Despite weaker-than-expected tax collections that have the state weighing a new round of budget cuts, House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo last week handed out 3 percent raises to all 460 House employees and Senate President Therese Murray gave 3 percent raises to a smaller handful of staff.
DeLeo’s office said the raises, which the speaker can grant at his own discretion, were justified because House employees have not seen a pay increase since September 2008. House employees received letters notifying them of the raise last week.
Comments
keep voting dems you sheeple.
I tease my wife that I'm moving to the middle of the country but then it wouldn't be any fun to hammer on my far left friends if I couldn't see them squirm in person.
Unbelievable.
Wow. That's like a giant middle finger to everyone including the Gov. What's the deal with being Speaker of the house in Mass and pretending that you are a king?
Hey, all of you whinging: when was your last raise?
Four years wthout a raise, I think it was VERY reasonable to give a modest 3% increase. Getting beat up over this is an occupational hazard when in public service.
Shouldn't the Globe ask the next, most logical question? How many have left their jobs since 2008 for the "riches" of the private sector? I'd bet none. So, if no increases in pay have not provoked much (if any) natural migration of "highly qualified and talented" public sector workers since 2008 doesn't that tell you that their pay is, comparatively, still very good? If they could find a better job, why wouldn't ANYONE leave? They aren't leaving because they can't get a better gig. All government pay, in EVERY sector, should be frozen until the level of voluntary seperation from public sector jobs equals the natural turnover in the private sector. If no one is leaving a job category, by definition, that compensation is, already, adequate if not too high. Dear Globe; give us the numbers of workers leaving the public sector for the private sector. Then we will be able to judge if their pay should be increased, frozen or decreased, no?
What's logical about any of those questions?
Oh come on. Most of the Beacon Hill staffers are young people in their 20s who aren't paid very much. So many are getting a fat raise of $1,500 over a year. For those of you calculating at home, that's $28.80-week. If the average staffer makes, say, $50,000-a-year, this means the budget is impacted by about $700,000. It's something, but it's not a budget buster. Lest we forget, they haven't had raises in 4 years. If anything, moves should be made to reduce staff.
Seriously.... when did the Globe become the Herald?
Judges haven't had any cost of living increase in 8 years. Guess they are doubly overdue.
Good timing --the same day it is announced that state revenues are decreasing and cut backs may be required --at the expense of who ?