[quote=livinincali][quote=CA renter]
Yes, public employees would be less effective without these benefits, and turnover rates would be much higher. These jobs value experience, because that’s the ONLY way you’re going to know how to do your job in many of these positions. The costs to recruit, train, and equip many of these employees are extremely high, so turnover is a huge cost to public employers.
Defined benefit plans encourage the most experienced and valuable employees to stay, and this reduces costs for the public employers, while also ensuring that they have the highest-qualified workforce.
[/quote]
It also encourages the worst and most disgruntled to stay as well. Once you get 10-12 years into city employment the benefit to stay on even though you hate doing what you’re doing is too high. Why do we want to lock down the best and the brightest shouldn’t they have freedom to pursue other opportunities like the rest of us. If you have someone that is truly great and want to keep them throw out the silly bucket pay scales and pay them what they are worth on the free market. Seriously where is the 10-15 year teacher making $60K in pay, $15K in medical benefits and probably another $10K in pension benefit going to go in the private sector and make a comparable amount.[/quote]
The worst employees tend to leave before benefits vest to any large extent. That doesn’t mean that some dead wood isn’t hanging around after too many years — and I absolutely support making it easier to fire truly bad employees. It’s more important to keep the good ones than to worry about the average or slightly less-than-average ones. Also, there’s no guarantee that if you got rid of the bottom 10%, that you’d get a new group that is better. Churning costs money, and it doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re getting better quality employees. And many of the best employees might not want to stick around, either, if they think that management is indiscriminately or wrongly terminating their coworkers.
As for the argument that there is any kind of a “free market” in labor…you clearly aren’t looking at the same things that I am. Employers are always conspiring to drive down wages and benefits, and they do so on many levels, including political, which is why we desperately need politically active unions…”united we negotiate, divided we beg,” and all that.
And that teacher going into another profession where s/he can make the same or better compensation? Lots of them do exactly that. Again, look at the attrition rate for teachers. Many teachers also come from the private sector where they were making more money, but they change for lifestyle or other factors (often to get hours that match their children’s hours). But since you’ve asked the question, how many professional athletes can leave the profession and make more money in another field? How many CEOs can leave that position and make anywhere near the same amount in another position? How about investment bankers? And how about the techies? Think they can leave tech and make more money elsewhere? Obviously, people tend to gravitate toward positions that give them the best of what they’re looking for with respect to job satisfaction, freedom, lifestyle, compensation, etc. That goes for everybody, not just teachers and other public servants.
