Hovde is just playing the same old resentment card that the GOP has been playing for the last 40 years. Hey, it's been pretty effective politically, because people love scapegoats. If progressives cannot reframe the entire argument as "we ALL deserve a decent pension and health care" and then push that legislatively, the resentment-mongers will be back in power before long.

I have not read enough of Hovde to understand her ideas fully yet. They certainly are at odds with many here on BO. Perhaps her views are more in line with the policitial, social and economic reality of the past 20 years.

In the real world (versus the self insulated world of public employee union bargaining), employees share in an equitable share of their pensions and health care.

Most private entities have switched to 401(k)'s with company matches that either vest immediately or have a scheduled vesting period of 3-7 years. The administrative costs associated with a 401(k) and matching are generally a push when it comes to the requirements of the Pension Guarantee Board for old fashioned defined benefit pension plans. In a 401(k), the employee is encouraged to contribute a percentage of their annual pay, tax deferred and the company matches up to genrally 3-6%. some companies will automatically put up to 3% of annual income into the plan without requiring any contribution from the employee. PERS, on the otherhand is funded entirely by the government entities employeeing the government workers. In some public bargaining, unions have been successful in getting in excess of 10%-12% contributed on behalf of their members.

In private companies, healthcare costs now amount to more than 5% of payroll. At GM in 2005, they spent more on healthcare ($5.7BB) than they did on steel to manufacture their vehicles.Most companies share the cost of providing healthcare with their employees. The mix is all over the baord, but a representative sample shows that a 80/20 or 70/30 split (employer/employee) is fairly normal in providing health, dental and vision to employees and their familes. In the public sector, collective bargaining has been very successful in maintaining almost 100% payment of premiums for employees and their families.

Yes, we all deserve a decent pension and healthcare - those of us who work in the private sector understand that there is a commenwelath of sharing between the employer and the employee that is dynamic and is not over weighted in either parties favor. Too bad the public employee unions do not share that belief.

Kurt,

Re: Yes, we all deserve a decent pension and healthcare - those of us who work in the private sector understand that there is a commenwelath of sharing between the employer and the employee that is dynamic and is not over weighted in either parties favor. Too bad the public employee unions do not share that belief.

It is not an issue of those in the public employee unions "not shar[ing] that belief" it is that they have been lucky enough to have successful collective bargaining on the issue. Your argument is basically sour grapes. Why shouldn't the union get 100% coverage for its members if it can? Isn't that what the union is there for; to bargain for its workers?

Here's a truly radical idea: single payer healthcare.

pdx lawyer, I truly am not about sour grapes. I fully understand and appreciate the powerful collective bargaining wins by SEIU and others over the past 3-4 decades. My issue lies with the present.

Those who do not realize the powerful gains by the public unions fail to understand that collective bargaining in the public sector is basically a one-way street. There is little compelling the "management" side in public bargaining from holding the line. Most, if not all gains bargained are passed directly to the tax payer in the form of their taxes and fees.

the union is absolutely there to represent all of their dues paying members. I do not begrude them that. However, when times are tough (as they are now) collective bargaining needs to reflect reality. an example - Medford School District 549C pays $3.5MM each year in bridging medical benefits for early retirees as bargained in past contracts. The district faces a $2MM - $4MM shortfall. This is a contract year and that expenditure should be on the table.

I join you in calling for single payer health care.

Yeah, what Kurt said. I think everyone should have access to a union and join one, but I've been horrified by what I've seen unions do for their membership in Salem and at Tri-Met. This is a case were we really do have to hold them accountable. Employers aren't the right ones to do it, and whenever they've had absolute power it has corrupted.

The Hillsboro Argus has long been the local organ of environmental terrorism. "Hillsboro: making white flight affordable".

I agree with pdx lawyer. Furthermore, the money would be available for single payer and pensions for all if our non-representatives would slash our bloated, wasteful military spending as well as the welfare for the rich presently favored with bipartisan fervor.

However, when times are tough (as they are now) collective bargaining needs to reflect reality.

Apparently, you don't pay much attention Kurt. During the last downturn, you missed the pay freeze that represented state workers endured for over two years. The pay lost during the freeze has not been made up for since. Not to mention that state workers typically work for less than their private sector counterparts, and that the evisceration of the PERS system puts anyone newly coming into a state job at no greater advantage than those with private sector 401Ks. In case you're interested, the unions are faced with much the same challenges this bargaining season, including furloughs amounting to anywhere from a 5-10% pay cut, layoffs, no COLAs.

And unlike their private sector counterparts, public sector workers do not have the opportunities to make up those lost wages once the economy starts to recover. Private sector employees get perks restored, like bonuses, extra time off and other employee recognition programs that incentivize workers.

Of course, you're more interested in making sure that no one is doing better than you. If you're not getting fully paid healthcare, then no one else should either. Let's keep working to the bottom of the scale, rather than trying to make progress for everyone.

Not.

I would like someone to explain which public sector administrators deserve to earn more than the Governor of Oregon and why.

And as for health care, does anyone really believe that if there is a room containing 10 people who work full time for a private employer (not public sector, not nonprofit, but a business trying to make a profit) that they all have the same health care policy?

Not sure what will happen to the Intel employees if they got their health care through Intel.

But should those who have good health care policies through the corporation they work for be expected to give up that health care and only have a policy that is the average policy for those "in the private sector"?

Would old timers like Barry Goldwater have supported such an idea? If not, why is it a good idea now--because it is the only idea people can think of?

At lunch today, someone said "Did you hear that there are White House staff earning over $100,000?"

I responded that there are administrators (dept. supt., asst. supt., CFO level) who make more than that in our school district and I think that is wrong.

And here is the question: are Republicans advocating an average salary for everyone?

Or are they saying management deserves to earn what the market will bear, but unionized employees are all lazy and overpaid and thus should give concessions? How many who say such things would last a day or a week in some of those unionized occupations? Or are they trying to take us back to a time about a century ago when workers were treated like peons but management got rich?

Asking such questions can make some people really uncomfortable.

Why do school administrators deserve high salaries and relatively little public accountability? Why do university presidents deserve to earn more than the governor?

I have discovered there are lots of people who would prefer to state a negative (such as unions are bad) but don't want to state the affirmative, such as "Administrators deserve to earn more than $100,000 because...".

Or are they trying to take us back to a time about a century ago when workers were treated like peons but management got rich?

Yes

On a meta note, odd there aren't any pieces on Iraq this week of note, locally. You'd think this would be the time to push home the advantage. I heard a good line today, that the situation was getting "like that stage at your child's party when you remember that you forgot to give the other parents a pick-up time".

"Administrators deserve to earn more than $100,000 because..."

Oh, I don't know. Maybe because they have a Master's degree or Phd, 20+ years of experience, published research .....

Or maybe the state should just hire GED and community college grads for $19k a pop and no benefits for all positions.