Federal Payroll Looking Up

[RanchHQ]

Public-sector Unions Bleed Taxpayers to Help Dems

Obama's Democrats have used the financial crisis to expand the public sector and the public-sector unions. But voters seem to be saying, "Enough."

by Michael Barone
Growing up in Michigan in the heyday of the United Auto Workers, I long assumed that labor unions were part of the natural order of things.
That's no longer clear. Last month, the Labor Department reported that private-sector unions lost 834,000 members last year and now represent only 7.2 percent of private-sector employees. That's down from the all-time peak of 36 percent in 1953-54.

But union membership is still growing in the public sector. Last year, 37.4 percent of public sector employees were union members. That percentage was down near zero in the 1950s. For the first time in history, a majority of union members are government employees.

In my view, the outlook for both private- and public-sector unionism is problematic.

Private-sector unionism is adversarial. Economic studies show that such unions do extract premium wages and benefits from employers. But that puts employers at a competitive disadvantage. Back in the 1950s, the Big Three auto companies dominated the industry and were at the top of the Fortune 500. Last year, General Motors and Chrysler went bankrupt and are now owned by the government and the UAW. Ford only barely escaped.

Adversarial unionism tends to produce rigid work rules that retard adaptation and innovation. We have had a three-decade experiment pitting UAW work rules against the flexible management of Japanese- and European-owned non-union auto firms.

The results are in. Yes, clueless management at the Detroit firms for years ignored problems with product quality and made bonehead investment mistakes. But adversarial unionism made it much, much harder for Detroit to produce high-quality vehicles than it was for non-unionized companies.
As economist Barry Hirsch points out, non-union manufacturing employment rose from 12 million to 14 million between 1973 and 2006. In those years, union manufacturing employment dropped from 8 million to 2 million. "Unionism," Hirsch writes, "is a poor fit in a dynamic, competitive economy."

Moreover, federal laws passed since the 1950s now protect workers from racial and sex discrimination, safety hazards and pension failure. They don't need unions to do this any more.

Public-sector unionism is a very different animal from private-sector unionism. It is not adversarial but collusive. Public-sector unions strive to elect their management, which in turn can extract money from taxpayers to increase wages and benefits -- and can promise pensions that future taxpayers will have to fund.

The results are plain to see. States like New York, New Jersey and California, where public-sector unions are strong, now face enormous budget deficits and pension liabilities. In such states, the public sector has become a parasite sucking the life out of the private-sector economy. Not surprisingly, Americans have been steadily migrating out of such states and into states like Texas, where public-sector unions are weak and taxes are much lower.

Barack Obama is probably the most union-friendly president since Lyndon Johnson. He has obviously been unable to stop the decline of private-sector unionism. But he is doing his best to increase the power -- and dues income -- of public-sector unions.

One-third of last year's $787 billion stimulus package was aid to state and local governments -- an obvious attempt to bolster public-sector unions. And it was a successful one: While the private sector has lost 7 million jobs, the number of public-sector jobs has risen. The number of federal government jobs has been increasing by 10,000 a month, and the percentage of federal employees earning over $100,000 has jumped to 19 percent during the recession.

Obama and his party are acting in collusion with unions that contributed something like $400,000,000 to Democrats in the 2008 campaign cycle. Public-sector unionism tends to be a self-perpetuating machine that extracts money from taxpayers and then puts it on a conveyor belt to the Democratic Party.

But it may not turn out to be a perpetual-motion machine. Public-sector employees are still heavily outnumbered by those who depend on the private sector for their livelihoods. The next Congress may not be as willing as this one has been to bail out state governments dominated by public-sector unions. Voters may bridle at the higher taxes needed to pay for $100,000-plus pensions for public employees who retire in their 50s. Or they may move, as so many have already done, to states like Texas.

Obama's Democrats have used the financial crisis to expand the public sector and the public-sector unions. But voters seem to be saying, "Enough."

SOURCE: Michael Barone : Public-sector Unions Bleed Taxpayers to Help Dems - Townhall.com

[RanchHQ]

The Trouble With Government Jobs
Posted by: Michael Medved at 3:31 PM

President Obama backs government programs to create new jobs, but how will he pay those new salaries?

Ultimately, the only source for this money will be more tax burdens imposed on those who work in the private sector. Government jobs never pay for themselves, since it’s not government’s purpose to make a profit or to break even, so taxes from the shrinking private economy must support the swelling public economy.

Since the beginning of the recession in 2008, the federal work force has already expanded by nearly 10 percent, while private sector jobs went down by more than 6 percent. In other words, fewer people are employed privately, but are forced to pay for more and more people who are employed publicly. This means more government expenses but less potential revenue, and less productive private sector activity—a surefire formula for national bankruptcy.

[RanchHQ]

FROM: GM Chief Gets $9 Million Pay Package - WSJ.com


FEBRUARY 19, 2010, 6:29 P.M. ET
GM Chief Gets $9 Million Pay Package

BY SHARON TERLEP

General Motors Co. Chief Executive Ed Whitacre will receive a pay package valued at $9 million to help turn around the government-owned auto maker, according to a regulatory filing.

Mr. Whitacre, according to the filing, will receive a $1.7 million base salary this year. The rest of his compensation is comprised of $5.3 million in stock available to him beginning in 2012 and restricted stock units valued currently at $2 million.

General Motors stock closed at $0.59 today.

[RanchHQ]

USA Today: Average federal employee makes $38,000+ more than private sector worker

By: Mark Hemingway
Commentary Staff Writer
03/05/10 1:25 PM EST

USA Today has been doing some excellent anaysis on the federal workforce. But the headline "Federal pay ahead of private industry" really understates things:

Federal employees earn higher average salaries than private-sector workers in more than eight out of 10 occupations, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data finds.

Accountants, nurses, chemists, surveyors, cooks, clerks and janitors are among the wide range of jobs that get paid more on average in the federal government than in the private sector.

Overall, federal workers earned an average salary of $67,691 in 2008 for occupations that exist both in government and the private sector, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The average pay for the same mix of jobs in the private sector was $60,046 in 2008, the most recent data available.

But that's just part of the picture. Throw in benefits and you see a huge gap between federal and private pay:

These salary figures do not include the value of health, pension and other benefits, which averaged $40,785 per federal employee in 2008 vs. $9,882 per private worker, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Throw in benefits, and the average federal worker makes $38,000+ more than the average private sector worker -- the very same one who's ultimately paying his salary.

In December, USA Today was also responsible for reporting "federal employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped from 14% to 19% of civil servants during the recession's first 18 months."

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/USA-Today-Average-federal-employee-makes-38000-more-than-private-sector-worker-86633182.html#ixzz0hRFf0X6p

[Luke]

The top 3 richest counties in America are all in the Washington, D.C. suburbs. Go figure.

1. County: Loudoun County, Va.

Population: 277,433
Median Household Income: $110,643.00
Percent of Residents 25 or Older with Bachelor's Degree or Higher: 58

2. County: Fairfax County, Va.

Population: 1,005,980
Median Household Income: $106,785.00
Percent of Residents 25 or Older with Bachelor's Degree or Higher: 60

3. County: Howard County, Md.

Population: 272,412
Median Household Income: $101,710.00
Percent of Residents 25 or Older with Bachelor's Degree or Higher: 60

americas-richest-counties: Personal Finance News from Yahoo! Finance

[RanchHQ]

Randall Hoven

"The nation's largest employer wants you to: Address the tough challenges that our country is facing today. Contribute to projects that affect the lives of over 300 million people. Help make a difference." USAJOBS, United States Office of Personnel Management.

[RanchHQ]

Morning Bell: Andy Stern’s America

Posted April 13th, 2010 at 9:45am in Enterprise and Free Markets

Last night, Politico reported that Service Employees International Union President Andrew Stern is expected to resign and, according to The New York Times, the resignation is about to happen very soon. If Stern does resign, he will be doing so while at the top of his game. Stern told The Las Vegas Sun last year: “We spent a fortune to elect Barack Obama – $60.7 million to be exact – and we’re proud of it.” President Obama is well aware of his huge debt to the SEIU. That is why he admits in his autobiography, “I owe those unions.” And it also explains why Stern is the most frequent Obama White House visitor, according to official visitor logs.



Stern’s access to President Obama has already paid huge dividends including: an $862 billion stimulus that prevented states from having to cut-back government union jobs or wages; $2.5 trillion in new government health care spending, much of which will go to unionized health care providers; and the appointment of SEIU associate general counsel Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board. The NYT describes the SEIU under Stern’s tenure as “the nation’s most politically active union, with 1.9 million members.” The marriage of politics to union organizing has been great for SEIU membership, making it the fastest-growing union in America.

But what has been great for SEIU’s membership rolls has not been good for the SEIU’s bottom line. Growing union membership through politics is expensive. The Wall Street Journal reports that as recently as 2002, total SEIU liabilities were about $8 million. But by 2008, the union owed more than $156 million, a 30% increase over the $120 million it owed in 2007. And make no mistake, lobbying government is where Stern believes the future of SEIU is. After President Obama’s election, SEIU fired 75 national field staff and organizers so that the SEIU could “reallocate resources … to lobbying and communications in Washington.”

In fact, taking a more critical look at SEIU’s recent growth, The Washington Post reports: “some of its biggest gains in recent years were less the result of shoe-leather organizing and more the result of deals with major employers or politicians — including former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich.” Specifically, Blagojevich signed a state law handing over 49,000 state child care workers to SEIU local 880, which is run by the notorious community organizing group ACORN. The deal nearly tripled SEIU 880’s income from $7 million in 2005 to $21 million in 2007. This came after SEIU’s Illinois Political Action Committee gave Gov. Blagojevich $908,000, making it the single largest campaign contributor for his re-election campaign.

It is no coincidence that under Stern’s tenure the number of government union members surpassed the number of private sector union members for the first time in our nation’s history. There are two reasons for this: 1) Unions kill private sector jobs, and unionized companies earn profits 15% lower than those of comparable non-union firms. This makes unionized firms less competitive, which is why unionized manufacturing jobs fell 75% between 1977 and 2008, while non-union manufacturing INCREASED 6% over that same time. 2) Government union jobs face no competition.

Public sector unionization has exploded in the past decade as leaders like Stern realized politics paid much better than the free market. Under Stern’s leadership, SEIU has become the nation’s second largest government union with over half of its membership drawing a paycheck on the taxpayers dime.

Explaining how organized labor really works, US Court of Appeals judge for the 7th Circuit Richard Posner recently wrote:

The goal of unions is to redistribute wealth from the owners and managers of firms, and from workers willing to work for very low wages, to the unionized workers and the union’s officers. … Unions, in other words, are worker cartels. … There is also a long history of union corruption. And some union activity is extortionate: the union and the employer tacitly agree that as long as the employer gives the workers a wage increase slightly above the union dues, the union will leave the employer alone.

Except that in Stern’s America, union management no longer redistribute wealth from firms to union members. With the majority of union members now working for the government, Andy Stern and his cohorts are extorting money from you, the taxpayer. And where is that money going? Not into shoring up union member pensions. Those are woefully underfunded. No, the Andy Sterns of the world turn around and use their taxpayer-funded government union dues to lobby for an even larger government that can pay for even more government union jobs. Andy Stern’s America is a perpetual government dependency machine.

And don’t think for a second that Stern’s retirement means he is gone for good. Stern is still a proud member of President Obama’s deficit commission. Complete reliance on government growth, crippling debt, and Blagojevich-style corruption. That is what Andy Stern did to the SEIU, and it is what Stern and President Obama will do to this country.

[RanchHQ]

Another Obama favor for unions

"Second, by guaranteeing unions a bigger stream of federal contracts, Obama is making sure that Big Labor, already among the Democrats' biggest sources of campaign cash, will have even more money to hand out for the 2010 and 2012 elections"

Examiner Editorial
April 14, 2010

Barely 15 percent of all construction-industry workers in the United States are union members, while the remaining 85 percent are nonunion, according to the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics. So why has President Obama signed Executive Order 13502 directing federal agencies taking bids for government construction projects to accept only those from contractors who agree in advance to a project labor agreement that requires a union work force? Obama's new order applies to all federal construction projects with price tags of $25 million or more, and it means all such contracts will only be awarded to companies with unionized work forces.

By eliminating the vast majority of potential bidders on federal construction projects, Obama guarantees two things. First, the projects will cost taxpayers more because union labor is always more expensive.

And with mandated PLAs, the cost premium for union contractors will be even greater because fewer bidders always means less competition and higher prices. Second, by guaranteeing unions a bigger stream of federal contracts, Obama is making sure that Big Labor, already among the Democrats' biggest sources of campaign cash, will have even more money to hand out for the 2010 and 2012 elections. You scratch our back with taxpayers dollars gleaned through PLA-based federal construction jobs, and we'll scratch your back with campaign contributions. That's the way it works in Obama's business-as-usual Washington. It's also known in some quarters as "the Chicago Way."

"The Obama administration's policy is a slap in the face to the vast majority of construction workers who have chosen not to unionize," said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation."Qualified nonunion contractors whose workers have opted against unionization will be locked out from large-scale construction projects. The true purpose of so-called project labor agreements is simple: To impose unwanted union boss control on workers from the top down."

Another factor helps explain Obama's willingness to sign an executive order that will put millions more tax dollars in union coffers. Mix points out that unions under PLAs typically exact agreements that include requiring contractors to make payments to union pension funds. This is an increasingly urgent issue, as the Washington Examiner's Mark Hemingway has recently detailed in these pages. According to Labor Department filings, the average union pension has only enough money on hand to cover 62 percent of the benefits it has promised to union members.

Pension plans with 80 percent funding are considered "endangered" by federal auditors, while those with less than 65 percent funding are put on the "critical" list. With this latest executive order, it's clear that Obama intends to give unions on the critical list a massive dose of federal tax dollars to cure what ails them.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Another-Obama-favor-for-unions-90776984.html#ixzz0l4rthXSx

[RanchHQ]

FROM: Sweetness & Light

(Their comments in brown)

Who knew?

Obama Wants To Speed Up Gov’t Hiring
May 11th, 2010

From a cheering Washington Post:

Obama wants federal agencies to hit the gas on hiring

By Joe Davidson and Ed O’Keefe
Tuesday, May 11, 2010; A01

If you’ve spent months trying to get a job with the federal government, things are about to get easier.

President Obama plans to instruct federal agencies to radically overhaul the process now used to hire government workers. The change is expected to cut in half the time it takes to fill vacancies and allow the government to better compete with the private sector for top talent.

Oh, joy!

It’s been a long time coming. The Government Accountability Office has been calling for changes since 2001, and a host of outside voices have criticized the byzantine nature of federal hiring, with its stacks of paperwork and endless rounds of interviews that can keep an applicant hanging for months…

Perhaps hiring takes so long because it is government bureaucrats who are doing the hiring.

Those seeking federal jobs apply through the USAjobs.gov Web site, which categorizes available positions by city and type. They must write essays, known as KSAs, that assess their knowledge, skills and abilities. Once the KSAs are submitted, a response can take months, if applicants get one at all.

The job application is an ‘essay’? Doesn’t that discriminate against non-English speakers? Or can it be in any language?

And what is the topic? If you were a tree, what kind of tree would you be?

Obama’s plan, to be announced Tuesday morning, would cut hiring time to about 80 days from the date a vacancy is announced to the point a candidate is hired. In some agencies, it can take up to 200 days to process a hire, and 140 days is not uncommon.

The time lag is considered a big deterrent for workers like Jamie Doyle, 30, who are interested in bringing their skills to government but can’t afford to wait months for their applications to be considered.

Doyle, of Philadelphia, said she gave up on government work because of the slow process. She received job offers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and a national security agency, but they came long after she had accepted a position with a private institute…

Employment at a national security agency usually requires an extensive background check, where investigators are known to question your first grade teacher.

Is Mr. Obama going to halve the time allotted for that?

"The president is committing the power of his office to the importance of this issue, which is trying to streamline our hiring process," said John Berry, director of the Office of Personnel Management.

Although some government managers may like the current process because it weeds out certain applicants, calls for a hiring overhaul have come from across the spectrum, including unions, good-government groups, Democrats and Republicans.

Unions, ‘good government groups’ (aka liberal fronts) and Democrats want to speed up hiring? Then by all means we must.

The changes ordered by Obama would be obvious to an applicant from the beginning of the process. The dreaded KSAs would be dropped in favor of a system in which applicants submit résumés and fill out applications, as they do when applying for jobs in the private sector…

Obama also wants to get managers more involved in the process of deciding on new hires, rather than leaving the final approval to an agency’s personnel office.

"The most important part of the process is the final interview," Berry said. "Those interviews really can’t be done by HR professionals. They need to be done by hiring managers that are the closest to the job."

Agencies also will be required to tell applicants where they stand at four points in the process: when their application is received, when the applicant is deemed qualified or not, when the applicant is referred for an interview or not, and when the person is selected or not

The changes are important not just for the mental health of job seekers, officials noted. They also will cut hiring costs and save taxpayer money.

How exactly will this “cut costs and save taxpayer money”? It sounds like a lot more is going to be required of those doing the hiring. And they will have to do it a lot faster.

Moreover, the sooner you have more people on the government payroll, and start them earning the outrageously high government salaries and pensions, the more it costs the taxpayer.

But what does anyone in the government know about cutting costs or saving money, anyway?

"We need to make sure that every taxpayer dollar counts," said Jeffrey Zients, the administration’s chief performance officer. "So there’s a real urgency to improving the performance of government. . . . It is clear that the major component for improving performance is people." …

What a laugh. When most people talk about “improving the performance of government,” they aren’t talking about speeding up how quickly people are hired for government jobs.

They probably are thinking just the opposite.

The president has placed Berry and Zients in charge of the revamping, which is expected to take six months…

Naturally.

[RanchHQ]

Get a Government Job (More Easily)
John Derbyshire

The president has issued a long memo that reforms hiring procedures for jobs in the federal government. The memo is here. It’s all written in Fedsperanto, but some of the news stories give the game away:

For the first time in history, applicants will be able to submit résumés and cover letters and will not be required to complete knowledge skills and ability essays.

Down with knowledge, skills, and ability! No need for that stuff in the federal workforce!

Another bad sign: I’m told the American Federation of Government Employees — that’s the outfit that protects gubmint workers from the predations of unscrupulous, profit-hungry capitalist employers (in this precise case, the U.S. taxpayer) — has come out in support of the president’s action:

We are disappointed…that the president has not used the memorandum to restrict the use of the Federal Career Intern Program,” John Gage, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, said in a statement that was supportive of eliminating mandatory KSAs for initial job applications.

I’m pretty sure this is really bad news for the quality of the federal workforce; but if Rich makes me read that whole memo & précis it in regular English, I’ll slit my wrists.

FROM: Get a Government Job (More Easily) - John Derbyshire - The Corner on National Review Online=