In order to support the private sector, in 2008 President Obama himself promised to achieve healthcare benefits for Americans as good as those available to members of Congress. The President held up benefits that public employees receive in stark contrast to the increasingly expensive, increasingly inadequate coverage available to the private sector.
(Search this blog for, “Oh Obama, Health Care Reform for the middle class, remember?” February 27, 2009 or go straight to the source by looking up President’s speech on 9/6/2008, Obama’s Speech to the AARP Convention).
In 2008, the candidate President Obama recognized the disparity between the benefits offered to private sector individuals and public sector individuals, with the latter obtaining superior packages.
Fast-forward to 2012, and the public sector employment health plan options still out-perform private sector options. In addition to the superior benefits, we’ve heard about the President’s support for creating more of these jobs either directly through the federal government or indirectly by providing states to create more public sector jobs.
Against that backdrop, far from being a slip, a mistake, President Obama’s claim that the private sector was doing fine in June of 2012 was an expression of his experience, his policy, and his concepts of economic rescue, more public sector jobs.
If the President wins, it might be time to consider replacing the over-used and overly sentimental description of public sector employees as public servants.
The President frequently draws out the “public service” trump card to justify and support all things public employment, sentimentally recognizing some patriotic notion in terms of job description rather than the job pay and benefits.
We cannot address the disparity in benefits provided to public employees versus those provided to private sector employees without removing the knee-jerk manipulation and implication that these benefits are somehow more deserved by those in “public service” than those in the private sector.
It’s past time to acknowledge that public “service,” for many, means landing a governmental job that the individual chooses for any variety of reasons from pay, to opportunity, to job security unavailable in the private sector.
Patriotic sentimentality no longer needs to be part of “selling” public employment to the public. There are more applicants to enlist in the military, work for the government at all levels, work as police officers and teachers than there are positions that need to be filled.
Public employment pays better. Whatever statistic you’re using, the US Bureau of Economic Analysis offers a rosy picture of public employment compared to private sector employment, EXCEPT for an overall reduction in public employment jobs over the last several years.
If you’re lucky enough to obtain public sector employment, you’re doing better than your private sector counterpart (although the slicing and dicing of information prompts guesses about the “qualifications” of high-level public employees and how perhaps they could be doing better in the private sector in terms of salary, although THESE analyses don’t include benefits, including pensions in their analyses.)
This week, in the wake of the attacks on the US Libyan Embassy, we joined to mourn the deaths that occurred, and emphasized the importance of the jobs, and appropriately and publicly eulogized the loss. But these public occurrences don’t change the nature of the jobs and the benefits as well as the potential influence, and myriad other factors that inspire individuals to accept the public employment jobs they work at.
Our public employees are not volunteers, forfeiting pay for “service.” Any time a situation arises that brings attention to exactly what these groups receive in terms of benefits, salary, pension and even life insurance provisions, all that really becomes clear is that public employees obtain better perks than those in the private sector.
It is not suggested that public employment does not yield benefit to society and our country, any more than it is suggested that our scientific researchers, our electricians, our small businesspeople, our waiters, or our bank tellers “serve” the public.
What is suggested is that the “public service” label is an antiquated sales phrase that was used to gain employees for jobs that were typically lower-paying than other jobs in the country, a case that is no longer true as public employment has become the best option for employment in terms of salary and benefits for many workers.
Replacing the euphemism of “public service” with “public employment” is a necessary step in considering the benefits provided to public employees versus private employees in our society, a distinction pointed out by our President before he was President.
In the meantime, every time we hear about policy that includes the words “public service,” watch out, it means that public employees are looking for something that private employees will not have an opportunity to receive.
