Why are government workers any better in terms of job security and benefits?

Question

When it comes to budget problems. They are the ones should be blamed because tax payers are paying their salaries. I still don't get why government workers have special treatment in terms of job security and benefits. Any input??

I think people misunderstood my question. I am not against government workers. I am just saying when it comes to lay off, government workers are the most secure job because state/fed government don't do lay off like private sectors do. Plus those people with heavy pension plan especially politicans can have 2 pension or more after retired. Fact is they ARE different from private sectors

One time, NJ had a shut down due to budget and/or flood problems. Workers still got paid for days not working... tell me how lucky they are!!

Answer 1

Wow... It always amazes me how people view the governement as one cohesive entity, where everyone from the janitor to the elected officials have a say in the budget and operations. It is equally amazing how there is some perception of prefferential treatment, outstanding benefit packages, etc.

First off, "government workers" are just regular people who do not have much of a say in budgetary issues. In every level of government, there are finance committees that create a budget based on tax income (income tax, tariffs, B&O, Hotel/Motel, Personal Property, etc.) and the needs of the departments under their realm of control. These committees are made up of your elected officials who actually make decisions with only very few administrative workers who only serve to make departmental needs known. So, I wouldn't be so quick to 'blame' government workers for budgetary woes. They often get paid MUCH less than what they would if they worked in the private sector and work just as hard.... so it would follow that you keep your cheap labor, if anything.

I work for a municipal governement in a capital city. The reason my job is secure is that, unlike a corporation where departments and divisions are added and cut based on profit and loss, my job is still necessary no matter the state of the budget. The things that are cut back when a budget crisis arises are capital goods.... new vehicles and equipment are put on the backburner.

So, Mr. Taxpayer what would you rather have your money spent on..... civil services or retraining an underpaid workforce. I'm sure you've heard that it is much more expensive to recruit employees and train new employees rather than maintain current ones. That hold true much moreso in government becuase the wages are already low, there are no bonuses, and the only overtime paid is to police and fire personnel.

Take it easy on the little guy. If you are corporate, jsut know that the higher salary you get comes at the risk of decreased job security and being a slave to the success of your company, industry, and market.



*********************************************
In response to your additional details…..

While you may not be ‘against’ government workers, you very well may be a little jealous. Layoffs are not common in government like they are in the private sector. They are just two completely different organization types. Layoffs occur in the private sector because demand falls or a product/service is being killed by the competition. In the case of a major parent company like Proctor and Gamble, if toothpaste isn’t performing well and baby powder is doing great… guess who gets laid off. The demand for government remains relatively even and there is no competition. I really don’t know if it gets much clearer than that.

I really don’t know what politicians you are talking about. On the state level, Senate and House members are, in effect, part-time salaried workers. In my state, a state level senator will pull a whopping $15-18K a year, not including per diem during sessions which is about $90-100 a day, and also paid travel mileage. Their pension isn’t by any means “heavy” either…. It is about 50% of their official pay, and that’s only if they are old enough. So they will have that 8K a year pension, then they could have a pension from their private sector job as well. There is nothing wrong with any of that. Other government folks can do much better than that. Police and Fire folks can retire from their post once they reach the proper age at 50% of average of their two highest pay years, then get re-hired to perform another job. After they pass the service year requirement, they can then retire from that post as well. The “heavy” part you may be thinking of is that the calculation of the highest pay years INCLUDES overtime pay… so an officer that is salaried at $40K…. may in fact have been paid close to $70K because he worked his *** off for 80 hours a week. So then his pension will be close to his base salary. Sorry buddy, I don’t know what to tell you, people get paid for what they put in…its not really luck.

Finally, in times of a major crisis like a flood, I can see salaried government workers still being paid because they have vacation days and sick days that the administration can pull from and still pay workers. Yes, they still get paid, but their vacation time goes away, and nobody ever hears about that part of the equation. If it happened to be an extended shut down, they still pay their people for the reasons I discussed above. If you don’t pay people, they quit, and if they quit, you have hire new people at great cost. But that goes back to ‘government workers’ a.k.a. the little guy, rather than politicians.