Today is D-Day for NH state employees

Today should be the day we learn what lies ahead for state government – massive layoffs or employee furloughs. It’s decision time on a proposal that could save 750 state jobs in return for unpaid days off. If there is a shred of common sense among the 12,000 members of the State Employees Association, it should be apparent in a “yes” vote.

Any other outcome will be bad for the state employees and its citizens at large. While furloughs will no doubt affect state services, the loss of so many state workers would have a far more devastating effect.

The ballots have been arriving in the mail and, barring any unexpected problems, should be tallied in time for an announcement by 5 p.m. today.

The results will be viewed with interest not only in New Hampshire, but across the nation as every state grapples with the recession and its impact on revenues. While furloughs and layoffs are being viewed as a short-term solution, there is a growing concern about the need to reduce the overall cost of public employees, whose wage, benefit and retirement packages far outstrip anything available to rank and file in the private sector.

The recession and the union concessions it has forced upon state employees from New Hampshire to California has put a spotlight on the disparity between public and private employment.

One study after another has refuted the long-stated claim that state and federal government workers have historically taken lower hourly wages in return for more generous benefits. According to Forbes magazine, state and local government workers get paid an average of $25.30 an hour, which is 33 percent higher than the private sector’s $19.

In New Hampshire, the non-partisan Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy recently published a report titled “State employees are not shortchanged,” pointing out that the average annual earnings in 2008 for all occupations in the state was $42,600, while the average for state employees in the same year was $42,500. So while wages are similar, there is no comparison when it comes to the cost of health care and retirement benefits.

When National Public Media (formerly National Public Radio) set out across the nation to find an example of the kind of platinum health plan that might be subject to taxation under health care legislation now working its way through Congress, its journey ended in New Hampshire.

NPM correspondents featured a woman covered by the state plan whose cancer had resulted in more than $1 million in hospitalization, chemotherapy, radiation and other treatments, with no more than $500 coming out of pocket. The New Hampshire state employees health insurance plan has become the poster boy for platinum plans nationally.

According to the Josiah Bartlett center, a family plan for a New Hampshire state employee costs about $21,000 a year, compared with the national average of $12,700.

Citing the results of such studies, Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby recently wrote, “Americans increasingly fall into one of two camps. Those who work for the government – about 15 percent of the labor force – tend to enjoy sumptuous perks, virtually indestructible job security and pensions that are guaranteed for life.”

The gap is causing a backlash that can only be muted by greater equality between the public and private sector in wages and benefits. Some of that will come by improving conditions in the private sector through such things as health care reform. Some of it will have to come through greater flexibility by unions in the negotiation of future contracts.

Today’s vote will provide some hint as to how much flexibility we can expect.