Making Sacrifices for the Public Good
Jeff Alworth
Last fall, I was on the bargaining team for the professional association of PSU's faculty, AAUP. It was a very grim time to bargain because we were mainly discussing cuts--to salary and benefits. Even though only a small minority of PSU's money comes from the state, we're considered state employees. And so, although the cuts to PSU only amounted to a fraction of cuts to other state agencies, our membership decided to stand with public employees and peg our cuts to those SEIU-DAS bargained earlier. In the end, our contract called for furlough days--effectively just pay cuts, since faculty don't work any less--similar to SEIU's.
It was an especially bad deal for me and the 200 or so researchers I represented. Our research isn't funded by state money at all. In fact, not only do we have to fund our own research, but PSU takes a cut to support housing us and supporting us with university services. We have no job protection beyond what we can write in grants. Nevertheless, researchers agreed to support the deal because that's what you do in tough times--you take one for the team.
In the end, after one of the shortest bargaining periods in memory, the association approved the contract with the largest margin in our history--with a record percentage of our membership casting ballots. We voted overwhelmingly to cut our own salaries. It was important to join other state workers in sharing the pain and it was important for the students and university to get a deal done quickly.
If Measures 66 and 67 fail, our membership may have to go back to the bargaining table to discuss further salary cuts. State workers will be in the same boat. Oregon's voters will have said that the salaries--and some jobs, which will certainly be lost--of those who support our public infrastructure are less important than the wealth of the most well-off among us (both businesses and individuals). That's the reality of the choice. The justifications, lying ads, and elisions of the anti-taxers and enabling ed boards can't change that calculus.
All of this was especially juicy for me this morning because I woke up unemployed. My five-year grant ended last Friday and I didn't land on another one. In the fall, researchers at PSU voted to cut their own salaries, even though we might not have jobs in the coming year. When I hear some of the outrageous justifications for voting "no" on Measures 66 and 67, I wonder what Oregon they live in. Isn't this the state where we make sacrifices for the public good? Isn't this the state where we recognize the value of decent public services and of supporting each other in times of crisis? If it is,it's time to hear wealthy individuals and large businesses join the tens of thousands who have already sacrificed in this recession. We all have to do our share--even the rich.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Jan 19, '10
Isn't this the state where we make sacrifices for the public good? Isn't this the state where we recognize the value of decent public services and of supporting each other in times of crisis?
Yes, and yes. Or, it should be.
Jan 19, '10
Perhaps the best thing for you to do is become a small businessman, learn a practical trade, or in some other positive way contribute to the tax rolls of the state. Bleating helps, I'm sure, but it isn't a plan.
Jan 19, '10
Hi Jeff,
I've been in the same position for several years now: agreeing to cuts of one sort or another (insurance, layoffs/increased worload, wages, etc.) to accommodate budget cuts in community college funding. The claims by a certain segment of the population about public employee's pay and benefits never stop.
The mistake is in thinking that reasoning and evidence will impact that situation. They have a group of leaders who are willing to lie for their own purposes, and a group of followers who are willfully ignorant of what is really happening with respect to public services in this state.
So, we do what we have to: continue providing the best possible services to our students and the public, knowing full well that a portion of that public has no respect for us or for the services that we provide. It's knowing the value of our services, to our students and to society at large, and not the opinion of a few wingnuts, that has to be the basis for public service.
10:45 a.m.
Jan 19, '10
Perhaps the best thing for you to do is become a small businessman, learn a practical trade, or in some other positive way contribute to the tax rolls of the state.
Right, because if we had 2 million plumbers and no university professors and researchers, we'd be sweet.
Jan 19, '10
Jeff Alworth Right, because if we had 2 million plumbers and no university professors and researchers, we'd be sweet.
Why would people who do not value facts value research or education?
11:00 a.m.
Jan 19, '10
or in some other positive way contribute to the tax rolls of the state.
Um, Larry, I suspect that you'd be impressed and supportive of Jeff's work if you knew what he did for a living.
Jeff's does research into how we spend our child welfare dollars - your tax dollars - so that they're effectively spent to help children.
It's all well and good to rant and rave about waste and inefficiency in government, but somebody's gotta actually do the work to figure out how to spend the money effectively.
That's what Alworth's been doing.
Jan 19, '10
Your own statements confirm that your lack of employment is strictly based on your inability to secure out of state grants - not the budget situation in Oregon:
Could it maybe (just possibly) be that what you do isn't that useful or interesting to the rest of us who have to support you?
I don't ask you to support my income. I have demonstrated my value in a free market to the business community and am employed or not employed based on that value. The better I do, the more taxes I pay to help support the tax base for services that are deemed necessary and useful.
I am fed up with state employee's sense of entitlement. The government and the public don't exist to support your jobs program. Your jobs exist to deliver the services that are necessary for the state to provide. If the state and/or tax base can't afford it, some services will need to be cut to fund those that are more important.
If you can get a grant beyond state funds to pay for your work - more power to you. But if you can't compete and merit a grant, the system is telling you something important and you need to listen up.
Jan 19, '10
The best way to to allow regular ol' folks to contribute to the state coffers would be to create a middle management "service track" tier of jobs, where qualified, service minded individuals could work those positions for a nominal, fixed wage. I know many very qualified people that would do so for $10-$15/hour, and bring far more dedication, integrity and competence to their work than the current job holders do. It would also create pressure on the rest to straighten up and fly right. Field worker salaries are a drop in the bucket by comparison. It would also dramatically slow the systemic rot vis a vis PERS.
Have to wonder, when members of the Oregon State Police K9 unit retire, do they get PERS?
Jan 19, '10
Only here would someone propose creating a bunch of new, government funded jobs without any description of what the output would be except "contribute to the state coffers"
Statism is a Ponzi scheme
12:02 p.m.
Jan 19, '10
A general comment and then I'll let the boldly anonymous teabaggin' types like westside troll away.
Could it maybe (just possibly) be that what you do isn't that useful or interesting to the rest of us who have to support you?
My personal situation isn't particularly relevant, except that I can say I've ponied up for my state. That's the point. I was happy to do so, but businesses and the wealthy believe they are exempt, so I'm putting it back out there--why shouldn't we all sacrifice? Especially given that the people asked to "sacrifice" under these measures can easily afford to do so.
I don't ask you to support my income.
Sure you do. Enormously. My taxes pay for a police force, for roads and rail, the infrastructure of business. They pay for schools to educate you so you are competent to do your job. They pay for the court system that allows you to operate in a system of law rather than payoffs and private security. We are all interconnected in public financing. You just don't give a shit about the expenditures that don't directly benefit you (and are apparently unaware of the ones that do). Again, what kind of citizen are you?
You have an immature understanding of how "free markets" work. Until you demonstrate that you can grasp these facts in the most basic sense (and frankly, have the courage to sign your own name to a comment) don't expect people to take your comments seriously.
Jan 19, '10
replacing, not creating. "create a service track" meant "to replace a number of current middle management jobs".
Statism IS a Ponzi scheme. You're shooting your own front line in the back of the head! You definitely sound like one of those Oregonians that isn't of any "stripe". Join the party!
Jan 19, '10
Jeff: good column
Has BO lost their spam filter? Why did so many "pdf books" comments get posted?
Jan 19, '10
I'm not trying to be flippant, but I am trying to get the gist.
Your department cannot win a competitive grant to support itself, so Oregon should raise taxes to help support your department.
This sounds a lot like the solar and windmill folks: Our business isn't financially sustainable on it's own, but if you give us energy tax credits funded by other Oregon tax payers, we might be able to survive.
1:13 p.m.
Jan 19, '10
Your department cannot win a competitive grant to support itself, so Oregon should raise taxes to help support your department.
Okay, I see there's a misunderstanding of my point here. My employment status is related in no way to M 66 and 67 except personally. I knew I was likely out of a job even as I was negotiating a contract to cut my own salary that wasn't supported by a single state dollar (I was on a federal grant). The point is just to say, look, I'm one guy who has made sacrifices, and I'm not particularly impressed with the exceedingly wealthy saying they can't shell out a few more bucks.
Since I (foolishly, I see now) introduced the topic of research and employment into the discussion, I will give a brief backgrounder here for clarity. The work I did was connected to the School of Social Work. But my job depended on grant funds--it didn't come out of departmental funds. Researchers write their own grants, and these pay their salaries. They get grants from the feds, the state, and private for-profit and non-profit sources--sometimes all on a single research project. In a sense, ironically, it's quite a bit like the private sector--we sell ourselves to grant-funders. If we don't raise the funds, we're out of a job.
And those of you who have expressed some personal pique at me for not getting on another grant are correct (if sadly bitter): I don't blame anyone for this. It's how the system of soft money works. Unlike many business people who blame external pressures for their failures, I recognize why I'm unemployed this morning. That's not the point of the post, however.
Jan 19, '10
As I am certain Mr. Alworth is aware, there is a growing segment of the R party which rejects the notion of "public good". No doubt some R's accept the general concept of public good, but the discussion quickly devolves into a debate about what actions do or do not advance the public good. To me the public good is advanced with quality public schools, libraries, parks, police, fire, etc. To some of my R friends, the public good would be better served by the erection of a 100' lighted cross in the West Hills or the installation of a gold-plated monument of the 10 Commandments in the Park Blocks.
My point is that appealing to a sense of "public good" in the current political and social climate is a waste of time. Unfortunately.
Jan 19, '10
Just like many of other folks, the Salem crowd got caught up in the last bubble and overspent. Now they need to retrench a bit and get back to a more reasonable spending model. Real people will get caught in the process and will lose jobs and benefits in the process. That is the way it works when the process isn't run in a conservative manner. Sorry you're caught up in it Jeff but I'm still voting no on both measures. We all would be better off if the Salem crowd hadn't gotten silly and thought they could hand out money to everyone with a good idea. But they didn't run their budget as tight as they should've in good times and now it will hurt more in bad times than it should have to.
Jan 19, '10
"there is a growing segment of the R party which rejects the notion of "public good"."
And a complete rejection of science, healthcare, education, trade policy, food safety, .......
Jan 19, '10
That sounds sorta well and good Jeff but I didn't get exactly what your sacrifice is.
What percent of a pay and/or benefits cut did your union agree to? Because there are certainly 100s of thousands of Oregonians who have had to take 100%, 50%, 30,20 and 10% cuts in pay.
If your sacrifice comes in at around a 2.5% cut like some other public employees are saying is their sacrifice I'm not very touched by your story.
10:54 p.m.
Jan 19, '10
Jeff my sympathies and best wishes for your family. Drop me an email, let's talk about strategies, if there is anything I can do to help.
Jan 20, '10
Has this White House ever asked the American public to make any sacrifices for the war?
Jan 20, '10
I was happy to do so, but businesses and the wealthy believe they are exempt...
Really!? Businesses and the "wealthy" are exempt from taxes? This is a huge scoop Jeff, I think we got the new job for you all lined up now. Investigative journalist.
Maybe we should just disallow all deductions from the personal income tax and tax all people based on non-adjusted gross income.
Jan 20, '10
Jeff, according to data published on Oregon's government transparency website, the mean salary for state workers is $51,442. That excludes the hit state workers took from unpaid furlough days in 2009. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the mean salary for all Oregon workers (public and private) is $41,430. Neither statistic reflects the contributions workers make to their health care benefits plan, but we know most workers do make (sometimes sizeable) contributions while state workers contribute nothing.
In the City Club debate about 66/67 a few weeks ago, Steve Novick was asked why state employees weren't required to help pay for their health care benefits, and he sorta sidestepped the question by saying something about how we should all have good, affordable health care. He also made the claim that no one goes to work for the state to get rich, which seems to suggest an implicit assumption that those of us who don't work for the state think we are going to get rich.
<h2>The fact is, Oregonians who aren't state employees have made far greater sacrifices, sometimes voluntarily and sometimes involuntarily, than state employees have been asked to make. We make less money, and we pay more for or do without health care. We don't all think we are going to strike it rich; most of us just want to earn a living. We don't devalue state services or the vital role government plays in providing them. We aren't the caricatures of greedy industrialists the Yes on 66/67 protrays us to be. We are, often, unemployed, scraping by, in danger of our homes, barely able to make rent or utilities, and we are wondering if, especially, Measure 67, will make it even harder for us to get out of this hole. And we wonder why state employees continue to harp on their "sacrifices" when all the evidence indicates they are much better off than we are.</h2>