RSS Feed
Add a Comment
Stay Connected
What's Hot
American Apparel ad featuring California farmer sparks controversy
Silicon Valley venture capital firm subject of gender discrimination lawsuit
Solano County won’t review 300 more autopsies
After 2 years, SF's solar projects still on hold
Warriors confirm move to SF
Report: In Public vs. Private Earnings, It's a Draw
Former and current Bell city employees attend a bail reduction hearing in Superior Court September 22, 2010 in Los Angeles,
Now, a scientific attempt to go beyond the outrage seeks to answer the question: Are California public employees overpaid compared to private sector employees?
The short answer offered by researchers Sylvia A. Allegretto and Jeffrey Keefe in their report for UC Berkeley's Center on Wage and Employment Dynamics is 'no.'
Taking data that includes educational levels, age, wage and benefits from state and local employees and from private sector employees, their study is able to compare apples to apples, in a sense, to arrive at several interesting and important findings. One is that public employees wages are actually 7 percent less on average than comparable private sector workers. And that is one factor to take into account when looking at benefits, which are more generous for public employees, Allegretto and Keefe find. But even when taking those benefit differences into account, they say, total compensation for public and private employees is similar.
They do find some very important differences, though, between public and private sector workers that do bear on earnings. Public employees are older than private sector employees and they have a higher proportion of women—55 percent women compared to 40 percent in the private sector, and women typically earn less than men. Also, public sector workers are more highly educated than those in the private sector, with 55 percent having a four-year college degree, compared to 35 percent in the private sector. And that degree is worth higher wages for private sector employees, the researchers find.
Their conclusions don't mesh well with all the anger directed at public employees right now, especially those associated with unions and the researchers acknowledge it, saying, "the vilification of government workers is sorely misplaced and has left the real culprits of this devastating downturn off the hook. Compensation received by public sector employees is neither the cause—nor can it be the solution—to the state's financial problems."
Annette Fuentes, a native New Yorker, comes to The Bay Citizen from New America Media, where she was managing editor. A veteran news journalist, is the author of the forthcoming book, “Lock Down High: When ...
View Profile
About Us
Reporting Staff
Stay In Touch
- About Us
- Events
- Support Us
- Careers
- Corrections
- Letters to the Editor
- Privacy Policy By accessing this site, you accept our Terms of Use. Please read them.
© The Bay Citizen, 2012
- Katharine MieszkowskiEnvironment and Health
- Reyhan HarmanciArts, culture, nonprofits
- Zusha ElinsonTransportation
- Shoshana WalterCrime and punishment
- Jennifer GollanRegional government
- Aaron GlantzHousing, real estate, development
- Trey BundyEducation
- Matt SmithSF politics and government
- Andy WrightNews and engagement specialist
- Marie McIntoshPublic engagement manager
- Adithya SambamurthyVideo and Photography
voltairesmistress
An Ivy League doctoral student in the social sciences once admitted to me that one could design a social science study to support or debunk just about policy. For that reason and several others(see below), I am less than convinced by this single study you report on. Looked at in isolation from similar studies and divorced from a detailed look at the authors' methodology, its findings are hard to evaluate.
What truly confuses me is how this study's findings fly in the face of anecdotal evidence amply in view here in San Francisco: One learns that Muni drivers start at $29+/hour. What private bus company driver can begin at that kind of wage? City park and rec gardeners at the most basic knowledge level pull down $55,000/year or so (that's about $27.50/hour). What landscape worker earns that much digging holes for trees and watering clients' lawns? (My own stint in the private sector doing so netted me minimum wage.) Among working class people, it's common knowledge that getting a city job is a prize worth waiting for -- because wages and benefits are so much more stable and better than in the private sector. Do these anecdotes jibe with this academic study?
Further, a 2-minute check of the authors and the institute they work at reveals that at least one, Sylvia A. Allegretto, worked for some years at the Economic Policy Institute, an institution that describes itself as non-partisan, but which Wikipedia and others describe from line one of as a "progressive" institute. The work of these academic authors often revolves around the question of "fairness" -- a valid concern, but hardly a neutral term of economic analysis. Were these authors, Allegretto and Keefe, poised before their study to find equality of wages and benefits between public and private sector workers? Did they cherry pick data or conveniently choose categories of analysis that would support desired findings? I don't know, but it's worth asking.
For these reasons I remain highly skeptical of the this report's and this reporter's findings.
Connor Vlakancic
I am impressed (favorable impressed considering there are other variety of impressed). Very thoughtful considered and described. I wish voltairesmistress was working in my election campaign staff.
Doug Pearson
You say, "Looked at in isolation from similar studies and divorced from a detailed look at the authors' methodology, its findings are hard to evaluate." I agree but, unlike you, I am predisposed to question the complaints that government wages are higher than private wages.
I wonder if all the studies showing that government wages are excessive were done by people with no preconceived ideas. Or are there any such studies?
ramona pest
Of course you don't believe it, and neither do we because we are so much more inclined to believe voltairesmistress than a published study where the methodology can be easily deconstructed than that of the wad in vm's head. If you belive a Coty job is such holy grail, Get one!!!! It really isn't that hard, oh sorry you probably lack the education. And by the way, a city gardener only makes what you claim after 15 years at avsupervisors level, would you expect less after working that long at any job in San Francisco.???
voltairesmistress
Ms. Pest,
You are not posting comments, but rather rants. Rants in which you attempt to insult anyone you disagree with. Could you please stick to facts and courteous opinions? You would be so much more persuasive.
Within your post was a potential factoid of importance: you assert that a city gardener makes $55,000/year only after 15 years of service on the job, not from the start. I don't know if that's true, and it conflicts with information I've read elsewhere, but maybe you are right. And that's important. So if you strip the screaming insults out of your posts, we all might learn something, be challenged to think anew, etc.
RB Orbust
The average wages and benefits of City gardener in the current 2010-11 budget, including furlough days is $83,000. This is a fact per the Controller's office. Who knows what the average age of a gardener is, and frankly, who cares.
RB Orbust
Civil servants concluding that civil servants are not overpaid. Who would have thunk it?? This study is clearly an opinion piece. Would a scientist ever write that government workers have been "vilified" in California. Just shows you you can cherry pick any data set (here they picked education level) to get the results you want.
"Public workers in California earn 7 percent less on average than private sector employees, but make about the same amount after benefits and other compensation are factored in, according to a study released Monday."
Oh yes, this is believable: the disparity in benefits is about 7%. I luv the way the authors dismissed the state's $500 billion pension debt as a mere trifle. This study will be thoroughly debunked within six months.
Familygal
Thank you for this article. I've been wondering about this very thing. Perhaps the blue-collar type jobs are paid more than their counterparts, but when you average in the lower-than-private sector pay for the white collar jobs, and the lower lifetime earning potential for those with master degrees, it is logical it would all average out. I looked into becoming a librarian, but quickly changed my mind once I saw how little I'd make after paying for a Master's degree. I also wouldn't consider researchers at UC Berkeley "civil servants" as the above poster states. It's a leading research university. And you cannot cannot deny the pervasiveness of vilification of public employees, any public comment section on this issue is ripe with insults and targeted anger. Also, voltairemistress is quite clearly in the anti-public employee camp, judging by many of his/her comments. It's not surprising that she'd be skeptical of the study. She would likely be suffering the same inclination to find evidence to support a preconceived notion that she accuses the researchers of. (and that the most of us humans are prone to.)
I also question the $46,000 average private sector salary that is often quoted by Prop B supporters. If anyone knows the methodology behind that calculation, I'd like to know. There are significant numbers of SF residents who make over $1 million a year ---I can't believe they don't skew the average higher.
Familygal
I just read over the study and it actually bears out what I posted above. For those with less education, public workers earn more than private sector. The higher your education level, the lower your compensation will be when compared to a private sector counterpart. I have noticed that most angry posters continue to use a gardener or janitor as an example, which drums up the outrage. I haven't seen an Pro-B example of overcompensation based on a white-collar worker and this study shows why. As for the study being debunked or mere opinion, the authors cite three or four other studies done recently that they say obtain the same results. I haven't checked into them; but if there are indeed similar studies with similar results, then it's more likely to be valid. If only it would stop the insults, but facts seldom change anybody's mind.
voltairesmistress
Actually, Familygal, facts and personal experiences are probably the primary contributors to changing anybody's mind who's open to change.
For that reason, I appreciate your looking into the study. You highlight the point that public employees with lower amounts of education are compensated better than in the private sector. And you contrast that to the situation of the more educated employee who receives less in the public sector than the private. This aspect of more educated employees receiving less may be true -- my experience with at least one high level manager for the City bears this out. She would receive more pay (but fewer pension benefits) from the private firms that are always recruiting her. She desires, however, the security of a public position. And she enjoys very much the responsibilities that come with her public service.
As for being anti-public employee -- I don't think I am, but I do find the lack of accountability of union employees galling. But I am often delighted by the work and service that many public service sector employees deliver. Many teachers, for example, are the most generous, civic-minded individuals I've ever known.
Familygal
Respectfully, there's been exciting developments in research on how humans make decisions. I enjoyed "How We Decide" by Jonah Lehrer--his summary of recent neuroscientific research says that reason and emotion are both used for decision making; but which one wins out depends on the person and the situation. Malcolm Gladwell's "Blink" is more in the "emotions rule us" camp. George Lakoff's work deals with an individual's "frames" which affect how they make decisions and how contradictory beliefs can be held by a single individual (like being both anti-abortion and pro-war), but also how we can reject facts that don't fit into our frames. The Persuaders (an older piece from Frontline) exposes how marketers exploit our "lizard brains" to bypass reason (prefrontal cortex) and encourage you to decide to purchase something based on primal emotions. Your key phrase is "open to change." I agree that facts can work with those folks. But how many are open to change is an interesting question. In a situation of heightened emotion (such as we have now with the economy, public debts, etc) it's much harder for facts to matter. I believe this is why we see so much distortion of facts by political campaigns to heighten the emotional reaction. In Prop B, both sides have done this.
I actually agree with you about some aspects of lack of accountability of unions; however there are so many individuals within unions that do a good/great job. I just hate seeing all the us vs. them rhetoric that comes from both sides.
voltairesmistress
Thanks for the references to how people actually make choices or change their minds-- very interesting stuff, if a bit depressing(!).
Certainly, this discussion here and others I've heard on the radio (KALW twice) have made me aware that being pro- or anti-union, pro- or skeptical of public sector workers, is off-base. It's insufficient to approach pension and benefits changes either emotionally or ideologically. And that's true for both sides of the whole Prop B issue.
I came across a great article in the Economist (10/16/10, pp. 95-6) that shows what a mess the states and many municipalities are in (3.4 trillion underfunding for states; $574 billion for municipalities).
The pension hole stems from two things that disguised it: states accounted for the cost of pensions based on an expected return on assets of 8% -- something insupportable. And asset markets were strong, so the problem was not immediately apparent -- extremely helpful to Republican and Democratic lawmakers who wanted labor peace, lots of services, and the same tax rates. The more risk a pension fund assumed (assumes higher rate of return), the lower the pension liability appeared to be. Yet, nothing had changed. The liability (or obligation to pay people what you promised them) remains the same.
I cannot do that article justice, buy I highly recommend it. A great quote ends it, "This is not a conservative-versus-liberal issue, this is a reality issue."
ramona pest
Rb orbust, here you go again.- sorry you again need to bolster your arguments with flat out lies. And you never provide any backup... Like a link. You love to point out that average gardeners make 83,000. There is, in fact no postition in the city service system with the title "gardener" that makes that...and that is to say on the top pay, much less "averages" that as you are claiming. I dare you to just once prove what you are saying, and quit posting false statements. The top pay for a gardener is approx 56000. AND This is the top level before a supervisor level, only attained after Several years on the job with training and education. These jobs are sought after and competitive, the gardeners do have horticultual education and years of experience.
VM I've noticed you calling others out on what you are calling 'rants', however, my comments are as valid as yours. Actually MORE so in fact because I am a city employee, in fact A GARDENER, I am tired of the lies and misinfomarion posted on these boards. I don't, and my co workers don't, make what is being stated and it is very misleading to post lies on these posts. VM clearly you are not and never have been a city worker or privvy to any knowledge about city wages and or training. These are your supposings. You make lots of declarative statements , as rb orbust does, about wages and training AND YOU DONT POST EVIDENCE THAT YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!!! Your opinions are just your musings and critcisms and bear no weight here. So you make what I will still consider you ignorant and prejudicial comments, and I will make mine based on facts and knowledge from working for the city.
Prop B is funded by billionaire REPUBLICANS trying to stake a political claim . This is an anti family measure to take away DEPENDENT healthcare. Sf used to be a progressive family friendly place ? What happened. Maybe reform needs to happen, no doubt, but not on regressive measures that hurt families and does not spread the pain fairly. No on B - poorly written and rushed to the ballot with no thought to hidden costs and consequences.
voltairesmistress
Ramona Pest,
I don't mean to pester you, but I actually think you make a good point here: when one has access to hard data like pay-scales and the like, it's good to put those facts on the table and link to sites that verify those assertions.
For example, your explaining that gardeners only make $56,000 at the top level, just under supervisory level and only after several years on the job, is very relevant. Do you have a link for that? Again, I'm not trying to needle you. Your job as a city gardener gives you a chunk of credibility right there. But right now, all fellow readers have to go on are competing assertions about what various city employees make, what their qualifications have to be, etc.
If you or I or RB Bust or anybody else commenting had a job as a reporter or was city controller, or just had all day to research stuff, then maybe we'd write amazing pieces with footnotes and links and the like. As it is, I think the comments sections are for all of us with too many other commitments to be unpaid journalists.
ramona pest
http://www.jobaps.com/sf/sup/BulPreview.asp?R1=CBT&R2=3417&R3=056471
VM: above here is a link to a recent job announcement for FULL gardener. This is the highest level of the gardener classifications, at an average salary of 56,000-.and there is a college education and/or years of apprenticeship to qualify to apply to this one. MOST of the gardening is being done by a lower apprentice gardener class, or general laborer classes supervised a higher classification. So the AVERAGE salary of a person performing gardening work for the city is far lower. Even so, these jobs are highly sought after and competitive so most gardeners have more education and experience than is advertised for the position and a college degree in horticulture or a related field. Another thing about civil service is once you reach the maximum range if achieved in the first 5 years , will never see another raise not negotiated as a cost of living increase in the contract. Therefore there are gardeners or laborerers working at the same or similar pay level for close to their entire tenure at the city, could be 15 to 30 years with no raise if they do not have an opportunity to apply for another classification. These opportunities rarely come up so the fixed pay scenario over a couple decades is more common than not.
voltairesmistress
Thanks, Romona. I also found a link (quite by accident!) to an analysis of possible flaws with the employment study at the center of this article. See: http://www.calwatchdog.com/2010/10/21/public-pay-study-seems-bogus/
It is not definitive, but it does show a lot or research. Not surprisingly, the article was written by a paid, professional journalist with more than time than you or I to dig down deep. Hey, what I am doing goofing off from work, posting on this website?! I do need to check out and get back to work. ;-)
ramona pest
http://mission.sfgov.org/cgi-bin/dhr/findClass.cgi
VM: here is a link that discloses all negotiated compensation for City classes.
Public information, no need to ask the controllers office.
I believe that comparing compensation is like comparing apples to oranges assuming Civil Service. As I stated compensation may be loaded on the high side for the first years, but after that wages in that class are capped. There are no bonuses, merit increases, commissions or any of the things associated with private sector wages. In order to receive more pay you have to apply for a whole new job and the candidates are selected by an independent panel by use of scores on civil service exams. There may not be any opportunities to apply for in any event for many many years. Therefore once in a position, I would say most civil servants stay for the couple or three decades in the class they were hired into giving them no raise for decade(s) except perhaps a cost of living adjustment ( no guarantee, especially in bad times, often these are the first cut) Therefore good benefits are really the only thing that makes the lack of raises, and or bonuses or merit compensation worthwhile. And of course the longer you stay, the better the benefits are (generally) so that is the reward or tradeoff. I'm not really sure you can compare a lot of the jobs, I mean comparing a muni bus driver and what they deal with to a private shuttle or coach driver....please. Some things just can't be compared. Even what a gardener has to deal with has no comparison in the private sector. You wouldn't believe...
Ralph Stone
I am not sure the study necessarily proves that San Francisco public employees are “neither overpaid nor overcompensated.” There is no study protocol. Rather the study seems to lump all or at least a number of state and local public employees together. Were San Francisco public employees included in the study? A more relevant study would be of San Francisco public employees alone.
San Francisco is unique from most California cities. Why? Because San Francisco has been a labor town since the days of Boss Ruef and Eugene Schmitz, and as the SF Civil Grand Jury pointed out, our out-of-wack Employees’ Retirement System is due in large part to the too cozy relationship between San Francisco public officials and the unions who have negotiated extraordinary pension and retirement benefits without consideration of the unfair financial burden placed on future generations.
Under Proposition B, City workers will continue to have a much better deal than most of their private sector counterparts. Changing from a defined benefit plan to a defined contribution plan, which would be closer to the benefits offered by private businesses and nonprofit organizations, Proposition B would be a modest shift in costs. Although Proposition B can be viewed as a de-facto pay cut to City employees, which would be painful, it is exactly the same kind of pain that people across our entire society are making.
Gordon
Mr. Stone brings up an excellent point, this study makes no reference whatsoever to San Francisco, as it appears to lump all California government workers together. I am quite certain that San Francisco workers would be at the high end of any scale of California workers.
Another point that never seems to be discussed is the sheer number of 27,000 employees working in SF, not including SFUSD and courts with another 8,000.
How in the world do we need so many employees in SF?