Even after dozens of rounds of layoffs and promises of cutbacks state employment continued to be a growth industry in Massachusetts through the recession, according to analysis of data from the Comptroller of the Commonwealth and from the Human Resources Division. Several state departments, after a dozen or more layoffs, actually ended up with an increased headcount.
Under the threat of massive budget shortfalls in 2008, Governor Deval Patrick promised a slashed budget and “painful” reductions in state staffing numbers. In total, he said 1,000 jobs would be eliminated, spanning a variety of services and departments.
While the governor admitted the cost would have tangible impacts on everything from RMV wait times to services for the disabled and deaf, the proposed cost cutting measures were widely praised as necessary: Revised projections predicted more than a billion dollars in reduced revenue in 2008 alone, and the private sector has suffered in even greater measure. In the first quarter of 2011 alone, 190,895 workers were laid off nationally in mass layoffs.
But despite the promised cutbacks and restraint, local and state government in Massachusetts have, except for brief dips, expanded their full time equivalent employees.
Between 2006 and 2010, the number of full-time equivalent state employees has risen 4.96 percent, according to numbers released by the Comptroller of the Commonwealth. This was while the number of local government full-time equivalent employees grew 2.6 percent between 2006 and 2009, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau (2009 is the most recent data released by the Bureau).
Full Time Equivalent State Government Employees
Full Time Equivalent Local Government Employees
So how and why did the number of public employees rise, even as the private sector lost over 140,000 jobs since 2001? Particularly when the governor promised to cut 1,000 jobs and reap $1 billion in savings back in 2008? Analysis of state employment data obtained exclusively by the Pioneer Institute through a Freedom of Information request shows that, in agency after agency, departments that underwent rounds of layoffs actually had steady or even increased employment.
For example, the Department of Workforce Development underwent 13 rounds of layoffs totaling 83 employees being let go. But between the first and last rounds of layoffs, in 2006 and 2010 respectively, the department actually grew by 70 to 1370 employees. The Executive Office of Environmental Affairs also went through 13 rounds of layoffs, growing 6 employees in the process.
The most dramatic example was the Executive Office of Health and Human Services, which underwent 17 rounds of layoffs but increased its headcount by 250 people.
The increasing headcounts over time are charted on top of the chart, while the layoff totals supplied by the state are graphed below. Note the two charts are on different scales but graphed on the same time axis.
The state’s layoff arithmetic could have a number of causes: Title changes, re-hirings, federal grant work, restructuring. The New England Center for Investigative Reporting recently took a look at how the Department of Transportation’s promise to trim 300 employees turned into a 31 employee reduction, finding officials justified the discrepency by stating that 72 employees were funded by federal stimulus dollars while another 313 employees were “temporary” positions, slated to last eight years.
With the provided data, it’s hard to pinpoint exactly how other departments grew while undergoing layoffs, but the Department of Transportation story is a good case study for understanding the accounting acrobatics that departments can go through. And as a comparison of the layoff totals provided by the state show, a fair amount of acrobatics were highly likely.
Full-Time Equivalent Employees by Year
The fact of the matter is that, the state’s employment grew 1.45 percent between 2008 and 2010 even while, as Pioneer’s Jim Stergios aptly noted, the unemployment curve in the state has been a tidal wave hit that deeply reduced state revenues and had lawmakers from both sides of the aisle agreeing major cuts, however painful, were needed.
Note: An earlier version of this post misstated local government employment growth. It has been corrected.
Two thoughts to add to Jim Stergios’s excellent post below on the state Senate’s cloaked attempt to gut a good-faith effort by the House to give municipalities the tools they need to control employee health care costs.
The House plan would let cities and towns save as much as $100 million a year – money that could be put toward sustaining public services. Amendments to the Senate budget would take it all away.
First, the Senate’s mischief is a classic example of the collusion between elected officials and the unions, when the parties are supposed to be on opposite sides of the table.
The reason cities and towns are in the trouble they are in now is because at contract time, they and the unions have their own special definition of the “give and take” of negotiation.
The union agrees to “give up” something – a bigger pay raise, an expanded benefit, or anything that can be spun to the public as a sacrifice. But then, with the consent of the municipal negotiators, they take back something of equal or greater value, in the form of more expensive work rules, time off, more support for things like – well, things like health care and pensions. We should not be surprised that such games are now bankrupting communities.
And now members of the Senate are doing the same thing, proving that they represent the unions, not the people. What is the point of negotiations, if the union gives up 100 bucks, but then gets back that much or more in some other form?
Second, it is refreshing in the extreme to see both of the city’s daily papers take the side of the taxpayers in this battle. The Globe, cited in Jim’s post below, weighed in on June 9. The Herald did so today.
Too often, the Globe’s editorial stance has been that public employees are the only “working people” involved – a gross distortion. The people who have to pay the bills are working people too. It is about time they had a voice.
Our compassionate Sen. John Kerry is at it again, in behalf of the demographic he professes to understand so well – the middle class.
The multi-millionaire Massachusetts senator is complaining that the federal lending rules created to prevent another mortgage meltdown will prevent middle-class, credit-worthy borrowers from buying a home.
What he dislikes in particular is a proposed regulation that would require some homebuyers to make a down payment of 20 percent to qualify for a low-interest loan.
In a letter to Shaun Donovan, secretary of the US Department of Housing and Urban Development; Federal Reserve chairman Ben S. Bernanke; and Sheila C. Bair, head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., Kerry wrote, “None of us — and none of you — want (sic) to see reform create an onerous unintended consequence: keeping middle-class families trapped in a cycle of paying rent when, in fact, they could well be paying mortgages.”
He later added, “The notion of a police officer or teacher or firefighter being forced to spend years trying to save the upfront money required for a 20 percent down payment is a daunting prospect.”
Yes, buying a home is a serious investment, and people used to expect to have to save for years to afford it. They didn’t think of it as daunting, they thought of it as reality. Kerry has a very short memory – one of the major reasons for the economic collapse was the instant-gratification philosophy – nobody should have to wait to buy a home.
He is out of touch on several other levels as well. First, these regulations are coming not from heartless Republicans, but a Democratic administration with bipartisan legislative support. The proposed 20-percent down requirement would not apply to everybody – just those getting a financial break, in the form of a low-interest loan. And the reason is a good one – to make sure that both the lender and the borrower have some significant skin in the game.
Second, while Kerry talks about unintended consequences, his recommendation could create them as well. If the market is allowed to function without the kind of interference Kerry proposes, housing prices will drop to more affordable levels, and people will start to buy. If lending and underwriting standards are relaxed, prices will shoot right back up to artificially high levels.
Finally, Kerry’s disconnect from the real middle class would be funny if he wasn’t a high-level government official.
Perhaps teachers fit that category, but cops and firefighters who have been on the job more than five years are very much upper-middle. Check the income of municipal workers in your community. Public safety workers are always at the top, many of them well into six figures. If they are disciplined at all with their money, they can save enough to put 20 percent down on a reasonable house sooner than most of their private-sector peers.
They are among those least affected by the recession, and they don’t need extra help from their senator.
Yes, cutting the 20-percent down requirement to 15 or even 10 percent is not going to lead immediately to another meltdown. But it is a step in the wrong direction. And that’s how we got in trouble before – one small step at a time.
Nobody should shed any tears for Bobby Haynes, the longtime president of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO, when he rides off this fall into the kind of gilded retirement he generally decries for private-sector CEOs – unless, of course, it is an $11-million package for the former CEO of a nonprofit health corporation on whose board Haynes is paid a cool $72,000 to sit.
Nor should they give him any thanks.
Haynes, who announced his retirement this week, is leaving labor worse than he found it. And not because public employee unions look to be “losing” a battle on Beacon Hill over health care benefits.
It is because Haynes, described by the Boston Globe as a “tough-talking former iron worker,” is more of an intemperate trash talker who has fit the stereotype of union leaders as thugs.
Haynes claimed this week that he had “spent my entire career fighting for working people.” Let’s clarify – that would be only working people who belong to unions.
When the House finally took a vote this past April that represented the interests of all taxpayers, Haynes threw a tantrum, declaring that since the unions had bought the large majority of legislators he therefore expected them to vote as he wanted.
The House had voted to give municipalities the authority to set health care benefits without collective bargaining. So Haynes declared:
These are the same Democrats that all these labor unions elected. The same Democrats who we contributed to in their campaigns. The same Democrats who tell us over and over again that they’re with us, that they believe in collective bargaining, that they believe in unions … It’s a done deal for our relationship with the people inside that chamber.
Sadly, Gov. Devil Patrick and Senate leaders have leaned his way instead of giving him the smackdown he deserved, proposing a watered-down version of the House bill. But, since his bullying didn’t get him everything he wanted, Haynes is now going to take his many marbles and go home – telling the world he is a victim. He told the Boston Herald, “The criticism of me is fine, it’s just not good for the labor movement.”
No, Bob. It’s you who is not good for the labor movement. You had a chance at least to pretend that you and your followers have some respect and sympathy for those who have to pay ever-higher bills for public services. You had the chance to acknowledge that you and your members have largely been insulated from the punishing recession, and that taking the same deal that state workers get for health care did not amount to the public beating up on labor but just a small measure of shared sacrifice.
You had a chance to demonstrate with actions instead of words that you really did want to be part of the solution.
But no. Anything that gives average taxpayers even a small break is a grievous insult to unions. Now, Haynes is described as tired and worn out, needing some time to smell the roses.
So, he is stepping down. He is just 61, by the way. Work until 65? Are you kidding? That’s for the little people.
Texas has enjoyed an unequaled economic boom the past 10 years.
The inventory of private-sector jobs in Texas increased by 732,800 between April 2001 and the same month this year, according to an On Numbers analysis of new federal employment data.
Meanwhile, Massachusetts is 42nd in the nation for job creation oops, 8th in the nation for job loss since 2001.
In the past year (April 2010 to April 2011), the state of TX has added 250,000 jobs. In the past year, MA has added 34,000 jobs. Are you happy with those outcomes?
On April 30, voters in the town election rejected a proposed $260,000 override for the local schools. So, earlier this week, after receiving a petition from 173 residents, the Board of Selectmen voted to hold a special election on June 25 to reconsider it.
Such things don’t happen often, but they should never happen.
The justifications for it are the same lame talking points always presented in such circumstances, the worst of which is the condescending declaration that voters just didn’t understand what they were doing.
“The process of an override is not an easy process for lay people to go through, and some of the selectmen felt that some people thought they had voted at Town Meeting, and (did not need to vote) on the ballot,’’ Town Administrator Marc Cullinan said.
Ah, yes. It’s so difficult for lay people to understand what politicians and government workers understand instinctively – that higher taxes and spending are the answer to every problem.
This is incoherent on every level. If the override had been approved, Cullinan and others would be talking about how brilliant the voters are. There would be no calls for a do-over. It is only when they reject more spending that their intelligence is called into question.
Yes, there was a split between voters at Town Meeting, who approved the override, while those at the ballot did not. But if that is a mystery to town officials, it is their intelligence that ought to be questioned.
Town meetings are invariably stacked with those who want more and bigger government. The rest don’t have time to come to the meetings because they are working so hard to pay government bills. They also don’t want to get attacked by government employees and other spending advocates for expressing their views. So they speak at the ballot box, which is their right – a right that should not be undermined.
Finally, what would any of the selectmen say if, at the next election, they held their seat, but a losing challenger demanded a special election to reconsider the matter, arguing that the voters just didn’t understand what they were doing?
The loser would be, quite properly, laughed out of town.
If town officials think an override is justified, they can try again next year, when there will be another election. The voters have spoken. It is shameful, and ought to be illegal, to force them, at public expense, to speak again.
Interesting juxtaposition in the news of the week.
Sal DiMasi, the former Massachusetts House Speaker, is now on trial for allegedly taking thousands of dollars in payoffs from software company Cognos, in exchange for steering state contracts its way.
Meanwhile, Boston Mayor Tom Menino persists in publicly demanding payoffs – ranging from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands – from a select group of local nonprofits, in the form of payments in lieu of taxes worth 25 percent of what they would owe if they were not tax-exempt.
Yes, they are tax exempt. The law says they owe no property taxes.
But, apparently, since Boston is a city of men, not laws, Menino is putting the hammer down on them so he won’t have to control spending.
If these nonprofits stand on the law rather than the “request” of a power-drunk mayor? Well, just let them see what happens the next time they come before the city for a building permit, zoning relief or any other kind of action over which the city has authority. Their application will be judged not on the merits, but on whether they have made the requisite payoff.
I wrote about this previously here, and political columnist David A. Mittell Jr. has a good column on the topic in today’s Boston Herald.
As he puts it:
Legally, these bills aren’t worth the paper they are printed on, but Mayor Tom Menino sometimes likes to establish political facts in advance of the law. The effect is strong on institutions that do not want to be in his famous doghouse when they go looking for building permits and zoning variances.
So the question is, other than it being a matter of degree, how is this kind of “pay-to-play” game any different from what DiMasi is alleged to have done?
No, the money from the nonprofits doesn’t go directly into Menino’s pocket, but it does benefit him directly – he gets millions more to spend on things like sweeter contracts for public employee unions, which will then work that much harder to re-elect him. It is both corrupt and contrary to existing law.
As Mittell and others have pointed out, there is a way to do this honestly. If nonprofits should not be exempt from property taxes, change the law.
As it is now, these “requests” carry the scent of an episode of “The Sopranos.”
The Boston Globe remains an unapologetic public-relations arm for government at all levels. Yet another story in today’s paper unquestioningly feeds us the government line that government funding is a requirement for kids aged 14-21 to get summer jobs.
It opens with the obligatory anecdote – the teen who suggests that if government hadn’t provided a job for him, he would have spent last summer either idle or hanging out on the street, getting in trouble.
See, your tax dollars are hard at work not only transforming the lives of teens, but cutting crime!
It bemoaned the fact that funding for YouthWorks, the state jobs program, has declined from $8 million to $6 million this year – largely because one-time federal stimulus funds, which were supposedly going to stimulate the private, not public sector, went away. That means even though government will “create” 3,000 youth jobs this summer, it will be 1,900 fewer than last year.
But nowhere does the story even raise the possibility that a major reason kids have a tough time finding a summer job is because the state has set the minimum wage so high – $8 an hour, which is 75 cents more than the federal minimum. There is no waiver for kids who are obviously not supporting families and for whom real job training would be much more valuable than a couple more bucks an hour.
The story never even questions whether these are real jobs – would these companies, or government-funded agencies, be hiring if government wasn’t paying for it?
It is a perverse system that confiscates more money from businesses through higher taxes and fees, undermines their competitiveness and financial stability by dictating to them what they have to pay entry level employees, and then turns around and takes credit for supposedly creating jobs because for some reason nobody is hiring the kids.
If government lifted its heavy hand on business, companies might hire teens without the need of a tax-funded subsidy.
Education does not only take place in our schools, though we often get caught up debating the merit of governance schemes for our bricks-and-mortar institutions. That is important. While I think digital learning is going to transform our concepts of school and learning, I also think the role of the teacher (the “master” in a way), the adult who hands off a tradition, will always be preserved. The relationship between a kid (and of course even an adult) and a teacher is a special one, which is why we spend so much time, ink and treasure trying to make sure we have effective ones.
It’s also why we often have debates (and residual distrust) about things like distance learning, blended learning models, and all the rest.
On this beautiful weekend, I thought I’d avoid weighing into all that and, instead, share the most effective tool I have seen to explain Keynes and Hayek to my nine-year-old daughter. OK, not that everyone has such goals in mind, but this entertaining video is a very provocative and, in fact, thoughtful representation of a debate that matters to all of us. And, yes, Keynes and Hayek rap about their versions of economic policy, government intervention in the marketplace, and the very nature of markets.
John Papola, a filmmaker and executive at SpikeTV and previously at MTV with a passion for economic theory, and Russ Roberts, Professor of Economics at George Mason University and the J. Fish and Lillian F. Smith Distinguished Scholar at the Mercatus Center, have done an incredible job with a topic that can often get longwinded and quickly diverted by misinformation.
There are many great exchanges, but my favorite back and forth is:
KEYNES it’s just like an engine that’s stalled and gone dark
To bring it to life, we need a quick spark
Spending’s the life blood that gets the flow going
Where it goes doesn’t matter, just get spending flowing
HAYEK The economy’s not a car, there’s no engine to stall
no expert can fix it, there’s no “it” at all.
The economy’s us, we don’t need a mechanic
Put away the wrenches, the economy’s organic
Keynes and Hayek are not “on the one hand… on the other hand” fence-sitters. Clearly, there is nuance; for example, however, much conservatives want to call Hayek one of their own, I am sure he would beg to differ (see his Why I am not a Conservative). His worldview had too much of the great jurist Learned Hand’s “The Spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right” to be conservative.
Papola-Roberts are not new at this. This latest video is a great improvement over their already high-quality offering on booms and busts (below).
Does this sort of thing belong in schools? Does teaching economics to a nine-year-old require a rap video? I don’t know about all that. What I do know is that Papola and Roberts have, by providing a primer that is useful and provocative to many audiences, demonstrated that they are very effective teachers.
Robert Haynes supposedly represents organized labor, as head of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO.
But lately he is becoming a walking, talking advertisement for why public-employee union power needs to be restrained.
Haynes admitted publicly this week what everybody knows – that those unions have bought the overwhelmingly Democratic Legislature. Now that there is a possibility (and only a possibility) that they won’t get what they paid for in one instance, they are mad as hell and not going to take it any more.
His rant came at midweek, after the House voted overwhelmingly, 111-42, to strip municipal employees of their right to bargain over health care benefits – a move launched by, of all people, House Speaker Robert DeLeo.
“It’s pretty stunning,’’ said Robert J. Haynes, president of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO. “These are the same Democrats that all these labor unions elected. The same Democrats who we contributed to in their campaigns. The same Democrats who tell us over and over again that they’re with us, that they believe in collective bargaining, that they believe in unions … It’s a done deal for our relationship with the people inside that chamber.’’
Could it be any more obvious?
Haynes makes perfectly clear the corrupt conflict of interest created by public employees having undue influence in electing the officials who will then sit across the table from them in supposedly adversary situations. He admits that his people have paid them off, and expect them to vote in ways that benefit them, at the expense of the general public.
He is somewhat at a loss here – while he implies that this is Wisconsin redux, it is nothing of the sort – the unions still retain plenty of collective bargaining power. And he can’t claim this is coming from heartless, extremist Republicans who are trying to kill collective bargaining. This is coming from Democrats.
And it is about time. The move, if it ever gets through the Senate (where Senate President Therese Murray is giving every indication that she will bow to her union owners and kill it) could save cities and towns about $100 million a year – money that can be put toward what union leaders are forever claiming is their highest priority – vital services.
It is also past time for such a move because while the unions claim they are willing to be “part of the solution” to desperate financial straits at both the local and state level, they have been the opposite.
Thanks to Gov. Deval Patrick, they have for four years had veto power over the ability of cities and towns to join the state health plan – the Group Insurance Commission. And the vast majority of them have used it, refusing to make even minor sacrifices to preserve services.
Haynes complains Democrats are forsaking “working people.” Actually it is just the opposite. Democrats, at least in the House, are waking up to the fact that it is working people who have to pay for the gilded benefit packages of public employees. They seem to be realizing that those working people deserve some representation too.
It will be interesting to see what happens if the Senate actually joins the House to represent most working people, instead of privileged special interests. Where will Haynes and his union allies turn? To Republicans?
