Category Archives: Public Sector

Family-Friendly Policies, Gender, and Work–Life Balance in the Public Sector

Source: Mary K. Feeney, Justin M. Stritch, Review of Public Personnel Administration, Volume 39 Issue 3, September 2019
(subscription required)

From the abstract:
Family-friendly policies and culture are important components of creating a healthy work environment and are positively related to work outcomes for public employees and organizations. Furthermore, family-friendly policies and culture are critical mechanisms for supporting the careers and advancement of women in public service and enhancing gender equity in public sector employment. While both policies and culture can facilitate women’s participation in the public sector workforce, they may affect men and women differently. Using data from a 2011 study with a nationwide sample of state government employees, we investigate the effects of employee take-up of leave policies, employer supported access to child care, alternative work scheduling, and a culture of family support on work–life balance (WLB). We examine where these variables differ in their effects on WLB among men and women and make specific recommendations to further WLB among women. The results inform the literature on family-friendly policies and culture in public organizations.

For Public Employees, Speech Is Free, But Is Anyone Listening?

Source: Dina Kolker, Employee Relations Law Journal, Vol. 45, No. 1, Summer 2019
(subscription required)

In the current political environment many groups feel that “government” is not listening to their needs and issues, but most would be surprised to discover that the government has no legal obligation to listen to any of us. This legal “secret” is of particular import to the long-run wrestling match between the public sector labor movement and their right-wing opponents, where the so-called “right to work,” presented as a positive, often translates into the right to be ignored, a decided negative.

The “Right to Work” movement often touts its focus on empowering workers through the First Amendment. The name itself is designed to indicate a right to a job and implies some individual control over the terms of that employment. “Give yourself a raise,” and other variations of that sentiment, are declared on mass mailings targeting public employees in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Janus v. AFSCME, overturning a four-decades old precedent that had permitted unions to collect fair share fees from nonmembers. The decision is praised by some as a win for worker free speech, but what does it mean for a public employee’s right to be heard? Anyone who has ever repeated the same request multiple times to a distracted child knows that there is a world of difference between speaking and being heard.

Indeed, the admittedly catchy invitation only thinly veils the reality of what was won and what was at risk of being lost in Janus. The mailing does not say call your boss and demand a raise higher than the one your union was able to negotiate for everyone in the last contract. Yet, individual negotiation of terms and conditions of employment is implicit (if not explicit) in the employee-facing rhetoric of Right to Work groups. The implication is that by turning down the volume knob on public sector unions you somehow inherently amplify the voices of individual workers. Nothing could be further from the legal — and practical — truth. The simple fact is that, absent collective bargaining laws, the government, neither as employer nor as sovereign, has any obligation to listen. In fact, government generally has no obligation to listen to any citizen, from the president on down…..

Fiscal Consolidation and Public Wages

Source: Juin-jen Chang, Hsieh-Yu Lin, Nora Traum, Shu-Chun Susan Yang, International Monetary Fund (IMF), IMF Working Paper No. 19/125, June 2019

From the abstract:
A New Keynesian model with government production, public compensation, and unemployment is fit to U.S. data to study the macroeconomic and fiscal effects of public wage reductions. We find that accounting for the type of government spending is crucial for its macroeconomic implications. Although reductions in public wages and government purchases of goods have similar effects on total output and the fiscal balance, the former can raise private output slightly, in contrast to the substantial contractionary effects of the latter.In addition, the baseline estimation finds that exogenous public wage reductions decrease private wages. Model counterfactuals show that sufficiently rigid nominal private wages can reverse the response of private wages, as the rigidity dampens the labor reallocation effect from the public to private sector that exerts downward pressure on private wages.

Ten Years After: The Development of a University Staff Pay System—Reflections and the Lessons Learned

Source: Steven L. Thomas, Lyn M. McKenzie, Compensation & Benefits Review, OnlineFirst, July 22, 2019
(subscription required)

From the abstract:
This article documents the development and implementation of a new staff pay system for a large, comprehensive, public university. It discusses decisions that were made, alternatives chosen, important process issues and outcomes, as a guide to administrators and human resource staff into what can be expected as new job structures, pay and performance management systems are developed. The authors review program successes and remaining challenges from the perspective of 10 years after system implementation.

US Public Pension Landscape Series – July 24, 2019

Source: Thomas Aaron, Timothy Blake, Moody’s, Sector In-Depth, June 24, 2019
(subscription required)

Many US states and local governments, though certainly not all, face heightened credit challenges stemming from exposure to pension obligations, resulting in a highly varied and complex landscape. The severity of public pension challenges can differ substantially between, and even within, states.

Unfunded liabilities in many cases have reached historic highs, rising costs increasingly pressure some budgets, and aging demographics leave government finances increasingly susceptible to pension asset volatility. Yet in some cases, low or declining levels of pension risk bolster the credit profile of a given state or local government.

Governments grappling with pension challenges must often navigate legal protections for employee benefits that can limit reform options. However, litigation on a variety of pension reforms continues to work its way through courts across the country, offering the potential for precedent-setting decisions.

This series provides a state-by-state, in-depth review of the key issues related to pensions facing state and local governments. ….

State listing:
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Florida
Illinois
Louisiana
Minnesota
New York
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
Texas
Wisconsin

Adjustments to US State and Local Government Reported Pension Data: Proposed Methodology Update

Source: Thomas Aaron, Marcia Van Wagner, Timothy Blake, Moody’s, Request for Comment, July 10, 2019
(subscription required)

In this Request for Comment, we propose a number of changes to the Adjustments to US State and Local Government Reported Pension Data cross-sector rating methodology published in December 2017. Under our proposed changes, we would add descriptions of how we calculate the pension asset shock indicator and how we adjust other post-employment benefits (OPEB). The OPEB adjustment relies on information now required to be reported by issuers under Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statements 74 and 75. We also propose to make some editorial changes to enhance readability.

US Public Pension Landscape Series

Source: Thomas Aaron, Timothy Blake, Moody’s, Sector In-Depth, June 14, 2019
(subscription required)

Many US states and local governments, though certainly not all, face heightened credit challenges stemming from exposure to pension obligations, resulting in a highly varied and complex landscape. The severity of public pension challenges can differ substantially between, and even within, states.

Unfunded liabilities in many cases have reached historic highs, rising costs increasingly pressure some budgets, and aging demographics leave government finances increasingly susceptible to pension asset volatility. Yet in some cases, low or declining levels of pension risk bolster the credit profile of a given state or local government.

Governments grappling with pension challenges must often navigate legal protections for employee benefits that can limit reform options. However, litigation on a variety of pension reforms continues to work its way through courts across the country, offering the potential for precedent-setting decisions.

This series provides a state-by-state, in-depth review of the key issues related to pensions facing state and local governments…..

State Listings:
California
Colorado
Florida
Illinois
Louisiana
Minnesota
New York
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
Texas
Wisconsin

Paid Parental Leave: On The Table

Source: Rob Taylor, Employment Alert, Volume 36 Issue 12, June 13, 2019
(subscription required)

Doubtless, teachers have taken notice. Last year Delaware Gov. Carney approved a new law giving state workers—including educators—12 weeks of paid parental leave. That’s dramatically different from the situation nationwide where just a few states offer that benefit. Also, the United States is widely known to be one of the least responsive of developed nations in this regard, a somewhat surprising occurrence given the push in this country to find creative solutions to the large, ongoing problem of teacher shortage.

In most places in the U.S., according to an EdWeek series, since teachers do not have paid time off related to pregnancy and birthing, they first use accumulated sick days to stay home with their newborn, and then go to unpaid leave, getting back to the classroom and a needed paycheck as rapidly as possible.

Related:
With No Paid Parental Leave, Many Teachers Return to Class Before They’re Ready
Source: Madeline Will, EdWeek, April 1, 2019
(subscription required)

Kansas (State of) – Retained pension funding, vetoed tax relief are credit positive

Source: Matthew Butler, Moody’s, Issuer Comment, June 6, 2019
(subscription required)

On May 29, the Kansas legislature voted to override several spending vetoes that Governor Laura Kelly made when she authorized the state’s fiscal 2020 budget. One of the vetoes was of a supplemental payment to the Kansas Public Employees Retirement System (KPERS). The lawmakers’ action preserves a $51 million supplemental contribution to KPERS, a credit positive for the state. At the same time, the legislature failed to override a veto of an income tax relief bill that would have cost the state an estimated $240 million over three years. This is also credit positive, because it reduces the amount of budget reserves Kansas will use to make the supplemental pension payment, increase school funding and more quickly retire an internal loan.