Arrest made in SWAT standoff
Madison girls in state semifinals
2 vehicle crash at intersection
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2009 > November > 06 > Entry
Editorial: Pay raises sent all the wrong signals
The dust-up in Dayton about managers getting a pay raise — even as the city faces a stunning $15 million to $20 million deficit next year — is much ado about something.
Labor contracts — at the city and in the public sector generally — requiring regular and sometimes hefty “step” pay increases on top of negotiated cost-of-living raises create a culture wherein employees think the sky’s the limit with respect to their pay.
That’s a problem if governments ever hope to control personnel costs.
Meanwhile, unionized workers who, for long stretches of their careers, get two raises a year quickly end up making more than their supervisors or, more likely, their supervisors get nice raises, too. The vicious cycle is a good deal for everybody except taxpayers.
Even in these financially dicey times, former Dayton City Manager Rashad Young furthered this tradition, deciding to give about 381 managers teeny-tiny raises on the justification that, if some union members were getting a pay hike, so should managers.
The managers’ raises averaged a token 1.19 percent, costing about $300,000.
Specifically his rationale was that 442 unionized employees — about a quarter of the non-management staff — were entitled to “step” increases that ranged from slightly more than 1 percent to double-digit hikes. These automatic raises were given even as there has been all sorts of attention on Dayton for wringing concessions from its employees.
The other three-quarters of Dayton’s unionized workers have already run through their “step” increases.
They are the ones most affected by the decision to accept four furlough days or four unpaid holidays and a suspension of cost-of-living raises.
(Incidentally, the furlough days also apply to managers. Police, however, are refusing to accept any financial concessions.)
Even though the management raises were inconsequential in the big picture, they were still bone-headed for these reasons:
— Managers set the tone as to what sacrifices are expected. The message had gone out — and a public perception had been created — that city employees had agreed to accept a pay freeze because money was tighter than ever.
Why confuse that message, especially when the amount managers were getting was so piddling?
— The decision undermines the sense of urgency about Dayton’s problems.
The city doesn’t just have a one-time deficit; it has a structural deficit. It doesn’t have the revenue stream it had in the past and that money isn’t coming back soon. It has reduced staff, and will have to reduce still more. Those employees who remain have to have different expectations about how well they’ll be paid.
— Mr. Young poked his finger in the unions’ eyes. He had to know that they’d make a fuss if people who are generally well paid get even just a little extra.
— If there’s anybody who shouldn’t be getting “step” increases — or anything that looks like a reward for solely being on the job — it’s managers.
Moreover, supposedly managers were only eligible for “merit pay.” Now there’s understandable confusion about what the city’s management compensation structure really is. The appearance is that it’s whatever management wants it to be.
Before the bottom fell out of the economy, it was common for public-sector workers who hadn’t topped out in their job classification to get raises of 6 percent and sometimes much more when their “step” and contract raises were added together.
Combine the two raises with the series of different job classifications that ambitious employees can move through and you have an unsustainable system.
The argument for having “steps” is that government pays lower salaries than the private sector, and it needs some means of attracting talent. In fact, though, government employment is pretty appealing today — because of generous health care and pension plans and even the job security (when compared to the private sector).
Mayor Rhine McLin and the city commissioners knew in advance about Mr. Young’s plan, which meant even a self-awarded — and unseemly — increase for Mr. Young.
Given the times, given how many people would be grateful to have a job, they should have nixed the idea.
The move has created doubt about how committed Dayton’s commission is to making difficult cultural change and leveling with workers about what the city can afford to pay. (It probably also didn’t help the mayor’s re-election bid, a problem she should have anticipated.)
Absolutely Dayton’s workers deserve a fair wage. But like everyone else, they have to sacrifice in unprecedented times. And the sacrificing needs to be exactly what it’s publicly presented as.
Permalink | Comments (11) | Post your comment | Categories: City of Dayton, Economy, Editorials, Ellen Belcher, Law Enforcement and Public Safety, Ohio government
Comments
By Tired
November 6, 2009 7:04 PM | Link to this
I’m suprized the DDN idiots did not blame this on the new mayor elect. Since they wanted the silly hat woman so bad they could not even see straight. Obama gets to blame Bush for everything lets see how long the new Mayor is allowed to blame McLin for what she has done. My guess, he will be called on everything that goes wrong as his fault.
By jon
November 7, 2009 2:16 AM | Link to this
Most of this article contains facts, facts that should of been written about in the orginal stories that DDN published on this topic. Instead I have to read these facts, a week later, in the “Matter of Opinion” section. The only reason these facts are present now are to help prove the opinion of the author of this article. Just please deliver the facts in a timely, correct and accessible manner and let me the reader form my own opinion.
By Concerned
November 7, 2009 3:05 AM | Link to this
What, no investigative reporters at the DDN anymore? As I recall, the union uncovered this.
By MCSO
November 7, 2009 9:48 AM | Link to this
This is not surprise to those of us “union” workers in the public sector. Pay is okay now only because the hey day for private business in over. Now those who wanted no part of the Public Sector jobs want to use us as their whipping boy. Too bad, I have put up with lower wages than my counterparts in the private sector for years. I pay into my retirement, they had their company matching 401K. Just because the economy and housing markets tanked don’t try to reverse the rules on Public Sector employees.
By Bill
November 7, 2009 11:43 AM | Link to this
Sheriff Plummer added 2 captains to his payrol in 2009 with an ongoing cost of over 200,000 per year when all the bennies are added in. The difference is the city’s stupid pay out was a one time expense, PLUMMER’s is ONGOING. What in incomptence in these difficult times.
By null
November 7, 2009 3:36 PM | Link to this
Where was this analysis BEFORE the election when McLin was THE ONE to lead us out of this turbulent time? NOW the raises sent the wrong message? Really?
By Dude
November 7, 2009 8:38 PM | Link to this
The City will once again want to “negotiate” concessions in 2010 given the purported $17-20M deficet. And, since they have proven themselves to be liars and obviously bargained in bad faith, those concessions likely won’t come. They will once again poor mouth the unions but it will be their own fault. I hope the folks remember this when the City starts their whining.
By davidss2
November 8, 2009 8:52 PM | Link to this
Leaving out facts before the election shows how low the DDN is. Frankly they need to get some investigating reporters and start being a newspaper again instead of a poor birdcage paper parroting MSNBC. I keep expecting a Rachel Madcoww column to show up any day now.—————the DDN can’t tell the whole story in an editorial: do we think they told the true story when Bush and Cheney were in charge? Or just the negatives. ==========Do they tell the real story now about Obama and his handlers? I don’t think so.
By davidss2
November 8, 2009 8:54 PM | Link to this
Leaving out facts before the election shows how low the DDN is. Frankly they need to get some investigating reporters and start being a newspaper again instead of a poor birdcage paper parroting MSNBC. I keep expecting a Rachel Madcoww column to show up any day now.—————the DDN can’t tell the whole story in an editorial: do we think they told the true story when Bush and Cheney were in charge? Or just the negatives. ==========Do they tell the real story now about Obama and his cohorts Pelosi and Reid? I don’t think so either. I suppose after they lose in 2012 then DDN will decide to tell the real story about OBama and others.
By smoke&mirrors
November 20, 2009 10:14 AM | Link to this
You stumbled across the problem with Dayton in the article.He gave a raise to 381 managers? There are only 340 some police officers.There is the problem.More managers than people to manage.
By smoke&mirrors
November 20, 2009 10:21 AM | Link to this
My point is that 340 officers can take calls and handle thousands of citizens in 5 districts..why can’t 381 managers handle people that are suppossed to know what they are doing…lets cut managers.