OT: Public pay & benefits

[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.

[Coronita]

[quote=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.[/quote]

It depends how the rest of the economy is doing. I guarantee if the rest of the economy is in the tanks, despite newer folks grumbling for crappy compensation, they’re going to put up with the crap in order to pay for the bills….Plus there will be plenty of other people who probably would be looking for work.

Conversely, if the economy is doing well, there’s probably not a need to reduce pay to these people either, because in theory, more money will be coming in as tax dollars (more people spend more-> increased tax dollars).

There was this discussion about supply of labor versus availability of jobs, though I think in the past it was wrto the context of outsourcing….Ironically, it applies to this situation here when we have a large unemployed population and also when cities/states/etc are prepared to start laying off workers to cut expenses to meet budgets…It’s not going to be the soon to be retired with pension employees that are going to be getting the axe. Like i said, the younger generation people are the ones that are going to be getting the shaft so the older baby boomers can get their entitlements that should have never been promised in the first place….So…if you’re a generation X or younger, go find a baby boomer and kick his/her ass…(Just kidding of course :)) …..Baby Boomers….Bankrupting this nation one retiree at a time.

[Coronita]

[quote=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.[/quote]

It depends how the rest of the economy is doing. I guarantee if the rest of the economy is in the tanks, despite newer folks grumbling for crappy compensation, they’re going to put up with the crap in order to pay for the bills….Plus there will be plenty of other people who probably would be looking for work.

Conversely, if the economy is doing well, there’s probably not a need to reduce pay to these people either, because in theory, more money will be coming in as tax dollars (more people spend more-> increased tax dollars).

There was this discussion about supply of labor versus availability of jobs, though I think in the past it was wrto the context of outsourcing….Ironically, it applies to this situation here when we have a large unemployed population and also when cities/states/etc are prepared to start laying off workers to cut expenses to meet budgets…It’s not going to be the soon to be retired with pension employees that are going to be getting the axe. Like i said, the younger generation people are the ones that are going to be getting the shaft so the older baby boomers can get their entitlements that should have never been promised in the first place….So…if you’re a generation X or younger, go find a baby boomer and kick his/her ass…(Just kidding of course :)) …..Baby Boomers….Bankrupting this nation one retiree at a time.

[Coronita]

[quote=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.[/quote]

It depends how the rest of the economy is doing. I guarantee if the rest of the economy is in the tanks, despite newer folks grumbling for crappy compensation, they’re going to put up with the crap in order to pay for the bills….Plus there will be plenty of other people who probably would be looking for work.

Conversely, if the economy is doing well, there’s probably not a need to reduce pay to these people either, because in theory, more money will be coming in as tax dollars (more people spend more-> increased tax dollars).

There was this discussion about supply of labor versus availability of jobs, though I think in the past it was wrto the context of outsourcing….Ironically, it applies to this situation here when we have a large unemployed population and also when cities/states/etc are prepared to start laying off workers to cut expenses to meet budgets…It’s not going to be the soon to be retired with pension employees that are going to be getting the axe. Like i said, the younger generation people are the ones that are going to be getting the shaft so the older baby boomers can get their entitlements that should have never been promised in the first place….So…if you’re a generation X or younger, go find a baby boomer and kick his/her ass…(Just kidding of course :)) …..Baby Boomers….Bankrupting this nation one retiree at a time.

[Coronita]

[quote=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.[/quote]

It depends how the rest of the economy is doing. I guarantee if the rest of the economy is in the tanks, despite newer folks grumbling for crappy compensation, they’re going to put up with the crap in order to pay for the bills….Plus there will be plenty of other people who probably would be looking for work.

Conversely, if the economy is doing well, there’s probably not a need to reduce pay to these people either, because in theory, more money will be coming in as tax dollars (more people spend more-> increased tax dollars).

There was this discussion about supply of labor versus availability of jobs, though I think in the past it was wrto the context of outsourcing….Ironically, it applies to this situation here when we have a large unemployed population and also when cities/states/etc are prepared to start laying off workers to cut expenses to meet budgets…It’s not going to be the soon to be retired with pension employees that are going to be getting the axe. Like i said, the younger generation people are the ones that are going to be getting the shaft so the older baby boomers can get their entitlements that should have never been promised in the first place….So…if you’re a generation X or younger, go find a baby boomer and kick his/her ass…(Just kidding of course :)) …..Baby Boomers….Bankrupting this nation one retiree at a time.

[Coronita]

[quote=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.[/quote]

It depends how the rest of the economy is doing. I guarantee if the rest of the economy is in the tanks, despite newer folks grumbling for crappy compensation, they’re going to put up with the crap in order to pay for the bills….Plus there will be plenty of other people who probably would be looking for work.

Conversely, if the economy is doing well, there’s probably not a need to reduce pay to these people either, because in theory, more money will be coming in as tax dollars (more people spend more-> increased tax dollars).

There was this discussion about supply of labor versus availability of jobs, though I think in the past it was wrto the context of outsourcing….Ironically, it applies to this situation here when we have a large unemployed population and also when cities/states/etc are prepared to start laying off workers to cut expenses to meet budgets…It’s not going to be the soon to be retired with pension employees that are going to be getting the axe. Like i said, the younger generation people are the ones that are going to be getting the shaft so the older baby boomers can get their entitlements that should have never been promised in the first place….So…if you’re a generation X or younger, go find a baby boomer and kick his/her ass…(Just kidding of course :)) …..Baby Boomers….Bankrupting this nation one retiree at a time.

[jpinpb]

[quote=flu]
It depends how the rest of the economy is doing. I guarantee if the rest of the economy is in the tanks, despite newer folks grumbling for crappy compesnsation, they’re going to put up with the crap in order to pay for the bills….Plus there will be plenty of other people who probably would be looking for work.

Conversely, if the economy is doing well, there’s probably not a need to reduce pay to these people either, because in theory, more money will be coming in as tax dollars (more people spend more-> increased tax dollars).[/quote]

That would be fine if the City would actually give the money to the employees during the good times. But as is very obvious to me now, the pattern of government is to “Pay next Tuesday for a hamburger today” and when Tuesday comes around, cry about not having the money.

I know for a fact that there was a period of time when cops did not get a COL raise and instead they agreed to have the City put more money in the pension — at the time the City was making something like 18% ROI. So why didn’t the City just give them a raise instead, since they had the money?

Unfortunately, I think the cops got the bad end of the deal there b/c of course now the City doesn’t want to honor any contracts and is apparently successful in getting people to rally on their side against the cops.

That is why I brought up the bank contracts earlier. No difference. If a CEO or whoever can still get their ridiculously high bonus when taxpayers are footing the bill just b/c it was in the contract, well, certainly some guys putting his life on the line who has a contract for X should expect their end of the deal to be fulfilled.

[jpinpb]

[quote=flu]
It depends how the rest of the economy is doing. I guarantee if the rest of the economy is in the tanks, despite newer folks grumbling for crappy compesnsation, they’re going to put up with the crap in order to pay for the bills….Plus there will be plenty of other people who probably would be looking for work.

Conversely, if the economy is doing well, there’s probably not a need to reduce pay to these people either, because in theory, more money will be coming in as tax dollars (more people spend more-> increased tax dollars).[/quote]

That would be fine if the City would actually give the money to the employees during the good times. But as is very obvious to me now, the pattern of government is to “Pay next Tuesday for a hamburger today” and when Tuesday comes around, cry about not having the money.

I know for a fact that there was a period of time when cops did not get a COL raise and instead they agreed to have the City put more money in the pension — at the time the City was making something like 18% ROI. So why didn’t the City just give them a raise instead, since they had the money?

Unfortunately, I think the cops got the bad end of the deal there b/c of course now the City doesn’t want to honor any contracts and is apparently successful in getting people to rally on their side against the cops.

That is why I brought up the bank contracts earlier. No difference. If a CEO or whoever can still get their ridiculously high bonus when taxpayers are footing the bill just b/c it was in the contract, well, certainly some guys putting his life on the line who has a contract for X should expect their end of the deal to be fulfilled.

[jpinpb]

[quote=flu]
It depends how the rest of the economy is doing. I guarantee if the rest of the economy is in the tanks, despite newer folks grumbling for crappy compesnsation, they’re going to put up with the crap in order to pay for the bills….Plus there will be plenty of other people who probably would be looking for work.

Conversely, if the economy is doing well, there’s probably not a need to reduce pay to these people either, because in theory, more money will be coming in as tax dollars (more people spend more-> increased tax dollars).[/quote]

That would be fine if the City would actually give the money to the employees during the good times. But as is very obvious to me now, the pattern of government is to “Pay next Tuesday for a hamburger today” and when Tuesday comes around, cry about not having the money.

I know for a fact that there was a period of time when cops did not get a COL raise and instead they agreed to have the City put more money in the pension — at the time the City was making something like 18% ROI. So why didn’t the City just give them a raise instead, since they had the money?

Unfortunately, I think the cops got the bad end of the deal there b/c of course now the City doesn’t want to honor any contracts and is apparently successful in getting people to rally on their side against the cops.

That is why I brought up the bank contracts earlier. No difference. If a CEO or whoever can still get their ridiculously high bonus when taxpayers are footing the bill just b/c it was in the contract, well, certainly some guys putting his life on the line who has a contract for X should expect their end of the deal to be fulfilled.

[jpinpb]

[quote=flu]
It depends how the rest of the economy is doing. I guarantee if the rest of the economy is in the tanks, despite newer folks grumbling for crappy compesnsation, they’re going to put up with the crap in order to pay for the bills….Plus there will be plenty of other people who probably would be looking for work.

Conversely, if the economy is doing well, there’s probably not a need to reduce pay to these people either, because in theory, more money will be coming in as tax dollars (more people spend more-> increased tax dollars).[/quote]

That would be fine if the City would actually give the money to the employees during the good times. But as is very obvious to me now, the pattern of government is to “Pay next Tuesday for a hamburger today” and when Tuesday comes around, cry about not having the money.

I know for a fact that there was a period of time when cops did not get a COL raise and instead they agreed to have the City put more money in the pension — at the time the City was making something like 18% ROI. So why didn’t the City just give them a raise instead, since they had the money?

Unfortunately, I think the cops got the bad end of the deal there b/c of course now the City doesn’t want to honor any contracts and is apparently successful in getting people to rally on their side against the cops.

That is why I brought up the bank contracts earlier. No difference. If a CEO or whoever can still get their ridiculously high bonus when taxpayers are footing the bill just b/c it was in the contract, well, certainly some guys putting his life on the line who has a contract for X should expect their end of the deal to be fulfilled.

[jpinpb]

[quote=flu]
It depends how the rest of the economy is doing. I guarantee if the rest of the economy is in the tanks, despite newer folks grumbling for crappy compesnsation, they’re going to put up with the crap in order to pay for the bills….Plus there will be plenty of other people who probably would be looking for work.

Conversely, if the economy is doing well, there’s probably not a need to reduce pay to these people either, because in theory, more money will be coming in as tax dollars (more people spend more-> increased tax dollars).[/quote]

That would be fine if the City would actually give the money to the employees during the good times. But as is very obvious to me now, the pattern of government is to “Pay next Tuesday for a hamburger today” and when Tuesday comes around, cry about not having the money.

I know for a fact that there was a period of time when cops did not get a COL raise and instead they agreed to have the City put more money in the pension — at the time the City was making something like 18% ROI. So why didn’t the City just give them a raise instead, since they had the money?

Unfortunately, I think the cops got the bad end of the deal there b/c of course now the City doesn’t want to honor any contracts and is apparently successful in getting people to rally on their side against the cops.

That is why I brought up the bank contracts earlier. No difference. If a CEO or whoever can still get their ridiculously high bonus when taxpayers are footing the bill just b/c it was in the contract, well, certainly some guys putting his life on the line who has a contract for X should expect their end of the deal to be fulfilled.

[jficquette]

[quote=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.[/quote]

We are here now. Done with tax increases. No more increases. From here on out it’s spending cuts.

[jficquette]

[quote=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.[/quote]

We are here now. Done with tax increases. No more increases. From here on out it’s spending cuts.

[jficquette]

[quote=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.[/quote]

We are here now. Done with tax increases. No more increases. From here on out it’s spending cuts.

[jficquette]

[quote=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.[/quote]

We are here now. Done with tax increases. No more increases. From here on out it’s spending cuts.

[Author]

Posts