- This topic has 161 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 1 month ago by
Anonymous.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 24, 2012 at 11:47 PM #738667February 25, 2012 at 12:33 AM #738668
CA renter
Participant[quote=no_such_reality][quote=sdrealtor]C’mon nsr at least be civil to them. No reason they cant sleep during the night as long as they are on duty and someone is awake. They also need to be at the ready so eating while at work is entirely reasonable and necessary also. What isnt necessary is Ritz Carlton like accommodations with expnsive stonework and million dollar views from the middle of nature preserves when more modest sites are available a couple hundred yards away.[/quote]
Agreed at a minimum.
However, my base point is that 24 hour shifts which require sleeping quarters are not necessary.
If they’re going work 24 hours shifts, then obviously, sleeping will be needed. 🙂
But why on 24 hours, off 24 hours, on 24 hours, off 7 days, one 24 hours. etc. Other cities have been very successful implementing regular styled work shifts.
As you say, it’s the lack of accountability. Frankly the 24 hour is more of the same, perk at the expense of the public. That same perk then drives the accomodations issue… it drives the over time issue, it drives the pension spiking issue (and what makes it so easy).
It’s more of the same “they only make XXXX” yet when you look at the State Controllers W2 statements most are making way more than XXXX. And yes, I know they’re working overtime, but how much overtime are they working to have many making 150%, 200% of their ‘base pay’? And having seen people ‘working’ overtime regular, how is pushing ‘safety’ workers that way, safe for the public?
The Fire Department justifies the expense saying every second counts. Really? So a sleeping firefighter is out the door as fast as an awake firefighter? (and yes, I know they’re out the door fast and appreciate it.)[/quote]
Which other cities have implemented 8 hour day/40 hour week shifts (or whatever you define as “regular styled work shifts”)? I don’t know of any that work those hours.
When you say the “24-hour shift” scheduling is “antiquated,” what do you mean, exactly? Is it “antiquated” because fires, accidents, assaults, heart attacks, strokes, etc. have stopped occurring at night? Please enlighten us.
FYI, firefighters have different rules WRT overtime, and do not get paid for O/T in the traditional way.
“Special “7(k) Work Periods.”
Public-sector (government) fire departments may establish special “7(k) work periods” for sworn firefighters, which can increase the FLSA overtime “thresholds” beyond the normal 40 hour week. Firefighters covered by these special work periods are entitled to FLSA overtime only for hours worked in excess of a threshold set by the Department of Labor on a chart. For example, in a 28 day work period, fire fighters would be entitled to FLSA overtime only for hours actually worked over 212 during that 28 day period (in essence, a 53 hour work week). “7(k)” refers to the section of the FLSA in which these special rules are contained, 29 USC §207(k). Most fire fighters who work “platoon schedules” will be classified by their employers as “7(k) eligible” and compensated accordingly.”
http://www.flsa.com/fire.html
……………Additionally, in every case I’m aware of, O/T is NOT included in the calculations for pension benefits. Some public employers might include it, but many/most do not.
“Other Ways to Earn Benefits.
For the most part, public employees earn pension benefits based on their base salary—that is, as a certain percentage of their base salary during a specified number of years in their career. Overtime earnings provided as a supplement to base pay generally do not affect the pension benefits of public employees. There are, however, a few other ways that some groups of public employees earn pension benefits.”
http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2011/110298.aspx
———————
And yes, the numbers you see on the salary schedules is what these employees REALLY earn. They are not hiding anything.
I’m seriously not trying to attack you, and don’t really want to get into another one of these tired arguments. There are plenty of things to complain about WRT the public sector, and I’m one of the biggest critics (believe it or not), but what drives me absolutely batshit crazy is when people put complete bullshit out there on the internet and claim it as some sort of fact that is then used to wrongly attack public sector employees.
Please, people…do some research before putting this stuff on the internet. Know what you are talking about first, then let the (valid) criticism fly.
February 25, 2012 at 8:01 AM #738683no_such_reality
ParticipantOkay CAR, please explain the following from the State Controllers site:
Department Classification Multiple Positions Annual Salary Minimum Annual Salary Maximum Total Wages Subject to Medicare (Box 5 of W-2) Applicable Defined Benefit Pension Formula Employees’ Share of Pension Contributions Deferred Compensation Health, Dental, Vision
Fire-Rescue Fire Engineer — $61,589 $74,464 $95,971 3% @ 50 — — $7,225
Fire-Rescue Fire Engineer — $61,589 $74,464 $101,970 3% @ 50 — — $7,800
Fire-Rescue Fire Engineer — $61,589 $74,464 $100,093 3% @ 50 — — $7,969which may not be clear. First entry, salary min $61K, Salary MAx $74K, W2- Medicare earnings $95K. the next one earnings $101K, the 3rd, $100K.
I’m not cherry picking this is common.
PLease explain…
February 25, 2012 at 9:17 AM #738686sdrealtor
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=sdrealtor]I’m with you on this one but you just slough this one off. Its the lack of accopuntability in the public sector at play here. The LC site screams of developer paying off the city to approve the LC Oaks development by giving them a piece of the most prime piece of land for the fire station. No reason they couldnt have put it on the east side of RSF. While I’m sure the firefighters view them as wasteful I am equally sure they love them and view it as another job perk kinda like foosball tables and Aeron chairs in the dot com era. I cant imagine a fireman ever wanting to leave the station and I’d bet many hang out there in off hours. Its a perk and should be yet another bargaining chip to keep salaries/benefits in check.
Everytime I drive by which is at least daily I wonder when I’ll get my happy hour invite.
I gotta get a nice shot of that station at sunset so the outtta area Piggs who arent familiar with the lcoation could see what I am talking about. I’m not blaming the lineworkers but its obscene that they put the station there.[/quote]
Let’s turn it around again…
If a group of realtors work in an office that is overlooking the ocean, do we get to blame the realtors (not brokers, and who had nothing to do with picking the location or anything else to do with the facilities) for the location of the office? Do they get paid less because they work there?[/quote]
OK let’s do this! From the brokers perspective the cost of an oceanview office will be higher so they will have higher expenses and lower profit percentage. So they make less. The city passes on the cost of the palacial oceanview fire digs to taxpayers so they do not make less.
Now for the the realtors working in the office. As realtors we dont get paid by our brokers we pay them. The broker has higher expenses for an office like that so they pass that on to the Realtors through lower commission splits. So a realtor working in an office like that will bring home less of each commission they earn relative to working in a low profile office. So the answer is a resounding yes! They get paid less because they work there.
FWIW, you really need to make stronger more concise points and stop with the cut and paste that people don’t bother with. As for the earning schedules I dont care what those say because I have seen something far more accurate than summary statistics. I have seen tax returns on at least a dozen public safety workers and not one of them had earnings below $100K over the last 3 years. And that doesnt factor in the huge retirement contributions made on their behalf either. For most it is the equivalent to a $150K job in the private sector.
February 25, 2012 at 4:46 PM #738692ParticipantRight, sdr. Let’s not forget that the realtors working along the coast are likely to have higher incomes because the local properties cost more. Do you have any evidence that the brokers require a higher percentage from agents who work in ocean-view offices vs. offices that overlook something more mundane (keeping all other variables the same, of course)? Seems to me that the opposite might be the case, since the agents who work in the higher-end area are often long-time agents who tend to keep a higher percentage of their commissions.
As far as “cut and paste” points…it’s better to actually back one’s arguments up with facts (and cite them) than to pull total nonsnese out of one’s ass and claim it as “fact.”
February 25, 2012 at 10:36 PM #738698ParticipantCar you are really failing here. The point wasn’t realtors working along the coast or in an expensive market it was ocean view or even palatial office space. An agent can work from home, a rented executive suite or other mundane space and have the same results as sitting ocean front. Frankly i have never been more productive or successful than i am now working from my kitchen. I thought you knew what this business was about. Fancy office space is for drawing in young agents who will get lousy splits. It’s the bread and butter of the big brokerages.
As for palatial office space I worked in what is the nicest real estate office along the coast and know without question you get a much lower split for the privilege of working there. Frankly that is why I left that environment.
Name one real estate office of any size in a prime ocean office?
To bring us back front and center why did the new la costa fire station have to built atop Box Canyon with an Ocean view party deck? Could they not have served the public just as well being located 100 yards east on the other side of RSF Road? Of course they could have.
Lastly you talk about pulling something outta ones ass and claiming it as fact. Well you just did that yourself with the seems to me comment above.
February 25, 2012 at 11:10 PM #738702Participant[quote=sdrealtor]Car you are really failing here. The point wasn’t realtors working along the coast or in an expensive market it was ocean view or even palatial office space. An agent can work from home, a rented executive suite or other mundane space and have the same results as sitting ocean front. Frankly i have never been more productive or successful than i am now working from my kitchen. I thought you knew what this business was about. Fancy office space is for drawing in young agents who will get lousy splits. It’s the bread and butter of the big brokerages.
As for palatial office space I worked in what is the nicest real estate office along the coast and know without question you get a much lower split for the privilege of working there. Frankly that is why I left that environment.
Name one real estate office of any size in a prime ocean office?
To bring us back front and center why did the new la costa fire station have to built atop Box Canyon with an Ocean view party deck? Could they not have served the public just as well being located 100 yards east on the other side of RSF Road? Of course they could have.
Lastly you talk about pulling something outta ones ass and claiming it as fact. Well you just did that yourself with the seems to me comment above.[/quote]
No, I’m not failing at all.
This is what I wrote:
“Seems to me that the opposite might be the case, since the agents who work in the higher-end area are often long-time agents who tend to keep a higher percentage of their commissions.”
Where did I claim it was a fact (I do believe it, though)? What I said was very different vs. what “some posters” do when they say “so-and-so IS…” They make declarations about how things are, not what their opinions or beliefs are.
So, let’s just look at a particular franchise or two. Coldwell Banker, Prudential, whatever you choose. You know their offices better than I do. Choose a franchise, and show us (yep, cut and paste with a link, please) that the split is different between these offices because one office is more desirable than another. Again, all other variables have to remain constant — experience, type of license, etc. Show us that one location pays less than another strictly because of an ocean view. YOU are the one who started this nonsense, so please finish it.
February 25, 2012 at 11:59 PM #738703ParticipantAs far as the fire station is concerned:
“Fire Station No. 6 is a two-bay station located in the southeast portion of the city of Carlsbad, along Rancho Santa Fe Road. The uniqueness of the site is its location in the middle of a wildlife preserve, requiring that the station have a small footprint. It is one of the smaller fire stations at 6,182 square feet.”
So, the city probably could not sell the property for development, and at 6,182 sf, it is hardly “grand.”
http://firechief.com/mag/firefighting_carlsbad_fire_station/
Not only that, but most of the area they serve is to the south of that location. It’s safer and more efficient to turn right to get out of the fire station than to make a left turn across a 6+ lane, 55 MPH road whenever they have to go on a call.
Besides, it’s the city’s property (does the city even own the property on the other side of RSF? Can it even be built on since it’s on a slope and there is a reservoir of some sort there? Would it end up costing even more to build it there? Do you think they need to do it just because you have some odd personal issue with public sector workers and have deluded yourself into thinking they are somehow beneath you, even if it cost less or the same to do what they did?). Who are you to decide what they should or should not do with it?
February 26, 2012 at 1:04 AM #738694Participant[quote=no_such_reality]Okay CAR, please explain the following from the State Controllers site:
Department Classification Multiple Positions Annual Salary Minimum Annual Salary Maximum Total Wages Subject to Medicare (Box 5 of W-2) Applicable Defined Benefit Pension Formula Employees’ Share of Pension Contributions Deferred Compensation Health, Dental, Vision
Fire-Rescue Fire Engineer — $61,589 $74,464 $95,971 3% @ 50 — — $7,225
Fire-Rescue Fire Engineer — $61,589 $74,464 $101,970 3% @ 50 — — $7,800
Fire-Rescue Fire Engineer — $61,589 $74,464 $100,093 3% @ 50 — — $7,969which may not be clear. First entry, salary min $61K, Salary MAx $74K, W2- Medicare earnings $95K. the next one earnings $101K, the 3rd, $100K.
I’m not cherry picking this is common.
PLease explain…
Thank you for “cutting and pasting” and providing a link, nsr.
From what I can tell, the difference between the max salary and the amount paid would include overtime, additional duties, etc. Still, the biggest difference here was ONE person (out of 188) who made $141,665, which was 90% more than base pay, not 100%. That was a definite outlier, and I don’t know what the story would be behind that number. Most of those employees made about 20-30% above base if they worked much overtime, not 50%-100% of base.
Here’s just one sample (taken directly from the series, not edited). This one shows them averaging about 16% of base.
Fire Engineer — $61,589 $74,464 $96,105 3% @ 50 — — $9,400
Fire-Rescue Fire Engineer — $61,589 $74,464 $91,716 3% @ 50 — — $8,229
Fire-Rescue Fire Engineer — $61,589 $74,464 $82,928 3% @ 50 — — $2,231
Fire-Rescue Fire Engineer — $61,589 $74,464 $84,541 3% @ 50 — — $9,400
Fire-Rescue Fire Engineer — $61,589 $74,464 $70,101 3% @ 50 — — $7,800
Fire-Rescue Fire Engineer — $61,589 $74,464 $95,753 3% @ 50 — — $6,044
Fire-Rescue Fire Engineer — $61,589 $74,464 $89,385 3% @ 50 — — —
Fire-Rescue Fire Engineer — $61,589 $74,464 $86,393 3% @ 50The reason for the O/T is because they have to fill every position every day, it’s not because of 24-hour shifts. This type of shift is actually less expensive for employers because they need fewer people (and fewer pensions, healthcare benefits, lower recruitment and training expenses, etc.) than if they were to have 8-hour shifts.
February 26, 2012 at 1:49 AM #738704ParticipantBTW, this comment of yours doesn’t even make any sense:
“Car you are really failing here. The point wasn’t realtors working along the coast or in an expensive market it was ocean view or even palatial office space.”
…which you wrote in response to this:
“Do you have any evidence that the brokers require a higher percentage from agents who work in ocean-view offices vs. offices that overlook something more mundane (keeping all other variables the same, of course)?”
So…do you have any EVIDENCE showing that brokers keep a higher percentage from agents who work in ocean-view offices vs. offices that overlook something more mundane (keeping all other variables the same)?
………..
Just read your post again, too. No, firefighters do not hang out at work after hours, they do not drink margaritas on the deck (HELL NO…do you even know what you’re talking about?), and they often don’t want to work in the higher-profile stations that often attract politicians and their entourages as they “show off what they’ve done.” They work 24-hour shifts, sometimes for days on end (no, it’s not a perk…it’s often forced on them, often without notice), and desperately want to get home when their shift is over.
I honestly think you have weird, romanticized notions about what public sector workers do and what their job responsibilities, work environment, etc. are like. This might explain why (misplaced) envy seems to drive so many of your belligerent comments. You truly have no clue.
February 26, 2012 at 8:36 AM #738708
CoronitaParticipantHey guys, did you hear about all the engineers recently who got the nice oceanfront office by the beach???????
February 26, 2012 at 8:36 AM #738709CoronitaParticipant[quote=flu]Hey guys, did you hear about all the engineers recently who got the nice oceanfront office by the beach???????[/quote]
…yeah, neither did I…My point is…. Well, I guess I don’t have a point…
February 26, 2012 at 8:57 AM #738710
svelteParticipant[quote=flu]Hey guys, did you hear about all the engineers recently who got the nice oceanfront office by the beach???????[/quote]
Actually, there used to be a bunch down on Pt Loma at SPAWAR. Not sure if they are still there, this was about 10 years back. I was shocked when I walked in there for a meeting. Their cubes had great ocean views.
February 26, 2012 at 9:58 AM #738712ParticipantCAR, you’re missing the point.
With the exception of the outliers, I’m actually pretty okay with the earnings the core firefighters make.
That said, I do have several issues:
The first is the giant gap between what they really make and what their published salary schedule says.
For example, Fire Engineer and three Fire Engineer Mast(er)
185 of 187 made more than the published Max. Again, I’m okay with vast majority of the earnings I see there. But can we agree something is wrong with what we say their income or salary is in range X-Y when 98.9% make more than Y, the MAX?
As a person that has hired people, I have very different expectations of the person that I hire that I pay $90K to $100K a year or more than I do of the person I hire making $53K to $63K. Those salaries in the private secctor come with all sorts of side expectations, on-call, unpaid overtime during crunch,travel etc.
If I look at the Fire ‘Fighters’ Fire Fighter I, II, III, Engineer, Captain, SDFD has 700+. 25% make more than 100K. 53% make more than $90K.
Again, I’m okay with that.
However, I have very different expectations of a public servant PROFESSIONAL making $90K, $100K or $110K.
I know from hiring, that I get a totally different caliber of people when I say the salary range for the hire is $80K-$100K than when I say it’s $52K-$63K. We have 341 Fire Fighter IIs in the salary range, 50% made more than $80K. Since there are only a handful of Firefighter Is and only one made more than MIX, the IIs, are our basic PROFESSIONAL.
Can we make them Salary people with Salary expectations without overtime (that’s part of the $80-$100K salary). The job comes with rotating holidays, 24 hour shifts and the expectations that major fires, natural disasters, you’re going to work and you won’t get overtime. But, we’ll be straight up and honest, you’re a firefighter II, you make $70-$110K, you are expected to have certs, maintain certs, etc. You aren’t paid hourly or daily. We expect a $100K a year professional, not a union grunt that needs a bazillion rules to decide who works what shift, and counts every minute.
That’s my point.
February 26, 2012 at 1:49 PM #738716ParticipantSinking deeper by the minute CAR. I flabberghasted by the absurdity of your points. I thought you had family in RE and understood it. First off the “seems to me” and “might” is a cheap way out especially when you follow it up with “I do beleive it, though”.
Second, there are no big RE offices in prime space like that because the business isnt profitable to support that.
Third, name a single private business that posts their salary/wage scales on the Internet so competitors could poach their employees or in this case sub-contractors. That information doesnt exist to cut and paste as it is proprietary.
Lastly, the choice is not between offices of a single brokerage franchise its which brokerage to hang your license at. If you want to work in a high profile, fancy office you go to work for the Coldwell Banker and Prudentials of the world. Their splits are the worst in the Industry but that is the price you pay for opulent offices. Anyone who works in the business can tell you that.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.