San Diego Fire Chief retires at 53 with $123K/yr pension for life…

[werewolf34]

I gotta back up TG on this one. I grew up in a military family (both parents) and lived on military bases most of my childhood.

Most military personnel could not cut in the US as civilians. They don’t have the education they need. Some are true-blue believers but most were in it for free education and job training for later (weapons systems, engineers, finance)

Back on topic.
I think Peter has the best argument in the thread. Lower comp and benefits to a point where the applicant to job ratio is more reasonable. I also believe that fire fighter and police are distinctly different jobs (hero status, risk and pay). I think police should get paid more than fire fighter b/c the risk is higher.

Some people idolize policeman and firefighters. In my hometown, most of the school bullies went into police and fire units.

[Anonymous]

Sorry to jump in so late in this conversation but I think it is funny some of you would like to lower the pay until you get a certain number of people applying. That would be great so now you will only have the least qualified applicants working for your city and, dare I say, trying to protect and serve you. Do you want the lowest paid people doing that job? with guns? And then when whatever City cannot find qualified applicants they will offer a little bit more than the other city and skim the best people away from you (another reason benefits have gone up is to retain poeple). So I say yes to reform but no to hiring the low ballers for jobs. You know what THEY say??? You get what you pay for.

[Anonymous]

Sorry to jump in so late in this conversation but I think it is funny some of you would like to lower the pay until you get a certain number of people applying. That would be great so now you will only have the least qualified applicants working for your city and, dare I say, trying to protect and serve you. Do you want the lowest paid people doing that job? with guns? And then when whatever City cannot find qualified applicants they will offer a little bit more than the other city and skim the best people away from you (another reason benefits have gone up is to retain poeple). So I say yes to reform but no to hiring the low ballers for jobs. You know what THEY say??? You get what you pay for.

[Anonymous]

Sorry to jump in so late in this conversation but I think it is funny some of you would like to lower the pay until you get a certain number of people applying. That would be great so now you will only have the least qualified applicants working for your city and, dare I say, trying to protect and serve you. Do you want the lowest paid people doing that job? with guns? And then when whatever City cannot find qualified applicants they will offer a little bit more than the other city and skim the best people away from you (another reason benefits have gone up is to retain poeple). So I say yes to reform but no to hiring the low ballers for jobs. You know what THEY say??? You get what you pay for.

[Anonymous]

Sorry to jump in so late in this conversation but I think it is funny some of you would like to lower the pay until you get a certain number of people applying. That would be great so now you will only have the least qualified applicants working for your city and, dare I say, trying to protect and serve you. Do you want the lowest paid people doing that job? with guns? And then when whatever City cannot find qualified applicants they will offer a little bit more than the other city and skim the best people away from you (another reason benefits have gone up is to retain poeple). So I say yes to reform but no to hiring the low ballers for jobs. You know what THEY say??? You get what you pay for.

[Anonymous]

Sorry to jump in so late in this conversation but I think it is funny some of you would like to lower the pay until you get a certain number of people applying. That would be great so now you will only have the least qualified applicants working for your city and, dare I say, trying to protect and serve you. Do you want the lowest paid people doing that job? with guns? And then when whatever City cannot find qualified applicants they will offer a little bit more than the other city and skim the best people away from you (another reason benefits have gone up is to retain poeple). So I say yes to reform but no to hiring the low ballers for jobs. You know what THEY say??? You get what you pay for.

[Ricechex]

[quote=PlnrBoy]Sorry to jump in so late in this conversation but I think it is funny some of you would like to lower the pay until you get a certain number of people applying. That would be great so now you will only have the least qualified applicants working for your city and, dare I say, trying to protect and serve you. Do you want the lowest paid people doing that job? with guns? And then when whatever City cannot find qualified applicants they will offer a little bit more than the other city and skim the best people away from you (another reason benefits have gone up is to retain poeple). So I say yes to reform but no to hiring the low ballers for jobs. You know what THEY say??? You get what you pay for.[/quote]

Second this. Low ballers for jobs, end up weak employees. More competent people will qualify for higher paid jobs and thus, these jobs will be filled by idiots. I see this constantly in contract work. We have a company that is the lowest bidder for a very large contract, and the employees hired are either new to the field, or have been floating around the field for many years, unable to get ahead. Kind of like being an E-4 in the Navy for 10 years. They are not the sharpest tools in the shed.

[Ricechex]

[quote=PlnrBoy]Sorry to jump in so late in this conversation but I think it is funny some of you would like to lower the pay until you get a certain number of people applying. That would be great so now you will only have the least qualified applicants working for your city and, dare I say, trying to protect and serve you. Do you want the lowest paid people doing that job? with guns? And then when whatever City cannot find qualified applicants they will offer a little bit more than the other city and skim the best people away from you (another reason benefits have gone up is to retain poeple). So I say yes to reform but no to hiring the low ballers for jobs. You know what THEY say??? You get what you pay for.[/quote]

Second this. Low ballers for jobs, end up weak employees. More competent people will qualify for higher paid jobs and thus, these jobs will be filled by idiots. I see this constantly in contract work. We have a company that is the lowest bidder for a very large contract, and the employees hired are either new to the field, or have been floating around the field for many years, unable to get ahead. Kind of like being an E-4 in the Navy for 10 years. They are not the sharpest tools in the shed.

[Ricechex]

[quote=PlnrBoy]Sorry to jump in so late in this conversation but I think it is funny some of you would like to lower the pay until you get a certain number of people applying. That would be great so now you will only have the least qualified applicants working for your city and, dare I say, trying to protect and serve you. Do you want the lowest paid people doing that job? with guns? And then when whatever City cannot find qualified applicants they will offer a little bit more than the other city and skim the best people away from you (another reason benefits have gone up is to retain poeple). So I say yes to reform but no to hiring the low ballers for jobs. You know what THEY say??? You get what you pay for.[/quote]

Second this. Low ballers for jobs, end up weak employees. More competent people will qualify for higher paid jobs and thus, these jobs will be filled by idiots. I see this constantly in contract work. We have a company that is the lowest bidder for a very large contract, and the employees hired are either new to the field, or have been floating around the field for many years, unable to get ahead. Kind of like being an E-4 in the Navy for 10 years. They are not the sharpest tools in the shed.

[Ricechex]

[quote=PlnrBoy]Sorry to jump in so late in this conversation but I think it is funny some of you would like to lower the pay until you get a certain number of people applying. That would be great so now you will only have the least qualified applicants working for your city and, dare I say, trying to protect and serve you. Do you want the lowest paid people doing that job? with guns? And then when whatever City cannot find qualified applicants they will offer a little bit more than the other city and skim the best people away from you (another reason benefits have gone up is to retain poeple). So I say yes to reform but no to hiring the low ballers for jobs. You know what THEY say??? You get what you pay for.[/quote]

Second this. Low ballers for jobs, end up weak employees. More competent people will qualify for higher paid jobs and thus, these jobs will be filled by idiots. I see this constantly in contract work. We have a company that is the lowest bidder for a very large contract, and the employees hired are either new to the field, or have been floating around the field for many years, unable to get ahead. Kind of like being an E-4 in the Navy for 10 years. They are not the sharpest tools in the shed.

[Ricechex]

[quote=PlnrBoy]Sorry to jump in so late in this conversation but I think it is funny some of you would like to lower the pay until you get a certain number of people applying. That would be great so now you will only have the least qualified applicants working for your city and, dare I say, trying to protect and serve you. Do you want the lowest paid people doing that job? with guns? And then when whatever City cannot find qualified applicants they will offer a little bit more than the other city and skim the best people away from you (another reason benefits have gone up is to retain poeple). So I say yes to reform but no to hiring the low ballers for jobs. You know what THEY say??? You get what you pay for.[/quote]

Second this. Low ballers for jobs, end up weak employees. More competent people will qualify for higher paid jobs and thus, these jobs will be filled by idiots. I see this constantly in contract work. We have a company that is the lowest bidder for a very large contract, and the employees hired are either new to the field, or have been floating around the field for many years, unable to get ahead. Kind of like being an E-4 in the Navy for 10 years. They are not the sharpest tools in the shed.

[BGinRB]

[quote=PlnrBoy]Sorry to jump in so late in this conversation but I think it is funny some of you would like to lower the pay until you get a certain number of people applying. That would be great so now you will only have the least qualified applicants working for your city and, dare I say, trying to protect and serve you. Do you want the lowest paid people doing that job? with guns? And then when whatever City cannot find qualified applicants they will offer a little bit more than the other city and skim the best people away from you (another reason benefits have gone up is to retain poeple). So I say yes to reform but no to hiring the low ballers for jobs. You know what THEY say??? You get what you pay for.[/quote]

The idea is to adjust the pay to get a sufficient number of QUALIFIED people.

Overpaying firefighters and clerks does not save you from loonies getting access to guns.

A number of posts on this thread are simply emotional or physical blackmail. If anything changes:
– your kids will burn in houses
– you and your family will be raped and killed by criminals
– you and your family will be raped and killed by underpaid cops
– you will choke on fish bone and die
– you will burn in hell for lack of respect for WWII heros
– you will lose job because the people who would spend a fraction of what you give them through your taxes buying your product won’t have money to do so.

I’m convinced.

[BGinRB]

[quote=PlnrBoy]Sorry to jump in so late in this conversation but I think it is funny some of you would like to lower the pay until you get a certain number of people applying. That would be great so now you will only have the least qualified applicants working for your city and, dare I say, trying to protect and serve you. Do you want the lowest paid people doing that job? with guns? And then when whatever City cannot find qualified applicants they will offer a little bit more than the other city and skim the best people away from you (another reason benefits have gone up is to retain poeple). So I say yes to reform but no to hiring the low ballers for jobs. You know what THEY say??? You get what you pay for.[/quote]

The idea is to adjust the pay to get a sufficient number of QUALIFIED people.

Overpaying firefighters and clerks does not save you from loonies getting access to guns.

A number of posts on this thread are simply emotional or physical blackmail. If anything changes:
– your kids will burn in houses
– you and your family will be raped and killed by criminals
– you and your family will be raped and killed by underpaid cops
– you will choke on fish bone and die
– you will burn in hell for lack of respect for WWII heros
– you will lose job because the people who would spend a fraction of what you give them through your taxes buying your product won’t have money to do so.

I’m convinced.

[BGinRB]

[quote=PlnrBoy]Sorry to jump in so late in this conversation but I think it is funny some of you would like to lower the pay until you get a certain number of people applying. That would be great so now you will only have the least qualified applicants working for your city and, dare I say, trying to protect and serve you. Do you want the lowest paid people doing that job? with guns? And then when whatever City cannot find qualified applicants they will offer a little bit more than the other city and skim the best people away from you (another reason benefits have gone up is to retain poeple). So I say yes to reform but no to hiring the low ballers for jobs. You know what THEY say??? You get what you pay for.[/quote]

The idea is to adjust the pay to get a sufficient number of QUALIFIED people.

Overpaying firefighters and clerks does not save you from loonies getting access to guns.

A number of posts on this thread are simply emotional or physical blackmail. If anything changes:
– your kids will burn in houses
– you and your family will be raped and killed by criminals
– you and your family will be raped and killed by underpaid cops
– you will choke on fish bone and die
– you will burn in hell for lack of respect for WWII heros
– you will lose job because the people who would spend a fraction of what you give them through your taxes buying your product won’t have money to do so.

I’m convinced.

[BGinRB]

[quote=PlnrBoy]Sorry to jump in so late in this conversation but I think it is funny some of you would like to lower the pay until you get a certain number of people applying. That would be great so now you will only have the least qualified applicants working for your city and, dare I say, trying to protect and serve you. Do you want the lowest paid people doing that job? with guns? And then when whatever City cannot find qualified applicants they will offer a little bit more than the other city and skim the best people away from you (another reason benefits have gone up is to retain poeple). So I say yes to reform but no to hiring the low ballers for jobs. You know what THEY say??? You get what you pay for.[/quote]

The idea is to adjust the pay to get a sufficient number of QUALIFIED people.

Overpaying firefighters and clerks does not save you from loonies getting access to guns.

A number of posts on this thread are simply emotional or physical blackmail. If anything changes:
– your kids will burn in houses
– you and your family will be raped and killed by criminals
– you and your family will be raped and killed by underpaid cops
– you will choke on fish bone and die
– you will burn in hell for lack of respect for WWII heros
– you will lose job because the people who would spend a fraction of what you give them through your taxes buying your product won’t have money to do so.

I’m convinced.

[Author]

Posts