Few of you can have failed to take note of the debate over the compensation of union government employees (especially with the recent demonstrations in Madison, WI and Columbus, OH).  On one hand we have people trying to perform what’s often a difficult job to a normally ungrateful public.  On the other we have taxpayers in the private sector facing difficult financial situations and watching those in the public sector not being subjected to the same brutal reality of today’s increasingly harsh economics when it comes to wages, health care, and pensions.

In many cases there is little available by which to judge the right of these situations, and no standard by which they can fairly be measured.  It recently occurred to me however, that this might not be so for two of the groups we hear from on the municipal level during contract negotiations, police and firefighters.

No sane person would debate the danger and difficulty of the job that they perform for their fellow citizens.  No reasonable person would deny that they should be paid fairly to perform this necessary duty. The question arises however: How shall we determine what’s fair?

This question isn’t a simple one, as we determine not only what ‘fair’ means, but who determines such meaning:

1. What’s fair tor those who place their life on the lives on the line every day in their vocation?
2. What’s fair for the families who may endure the injury or death of a family member serving?
3. What’s fair to taxpayers who are not only their employers in the broad sense, but contributors through taxes in a very real sense to the compensation that these safety workers receive?
4. What’s fair to municipalities facing decreasing revenues from taxes and the increasing budget restrictions resulting?

In this case however, there might be a ready model before our eyes for such standards that has never been considered. I speak of course, of the pay scale used by the government for the compensation of federal safety workers more commonly known as members of the Armed Forces.

After all, aren’t these soldiers and sailors also placing their lives on the line around the world for citizens every day? Don’t they and their families run similar risks?  Don’t they already even have a similar hierarchical structure that’s used for both chain of command and pay scale?

While there are certainly differences, neither group is currently subject to conscription to perform this function.  In fact, don’t we find that there are often long waiting lists to get into the academies that lead to well-paying jobs in municipal fire and police departments.

Could it then be this simple?  Should we compensate policemen and firemen at the same rate of pay as their counterparts in the military, with firefighters and patrolmen receiving a private first class’s pay, sergeants, lieutenants, and captains their service equivalents, and so on up the ladder (figuratively, of course).

Some will say that operating by such a system is untenable, as those in the military are not properly compensated for their service, nor nearly so well as those in local safety departments.  The federal government simply cannot afford to treat those in uniform fighting wars around the world as well as cities do those wearing fire and police uniforms. Doing so would bankrupt the nation.  I am forced to ask in turn:  “Is that fair?”

The question might then be asked if the income disparity between municipal and federal safety workers comes not from putting their lives on the line, but because unlike their military counterparts, they currently have the right to organize and negotiate with their employer as a union.  Again this begs the question:  “Is that fair?”

I don’t claim to have an answer here, but it may be far past time that we began to ask the question.  While we’re at it, perhaps its time we asked unions who have had so much to say regarding ‘criminally poor’ compensation for municipal safety positions to explain to us why their members are more deserving than those similarly laying their lives on the line in wars around the world.  Perhaps these labor leaders can explain why the sacrifice of their members is more deserving than those spending long periods far from home and loved ones in foreign lands to their families, and to those of us whose taxes are paying those wages.

Tim Higgins blogs at Just Blowing Smoke

Tags: Just Blowing Smoke, Opinion, Tim Higgins

This entry was posted on Monday, February 21st, 2011 at 4:29 pm and is filed under Opinion.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.