OT: Public pay & benefits

[paramount]

I think a firefighter is a higher skilled job than the average street cop.

Like I said before, in a pinch I could function as a cop – but not really a firefighter (from the medical standpoint) except to fight basic fires.

Neither could do my job in all probability; and realistically a cop and a firefighter are fairly low skilled jobs IMO.

That’s not to say I don’t appreciate their services…(although I do fear the police).

[CA renter]

[quote=no_such_reality]Still trotting that out CA Renter? The numbers are right in front of your own quoted site, it’s the next column that shows ACTUAL earnings.

Entries like this one are not uncommon.
Fire Department Fire Engineer Min $61,588 Max $74,464 Total 2009 Wages $104,087

17 of 26 Fire Fighter 1’s made more then their published “MAX” pay.[/quote]

This shows how little you and sdr understand about these jobs.

Firefighters have a standard work week of ~56 hours/week — and that’s what those salary tables show in the “min” and “max” columns. In the police departments I’m aware of, their standard work week is ~42 hours/week. Cops get paid somewhat more per hour than firefighters (as they should, IMHO).

The reason for the discrepancy in total earnings is entirely due to overtime. Working 70 hours/week isn’t even close to the hours these highly-paid firefighters are putting in — and not all firefighters are earning these numbers.

Like jp said, this overtime is NOT a benefit to most firefighters. It is forced overtime, and you usually find out about it at the last minute. The firefighters whose pay is bandied about on blogs and newspaper articles are the ones who spend most of their time at work, not seeing their families but for a few days per month (unlike their private sector peers, we’re talking about 24/7 absence — no dinners, or sleeping at home).

Again, if you want to do it, feel free to step up (and yes, there are departments that are hiring). If people in the private sector want to whine about their compensation, then they need to look in the mirror. They’re the ones who let the PTB brainwash them into thinking “unions are bad,” so now they reap the consequences of that philosophy. It’s not the fault of the union workers that private sector employees are underpaid or overworked, they brought that on themselves.

[CA renter]

[quote=no_such_reality]Still trotting that out CA Renter? The numbers are right in front of your own quoted site, it’s the next column that shows ACTUAL earnings.

Entries like this one are not uncommon.
Fire Department Fire Engineer Min $61,588 Max $74,464 Total 2009 Wages $104,087

17 of 26 Fire Fighter 1’s made more then their published “MAX” pay.[/quote]

This shows how little you and sdr understand about these jobs.

Firefighters have a standard work week of ~56 hours/week — and that’s what those salary tables show in the “min” and “max” columns. In the police departments I’m aware of, their standard work week is ~42 hours/week. Cops get paid somewhat more per hour than firefighters (as they should, IMHO).

The reason for the discrepancy in total earnings is entirely due to overtime. Working 70 hours/week isn’t even close to the hours these highly-paid firefighters are putting in — and not all firefighters are earning these numbers.

Like jp said, this overtime is NOT a benefit to most firefighters. It is forced overtime, and you usually find out about it at the last minute. The firefighters whose pay is bandied about on blogs and newspaper articles are the ones who spend most of their time at work, not seeing their families but for a few days per month (unlike their private sector peers, we’re talking about 24/7 absence — no dinners, or sleeping at home).

Again, if you want to do it, feel free to step up (and yes, there are departments that are hiring). If people in the private sector want to whine about their compensation, then they need to look in the mirror. They’re the ones who let the PTB brainwash them into thinking “unions are bad,” so now they reap the consequences of that philosophy. It’s not the fault of the union workers that private sector employees are underpaid or overworked, they brought that on themselves.

[CA renter]

[quote=no_such_reality]Still trotting that out CA Renter? The numbers are right in front of your own quoted site, it’s the next column that shows ACTUAL earnings.

Entries like this one are not uncommon.
Fire Department Fire Engineer Min $61,588 Max $74,464 Total 2009 Wages $104,087

17 of 26 Fire Fighter 1’s made more then their published “MAX” pay.[/quote]

This shows how little you and sdr understand about these jobs.

Firefighters have a standard work week of ~56 hours/week — and that’s what those salary tables show in the “min” and “max” columns. In the police departments I’m aware of, their standard work week is ~42 hours/week. Cops get paid somewhat more per hour than firefighters (as they should, IMHO).

The reason for the discrepancy in total earnings is entirely due to overtime. Working 70 hours/week isn’t even close to the hours these highly-paid firefighters are putting in — and not all firefighters are earning these numbers.

Like jp said, this overtime is NOT a benefit to most firefighters. It is forced overtime, and you usually find out about it at the last minute. The firefighters whose pay is bandied about on blogs and newspaper articles are the ones who spend most of their time at work, not seeing their families but for a few days per month (unlike their private sector peers, we’re talking about 24/7 absence — no dinners, or sleeping at home).

Again, if you want to do it, feel free to step up (and yes, there are departments that are hiring). If people in the private sector want to whine about their compensation, then they need to look in the mirror. They’re the ones who let the PTB brainwash them into thinking “unions are bad,” so now they reap the consequences of that philosophy. It’s not the fault of the union workers that private sector employees are underpaid or overworked, they brought that on themselves.

[CA renter]

[quote=no_such_reality]Still trotting that out CA Renter? The numbers are right in front of your own quoted site, it’s the next column that shows ACTUAL earnings.

Entries like this one are not uncommon.
Fire Department Fire Engineer Min $61,588 Max $74,464 Total 2009 Wages $104,087

17 of 26 Fire Fighter 1’s made more then their published “MAX” pay.[/quote]

This shows how little you and sdr understand about these jobs.

Firefighters have a standard work week of ~56 hours/week — and that’s what those salary tables show in the “min” and “max” columns. In the police departments I’m aware of, their standard work week is ~42 hours/week. Cops get paid somewhat more per hour than firefighters (as they should, IMHO).

The reason for the discrepancy in total earnings is entirely due to overtime. Working 70 hours/week isn’t even close to the hours these highly-paid firefighters are putting in — and not all firefighters are earning these numbers.

Like jp said, this overtime is NOT a benefit to most firefighters. It is forced overtime, and you usually find out about it at the last minute. The firefighters whose pay is bandied about on blogs and newspaper articles are the ones who spend most of their time at work, not seeing their families but for a few days per month (unlike their private sector peers, we’re talking about 24/7 absence — no dinners, or sleeping at home).

Again, if you want to do it, feel free to step up (and yes, there are departments that are hiring). If people in the private sector want to whine about their compensation, then they need to look in the mirror. They’re the ones who let the PTB brainwash them into thinking “unions are bad,” so now they reap the consequences of that philosophy. It’s not the fault of the union workers that private sector employees are underpaid or overworked, they brought that on themselves.

[CA renter]

[quote=no_such_reality]Still trotting that out CA Renter? The numbers are right in front of your own quoted site, it’s the next column that shows ACTUAL earnings.

Entries like this one are not uncommon.
Fire Department Fire Engineer Min $61,588 Max $74,464 Total 2009 Wages $104,087

17 of 26 Fire Fighter 1’s made more then their published “MAX” pay.[/quote]

This shows how little you and sdr understand about these jobs.

Firefighters have a standard work week of ~56 hours/week — and that’s what those salary tables show in the “min” and “max” columns. In the police departments I’m aware of, their standard work week is ~42 hours/week. Cops get paid somewhat more per hour than firefighters (as they should, IMHO).

The reason for the discrepancy in total earnings is entirely due to overtime. Working 70 hours/week isn’t even close to the hours these highly-paid firefighters are putting in — and not all firefighters are earning these numbers.

Like jp said, this overtime is NOT a benefit to most firefighters. It is forced overtime, and you usually find out about it at the last minute. The firefighters whose pay is bandied about on blogs and newspaper articles are the ones who spend most of their time at work, not seeing their families but for a few days per month (unlike their private sector peers, we’re talking about 24/7 absence — no dinners, or sleeping at home).

Again, if you want to do it, feel free to step up (and yes, there are departments that are hiring). If people in the private sector want to whine about their compensation, then they need to look in the mirror. They’re the ones who let the PTB brainwash them into thinking “unions are bad,” so now they reap the consequences of that philosophy. It’s not the fault of the union workers that private sector employees are underpaid or overworked, they brought that on themselves.

[CA renter]

[quote=faterikcartman][quote=jpinpb]nsr – I would imagine that the increase in wage is OT. Before anyone goes on about OT being a good thing, many times it is just not a choice or option. It is a requirement. Even when they say it’s voluntary, if you don’t do it, you’re not a team player. Yes, they get compensated. But many times I’m sure they would rather be w/their family or surfing or riding dirt bikes or whatever hobbies people have in their lives. And if there’s a fire, they would work however long and necessary and required until the fire is out and that often is many days on end. The OT is not a plus, even though they get compensated for it. And as CAR alluded, it is still cheaper to pay the overtime, than hire new people.[/quote]

Give us a break. I’m sure I’m not the only one here who has worked in the private sector working 70+ hour weeks without ANY additional pay. It’s called working on a salary and you stay in the office all night and on weekends because you’ve got a job to do and you want to keep it.

Moreover, I could be wrong, but I think sdr’s numbers understate the true compensation by quite a bit. There are also benefits and retirement that probably add about $40,000 a year to those numbers.

And those salary range numbers — which don’t reflect real compensation — explain a lot about why more folks don’t go out for these jobs. As the real numbers that sdr pointed out get out there more and more people are going to be trying to sign up for the gravy train.[/quote]

BTW, “sitting in an office” working overtime is very different than what firefighters and cops have to do.

The largest chunk of overtime for firefighters is earned during fire season. They are working 12-24 hours at a time (I’ve known some who were awake for five days straight), breathing smoke and working in extremely hot, dangerous conditions, sleeping in the dirt or on top of fire engines for a few hours at a time, etc. They can be deployed for weeks or even months at a time (that’s where those really high O/T numbers come from). If you think they’re going to do that for free, you’re crazy.

[CA renter]

[quote=faterikcartman][quote=jpinpb]nsr – I would imagine that the increase in wage is OT. Before anyone goes on about OT being a good thing, many times it is just not a choice or option. It is a requirement. Even when they say it’s voluntary, if you don’t do it, you’re not a team player. Yes, they get compensated. But many times I’m sure they would rather be w/their family or surfing or riding dirt bikes or whatever hobbies people have in their lives. And if there’s a fire, they would work however long and necessary and required until the fire is out and that often is many days on end. The OT is not a plus, even though they get compensated for it. And as CAR alluded, it is still cheaper to pay the overtime, than hire new people.[/quote]

Give us a break. I’m sure I’m not the only one here who has worked in the private sector working 70+ hour weeks without ANY additional pay. It’s called working on a salary and you stay in the office all night and on weekends because you’ve got a job to do and you want to keep it.

Moreover, I could be wrong, but I think sdr’s numbers understate the true compensation by quite a bit. There are also benefits and retirement that probably add about $40,000 a year to those numbers.

And those salary range numbers — which don’t reflect real compensation — explain a lot about why more folks don’t go out for these jobs. As the real numbers that sdr pointed out get out there more and more people are going to be trying to sign up for the gravy train.[/quote]

BTW, “sitting in an office” working overtime is very different than what firefighters and cops have to do.

The largest chunk of overtime for firefighters is earned during fire season. They are working 12-24 hours at a time (I’ve known some who were awake for five days straight), breathing smoke and working in extremely hot, dangerous conditions, sleeping in the dirt or on top of fire engines for a few hours at a time, etc. They can be deployed for weeks or even months at a time (that’s where those really high O/T numbers come from). If you think they’re going to do that for free, you’re crazy.

[CA renter]

[quote=faterikcartman][quote=jpinpb]nsr – I would imagine that the increase in wage is OT. Before anyone goes on about OT being a good thing, many times it is just not a choice or option. It is a requirement. Even when they say it’s voluntary, if you don’t do it, you’re not a team player. Yes, they get compensated. But many times I’m sure they would rather be w/their family or surfing or riding dirt bikes or whatever hobbies people have in their lives. And if there’s a fire, they would work however long and necessary and required until the fire is out and that often is many days on end. The OT is not a plus, even though they get compensated for it. And as CAR alluded, it is still cheaper to pay the overtime, than hire new people.[/quote]

Give us a break. I’m sure I’m not the only one here who has worked in the private sector working 70+ hour weeks without ANY additional pay. It’s called working on a salary and you stay in the office all night and on weekends because you’ve got a job to do and you want to keep it.

Moreover, I could be wrong, but I think sdr’s numbers understate the true compensation by quite a bit. There are also benefits and retirement that probably add about $40,000 a year to those numbers.

And those salary range numbers — which don’t reflect real compensation — explain a lot about why more folks don’t go out for these jobs. As the real numbers that sdr pointed out get out there more and more people are going to be trying to sign up for the gravy train.[/quote]

BTW, “sitting in an office” working overtime is very different than what firefighters and cops have to do.

The largest chunk of overtime for firefighters is earned during fire season. They are working 12-24 hours at a time (I’ve known some who were awake for five days straight), breathing smoke and working in extremely hot, dangerous conditions, sleeping in the dirt or on top of fire engines for a few hours at a time, etc. They can be deployed for weeks or even months at a time (that’s where those really high O/T numbers come from). If you think they’re going to do that for free, you’re crazy.

[CA renter]

[quote=faterikcartman][quote=jpinpb]nsr – I would imagine that the increase in wage is OT. Before anyone goes on about OT being a good thing, many times it is just not a choice or option. It is a requirement. Even when they say it’s voluntary, if you don’t do it, you’re not a team player. Yes, they get compensated. But many times I’m sure they would rather be w/their family or surfing or riding dirt bikes or whatever hobbies people have in their lives. And if there’s a fire, they would work however long and necessary and required until the fire is out and that often is many days on end. The OT is not a plus, even though they get compensated for it. And as CAR alluded, it is still cheaper to pay the overtime, than hire new people.[/quote]

Give us a break. I’m sure I’m not the only one here who has worked in the private sector working 70+ hour weeks without ANY additional pay. It’s called working on a salary and you stay in the office all night and on weekends because you’ve got a job to do and you want to keep it.

Moreover, I could be wrong, but I think sdr’s numbers understate the true compensation by quite a bit. There are also benefits and retirement that probably add about $40,000 a year to those numbers.

And those salary range numbers — which don’t reflect real compensation — explain a lot about why more folks don’t go out for these jobs. As the real numbers that sdr pointed out get out there more and more people are going to be trying to sign up for the gravy train.[/quote]

BTW, “sitting in an office” working overtime is very different than what firefighters and cops have to do.

The largest chunk of overtime for firefighters is earned during fire season. They are working 12-24 hours at a time (I’ve known some who were awake for five days straight), breathing smoke and working in extremely hot, dangerous conditions, sleeping in the dirt or on top of fire engines for a few hours at a time, etc. They can be deployed for weeks or even months at a time (that’s where those really high O/T numbers come from). If you think they’re going to do that for free, you’re crazy.

[CA renter]

[quote=faterikcartman][quote=jpinpb]nsr – I would imagine that the increase in wage is OT. Before anyone goes on about OT being a good thing, many times it is just not a choice or option. It is a requirement. Even when they say it’s voluntary, if you don’t do it, you’re not a team player. Yes, they get compensated. But many times I’m sure they would rather be w/their family or surfing or riding dirt bikes or whatever hobbies people have in their lives. And if there’s a fire, they would work however long and necessary and required until the fire is out and that often is many days on end. The OT is not a plus, even though they get compensated for it. And as CAR alluded, it is still cheaper to pay the overtime, than hire new people.[/quote]

Give us a break. I’m sure I’m not the only one here who has worked in the private sector working 70+ hour weeks without ANY additional pay. It’s called working on a salary and you stay in the office all night and on weekends because you’ve got a job to do and you want to keep it.

Moreover, I could be wrong, but I think sdr’s numbers understate the true compensation by quite a bit. There are also benefits and retirement that probably add about $40,000 a year to those numbers.

And those salary range numbers — which don’t reflect real compensation — explain a lot about why more folks don’t go out for these jobs. As the real numbers that sdr pointed out get out there more and more people are going to be trying to sign up for the gravy train.[/quote]

BTW, “sitting in an office” working overtime is very different than what firefighters and cops have to do.

The largest chunk of overtime for firefighters is earned during fire season. They are working 12-24 hours at a time (I’ve known some who were awake for five days straight), breathing smoke and working in extremely hot, dangerous conditions, sleeping in the dirt or on top of fire engines for a few hours at a time, etc. They can be deployed for weeks or even months at a time (that’s where those really high O/T numbers come from). If you think they’re going to do that for free, you’re crazy.

[CA renter]

[quote=sdrealtor]Thank you NSR! CAR you are quoted posted salary ranges not ACTUAL EARNINGS. My facts are facts showing what they took home while yours are the myth of salary ranges.

A corrollary would be for you to post the salaries of the “captains of industry” which no doubt are a very small fraction of the income of the top wage earnings. Speculation as you call it is the foundation of capitalism. Coming up with an idea and building a company around it. Without that we wouldnt have any of the technological advances that support are quality of life.

Much of this income also comes from owning vast real estate holdings. Are you saying that someone who owns hundreds of apartment buildings should just let people live in them for free like the deadbeats you criticize for not paying their mortgages so the owners of those buildings dont make too much money from the rent they are entitled to?[/quote]

Salary ranges tell you what they earn without overtime. In order to compare salaries, you have to compare dollars per hour worked, not total dollars earned without any regard for the work done. If I earned $300K for ten hours of work, and someone else earned $400K for working one hundred hours, who gets paid more?

I don’t believe for a second that speculation is what creates a sound and sustainable economy. Needless to say, I am not a “capitalist” and think people have been brainwashed by those who benefit from it (the very wealthy) into thinking it’s the best economic system. It’s not, and there has never to my knowledge been a long-term success story where “free market capitalism” (without any kind of socialist influence) created a sustainable, healthy economy.

BTW, you do realize that a good portion of the wealthiest individuals have never done any real work, nor created any companies that provide goods and services that benefit society, right?

You’d be surprised to learn how many of the truly innovative and beneficial technologies were actually funded either entirely or largely by the government. It had nothing to do with “capitalist” pigs and their wealth-gathering mechanisms.

As for investment properties…I believe that ownership should take priority, and would like to see fewer “investors” and more real “owners” who live in their homes (at lower prices, because they should not have to compete with “investors”). I would favor tax policies and regulations that protect those who want to buy their own homes and penalize those who try to hoard too much real estate. People should be entitled to one primary residence and one commercial property. Anything beyond that should be taxed to the point that it’s no longer profitable.

Yes, I’m a socialist.

[CA renter]

[quote=sdrealtor]Thank you NSR! CAR you are quoted posted salary ranges not ACTUAL EARNINGS. My facts are facts showing what they took home while yours are the myth of salary ranges.

A corrollary would be for you to post the salaries of the “captains of industry” which no doubt are a very small fraction of the income of the top wage earnings. Speculation as you call it is the foundation of capitalism. Coming up with an idea and building a company around it. Without that we wouldnt have any of the technological advances that support are quality of life.

Much of this income also comes from owning vast real estate holdings. Are you saying that someone who owns hundreds of apartment buildings should just let people live in them for free like the deadbeats you criticize for not paying their mortgages so the owners of those buildings dont make too much money from the rent they are entitled to?[/quote]

Salary ranges tell you what they earn without overtime. In order to compare salaries, you have to compare dollars per hour worked, not total dollars earned without any regard for the work done. If I earned $300K for ten hours of work, and someone else earned $400K for working one hundred hours, who gets paid more?

I don’t believe for a second that speculation is what creates a sound and sustainable economy. Needless to say, I am not a “capitalist” and think people have been brainwashed by those who benefit from it (the very wealthy) into thinking it’s the best economic system. It’s not, and there has never to my knowledge been a long-term success story where “free market capitalism” (without any kind of socialist influence) created a sustainable, healthy economy.

BTW, you do realize that a good portion of the wealthiest individuals have never done any real work, nor created any companies that provide goods and services that benefit society, right?

You’d be surprised to learn how many of the truly innovative and beneficial technologies were actually funded either entirely or largely by the government. It had nothing to do with “capitalist” pigs and their wealth-gathering mechanisms.

As for investment properties…I believe that ownership should take priority, and would like to see fewer “investors” and more real “owners” who live in their homes (at lower prices, because they should not have to compete with “investors”). I would favor tax policies and regulations that protect those who want to buy their own homes and penalize those who try to hoard too much real estate. People should be entitled to one primary residence and one commercial property. Anything beyond that should be taxed to the point that it’s no longer profitable.

Yes, I’m a socialist.

[CA renter]

[quote=sdrealtor]Thank you NSR! CAR you are quoted posted salary ranges not ACTUAL EARNINGS. My facts are facts showing what they took home while yours are the myth of salary ranges.

A corrollary would be for you to post the salaries of the “captains of industry” which no doubt are a very small fraction of the income of the top wage earnings. Speculation as you call it is the foundation of capitalism. Coming up with an idea and building a company around it. Without that we wouldnt have any of the technological advances that support are quality of life.

Much of this income also comes from owning vast real estate holdings. Are you saying that someone who owns hundreds of apartment buildings should just let people live in them for free like the deadbeats you criticize for not paying their mortgages so the owners of those buildings dont make too much money from the rent they are entitled to?[/quote]

Salary ranges tell you what they earn without overtime. In order to compare salaries, you have to compare dollars per hour worked, not total dollars earned without any regard for the work done. If I earned $300K for ten hours of work, and someone else earned $400K for working one hundred hours, who gets paid more?

I don’t believe for a second that speculation is what creates a sound and sustainable economy. Needless to say, I am not a “capitalist” and think people have been brainwashed by those who benefit from it (the very wealthy) into thinking it’s the best economic system. It’s not, and there has never to my knowledge been a long-term success story where “free market capitalism” (without any kind of socialist influence) created a sustainable, healthy economy.

BTW, you do realize that a good portion of the wealthiest individuals have never done any real work, nor created any companies that provide goods and services that benefit society, right?

You’d be surprised to learn how many of the truly innovative and beneficial technologies were actually funded either entirely or largely by the government. It had nothing to do with “capitalist” pigs and their wealth-gathering mechanisms.

As for investment properties…I believe that ownership should take priority, and would like to see fewer “investors” and more real “owners” who live in their homes (at lower prices, because they should not have to compete with “investors”). I would favor tax policies and regulations that protect those who want to buy their own homes and penalize those who try to hoard too much real estate. People should be entitled to one primary residence and one commercial property. Anything beyond that should be taxed to the point that it’s no longer profitable.

Yes, I’m a socialist.

[CA renter]

[quote=sdrealtor]Thank you NSR! CAR you are quoted posted salary ranges not ACTUAL EARNINGS. My facts are facts showing what they took home while yours are the myth of salary ranges.

A corrollary would be for you to post the salaries of the “captains of industry” which no doubt are a very small fraction of the income of the top wage earnings. Speculation as you call it is the foundation of capitalism. Coming up with an idea and building a company around it. Without that we wouldnt have any of the technological advances that support are quality of life.

Much of this income also comes from owning vast real estate holdings. Are you saying that someone who owns hundreds of apartment buildings should just let people live in them for free like the deadbeats you criticize for not paying their mortgages so the owners of those buildings dont make too much money from the rent they are entitled to?[/quote]

Salary ranges tell you what they earn without overtime. In order to compare salaries, you have to compare dollars per hour worked, not total dollars earned without any regard for the work done. If I earned $300K for ten hours of work, and someone else earned $400K for working one hundred hours, who gets paid more?

I don’t believe for a second that speculation is what creates a sound and sustainable economy. Needless to say, I am not a “capitalist” and think people have been brainwashed by those who benefit from it (the very wealthy) into thinking it’s the best economic system. It’s not, and there has never to my knowledge been a long-term success story where “free market capitalism” (without any kind of socialist influence) created a sustainable, healthy economy.

BTW, you do realize that a good portion of the wealthiest individuals have never done any real work, nor created any companies that provide goods and services that benefit society, right?

You’d be surprised to learn how many of the truly innovative and beneficial technologies were actually funded either entirely or largely by the government. It had nothing to do with “capitalist” pigs and their wealth-gathering mechanisms.

As for investment properties…I believe that ownership should take priority, and would like to see fewer “investors” and more real “owners” who live in their homes (at lower prices, because they should not have to compete with “investors”). I would favor tax policies and regulations that protect those who want to buy their own homes and penalize those who try to hoard too much real estate. People should be entitled to one primary residence and one commercial property. Anything beyond that should be taxed to the point that it’s no longer profitable.

Yes, I’m a socialist.

[Author]

Posts