Slashdot Mirror
Scientist Union's Talks Stall Over Pay
HughPickens.com writes: The Sacramento Bee reports that the labor contract between California's state government and the 2,800 employees represented by the 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 ($5,715 in salary, plus $3,270 in benefit costs). 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."
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."
If you work for the state, where do you HAVE to live in the bay area? Shouldn't the state alleviate the issue by having offices for these people in other, less expensive, areas of the state? You could attract a lot of people at a lower salary using quality of life as an attraction if you locate somewhere outside the major cities... there's a lot of California and all of it is not as expensive as the bay area.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
In 10 occupations, the state’s total compensation was at or above the market. In four occupations, the state’s total compensation was below the market.
So California needs to cut (or not change) the compensation of ten occupations and increase it for four. Seems reasonable.
"Consider that we have homeless people and other poor people who aren't necessarily helped by higher taxes in this country."
And then consider that those homeless are probably the ones that most benefit from the kind of jobs these people are doing, since are the most exposed to health/environment base standards.
"I want to say there should be a cap for how much government employees can earn for employment that is consistent over time."
It is said the if you pay peanuts you get monkeys. If you are paying below average, what kind of people do you think you'll attract?
"If everyone wants to get paid above average, half of the available positions will remain unfilled."
Only if there's something like 'basic rent' in place.
In the meantime, in the real world, it's not so much about what you, as an employee, want to be paid, but about what you, as an employer, want from your employees. And then, if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.
nearly 13 percent less than the midpoint for local-government chemists and almost 6 percent below the private sector
.
So, while this particular group is complaining that they are relatively underpaid, it seems,on average, government employees are overpaid.
Let them train some H1-B visa holders to replace themselves and help get the government average down to the private sector average.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Newsflash!
Scientists strike! They say "No working science until they're paid better!"
In other news!
*BOOM!*
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Am I reading this right? That private sector chemists are paid less than government sector chemists?
"But what I'm getting at is when the government pays employees way above the per capita income of taxpayers."
I see your point, but I think is moot both in practical and ethical grounds because tax-to-wages is not a one-to-one map.
In practical, it's just a market, offer and demand: if you want the best (not that you *must* want them, maybe your needs are not up to the best and brigthest but *if* you need them), you need to have three things:
1) Have a selection process to filter out everybody but the best.
2) Have a process in place to detect the mistakes on point 1 above and/or those that, still being the best when hired, may be not the best now.
3) Offer the highest pay (not necessarily just money, other perks included) so the best apply to your selection process to start with.
And with regards to ethics, I don't see how someone can be comfortable paying, say, a bartender the same than to a, say, brilliant doctorate in something you really feel useful. It is not as if that any single doctor needs to be payed in full by any single bartender's taxes. It is still reasonable for an hypothetical town of "humble farmers" to pay their, say, doctor, or judge, or sheriff, above their own average income if they feel their value to the community is also above their own average.
It's right there in the summary: private only pays 6% more. That's practically nothing. Federal is where the big bucks are.
How inappropriate to call this planet Earth, when clearly it is Ocean.
So, you're a petty individual suffering from crab mentality. Good thing not all people think the way you do, or we would have never gotten the right to vote, have weekends, or overtime.