OT: Public pay & benefits

[PCinSD]

You can’t compare military pay to local police/fire pay. The locals aren’t dodging bullets and running over landmines in Afghanistan. The local police/fire have procedures and Unions that generally prohibit them from getting in harms way. Most cops never fire their weapon in their career. All of the arguments made about how “dangerous” and arduous firefighters and cops jobs are acknowledged in this thread. It still doesn’t justify the pay they receive. Ignoring the salary, it’s the enormous pensions that seems to be the concern, and which I agree are too large given the job they perform and income they receive.

[CA renter]

[quote=davelj]
That makes sense but if 73% of all fire fighters are indeed volunteers and we know that a huge proportion of the total population in the U.S. is in urban areas, then there must be a lot of volunteers in some major metropolitan areas as well. I agree that the rural model doesn’t translate perfectly to the urban model, but clearly a lot of folks are willing to do this work on a very part-time basis for free. In my view, we should figure out how to use these folks.[/quote]

I could be wrong, but I think you’ve just nailed one of the biggest reasons why 73% of firefighters are volunteers. If each part-time FF is considered a “volunteer,” then it makes sense that more firefighters are volunteers vs professionals. Many of them might work for a day or two a month (maybe more, maybe less), so you need far more of them to get the same coverage. The professional departments would have fewer firefighters because everyone is full-time. Just guessing this, but your post actually made me realize this is a big reason for the population difference between volunteer and professional departments.

Trying to clarify it a bit: it’s possible that 73% of the firefighters are covering only 10-20% (or less) of the calls. I don’t know this, though. Will try to find numbers.

Still trying to find something definitive, and will post it if/when I find it.

[CA renter]

[quote=davelj]
That makes sense but if 73% of all fire fighters are indeed volunteers and we know that a huge proportion of the total population in the U.S. is in urban areas, then there must be a lot of volunteers in some major metropolitan areas as well. I agree that the rural model doesn’t translate perfectly to the urban model, but clearly a lot of folks are willing to do this work on a very part-time basis for free. In my view, we should figure out how to use these folks.[/quote]

I could be wrong, but I think you’ve just nailed one of the biggest reasons why 73% of firefighters are volunteers. If each part-time FF is considered a “volunteer,” then it makes sense that more firefighters are volunteers vs professionals. Many of them might work for a day or two a month (maybe more, maybe less), so you need far more of them to get the same coverage. The professional departments would have fewer firefighters because everyone is full-time. Just guessing this, but your post actually made me realize this is a big reason for the population difference between volunteer and professional departments.

Trying to clarify it a bit: it’s possible that 73% of the firefighters are covering only 10-20% (or less) of the calls. I don’t know this, though. Will try to find numbers.

Still trying to find something definitive, and will post it if/when I find it.

[CA renter]

[quote=davelj]
That makes sense but if 73% of all fire fighters are indeed volunteers and we know that a huge proportion of the total population in the U.S. is in urban areas, then there must be a lot of volunteers in some major metropolitan areas as well. I agree that the rural model doesn’t translate perfectly to the urban model, but clearly a lot of folks are willing to do this work on a very part-time basis for free. In my view, we should figure out how to use these folks.[/quote]

I could be wrong, but I think you’ve just nailed one of the biggest reasons why 73% of firefighters are volunteers. If each part-time FF is considered a “volunteer,” then it makes sense that more firefighters are volunteers vs professionals. Many of them might work for a day or two a month (maybe more, maybe less), so you need far more of them to get the same coverage. The professional departments would have fewer firefighters because everyone is full-time. Just guessing this, but your post actually made me realize this is a big reason for the population difference between volunteer and professional departments.

Trying to clarify it a bit: it’s possible that 73% of the firefighters are covering only 10-20% (or less) of the calls. I don’t know this, though. Will try to find numbers.

Still trying to find something definitive, and will post it if/when I find it.

[CA renter]

[quote=davelj]
That makes sense but if 73% of all fire fighters are indeed volunteers and we know that a huge proportion of the total population in the U.S. is in urban areas, then there must be a lot of volunteers in some major metropolitan areas as well. I agree that the rural model doesn’t translate perfectly to the urban model, but clearly a lot of folks are willing to do this work on a very part-time basis for free. In my view, we should figure out how to use these folks.[/quote]

I could be wrong, but I think you’ve just nailed one of the biggest reasons why 73% of firefighters are volunteers. If each part-time FF is considered a “volunteer,” then it makes sense that more firefighters are volunteers vs professionals. Many of them might work for a day or two a month (maybe more, maybe less), so you need far more of them to get the same coverage. The professional departments would have fewer firefighters because everyone is full-time. Just guessing this, but your post actually made me realize this is a big reason for the population difference between volunteer and professional departments.

Trying to clarify it a bit: it’s possible that 73% of the firefighters are covering only 10-20% (or less) of the calls. I don’t know this, though. Will try to find numbers.

Still trying to find something definitive, and will post it if/when I find it.

[CA renter]

[quote=davelj]
That makes sense but if 73% of all fire fighters are indeed volunteers and we know that a huge proportion of the total population in the U.S. is in urban areas, then there must be a lot of volunteers in some major metropolitan areas as well. I agree that the rural model doesn’t translate perfectly to the urban model, but clearly a lot of folks are willing to do this work on a very part-time basis for free. In my view, we should figure out how to use these folks.[/quote]

I could be wrong, but I think you’ve just nailed one of the biggest reasons why 73% of firefighters are volunteers. If each part-time FF is considered a “volunteer,” then it makes sense that more firefighters are volunteers vs professionals. Many of them might work for a day or two a month (maybe more, maybe less), so you need far more of them to get the same coverage. The professional departments would have fewer firefighters because everyone is full-time. Just guessing this, but your post actually made me realize this is a big reason for the population difference between volunteer and professional departments.

Trying to clarify it a bit: it’s possible that 73% of the firefighters are covering only 10-20% (or less) of the calls. I don’t know this, though. Will try to find numbers.

Still trying to find something definitive, and will post it if/when I find it.

[CA renter]

[quote=pabloesqobar]You can’t compare military pay to local police/fire pay. The locals aren’t dodging bullets and running over landmines in Afghanistan. The local police/fire have procedures and Unions that generally prohibit them from getting in harms way. Most cops never fire their weapon in their career. All of the arguments made about how “dangerous” and arduous firefighters and cops jobs are acknowledged in this thread. It still doesn’t justify the pay they receive. Ignoring the salary, it’s the enormous pensions that seems to be the concern, and which I agree are too large given the job they perform and income they receive.[/quote]

I won’t disagree at all about the pensions, and have repeated this over and over, again. The problem is that older firefighters who are contractually guaranteed to get that pension have made financial plans based on those numbers, like buying a house, contributing less to other retirement investments, etc. Not saying that these decisions are good or bad, but that anyone else here who had those contracts would have done the same thing, especially when they were told repeatedly that the pension plans were “superfunded” (overfunded).
———–

Government Code Section 20816 provides that, if the Chief Actuary determines that an
employer’s rate plan is superfunded (actuarial value of assets exceeds the present
value of benefits) as of the most recently completed valuation, the employer may cover
their employees’ normal member contributions (defined as required member
contributions) using their employer assets. This would necessitate transferring assets
within the Public Employees’ Retirement Fund (PERF) from the employer account to the
member accumulated contribution accounts.
Our Actuarial Office has identified your agency as having a superfunded rate plan(s) for
the rate plan year of July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2008, based on the actuarial
valuation as of June 30, 2005.
We urge you to contact your CalPERS’ actuary to discuss what may happen to
your rates before you decide to use the vouchers to pay normal member
contributions.

http://www.calpers.ca.gov/eip-docs/employer/cir-ltrs/2007/200-028-07-w-attachments.pdf
————–

Let’s say your employer, as part of your contract negotiations in 1999, offered you some kind of deferred benefit, like a pension. Let’s say that you opted to accept that benefit in lieu of higher pay or some other benefit. If you accepted it, would you not get a bit upset if 10-20 years down the road, they decided that they “couldn’t afford” it and now want to reduce it, or do away with it altogether?

Let’s say that you knew they could not technically go bankrupt or default on your contract; would you hold their feet to the fire, especially if you had run your finances in a different way than you would have if you had known this benefit wouldn’t be there when it was time to pay up?

How would you feel if people who were “watchdogs” in your industry went around to the media trying to portray you (the employees) as “lazy, greedy thugs” just because you expect your employer to abide by the contract? What if they tried to rile up the masses so that the masses (who have no understanding of your business, or what your agreements/contract were, don’t know what caused the “crisis,” or who don’t understand that the managers were the ones who caused your company to fail) started spewing vitriol and hateful lies about you on all kinds of internet blogs and in the media…to the point that it became part of the national discourse?

How would you feel?

[CA renter]

[quote=pabloesqobar]You can’t compare military pay to local police/fire pay. The locals aren’t dodging bullets and running over landmines in Afghanistan. The local police/fire have procedures and Unions that generally prohibit them from getting in harms way. Most cops never fire their weapon in their career. All of the arguments made about how “dangerous” and arduous firefighters and cops jobs are acknowledged in this thread. It still doesn’t justify the pay they receive. Ignoring the salary, it’s the enormous pensions that seems to be the concern, and which I agree are too large given the job they perform and income they receive.[/quote]

I won’t disagree at all about the pensions, and have repeated this over and over, again. The problem is that older firefighters who are contractually guaranteed to get that pension have made financial plans based on those numbers, like buying a house, contributing less to other retirement investments, etc. Not saying that these decisions are good or bad, but that anyone else here who had those contracts would have done the same thing, especially when they were told repeatedly that the pension plans were “superfunded” (overfunded).
———–

Government Code Section 20816 provides that, if the Chief Actuary determines that an
employer’s rate plan is superfunded (actuarial value of assets exceeds the present
value of benefits) as of the most recently completed valuation, the employer may cover
their employees’ normal member contributions (defined as required member
contributions) using their employer assets. This would necessitate transferring assets
within the Public Employees’ Retirement Fund (PERF) from the employer account to the
member accumulated contribution accounts.
Our Actuarial Office has identified your agency as having a superfunded rate plan(s) for
the rate plan year of July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2008, based on the actuarial
valuation as of June 30, 2005.
We urge you to contact your CalPERS’ actuary to discuss what may happen to
your rates before you decide to use the vouchers to pay normal member
contributions.

http://www.calpers.ca.gov/eip-docs/employer/cir-ltrs/2007/200-028-07-w-attachments.pdf
————–

Let’s say your employer, as part of your contract negotiations in 1999, offered you some kind of deferred benefit, like a pension. Let’s say that you opted to accept that benefit in lieu of higher pay or some other benefit. If you accepted it, would you not get a bit upset if 10-20 years down the road, they decided that they “couldn’t afford” it and now want to reduce it, or do away with it altogether?

Let’s say that you knew they could not technically go bankrupt or default on your contract; would you hold their feet to the fire, especially if you had run your finances in a different way than you would have if you had known this benefit wouldn’t be there when it was time to pay up?

How would you feel if people who were “watchdogs” in your industry went around to the media trying to portray you (the employees) as “lazy, greedy thugs” just because you expect your employer to abide by the contract? What if they tried to rile up the masses so that the masses (who have no understanding of your business, or what your agreements/contract were, don’t know what caused the “crisis,” or who don’t understand that the managers were the ones who caused your company to fail) started spewing vitriol and hateful lies about you on all kinds of internet blogs and in the media…to the point that it became part of the national discourse?

How would you feel?

[CA renter]

[quote=pabloesqobar]You can’t compare military pay to local police/fire pay. The locals aren’t dodging bullets and running over landmines in Afghanistan. The local police/fire have procedures and Unions that generally prohibit them from getting in harms way. Most cops never fire their weapon in their career. All of the arguments made about how “dangerous” and arduous firefighters and cops jobs are acknowledged in this thread. It still doesn’t justify the pay they receive. Ignoring the salary, it’s the enormous pensions that seems to be the concern, and which I agree are too large given the job they perform and income they receive.[/quote]

I won’t disagree at all about the pensions, and have repeated this over and over, again. The problem is that older firefighters who are contractually guaranteed to get that pension have made financial plans based on those numbers, like buying a house, contributing less to other retirement investments, etc. Not saying that these decisions are good or bad, but that anyone else here who had those contracts would have done the same thing, especially when they were told repeatedly that the pension plans were “superfunded” (overfunded).
———–

Government Code Section 20816 provides that, if the Chief Actuary determines that an
employer’s rate plan is superfunded (actuarial value of assets exceeds the present
value of benefits) as of the most recently completed valuation, the employer may cover
their employees’ normal member contributions (defined as required member
contributions) using their employer assets. This would necessitate transferring assets
within the Public Employees’ Retirement Fund (PERF) from the employer account to the
member accumulated contribution accounts.
Our Actuarial Office has identified your agency as having a superfunded rate plan(s) for
the rate plan year of July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2008, based on the actuarial
valuation as of June 30, 2005.
We urge you to contact your CalPERS’ actuary to discuss what may happen to
your rates before you decide to use the vouchers to pay normal member
contributions.

http://www.calpers.ca.gov/eip-docs/employer/cir-ltrs/2007/200-028-07-w-attachments.pdf
————–

Let’s say your employer, as part of your contract negotiations in 1999, offered you some kind of deferred benefit, like a pension. Let’s say that you opted to accept that benefit in lieu of higher pay or some other benefit. If you accepted it, would you not get a bit upset if 10-20 years down the road, they decided that they “couldn’t afford” it and now want to reduce it, or do away with it altogether?

Let’s say that you knew they could not technically go bankrupt or default on your contract; would you hold their feet to the fire, especially if you had run your finances in a different way than you would have if you had known this benefit wouldn’t be there when it was time to pay up?

How would you feel if people who were “watchdogs” in your industry went around to the media trying to portray you (the employees) as “lazy, greedy thugs” just because you expect your employer to abide by the contract? What if they tried to rile up the masses so that the masses (who have no understanding of your business, or what your agreements/contract were, don’t know what caused the “crisis,” or who don’t understand that the managers were the ones who caused your company to fail) started spewing vitriol and hateful lies about you on all kinds of internet blogs and in the media…to the point that it became part of the national discourse?

How would you feel?

[CA renter]

[quote=pabloesqobar]You can’t compare military pay to local police/fire pay. The locals aren’t dodging bullets and running over landmines in Afghanistan. The local police/fire have procedures and Unions that generally prohibit them from getting in harms way. Most cops never fire their weapon in their career. All of the arguments made about how “dangerous” and arduous firefighters and cops jobs are acknowledged in this thread. It still doesn’t justify the pay they receive. Ignoring the salary, it’s the enormous pensions that seems to be the concern, and which I agree are too large given the job they perform and income they receive.[/quote]

I won’t disagree at all about the pensions, and have repeated this over and over, again. The problem is that older firefighters who are contractually guaranteed to get that pension have made financial plans based on those numbers, like buying a house, contributing less to other retirement investments, etc. Not saying that these decisions are good or bad, but that anyone else here who had those contracts would have done the same thing, especially when they were told repeatedly that the pension plans were “superfunded” (overfunded).
———–

Government Code Section 20816 provides that, if the Chief Actuary determines that an
employer’s rate plan is superfunded (actuarial value of assets exceeds the present
value of benefits) as of the most recently completed valuation, the employer may cover
their employees’ normal member contributions (defined as required member
contributions) using their employer assets. This would necessitate transferring assets
within the Public Employees’ Retirement Fund (PERF) from the employer account to the
member accumulated contribution accounts.
Our Actuarial Office has identified your agency as having a superfunded rate plan(s) for
the rate plan year of July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2008, based on the actuarial
valuation as of June 30, 2005.
We urge you to contact your CalPERS’ actuary to discuss what may happen to
your rates before you decide to use the vouchers to pay normal member
contributions.

http://www.calpers.ca.gov/eip-docs/employer/cir-ltrs/2007/200-028-07-w-attachments.pdf
————–

Let’s say your employer, as part of your contract negotiations in 1999, offered you some kind of deferred benefit, like a pension. Let’s say that you opted to accept that benefit in lieu of higher pay or some other benefit. If you accepted it, would you not get a bit upset if 10-20 years down the road, they decided that they “couldn’t afford” it and now want to reduce it, or do away with it altogether?

Let’s say that you knew they could not technically go bankrupt or default on your contract; would you hold their feet to the fire, especially if you had run your finances in a different way than you would have if you had known this benefit wouldn’t be there when it was time to pay up?

How would you feel if people who were “watchdogs” in your industry went around to the media trying to portray you (the employees) as “lazy, greedy thugs” just because you expect your employer to abide by the contract? What if they tried to rile up the masses so that the masses (who have no understanding of your business, or what your agreements/contract were, don’t know what caused the “crisis,” or who don’t understand that the managers were the ones who caused your company to fail) started spewing vitriol and hateful lies about you on all kinds of internet blogs and in the media…to the point that it became part of the national discourse?

How would you feel?

[CA renter]

[quote=pabloesqobar]You can’t compare military pay to local police/fire pay. The locals aren’t dodging bullets and running over landmines in Afghanistan. The local police/fire have procedures and Unions that generally prohibit them from getting in harms way. Most cops never fire their weapon in their career. All of the arguments made about how “dangerous” and arduous firefighters and cops jobs are acknowledged in this thread. It still doesn’t justify the pay they receive. Ignoring the salary, it’s the enormous pensions that seems to be the concern, and which I agree are too large given the job they perform and income they receive.[/quote]

I won’t disagree at all about the pensions, and have repeated this over and over, again. The problem is that older firefighters who are contractually guaranteed to get that pension have made financial plans based on those numbers, like buying a house, contributing less to other retirement investments, etc. Not saying that these decisions are good or bad, but that anyone else here who had those contracts would have done the same thing, especially when they were told repeatedly that the pension plans were “superfunded” (overfunded).
———–

Government Code Section 20816 provides that, if the Chief Actuary determines that an
employer’s rate plan is superfunded (actuarial value of assets exceeds the present
value of benefits) as of the most recently completed valuation, the employer may cover
their employees’ normal member contributions (defined as required member
contributions) using their employer assets. This would necessitate transferring assets
within the Public Employees’ Retirement Fund (PERF) from the employer account to the
member accumulated contribution accounts.
Our Actuarial Office has identified your agency as having a superfunded rate plan(s) for
the rate plan year of July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2008, based on the actuarial
valuation as of June 30, 2005.
We urge you to contact your CalPERS’ actuary to discuss what may happen to
your rates before you decide to use the vouchers to pay normal member
contributions.

http://www.calpers.ca.gov/eip-docs/employer/cir-ltrs/2007/200-028-07-w-attachments.pdf
————–

Let’s say your employer, as part of your contract negotiations in 1999, offered you some kind of deferred benefit, like a pension. Let’s say that you opted to accept that benefit in lieu of higher pay or some other benefit. If you accepted it, would you not get a bit upset if 10-20 years down the road, they decided that they “couldn’t afford” it and now want to reduce it, or do away with it altogether?

Let’s say that you knew they could not technically go bankrupt or default on your contract; would you hold their feet to the fire, especially if you had run your finances in a different way than you would have if you had known this benefit wouldn’t be there when it was time to pay up?

How would you feel if people who were “watchdogs” in your industry went around to the media trying to portray you (the employees) as “lazy, greedy thugs” just because you expect your employer to abide by the contract? What if they tried to rile up the masses so that the masses (who have no understanding of your business, or what your agreements/contract were, don’t know what caused the “crisis,” or who don’t understand that the managers were the ones who caused your company to fail) started spewing vitriol and hateful lies about you on all kinds of internet blogs and in the media…to the point that it became part of the national discourse?

How would you feel?

[faterikcartman]

Just because someone got a sweet deal yesterday doesn’t mean someone hired tomorrow needs to be offered the same deal.

Again, comparing groups or whether or not certain jobs are tough, etc., etc., ad nauseam, just muddies the water. All we should be looking at is if there are qualified people willing to do the job for less. I assert there are plenty.

[faterikcartman]

Just because someone got a sweet deal yesterday doesn’t mean someone hired tomorrow needs to be offered the same deal.

Again, comparing groups or whether or not certain jobs are tough, etc., etc., ad nauseam, just muddies the water. All we should be looking at is if there are qualified people willing to do the job for less. I assert there are plenty.

[faterikcartman]

Just because someone got a sweet deal yesterday doesn’t mean someone hired tomorrow needs to be offered the same deal.

Again, comparing groups or whether or not certain jobs are tough, etc., etc., ad nauseam, just muddies the water. All we should be looking at is if there are qualified people willing to do the job for less. I assert there are plenty.

[faterikcartman]

Just because someone got a sweet deal yesterday doesn’t mean someone hired tomorrow needs to be offered the same deal.

Again, comparing groups or whether or not certain jobs are tough, etc., etc., ad nauseam, just muddies the water. All we should be looking at is if there are qualified people willing to do the job for less. I assert there are plenty.

[Author]

Posts