N.J. citizens should objectively examine facts regarding state positions

While the recently announced efforts of Democratic lawmakers to reduce the costs of state government are commendable, the authors of these proposals clearly do not understand all of the differences between working for the state and working for private companies.

For example, private companies typically match employees’ 401k contributions, pay substantial bonuses, and, in general, pay substantially more in base income than the state pays for equivalent jobs.

In return, state workers receive a richer benefits package, including the ability to retire at an earlier age than their counterparts in private industry and collect a pension that is based on their state salary.

While the pension is generous, in most cases a state retiree’s pension income and accumulated wealth will not provide as comfortable a retirement as a worker in private industry can expect based on their accumulated wealth.

State employees, particularly managers and those qualified in a profession, accept the lower salaries paid by the state for doing the same work as equally qualified employees in private industry, for many reasons, including the ability to attend their children’s school and sporting events and spend more time with their families, and their desire to perform public service.

While it may be politically expedient, especially while the state budget is being debated, to highlight the cost of state benefits, we cannot allow lawmakers to cast state workers negatively without objectively reviewing the facts.

Mark Orenzow

Marlboro