Minnesota Public Employees to State:

Minnesota Public Employees to State: "You Must Keep Paying, and Quit Asking Questions: During the cha-cha years of endless surpluses during most of the nineties, and especially during the go-go early years of the Ventura Administration, Minnesota's public employees (along with public employees nationwide) treated the extra money as a sort of bureaucratic birthright. In 2001, in the immediate wake of the 9/11 attacks and as the nation faced an economic downturn, the state's public employees unions rammed through a large increase in pay and benefits, financed by the last surplus.

Today, of course, things are different. Except, apparently, in the minds of Minnesota's public employee unions.

Faced with an immense budget crunch, and in the midst of an economic downturn that has put Minnesota's enemployment rate over 5% for the first time in a decade, Representative Tom Neufeld (R-Northfield) introduced a bill that would freeze public salaries into 2005.

At a time when Minnesota's private sector families are learning 1001 ways to cook Government Cheese, Neufeld's bill would prevent roughly 1/3 of the currently-projected public employee layoffs (about 1,500 with the pay freeze, about 2,300 with the currently-slated pay hikes).

According to the Star/Tribune:

In short, the plan would prohibit managers of the state, cities, counties and school districts from agreeing to new contracts that increase pay, including those based on seniority. The bill allows for raises for promotions and wouldn't affect health coverage or pension plans.

In short - Public Employees would get a much better deal than Minnesota's private sector employees. As usual.

The University of Minnesota, which has special constitutional status, would be strongly encouraged to go along.

And the U of M's public employees will "strongly encourage" everyone else to...well, I digress.

The Strib continues:

A preliminary analysis projects savings of $26.5 million a year for the state, $114 million for local units of government and $31 million for the university -- figures that Neuville considers too conservative.

The DFL - which is largely controlled by public-sector employee unions - reacted predictably:

Sen. Jane Ranum, DFL-Minneapolis, the committee's chairwoman, isn't convinced that the proposal is sound. She said it fits in the category of "simplistic solutions to complex problems."

It's worth noting that neither Rep. Ranum nor any other DFL representative has come up with a suitably complex solution to the budget problem, preferring instead to snipe at Governor Pawlenty. (Which seems to be a theme in the DFL this year; look at the "News" section in the DFL website, a formerly-competent production that now seems to be designed by trained dogs. Note the dearth of actual substantive DFL proposals being publicized by the DFL's official organ!)

Ranum said it would strip local government and school districts of flexibility in managing budget cuts.

I saw this news item a few weeks ago:"Alcoholics say AA strips them of flexibility in managing drinking".

No Kidding, Jane Ranum! They're being "stripped" of "flexibility", in the same way that thousands of Minnesota private sector companies have been "stripped" of options - their budgets are shrinking!

Union officials said the collective bargaining process would suffer. They noted that a decade ago, when the state's budget was in rough shape, unions agreed to go without raises for a year in exchange for health coverage protection.

Unmentioned: They more than made up for it in the intervening decade.

"Wage negotiations belong at the bargaining table," said Julie Bleyhl of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. "The bargaining process allows for trades."

On behalf of every Minnesota private sector employee and small-business owner that's being asked to finance that "flexibility" with taxes drawn from our static, shinking or nonexistent paychecks, as we watch our own health insurance premiums zoom into the ionosphere, I ask: where's our flexibility? And why are your salaries and benefits any more sacrosanct than ours?

Posted by Mitch at March 9, 2003 05:22 AM