0 users logged on

Tips: BlueJerseyDotCom (AIM) |

Why I Am Against the Sweeney Sick Day Plan

by: Jersey Jazzman

Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 09:30:00 AM EST

NJ Senate President Steve Sweeney unveiled a plan today to completely do away with unused sick day payouts:

Democrats had previously wanted to cap sick leave pay for future accumulated unused days at $15,000, then offered to lower the cap to $7,500. But Christie has been steadfast to his opposition to any compromise, lambasting the Democrats' proposals telling town hall gatherings "zero means zero."
Under Sweeney's proposal, payouts for unused sick leave would be limited to what workers have already earned.
Currently, state workers' retirement take home pay for unused sick days is capped at $15,000. But some local governments have no limits, causing budget strain.

Full disclosure: I am a public school teacher. And I am against this plan; here's why:

1) It is a well-established fact that public employees with significant experience or higher education make less in salaries than private sector employees. There is a body of excellent scholarship that shows teachers are relatively underpaid, and that benefits do not make up the gap in compensation. Recent studies have confirmed public workers make less than private workers, and the gap grows greater as the level of education of the employee rises.

More below the fold.

Jersey Jazzman :: Why I Am Against the Sweeney Sick Day Plan

2) Local and state governments have attempted to address this gap by providing alternative forms of compensation. Just as pensions are part of a total compensation package - which is why all public employees really pay 100% of their pension costs - so are health benefits, vacation days, workplace protections, and, yes, sick day payouts.

3) Cutting any form of compensation to a public employee is equivalent to cutting his pay. Supply and demand dictate that offering less in total compensation will drain the available labor pool; either employees will have to be paid more in salary, or the demands of the job will have to be decreased.

4) There is simply no reason any government couldn't have planned for the amounts they needed to pay in unused sick day compensation. There are more than enough statistical, financial, and actuarial models that could have been used to predict the liabilities for governments that willingly negotiated these deals. Their ignorance or lack of foresight should not be borne by middle-calss workers doing necessary jobs.

5) If governments do not keep their promises, anarchy reigns. It's really that simple; this was an inherent promise made to public employees. It is ethically offensive to change the rules of the game on people who came into their careers understanding a precedent of compensation.

Now, there may in fact be very good reasons not to continue this policy any more. Fine: offer alternative compensation. If you don't, you must understand that you are cutting public worker compensation, and be ready to accept all the consequences that follow, including reduced incentives to enter public service, reduced economic stimulus, and loss of tax revenue from the income itself.

Long ago, politicians sold the public a deal: smaller salaries for public workers in exchange for deferred and alternative compensation (pensions, sick day pay outs, health insurance, etc.). Cut back on these and governments are breaking the deal. No one should kid themselves that this will not have consequences in the labor market.

I'm looking forward to hearing the other side of this debate. I understand progressives of good will can have opposing views on this. Let's have it out.

Tags: Jersey Jazzman, huntsu, featured, benefits, Steve Sweeney, Chris Christie, Labor, unions, Public Employees, sick days, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

Why I Am Against the Sweeney Sick Day Plan | 23 comments

And this will encourage people to use up their sick time (0.00 / 0)

If they're planning to leave in the near future, workers will use up as much of their sick time as they can, rather than losing it. So you'll lose productivity from many of your most experienced workers.

by: 12mileseastofTrenton @ Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 14:54:27 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

I agree, (0.00 / 0)

You in fact punish people for coming to work. I do realize that some people have taken this to the extreme but I think the cap is sufficient.

Some people accrue sick time because they fear if they have a serious illness they would have to go on State Disability. They are being prudent but again being punished.

This is wrong on so many levels.

by: sandy23 @ Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 18:34:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Unless ... (0.00 / 0)

they never carried it in the first place. Limiting carry is a way to guard against this result.

by: nathanrudy @ Thu Feb 09, 2012 at 12:49:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Doesn't change for those near retirement (0.00 / 0)

It'll still be, use it or lose it.

Of course, maybe they shouldn't get any sick days. That way we wouldn't have this thorny problem.

by: 12mileseastofTrenton @ Thu Feb 09, 2012 at 13:13:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

More Sweeney appeasement of Christie (0.00 / 0)

An example Sweeney would appreciate: Christie proposes to hang every third state worker. Sweeney agrees to the proposal but only if they're allowed a final meal first.

by: 12mileseastofTrenton @ Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 14:59:30 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Then... (0.00 / 0)

Wall Streeters pay their own bonuses? There are no insurance co-pays, because we all pay 100%?

"Where ever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai

by: William Weber (WjcW) @ Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 17:09:03 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Of course (4.00 / 1)

Let me put it this way:

Two people do similar jobs at different companies. One gets paid $75K/year with no health insurance. The other gets $50/year with a $15K health plan.

The employee making $75K says, "That's not fair! I have to pay for my own insurance!"

Is that a justified complaint?

http://jerseyjazzman.blogspot.com

by: Jersey Jazzman @ Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 21:14:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

I'd prefer to think of it as... (0.00 / 0)

Two people do the same job for the state, they both make identical salaries and have identical insurance.

Employee 'A' has a $200,000 back surgery during the year covered entirely by insurance.

Employee 'B' is healthy. Can employee 'B' complain and say employee 'A' made $200,000 more than he did?

"Where ever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai

by: William Weber (WjcW) @ Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 21:37:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Of course not: (0.00 / 0)

And your analogy is not germane to the argument.

Insurance is based on actuarial calculations. Sick days are benefits that have nothing to do with insurance.

Sick days are not insurance. The payouts to sick days are a form of compensation. The analogy doesn't hold up.

http://jerseyjazzman.blogspot.com

by: Jersey Jazzman @ Thu Feb 09, 2012 at 04:08:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

I think where we differ... (0.00 / 0)

is the idea of deferred compensation.

Sick days, insurance, bonuses, pension (years of pension, anyway) to me are benefits that may, or may not, be realized. I think the idea that you are entitled to the imputed value of these upon employment is flawed because the value of these for every employee varies. As such I don't agree that the employee has paid for these benefits upon employment because the value is indeterminable.

That said, my position on the sick days would be the following. Since prior contracts clearly give sick days a value, (stating they can be banked idefinitely, and paid out as salary at the rate at the time of payout), the value is pretty well defined.

Because of this, there is definable economic impact if these were eliminated and some concession should be made as the contact is altered.

However, I don't believe the state evisioned employees banking enough time to take entire years off (the principal at Howell high school did this in the early nineties) or having police/fire cheifs as the record holders of their own sick/vacataion time (an inherent conflict of interest) or payouts amounting to several year's salary (in a few extreme cases).

I think we should get back to the idea that sick days are really for when you are sick. That said, I'd agree with 12miles that maybe you can bank them and use them in the event you are disabled for an extended period of time, but in that case, I'd agree with the governor that if your out 'sick' for a week a visit to the doctor documenting your illness is warranted. But they shouldn't have any cash value.

Again, I think it's fair to put new rules in place for new hires, but the existing ones should be allowed to keep their benefit, and compensated for the loss of future accruals.

Finally, I totally understand that employees under contact consider them sacred, and hold by the axiom that rules can't be changed during the game. But at the same time, they have to take a step back and realize that the rules of the game change all the time, but they only want to accept the changes in their favor.

Pensions were originally calculated based on a certain age expectancy, every year that increases, but the employee contribution doesn't. Insurance benefits were calculated at the cost of premiums at the time, (and yes, there is some look ahead to predict what future premiums will be, and life expectancy), but even now, with Obamacare not yet in full force, it would be hard for me to judge what my employer will do, (drop insurance, pay penalty, etc). They could cure cancer tomorrow, and the average age expectancy could move up 5 years, shouldn't there be allowances for readjustments as some point.

"Where ever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai

by: William Weber (WjcW) @ Thu Feb 09, 2012 at 14:39:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I am sure you are sincere,but.. (0.00 / 0)

..do you really believe everything that you wrote?

It was an illogical perk that was given years ago that must now end.

Sick time is for when you are sick.Sick time is not anannuity program.

I give credit to the union leadership from years past who got this perk put into the contract,but lets be real here, paying people for unused sick days?

It is embarrassing to even defend the idea!

Sweeney let you keep what you already had. Be thankful for that and just move on! These type of arguments make government workers look greedy.

by: firstamend07 @ Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 21:42:21 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Sweeney let you? (0.00 / 0)

What freakin' arrogance.

Sweeney's been a longer enemy of public workers than Christie. He seems to not only hate public workers, but public students as well. As witnessed by his lynch mob remark.

Plus, your rhetoric could have come out of Christie's mouth. But then again, you are a Christiecrat.

by: 12mileseastofTrenton @ Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 21:53:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Christie took,Sweeney saved (0.00 / 0)

The truth is that if Christie got his way ,and HE CAN GET HIS WAY BY SIMPLY IMPOSING A CONTRACT, then all sick time perk payouts would be stopped.

Sweeney came up with another compromise that is fair.

Getting paid for not being sick.... that just makes no sense.

by: firstamend07 @ Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 22:00:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Then let Christie try to impose it (0.00 / 0)

It's not as easy as you make it seem. There are legal hurdles to overcome.

Not only that but Sweeney, in his lust to give Christie 95% of what he wants, once again, undercut his own colleague Sarlo and Assembly Democrats, who want a real compromise.

The only thing Sweeney is good for is for shooting the wounded.

by: 12mileseastofTrenton @ Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 22:06:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

No, I don't believe what I write... (0.00 / 0)

(sigh...)

You admit it was a perk. OK, than you need to replace it with something. You can't just take it away and expect there to be no labor market consequences.

That's my point.

http://jerseyjazzman.blogspot.com

by: Jersey Jazzman @ Thu Feb 09, 2012 at 04:11:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Yep (0.00 / 0)

better defined benefit plans and long-term care insurance.

by: nathanrudy @ Thu Feb 09, 2012 at 12:48:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

sweeney was ahead of his time..? (0.00 / 0)

Arizona legislators are voting on a package of bills that would be "Wisconsin on steroids" - banning collective bargaining, release time and stop automatic deduction of union dues from paychecks...http://azstarnet.com/business/local/az-senate-panel-oks-ban-on-collective-bargaining/article_170d0dbc-4d14-11e1-84ab-001871e3ce6c.html

by: True Sue @ Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 21:59:15 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Sweeney was the John the Baptist of the anti-public worker religion (0.00 / 0)

Except he lived to see such saviors and heroes, as Walker, Christie, Kasich and Daniels, fulfill his promise. His only regret is that his real hero, Ronald Reagan, is not around to enjoy it with him.

by: 12mileseastofTrenton @ Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 22:03:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Let's pray (4.00 / 2)

And hope that they all get sick and get numbnuts.

by: nkromann @ Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 22:23:17 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Funny! (0.00 / 0)

Ha! Take a 4!

http://jerseyjazzman.blogspot.com

by: Jersey Jazzman @ Thu Feb 09, 2012 at 04:09:48 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Getting Sick... (0.00 / 0)

Funny? I'm getting sick just reading this thread.

Politicians made those compromise when salaries weren't what they are now (teachers don't make $20K in perpetuity) and health care didn't cost $30K. And those politicians kept making compromises for campaign $ and votes until they made promises the public can not keep.

But I know JJ, you don't buy into that whole teachers unions campaign contributions have that much effect/power thing...until you DO.

by: Got Kids @ Thu Feb 09, 2012 at 18:30:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

YOU ARE WRONG! (0.00 / 0)

And I will SUES YOU! I know lawyers. :-)

JJ and I largely agree on this stuff. My issue is that the deal struck long ago was a bad one, and unions should take this opportunity to get rid of sick day payouts in return for better defined benefit pensions and long-term care insurance.

by: nathanrudy @ Thu Feb 09, 2012 at 12:47:10 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

I agree, but... (0.00 / 0)

...Christie and Sweeney are looking to take money away from public employees. I don't think that either of them are interested in giving them anything back in return.

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Thu Feb 09, 2012 at 14:06:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Why I Am Against the Sweeney Sick Day Plan | 23 comments