OT: Public pay & benefits

[Coronita]

[quote=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?[/quote]

Like i said…Talk to any UAL pilot… The pensions were revised to save the company. Sometimes getting less than promised is still > getting nothing…Would it be better for our cities/state to file for BK?

Personally, I’m not too worried…Because there’s no question that either

1) We’re going to be pay a hell of lot more taxes in the short term, which will accelerate driving businesses out of CA/san diego…

or

2) Our city/states will file for BK… And as a result, contracts will be redone. At that point there will be no choice. Either get something less than promised OR get $0….It sucks for people that counted on a guarantee. But in life, there are no guarantees…

I don’t see why folks who are sitting on these pensions haven’t realized this yet…It has happened so many times in history, airline, auto workers,etc. Make no mistake, it’s going to happen again. Either negotiated ahead of time or in court.

[davelj]

[quote=flu]

I don’t see why folks who are sitting on these pensions haven’t realized this yet…It has happened so many times in history, airline, auto workers,etc. Make no mistake, it’s going to happen again. Either negotiated ahead of time or in court.[/quote]

File under: You can’t get blood from a stone.

And at some point the taxpayers will decide that they’re stones. But it’s hard to know in advance where the breaking point is. But I don’t think we’re too far off.

[davelj]

[quote=flu]

I don’t see why folks who are sitting on these pensions haven’t realized this yet…It has happened so many times in history, airline, auto workers,etc. Make no mistake, it’s going to happen again. Either negotiated ahead of time or in court.[/quote]

File under: You can’t get blood from a stone.

And at some point the taxpayers will decide that they’re stones. But it’s hard to know in advance where the breaking point is. But I don’t think we’re too far off.

[davelj]

[quote=flu]

I don’t see why folks who are sitting on these pensions haven’t realized this yet…It has happened so many times in history, airline, auto workers,etc. Make no mistake, it’s going to happen again. Either negotiated ahead of time or in court.[/quote]

File under: You can’t get blood from a stone.

And at some point the taxpayers will decide that they’re stones. But it’s hard to know in advance where the breaking point is. But I don’t think we’re too far off.

[davelj]

[quote=flu]

I don’t see why folks who are sitting on these pensions haven’t realized this yet…It has happened so many times in history, airline, auto workers,etc. Make no mistake, it’s going to happen again. Either negotiated ahead of time or in court.[/quote]

File under: You can’t get blood from a stone.

And at some point the taxpayers will decide that they’re stones. But it’s hard to know in advance where the breaking point is. But I don’t think we’re too far off.

[davelj]

[quote=flu]

I don’t see why folks who are sitting on these pensions haven’t realized this yet…It has happened so many times in history, airline, auto workers,etc. Make no mistake, it’s going to happen again. Either negotiated ahead of time or in court.[/quote]

File under: You can’t get blood from a stone.

And at some point the taxpayers will decide that they’re stones. But it’s hard to know in advance where the breaking point is. But I don’t think we’re too far off.

[jpinpb]

[quote=CA renter][quote=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.[/quote]

They’re not. That’s why many departments are going to a two-tier system where new hires are paid less and/or get fewer benefits.[/quote]

It will be interesting to see how many new people will stay on during the next bubble. I wonder how many will jump ship to make more money elsewhere if they don’t have incentive to stay on.

[jpinpb]

[quote=CA renter][quote=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.[/quote]

They’re not. That’s why many departments are going to a two-tier system where new hires are paid less and/or get fewer benefits.[/quote]

It will be interesting to see how many new people will stay on during the next bubble. I wonder how many will jump ship to make more money elsewhere if they don’t have incentive to stay on.

[jpinpb]

[quote=CA renter][quote=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.[/quote]

They’re not. That’s why many departments are going to a two-tier system where new hires are paid less and/or get fewer benefits.[/quote]

It will be interesting to see how many new people will stay on during the next bubble. I wonder how many will jump ship to make more money elsewhere if they don’t have incentive to stay on.

[jpinpb]

[quote=CA renter][quote=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.[/quote]

They’re not. That’s why many departments are going to a two-tier system where new hires are paid less and/or get fewer benefits.[/quote]

It will be interesting to see how many new people will stay on during the next bubble. I wonder how many will jump ship to make more money elsewhere if they don’t have incentive to stay on.

[jpinpb]

[quote=CA renter][quote=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.[/quote]

They’re not. That’s why many departments are going to a two-tier system where new hires are paid less and/or get fewer benefits.[/quote]

It will be interesting to see how many new people will stay on during the next bubble. I wonder how many will jump ship to make more money elsewhere if they don’t have incentive to stay on.

[jpinpb]

pri_dk – why on #3 would you counter w/housewives. I checked the link from IAFF to BLS and it was all workplace related. While I don’t want to undermine the work done by housewives, the life expectancy discussed was in work environments, not home environments.

For those who are claiming that fishermen, timber cutter, etc are in the charts found recently on line as more dangerous jobs, consider what the BLS has stated:

Although occupations such as timber cutter, fisher, seaman, and aircraft
pilot have the highest fatality rates, they are found in relatively
few parts of the United States. (See table 1.) Firefighters and law
enforcement personnel, on the other hand, are found in every community in the United States. Although the dangers are quite different, both groups experience high fatality rates and risks.

They go on to say what I was trying to say earlier and CAR also:

Fatality counts are important in evaluating hazardous jobs because the
number of workers killed indicates the magnitude of a safety problem for a group of workers. The 15 occupations with the highest number of
fatalities for 1997 are listed in table 1. Combined, these 15 occupations
accounted for almost half of the job-related fatalities in 1997. But
fatality counts by themselves do not indicate the relative risks of any particular job. Fatality rates depict a worker’s risk of incurring a fatal work injury within the employment group, and rates can be used for comparing risk among varying groups of workers

It is the risk. Every day a cop faces risk. Every time there is a fire, a fireman faces the risk. That they suffer no injuries is a credit to them. Nevertheless the risk is real.

Also, pri_dk – why would you even address No. 7. If one’s job is, for example, a tech job, chances are that person will not be exposed to the risk of, say, lung cancer, such as a fireman, or a gunshot injury.

Maybe there should be volunteer firemen if not just to dispel the conjecture that it’s an easy gravy train. Sure you are stuck in a firehouse w/a bunch of sweaty guys. But it’s not like a fraternity where you’re having fun partying.

[jpinpb]

pri_dk – why on #3 would you counter w/housewives. I checked the link from IAFF to BLS and it was all workplace related. While I don’t want to undermine the work done by housewives, the life expectancy discussed was in work environments, not home environments.

For those who are claiming that fishermen, timber cutter, etc are in the charts found recently on line as more dangerous jobs, consider what the BLS has stated:

Although occupations such as timber cutter, fisher, seaman, and aircraft
pilot have the highest fatality rates, they are found in relatively
few parts of the United States. (See table 1.) Firefighters and law
enforcement personnel, on the other hand, are found in every community in the United States. Although the dangers are quite different, both groups experience high fatality rates and risks.

They go on to say what I was trying to say earlier and CAR also:

Fatality counts are important in evaluating hazardous jobs because the
number of workers killed indicates the magnitude of a safety problem for a group of workers. The 15 occupations with the highest number of
fatalities for 1997 are listed in table 1. Combined, these 15 occupations
accounted for almost half of the job-related fatalities in 1997. But
fatality counts by themselves do not indicate the relative risks of any particular job. Fatality rates depict a worker’s risk of incurring a fatal work injury within the employment group, and rates can be used for comparing risk among varying groups of workers

It is the risk. Every day a cop faces risk. Every time there is a fire, a fireman faces the risk. That they suffer no injuries is a credit to them. Nevertheless the risk is real.

Also, pri_dk – why would you even address No. 7. If one’s job is, for example, a tech job, chances are that person will not be exposed to the risk of, say, lung cancer, such as a fireman, or a gunshot injury.

Maybe there should be volunteer firemen if not just to dispel the conjecture that it’s an easy gravy train. Sure you are stuck in a firehouse w/a bunch of sweaty guys. But it’s not like a fraternity where you’re having fun partying.

[jpinpb]

pri_dk – why on #3 would you counter w/housewives. I checked the link from IAFF to BLS and it was all workplace related. While I don’t want to undermine the work done by housewives, the life expectancy discussed was in work environments, not home environments.

For those who are claiming that fishermen, timber cutter, etc are in the charts found recently on line as more dangerous jobs, consider what the BLS has stated:

Although occupations such as timber cutter, fisher, seaman, and aircraft
pilot have the highest fatality rates, they are found in relatively
few parts of the United States. (See table 1.) Firefighters and law
enforcement personnel, on the other hand, are found in every community in the United States. Although the dangers are quite different, both groups experience high fatality rates and risks.

They go on to say what I was trying to say earlier and CAR also:

Fatality counts are important in evaluating hazardous jobs because the
number of workers killed indicates the magnitude of a safety problem for a group of workers. The 15 occupations with the highest number of
fatalities for 1997 are listed in table 1. Combined, these 15 occupations
accounted for almost half of the job-related fatalities in 1997. But
fatality counts by themselves do not indicate the relative risks of any particular job. Fatality rates depict a worker’s risk of incurring a fatal work injury within the employment group, and rates can be used for comparing risk among varying groups of workers

It is the risk. Every day a cop faces risk. Every time there is a fire, a fireman faces the risk. That they suffer no injuries is a credit to them. Nevertheless the risk is real.

Also, pri_dk – why would you even address No. 7. If one’s job is, for example, a tech job, chances are that person will not be exposed to the risk of, say, lung cancer, such as a fireman, or a gunshot injury.

Maybe there should be volunteer firemen if not just to dispel the conjecture that it’s an easy gravy train. Sure you are stuck in a firehouse w/a bunch of sweaty guys. But it’s not like a fraternity where you’re having fun partying.

[jpinpb]

pri_dk – why on #3 would you counter w/housewives. I checked the link from IAFF to BLS and it was all workplace related. While I don’t want to undermine the work done by housewives, the life expectancy discussed was in work environments, not home environments.

For those who are claiming that fishermen, timber cutter, etc are in the charts found recently on line as more dangerous jobs, consider what the BLS has stated:

Although occupations such as timber cutter, fisher, seaman, and aircraft
pilot have the highest fatality rates, they are found in relatively
few parts of the United States. (See table 1.) Firefighters and law
enforcement personnel, on the other hand, are found in every community in the United States. Although the dangers are quite different, both groups experience high fatality rates and risks.

They go on to say what I was trying to say earlier and CAR also:

Fatality counts are important in evaluating hazardous jobs because the
number of workers killed indicates the magnitude of a safety problem for a group of workers. The 15 occupations with the highest number of
fatalities for 1997 are listed in table 1. Combined, these 15 occupations
accounted for almost half of the job-related fatalities in 1997. But
fatality counts by themselves do not indicate the relative risks of any particular job. Fatality rates depict a worker’s risk of incurring a fatal work injury within the employment group, and rates can be used for comparing risk among varying groups of workers

It is the risk. Every day a cop faces risk. Every time there is a fire, a fireman faces the risk. That they suffer no injuries is a credit to them. Nevertheless the risk is real.

Also, pri_dk – why would you even address No. 7. If one’s job is, for example, a tech job, chances are that person will not be exposed to the risk of, say, lung cancer, such as a fireman, or a gunshot injury.

Maybe there should be volunteer firemen if not just to dispel the conjecture that it’s an easy gravy train. Sure you are stuck in a firehouse w/a bunch of sweaty guys. But it’s not like a fraternity where you’re having fun partying.

[Author]

Posts