Pointing the Finger at the Public Sector
Jan 14, 2011
It’s becoming somewhat fashionable in certain circles to criticize unionized workers, particularly those in the public sector. This more than likely is the direct result of the ongoing recession which, of course, was caused by a deregulated financial system run amok. But in times of stress, people (and magazines) point fingers in all directions.
The latest salvo comes via The Economist. In “(Government) workers of the world unite!,” the London-based publication highlights the decline of unionization in the private sector and the concurrent increasing unionization (and political power) in the public one. And from that it concludes that there is a gap developing between the underpaid private sector and the “secure and stable” public sector.
In comparison to the competitive and “performance-related” private sector (are they not aware of the skyrocketing salaries of CEOs?), The Economist sees the public sector as “a haven of security and stability. Many people have jobs for life and performance measures are rare. “ This apparently results in a paradox: “The typical public worker is better off than the people he is supposed to serve.”
The piece goes on and on about wage premiums and defined benefit plans, et cetera, and comes to the obvious conclusion that governments must cut spending and that it’s time for the fat and lazy public sector workers to bear the brunt of this because of their stable, secure jobs and incomes (Interestingly, a recent piece in The New Yorker references a recent study that concludes that, when controlled for a host of variables, “public employees are not actually paid more than their private-sector counterparts” ).
NUPGE President James Clancy has written The Economist to respond to the aforementioned article. In it, he fittingly accuses the magazine of “failing to provide readers with an analytical report of the causes of the global recession and its impact on public finances and workers.”
He goes on to make some additional valid points. First, public sector workers did not cause the debt and deficit crisis in which we find ourselves. It resulted from greed and an under-regulated financial system that was allowed to run amok.
In addition, the public sector in Canada has been downsized and privatized. Public employees have also faced layoffs and cuts to wages and benefits over the last decade. Many of these have seen workloads increase and wages fall in real and relative terms over this period.
But perhaps the best point Clancy makes is his last. Canada would not have universal health care, quality public education, unemployment benefits or a strong public pension system without unions. As he states, “The services and programs our members deliver are an integral part of tackling inequality and providing a good quality of life for all families in Canada. We believe that protecting our members’ interest is actually protecting the interests of the public and we’ll continue to fight for quality public services for all citizens of our country.”
But the antipathy toward unions will likely continue as the economy struggles, particularly in the United States. People need a scapegoat when times get hard. And corporations and banks and all those responsible for the mess we find ourselves in certainly don’t want to take a long hard look in the mirror. It’s much easier to try to drag someone down than to endeavour to improve the working conditions of those middle-class private sector workers that unfortunately do not have the benefit of being unionized.
Comments
Comments are now closed
Sometimes you are better off with out a union. As the union I am in does not care about its members. They soon forget its us members that pay their wages. A rep tells his members that he can get anyone off the street to do their job. I would try and have him thrown out as the rep. MGEU you better listen and take your blinders off.
Bill - 2011-01-30 09:40