The Sacramento Bee reports that the labor contract between California state government and the 2,800 employees represented by California Association of Professional Scientists expired this week, spotlighting yet again the long-running feud over whether the tiny union's members should earn as much as their peers in federal and local governments and private industry. "It's a challenge to keep people motivated," says Rita Hypnarowski. "We talk about retaining the best and the brightest, but I can see that's not going to happen." A recent survey by the Brown administration found that the total compensation for half of state-employed chemists is less than $8,985 per month. That's 33 percent less than the median total compensation for federal chemists, nearly 13 percent less than the midpoint for local-government chemists and almost 6 percent below the private sector.
Members of the union perform a wide variety of tasks, everything from fighting food-borne illnesses to mopping up the Refugio State Beach oil spill. For example Cassandra McQuaid left a job last year at the Department of Public Health's state-of-the-art Richmond laboratories where she tracked foodborne illnesses. It's the kind of vital, behind-the-scenes work that goes unnoticed until an E. coli outbreak makes headlines and local health officials need a crack team of scientists to unravel how it happened. "It really came down to money," says McQuaid. "I just couldn't live in the Bay Area on a state salary."
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday July 03 2015, @12:47AM
I was referring to civil service rules [...] But what I said about the government employee compensation is in fact accurate.
And you were also referring to the rationalization for those rules, particularly the manufactured need for collective bargaining. That is what I responded to.
(Score: 2) by mendax on Friday July 03 2015, @06:08AM
I believe I said nothing about a "manufactured need for collective bargaining". However, government employees ought to be paid a salary comparable to that paid in the private sector. This is not only to be fair to the government employees, this is to be fair to the electorate. If you want to have awful government employees, pay them less than the private sector so the government can only get the bottom of the barrel.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday July 04 2015, @12:41AM
However, government employees ought to be paid a salary comparable to that paid in the private sector.
What makes you think it's not already true? For example, this labor union represents people who for the most part are lab and field technicians. You don't even need a college degree to do that successfully. And that's not a particularly high paying job in the private sector.
(Score: 2) by mendax on Saturday July 04 2015, @01:25AM
California, for example, is a state that pays its programmers terrible wages. It starts at $4711 a month and ends at $7465 a month. That, my friend, is terrible and is not competitive. Incidentally, they expect you to have some experience to earn all of $4711 a month.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday July 04 2015, @10:40PM
California, for example, is a state that pays its programmers terrible wages. It starts at $4711 a month and ends at $7465 a month. That, my friend, is terrible and is not competitive.
Depends what they do. If all you're doing is web monkey stuff, it sounds about right for California. We also need to remember that there are typically some very plush benefits packages and perks associated with that sort of offer, particularly pensions and considerable job security.