OT: Public pay & benefits

[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.

[jpinpb]

[quote=CA renter]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.[/quote]

Maybe a solution would be to have them sign a contract saying that during the good times they can’t quit their “overcompensated” job to make more money elsewhere. Or if they want to leave, they have to pay the city money to make up for all the training costs, etc.

I read that when all said and done it costs the city 100k to fully train a cop from the day they start academy, field training, etc to when they are on their own, almost two years.

[jpinpb]

[quote=CA renter]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.[/quote]

Maybe a solution would be to have them sign a contract saying that during the good times they can’t quit their “overcompensated” job to make more money elsewhere. Or if they want to leave, they have to pay the city money to make up for all the training costs, etc.

I read that when all said and done it costs the city 100k to fully train a cop from the day they start academy, field training, etc to when they are on their own, almost two years.

[jpinpb]

[quote=CA renter]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.[/quote]

Maybe a solution would be to have them sign a contract saying that during the good times they can’t quit their “overcompensated” job to make more money elsewhere. Or if they want to leave, they have to pay the city money to make up for all the training costs, etc.

I read that when all said and done it costs the city 100k to fully train a cop from the day they start academy, field training, etc to when they are on their own, almost two years.

[jpinpb]

[quote=CA renter]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.[/quote]

Maybe a solution would be to have them sign a contract saying that during the good times they can’t quit their “overcompensated” job to make more money elsewhere. Or if they want to leave, they have to pay the city money to make up for all the training costs, etc.

I read that when all said and done it costs the city 100k to fully train a cop from the day they start academy, field training, etc to when they are on their own, almost two years.

[jpinpb]

[quote=CA renter]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.[/quote]

Maybe a solution would be to have them sign a contract saying that during the good times they can’t quit their “overcompensated” job to make more money elsewhere. Or if they want to leave, they have to pay the city money to make up for all the training costs, etc.

I read that when all said and done it costs the city 100k to fully train a cop from the day they start academy, field training, etc to when they are on their own, almost two years.

[Anonymous]

[quote=jpinpb]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?
[/quote]

Strawman.

Never said we lower the standards or decrease the amount of training they receive before they start the job.

To answer the question you are really asking:

Yes, I am comfortable that my family and I will still be just as safe if we lower the pay for city firefighters. Their compensation is far above the threshold that would impact performance or quality.

Phase out their pensions, and they won’t quit. And if they do, qualified people will still be available to fill the slot.

The public gets quality services, the firefighters still make a good living, and the government doesn’t go broke. In other words, a solution that works. (Because the status quo is *not* working.)

And for those firefighters that would choose to do a half-assed job out of spite – they aren’t really heroes, are they?

[Anonymous]

[quote=jpinpb]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?
[/quote]

Strawman.

Never said we lower the standards or decrease the amount of training they receive before they start the job.

To answer the question you are really asking:

Yes, I am comfortable that my family and I will still be just as safe if we lower the pay for city firefighters. Their compensation is far above the threshold that would impact performance or quality.

Phase out their pensions, and they won’t quit. And if they do, qualified people will still be available to fill the slot.

The public gets quality services, the firefighters still make a good living, and the government doesn’t go broke. In other words, a solution that works. (Because the status quo is *not* working.)

And for those firefighters that would choose to do a half-assed job out of spite – they aren’t really heroes, are they?

[Anonymous]

[quote=jpinpb]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?
[/quote]

Strawman.

Never said we lower the standards or decrease the amount of training they receive before they start the job.

To answer the question you are really asking:

Yes, I am comfortable that my family and I will still be just as safe if we lower the pay for city firefighters. Their compensation is far above the threshold that would impact performance or quality.

Phase out their pensions, and they won’t quit. And if they do, qualified people will still be available to fill the slot.

The public gets quality services, the firefighters still make a good living, and the government doesn’t go broke. In other words, a solution that works. (Because the status quo is *not* working.)

And for those firefighters that would choose to do a half-assed job out of spite – they aren’t really heroes, are they?

[Anonymous]

[quote=jpinpb]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?
[/quote]

Strawman.

Never said we lower the standards or decrease the amount of training they receive before they start the job.

To answer the question you are really asking:

Yes, I am comfortable that my family and I will still be just as safe if we lower the pay for city firefighters. Their compensation is far above the threshold that would impact performance or quality.

Phase out their pensions, and they won’t quit. And if they do, qualified people will still be available to fill the slot.

The public gets quality services, the firefighters still make a good living, and the government doesn’t go broke. In other words, a solution that works. (Because the status quo is *not* working.)

And for those firefighters that would choose to do a half-assed job out of spite – they aren’t really heroes, are they?

[Anonymous]

[quote=jpinpb]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?
[/quote]

Strawman.

Never said we lower the standards or decrease the amount of training they receive before they start the job.

To answer the question you are really asking:

Yes, I am comfortable that my family and I will still be just as safe if we lower the pay for city firefighters. Their compensation is far above the threshold that would impact performance or quality.

Phase out their pensions, and they won’t quit. And if they do, qualified people will still be available to fill the slot.

The public gets quality services, the firefighters still make a good living, and the government doesn’t go broke. In other words, a solution that works. (Because the status quo is *not* working.)

And for those firefighters that would choose to do a half-assed job out of spite – they aren’t really heroes, are they?

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=jpinpb]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?
[/quote]

Strawman.

Never said we lower the standards or decrease the amount of training they receive before they start the job.

To answer the question you are really asking:

Yes, I am comfortable that my family and I will still be just as safe if we lower the pay for city firefighters. Their compensation is far above the threshold that would impact performance or quality.

Phase out their pensions, and they won’t quit. And if they do, qualified people will still be available to fill the slot.

The public gets quality services, the firefighters still make a good living, and the government doesn’t go broke. In other words, a solution that works. (Because the status quo is *not* working.)

And for those firefighters that would choose to do a half-assed job out of spite – they aren’t really heroes, are they?[/quote]

Again, you’re making assumptions about things you don’t know anything about.

Have you actually talked to the people who hire and train public safety officers? Do you have any proof that lower-paid departments have employees who are just as efficient and well-trained as those in higher-paid departments?

Do you really think these people will stick it out in the fire/police department when they have no benefits to compel them to stay? You think they’ll do these jobs when flippers and realtors are making more than they are? Really?

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=jpinpb]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?
[/quote]

Strawman.

Never said we lower the standards or decrease the amount of training they receive before they start the job.

To answer the question you are really asking:

Yes, I am comfortable that my family and I will still be just as safe if we lower the pay for city firefighters. Their compensation is far above the threshold that would impact performance or quality.

Phase out their pensions, and they won’t quit. And if they do, qualified people will still be available to fill the slot.

The public gets quality services, the firefighters still make a good living, and the government doesn’t go broke. In other words, a solution that works. (Because the status quo is *not* working.)

And for those firefighters that would choose to do a half-assed job out of spite – they aren’t really heroes, are they?[/quote]

Again, you’re making assumptions about things you don’t know anything about.

Have you actually talked to the people who hire and train public safety officers? Do you have any proof that lower-paid departments have employees who are just as efficient and well-trained as those in higher-paid departments?

Do you really think these people will stick it out in the fire/police department when they have no benefits to compel them to stay? You think they’ll do these jobs when flippers and realtors are making more than they are? Really?

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=jpinpb]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?
[/quote]

Strawman.

Never said we lower the standards or decrease the amount of training they receive before they start the job.

To answer the question you are really asking:

Yes, I am comfortable that my family and I will still be just as safe if we lower the pay for city firefighters. Their compensation is far above the threshold that would impact performance or quality.

Phase out their pensions, and they won’t quit. And if they do, qualified people will still be available to fill the slot.

The public gets quality services, the firefighters still make a good living, and the government doesn’t go broke. In other words, a solution that works. (Because the status quo is *not* working.)

And for those firefighters that would choose to do a half-assed job out of spite – they aren’t really heroes, are they?[/quote]

Again, you’re making assumptions about things you don’t know anything about.

Have you actually talked to the people who hire and train public safety officers? Do you have any proof that lower-paid departments have employees who are just as efficient and well-trained as those in higher-paid departments?

Do you really think these people will stick it out in the fire/police department when they have no benefits to compel them to stay? You think they’ll do these jobs when flippers and realtors are making more than they are? Really?

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=jpinpb]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?
[/quote]

Strawman.

Never said we lower the standards or decrease the amount of training they receive before they start the job.

To answer the question you are really asking:

Yes, I am comfortable that my family and I will still be just as safe if we lower the pay for city firefighters. Their compensation is far above the threshold that would impact performance or quality.

Phase out their pensions, and they won’t quit. And if they do, qualified people will still be available to fill the slot.

The public gets quality services, the firefighters still make a good living, and the government doesn’t go broke. In other words, a solution that works. (Because the status quo is *not* working.)

And for those firefighters that would choose to do a half-assed job out of spite – they aren’t really heroes, are they?[/quote]

Again, you’re making assumptions about things you don’t know anything about.

Have you actually talked to the people who hire and train public safety officers? Do you have any proof that lower-paid departments have employees who are just as efficient and well-trained as those in higher-paid departments?

Do you really think these people will stick it out in the fire/police department when they have no benefits to compel them to stay? You think they’ll do these jobs when flippers and realtors are making more than they are? Really?

[Author]

Posts