In my last post, I discussed the prospect that Illinois's legislators may adopt a policy that may make it harder for me to keep my job. I stated that I will decline to complain about "the gutting of education" and that I will decline to speak as if the state or its taxpayers "owe" me a job. By saying that, I was and I intended to criticize implicitly those public employees I know who are very vocal in their complaints about the possible defunding of higher education in the state. I'll state explicitly what in that post I said implicitly: People who make such complaints are usually at least partially wrong, they tend to overestimate their own importance and the importance of their jobs, and they express a reckless tone-deafness in some of their protestations.
But I can't leave it at that, for two reasons. First, if they are "at least partially wrong," then they are at least partially right. If they overestimate their own or their jobs' importance, they also have an argument for their own importance and the importance of their jobs. And even if they don't, the uncertainty attendant with contingent employment is not a good way to manage employees, and they're not altogether wrong to call that out. And what I call "tone-deafness" is also pushback against some pretty vicious public attacks on public employees.
Second,, it's not lost on me that I am in a position comfortable enough to adopt the view I do. I think mine would be the right view even if I weren't comfortable. But my (relative) comfort makes it much easier for me to adopt it. Relatedly, the apparent paradox of my view--that of a public employee who speaks in generous terms about those who would defund public employment--cannot but reflect a certain part of posturing on my part.
Public employment has historically been a pretty good opportunity for populations who otherwise have been marginalized in the private sector. I don't have any numbers, but I imagine women and minorities have been hired in larger numbers in the public sector than in the private. And some workers who have only a high school diploma have done much better in the civil service than they probably would have in the private sector. What's more, I suspect that opposition to "public employees" is fueled, at least sometimes, by a veiled or not-so-veiled racism against those perceived most likely to benefit from employment. I personally think it's much more complicated than that, but I also think it's in the mix.
I am not part of any obviously disadvantaged demographic. I am also in economic circumstances that are probably more secure than others whose jobs might be threatened. My spouse earns a decent salary and could probably support both of us. By her salary alone, we are above what is considered a "living wage" in Chicago for a family of four, even though we have no children. The prospect of unemployment is not as nerve wracking as it otherwise might be.
Which isn't to say we have no concerns whatsoever. Although my spouse could support both of us, it would be a hit to our lifestyle pretty deep, and it would put a pretty large amount of pressure on her as the sole breadwinner. Also, I don't relish the idea of being on the job market. I've been on it before and although all my periods of unemployment have been short ones, I do remember how demoralizing they were. And there's always the possibility that this time, the jobless period will last longer than before. Again reflecting my relative privilege, part of the prospect jobless period concerns what employment I will accept and not necessarily what employment is available. Even so, I am generally inclined to take some job, almost any job, rather than be jobless. That can work for good and for ill, as it has in the past. But it's not a situation I wish returning to any time soon.
Still, I have it better than many (most?) others. And that enables me to affect a disinterestedness I might not otherwise be able to. I ought to keep that in mind.