CITY EMPLOYEES ON ACTIVE DUTY TO GET DIFFERENTIAL PAY
Differential Pay Resolution Sends Message to Washington
[A Contrarian View]
By Michael Horne
The Milwaukee Common Council handed Mayor Tom Barrett a veto-proof 10-5 majority vote in favor of providing “differential pay for city employees activated into service in the U. S. armed forces.”
Council members on both sides of the issues congratulated their colleagues for resisting the temptation to turn this vote into a referendum on the war in Iraq, with the “no” voters perceived as being among the antiwar set.
The “aye” voters used the argument that city employees should not suffer financially just because they are being shot at in Iraq rather than in Milwaukee.
The “nays” said the measure was an end-run around collective bargaining agreements and could set a dangerous precedent for renegotiating labor contracts without benefit of formal bargaining.
I find the vote indeed was a referendum of sorts, with the “aye” voters ironically providing a rationale to oppose the war.
I feel this way because the city will now bear an estimated $150,000 cost to compensate its employees who have been sent to war. This will help bring the issue home much more than would a news story about direct Pentagon costs of running the war.
As the fiscal note attached to common council file 041221 notes, “A fiscal estimate of $148,000, included as a point estimate in this fiscal note, is based on employees who are currently on leave. [Emphasis original.] Additional call-ups will increase these costs, maybe substantially.” The city has an estimated 50 employees on active military duty at this time.
As Milwaukee, other government entities and some private corporations, including Milwaukee’s Marshall & Ilsley Bank, offer differential pay, it will come to the attention of policy experts and the public that this war, unlike any other, is relying on the National Guard and Reserves for its manpower.
Sen. Richard Durbin is proposing a measure to offer differential pay to federal employees called up for service. His data show that 1.2 million people are in the guard and reserve; 10 per cent of them are federal employees; 17,000 federal employees are on active duty right now.
That reliance on government employees at all levels comes at a cost to the public, both in the form of the differential pay and in the lack of skilled personnel who should be doing their jobs in government at the local level – protecting the public, fighting fires, patrolling the highways – in the United States, rather than in Iraq.
Government officials in California, one of 23 states where differential pay is a state law, are warning of dire fiscal and social consequences due to thousands of government employees called up for service.
The National Guard and Reserves have traditionally drawn their pool of “weekend warriors” from, among other sources, those who are accustomed to wearing a uniform to work. This group, which is disproportionately represented in the ranks of the Guard and Reserves, includes occupations such as police officer, firefighter, sheriff’s deputy, correctional facility guard and the like. The loss of these workers is also disproportionately felt in rural communities, where many Guard members and Reservists are recruited due to lack of opportunity in these sparsely settled, economically depressed areas.
Fifty-one per cent of guard and reserve members report a loss of pay when activated; 11 per cent lose more than $2,500 a month.
We need these people back home to do their jobs and to keep our communities and our economies running. Perhaps if we feel their absence in our pocketbooks and in the deteriorating condition of our communities, it might inspire the grassroots public to develop the political resolve to end this war, of which George Washington would surely have warned us due to its nature as a “foreign entanglement,” pure and simple.

