OT: What’s the deal with NPR?

[CA renter]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=briansd1]CA renter, I really don’t follow your logic. . . [/quote]

brian, part of this “topic” is that when pensions were “enhanced” at the City and County level here in SD, the employee contributions not only became mandatory but employees who were already contributing to the “system,” in addition to employees just beginning to contribute had 2-3x as much taken from their paychecks as “retirement contibutions” than under the old plan. The “Class C” employees (all forms of public safety workers) begin contributing at younger ages as their earliest eligible regular retirement age is set at 50 (instead of 55) and so the removal of 2-3x their previous contributions out of their paychecks hit them harder and younger.

Much of the money invested in a local public sector employee’s pension (percentage depends on age and retirement “tier”) is actually the employee’s own money with which they have no say on how it is invested.

That’s what a lot of the public doesn’t seem to understand. Beginning at age 45, these non-safety public employees under a newer “enhanced” retirement system also don’t have a choice as to how much is deducted and/or how much this contribution is raised every year (on their birthdays).

Employees who retired under an older, much less generous system and “tier,” such as myself, didn’t have to make these types of ever-growing contributions out of their paychecks.[/quote]

One way I believe they are going to “cover” some of the losses is by shifting larger portions of the contributions onto the employees. I believe there will come a time when they tell the employees that they will either need to contribute up to 25-35% of their salary, OR they will be able to roll their pension into a defined-contribution type of plan, if they don’t like the higher contribution requirements. Essentially, I’m anticipating a ~25-35% pay cut, both before and after retirement, for many public safety employees.

Again, the taxpayers will not be the ones suffering if this is done, and I haven’t seen any legal reason that would prevent them from shifting the contribution burdens. It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out.

[jstoesz]

your goals are not mutually exclusive…just because we screwed up on banking industry claw backs (which you will find few on this post who will disagree), does not mean that we do not have to deal with the public sector unions. And as Brian has framed the conundrum (I can not believe I am agreeing with brian), necessitates either tax increases or benefit cuts. Even though you refuse to admit it (I am sure you or your spouse is hoping for a generous government dole), cuts need to be made. Or you can tax the rest of us into destituteness…

Frankly I am tired, and I think others are as well, of you not owning up to your self interest in this matter. My self interest is clear. I do not want to be taxed one more red dollar…how about you CAR?

One more note. Just because I seek more contributions and and end to public unions, does not mean that I want abusive pay of public servants. I want them to be compensated in line with the demand for the job. And if hiring well qualified fireman or policeman is as hard as you say it is, than pay them well. But the numbers of those who want these jobs does not bear your desired salaries, as indispensable as you say they are…

Is that enough parenthetical statement…I think I set a record.

[jstoesz]

your goals are not mutually exclusive…just because we screwed up on banking industry claw backs (which you will find few on this post who will disagree), does not mean that we do not have to deal with the public sector unions. And as Brian has framed the conundrum (I can not believe I am agreeing with brian), necessitates either tax increases or benefit cuts. Even though you refuse to admit it (I am sure you or your spouse is hoping for a generous government dole), cuts need to be made. Or you can tax the rest of us into destituteness…

Frankly I am tired, and I think others are as well, of you not owning up to your self interest in this matter. My self interest is clear. I do not want to be taxed one more red dollar…how about you CAR?

One more note. Just because I seek more contributions and and end to public unions, does not mean that I want abusive pay of public servants. I want them to be compensated in line with the demand for the job. And if hiring well qualified fireman or policeman is as hard as you say it is, than pay them well. But the numbers of those who want these jobs does not bear your desired salaries, as indispensable as you say they are…

Is that enough parenthetical statement…I think I set a record.

[jstoesz]

your goals are not mutually exclusive…just because we screwed up on banking industry claw backs (which you will find few on this post who will disagree), does not mean that we do not have to deal with the public sector unions. And as Brian has framed the conundrum (I can not believe I am agreeing with brian), necessitates either tax increases or benefit cuts. Even though you refuse to admit it (I am sure you or your spouse is hoping for a generous government dole), cuts need to be made. Or you can tax the rest of us into destituteness…

Frankly I am tired, and I think others are as well, of you not owning up to your self interest in this matter. My self interest is clear. I do not want to be taxed one more red dollar…how about you CAR?

One more note. Just because I seek more contributions and and end to public unions, does not mean that I want abusive pay of public servants. I want them to be compensated in line with the demand for the job. And if hiring well qualified fireman or policeman is as hard as you say it is, than pay them well. But the numbers of those who want these jobs does not bear your desired salaries, as indispensable as you say they are…

Is that enough parenthetical statement…I think I set a record.

[jstoesz]

your goals are not mutually exclusive…just because we screwed up on banking industry claw backs (which you will find few on this post who will disagree), does not mean that we do not have to deal with the public sector unions. And as Brian has framed the conundrum (I can not believe I am agreeing with brian), necessitates either tax increases or benefit cuts. Even though you refuse to admit it (I am sure you or your spouse is hoping for a generous government dole), cuts need to be made. Or you can tax the rest of us into destituteness…

Frankly I am tired, and I think others are as well, of you not owning up to your self interest in this matter. My self interest is clear. I do not want to be taxed one more red dollar…how about you CAR?

One more note. Just because I seek more contributions and and end to public unions, does not mean that I want abusive pay of public servants. I want them to be compensated in line with the demand for the job. And if hiring well qualified fireman or policeman is as hard as you say it is, than pay them well. But the numbers of those who want these jobs does not bear your desired salaries, as indispensable as you say they are…

Is that enough parenthetical statement…I think I set a record.

[jstoesz]

your goals are not mutually exclusive…just because we screwed up on banking industry claw backs (which you will find few on this post who will disagree), does not mean that we do not have to deal with the public sector unions. And as Brian has framed the conundrum (I can not believe I am agreeing with brian), necessitates either tax increases or benefit cuts. Even though you refuse to admit it (I am sure you or your spouse is hoping for a generous government dole), cuts need to be made. Or you can tax the rest of us into destituteness…

Frankly I am tired, and I think others are as well, of you not owning up to your self interest in this matter. My self interest is clear. I do not want to be taxed one more red dollar…how about you CAR?

One more note. Just because I seek more contributions and and end to public unions, does not mean that I want abusive pay of public servants. I want them to be compensated in line with the demand for the job. And if hiring well qualified fireman or policeman is as hard as you say it is, than pay them well. But the numbers of those who want these jobs does not bear your desired salaries, as indispensable as you say they are…

Is that enough parenthetical statement…I think I set a record.

[CA renter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=jpinpb]CAR – Thank you for sharing your extensive knowledge on this matter and clarifying it for us. I wish MSM would scratch the surface of the truth in this matter.[/quote]

CAR: Yes, thank you. That was an excellent summary, and thanks for the link as well.

The problem with grappling with issues like this on a blog like this, is that one is inherently limited in responding. To properly lay out the problem in its totality would require far more space and time than we have.

JP is right about the MSM’s unwillingness to delve into this, but, truthfully, you can’t really blame them, either. They fully don’t understand what they’re reporting on, plus they’re limited by time and format.

It is times like these that I really miss in-depth investigative reporting. The LA Times recently released an excellent series of reports on the massive problems that LACCD is experiencing with implementation of their “green” energy building program, along with reportage on wasteful spending, nepotism and just general stupidity within the LA Community College District. It was excellent reporting and very balanced and reminded me of the “old” LA Times that used to rack up Pulitzers by delivering just this kind of news.

We are now so riven by partisanship and taking “sides” that we have to choose between FOX and CNN/MSNBC. In that case, I really don’t have an issue with NPR, in that I believe they do really try to present a thoughtful and incisive approach to the news. Do I believe they should be defunded? I don’t know, but I also don’t like the alternatives, i.e. Beck/Hannity versus Olbermann/Maddow.[/quote]

Thanks, Allan. I agree that it’s difficult to convey certain ideas and concepts on a blog, and nothing really compares to face-to-face discussions and debates (in a good, friendly way). Sometimes, I feel overwhelmed by the amount of information that needs to be shared in order to clarify things, but feel we all try to do our best. Wish I had Rich’s talent for clear and concise writing — he’s very good, and I’m not just saying that because this is his blog. 🙂

My dad worked for the LACCD, and he was always battling their union because of what he perceived to be lots of corruption, etc. He was a real anti-union guy, but never volunteered to give up his good pay and benefits (including the “healthcare for life” which they don’t have these days, AFAIK). I love him dearly (R.I.P.), but on the union issue, we would argue like cats and dogs.

While NPR might lean a bit left, it is far more “fair and balanced” than Fox News. I would hate to see them lose public funding.

[CA renter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=jpinpb]CAR – Thank you for sharing your extensive knowledge on this matter and clarifying it for us. I wish MSM would scratch the surface of the truth in this matter.[/quote]

CAR: Yes, thank you. That was an excellent summary, and thanks for the link as well.

The problem with grappling with issues like this on a blog like this, is that one is inherently limited in responding. To properly lay out the problem in its totality would require far more space and time than we have.

JP is right about the MSM’s unwillingness to delve into this, but, truthfully, you can’t really blame them, either. They fully don’t understand what they’re reporting on, plus they’re limited by time and format.

It is times like these that I really miss in-depth investigative reporting. The LA Times recently released an excellent series of reports on the massive problems that LACCD is experiencing with implementation of their “green” energy building program, along with reportage on wasteful spending, nepotism and just general stupidity within the LA Community College District. It was excellent reporting and very balanced and reminded me of the “old” LA Times that used to rack up Pulitzers by delivering just this kind of news.

We are now so riven by partisanship and taking “sides” that we have to choose between FOX and CNN/MSNBC. In that case, I really don’t have an issue with NPR, in that I believe they do really try to present a thoughtful and incisive approach to the news. Do I believe they should be defunded? I don’t know, but I also don’t like the alternatives, i.e. Beck/Hannity versus Olbermann/Maddow.[/quote]

Thanks, Allan. I agree that it’s difficult to convey certain ideas and concepts on a blog, and nothing really compares to face-to-face discussions and debates (in a good, friendly way). Sometimes, I feel overwhelmed by the amount of information that needs to be shared in order to clarify things, but feel we all try to do our best. Wish I had Rich’s talent for clear and concise writing — he’s very good, and I’m not just saying that because this is his blog. 🙂

My dad worked for the LACCD, and he was always battling their union because of what he perceived to be lots of corruption, etc. He was a real anti-union guy, but never volunteered to give up his good pay and benefits (including the “healthcare for life” which they don’t have these days, AFAIK). I love him dearly (R.I.P.), but on the union issue, we would argue like cats and dogs.

While NPR might lean a bit left, it is far more “fair and balanced” than Fox News. I would hate to see them lose public funding.

[CA renter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=jpinpb]CAR – Thank you for sharing your extensive knowledge on this matter and clarifying it for us. I wish MSM would scratch the surface of the truth in this matter.[/quote]

CAR: Yes, thank you. That was an excellent summary, and thanks for the link as well.

The problem with grappling with issues like this on a blog like this, is that one is inherently limited in responding. To properly lay out the problem in its totality would require far more space and time than we have.

JP is right about the MSM’s unwillingness to delve into this, but, truthfully, you can’t really blame them, either. They fully don’t understand what they’re reporting on, plus they’re limited by time and format.

It is times like these that I really miss in-depth investigative reporting. The LA Times recently released an excellent series of reports on the massive problems that LACCD is experiencing with implementation of their “green” energy building program, along with reportage on wasteful spending, nepotism and just general stupidity within the LA Community College District. It was excellent reporting and very balanced and reminded me of the “old” LA Times that used to rack up Pulitzers by delivering just this kind of news.

We are now so riven by partisanship and taking “sides” that we have to choose between FOX and CNN/MSNBC. In that case, I really don’t have an issue with NPR, in that I believe they do really try to present a thoughtful and incisive approach to the news. Do I believe they should be defunded? I don’t know, but I also don’t like the alternatives, i.e. Beck/Hannity versus Olbermann/Maddow.[/quote]

Thanks, Allan. I agree that it’s difficult to convey certain ideas and concepts on a blog, and nothing really compares to face-to-face discussions and debates (in a good, friendly way). Sometimes, I feel overwhelmed by the amount of information that needs to be shared in order to clarify things, but feel we all try to do our best. Wish I had Rich’s talent for clear and concise writing — he’s very good, and I’m not just saying that because this is his blog. 🙂

My dad worked for the LACCD, and he was always battling their union because of what he perceived to be lots of corruption, etc. He was a real anti-union guy, but never volunteered to give up his good pay and benefits (including the “healthcare for life” which they don’t have these days, AFAIK). I love him dearly (R.I.P.), but on the union issue, we would argue like cats and dogs.

While NPR might lean a bit left, it is far more “fair and balanced” than Fox News. I would hate to see them lose public funding.

[CA renter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=jpinpb]CAR – Thank you for sharing your extensive knowledge on this matter and clarifying it for us. I wish MSM would scratch the surface of the truth in this matter.[/quote]

CAR: Yes, thank you. That was an excellent summary, and thanks for the link as well.

The problem with grappling with issues like this on a blog like this, is that one is inherently limited in responding. To properly lay out the problem in its totality would require far more space and time than we have.

JP is right about the MSM’s unwillingness to delve into this, but, truthfully, you can’t really blame them, either. They fully don’t understand what they’re reporting on, plus they’re limited by time and format.

It is times like these that I really miss in-depth investigative reporting. The LA Times recently released an excellent series of reports on the massive problems that LACCD is experiencing with implementation of their “green” energy building program, along with reportage on wasteful spending, nepotism and just general stupidity within the LA Community College District. It was excellent reporting and very balanced and reminded me of the “old” LA Times that used to rack up Pulitzers by delivering just this kind of news.

We are now so riven by partisanship and taking “sides” that we have to choose between FOX and CNN/MSNBC. In that case, I really don’t have an issue with NPR, in that I believe they do really try to present a thoughtful and incisive approach to the news. Do I believe they should be defunded? I don’t know, but I also don’t like the alternatives, i.e. Beck/Hannity versus Olbermann/Maddow.[/quote]

Thanks, Allan. I agree that it’s difficult to convey certain ideas and concepts on a blog, and nothing really compares to face-to-face discussions and debates (in a good, friendly way). Sometimes, I feel overwhelmed by the amount of information that needs to be shared in order to clarify things, but feel we all try to do our best. Wish I had Rich’s talent for clear and concise writing — he’s very good, and I’m not just saying that because this is his blog. 🙂

My dad worked for the LACCD, and he was always battling their union because of what he perceived to be lots of corruption, etc. He was a real anti-union guy, but never volunteered to give up his good pay and benefits (including the “healthcare for life” which they don’t have these days, AFAIK). I love him dearly (R.I.P.), but on the union issue, we would argue like cats and dogs.

While NPR might lean a bit left, it is far more “fair and balanced” than Fox News. I would hate to see them lose public funding.

[CA renter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=jpinpb]CAR – Thank you for sharing your extensive knowledge on this matter and clarifying it for us. I wish MSM would scratch the surface of the truth in this matter.[/quote]

CAR: Yes, thank you. That was an excellent summary, and thanks for the link as well.

The problem with grappling with issues like this on a blog like this, is that one is inherently limited in responding. To properly lay out the problem in its totality would require far more space and time than we have.

JP is right about the MSM’s unwillingness to delve into this, but, truthfully, you can’t really blame them, either. They fully don’t understand what they’re reporting on, plus they’re limited by time and format.

It is times like these that I really miss in-depth investigative reporting. The LA Times recently released an excellent series of reports on the massive problems that LACCD is experiencing with implementation of their “green” energy building program, along with reportage on wasteful spending, nepotism and just general stupidity within the LA Community College District. It was excellent reporting and very balanced and reminded me of the “old” LA Times that used to rack up Pulitzers by delivering just this kind of news.

We are now so riven by partisanship and taking “sides” that we have to choose between FOX and CNN/MSNBC. In that case, I really don’t have an issue with NPR, in that I believe they do really try to present a thoughtful and incisive approach to the news. Do I believe they should be defunded? I don’t know, but I also don’t like the alternatives, i.e. Beck/Hannity versus Olbermann/Maddow.[/quote]

Thanks, Allan. I agree that it’s difficult to convey certain ideas and concepts on a blog, and nothing really compares to face-to-face discussions and debates (in a good, friendly way). Sometimes, I feel overwhelmed by the amount of information that needs to be shared in order to clarify things, but feel we all try to do our best. Wish I had Rich’s talent for clear and concise writing — he’s very good, and I’m not just saying that because this is his blog. 🙂

My dad worked for the LACCD, and he was always battling their union because of what he perceived to be lots of corruption, etc. He was a real anti-union guy, but never volunteered to give up his good pay and benefits (including the “healthcare for life” which they don’t have these days, AFAIK). I love him dearly (R.I.P.), but on the union issue, we would argue like cats and dogs.

While NPR might lean a bit left, it is far more “fair and balanced” than Fox News. I would hate to see them lose public funding.

[CA renter]

[quote=jstoesz]your goals are not mutually exclusive…just because we screwed up on banking industry claw backs (which you will find few on this post who will disagree), does not mean that we do not have to deal with the public sector unions. And as Brian has framed the conundrum (I can not believe I am agreeing with brian), necessitates either tax increases or benefit cuts. Even though you refuse to admit it (I am sure you or your spouse is hoping for a generous government dole), cuts need to be made. Or you can tax the rest of us into destituteness…

Frankly I am tired, and I think others are as well, of you not owning up to your self interest in this matter. My self interest is clear. I do not want to be taxed one more red dollar…how about you CAR?

One more note. Just because I seek more contributions and and end to public unions, does not mean that I want abusive pay of public servants. I want them to be compensated in line with the demand for the job. And if hiring well qualified fireman or policeman is as hard as you say it is, than pay them well. But the numbers of those who want these jobs does not bear your desired salaries, as indispensable as you say they are…

Is that enough parenthetical statement…I think I set a record.[/quote]

You must have missed my post regarding suggestions for fixing our budget.

Again, I don’t have a problem with public servants taking cuts, but the first losses have to be borne by those who caused the liabilities in the first place.

BTW, we’ve been through this before on hiring police and firefighters during the bubble. There was a severe shortage of qualified recruits during the bubble. I heard that some police departments had to allow former gang members to sign up because they couldn’t find enough recruits without a criminal/gang history.

I know fire departments were sending representatives to colleges with Fire Academies to hand out applications and offer signing bonuses because they couldn’t find enough qualified recruits.

What people don’t seem to understand about public safety is that recruiting and training is VERY, VERY expensive. Fire and police departments cannot afford high turnover rates because of these expenses and because these jobs value **experience** over formal education or other qualifications. They cannot afford to have Johnny-come-lately types who will leave the moment something more lucrative (like flipping houses or peddling mortgages) comes up. This is whey they try to attract employees with long-term benefits which the more dependable, security-minded employees like. They WANT the employees with a lot of experience under their belts, because these are the most valuable employees. This is not the tech industry.

What was happening during the bubble was that other departments were poaching recruits after other departments had spent the time and money hiring and training them. There were too few recruits to go around, and I know this for a fact.

The stories you hear about “recruits lining up around the corner” are for **recruit** positions. These positions are only opened when departments cannot find enough candidates with the qualifications required for the job (education, experience, academy training, etc.). These recruit positions cost the departments a lot of money because they need to do ALL of the training (most fire departments hire people with at least 1-2 years of experience and paramedic certification, not “recruits”). Only large departments can afford to have these positions/training academies, BTW. Smaller departments do not have them, so no “lines around the block” for their open positions, especially when the economy is strong.

——————

As Los Angeles tries to add 1,000 officers in five years to the smallest big-city police department in the nation, it has found there haven’t been enough David Gameros to go around.

The LAPD and police departments around the country are engaged in an intense competition over an increasingly limited pool of suitable people interested in becoming cops.

In Los Angeles, the department is fortifying its recruitment efforts in its drive to beat out other departments and attract the elusive recruit. The department has increased its full-time recruitment team from two to 12. It is offering a $1,000 cash reward to any employee who brings in a successful recruit. And recruiters are hitting the college job-placement circuits.

http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jul/02/local/me-recruit2

[CA renter]

[quote=jstoesz]your goals are not mutually exclusive…just because we screwed up on banking industry claw backs (which you will find few on this post who will disagree), does not mean that we do not have to deal with the public sector unions. And as Brian has framed the conundrum (I can not believe I am agreeing with brian), necessitates either tax increases or benefit cuts. Even though you refuse to admit it (I am sure you or your spouse is hoping for a generous government dole), cuts need to be made. Or you can tax the rest of us into destituteness…

Frankly I am tired, and I think others are as well, of you not owning up to your self interest in this matter. My self interest is clear. I do not want to be taxed one more red dollar…how about you CAR?

One more note. Just because I seek more contributions and and end to public unions, does not mean that I want abusive pay of public servants. I want them to be compensated in line with the demand for the job. And if hiring well qualified fireman or policeman is as hard as you say it is, than pay them well. But the numbers of those who want these jobs does not bear your desired salaries, as indispensable as you say they are…

Is that enough parenthetical statement…I think I set a record.[/quote]

You must have missed my post regarding suggestions for fixing our budget.

Again, I don’t have a problem with public servants taking cuts, but the first losses have to be borne by those who caused the liabilities in the first place.

BTW, we’ve been through this before on hiring police and firefighters during the bubble. There was a severe shortage of qualified recruits during the bubble. I heard that some police departments had to allow former gang members to sign up because they couldn’t find enough recruits without a criminal/gang history.

I know fire departments were sending representatives to colleges with Fire Academies to hand out applications and offer signing bonuses because they couldn’t find enough qualified recruits.

What people don’t seem to understand about public safety is that recruiting and training is VERY, VERY expensive. Fire and police departments cannot afford high turnover rates because of these expenses and because these jobs value **experience** over formal education or other qualifications. They cannot afford to have Johnny-come-lately types who will leave the moment something more lucrative (like flipping houses or peddling mortgages) comes up. This is whey they try to attract employees with long-term benefits which the more dependable, security-minded employees like. They WANT the employees with a lot of experience under their belts, because these are the most valuable employees. This is not the tech industry.

What was happening during the bubble was that other departments were poaching recruits after other departments had spent the time and money hiring and training them. There were too few recruits to go around, and I know this for a fact.

The stories you hear about “recruits lining up around the corner” are for **recruit** positions. These positions are only opened when departments cannot find enough candidates with the qualifications required for the job (education, experience, academy training, etc.). These recruit positions cost the departments a lot of money because they need to do ALL of the training (most fire departments hire people with at least 1-2 years of experience and paramedic certification, not “recruits”). Only large departments can afford to have these positions/training academies, BTW. Smaller departments do not have them, so no “lines around the block” for their open positions, especially when the economy is strong.

——————

As Los Angeles tries to add 1,000 officers in five years to the smallest big-city police department in the nation, it has found there haven’t been enough David Gameros to go around.

The LAPD and police departments around the country are engaged in an intense competition over an increasingly limited pool of suitable people interested in becoming cops.

In Los Angeles, the department is fortifying its recruitment efforts in its drive to beat out other departments and attract the elusive recruit. The department has increased its full-time recruitment team from two to 12. It is offering a $1,000 cash reward to any employee who brings in a successful recruit. And recruiters are hitting the college job-placement circuits.

http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jul/02/local/me-recruit2

[CA renter]

[quote=jstoesz]your goals are not mutually exclusive…just because we screwed up on banking industry claw backs (which you will find few on this post who will disagree), does not mean that we do not have to deal with the public sector unions. And as Brian has framed the conundrum (I can not believe I am agreeing with brian), necessitates either tax increases or benefit cuts. Even though you refuse to admit it (I am sure you or your spouse is hoping for a generous government dole), cuts need to be made. Or you can tax the rest of us into destituteness…

Frankly I am tired, and I think others are as well, of you not owning up to your self interest in this matter. My self interest is clear. I do not want to be taxed one more red dollar…how about you CAR?

One more note. Just because I seek more contributions and and end to public unions, does not mean that I want abusive pay of public servants. I want them to be compensated in line with the demand for the job. And if hiring well qualified fireman or policeman is as hard as you say it is, than pay them well. But the numbers of those who want these jobs does not bear your desired salaries, as indispensable as you say they are…

Is that enough parenthetical statement…I think I set a record.[/quote]

You must have missed my post regarding suggestions for fixing our budget.

Again, I don’t have a problem with public servants taking cuts, but the first losses have to be borne by those who caused the liabilities in the first place.

BTW, we’ve been through this before on hiring police and firefighters during the bubble. There was a severe shortage of qualified recruits during the bubble. I heard that some police departments had to allow former gang members to sign up because they couldn’t find enough recruits without a criminal/gang history.

I know fire departments were sending representatives to colleges with Fire Academies to hand out applications and offer signing bonuses because they couldn’t find enough qualified recruits.

What people don’t seem to understand about public safety is that recruiting and training is VERY, VERY expensive. Fire and police departments cannot afford high turnover rates because of these expenses and because these jobs value **experience** over formal education or other qualifications. They cannot afford to have Johnny-come-lately types who will leave the moment something more lucrative (like flipping houses or peddling mortgages) comes up. This is whey they try to attract employees with long-term benefits which the more dependable, security-minded employees like. They WANT the employees with a lot of experience under their belts, because these are the most valuable employees. This is not the tech industry.

What was happening during the bubble was that other departments were poaching recruits after other departments had spent the time and money hiring and training them. There were too few recruits to go around, and I know this for a fact.

The stories you hear about “recruits lining up around the corner” are for **recruit** positions. These positions are only opened when departments cannot find enough candidates with the qualifications required for the job (education, experience, academy training, etc.). These recruit positions cost the departments a lot of money because they need to do ALL of the training (most fire departments hire people with at least 1-2 years of experience and paramedic certification, not “recruits”). Only large departments can afford to have these positions/training academies, BTW. Smaller departments do not have them, so no “lines around the block” for their open positions, especially when the economy is strong.

——————

As Los Angeles tries to add 1,000 officers in five years to the smallest big-city police department in the nation, it has found there haven’t been enough David Gameros to go around.

The LAPD and police departments around the country are engaged in an intense competition over an increasingly limited pool of suitable people interested in becoming cops.

In Los Angeles, the department is fortifying its recruitment efforts in its drive to beat out other departments and attract the elusive recruit. The department has increased its full-time recruitment team from two to 12. It is offering a $1,000 cash reward to any employee who brings in a successful recruit. And recruiters are hitting the college job-placement circuits.

http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jul/02/local/me-recruit2

[CA renter]

[quote=jstoesz]your goals are not mutually exclusive…just because we screwed up on banking industry claw backs (which you will find few on this post who will disagree), does not mean that we do not have to deal with the public sector unions. And as Brian has framed the conundrum (I can not believe I am agreeing with brian), necessitates either tax increases or benefit cuts. Even though you refuse to admit it (I am sure you or your spouse is hoping for a generous government dole), cuts need to be made. Or you can tax the rest of us into destituteness…

Frankly I am tired, and I think others are as well, of you not owning up to your self interest in this matter. My self interest is clear. I do not want to be taxed one more red dollar…how about you CAR?

One more note. Just because I seek more contributions and and end to public unions, does not mean that I want abusive pay of public servants. I want them to be compensated in line with the demand for the job. And if hiring well qualified fireman or policeman is as hard as you say it is, than pay them well. But the numbers of those who want these jobs does not bear your desired salaries, as indispensable as you say they are…

Is that enough parenthetical statement…I think I set a record.[/quote]

You must have missed my post regarding suggestions for fixing our budget.

Again, I don’t have a problem with public servants taking cuts, but the first losses have to be borne by those who caused the liabilities in the first place.

BTW, we’ve been through this before on hiring police and firefighters during the bubble. There was a severe shortage of qualified recruits during the bubble. I heard that some police departments had to allow former gang members to sign up because they couldn’t find enough recruits without a criminal/gang history.

I know fire departments were sending representatives to colleges with Fire Academies to hand out applications and offer signing bonuses because they couldn’t find enough qualified recruits.

What people don’t seem to understand about public safety is that recruiting and training is VERY, VERY expensive. Fire and police departments cannot afford high turnover rates because of these expenses and because these jobs value **experience** over formal education or other qualifications. They cannot afford to have Johnny-come-lately types who will leave the moment something more lucrative (like flipping houses or peddling mortgages) comes up. This is whey they try to attract employees with long-term benefits which the more dependable, security-minded employees like. They WANT the employees with a lot of experience under their belts, because these are the most valuable employees. This is not the tech industry.

What was happening during the bubble was that other departments were poaching recruits after other departments had spent the time and money hiring and training them. There were too few recruits to go around, and I know this for a fact.

The stories you hear about “recruits lining up around the corner” are for **recruit** positions. These positions are only opened when departments cannot find enough candidates with the qualifications required for the job (education, experience, academy training, etc.). These recruit positions cost the departments a lot of money because they need to do ALL of the training (most fire departments hire people with at least 1-2 years of experience and paramedic certification, not “recruits”). Only large departments can afford to have these positions/training academies, BTW. Smaller departments do not have them, so no “lines around the block” for their open positions, especially when the economy is strong.

——————

As Los Angeles tries to add 1,000 officers in five years to the smallest big-city police department in the nation, it has found there haven’t been enough David Gameros to go around.

The LAPD and police departments around the country are engaged in an intense competition over an increasingly limited pool of suitable people interested in becoming cops.

In Los Angeles, the department is fortifying its recruitment efforts in its drive to beat out other departments and attract the elusive recruit. The department has increased its full-time recruitment team from two to 12. It is offering a $1,000 cash reward to any employee who brings in a successful recruit. And recruiters are hitting the college job-placement circuits.

http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jul/02/local/me-recruit2

[Author]

Posts