FAIR has just released a new Action Alert about USA Today‘s misleading front-page article today about Wisconsin public workers. If you’re writing to the paper, please post a copy of your letter in the comments section below.
Peter Hart
Peter Hart was the activist director of FAIR for 15 years, as well as the co-host of FAIR's radio show CounterSpin. He is now the senior field communications officer for Food & Water Watch.
◄ Previous Post The Public vs. the Media on Unions, Deficits
► Next Post ABC’s ‘Made in America’ Hypocrisy
Comments
I was going to email USA today about the Wisconsin workers, when I realized just how futile this all is. Change is a group effort, and people need to know the others in the group. Me sending out singular emails to my representatives and to other agents is a bit frustrating without a community of people who feel the same and are acting in concert. Why is it that every progressive organization only wants your participation as long as it’s donating money or sending emails in support of a certain message? Is there a way we all can become involved in this conversation without being told what to think?
This is the letter I just sent to the USA Today email address that you provided. The subject line was “Why?”
I am not so naive, really, as not to understand why you tear down public employees on your front page–It’s sort of a rhetorical why, because I know you won’t explain that your position is influenced by the corporate agenda, to take away any rights left to workers and protect the rich from any possible annoyance, like maybe someday the return of progressive income taxes.
But really it is still a little shocking that USA Today would be so anti-democratic and anti-working people. How long do you think this kind of thing will work for you, and for America?
Sincerely,
Carol Wheeler
Well we can tell why you give your rag away for free to anyone that stays in a hotel.
Today’s front page article, regarding public versus private sector pay, is misleading and factually flawed.
As Cauchon himself writes, “The analysis included full and part-time workers and did not adjust for specific jobs, age, education or experience.”
The headline and story do not allow for this factor which makes any comparison significantly inaccurate.
I would encourage you to stick with the facts and avoid such â┚¬Ã…“yellow journalismâ┚¬Ã‚Â.
Articles such as this only add fuel to the hostile fire tendered by the likes of Scott Walker.
Thank you for your consideration.
To Whom It May Concern:
I am troubled by Dennis Cauchon’s article entitled “In Wisconsin, Private Sector Pays Less”. Reason being, the comparison, and thus, the article itself, seems meaningless and misleading when it fails to account for the type of work that government workers perform, as well as the variance in education levels between public and private sector employees.
Considering there’s a disclaimer within that prepares the reader for the omission mentioned above, the “right-wing” narrative adopted in Mr. Cauchon’s article seems strange and lends itself to question the journalist’s motivation. And this should never be the case, but due to a lack of reasonable explanation; what else is the reader to do?
Dear Mr. Jones,
I’m a little upset at the paper’s anti-worker slant of late. Presenting the salaries of public workers without taking into account the education is something more befitting of FOX News than of USA Today. The people are with the workers, we are not going to pick up the tab for foolish political choices like Scott Walker’s decision to create a fiscal crisis by slashing taxes for the wealthy and refusing his states share of the stimulus money. The Koch Brothers and their political puppets have made their bed, now let them sleep on it. Closing the tax loopholes that keep funneling all the money in our economy towards the top would more than pay for a professional force of teachers, firefighters, police officers etc that we need. These people need to be payed more not less, it’s the CEOs, trust-fund kiddies, banksters, and poolside investor class that need to take the haircut for once.
Thanks for taking the time to look at feedback and improve your paper,
Sasha
this is the letter I just wrote. I played dumb about why newspapers pander to corporate interests.
Dear Editor
I see that in today’s issue of USA Today you write that the “private sector pays less” than government in Wisconsin. Aside from the studies refute this claim when all aspects of salary, benefits, and jobs performed are included in the equation, the real question is WHY does the private sector pay so little in this country given American workers perform so well?
Why have American workers in the private sector lost so much ground in the last thirty years?
Why don’t we have vacations that promote health and well being
Why don’t we have decent health coverage?
Why do our corporations marginalize workers by refusing to hire full time and instead leave them blowing in the wind of being part time workers, under employed and under compensated?
Why do we promote greed at the top in the private sector when just compensation would be enough?
The question is not why do civic workers get a fair compensation but why do corporate workers get so little?
If your newspaper shone the light of day on these differences, if all newspapers held CEOs and CFOs accountable, perhaps things would begin to change and American workers could come into the civilized world of health coverage for everyone instead of the privileged few and vacations that foster health.
Why is your staff pandering to the people, including Governor Walker, who are the problem–willing to give tax breaks to those who don’t need them while vilifying those who do need them? Rather than devoting column space to the solution—how to get corporations to compensate workers fairly—you keep excusing them for their ill will.
All American workers deserve better than they have been getting and than you are giving them with this kind of misleading article that begs the question.
mine was short and sweet
Dear Editor
It’s meaningless to compare compensation between public sector and private sector workers without controlling for demographic factors like age, education and experience.
Your apples to oranges article was misleading, to say the least.
TO: Brent Jones, Standards Editor
Mr. Jones,
I’m a journalism graduate from Humboldt State University. As part of my studies, I took a course on Empirical Research where I learned how to spot and conduct ethical, valid and accurate empirical studies for news publications. By those standards, even a journalism undergraduate knows that publishing Dennis Cauchon’s unapologetic and misleading article about public versus private sector pay in Wis. is unethical and unfit to print.
If you’re going to publish a study, you need to make sure it’s accurate. Cauchon states in his article that the study that “proves” his headline is full of holes and “doesn’t reflect factors such as education that result in higher pay for public employees.”
A study by The Economic Policy Institute research on this (2/10/11) found “that Wisconsin public employees earn 4.8 percent less in total compensation per hour than comparable full-time employees in Wisconsin’s private sector.”* And this study, unlike the one Cauchon uses, clearly looks at “comparable” private and public sector jobs.
This article should have never made it past the copy editor’s desk, let alone to the front page. By placing this unsubstantiated claim – that private sector workers earn less in Wis. – on the front page of your publication, USA Today is offering up a false argument against those who stand with the Wisconsin 14, Wisconsin workers and public labor in general.
By printing this inaccurate information, you are elevating false claims to the level of truth and obscuring the facts. Contributing to the spread of misinformation is not what you, as a journalist, are supposed to value and uphold.
Please retract the article and give a thorough explanation of WHY it was inaccurate. Please also give equal coverage to the more accurate information about the comparison between private and public sector pay in Wis., which actually finds that public sector workers are paid nearly 5 percent LESS for comparable work.
Unless equal, front page coverage is also given to the more accurate information, I will never again view USA Today as an unbiased and honest news source and I will be sure to pass this information on.
Respectfully,
Desiree Perez
Communications Specialist
B.A. Journalism, ’10
Humboldt State University
Arcata, CA
*Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting. 01 Mar. 2011.
Dear USAToday,
Your reporting about wage disparity between public and private workers leaves a lot to be desired. You made no accounting for job parity, education level, experience level, or any other basic controlling parameter necessary for such a comparison. Without doing even such a basic analysis, you are obviously just being a sucker mouthpiece for one side of the argument. The role of good journalism is to get past the simple rhetoric and report on the real situation.
You failed completely in this reporting!
Dear Mr. Brent Jones:
I thought it irresponsible that Dennis Cauchon ignored credible data sources that show public sector workers make less pay compared to their private counterparts.
It is critical that cohorts of workers be compared among their peers in similar fields and with similar credentials and education levels. Otherwise, comparisons are near completely meaningless depending on what one is trying to analyze.
If Mr. Cauchon was trying to prove that the more educated public sector is pain more than the generally less educated private sector then his choice of data would be appropriate. However, that was not his intent with the current cover story.
He appears to latch onto his “USA Today analysis” and then blatantly ignores or glosses over the fact that credible economists using better standardized methods are at odds with his less critical evaluation of the situation.
If the goal of USA Today is to generate “opinion” to foster an underlying agenda then I suppose you need do nothing different. However, if your goal is to present a realistic picture of what the issues are in the Wisconsin protest with regard to the public employee sector then you ahve done a great disservice to yourselves and your readership.
In short, it is meaningless to compare compensation without adjusting the compared public and private cohorts for the type of work performed, age, experience, full vs. part time status and level of education. I sincerely hope you will consider some type of retraction or clarifying statements with regard to this cover story so that readers can reliably analyze the issues in this conflict. At least trying to get another more thoughtful story on what the fundamental justifications are for both sides would be appropriate.
Thank you for your consideration.
Lou
â┚¬Ã…“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.â┚¬Ã‚ Edmund Burke
Louis M. Schlickman, MD
Praxis Meridian Member Idaho Health Care For All
520 S. Eagle Rd., #1221 http://www.idahohealthcareforall.org
Meridian, ID 83642 Chapter of Physicians for National Health Program
208-884-3770 office http://www.pnhp.org
208-884-5602 fax
Dear Mr Jones:
Dennis Cauchon’s front page article regarding WI public workers is misleading in the extreme. The private sector does not pay less than the public in WI. Further, the fuzzy math involved in his article is clearly meant to deceive the public and cloud the real issues involved by waging an unwarranted attack on public workers.
Mr. Cauchon and USA Today presented an analysis that failed to control for factors like the type of work performed, experience, education, and full-time vs part-time. While he may have mentioned this fact as a criticism, he did not admit that this failure to distinguish between different types of work renders the comparisons meaningless. You can’t compare an educated teacher’s (or trained policeman’s or fireman’s) salary to a fast-food clerk’s, unless of course you really believe they ought to get the same pay. If experience and education count for nothing in detemining appropriate compensation, then there are a lot of CEO’s, bankers, economists, and journalists who should be getting minimum wage and lousy benefits too. God knows most of them haven’t been doing an exactly bang up job lately.
As for the truth, the Economic Policy Institute research on this subject found “that Wisconsin public employees earn 4.8 percent less in total compensation per hour than comparable full-time employees in Wisconsin’s private sector.” Other research on private/public compensation reaches similar conclusions (Center for Economic and Policy Research). Even other newspapers, like the New York Times, offer a range of studies, many of which support the conclusion that public workers earn less than their private-sector counterparts.
So one has to ask, why does USA Today condone and print Mr. Cauchon’s blatant bias and manipulation of the facts, to the point of ourright lies? What’s in it for you? When news outlets choose the betray the public trust and piss on their own brand so blatantly, it usually comes down to money. It must be something as you obviously have no interest in doing real, factual, truthful reporting, meant to inform the public.
Are you looking to be the Fox News of print? (I’d advise against that as few teabaggers actually know how to read.) Does Koch Industries sit on your board or own a lot of shares? Are you (wrongly) thinking that union busting will solve your own financial woes? You and your corporate buddies have already bled the country dry in corporate tax breaks while continuing to support pointless money wasting wars – both of which are responsible for the huge federal and state deficits that aren’t sustainable even if you do manage to get the government to get rid of the entire social safety net. So, what is it? What’s your dog in this fight?
I sent this lette4 — quick and easy using material from your article.
Subject: What the bias against public workers?
An honest article would have based itself on the facts:
The Economic Policy Institute research on this (2/10/11) found “that Wisconsin public employees earn 4.8 percent less in total compensation per hour than comparable full-time employees in Wisconsin’s private sector.” Other research on private/public compensation reaches similar conclusions (Center for Economic and Policy Research, 5/10/10). Other newspapers, like the New York Times (2/26/11), offer a range of studies, many of which support the conclusion that public workers earn less than their private-sector counterparts.
Clearly, Dennis Cauchon had an axe to grind.
-Cecilie Scott
-Not a public worker, but a member of the public who counts on their services to keep civil society functioning.
USA Today
Standards Editor
Brent Jones
Mr Jones,
You are doing a disservice to ordinary citizens across this country with a front page article that alleges that public workers in Wisconsin earn more than their counterparts in private sector jobs. Today’s headline “In Wisconsin, Private Sector Pays Less” (3/1/11) is seriously misleading and provides a soundbite that many citizens will not look beyond in making up their minds about what is genuinely going on in Wisconsin. Given that it is meaningless to compare compensation without factoring in type of work performed, education and experience, how can you reconcile that headline with conclusions reached by research on private/public compensation:
The Economic Policy Institute research on this (2/10/11) found “that Wisconsin public employees earn 4.8 percent less in total compensation per hour than comparable full-time employees in Wisconsin’s private sector.” Other research on private/public compensation reaches similar conclusions (Center for Economic and Policy Research, 5/10/10). Other newspapers, like the New York Times (2/26/11), offer a range of studies, many of which support the conclusion that public workers earn less than their private-sector counterparts.
I speak daily with my 92 year old father who lives in western New York. He actively follows the issues of the day. He is just the kind of citizen who is vulnerable to believing this misleading characterization of the issues at stake for public workers in Wisconsin as well as public workers across this country. What is happening to public workers in Wisconsin, and in other states following suit, is unconscionable. For mainstream media to contribute to the misinformation that is driving and fueling this campaign to deprive workers of hard-fought rights is a travesty.
I would hope that USA Today would show integrity in recognizing the implications of such misleading characterizations, and I would like to know what you will do to correct this problem.
Sincerely,
Cathryn Chudy
Vancouver, WA
The article in today’s newspaper with the headline â┚¬Ã…“In Wisconsin, Private Sector Pays Lessâ┚¬Ã‚ is completely misleading. Your own research of the subject is so shallow as to render it meaningless. An economist’s study that includes type of job, education, etc. is only quoted at the bottom of the article and contradicts the headline. Have you turned into â┚¬Ã…“Fauxâ┚¬Ã‚ News?
There is a high percentage of professional level employment in state governments. Employees are required to have degrees in their field of work. They typically need to meet physical tests and/or background checks. A statistically significant number compared to private sector are required to have and maintain professional licenses or certifications such as: accounting, appraisal , teaching, legal, police, fireman and many more. Every one of these licenses or certifications requires continuous education (and expense) to maintain. If you really have interest in facts, you would find the public/private debate compared profession to profession, with the combination of pay/benefits, likely to be a wash – in today’s economic times. In good times, you will find the public sector behind. At the least jobs need to be compared to similar jobs, requirements, and demands.
At different times in my career, I have been a union negotiator representing the union side OR the management side of bargaining. Collective bargaining works and it is this â┚¬Ã…“rightâ┚¬Ã‚ that is at the heart of the Wisconsin standoff. Your article explores nothing about the crux of the issue â┚¬“ negotiating rights! It just ratchets up misinformed envy. Shame on you.
If you pride yourself on journalism, then do the research, headline, and article appropriately! Don’t mislead with an easy feed off the prevailing propaganda. Your reporter, Dennis Cauchon, might have a degree in journalism but this article suggests he needs to return to the Journalism 101.
And to Dennis: If you are ever in need of a cop to risk his neck to save yours, I hope you get a rent-a-cop – – not a public one.
What is your idea of fair?
FAIR used the word “hate” in the title of the USA today piece. It is possible for readers to genuinely be interested in the story, even when the title is not sensational. Why go through the trouble of criticizing organizations or people for the content and approach they choose to report, and then pretty much do the same thing? Doesn’t sound all that fair to me.
I’m just sayin’.
Your front page (3/1/11), says public workers in Wisconsin earn more than private sector employees. Propagandists might feature such a lie on the front page, but journalists would fact-check it into the trash bin. Are the Koch brothers paying you, or is misinforming your readers just a matter of principle?
The Economic Policy Institute research on this (2/10/11) found “Wisconsin public employees earn 4.8 percent less in total compensation per hour than comparable full-time employees in Wisconsin’s private sector.” Other research on private/public compensation reaches similar conclusions (Center for Economic and Policy Research, 5/10/10). Other newspapers, like the New York Times (2/26/11), offer a range of studies, many of which support the conclusion that public workers earn less than their private-sector counterparts.
Let’s clarify this. For sure, a public sector full of teachers and engineers gets paid more than a private sector of fast food clerks. But so what? Does USA Today seek the communist ideal where everyone contributes their utmost but gets paid only enough to survive?
USA Today, you know it is meaningless to compare compensation without adjusting for the type of work performed, as well as for factors like education and experience.
REVELATIONS of disinformation, create civil REVOLUTIONS. GO WISCONSIN, AND THE 14!!!
I believe the genie is out of the bottle.
I could not replace you, Can you replace me?
If you could, would you work this cheaply?
Why is it ALWAYS THE WORKER THAT CAUSED IT? (in better economic times, I was an employer.)
Civil servants v. Pool side investors, blind to the results of their actions, Blinded by personal GREED.
(Even ME! I bought into all the same lies, wall street, banksters, hucksters.)
Wealth is not bad, it’s about how it is accumulated and at who’s expense.
Wealth is like manure, it is Toxic, unless it is spread around. This rant is not about “I hate the rich!”
IT IS ABOUT THE OPPRESSION OF PERSONAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS, TO ENRICH A SPECIAL FEW!
At the expense of the many!
I KNOW why they hate PBS so much.
You get to see another side than the for profit media. Look it up.
Watched a documentary on the fire in the NY. garment district, circa 1920’s.
Nine stories up and a six story ladder. A good comparison to today.
Ask your god if this is what is asked of you,
Or will you be the rich man that must pass “through the eye of a needle?”
To the Editors, I was disgusted by USA Today reporter Dennis Cauchon’s front page anti-union screed alleging that “Wisconsin is one of 41 states where public employees earn higher average pay and benefits than private workers in the same state.”
Cauchon admits “The analysis included full and part-time workers and did not adjust for specific jobs, age, education or experience” without acknowledging that this fact cancels out his effort to paint union workers as â┚¬Ã…“overpaidâ┚¬Ã‚Â. Should teachers and clerks at McDonald’s get exactly the same pay? Near the end of his article, Cauchon quotes a critic: â┚¬Ã…“Economist Jeffrey Keefe of the liberal Economic Policy Institute says the analysis is misleading because it doesn’t reflect factors such as education that result in higher pay for public employees.â┚¬Ã‚Â
No kidding!!! How about both misleading and hateful?
to:accuracy@usatoday.com
date:Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 4:05 PM
subject:Why aren’t you error-checking Dennis Cauchon?
To the Standards Editor:
It’s disturbing to see another of Mr. Cauchon’s error-ridden “analyses” in your newspaper. Today’s (3/1/2011) article contains the same errors as his previous piece. Here’s the problem: it is meaningless to compare compensation without adjusting for the type of work performed.
You should know this!
Yours,
Jim Recht, MD
I believe the criticism of Ebi and Lexis on this campaign is true, but I also believe the story to be misleading as fair.org states, so I wrote this email:
I just read your article “In Wis., private sector pays less” (http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20110301/1apublicworkers01_st.art.htm). By reading the following paragraph, it sounds like the analysis was just a simple comparison of average salaries of all workers in either the public or private sector:
“The analysis included full and part-time workers and did not adjust for specific jobs, age, education or experience. In an earlier job-to-job comparison, USA TODAY found that state and local government workers make about the same salary as those in the private sector but get more generous benefits.”
If that is the case, then it is a completely misleading and useless analysis just meant to fan the flames of an already contentious issue. To do a meaningful analysis, I would expect that your paper would have compared similar jobs, the same as my private employer does when deciding on my salary range, ie: industry standard pay for Software Engineer II, or some such thing. In fact, there are companies that you can pay or free websites that can offer that type of salary range for each job in case your staff is too lazy to do a qualitative analysis. I mean, come on, that article does nothing to further the facts on either side of the issue and probably took as long to write as this email. I am very disappointed in your paper which I had always considered unbiased, if not a little light on details.
Dear Mr. Jones
I’m a Extra subscriber and a FAIR reader. They have correctly pointed out that your 3/1/11 comparison between public and private sector wages in Wisconsin is meaningless since, as the author himself recognizes, “the analysis included full and part-time workers and did not adjust for specific jobs, age, education or experience.”
I think it is dishonest to print a story like that knowing all along that that kind of comparison makes no sens at all.
Sincerely yours,
David Gomes
Dear USA Today,
Your front page article comparing public and private sector job earnings and benefits was misleading to say the least. The fact that you put it on the front page really shows how much you care for public workers and who you really serve in the collective bargaining battle in Wisconsin.
It is absolutely necessary to compare private and public sector employees with similar education, age, job type, and experience. The apples to oranges comparison you and other media outlet are performing show nothing about the difference between those two sectors. In fact, when actual studies are done to focus on these differences, they find that public sector employees earn 4.8% LESS. [Economic Policy Institute].
Your story is misleading and should not have been printed.
Sincerely,
Justin
Yet another defective product from the faux factory
Possibly unnecessary clarification: Make that “fact-ory”
Dear Brent Jones, Standards Editor, USA Today
I was disappointed in the misleading article ‘Wisconsin one of 41 states where public workers earn more’ by Dennis Cauchon that you published today (3/1/2011) and I was ashamed by the poor quality of journalism shown by this article. The failure of your analysis to control for differences in education, experience, and the type of work performed renders the public vs private sector comparison meaningless. You are effectively comparing the income of a Walmart employee (Walmart is the largest private sector employer in the U.S.) to that of college educated professional teachers (the main occupation of all state and local government workers). Apples and oranges.
If your paper wants to make that comparison, make it explicit. Remind your readers the importance of public education for a livable society. Remind them also of the importance of the other public employee jobs for the public good. Then remind your readers that Walmart is among the jobs of last resort for American citizens because it pays poverty level wages to most employees, it offers little in terms of benefits and job security, and it is well known for the demoralizing way it treats its employees and blocks employee organizing. Is this really the model of employee relations and compensation that your paper advocates for teachers, safety workers, public health care workers and other state and local government workers?
You might also point out to your readers that the growing attack on public pension plans is simply a way for governments to take contractually agreed upon worker compensation out of the pockets of those private citizens and use it to support government actions. We usually call this a tax. Although many public employee pension plans do, at the moment, hold unfunded obligations, this is not the fault of the teachers, fireman, professors, and nurses that have bargained away salary increases for decent pension plans. The collapse of markets at the hand of the private sector financial services industry is responsible for the loss of wealth in nearly every sector of society, including public pension funds. No wonder these pension funds hold unfunded obligations! Are we really going to ‘tax’ away the retirement pensions of prison guards, police, emergency medical technicians and the like to make up for the economic crater that Wall Street speculators put us all into?
Then, point out to your readers how the wholesale dismantling of the middle class (which includes most government workers) is hurting, not helping our economic recovery. When more people are employed and paid a decent income that includes job and pension security, the overall health of the economy IMPROVES. Tax revenues increase, pension fund investments grow, State and National debts are paid down, and employment continues to grow. If the goal is to improve the economy of Wisconsin, or the Nation as a whole, the best thing we could do is have an honest discussion about how to generate more decent jobs with good wages and benefits in the public and private sectors alike. History and honest economic analyses (unlike that in Cauchon’s article) reveal that employee unions are one of the most effective and democratic tools for accomplishing a strong revenue base in this country. Journalists need to point out to their readers why our country needs to rebuild private sector employee unions, not dismantle public employee unions.
I hope the USA Today will correct Cauchon’s misleading article based upon a flawed analysis by reporting on legitimate economic analyses carried out by the Economic Policy Institute and the Center for Economic and Policy Research, among others, which reveal that public employees actually receive LOWER compensation than private sector employees when a valid comparison is made. In this era of ‘dysfunctional government’, can’t your staff figure out a way to tell this important ‘man bites dog’ story?
Standards Editor
Brent Jones
Dear Mr. Jones,
Your article on today’s front page erroneously suggests that public employees in Wisconsin earn more than private employees. Not only is this inaccurate but it also blatantly takes sides in a conflict in which your paper has no business involving itself on the news pages. If you must make such blatantly ideological statements, please save them for the opinion page. You have done the USA a great disservice Today. You owe us an apology.
Harry Coverston,
Orlando
March 1, 2011
Dear Brent Jones and standards dept., USA Today:
I’ve been told in a report from Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting that a front page story today by Dennis Cauchon bearing the headline “In Wisconsin, Private Sector Pays Less” reported that public sector workers in Wisconsin are paid more as an average than private sector workers.
This information was likely to create a false impression in readers because it was based on an average that did not distinguish between full-time and part-time workers (possibly a different mix in the public sector than in the private one) and job descriptions and qualifications (again, possibly a different mix in the two sectors).
Though the story did report that lack of distinction, and quoted economist Keefe pointing out the problem, you are likely more aware than I that we can expect many readers to carry away the impression created by a misleading headline.
We could possibly excuse USA Today’s inadvertent or conscious misleading if all job categories at USA Today were paid the identical average wage, but I doubt that is the case at USA just as it is not the case in the sectors miscompared by the article.
Please correct the error and please see that your stories on this subject of private and public sector comparisons are more carefully and conscientiously done. It is very important that the public is served by excellence in reporting and by accurate information on these very impactful public policy matters.
Sincerely,
Joseph Maizlish
goodwork@igc.org
Los Angeles, CA
Here’s the letter I sent to USA Today.
The subject line was “Inaccurate: ‘In Wisconsin, Private Sector Pays Less’ (3/1/11)”
USA Today
Standards Editor
Brent Jones
Dear Mr. Jones:
The above referenced front page article by Dennis Cauchon, while mentioning that his analysis “did not adjust for specific jobs, age, education or experience,” nevertheless asserts that “Wisconsin is one of 41 states where public employees earn higher average pay and benefits than private workers in the same state.”
He makes this statement as if it somehow means something. How can one make a fair and meaningful comparison without adjusting for such factors as education and skill levels? Is he trying to say that a part time stock clerk should somehow earn the same amount as, say, a judge sitting on an appellate court?
Real studies have shown just the opposite: public employees earn less than their counterparts in private industry with the same education levels and skill sets, considering both salary and “benefits,” which are just salary in another form.
People become public employees and accept LOWER total compensation because they prefer good benefits to higher nominal wages. They are, in general, fiscally conservative by nature, and would rather defer a portion of their wages (that’s what those horrible pensions are, deferred wages) so that they can hopefully live decently in their old age.
They also accept lower total compensation because they (mistakenly) believe that they will have greater job security. That used to be true.
Finally, they accept lower total compensation because they are dedicated to public service, to performing vital functions that help people.
Mr. Cauchon’s article is misleading and insulting. It serves only to fool the public and promote an anti-public service political agenda.
Your readers deserve better.
Subject: Private-profit-at-any-price PROPAGANDA.
Numbers don’t lie but statisticians do, and propagandists who use statistics are professional liars!
Salary levels of public vs. private employees need to be compared for similar education, seniority, and professional responsibility and we get a completely different message. Public workers have lower pay scales but they appreciate the value of what they do!
Glen 228-697-5195
ebi, the first commenter here, has a point. Given what the media have done to America over recent years, FAIR may be the most important website out there, but media execs are going to cry all the way to the bank at the Action Alert comments they receive (before passing them on to the FBI).
The only way, short of insurrection, to get the ultra-rich to change their ways is to boycott their products. Why does any rational person buy USA Today or tune in Fox News? Why do we buy the products of their advertisers? And why do we continue to buy the products of other companies with despicable policies, such as those recently in the news for only hiring to people with jobs?
Composing Action Alert comments is hard work, and at this stage of our decline they amount to little more than injustice collecting. Boycotting, however, is easy. Instead of asking us to write USA Today about its latest misrepresentations, why doesn’t FAIR simply post the names of its top advertisers?
To the Standards Editor/USA Today
Dear Mr. Jones,
I am an epidemiologist and statistician, and I am used to manipulating, arraying and presenting population data. One has to be mindful of variables when attempting to generalize regarding trends in any given population.
Your reporter Dennis Cauchon wrote that there are 41 states where public employees earn higher “average” pay and benefits than private workers. This is a bullshit argument, because the really low paying jobs don’t even exist in the public sector; think burger flippers. If you stratify your variables, comparing nurses to nurses, mechanics to mechanics, etc., you will find that the “average” Mr. Cauchon evokes is a fiction, and that profession by profession comparison reveals that private sector workers have better pay and benefits than their public sector counterparts.
Journalism should be about facts, and journalists should have at least a rudimentary grasp of the subjects they report.
Gar Hildenbrand
San Diego
I just sent this letter to USA Today.
In your March 1 article you note that the data saying that private sector pays less included both â┚¬Ã…“full and part-time workersâ┚¬Ã‚ and did not adjust for factors such as â┚¬Ã…“education and experience.â┚¬Ã‚ Given the number of underemployed people currently working part time in menial jobs, the finding that full-time public employees make more than â┚¬Ã…“averageâ┚¬Ã‚ private sector workers, including part-time personnel is not at all surprising!
State and local government employees such as teachers, on the whole are better educated than private-sector workers. A recent study from the Center for Economic Policy Research that looked at factors such as education and experience, showed that when public and private workers of the same age and educational levels are matched, private sector workers actually earn about 4% more than public workers.
I count on the media to present facts fairly and to keep people informed. Your article on pay in Wisconsin failed on both counts. It is time to publish another article that clearly looks at apples in terms of apples and oranges in terms of oranges. That is, in talking about wages, you should compare full time employees with employees of similar education and experience. Then, compare the part time employees in terms of education and experience.
Mr. Jones;
The briefest of research clearly shows that Cauchon’s front page (3/11/11) article comparing private and public sector pay rates and claiming that the public sector pay in Wisconsin is higher than private sector pay there is both incorrect and unfairly misleading.
Why would such a popular magazine publish such a misleading article unless it was to support a conservative-biased editorial/owner political agenda rather than to properly educate the public as to the facts? It is clearly meaningless to compare pay rates without appropriate cross-referencing the type of work being compared, e.g., comparing McDonalds fry cooks to certificated teachers without proper job category identification.
In all due fairness, USA Today should publish a readily-seen correction at the earliest opportunity.
Dear USA Today Standards Editor Brent Jones,
Dennis Couchon’s story on March 1 about public employee compensation being higher than private was chock full of misinformation following a misleading headline. Was this story a rewrite of a public relations piece written by some outside source, like Koch-sponsored Cato Institute (cited in the article)? The piece was based on a poorly designed study and should not have been published. Most readers don’t pay attention to research procedures and trust the media to perform due diligence in reporting such findings. In the case of the March 1 story, it was done by USA Today itself, and closes with the comment “Economist Jeffrey Keefe of the liberal Economic Policy Institute says the analysis is misleading because it doesn’t reflect factors such as education that result in higher pay for public employees.” What is the point of publishing a survey that’s misleading unless your paper wants to mislead?
He doesn’t even bother to mention that the government-funded pensions federal employees get are in place of social security benefits.
I live close enough to Washington DC to know quite a few people — including close relatives — who work for the federal government, all of whom are highly educated and all of whom could earn substantially more in the private sector.
Cauchon writes, ” USA TODAY reported in March that the federal government pays an average of 20% more than private firms for comparable occupations. The analysis did not consider differences in experience and education.” A decent reporter would point out that many of the public sector employees are highly skilled and specialized, whereas jobs in the private sector are predominantly in the service industry such as fast food. Seems like the real story should focus on what happened to jobs in the U.S.
The piece seems to have been written in support of Gov. Scott Walker who is trying, along with other newly elected Tea-Party backed governors, to bust public unions. By the way, what IS the relationship between Dennis Cauchon and Koch Industries? Someone might want to check into his leads.
Very truly yours,
Hello,
Dennis Cauchon’s article misleads the public by saying that public workers make more than private counterparts. While he does mention the analysis doesn’t account for education differences or experience, that mention is not obvious and that seems to be his intention.
But it is meaningless to compare compensation without adjusting for the type of work performed, as well as for factors like education and experience.
He even quotes a critic, EPI, which contradicts his findings, but sticks with his notion which is probably meant only to offer a valuable boost to Republican governors like Wisconsin’s Scott Walker.
I object to this onslaught of villifications by no nothings like Cauchon who seem only to want to make the issue fuzzy instead of clearing up what is true about public workers.
The Wisconsin public workers and the unions they belong to want to have a part in the determination of the contracts they work under. I do not know for sure, but I imagine that Cauchon works based on a contract with his employer which might include provisions he approves of, something he wants to deny to public workers.
He needs to do a better job.
Raymond
Westminster MD