OT: Public pay & benefits

[Anonymous]

Ah, but it does. Read CAR’s point. In good times it is hard to draw and retain people because they will make MORE money in the public sector. When middle class jobs dissappear everybody wants the public job. How do Cities/States draw “Good” talent pool? with benefits. Now you want to question those contracts when times are bad. Well they will diminsh (benefits) and for now that will work. But in the next upswing (up for debate when that will be) there will be a shortage. Teachers, firefighters, police, etc… then what? Continue to offer crap wages and HOPE somoeone will take it OR lower your requirements for talent. Well i would rather have a guy saving my life who knows what to do. YOU?

[Anonymous]

[quote=davelj]I’m 100% certain that the folks I do work for would hire someone else to do the work for less money if they could get the same quality. Why that shouldn’t apply to public sector jobs, I don’t know.[/quote]

That’s the crux of this debate.

Prices for anything, including labor, should be set by the market. Anything else is the “S” word. And we know where that leads.

Since when is compensation based upon the difficulty of a job? If anything, there is an inverse relationship: farm laborers, construction workers, and janitors all have hard, but don’t make much.

My father was a lineman for an electric company. The job had a lot in common with fire fighters: shift work, dangerous, physical, and required special skills. We lived in Ohio – when there was a snowstorm or tornado he was called to work (didn’t matter if it was a Holiday either.) There are a lot of tough jobs out there that have many things in common with firefighters – except the compensation.

The critics here aren’t whiners – they are the “public.” And the public has a right to a say in how much “public servants” earn.

The argument goes both ways. If firefighters have it so tough, they can quit. There are lots of people, especially in this economy, that will be willing to fill the slot.

[Anonymous]

[quote=davelj]I’m 100% certain that the folks I do work for would hire someone else to do the work for less money if they could get the same quality. Why that shouldn’t apply to public sector jobs, I don’t know.[/quote]

That’s the crux of this debate.

Prices for anything, including labor, should be set by the market. Anything else is the “S” word. And we know where that leads.

Since when is compensation based upon the difficulty of a job? If anything, there is an inverse relationship: farm laborers, construction workers, and janitors all have hard, but don’t make much.

My father was a lineman for an electric company. The job had a lot in common with fire fighters: shift work, dangerous, physical, and required special skills. We lived in Ohio – when there was a snowstorm or tornado he was called to work (didn’t matter if it was a Holiday either.) There are a lot of tough jobs out there that have many things in common with firefighters – except the compensation.

The critics here aren’t whiners – they are the “public.” And the public has a right to a say in how much “public servants” earn.

The argument goes both ways. If firefighters have it so tough, they can quit. There are lots of people, especially in this economy, that will be willing to fill the slot.

[Anonymous]

[quote=davelj]I’m 100% certain that the folks I do work for would hire someone else to do the work for less money if they could get the same quality. Why that shouldn’t apply to public sector jobs, I don’t know.[/quote]

That’s the crux of this debate.

Prices for anything, including labor, should be set by the market. Anything else is the “S” word. And we know where that leads.

Since when is compensation based upon the difficulty of a job? If anything, there is an inverse relationship: farm laborers, construction workers, and janitors all have hard, but don’t make much.

My father was a lineman for an electric company. The job had a lot in common with fire fighters: shift work, dangerous, physical, and required special skills. We lived in Ohio – when there was a snowstorm or tornado he was called to work (didn’t matter if it was a Holiday either.) There are a lot of tough jobs out there that have many things in common with firefighters – except the compensation.

The critics here aren’t whiners – they are the “public.” And the public has a right to a say in how much “public servants” earn.

The argument goes both ways. If firefighters have it so tough, they can quit. There are lots of people, especially in this economy, that will be willing to fill the slot.

[Anonymous]

[quote=davelj]I’m 100% certain that the folks I do work for would hire someone else to do the work for less money if they could get the same quality. Why that shouldn’t apply to public sector jobs, I don’t know.[/quote]

That’s the crux of this debate.

Prices for anything, including labor, should be set by the market. Anything else is the “S” word. And we know where that leads.

Since when is compensation based upon the difficulty of a job? If anything, there is an inverse relationship: farm laborers, construction workers, and janitors all have hard, but don’t make much.

My father was a lineman for an electric company. The job had a lot in common with fire fighters: shift work, dangerous, physical, and required special skills. We lived in Ohio – when there was a snowstorm or tornado he was called to work (didn’t matter if it was a Holiday either.) There are a lot of tough jobs out there that have many things in common with firefighters – except the compensation.

The critics here aren’t whiners – they are the “public.” And the public has a right to a say in how much “public servants” earn.

The argument goes both ways. If firefighters have it so tough, they can quit. There are lots of people, especially in this economy, that will be willing to fill the slot.

[Anonymous]

[quote=davelj]I’m 100% certain that the folks I do work for would hire someone else to do the work for less money if they could get the same quality. Why that shouldn’t apply to public sector jobs, I don’t know.[/quote]

That’s the crux of this debate.

Prices for anything, including labor, should be set by the market. Anything else is the “S” word. And we know where that leads.

Since when is compensation based upon the difficulty of a job? If anything, there is an inverse relationship: farm laborers, construction workers, and janitors all have hard, but don’t make much.

My father was a lineman for an electric company. The job had a lot in common with fire fighters: shift work, dangerous, physical, and required special skills. We lived in Ohio – when there was a snowstorm or tornado he was called to work (didn’t matter if it was a Holiday either.) There are a lot of tough jobs out there that have many things in common with firefighters – except the compensation.

The critics here aren’t whiners – they are the “public.” And the public has a right to a say in how much “public servants” earn.

The argument goes both ways. If firefighters have it so tough, they can quit. There are lots of people, especially in this economy, that will be willing to fill the slot.

[jpinpb]

[quote=pri_dk]The argument goes both ways. If firefighters have it so tough, they can quit. There are lots of people, especially in this economy, that will be willing to fill the slot.[/quote]

Do you want someone who may not have the proper qualifications and training to save you in a burning house just b/c you’re saving a buck?

When you call 911 in an emergency, do you want someone not properly trained to come to the rescue, but w/the consolation that you don’t have to pay them as much? Do you want someone getting paid $10 an hour to respond to an emergency call?

I think pay is a consideration. Many here are claiming the firemen/cops are overcompensated, yet they would not do it. Their argument is others would gladly do it for less. Maybe those “others” who would do it are just not qualified to do it, for whatever reason.

Why isn’t anyone complaining about football players and they money they’re making to throw and run w/a ball — and they don’t even win.

[jpinpb]

[quote=pri_dk]The argument goes both ways. If firefighters have it so tough, they can quit. There are lots of people, especially in this economy, that will be willing to fill the slot.[/quote]

Do you want someone who may not have the proper qualifications and training to save you in a burning house just b/c you’re saving a buck?

When you call 911 in an emergency, do you want someone not properly trained to come to the rescue, but w/the consolation that you don’t have to pay them as much? Do you want someone getting paid $10 an hour to respond to an emergency call?

I think pay is a consideration. Many here are claiming the firemen/cops are overcompensated, yet they would not do it. Their argument is others would gladly do it for less. Maybe those “others” who would do it are just not qualified to do it, for whatever reason.

Why isn’t anyone complaining about football players and they money they’re making to throw and run w/a ball — and they don’t even win.

[jpinpb]

[quote=pri_dk]The argument goes both ways. If firefighters have it so tough, they can quit. There are lots of people, especially in this economy, that will be willing to fill the slot.[/quote]

Do you want someone who may not have the proper qualifications and training to save you in a burning house just b/c you’re saving a buck?

When you call 911 in an emergency, do you want someone not properly trained to come to the rescue, but w/the consolation that you don’t have to pay them as much? Do you want someone getting paid $10 an hour to respond to an emergency call?

I think pay is a consideration. Many here are claiming the firemen/cops are overcompensated, yet they would not do it. Their argument is others would gladly do it for less. Maybe those “others” who would do it are just not qualified to do it, for whatever reason.

Why isn’t anyone complaining about football players and they money they’re making to throw and run w/a ball — and they don’t even win.

[jpinpb]

[quote=pri_dk]The argument goes both ways. If firefighters have it so tough, they can quit. There are lots of people, especially in this economy, that will be willing to fill the slot.[/quote]

Do you want someone who may not have the proper qualifications and training to save you in a burning house just b/c you’re saving a buck?

When you call 911 in an emergency, do you want someone not properly trained to come to the rescue, but w/the consolation that you don’t have to pay them as much? Do you want someone getting paid $10 an hour to respond to an emergency call?

I think pay is a consideration. Many here are claiming the firemen/cops are overcompensated, yet they would not do it. Their argument is others would gladly do it for less. Maybe those “others” who would do it are just not qualified to do it, for whatever reason.

Why isn’t anyone complaining about football players and they money they’re making to throw and run w/a ball — and they don’t even win.

[jpinpb]

[quote=pri_dk]The argument goes both ways. If firefighters have it so tough, they can quit. There are lots of people, especially in this economy, that will be willing to fill the slot.[/quote]

Do you want someone who may not have the proper qualifications and training to save you in a burning house just b/c you’re saving a buck?

When you call 911 in an emergency, do you want someone not properly trained to come to the rescue, but w/the consolation that you don’t have to pay them as much? Do you want someone getting paid $10 an hour to respond to an emergency call?

I think pay is a consideration. Many here are claiming the firemen/cops are overcompensated, yet they would not do it. Their argument is others would gladly do it for less. Maybe those “others” who would do it are just not qualified to do it, for whatever reason.

Why isn’t anyone complaining about football players and they money they’re making to throw and run w/a ball — and they don’t even win.

[CA renter]

[quote=davelj][quote=CA renter]

The only people who think these are easy jobs are the ones who have never done them. Sorry, but the whining needs to stop. If anyone thinks it’s so easy, give up the realtor/flipper jobs during the bubbles and apply. Let’s hear you talk about how easy and overcompensated it is after you’ve actually had some experience with it.[/quote]

Again, no one’s saying the jobs are “easy.” But “overcompensated” is a different subject, entirely. Overcompensated is a supply and demand issue. “Easy” is personal and subjective. If there are lots of people qualified and capable of doing a job for less money than the stated compensation, then that compensation just might be too high.

I’m 100% certain that the folks I do work for would hire someone else to do the work for less money if they could get the same quality. Why that shouldn’t apply to public sector jobs, I don’t know.[/quote]

Again, you must not have read what was posted above about the **shortage** of recruits during the good times.

Like I’ve pointed out in other posts, the recruitment and training invested in these public safety employees (along with the fact that experience is highly valued) means that public employers cannot afford to have a high turnover rate.

[CA renter]

[quote=davelj][quote=CA renter]

The only people who think these are easy jobs are the ones who have never done them. Sorry, but the whining needs to stop. If anyone thinks it’s so easy, give up the realtor/flipper jobs during the bubbles and apply. Let’s hear you talk about how easy and overcompensated it is after you’ve actually had some experience with it.[/quote]

Again, no one’s saying the jobs are “easy.” But “overcompensated” is a different subject, entirely. Overcompensated is a supply and demand issue. “Easy” is personal and subjective. If there are lots of people qualified and capable of doing a job for less money than the stated compensation, then that compensation just might be too high.

I’m 100% certain that the folks I do work for would hire someone else to do the work for less money if they could get the same quality. Why that shouldn’t apply to public sector jobs, I don’t know.[/quote]

Again, you must not have read what was posted above about the **shortage** of recruits during the good times.

Like I’ve pointed out in other posts, the recruitment and training invested in these public safety employees (along with the fact that experience is highly valued) means that public employers cannot afford to have a high turnover rate.

[CA renter]

[quote=davelj][quote=CA renter]

The only people who think these are easy jobs are the ones who have never done them. Sorry, but the whining needs to stop. If anyone thinks it’s so easy, give up the realtor/flipper jobs during the bubbles and apply. Let’s hear you talk about how easy and overcompensated it is after you’ve actually had some experience with it.[/quote]

Again, no one’s saying the jobs are “easy.” But “overcompensated” is a different subject, entirely. Overcompensated is a supply and demand issue. “Easy” is personal and subjective. If there are lots of people qualified and capable of doing a job for less money than the stated compensation, then that compensation just might be too high.

I’m 100% certain that the folks I do work for would hire someone else to do the work for less money if they could get the same quality. Why that shouldn’t apply to public sector jobs, I don’t know.[/quote]

Again, you must not have read what was posted above about the **shortage** of recruits during the good times.

Like I’ve pointed out in other posts, the recruitment and training invested in these public safety employees (along with the fact that experience is highly valued) means that public employers cannot afford to have a high turnover rate.

[CA renter]

[quote=davelj][quote=CA renter]

The only people who think these are easy jobs are the ones who have never done them. Sorry, but the whining needs to stop. If anyone thinks it’s so easy, give up the realtor/flipper jobs during the bubbles and apply. Let’s hear you talk about how easy and overcompensated it is after you’ve actually had some experience with it.[/quote]

Again, no one’s saying the jobs are “easy.” But “overcompensated” is a different subject, entirely. Overcompensated is a supply and demand issue. “Easy” is personal and subjective. If there are lots of people qualified and capable of doing a job for less money than the stated compensation, then that compensation just might be too high.

I’m 100% certain that the folks I do work for would hire someone else to do the work for less money if they could get the same quality. Why that shouldn’t apply to public sector jobs, I don’t know.[/quote]

Again, you must not have read what was posted above about the **shortage** of recruits during the good times.

Like I’ve pointed out in other posts, the recruitment and training invested in these public safety employees (along with the fact that experience is highly valued) means that public employers cannot afford to have a high turnover rate.

[Author]

Posts