MANHATTAN INSTITUTE POLL SUMMARY OF FINDINGS DOUGLAS E. SCHOEN, LLC SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 1 Conducted...
-
Upload
dallas-soutter -
Category
Documents
-
view
231 -
download
0
Transcript of MANHATTAN INSTITUTE POLL SUMMARY OF FINDINGS DOUGLAS E. SCHOEN, LLC SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 1 Conducted...
MANHATTAN INSTITUTE POLL
SUMMARY OF FINDINGSDOUGLAS E. SCHOEN, LLC
SEPTEMBER 20, 2011
1Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute
OVERVIEW
Representative sample of 1,000 registered voters across the country from August 5 – 10, 2011.
- To test voter knowledge and opinions of state budgetary issues in general and collective bargaining and labor unions in particular.
- To determine favorability towards the various ways states can and did address their budget crises.
Margin of sampling error is +/- 3%.
2Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute
OVERVIEW
Also conducted ten surveys with 400 randomly selected voters from August 29 – September 5, 2011, in FL, IL, IN, MI, MT, NC, NY, OH, PA, WI.
- To test state voters’ knowledge and opinions of public sector salaries and benefits, and reform of such benefits.
- To test voter opinion of state budgetary issues taking place in that individual state.
Margin of sampling error is +/- 4.9%.
3Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute
MAIN CONCLUSIONS• Voters believe that states are facing fiscal crises.
• Voters support steps to pare back spending and reduce benefits for current and future public employees.
• Voters strongly oppose measures to increase taxes and oppose reducing benefits for retirees.
• Voters overwhelmingly blame elected officials for creating and exacerbating current fiscal problems.
4Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute
MAIN CONCLUSIONS• Voters feel that there is no absolute right to collective
bargaining; rather, they feel that it is a benefit that can and should be negotiated. They are prepared to accept some restrictions on collective bargaining when states are facing fiscal problems.
• When voters are given the choice between restricting benefits and keeping benefits at current levels, a clear majority support reducing benefits.
• However, there was opposition to the laws that were passed in Ohio and Wisconsin because voters did not see the clear linkage between restricting collective bargaining rights and resolving states' fiscal problems.
5Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute
DIRECTION OF GOVERNMENT
Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute 6
DIRECTION OF THE ECONOMYVoters are very unsatisfied with the direction of the economy.
Just 14% say it is headed in the right direction, while 80% say it is on the wrong track.
7Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute
DIRECTION OF YOUR STATE’S ECONOMYVoters believe their state’s economy is headed in the wrong direction as well, 66% to 23%.
8Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute
EFFICIENCY OF STATE GOVERNMENTBut voters have positive views toward their state government.
They say their state government is efficient by 55% to 43%.
9Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute
PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYEES
10Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute
PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYEES – INCOME
11Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute
A majority (57%) believe that public sector employees make more or at least the same as private sector employees
PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYEES - SALARIES AND BENEFITS
12
Which is closer to your view?
Public employees’ salaries should be frozen and they should be required to contribute more towards their benefits
48%
Public employees’ salaries should not be frozen and they should not be required to contribute more towards their benefits
40%
A plurality (48%) say that public employees’ salaries should be frozen and they should be required to contribute more towards their benefits.
Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute
NEW PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYEES – HEALTH BENEFITS
A majority says that new public employees should have to contribute toward paying for their health care benefits because of state and local government budget problems, 57% to 38%.
13
57%
38%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%
New public sectoremployees'
health benefits
Contributemore towardpaying forbenefitsbecause ofbudgetproblemsDo notrequire themto pay more
Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute 13
PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYEES –PENSIONS
60%
32%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%
65%
70%
Public sector employees
Contribute moretoward pensionbenefits becauseof budgetproblems
Should not haveto contribute more
14Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute 14
A solid majority of voters (60%) say current public employees should have to contribute more toward their pension benefits because of budget problems.
PUBLIC SECTOR RETIREES –PENSIONS
25%
69%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%
65%
70%
Public sector retirees
Contribute moretoward pensionand health carebenefits because ofbudget problems
Should not have tocontribute more
15Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute 15
However, majority say that retirees should not have to contribute more towards their pension and health care benefits because of budget problems.
STATE & LOCAL GOV FUNDS – RAISE TAXES? Voters would not be willing to have taxes raised so that the salaries and benefits of current public employees could be paid at current levels if states did not have the money to pay them, 64% to 31%.
16
31%
64%
20%25%30%35%40%45%50%55%60%65%70%
If states didn't have enoughmoney to pay the salaries and
benefits of current publicemployees, would you be
willing to have taxes raised sothat they could be paid at
current levels?
Yes
No
Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute 16
STATE & LOCAL GOV FUNDS – RAISE TAXES BY PARTY
17
Voters across the aisle agree.
Republicans say they are not willing to have taxes raised to pay current public employees’ benefits at current levels, 84% to 14%, and Independents agree, 50% to 37%.
A plurality of Democrats say they would not be willing to have taxes raised, 47% to 43%.
Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute 17
STATE & LOCAL GOV FUNDS – RAISE TAXES BY PARTY
18
Democrats Republicans Independents0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
43%
14%
37%
47%
84%
50%
If states did not have enough money to pay current public employees’ salaries and benefits…
Willing to have taxes raised so that benefits could be paid at current levels
Not willing to have taxes raised
Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute 18
STATE & LOCAL GOV FUNDS – WISCONSIN AND OHIO
19
Strong majorities of voters in Wisconsin and Ohio also oppose tax increases as a means of keeping public employees at current salary and benefit levels.
Wisconsin voters reject paying more taxes to pay current public employees’ benefits at current levels, 61% to 35%, and Ohio voters reject this, 65% to 29%.
Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute 19
STATE & LOCAL GOV FUNDS – CUT SOCIAL SERVICE PROGRAMS?
Voters would also not be willing to have state social service programs cut so that the salaries and benefits of current public employees could be paid at current levels if states did not have the money to pay them, 51% to 36%.
20
36%
51%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
55%
If states didn't have enoughmoney to pay the salaries and
benefits of current publicemployees, would you be willing
to have state programs cut sothat they could be paid at
current levels?
Yes
No
Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute 20
STATE & LOCAL GOV FUNDS – WISCONSIN AND OHIO
21
Strong majorities of voters in Wisconsin and Ohio oppose service cuts as a means of keeping public employees at current salary and benefit levels.
Wisconsin voters reject accepting service cuts to pay current public employees’ benefits at current levels, 66% to 25%, and Ohio voters reject this, 62% to 29%.
Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute 21
STATE & LOCAL GOV FUNDS –WISCONSIN AND OHIO
22
Wisconsin Ohio0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70% 66%62%
25%29%
If states did not have enough money to pay current public employees’ salaries and benefits…
Willing to have state programs cut so that benefits could be paid at current levels
Not willing to have taxes raised
Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute 22
STATE BUDGET CRISES
23Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute
STATE BUDGET CRISESA large majority of voters (78%) say their state faced a budget crisis this year.
15% say their state did not face one.
24
78%
15%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Your stategovernment
Faced abudgetcrisis thisyearDid notface one
Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute 24
STATE BUDGET CRISES
25
How was your state’s budget crisis resolved?(up to two choices accepted, responses combined)
Spending cuts 68%
Taxes increased 28%
It was not resolved 9%
Not sure 16%
A majority of voters (68%) say their state’s budget crisis was resolved by spending cuts.
Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute 25
STATE BUDGET CRISES – WHO IS TO BLAME?
26
As you may know, many U.S. state governments are facing large budget deficits this year, meaning that their spending has exceeded the amount of revenue that they have brought in from fees and taxes. This has caused many public employee pension plans and healthcare plans to be greatly underfunded. What would you say is the main reason for these problems?
Elected state officials made careless and self-serving decisions 48%
State governments spent too much money 28%
Public employees’ benefits are too high and unsustainable 13%
State governments did not tax enough 6%
A plurality (48%) blame their elected officials for their state’s budget deficit.
Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute 26
STATE BUDGET CRISES – BEST SOLUTION
27
In your opinion, what is the best way to address the problem of states not being able to afford public employee benefits?
Cut government spending 47%
Require current public employees to contribute more towards their benefits
31%
Raise taxes 13%
Require retired public employees to contribute more towards their benefits
1%
A plurality (47%) say that cutting government spending is the best way to address the problem of states not being able to afford public employee benefits.
Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute 27
STATE BUDGET CRISES – BEST SOLUTION BY IDEOLOGY
28
In your opinion, what is the best way to address the problem of states not being able to afford public employee benefits?
Liberals Moderates Conservatives
Cut government spending 42% 44% 49%
Require current public employees to contribute more towards their benefits
13% 28% 43%
Raise taxes 33% 16% 3%
Require retired public employees to contribute more towards their benefits
2% 1% 1%
There is bipartisan support for cutting spending.
A plurality of liberals, moderates and conservatives all say that cutting government spending is the best way to address this problem.
Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute
28
STATE BUDGET CRISES – LEAST DESIRABLE SOLUTION
29
What would you say is the least desirable way to address the problem of states not being able to afford public employee benefits?
Raise taxes 36%
Require retired public employees to contribute more towards their benefits
21%
Cut government spending 21%
Require current public employees to contribute more towards their benefits
14%
A plurality (36%) say that raising taxes is the least desirable way to address the problem of states not being able to afford public employee benefits.
Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute 29
STATE BUDGET CRISES – LEAST DESIRABLE SOLUTION BY IDEOLOGY
30
A plurality of moderates and conservatives say that raising taxes is the least desirable way to address this problem, while liberals say cutting government spending and requiring retirees to contribute more are least desirable.
In your opinion, what is the least desirable way to address the problem of states not being able to afford public employee benefits?
Liberals Moderates Conservatives
Raise taxes 19% 38% 46%
Cut government spending 33% 16% 17%
Require current public employees to contribute more towards their benefits
9% 20% 14%
Require retired public employees to contribute more towards their benefits
32% 16% 18%
Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute 30
REDUCING STATE SERVICESVoters favor reducing or eliminating certain state services to reduce budget deficits, 56% to 35%.
31
56%
35%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Do you favor or opposereducing or eliminatingcertain state services toreduce budget deficits?
Favor
Oppose
Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute 31
REDUCING STATE SERVICES – BY PARTY
32
Democrats Republicans Independents0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
47%
66%59%
46%
31%24%
Eliminating certain state services to reduce budget deficits
Favor
Oppose
Majorities of Republicans and Independents favor eliminating state services to reduce budget deficits. A plurality of Democrats agree.
Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute 32
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
33Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
Next we introduced collective bargaining to voters with the following explanation:
Collective bargaining is a process of negotiations between employers and labor union representatives aimed at reaching agreements that regulate working conditions and determine salary and benefits.
34Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
35
Collective bargaining is a process of negotiations between employers and labor union representatives aimed at reaching agreements that regulate working conditions and determine salary and benefits. Which position is closer to your view?
All
Public employees should not bargain collectively and use the power of the group to potentially limit, delay or restrict the delivery of important government services
50%
By negotiating as part of a union rather than individually, public employees can have more leverage in securing the higher pay and more generous benefits that they deserve.
42%
Half oppose collective bargaining, and say that public employees should not bargain collectively and use the power of the group to potentially limit or restrict the delivery of government services.
Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute 35
STATE GOVERNMENT DISPUTES OVER COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
Voters side more with state officials than public employee unions in the state government disputes over collective bargaining, 46% to 39%.
In the disputes b...30%32%34%36%38%40%42%44%46%48%50%
46%
39%Side with state of-ficials
Side with public employee unions
36Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute
RESTRICT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING RULES
All0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%53%
41%
Some states are trying to restrict collective bargaining rules of public
employee unions.
Favor restrict-ing some of these rules
Oppose
Voters favor restricting some of the collective bargaining rules of public employee unions, 53% to 41%.
37Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute
RESTRICT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING – WISCONSIN AND OHIO
Wisconsin Ohio0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
53%
60%
45%
36%
Some states are trying to restrict collective bargaining rules of public
employee unions.
Favor restrict-ing some of these rules
Oppose
Wisconsin and Ohio voters think that collective bargaining should be restricted, 53% to 45% and 60% to 36% respectively.
38Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING – BASIC RIGHT?
By 60% to 33%, voters say that collective bargaining is not a basic right; rather, it is one that can be negotiated.
39Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute 39
WILL LIMITING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACTUALLY HELP STATE BUDGET PROBLEMS?
40
Which position is closer to your view?
It is unclear how much money will actually be saved by limiting these rights.
56%
Limiting collective bargaining will result in more reasonable benefits for public employees and thus help states close their budget gaps.
33%
While voters support measures to restrict collective bargaining, say that it is not an absolute right, and side with state officials in state government disputes over restricting collective bargaining, they are not convinced that limiting these rights will actually save states money, 56% to 33%.
Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute 40
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING –TEACHER TENURE
41
56% favor phasing out tenure for teachers because it protects bad teachers from being fired while making it harder to bring in new and better teachers. 39% say teacher tenure is a longstanding right for public school teachers.
Teacher tenure0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60% 56%
39%
Phase out Teacher tenure is a longstanding right for public school teachers and it would be unfair for it to be taken away from them
Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute
PENSIONS
42Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute
PENSION PROGRAMS
Voters are clearly in favor of changing the nature of public employee retirement plans, opting for plans that resemble those found in the private sector, to help maintain current benefit levels and improve their state’s finances.
43Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute
DEFINED BENEFIT VS. DEFINED CONTRIBUTION PROGRAMS
44
Voters strongly favor moving all new public employees from the existing defined benefit plan to a proposed defined contribution plan.
Moving all new public employees from a defined benef...0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%69%
17%
Favor
Oppose
Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute
DEFINED BENEFIT VS. DEFINED CONTRIBUTION PROGRAMS – BY IDEOLOGY
45
Liberals Conservatives Moderates0%
10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%
60%68%
76%
31%
16%11%
Moving all new public employees from a defined benefit plan to a defined contribution plan
Favor
Oppose
There is support across the political spectrum for moving all new public employees from a defined benefit plan to a defined contribution plan, as majorities of Liberals, Moderates and Conservatives favor this.
Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute 45
DEFINED BENEFIT VS. DEFINED CONTRIBUTION PROGRAMS – WISCONSIN AND OHIO
46
Wisconsin Ohio0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70% 63% 63%
18%25%
Moving all new public employees from a defined benefit plan to a defined contribution plan
Favor
Oppose
Majorities of voters in Wisconsin and Ohio favor moving all new public employees from existing, defined benefit plans to proposed, defined contribution plans.
Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute 46
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE LABOR UNIONS
47Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute
SALARIES AND BENEFITS OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES
Generally speaking, by 41% to 13%, voters say the salaries and benefits of most public employees are too high for the work they do.
32% say they are about right. Salaries and benefi...
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
41%
13%
32% Too high
Too low
About right
48Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute
RETIREMENT OF POLICE AND FIREFIGHTERS
Voters say that police and firefighters should have to be older than their 40’s and 50’s to retire and collect pension checks regardless of the number of years they have served, 57% to 38%.
Retirement for police and...30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%
38%
57%
After 25 years, even if they're in their 40's and 50's
Should have to be older than that
49Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute
RETIREMENT OF TEACHERSVoters are split on if teachers should be able to receive pension checks after a set period of time if they are younger than 65, with 47% agreeing and 48% saying they should not be able to. Retirement of t...
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%
47% 48%
Be able to retire after a set period of service even if they are under age 65
Should not be able to do this
50Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute
INDIVIDUAL STATES – CASE STUDIES
51Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute
INDIVIDUAL STATE CASE STUDIES
Next we asked voters if they favor or oppose how various states addressed their budget crises.
This section reports findings on voters’ attitudes both nationally and in individual states to state-specific issues.
52Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute
CASE STUDY – WISCONSIN
In that fight, did y...0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%52%
40%
Asked of those who have heard about what happened…
Republican Governor
Democrats in the Legis-lature
In our national survey, those who say they have heard about what happened in Wisconsin sided with the Governor rather than the Democrats in the legislature, 52% to 40%.
53Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute
CASE STUDY – WISCONSIN
54
However, voters nationally oppose the Wisconsin law that was passed, 49% to 45%.
The Wisconsin law that passed eliminates most collective bargaining ri...43%
44%
45%
46%
47%
48%
49%
50%
45%
49%
Favor this law OpposeConducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute
55
Our Wisconsin survey shows that Wisconsin voters also oppose the law, 52%-45%.
Collective bargaining law0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
45%
52%
FavorOppose
CASE STUDY – WISCONSIN
Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute
CASE STUDY –WISCONSIN
Opposition to this law is due in large part because voters are unsure as to how collective bargaining impacts their state’s fiscal health and the salary and benefit levels of public employees.
They seem to think that the current system of collective bargaining is too open-ended, but they are more inclined to see public employee salaries and benefits reduced in order to improve their state’s fiscal health.
56Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute
57
CASE STUDY – WISCONSINWisconsin voters are split (47%-47%) on whether limiting collective bargaining will have a clear benefit on closing state budget gaps.
How would limiting collective bargaining impact state budgets?
It would result in more reasonable benefits for public employees, allowing states to close their budget gaps
47%
It is unclear how much money would actually be saved by restricting collective bargaining rights.
47%
Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute
58
CASE STUDY – WISCONSIN
And only 28% of Wisconsin voters think reforming collective bargaining is more important than reforming public employee salaries and benefits to improve the state’s finances.
Which is more important to improving the state's finances - reforming the collective bargaining process, or reforming the way public employees are compensated and the benefits they receive?
Reforming collective bargaining is more important 28%
Reforming public employees’ benefits is more important 43%
Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute
CASE STUDY – WISCONSIN
This demonstrates the disconnect between what voters want (savings and more efficient government) and what they think is the best way to achieve these goals (pension and benefit reform at the expense of collective bargaining reform).
We see that voters are clearly in favor of repealing the type of work rules that are born out of the collective bargaining process.
59Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute
CASE STUDY – OHIO
In that fight, did ...0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%54%
33%
Asked of those who have heard about what happened…
Republican Governor
Democrats in the Legis-lature
In our national survey, those who say they have heard about what happened in Ohio sided with the Governor rather than the Democrats in the legislature, 54% to 33%.
60Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute
CASE STUDY – OHIO
61
However, voters nationally also oppose the Ohio law that was passed, 45% to 40%.
The Ohio law eliminates most collective bargaining rights for public em...37%38%39%40%41%42%43%44%45%46%
40%
45%
Favor this law OpposeConducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute
62
CASE STUDY – OHIO In our Ohio state survey, we found that Ohio voters oppose the law as well, 52% to 43%.
Ohio's recent collective bargaining law0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
43%
52%
SupportOppose
Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute
CASE STUDY – OHIO
Like Wisconsin, opposition to the Ohio law can be attributed to voters’ uncertainty as to how collective bargaining impacts their state’s fiscal health and the salary and benefit levels of public employees.
Ohio voters are more inclined to see public employee salaries and benefits reduced in order to improve their state’s fiscal health.
63Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute
64
CASE STUDY – OHIO A plurality of Ohio voters (48%) feel that it is unclear how much money could actually be saved by limiting collective bargaining.
How would limiting collective bargaining impact state budgets?
It is unclear how much money would actually be saved by restricting collective bargaining rights.
48%
Limiting collective bargaining will result in more reasonable benefits for public employees and thus help states close their budget gaps.
38%
Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute
65
CASE STUDY – OHIO
And only 17% think reforming collective bargaining is more important than reforming public employee salaries and benefits to improve the state’s finances.
Which is more important to improving the state's finances - reforming the collective bargaining process, or reforming the way public employees are compensated and the benefits they receive?
Reforming public employees’ benefits is more important 59%
Reforming collective bargaining is more important 17%
Not sure 24%
Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute
CASE STUDY – OHIO
Like in Wisconsin, this demonstrates the disconnect between what voters want (savings and more efficient government) and what they think is the best way to achieve these goals (pension and benefit reform at the expense of collective bargaining reform).
Voters clearly favor repealing the type of work rules that are born out of the collective bargaining process.
66Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute
67
CASE STUDY – NEW YORKThree-quarters of New York voters approve of New York’s strategy to address the budget crisis by cutting spending in most areas rather than raising taxes.
Government's strategy of spending cuts to solve budget crisis
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80% 75%
22%
SupportOppose
Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute
CASE STUDY – NEW YORK
We told New York voters the following information:
“State and local government workers pay an average of 29% of their health insurance premiums, compared to 31% in the private sector. Governor Cuomo recently negotiated two new contracts with state government employees that will raise their health insurance contributions to a level closer to the national average. However, some large groups of local government employees in New York continue to contribute much less.”
We asked voters if all New York public employees should be required to contribute as much to their health insurance as state government employees do.
68Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute
CASE STUDY – NEW YORK
69
A majority of New York voters say that New York public employees should be required to contribute as much to their health insurance as state government employees do, 61% to 29%.
Should all public employees in New York should be req...0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%61%
29%
Yes No
Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute
CASE STUDY – NEW YORK
70
New York voters also favor requiring local public employees to contribute at least 10% of health insurance premiums for individual coverage, and at least 25% for family coverage, 50% to 36%.
Series10%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%50%
36%
Favor this proposal Oppose
The New York State Commission on Local Government Efficiency and Competitiveness has recommended that all local public employees be required to contribute at least 10% of health insurance premiums for individual coverage, and at least 25% for family coverage. Keeping in mind that some public employees now pay closer to the national average in health insurance contributions, but some pay nothing…
Conducted by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC for the Manhattan Institute