Quotulatiousness

March 5, 2010

Government wages and benefits outpace private sector

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Economics, Government, USA — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 12:59

Once upon a time (and this is becoming long enough in the past to qualify as legend), government work was less well-paid than equivalent work in the private sector. The advantage of taking the lower-paid government job was job security: government workers had a “job for life” and a nice pension at the end of it. Private sector workers got more in the weekly pay, but generally had worse pensions and more uncertainty for long-term employment.

During the last generation or so, this basic trade-off has been lost. Government workers now get better paid than their private sector counterparts, still get practically guaranteed lifetime employment, and not-just-nice-but-very-nice pensions. No wonder governments have become the employer of choice. Katherine Mangu-Ward has the gory details:

There are two million civilian federal workers. 1.1 million of them have direct private sector equivalents. And they are laughing their asses off at those private sector suckers, who are doing similar jobs for less pay — often a lot less.

“Accountants, nurses, chemists, surveyors, cooks, clerks and janitors are among the wide range of jobs that get paid more on average in the federal government than in the private sector,” according to a USA Today report. In jobs where there are private equivalents, the feds are earning $7,645 more on average than their private counterparts.

[. . .]

Note that the figures above are salaries and don’t include the value of benefits, which averaged $40,785 per federal employee in 2008 vs. $9,882 per private worker.

March 4, 2010

How to tell when the bureaucracy has won

Filed under: Britain, Bureaucracy — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 12:52

It’s when you have 18 firefighters standing around for six hours debating about whether the rules allow them to rescue a dying woman:

An injured woman lay for six hours at the foot of a disused mine shaft because safety rules banned firefighters from rescuing her, an inquiry heard yesterday. As Alison Hume was brought to the surface by mountain rescuers she died of a heart attack.

A senior fire officer at the scene admitted that crews could only listen to her cries for help, after she fell down the 60ft shaft, because regulations said their lifting equipment could not be used on the public. A memo had been circulated in Strathclyde Fire and Rescue stations months previously stating that it was for use by firefighters only.

The Scotsman has more:

During the hearing, solicitor Gregor Forbes asked Mr Rooney: “On the basis of the manpower and equipment that you had available, is it your view it would it would have been possible for the firefighters to have brought the person to the surface before the mountain rescue team?”

He replied: “Yes, I believe so.”

The now-retired fire officer said the memo had been circulated around Strathclyde Fire and Rescue stations in March 2008.

Mr Forbes said: “Your position is that, while you were supplied with safe working-at-height equipment, while this could be used to bring up firefighters, it could not be used to bring up a member of the public.”

Mr Rooney, 51, told the inquiry at Kilmarnock Sheriff Court: “Yes, that’s correct.”

All 18 firefighters at the scene were trained and capable of using the equipment, he added.

Of the memo four months before the incident, he was then asked: “If Mrs Hume had fallen down the shaft on 13 March, instead of 26 July, you could have used a lowering line?”

Mr Rooney replied: “We could have.”

I lack words to express my outrage and disgust with the “men” who allowed themselves to be restrained by a memo in this situation.

H/T to Natalie Solent for the link.

« Newer Posts

Powered by WordPress