OT: Public pay & benefits

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk]Agree that we really can’t group police and fire together in this discussion. They are actually quite different jobs and the markets for qualified employees is likely very different as well.

So let’s continue to just pick on just the firemen 😉

From the SD Fire website:

The City does not advertise widely for positions where the number of local applicants significantly exceeds the number of jobs available, such as Fire Recruit. These jobs are opened infrequently and the resulting eligibility list usually lasts for two years.

http://www.sandiego.gov/fireandems/careers/sdflssops.shtml

The minimal requirements are surprisingly modest:

http://www.sandiego.gov/fireandems/careers/faqcareers.shtml

(No height/weight requirement?)

This is the only data we need. It clearly shows that the market for firefighters is out of whack. Which means the price is not right.

Firefighting is a physically demanding, slightly dangerous, blue collar job that requires a few months of specialized training to get started and continuous supplemental training throughout one’s career.

It’s entirely reasonable that one should make a good living doing that kind of job.

But there are dozens of other jobs out there with the same characteristics. For every city firefighter, there are thousands of people who perform jobs with similar characteristics every day (specialized construction/miners/oil rig workers/fishermen/utility workers/trucking/railroad workers/heavy manufacturing/etc.) The vast majority of people with these jobs could also be qualified firefighters (after they receive the training provided by the government.)

The only difference between most other specialty blue-collar jobs and firefighters is the pay.

Can someone tell me other job where the employers don’t even bother to recruit and there two-year waiting-list for applicants?[/quote]

From the link you posted about Fire Recuit positions, those are specific positions that do not even exist in most fire departments. In almost every case, those positions are offered only with large, urban departments that have the resources to put their *recruits* through fire academy, paramedic training, etc. That’s why the requirements are so basic, and it’s why so many people sign up. Of course, lots of people would like to be firefighters, just like loads of people will sign up to be NFL players, rap singers, CEOs, actors, models, doctors, techies, lawyers, salesmen, etc. (even Realtors!) if you told them you would pay for their training and offer them a job. You’ll always get lots of people who apply, but not everyone makes it through. These positions are often used to recruit people to satisfy affirmative action quotas.

The small and medium-sized departments don’t have “Fire Recruit” positions. They don’t hire people off the street with GEDs or HS diplomas, and nothing else. Most of them require EMT/paramedic certification, and Firefighter I certification. As an applicant, you have to have obtained these on your own dime and on your own time. To get paramedic certification, you’re required to get your EMT certification and work on an ambulance for a minimum of a year, and then you have to attend paramedic school for another year. For Firefighter I certification, you have to go through a fire academy, which is about 1 semester long (full-time, all day…you cannot have another job during this time). Even after that, it’s highly recommended that applicants volunteer for a fire department (volunteer or student position) and/or have additional paramedic training on an ambulance. All this before even applying. This isn’t “just a few months” of training, BTW.

Hope that helps to explain why you get “backlogs” of people for Fire Recruit positions. For the FFI positions, there were NO backlogs of applicants during the bubble, and departments had to keep going back to the academies to fight each other for new applicants. Also, many existing employees fled for greener pastures during the bubble, either to higher paying departments in other locations, or other higher-paying occupations. The myths of “people waiting in line” are just that…myths.

As for the difference between firefighters and cops, I’d agree that cops have a much more difficult job, and they deserve to be paid more.

[sdrealtor]

Thanks for the answer.

[sdrealtor]

Thanks for the answer.

[sdrealtor]

Thanks for the answer.

[sdrealtor]

Thanks for the answer.

[sdrealtor]

Thanks for the answer.

[jficquette]

[quote=CA renter][quote=jficquette]CA Renter,

Comparing pay for mercenaries in Iraq to public safety employees in California is not apples and apples. Also the military doesn’t retire at full pay. Quite frankly public safety people probably make more money than the mercenaries when you include 30-40 years on pension.

Concerning the firemen who tool around in fire trucks to run personal errands should probably not be allowed to leave the firehouse while they are on duty.

John[/quote]

Public safety personnel don’t retire at full pay, either. Mind you, public safety personnel weren’t complaining about their pensions before the pension boost, either (not anyone I’ve ever met). That was a disaster from the start, and as I’ve said many times before, it was not the boots-on-the-ground workers who were asking for it. They’re the ones taking all the flak for it now, though.

As to the “tooling around in the fire engines” how do you think firefighters get to calls? The fire station isn’t what goes on calls; the fire engines/trucks do. Firefighters are tied to the fire engines/trucks (and their zones), not the fire station.

Besides, how do you think groceries get to the fire stations when firefighters often 24+ hours at a stretch? Firefighters work 24 or even 120 hours (not an unusual overtime situation) at a time. You don’t think they should eat? Or, perhaps you think the city should hire additional workers who will keep the fire stations supplied all the time?

Just want to clarify…firefighters do not “run personal errands” while on duty. That’s absolutely not allowed. If you see them in the store, they are ON DUTY. If a call comes in, the groceries are dropped and they run to the call.[/quote]

In my mind going shopping is a personal errand. I have also seen them parked in a bank’s parking lot.

For every truck I see with lights flashing I see 10 going shopping.

If being on call is so important then they need to stay in the fire house and bring food with them when they get on shift.

A lawyer friend of mine has a son who just retired as a sherrif deputy. He is making MORE then his salary since he loaded it up with overtime before he left.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=CA renter][quote=jficquette]CA Renter,

Comparing pay for mercenaries in Iraq to public safety employees in California is not apples and apples. Also the military doesn’t retire at full pay. Quite frankly public safety people probably make more money than the mercenaries when you include 30-40 years on pension.

Concerning the firemen who tool around in fire trucks to run personal errands should probably not be allowed to leave the firehouse while they are on duty.

John[/quote]

Public safety personnel don’t retire at full pay, either. Mind you, public safety personnel weren’t complaining about their pensions before the pension boost, either (not anyone I’ve ever met). That was a disaster from the start, and as I’ve said many times before, it was not the boots-on-the-ground workers who were asking for it. They’re the ones taking all the flak for it now, though.

As to the “tooling around in the fire engines” how do you think firefighters get to calls? The fire station isn’t what goes on calls; the fire engines/trucks do. Firefighters are tied to the fire engines/trucks (and their zones), not the fire station.

Besides, how do you think groceries get to the fire stations when firefighters often 24+ hours at a stretch? Firefighters work 24 or even 120 hours (not an unusual overtime situation) at a time. You don’t think they should eat? Or, perhaps you think the city should hire additional workers who will keep the fire stations supplied all the time?

Just want to clarify…firefighters do not “run personal errands” while on duty. That’s absolutely not allowed. If you see them in the store, they are ON DUTY. If a call comes in, the groceries are dropped and they run to the call.[/quote]

In my mind going shopping is a personal errand. I have also seen them parked in a bank’s parking lot.

For every truck I see with lights flashing I see 10 going shopping.

If being on call is so important then they need to stay in the fire house and bring food with them when they get on shift.

A lawyer friend of mine has a son who just retired as a sherrif deputy. He is making MORE then his salary since he loaded it up with overtime before he left.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=CA renter][quote=jficquette]CA Renter,

Comparing pay for mercenaries in Iraq to public safety employees in California is not apples and apples. Also the military doesn’t retire at full pay. Quite frankly public safety people probably make more money than the mercenaries when you include 30-40 years on pension.

Concerning the firemen who tool around in fire trucks to run personal errands should probably not be allowed to leave the firehouse while they are on duty.

John[/quote]

Public safety personnel don’t retire at full pay, either. Mind you, public safety personnel weren’t complaining about their pensions before the pension boost, either (not anyone I’ve ever met). That was a disaster from the start, and as I’ve said many times before, it was not the boots-on-the-ground workers who were asking for it. They’re the ones taking all the flak for it now, though.

As to the “tooling around in the fire engines” how do you think firefighters get to calls? The fire station isn’t what goes on calls; the fire engines/trucks do. Firefighters are tied to the fire engines/trucks (and their zones), not the fire station.

Besides, how do you think groceries get to the fire stations when firefighters often 24+ hours at a stretch? Firefighters work 24 or even 120 hours (not an unusual overtime situation) at a time. You don’t think they should eat? Or, perhaps you think the city should hire additional workers who will keep the fire stations supplied all the time?

Just want to clarify…firefighters do not “run personal errands” while on duty. That’s absolutely not allowed. If you see them in the store, they are ON DUTY. If a call comes in, the groceries are dropped and they run to the call.[/quote]

In my mind going shopping is a personal errand. I have also seen them parked in a bank’s parking lot.

For every truck I see with lights flashing I see 10 going shopping.

If being on call is so important then they need to stay in the fire house and bring food with them when they get on shift.

A lawyer friend of mine has a son who just retired as a sherrif deputy. He is making MORE then his salary since he loaded it up with overtime before he left.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=CA renter][quote=jficquette]CA Renter,

Comparing pay for mercenaries in Iraq to public safety employees in California is not apples and apples. Also the military doesn’t retire at full pay. Quite frankly public safety people probably make more money than the mercenaries when you include 30-40 years on pension.

Concerning the firemen who tool around in fire trucks to run personal errands should probably not be allowed to leave the firehouse while they are on duty.

John[/quote]

Public safety personnel don’t retire at full pay, either. Mind you, public safety personnel weren’t complaining about their pensions before the pension boost, either (not anyone I’ve ever met). That was a disaster from the start, and as I’ve said many times before, it was not the boots-on-the-ground workers who were asking for it. They’re the ones taking all the flak for it now, though.

As to the “tooling around in the fire engines” how do you think firefighters get to calls? The fire station isn’t what goes on calls; the fire engines/trucks do. Firefighters are tied to the fire engines/trucks (and their zones), not the fire station.

Besides, how do you think groceries get to the fire stations when firefighters often 24+ hours at a stretch? Firefighters work 24 or even 120 hours (not an unusual overtime situation) at a time. You don’t think they should eat? Or, perhaps you think the city should hire additional workers who will keep the fire stations supplied all the time?

Just want to clarify…firefighters do not “run personal errands” while on duty. That’s absolutely not allowed. If you see them in the store, they are ON DUTY. If a call comes in, the groceries are dropped and they run to the call.[/quote]

In my mind going shopping is a personal errand. I have also seen them parked in a bank’s parking lot.

For every truck I see with lights flashing I see 10 going shopping.

If being on call is so important then they need to stay in the fire house and bring food with them when they get on shift.

A lawyer friend of mine has a son who just retired as a sherrif deputy. He is making MORE then his salary since he loaded it up with overtime before he left.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=CA renter][quote=jficquette]CA Renter,

Comparing pay for mercenaries in Iraq to public safety employees in California is not apples and apples. Also the military doesn’t retire at full pay. Quite frankly public safety people probably make more money than the mercenaries when you include 30-40 years on pension.

Concerning the firemen who tool around in fire trucks to run personal errands should probably not be allowed to leave the firehouse while they are on duty.

John[/quote]

Public safety personnel don’t retire at full pay, either. Mind you, public safety personnel weren’t complaining about their pensions before the pension boost, either (not anyone I’ve ever met). That was a disaster from the start, and as I’ve said many times before, it was not the boots-on-the-ground workers who were asking for it. They’re the ones taking all the flak for it now, though.

As to the “tooling around in the fire engines” how do you think firefighters get to calls? The fire station isn’t what goes on calls; the fire engines/trucks do. Firefighters are tied to the fire engines/trucks (and their zones), not the fire station.

Besides, how do you think groceries get to the fire stations when firefighters often 24+ hours at a stretch? Firefighters work 24 or even 120 hours (not an unusual overtime situation) at a time. You don’t think they should eat? Or, perhaps you think the city should hire additional workers who will keep the fire stations supplied all the time?

Just want to clarify…firefighters do not “run personal errands” while on duty. That’s absolutely not allowed. If you see them in the store, they are ON DUTY. If a call comes in, the groceries are dropped and they run to the call.[/quote]

In my mind going shopping is a personal errand. I have also seen them parked in a bank’s parking lot.

For every truck I see with lights flashing I see 10 going shopping.

If being on call is so important then they need to stay in the fire house and bring food with them when they get on shift.

A lawyer friend of mine has a son who just retired as a sherrif deputy. He is making MORE then his salary since he loaded it up with overtime before he left.

John

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]

Bottom line, anyone who has not seen a pay cut these past few years is probably overpaid (others would do their jobs for significantly less). Whether or not that money coming out of my pocket is going to a public employer or a private employer doesn’t matter — I’m still overpaying. Why don’t *they* take a pay cut then, since they have such an issue with overcompensation?[/quote]

Arguably there’s the issue of “choice.” You have no choice where paying taxes are concerned. Where private companies are concerned, you can choose where to spend your dollars – even if it’s an issue of using a company with the “least overpaid” employees. There are all sorts of businesses that you can patronize in which the employees aren’t overpaid (even by your standard): co-ops for food, credit unions for banking, mutual insurance companies for insurance, etc. etc. If you’re patronizing businesses with overpaid employees (according to you) it’s probably in the name of “convenience”… which costs money. The problem with high ideals is that they’re seldom easy to live by.

[quote=CA renter]
And no, it’s not at all about the “free market.” As you know, people are essentially forced to use banks in order to conduct business these days. I don’t have a choice WRT overpaying their employees/executives. And let’s not forget the public money (TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS) being spent to prop them up and maintain their bonuses/compensation during this “Greatest Recession Since the Great Depression.”[/quote]

You are not “forced to use banks in order to conduct business” these days. I doubt your financial needs are so complicated that you can’t use a credit union for all of your banking needs. Even the CEOs of credit unions don’t make much money. Trust me, I’ve seen the stats. So, you should bank with a credit union if that’s where your conscience lies. Then you won’t be accused of hypocrisy by both maligning overpaid bankers while patronizing their businesses at the same time.

[quote=CA renter]
Bottom line, we are ALL forced to pay for things we don’t like. If I had to choose between paying bankers or public servants, the choice would be easy — public servants actually enhance our quality of life while bankers suck the blood out of the productive economy.[/quote]

I would argue that SOME public servants “suck the blood out of the productive economy” just as SOME bankers do the same. Likewise, SOME public servants do a great job relative to the compensation they receive while SOME bankers do the same. Generalizing about public servants and bankers with respect to sucking blood out of the economy is not intellectually honest.

Generally speaking, I’d say that the largest banks and largest public employees unions are, in fact, blood suckers, to use your terms. And, admittedly, the big banks are bigger blood suckers than the big unions. But once you get down to the local level, you find a lot of folks who are just trying to make a buck and do a decent job. But I think it’s very difficult to make generalizations about either group.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]

Bottom line, anyone who has not seen a pay cut these past few years is probably overpaid (others would do their jobs for significantly less). Whether or not that money coming out of my pocket is going to a public employer or a private employer doesn’t matter — I’m still overpaying. Why don’t *they* take a pay cut then, since they have such an issue with overcompensation?[/quote]

Arguably there’s the issue of “choice.” You have no choice where paying taxes are concerned. Where private companies are concerned, you can choose where to spend your dollars – even if it’s an issue of using a company with the “least overpaid” employees. There are all sorts of businesses that you can patronize in which the employees aren’t overpaid (even by your standard): co-ops for food, credit unions for banking, mutual insurance companies for insurance, etc. etc. If you’re patronizing businesses with overpaid employees (according to you) it’s probably in the name of “convenience”… which costs money. The problem with high ideals is that they’re seldom easy to live by.

[quote=CA renter]
And no, it’s not at all about the “free market.” As you know, people are essentially forced to use banks in order to conduct business these days. I don’t have a choice WRT overpaying their employees/executives. And let’s not forget the public money (TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS) being spent to prop them up and maintain their bonuses/compensation during this “Greatest Recession Since the Great Depression.”[/quote]

You are not “forced to use banks in order to conduct business” these days. I doubt your financial needs are so complicated that you can’t use a credit union for all of your banking needs. Even the CEOs of credit unions don’t make much money. Trust me, I’ve seen the stats. So, you should bank with a credit union if that’s where your conscience lies. Then you won’t be accused of hypocrisy by both maligning overpaid bankers while patronizing their businesses at the same time.

[quote=CA renter]
Bottom line, we are ALL forced to pay for things we don’t like. If I had to choose between paying bankers or public servants, the choice would be easy — public servants actually enhance our quality of life while bankers suck the blood out of the productive economy.[/quote]

I would argue that SOME public servants “suck the blood out of the productive economy” just as SOME bankers do the same. Likewise, SOME public servants do a great job relative to the compensation they receive while SOME bankers do the same. Generalizing about public servants and bankers with respect to sucking blood out of the economy is not intellectually honest.

Generally speaking, I’d say that the largest banks and largest public employees unions are, in fact, blood suckers, to use your terms. And, admittedly, the big banks are bigger blood suckers than the big unions. But once you get down to the local level, you find a lot of folks who are just trying to make a buck and do a decent job. But I think it’s very difficult to make generalizations about either group.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]

Bottom line, anyone who has not seen a pay cut these past few years is probably overpaid (others would do their jobs for significantly less). Whether or not that money coming out of my pocket is going to a public employer or a private employer doesn’t matter — I’m still overpaying. Why don’t *they* take a pay cut then, since they have such an issue with overcompensation?[/quote]

Arguably there’s the issue of “choice.” You have no choice where paying taxes are concerned. Where private companies are concerned, you can choose where to spend your dollars – even if it’s an issue of using a company with the “least overpaid” employees. There are all sorts of businesses that you can patronize in which the employees aren’t overpaid (even by your standard): co-ops for food, credit unions for banking, mutual insurance companies for insurance, etc. etc. If you’re patronizing businesses with overpaid employees (according to you) it’s probably in the name of “convenience”… which costs money. The problem with high ideals is that they’re seldom easy to live by.

[quote=CA renter]
And no, it’s not at all about the “free market.” As you know, people are essentially forced to use banks in order to conduct business these days. I don’t have a choice WRT overpaying their employees/executives. And let’s not forget the public money (TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS) being spent to prop them up and maintain their bonuses/compensation during this “Greatest Recession Since the Great Depression.”[/quote]

You are not “forced to use banks in order to conduct business” these days. I doubt your financial needs are so complicated that you can’t use a credit union for all of your banking needs. Even the CEOs of credit unions don’t make much money. Trust me, I’ve seen the stats. So, you should bank with a credit union if that’s where your conscience lies. Then you won’t be accused of hypocrisy by both maligning overpaid bankers while patronizing their businesses at the same time.

[quote=CA renter]
Bottom line, we are ALL forced to pay for things we don’t like. If I had to choose between paying bankers or public servants, the choice would be easy — public servants actually enhance our quality of life while bankers suck the blood out of the productive economy.[/quote]

I would argue that SOME public servants “suck the blood out of the productive economy” just as SOME bankers do the same. Likewise, SOME public servants do a great job relative to the compensation they receive while SOME bankers do the same. Generalizing about public servants and bankers with respect to sucking blood out of the economy is not intellectually honest.

Generally speaking, I’d say that the largest banks and largest public employees unions are, in fact, blood suckers, to use your terms. And, admittedly, the big banks are bigger blood suckers than the big unions. But once you get down to the local level, you find a lot of folks who are just trying to make a buck and do a decent job. But I think it’s very difficult to make generalizations about either group.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]

Bottom line, anyone who has not seen a pay cut these past few years is probably overpaid (others would do their jobs for significantly less). Whether or not that money coming out of my pocket is going to a public employer or a private employer doesn’t matter — I’m still overpaying. Why don’t *they* take a pay cut then, since they have such an issue with overcompensation?[/quote]

Arguably there’s the issue of “choice.” You have no choice where paying taxes are concerned. Where private companies are concerned, you can choose where to spend your dollars – even if it’s an issue of using a company with the “least overpaid” employees. There are all sorts of businesses that you can patronize in which the employees aren’t overpaid (even by your standard): co-ops for food, credit unions for banking, mutual insurance companies for insurance, etc. etc. If you’re patronizing businesses with overpaid employees (according to you) it’s probably in the name of “convenience”… which costs money. The problem with high ideals is that they’re seldom easy to live by.

[quote=CA renter]
And no, it’s not at all about the “free market.” As you know, people are essentially forced to use banks in order to conduct business these days. I don’t have a choice WRT overpaying their employees/executives. And let’s not forget the public money (TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS) being spent to prop them up and maintain their bonuses/compensation during this “Greatest Recession Since the Great Depression.”[/quote]

You are not “forced to use banks in order to conduct business” these days. I doubt your financial needs are so complicated that you can’t use a credit union for all of your banking needs. Even the CEOs of credit unions don’t make much money. Trust me, I’ve seen the stats. So, you should bank with a credit union if that’s where your conscience lies. Then you won’t be accused of hypocrisy by both maligning overpaid bankers while patronizing their businesses at the same time.

[quote=CA renter]
Bottom line, we are ALL forced to pay for things we don’t like. If I had to choose between paying bankers or public servants, the choice would be easy — public servants actually enhance our quality of life while bankers suck the blood out of the productive economy.[/quote]

I would argue that SOME public servants “suck the blood out of the productive economy” just as SOME bankers do the same. Likewise, SOME public servants do a great job relative to the compensation they receive while SOME bankers do the same. Generalizing about public servants and bankers with respect to sucking blood out of the economy is not intellectually honest.

Generally speaking, I’d say that the largest banks and largest public employees unions are, in fact, blood suckers, to use your terms. And, admittedly, the big banks are bigger blood suckers than the big unions. But once you get down to the local level, you find a lot of folks who are just trying to make a buck and do a decent job. But I think it’s very difficult to make generalizations about either group.

[Author]

Posts