AFT salary survey shows a living wage is still out of reach for many PSRPs

No one who takes a job as a PSRP does it just for the money. More likely, they will cite their pleasure at working with kids, flexible work hours that allow time with their own children, and maybe the good benefits that often come with the job. But pay is rarely the big attraction.

The latest AFT salary survey of PSRP jobs, “Compensation Report 2005,” shows why low salaries routinely rank at the top of education support employees’ concerns. While there is some good news from the latest report—such as the fact that between 2000 and 2003, wage increases in 19 of the 26 job categories outpaced inflation—pay rates for PSRPs in the public sector have not kept up with comparable private sector jobs.

“These findings,” says the report, written by Ed Muir of the AFT’s research and information services department and modeled on the AFT’s popular annual teacher salary surveys, “are a simple result of two phenomena: an unprecedented state government fiscal crisis that has squeezed school district revenues and a large increase in healthcare costs, which means that less money is available for wage increases.”

Electricians top the list
So how much are various PSRPs making in 2005? The report is not perfect because it is based on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that includes information on public sector jobs that might include those employed by schools as well as other agencies, such as security guards or bus drivers. Other job titles, such as teaching assistant and crossing guard, are found almost exclusively in schools. So, with that caution in mind, it turns out that electricians, with hourly earnings of $21.83, top the list. Secretaries, at $15.82 per hour, are in the middle, while the $9.80 hourly wage for kitchen and food preparation workers puts them at the bottom.

In addition to straightforward salary levels, the 2005 version of the report includes something new. Using information from the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) on the cost of living in various metropolitan areas—calculated to include the cost of housing, food, childcare, transportation, healthcare, taxes and other necessities—the report compares those levels to salaries for paraprofessionals (or teachers’ aides, as the federal data refers to them). Basically, the EPI figures are for what’s commonly known as a living wage.

The bottom line, as the chart on page 5 illustrates, is that it is virtually impossible for a paraprofessional working 38 weeks a year—which is far more common than a 52-week year—to support herself and one child. Calculating those salaries on a 52-week basis, it still allows paraprofessionals in only four of the 14 cities to meet the EPI’s basic family budget. The situation for a theoretical household with two paraprofessional incomes is better. While that might seem like an endorsement of marriage between paraprofessionals, what it really illustrates is why so many paraprofessionals and other PSRPs are out working second and even third jobs.

Discouraging as some of the numbers are, the AFT’s analysis might actually underestimate the true cost of living in some cities. Because PSRPs often have employer-provided health insurance, the report subtracted healthcare from the cost of living in the 14 cities listed. If PSRPs actually are not covered or have significant out-of-pocket healthcare expenses, the true cost of living would be higher, the report points out.

The benefits of a living wage
The report’s findings confirm that campaigns to guarantee a living wage for PSRPs and other public employees can be an important strategy, especially in places without collective bargaining, to raise the pay and benefits of a sorely underpaid and undervalued group of workers. Such campaigns have been successfully waged in many large cities around the country, although the workers who have been affected have not usually been school employees. One effort aimed specifically at getting a living wage for PSRPs in Oklahoma City is being led by the AFT’s local union there. (See the story at right.)

Shortly after the AFT salary report came out, an important study of the impact of the living wage ordinance in Los Angeles also was released. The report by researchers at the University of California—the most complete analysis done of any living wage policy in the country—indicates that the law has raised wages for nearly 10,000 workers with minimal loss of jobs. The threat of job losses is commonly cited by living wage opponents, such as the Chamber of Commerce.

The study also concludes that most of the workers who benefit are from poor and low-income families, as the law intended, rather than teenagers. And employers also experienced positive results, such as lower rates of employee turnover and absenteeism.

For a copy of the report, email psrp@aft.org.