OPINION: When it comes to state government, you get what you pay for

The absolute irony of seeing two complementary and compelling commentaries on the same page in the same edition tickled and flabbergasted me.

In the Sept. 22 edition of the paper there was an “Our View” editorial — “Why is the state repeatedly dropping the ball on federal funding?” — about the shortfalls in state efforts to get all the funding possible from the federal government. It listed a number of areas where, for one reason or another, someone, somewhere within the state system apparently “dropped the ball’ in applying for multiple grants. Roads, education and early development/education, and other areas lost out on millions of federal dollars because of errors, omissions and other problems.

It looks like, in general, some state employees weren’t on top of their game. Or was it that they simply didn’t have the long-term experience at playing the federal dollar game? Maybe they were shorthanded, and not enough of them were available to handle all of the details necessary to complete the forms correctly. Or maybe they were simply overworked — having too many tasks to do, or not getting time off because of a lack of employees? I’ve seen scenarios like that play out before — where not enough good help, or the right kind of help, could be hired and/or retained to perform quality work.

All of the above “reasons of insufficiency and poor performance” can also be tied to pay and benefit packages, the subject of the second commentary — “Pension debate is about the people who make government work.” You would have to be blind, deaf and lost to not be aware of the incredible problems the state and public services are having with trying to hire and retain good, well-qualified, and experienced personnel in the areas of public works, public safety (police/troopers/medical/fire), and education/teachers.

Most police departments, fire departments, public works/road departments and essentially all our schools are begging for people to work to maintain our society in the manner to which we have been accustomed. But without a defined-benefit retirement plan for them to look forward to, longevity is not something most are willing to wait for — it’s all about where the most money is today.

It wasn’t the first time a couple of days ago that I was talking with a friend who is one of the “last people standing” in a government job (state, borough and cities are mostly alike here). They commented on the number of (fill in the blank: firefighters, medics, cops, teachers) who come up here and work for long enough to get training and experience, then quit and take their experience to another state, county or city that has a defined-benefit retirement plan and works there until they retire. Alaska all too often pays the big up-front dollars for recruitment and training and turns out highly desirable but highly mobile employees. And then Alaska loses them to other places that gain from our investment and loss.

Big business doesn’t typically have defined benefits (anymore — some used to), but they pay higher wages for most positions than the government does. But the government is far more “local” in nature and relies far more on historical knowledge to capitalize on maintaining and planning for our futures. The benefits of having a fair defined-benefit retirement plan and being able to retain good, qualified, tenured, experienced and dedicated employees pays benefits to our state, cities and citizens that just can’t be measured by simple dollars.

What’s more, as government employees, none of the affected employees participate in, therefore, are eligible for Social Security benefits as a result of their employment. The standard “retirement safety net” of most workers is not available to them unless they have non-government sideline employment. But of course, that would mean they’re working two jobs and only one is building Social Security benefits.

The handwriting is on the wall. The employee exodus is as obvious as the “help wanted — bonus offered” ads. The kind of jobs that the government employees typically do for us requires a better long-term benefit strategy to keep high-quality, long-term employees around.

Dan Tucker is a 55-year Alaskan who passed up $1,000-per-week pipeline and oilfield jobs for a $750-per-month fire department job in 1973, and continued bypassing the big wages for 29 years of service to the Anchorage community. He says he wouldn’t think if doing that now, under the existing conditions.

The views expressed here are the writer’s and are not necessarily endorsed by the Anchorage Daily News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.