Underpaid State Employees? State employees and public school teachers earn more than private sector
workers
Armed with the new power of collective bargaining, it is likely
state employees will request a salary increase. Many state employees complained
when the legislature did not extend to them the same cost-of-living wage
increases voters approved for teachers in 2000, arguing that their raises
have traditionally been tied with those of teachers. This may be true, but
a more meaningful determination of fair wages would be a comparison of state
employee salaries to those of the private sector.
How do state employee and public school teacher salaries compare with the
private sector?
Based on the implicit price deflator (the accurate measurement of inflation),
salaries in both the public and private sectors have increased faster than
the rate of inflation since 1988. In 2000, the average state employee and
public school teacher in Washington earned $3,100 more than his or her private-sector
counterpart. Public school teachers earned $41,047, state employees $41,018,
while private sector employees earned $37,892.
Teacher salary provided by the Office of Superintendent
of Public Instruction. State employee salary provided by the Office of
Financial Management. Private sector salary calculated from statistics
provided by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
At its closest comparison in the last decade, state employees and teachers
still earned eight percent more than private sector workers in 2000. This
disparity may grow once again through the combination of Washington's recession,
state workers' power of collective bargaining, and the gutting of I-601
(state spending cap) this past legislative session.
The Washington Education Association (state teacher union) is encouraging
teachers to strike this fall unless they can secure a cost-of-living increase
plus ten percent and full family medical benefits. Recent comments from
Mark Lyons, General Counsel for the Washington Public Employees Association
(WPEA) indicate that state employees will use their new collective bargaining
power to push for pay increases funded by higher taxes. Lyons wrote:
We must acknowledge that the state has a significant revenue problem.
We need legislators that [sic] are willing to develop a long-term plan
assuring equitable, stable and reliable revenue to fund state programs
required by Washington's citizens we cannot continue to balance
the budget on the backs of state employees by not compensating them fairly.
(WPEA Sentinel, April/May 2002)
It is important that accurate information about state employee compensation
be available to assist employees, policymakers and taxpayers in forming
compensation decisions when the bell rings on the first round of collective
bargaining. Decisions must also be weighed against the fact that the individuals
paying for higher public salaries through higher taxes already on
average earn less than those who are bargaining for more money.
Prepared by Hans Zeiger, Research Assistant. For more information
contact Jason Mercier, Budget Research Analyst
(360) 956-3482 or jmercier@effwa.org
At a March 23, 2005, House Appropriations hearing on a bill to gut the voter-approved I-601 spending limit, Rep. Jim McIntire (D) asked a supporter of I-601’s two-third supermajority requirement for the legislature to raise taxes the following question:
"Can you name a time when we [legislators] have actually not just set it [supermajority requirement] aside by majority vote? I mean, this is in many respects a procedural motion that has no bearing. It’s a statutory constraint that cannot constrain any legislature that chooses as a majority to set it aside . . . have we ever used a supermajority [to raise taxes]?"