Governor Paterson of New York, who stepped in to fill Spitzer's shoes, is now about as popular as a summer cold. In part, this is because he was never meant for prime-time; he's a ticket rounder without much political charisma. But he's also been handed a really lousy hand. All states are suffering in this downturn, but New York has spent twenty years getting used to the lavish spending that taxes on financial salaries enabled. If you try to take it away, they feel that their civil rights are being violated--and they take their righteous rage out on the nearest politician to hand.
One of the groups he's crossed is the public sector unions, from whom he is demanding a 3% pay cut (in line with what the non-union workers have taken). The union has responded with a furious public service campaign--but to no avail, because Paterson's ratings are so low that even a vicious negative ad run can't drive them any lower. I expect the anti-tax groups are having the same problem.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Wouldn't it be a shame if all of the non-union members suffering in this economy got offended by the Union's stance and actually started SUPPORTING Paterson's stance against them?
First Paterson would have to take a real stance against the unions (or on anything, for that matter, besides getting Rush to leave the state). The Assembly's budget this year was about as irresponsible and pro-union as you can get, and Paterson hasn't taken a firm stance for or against it. The only thing Paterson's shown any enthusiasm for is weird new sales taxes, like the soda tax and the digital download tax.
This may just happen...
New Yorkers should do like the French and strike against themselves in support of public sector unions.
It's union-busting? If only.
The purpose of a union is to extract money from the employer and put it in the pockets of the employees. While this might arguably have social utility when the employer is a private concentration of wealth, what is the argument for having such organizations when the employer is the people as a whole? A public employee union is merely a device designed to divert public money to private pockets.
Patterson should be doing some real union-busting. Ban state officials from negotiating with public employee unions, as contrary to public policy. Ban public employee union strikes, as contrary to public policy. Pass a right-to-work bill, to ensure the end of government shops as closed shops. Go after dues withholding as much as possible, to cut off the financial ability of the public employee unions to squawk.
It won't save 3% immediately, but in the long run it'll make the state budget much more manageable.
I would like to note is that this is not a pay cut as most people in the private sector would understand a pay cut. All the Governor asked the union to do was to give up the %3 pay raise that the state had all ready agreed to. So in a sense I guess you could call it a pay cut, but only because it was already contractually agreed to. Not because state workers would actually see their pay shrink.
For what it is worth, here is a copy of a letter that the Governor sent out to all state workers.
Dear New York State Employee:
First, I want to thank you for your hard work, dedication and commitment to New York. Every day, you deliver important services to the people of this state. I am proud to lead such an outstanding workforce. That is why I wanted to write to you personally about the issue of employee layoffs.
From your work, you know firsthand that the world has changed. We are in a severe recession, one that has devastated everyday New Yorkers and created the worst fiscal crisis in our state’s history.
In the budget we just passed, we have taken a major step toward restoring our state’s fiscal and economic strength. To do so, however, we have asked all New Yorkers to make modest sacrifices. Last November, I asked our state’s public employee unions to make modest concessions. I did not make this request lightly.
Regrettably, however, our state’s public employee unions refused to consider any concessions at all. As a result, in the face of the worst fiscal crisis in our history, I was left with no alternative but to implement a workforce reduction plan. Today, I have directed each agency commissioner to develop a workforce reduction plan for their agency. These plans are to be implemented by July 1. In developing their Workforce Reduction Plans, I have asked agency commissioners to find ways to achieve the necessary savings while protecting the health and safety of our citizens.
This decision is one of the most difficult I have ever had to make. I do not want to see anyone lose their job, particularly in this economic climate. But the savings from this workforce reduction plan is part of the budget I enacted with the Legislature, and in the absence of equivalent workforce savings, we cannot eliminate our state’s deficit without layoffs.
On Friday, consistent with my overall goal of minimizing layoffs in a difficult economy, I rescinded a proposed 3 percent salary increase for non-unionized and management/confidential employees. I was able to do this because I have the authority to do so for this group of workers. This will produce savings of $32 million over two years, which will reduce the number of layoffs that are necessary from 8,900 to 8,700. As such, these employees will be exempted from layoffs wherever legally permissible; however, positions filled by these individuals may be eliminated through attrition.
Under state law, however, I have no similar power to rescind raises or execute other similar workforce savings for employees represented by public employee unions through the collective bargaining process.
If you believe, as I do, that implementing modest workforce concessions is a preferable path to significant layoffs, I urge you to voice this opinion to your union representatives.
I know that we face challenges; but we do so together. New Yorkers are no strangers to challenge, nor do we run from or ignore reality. Throughout our history, we have successfully met every challenge we have faced by working together. I am committed to doing exactly that, and I know that you share this commitment with me.
Thank you again for your hard work on behalf of New York State and its citizens.
Sincerely,
David A. Paterson
I am a New Yorker that actually admires Paterson
o He has the nerve to stand up to municipal unions, something even Bloomberg doesn't do (much like Nixon going to China, maybe a black democrat doesn't feel the need to kowtow to public sector unions)
o He would not let himself be intimidated into appointing (annointing) Caroline Kennedy to the senate.
o He is not a snake like Spitzer or Cuomo the Younger.
In short, look at his enemies and judge him. I am outraged at paying higher taxes (will ultimately leave NY) but the central problem in NY is that the public sector chews up so much of the income. Municipal retirees now get paid MORE than do current employees. All over the state there are scammer state, county and city workers, and they all retire in their 40s and 50s, often on bogus "disabilities" or after padding their last years of work with "overtime". There are also simply too many governments (towns, etc) in NY. Tom Golisano, who ran as an independent for guv wanted to reverse that - consolidate municipal entities - but good luck. Too many people are lining their pockets. Government is THE PROBLEM in New York.
I live in Brooklyn and I agree with Jozef's last paragraph. I (as well as many other people) are inclined to like Patterson simply because he's boring and won't embarrass us. He doesn't seem corrupt.
But he's in over his head. Far from resisting the pressure to appoint Kennedy, he was all set to give in to it until public outrage pushed him back. His mishandling of that appointment (not the economy) started his slide in popularity. In this big economic crisis, his austerity budget is 8% bigger than last year--several times the inflation rate. It's hard to swallow all the tax increases when he clearly hasn't made any hard spending cut choices.
While he may personally be an honest man, he is at the head of the country's most dysfunctional government, where decisions are made by three men behind closed doors (rubber stamped by the legislature) and connected special interests have almost unlimited ability to get what they want. He is not the man to bring sanity to this system or guide it through a crisis.
There is no man in NY who can bring any sanity to the corrupt NY political system. Nobody has been able to do it in the last 50 years. It just gets worse and worse.
The simple fact is that the concentration of populace and political power in the New York City area, where the corrupt public unions, shysters, and "community activists" are at their strongest, hands power to Albany reps who are simply the whores of those interests.
Eventually, look for the downstate area of NY to suffer a fate similar to upstate - a slow withering of its economy. Like upstate, downstate will face population loss as jobs move to more business friendly states.
Just as JC Penny and American Airlines found that Dallas was better than NY; just as Mobil found Virginia better than NY; just as Macys found Cincinnati better than NY, just as not one of the giant newer high tech companies is located in NY, the financial services industry will discover that they can do far better in other locales. If you thank that's farfetched, consider that only 25 years ago NYC was home to 5 of the 7 largest banks in the US. Today it's down to 2.
I am not a New Yorker (born and bred, though), and I agree with Jozef. I think Paterson is doing a good job on what counts.
Both public and private sector wages have actually been reduced by ~ 8% in Ireland and the Celtic Tiger is ready to claw back.
reference = http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4b946536-2787-11de-9b77-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1
Live in NY and agree with Jozef and Tim. It is an act of political courage for a Democrat to stand up to the unions and we should be praising him for doing so.
What a great post. McArdle revealed! Ideology always rules. If possible, she will usually try to come up with half-baked quantitative rationalizations. But empirical reality doesn't guide her thinking --it's just a kind of window dressing.
I think this is how we should start running the government...The less popular you are, the more job security you get as a politician. It's the only way to get the pols to make the really hard choices. Reverse elections! Bush 2012!