# Costs of public workers **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 24, 2012, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/costs-of-public-workers/619810 "2012-04-24T16:18:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/costs-of-public-workers/619810/41 "2012-05-09T02:32:55Z")
> [@spooje](#): > > I’m with you on Step 3, but step 2 seems a little nutty. IIRC, California taxes the heck out of businesses. In the news a few days ago, they have Texas as the best place for business, while California, for like the 8th year in a row, was the worst. I’m not saying lowering California taxes is the best plan but… > > Could you explain how raising taxes AND stopping California from trying to lure business with tax breaks would help that? Would we not make up the difference with payroll taxes, property taxes, sales taxes? Who’s “they” in your ranking? California isn’t exactly a wasteland of businesses; in fact, they’ve got more areas named for their utter dominance of a particular industry than any other state I can think of. Clearly they’re doing something right. My proposal isn’t designed to help them be even better at that; rather, it’s designed to shore up the budget shortfall. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/costs-of-public-workers/619810/42 "2012-05-09T02:53:33Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Who’s “they” in your ranking? California isn’t exactly a wasteland of businesses; in fact, they’ve got more areas named for their utter dominance of a particular industry than any other state I can think of. Clearly they’re doing something right. My proposal isn’t designed to help them be even better at that; rather, it’s designed to shore up the budget shortfall. [Top States 2011: Overall Rankings](http://www.cnbc.com/id/41666606) ranks California at 47 [Another Triumph for Texas: Best/Worst States for Business 2012](http://chiefexecutive.net/best-worst-states-for-business-2012) has us last for the past 8 years. > [@](#): > > It is perhaps no coincidence that Texas and Florida have the highest net migration of people to their states from 2001 to 2009. (By contrast, New York and California lost over 1.6 million and 1.5 million in net migration out of the states, respectively, over the same period.) > [@](#): > > With 12 percent of America’s population, California has one-third of the nation’s welfare recipients. Each year, the evidence that businesses are leaving California or avoid locating there because of the high cost of doing business due to excessive state taxes and stringent regulations, grows. (See “Eastward Ho!”) According to Spectrum Locations Consultants, 254 California companies moved some or all of their work and jobs out of state in 2011, an increase of 26 percent over the previous year and five times as many as in 2009 I admit, I find it hard to understand what a lot of these numbers mean, but God, it doesn’t look good. If taxes go up in California, would we not be even _less_ attractive for business? ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 7:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/costs-of-public-workers/619810/43 "2012-05-09T07:11:37Z")
> [@sitchensis](#): > > … a regular [Calif.] public employee that retires at 50 with 20 years of service will receive 22% of their highest salary… > This seems like a pretty normal defined benefit system. [tangential comment/question] The “of their highest salary” part works out very nicely for someone who, for legitimate reasons, has a short period with high wage. A more nuanced formula would be appropriate, IMO. (I have a close relative who, retiring as a public employee, did quite well because of the formula.) Do private pensions use a similar formula based on “highest salary”? ---
**Author:** ![What\_the](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f4b2a3/32.png) [@What\_the](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_the)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/costs-of-public-workers/619810/44 "2012-05-09T13:29:28Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > In fact, I live in Nevada, which is a right-to-work state. I’m curious about where exactly you think there exists a place where by force of law you could be compelled to join a union? > I’m curious as well about this; where it is that you think there are laws that compell anyone to pay union dues or “have them confiscated from their pay checks”? You’re a bit confused. I was clearly referring to proposals re right-to-work and dues paying (I could have also mentioned those re the way dues are used to support Democrats) that would restrict certain procedures the unions use. Those procedures may not have the force of law… no matter how hard the Democrats want them to. I could also have mentioned proposals re secret ballots so you aren’t exposed to undue pressure from union thugs when you make your vote known. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/costs-of-public-workers/619810/45 "2012-05-09T14:58:46Z")
> [@What\_the](#): > > You’re a bit confused. I was clearly referring to proposals re right-to-work and dues paying (I could have also mentioned those re the way dues are used to support Democrats) that would restrict certain procedures the unions use. > > Those procedures may not have the force of law… no matter how hard the Democrats want them to. > > I could also have mentioned proposals re secret ballots so you aren’t exposed to undue pressure from union thugs when you make your vote known. You aren’t making any sense here, at least not as far as I can tell. Could you elaborate in complete sentences, please? It seems as tho you have some half-formed thoughts and then you only conveyed half of those. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/costs-of-public-workers/619810/46 "2012-05-09T16:08:40Z")
> [@What\_the](#): > > You’re a bit confused. I was clearly referring to proposals re right-to-work and dues paying (I could have also mentioned those re the way dues are used to support Democrats) that would restrict certain procedures the unions use. > > Those procedures may not have the force of law… no matter how hard the Democrats want them to. > > I could also have mentioned proposals re secret ballots so you aren’t exposed to undue pressure from union thugs when you make your vote known. ‘Right to work’ doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means. Union jobs are good jobs. Good pay, benefits and work conditions. These jobs are sought after. Yes, you have to be a union member to get them. And the union requires dues, which seems to stick in your craw a bit. But these jobs have good pay, benefits and work conditions\*\*\* because of the union\*\*\*. Unions had to \*fight \*for these. And without the union, without the strength of numbers, they WILL go away. Do you really not get that? ---
**Author:** ![Paranoid\_Randroid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/paranoid_randroid/32/18_2.png) [@Paranoid\_Randroid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paranoid_Randroid)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/costs-of-public-workers/619810/47 "2012-05-09T18:45:52Z")
Not taking a position on the matter at hand. But: > [@spooje](#): > > ‘Right to work’ doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means. In what respect does he not understand what “right to work” means? I understand right-to-work laws to restrict the degree to which employment can be contingent on union membership; he seems to be using it in this sense. **Snowboarder Bo** on the other hand appears to be going for some kind of gotcha wherein no one is forced (say) to pay union dues because no one is forced to take a particular job. But that seems beside the point. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/costs-of-public-workers/619810/48 "2012-05-09T19:39:14Z")
> [@Paranoid\_Randroid](#): > > In what respect does he not understand what “right to work” means? I understand right-to-work laws to restrict the degree to which employment can be contingent on union membership; he seems to be using it in this sense. You are correct. He does appear to be using it that way. The phrase itself is bullshit. It has nothing to do with worker rights or freedom. It’s just about trying to weaken unions. Its about duping people into voting against their own interests. At first glance, he seems to say ‘I should be free to get that good job and not be _forced to pay any union dues_!’ while dismissing the simple fact that without the union, it would not be a good job. If the union goes, wages go down, work conditions, security and safety suffer. This what _employers_ want, not workers. That’s why it more appropriately called ‘right to work for less’ or ‘right to fire’. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2012, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/costs-of-public-workers/619810/49 "2012-05-09T21:46:46Z")
> [@Paranoid\_Randroid](#): > > **Snowboarder Bo** on the other hand appears to be going for some kind of gotcha wherein no one is forced (say) to pay union dues because no one is forced to take a particular job. I’m not going for any kind of gotcha other than the kind that applies to someone who makes statements that aren’t true about situations they don’t understand. If **What the** would like to clarify whatever the hell it is he thinks he’s talking about, we could then proceed to discuss that. ---
**Author:** ![What\_the](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f4b2a3/32.png) [@What\_the](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_the)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/costs-of-public-workers/619810/50 "2012-05-10T12:28:28Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > If **What the** would like to clarify whatever the hell it is he thinks he’s talking about, we could then proceed to discuss that. Quickly… the good guys have proposed various “anti-union” measures: 1. can’t be forced to join a union to take a specific job 2. union votes should be by secret ballot 3. your dues do not have to support candidates you disapprove of 4. dues should be paid voluntarily/not taken automatically from your check In your reply on 05-08-2012 06:14 PM you raised the argument a notch (the term for that bogus argument escapes me) when you said that there weren’t any laws compelling non-union people to do any of the above. That’s where things got confused. The unions make their own rules…the proposals I listed seek to prevent them from having those rules. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/costs-of-public-workers/619810/51 "2012-05-10T21:15:08Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Who’s “they” in your ranking? California isn’t exactly a wasteland of businesses; in fact, they’ve got more areas named for their utter dominance of a particular industry than any other state I can think of. Clearly they’re doing something right. My proposal isn’t designed to help them be even better at that; rather, it’s designed to shore up the budget shortfall. Thank you for actually being willing to give us a plan for solving the budget shortfall. However, I’ve got to say that I don’t think much of your plan. First of all, there are countless rankings of states by tax business climate; [here’s one](http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/22658.html). It shows California as #48 out of 50. Right now California has one of the nation’s highest unemployment rates, and other high-tax places such as Rhode Island, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia are up there as well. Of course there are exceptions. Nevada has low taxes and high unemployment, but nonetheless it’s hard to believe that high taxes don’t have bad economic effects. Pointing to areas in California named for their utter economic dominance isn’t going to convince. That Silicon Valley is called Silicon Valley tells us something about where it stood in the tech world decades ago, not right now. Lately tech companies have been fleeing California. ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/costs-of-public-workers/619810/52 "2012-05-10T23:00:30Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Thank you for actually being willing to give us a plan for solving the budget shortfall. However, I’ve got to say that I don’t think much of your plan. First of all, there are countless rankings of states by tax business climate; [here’s one](http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/22658.html). It shows California as #48 out of 50. Right now California has one of the nation’s highest unemployment rates, and other high-tax places such as Rhode Island, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia are up there as well. Of course there are exceptions. Nevada has low taxes and high unemployment, but nonetheless it’s hard to believe that high taxes don’t have bad economic effects. > > Pointing to areas in California named for their utter economic dominance isn’t going to convince. That Silicon Valley is called Silicon Valley tells us something about where it stood in the tech world decades ago, not right now. Lately tech companies have been fleeing California. Some tech companies have been fleeing California but overall, the tech industry is booming here right now. Just in yesterday’s Chronicle there was an article about how the hiring boom is pushing rents way up: [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/05/09/BU551OD1PL.DTL](http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/05/09/BU551OD1PL.DTL) Then today there was an article in which it was said that Yelp just signed a lease for more space in San Francisco: [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/05/10/BUC11OFIV6.DTL](http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/05/10/BUC11OFIV6.DTL) Practically every day there’s an article about another tech company either leasing space in S.F. or the Silicon Valley or planning to hire a few hundred people ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2012, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/costs-of-public-workers/619810/53 "2012-05-10T23:46:13Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Thank you for actually being willing to give us a plan for solving the budget shortfall. However, I’ve got to say that I don’t think much of your plan. First of all, there are countless rankings of states by tax business climate; [here’s one](http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/22658.html). If “tax business climate” were a measurement of quality of life, this measurement would matter. However, it’s not, so it doesn’t. What matters is whether CA’s policies are leading to better quality of life for folks who live there. AFAICT, their policies are pretty good for quality of life. True, unemployment is high in California. Are you suggesting that’s because businesses don’t want to be there? ---
**Author:** ![Unintentionally\_Blank](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/unintentionally_blank/32/5418_2.png) [@Unintentionally\_Blank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unintentionally_Blank)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2012, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/costs-of-public-workers/619810/54 "2012-05-11T00:45:35Z")
Taking a left-hand turn, I can speak to Colorado State Government. There’s been a nascent desire to consolidate all IT sections into one big department for the better part of 20 years. 5 years ago, they finally got traction. The end result is that the staff that DID know their stuff (and there was some, despite the stereotype) got fed up and left. The upper management insulated themselves with architects, directors, and project managers, and they’re hell bent to take all the money and send it to the Private sector…_despite the fact that there hasn’t been a single successful private sector contract_ as long as I can remember. So, where IT is concerned, they’re doing their level best to do anything BUT IT, and funnel all of the money to the private sector, where there’s plenty of money to be made in perpetuating the problem. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2012, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/costs-of-public-workers/619810/55 "2012-05-11T16:30:49Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > True, unemployment is high in California. Are you suggesting that’s because businesses don’t want to be there? [That would seem to be the logical conclusion](http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/28/news/economy/California_companies/index.htm). Meanwhile, how bad is the fiscal situation for local governments in California? [This bad](http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120511/A_NEWS0803/205110313). ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2012, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/costs-of-public-workers/619810/56 "2012-05-11T18:45:41Z")
> [@What\_the](#): > > Quickly… the good guys have proposed various “anti-union” measures: > > 1. can’t be forced to join a union to take a specific job > 2. union votes should be by secret ballot > 3. your dues do not have to support candidates you disapprove of > 4. dues should be paid voluntarily/not taken automatically from your check > In your reply on 05-08-2012 06:14 PM you raised the argument a notch (the term for that bogus argument escapes me) when you said that there weren’t any laws compelling non-union people to do any of the above. That’s where things got confused. The unions make their own rules…the proposals I listed seek to prevent them from having those rules. “The Taft-Hartley Act outlawed the closed shop in the United States in 1947. The union shop, where employees must join the union after being hired, has also been deemed a violation of the U.S. Constitution” > **[Closed shop](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_shop)** > > A pre-entry closed shop (or simply closed shop) is a form of union security agreement under which the employer agrees to hire union members only, and employees must remain members of the union at all times to remain employed. This is different from a post-entry closed shop (US: union shop), which is an agreement requiring all employees to join the union if they are not already members. In a union shop, the union must accept as a member any person hired by the employer. By comparison, an ope Inter... [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/costs-of-public-workers/619810.md?page=2)