OT: Public pay & benefits

[jpinpb]

Okay. I really thought I was out of here, but I want to say a few more things.

I think what flu and others don’t realize perhaps is that maybe the reason people actually apply to be cops/firemen could very well be for the fact there’s a pension and for something financially stable, despite the risks of the job.

But at a certain point, risking your life is not worth it. There has to be some incentive. If you have the physical, psychological and mental ability to do the job of a cop or fireman, there has to be pay commensurate to the risk involved.

dave makes it sound like people are lining up to do the job. Does he think people would line up if it were $10 an hour? B/c given a choice, one day fighting a fire could persuade a few people to go work at In-N-Out. Starting pay there is $11 an hour. Put in your 8 hours a day and go home w/out taking your job w/you. Your time is your own when you’re not at work. They don’t have to risk their life flipping burgers. No one is going to call them in the middle of the night to go to work.

I really question if the private sector will do as good a job and for less. Private sector wants to MAKE money and don’t care about the customer.
They will cut corners and it could mean not saving every house in a fire b/c they may not want to waste fire retardant.

I saw a fireman down at the beach resuscitate some guy as if it was his brother. Think private sector would make the effort? I can see it now. “What? Give mouth to mouth. Call it!”

Name one private company that does something for the good of people and not their bottom line.

[sdrealtor]

I may be wrong but from my experience cops/fireman seem to come from two primary sources. Families that have a history in that profession and the military. I dont think the average person knows what kind of compensation cops/fireman get. I had absolutely no idea until I did short sales for 3 different fireman and saw their tax returns. They made close to double what I expected. I always saw the published base salaries and figured that was what they made not realizing that overtime was so prevalent and lucrative. When I asked if it was unusual all of them told me that the base salaries are nowhere near what anyone in their profession earns. I had no idea and dont think the vast majority of the public does either.

As for the long hours, in the private sector most higher paid individuals arent hourly and eligible for O/T. In the private sector many employees get on an airplane Sunday Night/Monday morning and come back Friday night. They are away from their families even longer hours and its just part of the job description to eat dinner alone and to spend your nights alone in a hotel.

I dont beleive privatizing is the answer but think compensation of the public sector should be more transparent. I hear lots of talk about making RE transactions transparent. I would like to see the total compensation of all public sector employees who our tax dollars pay made compeltely transparent also. I think there would be quite a lot of outrage.

[sdrealtor]

I may be wrong but from my experience cops/fireman seem to come from two primary sources. Families that have a history in that profession and the military. I dont think the average person knows what kind of compensation cops/fireman get. I had absolutely no idea until I did short sales for 3 different fireman and saw their tax returns. They made close to double what I expected. I always saw the published base salaries and figured that was what they made not realizing that overtime was so prevalent and lucrative. When I asked if it was unusual all of them told me that the base salaries are nowhere near what anyone in their profession earns. I had no idea and dont think the vast majority of the public does either.

As for the long hours, in the private sector most higher paid individuals arent hourly and eligible for O/T. In the private sector many employees get on an airplane Sunday Night/Monday morning and come back Friday night. They are away from their families even longer hours and its just part of the job description to eat dinner alone and to spend your nights alone in a hotel.

I dont beleive privatizing is the answer but think compensation of the public sector should be more transparent. I hear lots of talk about making RE transactions transparent. I would like to see the total compensation of all public sector employees who our tax dollars pay made compeltely transparent also. I think there would be quite a lot of outrage.

[sdrealtor]

I may be wrong but from my experience cops/fireman seem to come from two primary sources. Families that have a history in that profession and the military. I dont think the average person knows what kind of compensation cops/fireman get. I had absolutely no idea until I did short sales for 3 different fireman and saw their tax returns. They made close to double what I expected. I always saw the published base salaries and figured that was what they made not realizing that overtime was so prevalent and lucrative. When I asked if it was unusual all of them told me that the base salaries are nowhere near what anyone in their profession earns. I had no idea and dont think the vast majority of the public does either.

As for the long hours, in the private sector most higher paid individuals arent hourly and eligible for O/T. In the private sector many employees get on an airplane Sunday Night/Monday morning and come back Friday night. They are away from their families even longer hours and its just part of the job description to eat dinner alone and to spend your nights alone in a hotel.

I dont beleive privatizing is the answer but think compensation of the public sector should be more transparent. I hear lots of talk about making RE transactions transparent. I would like to see the total compensation of all public sector employees who our tax dollars pay made compeltely transparent also. I think there would be quite a lot of outrage.

[sdrealtor]

I may be wrong but from my experience cops/fireman seem to come from two primary sources. Families that have a history in that profession and the military. I dont think the average person knows what kind of compensation cops/fireman get. I had absolutely no idea until I did short sales for 3 different fireman and saw their tax returns. They made close to double what I expected. I always saw the published base salaries and figured that was what they made not realizing that overtime was so prevalent and lucrative. When I asked if it was unusual all of them told me that the base salaries are nowhere near what anyone in their profession earns. I had no idea and dont think the vast majority of the public does either.

As for the long hours, in the private sector most higher paid individuals arent hourly and eligible for O/T. In the private sector many employees get on an airplane Sunday Night/Monday morning and come back Friday night. They are away from their families even longer hours and its just part of the job description to eat dinner alone and to spend your nights alone in a hotel.

I dont beleive privatizing is the answer but think compensation of the public sector should be more transparent. I hear lots of talk about making RE transactions transparent. I would like to see the total compensation of all public sector employees who our tax dollars pay made compeltely transparent also. I think there would be quite a lot of outrage.

[sdrealtor]

I may be wrong but from my experience cops/fireman seem to come from two primary sources. Families that have a history in that profession and the military. I dont think the average person knows what kind of compensation cops/fireman get. I had absolutely no idea until I did short sales for 3 different fireman and saw their tax returns. They made close to double what I expected. I always saw the published base salaries and figured that was what they made not realizing that overtime was so prevalent and lucrative. When I asked if it was unusual all of them told me that the base salaries are nowhere near what anyone in their profession earns. I had no idea and dont think the vast majority of the public does either.

As for the long hours, in the private sector most higher paid individuals arent hourly and eligible for O/T. In the private sector many employees get on an airplane Sunday Night/Monday morning and come back Friday night. They are away from their families even longer hours and its just part of the job description to eat dinner alone and to spend your nights alone in a hotel.

I dont beleive privatizing is the answer but think compensation of the public sector should be more transparent. I hear lots of talk about making RE transactions transparent. I would like to see the total compensation of all public sector employees who our tax dollars pay made compeltely transparent also. I think there would be quite a lot of outrage.

[Coronita]

[quote=jpinpb]Okay. I really thought I was out of here, but I want to say a few more things.

I think what flu and others don’t realize perhaps is that maybe the reason people actually apply to be cops/firemen could very well be for the fact there’s a pension and for something financially stable, despite the risks of the job.

But at a certain point, risking your life is not worth it. There has to be some incentive. If you have the physical, psychological and mental ability to do the job of a cop or fireman, there has to be pay commensurate to the risk involved.

dave makes it sound like people are lining up to do the job. Does he think people would line up if it were $10 an hour? B/c given a choice, one day fighting a fire could persuade a few people to go work at In-N-Out. Starting pay there is $11 an hour. Put in your 8 hours a day and go home w/out taking your job w/you. Your time is your own when you’re not at work. They don’t have to risk their life flipping burgers. No one is going to call them in the middle of the night to go to work.

I really question if the private sector will do as good a job and for less. Private sector wants to MAKE money and don’t care about the customer.
They will cut corners and it could mean not saving every house in a fire b/c they may not want to waste fire retardant.

I saw a fireman down at the beach resuscitate some guy as if it was his brother. Think private sector would make the effort? I can see it now. “What? Give mouth to mouth. Call it!”

Name one private company that does something for the good of people and not their bottom line.[/quote]

Again I don’t think the issue here is simply not giving a pension or giving a pension. I think the issue here is degree. The issue with current structure of public sector pensions is that they cannot be revised down if the economic climate warrants it. But there doesn’t seem a problem to raise the pensions…City council here is an example. Furthermore, it’s just disgusting that in a time when the entire economy is melting down, and city/state/fed have having issues with budgets that some of the groups are raising amounts. It’s not inline or proportion to what the rest of the economy is seeing.

The issue I see with how things are moving is that we end up continue to pay an a large retiree pool a pretty hefty amount whom are longer serving the public (which would in itself isn’t a problem if we had a budget that could support it), and end up cutting services/hiring/etc from the public sector. The same fire departments are reducing headcount for the reason that with their budgets they cannot afford to hire new people to replace old people because old people are still being paid…And since it appears no one wants to pay higher taxes for it.

We can make all the morale/nobel arguments about this. Strictly speaking of dollars and whether this can be sustained, it’s pretty clear it can’t unless we pay a hell of lot more taxes or force the younger firemen/women end up taxing huge cuts (because you can’t touch the older ones)….If we think it was hard to retain fire/police before, it’s going to be even more so once budgets end up getting slashed to pay younger ones in order to afford the older ones. We’ll see if folks in SD want the 5cent tax hike…It will be interesting to see what happens when this system blows up.

I’m really having a tough time understand why an 8 year term city council, warrants a lifetime pension when we don’t have enough money to hire new fire/police, when at the same time everyone gripes about paying for higher taxes.

Imho, in this current economic situation…With budget shortfalls, no tax increases, and still need to pay older retirees a lot, the issue won’t be finding people who want to work in the public sector as fire/police (as was the pre-bubble sector in which it was probably difficult to recruit in the public sector). The issue will be we won’t be able to hire them because there’s no money left even if it’s a reduced wage…. There’s no “revise down” element due to economic conditions in the public sector to persistent benefits that ends up costing us in terms of current services.

For those that have missed it…job retention isn’t the problem…Paying for new people is…..
because of the budget shortfalls. Just look below were the cuts are being made. Nowhere is there a line item for retiree benefits. And let’s face it. It’s not like retiree’s are thinking “wow, this economy is screwed up…People are going to die because the city won’t be able to afford new police/fire…I don’t want to see an increase in my retiree benefits..In fact I want to help and reduce it….”

Frankly, I think the .5% sales hike is only a temporary fix. It might work for another few years, but we’ll need to revisit it again when the current new hires we are able to make with the .5% sales hike retire, and start collecting their retiree benefits along with the existing retiree pool…Afterall, life expectancy isn’t exactly going down… And unfortunately, there will be fewer people working when baby boomers retire to be able to pay for taxes….(This is a general problem, not necessarily related to public employment/etc)….Some cities might not have a choice but to go an private sector and/or pay as you go fire/police/etc, to avoid all the brownouts.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/oct/05/fire-chief-outlines-cuts/

Firefighters and staff could be laid off and an additional five fire engines could be idled if San Diego’s Fire-Rescue Department has to go through with the proposed budget cuts from Mayor Jerry Sanders.

Fire Chief Javier Mainar on Tuesday outlined the $7.2 million in cuts Sanders requested in September.

The possible budget cuts come amid debate over Proposition D, the Nov. 2 ballot measure that would raise the city’s sales tax by a half cent for five years if the city implements 10 changes to its operations and employee pensions. The sales tax increase would bring in $102 million annually.

Sanders has said that if new revenue sources are not found, all city departments, with the exception of public safety, would have to cut nearly one-quarter of their operating budgets. Public safety departments have been asked to trim 7 percent off of their budgets, with police and fire-rescue combined slashing about $22 million.

The fire department cuts would include:

• Eliminating the staffing for the department’s second helicopter.

• Adding five more fire engines to a city policy referred to as “brownouts.” Currently, up to eight engines are idled at a time to save money.

• Closing some single-unit fire stations for up to one month at a time.

• Laying off 60 fire fighters.

• Demoting some fire fighters.

• Reducing or eliminating lifeguard protection on Mission Bay.

• Reducing lifeguard protection at Mission Beach, South Mission Beach, Ocean Beach, La Jolla Rocks, La Jolla Shores and North Pacific Beach.

• Reducing the lifeguard night crew from four to two.

Mainar said the cuts to the front line would be necessary if the council chooses to make additional reductions to his department’s budget.

“We can’t nickle and dime any more,” he said adding last year’s cuts already caused brownouts. “We’ve done enough that the organization is barely functioning. There is no fat. There is no low hanging fruit.”

The city faces a $72 million budget gap for the fiscal year that begins on July 1.

Sanders requested all city departments submit their proposed budget reductions by Oct. 4.

The mayor does not have complete control over the budget; the City Council must approve it.

Already, council members Carl DeMaio, Marti Emerald and Kevin Faucloner have said they would not vote to make additional cuts from public safety.

“I cannot stomach and the public cannot stomach more cuts to public safety,” Emerald said.

Following the death of a Mira Mesa toddler in July, Emerald and Councilman Tony Young asked the council to pull money from the reserves to end the brownouts. The fire-rescue response time was delayed by the brownouts, though it was unclear whether the child would have been saved with normal response times.

Opponents of the sales tax, like DeMaio and Faulconer, say Proposition D supporters are using public safety as leverage to get voters to approve the sales tax. Both have said repeatedly the council would not have enough votes to cut more money from police and fire.

“The votes aren’t there,” DeMaio said. “It’s nothing but an election stunt that has no grounding in reality to suggest that police, fire and lifeguard services could be cut.”

Police Chief William Lansdowne turned in his recommended cuts for the department to the city Monday, but said he has no immediate plans to make the proposal public as of yet, said Paul Cooper, the chief’s legal advisor.

“We see it as a work in progress,” Cooper said.

I guess it doesn’t really matter in the long run anyway…because we have so much ATM’d, Heloced, mortgaged our future generations anyway, that it doesn’t matter what minute cuts we make here and there. The baby boomers are going end up bankrupting this country, with a generous help from Generation X…

[Coronita]

[quote=jpinpb]Okay. I really thought I was out of here, but I want to say a few more things.

I think what flu and others don’t realize perhaps is that maybe the reason people actually apply to be cops/firemen could very well be for the fact there’s a pension and for something financially stable, despite the risks of the job.

But at a certain point, risking your life is not worth it. There has to be some incentive. If you have the physical, psychological and mental ability to do the job of a cop or fireman, there has to be pay commensurate to the risk involved.

dave makes it sound like people are lining up to do the job. Does he think people would line up if it were $10 an hour? B/c given a choice, one day fighting a fire could persuade a few people to go work at In-N-Out. Starting pay there is $11 an hour. Put in your 8 hours a day and go home w/out taking your job w/you. Your time is your own when you’re not at work. They don’t have to risk their life flipping burgers. No one is going to call them in the middle of the night to go to work.

I really question if the private sector will do as good a job and for less. Private sector wants to MAKE money and don’t care about the customer.
They will cut corners and it could mean not saving every house in a fire b/c they may not want to waste fire retardant.

I saw a fireman down at the beach resuscitate some guy as if it was his brother. Think private sector would make the effort? I can see it now. “What? Give mouth to mouth. Call it!”

Name one private company that does something for the good of people and not their bottom line.[/quote]

Again I don’t think the issue here is simply not giving a pension or giving a pension. I think the issue here is degree. The issue with current structure of public sector pensions is that they cannot be revised down if the economic climate warrants it. But there doesn’t seem a problem to raise the pensions…City council here is an example. Furthermore, it’s just disgusting that in a time when the entire economy is melting down, and city/state/fed have having issues with budgets that some of the groups are raising amounts. It’s not inline or proportion to what the rest of the economy is seeing.

The issue I see with how things are moving is that we end up continue to pay an a large retiree pool a pretty hefty amount whom are longer serving the public (which would in itself isn’t a problem if we had a budget that could support it), and end up cutting services/hiring/etc from the public sector. The same fire departments are reducing headcount for the reason that with their budgets they cannot afford to hire new people to replace old people because old people are still being paid…And since it appears no one wants to pay higher taxes for it.

We can make all the morale/nobel arguments about this. Strictly speaking of dollars and whether this can be sustained, it’s pretty clear it can’t unless we pay a hell of lot more taxes or force the younger firemen/women end up taxing huge cuts (because you can’t touch the older ones)….If we think it was hard to retain fire/police before, it’s going to be even more so once budgets end up getting slashed to pay younger ones in order to afford the older ones. We’ll see if folks in SD want the 5cent tax hike…It will be interesting to see what happens when this system blows up.

I’m really having a tough time understand why an 8 year term city council, warrants a lifetime pension when we don’t have enough money to hire new fire/police, when at the same time everyone gripes about paying for higher taxes.

Imho, in this current economic situation…With budget shortfalls, no tax increases, and still need to pay older retirees a lot, the issue won’t be finding people who want to work in the public sector as fire/police (as was the pre-bubble sector in which it was probably difficult to recruit in the public sector). The issue will be we won’t be able to hire them because there’s no money left even if it’s a reduced wage…. There’s no “revise down” element due to economic conditions in the public sector to persistent benefits that ends up costing us in terms of current services.

For those that have missed it…job retention isn’t the problem…Paying for new people is…..
because of the budget shortfalls. Just look below were the cuts are being made. Nowhere is there a line item for retiree benefits. And let’s face it. It’s not like retiree’s are thinking “wow, this economy is screwed up…People are going to die because the city won’t be able to afford new police/fire…I don’t want to see an increase in my retiree benefits..In fact I want to help and reduce it….”

Frankly, I think the .5% sales hike is only a temporary fix. It might work for another few years, but we’ll need to revisit it again when the current new hires we are able to make with the .5% sales hike retire, and start collecting their retiree benefits along with the existing retiree pool…Afterall, life expectancy isn’t exactly going down… And unfortunately, there will be fewer people working when baby boomers retire to be able to pay for taxes….(This is a general problem, not necessarily related to public employment/etc)….Some cities might not have a choice but to go an private sector and/or pay as you go fire/police/etc, to avoid all the brownouts.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/oct/05/fire-chief-outlines-cuts/

Firefighters and staff could be laid off and an additional five fire engines could be idled if San Diego’s Fire-Rescue Department has to go through with the proposed budget cuts from Mayor Jerry Sanders.

Fire Chief Javier Mainar on Tuesday outlined the $7.2 million in cuts Sanders requested in September.

The possible budget cuts come amid debate over Proposition D, the Nov. 2 ballot measure that would raise the city’s sales tax by a half cent for five years if the city implements 10 changes to its operations and employee pensions. The sales tax increase would bring in $102 million annually.

Sanders has said that if new revenue sources are not found, all city departments, with the exception of public safety, would have to cut nearly one-quarter of their operating budgets. Public safety departments have been asked to trim 7 percent off of their budgets, with police and fire-rescue combined slashing about $22 million.

The fire department cuts would include:

• Eliminating the staffing for the department’s second helicopter.

• Adding five more fire engines to a city policy referred to as “brownouts.” Currently, up to eight engines are idled at a time to save money.

• Closing some single-unit fire stations for up to one month at a time.

• Laying off 60 fire fighters.

• Demoting some fire fighters.

• Reducing or eliminating lifeguard protection on Mission Bay.

• Reducing lifeguard protection at Mission Beach, South Mission Beach, Ocean Beach, La Jolla Rocks, La Jolla Shores and North Pacific Beach.

• Reducing the lifeguard night crew from four to two.

Mainar said the cuts to the front line would be necessary if the council chooses to make additional reductions to his department’s budget.

“We can’t nickle and dime any more,” he said adding last year’s cuts already caused brownouts. “We’ve done enough that the organization is barely functioning. There is no fat. There is no low hanging fruit.”

The city faces a $72 million budget gap for the fiscal year that begins on July 1.

Sanders requested all city departments submit their proposed budget reductions by Oct. 4.

The mayor does not have complete control over the budget; the City Council must approve it.

Already, council members Carl DeMaio, Marti Emerald and Kevin Faucloner have said they would not vote to make additional cuts from public safety.

“I cannot stomach and the public cannot stomach more cuts to public safety,” Emerald said.

Following the death of a Mira Mesa toddler in July, Emerald and Councilman Tony Young asked the council to pull money from the reserves to end the brownouts. The fire-rescue response time was delayed by the brownouts, though it was unclear whether the child would have been saved with normal response times.

Opponents of the sales tax, like DeMaio and Faulconer, say Proposition D supporters are using public safety as leverage to get voters to approve the sales tax. Both have said repeatedly the council would not have enough votes to cut more money from police and fire.

“The votes aren’t there,” DeMaio said. “It’s nothing but an election stunt that has no grounding in reality to suggest that police, fire and lifeguard services could be cut.”

Police Chief William Lansdowne turned in his recommended cuts for the department to the city Monday, but said he has no immediate plans to make the proposal public as of yet, said Paul Cooper, the chief’s legal advisor.

“We see it as a work in progress,” Cooper said.

I guess it doesn’t really matter in the long run anyway…because we have so much ATM’d, Heloced, mortgaged our future generations anyway, that it doesn’t matter what minute cuts we make here and there. The baby boomers are going end up bankrupting this country, with a generous help from Generation X…

[Coronita]

[quote=jpinpb]Okay. I really thought I was out of here, but I want to say a few more things.

I think what flu and others don’t realize perhaps is that maybe the reason people actually apply to be cops/firemen could very well be for the fact there’s a pension and for something financially stable, despite the risks of the job.

But at a certain point, risking your life is not worth it. There has to be some incentive. If you have the physical, psychological and mental ability to do the job of a cop or fireman, there has to be pay commensurate to the risk involved.

dave makes it sound like people are lining up to do the job. Does he think people would line up if it were $10 an hour? B/c given a choice, one day fighting a fire could persuade a few people to go work at In-N-Out. Starting pay there is $11 an hour. Put in your 8 hours a day and go home w/out taking your job w/you. Your time is your own when you’re not at work. They don’t have to risk their life flipping burgers. No one is going to call them in the middle of the night to go to work.

I really question if the private sector will do as good a job and for less. Private sector wants to MAKE money and don’t care about the customer.
They will cut corners and it could mean not saving every house in a fire b/c they may not want to waste fire retardant.

I saw a fireman down at the beach resuscitate some guy as if it was his brother. Think private sector would make the effort? I can see it now. “What? Give mouth to mouth. Call it!”

Name one private company that does something for the good of people and not their bottom line.[/quote]

Again I don’t think the issue here is simply not giving a pension or giving a pension. I think the issue here is degree. The issue with current structure of public sector pensions is that they cannot be revised down if the economic climate warrants it. But there doesn’t seem a problem to raise the pensions…City council here is an example. Furthermore, it’s just disgusting that in a time when the entire economy is melting down, and city/state/fed have having issues with budgets that some of the groups are raising amounts. It’s not inline or proportion to what the rest of the economy is seeing.

The issue I see with how things are moving is that we end up continue to pay an a large retiree pool a pretty hefty amount whom are longer serving the public (which would in itself isn’t a problem if we had a budget that could support it), and end up cutting services/hiring/etc from the public sector. The same fire departments are reducing headcount for the reason that with their budgets they cannot afford to hire new people to replace old people because old people are still being paid…And since it appears no one wants to pay higher taxes for it.

We can make all the morale/nobel arguments about this. Strictly speaking of dollars and whether this can be sustained, it’s pretty clear it can’t unless we pay a hell of lot more taxes or force the younger firemen/women end up taxing huge cuts (because you can’t touch the older ones)….If we think it was hard to retain fire/police before, it’s going to be even more so once budgets end up getting slashed to pay younger ones in order to afford the older ones. We’ll see if folks in SD want the 5cent tax hike…It will be interesting to see what happens when this system blows up.

I’m really having a tough time understand why an 8 year term city council, warrants a lifetime pension when we don’t have enough money to hire new fire/police, when at the same time everyone gripes about paying for higher taxes.

Imho, in this current economic situation…With budget shortfalls, no tax increases, and still need to pay older retirees a lot, the issue won’t be finding people who want to work in the public sector as fire/police (as was the pre-bubble sector in which it was probably difficult to recruit in the public sector). The issue will be we won’t be able to hire them because there’s no money left even if it’s a reduced wage…. There’s no “revise down” element due to economic conditions in the public sector to persistent benefits that ends up costing us in terms of current services.

For those that have missed it…job retention isn’t the problem…Paying for new people is…..
because of the budget shortfalls. Just look below were the cuts are being made. Nowhere is there a line item for retiree benefits. And let’s face it. It’s not like retiree’s are thinking “wow, this economy is screwed up…People are going to die because the city won’t be able to afford new police/fire…I don’t want to see an increase in my retiree benefits..In fact I want to help and reduce it….”

Frankly, I think the .5% sales hike is only a temporary fix. It might work for another few years, but we’ll need to revisit it again when the current new hires we are able to make with the .5% sales hike retire, and start collecting their retiree benefits along with the existing retiree pool…Afterall, life expectancy isn’t exactly going down… And unfortunately, there will be fewer people working when baby boomers retire to be able to pay for taxes….(This is a general problem, not necessarily related to public employment/etc)….Some cities might not have a choice but to go an private sector and/or pay as you go fire/police/etc, to avoid all the brownouts.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/oct/05/fire-chief-outlines-cuts/

Firefighters and staff could be laid off and an additional five fire engines could be idled if San Diego’s Fire-Rescue Department has to go through with the proposed budget cuts from Mayor Jerry Sanders.

Fire Chief Javier Mainar on Tuesday outlined the $7.2 million in cuts Sanders requested in September.

The possible budget cuts come amid debate over Proposition D, the Nov. 2 ballot measure that would raise the city’s sales tax by a half cent for five years if the city implements 10 changes to its operations and employee pensions. The sales tax increase would bring in $102 million annually.

Sanders has said that if new revenue sources are not found, all city departments, with the exception of public safety, would have to cut nearly one-quarter of their operating budgets. Public safety departments have been asked to trim 7 percent off of their budgets, with police and fire-rescue combined slashing about $22 million.

The fire department cuts would include:

• Eliminating the staffing for the department’s second helicopter.

• Adding five more fire engines to a city policy referred to as “brownouts.” Currently, up to eight engines are idled at a time to save money.

• Closing some single-unit fire stations for up to one month at a time.

• Laying off 60 fire fighters.

• Demoting some fire fighters.

• Reducing or eliminating lifeguard protection on Mission Bay.

• Reducing lifeguard protection at Mission Beach, South Mission Beach, Ocean Beach, La Jolla Rocks, La Jolla Shores and North Pacific Beach.

• Reducing the lifeguard night crew from four to two.

Mainar said the cuts to the front line would be necessary if the council chooses to make additional reductions to his department’s budget.

“We can’t nickle and dime any more,” he said adding last year’s cuts already caused brownouts. “We’ve done enough that the organization is barely functioning. There is no fat. There is no low hanging fruit.”

The city faces a $72 million budget gap for the fiscal year that begins on July 1.

Sanders requested all city departments submit their proposed budget reductions by Oct. 4.

The mayor does not have complete control over the budget; the City Council must approve it.

Already, council members Carl DeMaio, Marti Emerald and Kevin Faucloner have said they would not vote to make additional cuts from public safety.

“I cannot stomach and the public cannot stomach more cuts to public safety,” Emerald said.

Following the death of a Mira Mesa toddler in July, Emerald and Councilman Tony Young asked the council to pull money from the reserves to end the brownouts. The fire-rescue response time was delayed by the brownouts, though it was unclear whether the child would have been saved with normal response times.

Opponents of the sales tax, like DeMaio and Faulconer, say Proposition D supporters are using public safety as leverage to get voters to approve the sales tax. Both have said repeatedly the council would not have enough votes to cut more money from police and fire.

“The votes aren’t there,” DeMaio said. “It’s nothing but an election stunt that has no grounding in reality to suggest that police, fire and lifeguard services could be cut.”

Police Chief William Lansdowne turned in his recommended cuts for the department to the city Monday, but said he has no immediate plans to make the proposal public as of yet, said Paul Cooper, the chief’s legal advisor.

“We see it as a work in progress,” Cooper said.

I guess it doesn’t really matter in the long run anyway…because we have so much ATM’d, Heloced, mortgaged our future generations anyway, that it doesn’t matter what minute cuts we make here and there. The baby boomers are going end up bankrupting this country, with a generous help from Generation X…

[Coronita]

[quote=jpinpb]Okay. I really thought I was out of here, but I want to say a few more things.

I think what flu and others don’t realize perhaps is that maybe the reason people actually apply to be cops/firemen could very well be for the fact there’s a pension and for something financially stable, despite the risks of the job.

But at a certain point, risking your life is not worth it. There has to be some incentive. If you have the physical, psychological and mental ability to do the job of a cop or fireman, there has to be pay commensurate to the risk involved.

dave makes it sound like people are lining up to do the job. Does he think people would line up if it were $10 an hour? B/c given a choice, one day fighting a fire could persuade a few people to go work at In-N-Out. Starting pay there is $11 an hour. Put in your 8 hours a day and go home w/out taking your job w/you. Your time is your own when you’re not at work. They don’t have to risk their life flipping burgers. No one is going to call them in the middle of the night to go to work.

I really question if the private sector will do as good a job and for less. Private sector wants to MAKE money and don’t care about the customer.
They will cut corners and it could mean not saving every house in a fire b/c they may not want to waste fire retardant.

I saw a fireman down at the beach resuscitate some guy as if it was his brother. Think private sector would make the effort? I can see it now. “What? Give mouth to mouth. Call it!”

Name one private company that does something for the good of people and not their bottom line.[/quote]

Again I don’t think the issue here is simply not giving a pension or giving a pension. I think the issue here is degree. The issue with current structure of public sector pensions is that they cannot be revised down if the economic climate warrants it. But there doesn’t seem a problem to raise the pensions…City council here is an example. Furthermore, it’s just disgusting that in a time when the entire economy is melting down, and city/state/fed have having issues with budgets that some of the groups are raising amounts. It’s not inline or proportion to what the rest of the economy is seeing.

The issue I see with how things are moving is that we end up continue to pay an a large retiree pool a pretty hefty amount whom are longer serving the public (which would in itself isn’t a problem if we had a budget that could support it), and end up cutting services/hiring/etc from the public sector. The same fire departments are reducing headcount for the reason that with their budgets they cannot afford to hire new people to replace old people because old people are still being paid…And since it appears no one wants to pay higher taxes for it.

We can make all the morale/nobel arguments about this. Strictly speaking of dollars and whether this can be sustained, it’s pretty clear it can’t unless we pay a hell of lot more taxes or force the younger firemen/women end up taxing huge cuts (because you can’t touch the older ones)….If we think it was hard to retain fire/police before, it’s going to be even more so once budgets end up getting slashed to pay younger ones in order to afford the older ones. We’ll see if folks in SD want the 5cent tax hike…It will be interesting to see what happens when this system blows up.

I’m really having a tough time understand why an 8 year term city council, warrants a lifetime pension when we don’t have enough money to hire new fire/police, when at the same time everyone gripes about paying for higher taxes.

Imho, in this current economic situation…With budget shortfalls, no tax increases, and still need to pay older retirees a lot, the issue won’t be finding people who want to work in the public sector as fire/police (as was the pre-bubble sector in which it was probably difficult to recruit in the public sector). The issue will be we won’t be able to hire them because there’s no money left even if it’s a reduced wage…. There’s no “revise down” element due to economic conditions in the public sector to persistent benefits that ends up costing us in terms of current services.

For those that have missed it…job retention isn’t the problem…Paying for new people is…..
because of the budget shortfalls. Just look below were the cuts are being made. Nowhere is there a line item for retiree benefits. And let’s face it. It’s not like retiree’s are thinking “wow, this economy is screwed up…People are going to die because the city won’t be able to afford new police/fire…I don’t want to see an increase in my retiree benefits..In fact I want to help and reduce it….”

Frankly, I think the .5% sales hike is only a temporary fix. It might work for another few years, but we’ll need to revisit it again when the current new hires we are able to make with the .5% sales hike retire, and start collecting their retiree benefits along with the existing retiree pool…Afterall, life expectancy isn’t exactly going down… And unfortunately, there will be fewer people working when baby boomers retire to be able to pay for taxes….(This is a general problem, not necessarily related to public employment/etc)….Some cities might not have a choice but to go an private sector and/or pay as you go fire/police/etc, to avoid all the brownouts.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/oct/05/fire-chief-outlines-cuts/

Firefighters and staff could be laid off and an additional five fire engines could be idled if San Diego’s Fire-Rescue Department has to go through with the proposed budget cuts from Mayor Jerry Sanders.

Fire Chief Javier Mainar on Tuesday outlined the $7.2 million in cuts Sanders requested in September.

The possible budget cuts come amid debate over Proposition D, the Nov. 2 ballot measure that would raise the city’s sales tax by a half cent for five years if the city implements 10 changes to its operations and employee pensions. The sales tax increase would bring in $102 million annually.

Sanders has said that if new revenue sources are not found, all city departments, with the exception of public safety, would have to cut nearly one-quarter of their operating budgets. Public safety departments have been asked to trim 7 percent off of their budgets, with police and fire-rescue combined slashing about $22 million.

The fire department cuts would include:

• Eliminating the staffing for the department’s second helicopter.

• Adding five more fire engines to a city policy referred to as “brownouts.” Currently, up to eight engines are idled at a time to save money.

• Closing some single-unit fire stations for up to one month at a time.

• Laying off 60 fire fighters.

• Demoting some fire fighters.

• Reducing or eliminating lifeguard protection on Mission Bay.

• Reducing lifeguard protection at Mission Beach, South Mission Beach, Ocean Beach, La Jolla Rocks, La Jolla Shores and North Pacific Beach.

• Reducing the lifeguard night crew from four to two.

Mainar said the cuts to the front line would be necessary if the council chooses to make additional reductions to his department’s budget.

“We can’t nickle and dime any more,” he said adding last year’s cuts already caused brownouts. “We’ve done enough that the organization is barely functioning. There is no fat. There is no low hanging fruit.”

The city faces a $72 million budget gap for the fiscal year that begins on July 1.

Sanders requested all city departments submit their proposed budget reductions by Oct. 4.

The mayor does not have complete control over the budget; the City Council must approve it.

Already, council members Carl DeMaio, Marti Emerald and Kevin Faucloner have said they would not vote to make additional cuts from public safety.

“I cannot stomach and the public cannot stomach more cuts to public safety,” Emerald said.

Following the death of a Mira Mesa toddler in July, Emerald and Councilman Tony Young asked the council to pull money from the reserves to end the brownouts. The fire-rescue response time was delayed by the brownouts, though it was unclear whether the child would have been saved with normal response times.

Opponents of the sales tax, like DeMaio and Faulconer, say Proposition D supporters are using public safety as leverage to get voters to approve the sales tax. Both have said repeatedly the council would not have enough votes to cut more money from police and fire.

“The votes aren’t there,” DeMaio said. “It’s nothing but an election stunt that has no grounding in reality to suggest that police, fire and lifeguard services could be cut.”

Police Chief William Lansdowne turned in his recommended cuts for the department to the city Monday, but said he has no immediate plans to make the proposal public as of yet, said Paul Cooper, the chief’s legal advisor.

“We see it as a work in progress,” Cooper said.

I guess it doesn’t really matter in the long run anyway…because we have so much ATM’d, Heloced, mortgaged our future generations anyway, that it doesn’t matter what minute cuts we make here and there. The baby boomers are going end up bankrupting this country, with a generous help from Generation X…

[Coronita]

[quote=jpinpb]Okay. I really thought I was out of here, but I want to say a few more things.

I think what flu and others don’t realize perhaps is that maybe the reason people actually apply to be cops/firemen could very well be for the fact there’s a pension and for something financially stable, despite the risks of the job.

But at a certain point, risking your life is not worth it. There has to be some incentive. If you have the physical, psychological and mental ability to do the job of a cop or fireman, there has to be pay commensurate to the risk involved.

dave makes it sound like people are lining up to do the job. Does he think people would line up if it were $10 an hour? B/c given a choice, one day fighting a fire could persuade a few people to go work at In-N-Out. Starting pay there is $11 an hour. Put in your 8 hours a day and go home w/out taking your job w/you. Your time is your own when you’re not at work. They don’t have to risk their life flipping burgers. No one is going to call them in the middle of the night to go to work.

I really question if the private sector will do as good a job and for less. Private sector wants to MAKE money and don’t care about the customer.
They will cut corners and it could mean not saving every house in a fire b/c they may not want to waste fire retardant.

I saw a fireman down at the beach resuscitate some guy as if it was his brother. Think private sector would make the effort? I can see it now. “What? Give mouth to mouth. Call it!”

Name one private company that does something for the good of people and not their bottom line.[/quote]

Again I don’t think the issue here is simply not giving a pension or giving a pension. I think the issue here is degree. The issue with current structure of public sector pensions is that they cannot be revised down if the economic climate warrants it. But there doesn’t seem a problem to raise the pensions…City council here is an example. Furthermore, it’s just disgusting that in a time when the entire economy is melting down, and city/state/fed have having issues with budgets that some of the groups are raising amounts. It’s not inline or proportion to what the rest of the economy is seeing.

The issue I see with how things are moving is that we end up continue to pay an a large retiree pool a pretty hefty amount whom are longer serving the public (which would in itself isn’t a problem if we had a budget that could support it), and end up cutting services/hiring/etc from the public sector. The same fire departments are reducing headcount for the reason that with their budgets they cannot afford to hire new people to replace old people because old people are still being paid…And since it appears no one wants to pay higher taxes for it.

We can make all the morale/nobel arguments about this. Strictly speaking of dollars and whether this can be sustained, it’s pretty clear it can’t unless we pay a hell of lot more taxes or force the younger firemen/women end up taxing huge cuts (because you can’t touch the older ones)….If we think it was hard to retain fire/police before, it’s going to be even more so once budgets end up getting slashed to pay younger ones in order to afford the older ones. We’ll see if folks in SD want the 5cent tax hike…It will be interesting to see what happens when this system blows up.

I’m really having a tough time understand why an 8 year term city council, warrants a lifetime pension when we don’t have enough money to hire new fire/police, when at the same time everyone gripes about paying for higher taxes.

Imho, in this current economic situation…With budget shortfalls, no tax increases, and still need to pay older retirees a lot, the issue won’t be finding people who want to work in the public sector as fire/police (as was the pre-bubble sector in which it was probably difficult to recruit in the public sector). The issue will be we won’t be able to hire them because there’s no money left even if it’s a reduced wage…. There’s no “revise down” element due to economic conditions in the public sector to persistent benefits that ends up costing us in terms of current services.

For those that have missed it…job retention isn’t the problem…Paying for new people is…..
because of the budget shortfalls. Just look below were the cuts are being made. Nowhere is there a line item for retiree benefits. And let’s face it. It’s not like retiree’s are thinking “wow, this economy is screwed up…People are going to die because the city won’t be able to afford new police/fire…I don’t want to see an increase in my retiree benefits..In fact I want to help and reduce it….”

Frankly, I think the .5% sales hike is only a temporary fix. It might work for another few years, but we’ll need to revisit it again when the current new hires we are able to make with the .5% sales hike retire, and start collecting their retiree benefits along with the existing retiree pool…Afterall, life expectancy isn’t exactly going down… And unfortunately, there will be fewer people working when baby boomers retire to be able to pay for taxes….(This is a general problem, not necessarily related to public employment/etc)….Some cities might not have a choice but to go an private sector and/or pay as you go fire/police/etc, to avoid all the brownouts.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/oct/05/fire-chief-outlines-cuts/

Firefighters and staff could be laid off and an additional five fire engines could be idled if San Diego’s Fire-Rescue Department has to go through with the proposed budget cuts from Mayor Jerry Sanders.

Fire Chief Javier Mainar on Tuesday outlined the $7.2 million in cuts Sanders requested in September.

The possible budget cuts come amid debate over Proposition D, the Nov. 2 ballot measure that would raise the city’s sales tax by a half cent for five years if the city implements 10 changes to its operations and employee pensions. The sales tax increase would bring in $102 million annually.

Sanders has said that if new revenue sources are not found, all city departments, with the exception of public safety, would have to cut nearly one-quarter of their operating budgets. Public safety departments have been asked to trim 7 percent off of their budgets, with police and fire-rescue combined slashing about $22 million.

The fire department cuts would include:

• Eliminating the staffing for the department’s second helicopter.

• Adding five more fire engines to a city policy referred to as “brownouts.” Currently, up to eight engines are idled at a time to save money.

• Closing some single-unit fire stations for up to one month at a time.

• Laying off 60 fire fighters.

• Demoting some fire fighters.

• Reducing or eliminating lifeguard protection on Mission Bay.

• Reducing lifeguard protection at Mission Beach, South Mission Beach, Ocean Beach, La Jolla Rocks, La Jolla Shores and North Pacific Beach.

• Reducing the lifeguard night crew from four to two.

Mainar said the cuts to the front line would be necessary if the council chooses to make additional reductions to his department’s budget.

“We can’t nickle and dime any more,” he said adding last year’s cuts already caused brownouts. “We’ve done enough that the organization is barely functioning. There is no fat. There is no low hanging fruit.”

The city faces a $72 million budget gap for the fiscal year that begins on July 1.

Sanders requested all city departments submit their proposed budget reductions by Oct. 4.

The mayor does not have complete control over the budget; the City Council must approve it.

Already, council members Carl DeMaio, Marti Emerald and Kevin Faucloner have said they would not vote to make additional cuts from public safety.

“I cannot stomach and the public cannot stomach more cuts to public safety,” Emerald said.

Following the death of a Mira Mesa toddler in July, Emerald and Councilman Tony Young asked the council to pull money from the reserves to end the brownouts. The fire-rescue response time was delayed by the brownouts, though it was unclear whether the child would have been saved with normal response times.

Opponents of the sales tax, like DeMaio and Faulconer, say Proposition D supporters are using public safety as leverage to get voters to approve the sales tax. Both have said repeatedly the council would not have enough votes to cut more money from police and fire.

“The votes aren’t there,” DeMaio said. “It’s nothing but an election stunt that has no grounding in reality to suggest that police, fire and lifeguard services could be cut.”

Police Chief William Lansdowne turned in his recommended cuts for the department to the city Monday, but said he has no immediate plans to make the proposal public as of yet, said Paul Cooper, the chief’s legal advisor.

“We see it as a work in progress,” Cooper said.

I guess it doesn’t really matter in the long run anyway…because we have so much ATM’d, Heloced, mortgaged our future generations anyway, that it doesn’t matter what minute cuts we make here and there. The baby boomers are going end up bankrupting this country, with a generous help from Generation X…

[faterikcartman]

[quote=teaboy]What is a fair and equitable rate of pay & benefits for public employees, compared with what people make in the private sector?

tb[/quote]

The fair and equitable rate is the least amount the public can get away with. That means the lowest rate they could pay and still fill the positions.

Frankly, most public service stinks compared to the private sector.

And I have ZERO doubt that we could pay many public service positions much less and still fill them readily — with the same quality employee.

For example, I would offer no pension whatsoever to public employees and I’ve little doubt those positions would all be filled. If not, pay them a little more and it would still be cheaper.

It is astounding that we pay some people 96% of their highest salary/average of last three months for the rest of their lives. Madness.

People need to go back and read Steinbeck’s “The Grapes of Wrath” you’ll work like your life depends on it when it does. The fact that we have 10% official unemployment, actual much higher, and we’re talking about admitting potentially 100 million unskilled workers (learn about chain migration rules) because there are “jobs Americans just won’t do” screams to anyone who can recognize that the emperor is naked that unemployment benefits and other “social safeguards” are just too cushy.

Jerry Doyle said it well the other night: if you give people 100 weeks of unemployment, most aren’t going to start looking for a job until week 99. If you give them 150 they’ll start looking in week 149.

Cut public pensions out of the picture. Offer rock bottom salaries. Start there, and only increase AS NECESSARY.

But if you’re paying people to sit on their arse and feeding them, don’t expect folks to line up around the corner.

The old adage is give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach him to fish, feed him for a lifetime. Well no one is going to bother learning to fish if they’re handing them out for free around the corner.

Obviously the 48% of tax filers who are net takers rather than payers have little disincentive to claim public employees, especially the sacred police, fire, and teacher groups, all deserve the absolute best. The rest of us who will soon be an irreversible minority who work as slaves to fund this largess are likely to be more practical.

[faterikcartman]

[quote=teaboy]What is a fair and equitable rate of pay & benefits for public employees, compared with what people make in the private sector?

tb[/quote]

The fair and equitable rate is the least amount the public can get away with. That means the lowest rate they could pay and still fill the positions.

Frankly, most public service stinks compared to the private sector.

And I have ZERO doubt that we could pay many public service positions much less and still fill them readily — with the same quality employee.

For example, I would offer no pension whatsoever to public employees and I’ve little doubt those positions would all be filled. If not, pay them a little more and it would still be cheaper.

It is astounding that we pay some people 96% of their highest salary/average of last three months for the rest of their lives. Madness.

People need to go back and read Steinbeck’s “The Grapes of Wrath” you’ll work like your life depends on it when it does. The fact that we have 10% official unemployment, actual much higher, and we’re talking about admitting potentially 100 million unskilled workers (learn about chain migration rules) because there are “jobs Americans just won’t do” screams to anyone who can recognize that the emperor is naked that unemployment benefits and other “social safeguards” are just too cushy.

Jerry Doyle said it well the other night: if you give people 100 weeks of unemployment, most aren’t going to start looking for a job until week 99. If you give them 150 they’ll start looking in week 149.

Cut public pensions out of the picture. Offer rock bottom salaries. Start there, and only increase AS NECESSARY.

But if you’re paying people to sit on their arse and feeding them, don’t expect folks to line up around the corner.

The old adage is give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach him to fish, feed him for a lifetime. Well no one is going to bother learning to fish if they’re handing them out for free around the corner.

Obviously the 48% of tax filers who are net takers rather than payers have little disincentive to claim public employees, especially the sacred police, fire, and teacher groups, all deserve the absolute best. The rest of us who will soon be an irreversible minority who work as slaves to fund this largess are likely to be more practical.

[faterikcartman]

[quote=teaboy]What is a fair and equitable rate of pay & benefits for public employees, compared with what people make in the private sector?

tb[/quote]

The fair and equitable rate is the least amount the public can get away with. That means the lowest rate they could pay and still fill the positions.

Frankly, most public service stinks compared to the private sector.

And I have ZERO doubt that we could pay many public service positions much less and still fill them readily — with the same quality employee.

For example, I would offer no pension whatsoever to public employees and I’ve little doubt those positions would all be filled. If not, pay them a little more and it would still be cheaper.

It is astounding that we pay some people 96% of their highest salary/average of last three months for the rest of their lives. Madness.

People need to go back and read Steinbeck’s “The Grapes of Wrath” you’ll work like your life depends on it when it does. The fact that we have 10% official unemployment, actual much higher, and we’re talking about admitting potentially 100 million unskilled workers (learn about chain migration rules) because there are “jobs Americans just won’t do” screams to anyone who can recognize that the emperor is naked that unemployment benefits and other “social safeguards” are just too cushy.

Jerry Doyle said it well the other night: if you give people 100 weeks of unemployment, most aren’t going to start looking for a job until week 99. If you give them 150 they’ll start looking in week 149.

Cut public pensions out of the picture. Offer rock bottom salaries. Start there, and only increase AS NECESSARY.

But if you’re paying people to sit on their arse and feeding them, don’t expect folks to line up around the corner.

The old adage is give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach him to fish, feed him for a lifetime. Well no one is going to bother learning to fish if they’re handing them out for free around the corner.

Obviously the 48% of tax filers who are net takers rather than payers have little disincentive to claim public employees, especially the sacred police, fire, and teacher groups, all deserve the absolute best. The rest of us who will soon be an irreversible minority who work as slaves to fund this largess are likely to be more practical.

[faterikcartman]

[quote=teaboy]What is a fair and equitable rate of pay & benefits for public employees, compared with what people make in the private sector?

tb[/quote]

The fair and equitable rate is the least amount the public can get away with. That means the lowest rate they could pay and still fill the positions.

Frankly, most public service stinks compared to the private sector.

And I have ZERO doubt that we could pay many public service positions much less and still fill them readily — with the same quality employee.

For example, I would offer no pension whatsoever to public employees and I’ve little doubt those positions would all be filled. If not, pay them a little more and it would still be cheaper.

It is astounding that we pay some people 96% of their highest salary/average of last three months for the rest of their lives. Madness.

People need to go back and read Steinbeck’s “The Grapes of Wrath” you’ll work like your life depends on it when it does. The fact that we have 10% official unemployment, actual much higher, and we’re talking about admitting potentially 100 million unskilled workers (learn about chain migration rules) because there are “jobs Americans just won’t do” screams to anyone who can recognize that the emperor is naked that unemployment benefits and other “social safeguards” are just too cushy.

Jerry Doyle said it well the other night: if you give people 100 weeks of unemployment, most aren’t going to start looking for a job until week 99. If you give them 150 they’ll start looking in week 149.

Cut public pensions out of the picture. Offer rock bottom salaries. Start there, and only increase AS NECESSARY.

But if you’re paying people to sit on their arse and feeding them, don’t expect folks to line up around the corner.

The old adage is give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach him to fish, feed him for a lifetime. Well no one is going to bother learning to fish if they’re handing them out for free around the corner.

Obviously the 48% of tax filers who are net takers rather than payers have little disincentive to claim public employees, especially the sacred police, fire, and teacher groups, all deserve the absolute best. The rest of us who will soon be an irreversible minority who work as slaves to fund this largess are likely to be more practical.

[Author]

Posts