Paying Extra for Sobriety: Why Massachusetts Needs a Management Rights Law

( – promoted by Rob “EaBo Clipper” Eno)

I have proposed a management rights law for Massachusetts state and local governments:  http://danwinslow.com/manageme…  We already have one of limited scope, enacted when the MBTA was nearly bankrupted by unsustainable economics and handcuffed management. The MBTA law was championed by none other than acclaimed union basher Barney Frank. So it’s not an attack on workers–instead, it’s an opportunity to get public sector management into the position of actually managing. And its time has come to expand to all state and local government. Or we can just get used to the idea of paying extra for attributes that any private sector employee would know is presumed.  

About Dan Winslow

  • …given your background–presiding District Judge and3 years Legal Counsel to the Governor–why didn’t you run for AG this year, instead of State Rep?  

  • …although I’d need some clarification on a few points…but in general we collective bargain way to much details…like staffing levels, training programs/time and, yes, health care details.  No organization should be handcuffed for 3 to 5 years as technologies and economic factors change reality.

    As you point point out, your suggestions are more in line with Barney Frank and, frankly, very out of line with many of the posters on this site, who all but call for the demise of unions, public unions in particular (many here certainly blame most of our fiscal problems on public unions, a view I suspect you do not share, but correct me if so).  

    So Dan, I have to ask, what is a reasonable guy like you–who can shift through the political noise and see where he has things in common with Barney Frank–doing in a place like Redmassgroup, where so many posters are rabid and irrational (Eabo has yet another front paid post essentially blaming Barney Frank for single-handily causing the Great Recession)?  

  • What I see here is a call for transparency and smart hiring and employment practices, which is exactly what this state needs. Dan, who Simple J. Malarkey pointed out served as presiding justice in Wrentham and counsel for Sen. Brown and former Gov. Romney, is just the man to get smart, non-wasteful practices not only in employment of state jobs, but on Beacon Hill as well.

  • Please focus on the merits of the policy discussion and refrain from personal attack on RMGers. As a fiscal conservative, I share core values with most posters on this site:   freedom and responsibility, market solutions, and respect for the individual.  In my experience, the biggest failing of labor/management relations in Massachusetts is ineffective management. The unions didn’t exactly cover themselves in glory during this recession when many refused to forego pay raises and put their junior members–who had families to support–on the street with no hope of employment.  That was their legal right, but they lost any moral authority in the eyes of most taxpayers (few, if any, who had received pay raises and most just thankful to have a job).

    I will propose more reforms in labor/management in my campaign, important since personnel costs are one of the great expenses in state and local budgets– so stay tuned to my website.  

  • Would you support disclosure of TOTAL compensation for all state and local employees?

    I am of the belief, even if misguided, that people and voters would be shocked and appalled if they saw the total compensation being earned by public employees.

    My definition of total compensation includes:

    1) Current year salary and overtime; plus

    2) Current year cost of health care benefits provided by employer (for example, if the total health care plan costs $23,500 and the employee pays $3,525 then additional comp from health care would by $19,975); plus

    3) Value of employee’s vacation or paid time off; plus

    4) Value of employee’s sick time; and

    5) Current year cost, whether or not funded, of future pension benefits; plus

    6) Current year cost, whether funded or not, of health care benefits provided after the employee retires; and

    7) Current year cost of any other benefits either available currently or after retirement.

    It would been be important to note what benefits are paid currently, which are funded currently and which are not funded and passed on to future generations.

    Until we have this level of detail, it will be difficult to have a comprehensive discussion about the cost of public employees which will provide additional incentive to better manager their work to get value for our tax dollars.

  • salvage a declining empire.  We have to drug test our firemen is a sad testament to the above referenced general societal decline.  On all things anti-Barney Frank I am all for it.  On getting a cushy government job my terminally unemployable self would welcome such a prospect.

  • Vote3rdpartynow

    was the day I stopped calling them heroes.  Actually, I never called them heroes because they chose that career.  You can’t chose to be a hero, you can only chose to act heroically.

    I now consider firemen just another group of overweight public employees looking to feather their nest and retire early at the expense of the taxpayers.  The same with cops and school teachers…..

    Anyone that calls them a hero is a sucker!  Once they get you to call them heroes they can ask for anything they want, and get it!