Apologies in advance, but I am going to invoke one of the most tired phrases in Idaho politics.
Government should operate like a business.
The trouble is, I've had this overused adage stuck in my head since I read a quote from Andrew Hanhardt, president of the Idaho Association of Government Employees. He described a proposed 3 percent state employee pay cut as "mean spirited."
What an out-of-touch remark. I spend a good deal of my winters criticizing legislators. But I can't go here. Hanhardt's criticism is, well, pretty mean spirited.
The sad and universal fact is Idaho's recession is creating cashflow issues for private and public sectors alike.
The state expects to collect $2.63 billion for its general fund budget in the 2008-09 budget year, which ends June 30. Last year, lawmakers set a $2.96 billion general fund.
That's an 11.1 percent drop in state government cashflow — income, sales and corporate taxes. To suggest that this will have no effect on what Idaho can spend on personnel is simply naïve.
This isn't a pleasant plan: state employees face a 3 percent pay cut, coupled with 2 percent cuts that may include furloughs.
But let's first compare this to the plan that could affect Idaho teachers. Gov. Butch Otter's proposal would force a 6.5 percent cut in pay for teachers and an 11 percent cut in pay for administration. All the while, Otter proposes hoarding $114 million in a public schools rainy-day fund, depositing federal economic stimulus dollars designed to protect school budgets.
The purportedly "mean spirited" plan for state workers is much less harsh.
Again, back to the government-like-a-business bromide. I suspect pay cuts of 3 percent, or more, are far from uncommon in the private sector these days.
The Statesman's situation is a matter of public record: Employees are taking pay cuts of 3 to 10 percent, depending on income. I don't enjoy that. I also don't enjoy watching talented co-workers lose their jobs.
When I hear legislators say they hope state employee pay cuts will save jobs, the argument certainly strikes close to home for me.
Implicit in Hanhardt's remark is the insinuation that all pay cuts are, by definition, mean spirited. A reflection not of hard times, but hard hearts. I'm just not sold on that. It's a gross oversimplification. And when the economy improves and the state is in a position to again address the salary gap affecting underpaid state employees, I suspect legislators will have a hard time forgetting things that were said when times weren't as good.
Get Twitter updates on my blog and column and Statesman editorials.
Become a follower @KevinRichert. On Facebook, join the Idaho Statesman
Opinion Page Group for updates.
Delicious
Digg
Yahoo
Just like all the fine businesses I know...
AIG
JP MORGAN CHASE
ENRON
GM
FORD
I know more but my brain is bipolar already, why bother?
----------
Granola whimpers upon spying my countenance
Pay Cuts
My staff took voluntary pay cuts to avoid having a staff reduction. They wanted to keep working and retain health insurance. It's not mean spirited; it's the alternative to closing the business and everyone losing their jobs.
Too often it's a front for what was already going down...
Good luck and be watchful.
----------
Granola whimpers upon spying my countenance
At least Otter didn't require DMV to put out tip jars.
But they could make a small profit if they sold latte's.
What's $5 coffee with the price of registrations these days?
(a steal)
----------
Granola whimpers upon spying my countenance
Penalize everyone when it's not necessary?
So what about state agencies and employees that don't get any general fund money to begin with? Why are they getting a pay cut? That doesn't save any money for the state, causes more hardships for hard-working Idahoans, and is totally unnecessary. If the business is hurting, you cut back. If the business is not hurting, and you cut pay anyway just because you can, THAT is mean-spirited.
Which are those?
----------
Granola whimpers upon spying my countenance
Two examples
The Idaho Transportation Department and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Neither receive general fund dollars.
Kevin Richert
editorial page editor
Thank you. After this much time I was thinking they didn't know.
----------
Granola whimpers upon spying my countenance
two ways to look at it
yes, there are agencies that don't take general fund money. However, the desire is to be fair and equitable to all state employees, share the pain, etc.
Two ways to look at it
But it is a one way street. Those agencies that don't take general funds have never gotten help from the general fund when their budgets were in trouble. THERE IS NOTHING FAIR ABOUT THE PROPOSED CUTS!!!!!!!
Sure it's fair! One way=two lanes! What's the Gen Fund 2 do w/it
----------
There are idiots in all manner of ways, ask me and I'll demo them. It won't be too hard.
Comparing Apples and Oranges
Most businesses are down, and that is why workforce reductions of every type are occurring. That is not the case with most state agencies. Demand for services increases, especially during an economic downturn. The governor and legislature are asking state employees to do more work for less money, even after decades of noncompetitive wages and ill treatment. If state budgets and wages of state employees are going to be reduced, then so should the services.
Don't compare, eat both.
----------
Granola whimpers upon spying my countenance
So we should shoot the other foot?
No doubt the current fiscal crises demands prudent budgeting. To the extent funds are not available, cuts must be made. But the legislature is cutting all pay, regardless of funding source. General fund deficits are not addressed by cutting pay related to dedicated and federal funds. Cutting these expenditures does harm without any benefit or need. Not only are are employees and their families needlessly harmed by salary cuts related to dedicated and federal funds, so is the state economy and revenue. Every dollar of federal money that is available and not spent is a dollar that is not available for circulation in Idaho’s economy (retail, housing, transportation and the like) and will not generate state tax revenues (sales and income taxes). The economy in Idaho is hurting and not spending available federal funds just adds to the problem. It is ironic that Idaho is taking federal stimulus money to sustain and generate jobs and the economy on the one hand and will be giving back federal money on the other hand. The words "fair" and “equitable” have been proffered as justification for these across the board cuts-- but are not explained. If your left foot is hurting, shooting your right foot is not fair and equitable--its foolish. Likewise, the economic challenges at the Statesman do not somehow justify pay cuts at some other business or government agency.
Only if you are doing the passion play and even then...yipes!
----------
There are idiots in all manner of ways, ask me and I'll demo them. It won't be too hard.
Same Tired Useless Comparison
Government is not private business. How many private businesses are run by people who know nothing about that business? How many private businesses are run by people who are philosophically opposed to the business they run? The list goes on and on. Yes, a 3% slary reduction seems appropriate in these troubled times. But, over the last decade, state employees have been left further behind private industry in salary and benefits. Most state employees never get a bonus when times are good, unlike many private businesses. When the state has a surplus, instead of rewarding employees for times when they got no increases, elected officials want to give it back. Private business recognizes that their employees are their most valuable asset and does what it can to reward them. Many legislators consider state employees incompetents that would never survive in private industry. I would like to see a legislator deal with children taken from parents who run a meth lab in their home. I'd like to see a legislator teach a classroom full of 40 14 year old kids. I'd like to see a legislator decide who gets the children in a divorce proceeding. Employees in the private and government sectors do incrediably difficult work. Both should be valued and compensated appropriately. Unlike the Idaho Statesman who has had to lay off folks because of the lack of money, the legislature is sitting on millions in "rainy day" money. This money could be used to balance the budget. The legislature chooses not to and decides to balance the budget on the backs of the employees. That seems mean spirited. Oh yea, one more thing, this proposed salary reduction does not apply to elected officials (legislators, Butch, Attorney General) and judges. Does that seem fair?