[SDEngineer]

Zero. Company-wide freeze on all raises this year aside from promotions to a new pay grade.

However, they kept the bonus plan – since the bonus plan paid close to 10% of base salary for my pay grade this year, I’m happy, since if they had done the reverse (dumped the bonus plan and kept the raises) my take home probably would’ve been significantly less.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=XBoxBoy][quote=SDEngineer]You could use this argument against every position in every company, public or private, and wind up proving that virtually everyone is overpaid.[/quote]

Sorry, I don’t follow the logic of this argument. What I think you’re saying is that if you use the two criteria that I outlined:

1) Does this person bring enough added value to the organization to justify their pay.

2) Can this job be filled by an equally capable person for less pay and retirement.

everyone at every company is over paid.

Can you support that view with something? Or if I’ve misunderstood your argument, please clarify for me.

My personal experience at virtually every company I’ve worked at (or run) is that in the private sector you have to ask that question continually, or your company will not be competitive and will fail. (Hmmmm… maybe that explains why a lot of companies are failing lately)

While I’m not sure how you would prove the point that top managers are overcompensated, my experience is that most people running large organizations got there (and are making the 250k-350k salaries you mention or even more) not because no one else wanted or could do the job, but because they were good at working the politics and self promoting. Often the best in our companies do not receive the recognition or the pay they deserve while the manipulative do. Just my experience though.
[/quote]

It’s mostly based on #2, not #1 – because I think that previous arguments that were laid out support the fact that the chief in charge of a thousand person fire department probably does bring enough to the table to justify the pay – in fact, is (like many public employees) probably underpaid comparing what her skillset would command in the private sector (hence the retirement package). I think you’ll find that many who go into public service go in with eyes open KNOWING that they will be compensated less on an annual basis than they could make in the private sector, but accepting that as a tradeoff to a more secure job with a defined retirement plan.

I suspect your #2 point above however, could be used against most employees, public or private – it seems to me that for any reasonably well paying position that you could always find someone who would be willing and could do the job for less.

However, I do agree with your other point, that most top executives got where they did not because their skills are necessarily better, but because they were better at playing office politics – however, this just goes to #2 above again. Considering argument #1, I still believe that in their position, with their responsibilities, no matter how they got the job, their pay is fairly well deserved.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=XBoxBoy][quote=SDEngineer]You could use this argument against every position in every company, public or private, and wind up proving that virtually everyone is overpaid.[/quote]

Sorry, I don’t follow the logic of this argument. What I think you’re saying is that if you use the two criteria that I outlined:

1) Does this person bring enough added value to the organization to justify their pay.

2) Can this job be filled by an equally capable person for less pay and retirement.

everyone at every company is over paid.

Can you support that view with something? Or if I’ve misunderstood your argument, please clarify for me.

My personal experience at virtually every company I’ve worked at (or run) is that in the private sector you have to ask that question continually, or your company will not be competitive and will fail. (Hmmmm… maybe that explains why a lot of companies are failing lately)

While I’m not sure how you would prove the point that top managers are overcompensated, my experience is that most people running large organizations got there (and are making the 250k-350k salaries you mention or even more) not because no one else wanted or could do the job, but because they were good at working the politics and self promoting. Often the best in our companies do not receive the recognition or the pay they deserve while the manipulative do. Just my experience though.
[/quote]

It’s mostly based on #2, not #1 – because I think that previous arguments that were laid out support the fact that the chief in charge of a thousand person fire department probably does bring enough to the table to justify the pay – in fact, is (like many public employees) probably underpaid comparing what her skillset would command in the private sector (hence the retirement package). I think you’ll find that many who go into public service go in with eyes open KNOWING that they will be compensated less on an annual basis than they could make in the private sector, but accepting that as a tradeoff to a more secure job with a defined retirement plan.

I suspect your #2 point above however, could be used against most employees, public or private – it seems to me that for any reasonably well paying position that you could always find someone who would be willing and could do the job for less.

However, I do agree with your other point, that most top executives got where they did not because their skills are necessarily better, but because they were better at playing office politics – however, this just goes to #2 above again. Considering argument #1, I still believe that in their position, with their responsibilities, no matter how they got the job, their pay is fairly well deserved.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=XBoxBoy][quote=SDEngineer]You could use this argument against every position in every company, public or private, and wind up proving that virtually everyone is overpaid.[/quote]

Sorry, I don’t follow the logic of this argument. What I think you’re saying is that if you use the two criteria that I outlined:

1) Does this person bring enough added value to the organization to justify their pay.

2) Can this job be filled by an equally capable person for less pay and retirement.

everyone at every company is over paid.

Can you support that view with something? Or if I’ve misunderstood your argument, please clarify for me.

My personal experience at virtually every company I’ve worked at (or run) is that in the private sector you have to ask that question continually, or your company will not be competitive and will fail. (Hmmmm… maybe that explains why a lot of companies are failing lately)

While I’m not sure how you would prove the point that top managers are overcompensated, my experience is that most people running large organizations got there (and are making the 250k-350k salaries you mention or even more) not because no one else wanted or could do the job, but because they were good at working the politics and self promoting. Often the best in our companies do not receive the recognition or the pay they deserve while the manipulative do. Just my experience though.
[/quote]

It’s mostly based on #2, not #1 – because I think that previous arguments that were laid out support the fact that the chief in charge of a thousand person fire department probably does bring enough to the table to justify the pay – in fact, is (like many public employees) probably underpaid comparing what her skillset would command in the private sector (hence the retirement package). I think you’ll find that many who go into public service go in with eyes open KNOWING that they will be compensated less on an annual basis than they could make in the private sector, but accepting that as a tradeoff to a more secure job with a defined retirement plan.

I suspect your #2 point above however, could be used against most employees, public or private – it seems to me that for any reasonably well paying position that you could always find someone who would be willing and could do the job for less.

However, I do agree with your other point, that most top executives got where they did not because their skills are necessarily better, but because they were better at playing office politics – however, this just goes to #2 above again. Considering argument #1, I still believe that in their position, with their responsibilities, no matter how they got the job, their pay is fairly well deserved.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=XBoxBoy][quote=SDEngineer]You could use this argument against every position in every company, public or private, and wind up proving that virtually everyone is overpaid.[/quote]

Sorry, I don’t follow the logic of this argument. What I think you’re saying is that if you use the two criteria that I outlined:

1) Does this person bring enough added value to the organization to justify their pay.

2) Can this job be filled by an equally capable person for less pay and retirement.

everyone at every company is over paid.

Can you support that view with something? Or if I’ve misunderstood your argument, please clarify for me.

My personal experience at virtually every company I’ve worked at (or run) is that in the private sector you have to ask that question continually, or your company will not be competitive and will fail. (Hmmmm… maybe that explains why a lot of companies are failing lately)

While I’m not sure how you would prove the point that top managers are overcompensated, my experience is that most people running large organizations got there (and are making the 250k-350k salaries you mention or even more) not because no one else wanted or could do the job, but because they were good at working the politics and self promoting. Often the best in our companies do not receive the recognition or the pay they deserve while the manipulative do. Just my experience though.
[/quote]

It’s mostly based on #2, not #1 – because I think that previous arguments that were laid out support the fact that the chief in charge of a thousand person fire department probably does bring enough to the table to justify the pay – in fact, is (like many public employees) probably underpaid comparing what her skillset would command in the private sector (hence the retirement package). I think you’ll find that many who go into public service go in with eyes open KNOWING that they will be compensated less on an annual basis than they could make in the private sector, but accepting that as a tradeoff to a more secure job with a defined retirement plan.

I suspect your #2 point above however, could be used against most employees, public or private – it seems to me that for any reasonably well paying position that you could always find someone who would be willing and could do the job for less.

However, I do agree with your other point, that most top executives got where they did not because their skills are necessarily better, but because they were better at playing office politics – however, this just goes to #2 above again. Considering argument #1, I still believe that in their position, with their responsibilities, no matter how they got the job, their pay is fairly well deserved.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=XBoxBoy][quote=SDEngineer]You could use this argument against every position in every company, public or private, and wind up proving that virtually everyone is overpaid.[/quote]

Sorry, I don’t follow the logic of this argument. What I think you’re saying is that if you use the two criteria that I outlined:

1) Does this person bring enough added value to the organization to justify their pay.

2) Can this job be filled by an equally capable person for less pay and retirement.

everyone at every company is over paid.

Can you support that view with something? Or if I’ve misunderstood your argument, please clarify for me.

My personal experience at virtually every company I’ve worked at (or run) is that in the private sector you have to ask that question continually, or your company will not be competitive and will fail. (Hmmmm… maybe that explains why a lot of companies are failing lately)

While I’m not sure how you would prove the point that top managers are overcompensated, my experience is that most people running large organizations got there (and are making the 250k-350k salaries you mention or even more) not because no one else wanted or could do the job, but because they were good at working the politics and self promoting. Often the best in our companies do not receive the recognition or the pay they deserve while the manipulative do. Just my experience though.
[/quote]

It’s mostly based on #2, not #1 – because I think that previous arguments that were laid out support the fact that the chief in charge of a thousand person fire department probably does bring enough to the table to justify the pay – in fact, is (like many public employees) probably underpaid comparing what her skillset would command in the private sector (hence the retirement package). I think you’ll find that many who go into public service go in with eyes open KNOWING that they will be compensated less on an annual basis than they could make in the private sector, but accepting that as a tradeoff to a more secure job with a defined retirement plan.

I suspect your #2 point above however, could be used against most employees, public or private – it seems to me that for any reasonably well paying position that you could always find someone who would be willing and could do the job for less.

However, I do agree with your other point, that most top executives got where they did not because their skills are necessarily better, but because they were better at playing office politics – however, this just goes to #2 above again. Considering argument #1, I still believe that in their position, with their responsibilities, no matter how they got the job, their pay is fairly well deserved.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=XBoxBoy][quote=SDEngineer] the most appropriate comparison to the commander of the fire department would be a CEO of an equivalent sized company[/quote]

I don’t think this is a valid argument for two reasons

1) It implies that the CEO’s of private sector companies are fairly paid. (Highly dubious in my mind)

2) It implies that private sector and public sector are equal and comparable. (I wouldn’t call this highly dubious as I did reason one, but I think this assumption definitely needs to be questioned.)

It would seem to me that a more appropriate criteria would include questions like:

1) Does this person bring enough added value to the organization to justify their pay.

2) Can this job be filled by an equally capable person for less pay and retirement.

Question 2 would seem to me to be the kicker. While I don’t know the specifics, my bet is that there would be a number of good people in the firefighting organization that would be willing to take the job for a lesser salary and would be plenty competent to do the job.

[/quote]

You could use this argument against every position in every company, public or private, and wind up proving that virtually everyone is overpaid.

Besides, I think 250-350K is a pretty reasonable salary for someone in charge of and taking responsibility for a thousand person company (which were the numbers I was using as a minimum comparison against her salary). In fact, I’d consider that to be a bit on the cheap end. What I see as unreasonable are the 20+ million salary packages being paid out to a lot of CEO’s.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=XBoxBoy][quote=SDEngineer] the most appropriate comparison to the commander of the fire department would be a CEO of an equivalent sized company[/quote]

I don’t think this is a valid argument for two reasons

1) It implies that the CEO’s of private sector companies are fairly paid. (Highly dubious in my mind)

2) It implies that private sector and public sector are equal and comparable. (I wouldn’t call this highly dubious as I did reason one, but I think this assumption definitely needs to be questioned.)

It would seem to me that a more appropriate criteria would include questions like:

1) Does this person bring enough added value to the organization to justify their pay.

2) Can this job be filled by an equally capable person for less pay and retirement.

Question 2 would seem to me to be the kicker. While I don’t know the specifics, my bet is that there would be a number of good people in the firefighting organization that would be willing to take the job for a lesser salary and would be plenty competent to do the job.

[/quote]

You could use this argument against every position in every company, public or private, and wind up proving that virtually everyone is overpaid.

Besides, I think 250-350K is a pretty reasonable salary for someone in charge of and taking responsibility for a thousand person company (which were the numbers I was using as a minimum comparison against her salary). In fact, I’d consider that to be a bit on the cheap end. What I see as unreasonable are the 20+ million salary packages being paid out to a lot of CEO’s.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=XBoxBoy][quote=SDEngineer] the most appropriate comparison to the commander of the fire department would be a CEO of an equivalent sized company[/quote]

I don’t think this is a valid argument for two reasons

1) It implies that the CEO’s of private sector companies are fairly paid. (Highly dubious in my mind)

2) It implies that private sector and public sector are equal and comparable. (I wouldn’t call this highly dubious as I did reason one, but I think this assumption definitely needs to be questioned.)

It would seem to me that a more appropriate criteria would include questions like:

1) Does this person bring enough added value to the organization to justify their pay.

2) Can this job be filled by an equally capable person for less pay and retirement.

Question 2 would seem to me to be the kicker. While I don’t know the specifics, my bet is that there would be a number of good people in the firefighting organization that would be willing to take the job for a lesser salary and would be plenty competent to do the job.

[/quote]

You could use this argument against every position in every company, public or private, and wind up proving that virtually everyone is overpaid.

Besides, I think 250-350K is a pretty reasonable salary for someone in charge of and taking responsibility for a thousand person company (which were the numbers I was using as a minimum comparison against her salary). In fact, I’d consider that to be a bit on the cheap end. What I see as unreasonable are the 20+ million salary packages being paid out to a lot of CEO’s.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=XBoxBoy][quote=SDEngineer] the most appropriate comparison to the commander of the fire department would be a CEO of an equivalent sized company[/quote]

I don’t think this is a valid argument for two reasons

1) It implies that the CEO’s of private sector companies are fairly paid. (Highly dubious in my mind)

2) It implies that private sector and public sector are equal and comparable. (I wouldn’t call this highly dubious as I did reason one, but I think this assumption definitely needs to be questioned.)

It would seem to me that a more appropriate criteria would include questions like:

1) Does this person bring enough added value to the organization to justify their pay.

2) Can this job be filled by an equally capable person for less pay and retirement.

Question 2 would seem to me to be the kicker. While I don’t know the specifics, my bet is that there would be a number of good people in the firefighting organization that would be willing to take the job for a lesser salary and would be plenty competent to do the job.

[/quote]

You could use this argument against every position in every company, public or private, and wind up proving that virtually everyone is overpaid.

Besides, I think 250-350K is a pretty reasonable salary for someone in charge of and taking responsibility for a thousand person company (which were the numbers I was using as a minimum comparison against her salary). In fact, I’d consider that to be a bit on the cheap end. What I see as unreasonable are the 20+ million salary packages being paid out to a lot of CEO’s.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=XBoxBoy][quote=SDEngineer] the most appropriate comparison to the commander of the fire department would be a CEO of an equivalent sized company[/quote]

I don’t think this is a valid argument for two reasons

1) It implies that the CEO’s of private sector companies are fairly paid. (Highly dubious in my mind)

2) It implies that private sector and public sector are equal and comparable. (I wouldn’t call this highly dubious as I did reason one, but I think this assumption definitely needs to be questioned.)

It would seem to me that a more appropriate criteria would include questions like:

1) Does this person bring enough added value to the organization to justify their pay.

2) Can this job be filled by an equally capable person for less pay and retirement.

Question 2 would seem to me to be the kicker. While I don’t know the specifics, my bet is that there would be a number of good people in the firefighting organization that would be willing to take the job for a lesser salary and would be plenty competent to do the job.

[/quote]

You could use this argument against every position in every company, public or private, and wind up proving that virtually everyone is overpaid.

Besides, I think 250-350K is a pretty reasonable salary for someone in charge of and taking responsibility for a thousand person company (which were the numbers I was using as a minimum comparison against her salary). In fact, I’d consider that to be a bit on the cheap end. What I see as unreasonable are the 20+ million salary packages being paid out to a lot of CEO’s.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=LarryTheRenter]It is ridiculous…thats why we are in this finacial mess…why should they have a guarenteed return, independent from market risks???? A sole proprieter would have to have a 2 million dollar retirement fund which yields 6% per year which would get you the $10,000 per month..

So obviuosly the fireman/woman didnt kick in this much him/herself…it is the taxpayers that are getting bled.[/quote]

How much do you think a similar position in the private sector would pay?

A CEO of a 1000 employee company (about the size of the San Diego firefighting force) probably would make at LEAST about 100K more per year than she did in terms of salary (and more likely, significantly more – and for what, in my opinion, is a lot less responsibility).

Basically, we, the public, are shorting them on their pay during active service, and making it up in terms of retirement benefits.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=LarryTheRenter]It is ridiculous…thats why we are in this finacial mess…why should they have a guarenteed return, independent from market risks???? A sole proprieter would have to have a 2 million dollar retirement fund which yields 6% per year which would get you the $10,000 per month..

So obviuosly the fireman/woman didnt kick in this much him/herself…it is the taxpayers that are getting bled.[/quote]

How much do you think a similar position in the private sector would pay?

A CEO of a 1000 employee company (about the size of the San Diego firefighting force) probably would make at LEAST about 100K more per year than she did in terms of salary (and more likely, significantly more – and for what, in my opinion, is a lot less responsibility).

Basically, we, the public, are shorting them on their pay during active service, and making it up in terms of retirement benefits.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=LarryTheRenter]It is ridiculous…thats why we are in this finacial mess…why should they have a guarenteed return, independent from market risks???? A sole proprieter would have to have a 2 million dollar retirement fund which yields 6% per year which would get you the $10,000 per month..

So obviuosly the fireman/woman didnt kick in this much him/herself…it is the taxpayers that are getting bled.[/quote]

How much do you think a similar position in the private sector would pay?

A CEO of a 1000 employee company (about the size of the San Diego firefighting force) probably would make at LEAST about 100K more per year than she did in terms of salary (and more likely, significantly more – and for what, in my opinion, is a lot less responsibility).

Basically, we, the public, are shorting them on their pay during active service, and making it up in terms of retirement benefits.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=LarryTheRenter]It is ridiculous…thats why we are in this finacial mess…why should they have a guarenteed return, independent from market risks???? A sole proprieter would have to have a 2 million dollar retirement fund which yields 6% per year which would get you the $10,000 per month..

So obviuosly the fireman/woman didnt kick in this much him/herself…it is the taxpayers that are getting bled.[/quote]

How much do you think a similar position in the private sector would pay?

A CEO of a 1000 employee company (about the size of the San Diego firefighting force) probably would make at LEAST about 100K more per year than she did in terms of salary (and more likely, significantly more – and for what, in my opinion, is a lot less responsibility).

Basically, we, the public, are shorting them on their pay during active service, and making it up in terms of retirement benefits.

[Author]

Posts