Earlier this year, when it was disclosed that Gov. Pat Quinn’s budget director had handed out two pay raises to top staffers on the same day that the governor signed the income tax increase into law, Illinois Republican Party chairman Pat Brady said the move was evidence of a “void in leadership.”
I tend to ignore or downplay most pay raise stories unless they’re particularly egregious. Unlike the standard-issue government haters, I try to understand that the benefits of employee morale and retention are as important in government as they are in the private sector, where raises for mid to high-level executives are the norm, not the exception.
There’s definitely a market for these sorts of stories, however. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Sept. 15 that real average weekly earnings are in a national deflationary slide and suffered a 2.5 percent drop over the previous year. So, it’s easy to see how taxpayers would be susceptible to reporting which purports to show that their government isn’t acting responsibly during a crisis.
Yet, I tend to believe that most of these stories, and the enraged editorials which always follow, are somewhat distasteful and far too predictable. A reporter will discover the raises and then run to the person most likely to spew just the right quote to make the story seem far more important than it actually is.
Almost all of these stories carry a heavy stench of contrived indignation. They seem almost designed to intentionally rile up the public using the path of least resistance. In the public’s mind, bureaucrats equals bad and politicians equals bad. So, politicians giving raises to bureaucrats is basically a gimme story destined for the front page.
And that’s why we routinely see comments like the one above from Brady. It was your standard “gotcha” quote from a partisan more than happy to help give an unfavorable story even more oomph.
But last week, when Brady was asked about an Associated Press story regarding raises for non-union employees who work for Republican Comptroller Judy Baar Topinka and Republican Treasurer Dan Rutherford, the state party chairman suddenly changed his tune.
Brady told Charles Thomas at WLS-TV (Channel 7) last week that, rather than some undefined “void in leadership,” he didn’t see any hypocrisy at all with two self-proclaimed fiscal conservative watchdogs handing out pay hikes.
“You have to make individual decisions on individual employees and how you treat them,” Brady said. “Most of these folks are underpaid, so I don’t see an inconsistency there.”
Believe it or not, Chairman Brady was right last week. No complaint here.
These raises for nonunion workers were almost all pretty darned small, especially when put into the context of the lack of raises for non-union employees over the years and the fact that union members have received regular raises for decades. And the few non-union workers who received “big” raises didn’t really see all that much more money. Topinka’s chief of staff, who was singled out by the Associated Press, got just $76 extra a week, for instance.
Not only that, but in Topinka’s case, her office headcount is at its lowest level in decades. She’s planning to give back over $1.5 million out of her payroll budget alone at the end of the fiscal year, and that’s after the modest 3 percent raises to 56 non-union staffers, which will cost the state about $127,000.
At the end of June, 2007, the comptroller’s office employed 302 people. It now employs just 233. And because union employees (under a contract signed by Topinka’s predecessor) are receiving 4.5 percent annual raises, 62 management employees have been enticed to join the union in the past two years alone. Awarding smaller, one-time raises could easily be considered as prudent management. Whatever the case, it still remains true that Topinka has more than offset these pay raises.
Rutherford’s current budget is the same as last year’s budget, so his office’s raises are also not increasing overall state spending.
But, hey, let’s all tee off on these two because it’s just so easy. They’ve sharply criticized government spending, and their party boss has hammered the governor for his raises, so let’s all join the outraged chorus. And for heaven’s sake, we wouldn’t want a few facts to get in the way of a fine public roasting, now would we?
- Gregor - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 7:22 am:
Well, the other story that is often misreported for the same effect is anything to do with taxes. If a temporary tax reduction expires, it is pained as an increase and/or a new tax. When a new tax IS proposed, like Quinn’s bump, it is mostly painted in language designed to make it sound way bigger than it really is. Instead of sating it went up from 1 percent to 2 percent, it’s always “He DOUBLED your taxes!!!!” Hey, it’s just 2 flipping percent, all told. Not enough reporters call attention to that. The electorate gets all riled up for no good reason.
- wordslinger - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 7:52 am:
It’s all true. But if you’re going to play that game, like JBT, Rutherford and Brady have, you’re going to get blowback.
- Holdingontomywallet - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 8:04 am:
“if you are going to play the game”….. So what’s the game? A lot of these managers haven’t seen raises in years, while they have watched union employees receive raises like clock-work. JBT is running an efficient shop and rewarding hard-working employees who are taking on additional duties due to a reduction in staff. Good for her.
- Ray del Camino - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 8:50 am:
The managers aren’t playing the game, their elected bosses are. Tiny pay raises to hard-working government bureaucrats is no big deal. I agree with Rich’s sentiment, but he is taking it too easy on Brady’s hypocrisy.
- Anonymous - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 8:59 am:
Rich any News on Stopping the Political Hack
jobs that are not needed within IDOT
called Operations supervisor ???
Since the Operations Field Tech’s
are the only one who haven’t received
a pay raise 5 of the Last 9 years
- foster brooks - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 9:16 am:
District 2 already did the interviews, rumor has it the jobs are being filled by people from the quad cities. I think its a done deal
- ChitownHV - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 9:22 am:
Good for the goose, good for the gander.
- Anonymous - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 9:29 am:
Hearing this kinda makes me wish I had voted for Topinka for governor in 2006 instead of Blago, but I didn’t know what she was thinking backing then.
- Both Sides Now - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 9:43 am:
Nice to see everyone being so understanding on these raises after the routine bashing state employees normally receive. I too, have gone without a raise for three years. Wish the Agency Directors would follow Topinka and Rutherford’s lead. If they did, there wouldn’t be the problem of mid/upper managers wanting to join the Union.
- Chicago Cynic - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 9:49 am:
Rich,
I couldn’t agree with you more, especially your Bureaucrat (bad) + politician (bad) = front page meme. Except where legislators perform a kabuki dance to engineer their own raises or pension boosts, I firmly believe these kinds of pay raise stories are much ado about nothing. If you used to be a clerk and you’re now a division chief, you get a raise. Sorry, but that’s how the world works both in and out of government.
The problem in my opinion is much broader than this and is really more about the media’s often willful refusal to consider or explain context. Without context, this story seems to be a bit of hypocrisy on JBT and Rutherford’s part. But with the context of their own staff cuts, the union contracts, etc., this should have been a non-story.
- JustMe - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 9:50 am:
There is a big difference between what the Governor did and the other two officers did. The Governor gave large raises to two top staffers (and, before that, to people in his budget office), while leaving the managers and professionals in his agencies to continue to go without raises while taking furlough days. The other two gave smaller raises across the board to people who had been going without raises for years. One set of raises was arguably justifiable as necessary to keep good people working for you, the other is a slap in the face to the vast majority of the people working for you.
- reformer - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 10:05 am:
Just Me
Why not state the real distinction: When a Democrat gives raises, it’s outrageous, but when a Republican does it, that’s different.
- walkinfool - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 10:36 am:
Rich: Good job.
- Ace Matson - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 10:36 am:
Overall payroll in those two offices is way down. That is the key point. Fewer people = more work per capita = taxpayer savings = modest raises for those with more work. makes eminent sense.
- just sayin' - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 10:46 am:
“Whatever the case, it still remains true that Topinka has more than offset these pay raises.”
Really? Topinka and Rutherford ran on a pledge to consolidate those 2 offices and save millions. That’s all in the past of course. Just campaign talk for the rubes. Now they are bloating the payroll for their closest political operatives.
And re the staff reductions, does that include consultants? Has anyone fact checked these numbers? Has anyone done any homework, or is it just taking Topinka’s word for everything? But my favorite is she’s “planning to give back.” Yeah just like she planned to merge offices.
- Pot calling kettle - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 10:48 am:
I just want the media to bank the statements of outrage (or acceptance as the case may be) from folks like Brady and then ask repeat them back when they flip for partisan reasons. Lots of these non-stories might stop before that get traction, if the reporters would show a little background knowledge and promise to include it in the story.
- Soccertease - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 10:55 am:
I don’t think anyone has a problem with raises that are earned. What bugs most of us is that most of the raises are spokespersons, legislative liaisons, chief of staff, etc. If you’re on ‘one of us’ you generally don’t get the raise. As Both Sides mentioned, non-union agencies under the governor haven’t gotten anything in years-except the chiefs of staff, spokespersons, etc. That’s why I got out of state government and work in the private sector and enjoy it a lot more.
- titan - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 11:05 am:
@ just sayin - those offices are Constitutional offices, there would need to be a Constitutional amendment to fully merge them.
Now, a degree of operational integration might be possible…do we know if that is happening to any degree?
- Bitterman - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 12:24 pm:
To Just Sayin’, titan is right and regardless of JBT and DR’s continued support for a merger, Mike Madigan has said in the press he is against it. So stop the self-rightious indignation please.
- lincolnlover - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 12:37 pm:
I watched my non-union boss go without a raise for 6 straight years until I (union) was finally making more than she did. Result? She and her compadres formed their own union and now get regular raises. If we don’t want everyone who works for this state to become unionized, then we needs to understand the importance of rewarding people who work hard: union or non.
- Fed up - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 1:10 pm:
Just saying
Rutherford and Topinka both support consolidating the offices a bill has been submitted to do so Madigan won’t let the bill out of committee. Madigan is what is standing between combining those two offices. But just sayin never let the facts get in the way.
- VanillaMan - Monday, Oct 3, 11 @ 9:04 pm:
Who is listening to the GOP in situations like this? Why even ask? We know their lines by heart.
Hypocracy isn’t news. If Brady condemned Topinka and Rutherford, that would have been news.
Really, on a lot of issues, many of us don’t need either the gotcha games, or the pre-chewed PR BS.
It is all too easy.
- Joe - Tuesday, Oct 4, 11 @ 12:02 am:
I agree with Ray del Camino @ 8:50 a.m.