User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/4/2011 12:21:57 AM EST
[#1]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: And he isn't even right. Quite a few police/fire departments have greatly offset their costs by generating their own income. My buddy's dad was one of the guys that started up the local FD's Ambulance service in...fuck I can't remember the town. The first year they ran it they ran a surplus of over 300,000 dollars. That's including the start up costs of buying equipment, ambulances, ect. When run properly, a fire department can generate a decent amount of revenue. Our local building inspectors don't get a dime of tax money. The entire department is self sufficient with enough left over to run a BIG surplus. Companies spend hundreds of thousands of dollars a year on inspections, permits, ect. Now your local road worker working for a private contractor? His salary is 100% tax money. So... educate yourself. Some of our local volunteer ambulance services are trying to set up fee structures to cover some of their costs and you should hear the howls of protest. The reality is that SOME people have latched onto the volunteer ambulances as a way to get themselves into town where they then sign themselves out of the ER, go about their business in town and then get home via a pre-paid taxi service through DSS. There is only so long you're going to mistreat a volunteer service before the volunteers get burnt out and don't want to participate anymore. You'd think they were asking for firstborn kids now that they want to charge. A PD making money? Sorry, but that shouldn't even be a consideration. A PD won't make a surplus but they do bring in revenue. A lot of it. The fine money might go up the chain somewhere but it doesn't go to benefit the PD, except maybe in small villages with lots of traffic tickets. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/4/2011 12:33:52 AM EST
[#2]
I haven't read all the replies, but yes, public employees should get any pay raises necessary to get the job done.
This means that if I can hire sanitation workers for 10 bucks an hour with no benefits and still have enough willing labor to do the job, that is what the prevailing wage should be. There should not be back alley deals with unions to garner their support, paid for with tax money to the tune of 20 bucks an hour, awesome benefits, and little actual work. Time for a raise when that is required to keep a skilled employee from walking. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/4/2011 12:37:12 AM EST
[#3]
It's a moving target, since our FRNs are being devalued every minute of every day.
The simple answer is: they should get the same as the equivalent private sector employee gets. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/4/2011 1:02:32 AM EST
[#4]
Quoted:
Quoted:
You are weak sauce, and you're getting weaker. "On the dole" simply means on the public payroll, used in context to remind some of you where the money comes from for public sector jobs. You are the one who is demeaning the run-of-the-mill cops and firement. "Leeches", "worthless" - your words, not mine.
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
We'll make this real simple ..... The average public-sector wage/benefit package should never exceed the average wage/benefit packages of the private sector. I would break it down by education. Why should the part time wages of a mcdonalds employee drive down the wages of someone like a city engineer with advanced degrees? Seriously? What you're missing is the big picture - It's the private sector that is paying the salaries of the public sector, ergo public sector salaries must be inline with private sector salaries. It makes no sense for citizens who average $50,000 a year to pay for public sector retirement packages that run in six and seven figures. Furthermore, if someone in the public sector doesn't think he/she is paid enough, he/she can go out into the private sector and try to earn what they think they're worth. Remember, public sector employment falls under the guise of "public servant" not "master over the commoners". If you go to the trouble of getting that advanced degree just to live off the dole for the rest of your life, you're kinda worthless to begin with. You consider a highly qualified professional in a public sector job as "on the dole?" WTF!? I'd hate to think what you think about us poor slobs who are private contractors (and making private sector salaries, which are HIGHER than equivelent public sector jobs) and 100% funded by the government. ;) Okay, I get it. You're in the tank for the Socialist Paradise, where all is ambrosia and nectar ........... until ya'll run out of other people's money. Yes, anyone taking a public sector paycheck is technically on the dole, since it's the private sector taxpayers paying for it all. Don't take it personally, but it would be apropo if all college graduates would take that truth into consideration when they decide to opt for the cushy government paycheck. What is going right over your head is this axiom - When those on the dole exceed those paying the taxes to fund their government paychecks, the system collapses. It is not sustainable when government pensions and benefits exceed the private sector's working income. All those soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are on the dole. All those engineers working on our military's next generation of technology: leeches. All those cops and firemen: worthless. That's your view? You my friend, have a seriously fucked up view of the world. What I said most clearly is that anyone who goes to college for the sole purpose of garnering a cushy government job is a worthless human being, and I'll stand by that despite your attempts at juvenile obfuscation. All those soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are serving their country, most will leave the service and enter the private sector after their stint is up. Most who go into public service as police or teachers do so with an enthusiam for the job, not the prospect of a fat paycheck. Most also know that money doesn't grow on trees, and if the private sector suffers then tax revenues will likely decrease as well, which may affect their retirement. It is only the idiot few who think that just because some Democrat politician promised them a pension that runs 120% of their yearly working salary, that they will still get that cushy pension when the money runs out. Yeah, I think those latter few are worthless. Tap dancing and back tracking. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/4/2011 1:06:13 AM EST
[#5]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
We'll make this real simple ..... The average public-sector wage/benefit package should never exceed the average wage/benefit packages of the private sector. What if the public sector job doesn't have a private sector analog? He trinks 500 McDonalds emplooyes plus one IBM employee divided by 501 is the maximum pay any public employee including doctors and lawyers should be paid. I think the head doctor of a state prison system with 500,000 inmates should be paid as much as the head doctor of a hospital group with 500,000 patients. Actualy to doctor working in coprrections should be paid more to the the terrible work conditions. In the private sector one's wages are deterimined by the free market. How does one determine the wages of similar employees in the public sector? And FYI, your ratio of McDonalds employees to IBM employees is way off. As for your analogy, it would make more sense for the government to bid out those positions to those in the private sector, that way the wages would be determined by free market principles. Why should the prison system have a head doctor who's a government employee? You DO know that contractors (myself, for example), cost the government MORE than direct government employee, right? Short term or long term? Short term yes, but over a long term it cost less. In the NCR the planning factor is 200,000 a year to buy a contactor and 120,000 for a GS14. However, it is anticipated the GS will stay till retirement, vice the contractor going away in a year or two. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/4/2011 1:10:20 AM EST
[#6]
Quoted:
Hmm... I'm a ten year veteran with a college degree, two advanced LEO certifications, no IA or use-of-force complaints EVER, a member of our homicide division and a computer forensics technician. I make a base salary of $44,600 annually (usually around $50k with court and OT), and I contribute to TWO retirement accounts. I have not had a raise in five years (2% in mid-2006), and the new starting salary for a fresh-faced first-day rookie with a college degree is almost $41k. I think I picked the wrong department! 
Imagine how much it would cost to train a replacement. Someone with a similar resume isn't going to jump over to take his place. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/4/2011 1:44:17 AM EST
[#7]
If you want private sector pay and benefits, then take away the job guarantees. Base everything on merit and not seniority or the lowest common denominator usually defined by the unions. For years we've been told how everyone in government sacrifices to do public service when they can make more in the private sector, hence the job guarantees. Well now that we've hit the financial SHTF, we discover a lot of the public sector, especially in the blue states, have helped themselves to generous pay and benefits. This is one pyramid scheme that's going to crash and burn if nothing is done.
I don't know what the right pay is for certain jobs. NYC school teachers make squat considering the cost of living, yet teachers in the suburbs are living well. The same is true for the police. There has to be a balance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/4/2011 2:07:23 AM EST
[#8]
Quoted:
I haven't read all the replies, but yes, public employees should get any pay raises necessary to get the job done. This means that if I can hire sanitation workers for 10 bucks an hour with no benefits and still have enough willing labor to do the job, that is what the prevailing wage should be. There should not be back alley deals with unions to garner their support, paid for with tax money to the tune of 20 bucks an hour, awesome benefits, and little actual work. Time for a raise when that is required to keep a skilled employee from walking. That line is different for everyone. Some guys might work for minimum wage. So we should set salaries at the scale where the retarded are willing to work for minimum and stick around? I don't think so. If an employee isn't working, there should be a system in place to address the problem. Maybe the supervisors should use that existing system. Salaries for public sector employees come about through negotiations. Neither side gets everything they want, but its hardly a back alley process. Quoted:
I don't know what the right pay is for certain jobs. NYC school teachers make squat considering the cost of living, yet teachers in the suburbs are living well. The same is true for the police. There has to be a balance. Those suburb workers are making that pay scale because thats what it costs to live in those areas. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/4/2011 2:09:46 AM EST
[#9]
Quoted:
If you want private sector pay and benefits, then take away the job guarantees. Base everything on merit and not seniority or the lowest common denominator usually defined by the unions. For years we've been told how everyone in government sacrifices to do public service when they can make more in the private sector, hence the job guarantees. Well now that we've hit the financial SHTF, we discover a lot of the public sector, especially in the blue states, have helped themselves to generous pay and benefits. This is one pyramid scheme that's going to crash and burn if nothing is done. I don't know what the right pay is for certain jobs. NYC school teachers make squat considering the cost of living, yet teachers in the suburbs are living well. The same is true for the police. There has to be a balance. They rent U-Hauls in NYC every day you know. 
To those that say public employees should not get raises perhaps they should all take a turn on the back of the trash truck in the communities that provide the service. When I choose to live in a town where services are provided and the employees that I come into contact with do a good job I fully expect them to get reasonable raises the same as everyone else. The waste of public money is more policy driven anyway. Touchy-feely instead of basic services is where $$$ is wasted. Of course when unions are in the mix common sense goes out the door in all levels. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/4/2011 2:28:27 AM EST
[#10]
Quoted:
Quoted:
When the economy was booming people in the private sector looked down on Corrections, Cops and Fireman and mocked us " You have to be crazy to work in a Jail, that must suck you couldn't pay me enough to do that " Now that the economy took a shit, people look at us and say " It's not right that you get paid so much you got a great job, benefits and a pension, I don't have any of that " Thats exactly what it all boils down to. Yep. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/4/2011 2:46:38 AM EST
[#11]
The more people make the more they spend. Life can be expensive if you choose to make it that way. Except for the uber rich, most folks will always say they don't have enough money, including public employees. I don't mind most public pay and benefits while they are working, cost of living and all, for me it's the retirement packages that I find excessive in some cases. Please explain why a school super or police chief can retire with $130k+ per year and great medical until the day they die when they are no longer working. Other than contractual obligations, why? Just because someone agreed to it doesn't make it right. I'm not saying they should get no retirement plan, the question is how much. Again, a balance is needed. I'm always told to save what I can for retirement. I have no guarantees and will have a finite amount of money when I retire.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/4/2011 2:52:46 AM EST
[#12]
Quoted:
The more people make the more they spend. Life can be expensive if you choose to make it that way. Except for the uber rich, most folks will always say they don't have enough money, including public employees. I don't mind most public pay and benefits while they are working, cost of living and all, for me it's the retirement packages that I find excessive in some cases. Please explain why a school super or police chief can retire with $130k+ per year and great medical until the day they die when they are no longer working. Other than contractual obligations, why? Just because someone agreed to it doesn't make it right. I'm not saying they should get no retirement plan, the question is how much. Again, a balance is needed. I'm always told to save what I can for retirement. I have no guarantees and will have a finite amount of money when I retire. If I want retirement health insurance, I have to pay the premium. It isn't free. Guess what: the premium would wipe outa good chunk of my penion. Our bennies are not as great as you seem to think. The school super and chief aren't even members of their subordinates unions, so you can't even use the standard ARF complaint that its the unions fault. If the mayors offiice offered that package to the candidate for Chief, then your gripe is with City Hall or the Board of Eucations hiring committee in the case of the District. Neither example is a standard salary/ retirement package for most Chiefs or Supers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/4/2011 5:16:33 AM EST
[#13]
This discussion is about public sector workers, the management and the workers. What would you consider reasonable for yourselves? Again, everybody who is not uber rich will always say they don't have enough and deserve more. I know not all public workers get the same benefits. If my employer was not competitive, the customers can walk away and spend their money elsewhere. Government can by law make more money appear to cover shortfalls in budgets, though that ability is diminishing and that is why we are having this discussion.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/4/2011 6:58:57 AM EST
[#14]
Quoted:
If you want private sector pay and benefits, then take away the job guarantees. Base everything on merit and not seniority or the lowest common denominator usually defined by the unions. For years we've been told how everyone in government sacrifices to do public service when they can make more in the private sector, hence the job guarantees. Well now that we've hit the financial SHTF, we discover a lot of the public sector, especially in the blue states, have helped themselves to generous pay and benefits. This is one pyramid scheme that's going to crash and burn if nothing is done. I don't know what the right pay is for certain jobs. NYC school teachers make squat considering the cost of living, yet teachers in the suburbs are living well. The same is true for the police. There has to be a balance. That is a big part of the picture some are missing here FALBert. Public Sector Employees are not a homogenous group. Some are starving and some are feasting. It all depends on a number of political factors. Please explain why a school super or police chief can retire with $130k+ per year and great medical until the day they die when they are no longer working
No danger of that in my Agency. Not even the Cabinet Secretary that runs my agency would likely retire to more than 80 or 90 grand and his direct supervisor is the Governor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/4/2011 7:13:44 AM EST
[#15]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You are weak sauce, and you're getting weaker. "On the dole" simply means on the public payroll, used in context to remind some of you where the money comes from for public sector jobs. You are the one who is demeaning the run-of-the-mill cops and firement. "Leeches", "worthless" - your words, not mine.Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: We'll make this real simple ..... The average public-sector wage/benefit package should never exceed the average wage/benefit packages of the private sector. I would break it down by education. Why should the part time wages of a mcdonalds employee drive down the wages of someone like a city engineer with advanced degrees? Seriously? What you're missing is the big picture - It's the private sector that is paying the salaries of the public sector, ergo public sector salaries must be inline with private sector salaries. It makes no sense for citizens who average $50,000 a year to pay for public sector retirement packages that run in six and seven figures. Furthermore, if someone in the public sector doesn't think he/she is paid enough, he/she can go out into the private sector and try to earn what they think they're worth. Remember, public sector employment falls under the guise of "public servant" not "master over the commoners". If you go to the trouble of getting that advanced degree just to live off the dole for the rest of your life, you're kinda worthless to begin with. You consider a highly qualified professional in a public sector job as "on the dole?" WTF!? I'd hate to think what you think about us poor slobs who are private contractors (and making private sector salaries, which are HIGHER than equivelent public sector jobs) and 100% funded by the government. ;) Okay, I get it. You're in the tank for the Socialist Paradise, where all is ambrosia and nectar ........... until ya'll run out of other people's money. Yes, anyone taking a public sector paycheck is technically on the dole, since it's the private sector taxpayers paying for it all. Don't take it personally, but it would be apropo if all college graduates would take that truth into consideration when they decide to opt for the cushy government paycheck. What is going right over your head is this axiom - When those on the dole exceed those paying the taxes to fund their government paychecks, the system collapses. It is not sustainable when government pensions and benefits exceed the private sector's working income. All those soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are on the dole. All those engineers working on our military's next generation of technology: leeches. All those cops and firemen: worthless. That's your view? You my friend, have a seriously fucked up view of the world. What I said most clearly is that anyone who goes to college for the sole purpose of garnering a cushy government job is a worthless human being, and I'll stand by that despite your attempts at juvenile obfuscation. All those soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are serving their country, most will leave the service and enter the private sector after their stint is up. Most who go into public service as police or teachers do so with an enthusiam for the job, not the prospect of a fat paycheck. Most also know that money doesn't grow on trees, and if the private sector suffers then tax revenues will likely decrease as well, which may affect their retirement. It is only the idiot few who think that just because some Democrat politician promised them a pension that runs 120% of their yearly working salary, that they will still get that cushy pension when the money runs out. Yeah, I think those latter few are worthless. Tap dancing and back tracking. Clarifying to dispel those who would obfuscate. We have to do the same thing to those who accuse us of racism whenever we criticize Obama ........ |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/4/2011 7:56:16 AM EST
[#16]
Quoted:
This discussion is about public sector workers, the management and the workers. What would you consider reasonable for yourselves? Who exactly is this post directed to? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/4/2011 10:01:56 AM EST
[#17]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Pay for public sector employees should be based upon what is needed to get people to do the job. Just like the rest of the free world (minus unionized workforces) determines the value of labor. It is simple. Say you have a job as dogcatcher. You set the qualifications you want. If you offer a compensation package and nobody qualified applies- you are not paying enough. If you offer a compensation package and you get a few dozen qualified people to pick from for each available position, your compensation package is set just about right. If you offer a compensation package that gets hundreds or thousands of qualified applicants for every available position, you are paying too much. It really is that simple- for any job public or private. ETA- compensation package includes pay, insurance, retirment, working conditions, the personal satisfaction some people get from some jobs, and any other perk or benefit. The whole package in other words. Can you cite one example where a "private" business (ie GM/Ford/etc) was forced by .gov to remain open/producing goods/services at a loss in order to meet union demands - and no, the recent GM bail out doesn't count? Brian Not sure what your question has to do with determining proper compensation for a job.... Comment in red. If labor costs are too high a business is not obligated to make the product at a loss. "management" has a say in the labor cost content. Brian |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/4/2011 10:07:43 AM EST
[#18]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Pay for public sector employees should be based upon what is needed to get people to do the job. Just like the rest of the free world (minus unionized workforces) determines the value of labor. It is simple. Say you have a job as dogcatcher. You set the qualifications you want. If you offer a compensation package and nobody qualified applies- you are not paying enough. If you offer a compensation package and you get a few dozen qualified people to pick from for each available position, your compensation package is set just about right. If you offer a compensation package that gets hundreds or thousands of qualified applicants for every available position, you are paying too much. It really is that simple- for any job public or private. ETA- compensation package includes pay, insurance, retirment, working conditions, the personal satisfaction some people get from some jobs, and any other perk or benefit. The whole package in other words. Can you cite one example where a "private" business (ie GM/Ford/etc) was forced by .gov to remain open/producing goods/services at a loss in order to meet union demands - and no, the recent GM bail out doesn't count? Brian Not sure what your question has to do with determining proper compensation for a job.... Comment in red. If labor costs are too high a business is not obligated to make the product at a loss. "management" has a say in the labor cost content. Brian Just because labor is paid at a higher rate than it should be based on market conditions does not automatically mean that the company gets run into a loss. Some companies can absorb above market wages forced by unions and still succeed. That doesn't mean that the rates are still not higher than they should be based upon market conditions. Unions and the labor laws in America are simply a factor that interferes with the setting of wages based upon supply, demand and market conditions. So when discussing how to properly detremine the wage for a job, you have to take jobs affected by unions out the picture, as they are unable to react to market forces and act accordingly. They instead are setting labor rates based upon laws forcing them to only use one source of labor that is controlled by a single cartel, and forced to negotiate with that cartel for supply even when cheaper/better sources are available to them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/4/2011 10:41:46 AM EST
[#19]
Quoted:
Quoted:
So in on this trainwreck. Not a train wreck, the same old producers with an education on the world trying to teach the uneducated about market forces, and economic choices when there is a limited amount of capital. Which has been the case for the last 70 years, but they do not comprehend. Deficit spending is prima facie evidence of this. Most folks would do well to read Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell TXL Just curious, TxLewis: what do you produce? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/4/2011 10:43:56 AM EST
[#20]
Quoted:
They instead are setting labor rates based upon laws forcing them to only use one source of labor that is controlled by a single cartel, and forced to negotiate with that cartel for supply even when cheaper/better sources are available to them. or, when economic conditions warrant, they just stop negotiating. http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/03/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20110703 btw, i tried but ... i simply could not get my arms completely around the bias in that article. ar-jedi |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/4/2011 11:06:01 AM EST
[#21]
Had to take a 10% pay cut to do the same job as a public employee
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
