The Politics of Pay

Being a prison guard is a tough and dangerous job. Correctional officers should be well paid and well trained, as the recent inquiries into abuse of prisoners at Corcoran State Prison demonstrate. But that does not justify a sweetheart pay raise from Gov. Pete Wilson for the California Correctional Peace Officers Assn., which represents 23,314 prison employees.

Just hours after Wilson vetoed a general pay raise of 9% for state employees last Friday, he reached a tentative accord with the guards to give them the equivalent of a 12% pay hike, including pay for the time it takes them to change into and out of their uniforms.

Why veto the first pay raise for 200,000 state workers in three years while giving 12% to the guards? Wilson’s office said it was justified because the guards agreed that those who fail to meet new performance standards would be denied raises. But in practice only those who face significant disciplinary action, a tiny percentage, would be denied.

The governor has battled public employee unions for years, with a few exceptions--most notably correctional officers. The guards union has been one of Wilson’s biggest political contributors, giving $667,000 to his campaigns since 1987. The governor’s spokesman said it is “outrageous” to suggest the guards’ political support had anything to do with the pay raise. Sure.

Meanwhile, the rest of the state work force goes without raises because union leaders have rejected demands for change in Civil Service rules, including merit pay. The unions’ leadership continue to stubbornly cling to outdated rules that deny greater rewards for outstanding workers and instead ensure mediocrity. But any major revision of Civil Service is best done by the Legislature, not in private contract negotiations.

The guards’ pact needs to be ratified by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature. Lawmakers should reject this overly generous raise that benefits a relatively small but politically potent group.