entitlements

[Moses]

Originally Posted by einreb

y I'm just saying that the gross generalization that the typical firefighters live high on the hog and retire with a fat pension isn't true.

In California it IS true. That's the point. I work with these guys every day. I don't know anyone who makes less than $100,000/year with overtime. And they get lifetime medical and 90% salary on retirement. It's a matter of public record.

[scottmandue]

So you think employers should be allowed to do a bait and switch? As someone else said a pension is part of the benefits package given to entice people to take a job.

For instance I could make more working someplace else but at my age the medical/dental/retirement package here behooves me to stay where I am.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by Dottore

Milt, can you really blame people for shopping around for jobs that have good pensions? It's nothing that ever occurred to me, but I know that this is something that animates a large number of people.

Where I live for example, judges get very large pensions, and I know lawyers who have sought out judgeships - even though they would make a heck of a lot more more money in private practice - because the big pension at the end of the road is a huge incentive.

One thing I do have a huge problem with is reducing someone's pension retroactively. People plan their retirement around their pensions. If they have a contractual entitlement, and if, for example, they stuck it out at a miserable job because of that entitlement, I think it's just plain wrong to try to feck with that after the fact.

You can always reduce pension entitlements for people that haven't earned them yet. Those people can decide whether or not they want to stay with the job given the reduced entitlements. But once someone's earned their entitlement, taking it away is essentially a breach of contract - and just plain wrong in my view. It's like someone reducing your salary retroactively, after you've already agreed a figure.

Read my previous post again. I haven't proposed anything but re negotiating pensions for those who are making as much money now as they were when on the job. If it's fair to dock one's Social Security because of income, then I feel it's fair for the pensions, especially the 90% ones, to be reduced as current income goes up. If it takes municipal bankruptcy to do it, fine with me. That's how it's done in the corporate world. Anyone remember T. Boone Pickens?

Well, he was a butcher, so I won't advocate anything he did. The point is, entitlements or not rock solid if they are abused, shopped for or not. And by abuse, I cite the example above of the guy going back to work the next day as a "contract" employee. One of my out-in-laws did just that and it sucks.

In this case, I don't believe in getting the cake and eating it too.

[Moses]

Originally Posted by scottmandue

So you think employers should be allowed to do a bait and switch? As someone else said a pension is part of the benefits package given to entice people to take a job.

I understand. The current California Firefighters retirement allows for 3% of your maximum annual earnings capped at 90%. Also lifetime medical covered at 90%.

If an 18 year old joins the FD, he can retire at 90% of his maximum salary at age 55. The burden on local cities and counties has been enormous and the effects are just beginning. This current retirement package became active in 2006 (along with a 30% pay raise).

This benefit package is clearly not sustainable. About the bait and switch... Benefits packages are renegotiated all the time. It's time to get started.

[HardDrive]

This thread is repulsive.

entitlements?

Did this 'friend' of yours just walk in off the street and ask for government cheese or food stamps? No. He took a job, and your city signed a contract.

Now, decades later, after years of poor management decisions, and years of poor decisions by the CITIZENS of Long Beach, you want to fix the problem by f*cking over the one guy in this deal that held up his end of the bargain.

Pathetic third world bull*****.

[Seahawk]

I can't opine about the retirement structure of FF'ers, but I can tell you that military retirements may well be the 800lb gorilla in the room.

The base retirement is reasonable from a cash standpoint; what becomes untenable is the medical package for a person that retires at 20 years of service...medical expenses across the DoD dwarf the monthly stipend earned as a percentage of our base pay.

Think about it: Most enlisted folks join in their late teens, most officers are commissioned in their early 20's. A fair percentage retire at 20 years, meaning the taxpayers fund their retirement for, on average, 30 years or more.

Before I get flamed, I am a Naval Officer who will retire this year after almost 25 years of service. I think we deserve the base retirement, but we must reform the medical aspects to lessen the burden on the taxpayers.

For instance. I will start work as a very well paid employee of a major university, teaching Systems Engineering and working for the Army on UAS'. The university package includes medical. Since I am will be a retired officer, I don't need the medical. Wouldn't it be nice if the government would share the cost of purchasing my new employees medical (or augmenting) at what will be a net savings to the taxpayer?

I asked. Their is no such program.

My point is that no one really stops working in their late 30's, early 40's, or in my case, 50. We need to figure out a way to bridge medical coverage between retirement and real need after the final retirement.

BTW, the Cival Service retirement package has been dramatically reformed.

[Moses]

Originally Posted by HardDrive

This thread is repulsive.

entitlements?

Did this 'friend' of yours just walk in off the street and ask for government cheese or food stamps? No. He took a job, and your city signed a contract.

Now, decades later, after years of poor management decisions, and years of poor decisions by the CITIZENS of Long Beach, you want to fix the problem by f*cking over the one guy in this deal that held up his end of the bargain.

Pathetic third world bull*****.

This was NOT the retirement plan when Milt's friend signed on. The new 90% plan started in 2006. The question is, can the municipalities in California afford such a benefit package in a declining economy?

Read about the city of Vallejo's possible bankruptcy;

http://www.cnbc.com/id/23385758

The primary reason for Vallejo's insolvency is the huge burden of the new (2006) 90% Police and Fire retirement packages. Is it better to renegotiate these packages to a reasonable (pre-2006) level, or just take your chances and get NOTHING after your city declares bankruptcy?

[Moses]

Originally Posted by scottmandue

So you think employers should be allowed to do a bait and switch?

My father was a Police officer in Oakland, CA for 26 years. His retirement was PRIVATELY funded and managed. When the police department entered the PUBLIC retirement system, the Oakland officers private retirement fund had performed so well and there were so few remaining retirees that the funds value was several million dollars per retiree. The retired officers agreed to dissolve their private retirement fund and distribute the monies to the surviving retirees.

But WAIT!!!!! Although the City of Oakland had no legal claim to the officers private retirement fund, they declared Eminent Domain or some such nonsense. They seized the private retirement fund and enrolled the private fund retirees into the public retirement program.

***** happens.

[scottmandue]

Originally Posted by HardDrive

This thread is repulsive.

entitlements?

Did this 'friend' of yours just walk in off the street and ask for government cheese or food stamps? No. He took a job, and your city signed a contract.

Now, decades later, after years of poor management decisions, and years of poor decisions by the CITIZENS of Long Beach, you want to fix the problem by f*cking over the one guy in this deal that held up his end of the bargain.

Pathetic third world bull*****.

Exactly... the government screws up so they want to ***** the little guy... I have put ten years into state service and will have to do another ten to get my pension and (at half what your firefighter makes) I will need that money when I retire.

Sure, big corporations screw loyal hard working employees that have given their blood, sweat, and tears to the company out of their retirement all the time... that doesn't make it good or right.

[island911]

Moses is spot on.

When I was a kid (19~20) I saw what a good gig Fire fighters had. --Working 8 days a month! (but yes, you where only allowed to sleep 8 hr each of those days)-- Of course I pursued the job... I kicked butt on both the written and physical tests, but, much to my disadvantage, being a white male put me at the bottom of the hire list.

Anyway, because of the high competition for the job many guys find whatever volunteer work they can in an effort to "prove" themselves. ( not a good recipe)

Yeah, in my opinion, all one has to do is look at the supply and DEMAND to see just how overpaid that profession is. ...again, we are talking about a job working 8 days a month with retirement after 25 years. And they get to wear that holier than thou badge of "I save babies from danger." --it's a really good gig.

[Moses]

Originally Posted by scottmandue

Exactly... the government screws up so they want to ***** the little guy...

But the government screwed up by dramatically overpaying the "little guy", and promising him a retirement package that may drive the cities into bankruptcy. The solution is obvious.

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by tc-sacto

Damn straight! Voters couldn't change if we wanted to. The F'ing unions have a strangle hold on California right now. Just try and cut spending or pass a responsible budget by living within the states means and see how they come out with the fangs!

Yes, you can. Vote with your feet.

or Shut up and quit *****ing!

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by Moses

I understand. The current California Firefighters retirement allows for 3% of your maximum annual earnings capped at 90%. Also lifetime medical covered at 90%.

If an 18 year old joins the FD, he can retire at 90% of his maximum salary at age 55. The burden on local cities and counties has been enormous and the effects are just beginning. This current retirement package became active in 2006 (along with a 30% pay raise).

This benefit package is clearly not sustainable. About the bait and switch... Benefits packages are renegotiated all the time. It's time to get started.

Actually, in NY I knew a firefighter who knew all of the pay tricks, etc. He refused to accept becoming a Captain, because it would reduce his pay. He earned a lot of overtime working EMT at fairs, and other events. A Captain has not OT.

My worst tenant ever was a firefighter and he screwed me by calling in building inspectors and other friends, after I had done him a favor by accepting him as a tenant and giving him 3 months free rent, in trade for him to fix up the apt. He was also clinically paranoid. I later found out I was landlord #5 in less than 2 years.

Unfortunately, with these people I've known as firefighters, I haven't found them to be too ethical.

[Jim Sims]

Declaring something an excessive entitlement and reducing it after it was awarded and agreed upon legally and in good faith is a slippery slope. All fortunes and property of any consequence depend on the civilization and infrastructure in which we exist. The "self made man" is a myth if one is referring to anything of significance - "no man is an island." For example Pelican Parts couldn't exist without the external physical infrastructure we all paid for/subsidized. Therefore, it can be argued that anything can be renegotiated (or effectively confiscated). Nothing really belongs to anyone, if society decides otherwise. It could be decided that the true cost of Moses's medical education was only a fraction of what he paid and therefore he suddenly owes three million more dollars to pay for the full share. There are myriads of other examples from the value of military flight training when one leaves the service to the fortunes made in real estate or the financial markets. It isn't one guy all by his lonesome making the fortune. The argument of reducing retirement benefits due to other income could be extended to all income - why does anyone need more that $50K (or $100K or whatever amount) to live? Why not tax anything above that amount at confiscatory levels. Be careful what you propose for others; it could be applied to you.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by red-beard

Unfortunately, with these people I've known as firefighters, I haven't found them to be too ethical.

That seems pretty far from the point.

You know, I've heard all my life about people who are a lot like some on this thread. I've never really met that many personally because I guess I had nothing in common with them. Both my grandfathers an my dad worked right up until the end. I've never known any other way.


And for chrissakes, let's not find out my ol' buddy the 98K pension man gets SS too. I'd take up arms to stop that.

[fintstone]

Maybe renegotiating things are good if someone is "too well off". Perhaps those who are in paid-off homes...or who bought them when priced are much lower should have to pay a tax equivalent to a house payment...just to make things "fair." The additional tax would help keep citioes from going bankrupt.
People who got degrees from state universities should also pay a penalty. It is just not fair.
White people should be taxed because or their skin color and the advantages it gives them.

[widgeon13]

Great ideas, Hillary!

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by fintstone

Maybe renegotiating things are good if someone is "too well off". Perhaps those who are in paid-off homes...or who bought them when priced are much lower should have to pay a tax equivalent to a house payment...just to make things "fair." The additional tax would help keep citioes from going bankrupt.
People who got degrees from state universities should also pay a penalty. It is just not fair.
White people should be taxed because or their skin color and the advantages it gives them.

Although I can see your tongue sticking out in your cheek, you actually are sarcastically suggesting some *adjustments.* So am I.

All I want to submit at this point is that if I'm limited to 13K in income while drawing SS, then I want some relief from those who are pulling down good money while getting a luxurious pension. As far as I can see, my "buddy" is gonna live well below his means for the rest of his life, die reasonably wealthy and give it all to his son. Now here's a kicker: his son is on the LBFD thru the unspoken legacy program. (Don't start me on that because I ran head on to that crap back in the 60's trying to become a summer lifeguard here in LB. Boy, if you didn't go to one of the 5 high schools, play water polo and have some connection to this one family, you didn't get a job. They hire way down the test results list behind me. But that's another story and I wasn't planning on a career with the life guards.)

[biosurfer1]

My dad was a firefighter for 30 years, retiring last May. I will refrain from personal opinions on this thread but there are some facts that remain lost.

Has anyone brought up the fact that firefighters work an average of 56 hours/week?? It is true that some of those 56 hours are spent sleeping, however at anytime they can get called out to work, for the entire 24 hours if needed. Engine 9 in Stockton, CA had MULTIPLE days over his career with 25+ calls in a 24 hour period...you do the math to how much sleep they got.

56 hours/week is not new, since day 1 of my dad joining, he worked 56 hours/week. Over his 30 year career, that means he worked 18720 more hours than a 40 hour/week job. It also means that $$/hour is also different. For example, that $100k a year is the equilvant of a 40 hour/ week worker getting $70k.

[fintstone]

While I find some of the union negotiations to be pathetic...you guys elected the guys that made those decisions...I also find the idea of "renegotiating" a retirement package after it is earned is practically armed robbery. I know that many folks work in the public sector for much less than they could make in the private sector...even when retirement benefits are considered.
As a government employee, I get 30% of my salary for the remainner of my life if I work for 30 years (I will be 75 years old then...so it probably will not be for long)...but my salary is about 50% below what I would earn in the private sector. Depending on the skill...govt has to compete for labor just like any other organization. As it is, we lose an awful lot of our best employees because we simply cannot compete salary-wise.