50 years of pension for 20 years of work

[Akula1992]

Just a word or two about the 20 years of work for the 40 some odd years of retirement.

I’m now 40-something and have been in the military for 21 years now. I figure I still have several years left in me but why does the military and the fire department, etc. let people retire with so few years in the job? I think I might have an answer.

Speaking from a strictly military point of view, the job can do some pretty bad things to your body. Ruck marches, training, walking on steel floors all day, fighting fires, carrying very heavy stuff – it all adds up over time. I can simply not do all the same things now as I was able to do when I was 25, 30 or 35. Every year I have taken longer to heal and by the time you are in your mid 40’s most of the front line types have used up a lot of whatever their body had to offer. Not bitching about it at all – it just happens to be a fact of life.

So why do we offer retirements to folk like fire fighters so “early” in their careers? Probably because, like me, their bodies are not healing as quickly as they used to from the constant abuse we subject them to every day. I firmly believe that Police Officers should be included in the same group but they do tend to have alternate career option within the force that are valid and allow for continued employment that the Fire Departments do not.

I now teach Fire Fighting for the Navy and I will tell you that it is a young man’s game. If anyone doubts me please allow me to put you in turnout gear with a Scott AirPack, fire fighting boots, flash gear, helmet and give you one 50 foot section of 4 inch fire hose(just one) to carry through a 400 degrees fire box and up two flights of stairs. I believe that the experience would be illuminating considering that ‘real’ fires burn much hotter.

OK, done with that side of the discussion.

Now, are fire fighters overpaid?

My ECON undergrad degree would suggest that they are. Supply and demand theory and a Pareto efficient curve suggest that there are an excess of people willing to do the job but there are barriers to entry that prevent the equitable distribution or resources.

I had guys that worked for me in the Navy that were Damage Controlmen that had basic and advanced fire fighting training, years of practical experience, CBR training, CPR, Basic and Advanced First Aid, infectious disease defense, Ambulance Attendant and EMT training and spent many, many off duty hours and weekends volunteering just to try to get into the good graces of the local fire department to try to get a job.

It’s tough.

You almost have to wait for a guy to die(and be related to him) to get in. That is the barrier to entry that I mentioned. To formalize the argument – it is the Union. It is an artificiality that distorts the market and makes us bear a larger burden(cost).

There are some reforms that we could do but those would be slaying some pretty damned sacred cows.

Just my 2 cents. And sorry, but I guess that was more than just a word or two. Mea Culpa…

[CA renter]

Good post, Akula.

Agree that it is difficult to get into the fire dept, and have known a number of kids growing up whose fathers were captains or chiefs, and they still couldn’t get in — usually because of Affirmative Action.

Also wanted to clarify my position. I think police officers are grossly underpaid, and firefighters are somewhat overpaid.

I do NOT agree with the current pension plan, and even wrote letters to municipal govt representatives and state representatives years ago to voice my concerns. IMHO, they should never have gone over 2%@55, which means you get 2% times your highest pay, multiplied by the number of years worked. If you work 30 years, you get 60% of you highest pay at the age of 55. Currently, many (but not all) departments have 3%@50, which is where the 90% figure comes from — after 30 years, you get 3% of your highest pay multiplied by the number of years worked, and you can retire at age 50. That really is too generous, and we cannot afford it.

Additionally, I also agree that CalPERS is not properly funded, and they’ve over-estimated their forecast returns for a long, long time (and I’ve written letters to representatives to say that as well).

My problem with threads like this is that people who know nothing about the topic of public safety are looking for a scapegoat for the financial mess we’re in. There is a wide net of blame to be cast, and these hard-working public servants are by no means the cause of all (or even most of) our financial problems.

[CA renter]

Good post, Akula.

Agree that it is difficult to get into the fire dept, and have known a number of kids growing up whose fathers were captains or chiefs, and they still couldn’t get in — usually because of Affirmative Action.

Also wanted to clarify my position. I think police officers are grossly underpaid, and firefighters are somewhat overpaid.

I do NOT agree with the current pension plan, and even wrote letters to municipal govt representatives and state representatives years ago to voice my concerns. IMHO, they should never have gone over 2%@55, which means you get 2% times your highest pay, multiplied by the number of years worked. If you work 30 years, you get 60% of you highest pay at the age of 55. Currently, many (but not all) departments have 3%@50, which is where the 90% figure comes from — after 30 years, you get 3% of your highest pay multiplied by the number of years worked, and you can retire at age 50. That really is too generous, and we cannot afford it.

Additionally, I also agree that CalPERS is not properly funded, and they’ve over-estimated their forecast returns for a long, long time (and I’ve written letters to representatives to say that as well).

My problem with threads like this is that people who know nothing about the topic of public safety are looking for a scapegoat for the financial mess we’re in. There is a wide net of blame to be cast, and these hard-working public servants are by no means the cause of all (or even most of) our financial problems.

[CA renter]

Good post, Akula.

Agree that it is difficult to get into the fire dept, and have known a number of kids growing up whose fathers were captains or chiefs, and they still couldn’t get in — usually because of Affirmative Action.

Also wanted to clarify my position. I think police officers are grossly underpaid, and firefighters are somewhat overpaid.

I do NOT agree with the current pension plan, and even wrote letters to municipal govt representatives and state representatives years ago to voice my concerns. IMHO, they should never have gone over 2%@55, which means you get 2% times your highest pay, multiplied by the number of years worked. If you work 30 years, you get 60% of you highest pay at the age of 55. Currently, many (but not all) departments have 3%@50, which is where the 90% figure comes from — after 30 years, you get 3% of your highest pay multiplied by the number of years worked, and you can retire at age 50. That really is too generous, and we cannot afford it.

Additionally, I also agree that CalPERS is not properly funded, and they’ve over-estimated their forecast returns for a long, long time (and I’ve written letters to representatives to say that as well).

My problem with threads like this is that people who know nothing about the topic of public safety are looking for a scapegoat for the financial mess we’re in. There is a wide net of blame to be cast, and these hard-working public servants are by no means the cause of all (or even most of) our financial problems.

[CA renter]

Good post, Akula.

Agree that it is difficult to get into the fire dept, and have known a number of kids growing up whose fathers were captains or chiefs, and they still couldn’t get in — usually because of Affirmative Action.

Also wanted to clarify my position. I think police officers are grossly underpaid, and firefighters are somewhat overpaid.

I do NOT agree with the current pension plan, and even wrote letters to municipal govt representatives and state representatives years ago to voice my concerns. IMHO, they should never have gone over 2%@55, which means you get 2% times your highest pay, multiplied by the number of years worked. If you work 30 years, you get 60% of you highest pay at the age of 55. Currently, many (but not all) departments have 3%@50, which is where the 90% figure comes from — after 30 years, you get 3% of your highest pay multiplied by the number of years worked, and you can retire at age 50. That really is too generous, and we cannot afford it.

Additionally, I also agree that CalPERS is not properly funded, and they’ve over-estimated their forecast returns for a long, long time (and I’ve written letters to representatives to say that as well).

My problem with threads like this is that people who know nothing about the topic of public safety are looking for a scapegoat for the financial mess we’re in. There is a wide net of blame to be cast, and these hard-working public servants are by no means the cause of all (or even most of) our financial problems.

[CA renter]

Good post, Akula.

Agree that it is difficult to get into the fire dept, and have known a number of kids growing up whose fathers were captains or chiefs, and they still couldn’t get in — usually because of Affirmative Action.

Also wanted to clarify my position. I think police officers are grossly underpaid, and firefighters are somewhat overpaid.

I do NOT agree with the current pension plan, and even wrote letters to municipal govt representatives and state representatives years ago to voice my concerns. IMHO, they should never have gone over 2%@55, which means you get 2% times your highest pay, multiplied by the number of years worked. If you work 30 years, you get 60% of you highest pay at the age of 55. Currently, many (but not all) departments have 3%@50, which is where the 90% figure comes from — after 30 years, you get 3% of your highest pay multiplied by the number of years worked, and you can retire at age 50. That really is too generous, and we cannot afford it.

Additionally, I also agree that CalPERS is not properly funded, and they’ve over-estimated their forecast returns for a long, long time (and I’ve written letters to representatives to say that as well).

My problem with threads like this is that people who know nothing about the topic of public safety are looking for a scapegoat for the financial mess we’re in. There is a wide net of blame to be cast, and these hard-working public servants are by no means the cause of all (or even most of) our financial problems.

[RichardJamesEsquire]

[quote=CA renter][quote=RichardJamesEsquire][quote=paramount][quote]NOBODY is “guaranteed” overtime. The reason police and firefighters work O/T is because — unlike desk jockeys in the corporate world — they are 100% necessary, 100% of the time — [/quote]

Nobody is 100% necessary , 100% of the time…NOBODY.[/quote]

Saw that too,
firefighters are on standby 100% of the time. Just like doctors, utilities, even your plumber.[/quote]

That person “on call” is the one who gets the overtime — the same overtime people here are complaining about.

Yes, they are 100% necessary, 100% of the time. Every position needs to be filled, every single day. If one member of the engine crew doesn’t show up for work, the fire engine is not staffed, and they can’t run calls (each crew person has very specific tasks).

If a police officer doesn’t show up for work, his/her area will not be staffed — leading to longer response times and possibly putting fellow officers at risk.

Contrary to your beliefs, police and fire departments run very lean operations at the ground level.[/quote]

How about- 100% necessary 100% of the time that they are running a call that is truly an emergency- final offer

How can you expect me to buy into it’s such a responsibility, and at the same time, we would have trouble getting guys to show up for work and on time if we didn’t have such long shifts.

Why not just say we like the ot, we like working 10 days a month, we don’t want short shifts cause a call at the end of it would mess up my plans.

Yes it does cost less to pay ot instead of new full time hires.
Why, is because of pension benefits.
given after 9/11
which we can’t pay for.

Solution, part time new hires with greatly reduced benefits and shorter shifts for all.

I’m talking about firemen not law enforcement.
There is no shortage of applicants and a great history of unpaid volunteers.

[RichardJamesEsquire]

[quote=CA renter][quote=RichardJamesEsquire][quote=paramount][quote]NOBODY is “guaranteed” overtime. The reason police and firefighters work O/T is because — unlike desk jockeys in the corporate world — they are 100% necessary, 100% of the time — [/quote]

Nobody is 100% necessary , 100% of the time…NOBODY.[/quote]

Saw that too,
firefighters are on standby 100% of the time. Just like doctors, utilities, even your plumber.[/quote]

That person “on call” is the one who gets the overtime — the same overtime people here are complaining about.

Yes, they are 100% necessary, 100% of the time. Every position needs to be filled, every single day. If one member of the engine crew doesn’t show up for work, the fire engine is not staffed, and they can’t run calls (each crew person has very specific tasks).

If a police officer doesn’t show up for work, his/her area will not be staffed — leading to longer response times and possibly putting fellow officers at risk.

Contrary to your beliefs, police and fire departments run very lean operations at the ground level.[/quote]

How about- 100% necessary 100% of the time that they are running a call that is truly an emergency- final offer

How can you expect me to buy into it’s such a responsibility, and at the same time, we would have trouble getting guys to show up for work and on time if we didn’t have such long shifts.

Why not just say we like the ot, we like working 10 days a month, we don’t want short shifts cause a call at the end of it would mess up my plans.

Yes it does cost less to pay ot instead of new full time hires.
Why, is because of pension benefits.
given after 9/11
which we can’t pay for.

Solution, part time new hires with greatly reduced benefits and shorter shifts for all.

I’m talking about firemen not law enforcement.
There is no shortage of applicants and a great history of unpaid volunteers.

[RichardJamesEsquire]

[quote=CA renter][quote=RichardJamesEsquire][quote=paramount][quote]NOBODY is “guaranteed” overtime. The reason police and firefighters work O/T is because — unlike desk jockeys in the corporate world — they are 100% necessary, 100% of the time — [/quote]

Nobody is 100% necessary , 100% of the time…NOBODY.[/quote]

Saw that too,
firefighters are on standby 100% of the time. Just like doctors, utilities, even your plumber.[/quote]

That person “on call” is the one who gets the overtime — the same overtime people here are complaining about.

Yes, they are 100% necessary, 100% of the time. Every position needs to be filled, every single day. If one member of the engine crew doesn’t show up for work, the fire engine is not staffed, and they can’t run calls (each crew person has very specific tasks).

If a police officer doesn’t show up for work, his/her area will not be staffed — leading to longer response times and possibly putting fellow officers at risk.

Contrary to your beliefs, police and fire departments run very lean operations at the ground level.[/quote]

How about- 100% necessary 100% of the time that they are running a call that is truly an emergency- final offer

How can you expect me to buy into it’s such a responsibility, and at the same time, we would have trouble getting guys to show up for work and on time if we didn’t have such long shifts.

Why not just say we like the ot, we like working 10 days a month, we don’t want short shifts cause a call at the end of it would mess up my plans.

Yes it does cost less to pay ot instead of new full time hires.
Why, is because of pension benefits.
given after 9/11
which we can’t pay for.

Solution, part time new hires with greatly reduced benefits and shorter shifts for all.

I’m talking about firemen not law enforcement.
There is no shortage of applicants and a great history of unpaid volunteers.

[RichardJamesEsquire]

[quote=CA renter][quote=RichardJamesEsquire][quote=paramount][quote]NOBODY is “guaranteed” overtime. The reason police and firefighters work O/T is because — unlike desk jockeys in the corporate world — they are 100% necessary, 100% of the time — [/quote]

Nobody is 100% necessary , 100% of the time…NOBODY.[/quote]

Saw that too,
firefighters are on standby 100% of the time. Just like doctors, utilities, even your plumber.[/quote]

That person “on call” is the one who gets the overtime — the same overtime people here are complaining about.

Yes, they are 100% necessary, 100% of the time. Every position needs to be filled, every single day. If one member of the engine crew doesn’t show up for work, the fire engine is not staffed, and they can’t run calls (each crew person has very specific tasks).

If a police officer doesn’t show up for work, his/her area will not be staffed — leading to longer response times and possibly putting fellow officers at risk.

Contrary to your beliefs, police and fire departments run very lean operations at the ground level.[/quote]

How about- 100% necessary 100% of the time that they are running a call that is truly an emergency- final offer

How can you expect me to buy into it’s such a responsibility, and at the same time, we would have trouble getting guys to show up for work and on time if we didn’t have such long shifts.

Why not just say we like the ot, we like working 10 days a month, we don’t want short shifts cause a call at the end of it would mess up my plans.

Yes it does cost less to pay ot instead of new full time hires.
Why, is because of pension benefits.
given after 9/11
which we can’t pay for.

Solution, part time new hires with greatly reduced benefits and shorter shifts for all.

I’m talking about firemen not law enforcement.
There is no shortage of applicants and a great history of unpaid volunteers.

[RichardJamesEsquire]

[quote=CA renter][quote=RichardJamesEsquire][quote=paramount][quote]NOBODY is “guaranteed” overtime. The reason police and firefighters work O/T is because — unlike desk jockeys in the corporate world — they are 100% necessary, 100% of the time — [/quote]

Nobody is 100% necessary , 100% of the time…NOBODY.[/quote]

Saw that too,
firefighters are on standby 100% of the time. Just like doctors, utilities, even your plumber.[/quote]

That person “on call” is the one who gets the overtime — the same overtime people here are complaining about.

Yes, they are 100% necessary, 100% of the time. Every position needs to be filled, every single day. If one member of the engine crew doesn’t show up for work, the fire engine is not staffed, and they can’t run calls (each crew person has very specific tasks).

If a police officer doesn’t show up for work, his/her area will not be staffed — leading to longer response times and possibly putting fellow officers at risk.

Contrary to your beliefs, police and fire departments run very lean operations at the ground level.[/quote]

How about- 100% necessary 100% of the time that they are running a call that is truly an emergency- final offer

How can you expect me to buy into it’s such a responsibility, and at the same time, we would have trouble getting guys to show up for work and on time if we didn’t have such long shifts.

Why not just say we like the ot, we like working 10 days a month, we don’t want short shifts cause a call at the end of it would mess up my plans.

Yes it does cost less to pay ot instead of new full time hires.
Why, is because of pension benefits.
given after 9/11
which we can’t pay for.

Solution, part time new hires with greatly reduced benefits and shorter shifts for all.

I’m talking about firemen not law enforcement.
There is no shortage of applicants and a great history of unpaid volunteers.

[jonnycsd]

Firefighters dont even make the list of the top 20 most dangerous jobs . . .

But first, CA Renter, your argument comparing the USA to Somalia is flat out stupid. First of all, Somalia is not a capitalist state – it is a failed state. Second, the US no longer runs a capitalist system, we have a mixed economy and it has been that way for 45 years. To put it bluntly, you dont know what you are talking about. If you are so enamored with socialism then move to Venezuela or Cuba.

NOW LETS LOOK AT THE FACTS ON PAY AND JOB DANGER:

For some additional perspecitve on the dollar value of laying your life on the line, consider that the USMC pays about $450 per month extra for service in “a designated hostile-fire area or in an area where they are exposed to hostile fire or in “grave danger of physical injury.””

That drops to only about $250 a month,for service in a foreign area that is designated as an area of imminent danger. A full month of duty in the area of imminent danger is required to be eligible for the $250 payment. Partial months dont count.

Remember, these men are not eating BBQ down at the station, or going home after thier shift to relax and watch TV. They are sleeping on the ground and eating food from plastic pouches. For $450 a month extra.

Yes, firefighting is hard work. So is policing. But neither of them is as hard as soldiering. And neither of them is nearly as dangerous as driving a truck or working construction.

Using the arguments of how dangerous the job is truckers should make even more than the cops and firemen – they die at a much higher rate and account for 20% of all workplace fatalities in the USA. Convenience store clerks are in the top ten – pension for these minimum wage workers? NOT A CHANCE! No pension for the construction worker who dies at a much higer rate than either the cops ro the firemen, and does just as much if not more damage to thier bodies while on the job. Sales clerks and supervisors face more life threatening danger than the cops or firemen and make a fraction of the pay.

Firefighters dont even make the list for the top 20 most dangerous jobs by fatalities(police detectives do). Neither the cops nor firemen make the list for highest rates of on the job injuries. You can find the Department of Labor report here:

http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfar0020.pdf

Life can be a bitch for anyone, but that doesn’t (shouldn’t) entitle them to a free ride. 50 years of defined benefit pension for 20 years of work just doesnt make sense. The unions that drive these bad policies need a haircut.

[jonnycsd]

Firefighters dont even make the list of the top 20 most dangerous jobs . . .

But first, CA Renter, your argument comparing the USA to Somalia is flat out stupid. First of all, Somalia is not a capitalist state – it is a failed state. Second, the US no longer runs a capitalist system, we have a mixed economy and it has been that way for 45 years. To put it bluntly, you dont know what you are talking about. If you are so enamored with socialism then move to Venezuela or Cuba.

NOW LETS LOOK AT THE FACTS ON PAY AND JOB DANGER:

For some additional perspecitve on the dollar value of laying your life on the line, consider that the USMC pays about $450 per month extra for service in “a designated hostile-fire area or in an area where they are exposed to hostile fire or in “grave danger of physical injury.””

That drops to only about $250 a month,for service in a foreign area that is designated as an area of imminent danger. A full month of duty in the area of imminent danger is required to be eligible for the $250 payment. Partial months dont count.

Remember, these men are not eating BBQ down at the station, or going home after thier shift to relax and watch TV. They are sleeping on the ground and eating food from plastic pouches. For $450 a month extra.

Yes, firefighting is hard work. So is policing. But neither of them is as hard as soldiering. And neither of them is nearly as dangerous as driving a truck or working construction.

Using the arguments of how dangerous the job is truckers should make even more than the cops and firemen – they die at a much higher rate and account for 20% of all workplace fatalities in the USA. Convenience store clerks are in the top ten – pension for these minimum wage workers? NOT A CHANCE! No pension for the construction worker who dies at a much higer rate than either the cops ro the firemen, and does just as much if not more damage to thier bodies while on the job. Sales clerks and supervisors face more life threatening danger than the cops or firemen and make a fraction of the pay.

Firefighters dont even make the list for the top 20 most dangerous jobs by fatalities(police detectives do). Neither the cops nor firemen make the list for highest rates of on the job injuries. You can find the Department of Labor report here:

http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfar0020.pdf

Life can be a bitch for anyone, but that doesn’t (shouldn’t) entitle them to a free ride. 50 years of defined benefit pension for 20 years of work just doesnt make sense. The unions that drive these bad policies need a haircut.

[jonnycsd]

Firefighters dont even make the list of the top 20 most dangerous jobs . . .

But first, CA Renter, your argument comparing the USA to Somalia is flat out stupid. First of all, Somalia is not a capitalist state – it is a failed state. Second, the US no longer runs a capitalist system, we have a mixed economy and it has been that way for 45 years. To put it bluntly, you dont know what you are talking about. If you are so enamored with socialism then move to Venezuela or Cuba.

NOW LETS LOOK AT THE FACTS ON PAY AND JOB DANGER:

For some additional perspecitve on the dollar value of laying your life on the line, consider that the USMC pays about $450 per month extra for service in “a designated hostile-fire area or in an area where they are exposed to hostile fire or in “grave danger of physical injury.””

That drops to only about $250 a month,for service in a foreign area that is designated as an area of imminent danger. A full month of duty in the area of imminent danger is required to be eligible for the $250 payment. Partial months dont count.

Remember, these men are not eating BBQ down at the station, or going home after thier shift to relax and watch TV. They are sleeping on the ground and eating food from plastic pouches. For $450 a month extra.

Yes, firefighting is hard work. So is policing. But neither of them is as hard as soldiering. And neither of them is nearly as dangerous as driving a truck or working construction.

Using the arguments of how dangerous the job is truckers should make even more than the cops and firemen – they die at a much higher rate and account for 20% of all workplace fatalities in the USA. Convenience store clerks are in the top ten – pension for these minimum wage workers? NOT A CHANCE! No pension for the construction worker who dies at a much higer rate than either the cops ro the firemen, and does just as much if not more damage to thier bodies while on the job. Sales clerks and supervisors face more life threatening danger than the cops or firemen and make a fraction of the pay.

Firefighters dont even make the list for the top 20 most dangerous jobs by fatalities(police detectives do). Neither the cops nor firemen make the list for highest rates of on the job injuries. You can find the Department of Labor report here:

http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfar0020.pdf

Life can be a bitch for anyone, but that doesn’t (shouldn’t) entitle them to a free ride. 50 years of defined benefit pension for 20 years of work just doesnt make sense. The unions that drive these bad policies need a haircut.

[jonnycsd]

Firefighters dont even make the list of the top 20 most dangerous jobs . . .

But first, CA Renter, your argument comparing the USA to Somalia is flat out stupid. First of all, Somalia is not a capitalist state – it is a failed state. Second, the US no longer runs a capitalist system, we have a mixed economy and it has been that way for 45 years. To put it bluntly, you dont know what you are talking about. If you are so enamored with socialism then move to Venezuela or Cuba.

NOW LETS LOOK AT THE FACTS ON PAY AND JOB DANGER:

For some additional perspecitve on the dollar value of laying your life on the line, consider that the USMC pays about $450 per month extra for service in “a designated hostile-fire area or in an area where they are exposed to hostile fire or in “grave danger of physical injury.””

That drops to only about $250 a month,for service in a foreign area that is designated as an area of imminent danger. A full month of duty in the area of imminent danger is required to be eligible for the $250 payment. Partial months dont count.

Remember, these men are not eating BBQ down at the station, or going home after thier shift to relax and watch TV. They are sleeping on the ground and eating food from plastic pouches. For $450 a month extra.

Yes, firefighting is hard work. So is policing. But neither of them is as hard as soldiering. And neither of them is nearly as dangerous as driving a truck or working construction.

Using the arguments of how dangerous the job is truckers should make even more than the cops and firemen – they die at a much higher rate and account for 20% of all workplace fatalities in the USA. Convenience store clerks are in the top ten – pension for these minimum wage workers? NOT A CHANCE! No pension for the construction worker who dies at a much higer rate than either the cops ro the firemen, and does just as much if not more damage to thier bodies while on the job. Sales clerks and supervisors face more life threatening danger than the cops or firemen and make a fraction of the pay.

Firefighters dont even make the list for the top 20 most dangerous jobs by fatalities(police detectives do). Neither the cops nor firemen make the list for highest rates of on the job injuries. You can find the Department of Labor report here:

http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfar0020.pdf

Life can be a bitch for anyone, but that doesn’t (shouldn’t) entitle them to a free ride. 50 years of defined benefit pension for 20 years of work just doesnt make sense. The unions that drive these bad policies need a haircut.

[Author]

Posts