A newly sworn in President Obama made a point about executive salaries back in 2009. He said:
Regardless of where a person stands on this issue, we must all question why such edicts apply only to the private sector. Obama's sentiments are just as applicable to our elected officials, none of whom have seen a decrease in compensation during America's economic crisis despite their obvious culpability for our exponentially increasing debt and deficit. Why aren't members of Congress conributing towards their own healthcare and pensions? Why haven't they taken a salary cut, reduced staff, found ways to reduce expenses across the board? Why hasn't his administration reduced expenses for staffing, travel and other non-essential perks?
Obama is currently leading the pack in stockpiling campaign contributions for the upcoming Presidential campaign, but there's no statements from the White House as to how such money could better be spent. If all candidates in 2012 agreed to a publicly financed campaign and everyone returned all funds raised by their campaigns thus far to donors, it would pump a lot of money back into the economy. The cost of the 2008 Presidential election alone is estimated at $2.4 billion so the combined monies spent on all races is a significant sum. Even if just half were returned (assuming that spending by special interests wouldn't change), this would be significant money put back into local economies, jobs and consumer spending.
Democrats say we can't afford to curb the compensation of public sector (largely-unionized) workers because it hurts the middle class. Perhaps the compensation isn't too far out of line with private workers, though it does tend to be higher, but the reasoning behind the left's position is generally flawed. Government jobs tend toward bureaucracy while private sector tends toward efficiency. Nobody in government seems to be familiar with the old saying, "Too many cooks spoil the broth."
Public sector workers are often exempt from merit considerations where compensation is concerned. Determinations set by education level and seniority often lack regard for ability and performance. Public workers are automatically receiving more money simply because of their education level or how long they have held their position, while private sector workers are generally required to meet standards of performance in order to receive higher compensation or to advance in their positions. Dems like to point out that public sector workers are generally more educated than private sector workers, but that should be a hiring consideration only, not a factor for decisions regarding retention, advancement or additional compensation.
It makes sense in hiring or when setting a starting salary to offer a more educated employee a higher salary than a less educated hire but performance alone should be standard for all future reviews. After hiring, educational level is utterly meaningless in a position if others holding the same position have less education. If employee A has a Masters and employee B has only a Bachelors, they've both been deemed qualified for the same job. While A might have a higher starting salary, if B is better at the job, then B should ultimately receive a higher wage. Yet many government positions on every level give financial boons simply for holding a degree with little or no merit concern.
This disrupts organizations on many levels, including morale, because employees know that even though they work harder and perform better, they'll still be paid less than others simply because of a piece of paper. It also pushes people to spending time and money on education that isn't neccessarily useful except for personal growth, but that's a discussion unto itself.
The bureaucracy of government makes efficiency quite difficult and sometimes non-existent. Fewer employees could be accomplishing more in many government offices. Many like to claim that downsizing of any sort is always a bad thing but anyone who has ever had to function in both cultures (the bloated and inefficient as well as an efficient organization) knows that downsizing can be a huge improvement in many ways. The reality of excessive personnel is that things just don't get done right. There's a lot of wasted time and money when people are sitting on their hands, waiting for things to make their way through the chain of command. If government employees don't want to see their benefits capped then they need to be audited for efficiency and be prepared to reduce their numbers accordingly.
The demands from government to private industry are likely to fall on deaf ears until our leaders are prepared to take their own advice. There's no excuse for exempting elected officials and public sector employees from the standards that private employers must meet yet they've always gotten a pass and continue to do so. We need accountability in our government and it's long overdue.
"We don't disparage wealth . . . But what gets people upset -- and rightfully so -- are executives being rewarded for failure."Unveiling a plan to cap executive compensation for companies receiving federal bailouts, Obama had some choice words regarding banking execs who received lavish bonuses from institutions receiving billions of our tax dollars:
"(Such behavior) is exactly the kind of disregard for the costs and consequences of their actions that brought about this crisis: a culture of narrow self-interest and short-term gain at the expense of everything else,"
Regardless of where a person stands on this issue, we must all question why such edicts apply only to the private sector. Obama's sentiments are just as applicable to our elected officials, none of whom have seen a decrease in compensation during America's economic crisis despite their obvious culpability for our exponentially increasing debt and deficit. Why aren't members of Congress conributing towards their own healthcare and pensions? Why haven't they taken a salary cut, reduced staff, found ways to reduce expenses across the board? Why hasn't his administration reduced expenses for staffing, travel and other non-essential perks?
Obama is currently leading the pack in stockpiling campaign contributions for the upcoming Presidential campaign, but there's no statements from the White House as to how such money could better be spent. If all candidates in 2012 agreed to a publicly financed campaign and everyone returned all funds raised by their campaigns thus far to donors, it would pump a lot of money back into the economy. The cost of the 2008 Presidential election alone is estimated at $2.4 billion so the combined monies spent on all races is a significant sum. Even if just half were returned (assuming that spending by special interests wouldn't change), this would be significant money put back into local economies, jobs and consumer spending.
Democrats say we can't afford to curb the compensation of public sector (largely-unionized) workers because it hurts the middle class. Perhaps the compensation isn't too far out of line with private workers, though it does tend to be higher, but the reasoning behind the left's position is generally flawed. Government jobs tend toward bureaucracy while private sector tends toward efficiency. Nobody in government seems to be familiar with the old saying, "Too many cooks spoil the broth."
Public sector workers are often exempt from merit considerations where compensation is concerned. Determinations set by education level and seniority often lack regard for ability and performance. Public workers are automatically receiving more money simply because of their education level or how long they have held their position, while private sector workers are generally required to meet standards of performance in order to receive higher compensation or to advance in their positions. Dems like to point out that public sector workers are generally more educated than private sector workers, but that should be a hiring consideration only, not a factor for decisions regarding retention, advancement or additional compensation.
It makes sense in hiring or when setting a starting salary to offer a more educated employee a higher salary than a less educated hire but performance alone should be standard for all future reviews. After hiring, educational level is utterly meaningless in a position if others holding the same position have less education. If employee A has a Masters and employee B has only a Bachelors, they've both been deemed qualified for the same job. While A might have a higher starting salary, if B is better at the job, then B should ultimately receive a higher wage. Yet many government positions on every level give financial boons simply for holding a degree with little or no merit concern.
This disrupts organizations on many levels, including morale, because employees know that even though they work harder and perform better, they'll still be paid less than others simply because of a piece of paper. It also pushes people to spending time and money on education that isn't neccessarily useful except for personal growth, but that's a discussion unto itself.
The bureaucracy of government makes efficiency quite difficult and sometimes non-existent. Fewer employees could be accomplishing more in many government offices. Many like to claim that downsizing of any sort is always a bad thing but anyone who has ever had to function in both cultures (the bloated and inefficient as well as an efficient organization) knows that downsizing can be a huge improvement in many ways. The reality of excessive personnel is that things just don't get done right. There's a lot of wasted time and money when people are sitting on their hands, waiting for things to make their way through the chain of command. If government employees don't want to see their benefits capped then they need to be audited for efficiency and be prepared to reduce their numbers accordingly.
The demands from government to private industry are likely to fall on deaf ears until our leaders are prepared to take their own advice. There's no excuse for exempting elected officials and public sector employees from the standards that private employers must meet yet they've always gotten a pass and continue to do so. We need accountability in our government and it's long overdue.
No comments:
Post a Comment