee pensions, flew thick and fast during the last election. Governor-elect Jerry Brown ran on his record of vetoing public employee raises and advocating for an inherently unfair two-tier retirement system with reduced benefits packages for state workers hired after a cutoff date, as is the case with many local jurisdictions; the governor-elect indicated he's open to cutting public employee retirement benefits during the campaign as well.
The Los Angeles Times, citing two researchers at the New America Foundation, wrote, "In the public realm, generous pensions and retiree health benefits have triggered a crisis as elected leaders try to square expensive promises with the realities of diminished revenues and investment losses. In California, commitments to retired state workers are crowding out crucial investments in education, health and infrastructure." I've read comments on this blog making similar claims.
As the Berkeley brief amply demonstrates, public employee benefits including health care and pensions are a form of deferred compensation; public employees accept lower compensation in the form of salary than their private sector counterparts in exchange for a better health care and a more secured retirement. This is one of the incentives used to attract quality candidates to public jobs, and judging from the comparative qualifications reflected in the Cal brief, it works. Proposals to cut public employee benefits without increasing salary compensation makes public jobs inferior to private jobs.
This, of course, is the primary objective of conservatives and neoliberals, to devalue the contributions of public employees to the economy and discredit public employee unions in the same way they've attacked private unions for years, by claiming that the benefits union employees receive are budget-busting and growth-stifling. Public employee benefits are the boogeyman summoned by politicians and pundits from both major parties to frighten voters into attacking collective bargaining and negotiated employee contracts.
Public employees should not be required to bear the brunt of California's budget crisis balancing act, and Democrats have no business being union-busters.