Government work

Here in Huntington, the mayor is about to enter contract negotiations with the unions representing most city workers. One thing some of the workers are talking about already is how they took no pay increase in part of the 1980s in exchange for good benefits.

Well, that was 20 years ago, and they have had a number of raises since then, and they still have cheap insurance.

What I want to know is, how many of those city workers were working for the city in the 1980s when the benefits-in-lieu-of-wages deal was reached? And how many were hired since then fully knowing what the pay would be? If more were hired after, then wouldn't the "benefits instead of wages" argument be weaker?

Sometime -- I don't know when, but sometime -- people who don't work for the government are going to look at the insurance, pension, holidays and other benefits that government workers get. Those people will want to know why government workers have it so much better.

I know I do. And I'm already wondering if I can get a job with the state of West Virginia, Ohio or Kentucky about five to 10 years before my projected retirement so I can take advantage off that system.

Here at The Herald-Dispatch, there is no pension. When Gannett sold us to GateHouse last year, one of the first things that was said in an employee benefits meeting was that GateHouse would not offer any sort of pension. Gannett paid each of us a lump sum to put in our retirement nest egg. When GateHouse sold us to Champion a few months later, Champion said the same thing. It offers a 401(k), but no pension.

Sooner or later, someone with a bigger megaphone than I have will notice the disconnect between public sector benefits and private sector.