Stories
No More Bragging Rights
By Don Bauder | Published Tuesday, Dec. 30, 2008
Text size: A | A | A
E-mail the Editor
The San Diego City Employees’ Retirement System always likes to brag about its investment performance. It endlessly points out that among its peers (other municipal employees’ funds) and among benchmarks by which various funds are measured, it is in the top 5 percent, or 3 percent, or whatever.
Those bragging rights are going down the toilet. The city employees’ pension fund had an utterly dismal performance in the third quarter of 2008, ended September 30. Over the past quarter, the past year, and the past three years, it is now doing poorly when compared with benchmarks.
In the fall edition of Free Spirit, the pension system’s newsletter, the deputy chief investment officer boasted that through June 30 of this year, the fund had risen annually by 7.77 percent, 10.7 percent, and 7.95 percent over the past three, five, and ten years, respectively. The ten-year performance was in the upper 3 percent among peers, boasted the fund.
But that was for June 30. Its record for the third quarter of this year, ended three months later, changed the picture. The fund lost 10.10 percent in that third quarter; other municipal funds, on average, lost 7.28 percent. This put the San Diego fund’s performance in the lowest 14 percent that quarter.
These abysmal results then shifted all the numbers downward. Over the past year, the fund lost 15.62 percent, putting San Diego’s return in the lower 34 percent of comparable pension systems. For three years, the return is 2.47 percent a year — ranking in the lower 43 percent. Annual performance over five years is now 7.34 percent. Ten-year performance is still very good — 7.65 percent a year, in the top 6 percent. The losses will be worse after the fourth quarter, which is not yet finished; the overall stock market has suffered a monumental bloodbath in 2008.
The latest numbers can be found in the third-quarter report by Callan Associates, a consulting firm that does statistical analyses for the San Diego City Employees’ Retirement System (SDCERS). “In a terrible quarter and year in the capital markets, the SDCERS portfolio underperformed peers,” says Callan’s Janet Becker-Wold, although pointing out that the ten-year returns remain outstanding.
In the third quarter, the various components of the San Diego fund — domestic stocks, international bonds, etc. — did worse than comparable funds. To put this in context, it’s necessary to look at the fund’s history. In the giddy days of the mid-1990s, the portfolio managers got gamier. Up until then, 55 percent of the fund was in U.S. fixed income securities (basically bonds). Just 35 percent was in U.S. stocks and 10 percent in real estate.
In late 1994, the bond portion was reduced to 36 percent (34 percent U.S. and 2 percent foreign). Stocks were raised to 54 percent (41 percent U.S. and 13 percent international). But the broad stock market, both domestic and foreign, has gone nowhere since 1998, and there have been two bad bear markets, 2000–2002 and the current one, in those ten years. So the pension fund boosted its pursuit of stocks just in time to get in on a dismal decade. Its ten-year record is quite good but probably could have been better if it had stayed more conservative.
But in the mid-1990s, the San Diego pension fund was merely following the herd: other pension and charitable portfolios loaded up on stocks at that time on the notion that they do better over the long haul than bonds. Reliable statistics show that has been true, but conservative investors warn that a heavy concentration in stocks can be dangerous. In 2006, the allocations were tweaked to stocks 55 percent (38 percent domestic and 17 percent international), bonds 34 percent (30 percent U.S. and 4 percent foreign), and real estate 11 percent.
In this year’s bleak third quarter, the pension fund underperformed in just about every category. U.S. stock plunged 10.8 percent versus the benchmark’s minus 7.4 percent, winding up in the bottom 12 percent among peers. International stocks plunged 22.9 percent, ranking in the bottom 10 percent among peers. Domestic bonds, dropping 5.3 percent, did twice as poorly as the average fund. Foreign bonds were down 6.29 percent and in the bottom 17 percent. So-called market-neutral funds, which take both long positions (betting on an upride) and short positions (gambling on a downride), dropped in value and collectively were deep in the bottom half. Returns on real estate (which are reported a quarter behind the other assets) were in the bottom 21 percent; one real estate investment trust portfolio fund, losing 9.52 percent for the quarter, was at or below the bottom 1 percent for both the quarter and year.
I asked San Diego City Employees’ Retirement System about the rancid third-quarter performance. A spokesperson said that the underperformance of U.S. stocks was “primarily due to unprecedented volatility.” Some categories of stocks, such as cosmetics makers, will perform well one day and the next day the steels will do well while cosmetics plunge, complained the pension system. Yeah, but all pension funds faced those same conditions. Response: “In the current market environment, fundamentals don’t seem to matter in the market, and investment managers with a focus on higher-quality stocks, like SDCERS, may underperform.”
But does the San Diego pension system really have higher-quality stocks? Callan, for one, has challenged the system’s stock allocation. There are large-capitalization stocks, those that the market values at $10 billion or more. There are mid caps, $2 billion to $10 billion. And small caps, $300 million to $2 billion. Callan told the City’s pension system in June that the overall market distribution was 84 percent large cap, 8 percent mid cap, and 8 percent small cap. But San Diego’s pension system has 60 percent large cap, 20 percent mid, and 20 percent small — a much heavier concentration in more speculative small- and mid-cap stocks. Callan conceded that these non–blue chips have a better record in recent years but warned that there have been “long historical periods during which mid- and small-cap stocks have underperformed large-cap stocks.” San Diego should consider shaving its allocations of these gamier small- and mid-cap stocks, lest it lock in some losses, said the consultant.
According to Russell Investments, which rides herd on investment performance, mid-cap stocks dropped 10.18 percent in November, while the broad market went down 7.89 percent. Mid caps have done worse than the broad market for the past three months, one year, and three years. Small caps have underperformed the broad market in November and in the past three months. In November, small caps dropped 11.8 percent while large caps dropped 7.6 percent — a significant difference. Small caps suffered “staggering losses” early in the month, said Russell.
But the San Diego pension system is not budging: “Given SDCERS’s belief that small and mid cap stocks will outperform large caps over long time horizons, there is no plan to change the allocation at this time,” says the pension system in a statement.
That could prove risky.
The fourth-quarter results won’t be reported until February. Small- and mid-cap stocks are looking more feeble than the overall market, which is plenty weak. It will be interesting to see if the fourth quarter’s performance justifies the pension system’s cockiness.
The board held various meetings in the December 17–20 period. It was told that as of October 31, the fund balance had dropped to $4.68 billion from $5.94 billion a year ago. The pension system’s actuary, Cheiron, reported that because of the investment climate, the coming year “will be most challenging and these extraordinary times mandate some discussion in coming months.” Hmmm.
"...the coming year “will be most challenging and these extraordinary times mandate some discussion in coming months.” Hmmm.
========================
OMG is that a good one! Challenging is a code word for bankruptcy........
By JohnnyVegas 2:43 p.m., Dec 30, 2008 > Report it
Don, has the pension fund's funding level dropped below 50% yet?????
We need to impeacj KFC Sanders-he is causing more damage by not declaring BK 4 years ago or even right now.
By JohnnyVegas 2:45 p.m., Dec 30, 2008 > Report it
I see JF is nowhere to be found with his "the pension fund is sound" nonsense that he usually spills.
By JohnnyVegas 4:41 p.m., Dec 30, 2008 > Report it
Response to post #1: "Challenging" and "challenged" are euphemisms for lots of things. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 7:46 p.m., Dec 30, 2008 > Report it
Response to post #2: The funding level was below 58 percent a bit ago, but it wouldn't be below 50 percent now. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 7:48 p.m., Dec 30, 2008 > Report it
Response to post #3: JF will be back, rest assured. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 7:50 p.m., Dec 30, 2008 > Report it
The sky is falling...the sky is falling.... I disagree but, what's your point? What is the relevance of this snapshot to a system that has investment time horizons of 20, 30 and 40 years?
True SDCERS likes tooting its own horn. What company doesn't brag about its success? It’s comforting for participants to know/believe their funds are performing better than its peers. But anyone who invests knows "past performance is not a guarantee of future performance". Just ask all the folks who invested with Mr. Madeoff, right? The "DOW" is down 34% as of December 30, 2008, third worst performance in its history behind 1931 and 34 during the Depression. Who in 2005, 06 or 07 saw this coming? Who foresaw the so- called perfect storm of housing price collapse, financial meltdowns combined with regulatory incompetence, purposeful or not?
As you pointed out, the 10 year performance "[i]s still very good — 7.65 percent a year, in the top 6 percent."
Next the issue of asset allocation. You say Callan & Associates is concerned about the Fund's ratios. Yet "Callan conceded that these non–blue chips have a better record in recent years but warned that there have been long historical periods during which mid- and small-cap stocks have underperformed large-cap stocks. San Diego should consider shaving its allocations of these gamier small- and mid-cap stocks, lest it lock in some losses" This sounds like Callan & Associates is covering their posterior. The CYAing of American businesses is necessary these days in case thing go south. You see some people believe they should hire attorneys and litigate for malpractice, albeit an expensive and risky method, of “earning” investment returns on poor decisions.
Don you believe SDCERS' asset allocation "...[c]ould prove risky. The pension system's actuary, Cheiron, reported investments in the coming year “will be most challenging.” Challenging? How about down right scary? But again, Cheiron mention the period of the next year. We know the fund's performance over a 10 year period hovers around 7% , not bad. The board acted in December, meeting its fiduciary responsibility, lowering its expected rate of return and interest crediting rates to 7.75%. Additionally, the board's agenda for January 2009 contains action items for further discussion, that’s code for lowering of interest crediting and return rates.
I'd like to pose some final "What if" questions. I do it for of our prolific poster Johnny V and his mantra of bankruptcy.
What if the City's underfunding turns out to be financial stroke of luck? I’d never call it genius! With many investment vehicles severely beaten down, SDCERS can purchase them during the period of amortization. Combine them with its long term horizons holds and we’ll ride out this perfect storm. (CONTINUED)
By JustWondering 8:43 a.m., Dec 31, 2008 > Report it
Continued from above...
No one on this planet holds a financial crystal ball. Even Berkshire Hathaway and Mr. Buffet have, and will, work through periods of diminishing returns. Forty years ago Berkshire Hathaway was trading at about $150 a share. Today it's trading $90,500 a share off its highs of $148,800 a share in December of 07. If we keep the true context of SDCERS investments in mind, with time horizons of 20, 30 and 40 years, the probability are we'll be fine.
By JustWondering 8:43 a.m., Dec 31, 2008 > Report it
I'd like to pose some final "What if" questions. I do it for of our prolific poster Johnny V and his mantra of bankruptcy.
What if the City's underfunding turns out to be financial stroke of luck? I’d never call it genius! With many investment vehicles severely beaten down, SDCERS can purchase them during the period of amortization. Combine them with its long term horizons holds and we’ll ride out this perfect storm.
============================
Thanks for the support JW.
Here- why dont we do this with your "what if" question-lets give all the GED educated $200K per year government welfare queens all the money from their pension fund they want-and let them guarantee it.
You want to make high risk speculative investments like with Amaranth (sp??)-go for it-but you also take all the downside when your scams go elly up-no taxpayer to leech off of when your pie in the sky scams backfire.
How does that deal sound?????
You are no different than JF-you want to be gifted wealth you didn't earn-and that is all the current pension system does.
You did NOT earn your pension.
By JohnnyVegas 11:26 a.m., Dec 31, 2008 > Report it
BTW- no one wants to file BK-but if it is a choice between paying out billions to gov emloyees who did not earn their pension.. on the backs of the poor and middle class, then BK is the answer .....and yes, I will support that any day of the week as would 90% of taxpayers-the nly ones who wouldn't 9or who ask for tax increases) are the gov employees benefitting from the scam.
By JohnnyVegas 11:28 a.m., Dec 31, 2008 > Report it
Johnny here are a few questions for you.
Isn't is true bankruptcy will not change the obligations of SDCERS for current employees?
Hasn't the City already reduced the pension benefit promises for new employees?
Didn't the voter pass Proposition "B" which prevents the City from increasing pension benefits in the future WITHOUT approval from a majority of the electorate?
If the City does declare bankruptcy (I believe it will if the current economic condition continue for more than a year) won't the courts, not the taxpayers, restructure its debt rather than dispose of it?
Is it true the court can force several solutions while it works on resolving Municipal bankruptcies. Could those methods in a balanced approach be increasing taxes and fees while reducing wages and benefits to current employees at the same time?
Finally, what, or should I ask when, in your opinion, does a employee "earn" their pension?
By JustWondering 12:39 p.m., Dec 31, 2008 > Report it
And a Happy Holidays to you too, Johnny.
Here's the thing you simply do not get, Johnny. It's not a function if whether or not YOU think we've earned our pensions or not. You can spout off all you want, but I have yet to see any actual action. If you truly feel that you as a taxpayer have been wronged, go ahead a file a lawsuit. Heck, team up with Richard Rider and his phantom cronies. Prove to me that the COURT thinks we didn't earn our pensions.
In the meantime, Just Wondering seems to have captured my thoughts fairly well. The UAAL assumes payment for the probationary firefighters who entered city employment last week and won't retire for many, many years.
The SDCERS funding ratio will come back as the market comes back. The bill to the city will likely be higher... in FY2011. We'll see how it goes between now and then.
Oh... and BTW, I'm trying to push the union to negotiate part of what you've proposed. We'll see how it goes. Could be very profitable for me in the long run. Thanks for the idea.
By JF 12:42 p.m., Dec 31, 2008 > Report it
Let me respond to these questions;
1-Isn't is true bankruptcy will not change the obligations of SDCERS for current employees?
BK will absoletely change the obligations and pensions for all employees, past and present (and future). The pension benefits will be lowered to an amount the City can pay and still provide for basic services. Airline pilots saw their pensions cut in half when American, Continental, and United all filed BK. Vallejo retirees are being represented as their own class in the Vallejo BK pending in sacramento and they will be getting a pension haircut.
2- Hasn't the City already reduced the pension benefit promises for new employees?
I do not know about all employees-but they did not lower the pubic safety 3%@50 at all-and that is by far the largest drain from pensions. I have not heard of any two tier pension plan being introduced for new employees. I follow the issue closely and am pretty sure the pensions have not changed for new employees.
3- If the City does declare bankruptcy (I believe it will if the current economic condition continue for more than a year) won't the courts, not the taxpayers, restructure its debt rather than dispose of it?
Yes, the court will declare what is appropriate after reviewing the financial condition. In Vallejo the Court has given the City and public unions several months to work out a new deal on their own or he will make the decision for them. so far the two sides have come up with zero-and I am positive the judge will be the one who comes up with the changes-currently set for hearing in early February 2009. He will void the contracts-including pension obligations-and declare what the new obligation to the city will be.
4- Is it true the court can force several solutions while it works on resolving Municipal bankruptcies. Could those methods in a balanced approach be increasing taxes and fees while reducing wages and benefits to current employees at the same time?
Can the judge make cuts and raise taxes to fix the mess...Hmmm.....I don't know, and the reason is because in order to raise taxes in CA there is a constitutional requirement of a 2/3's majority (Prop 13), but generally speaking judges have vast discretion in crafting a solution so I would guess they would have the power to raise taxes under the Supremacy Clause. Good question.
By JohnnyVegas 2:26 p.m., Dec 31, 2008 > Report it
Opps...Missed a question;
5- Finally, what, or should I ask when, in your opinion, does a employee "earn" their pension?
Retroactive pension spikes/increases are not earned, they are a gift of public funds. If you started working for the City under a specific pension, then that is the pension you should get. What happened throughout the nation the last 8-10 years is muni's retroactively raised pensions by as much as 50% (2%@55/60 to 3%@50)for ALL employees regardless of when they started (without the funds to pay for it) creating billions in unfunded pension obligations with the stroke of a pen.
So if you were 1, 2 3 years away from a 2%@55 pension and it is retroactively changed to 3%@50 you have been granted an increase of over 50%- that was the "not earned" I refer to, not the portion they were legitimately entitled to.
Certainly the employee has earned the original pension they came into the system with and paid into, but not a single cent from the retroactive pension spike.
By JohnnyVegas 2:34 p.m., Dec 31, 2008 > Report it
OK JF, here we go;
1- The SDCERS funding ratio will come back as the market comes back. The bill to the city will likely be higher... in FY2011. We'll see how it goes between now and then.
======
The system is underfunded by billions, and the notion that the market is "coming back" to the tune of the 80% funding ratio it needs to be considered safe would require curent funding to get returns of 50% for over 5 years, not counting new obligations. Sorry-not happening.
The system is not coming back, it is bankrupt from a legal funding ratio (80%), from an asset liability-ratio, and from a cash flow ratio.
2- Here's the thing you simply do not get, Johnny. It's not a function if whether or not YOU think we've earned our pensions or not. You can spout off all you want, but I have yet to see any actual action. If you truly feel that you as a taxpayer have been wronged, go ahead a file a lawsuit.
If the system cannot pay out the pension benefits because it is unfunded then the City has to file BK-has nothing to do with my position-that is just what will happen. If you think taxpayers are going to go along with spending 25%, 35%, 40% or more of the general fund to bailout the pension fund while the city falls apart I think you're wrong.
Guys like, Rider, Aguirre, Keith Richman in OC, we have all souded the alarms that these pensions cannot be sustaned and that has proven to be true. I told you and RW 1-2 years ago, when you both comlained about your pay at SDPD and FD and how much Chula Vista was paying, that Chula Vista would go BK with their pay and pensions-and they are now in far worse shape than San Diego is.
Last-what are you trying to get the union to negotiate??????
By JohnnyVegas 2:46 p.m., Dec 31, 2008 > Report it
Response to posts #7 and #8: The only really outstanding time frame in which SDCERS has performed relative to its peers is the ten-year one. The others range from poor to so-so. I do believe we are in a secular bear market that has been underway about ten years. I would say there are probably six more to go. I think SDCERS should think about dumping the market neutral managers, cutting back on small- and mid-cap stock allocation, concentrate on buying conservative stocks with good yields and well-covered dividends, and put a larger concentration in fixed income securities. The U.S. is going through a massive readjustment from excessive consumption and vastly excessive debt, far too little production, and too much borrowing abroad. The world is deleveraging. It is time to be very conservative. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 2:47 p.m., Dec 31, 2008 > Report it
Add response to #s 7 and 8: You use the term "perfect storm" as if a series of random events, impossible to predict, caused this problem. I disagree 100 percent. Anybody -- particularly trained economists -- should have seen this coming. Since the 1980s, the nation has consumed far more than it produced, borrowing the difference from abroad at the same time it was sending jobs there. What happened in 2008 was inevitable: debt and consumption were far too high, production too low, and wealth and income disparities too high. The only unpredictable thing was the timing -- WHEN it was going to happen. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 3:19 p.m., Dec 31, 2008 > Report it
Response to post #9: Municipal employees should ask themselves whether they have earned their fancy salaries and pension benefits, particularly in light of the parlous state of city finances. They will no doubt say yes. Ask a Wall Street nabob if he is worth $100 million a year. He will say he is, when in fact Wall Street exists on the unearned increment. Most of the top dogs should be paid janitors' wages. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 3:44 p.m., Dec 31, 2008 > Report it
Response to post #10: As far as we know, the city is paying its bills, so vendors can't put it in BK. But it is not providing the services it should provide, and the infrastructure is a disgrace. BK may be the answer. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 3:46 p.m., Dec 31, 2008 > Report it
Response to post #11: The city has reduced benefits for new hires. That's like spitting into the wind. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 3:49 p.m., Dec 31, 2008 > Report it
Response to post #13: A BK judge should have the ability to restructure the city's obligations, including pension obligations, in my judgment. If I am wrong, somebody please correct me. I think you will find that the pilots who got a pension haircut in the airline bankruptcies suffered when the pension plan was handed over to the federal government's Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp, which itself is in bad financial condition. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 3:55 p.m., Dec 31, 2008 > Report it
Response to post #14: Thanks for the explanation. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 3:57 p.m., Dec 31, 2008 > Report it
Response to post #15: I do think there will be 20 percent rallies in the market during 2009, and people will start rejoicing that the pain is over - - but then reality will hit again. I think stocks will probably go up by 10 percent or so in 2009, but that's not much, given the 35-40 percent hit in 2008. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 4:02 p.m., Dec 31, 2008 > Report it
Johnny thanks for responding to my questions. I may not agree with all your answers but the dialog always interests me.
I have to agree with Don's statement regarding the airline pilots. Their private pension funds were taken over the government's Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. Under their rules it was allowed to "recalculate" pension payments. I believe SDCERS is in a different boat so to speak.
While it has many participants many are not vested this was not the case with the pilots. (Most vesting occurs after 10 years of service.) Should the City declare bankruptcy those not vested will probably be removed from the system and their contributions refunded or placed into a new tier of the pension system with reduced benefits thus reducing the liabilities.
This leaves the existing retirees and vested employees. Remember SDCERS actually manages three entities, the City of SD, the Port of San Diego and the Airport Authority. I believe the last official valuation show one with more than 100% funded, one with about 80+% and the City portion in trouble.
The point is the current balance of SDCERS system, even with the impacts of the current economic crisis is enough to pay benefits for many many years.
By JustWondering 4:26 p.m., Dec 31, 2008 > Report it
One last comment; Sometime in the future I suspect the Courts will be the ultimate arbitrator in determining whether or not Pensions contain gifts of public funds or negotiated benefits in lieu of full pay raises. Mr. Aguirre's litigation is still pending in the courts and all of our banter in Don's blog isn't worth much.
For years the City said it could not afford pay increases, but it knew, or believed if it didn't offer competitive wages it could or would lose employees, who have valuable city operations knowledge. It was the City who offered minimal COLAs combined with pension enhancement in lieu of substantial pay increases. One can certainly argue the City, and in many cases the professional negotiators they hired, knew what they were doing. But one also notes, the City has incredibly bad timing in the sense of having bills come due during the nation is in the worst recession in 70 years.
By JustWondering 4:42 p.m., Dec 31, 2008 > Report it
I have a 40, 50 page study from the old CEO of National Ship Building who sat on a San Diego government board, and it is a pretty in-depth review of the pension mess and how it got that way...Ill have to find that thing...what he said in the study was that in some years the employees pension contribtions were "picked up" by the City in leui of wage increases (very stupid move IMO), but that the following years afer this, pay raises were given that were basically much larger, to play catch up, yet the pension "pick up" remained.
Here s a draft of the report...still looking for the final report;
http://www.sandiego.gov/pensionreform...
By JohnnyVegas 5:02 p.m., Dec 31, 2008 > Report it
Finally found it-Here it is;
http://www.sandiego.gov/pensionreform...
By JohnnyVegas 5:06 p.m., Dec 31, 2008 > Report it
Interesting -- the very report that Johnny swears by states that benefit increases, including retroactive increases, account for only 41% of the deficit. The first of those increases was enacted in 1996. That means that most of those retiring now have been paying increased rates for 1/3 to 1/2 of their career. It's a self-mitigating problem as time goes by. Your argument was very valid 5-10 years ago. Not now.
Incidentally, there are several "recommendations" in that report that are against state law. Maybe that's why the report states, "THIS DOCUMENT MAY CONTAIN PROJECTIONS, FORECASTS, ASSUMPTIONS, EXPRESSIONS OF OPINION, ESTIMATES AND OTHER BACKWARD-LOOKING RECONSTRUCTIONS OR FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS, ARE NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REPRESENTATIONS OF FACT, AND ARE QUALIFIED IN THEIR ENTIRETY BY THIS CAUTIONARY STATEMENT." Poor English aside, it's interesting that they put that on each and every page.
Oh, and it's my understanding that in Chapter 9 a judge cannot order tax increases.
By JF 5:49 p.m., Dec 31, 2008 > Report it
The tax increase by a BK judge is an intersting question.
I don't have the answer, but I would speculate that once you have submitted yourself to the jurisdiction of the court that anything the court does- within reason - goes.
As for your comment about when the pensions were spiked I think the big increases came in 2000, but it doesn' really matter-the spikes caused severe financial damage, and they were not funded by the people who received them-even using yur numbers of 1/3 to 1/2 (which are low IMO) that means they received spiked pensions for 2/3's to 1/2 of their working years- where they did not contribute or pay for those extra pension spikes.
Last-if the spikes were not given, then the pension fund would be 41% higher-using the number you povided-and that would bring the fund to safe levels.
By JohnnyVegas 6:51 p.m., Dec 31, 2008 > Report it
Slowly now... we'll use your 2000 figure to tip the odds your way. That was 8 years ago. The average career is 25 years before retirement or DROP. 25 divided by 8 is 3 -- 1/3 a career. If we use the 1996 date we get 25 divided by 12 -- 1/2. Amazing.
The pension fund would not be 41% higher funded now. All the recent dips in funding level have been caused by market losses. That 41% was based on the 67% funding level of 2003. 41% of 33% is 13.5%. So if we assume that SDCERS is 50% funded now, we'd be at 63%... gee, Johnny... still underfunded. Plus... that 41% was based on the 2003 date of that report. As mentioned, that number goes down as those affected retire. It's maybe 30% now. Probably less, considering all the recent market loss. Nice try.
By JF 10:10 p.m., Dec 31, 2008 > Report it
Response to post #24: When a pension fund is taken over by the PBGC, there is a threshold on retirement pay. It's low. An airline pilot could take a 60 percent haircut in his or her retirement pay. I'm pretty sure the PBGC doesn't cover government employees at any level. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10:15 p.m., Dec 31, 2008 > Report it
Response to post #25: Yes, but salaries of San Diego government employees were going up briskly, too -- not just pension benefits. The average City of San Diego employee makes considerably more in salary than his or her counterpart in the private sector. In pensions, the City employee has far more generous benefits. This has been going on in other cities, too. One reason is that, unlike so many private sector labor unions, the municipal unions don't have to worry about foreign competition. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10:20 p.m., Dec 31, 2008 > Report it
Response to post #26: Vortmann knew the pension system was in trouble. He was reluctant to endorse the consensus view that it was in good shape. Others worked on him, and he appeared to cave. It's one of the scandals of this shameful episode. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10:24 p.m., Dec 31, 2008 > Report it
Response to post #27: It's good to have a copy. Mine is buried somewhere. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10:26 p.m., Dec 31, 2008 > Report it
Response to post #28: Suggest you enumerate the suggestions that are against state law. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 11:41 p.m., Dec 31, 2008 > Report it
Response to post #29: The spikes from MP1 and MP2 are greatly responsible for the deficit. Several factors are tied together. The City raided the pension fund to spend money on other things such as the Republican convention of 1996. Then the City appeased the labor unions with the increased benefits. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 11:45 p.m., Dec 31, 2008 > Report it
Response to post #30: Recent drops are the result of market losses. But the losses from MP1 and MP2 were not. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 11:48 p.m., Dec 31, 2008 > Report it
Don you're right.... the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp will not take over another government entity as I mentioned in my comment about being in a different boat.
I believe the City will ultimately file bankruptcy if the current economic situation deepens dramatically or lasts for another six years as you have suggested.
I believe the courts will have their way and create a hybrid solution, a recalculation of benefits based on years of service and years of service credits tied to pension promises for those years actually worked. For those who purchased pension credits the courts will determine that greedy City Leaders violated and bastardized the spirit and intent of the ordinance. One originally designed for employees could not meet the city's 10 continuous years vesting requirement because of active duty commitments broke them up. The courts will set them aside also reducing the UAAL.
Combine that with suggestions pointed out by Johnny V earlier in this thread. In other words...if an employee worked 20 years under the 2.5% benefit rules then those 20 years should be calculated under them. With the remaining years computed under the newer rates and rules. This eliminates the retroactive portion and the "gift" of public funds Johnny vehemently objects to and reduces UAAL simultaneously.
Will employee groups who negotiated in good faith with the City for wages AND benefits be happy about it? I suspect the answer is NO!. Will litigation be initiated making law firms wealthier? We all know the answer to that one is YES.
The real question is how long will it take before its initiated and ultimately resolved. Mr. Aguirre was at it for four years and that litigation is not even close to conclusion with the appeals processes. I suspect it will be another 10 years minimum with a quarter to a third of retired employees no longer receiving benefits.
By JustWondering 11:27 a.m., Jan 1, 2009 > Report it
Response to # 19
Don,
There are some specific eligibility requirements for chapter 9 one of which is
"the municipality must be insolvent, as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(32)":
"Municipal insolvency is defined as "financial condition such that the municipality is--
(i) generally not paying its debts as they become due unless such debts are the subject of a bona fide dispute; or
(ii) unable to pay its debts as they become due".
The city may not providing the services it should and the infrastructure may be a mess(it is), but if they are still "paying the bills" it doesn't appear as if bk is an option.....yet.
By inactive 11:55 a.m., Jan 1, 2009 > Report it
response to #29
jv, I'm not a bk attorney but I don't think it's "anything the court does- within reason - goes" in a chapter 9 bk.
From the US courts chapter 9 bankruptcy section:
"Due to statutory limitations placed upon the power of the court in a municipal debt adjustment proceeding, the court is far less involved in the conduct of a municipal bankruptcy case (and in the operation of the municipal entity) while the debtor's financial affairs are undergoing reorganization."
"The functions of the bankruptcy court in chapter 9 cases are generally limited to approving the petition (if the debtor is eligible), confirming a plan of debt adjustment, and ensuring implementation of the plan. As a practical matter, however, the municipality may consent to have the court exercise jurisdiction in many of the traditional areas of court oversight in bankruptcy, in order to obtain the protection of court orders and eliminate the need for multiple forums to decide issues."
I read the 2nd section as saying that any court action beyond approval, confirmation and implementation is up to the city.
Here is another interesting section of the code, in particular the last line:
"The municipal debtor has broad powers to use its property, raise taxes, and make expenditures as it sees fit. It is also permitted to adjust burdensome non-debt contractual relationships under the power to reject executory contracts and unexpired leases, subject to court approval, and it has the same avoiding powers as other debtors. Municipalities may also reject collective bargaining agreements and retiree benefit plans without going through the usual procedures required in chapter 11 cases."
Here's the link, it makes interesting reading.
http://www.uscourts.gov/bankruptcycou...
By inactive 12:18 p.m., Jan 1, 2009 > Report it
I believe that when the City goes into bankruptcy, the City pension fund will be terminated. Existing pension fund assets will be distributed pro rata to City employees based on their respective contributions to the fund. Employees who are currently employed by the City will have the option of rolling over the payout into an IRA on a tax-deferred basis. Retired City workers will have the option of either accepting a cash payout, or accepting an annuity from a private insurer financed with pension fund assets. Once pension fund assets are fully liquidated, the pension fund will cease to exist and City (taxpayer) liability to workers will terminate. The plan will be replaced with social security and a government version of the 401(k). There will be City matching, but most of the cost (and risk) of the 401(k) will be borne by the City workers. There will be no City guarantee of retirement benefits. The City will no longer pay retiree health insurance costs and workers who want to retire with medical insurance will have to work until they are old enough to enroll in Medicare, just like everyone else. The era of the 40 year old retired firefighter collecting an $80,000 per year pension and raising horses on a ten acre ranch in Lakeside will be a thing of the past.
By Burwell 12:24 p.m., Jan 1, 2009 > Report it
The city may not providing the services it should and the infrastructure may be a mess(it is), but if they are still "paying the bills" it doesn't appear as if bk is an option.....yet.
By brianwilson
===================================
We are bankrupt right now on a cash flow basis-which is what a Ch 9 BK is for muni's.
We can not pay for existing maintenience of infrastructe, pension obligations, benefits or wages. 70% of the pension funding last year-$100 out of the $163 million contributed, came fom the tobacco money lawsuit settlement-and we were still short aout $500 million that Sanders promised the unions to shore up the fund (actually the $100 million tobacco settlement was being paid to San Diego over 20 years-so Sanders got a lump sum settlement from wall street-maybe .50 cents on the dollar).
From a cash flow BK we qualify. Your statement that wemay not be is one the unions will make to try to have the judge not declare the city bankrupt-which is what the Vallejo unions did. But they did not succeed-and I suspect a judge would find San Diego does indeed meet the Ch 9 definition of BK. It is ultimately a question of law for a judge to decide though.
By JohnnyVegas 3:08 p.m., Jan 1, 2009 > Report it
"The functions of the bankruptcy court in chapter 9 cases are generally limited to approving the petition (if the debtor is eligible), confirming a plan of debt adjustment, and ensuring implementation of the plan. As a practical matter, however, the municipality may consent to have the court exercise jurisdiction in many of the traditional areas of court oversight in bankruptcy, in order to obtain the protection of court orders and eliminate the need for multiple forums to decide issues."
I read the 2nd section as saying that any court action beyond approval, confirmation and implementation is up to the city.
========================================
The court apears to be able to void all contracts- and prepare a plan which the muni can afford-which is what is going on in Vallejo.
The last sentence states that the muni can allow the court to oversee it's management and operations-at the muni's request-appoint a receiver or some sort of oversight manager.
I don't see that happening for San Diego-the council won't give up their power to wreck the city all over again.
When OC filed BK in 94 they actually came back much faster than they thought they would. They tightened their belts up and really watched their expenses.
One thing I remember they did to save money, and this was typical of their approach, was the paving of streets. They used to repave every 4 years, and they changed that to every 5 years, cutting their expenses by 25%-they did things like that all through the county-really worked out good for them in the long run.
By JohnnyVegas 3:18 p.m., Jan 1, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #38: You make some good points. First, I don't believe I said that the current economic woes will last another six years. I think we will begin a painfully slow crawl out of the bottom at yearend 2009 or early 2010. That means the nation should avert a depression, which is defined as three years of difficult recession. (The recession started in the fourth quarter of '07, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the arbiter on such matters.) Stocks are in a cyclical bear market that probably won't end in six years. There will be bull markets within the secular bear (there might be right now), but stocks won't provide great returns for several years, in my opinion. This will hurt San Diego, because SDCERS remains heavily committed to equities (more than 50 percent of the portfolio). Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 4:09 p.m., Jan 1, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #39: I do not think that bankruptcy is right around the corner for the reasons you cite. However, tax receipts will come down sharply in 2009, and California will be picking off some money belonging to SD -- something to be concerned about. Best, Don Bauyder
By dbauder 4:12 p.m., Jan 1, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #40: Yes, but the court would seem to have latitude in confirming the debt restructuring plan and ensuring its implementation. Best Don Bauder
By dbauder 4:16 p.m., Jan 1, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #41: These steps would be desirable for taxpayers. but I am not sure that a BK would work out that way. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 4:19 p.m., Jan 1, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #42: Obviously, you are correct that the City is neglecting infrastructure and services, and there are some, like you, who feel that is sufficient for a BK filing. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 4:21 p.m., Jan 1, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #43: Again, it appears that the court does have significant latitude in a municipal BK. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 4:24 p.m., Jan 1, 2009 > Report it
(i) generally not paying its debts as they become due unless such debts are the subject of a bona fide dispute
================
Heck, by that definition, the city has been bankrupt for 20 years. The city has been cut off by many, many suppliers for non-timely payment. Makes me wonder just how well managed competition will work.
By JF 5:41 p.m., Jan 1, 2009 > Report it
Johnny makes some interesting comments about OC. Know the one thing that wasn't cut at all? Yep, employee benefits.
Here's an interesting thought. A couple of years ago the citizens passed a proposition requiring a vote before raising pension benefits. I wonder how the court would look at that when/if reducing benefits since benefits can no longer be raised by collective bargaining? Just one less option to consider...
By JF 5:49 p.m., Jan 1, 2009 > Report it
Response to 42,
jv I didn't make a statement either way on whether I think the city would qualify for or have a bk petition approved. I was responding to Don's post in which he said " As far as we know, the city is paying its bills".
I have no idea whether the city is paying it's bills or not or what it's cash flow is either. Don appears to believe the bills are still being paid and I'm sure he has better sources than eiither one of us.
Do you have something other than anecdotal evidence that payments are not being made that you can share?
Remember the code says not paying its debts as they become due. If employees are not receiving their pay when due or vendors are not receiving payment when due, that's one thing. But I don't know if not paving the streets,closing libraries reducing staff ect would be applicable in a bk.
Unfortunately for San Diego, I think the OC board of supervisors is alot smarter than the San Diego city government.
By inactive 6:03 p.m., Jan 1, 2009 > Report it
JohnnyVegas,
I read the brief that the Vallejo PD,FF and electrical workers locals filed asking that the bk order of relief be reversed on the grounds that Vallejo hadn't satisfied all of the statutory requirements, especially proof of insolvency. I have been looking for the ruling but I thought I had read a ruling wouldn't come until this month. Do you have a link to it? It should be interesting reading. I'm sure the decision really chapped the butts of the unions.
By inactive 6:29 p.m., Jan 1, 2009 > Report it
JF,
You're right. OC didn't cut employee benefits while in bk. They did however get rid of a couple of thousand employees about 1/2 of which came from social services departments.
The county also sued Merrill Lynch for more than $2 billion, contending that they the county inappropriate securities and misled the treasurer. ML ended up settling the suit for about $400 million which was about1/4 of what they lost.
By inactive 6:58 p.m., Jan 1, 2009 > Report it
Johnny makes some interesting comments about OC. Know the one thing that wasn't cut at all? Yep, employee benefits.
=====================================
JF-there were no pension problems in 1994-they didn't have the spiking until 2001 in OC-and after they spiked they added $500 million in unfunded pension costs and are once again facing BK.
So you are corrct-no pensions were cut in 1994-because no one was retiring at age 50 getting full pay and healthcare.
Lets compare apples to apples, not oranges.
By JohnnyVegas 7:42 p.m., Jan 1, 2009 > Report it
Do you have something other than anecdotal evidence that payments are not being made that you can share?
----------------------------------
The pension bill is not being paid. Sanders stated he was going to put $600 million into it to shore it up, and he only put in $163 million-$100 million of which was a tobacco lawsuit windfall.
So that alone would be enough for BK IMHO-especially considering the fact that it is only going to get larger, not smaller..
I would also suggest when the infra structruture cannot be maintained, bills/debts cannot be paid.
As for the Vallejo decision, the judge has ruled they have met the standard of Ch 9, and I have a link, but my comuter is being worked on and cannt post it until it gets back next week.
The decision is under appeal to the BAP, which is going to uphold the BK judge IMHO (99% sure).
The next BK hearing is set for February-and that is the hearing that where the judge will decide if the labor/pension contracts get tossed-he has postponed it a number of times already to see if the city and the unions can work someting out-they cant.
By JohnnyVegas 7:52 p.m., Jan 1, 2009 > Report it
Johnny I understand the City has a seven (7) year paving cycle, which is really a process called slurry sealing. A Slurry Seal is a cold mixed asphalt. It consists of a graded aggregate, a binder , and additives. It is a hard wearing surfacing for pavement preservation. Or more simple put it's the cheapest, or should I be politically correct, the most cost effective method of preserving the underlying roadway surface or bed.
A true repaving or asphalt overlay is very expensive and required substantial roadway preparation, a lot more expense. This might be part of the explanation regarding the poor and deteriorating condition of San Diego's road network...
But I've digressed from the original intent of DON's story.
The bottom line in San Diego: It's expensive to live here. Taxes are much lower compared to similar cities across California and the nation. The politicians here are hacks and have no business running a multi-billion dollar municipal corporation. The electorate are sheep. And the people's watchdog, the media, has grown old and frail without any real teeth.
By JustWondering 7:55 p.m., Jan 1, 2009 > Report it
JF,
You're right. OC didn't cut employee benefits while in bk. They did however get rid of a couple of thousand employees about 1/2 of which came from social services departments.
============================
How many did OC lay off, or have plans to lay off, last week in at the SS department??
I think it was 2,000. Exactly as 1994 it appears.
I would suggest that anyone earning over $100K take a 10% pay cut, and increase the % as the pay goes up-that is something no gov official has suggested at the city, county or state level.
It is very fair and no one gets laid off to strain the already overburdened social services system. Full emloyment at a reduced wage is far superiour than retaining the 6 figure emoloyees and cutting $40K, $50K and $60K employees.
By JohnnyVegas 7:59 p.m., Jan 1, 2009 > Report it
Johnny, so by pension spiking, you mean the city losing a lawsuit which required it to increase benefits? Think maybe a BK judge might take that into account?
Sorry, but in 1994 there was no cap here. Most/many folks retired at 100%+ rather than the 90% we're capped at now.
Further, your own "evidence" shows that benefit increases were less than half of the deficit in 2003 and way less than half now.
By JF 8:47 p.m., Jan 1, 2009 > Report it
JV,
perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying in post 42 when you said in San Diego "the unions will make to try to have the judge not declare the city bankrupt-which is what the Vallejo unions did. But they did not succeed".
I took that to mean that they lost their appeal-"they did not succeed".
the 3 unions were granted their leave to appeal in late October and filed their opening brief Dec 1st with Vallejo having until 01/05/09 to file their response.
So I'm guessing you weren't actually refering to the union appeal, but to the initial filing and finding??
Also, according to the OC Register, the county informed labor leaders that all 4,218 workers at the SSAgency will each be required to take up to 80 hours of unpaid leave over the next six months.
and that they were planning to lay off nearly 60 Probation Department employees and 210 social services employees beginning Monday.
But they also said that if labor fights the mandatory furloughs, then 625 jobs will be eliminated by Feb.
So somewhere between 270 and 675.
Not quite the 2000 as in 1994.
By inactive 10:06 p.m., Jan 1, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #50: I'm not surprised that the City has been cut off by suppliers for non-payment of bill, although no one has complained to me. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10:57 p.m., Jan 1, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #51: Orange County's problem was bad investment strategy. I'm not surprised that employee pay and benefits weren't touched, if what you say is true. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 11 p.m., Jan 1, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #52: JF says the City has been dropped by vendors for late payment of bills for a couple of decades. I didn't know that. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 11:03 p.m., Jan 1, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #53: Yes, that angle on Vallejo is an interesting one. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 11:05 p.m., Jan 1, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #54: Giving the axe replaces axing benefits. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 11:07 p.m., Jan 1, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #55: Orange County's experience is a sober case for San Diegans to ponder. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 11:08 p.m., Jan 1, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #56: There is no question that the pension bill is not being paid and the infrastructure is being neglected. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 11:10 p.m., Jan 1, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #57: Back before the ballpark vote in 1998, the slurry sealing schedule was delayed as one of several ways to save money. Because of the upcoming vote, the mainstream press tried to bury these economies. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 11:13 p.m., Jan 1, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #58: Yes, but would the top-level bureaucrats take pay cuts? Doubt it. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 11:15 p.m., Jan 1, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #59: Yeah, but the deficit -- the true one -- is larger now. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 11:17 p.m., Jan 1, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #60: Every CA city is watching Vallejo. How many will go that route? Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 11:19 p.m., Jan 1, 2009 > Report it
Johnny, so by pension spiking, you mean the city losing a lawsuit which required it to increase benefits? Think maybe a BK judge might take that into account?
========================================
JF, SD has not lost any pesnion case, no case is won or lost until a FINAL ruling as been entered. There has beenno final ruling-everything is on appeal.
SD has pension chalenges based on conflict of interest laws, OC has challenges based on CA constitional requirements banning "gifts of public funds" by paying spiked pensins for work already performed-both cases are at least 2 years from a decision-minimum.
So your claim that the city has lost their penson lawsuit is not accurate.
By JohnnyVegas 8 a.m., Jan 2, 2009 > Report it
Also, according to the OC Register, the county informed labor leaders that all 4,218 workers at the SSAgency will each be required to take up to 80 hours of unpaid leave over the next six months.
=============================
OK, I goofed that one up. I thought a large number were getting canned.
By JohnnyVegas 8:01 a.m., Jan 2, 2009 > Report it
I took that to mean that they lost their appeal-"they did not succeed".
the 3 unions were granted their leave to appeal in late October and filed their opening brief Dec 1st with Vallejo having until 01/05/09 to file their response.
========================
The trial/BK court found that Vallejo was BK. That was indeed appealed by the unions to the BAP-and that appeal is pending.
No one in the legal community expects it to succeed though-in fact the only ones who seem to think they have a chance are the unions- and that is wishful thinking.
The BK judge, in his 53 page opinion (which I have linked here before), laid out a very methodical, detailed and pretty much unimpeachable case that the city qualifys for the Ch 9 BK.
I can't post that link until I get my computer back.
By JohnnyVegas 8:05 a.m., Jan 2, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #58: Yes, but would the top-level bureaucrats take pay cuts? Doubt it. Best, Don Bauder
===========================
When the leaders do not take cuts-BIGGER cuts than those they want the peasant workers to take then there is no credibility and the plan is not going to fly.
We ar seeing this at the state level right now-the state legislature wants huge tax increases but refuses to make their own cuts-they have bought new cars, increased staff levels, given out huge raies to those at the top of many agencies....it just rubs people the wrong way-and by people I mean the little guy getting slammed with higher taxes and no benefit.
Carl DeMaio has reduced his staff and expense level and is asking for the entire SD City council to do the same-that is a good start.
By JohnnyVegas 8:12 a.m., Jan 2, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #72: Of course, the current city attorney could stop pursuing the appeal. He seems to be caving on everything else. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 8:25 a.m., Jan 2, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #73: Mea culpa accepted. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 8:27 a.m., Jan 2, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #74: Get that computer back, Johnny. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 8:29 a.m., Jan 2, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #75: The top bureaucrats may figure a way to make it appear that they are taking a pay/benefits haircut, but, as in the banking industry, there will be loopholes through which a tank could drive. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 8:33 a.m., Jan 2, 2009 > Report it
Response to 74
jv, I don't need that link. I have read all of the filings, responses and rulings in the case. As I said, I misread your comment to mean the appeal had been ruled on. According to a press release, the arguements should be scheduled in a couple of months with a ruling a month or two later.
BTW, according to an email I recived from the Vallejo PIO, the hearings are scheduled for Feb. 3,5,and 10 which time Judge McManus will hear testimony regarding the City's motion to reject the Collective Bargaining Agreements. A ruling is not expected until a later date.
BTW 2, are you at all familiar with the Vallejo PIO??
In reguards to the OC layoffs, a potential 675 layoffs is not as bad as 1994 but is still alot. . My personal opinion is that the SS depts serves the very people who need the most in times like this and it should not be the first dept to fall under the guillotine.
By inactive 9:14 a.m., Jan 2, 2009 > Report it
JV Are you referring to the OC board of supervisors lawsuit challenging the OCSD pension plan??
I find it interesting that Jerry Brown filed or planned to file an amicus brief on behalf of the unions. Clearly a ploy to get union support in a run for governor
By inactive 9:26 a.m., Jan 2, 2009 > Report it
So Johnny, when City Attorney Goldsmith decides to drop the appeals by former City Attorney Aguirre's litigation is the case concluded with the ruling of the trial court and thus over without a "Final" judgment?
By JustWondering 9:27 a.m., Jan 2, 2009 > Report it
If Goldsmith drops the appeal the case is over.
He has not said yet if he will drop it or continue it.
By dropping the appeal the trial court's ruling becomes a final disposition.
By JohnnyVegas 11:26 a.m., Jan 2, 2009 > Report it
JF, SD has not lost any pesnion case, no case is won or lost until a FINAL ruling as been entered. There has beenno final ruling-everything is on appeal.
==================
Really? So the city didn't lose the Corbett case? That's the one which granted 3% at 50, not MP1 or MP2. Corbett also validated DROP.
Again, do you think that a bankruptcy judge will take actual court cases granting benefits into account versus a contract. The judge may be able to reverse contracts. I'm not so sure a judge can reverse the ruling of another court.
By JF 2:01 p.m., Jan 2, 2009 > Report it
Really? So the city didn't lose the Corbett case? That's the one which granted 3% at 50, not MP1 or MP2. Corbett also validated DROP.
Again, do you think that a bankruptcy judge will take actual court cases granting benefits into account versus a contract. The judge may be able to reverse contracts. I'm not so sure a judge can reverse the ruling of another court.
==================
JF, we were clearly referring to Aguirre's pension lawsuit-not lawsuits settled years ago.
Why do you always compare apples to oranges??? You did the same thing when you said the OC pensions were not touched in their BK-then when I point out they did not have the 3%@50 scam then you turn around and say SAN DIEGO had it.......yet we were clearly speaking about OC.
As for MP1, MP2 and Corbett stipulations, the BK judge most certainly can wipe those gains out-not by relitigating them, just by saying the benefits granted by them cannot be met. That's it.
If San Diego files BK, and a judge declares we qualify because bills cannot be paid, then the next move is to reduce pay, benefits, pensions, whatever else to get the city back to health-and that would include any gains made by the cases you listed.
Listen JF-you still do NOT get it. Payng HS educated entry level workers (workers that have no prior work experience or education for a PD or FD job) $200K per year with bene's is over. That cannot be sustained and it has pushed the city, the county and the state to bankruptcy. You are not going to be retiring at age 50 making more than when you worked for 30-40, even 50 years or more on the taxpayers dime. It is ending. The writing is on the wall, it ha been on the wall for sometime now. Youneed to accept that.
I have never met so many complainers who are being paid so much more than others with the same background and credentials, and yet continue bitch about their compensation.
There are law firms today advertising for lawyers (with 7 years of college under their belt) with 2 years minimum experience for $25 an hour with NO benefits, in the lagest metro area in America. You and all your buddies could be replaced in 24 hours, more than likely by more qualified employees at 1/4 your pay.
P/T Associate Attorney 15-20 hrs/week (Chappaqua)
Must be admitted in New York.
Must have a minimum of 2 years of general practice civil experience.
No criminal, bankruptcy, or immigration law.
Westchester resident preferred.
Must have own car.
$25/hr
Respond by email with resume only.
Please do not respond if you do not have these credentials.
http://newyork.craigslist.org/wch/lgl...
By JohnnyVegas 3:31 p.m., Jan 2, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #80: When faced with the prospect of a mass march to the guillotine or a voluntary slashing of salaries and benefits, some municipal labor unions might do the intelligent thing. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 3:36 p.m., Jan 2, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #81: Sounds like a political move. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 3:38 p.m., Jan 2, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #82: It's my understanding that if Goldsmith drops the appeal, the case is over. However, similar cases will come right back as this economy unwinds and voters realize they have been conned into paying excessive salaries and benefits to municipal workers. Actually, Aguirre's case may become a template for other cases. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 3:42 p.m., Jan 2, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #83: That's my understanding, too. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 3:43 p.m., Jan 2, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #84: The resolution of the Corbett case screwed San Diego taxpayers to the wall, and gave bureaucrats a sweet deal. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 3:47 p.m., Jan 2, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #85: That Chappaqua ad is really something. Yes, big law firms are liquidating and slicing payroll. Lawyers have been among the most overpaid people in the private sector. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 3:51 p.m., Jan 2, 2009 > Report it
JF, we were clearly referring to Aguirre's pension lawsuit-not lawsuits settled years ago.
Why do you always compare apples to oranges?
===================
Actually, at the time we weren't talking about any lawsuit, not about Aguirre's, not Corbett, not any of them. Go back and look for yourself.
You read "Aguirre's lawsuit" into my comments and completely forgot about Corbett.
Why do you always read into things and not look at the big picture?
What does what a lawyer in New York make have to do with what a firefighter here makes? Why are you always comparing apples and oranges?
By JF 5:21 p.m., Jan 2, 2009 > Report it
That Chappaqua ad is really something. Yes, big law firms are liquidating and slicing payroll. Lawyers have been among the most overpaid people in the private sector.
========================
Boy you are not kidding it is really womething.
A legal education today is $4K per class, X 30 classes = $120K, plus living expenses for 36 months at 1,500/mo that is an additional $54K, total = $174K for a law degree today.
And that NY job required 2 years experience so it was not even entry level- so I think we can lower pay for all entry level cops and FF's and have nothing to worry about.
By JohnnyVegas 7:10 p.m., Jan 2, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #92: You guys have to get your apples and oranges sorted out. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10:03 p.m., Jan 2, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #93: Yes, a legal education is expensive. But people in many other fields, notably medicine, spend a bundle on education, too. The amount spent on education should have nothing to do with eventual stipend. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10:11 p.m., Jan 2, 2009 > Report it
Har, Har, Har... typical Johnny Vegas answer. Deflect, change the subject, admit no fault.
In changing the subject, what you're saying is that living expenses are exclusive to a legal education -- people not in law school don't need to pay them, right? Or are you simply padding your supposed costs?
Oh, and Johnny, your own documents from Contra Costa County showed that your $200K/year bit is just so much more BS and exaggeration from you. Give it a rest. Sorry if your argument goes away with the real numbers.
By JF 6:32 a.m., Jan 3, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #96: Johnny admitted he was wrong on one point above. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 9:22 a.m., Jan 3, 2009 > Report it
Oh, and Johnny, your own documents from Contra Costa County showed that your $200K/year bit is just so much more BS and exaggeration from you.
=======================
Actually that was not my document,but a government document, and it supported my claims of a $200K per year average compensation for PD and FD, with pension costs being equal to 60% of base pay for the cops and FFs.
As for living costs-you have to include them because you are not earning a living while you atend college-which is slightly harder than paying living expenses when you have a $200K per year job but only posess a GED.
By JohnnyVegas 11:24 a.m., Jan 3, 2009 > Report it
OK, who is going to have the honor of being poster #100 in this thread??????
By JohnnyVegas 11:25 a.m., Jan 3, 2009 > Report it
100!
By Fred_Williams 12:34 p.m., Jan 3, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #98: A riposte from Johnny. Touche! Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 3:09 p.m., Jan 3, 2009 > Report it
Response to posts #99 and #100: I would have been #100, but Fred stepped in and took the honors. Should we go for 200? Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 3:11 p.m., Jan 3, 2009 > Report it
Yes, I understand perfectly well that it was a government document. But... here's the rub... go look at the retirement figures. They're only about 25% for firefighters.
And... Contra Costa County is one of the highest paid departments in the state. San Diego is one of the lowest. Salary for a firefighter in CCC is more than salary for a captain here. Reduce the rates on your sheet by around 30% and you'll see a pretty good representation of costs here. Nowhere near an average of $200K.
That's my point. You throw out a document from another agency with a different pay scale, different benefits and a different contract and claim it proves your point about the pay and benefits here. As you put it, apples and oranges. Then when the document is adjusted to match the reality in San Diego, you stick your head in the sand and go about shouting, 'They all make 200K'. It simply isn't true. And yes, your claim was ALL make 200K, not an average of 200K.
By JF 3:56 p.m., Jan 3, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #103: You're up, Johnny. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 8:46 p.m., Jan 3, 2009 > Report it
Incidentally, it looks like all that money wasted on law school was just for the dumb ones.
http://nctimes.com/articles/2009/01/0...
Maybe the pay disparity is due to good ole supply and demand. There are too many lawyer in many states, thus competition for rates. There are precious few qualified as firefighters and most places are understaffed, thus higher wagers.
By JF 6:53 a.m., Jan 4, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #105: I am not sure that there are "precious few" qualified to be firefighters, particularly at today's high salaries/benefits. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 7:33 a.m., Jan 4, 2009 > Report it
Im up but I have figured out this is an exercise in futility, JF thinks money grows on trees and the roads are paved with gold......I just simple state the truth, these pensions are not sustianable, even the 6 figure salary is not really sustainable.
By JohnnyVegas 12:31 p.m., Jan 4, 2009 > Report it
Just state the truth? Hardly.
In criticizing me, you forget that I'm also the one pushing the union to negotiate for items that will reduce pension and health care liability. You'll find that hard to believe, but I am. We'll see how it turns out.
Not even a no salary volunteer department is sustainable if the people refuse to fund it.
By JF 12:38 p.m., Jan 4, 2009 > Report it
JF,
I hope you'll succeed in pushing the Firefighters union to be better civic citizens. Under Saathof, you and your colleagues were used as a front to feather his own nest, along with other high union and city officials.
Nobody doubts that firefighters and police are vital.
What we're all beginning to resent is the fact that your work has been so over-glorified and over-paid for so long. Because of exclusionary policies, and an ingrained hostility against "civilians" in both police and fire ranks, many public spirited and capable people have been blocked from joining the ranks or assisting as volunteers.
This has to change.
Putting you fires is NOT as difficult or dangerous as the media and your union would have us believe. So the large salaries and pensions are really unjustified, and now completely unaffordable.
Public safety is a top priority, but it's not the ONLY priority, especially when there are others who are ready to step in and do the job nearly as well for a fraction of the current costs.
The union can recognize this, work to change the mentality of so-called "public servants", and do a lot to improve our immediate future in San Diego.
The first step is concessions like those you are working towards, and I applaud your efforts. I urge you to run for union office if you can, so that you'll have a seat at the table. After reading your posts for so long, I'm confident you would do a much better job than the current union bosses who seem to hold the rest of San Diego in contempt.
Best,
Fred
By Fred_Williams 1:10 p.m., Jan 4, 2009 > Report it
JF just doesn't get it, and no matter what you say he will come back with the "we need $200k per year to get the 'best and brighest' applicants" which is absurd (yet I har this argument for every single job there is in the public sector-including judges who get over $200K per year with bene's for a pretty cushy 40 hour week job).
The private sector, which is far more productive and effecient than the public sector, has no problem finding good qualified employees ..........for a fraction of what gov pays.
I predict as long as special intersts can conribute to/bribe elected officials nothing will change-until we go BK or the funds just dry up-which is basically what is going on right now.
By JohnnyVegas 2:03 p.m., Jan 4, 2009 > Report it
Fred,
First and foremost, the Saathoff era is over. Most of us are celebrating. The only members of the current board who served under Ron frequently spoke out against him. I thank you for your vote of confidence. I've thought many times about running for union office, but prefer to influence politics in my own way.
Let me give you a relatively recent background of why the union is so obstinate. Look at this article.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/31313250...
Back in 1990, a similar funding crisis happened. We stepped up and took a 5% pay cut, being the 'good guys' as you suggest. We then went and begged the Port District for money to help keep the city afloat. No one but union firefighters helped to convince the port. The Port District ponied up and gave the city money. The city reneged on it's promise to give back our pay cut, and instead spent the money on the arts. The arts are NOT one the priorities you mentioned. Since then the union has taken a "never give back again" stance. Can you blame them?
You wrote, "What we're all beginning to resent..." Which "all" is this? A recent (successful) city council candidate wisely ran some polls before seeking our endorsement. She found that firefighters in this town have an approval rating in the mid-90th percentile. Firefighters are at the top of the most trusted profession polls. And for good measure, we're (present company excluded) always voted the "sexiest profession". You will never change public perception until the day when little boys cease to stop and wave every time a fire engine goes by. That sounds a lot more smug than I want it to, but I'll let the facts stand.
I'm a little curious about these "exclusionary policies" you speak of. Pretty much every minority group has representatives within the FD who conduct community outreach and recruiting -- for free, on their day off. The pool of candidates has shrunk drastically lately. That's due to competition from other departments, not exclusionary policies. Further, we've instituted a CERT program to enable community members to assist in their own safety. CERT classes are taught on an off-duty, volunteer basis by union firefighters.
By JF 4:38 p.m., Jan 4, 2009 > Report it
firefighters in this town have an approval rating in the mid-90th percentile. Firefighters are at the top of the most trusted profession polls. And for good measure, we're (present company excluded) always voted the "sexiest profession".
======================================
Oh brother..............................
By JohnnyVegas 5 p.m., Jan 4, 2009 > Report it
I'm a little curious about these "exclusionary policies" you speak of. Pretty much every minority group has representatives within the FD who conduct community outreach and recruiting -- for free, on their day off. The pool of candidates has shrunk drastically lately.
===================================
JF, the reason you ANY have minorities is because SDFD (and every other major PD and FD in this state) was sued for cronyism and nepotism hiring. That is very common all throughout government employment, with the higher the compensation the more cronyism. You in fact have defended this nepotism hiring on seveal occassions online.
I know the pool of FF applicants must have shrunk because there are so many other places that pay $200K per year to the GED educated in a depression. I don't know how an employer can keep staffed in this robust economic environment.
Seriously, there are 1,000 applicants for every 1 open FF job. The notion that there is a lack of applicants is beyond perposterous.
By JohnnyVegas 5:06 p.m., Jan 4, 2009 > Report it
Johnny,
San Diego was under a consent decree 30 years ago. Since then the fire chiefs have included 2 black males, 1 white female and 1 white male. San Diego also has the highest percentage of female firefighters of any major department in the country. Sound like a racist organization? I believe your perception is tilted due to your failure to get hired by the PD.
Why do you persist with this GED thing? You know darn well that getting hired as a firefighter requires one to be either an EMT or paramedic, both of which require college. Sorry to spoil your delusions.
During the last test, less than 200 applicants passed the written exam and oral interview. The intent was to hire 60-90 from that list. Now do backgrounds and medicals on those folks... how many do you think were left? Think about what you just wrote -- 1000 applicants for 1 job. We were hiring up to 80. Did you see 80,000 people lined up at the Q?
Over and over the facts have been presented to you, yet you continue spouting the same old lies. I don't mind if you don't like my profession or my compensation, but at least try to be an adult about it. Act like the attorney you claim to be.
By JF 5:49 p.m., Jan 4, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #107: Any expenditure is clearly not sustainable if the institution is going broke trying to keep up with the payments. If you don't think San Diego is going broke, look at the sewer and water systems, streets, and other infrastructure. All you see is neglect. Then there are the long term problems, such as water, that are not being addressed. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 9:13 p.m., Jan 4, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #108: I wish you luck in fighting to reduce these liabilities. How are you doing in that effort? Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 9:15 p.m., Jan 4, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #109: Well put, Fred. The local media have bought into the propaganda campaign to puff up the firefighters and police. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 9:17 p.m., Jan 4, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #110: In both salary and benefits, the public sector in San Diego rakes in more than those in comparable private sector jobs. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 9:20 p.m., Jan 4, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #111: I wish I believed that the Saathoff era was over. Keep up the fight, though, JF. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 9:23 p.m., Jan 4, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #112: Sexiest profession? Isn't that the oldest one? Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 9:25 p.m., Jan 4, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #113: There aren't going to be many labor shortages in this recession. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 9:27 p.m., Jan 4, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #114: How many SD FFs have college degrees? How many have some college? Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 9:30 p.m., Jan 4, 2009 > Report it
How many SD FFs have college degrees?
===========================
The question is not how many have college degrees, it is how many have college degrees at time of hire....... at PD it is 15-20%. I would think FD would be even less.
By JohnnyVegas 10:06 p.m., Jan 4, 2009 > Report it
San Diego was under a consent decree 30 years ago. Since then the fire chiefs have included 2 black males, 1 white female and 1 white male. San Diego also has the highest percentage of female firefighters of any major department in the country. Sound like a racist organization? I believe your perception is tilted due to your failure to get hired by the PD.
====================================
Almost every major PD and FD have dramatically increased the % of minorities, in many lagrer departments minorities are the majorities in hiring.
But that does not change the fact that these jobs were closed to the outside until the last 20,30, 35 years in virtually all major muni's........
I could never be hired at PD, I am too smart- and I also do not fit into the Family, Friends, Military and lawsuit consent decree hiring program. If you don't match in one of those 4 you're out of luck.
If the gov hired on an objective basis, instead of a subjective basis, I would be in the top 1%. How else do you account for the GED educated Mark Furman's getting hired (he fit into the Military workfare hiring program-see above- and he was a HS drop out).
By JohnnyVegas 10:15 p.m., Jan 4, 2009 > Report it
Sexiest profession? Isn't that the oldest one?
========================
Do you see more calendars with prostitutes on them or with firefighters on them?
Besides, I think that's a pretty ridiculous statement -- but it goes to show the general feeling of the public towards firefighters.
By JF 6:14 a.m., Jan 5, 2009 > Report it
I could never be hired at PD, I am too smart.
But that does not change the fact that these jobs were closed to the outside until the last 20,30, 35 years in virtually all major muni's
====================
As I said, much of your hyperbole is driven by your past rejection. Many PD officers earn JD degrees while employed. I guess you're smarter than them?
What does the hiring practice of 35 years ago have to do with today? Again, you're living in the past.
Here's an interesting fact. For years, the union pushed the city to have a degree as a pre-req to hiring. The city refused because it reduced the pool of candidates.
Here's another fact. The final hiring stages are done by city personnel... not members of the PD or FD. We don't have a choice in who gets hired. I know, shocking. How does that help your argument?
Again, your comments make it pretty easy to see that your vitriol is based largely on your rejection many years ago. Sorry.
By JF 6:25 a.m., Jan 5, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #123: Good point. JF might come back with his numbers. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 9:41 a.m., Jan 5, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #124: If you're in the top 1 percent, you're a fish out of water in a lot of places. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10:05 a.m., Jan 5, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #125: If the City goes BK, those warm and fuzzy feelings toward FFs will disappear quickly. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10:07 a.m., Jan 5, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #126: Your turn, Johnny. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10:09 a.m., Jan 5, 2009 > Report it
Don, ALL San Diego firefighters have at least some college. Half the members are paramedics. Paramedic school takes about a year and a half of college.
I have no idea how many folks have degrees. Johnny asserts that having a degree at the time of hire is pertinent. Maybe, but apparently the city's personnel department didn't think so. The reality is that having a degree is more important the higher you promote. So I'm not sure that it really matters. As you said, it's not the cost of the education....
The other point is that every SD firefighter has a continuing education requirement. We're all keeping up with the latest in firefighting all the time... a minimum of two hours per shift of training. That's one important way in which we can never be replaced by community volunteers. They simply don't have the time to train. I know, I used to be one.
By JF 7:39 p.m., Jan 5, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #131: Johnny: do you want to challenge this? Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 8:57 p.m., Jan 5, 2009 > Report it
As I said, much of your hyperbole is driven by your past rejection. Many PD officers earn JD degrees while employed.
==================================
LOL..another JF WHOPPER.
NO cop has a JD at HIRE, and I doubt thre are even 5 who have earned a JD while employed as a cop. BTW-it is very easy to go to school when it is being paid for by the taxpayers and you're earning $200K per year.
By JohnnyVegas 8:06 a.m., Jan 6, 2009 > Report it
Here's another fact. The final hiring stages are done by city personnel... not members of the PD or FD. We don't have a choice in who gets hired. I know, shocking. How does that help your argument?
====================
That is the biggest BS lie you have ever posted JF.....that applicants for the PD or FD are actually hired by personnel....
BALONEY!
By JohnnyVegas 8:08 a.m., Jan 6, 2009 > Report it
Don, ALL San Diego firefighters have at least some college. Half the members are paramedics. Paramedic school takes about a year and a half of college.
========================
All cops have at least some college because the academy is equal to one semester of community college credit.
It does not change the fact that they are hired with GED's and HS diploma's. One course at a community college does not make a college graduate, or even a college education.
By JohnnyVegas 8:10 a.m., Jan 6, 2009 > Report it
The other point is that every SD firefighter has a continuing education requirement. We're all keeping up with the latest in firefighting all the time... a minimum of two hours per shift of training. That's one important way in which we can never be replaced by community volunteers. They simply don't have the time to train.
=========================
Your limited continuing education is employer paid on employer time, the notion that volunteers would be unable to do this PAID TRAINING is preposterous.
By JohnnyVegas 8:12 a.m., Jan 6, 2009 > Report it
Your limited continuing education is employer paid on employer time, the notion that volunteers would be unable to do this PAID TRAINING is preposterous.
==================
Really? Look at the Department of Labor stats on volunteerism in America.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/volun...
The average person who does volunteer (which is only around 26% of the population) spends 1 hour per week volunteering. How are they to keep up with even the training, no less going on actual responses? Remember state law requires that volunteer firefighters receive the same exact training and equipment as paid firefighters.
So if I understand, you're now upset that we get paid while we're training to protect you?
By JF 9:39 a.m., Jan 6, 2009 > Report it
If the gov hired on an objective basis, instead of a subjective basis, I would be in the top 1%. How else do you account for the GED educated Mark Furman's getting hired
==============
A large portion of the police officer position requires interaction with people. That is tested pre-hire by an interview. Just a hunch, but I'm guessing you failed in the ability to interact with people part.
By JF 9:42 a.m., Jan 6, 2009 > Report it
NO cop has a JD at HIRE
==============
Would you like to show me where I said that any did? Or are you putting words in my mouth as usual?
By JF 9:43 a.m., Jan 6, 2009 > Report it
That is the biggest BS lie you have ever posted JF.....that applicants for the PD or FD are actually hired by personnel....
BALONEY!
========================
Sorry, Johnny, but those with good test scores are interviewed by two Fire Captains. Those interviewers make notes and scores. They don't know how those interviewed scored on the written or their ranking. City personnel does the final tabulation and offers of employment. Again, I'm sorry you couldn't get hired, but that doesn't mean that they system isn't fair.
By JF 9:50 a.m., Jan 6, 2009 > Report it
JV's statement "NO cop has a JD at HIRE", makes me scratch my head. Where did JF state that. He said "some officers obtain a JD while employed". Additionally, the City personnel department is the group charged with hiring based on recommendation from the agencies conducting the interview/testing. That's why is called a "personnel department". JV's rage has blinded him to rational debate. For his part, anything that is said that is favorable to the opinion he opposes is considered a fabrication. It's just too obvious. The sophomoric name calling is further evidence of his out and out detest. Which makes this all the more humorous. I love reading his responses as his augers in. On the topic of volunteers, are you serious to think that a major metropolitan city, in this case the 8th largest in the US, can support a public safety service based on a volunteers availability. More meat for the grinder. The point is moot on its face. The fact is it WILL NEVER HAPPEN. No matter how much you try to justify it, a volunteer department is a logistical, as well as, a political impossibility. But, just for entertainment value, how do you envision this volunteer program to run JV? Furthermore, what have you done, other than spew vitriol on blogs and forums to make this volunteer program happen? I thought so. Talk is cheap.
As for you Mr. Bauder, you are no better than the UT in your bias.
Response to post #123: Good point. JF might come back with his numbers. Best, Don Bauder
Where's your research in the hiring practices of the FD as you cast your dispersions as readily as the UT. Your transparent tennis match spectator and debate moderator followed up with single sentence replies as tired as JV's parroting. Do you own research. I'd expect better from the press.
By jamesems 10:08 a.m., Jan 6, 2009 > Report it
Fred,
My apologies that this has sunken into the gutter. I usually try to focus on the "what" not the "who" but hearing the same crap again and again forced a shift.
You say that, "Putting you fires is NOT as difficult or dangerous as the media and your union would have us believe." OK, so put your money where your mouth is. The San Miguel Fire Protection District in the Rancho San Diego area hires reserve firefighters. Since you're a community-minded individual, why don't you go down and apply. It will give you a good taste of what being an urban firefighter is about. Remember, this job is EASY, right? Anyone can do it? If what we earn is so much... why not join us and make the easy money yourself? Johnny, you're invited to participate as well. We just hired a guy your age. If he can do it, you can too.
Here's my second proposal. For the next few nights, I want you to set an alarm clock at a random time between midnight and six AM. I'll leave a question for you to answer upon awakening. It'll all be common knowledge stuff, at least for a firefighter. I'll even let you use references. Let's see how you do. Are you game? Can you hack it? Again, Johnny, you're welcome to participate. Oh... some nights there may be 3, 4 or 5 questions. At different times. Remember, to earn the "big bucks" you need to work OT several nights in a row, so we'll simulate that.
By JF 11:29 a.m., Jan 6, 2009 > Report it
JF,
I was trained in shipboard firefighting and damage control when I was deployed on aircraft carriers. At sea, there is no one to call. You put out at-sea fires, or you die. They're considered the most dangerous fires of all to confront, especially when you add live ammunition to the mix.
So I've already met, and exceeded, what you suggest I must do before you'll generously grant that my opinion might be considered as valid.
While I was in the military, I often endured far worse conditions than any firefighter in San Diego. Yes, I went without sleep (not just for days, but weeks and months), worked very long hours at physically demanding jobs, all in a far more dangerous environment than you've ever experienced.
But years before any of that, when I was barely a teenager, a massive windblown wildfire threatened our home. I was out there on the line chopping firebreaks.
Yes, it was hard work, but I wasn't the only one out there and none of us died for our efforts. On the contrary, we saved not only our house, but built such an effective fire break that several other houses were also saved.
No, JF, fighting fires is NOT that difficult. What is difficult is navigating the system to ever be hired as a firefighter in the first place. There are hundreds, if not thousands of people in San Diego who could do this work -- especially Navy vets who underwent at-sea firefighting training. But the extraneous requirements and politicization of the work prevents them from joining the department.
Your union is a big reason for this.
JF, it's not at all necessary for me to become an official San Diego firefighter to have standing to criticize how your union and the city has actually worked to decrease our overall safety by squandering scarce resources, all the while claiming some sort of moral superiority by virtue of your job title.
Your job is honorable and important...yes.
But it doesn't make you some kind of superman who can whip out a firefighter's badge, and thereby be beyond all questioning. It doesn't work that way.
Since you claim not to focus on the who, then simply answer my arguments rather than attacking me for not being a firefighter and daring to have an opinion.
Again...firefighting is NOT that difficult a job. Many others can and will do it for far less pay, but your union, with the connivance of the city, has set up a lot of road blocks to protect your jobs, creating a false scarcity and driving up the price.
Do you agree, or not?
By Fred_Williams 12:07 p.m., Jan 6, 2009 > Report it
Fred, i believe that the majority of Americans with disagree with your assessment. But please accept JF's challenge. Put you money were your mouth is. This, "i was in the navy and I know better " is a load of bull. Fred, there are a ton of ex-navy folks employed by fire departments, many still serving in a reserve capacity to boot. The devaluing is absurd. Just once, ONCE, would I like too see those that undercut a firefighters job simply take the challenge. BTW, FRED!, have you ever even submitted an application for a municipal fire or PD job? Or, is all your ranting, like this beauty below, just conjecture?
By Fred
"What is difficult is navigating the system to ever be hired as a firefighter in the first place. There are hundreds, if not thousands of people in San Diego who could do this work -- especially Navy vets who underwent at-sea firefighting training. But the extraneous requirements and politicization of the work prevents them from joining the department."
I'm betting its the later.
Fred, you amaze me. Your denigrations are a shot across the bow, then you criticize those that disagree. Their reply to you, "if its so simple, go get a fire job". To which you provide a rebuttal that gives the appearance thats "its impossible because us navy folk are pushed out the door." Hmm.
Take the challenge! I'll ask my navy seal turned firefighter buddy what he thinks about the "getting hired by the FD difficulty.
My old man.. seems to think you exaggerate and over dramatize your claims about navy service. But hey, what does a vietnam vet and 30 year career master chief with 13 west-pacs on 6 ships including carriers, know?
By jamesems 12:50 p.m., Jan 6, 2009 > Report it
A large portion of the police officer position requires interaction with people. That is tested pre-hire by an interview.
===============
Hey Einstein, millions of jobs require interaction with the public. Virtully ALL retail and sales jobs require interaction with the public- and these types of jobs produce a far more public service oriented employee than a cop does- and are 100 times better at it- but they are not making $200K per year now are they.
As for your line that this is tested pre-hire by an interview-thanks for pointing out another public union line of baloney. The people doing interviews for PD positions are the very same GED hires that produced the Mark Furmans and Mike Caronas in law enforcment. You have GED's hiring other GED's, no surprise there.
JF, your baloney won't work on me, maybe the average hero worshipping sap-but now me. I know how the system works, I know who are in the system, and it is not the best or the brightest.
By JohnnyVegas 1:13 p.m., Jan 6, 2009 > Report it
City personnel does the final tabulation and offers of employment.
=======================================
Making an offer based on oral scores from the FD brass is NOT city personnel determining who gets hird.
The oral interview is when a public agency decides if they want you-and it is the ONLY part of the interview process that matters = where 85% of all applicants are FAILED, based on a a SUBJECTIVE oral interview, not because they failed an objective written test-and in the vast majroity of PD's the writen exam is pass/fail.
Here let me post what you wrote;
"The final hiring stages are done by city personnel... not members of the PD or FD."
False. City personnel may make the offer-but thye do not decide who gets hired, the dcision to hire comes from the ones who do the oral interview- FD personnel.
By JohnnyVegas 1:19 p.m., Jan 6, 2009 > Report it
JV's statement "NO cop has a JD at HIRE", makes me scratch my head. Where did JF state that. He said "some officers obtain a JD while employed". Additionally, the City personnel department is the group charged with hiring based on recommendation from the agencies conducting the interview/testing. That's why is called a "personnel department". JV's rage has blinded him to rational debate. For his part, anything that is said that is favorable to the opinion he opposes is considered a fabrication. It's just too obvious. The sophomoric name calling is further evidence of his out and out detest.
===================================
Hi welfare queen, welcome aboard.
Don't tell me, GED and military is how you were gifted your public job???? And your college education was from the "school of hard knocks".
More incompetents trying their best to justiy their scam.
Jigs up-deal with it.
By JohnnyVegas 1:22 p.m., Jan 6, 2009 > Report it
Hey JV
On this statement,
Hey Einstein, millions of jobs require interaction with the public. Virtully ALL retail and sales jobs require interaction with the public- and these types of jobs produce a far more public service oriented employee than a cop does- and are 100 times better at it- but they are not making $200K per year now are they.
those service folk you're referring to - they aren't asked to detain bad people now are they?
Cheesy Try JV
By jamesems 1:23 p.m., Jan 6, 2009 > Report it
JV, STOP. You're the guys that misquotes JF. YOU BUDDY! Your pathetic misdirection attempt at deriding my education is equally as embarrassing. Yet, you claim to be in the top 1 percent? Of what I wonder. Between your and Fred's claims of superiority, without any provocation, well, let me just say, it makes me wonder.
By jamesems 1:29 p.m., Jan 6, 2009 > Report it
No, JF, fighting fires is NOT that difficult. What is difficult is navigating the system to ever be hired as a firefighter in the first place. There are hundreds, if not thousands of people in San Diego who could do this work -- especially Navy vets who underwent at-sea firefighting training. But the extraneous requirements and politicization of the work prevents them from joining the department.
Your union is a big reason for this.
===================================
THANK YOU. This is on the money.
JF, I also know many ex-navy (who would have guessed in San Diego....lol), and I can confirm that I have been told when they are on the ship there are times when you will work 7 days a week, for 10-15 or more hours a day. One ex navy guy told me he worked 7 days a week for weeks on end- this is hearsay and I cannot vouch for it-but I have no reason to doubt it.
I would suggest this is far more difficult than your job-even on the nights when you get no sleep because you are running calls the entire night.
I agree with Fred 100% about FF jobs- the vast majority of the applicants could do the work. I feel the same way about PD work.
By JohnnyVegas 1:31 p.m., Jan 6, 2009 > Report it
JV, STOP. You're the guys that misquotes JF. YOU BUDDY! Your pathetic misdirection attempt at deriding my education is equally as embarrassing. Yet, you claim to be in the top 1 percent? Of what I wonder. Between your and Fred's claims of superiority, without any provocation, well, let me just say, it makes me wonder.
==================================
Relax welfare queen......Dont take this so seriously.
It's only the internet.
By JohnnyVegas 1:32 p.m., Jan 6, 2009 > Report it
By JV
Hi welfare queen, welcome aboard.
Sophomoric and sad. The best you can do? Wow.
Silly sobriquet quite obviously some offensive projection to counter a weak position or some other insecurity. That sort of response diminishes any further comment put forward, even from a casual observers standpoint.
By jamesems 1:35 p.m., Jan 6, 2009 > Report it
How about you relax. You're the one with the overt antisocial flare. Introspection maybe helpful.
By jamesems 1:36 p.m., Jan 6, 2009 > Report it
Most of the welfare queens don't let me get under their skin so easily- take a chill pill, watch the game on TV tonight and call me in the morning, OK "jamesems".................lol~!!
By JohnnyVegas 1:38 p.m., Jan 6, 2009 > Report it
Seems i'm striking a nerve now. Now, your covering by transference. Trying to give the appearance that "I'm the one with the problem". clearly pathological. Seems you may be the one in need of the "pill".
LOL!
By jamesems 1:44 p.m., Jan 6, 2009 > Report it
Jamesems, welcome aboard.
My firefighting training is actually quite irrelevant to the question under discussion. That's the absurd levels of pay and pension the city has been duped into paying firefighters and police.
I only described my experience in rebuttal to JF's absurd and offensive notion that ONLY firefighters are qualified to have any opinion on their job.
In fact, if I were a disabled grandmother I'd still be very much able to describe how the firefighter's union has done a disservice to San Diego.
Although firefighting is dangerous and requires training, it is not SO dangerous and difficult that we should pay $200k a year for the job.
Don't you agree?
Best,
Fred
(P.s. On both the Kitty Hawk and Carl Vinson, the hours while at sea are 12 hours on, 12 hours off every day, plus watches, plus drills, plus extra-duties as assigned. There are no days off, and no excuses. You sleep in a rack, amidst the noise and smells with 40 other guys. You eat what you're served. The pay is crap. Firefighters are living a very luxurious life in comparison, JF and Jamesems...just to let you know.)
By Fred_Williams 1:48 p.m., Jan 6, 2009 > Report it
I know how the system works, I know who are in the system, and it is not the best or the brightest.
===========================
Interesting English usage for someone in the "top 1%"
By JF 2 p.m., Jan 6, 2009 > Report it
Hey, here is a GREAT LINk that really puts the public union pension scam into perspective.
Amazing;
http://ibvallejo.com/index.php?option...
By JohnnyVegas 2:07 p.m., Jan 6, 2009 > Report it
Interesting English usage for someone in the "top 1%"
=====================
What????
No typos there.
Grammar looks good.......what is wrong with that post?
By JohnnyVegas 2:08 p.m., Jan 6, 2009 > Report it
Fred,
Apparently, you've misinterpreted my challenge. I'd never for an instant claim that we're the only ones qualified to have an opinion on our job. You're certainly entitled to your opinion.
I respect your long hours in the Navy. I've said for a long time that those in the service should be paid about double what they are. Consider how those hours at sea would affect you if you did it for 30 years -- no shore duty.
So you might have a good feel for the hours and stress I'm talking about. Let me ask a couple of questions. Were you involved in actual life and death situations? Or did you just train for it? Incidentally, you might want to change your Facebook page because it claims you were a "Personnelman". Sounds dangerous. ;)
You claim that anyone can do our job. Over 50% of adult Californians are obese. They can't make it through the academy. The 45% who are left need to pass EMT school, score over 90% on the test, have a decent interview and pass the background and medical. What percentage of the population do you think is left to employ? You'd think former sailors would do well, and many have. But we've also failed Navy SEALs out of the academy because they couldn't pass the exams. It's not quite so easy as you make it out to be.
By JF 2:30 p.m., Jan 6, 2009 > Report it
"I know how the system works, I know who are in the system, and it is not the best or the brightest."
Grammar looks good.......what is wrong with that post?
===================================
I know who ARE in the system? Yep... a genius all right. It should be, "I know who IS in the system". But you didn't pick that up, even after a second look.
Poking fun at your English skills is fairly petty, all things considered. It is kind of funny, however. Here you are a former teacher with an advanced degree. Someone who as a lawyer has to prepare written briefs and speak intelligently and a dumb, GED educated knuckle dragging firefighter can poke holes in your grammar and your logic.
Maybe it's time to reconsider your notion of superiority based on a college degree.
By JF 2:41 p.m., Jan 6, 2009 > Report it
JF, I never said firefighting is easy, only that the difficulties are exaggerated. Like when you seem to be claiming that you're working 12 on and 12 off seven days a week for 30 years without any break.
You're not.
Yet even this is really beside the main point.
The city cannot afford to continue paying such high salaries and pensions. It just can't. Since you're a bit too chicken to reveal your real name here (thanks for looking me up on facebook) I don't know what you're paid, but I'm confident it's not sustainable.
We all know this. We can come together and do something about it, or ignore the problem and make it worse.
Unfortunately, you're correct that the majority of people so lionize public safety workers like yourself, that you and your union have a very unfair advantage in the negotiations. In addition, the fact that your union is very active and generous in local political campaigns means you've got beholden members of the council who will do what the union says...not what's good for San Diego.
With all this propaganda and political weight unfairly tipping the scales in your favor, I'm bound to dispel the myth that your job is so dangerous and difficult that nobody else can do it.
In fact, according to most dangerous jobs surveys, being a taxi driver or store clerk is far more deadly than fighting fires or arresting criminals. Yet we don't pay them a risk premium in San Diego, bankrupting the rest of the city and robbing everyone of basic infrastructure.
Ron Saathoff, though you disavow him, remains under indictment for his role in bilking the city. He was the firefighter union boss for many years, and along with McGrory came up with MP-I, starting the fire that consumed our city finances.
You cannot disclaim him, while still claiming all the money, JF. Something's got to give.
Let's talk about that instead of how manly and admirable you are for fighting fires for a living. Okay?
Best,
Fred
By Fred_Williams 2:44 p.m., Jan 6, 2009 > Report it
Johnny,
Vallejo employees are the highest paid in the state, according to a PD salary survey. Comparing them to San Diego employees is ridiculous. According to the website, a Vallejo firefighter's full contract rate is $130K/year. A San Diego firefighter makes around half that. Even I think that their compensation is ludicrous. What was that about apples and oranges?
Obviously, the "retirement pickup" is much higher in Vallejo than it is here. Here we pay 50% of the normal cost of retirement. According to SDCERS, employer normal cost of retirement is around 14%. That would be around $16K, not $32K. Employee contributions would then also be around the same as someone in the private sector.
I don't disagree that our retirement is better. Heck, I think every American should have a retirement like ours. Realistically, we pay a little more than double the rate that those in Social Security only pay. We get a final percentage that is a little more than double what Social Security pays. Amazing.
By JF 2:59 p.m., Jan 6, 2009 > Report it
I know who ARE in the system? Yep... a genius all right. It should be, "I know who IS in the system". But you didn't pick that up, even after a second look.
========================
OK Grammar king, I don't think I was technically wrong, or that it matters, but I iwill give that gift that one to you.
By JohnnyVegas 3:10 p.m., Jan 6, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #133: I find it hard to believe that NO cop has a JD at hire. Doesn't the PD hire lawyers? Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 3:12 p.m., Jan 6, 2009 > Report it
JF- why don't we cut the FD pay by 40, 50% abnd see how many applicanst we get- I know people who are very qualified to do that job who would love to do it for $40K-50K plus reasonable benefits.
By JohnnyVegas 3:12 p.m., Jan 6, 2009 > Report it
Fred,
I don't post my name because the mayor has a strict policy against employees making public statements without his approval. Sorry.
Besides, it also doesn't matter what I make as long as you claim it's unsustainable. So let's talk about that.
There are two sides of the equation. One is income out. The other is income in. San Diego collects much less in taxes than any other major city in California. Even worse, San Diego gets back a smaller percentage of it's sales and property taxes than other major cities. Yet the citizens want the same services as in other major cities and the employees want to get paid the same as employees in other cities.
I do think that there are places to save money in payroll in the city. But I don't think that they're in the FD or PD. In fact, our payroll needs to be increased. The FD is 50% short in staffing, according to one study. So... the citizens are not getting the same services as in other cities. Not the same fire protection, not the same pothole repair, etc.
Again, it's a two sided equation. City employees have already taken cuts in salary. The FD recently received a 5% pay raise, but that was after giving up a 4% retirement pickup. Compare 4% pretax to 5% post tax. Prior to that, we received no pay raise for three years. We will receive no pay raise next year. So, our net pay increase over 5 years is likely negative given the tax disparity. We've also had our health care cut in that same time frame. I know, boo hoo.
In the meantime, what additional taxes have citizens paid? Sure there have been a few fee increases, but has the average citizen been hit in the pocketbook by a general tax increase? No. We've taken the pain, they have not. How exactly would a TOT increase hurt the average citizen here? How many new fire stations would that fund? I'm OK with freezing our wages for a while, but I want to see the shortage of firefighters go away.
I've been working on ways to save the city money on FD payroll. The union board members I've spoken with seem to like my ideas. We'll see if the city buys off on it. I know the union is spending money to conduct studies on how to make the retirement system and retiree healthcare sustainable.
By JF 3:18 p.m., Jan 6, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #133: I find it hard to believe that NO cop has a JD at hire. Doesn't the PD hire lawyers?
==================
San Diego PD has 1800 (give or take) sworn cops, I would bet a C-note that NOT ONE had a JD at hire, and if there are any in the department they can probably be counted on one hand. Remember, less than 20% have 4 year college degrees at hire.
I also think PD is reluctant to hire anyone with a college degree, much less a graduate degree, of any kind. It intiidates the rank and file-as well as management.
There was actually a major case out of the midwest 10 years ago or so, where it was POLICY not to hire anyone with a college degree-this case was upheld as a reasonable use of gov authority to exclude more highly educated applicants because the court agreed with the muni that these people would not likely stay in the job because of the major amount of downtime in police work, such as report writing. They didnt have any proof to back that claim up-but the court rubber stamped it. I can't remember if it was a lawyer or not who filed that suit........
By JohnnyVegas 3:20 p.m., Jan 6, 2009 > Report it
Johnny,
$40-50K is more than first year FD employees make currently. A top step firefighter (after 4 years) makes $57K/year.
You don't seem to get it. Even with the current salary and benefits, we had only 200 people to interview last time for 80 jobs. That's it. A roughly 2:1 ratio going in to the interview. What part of that don't you comprehend? It's not the 1000:1 ratio you claim.
By JF 3:24 p.m., Jan 6, 2009 > Report it
You cannot disclaim him, while still claiming all the money, JF.
=======================
Fred,
I never purchased service credit at the lower rate, though I could have gotten in on the cheap. The major reason I never did is that I suspected greatly that it would backfire.
By JF 3:27 p.m., Jan 6, 2009 > Report it
Response to posts #134-165: This has become a contentious item, marked by pejoratives. I will let you folks throw mud at each other, and even throw mud at me, without adding my commentary. Go at it. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 3:30 p.m., Jan 6, 2009 > Report it
I would bet a C-note that NOT ONE had a JD at hire
===========================
Want to make that bet for the FD?
I'll bet another C-note that we have a Harvard MBA working for us -- and yes, he had the degree before joining the dept.
I'll bet a third C-note that we have a guy who had a MFA and were published authors before hiring on with us.
Of course, I'm not going to name those folks and you wouldn't pay anyway.
Sorry, Johnny, but most firefighters have at least a 2 year degree and many have bachelors at the time of hire. It's not all that unusual for folks to have master's degrees. I can think of a dozen just off the top of my head.
By JF 3:34 p.m., Jan 6, 2009 > Report it
Thanks JF, for returning us to the topic.
You wrote that there is a 50% under staffing, and suggest that this can only be overcome with increased spending.
I suggest it could be overcome by recognizing that many of the jobs and functions assigned to very expensive union firefighters could easily and cheaply be performed by others. In fact, there'd be lines of applicants for those jobs. But the union won't allow this, and instead clings to their "entitlement" to as much money as they can get out of a city that is now broke.
It simply won't work. There's no money left.
But fire danger is increasing along with climate change and encroachment on wildfire prone habitats. So we need more fire protection...but we can't afford to pay you to do it anymore.
Well, when that happens an alternative must be found. The alternative is opening up the firefighting ranks to a lot more people, at substantially lower pay. In essence, we'll have to "do it ourselves".
If you think the future holds some other scenario...one where the city has lots of money any time soon...let us know. Otherwise, let's deal with how we're going to face this crisis so that we'll be neither bankrupt nor burnt out of our homes.
Oh yes, I agree that TOT should be raised (and the TOT that goes to the bogus hotel owners assessment needs to be repealed immediately!) and that water and sewer rates will inevitably rise further. I think we should pay for trash service like any other city. I'd support higher taxes on cars and fuel too, along with increasing the top rates of taxes, especially those who earn over $150k annually.
I'd additionally support furloughs for city staffers, as well as demanding that top managers take immediate pay cuts. It's scandalous that Sanders pays former UT political writer Braun over $140k to put out glowing press releases. Plus, who isn't angry that we're paying for Spanos and Moores' stadiums?
I'd support all these changes AND cut fire and police salaries and pensions so that they again reflect the true nature of the work. I'd also suggest that public employee unions be prohibited from influencing municipal elections, like yours so notoriously does to the detriment of us all.
So, really, JF, I think we've got a lot of common ground and are both wanting to help San Diego. The difference is that I'm not on the public payroll, and you are. I think that actually makes me a better judge of the value of your services.
Best,
Fred
By Fred_Williams 3:38 p.m., Jan 6, 2009 > Report it
I'll bet another C-note that we have a Harvard MBA working for us -- and yes, he had the degree before joining the dept.
======================
That woudn't surpriseme really, FF's make more than Harvard MBA's today.
By JohnnyVegas 3:57 p.m., Jan 6, 2009 > Report it
Fred,
If we're so connected politically, why are we among the worst paid departments in the state? The city funded a survey of firefighter benefits. The mayor chose to include cities such as Phoenix and Houston where the cost of living is considerably lower. He also chose to not include municipalities such as San Francisco, San Jose and Santa Clara County. Even so, SD firefighters came in at the 40th percentile. If I recall, captains came it at the 30th percentile and Battalion Chiefs at to 10th percentile. Yep, we're really working the city over for higher pay!
I assume you've read the report "The Bottom Line" by the Center for Policy Initiative?
http://www.onlinecpi.org/downloads/TH...
If taxes in San Diego matched the average of the ten largest cities in CA, the city would have around $280 million more in income. We wouldn't be having this conversation because the FD would be fully funded, the pension system would be fully funded, potholes would be fixed, etc.
As I mentioned, FD employee pay is essentially unchanged over the past 5 years. Add in some of the taxes above, some of the staff changes you suggest, end funding of corporate welfare etc. and you'd have something. Everyone needs to share in the cure, not just city employees. There are 12000 of us and 1,200,000 citizens.
The basic view of the unions is that we've taken a hit already. The city could choose to not spend $25 million on the Balboa Theatre, not spend money on pedestrian bridges, libraries, corporate welfare, etc. and there would be plenty of money for salaries and the retirement system, as well as for infrastructure.
Go back and look at the article I posted about Mayor O'Connor. She chose to cut firefighter and police funding in favor of restoring funding for the arts. That is a simple lack of setting proper priorities.
By JF 4:44 p.m., Jan 6, 2009 > Report it
Sorry, JF...but your firefighter union was part of the conspiracy that landed us in this situation.
I agree that we should cut a lot of things, especially stadium subsidies, first...but you cannot worm your union out of responsibility for Ron Saathoff's corrupt deals.
I'd like to see EVERYONE make sacrifices in hard times, but Sanders has already declared that both fire and police are off limits. I suppose this is a quid pro-quo for being so helpful and generous to his re-election, and their help getting Sanders friendly council members elected too.
Looks like you'll continue to live high on the hog, while the rest of us are left with slops. Then we'll revolt and the whole thing comes crashing down.
Unless you're smart enough to get in front of this tsunami.
Now as soon as I see your union get out in public, admit its complicity in the corrupt deals in the past, and in atonement launch a campaign for reform in San Diego (starting with telling the voters they can chose to pay for firefighters or ballpark bonds, but not both) then I'll be back on board with you.
Until then, you're demanding special treatment that you simply don't deserve.
Convince your union to be a force for good (a huge change) and then you'll have earned San Diego's respect. Until then, you're just play-acting when it comes to reform.
Best,
Fred
(P.s. With all your terrible hardships and sacrifices in so generously being a poorly-paid and overworked firefighter, how can you afford to spend day after day posting so much on this blog? Aren't you actually a union representative? Real firefighters ought to be far too busy, according to you...)
(P.p.s. I can write on blogs like this because I work for myself, not the public, and make my own hours. I don't get paid by the city to whine away about how underpaid I am...)
By Fred_Williams 5:10 p.m., Jan 6, 2009 > Report it
Fred,
First, I'm on a day off today, so I can pretty much do what I please. Second, I'm not a union representative, though I do have the ear of a few of them.
You seem to like putting words in my mouth almost as much as Johnny Vegas. I fully accept that benefit increases are part of what put the pension system in the red. According to the document Johnny posted, 41%. Remember, however, that MP1 would never have happened if McGrory had not come to the union and asked for relief.
You seem to forget that we endorsed Sanders' opponent We also endorsed the opponents of Sanders' cronies in most races. Just not the one in your district. How exactly do we have quid pro quo with him? By the way, you forgot to answer my question regarding political power vs pay. Once again, if we're so politically powerful, why are we underpaid compared to other departments?
Remember, politics is a two way street. The people can make any decision they want in electing their representatives. You have chosen to be involved and I commend you for that. Regardless of their position, I respect people who actually care enough to become involved. Most do not. I'm still awaiting this uprising you speak of. It hasn't happened in local politics yet.
By JF 6:14 p.m., Jan 6, 2009 > Report it
Fred,
You wrote, "I suggest it could be overcome by recognizing that many of the jobs and functions assigned to very expensive union firefighters could easily and cheaply be performed by others." Exactly which jobs do you recommend we replace? Remember, we are the leaders in the city in managed competition, which we've been doing successfully with paramedic care for 11 years now.
Then you wrote, "I think that actually makes me a better judge of the value of your services." Maybe. But the people in general are not good judges of how much fire protection is needed in this city. They always think, "It will happen to someone else". That's why I advocate so much for increased fire protection, even at the expense of my own pay.
By JF 6:18 p.m., Jan 6, 2009 > Report it
Hey, JF.
Thanks for your continued and persistent contributions to this forum. I do appreciate it. If I'm being more than usually offensive or putting false words in your mouth, I regret it and apologize. You're one of the good guys. I'm just a bit excitable when it comes to the situation in San Diego.
I applaud your willingness to engage here.
It's true, as you say, that the originator of this fraud was McGrory. I've elsewhere expressed my contempt and hostility for Jack, and said he belongs in jail for those deals.
It was right then and there (1996) that the firefighters and police could have done the honorable thing and spoken up. They could have said to San Diego, "Hey, these are bad deals and not in anyone's interest except corrupt politicians".
They didn't. In fact, Saathoff used it as extortion. "We'll keep quiet, but you've got to pad our benefits and pensions beyond belief."
I think you'll agree that this is what led us to today's situation.
You can't help that the system is corrupt. You're just working with what you've got.
Still, you need to recognize that you can get in front of this, or eventually suffer the consequences. One way or another this mess must be paid for. The smart thing would be to lead the reforms instead of being buried by them.
As for my prediction of an angry populace, I'll stand by it. I can't vouch for my accuracy when it comes to timing, but I'm confident in the eventual result. It took ten years for public sentiment to turn against stadium subsidies...but it will probably take less time for the public to turn against police and fire if they continue to act more in their own interest than in the interest of the public.
Best,
Fred
By Fred_Williams 6:30 p.m., Jan 6, 2009 > Report it
Re: # 178
I agree we need more and better fire protection...that's why more volunteers should be actively welcomed (not the joke of a CERT program, but something serious) especially if they can be called up as reserves when the big fires come.
Enough for today. I've got to go eat dinner.
Best,
Fred
By Fred_Williams 6:35 p.m., Jan 6, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #166: It seems to me if the pay and fringes of new hires were cut severely -- your 40 percent would not be out of line -- there would be plenty of qualified applicants. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 9:54 p.m., Jan 6, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #167: You are right that San Diego is undertaxed by comparison with other CA cities. And San Diegans demand commensurate services. There is room to raise the TOT tax substantially, but the hotel lobby will want most or all of the proceeds to go to tourism promotion. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10 p.m., Jan 6, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #168: Here's a question for you: do you know any college or university that has a major, or even a course, in firefighting? Several universities have security majors featuring courses in police work. Fire? Never heard of it, but somebody speak up if there is such a course anywhere. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10:03 p.m., Jan 6, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #168: Does the PD have an unstated policy against hiring college grads? That's a question that requires a truthful answer. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10:08 p.m., Jan 6, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #172: I've known some Harvard MBAs that certainly couldn't put out a fire at a corporation in trouble. In fact, some of the damnedest crooks and crackpots I have known through the years were Harvard MBAs. I never knew George W. Bush, Harvard MBA, but he seems to fit into both categories. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10:12 p.m., Jan 6, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #170: If you did not purchase service credits on the cheap because you thought the whole thing would implode, you are to be admired. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10:14 p.m., Jan 6, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #173: One good thing about a deep recession is that the labor pool expands greatly. A lot of people will work for much less money and much lower fringes. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10:17 p.m., Jan 6, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #175: Fred made some excellent points in post #173. FFs may have taken a bit of a haircut, but the City is out of money, and from the standpoint of equity, FFs will have to get trimmed more -- probably a lot more. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10:22 p.m., Jan 6, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #176: Sanders is a feckless public official who is just putting off problems until he is out of office. That is the opposite of what he pledged to do. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10:26 p.m., Jan 6, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #177: In his day, Saathoff was the most powerful operator in City government. Yes, he has been indicted. But the firefighters have not sufficiently denounced his legacy -- and that legacy is the excessive pay and fringes they enjoy. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10:29 p.m., Jan 6, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #178: Everyone will HAVE to make sacrifices at some point. But San Diego voters are not at that stage yet. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10:33 p.m., Jan 6, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #179: Fred, I have been waiting for that voter revolt for years now. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10:36 p.m., Jan 6, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #180: Agreed. We need more FF volunteers -- throughout the county, actually. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10:37 p.m., Jan 6, 2009 > Report it
We need more FF volunteers -- throughout the county, actually.
===================
And that's the whole thing, Don. The fire service has taken on a lot of challenges lately. In days of yore, the volunteer fire service was largely a social club. We used to have a beer machine in my old volunteer fire hall. Today's fire service is responsible for paramedicine, haz mat, WMD, technical rescue, etc. It's virtually impossible for a volunteer to maintain their proficiency. Further, volunteerism in America is down in whole. As I posted earlier, the average person who does volunteer does so for only an hour a week. That's one training drill or one call per week in fire terms.
I do agree that we need some sort of reserve. But consider this, we'd be training those people to respond to the once every five years event. We'd be equipping them as well. Wildland gear alone costs well over $1000/person. In the meantime, we only have enough fire engines for 1/3 the department to use. Wouldn't we be better off slowly building our mothball fleet so that we could easily double (or triple) the size of the department with already fully trained and equipped firefighters?
By JF 6:27 a.m., Jan 7, 2009 > Report it
It was right then and there (1996) that the firefighters and police could have done the honorable thing and spoken up.
===================
Look at the context of the political climate a dozen years ago. Our union received cuts in both 90 and 91. We took those cuts voluntarily to save jobs. Promises to repay the loss were broken. So when the opportunity came up to get some of that back, we did.
You've continually vilified our union. But you've completely forgotten (or are ignorant of) the help we've provided the city. We are the ones who designed the current EMS system, not the city. Our public/private partnership is unique in that we have a profit sharing agreement with our private partner whereby the city gets half of the profit -- as much as $5 million a year. That system was originally staffed with higher paid firefighter/paramedics. We voluntarily switched to lower paid single role paramedics to help with funding. Find another union that voluntarily gives up positions.
We also successfully lobbied to get increased Prop 172 money for San Diego. The city, not the county. The county still keeps most of the money, but we're the ones who got the half million a year that the city does get.
Those are only a couple of examples...
By JF 6:34 a.m., Jan 7, 2009 > Report it
Response to post 194: But do ALL FFs need to be trained as paramedicals, for example? Aren't there simpler jobs that can be performed by volunteers that don't have this training? Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 7:04 a.m., Jan 7, 2009 > Report it
JF, you bring up an excellent point.
There ought to be tiers of firefighting.
At the top, you have the elite (perhaps such as yourself) who are not only paramedics, but bomb squad members, hazmat response crew, and trained parachutists who are ready for any type of emergency, anytime, anywhere. These are the special forces, if you will. They're highly paid, but we only need a handful for the entire region.
At the middle, you have the firefighter with some additional skills, but who is primarily working on day to day emergencies like small structure fires. They get a good wage, but less than what you are currently making. They make up the bulk of the career fire-fighters and managers who would earn a reasonable retirement for their service.
Then there's the bulk of what we truly need. Strong, trained, capable young people who do the grunt work that makes up the majority of firefighting work. Just like we use prison inmates on work-release as fireteams, these people are only going to fight fires for a few years, and then move on to other careers...just like enlisted folk in the military.
Under this layer, there should be a registry of able-bodied residents to get one week of intense training per year, but are otherwise on standby. They get called up in emergencies to augment the regular forces. Though not highly trained, they certainly know enough to join in and make a big difference in their limited scope of responsibilities. This is a sort of civilian defense force.
JF, I'm sure you recognize that not ALL firefighters have to be elite. That would be like having only SEALs in our military. It makes no sense. But that's the system you are describing in your posts as justification for the enormous amounts of pay and benefits you receive.
We can't afford that.
We could afford a tiered system that acknowledges the reality of firefighting...not the myths of your being some kind of supermen...and recognizes that many people are perfectly capable of doing the job quite well when given the opportunity.
As it is now, firefighters hold themselves above the community...just like our cops. They consider "civilians" to be little more than sheep, despised and helpless without the big manly hero to rescue them from the nasty world.
We've seen the results. Contempt for the very people who pay your salaries.
Perhaps if more firefighters lived in San Diego, they'd be more concerned about the city's insolvency. But when they're living out in Temecula, why should they care if San Diego goes down the tubes?
In the end, JF, no matter what you and I think, the system we have today must change. It's not effective when the really big fires come, and it costs too much for day to day needs. It doesn't fit our requirements.
With your leadership, perhaps the firefighters union can repudiate the corruption of the Saathoff era and work to make firefighting in San Diego something to be proud of.
By Fred_Williams 7:05 a.m., Jan 7, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #195: Your union deserves credit for some of those initiatives. But giving such credit shouldn't divert attention away from the disastrous MP1 and MP2 programs, and your union's role in them. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 7:09 a.m., Jan 7, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #168: Here's a question for you: do you know any college or university that has a major, or even a course, in firefighting?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
San Diego Community Colleges via the Regional Public Safety Training Institute at Miramar College (http://www.sdmiramar.edu/index.asp), Southwestern, Grossmont, Palomar and Mira Costa Colleges offer Administration of Justice (Law Enforcement), Fire Sciences or degree programs in both. San Diego State University offers degrees in "Public Administration" geared more toward the management of Public Safety organizations.
By JustWondering 7:15 a.m., Jan 7, 2009 > Report it
Darn I thought I might have comment 200, oops guess I do...
By JustWondering 7:25 a.m., Jan 7, 2009 > Report it
Cograts to JW for being poster #200!
If you told me I would be a critic of union misbehavior 10-15 years ago I would not have believed you.
I am a socially liberal, but fiscally conservative left leaning independant ( former Democrat). I have always considered unions to be critical and necessary to protect workers from exploitation. I still believe that to some degree, but the level of abuse in public unions is beyond anything I could have imagined. The public unions have become the exploiters and the public now needs protction from them-especially the PD and FD.
By JohnnyVegas 8:05 a.m., Jan 7, 2009 > Report it
I've known some Harvard MBAs that certainly couldn't put out a fire at a corporation in trouble. In fact, some of the damnedest crooks and crackpots I have known through the years were Harvard MBAs.
By dbauder 10:12 p.m., Jan 6, 2009
==========================
Funny you should say that, about 10 days ago CBS "60 Miniutes" did a 40 minute sement on Harvard Business School, and it was very interesting indeed.
They did mention the ethics of business school, and touched on the Harvard MBA's that went bad, like Jeff Skilling of Enron and others.............
By JohnnyVegas 8:08 a.m., Jan 7, 2009 > Report it
Johnny,
In light of the 60 minutes piece you cited, I think you will appreciate this:
"Ray Soifer, a top-rated banking analyst based in Arizona, has an explanation for the crisis gripping the stock market: Blame Harvard! Soifer has long studied the proportion of Harvard MBAs who pursue careers in finance; when more than 3 in 10 head for Wall Street, it's time for investors to sell, he says. The implication: Harvard MBAs, in aggregate, subtract value."
http://valleywag.gawker.com/5053618/h...
By paul 8:30 a.m., Jan 7, 2009 > Report it
Don,
Since you asked here is the link for Miramar's Fire Science Program
http://www.sdmiramar.edu/root/instruc...
By JustWondering 9:25 a.m., Jan 7, 2009 > Report it
And the course outline for the Basic Firefighter Academy as a PDF document...
Don't you just love the Internet?
http://www.sdccdcurricu.net/SDCCD2/re...
By JustWondering 9:29 a.m., Jan 7, 2009 > Report it
"The implication: Harvard MBAs, in aggregate, subtract value."
=======================
Interesting indeed, goes to show these elite school need to do more than just look at GMAT (LSAT) and GPA #s when admitting people.
I interviewed lawyer Gerry Spence a number of years ago, and the thing that he said bothered him most about law schools like Harvard today is it is just a numbers game on who they admit-they do no interviews- and for that reason he stopped lecturing/speaking at those elite law schools.
I think he has a good point, Ray Soifer may be onto something.
By JohnnyVegas 11:24 a.m., Jan 7, 2009 > Report it
No wonder our world is upside down.... take a look at Executive Compensation in San Diego County Public Corporations by following this link:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/bu...
By JustWondering 1:15 p.m., Jan 7, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #199: Sounds like in San Diego, it's the community colleges offering such courses. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 2:36 p.m., Jan 7, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #200: Congrats. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 2:38 p.m., Jan 7, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #197: Good ideas, Fred. A three- or five-tiered system could be much more cost-effective. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 2:41 p.m., Jan 7, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #201: I know a lot of conservative union-haters. I remind them that union membership is now under 10 percent of workers. Foreign competition has neutered the big private sector unions (UAW, URW, Steelworkers, Teamsters, etc.). But municipal unions are irresponsible. They have almost no foreign competition. However, society's worst offenders are top managements of large corporations that pay themselves outlandish salaries. An irresponsible union -- say, representing muni workers in San Diego -- can always point to abuses of top management in the private sector. Unfortunately, there is no argument to combat that. With the exception of government unions, top managements of private sector companies are society's biggest enemies Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 2:49 p.m., Jan 7, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #202: There are plenty of Harvard MBAs who belong in the slammer; others belong in the lunatic asylum. Sorry I missed that program. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 2:52 p.m., Jan 7, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #203: My guess is that in the last twenty years, when Wall Streeters went completely berserk and the money they raked in was worse than unconscionable, an even higher percentage of Harvard MBAs went into finance. Another school that cranks out crooks and crackpots is Yale Law School. Soifer should do a study on those grads. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 2:58 p.m., Jan 7, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #204: That will be useful. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 2:59 p.m., Jan 7, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #205: Yes, I love the Internet. I especially enjoy some of the links that readers put on this blog. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 3:02 p.m., Jan 7, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #206: Johnny, I wonder if you have the same suspicions about Yale Law School that I have. I have done no scientific study, obviously, but fragmentary and anecdotal evidence suggests that Yale teaches its law students how to follow the letter of the law, not the spirit of the law. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 3:05 p.m., Jan 7, 2009 > Report it
However, society's worst offenders are top managements of large corporations that pay themselves outlandish salaries. An irresponsible union -- say, representing muni workers in San Diego -- can always point to abuses of top management in the private sector. Unfortunately, there is no argument to combat that.
===============================
The problem is the number of CEO's in the private sector, even including upper level managers, are very small in number-where as government employment accounts for 20% of all employees. By far the biggest employer in America is government-local, county, state and federal.
But besides that is the fact that the vast majority of Americans also hate the self dealing corporate elite/scammers. So public employees who use the argument, that because a relatively few number of private sector employees scam the system it is therefore OK for them to do likewise, fails. It just does not validate anything about their pay and benefits.
Two wrongs never make a right.
By JohnnyVegas 3:12 p.m., Jan 7, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #207: Remember, too, that these top execs, particularly of biotechs, have made a bundle dumping founders' stock they got for pennies a share for many dollars a share -- ringing up profits of 100,000 or 1 million percent. That doesn't show up as compensation. On the whole, though, I think SD CEOs, COOs, and CFOs make a little less than counterparts in other cities around the country. San Diego nabobs pay a sunshine tax, too. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 3:14 p.m., Jan 7, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #217: Apologists for grossly excessive corporate top management pay use the argument that in the aggregate, it's really not so much money -- a small percentage of total compensation. I don't buy that. For one thing, upper middle management pay is also excessive. But most of all, the obscene remuneration of top corporate officials provides a cover for others in society, such as unions who have a monopoly, to plunder the system, too. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 9:28 p.m., Jan 7, 2009 > Report it
Then there's the bulk of what we truly need.
=================
See, Fred, here's where the part about how you're a better judge of our worth than we are breaks down. There's a reason you pay us to be experts in the deployment of firefighting resources.
You suggest that the same few people become the "elites". That those same few people handle all the specialty calls. We currently have one Haz Mat team to cover the county. It's staffed by San Diego firefighters, but paid for by a Joint Powers Agreement. There is one Bomb Squad in San Diego. So what if they're the same folks? What if there is a bomb call at the same time as a Haz Mat call? It happens a lot more frequently than you'd imagine, especially as both types of calls typically take hours. Frequently, calls require the use of both sets of teams. That would be a bit of a problem if the same folks did both. Then there's the issue of maintaining competence. There's not enough time to be truly an expert at both.
Federal law requires ALL firefighters (paid or volunteer) to maintain a Haz Mat First Responder-Operational certification. This allows engine companies to take initial action and reduce calls for the county's single Haz Mat unit. You probably don't realize that there are around 20-30 calls/day for "unknown substance" in just the city.
Don said something about "paramedicals". The use of that term shows ignorance of how things really work. Every fire engine and fire truck in San Diego has a person being paid a bonus to be a paramedic. The rest are EMTs. The EMTs support the paramedic care, help move the patient, etc. The reason that each piece of apparatus has a paramedic is because, as with firefighting, time matters.
Let's look at your lower tiers. What you're talking about here is hand crews to cut fireline. The city has worked a sponsorship deal with the Sycuan tribe. During fire season we get a hand crew to staff from Sycuan. For free. We also have Sycuan's brush disposal crews available in the city for fires. We can also get their elite Hot Shot crew. All for free. We can also get hand crews from the state, again for free. And here, you wanted to pay them...
Volunteers aren't really needed, except as a feel-good for community members. Again 2/3 of the fire department is off duty at any given time. We could (and have tried to) buy cheaper pick-up based fire engines that could quickly be staffed by existing firefighters in the event of a major conflagration. We wouldn't have to pay for training, equipping or insuring volunteers who would only be used every few years.
It's interesting that you want to give volunteers a only one week of training a year. I assume that's in addition to their week of CERT training. And don't forget, they'd need to be Haz Mat trained. Imagine the liability if we allowed volunteers to mop up a burned out home and they got into some of the Hazmats that are in the typical garage. How much time off work are you willing to spend?
By JF 10:19 a.m., Jan 8, 2009 > Report it
Allright, JF. Let's assume I'm completely ignorant and all my suggestions are baseless.
What do you suggest?
Note: The one unacceptable answer is "maintain the status quo".
Best,
Fred
By Fred_Williams 10:39 a.m., Jan 8, 2009 > Report it
Don also wondered about higher education in the fire service. Well, there are a lot less firefighters than lawyers, thus there are less colleges. However, as jamesems pointed out, Don seems to like to throw barbs without any research.
A five minute search on Google located the following list of colleges offering doctorate, masters, bachelors and associates degrees in Emergency Management.
http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/edu/c...
Several of those specialize in firefighting.
Off the top of my head, the CSU Sacramento, the University of Maryland, Oklahoma State all offer degrees in fire service management specifically. Texas A&M and ASU both offer programs. CSU Long Beach offers a Masters in Emergency Management. George Washington offers a Master's in EMS Management. The Naval Postgradaute School in Monterrey offers a Master's in Homeland Security. (For free!)
Let's see... all classes at the National Fire Academy are good for upper division credit, should one want to develop their own degree program. The NFA Executive Fire Officer program requires a bachelor's for acceptance and eight post-graduate level classes. It's required for a senior position in many FD's. At least one major university accepts those as part of their Master's program. And since you don't like Ivy League schools, I'll leave out the Harvard Senior Executive Fellowship seminar at the John F Kennedy School of Government.
As someone else mentioned, a Public Administration bachelors is available darn near anywhere. San Diego State has a decent program that they sometimes customize for the fire service. Any other questions about higher education in the fire service?
Once again, the union has requested that a degree (AS) be required pre-hire and a bachelor's for promotion. So far the city has resisted.
By JF 10:41 a.m., Jan 8, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #220: You say that 2/3rds of the crew is off-duty at any given time. How about cutting that back to half? Wouldn't that save some money? Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10:58 a.m., Jan 8, 2009 > Report it
What do you suggest?
==========================
Do as Orange County has done. Split the fire service away from local government. Form a countywide fire authority with it's own taxing ability. Quit spending money on those stupid Superscoopers. Eliminate some of the redundant administrative chiefs and replace them with savvy field chiefs.
The model for deployment of firefighting resources has been developed over many years. You, the citizen, needs to decide what level of protection you want. From the protestations after major fires, it would seem that you want a very high level of service. Given that, you'll need to fund the additional 20+ engines and other equipment that this city needs. To do that you'll need to raise taxes.
You could cut one person from each engine and save about 15-20% on payroll. Several staffing studies have shown that cutting that one person caused a 50% drop in efficiency on the fireground. So you'd need to call double the number of engines to do what we currently do. Then your response time for medical emergencies would be unacceptably high. Also, time lost to worker's comp injuries skyrockets. Basically, you'd likely have a wash financially.
Fred, the fire service in San Diego is so stripped it's pathetic. The mayor paid a crony of DeMaio's to do a study of the department here. (Yes, on a typical DeMaio no bid contract) Even the hand-picked consultant couldn't believe how thin this city is. His report was never released. Maybe you can file a FOIA request for it.
We're already lower paid and lower staffed than any comparable major city in California. Sorry, but there's simply no more to cut. Again, we're already 50% understaffed. That is not a function of paying us too much... it's a function of decades of neglect by the city fathers in the interest of development.
My change to the status quo is simple. Raise the taxes needed to have the fire department that San Diego needs and deserves. Apply that increase to increasing staffing, not increasing benefits.
By JF 11 a.m., Jan 8, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #221: Right on. The City is broke. There have to be cuts in government, including the fire department. JF resists any suggestions. Presumably, so do the other FFs. But something has to happen. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 11:02 a.m., Jan 8, 2009 > Report it
You say that 2/3rds of the crew is off-duty at any given time. How about cutting that back to half?
=========================
That does several things.
It increases our work week to 84 hours/week from the current 56. That would require a pretty healthy amount of overtime to accomplish. FLSA law provides for OT for firefighters after 52 hours, rather than the 40 hours of other professions. I'm thinking that we should lobby to change that back to 40 hours under the current labor friendly Congress. Instant pay raise! (Yes, I'm being tongue in cheek there)
Second, you decrease the reserve force by half. Remember, that's actually 2/3 who are scheduled to be off. Some are already working OT. Some have child care issues and cannot come back to work. Etc.
Third, you'd have zero applicants for new positions given that other department already get paid more and have better benefits. Increase hours by 50% and you'd remove any possible reason to come work here. You keep claiming that you know dozens who would work for less pay than we make. Where are they? Why can't you explain why we only had 200 folks make it through the academy?
By JF 11:07 a.m., Jan 8, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #222: You have named a lot of majors and courses in which firefighting appears to be a small part. But you have made the point that firefighting is taught in higher education. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 11:09 a.m., Jan 8, 2009 > Report it
There have to be cuts in government, including the fire department.
===========
Right now the SDFD is unable to meet response time contract compliance in every area north of I-8. Which community do you suggest that we strip coverage from? How about the areas with good coverage? Fred, will you volunteer to allow the station on Felton and Adams to be closed to save money? It's one of the slower engines south of 8. How about the engine in Oak Park? The engine in Mission Valley?
I tell ya what. Get 5000 people from Normal Heights to sign a petition requesting that the fire station there be closed. If the stations on Chamoune or 32nd Street (First and third busiest in the city) are available, they can send help.
See... no community is willing to give up it's level of service. Many want more service than they currently have.
You're not going to get major savings in labor without layoffs, yet the citizens want more firefighters. Bit of a Catch 22 there, isn't it.
I do have one more proposal. Cut the Fire Prevention Bureau. The response side of the dept. is already stripped, so go for the prevention side. Assume that developers will meet the codes of their own volition. Quit doing inspections of the Hazardous Materials facilities in the city. Quit doing brush inspections. That would save a few million.
By JF 11:19 a.m., Jan 8, 2009 > Report it
JF said: "Don also wondered about higher education in the fire service. Well, there are a lot less firefighters than lawyers, thus there are less colleges. However, as jamesems pointed out, Don seems to like to throw barbs without any research."
=============================================
JF, you ought to do a little research of your own before you criticize others for not doing theirs.
According to the NFPA, in 2007 there were 1,148,800 firefighters in the US. According to the ABA there are currently 1,116,967 practicing lawyers in the US. Currently there are actually more firefighters than practicing lawyers.
To be fair, the number of full time career firefighters is only 28% of that total, or 323,350. The rest are varying degrees of part time. Even discounting all part time firefighters, that is still only 3.5 practicing lawyers for each full time professional firefighter, which is a much lower number than I would have guessed. Many if not most part time and volunteer firefighters take at least some classes too, so that still doesn't explain away the discrepancy in schools.
By paul 11:58 a.m., Jan 8, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #224: Are San Diego voters ready for a tax increase? Good question. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 1:44 p.m., Jan 8, 2009 > Report it
Paul
Not that I think JF needs my help in this arguement or that I am even agreeing with him, but I just did a little research of my own so let me add this.
According to about a dozen differnt articles I read,there has been an average 35-40 percent failure rate for persons taking the bare exam in the last 8 years with the overall failure rate inceasing 28 percent since 1995.
A couple of well known examples: Hillary Rodham Clinton failure on her first attempt to pass the Washington DC bar exam and Beau Biden, son of VP Elect Joe Biden, failing the Delaware bar exam 3 times before finally passing it.
So while the percentage of lawers to FF is not what you may have expected, that extra percentage of people in law school who don't pass the bar does add something towards the discrepancy between law schools and those offering FF coursework.
By inactive 1:44 p.m., Jan 8, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #226: It wouldn't raise your workweek if you had more people -- including volunteers -- on the force. You always assume that the current modus operandi CAN'T be changed. But it may have to be changed. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 1:50 p.m., Jan 8, 2009 > Report it
Fred,
I do have one idea I'm sure you'll agree with. Have CCDC and SEDC pay for all of the firefighters working within their respective areas. They seem to have no problem paying for security guards on Segways to run around downtown -- why not fire protection?
There are a few other places in the city that should be paying the city for fire and EMS protection. The city needs to collect on that.
By JF 1:51 p.m., Jan 8, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #231: I know several lawyers who can't pass a bar. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 1:52 p.m., Jan 8, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #233: It's a good idea to have others pay for police and fire services. CCDC and SEDC? Absolutely. How about the Padres and Chargers? The hotels? Etc. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 1:56 p.m., Jan 8, 2009 > Report it
Don,
One of the biggest crimes by councils past was not requiring developers to provide fire protection, be it downtown or elsewhere. The people of University City should be furious at their lack of fire protection.
There are less firefighters downtown today than there were in 1970. In 1976, there were 750,000 residents in San Diego and there were 36 fire stations. Today there are roughly double that number of residents and only 10 more fire station. Yes, some of that population increase is infill, but then those areas need additional fire protection.
The city needs to use Mello-Roos and developer fees to provide for fire protection.
By JF 2:05 p.m., Jan 8, 2009 > Report it
JF said: "Yes, some of that population increase is infill, but then those areas need additional fire protection."
===============================================================
That is not necessarily true. Response time is a major consideration in how many fire departments you need, and although the population has grown the geography has not. Infill does not increase response times except in consideration to traffic.
I'm not arguing that the current number of stations is adequate or that the increase since the seventies shouldn't have been greater, just that an increase in population alone is not a particularly pertinent argument.
By paul 2:47 p.m., Jan 8, 2009 > Report it
JF,
It looks like you're part of the problem. You don't have much creativity or flexibility. Boiled down, you just keep repeating the tired mantra that you deserve even more money from the City of San Diego. You refuse to consider any other possibility.
Maybe you need to go back to community college and take a course on logic.
You cannot recognize the simple fact that this city is broke. Your union is a big part of the reason we are broke. Our fire service is very expensive, and not particularly effective. Yet you want us to all pay even more.
It's not going to happen.
The firefighters will have to come to their senses. You can lead the way, or you can obstinately cry that we're all picking on you out of some sort of weird hostility to public safety. Wrong.
We're the ones trying to steer away from disaster, and you're shouting "full speed ahead".
Time to decide, JF...which side are you on? San Diego or your corrupt union? Your non-response to the questions so far are quite disappointing.
Best,
Fred
By Fred_Williams 2:48 p.m., Jan 8, 2009 > Report it
brianwilson said: "Not that I think JF needs my help in this arguement or that I am even agreeing with him, but I just did a little research of my own..."
==============================================================
I don't disagree with you. The failure rate of the bar is pretty high, so there could be more graduates per practicing lawyer than there are for firefighters coming out of their schools. That would be one factor in explaining why there would be more schools offering law degrees, but I don't think saying it is very tough to pass the bar helps JFs arguments.
Of course what I don't have are numbers for the failure rate coming out of the firefighter programs. Even if we did know the failure rate it wouldn't necessarily be an apples to apples comparison with law schools unless we knew the qualifications of the people entering the programs. A school (or test) with a high failure rate may be very difficult to pass, or it may be indicative of poor quality candidates. Without more info it would be impossible to know where the truth lies.
My main point was to refute JFs assumption that "there are a lot less firefighters than lawyers, thus there are less colleges". He used that statement to chastize Don, but not only are that not "a lot less" firefighters than lawyers, there are actually more!
By paul 3:08 p.m., Jan 8, 2009 > Report it
JF said: "One of the biggest crimes by councils past was not requiring developers to provide fire protection, be it downtown or elsewhere. The people of University City should be furious at their lack of fire protection."
=========================================
JF, what do you think of your fire chief being paraded in front of the city council to lie about response times to aid the argument for a new bridge over Rose Canyon (which would coincidentally greatly increase the land value of a huge political backer), rather than build the badly needed University City fire station? Your fire chief put pure politics above the safety of University City.
By paul 3:14 p.m., Jan 8, 2009 > Report it
There are less firefighters downtown today than there were in 1970. In 1976, there were 750,000 residents in San Diego and there were 36 fire stations. Today there are roughly double that number of residents and only 10 more fire station.
=========================
JF- In 1976 FF's were not in the top 3% of income earners either. They were not pulling down $200K per year in pay and benefits before OT was factored in.
If you have for instance $1 million dollars, you can hire 20 FF's at $50K per year, or hire 5 at $200K per year-whch is safeer??
And believe me, we would have people lined up for miles even at $50K.
By JohnnyVegas 3:59 p.m., Jan 8, 2009 > Report it
The city needs to use Mello-Roos and developer fees to provide for fire protection.
=====================
Mello Roos bonds are by law dedicated to infrastruture and schools, they cannot be used to fund day to day government expenses, such as FF compensaton.
Besides, even if we did use it for FF compensation, FF's would just keep getting more pay and beneit increases and we would eventually be back to square one.
The problem is out of control expenses (read employee compensation), not lack of income-from Mello Roos, property tax, sales tax or any other tax scheme.
By JohnnyVegas 4:02 p.m., Jan 8, 2009 > Report it
So while the percentage of lawers to FF is not what you may have expected, that extra percentage of people in law school who don't pass the bar does add something towards the discrepancy between law schools and those offering FF coursework.
===================
The law school graduates who do not pass the bar are not lawyers. They are law school graduates.
You are not a lawyer until you have passed a state bar (any bar), have cleared backgroud and been sworn into the bar. So even if you have passed the bar you are not a lawyer util you have cleared backgroud, and even then if you refuse the bar oath you are still not a lawyer.
By JohnnyVegas 4:08 p.m., Jan 8, 2009 > Report it
Off the top of my head, the CSU Sacramento, the University of Maryland, Oklahoma State all offer degrees in fire service management specifically. Texas A&M and ASU both offer programs. CSU Long Beach offers a Masters in Emergency Management. George Washington offers a Master's in EMS Management. The Naval Postgradaute School in Monterrey offers a Master's in Homeland Security.
===================
Very interesting. .. I would love to do a graduate degree in Emergency Management..... if I were rich and money was no issue.
I would suspect that even with a Masters degree in Fire Science, or related degree, you would not get you into any FD because of the cronyism and nepotism in gov employment (not just FD, but at all levels, especially the higher paying jobs).
By JohnnyVegas 4:14 p.m., Jan 8, 2009 > Report it
#243
and your point is what exactly????
By inactive 4:29 p.m., Jan 8, 2009 > Report it
Boiled down, you just keep repeating the tired mantra that you deserve even more money from the City of San Diego.
===========================
Fred, please point to my statement above where I said that any of that money would go into my pocket?
Instead, perhaps you should look at my statement from 11AM this morning, "Apply that increase to increasing staffing, not increasing benefits."
Perhaps a college level reading class would help with your comprehension skills.
Speaking of tired mantras....
By JF 4:36 p.m., Jan 8, 2009 > Report it
I thought you were stating that all law grads were lawyers, did you not use all LS grads for the comparison to FF's????
By JohnnyVegas 4:37 p.m., Jan 8, 2009 > Report it
Johnny,
I'm still waiting for your answer on why there were only 200 applicants who made it to the interview. You keep talking about these thousands of people who would take the job... where are they?
Fred, how about you? You've got the intellegence, Navy background... you could still operate your business on your days off... why not take the job?
Also... I'm still waiting for your proof that San Diego firefighters make an average of $200K per year. That's BS and you know it. Go ahead and post a link proving your point. I already posted the link showing exactly what retirement costs are and that your 60% bit is BS, so prove me wrong or quit with your BS.
You are so full of crap... and everyone knows it.
By JF 4:41 p.m., Jan 8, 2009 > Report it
Paul,
Johnny has argued against civil service protection for firefighters. You are showing exactly why we need civil service protection. The fire chief has a boss, i.e. the strong mayor. He needs no further reason other than "incompatible management style" to fire her. Does that answer your question? She cannot tell the truth of how pitiful fire protection is in this city.
Here's my question of you: Are you willing to pay more for that station? Maybe enact a Mello Roos tax to pay for the property, station and equipment so that the city has to pay only for personnel? Or the converse -- are you willing to close that station to save money?
By JF 4:46 p.m., Jan 8, 2009 > Report it
#239,
I wasn't saying it is harder to pass the bar than it is to pass FF classes. I was showing that the amount of lawyers does not include those who didn't pass the bar, not even accounting for those who don't even finsh in the first place. I was addressing the disparity in the number of schools for the two professions, not the actual numbers in those professions. Of course the 2 professions and their educational requirements can't be compared apples for apples. How many lawyers have passed the bar without lawschool?? A few. How many people have become lawyers without paasing the bar. None.
How many people have become FF without a degree? Johnnyvegas would say almost all of them. Because it's not a requirement.
Each profession has completely different paths of entry and there really is no way to compare them from that perspective on equal ground
Personally, and it's only my opinion, I would believe that there are more people in law school than taking FF courses in college.
If you ask me why there are more law colleges than those offering FF classes, it boils down to money. Law schools pull in a whole lot more bucks than FF classes do.
By the way, if you asked 10 people who they trusted more, what do think they would say??
In the immortal words Dick the Butcher "THE FIRST THING WE DO, LET'S KILL ALL THE LAWYERS."
By inactive 5:03 p.m., Jan 8, 2009 > Report it
#247
NO I wasn't making that comparison. I was comparing the number of people in school studying each profession and the disparity in the number of colleges offering eacj area of study. see #250.
By inactive 5:12 p.m., Jan 8, 2009 > Report it
JF, you're ignoring my primary point...there are others who are eager and willing to do the job at lower pay. It does NOT require extensive education, contrary to your claims, and can be done by just about any able bodied adult with a few months training.
But by making the process cumbersome and difficult to protect existing jobs, the firefighters union has done a disservice to the community. In addition, taking advantage of this, the union negotiated crooked deals that are bankrupting the city.
Personally, I have talents and skills that are at my age, better directed elsewhere. Others can do the job of firefighting better and I am happy to pay the taxes to make sure the job is done.
Even more, I've been advocating for opening up firefighting opportunities to residents. This has been met with the inadequate CERT program. That just perpetuates the problems.
Recall my letter to VOSD, which also got a lot of comments. The residents of San Diego agree that on their own they can do a lot to prepare for fire emergencies. It was the "professionals" who immediately declared that "civilians" are incapable of doing the job.
I point out my own firefighting training, when I was much younger and much more fit, only to show that a computer geek and linguist like myself can also contribute in an emergency. It's not the exclusive domain of heroic firefighters.
I don't want to be a part-time firefighter. I do want, in the event of an emergency, to be allowed and encouraged to help as a citizen, rather than see what happened in Scripps Ranch. Homeowners saving their own residences had to hide away like suspected criminals, and couldn't coordinate their efforts because of "public safety" interference.
It all reminds me of Crassus and how he put out fires in ancient Rome. A rather cynical ploy to maintain exclusivity in your profession to so you can hide behind a fire badge and demand overpayment for the work you perform.
By Fred_Williams 5:13 p.m., Jan 8, 2009 > Report it
I'm still waiting for your answer on why there were only 200 applicants who made it to the interview. You keep talking about these thousands of people who would take the job... where are they?
=================================
Are you saying only 200 applicants made it to the interview? If tht is the case then you need to advertise it more-if the reason is because the applicants lacked a certificate or training of some sort, then the FD should pay for that training using an employment contract.
By JohnnyVegas 5:16 p.m., Jan 8, 2009 > Report it
How many lawyers have passed the bar without lawschool?? A few.
=======
The only state that allows a person to take the bar exam wihout formal law school is CA, and I think the number who have passd in the last 20 years is less than 50, or 2-3 per year.
45 of 50 states requires an ABA law school education to even sit for a bar exam- CA should be one of those but it is not.
By JohnnyVegas 5:19 p.m., Jan 8, 2009 > Report it
Response time is a major consideration in how many fire departments you need, and although the population has grown the geography has not. Infill does not increase response times except in consideration to traffic.
====================
Paul, yes, you're correct that population alone in not justification for additional fire protection. The geography does not change. It could, though, with bridge over a canyon. ;)
One of the bigger considerations is the number of responses that come with additional population. Those additional responses cause engines to be unavailable. Then engines are sent from the next area over. And so on, and so on.
A structure fire or two really screw up engine availability. Recently, there have been several times when 40% of the city's resources have been tied up with only two structure fires. Luckily, they were on opposite ends of the city.
By JF 5:19 p.m., Jan 8, 2009 > Report it
In the immortal words Dick the Butcher "THE FIRST THING WE DO, LET'S KILL ALL THE LAWYERS."
=======================
Good old Bill Shakespear.........
By JohnnyVegas 5:24 p.m., Jan 8, 2009 > Report it
Fred,
First, you're not that old. We recently had a 46 year old graduate the academy. I had three 41 year olds in my academy. But you help make my point. You can claim all you want that there are a ton of applicants. That isn't true for a variety of reasons. But the biggest is that people like yourself make excuses. "My talents are served elsewhere... I'm too old..." etc. How is the culture to change without outside influence?
The firefighter's union has NOT made the process more difficult. The union does not have any influence on the hiring process no matter how it has tried because pre-hires are NOT represented by the union. The hiring process is determined solely by the city. The only semi-difficult step to getting hired is passing EMT class. And you have to be well spoken enough to make it through the interview. Anyone at your local fire station will help you with that.
By JF 5:29 p.m., Jan 8, 2009 > Report it
Johnny wrote, "Are you saying only 200 applicants made it to the interview?"
=======================
This is a prime example of your hard headedness, Johnny. You hawen't noticed me saying that for a year now. You keep shouting about how you could find 1000 applicants for every job at half the price. It's simply not true. Maybe if you actually read what I wrote, you'd learn something.
That number is from the last test. That test replaces a test a year earlier when there were even less applicants.
You say we need to advertise more. I assume you're familiar with our community outreach program in which our members volunteer to go to local schools and colleges to recruit young people. Yes, I said volunteer -- as in free.
I assume you're familiar with "Public Safety High", a magnet school where our members volunteer to teach highschool age folks with an interest in the fire service. There they can get their EMT certificate for free.
I also assume you're familiar with our Cadet program, where our members volunteer their time to teach young people to become a firefighter.
We advertise in trade magazines and all over the place. All that and only 200 made it through the written test. Maybe there is something to my claims that competition from other agencies has hurt our recruiting.
By JF 5:38 p.m., Jan 8, 2009 > Report it
Someone asked what the failure rate in the fire academy is. It's currently around 30%. That number is up from around 20% a few years ago. And... we made the academy easier. There are three final exams in the academy. One written and two practical. It used to be that a failure of any of the three was cause for dismissal. Now, as long as you maintain an overall 70%, you pass. The increase in failure rate is directly related to the decrease in applicants available to choose from.
So... 200 applicants make it to the interview. Of those, a few won't pass the background or medical. 30% won't pass the academy... yep, thousands lining up for the job.
By JF 5:43 p.m., Jan 8, 2009 > Report it
In typical "I know more than you" fashion, Johnny declared, "The only state that allows a person to take the bar exam wihout formal law school is CA..."
=================================
Gee, just a couple of days ago, in this very thread, I posted a link to an article which gives the real stats for Johnny's claim.
http://nctimes.com/articles/2009/01/0...
Turns out that seven states allow people to take their bar exam without going to law school. Not one. Seven.
See now why I say that Johnny's stats are all fouled up?
By JF 5:50 p.m., Jan 8, 2009 > Report it
JF said: "Here's my question of you: Are you willing to pay more for that station?"
No, I am willing to pay less for that station. That was the whole point. A new fire station would cost a fraction of what the unneeded bridge would cost, yet Chief Jarman was there lobbying for the bridge.
The mayor can fire the Fire Chief, but the council can override him, and the council has to approve any appointment for a new Fire Chief, so it is not exactly like she serves at his whim. To the degree she does serve at his whim and dances in his dog and pony shows for his rich backers, illustrates that the strong mayor system is an abject failure for the average taxpayer.
By paul 6:54 p.m., Jan 8, 2009 > Report it
re # 254,
You're average is pretty close. Since 1980, 64 people have passed the Ca bar
By inactive 8:09 p.m., Jan 8, 2009 > Report it
The Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982
The Act allows any county, city, special district, school district or joint powers authority to
establish a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (a “CFD”) which allows for financing of
public improvements and services. The services and improvements that Mello-Roos CFDs
can finance include streets, sewer systems and other basic infrastructure, police protection,
fire protection, ambulance services, schools, parks, libraries, museums and other cultural
facilities. By law, the CFD is also entitled to recover expenses needed to form the CFD and
administer the annual special taxes and bonded debt.
Source: http://www.mello-roos.com/pdf/mrpdf.pdf
By inactive 8:13 p.m., Jan 8, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #229: Johnny, do lawyers set fires or do they put out fires? Metaphorically, of course. There is a lot of debate on the point. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 9:10 p.m., Jan 8, 2009 > Report it
Response to #s 228 through 263. I am going to let you folks fight it out. Incidentally, this colloquy has been filled with a lot of information -- pithy, not pissy. I congratulate all sides. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 9:20 p.m., Jan 8, 2009 > Report it
You're average is pretty close. Since 1980, 64 people have passed the Ca bar.
============
That's the number the state bar uses, I even question that number.
By JohnnyVegas 9:01 a.m., Jan 9, 2009 > Report it
Johnny, do lawyers set fires or do they put out fires? Metaphorically, of course. There is a lot of debate on the point.
=============================
Some lawyers, like Sam Spital, Bill Lerach and Patrick Frega most definitley start fires.
But others who fight for a common cause to improve the lifes of those less fortunate certainly put out fires.
By JohnnyVegas 9:04 a.m., Jan 9, 2009 > Report it
Someone asked what the failure rate in the fire academy is. It's currently around 30%. That number is up from around 20% a few years ago. And... we made the academy easier. There are three final exams in the academy. One written and two practical. It used to be that a failure of any of the three was cause for dismissal. Now, as long as you maintain an overall 70%, you pass. The increase in failure rate is directly related to the decrease in applicants available to choose from.
===============
100% baloney. Applicants for all occupations and professions have seen increases in test scores= ALL. The position that training programs are declining for $200K per year jobs that do not require a Bachelor or graduate degree is public employee union nonsense
That would be like saying the LSAT/GMAT/MCAT admit scores have gone down the last 20 years, where in reality they have gone up cosnistantly every single year.
The notion that it is easier, not harder, than in the past for entry into any job is pure baloney.
By JohnnyVegas 9:10 a.m., Jan 9, 2009 > Report it
Congratulation to Brian Wilson for keeping this discussion and the record correct. JF is correct regarding the ongoing, and what appears to be deliberate misstatements of fact by Mr. Vegas.
Don, I'm wondering if you, as the Blog moderator, should remove inaccuracies? When contributors make statements of facts in error, then others refute them with appropriate documentation, do you think you have an obligation to remove the incorrect information?
By JustWondering 9:21 a.m., Jan 9, 2009 > Report it
The notion that it is easier, not harder, than in the past for entry into any job is pure baloney.
======================
You're speaking about something you know absolutely nothing about.
We've also lowered the score needed to make it to the interview. When I was hired you had to get a 96% or better to be in Category 1. Now the cutoff is 90%. That's the only way there were even 200 people to interview -- lower the testing requirement.
You can keep your head in the sand all you want, Johnny. You have no proof other than, "Because I said so". We have lowered the hiring criteria AND we've lowered the academy passing criteria just to get enough folks through the door.
A Union Tribune article from 2007 (two tests ago) stated that there were 2078 applications. Of those, many did not have the required EMT certificate. Many did not pass the written test -- even with the lowered standard. I believe that around 350 interviewed. The last test had even lower numbers, hence the 200 number. Even if all 2000 passed the whole testing process, your notion that there are 1000 applicants for every job is pure crap.
Sorry, but other agencies just to the north of us are paying 30% more and have better benefits. The end result is that there are few applicants here.
Note that nowhere in this discussion have I said anything about paying us more money or increasing benefits. I don't feel that either is needed, given the current economic state. We'll see a few years down the road.
By JF 9:32 a.m., Jan 9, 2009 > Report it
JustWondering,
I believe that Don is a participant in the conversation, not the moderator. This is essentially an unmoderated discussion. This and past disagreements have stayed largely civil, and hopefully that can continue so formal active moderation is not required. If moderation ever is required, I would think it would be somebody else at the Reader, not Don.
By paul 9:42 a.m., Jan 9, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #266: 64? Really? I don't believe it either. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 11:05 a.m., Jan 9, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #267: You've heard the old story: members of a liar's club were lined up to tell their annual whoppers. The first liar got up and said, "Last winter, it was so cold that I saw a lawyer with his hands in his own pockets." The others all agreed that they couldn't top such a whopper. The show was called off. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 11:47 a.m., Jan 9, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #269: We watch the blog for defamatory statements and remove them, other than, of course, JF and Johnny, or other opponents, calling each other prevaricators. But anyone is entitled to state his/her opinion on any topic. If another poster wants to refute it, so much the better. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 11:52 a.m., Jan 9, 2009 > Report it
I never mentioned opinions I was wondering about information posted a fact.
Mr. Vegas, who has posted more than 1,000 comments to articles in the online version of the Reader, has a predilection of purveying information as fact when it suits his position. The problem comes when the information he posts as facts are WIDE of the actual true mark.
In my opinion, when you choose to ignore them, the credibility of the discussion sinks. Isn't accuracy of facts important?
By JustWondering 2:40 p.m., Jan 9, 2009 > Report it
Congratulation to Brian Wilson for keeping this discussion and the record correct. JF is correct regarding the ongoing, and what appears to be deliberate misstatements of fact by Mr. Vegas.
====================
"deliberate misstatements of fact "!!!! ..... Please.
If you use that standard you would have to remove all of JF's welfare queen propaganda as "deliberate misstatements of fact".
By JohnnyVegas 2:42 p.m., Jan 9, 2009 > Report it
We've also lowered the score needed to make it to the interview. When I was hired you had to get a 96% or better to be in Category 1.
=======================
So you're saying that you have lowered the "pass score" to get an interview, an interview which is purely 100% subjective....OK.
You sound like the basic gov paper pusher claiming that only 1 person out fo a 1,000 could do the gov jobs which are basically HS education/GED jobs....I still have to say baloney JF.
BTW-that is my opinion, not a deliberate mistatement of fact!
By JohnnyVegas 2:45 p.m., Jan 9, 2009 > Report it
You've heard the old story: members of a liar's club were lined up to tell their annual whoppers. The first liar got up and said, "Last winter, it was so cold that I saw a lawyer with his hands in his own pockets." The others all agreed that they couldn't top such a whopper. The show was called off.
==============================
LOL...that was the funny!
I bet JF could have topped that one though by claiming San Diego cannot fill $200K per year FF jobs.
By JohnnyVegas 2:48 p.m., Jan 9, 2009 > Report it
Mr. Vegas, who has posted more than 1,000 comments to articles in the online version of the Reader, has a predilection of purveying information as fact when it suits his position. The problem comes when the information he posts as facts are WIDE of the actual true mark.
In my opinion, when you choose to ignore them, the credibility of the discussion sinks. Isn't accuracy of facts important?
========================
JW, my comments are not off the mark-what Brian Wilson has done is just gone to Google and googled anything I post-and comes back with a "copy and paste" version of a website he visited which have minor discreprencies to what I posted just to try to discredit me. He did that with teh Mello Roos topic, Jared Jussim, Leigh Steinberg, fire academy, lawyers without law school and a number of my other posts-I post everything from my memory-I don't google any info prior to posting, which is not what Brian Wilson is doing. I am not here to make a historical record of the facts- I'm just putting in my 2 cents.
The basic premise of my posts may not always be perfect, but they are 90% accurate and they convey facts that support my position.
Now stop whining like a 5th grader.
Since when do you try to get other peoples posts removed just because you don't agree with them????????
Besides, if I was not posting you would have no one to argue your welfare queen propganda to-and that would not make for a happy JW camper.
By JohnnyVegas 2:57 p.m., Jan 9, 2009 > Report it
If you use that standard you would have to remove all of JF's welfare queen propaganda as "deliberate misstatements of fact".
====================
Propaganda, eh?
I've got a damn good history of backing up what I say with links and facts... as opposed to your crap.
Want to go back a day or so when you were claiming that California is the only state which allows one to take the bar exam without going to law school?
Basically Johnny is simply a troll -- posting the same crap over and over to get a rise out of people. He knows it's BS, we know it's BS, but he knows it irritates people so he does it anyway and we fall for it.
By JF 3 p.m., Jan 9, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #275: Johnny has contributed a great deal to this blog. There is a difference between opinion and facts. I think most of the objections regard his opinions. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 3:01 p.m., Jan 9, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #271: I'm a combined moderator/participant. I am a moderate on few topics. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 3:04 p.m., Jan 9, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #279: We're always interested in the nugget of the argument. If a statement or two is out of line, your enemies can respond. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 3:12 p.m., Jan 9, 2009 > Report it
Propaganda, eh?
I've got a damn good history of backing up what I say with links and facts... as opposed to your crap.
=================================
LOL....... I post more links to the scams of the PD/FD, factual links, than you do JF.
You cannot deny that.
But at least you're not lobbying to have my posts removed.....!!
By JohnnyVegas 6:26 p.m., Jan 9, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #284: I can vouch for him: Johnny gives us some very valuable links. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 6:29 p.m., Jan 9, 2009 > Report it
Now, boys...let's keep it civil.
I also get snarky, but remember this is one of the few places where such matters are discussed AT ALL.
No one passionate about current events who dares state opinions in real time about day to day issues is going to avoid making mistakes. Part of the fun is for the others to pounce on those mistakes and do a bit of crowing about it.
It's best to 'fess up. I made a boneheaded assumption that the stadium manager who's name matched a certain notorious republican operative was the same guy. In minutes, I knew I was an idiot, but someone had beat me to it. I had to grovel and take my lumps, requesting that the original post be removed while the apology remains.
If someone can point to a similar error I've made, and can convince me with real proof that I cannot refute or explain away, I'll do the same again.
Don is a greatly moderate participator in this forum, allowing even our good friend Fumber to give his kind words of appreciation to all.
As for me, on this topic, I'm not going to make it to 300. It's strayed far from the article, which is about where the city invested the money.
I urge Don or Matt to write on the subject of the firefighter union and its role in San Diego politics. That would be a bombshell cover story.
JF, got some juicy bits? Email Don...
Best,
Fred
By Fred_Williams 7:02 a.m., Jan 10, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #286: Fred is right: this is one of the few forums in which people can challenge the conventional wisdom. Remember: the consensus is often dead wrong. 1. Vietnam; 2. Iraq; 3. The idea that the nation could consume far more than it produced, borrow the difference from abroad, and then keep sending jobs to those countries. Supposedly intelligent economists missed it; 4. The crazy idea that complicated derivatives were distributing risk, and should not be regulated. Actually, they were gambling chips and should have been regulated years ago. Now it may be too late; 5. The notion that top corporate management pay could escalate beyond anyone's wildest imaginings and there would be no social implications, even as middle class pay flattened or declined. The list goes on and on. Folks, keep writing, keep debunking the self-professed experts, who often don't know their asses from their elbows. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 8:01 a.m., Jan 10, 2009 > Report it
According to Mr. Vegas in post #279 ...I post everything from my memory-I don't google any info prior to posting, which is not what Brian Wilson is doing. I am not here to make a historical record of the facts- I'm just putting in my 2 cents.
=======================================================
All I was trying to point out was we're getting misstatements of fact. Mr. Vegas if your memory has faded how long does it take with Internet to check out something before you post it. Or is JF closer to the MARK, when he eluded you're doing this for your own personal, but somewhat warped, entertainment value?
If it is the latter, then I think it's Mr. Bauder's responsibility to keep the record correct as a matter of balance and fairness.
By JustWondering 8:31 a.m., Jan 10, 2009 > Report it
JW- JF is not closer to the mark, and my posts may not be 100% accurate but they certainly are close enough to make a valid argument.
As for balance and fairness- the local blogs, like this one, Voice of San Diego, the UT-they all are dominated by special interest groups like the public employee unions, so it is sort of hard to claim I am throwing the topics out of balance.
As for the comment "how long does it take with Internet to check out something before you post it"...............;
Too long.
I am not here to set a historical factual record, just put my 2 cents in (and get some public employees with think skin to meltdown at the same time). I do this during my work, which is done for the most part on a computer drafting docs/ word processing....
I don't get why you and a few others get so bent out of shape over the internet....... to the point of trying to have other people's posts erased.
By JohnnyVegas 5:37 p.m., Jan 10, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #288: My editors and I do careful fact-checking on all my columns, and I do fact-checking on the blog items I post. However, it is not our responsibility to check facts of everyone who posts on a blog, particularly when people who complain about inaccuracies are so often really upset about opinions. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 5:56 p.m., Jan 10, 2009 > Report it
I urge Don or Matt to write on the subject of the firefighter union and its role in San Diego politics. That would be a bombshell cover story.
----------------------------
X2.
I actually think Don should interview JF and a few SDFD Big Wigs, and really do a fact finding mission on why SDFD feels they should be able to "retire" at age 50 with almost a full salary and Cadillac benefits.
Then ask them if they think that is health for the City.
I would love to see a SDFD piece in the Reader.
By JohnnyVegas 6:44 p.m., Jan 10, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #289: We are not erasing posts of people who state a point of view, or even are inaccurate at times. It is up to the enemies of those posters to correct incorrect statements, if they find them. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 9:15 p.m., Jan 10, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #291: I can't interview JF if he won't tell us who he is, and says he is not authorized to speak anyway. Your idea, however, is a good one. I'll mention it to Matt. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 9:19 p.m., Jan 10, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #292: Damn! I just had a hot fudge sundae, fumber. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 9:21 p.m., Jan 10, 2009 > Report it
I don't get why you and a few others get so bent out of shape over the internet
==========================
Because there are those out there who might actually believe you.
That's why almost everything I post correcting you has a link attached. So that other people can see how far off your "2 cents" is.
By JF 8:05 a.m., Jan 11, 2009 > Report it
I believe the testing standards for firefighters are set way too high, and new hires are grossly overqualified for their positions. The job of firefighter consists of a variety of blue collar type skills that applicants of average ability and intelligence could easily master if given the opportunity. The skills needed to drive a fire truck are consistent with the skills needed to drive and operate a cement mixer, drive a tractor trailer, or operate an army mechanized vehicle like a tank. The skills needed to operate an extension ladder on a fire truck is consistent with the skill a painter needs to operate a lift to paint a tall structure, or a roofer needs to lift shingles on a building. As regards to EMT training, the Navy is able to train Corpsmen of average or slightly below average intelligence to perform at a very high level. JF is grossly overqualified for his position as firefighter, and is not fully using his intellectual talents. He if wants to earn the salary of an electrical engineer at Qualcomm, he should obtain an electrical engineering degree from UCSD and find a new job. Firefighters should be hired to start at no more than $10 to $15 per hour consistent with what other new entrants to blue collar occupations receive, and their salaries should top out, after 30 years, at no more that $60,000 per year including overtime. Fire stations should be staffed three shifts per day, by firefighters who work 8 hour shifts, 40 hours per week. Paying firefighters to sleep is insane.
By Burwell 11:08 a.m., Jan 11, 2009 > Report it
Fire stations should be staffed three shifts per day, by firefighters who work 8 hour shifts, 40 hours per week. Paying firefighters to sleep is insane.
=============================
You do understand that firefighters currently work a 56 hour week, don't you? To switch to a 40 hour week would require hiring a entire fourth shift -- with all of their pay and benefits. Still think that's a good idea? I don't mind working 16 hours less/week if you don't mind paying a lot more in the long run.
Why do you care what we do when we're not responding to your emergency? Do you call your insurance company at 3AM just to make sure that they're awake? Or do you take comfort in the fact that they'll be there for you if you need them? That's all we are is an insurance policy. You can pay for the best, or you can get by on the cheap and hope nothing happens.
By JF 2:52 p.m., Jan 11, 2009 > Report it
You do understand that firefighters currently work a 56 hour week, don't you?
By JF 2:52 p.m., Jan 11, 2009
================
How many times do I have to debunk JF's falsehoods of a 56 hour work week???
NO, you do NOT "work" a 56 hour week, you are ON CALL.
Big differnce there JF. Unless you consider, sleeping, exercising, shopping, cooking, eating, washing the big red fire truck and other leisurely pursuits "work"......
By JohnnyVegas 4:52 p.m., Jan 11, 2009 > Report it
I don't get why you and a few others get so bent out of shape over the internet
==========================
Because there are those out there who might actually believe you.
That's why almost everything I post correcting you has a link attached. So that other people can see how far off your "2 cents" is.
By JF 8:05 a.m., Jan 11, 2009
***********************************
***********************************
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm............I see.........yes, we don't want anyone to believe things you post JF-like FFs "working" a 56 hour week now do we!
Burwell, I have said many times what you have stated, FFing is a blue collar "occupatin"/job that is no different mentally or physically from the contsruction trades, such as plumber, electrician, roofer, painter and so forth-and the pay should be on that level.
By JohnnyVegas 4:57 p.m., Jan 11, 2009 > Report it
NO, you do NOT "work" a 56 hour week, you are ON CALL.
======================
Who cares, Johnny? I'm not at home, I can't have a beer, but most importantly, I'm getting paid.
How about, "I'm on duty 56 hours a week".
As you said, "I don't get why you and a few others get so bent out of shape over the internet......." It's just semantics and you're getting all bent out of shape.
By JF 5:41 p.m., Jan 11, 2009 > Report it
FFing is a blue collar "occupatin"/job that is no different mentally or physically from the contsruction trades, such as plumber, electrician, roofer, painter and so forth-and the pay should be on that level.
-------------------------
The difference is that we need to have a working knowledge of ALL the trades. Not journeyman level of each trade, but a working knowledge. Perhaps we should be paid the same as a general contractor, instead?
But wait... we also need to have the skills of a truck driver, understand weather conditions, understand at least the basics of medicine and more.
Incidentally, most firefighters would love to make what a journeyman electrician makes. That's $35 an hour, or almost $73,000 per year plus benefits.
http://www.sdett.org/careerinsidewire...
Base wages, no OT. A firefighter has to promote at least once to get to that range without OT. Or become a paramedic. And we only make that while "on call" 40% more, or 56 hours/week.
I know, shocking. We make pretty much the same as our union brothers.
By JF 6:01 p.m., Jan 11, 2009 > Report it
Incidentally, the city is hiring firefighters right now. Go on down and put in an application. Oh, and I might draw your attention to this line from the job announcement. "CATEGORY 1: 90 and above" It used to be 96 and above.
Since "anyone can do it" and firefighters make more than attorneys, according to Johnny, I assume he'll be down there. Plenty of time to pursue a law career on his days off, since there are plenty, right?
Burwell? How about you? Fred? Anyone?
By JF 6:06 p.m., Jan 11, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #296: Yes, but there are some who are not sure your links refute Johnny. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 6:14 p.m., Jan 11, 2009 > Report it
How about, "I'm on duty 56 hours a week".
================
I think that is much more accurate.
By JohnnyVegas 6:16 p.m., Jan 11, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #297: You make excellent points. Because of the rigorous testing, FFs are probably overqualified. My guess is that the labor union is behind this. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 6:17 p.m., Jan 11, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #298: I'm not sure that the insurance company analogy is an apt one. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 6:19 p.m., Jan 11, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #299: You're up, JF. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 6:21 p.m., Jan 11, 2009 > Report it
Since "anyone can do it" and firefighters make more than attorneys, according to Johnny,
=================================
Not only d FF's make more than lawyers, they also make more than dentists, doctors and Harvard MBS's.
Even though starting pay for a Harvard lawyer right out of law school is in the $150K range-they also have to work an 80 hour week and do not have the pension/sick days/paid holidays a muni FF has. Take out school loans and it is much less.
So if an entry level FF were to work 80 hours per week, and I mean actually work, 40 hours would be at time and a half, add on the generous benefits and it would be more than even the $150K Harvard law school grad.
BTW-only about 2-3% of law school grads make $150K right out of law school, the average pay would be about $40K-$60K in a private sector job working 50 weeks per year, at 50-60 hours per week- take out school loans and it is basically a poverty wage.
By JohnnyVegas 6:22 p.m., Jan 11, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #300: Historically, how did FF pay get so high, and benefits so generous? When a union has no threat from jobs that can be exported, and is led by an extremely powerful figure locally (read: Saathoff), it can get a lot for its members. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 6:25 p.m., Jan 11, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #301: Shmegma? Explicate, please, fumber. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 6:28 p.m., Jan 11, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #302: "On duty" seems like a good compromise. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 6:30 p.m., Jan 11, 2009 > Report it
Incidentally, most firefighters would love to make what a journeyman electrician makes. That's $35 an hour, or almost $73,000 per year plus benefits.
============================
The trades only make close to $35 an hour (I think it is closer to $29/$30 an hour) if they are in the union ( I did framing with a friend during college breaks and made 1/4 of what a union worker made-and yes-those union jobs were highly political because they were small in #), and they also do not work fulltime since the trades are seasonal, which accounts for part of the higher pay scale.
Union trades account for about 25% of construction projects today-and it is almost entirely on government projects.
JF, you're not fooling anyone-union construction trades are very hard, construction work is much more dangerous, and the jobs have far less security than a FF job-or any gov job for that matter.
By JohnnyVegas 6:32 p.m., Jan 11, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #303: Just be glad you're not making what real estate developers are making -- today, nothing, although they have been obscenely recompensed in the past. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 6:33 p.m., Jan 11, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #304: I wonder if many journalists getting laid off by the bushel will become FFs. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 6:36 p.m., Jan 11, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #310: The data on law pay should be available. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 6:38 p.m., Jan 11, 2009 > Report it
The sad thing is construction jobs used to provide for a solid middle class life style up through the late 70's, and the unions were a big part of it back then.
But illegal immigration really destroyed the construction trades for Amwericans, because you had cheap illegal labor who would work for peanuts, and could be trained eventually in the trades-but without the higher level wages. Illegal mmigrants would undercut American workers and they pretty much destroyed the living wage of contruction trades-with the exception of union jobs, which became more scarce.
I last did construction work back in the mid 80's and everywhere I went the entire work crews consisted of basically 100% illegal immigrants and an American foreman who spoke Spanish.
Pretty sad how the American life style has deteriorated because third world coutries are able to export their poverty to us.
By JohnnyVegas 6:42 p.m., Jan 11, 2009 > Report it
My guess is that the labor union is behind this.
=====================
Don, once again, the courts have ruled that the union does not represent pre-hires. Therefore the union has no say in the qualifications needed. Trust me, it's been tried.
By JF 9:03 p.m., Jan 11, 2009 > Report it
I'm not sure that the insurance company analogy is an apt one.
==========================
Actually, fire departments were originally funded by insurance companies to ensure protection of insured property.
Fire departments became municipal when city fathers figured out that they could not control volunteer fire departments. They figured that they could control city employees.
Personally, I feel that insurance companies should pony up more towards fire protection. Fireman's Fund has done some good things. AIG has gone full circle and hired firefighters that a municipality cannot control to protect only it's insured.
By JF 9:08 p.m., Jan 11, 2009 > Report it
40 hours would be at time and a half,
==================
Except that there is a FD exemption to the FLSA allowing firefighters to work 52 hours before OT kicks in. Guess that was another "off the top of my head with no fact checking" thing again.
By JF 9:10 p.m., Jan 11, 2009 > Report it
Illegal mmigrants would undercut American workers and they pretty much destroyed the living wage of contruction trades-with the exception of union jobs, which became more scarce.
=====================================
So I guess you've discovered that there is a little more than just a GED required to become a firefighter. The right to legally work in the county is also necessary.
I find it hilarious that you rail about illegal immigrants bringing down the standard of living in this country and simultaneously whine about bringing down the standard of living for the few union workers still making decent wages and benefits. Which is it going to be?
By JF 9:14 p.m., Jan 11, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #318: Hasn't this issue been behind some of the big union/management flaps, such as the now-dead Gaylord project in CV? Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 9:26 p.m., Jan 11, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #319: The unions may not be responsible for pre-hires, but in many industries they have managed to set up rules that set up hiring barriers. It happens in professions, too: the AMA held down the number of doctors going to med schools for many years. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 9:30 p.m., Jan 11, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #320: Yeah, but much of the insurance industry is based offshore -- mainly Bermuda. Would you get your money? Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 9:32 p.m., Jan 11, 2009 > Report it
Response to posts 321 and 322: I can see your point, but he is talking about destruction of good jobs by low, illegal immigrant pay at one end and excessively generous pay and perks at the other end of the spectrum. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 9:37 p.m., Jan 11, 2009 > Report it
Take the challenge. One thing for Fred on damage control and shipboard operations. Navy folks have full knowledge of the ship. Everyone is demanded to have intimate knowledge of the of the ships spaces and all personnel have preordained roles. Fires below deck can be compartmentalized and extinguishing with water or extinguishing agents flooding the area. Thats not to take away from the Navy folks at all. But to say municpal firefighting is easy understates the unknown potentials and frequency of exposures these folks face. Have a look at the Youtube videos below to get a sense.
Here's the FIRE RECRUIT APPLICATION: now you know and can apply.
http://apps.sandiego.gov/pjaol8/bulle...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foQ6W9...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHLgo8...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvcVSa...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=485qFm...
By jamesems 9:52 p.m., Jan 11, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #327: Would they take someone almost 73 years old, with fading mental acuity and physical stamina? Me. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 7:55 a.m., Jan 12, 2009 > Report it
Sure, just pass all the tests...but the commute from Colorado would be killer...
By JustWondering 8:31 a.m., Jan 12, 2009 > Report it
FF, cops and all gov employees are overpaid and over benefited. I still have not heard Arnold ask for a wage or benefit cut to close the budget gap.
In the private sector, when revenue declines, we cut expenses. Usually, the greatest expense is in people, payroll and benefits. The people who get “expense cut” are usually good people who did nothing to deserve it. The ones who keep their jobs and suck up the other cuts, like wage freezes and benefits reductions, are good people, too.
In your public-sector world, when revenue declines, you raise taxes and fees so that you can keep what you’ve got — and more — at my expense. Raising fees and taxes is not a viable option simply because the private sector can’t afford any longer to take more out of its pocket. I am confident that there will be a taxpayer revolt among your private-sector neighbors if you don’t start paying the same price they are paying.
Rest assured your neighbor — maybe your spouse, sibling, child, parent or significant other — lost a job, took a pay cut, paid more for medical insurance, lost a 401(k) match and never had a pension to begin with. I know it happened to me and those I know best. The private-sector taxpayer simply cannot afford the unrealistic public-sector expectations for wages and benefits.
By JohnnyVegas 12:46 p.m., Jan 12, 2009 > Report it
Here's the FIRE RECRUIT APPLICATION: now you know and can apply.
===================
FF is really a simple qualifying process with the exception of the EMT certificate (CPR!, come on, that is what-a two hour course).
No one is going to have an EMT certificate prior to hire, so why incude it?
What they should do if they want EMT certification/s are make conditional job offers, with a confirmed start date, contingent upon finishing and receiving an EMT certification. That way the applicant knows the training as well as the time and the money spent on the training is not wasted.
Why would ANYONE go through EMT certification without kowing if they are going to be hired-it is not a transferrable job skill, the costs to get the EMT cert is substantial as is the time commitment to do the training.
So again, the job qualifications are basically a GED and some nminor certifications, and clean background. Not difficult at all and I am sure the majority of all applicants would meet all the entry level qualifications except an EMT cert.
By JohnnyVegas 12:55 p.m., Jan 12, 2009 > Report it
"Why would ANYONE go through EMT certification without kowing if they are going to be hired..."
=======================================================
Why would ANYONE go through LAW SCHOOL to get a JD and, all that expense you whine about, without knowing if they're going to pass the Bar exam first and then try to get hired?
Because they want to better themselves Johnny.
By JustWondering 1:09 p.m., Jan 12, 2009 > Report it
Regardless of the state of the pension fund, or the relative health/illness of the things it is invested in, it does appear that we will be getting less for our tax dollar's worth of service, not more.
Key indicators: government employee furloughs and closed government offices... and that includes under-manned fire stations.
Didn't East LA just make a move to split itself off from greater Los Angeles? Would we be better off if the City of San Diego was just the fountain at Horton Plaza and some adjacent parking meters WITHOUT a Redevelopment Agency/City Council split personality?
By a2zresource 1:14 p.m., Jan 12, 2009 > Report it
Why would ANYONE go through LAW SCHOOL to get a JD and, all that expense you whine about, without knowing if they're going to pass the Bar exam first and then try to get hired?
==================================
Passing a bar exam is entirely under the control of the individual, there are no outside factors involved, as there is with being hired by a muni-which are historically biased. You pass or fail a bar exam on your own-no one passes it or fails it for you.
You can always start your own practice after law school, no one needs to hire you to benefit from a legal education-you can do it all on your own.
Having said that, I know many people who wished they never attended LS because of the low pay, long hours and high debt levels.
Plus law training is a very transferrable job skill, because it is really a logic and thought process.
By JohnnyVegas 1:24 p.m., Jan 12, 2009 > Report it
But back to my comment-why have an EMT cert requirement up front and limit your applications when you could make contingent job offers without it and widen your applicant pool by thousands???
Answer my question on a contingent job offer.
By JohnnyVegas 1:25 p.m., Jan 12, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #329: Hadn't thought of the commute. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 1:58 p.m., Jan 12, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #330: Stats show that you don't see the public sector layoffs in bad economic times. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 2:02 p.m., Jan 12, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #331: We will get some hollers on your assertions about EMT. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 2:06 p.m., Jan 12, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #332: Didn't Hillary Clinton fail in her first bar exam? Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 2:11 p.m., Jan 12, 2009 > Report it
Jamesems, you are still stupidly arguing a moot point.
Whether Don or I are firefighters DOES NOT affect whether the local fire union has engaged in corruption to pad its pay and benefits to the detriment of the whole city.
Whether or not Johnny is a firefighter doesn't affect the fact that the job requirements are so bloated that they serve as a deterrent to otherwise well-qualified firefighters. Being a firefighter wouldn't validate or invalidate this opinion.
Whether Fumber is able to pass your tests doesn't make his opinion of your ongoing defense of a deeply flawed system any more valid.
You're trying to pass off firefighters as some sort of heroic uber-menschen who deserve as much money as we can shovel out the door.
That's bulshytt, and you know it. The majority of the time most firefighters are sitting idle...and still collecting a lot of pay. Just as JF says, he thinks he's entitled to our money whether he does anything or not.
What other job allows this sort of hubris at public expense.
Enough. We don't have to jump through the firefighter union's artificial hoops to have the standing to recognize we're getting ripped off.
Jamesems, if you have an actual defense of the outrageous situation we're in, go ahead and offer it. Firefighters need to grow up and stop pretending to be more than what they are.
Anyone remember when "public servant" meant serving the public? Clearly, for firefighters like JF and Jamesems, the public is supposed to serve them.
By Fred_Williams 2:43 p.m., Jan 12, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #333: The City would be better off without CCDC and SEDC, and perhaps the Redevelopment Agency, too. As to the city council, there is only one excellent councilmember: Donna Frye. Carl DeMaio is looking promising. I'm hoping Marti Emerald comes through; she has the gifts. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 3:08 p.m., Jan 12, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #334: Even the top law school grads going with the big law firms are not getting the bucks they used to get. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 3:10 p.m., Jan 12, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #340: The word "bullshytt" is so elegant, so Chaucerian. Congratulations, Fred. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 3:13 p.m., Jan 12, 2009 > Report it
EMT is a very transferable skill but moreover, it lends itself to loftier goals including physicians assistant, RN, paramedic, PD, Security services, and so on. All major events and amusement parks employee EMTS. Many employers value having a medically trained person on hand may minimize liability, potentially lower insurance premiums, creates a sense of security for patrons. Johnny, in his usual way, minimizes others education and experience while propping up lawyers. 3 local community colleges here in San Diego County offer EMT (Miramar, Palomar, SouthWestern). They have multiple course offerings over all semesters just to accommodate demand. There are 18 training agencies for EMT alone just here in San Diego County. And several hundred agencies state wide.
http://www.emsa.ca.gov/personnel/file...
Even UCLA has an EMT program. http://map.ais.ucla.edu/go/Emergency-...
A 1995 report from the California Employment Development Department put the number of state EMTS at 35000 with another 6-7000 paramedics. They estimated a 29% EMT population growth from 1995-2005.
http://www.calmis.cahwnet.gov/file/oc...
Maybe JV should modify his assertion "No one is going to have an EMT certificate prior to hire?"
http://www.emsa.ca.gov/personnel/file...
The BLS CPR card is 4.5 hours per Ameican Heart Association.
P.S. - this took like 10 mins to find on the internet.
By jamesems 3:28 p.m., Jan 12, 2009 > Report it
Fred - take the challenge. You said the job was an easy one. Step up to the plate. The imagery of the heroic FF is one your putting forward to wield as a sword by falsely claiming that its the battle cry of FF's demanding higher pay. The firefighters here haven't asserted that once. The videos illustrate potential dangers a firefighter may be called on to respond to and work in.
By jamesems 3:46 p.m., Jan 12, 2009 > Report it
And JV, EMT as a contigency use to be the norm. The City moved off of that to save money. "why pay people to train as EMT's if they'll provide it beforehand". Pretty simple.
By jamesems 3:50 p.m., Jan 12, 2009 > Report it
And Fred this little peach of a statement -
Jamesems, you are still STUPIDLY arguing a moot point.
Your not a very nice fellow. Your frustration is echoed in your word choice. Shame you feel so much animosty that you'll choose to take it out on individual just trying to provide a contrarian view.
By jamesems 3:57 p.m., Jan 12, 2009 > Report it
Also Fred, I don't think you'd be sympathetic to any view I put forward. It's clear that you will categorize my view as cronyistic and self serving despite anything I put forward. No friend, the only solution you seek is one that guts the profession. To date I haven't asked for a dime. I've notified you of a FF job opening, tried to clear the air about EMT's, provided some video of firefighters doing their work, and contrasted firefighting with Navy damage control. I haven't patted myself on that back, asked for a raise, tax increase or benefit boost. I've simply asked you to take the challenge and showed you what that challenge may entail.
They pay and benefits are good and the job is exciting and rewarding but has the drawbacks of being potentially dangerous, rigorous at times, long hours away from family and home and a multitude of potentially life impacting responsibilities. Come take the challenge.
By jamesems 4:08 p.m., Jan 12, 2009 > Report it
So DON what are your expectations for SDCERS growth over the next 10 years? You pointed out their long term returns earned a little better than 7½%. Should we expect this over the next 10 years?
I'm just wondering as the SDCERS Board will take up the Interest Credit Rate discussion again at it Board Meeting on Jan. 23rd.
Should the board lower it from its current 7¾% to the closer historical record? Should it remain the same or should it be lowered further? I understand some systems pay zero percent. Should SDCERS follow this model?
By JustWondering 5:50 p.m., Jan 12, 2009 > Report it
Response to posts #344 through #348: You have made many points, jamesems, and now it's Fred's turn to try to refute your arguments. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 7:58 p.m., Jan 12, 2009 > Report it
And JV, EMT as a contigency use to be the norm. The City moved off of that to save money. "why pay people to train as EMT's if they'll provide it beforehand". Pretty simple.
============================
Did you not read my post?? I said offer the job CONTINGENT upon an EMT certification PRIOR to employment.
To put it in simple terms, the city is not paying to train for EMT cert with a CONTINGENT job offer, they are making a job offer contingent upon receiving EMT cert in a timely manner >>>before hire<<<. The city pays nothing for it-yet the applicant pool would increase by thousands.
And if you take that 35K number of EMT's and compare it to the 35 million people in CA it is 1/10 of 1 percent, or for the math challenged 1 in 1,000, which is not what most people would call a large applicant pool in relation to the total amount of people in the state.
By JohnnyVegas 8:19 p.m., Jan 12, 2009 > Report it
So DON what are your expectations for SDCERS growth over the next 10 years? You pointed out their long term returns earned a little better than 7½%. Should we expect this over the next 10 years?
======================
I dont know about Don, but my prediction is 50% funding within 12 months and then bankruptcy.
By JohnnyVegas 8:21 p.m., Jan 12, 2009 > Report it
JV...so the city goes through the effort and cost to interview 1000's if not tens of thousands to offer someone a job that cannot pass the EMT requirement? Look JV, if you want the job you'll take the semester long EMT course. Isn't it fiscally responsible to decrease the applicant pool to those with a modicum of related skill. Many EMT applicants bring prior field EMT experience to the process that mirrors the services provided by the FD. This tends to have the added benefit of accelerating their FD training, improves their material retention due to industry familiarity and ultimately enhances academy success . Infact, many EMT's advance to Paramedic with field experience to improve their eligibility for selection despite the minimum qualification of EMT. All this with no cost to the City in terms of initial training.
What do you imagine the cost to the City to conduct 10000 entry level written exams. Consider testing materials, proctors, test evaluation, mailing out notices. Say the pool is then whittled down to 1000 band one folks that move on to the physical ability test. Optimistically testing 200 people per day gets you 5 days of physical ability testing with an add in costs (mail notices, proctors and ancillary personnel to reset the test). So now the pool drops 800 or so. 800, 15-20 minute interviews. Another mail notification, more OT for Captains to conduct the interviews for several weeks. And yet another mailing to notify the candidates where they placed. All this to pick up 120 folks if you establish a 2 year list that runs 4 academies of 30 people. Presume that, of the 120 people you processed, 5 people don't clear the EMT. So you dip down into to the next round. Would you agree that this is a dauntingly costly approach?
FYI, most folks in the push for firefighter careers have many credentials to separate themselves from the allegorical GED holding candidate you espouse. Don't most folks in the private sector build their resumes toward their profession to enhance their chances of a job offer? Don't many private sector employers demand specific credentials for the jobs their offering?
Your 35000 to 35 million is abstract. A better sampling is comparing 35k EMT (conveniently using the 1995 number while disregarding the 29% expected growth) to the number of fire department job offerings state wide. Also the 35 million you use includes the entire population of California. Deduct 26% that are under 18, another 10% for those greater than 65. 6 million are age 5+ with disability and how many others that probably are ineligible based on background eliminators such as medical or criminal. And I'm not sure of how many 55 - 65 years old are to be accounted for but I'm certain that their interest in the Fire service is extremely limited.
By jamesems 9:36 p.m., Jan 12, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #349: It should lower it to something like 6 percent, and maybe lower. I said that a couple of years ago. Investors such as Warren Buffett said that well before the current bear market. This doesn't just apply to SDCERS. It applies in spades to SDCERA, which has a boatload of money in hedge funds. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10:27 p.m., Jan 12, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #352: Your suggestion of BK is not farfetched. SDCERS and SDCERA are both faced with huge liabilities at a time when markets are going to be very difficult. Both SDCERS and SDCERA should go now to more conservative asset allocations -- lower percentages in common stocks, and elimination of the exotics, which are hedge funds for SDCERA and so-called market neutral funds for SDCERS. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10:31 p.m., Jan 12, 2009 > Report it
Yet more reason to have a thorough discussion of what we pay for, and what we get for the money:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/13084...
"State, local, and private pension plans covering millions of government employees and union workers with “defined benefit” accounts are teetering on the brink of implosion, victims of both a sinking stock market and investment strategies influenced by political considerations."
San Diego seems to be a particularly egregious example. Precisely because of union boss participating in corrupt deals originating in the mid-90s, most coming from the devious mind of Golding's City Manager, Jack McGrory, we are in now dire straits.
JF and James aren't the problem. They are at least participating in a conversation about these issues.
The problem is that we won't have the money to continue paying the obligations the city entered into under corrupt administrations.
This means firefighters, and all other public employees, are not going to get what was promised to them.
Our overlong discussion hear on the hiring and training of potential firefighters is interesting, but really beside the point.
We're broke. Our investments have all tanked, and look to get even worse. We cannot keep our promises to city employees, though we seem to have plenty of money for sports barons. Revenue will be decreasing for the next few years.
So something must be done. For JF and James, the question is very relevant and personal. They would like to keep some version of the status quo.
I do not wish to disparage them, or belittle their stake in this crucial situation. But I strongly disagree that the status quo is acceptable. It cannot last, and the longer we wait the worse it will become.
By Fred_Williams 4:06 p.m., Jan 13, 2009 > Report it
So something must be done.
==========================
You're right. Something must be done. Start by ending corporate welfare for the rich. Pay average taxes for average services. Then we'll talk.
Here's a link for you:
http://www.cbp.org/pdfs/2008/0807_pp_...
The title of that paper is "BUDGET CUTS OR TAX INCREASES: WHICH ARE PREFERABLE DURING AN ECONOMIC DOWNTURN?"
Take a look at this quote by Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz.
“Every dollar of state and local government spending enters the local economy right away, generating a greater economic impact. The impact is especially large when the money goes for salaries of teachers, policemen and firemen, doctors and nurses and others that provide vital services to our communities.”
So you say we make too much and we should cut salaries. Others say we should raise taxes so that we have more to spend in businesses across San Diego. We've already cut our salaries -- your turn.
By JF 5:24 p.m., Jan 13, 2009 > Report it
You're right. Something must be done. Start by ending corporate welfare for the rich. Pay average taxes for average services. Then we'll talk.
Here's a link for you:
http://www.cbp.org/pdfs/2008/0807_pp_cut...
The title of that paper is "BUDGET CUTS OR TAX INCREASES: WHICH ARE PREFERABLE DURING AN ECONOMIC DOWNTURN?"
Take a look at this quote by Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz.
==============================
Hey JF, did you know that the link you posted to that article was all straight from just FOUR ultra liberal, public employee, welfare queen groups???
Just look at the footnotes-the same people and groups, about 5, did all of those so called "studies", and they are just pure propaganga.
Here, take a look at this paper and see what they have to say about your groups used for research in that pure baloney "study";
http://www.cheatingculture.com/libera...
Yes, Joseph Stiglitz (who did half that scam "studies") is a real source for truth;
But therein lies the danger. This book can lead you into all sorts of trouble if you try to rely upon it. Stiglitz's selective use of facts leaves his arguments all full of holes. I'm sure he has the research backing for every word he writes, but it does not come through in the text. Anyone fresh from The Roaring Nineties and hoping to deploy Stiglitz's arguments to shut up that pesky neighbour who works in the City, will suddenly find themselves in an intellectual version of the final scene from Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. Heck. I can shoot Stiglitz's arguments out of the skies. And I largely agree with him.
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-ent...
By JohnnyVegas 5:50 p.m., Jan 13, 2009 > Report it
So you say we make too much and we should cut salaries. Others say we should raise taxes so that we have more to spend in businesses across San Diego. We've already cut our salaries -- your turn.
By JF
===========================================
JF, I am sorry, but NO one says we should raise FF salaries except for FF's.
You do NOT raise taxes to have more money to spend in "businesses across San Diego" because then you would have LESS to spend.
You pay market rate for GED and HS educated employees-and market is not $200K per year.
By JohnnyVegas 5:53 p.m., Jan 13, 2009 > Report it
Johnny,
Say what you want... but I just paid the guy down the street to take out a couple of trees in my yard. He's had little other business lately. I also just got a quote for some tile work from my next door neighbor. He asked if I'd just cut a check straight to his landlord so he isn't evicted. Guess I'll do just that.
By JF 6:08 p.m., Jan 13, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #356: This is the point I have been trying to make for months. JF and others argue that they deserve their pay and benefits. I don't agree, but let's say for the moment that they do deserve them. But as you point out, that's irrelevant; the city is broke; it can't pay those salaries and benefits. So what is the argument about? Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 6:25 p.m., Jan 13, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #357: An old argument was resumed today, and has great relevance. I can't remember where I saw it. But somebody said that if there is a tax on stock and bond purchases and sales, a huge amount of money could be raised federally. This was discussed once before, about 15 years ago, and Wall St. lobbyists got it killed. But not only would this tax help eliminate the deficit, it would also be societally useful. Right now, there is far too much minute-by-minute buying and selling, not only in stocks and bonds, but also in options and multifarious derivatives. Wall Street is made up of a bunch of day traders -- gamblers piling up financial leverage that should be used for productive economic purposes. This gambing is destructive to the economy. A tax on transactions would help curb this activity and also help close the budget gap. The counter-argument, incidentally, is that the trading would just move offshore. Perhaps, but well-written legislation could discourage such activity. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 6:37 p.m., Jan 13, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #359: JF seems to be suggesting that economist Joseph Stiglitz approves pay increases -- or, at least, continued employment -- for public employees. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 6:40 p.m., Jan 13, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #360: At least one person has the funds to stimulate the economy by paying service workers. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 6:43 p.m., Jan 13, 2009 > Report it
So what is the argument about?
=======================
Don, I think we all can agree that the city is in trouble.
Here's how I look at it. I don't think your views are that far off. At the risk of oversimplification, city finances are like a four legged stool.
1. Employee pay and benefits. We've beat this to death here. Whether or not you think we should earn what we do, the facts stand. Firefighters have received a 5% pay raise over the last four years and expect nothing this year. We gave back more than that pre-tax by eliminating retirement pickup. So that's a net negative pay raise over 5 years. We pay more for insurance. We eliminated DROP for new hires. Etc.
2. Corporate welfare. Enough said.
3. Citizen taxes. Some say they pay too much. The record shows San Diegans pay less than those in other cities.
4. Return of taxes from the state. This is a legacy of Pete Wilson. San Diego gets back less of it's taxes from the state that other cities. Again, this is well documented.
Like any four legged stool, if one leg is longer or shorter, the stool will wobble. It's my feeling that city employees have taken a significant hit. It's time to equalize the legs. You will never balance the city's budget by cutting off one leg and one leg only. It's my personal feeling that we do not need a pay raise for the next few years. That will result in a net negative pay raise over 6, 7, 8 years. I'm OK with that. But it's time for everyone to feel the pain.
Very simply put, it's a lot easier to spread the deficit over 1.5 million people than 11,000. And yes, I'm aware that not all 1.5 million are taxpayers.
By JF 7:49 p.m., Jan 13, 2009 > Report it
Here was a cool link from the San Jose Mercury News regarding pension payments and their % of increase as a ratio to the CPI and other variables;
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_11438103
San Jose pension costs soar with added benefits
By John Woolfolk
Mercury News
Posted: 01/13/2009 12:00:00 AM PST
"As San Jose police battle for enhanced retirement benefits they say are crucial to recruitment and retention, a series of earlier sweeteners has helped push the city's pension costs for officers and firefighters up 167 percent since 2000."
"That's twice the percent increase in pension costs for the city's civilian workforce. And it far exceeds the federal Consumer Price Index for the Bay Area, which has risen just 23 percent during that time."
By JohnnyVegas 10:29 p.m., Jan 13, 2009 > Report it
1. Employee pay and benefits. We've beat this to death here. Whether or not you think we should earn what we do, the facts stand. Firefighters have received a 5% pay raise over the last four years and expect nothing this year. We gave back more than that pre-tax by eliminating retirement pickup. So that's a net negative pay raise over 5 years. We pay more for insurance. We eliminated DROP for new hires. Etc.
===================================
JF, the wages for the private sector have been the same since 2000, no increase at all, so you are still ahead without even comparing your pay and benefit scale.
Secondly, you have a very secure job with zero chance of being laid off, while the private sector has no such job protections. So that alone is a tremendous plus to your Gov FF job.
If I were you I would stop complaining and just be thankful for your job. I would stop asking for raises, more money, more benefits and more taxes to fund these luxuries-all of it needs to stop.
By JohnnyVegas 10:34 p.m., Jan 13, 2009 > Report it
I would stop asking for raises, more money, more benefits....
======================
For a supposed attorney, your reading comprehension isn't very good. Not more than a few posts above I wrote, "It's my personal feeling that we do not need a pay raise for the next few years."
By JF 6:29 a.m., Jan 14, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #365: Good points, but I don't think that a 5 percent raise in 4 years qualifies as a "significant hit," given the economy's miserable shape. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 7:16 a.m., Jan 14, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #366: It's interesting that San Jose is in the middle of one of the most prosperous areas of the world, yet its local government is suffering. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 7:18 a.m., Jan 14, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #367: Government workers everywhere -- particularly San Diego -- have significant advantages over private sector workers: comparatively better pay, benefits, and job security. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 7:21 a.m., Jan 14, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #368: You're up, Johnny. JF has made a signficant concession. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 7:23 a.m., Jan 14, 2009 > Report it
Johnny won't make concessions and he takes no prisoners. His broken record mantra about wages level tied to the amount of education obtained will never end.
There is little point to this thread other that entertainment, especially since it been way off the original topic for about 300 responses.
Of interest however will be this year's negotiation between the city and its labor groups. While, no one should expect economic enhancements, it should be interesting to learn about the non-economic discussions.
By JustWondering 11:14 a.m., Jan 14, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #373: I agree that this year's negotiations between city and its workers will be quite revelatory, particularly with the economy in the tank and the city's economic status (on the brink of bankruptcy) out there for all to see -- except the mayor. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 11:54 a.m., Jan 14, 2009 > Report it
There is little point to this thread other that entertainment,
============================
X2!
I do think that the thread has set the record for most responses to a Reader online article though.
By JohnnyVegas 1:02 p.m., Jan 14, 2009 > Report it
Not that two wrongs make a right....BUT this editorial really makes me wonder if we haven't really become the ME and ONLY ME generation....
http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1...
By JustWondering 2:56 p.m., Jan 14, 2009 > Report it
Well, we've come this far...shall we go to 400?
By Fred_Williams 3:33 p.m., Jan 14, 2009 > Report it
Mr. Wondering (or is that Ms?), I saw that article too.
Damn!
I should have stuck to politics instead of switching to IT in the late '90s.
As noted above, public employees don't just make more in salary, they get great benefits and the best retirement outside the corporate board room.
Most of all, they cannot be fired except in extreme situations. Even when the city or state claims it's making layoffs, they actually cut planned or budgeted positions...slots used for accounting gimmicks...rather than actually fire anyone.
What a difference there is in the rest of the economy. Jobs are being lost all around us, and many of these jobs won't ever come back. There's little or no money for re-training (see the Economist article from a week or two back) while unemployment and COBRA are both more symbolic than substantive.
A lot of people would pay a premium to be protected from this, taking cuts in pay, working longer hours, doing more with less in exchange for security.
But public employees, shielded from the harsh reality the rest of us face, expect MORE salary and benefits, often with less work.
It will indeed be interesting to see what role the unions play in upcoming negotiations, but judging from the kind of hardball we saw in the recent elections (remember how they betrayed Donna Frye?) I don't expect progress unless there are changes.
JF, please, please get up in some faces downtown. You and I disagree on many things, but you'd be a big improvement compared to what we have now.
Thanks,
Fred
By Fred_Williams 3:44 p.m., Jan 14, 2009 > Report it
#378 "Most of all, they cannot be fired except in extreme situations. Even when the city or state claims it's making layoffs, they actually cut planned or budgeted positions...slots used for accounting gimmicks..."
I'm sure the 200+ folks that OC let go last week would disagree with you Fred.
By inactive 4:14 p.m., Jan 14, 2009 > Report it
There's little or no money for re-training (see the Economist article from a week or two back) while unemployment and COBRA are both more symbolic than substantive.
=====================
COBRA is 100% symbolic.
There was a study just a day or two ago that said COBRA for a family plan would consume 75% of UE insurance, and 40% of unemployment insurance for single coverage.
By JohnnyVegas 5:14 p.m., Jan 14, 2009 > Report it
I'm sure the 200+ folks that OC let go last week would disagree with you Fred.
==================================
Out of a county payroll of what, 30K employees???? The Social Serves employees at OC who were laid off were all new hires-within a few years (2,3,4??).
It is very rare for any gov agency to actually lay off actually employed emplolyees.
When was the last time SD actually laid a person off???
By JohnnyVegas 5:19 p.m., Jan 14, 2009 > Report it
Wow, this thread has been one heck of an enjoyable read.
With the current economy, and impending "doomness" on the horizon, I hope and wish that our IAFF and the city will come to terms on this pension mess. I was hired after the MP1/2 scam, and am totally open to a settled agreement. I am not one to take and not give. I hope they can get it fixed before I get deployed back to the Middle East.
My 5c.
By TheGunny 5:56 p.m., Jan 14, 2009 > Report it
"Out of a county payroll of what, 30K employees????"
I should have clarified. Those were just from social services; about 5% of the total social service staff. Also the rest of the employees have to take 80 hrs of non paid furlough. I heard that had to be done this year, but someone told me it's this fiscal year. figuring 2 weeks paid vacation, that's a 4% pay cut.
I agree with you about SD not doing layoffs; when was the last time they actually cut pay???
BTW,, what diff does it make how long you've been on the job. Layed of Is layed off
By inactive 6:22 p.m., Jan 14, 2009 > Report it
BTW,, what diff does it make how long you've been on the job. Layed of Is layed off.
===========================
Laying off the lowest paid employees, new hires, causes more damage to the structure (OC and SS's) and the number of people hurt. You should lay off higher paid middle and upper management first = and get more bang for the laid off employee buck.
By JohnnyVegas 6:34 p.m., Jan 14, 2009 > Report it
opps...that should read "layed" off......
By JohnnyVegas 6:35 p.m., Jan 14, 2009 > Report it
No Fred your selection of working IT was correct... but you should have select SDDPC in Rose Canyon like....never mind as your employer...then you would have had the BEST of both worlds...
By JustWondering 7:44 p.m., Jan 14, 2009 > Report it
I don't think that a 5 percent raise in 4 years qualifies as a "significant hit,"
==========================
Don, you're picking out one small piece of the entire economic package and using that to comment on the whole picture. Shame... you know better than that.
We also pay 4.3% more into our retirement now. That's 4.3% pre-tax. So what would the equivalent after tax raise be to offset that? Yeah, more than the 5% we got.
Our total net raise over 5 years is negative.
Plus we pay more into health care now... for an even more negative net raise.
By JF 9:21 p.m., Jan 14, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #375: We certainly have broken any of my records. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10:20 p.m., Jan 14, 2009 > Report it
Responses to posts #376-381: Huge pension benefits. No accounting. Public in the dark. Seemingly, government in the dark about the cost, too. Biz as usual -- or govt as usual. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10:26 p.m., Jan 14, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #382: Agreed. This has been one helluva educational session. Excellent arguments on both sides. Very good links. Makes it all worth it. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10:29 p.m., Jan 14, 2009 > Report it
Response to posts $383-387: Good points. One thing: it's laid off. Not layed. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10:32 p.m., Jan 14, 2009 > Report it
"Laid off"...got it, I had it right the first time!
By JohnnyVegas 10:38 p.m., Jan 14, 2009 > Report it
We also pay 4.3% more into our retirement now. That's 4.3% pre-tax. So what would the equivalent after tax raise be to offset that? Yeah, more than the 5% we got.
=====================================
FICA is 7.65%, AND THE BENEFIT, SS, IS ABOUT 1/10TH OF THE 3%@50.
I dont get the "pre tax" argument either-your contribution is paid before being taxed-how is that not a benefit to you JF???
When you say you have received a 5% raise over 4 years but are still nhegative-tell me what the private sector is then-since their wages have stayed the same since 2000, would they not have an actual decline of 30% due to inflation (assuming 3%/year CPI inflation)?????
By JohnnyVegas 10:44 p.m., Jan 14, 2009 > Report it
No accounting. Public in the dark. Seemingly, government in the dark about the cost, too. Biz as usual -- or govt as usual. Best, Don Bauder
========================================
Don, were you speaking about the City of San Diego???
Or the national fiasco known as the TARP black hole (Troubled Asset Relief program) bailout???
You can plug that statement into just about any local, state or the national government today.
By JohnnyVegas 10:48 p.m., Jan 14, 2009 > Report it
What or is there difference between "laid" off and removing budgeted positions? According to Mayor Sanders SOC speech last night the City has eliminated 870 budgeted positions from its payroll. One can certainly argue these were positions that at some point in the past a PERSON held and was paid salary and benefits. Over time the position became vacant for various reasons,(retirement, resignations, terminations etc). Once the position became vacant, money budgeted went where??? That's the creative gov't financing... but now Jerry says, 870 budgeted position have been removed.
By JustWondering 6:46 a.m., Jan 15, 2009 > Report it
We're on the road to 400 posts now!
Thanks, Mayor Sanders...your inaction inspires us.
I wonder if anyone downtown reads this kind of online debate, or if they're stuck too far up their own backsides to appreciate citizens having the pluck to post about the problems facing the city.
So "budgeted" positions were removed?
Well, golly. We're all so verrrrry impressed.
From what I've been reading, we eliminated safety attendants for kids skateboarding, but only did an accounting gimmick with CCDC regarding the tens of millions we give away to well-known Peregrine fraudster, ballpork beneficiary, and deceitful downtown developer John Moores.
I guess all his friends in the tight-knit downtown oligarchy are wishing him a happy divorce. Eleven million plus yearly, plus exclusive development rights, plus immunity from prosecution, plus humiliating displays of public ass-licking by our elected officials is a small price to pay such a wonderful guy.
Mayor Sanders is letting the city know where his priorities stand. Kids can go to hell. Big-money sports barons need his help, and he'll pull any strings available to make sure they get their cash out before the city tanks.
After all, according to the UT, John Moores is a hero and role-model to us all.
This is the bulshytt peddled to us by our alleged leaders as reform. The unions are complicit in this scam, while good people like JF and the Gunny seem shut out of meaningful participation except through the medium of commenting anonymously online.
Professional political prostitutes are convinced they're superior to all the rest of us. There just cannot be anyone smarter than a council representative who is sent as a delegate to community meetings. Their sole job is to soothe and quiet, all the while building up their contacts for that dream job as a lobbyist, or if they get lucky an election to public office.
Madaffer, Inzunza, Hueso, Gloria...the roster of staffers who then get elected is long and ugly.
They have this mindset of infallibility, working on a constant sales job to the ignorant populace about how wonderful they all are. So insulated from the world the rest of us live in, incomprehension is the standard rather than the norm downtown. Smug is not strong enough to describe their bloated self-esteem and sense of entitlement.
Yet, we've allowed them to run the city.
Run it straight over the cliff...and John Moores is still siphoning gas out of the tank.
It's easy to predict that our current system will abysmally fail, and there will be widespread anger.
Anger can lead to reform. If I were a firefighter, I'd be banging heads together with my brawny arms, and turning a fire hose of public outrage on those union traitors...especially Saathoff.
The complaisant days of sleepy San Diego lazing on the quiet beach are numbered. Sanders and the rest of the downtown crew can get in front of the tsunami of discontent, or be drowned like rabbits.
By Fred_Williams 7:46 a.m., Jan 15, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #394: It could apply to either. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 8:09 a.m., Jan 15, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #395: And you believe anything Sanders says? Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 8:11 a.m., Jan 15, 2009 > Report it
Here is what I have been suggesting, but so far only Escondido has actually done it;
Short Takes: Union accepting pay cut helps avert city layoffs
2:00 a.m. January 15, 2009
ESCONDIDO: A last-minute decision by a labor union to accept a 5 percent pay cut helped avert 31 layoffs when the City Council approved wide-ranging budget cuts yesterday.
Escondido is projecting a $7.4 million budget deficit this fiscal year, which ends June 30, and has been trying to close the gap with service cuts, benefit reductions for all employees and a 5 percent pay cut for 236 City Hall staff members.
The Escondido City Employees Association, whose members include City Hall workers who make $27,000 to $60,000 a year, had refused to negotiate salary reductions. The union had argued that it was unfair to exempt police officers, firefighters and maintenance workers from the pay cuts.
http://www3.signonsandiego.com/storie...
BTW= who is going to be the big 400th post???????????????
By JohnnyVegas 8:15 a.m., Jan 15, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #396: There was a pathetic U-T editorial recently titled something like "The Moores Era." It was smarmily laudatory, as could be expected, and ignored everything that savvy people know: he massively dumped his Peregrine shares ($650 million worth) prior to the revelation of fraud, and despite his clear awareness that he had inside information and couldn't sell; his getting ballpark district real estate at early 1990s prices and then selling it to condo developers for a fat profit, instead of developing the hotels, office buildings, etc. that he had promised voters; the fact that these ballpark district condos are barely occupied and not throwing off the tax receipts promised to voters; Moores's passing of monetary favors to former councilmember Valerie Stallings....etc. etc. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 8:20 a.m., Jan 15, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #399: Other cities should do what Escondido has done, and extract bigger concessions than 5 percent. Vallejo told the unions it would go bankrupt because of excessive remuneration; the unions didn't believe it; Vallejo filed for BK. This should be a template for other CA cities. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 8:24 a.m., Jan 15, 2009 > Report it
Sanders also said this last night...
"If you take nothing else away from this evening, hear this: There is no role here for the forces of obstruction and denial, or for selfish posturing by those who think they do their share by suggesting sacrifices others can make."
DON are you and Johnny listening? ...."or for selfish posturing by those who think they do their share by suggesting sacrifices others can make.
Apparently the Mayor believes we are ALL in this together... but he went on to say...." Their,(who ever "they" are) practice of postponing our day of reckoning has only succeeded in digging us into deeper holes each year.
So he suggesting, as Johnny and others have pointed out for years that bankruptcy will ultimately be the only solution?
He follows that with "We must make a clean break from our past, so we can take ownership of our future." Is "Clean Break" spinning talk for bankruptcy?
He says, "The majority of San Diegans accept reality, and they’re ready to respond with unselfish teamwork." He added later, "The cooperation we need to solve our financial problems must come from all of us, and perhaps from no single group as much as the public.
By JustWondering 9:22 a.m., Jan 15, 2009 > Report it
FICA is 7.65%, AND THE BENEFIT, SS, IS ABOUT 1/10TH OF THE 3%@50.
I dont get the "pre tax" argument either...
When you say you have received a 5% raise over 4 years but are still nhegative-tell me what the private sector is then-since their wages have stayed the same since 2000, would they not have an actual decline of 30% due to inflation (assuming 3%/year CPI inflation)?????
===========================
First, SS tax is 6.2%. The other 1.45% is for Medicare. We still pay that. Apples vs. apples, please. The employee contribution rate to SDCERS is roughly double that.
According to the SSA, the average SS recipient replaces 40% of their income. Plus another 50% of that benefit if they have a non-working spouse. So, that's as much as 60% of income replaced.
The average SDCERS safety recipient retires after 25 years for a benefit of 75%. For double the employee contribution.
Some of that employee contribution is covered by "pick up". Or at least it was. We pay 4.3% MORE into the system than we used to. Retirement is paid pre-tax for everyone, not just us. What about the pre-tax argument don't you get? It would take a 6-8% post tax raise to equal a 4.3% pre-tax cut. After taxes that 6-8% is 4.3%. Get it now? But we only got a 5% post-tax raise. That's a net cut.
What does the CPI have to do with anything? We have to pay increased freight for goods just as the next guy does.
You say that wages have been flat in the private sector. "The average raise for all workers is expected to be 3.7% in 2009, compared with the 3.8% they received in 2008." Since you didn't like my "liberal" sources, that one is from the Wall Street Journal. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12186...
Incidentally, the Bureau of Labor Statistics also shows that your assertion about private sector wages is false.
So... we still have a net negative pay raise over five years. According to the WSJ, the average salary increase in the private sector has been 7.5% in the past two years. I'd say we're doing our part...
By JF 10:24 a.m., Jan 15, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #402: Sounds like a preliminary warning to labor unions prior to upcoming negotiations. Too bad Sanders didn't add that corporate welfare is over, and that the real estate development industry will no longer run the city. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10:30 a.m., Jan 15, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #403: That WSJ article refers to BUDGETED pay increases. That's completely different from actual pay increases. Average incomes in the U.S., adjusted for inflation, have been flat since 2000. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10:36 a.m., Jan 15, 2009 > Report it
That WSJ article refers to BUDGETED pay increases....
==============
True, but if you look at the BLS stats you also see an increase in wages in the private sector. You'll also see a higher increase in wages in government -- but not here in San Diego. Here employees have taken a hit already.
You say that private sector wages have been flat in comparison to inflation. Again, inflation doesn't matter. We pay the same inflated prices for goods that private sector employees do.
Either way, our negative pay raise since at least 2003 certainly is less than inflation.
By JF 11:06 a.m., Jan 15, 2009 > Report it
Don,
If you took the time to read the article rather than just the graph it says: "The average raise for all workers is expected to be 3.7% in 2009, compared with the 3.8% they received in 2008. Executive-level employees are projected to fare better, with their salaries rising on average 3.9%, Mercer reports."
The important words there... the 3.8% "they received". Seems to me "they received" means actual pay increases, not just budgeted.
By JustWondering 11:10 a.m., Jan 15, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #406: I said that wages and income generally (not distinguishing between public and private sector) adjusted for inflation have been flat since 2000. Incomes would include unemployment compensation. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 12:12 p.m., Jan 15, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #407: The Wall Street Journal does things sloppily, too. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 12:14 p.m., Jan 15, 2009 > Report it
I said that wages and income generally (not distinguishing between public and private sector) adjusted for inflation have been flat since 2000.
============================
You're correct. Johnny said that private sector raises have been flat while public sector raises have been out of line. My mistake.
By JF 12:56 p.m., Jan 15, 2009 > Report it
Fred,
Here ya go.
"California Fire Chiefs Mull Letting Homeowners Fight Wildfires"
http://cms.firehouse.com/content/arti...
By JF 1:02 p.m., Jan 15, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #411: If such a program were effective, it could lower costs. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 3:11 p.m., Jan 15, 2009 > Report it
Re: #411
Yep. I saw that.
Clearly, the fire chiefs from around the state are all reading Bauder's blog and the letters section of VOSD.
:-)
By Fred_Williams 4:13 p.m., Jan 15, 2009 > Report it
Patt Morrison, long time LA Times reporter, ran a line or two today about San Diego being the only densly populated county without a county fire department/protection plan, in one of her "we are too cheap to pay for services" rants that would have made JF blush with pride.
By JohnnyVegas 4:34 p.m., Jan 15, 2009 > Report it
If such a program were effective, it could lower costs.
=====================
Yes, it could. But not in the way you think. We will still put as many folks out there, but there may be more homes saved. Also, as Chief Roper warns, it would cost a lot to implement and maintain.
And... one lawsuit from someone who didn't think they received the protection they "deserved" would increase costs... if nothing else, costs to defend. Note Chief Freeman's warnings about people who fiercely decide to stay, but then leave at the last minute.
I do think that homeowners can do some good, but still think that funding an actual volunteer FD isn't very cost effective. I'll leave it to the lawyers to determine the distinction.
By JF 4:55 p.m., Jan 15, 2009 > Report it
Responses to posts #411-415: It's clear something has to give. There is not the money to pay the firefighters like JF what they believe they are worth. We have to look to creative solutions. Or a bankruptcy judge has to come up with those solutions. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 9:09 p.m., Jan 15, 2009 > Report it
I'm just wondering if the "Reader" has any stats on the number responses to articles posted. This thread has been going since Johnny V started it last year or about 17 days now. While the "conversation" has morphed off the original topic, the exchange of ideas and information is interesting.
But back on topic for a second. I see SDCERS has posted it's agenda at:
https://www.sdcers.org/boardagendas/b...
and an interesting document/opinion from it outside legal counsel, ICE MILLER on the Interest Crediting Rate at:
https://www.sdcers.org/boardagendas/t...
By JustWondering 8 a.m., Jan 16, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #417: I had a blog item several months ago noting that some on the SDCERS board want to drop that return expectation from 8 percent. The idea of 7.75 percent is ridiculous. The interest rate return on DROP should be lowered to 5 or 6 percent. It's a step in the right direction. Actually, DROP should be abolished. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 5:53 p.m., Jan 16, 2009 > Report it
Fred, I have to formally apologise for words we had some time ago. Fred and myself went head on into a heated discussion of the vollie vs paid conflict.
I concede that we, as the fire service need to coordinate efforts with the HOA's, and community leaders to implement a fight or flight plan for the homeowners. I would, enjoy the fact that we could give the individual a guideline to plan for his/her own safety, and the ability to make the informed decision without big gov't getting in the way.
As I stated earlier, I would hope that all sides could get the IGM (I Got Mine) mentality out of the picture and get resolution for the pension mess. Pay cuts would be hard for my family to deal with, but I am all for getting to a midpoint.
By TheGunny 8:41 p.m., Jan 16, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #419: The question of the day is this: with the economic pie shrinking in draconian fashion, will the IGM mentality intensify or recede? Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10:31 p.m., Jan 16, 2009 > Report it
Oh crap. Don said DROP. Now we'll hit 500.
So I'll start with this. What do we need to do to make it cost neutral if it isn't already? And why won't the city conduct the independent evaluation that's been required in our contract for years now?
By JF 8:31 a.m., Jan 17, 2009 > Report it
DROP cannot be cost neutral without increasing the employee contribution 10 fold.
DROP would not even be an issue iof the City (and all Gov.) had normal reirement ages.
It only works because of the artificially low retirement age. And what the cops and FF's always do after they "reitre" at age 50 is go to work at another gov agency, usually doing the same job (see new OCSO Sheriff Sandra Hutchins and her cronies from LASO).
JF, this thread was about to finally die a quiet death and now look what you have done.
By JohnnyVegas 9:55 a.m., Jan 17, 2009 > Report it
10 fold, eh? Is that like your claim that there are 1000 applicants for every job? I'm still waiting to see those 80,000 people lined up.
And Don started it, not me.
By JF 10:08 a.m., Jan 17, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #s 421-423: In San Diego, the way some initiative becomes cost neutral is some establishment honcho declaring it is cost neutral, and pols and bureaucrats enthusiastically agreeing. Statistics to prove it? Forget about it. The statistics wouldn't be printed in mainstream media anyway. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 4:08 p.m., Jan 17, 2009 > Report it
That's why we specifically put it in our contract. Of course, the city has not honored that. Frankly, if you got a actuary we agreed upon to say that it was costing money, you might get us to agree to some concessions. Heck, even the city's actuary says that DROP can be beneficial to both parties. So let's make it that way.
By JF 8:52 p.m., Jan 17, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #425: Would a City actuary get hired if he didn't at least hedge on the value of DROP? Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10:28 p.m., Jan 17, 2009 > Report it
Don,
I don't know. But that's why we specified that it be a mutually agreed upon person. We want to know for sure, or at least as sure as one can be with actuaries. Some people contend it costs money, some people contend it makes money. What's the truth?
By JF 6:28 a.m., Jan 18, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #427: The truth is that it is double-dipping and costs San Diego bundles of money. But how many in the Sanders administration want to hear the truth? On any subject? Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 7:06 a.m., Jan 18, 2009 > Report it
JF, can I ask you a question;
Why should anyone get DROP at all?? The taxpayers did not put in the artificially low retirement ages-the uinions did. They lobbied for it and got it. So if you want a low reitement age then you have to take it.
The claim for DROP was that people die from FF/Cop jobs at an earlier age (an unsupported claim, but we'll roll with it for the sake of argument), so why should they be allowed to continue working-even if they want to?
If the purpose was to get them out for health reasons then they should not be allowed to keep working, period.
You cannot have it BOTH ways-a retirement age of 50 (60% less than the SS age of 67) AND the ability to continue working past that artificial retirement age and collect BOTH a pension and a paycheck.
DROP is a flat out bogus scam invented by the public employee unions for their sole benefit-DROP exists NO WHERE but in the public sector, and the reason is because the public unions developed, implented and now are trying to hang onto the DROP scam to contine lining their pockets.
The ONLY people who try to justify DROP = anywhere = are the public employees-no one else is.
One reason I am so anti public union (not anti union, anti PUBLIC union) is because of the types of arguments you make here;
1- You/FF's/Cops/Public employees already have excellent wages
2- You already have excellent benefits
3- You already have far greater job security than anyone in the private sector
4- You for the most part already have far better working conditions
5. You are far ahead of the private sector by miles on the above factors alone
Yet here you are JF, trying to get even more- from DROP. It just keeps coming and does not stop.
And to be honest, it is pure greed. I know I represent the majority of residents when I make this comment.
By JohnnyVegas 9:33 a.m., Jan 18, 2009 > Report it
The claim for DROP was that people die from FF/Cop jobs at an earlier age (an unsupported claim, but we'll roll with it for the sake of argument), so why should they be allowed to continue working-even if they want to?
========================
Sorry, made a mistake, that should actuallY read;
"The claim for EARLY RETIREMENT was that people die ..."
By JohnnyVegas 9:35 a.m., Jan 18, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #429: The core of the problem is that the municipal unions don't have to worry about foreign competition. FF, PD, routine bureaucrat jobs can't be outsourced to India. So those unions garner power and use it irresponsibly. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 7:53 p.m., Jan 18, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #430: Others: please note Johnny's correction. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 7:55 p.m., Jan 18, 2009 > Report it
Johnny,
You never do learn, do you? You're so obsessed with my pay and benefits that you actually changed political parties over that one issue. That's completely clouded your thinking to anything but your hatred.
You say that the taxpayers did not "put in" DROP, the unions did. It would appear that you are unfamiliar with the concept of representative government. The unions did not propose DROP, the city did. They came to us with the proposal and we accepted it. Your elected officials read the ordinance several times and approved it. Then, the elected representatives of the taxpayers voted to accept the program.
You say that DROP was designed to make up for the fact that we die earlier. You have that exactly backwards. DROP was designed to hang on to senior employees. Once again, you're confused. The retirement age for safety members has always been 50, at least in recent memory. The reason for that age really doesn't matter.
You continue to spout off about retirement ages while using the earliest possible retirement age for public safety personnel and the latest possible age to maximize Social Security. Why do you insist on using the two opposite extremes? Why don't you use the averages? The facts show that the average age at separation for safety members is 57. The average age at separation for SS recipients is 62. Could it be that you're trying to skew the numbers?
All of your arguments are a moot point. DROP is a vested benefit, further strengthened by the Corbett case. It's a done deal.
Oh, and since you represent a majority of the residents, why don't you run for council and fix everything?
By JF 8:22 p.m., Jan 18, 2009 > Report it
JF, you make an important error in your analysis.
You wrote:
"It would appear that you are unfamiliar with the concept of representative government. The unions did not propose DROP, the city did. They came to us with the proposal and we accepted it. Your elected officials read the ordinance several times and approved it. Then, the elected representatives of the taxpayers voted to accept the program."
The flaw is that you claim these people "represented" us.
In fact, it's well known that the last two decades of City Council membership has NOT represented the interests of the taxpayers, residents, and citizens of San Diego.
They have represented the interests of Ron Saathoff, John Moores, Alex Spanos, Jack McGrory and other professional political prostitutes who gamed the system and robbed the city blind.
DROP was conceived, designed, vetted, and decided upon behind closed doors. The only thing that was public was a vote in chambers where a lot of untruth was committed in both the description and alleged prospects for the program.
JF, you've surely attended council meetings?
Do they pay any attention to members of the public who speak in opposition to their plans?
No, they do not. Once it's on the docket for a vote so the public can get wind of it, it's already a done deal. Nothing any member of the public says makes a bit of difference whatsoever in San Diego.
So don't blame us for what we had absolutely no control over. On the other hand, consider how the firefighters union endorses candidates and then directs enormous sums of money and manpower to elect them. That's exactly the reason Saathoff could get his extra special personal deals from the complaisant council he controlled with your union dues.
Please, don't blame the rest of us for the misdeeds of the firefighters union boss and corrupt city staff like Jack McGrory.
Claiming that we ever had representation at the negotiating table is an error that I'm sure you'll now gladly withdraw.
Best,
Fred
By Fred_Williams 7:14 a.m., Jan 19, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #433: If the average retirement age for safety members is 57, I have one response: that's pretty damned young. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 7:18 a.m., Jan 19, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #434: Excellent points. And since Saathoff was considered the single most powerful person in SD politics, how can anyone say that DROP was conceived and executed by the pols, not the FFs? Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 7:22 a.m., Jan 19, 2009 > Report it
You say that DROP was designed to make up for the fact that we die earlier. You have that exactly backwards.
By JF 8:22 p.m., Jan 18, 2009
================
JF, yes I know I got that backwards-did you see post #430 by chance???
By JohnnyVegas 11:40 a.m., Jan 19, 2009 > Report it
JF=the 90%@50 has been emplemented in virtually ALL FD and PD within the last 9 years-they started doing it in 2000/2001 across the nation. No one had it before that- including San Diego.
By JohnnyVegas 11:41 a.m., Jan 19, 2009 > Report it
No before that there were various multipliers depending on age. Beginning at 2.5% at age 50 and escalating up to 2.99% at age 55 multiplied by the years of service. With no cap so if you decided to work more you'd earn more. In some cases employees retired with greater than 100% of their pay.
JF is correct the City proposed DROP as a two fold solution. First it capped retirements at 90% period. 2nd it allowed the city to retain senior employees and their knowledge for up to five more years.
If we look at the SDCERS Board of Administration agenda for its January meeting we see the City has 953 employees in DROP. That roughly about 10% of its workforce that it DOES NOT make a contribution to the regular retirement system.
Additionally, SDCERS holds $150M in DROP funds for active employees and another $183M in DROP accounts left with the system, or about $333M invested.
Johnny argues if we have the benefit of retiring at 50 just take it and go. And Don says 57 it too young and I agree. So Johnny tell me what's the difference between these two scenarios; an employee enters DROP and caps their retirement, but continues working with the City, who no longer contributes to their retirement OR, the employee retires, leaves the city and gets a similar job some place else?
Don says it's double dipping. I'll tell you, there's really no difference except the new employer gets the benefit of all those years of experience at no cost whatsoever. Just use Don as an example he retired from his years of service with the U-T and now, I suspect he earns income with freelance writing for The Reader" who gained the years of his experience at no cost to it whatsoever.
I think JF called it in comment #433 above where he wrote:
"[Johnny] You're so obsessed with my pay and benefits that you actually changed political parties over that one issue. That's completely clouded your thinking to anything but your hatred."
JF is also correct when he points out the City's reluctance to hire a mutually acceptable actuary to conduct an unbiased analysis of DROP. One could certainly argue if DROP was such a drain on city resources they'd jump at the chance to prove so the program would be terminated.
Do changes need to made to the pension system. YOU BET. The process of change is called meet and confer it happens during labor negotiations the City will begin this years sessions shortly. Let's see what happens.
By JustWondering 1:18 p.m., Jan 19, 2009 > Report it
I have one response: that's pretty damned young.
===================
Yep, but here's the kicker. Why don't you sponsor a study comparing the age of fire service workers to the amount of worker's compensation. My guess is that you'd find that retiring in the 50's is cost effective. Remember that the actuarial rates are designed for that retirement. That's why we pay so much more (double) out of pocket than those in SS.
Johnny calls for a FD retirement age of 67. Don is 73. So Don, think back 5 years. Think you could strap on 100 lbs and climb to the top of a 42 story building? I don't. So what does the city do with those folks? Manufacture jobs for them? No, the city is cutting positions. Ah... retire them. Bingo!
By JF 3:31 p.m., Jan 19, 2009 > Report it
Fred,
Note that I said, "your elected officials" or "the elected representatives of the people". Nothing about "your representatives". I chose my words for the reason you mentioned.
Meanwhile, Don wrote something about Saathoff being the most powerful man in San Diego politics. Really? So why is firefighter pay lower than police officer pay? Why is firefighter pay in SD lower than firefighter pay in other towns? Please answer those two questions for me. Saathoff is nowhere near the most powerful man in SD politics.
By JF 3:43 p.m., Jan 19, 2009 > Report it
JF=the 90%@50 has been emplemented in virtually ALL FD and PD within the last 9 years-they started doing it in 2000/2001 across the nation.
======================
So what's your point? Other cities implemented 3% at 50 by negotiation. We did it by settling a court case. The city's alternative was to pay retirements based on OT. Which do you think would be worse for the retirement system? Again, if Saathoff was the most powerful man in SD politics, why did we have to sue?
As Just Wondering pointed out, the 90% at 50 is now a CAP. There was NO cap before. Folks regularly retired with 110-130% of their salary. Under the old system, I'd be eligible almost 100% of pay at 57. Now I'm only eligible for 90%. Again, which is worse for SDCERS, people retiring with 130% of salary? Or people retiring with 90% of salary.
See, Fred, you claim that the union has been irresponsible. Yes, somewhat. But we've also created a system that is much easier to predict. That was on purpose. Can you imagine the difficulty (and cost) of predicting retirements based on overtime?
By JF 4:03 p.m., Jan 19, 2009 > Report it
Don says it's double dipping. I'll tell you, there's really no difference except the new employer gets the benefit of all those years of experience at no cost whatsoever.
============================
The taxpayer is getting no benefit whatsoever-they are getting a huge liability in the form of pension payments AND wage payments. If not for the bogus, artifically LOW "retirement" age then there would be no DROP. It is just another scam put into place by the public unions and their bought and paid for elected officials....excuse me, I meant "campaign contributions".
The only reason it works is because of the bogus, artifically low age you can retire, and yes, it is double dipping.
Like I said in that #429 post-no one gets this in the private sector-or anything close to it. These deals are driving every muni/state across this country into BK.
This downturn is expected to last for 1-5 years, and there is simply not going to be the money to pay these scams up (as we now see at the state and City level).
By JohnnyVegas 4:25 p.m., Jan 19, 2009 > Report it
See, Fred, you claim that the union has been irresponsible. Yes, somewhat. But we've also created a system that is much easier to predict. That was on purpose. Can you imagine the difficulty (and cost) of predicting retirements based on "PENSION SPIKING"(overtime)?
By JF 4:03 p.m., Jan 19, 2009
=============================
There, I fixed it.
By JohnnyVegas 4:27 p.m., Jan 19, 2009 > Report it
Why is firefighter pay in SD lower than firefighter pay in other towns? Please answer those two questions for me. Saathoff is nowhere near the most powerful man in SD politics.
By JF 3:43 p.m., Jan 19, 2009
=================================
JF-who cares if it IS lower?? Since when do we have to pay what someone else pays??
And for the record, this is a job that has the lowest entry level requirement of any 6 figure job I have ever seen
SDFD;
http://www.sandiego.gov/fireandems/ca...
There are also many other excellent benefits including…
Firefighter Base Monthly Salary Range From ***$3258 to $5,500*** ***(More than LAFD)***
Career Advancement Opportunities (Firefighter – Fire Chief)
Desirable Work Schedule (Up to 21 days off per month) ***(Hey, where can I get this deal in the real world???)***
11 Annual Paid Holidays ***(less than the 14 State employees get)***
17 Days Annual Paid Vacation/Sick Leave888(more than the 12 in other gov jobs)***
Health/Dental Insurance
Life Insurance
Excellent Retirement Plans ***(Boy, you aint kidding)***
401(k) Plan ***(Wow, a DB AND a 401K!)***
Deferred Compensation Plan
City’s Pension Plan ***(Not if we file BK)***
Job Security ***(Hmmm...didn't I just mention this in an earlier post???)****
****************************************
LAFD:
http://www.theblueline.com/feature/CA...
Salary and Benefits
Full pay during Academy training
Annual Salaries start at $46,729 to $64,686
Bilingual Bonus
Family and domestic partner health and dental coverage
15 days paid vacation to start
Flexible work schedules
Pension plan
Application Process
About the LAFD
Requirements
An applicant must be 18 years of age at the time of hiring.
***An applicant must have a high school diploma, ***GED*** (or equivalent), or a California High School Proficiency Examination (CHSPE) certificate. ****
A valid California Driver's License is required at the time of appointment.
A valid EMT Certificate and/or Paramedic License is highly desired.
The ability to speak or write a language other than English is highly desired.
By JohnnyVegas 4:40 p.m., Jan 19, 2009 > Report it
And for the record, this is a job that has the lowest entry level requirement of any 6 figure job I have ever seen
===========================
Ah, so what you're saying is that the pay level may, in fact, have something to do with the low recruiting numbers? That's why we care if it's lower. Go back to the original question. I see you failed to answer that. If Saathoff is the single most powerful person in SD politics, why is our pay lower that both the PD and other FD's? Answer that question. Quit dancing around it. Answer the question.
The 401K plan that SD firefighters have is self-funded only. No city money goes into it.
The LAFD figure you used is outdated. From the joinLAFD.org website, "Excellent starting salary from $53,766 to $74,416 for entry-level firefighter position." Let's see, a 39K starting salary vs. a 54K starting salary... hmmm...where should I apply? Oh... and LAFD gets 4 more paid holidays a year. Research, Johnny.
You can get 21 days off per month. Work a 56 hour week doing 24 hours shifts. Sorry if you don't like the word "work". Not all the time attorneys "work" is in front of the jury, is it?
Again, the job is open. You're welcome to come on down and apply. You could be an attorney on those 21 days off. Several others have done it. No lame excuses. Either you apply, or you don't. Either you can get hired or you can't.
By JF 5:41 p.m., Jan 19, 2009 > Report it
Ah, so what you're saying is that the pay level may, in fact, have something to do with the low recruiting numbers?
=====================
No-Not at all.
What I was saying was I have never seen a job that paid so WELL with almost NO educational or prior work experience needed-which explains why no one can get them unless you're connnected.
By JohnnyVegas 6:06 p.m., Jan 19, 2009 > Report it
Hmmmm I'm just wondering what Bill Gates was getting paid with his HS Diploma. He never graduated from college? He holds no official degree. Oh sure he has some honorary degrees now...probably because of the honorarium he's bestowed on higher institutions of learning.
All of the regulars here GET IT Johnny. You're upset because you spent a boatload of cash, probably went deeeeeeeep into debt with student loans and now you feel under paid, under compensated and unloved for all your hard work. It just gnaws at your soul that some common sensed, hard working Joes, like JF and others make more than you. If "Turko" was in your corner, he be yelling his signature line..."It ain't right!"
It may not be right in your mind, but the pay these fellows make meet OUR market demands.
For example, my younger brother makes more money than me. But he barely made it out of high school. He works hard, earns commissions, takes good care of his clients and earns additional rewards for doing it. He earns $150K a year and deserves every penny of it.
The market for lawyers is a dime a dozen now-a-days. Law schools churn our thousands every year. Most have $$$$ in their eyes and some, the very bright ones, earn it. But I suspect there are plenty of starving attorneys out there competing, and driving down compensation.
By JustWondering 6:34 p.m., Jan 19, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #439: All signs indicate that there will be no reforms in the next meet and confer sessions. Sanders will give away the store once again. Soon, there will be nothing left on the shelves. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 7:17 p.m., Jan 19, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #440: Yeah, but retiring them at a fat retirement stipend is a drag on the City. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 7:19 p.m., Jan 19, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #441: Saathoff WAS the most powerful person in political circles. He has been indicted. He isn't now. And is it apples and oranges to compare FD and PD salaries and fringes? I think it is. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 7:23 p.m., Jan 19, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #442: ONLY eligible for 90 percent at age 57? Do you think private sector employees are weeping for you? Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 7:26 p.m., Jan 19, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #443: It's looking more and more like the weak economy could drag on for four years. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 7:29 p.m., Jan 19, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #444: Don't use the word "fixed" so close to the Super Bowl. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 7:33 p.m., Jan 19, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #445: Hard to refute the data. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 7:36 p.m., Jan 19, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #446: Several people who read this blog may apply to FD. Remember, SD is low-wage, high-cost area. FD seems to offer ideal pay and fringes for this environment. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 7:40 p.m., Jan 19, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #447: You have a genuine difference of opinion with JF on that assertion. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 7:42 p.m., Jan 19, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #448: Reminds me of a story. Three fathers were boasting about their sons. The first says, "He got his law degree at Harvard and is now making $400,000 a year as a Wall Street attorney." The second says, "My son got his medical degree at Penn and is now making $450,000 a year as a brain surgeon." The third says, "My son flunked out of high school and reform school, and then ran away from military school. But now he is making a million dollars a year as a sports mechanic." The other two ask: a sports mechanic? Says the third. "Yes. He fixes football games. He fixes basketball games...." Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 7:48 p.m., Jan 19, 2009 > Report it
Hmmmm I'm just wondering what Bill Gates was getting paid with his HS Diploma.
===============================
Gates was a 3rd year HARVARD student when he dropped out to start MS.
So when you get into HARVARD, complete 3 years and then start the ground breaking software technology that changes the world you can make claims about not being a college graduate but still entitled to earn $200K per year off taxpayers-until then your argument is meritless.
Why do the gov employees always mention Bill Gates when trying up their GED's and HS diploma's???????????????????
By JohnnyVegas 8:25 p.m., Jan 19, 2009 > Report it
All of the regulars here GET IT Johnny. You're upset because you spent a boatload of cash, probably went deeeeeeeep into debt with student loans and now you feel under paid, under compensated and unloved for all your hard work. It just gnaws at your soul that some common sensed, hard working Joes, like JF and others make more than you. If "Turko" was in your corner, he be yelling his signature line..."It ain't right!"
It may not be right in your mind, but the pay these fellows make meet OUR market demands.
For example, my younger brother makes more money than me. But he barely made it out of high school. He works hard, earns commissions, takes good care of his clients and earns additional rewards for doing it. He earns $150K a year and deserves every penny of it.
The market for lawyers is a dime a dozen now-a-days. Law schools churn our thousands every year. Most have $$$$ in their eyes and some, the very bright ones, earn it. But I suspect there are plenty of starving attorneys out there competing, and driving down compensation.
========================
OMG...................I can't even start to respond to this propaganda piece!............ I'd be here for weeks.
By JohnnyVegas 8:28 p.m., Jan 19, 2009 > Report it
It's looking more and more like the weak economy could drag on for four years. Best, Don Bauder
======================
Don, is a "depression" 3 years of negative growth???
As to the weak economy, the City is toast-there is no way we are going to dig out-if we could not fund the pension scam in the go-go years (last 8 years) we sure as heck are not going to be able to fund it the next 1-3 years of negative economic growth.
Sanders won't file BK on his watch, so he is just chugging along watching the barn burn down, until he is out of office. The pension/healthcare debt has gone up, not down, with him and he is just going to pass along the problem to the next mayor-he won't fix anything. It is a structural problem.
Same goes for the state-it is only going to get worse and the borrowing (as in floating long term public bonds to pay everyday operating costs like Arnold did when first elected) are over. That is just no going to work anymore.
Arnold is going to try to pull a Sanders, keep afloat with gimmicks until he leaves office.
By JohnnyVegas 8:36 p.m., Jan 19, 2009 > Report it
Hmmmm I'm just wondering what Bill Gates was getting paid with his HS Diploma.
==========================================================
Gates also had a 1590 on the SAT, which supposedly puts him at roughly one in a million. Also, I don't believe he ever made an enormous salary ( at least in major company CEO terms), but made the bulk of his fortune through Microsoft stock.
By paul 9:45 p.m., Jan 19, 2009 > Report it
Why do you people waste your time arguing with Johnny Vegas and Bauder,they sound like broken records. If they spent less time on blogs then they might have a healthier lifestyle, relationships, lower cholesterol, lower body fat index and actually see the real world instead of their computer screens. They are just bitter little men who's lives suck so they want to spread their misery to others.
By Xray 10:06 p.m., Jan 19, 2009 > Report it
Add Fred_Williams to the last post also
By Xray 10:08 p.m., Jan 19, 2009 > Report it
So when you get into HARVARD, complete 3 years and then start the ground breaking software technology...
===============
Gee, weren't you panning Harvard earlier in this thread? Now it's the cat's meow?
By JF 10:10 p.m., Jan 19, 2009 > Report it
Xray,
You are so absolutely correct. Don Bauder, a gasping old man led around by his long-suffering wife and illegal immigrant attendants, has been known for his flatulence, incontinence, and halitosis for ages.
The only reason the Reader publishes his articles (which no one ever reads) is abject pity for such a tottering relic.
Johnny Vegas, too, is well known for his frequent bouts with law enforcement. In a recent headline story, his residence was surrounded by SWAT with bullhorns demanding that he step away from his computer.
Unfortunately, subsequent civil suits went badly, and Mr. Vegas is now the proud owner of formerly city-owned office complex at 202 C Street.
Considering my advanced state of morbid obesity, I think I'm the real star of this troika. According to some of my fans, like Fumber (you two should really meet, you'll get together fine), my rancid smell is sufficient to slaughter seagulls from 50 feet.
So the only way I can communicate with the outside world (really, I'm so fat I have a hole in my chair and a bucket under it so I never have to move) is through my vain, pointless, and often unintelligible posts online.
Xray, thank you for pointing out the oh-so-obvious flaws all us bitter little men share.
We're all terribly sorry that you had to read our many posts, and hope you'll avoid them in the future so that you'll waste no more time here.
Best,
Fred "Sniveling Twerp" Williams
By Fred_Williams 4:36 a.m., Jan 20, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #459: Yes, Gates was a bad example. A third-year Harvard dropout can hardly be called a high school grad although technically, I suppose, that's what he is. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 7:23 a.m., Jan 20, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #460: Yes, it was gratuitous vituperation. I agree you should not respond, Johnny. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 7:26 a.m., Jan 20, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #461: One definition of a depression is three years of recession. Under that definition, it wouldn't have to be three years of negative growth, because the National Bureau of Economic Research, the arbiter, may declare a recession even if growth for some stretches within the period is positive (probably barely). For example, the NBER says the current recession began in December of 2007. Growth was positive for awhile until the economy cratered in late 2008. Another definition is a period of massive decrease in business activity, falling prices, reduced purchasing power, excess of supply over demand, high unemployment, deflation, and plant contraction. We are more likely to hit the first definition (although I am not predicting that we will) than the second definition. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 7:36 a.m., Jan 20, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #462: Gates may have dropped out of Harvard, but the other superrich fellow at the top of the Forbes 400, Warren Buffett, got an advanced degree at Columbia. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 7:40 a.m., Jan 20, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #463: Well, for a bitter little man who delights in spreading misery, I'm pretty spry for one of nearly 73. It also seems a little late for me to go to a psychiatrist and say, "I'm a bitter, little old man who spreads misery. Can you cure me in the time I have left?" Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 7:44 a.m., Jan 20, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #464: Fred and Johnny, it's your turn to respond to the charge that you are a bitter little man spreading misery. Warning: both of you are at risk of not having the fire department put out a blaze at your house or resuscitate you in case of heart arrest. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 7:49 a.m., Jan 20, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #465: I don't know about Johnny, but I was panning Harvard MBAs -- at least some of them. Remember, Johnny was talking about somebody who was accepted at Harvard, and the test scores he achieved to get in. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 7:52 a.m., Jan 20, 2009 > Report it
Thanks for the info on what constitutes a "depression". I think we might hit three years of recession, but maybe not.
I have to laugh at our new "gimmick" account!
JF, JW, which one of you two registered that account :)
By JohnnyVegas 7:53 a.m., Jan 20, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #466: Thanks, Fred, for pointing out my flatulence and incontinence. Both conditions are so severe that I have to work from my computer in the bathroom. That explains why I am so bitter. I knew I would have to admit it some time. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 8:13 a.m., Jan 20, 2009 > Report it
All I can say about comments #449 to 475 is W-o-W... except of course for Mr/Ms XRAY's... who, if you'll pardon the pun has clear vision and deep insights.
By JustWondering 9:35 a.m., Jan 20, 2009 > Report it
Xray: Your first post and you blew it.
"They are just bitter little men who's lives suck so they want to spread their misery to others."
It's "whose".
Try an MRI next time? Much more comprehensive.
By Duhbya 9:38 a.m., Jan 20, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #476: Clear vision and deep insights are what xrays provide. So xray's observations must indeed be penetrating. Johnny, Fred and I are humbled. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 11:43 a.m., Jan 20, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #477: I am truly humbled, once again, that you corrected xray's grammar but not his sentiments. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 11:46 a.m., Jan 20, 2009 > Report it
Penetrating and exciting...where's Fumbar when we need him. I think it time for some relief, comic or otherwise. But then again this thread is closing in on 500 responses.
By JustWondering 12:14 p.m., Jan 20, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #477: Ha! Perhaps my future posts should be less succinct. I thought xray's inherent trollitude was apparent. Can't speak to Fred or Johnny's "stature", but you and I had a passing acquaintance at 350 & a current (less visible) one at 919, so I can assure xray that you present a pretty lean countenance. And if dealing in cold truths comes off as bitterness to xray, well, I suppose there's not much to be done about that.
By Duhbya 1:13 p.m., Jan 20, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #480: Fumber often lurks in the woods, waiting for the opportunity to spring. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 4:40 p.m., Jan 20, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #481: For the uninitiated, 350 is the address of the U-T (350 Camino de la Reina) and 919 is the name for an excellent, independent newsletter that goes out to former and present U-T employees. So I must know Duhbya. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 6:06 p.m., Jan 20, 2009 > Report it
Gates dropped out of Harvard due to an addiction to heroin. He left Harvard and went to New Mexico to dry out at a skid row motel.
By Burwell 7:07 p.m., Jan 20, 2009 > Report it
Sorry guys, Xray isn't me. I have my GED, so I would not have screwed up the who's/whose bit.
Perhaps Xray is striving to learn the art of trolling from Johnny.
By JF 7:28 p.m., Jan 20, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #484: And it was at that motel where he conceived the idea that made him a multi-billionaire. Funny, I never read that in any biographical materials about Gates. Are you sure you are not hallucinating? Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 8:28 p.m., Jan 20, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #485: JF, inadvertently you have described San Diego perfectly. It's those words of yours: who's/whose. In short, who is in whose pocket? There should be a San Diego blue book with this name: Who's Whose in San Diego. It would be a catalog of who owns whom. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 8:33 p.m., Jan 20, 2009 > Report it
Sorry guys, Xray isn't me. I have my GED, so I would not have screwed up the who's/whose bit.
Perhaps Xray is striving to learn the art of trolling from Johnny.
===============================
I can see myself making that typo.......
By JohnnyVegas 8:51 p.m., Jan 20, 2009 > Report it
WHO? I thought he was on first?
By JustWondering 11:01 p.m., Jan 20, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #488: You have made a few typos, Johnny. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 7:07 a.m., Jan 21, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #489: I thought WHO was on second, right behind BOO, who was on third. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 7:55 a.m., Jan 21, 2009 > Report it
Don, JF, Johnny, Just, Xray, Fumber, and everyone else is invited to add names to a new wiki page:
http://www.changesandiego.org/wiki/Wh...
It's already started, but needs your contributions.
1. Click the edit tab
2. Scroll to the list
3. Type "# Name is Name's"
(Note: The "#" enables automatic numbered lists. Make it the very first character in your entry.)
When you finish adding all your names...
4. Click "Save Page".
You'll see the results immediately.
You do NOT have to log in to edit this wiki. It's free for any San Diegan who wants to use it.
By Fred_Williams 8:38 a.m., Jan 21, 2009 > Report it
Huh. Just a few more posts...
By Fred_Williams 8:40 a.m., Jan 21, 2009 > Report it
...until we reach 500.
Wow!
By Fred_Williams 8:41 a.m., Jan 21, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #492: I can't wait to see what Fumber adds. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 9:47 a.m., Jan 21, 2009 > Report it
Response to posts #s 493 and 494: Fred, I am waiting for your entries for the new San Diego blue book, "Who's Whose." Start with who owns the mayor and the new city attorney. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 9:51 a.m., Jan 21, 2009 > Report it
The wiki is growing quickly...
http://www.changesandiego.org/wiki/Wh...
Edit often...
Remember Don, as the original author you can paste any of your own material into the wiki....as can anyone else who cares about Changing San Diego.
By Fred_Williams 10:30 a.m., Jan 21, 2009 > Report it
Who will be lucky poster #500?
By Fred_Williams 10:31 a.m., Jan 21, 2009 > Report it
ummmm......
By angelp 10:37 a.m., Jan 21, 2009 > Report it
me:)
By angelp 10:38 a.m., Jan 21, 2009 > Report it
Yes! We did it folks!
500 POSTS
Hurray!
Now, "angelp" wins an all expenses paid four year around the world cruise vacation, courtesy of the San Diego Reader and the US Navy.
All you have to do to collect your prize is appear at your nearest Navy recruiting office and sign up.
Next thing you know, you'll be off to exiting destinations where you'll meet very interesting people. While you're enjoying your cruise on our luxurious ships, you'll be sure to notice in great detail just how spic-and-span every one of these liners is kept.
But you won't just be lounging at the poolside bowling alley on the Kitty Hawk, or simply sunning yourself on the Saratoga. No, you'll be learning valuable job skills and leadership. Plus, you'll be able to scrape and paint with the best in the world.
Yes, "angelp", you're on your way now. All thanks to the San Diego Reader and the U.S. Navy, and your winning #500 entry!
Congratulations
Fred Williams
Interim Senior Assistant to the Manager
San Diego Regional Recruitment District
(not affiliated with the US Navy or San Diego Reader)
By Fred_Williams 11:20 a.m., Jan 21, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #497: Excellent. Here are some: Karin Winner and Bob Kittle are owned by John Moores and Jerry Sanders. Jerry Sanders and Jan Goldsmith are owned by the Lincoln Club money launderers and all those registered as real estate lobbyists. UCSD is owned by the biotech industry. KPBS is owned by David Copley. SDSU is owned by its football-loving alums. I will post them on Who's Whose. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 11:52 a.m., Jan 21, 2009 > Report it
I can't believe this thread hit 500+ posts.....OK, my work here is finished (on this thread).
Peace out.
By JohnnyVegas 12:05 p.m., Jan 21, 2009 > Report it
Response to posts #498-500: A race to the finish. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 12:11 p.m., Jan 21, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #501: With unemployment piling up, angelp may get some competitors for his around-the-world cruise. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 12:14 p.m., Jan 21, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #503: But Johnny: you are leaving it open for JF and his confreres to attack you without getting a response. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 12:16 p.m., Jan 21, 2009 > Report it
first angelp is a girl, hi thats me. second my husband is in the navy and has been for over 10 years. third and final i was in the navy did my time and married out (back when that was allowed)
GO NAVY!!!!
By angelp 12:27 p.m., Jan 21, 2009 > Report it
First, I told you we could do 500.
Second, Fred, do you REALLY want me posting on your wiki?
Third, thanks for the link to the CityBeat.
http://www.sdcitybeat.com/cms/story/d...
By JF 12:49 p.m., Jan 21, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #507: I was in the Army -- thus, a total outcast in San Diego. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 3:22 p.m., Jan 21, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #508: I hope Fred treats the Wiki just like we treat this blog: we want all opinions -- the more the merrier. But ask Fred. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 3:26 p.m., Jan 21, 2009 > Report it
Don is correct.
JF, you are specifically invited. Wikis are not echo chambers.
The more discussion and broader the variety of viewpoints, the better...
It's not "my" wiki. It belongs to anyone who wants to Change San Diego.
Best,
Fred
By Fred_Williams 4:20 p.m., Jan 21, 2009 > Report it
Gates did not conceive of the idea that made him a multi-billionaire. Gates paid a software developer $60,000 for the rights to a software program he renamed MS-DOS. Gates in turn relicensed the MS-DOS program to IBM. It was IBM's stupidity that created Gates' great wealth. He is an accidental multi-billionaire. I have heard from many sources that Gates left Harvard due to a drug addiction, not to invent the computer industry. He was arrested repeatedly while in New Mexico for erratic behavior.
http://www.mugshots.org/misc/bill-gat...
By Burwell 8:45 p.m., Jan 21, 2009 > Report it
Gates did not conceive of the idea that made him a multi-billionaire. Gates paid a software developer $60,000 for the rights to a software program he renamed MS-DOS.
=================================
Actually, Gates bought the MS-DOS operating system from Seattle Computer Products-at that time the OS was named QDOS- which stood for quick and dirty operating system.
QDOS itself was a direct rip off of another company's OS-Gary Kildall's advanced operating system (for the time) which was named CP/M.
IBM had an appointment with Kildall's company Digital Research to try to license CP/M for IBM's new computer the "PC", and the day IBM came to Pacific Grove to meet-Kildall blew them off and went to fly his airplane. IBM then flew to Washington and met Bill Gates who bought QDOS. I think the $60K figure is also what I heard.
Of course Apple sued Microsoft for billions when MS came out with "windows" because Apple said they stole the concept from the Apple Macintosh OS (which they did) which was the first computer to use a graphical user interface-AKA the GUI (gooey), which allowed a point and click/mouse operation. And MS did rip off Apples OS.
What Steve Jobs and Apple WON'T tell you is that Jobs ripped off the GUI from Xerox, which they developed at PARC (Xerox Palo Alto Research Center). Xerox's head of research, in the most boneheaded business move of the century, gave Jobs a guided tour of PARC and showed him all of Xerox's R&D-including the GUI they had developed. I forgot who this clown was, but one of his subordinates questioned whether it was a "good idea" to give Apples Steve Jobs a guided tour of their R&D....LOL.
MS never developed a single thing on their own-they just basically ripped off other people's innovations. Apple is the one who brought the first true windows type operating system to the market-and they too ripped it off from another.
Very snakey industry.
By JohnnyVegas 9:04 p.m., Jan 21, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #511: Remember, if you want to change San Diego, it will be like changing very, very soiled diapers. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10:56 p.m., Jan 21, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #512: I think everybody agrees that IBM's stupidity is what opened the gates -- no pun intended -- for Microsoft. I have never heard about any drug activity or abnormal activity in New Mexico. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10:59 p.m., Jan 21, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #513: I agree Apple is a far more innovative company than Microsoft. But I can't vouch for the story that you tell. It certainly could be true. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 11:03 p.m., Jan 21, 2009 > Report it
I agree Apple is a far more innovative company than Microsoft. But I can't vouch for the story that you tell.
===============
Yeah-the background of the development of MS, Apple, The point and click mouse/Macintosh computer system.......It is all very interesting and almost completely unknown except for the hard core computer nuts (which I am not one-but do find the history so interesting).
By JohnnyVegas 11:30 a.m., Jan 22, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #517: Maybe you could tell us where we could read this fascinating history. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 3:56 p.m., Jan 22, 2009 > Report it
Maybe you could tell us where we could read this fascinating history. Best, Don Bauder
==================================
Here is a good start;
1- Gary Arlen Kildall (May 19, 1942 – July 11, 1994) was an American computer scientist and microcomputer entrepreneur who created the CP/M operating system and founded Digital Research, Inc. (DRI). Kildall was one of the first people to see microprocessors as fully capable computers rather than equipment controllers and to organize a company around this concept.[1] He also co-hosted the PBS TV show The Computer Chronicles. Although his career in computing spanned more than two decades, he is mainly remembered in connection with IBM's unsuccessful attempt in 1980 to license CP/M for the IBM PC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kil...
2- By the end of the 1970s, Apple had a staff of computer designers and a production line. The Apple II was succeeded by the Apple III in May 1980 as the company competed with IBM and Microsoft in the business and corporate computing market.[26]
Jobs and several Apple employees including Jef Raskin visited Xerox PARC in December 1979 to see the Xerox Alto. Xerox granted Apple engineers three days of access to the PARC facilities in return for US$1 million in pre-IPO Apple stock.[27] Jobs was immediately convinced that all future computers would use a GUI, and development of a GUI began for the Apple Lisa.[28
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_co...
By JohnnyVegas 9:48 p.m., Jan 22, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #519: These will make interesting reading. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 7:01 a.m., Jan 23, 2009 > Report it
To round out this (finally) expiring thread, here's today's Economist with a depressingly familiar story:
“The big-picture problem for Illinois has nothing to do with markets,” explains William Atwood, director of the state board of investments. “It has to do with policymakers’ decisions to allocate money to places other than pensions.” After years of starving its retirement systems, in 1995 the state adopted a plan to ensure that its ratio of assets to liabilities reached 90% by 2045. But this was scuppered by generous new benefits for workers and lax payments to the funds themselves. Meagre returns have not helped.
Source:
http://www.economist.com/world/united...
By Fred_Williams 4:43 p.m., Jan 23, 2009 > Report it
Nothing new about that. You can claim all you want that benefits are excessive. It doesn't matter what they are if you don't pay the bill. Again, several different solutions are needed. All at the same time. So far, the only one anyone has seriously offered is "screw the employees".
By JF 5:12 p.m., Jan 23, 2009 > Report it
Nothing new about that. You can claim all you want that benefits are excessive.
=================
JF, it is not a claim, it is a provenm fact. The benefits are excessive. Everyone knows that today. The only people objecting are the ones on the receiving end of the scam.
By JohnnyVegas 6:28 p.m., Jan 23, 2009 > Report it
See right here JF-the benefits are excessive-even the UT editorial board says so (so it must be true);
City Council must focus on cuts, not tax hikes
2:05 a.m. January 23, 2009
- Looking for an easy way out of San Diego's intractable budget deficit, the City Council may be tempted to raise a variety of taxes and fees instead of taking tough steps to curb spending. But the inescapable reality is that San Diego confronts a structural deficit driven primarily by exorbitant pensions and other benefits for city workers. Without fundamental reform of the ****overly generous retirement system,***** tax increases would simply be devoured immediately by ever-rising labor costs, which are zealously protected by powerful public employee unions.
The City Council cannot hide from the inconvenient fact that ****city workers still can retire with pensions that are significantly higher than their paychecks ever were.****
Why should economically struggling San Diegans raise their taxes merely to pay for public employee pensions that far exceed anything available in the private sector?
(amen ^^^^^ to that JF!).
http://www3.signonsandiego.com/storie...
By JohnnyVegas 6:39 p.m., Jan 23, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #421: The Illinois public pension funds are in just about the worst shape of all. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 9:35 p.m., Jan 23, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #522: We have argued forever that the benefits are excessive if the municipality cannot -- and never could -- pay them. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 9:38 p.m., Jan 23, 2009 > Report it
Why should economically struggling San Diegans raise their taxes merely to pay for public employee pensions that far exceed anything available in the private sector?
==============================================
Because that's what they've secretly wanted for years. They all knew about Johnny V's insecurity complex, those deep seeded feeling of inadequacy, and his jealousies.
They also knew he needed a venue, a his virtual soapbox, but it took time for Johnny to invent the Internet with Al Gore so he'd have a platform where someone, anyone, would listen to endless diatribe on the virtues of higher education versus those un or undereducated bumpkin who run our country to his utter frustration.
Where is Fumbar with his wonderfully descriptive insights when we need them? I'm just wondering what he'd have to say about Bob Kittle's latest foray into San Diego politics, especially now that Kittle's favorite villain, Mike Aguirre, has left the house.
By JustWondering 9:40 p.m., Jan 23, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #523: Those employees think they are being sacrificed. I can understand. Even the Wall St. honchos raking in $50 million a year while driving the entire financial system into the ground with their avarice and stupidity think they are underpaid. Have you ever met anybody who thinks he is overpaid? Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 9:41 p.m., Jan 23, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #524: The U-T may try to cover its backside by talking about overly-generous City pay and pensions, but it smeared Mike Aguirre for trying to do something about it, and ridiculed his lawsuit. Sanders said the City had to play with the hand it was dealt. Fools. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 9:45 p.m., Jan 23, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #527: What do you mean: what would Fumber say about Kittle's editorials? Fumber feeds Kittle his editorials. Sometimes I wonder if Kittle is a nom de plume for Fumber. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 9:50 p.m., Jan 23, 2009 > Report it
I have to wonder this: How many people who voted for the ballpark, and thus the pension underfunding, are now screaming about the pension deficit?
By JF 10:01 p.m., Jan 23, 2009 > Report it
I have to wonder this: How many people who voted for the ballpark, and thus the pension underfunding, are now screaming about the pension deficit?
======================================
Not me.
Besides, the underfunding was allowed by YOUR union representatives. You allowed that underfunding for HIGHER benefits, with full knowledge it was a ponzi scheme bound to cave in eventually.
By JohnnyVegas 7:57 a.m., Jan 24, 2009 > Report it
Don,
I hope you have a chance to watch the SDCERS board discuss the DROP program and annuity payments along with the corresponding interest crediting rates.
Here is the link to the video file on the board meeting: http://granicus.sandiego.gov/ViewPubl...
just select video link to theJan 23rd meeting.
The SDCERS actuary makes it very clear DROP in its current configuration is not cost neutral. And SDCERS is saddled with the risk, which means the plan sponsor and ultimately the taxpayers.
However, what was more disturbing, was the Actuary's statement that the Board cannot make the program cost neutral, only the city has the power to do this.
My take, the Board will decouple and lower the interest crediting rate for "active DROP" accounts to probably 4 to 4.75 percent from the current 7.75% or assumed rate of return.
What's more interesting is the "decoupling" or in other words a new rate for the long term (20-30 year) annuity payments. If an employee chooses that option.
If these chances are adopted at its February meeting, it sound as if they will be implemented on July 1, 2009, or the day after the System's "official" valuation.
What will be interesting to watch, with about 1000 employees currently active drop participants, how many will leave for the new rates go into effect. Remember to keep in mind the City doesn't not pay into the retirement system for them. So if a third of them leave, AND the city hires replacements, it must also begin paying those benefits again.
I thinks this relates to JF's complaints about the totality of cost neutrality and why his union wants an independent actuarial study.
What are your thoughts?
By JustWondering 2:22 p.m., Jan 24, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #532: Lots, no doubt. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 5:59 p.m., Jan 24, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #532: Sounds like you voted against the ballpark. Good for you. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 6:02 p.m., Jan 24, 2009 > Report it
Responses to post #533: DROP is not cost neutral. Far from it. There has already been discussion of dropping that interest rate assumption. I had a blog on that a long time ago. One of the SDCERS board members was my source. I would think one of the positive side effects of lowering the interest rate on the DROP account to 4 or 4.5 percent or so would to be induce some people to drop out. I don't think it would be many, though. It's too good -- outrageously good -- a deal to pass up. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 6:12 p.m., Jan 24, 2009 > Report it
I would think one of the positive side effects of lowering the interest rate on the DROP account to 4 or 4.5 percent or so would to be induce some people to drop out. I don't think it would be many, though. It's too good -- outrageously good -- a deal to pass up. Best, Don Bauder
===================
You're 100% correct, the DROP deal is so good no one should pass it up if offered-that's why it is only offered in Fantasyland....errrr... I mean Government.
By JohnnyVegas 9:30 p.m., Jan 24, 2009 > Report it
Here is another issue discussed at the SDCERS Board meeting...the PSE or pension service credits. First to be clear I believe they should only be allowed for people who have "broken" service with the city for military service ONLY as was the original intent of the ordinance. And they should never be used to reach the vesting requirements (i.e. work 5 years and purchase 5 years).
I believe the board adopted new rules regarding their purchase. Now complex calculations must be made based upon salary, years of service already served and years until retirement eligibility. This will be done to make sure the purchase is cost neutral. Another positive sign was the new rules were adopted immediately so any new request to purchase credits after 1/23/09 must follow the new rules, there is no grace period. And, don't forget, new hires don't have the ability to purchase them period. So over time, this issue disappears through attrition anyway.
Now back to pensions ... if SDCERS can make these complex calculations for purchase of service credits (PSEs), why can't it do the same for pensions?
Johnny V, Mike Aguirre and that fellow in Orange County have alleged retroactive pension benefits from negotiated labor agreements are a gift of public funds and illegal. Others believe and have state here they are a negotiated benefit in lieu of actual pay raises, initiated by the City. Parts of this issue was resolved by court cases while other parts will probably take further court analysis to resolve the issues, but for the sake of this discussion let's say the courts agree they were improper.
Isn't part of the solution to calculate pensions on by the years of service AND the plans in place for those years? Or, in other words, if an employee spent 10 years gathering pension credits under one set of rules and 20 more years under the current rules, then a hybrid pension would be calculated using the rules for the periods worked. Thus no gift of public funds, just the constitutionally guaranteed benefit earned?
JF, DON, whatcha think?
By JustWondering 8:12 a.m., Jan 25, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #537: I hate to keep repeating myself, but much of the blame for municipal labor excesses belongs with top corporate executives, whose pay is utterly outrageous. When programs like DROP came in, proponents probably pointed to CEO, COO, CFO, etc. pay. And there has been no reform at all. They give too much money to politicians. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 8:52 a.m., Jan 25, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #538: I agree that purchase of service credits is outrageous except in the military case that you cite. Even more outrageous was the decision, after the discovery that employees had bought in at actuarially cheap rates, to give them a grace period so they could continue to buy in at the old rates. You say there should be a compromise: employees should be able to get purchase of service credits at whatever rates were in effect when they were purchased. That is probably what will happen. But still a lot of people will be grossly overcompensated. I wish I knew a legal way to take those illegal benefits away from them. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 9 a.m., Jan 25, 2009 > Report it
The one challenging the pensions in Orange County is County Supervisor John Moorlach. His challenge is actually different from Aguirre's. Moorloch challenegs the retroactive portion as illegal, as a gift of public funds for work already performed-and they were not at all in lieu of no pay raises. They were straight up pension spikes.
Aguirre's challenge is based on a conflict of interest, because the ones doing the negotiating were also personally benefiting. So you have two mutually exclusive challenges. I think Moorlach has the stronger argument-but both have the potential to blow pension spiking out of the water.
I wish they would rule on the two issues, especially in this fiscal climate.
By JohnnyVegas 11:52 a.m., Jan 25, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #541: Officials, including judges, will stall out ruling on anything. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 12:32 p.m., Jan 25, 2009 > Report it
I agree. PSC should only be allowed in cases of military service or to allow employees who were part time and then went full time to catch up. That's what the original intent was.
People who knowingly bought time at a falsely deflated rate should have to either pay or lose the benefit. Time bought should certainly not be used for vesting. I know of no one in the FD who has used purchased time for vesting, but it may have happened in other departments.
The conflict of interest issue is interesting. You'll note that the city now pays outside counsel around a half million dollars a year to say no. That would pay for staffing another fire engine. There has to be a better, and cheaper way.
Moorlach may have a case, but it's a self mitigating problem. I doubt he'll be able to take benefits from already retired folks. Here in SD, employees who are retiring right now have paid into the 3% at 50 system for 1/3 to 1/2 of their careers. That percentage increases every day. Eventually all employees will have paid in the current system for their entire careers.
Here's the thing. The 3% at 50 wasn't all that much of an increase. The average retiree enters DROP at 52. The old factor was 2.7%. The new 3.0% factor is around a 10% gain. It would take millions of dollars to try to unwind those retirements, recalculate DROP, etc.
By JF 4:43 p.m., Jan 25, 2009 > Report it
Moorlach may have a case, but it's a self mitigating problem. I doubt he'll be able to take benefits from already retired folks. Here in SD, employees who are retiring right now have paid into the 3% at 50 system for 1/3 to 1/2 of their careers.
====================================
The courts will decide if the retroactive pension spiking is illegal or not-and they are not really taking away anything because they never earned the retroactive portion.
JF, there were plenty of of cops and FF's that "retired" within 1 month of the pension spike. They did not pay anything into the system that jacked their pension by 50%. Anyone who gets a pension should have paid the required amounts over the entire period of employment-or minimum 30 years.
By JohnnyVegas 5:54 p.m., Jan 25, 2009 > Report it
Officials, including judges, will stall out ruling on anything. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder
===================
And that is a crime. This issue should get expedited because of the serious impact it is having=especially now.
Remember the 1994 earthquake.......all the freeways that fell apart?? They rebuilt ALL of them, thousands of miles, within 9 months because they worked 24/7/365 as did the muni's who checked off on the work, clearances and permits.
Don't tell me the courts cannot do the same with these pension cases.
By JohnnyVegas 5:58 p.m., Jan 25, 2009 > Report it
Even if the courts expedite a decision, what is solution? The way I see it, a decision is MORE THAN HALF of the issue.
Crafting a "FAIR" solution is the difficult part. I say this is especially true for the rank-and-file workers near the bottom of the totem pole. They planned their lives on promises repeated made about their pensions. No one told them in 1996 or 2000 their benefits would or could be unwound 10 years later. Just how would you make up 10 years of retirement planning?
By JustWondering 8:02 p.m., Jan 25, 2009 > Report it
I dont know how the courts will rule, but if they rule that pension spiking is illegal it is going to go a long way to fixing the budget problems, not just here in San Diego, but all across the state and even the nation.
By JohnnyVegas 8:54 p.m., Jan 25, 2009 > Report it
OMG-check out this post I made LAST year!!!!!!!
I was on the money it looks like.
==================================
"I am telling you right now, if we have a stock market meltdown that will be it, the final straw that broke the camels back,
There will be NO OTHER choice but bankruptcy, and not just us, but probably every gov municipality in this state."
By JohnnyVegas 4:40 p.m., Feb 5, 2008 > Report it
http://www.sandiegoreader.com/weblogs...
By JohnnyVegas 8:55 p.m., Jan 25, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #543: A ten percent increase is actually a lot. Even if it weren't, it doesn't take much of an increase to break the camel's back. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 9 p.m., Jan 25, 2009 > Report it
Response to post to #s 544 and 545: Yes, there were abuses. Some people paid almost nothing into Social Security and walked off with lifetime payments, too. As to the judges: yes, highways were rebuilt quickly. But the justice system didn't do that. The only time the justice system in San Diego works fast is when the establishment tells it to. I'll give you two examples: 1. the Chargers stadium deal and 2. the ballpark deal, in which the judge wouldn't give the plaintiffs time to prepare and put on their case, and also denied the right of one plaintiff to put on his case. It was rammed through because the court was told the Padres would leave if they didn't get their way in a month. They did, and it has been a financial disaster for the City. There is no evidence whatever that the San Diego judiciary has a bit of remorse. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 9:09 p.m., Jan 25, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #546: You are trying to make us feel sorry for people who were overcompensated as a result of two crooked deals. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 9:12 p.m., Jan 25, 2009 > Report it
Response to posts #547 and 548: Yes, if the courts rule honestly, it will relieve pressure all over the U.S. And you were prescient last year. Moreover, the plunge may not be over. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 9:15 p.m., Jan 25, 2009 > Report it
A ten percent increase is actually a lot.
===============
Not when spread over a 30 year career.
By JF 10:01 p.m., Jan 25, 2009 > Report it
Yes, Johnny, you're a genius. Speaking of which... I'll cut and paste because we might as well take this to 600 posts.
Johnny, you just can't get over this $200K thing, can you? At least we're making progress. First it was ALL firefighters make $250K, then it was ALL make $200K, including OT, now it's virtually all make $200K. Maybe in the next year or two, you'll reach reality.
You've been squawking about how retirement costs 100% of salary. That's pure BS. The figures from DeMaio show that. Same with health care. I'm assuming you believe DeMaio's numbers.
A top step firefighter makes $67K/year base. Add 26% retirement and 9.5% health care and you get $114K. A battalion chief makes around $100K. With health care and retirement that's $135K. A firefighter would have to make $85K and a battalion chief would have to make $65K in OT to make $200K. I'm oversimplifying a little, but I'm hitting the high notes. I'm probably about 10% low due to retiree health care and offset. Offset is lower for us, so I didn't calculate it.
The only reason retirement costs 26% is due to amortization of unpaid past bills. Normal retirement cost is half that.
Even including benefits, few firefighters (of any rank) make it to $150K.
Yeah, you're a genius alright...
By JF 10:05 p.m., Jan 25, 2009 > Report it
You've been squawking about how retirement costs 100% of salary.
=====================
That's not what I said JF.
I said BENEFITS = 100% of salary.
Pensions = 60% of salary.
I stand by those numbers.
By JohnnyVegas 10:15 p.m., Jan 25, 2009 > Report it
A ten percent increase is actually a lot.
===============
Not when spread over a 30 year career.
**************************
JF, the 10% increase was not spread out over 30 years-if it was we would not be BK. It was applied IMMEDIATLY and retroactively to everyone, incluidng the ones who retired the day after it was implemented-that is not spread out over 30 years.
Second, don't forget the retirement age was lowered from 55 to 50, which is a drop of almost 10% in years (55x100x/55= 9.09%).
By JohnnyVegas 10:24 p.m., Jan 25, 2009 > Report it
Second, don't forget the retirement age was lowered from 55 to 50, which is a drop of almost 10% in years
==============
No it wasn't. The retirement age was always 50. Before there was a sliding scale percentage that went from 50 to 55. The city lost/settled in court and agreed to 3% at 50.
By JF 6:35 a.m., Jan 26, 2009 > Report it
I said BENEFITS = 100% of salary.
Pensions = 60% of salary.
I stand by those numbers.
======================
So DeMaio is lying? One of you is.
I'm not quite sure why you have this obsession when all of the evidence is against you. I think you've started to believe your own exaggerations.
By JF 6:41 a.m., Jan 26, 2009 > Report it
Response to posts #553-558: Keep at it, lads. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 7:10 a.m., Jan 26, 2009 > Report it
#551 Don said: "Response to post #546: You are trying to make us feel sorry for people who were overcompensated as a result of two crooked deals. Best, Don Bauder"
========================================
No that wasn't my point at all. My point which you clearly understood but felt compelled to sarcasm was lower paid employees made life plans/choices based upon promises they wholeheartedly believed reliable. These folks had no voice at the bargaining table, they have no real control over these issues but you and Johnny V believe the ONLY solution is to extract your pound of flesh out of them.
JF has pointed out reductions in pay for his group. The City and State want employees to take 24-36 days off without pay. (That's a pay cut). The gutless politicians state categorically no new taxes even though San Diego is taxed lower than most other large cities in California. The citizens demand the same or higher levels of services while revenue streams are drying up and are unwilling to raise taxes even on visitors who use those services.
So no, DON, no one wants you to feel sorry while you enjoy your retirement years in Colorado. Because you got yours. And now you're are entitled to pontificate from high above.
Guess it was to much to see if you or Mr. Vegas had some constructive ideas other than the same old endless diatribe we (according to Johnny's narcissistic cut and pastes, see I told you so a year ago. That was helpful.) hear.
By JustWondering 7:53 a.m., Jan 26, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #560: You want constructive ideas, but only those that permit the employees to keep their money and benefits. We don't think it will work. I have to say over and over and over again: it would be nice if you folks could be generously paid for the work you perform, as you are now. But the City can't afford the pay and benefits you have been given. They are driving San Diego into bankruptcy. Pay is too high when the employer can't afford it. As to taxes, I agree with your point. San Diego taxes should be raised, including the transient occupancy tax on visitors. However, I don't like to harp on that since I live in Colorado. Finally: retirement? Look at my weekly columns, my almost daily blog posts and my responses to those who write in. Does that look like retirement? Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 9:58 a.m., Jan 26, 2009 > Report it
You bet it is. Here is how I can tell.
1. You don't have a commute in heavy metropolitan traffic twice daily.
2. You're not paying to park at 350, or a meter when you go downtown.
3. You're probably sitting at your PC in your PJs when you write and haven't had a shave today.
4. You don't have to attend editorial meetings where you're force to listen to inane ideas of your boss and how he or she knows more than you.
5. You get a defined benefit check once a month from your pension account. Even on the months when you blow off The Reader gig.
5a. A actually get a direct deposit social security check each month.
6. You like what you do, as opposed to being force to do it to make a living.
7. Mrs. Don Bauder hints you need things to do.
8. Finally, at a time of your own choosing, you can say that's enough, for today, this week, this month or the rest of your life.
If four out of the nine are close to being correct, you're retired. But now you finally get a chance to just enjoy the "work" cause it's in your soul and you wouldn't want it any other way.
But back to the ideas issues... I suppose my question is; why does it seems that there are no other answers than the ones we continue to fight over, i.e. cut pay and benefits or raise taxes and fees. Is there nothing else government can do to fix this?
By JustWondering 11:52 a.m., Jan 26, 2009 > Report it
...but only those that permit the employees to keep their money and benefits.
===================
Not true.
I've posted several times that I believe the PSC should be eliminated for all but certain circumstances and that it should be cost neutral.
I've also posted that I feel that SPSP should be reigned in or eliminated.
I've pointed out that employees have already taken significant cuts in benefits.
But I've also pointed out that the citizens haven't taken a lick of responsibility or pain in this mess. Show me where a citizen has taken any real loss in their life. Show me where a citizen has taken even a 1% increase in their overall tax burden. Golly, the potholes are bad. Such a shame. When the citizens take a 1% increase in taxes to match the employees 5-10% cut in pay then I'll back down a little.
By JF 12:04 p.m., Jan 26, 2009 > Report it
JF, the 10% increase was not spread out over 30 years-if it was we would not be BK. It was applied IMMEDIATLY and retroactively to everyone, incluidng the ones who retired the day after it was implemented-that is not spread out over 30 years.
===================================
Really? I won't get the retroactive increase for 20 years after they were implemented.
A few folks were eligible shortly thereafter, but the vast majority of folks paid in to the new system.
By JF 12:10 p.m., Jan 26, 2009 > Report it
Really? I won't get the retroactive increase for 20 years after they were implemented.
=========================
20 years is not 30 years, which is how long you said it was spread out: "when spread over a 30 year career".
And there were hundreds, if not thousands that took the 50% pension increase immediatley-after days, weeks or months.
I don't see why we are still sweating our positions. We are never going to come to a consensus.
We need to roll back the pensions to the 1998 level-which was when the prison guards conned Grey Davis into tho 3%@50 pension scam, which then spread like wildfire to every PD and FD in CA.
By JohnnyVegas 2:53 p.m., Jan 26, 2009 > Report it
I did see something interesting in the http://www.sandiego.gov/pensionreform... report:
"It was recognized that there may be limits to the City's debt capacity or other pressing City needs for that capacity that would make the extensive use of POBs either not possible or not attractive. The City owns a considerable amount of real estate that could be used, in a variety of forms, to provide the needed cash infusion. The most straight-forward option would be for the City to sell City-owned real estate and transfer the cash into the plan" (p. 32).
Y'know, selling Balboa Park would cure all o' this pension funding talk once and for all time, just about as quick as our strong mayor can round up a real estate agent to take this transaction private. Anybody who doesn't have the taint of a block grant-abusing redevelopment corporation ought to do for this trick.
By a2zresource 3:45 p.m., Jan 26, 2009 > Report it
20 years is not 30 years, which is how long you said it was spread out: "when spread over a 30 year career".
===========================
Boy your critical thinking skills suck. As previously stated, I already had ten years of service at the time.
As also previously stated, SDCERS has stated that the average member works 25 years before DROP and 5 years post-DROP. Oddly, that's 30 years.
If you had any idea of reality, you could trip me up here. You don't, so I'm not too worried about it.
By JF 4:16 p.m., Jan 26, 2009 > Report it
And there were hundreds, if not thousands that took the 50% pension increase immediatley-after days, weeks or months.
I don't see why we are still sweating our positions. We are never going to come to a consensus.
=======================================
Well, your first statement explains why I "keep sweating" it. You keep hurling insults and lies like "50% pension" increase. Or "virtually all firefighters make $200K". On the UT website, you've been so abusive you've been banned several times.
At the age of 55 the pension multiplier increased from 2.9999% to 3.0% for an increase of .0001%. At the age of 50, the pension increased from 2.5% to 3.0%, or 17%. Even with DROP, the pension did not increase 50%.
You've been presented with credible sources that debunk your $200K statements several times, yet you cling to that statement like those who claimed the earth was flat.
I don't mind a bit if you don't like my pay and benefits. But when you throw these wild exaggerations around in a public forum, you'd better bet I'm going to counter them with documented proof of your falsehoods. Simply tell the truth and my post count will go way down.
By JF 4:27 p.m., Jan 26, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #562: I drive 20 miles a day to get the NY Times and Wall St. Journal; no parking fees and few stop lights; no meetings except by phone or email; not much sitting in front of computer in PJs; I took the lump sum; yes, SS checks automatically deposited; no speeches or TV appearances. I guess you can say I am retired, but it sure doesn't seem like it. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 4:36 p.m., Jan 26, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #563: Citizens haven't made any sacrifices -- other than ruining their cars going over huge potholes, suffering sewage backups, water insufficiencies, etc. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 4:40 p.m., Jan 26, 2009 > Report it
Response to posts #nos. 564, 565: We have a conflict here. Someone please clarify. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 4:45 p.m., Jan 26, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #566: Some worry that's just what the mayor and establishment are aiming for: sale of Balboa Park. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 4:55 p.m., Jan 26, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #567: Johnny won't let you off the hook this easily. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 4:57 p.m., Jan 26, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #568: You're up, Johnny. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 5 p.m., Jan 26, 2009 > Report it
More interesting news from Vallejo... wonder if this a divide and conquer tactic?
Vallejo and its police employees have reached a tentative contract agreement that could save the city $6 million over two years and keep officer staffing to a minimum.
Read more here: http://www.timesheraldonline.com/news...
By JustWondering 6:51 p.m., Jan 26, 2009 > Report it
Actually the Vallejo agreement is tentative-it will be vote on tomorrow.
By JohnnyVegas 7:25 p.m., Jan 26, 2009 > Report it
Well, your first statement explains why I "keep sweating" it. You keep hurling insults and lies like "50% pension" increase. Or "virtually all firefighters make $200K".
=========================
Actually that is 100% true.
If anyone is telling whopper it is you JF, for imstance;
1) "the potholes are bad. Such a shame. When the citizens take a 1% increase in taxes to match the employees 5-10% cut in pay then I'll back down a little."
YOPU HABVE TAKEN NO CUTS IN PAY AT ALL! IN FACT THE PD JUST RECEIVED 10% RAISES IN A DEPRESSION. Nice try. But wait, there's more:
2) Your retroactive pension scam was "... spread over a 30 year career."...which we know is a whopper of a lie. In fact there were hundreds if not thousands of employees that retired within a year of that pension spiking scam.
By JohnnyVegas 7:31 p.m., Jan 26, 2009 > Report it
At the age of 55 the pension multiplier increased from 2.9999% to 3.0% for an increase of .0001%. At the age of 50, the pension increased from 2.5% to 3.0%, or 17%. Even with DROP, the pension did not increase 50%.
===================================
Not true.
The pensions NEVER paid 2.99999% before the spiking began (no where), which was AFTER the prison guards started this nonsense in 1998. Please prove me wrong.
DROP, everyone knows it is a scam, and so do you.
By JohnnyVegas 7:34 p.m., Jan 26, 2009 > Report it
I believe your proof is here in the Muni Code...by going to page seven of this PDF document.
http://docs.sandiego.gov/municode/Mun...
Please notice the 2.9999% at age 55 for safety employees.
By JustWondering 8:07 p.m., Jan 26, 2009 > Report it
Under the previous system, it's my understanding there was no cap...i.e. employees could retire at 100, 110...120 percent of their salary.
When the 3 at 50 rule was implemented, retirements were capped at 90%. I'm sure JF can correct me if I have omitted something.
It wasn't that hard to find this Johnny.
This also lead to the DROP program where the City decided it needed to retain what was becoming a scarcity, skilled professional police officers and firefighters.
By JustWondering 8:14 p.m., Jan 26, 2009 > Report it
Response to posts #s 575-580: Are we going to make it to 600? There have been some excellent posts in this skein. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 9:21 p.m., Jan 26, 2009 > Report it
Please prove me wrong.
==============
Man, it took a whole 30 minutes for Just Wondering to prove you wrong. The 2.9999% took effect 1/1/97. NEVER, eh?
So let's see. You were wrong about retirement factors.
You're wrong about the percentage of salary that benefits cost. DeMaio's figures show that. I guess you don't even believe him.
You're wrong about firefighter and police officer pay. Again, DeMaio's figures show that.
You wrote, "YOPU HABVE TAKEN NO CUTS IN PAY" (sic) when, in fact, we took a 4.3% pay cut by eliminating most of retirement pick-up. Unclassified employees took a 7% cut in pay.
You said thousands of employees retired within a year of the pension changes. Interesting, given that the FD has less than a thousand employees. Citywide there are only 11,000 employees. So 10% retired?
Frankly, Johnny, there are only two options. You're either deluded or you're a troll repeating the same crap over and over to provoke a reaction.
By JF 10:04 p.m., Jan 26, 2009 > Report it
My vote... he's a troll.
By JustWondering 7:25 a.m., Jan 27, 2009 > Report it
Responses to posts # 582 and 583: An Internet troll is one who posts inflammatory or inaccurate information just go get others excited. Johnny, defend yourself. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 7:58 a.m., Jan 27, 2009 > Report it
Johnny's silence is deafening. A tacit confession. It has been more than two hours since your plea to defend himself and not a peep.
I kinda miss him already. But a break from his error filled rhetoric is nice too.
By JustWondering 10:47 a.m., Jan 27, 2009 > Report it
Johnny's silence is deafening. A tacit confession. It has been more than two hours since your plea to defend himself and not a peep.
=====================
It's 11:30 AM, I just logged on saw your comment JW. How about giving me more than 2 hours before announcing my demise next time JW.
I will read all posts since last night and respond-but not until I finish my morning work.
By JohnnyVegas 11:32 a.m., Jan 27, 2009 > Report it
My vote... he's a troll.
By JustWondering
================
My vote... you're a gov welfare queen.
By JohnnyVegas 11:33 a.m., Jan 27, 2009 > Report it
Response to posts #585-587: I'm glad you folks aren't armed and in the same room. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 12:15 p.m., Jan 27, 2009 > Report it
Come on DON ...sticks and stones may break our bones and bust our chops. But Johnny's words can never really hurt us.
By JustWondering 1:05 p.m., Jan 27, 2009 > Report it
You wrote, "YOU HAVE TAKEN NO CUTS IN PAY" when, in fact, we took a 4.3% pay cut by eliminating most of retirement pick-up.
=============================
A cut in the "retirement pick up" (yet another scam) is NOT a cut in pay, it is a cut in benefits. You took NO cut in pay.
How about resonding to the statements I make and stop trying to wiggle out of every litttle lie I catch you in JF (by responding to something other than what I addressed).
By JohnnyVegas 1:13 p.m., Jan 27, 2009 > Report it
Under the previous system, it's my understanding there was no cap...i.e. employees could retire at 100, 110...120 percent of their salary.
When the 3 at 50 rule was implemented, retirements were capped at 90%. I'm sure JF can correct me if I have omitted something.
======================================
Yes, thank you for finding the truth-it was not hard either to figure out I was 100%^ correct and you and JF were blowing a bunch of welfare queen smoke up everyones rear.
Go to section 24.0403, specifically sections (e),(f),(g),(h),and Table 1. Then try actually reading and analyzing it (for a change).
There is no 2.99% multiplier-it is 2.5% at age 50. It then uses a sliding scale from age 50 to age 55, then, and ONLY THEN does it go to 2.99%, but if you read further you will see that the 2.99% is CAPPED and shall "cease" at it's current level as of March 31, 1997-thereby stopping ALL future increases over 90% as of that date. Also be sure to view the date of this document-it is dated 2002, not 1997.
So, using the scale, if you want to work past age 55, and you are at the 2.5% level, using the sliding scale, you would be at just below 89% (88.75%)at AGE 55 (or less than the current pension which allows 90% at age 50)! Assuming this was, say 1994, and you worked to AGE 58, your pension would be just under 100%.
So do the math my little Einstein buddies. Retire at age 50 and get 90% today under the new system (75% under the old system), or work to age 58 (nder the old system that JF said gave 2.99% for every year worked over age 50....errr...I think I just shot that whopper down)and get just under 100%, but lose EIGHT FULL YEARS of retirement, and then by extension ADD IN EIGHT FULL YEARS of work in place of retirement.
Man, I knew I was right.
I hate being right all the time.
By JohnnyVegas 1:33 p.m., Jan 27, 2009 > Report it
JF and JW's silence is deafening. A tacit confession. It has been more than four minutes since my definitive fact based pension post was posted (which completely blasted them out of the water) and not a peep.
I kinda miss those two already- even though JW calls me a troll and makes attempts to have my typographical error filled posts removed.
By JohnnyVegas 1:38 p.m., Jan 27, 2009 > Report it
Wrong again Mr. Vegas.
In typical spin you omit a portion of the formula to suit your purposes. You are correct the previous formulas had a sliding scale beginning at 2.5% @ age 50 and going up to 2.9999% @55. You forgot to mention the years of service multiplier and starting age factors with no cap.
In comment 568 above, JF says the multiplier for age 55 changed from 2.9999% to 3.0
Yet in comment #578 above you wrote:
"Not true.
The pensions NEVER paid 2.99999% before the spiking began (no where), which was AFTER the prison guards started this nonsense in 1998. Please prove me wrong."
I proved you wrong with the documents in the muni code which was effective in 1997.
So as usual, we shine the ever present light of truth, revealing, with documented evidence, that you are a purveyor of misinformtion, a troll who, as Don so eloqently defined, is one who posts inflammatory or inaccurate information just go get others excited.
By JustWondering 2:01 p.m., Jan 27, 2009 > Report it
In typical spin you omit a portion of the formula to suit your purposes. You are correct the previous formulas had a sliding scale beginning at 2.5% @ age 50 and going up to 2.9999% @55. You forgot to mention the years of service multiplier and starting age factors with no cap.
========================
I didn't "spin" or "omit" anything. But I did prove up that JF was "spinning" when he said prior to the 3%@50 they received 2.99% with no cap. That is just not true. I proved that.
JF said that prior to the cap on the 3%@50 the PD and FD received un UNCAPPED 2.99%. I proved straight up that was a flat out bogus lie. The truth wass they received 2.5% and they also had to work to age 55, not 50. So they basically received a HIGHER multiplier and a LOWER retirement age with the new deal, which is contrary to whaty you and JF both have stated.
Do the math, I am right and you know it.
Did you even even read the document you linked to, or my comments????????????
Did you go to 24.0403, and Table 1, did you read 24.0403 section (e)??, which referenced section (g), which stated that if the member did elect to go with the 2.99% plan he would be capped at (the accrual shall cease at the) "level attained on March 31, 1997."....did you see that part JW??????.......what means if they stayed in the 2.50% (2.99% after age 55) plan they were CAPPED at the level they attained as of 3-31-1997-NO MORE MULTIPLIER! There was no open ended, get as many 2.5% (2.99% after age 55) years as you wanted, it was CAPPED!
Why do I have to spoon feed this to you?????????
By JohnnyVegas 2:58 p.m., Jan 27, 2009 > Report it
Don, can you please go to the muni benefit page JW linked to, go to code 24.0403, sections (e) and (g), and also review the % received in Table 1, and then tell JW who is correct.
By JohnnyVegas 3 p.m., Jan 27, 2009 > Report it
In comment #568 he said 55 not 50.
By JustWondering 3:06 p.m., Jan 27, 2009 > Report it
"Capped" refers to the 2.99%...NOT the number of years multiplier. In the new system the most you can earn under the non-Corbett adjusted formula is 90% no more. Under the old system you could conceivably have 40 years of service at 2.99% per year or 119.6%.
For such an educated fellow you sure are dense.
By JustWondering 3:11 p.m., Jan 27, 2009 > Report it
600, here we come!
By Fred_Williams 3:53 p.m., Jan 27, 2009 > Report it
not gonna be me this time sorry guys your on your own... wait ....dang :)
By angelp 4:16 p.m., Jan 27, 2009 > Report it
Amazing, absolutely amazing. A 600 message thread and no solutions.
By JustWondering 4:20 p.m., Jan 27, 2009 > Report it
after reading the past few posts and no retort i will take 600 thank you. now continue
By angelp 4:24 p.m., Jan 27, 2009 > Report it
didnt see you there jw way to go with 600 plus
By angelp 4:26 p.m., Jan 27, 2009 > Report it
397 comments to go before we reach 1000
By JustWondering 4:28 p.m., Jan 27, 2009 > Report it
"Capped" refers to the 2.99%...NOT the number of years multiplier. In the new system the most you can earn under the non-Corbett adjusted formula is 90% no more. Under the old system you could conceivably have 40 years of service at 2.99% per year or 119.6%.
For such an educated fellow you sure are dense.
By JustWondering
====================================
Oh brother-I do have to spoon feed this to you.
Here we go- “capped” does NOT refer to the 2.99%, it refers to the highest accrual rate under the 2.5% multiplier ( 2.99% at age 55) as of March 31, 1997;
(g)
“If the Unmodified Service Retirement Allowance of a Safety Member exceeds 90% of Final Compensation using the Retirement Calculation Factors in effect on January 1, 1997, as shown in Table 1 of Section 24.0403 on a date after January 1, 1997, but before April 1, 1997,**** that Safety Member may elect to accrue benefits in excess of the 90% limitation stated in Section 24.0403(e), provided, however, that such *****accrual shall cease at the level attained on March 31, 1997.***”
OK JW, there it is verbatim (with my *** added in), the member may go with the OLD formula, BUT if they do their accrual of years shall CEASE on 3-31-1997. The cap does NOT refer to the 2.50 multiplier, but the number of years/amount of time you can accrue such credits-once you hit 3-31-97 you could not add in anymore years-not at 2.5, not at 2.9, not at any other multiplier.
By JohnnyVegas 4:37 p.m., Jan 27, 2009 > Report it
Guess you don't understand the Corbett Settlement.
By JustWondering 4:40 p.m., Jan 27, 2009 > Report it
Wrong again John... I know people who entered DROP as recently as a couple of years as safety member using the old formulas earing a retirement in excess of 90%. Three factors made the difference, age, years of service and the Corbett settlement.
By JustWondering 5:35 p.m., Jan 27, 2009 > Report it
Response to posts #589 through 606: Yes, more than 600 posts. While there has been no resolution, did you expect one? Do we ever reach one in public colloquy? Generally, this has been cerebrally uplifting -- stimulating polemics. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 6:18 p.m., Jan 27, 2009 > Report it
Did not expect a resolution.
Hey, check out what I found (man is this on the MONEY!!!!!)!
Saturday, June 28, 2008
http://stephaniegomes.com/2008/06/tru...
According to my friends who read our local newspaper's blogs (I tell them to stay away from them -- the nastiness can't be good for them), anyone who opposes unsustainably high public safety salaries and benefits in Vallejo is called a "hater." We are called "haters" because apparently the, "if you're not with us, you're against us" mentailty reigns. The alleged "haters" are accused of hating all police officers and firefighters.
We don't hate police officers and firefighters. We hate the tactics their unions are using against our city and our community. We hate the fact that nearly nearly 80 percent of our general fund goes to public safety and unsustainably high salaries and benefits, leaving only approximately 20 percent for other necessary city services. We hate the fact that our streets are riddled with potholes, our trees are overgrown, our libraries are closing and our senior centers are reducing programs and services to seniors in need. We hate the fact that we want our city back, and we can’t do that until we regain control of our own city checkbook again.
We are not haters. We are Vallejo citizens who have a right to demand services for the taxes we are paying. We have a right to decide if our taxes are being spent wisely and if not, to demand a change that will do so. We have a right to complain about gross inequities. And we have a right to complain about any abuse of the public trust.
By JohnnyVegas 6:28 p.m., Jan 27, 2009 > Report it
A cut in the "retirement pick up" (yet another scam) is NOT a cut in pay, it is a cut in benefits. You took NO cut in pay.
=========================
It's a cut in a benefit negotiated in lieu of a pay raise. Pick up replaced a pay raise -- removing it is a pay cut.
My take home check is smaller. In most people's minds, that's a cut in pay. I guess not yours.
Don't forget, we also took a "real" 5% pay cut in 1993.
By JF 7 p.m., Jan 27, 2009 > Report it
Johnny, you're trying to argue with people who have kept track of the system for 20+ years.
Never did I write that the multiplier was 2.9999 at 50. I very clearly wrote, "At the age of 55 the pension multiplier increased from 2.9999% to 3.0% for an increase of .0001%. At the age of 50, the pension increased from 2.5% to 3.0%, or 17%." You replied to that in post #578 by writing, "The pensions NEVER paid 2.99999% before the spiking began". So obviously you read what I wrote. Then you turned around and wrote, "nder the old system that JF said gave 2.99% for every year worked over age 50" in post #591 a day later.
Also on the 26th, I wrote, "At the age of 50, the pension increased from 2.5% to 3.0%, or 17%." You then pointed out how wrong I was by pointing out that under the old system you could get 75% at age 50, but under the new system you can get 90%. Hmmm... 75 is 17% less than 90. The same numbers I posted! Amazing!
You wrote, "if you read further you will see that the 2.99% is CAPPED and shall "cease" at it's current level as of March 31, 1997-thereby stopping ALL future increases over 90% as of that date." Um, yeah, that's exactly what I said. Before MP1 was enacted, retirements were uncapped. After MP1, the cap is 90%. Interesting that you're so cocksure that ALL future increases were stopped. Maybe you should read the prior section, specifically 24.0402.g which lists several ways in which an employee may exceed 90% under very limited circumstances. You sure ALL (shouting in caps, no less) were capped at 90%?
Frankly, I think you're having a hard time keeping up with your lies. My story hasn't changed a lick because it's backed up by facts and documents.
By JF 7:34 p.m., Jan 27, 2009 > Report it
Don't forget, we also took a "real" 5% pay cut in 1993.
======================================
Wow JF, a 5% cut over 16 years ago- how did you survive????
...(not counting the huge increases in both pay and benefits since)..................
By JohnnyVegas 7:36 p.m., Jan 27, 2009 > Report it
How about resonding to the statements I make and stop trying to wiggle out of every litttle lie I catch you in
==============
You first. I asked this days ago and got no response.
DeMaio says that benefits cost 61% of salary. You say they cost 100%. You can't both be right. Which one of you is lying?
By JF 7:59 p.m., Jan 27, 2009 > Report it
Response to posts # 608-612: One thing we have lots of: enmity. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 9:52 p.m., Jan 27, 2009 > Report it
Never did I write that the multiplier was 2.9999 at 50. I very clearly wrote, "At the age of 55 the pension multiplier increased from 2.9999% to 3.0% for an increase of .0001%. At the age of 50, the pension increased from 2.5% to 3.0%, or 17%."
==========================
JF, you have stated here, and on multiple other occassions, that the OLD system paid 2.99% with NO cap. That is not true. And under the old system if you worked to age 55 you would get LESS (88%+) than you get today at age 50 (90%), and if you did work to age 58 you would still get LESS than 100%, after losing 8 years of pension payments and putting in 8 extra years of work.
Your entire claim that the old system paid more than the current one is pure baloney. The 3%@50 is light years ahead of the old system from a financial point of view.
Old system paid 2.5%, and you had to work to age 55 if you wanted the 2.99%, and only AFTER age 55 did you earn 2.99%.
BTW, the the pension did NOT;
"At the age of 50, the pension increased from 2.5% to 3.0%, or 17%".
At age 50 the pension was 2.5%, at 51 it went to 2.6%, 52 to 2.6%, AND SO FORTH.
The old system is far inferior to the 3%@50 pension of today.
By JohnnyVegas 10 p.m., Jan 27, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #614: JF or Just Wondering: your turn. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 6:57 a.m., Jan 28, 2009 > Report it
There's no longer a point to this thread. It doesn't resemble in anyway whatsoever the original article even though I attempted to steer it back a few times.
No, threads like these have become a place for rhetoric from opposing sides nothing more, with neither side budging.
Even when proper factual documentation is put forth, Mr. Vegas ignores it so he can continue this no matter what.
The city has begun the process of meet and confer with its labor groups. I note for the record that an agreement was reached in Vallejo.
http://www.timesheraldonline.com/ci_1...
The Vallejo City Council voted 5 to 2 late Tuesday night for a controversial and heavily debated deal that will mean fewer cops on the streets, but also could save millions for the bankrupt city.
My point, things can get better when all parties work toward a solution. Will it solve their problems overnight? Nope. Is it a step in the right direction, you bet.
So until Johnny makes some more ridiculous, troll like statements, I'm done here.
By JustWondering 9:30 a.m., Jan 28, 2009 > Report it
Johnny,
DeMaio says that benefits cost 61% of salary. You say they cost 100%. You can't both be right. Which one of you is lying?
By JF 10:33 a.m., Jan 28, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #616: It's true this thread wandered far from the subject of the article, but it was a stimulating one. I hope you decide to stay with us; we will miss you. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10:46 a.m., Jan 28, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #617: This is the second time this question has come up. Johnny? Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10:48 a.m., Jan 28, 2009 > Report it
The Vallejo City Council voted 5 to 2 late Tuesday night for a controversial and heavily debated deal that will mean fewer cops on the streets, but also could save millions for the bankrupt city.
================================
A SMALL victory for Vallejo with 25% of it's union work force (PD only).
Vallejo had had the PD on the ropes and could have delivered a knock out punch, but instead gave the PD a standing 10 count.
The POA came out OK, much better than what I would have allowed as a member on their council.
I feel sorry for the other 3 unions-especially the FF union-they are going to take it in the shorts.
By JohnnyVegas 11:08 a.m., Jan 28, 2009 > Report it
Johnny,
DeMaio says that benefits cost 61% of salary. You say they cost 100%. You can't both be right. Which one of you is lying?
================================
I think I am correct because I have seen the 3%50 pension payments for Contra Costa County, where they are posted online as a FOIA request from the CC Times. The CCC sheriffs are receiving 60% of base pay in pension contributions.
Add in the 14 paid holidays, the 12 paid sick leave days, the 5 weeks (25 days) average of paid vacation and the medical and dental benefits (I won't even count education pay, longevity pay, language pay, vehicle use and all the other freebies) and you have some major $$$$ to account for full compensation.
BTW-this did not include any OT either-which have copious amounts built-in to these jobs.
By JohnnyVegas 11:15 a.m., Jan 28, 2009 > Report it
So until Johnny makes some more ridiculous, troll like statements, I'm done here.
By JustWondering
==================================
JW, did you see this letter I posted ^^ above?????
Does it not ring true about your comments towards me? Everything in this letter can be applied to the things you throw at me as a troll/hater/anti-public safety/(insert bogus charges here).
Here, let me post it again;
http://stephaniegomes.com/2008/06/tru...
"Anyone who opposes unsustainably high public safety salaries and benefits in Vallejo is called a "hater." We are called "haters" because apparently the, "if you're not with us, you're against us" mentailty reigns. The alleged "haters" are accused of hating all police officers and firefighters."
"We don't hate police officers and firefighters. We hate the tactics their unions are using against our city and our community. We hate the fact that nearly nearly 80 percent of our general fund goes to public safety and unsustainably high salaries and benefits, leaving only approximately 20 percent for other necessary city services. We hate the fact that our streets are riddled with potholes, our trees are overgrown, our libraries are closing and our senior centers are reducing programs and services to seniors in need."
By JohnnyVegas 11:22 a.m., Jan 28, 2009 > Report it
I think I am correct because I have seen the 3%50 pension payments for Contra Costa County,
================================
So you're saying that DeMaio is a liar, right? Are we agreed on that?
By JF 12:18 p.m., Jan 28, 2009 > Report it
Response to posts #620-623: Someone who utters something that doesn't turn out to be true is not necessarily a liar. However, it's true that in politics, a high percentage are liars. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 12:52 p.m., Jan 28, 2009 > Report it
Good point, Don. I hereby amend my statement to, "Which one of you is more inaccurate..." We've already seen that DeMaio is inaccurate by adding non-benefits such as unemployment and disability insurance. However, removing those makes DeMaio's number go down...even further from Johnny's number.
I find it kind of funny that Johnny uses figures from Contra Costa County and tries to extrapolate them down here. CCC makes 30% more than us, as can be seen by the current fire recruit flier posted on the city web site. They also get more holidays and annual leave. He posts about sick leave and vacation as though they are separate. That shows his level of ignorance. They have not been separate here since 1981. There is one bank of leave.
Johnny includes paid holidays as part of his figure. I suppose he doesn't realize that we only get that holiday pay if we actually work the day of the holiday. It is not paid for those who were scheduled to be off anyway. Just more ignorance on Johnny's part.
By JF 2:56 p.m., Jan 28, 2009 > Report it
"Anyone who opposes unsustainably high public safety salaries and benefits in Vallejo is called a "hater." We are called "haters" because apparently the, "if you're not with us, you're against us" mentailty reigns. The alleged "haters" are accused of hating all police officers and firefighters. We don't hate police officers and firefighters."
===========================
Really? This is what you claim to believe?
But didn't you write this, "SDPD is comprised of GED and HS grad educated (85%)cops-what do you expect with Bottom of the Barrel hires???
It is that way all over the state. Slapping a federal civil rights lawsuit on the losers is the only way to get them to change-because the only thing their small minds understand are $$$$ damages."
Using terms like "bottom of the barrel" and "small minds" sure doesn't seem like an anti-union comment, but more of a general disdain for police officers.
By JF 2:59 p.m., Jan 28, 2009 > Report it
But didn't you write this, "SDPD is comprised of GED and HS grad educated (85%)cops-what do you expect with Bottom of the Barrel hires???
===========================================
That is 100% accurate JF, 80-85% are hired with no colege degree-that means their highest degree/certificate is a GED or HS Diploma.
That is the bottom of the barrel in the employment hiring pool.
Unless you're telling me a GED is a better hire than a college grad.... (somehow I know you will make this claim)......hey JF, why not hire employees with a 5th grader education level, or 1st grade for that matter, since in your view education has no relationship to employment.
Yes, more Jethro Bodines' running around SDPD is what we all need.
By JohnnyVegas 4:11 p.m., Jan 28, 2009 > Report it
So you're saying that DeMaio is a liar, right? Are we agreed on that?
====================================
If it is not intentional, it is not a lie.
For it to be a lie it must be made knowingly, willfully and intentionally.
Go ask Carl if he was intentionally making a statement he knew not to be true. Then you will have your answer. I cannot speak for Carl.
By JohnnyVegas 4:14 p.m., Jan 28, 2009 > Report it
I find it kind of funny that Johnny uses figures from Contra Costa County and tries to extrapolate them down here. CCC makes 30% more than us, as can be seen by the current fire recruit flier posted on the city web site.
=============================
JF, the benefits you just named have no impact whatsoever on Contra Costa County's pension contribution-because the contribuition is a % of BASE pay-not all the things you stated.
Even if CCC's base pay were 50% more, THE % OF PENSION CONTRIBUTION WOULD REMAIN THE SAME-BECAUSE IT IS A %, so your comment makes no sense.
By JohnnyVegas 4:18 p.m., Jan 28, 2009 > Report it
Johnny includes paid holidays as part of his figure. I suppose he doesn't realize that we only get that holiday pay if we actually work the day of the holiday.
==============================================
JF, what is the rate of "holiday pay"? Is it time and a half, double time, triple time?
Why should SDFD get anything ABOVE regular pay for a normally scheduled work day?
By JohnnyVegas 4:22 p.m., Jan 28, 2009 > Report it
JF, the benefits you just named have no impact whatsoever on Contra Costa County's pension contribution-because the contribuition is a % of BASE pay-not all the things you stated.
Even if CCC's base pay were 50% more, THE % OF PENSION CONTRIBUTION WOULD REMAIN THE SAME-BECAUSE IT IS A %, so your comment makes no sense.
======================
Well, first off, the discussion was about ALL benefits as a percentage of pay. Not as a part of pension contribution.
And.. you left off the very next line of my statement, "They also get more holidays and annual leave." That will affect the percentage of pay. As usual, you're reacting to one small part of what I write rather than the whole thing.
By JF 5:05 p.m., Jan 28, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #s 625-631: We need a referee. Anybody got a whistle? Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 6:54 p.m., Jan 28, 2009 > Report it
#627
if you take a look at some of the trash this johnnyvegas guy posts on the OCR boards, you'll have your answer. He does alot of public employee union bashing and while I agree in principal with some of his views, the way he voices his views is absolutely ridiculous. So much so that now I read them and just laugh at the thought that some unhappy unimportant troll of a little man is sitting in front of a computer somewhere feeling good about himself by spewing forth such vitriol.
Then when you read what he says about the actual people, it's clear he disdains not just PD or FF but all public employees.
Tell me mr vegas, did your mommy catch you doing something you shouldn'tbe doing when you were young?? Or was it your wife??
Is that why you hate yourself so much??
By removed 7:41 p.m., Jan 28, 2009 > Report it
We need a referee.
=================
Not really, Don. Like so many other posters on this board I'm leaving too. I have better things to do than argue with someone who will not change their position no matter how how strong the evidence is against them is. I'll still stop by to discuss things with you, but no more comments on Johnny's crap. As I've said, Johnny is obviously a troll.
Johnny, since you know so much more than everyone else I have one last proposal for you. Sue the city. You say you're a great lawyer who's argued before the Supreme Court. Surely you could win a little case against the city. Come out of the shadows and sue. That's the only way you'll accept the truth.
By JF 7:48 p.m., Jan 28, 2009 > Report it
As I've said, Johnny is obviously a troll.
===================================
Now we can add in "trolls" alongside haters;
"Anyone who opposes unsustainably high public safety salaries and benefits in Vallejo is called a "hater." We are called "haters" because apparently the, "if you're not with us, you're against us" mentailty reigns. The alleged "haters" are accused of hating all police officers and firefighters."
By JohnnyVegas 9:34 p.m., Jan 28, 2009 > Report it
You say you're a great lawyer who's argued before the Supreme Court.
============================
As usual JF is making up more whoppers-I have never said I argued anything before the Supreme Court. As usual you mis-state what I have said or just flat out lie about it (like that academy nonsense).
Hey I have an idea, why don't YOU come out of the shadows???? You know, since you are so brave ordering others to do so.
What I have said was I filed a writ (an appeal) to the Supreme Court while in law school, I know of no other law student that has done this. The court gets 9,000 of these writs every year, and take 70 of them.
By JohnnyVegas 9:40 p.m., Jan 28, 2009 > Report it
Tell me mr vegas, did your mommy catch you doing something you shouldn'tbe doing when you were young?? Or was it your wife??
Is that why you hate yourself so much??
By jimmysjohnson
=====================
LOL......our second "gimmick" account in this thread alone, by one of the local welfare queens no doubt.
Just registered today and this is his first post!
Big surprise.
By JohnnyVegas 9:44 p.m., Jan 28, 2009 > Report it
Response to posts #s 633-637: Johnny, JF, jimmysjohnson -- you are all encouraged to state your views here. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 7:17 a.m., Jan 29, 2009 > Report it
Vallejo acts to keep new police pact
By JESSICA A. YORK/Times-Herald staff writer
"Vallejo's attorneys filed a request in federal bankruptcy court Wednesday to remove a plan to reject the city's contract with police officers. The move came the day after the City Council voted 5-2 to approve an updated contract for the police labor group."
As I said before progress can be made when the parties work together to find solutions.
By JustWondering 10:15 a.m., Jan 30, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #639: It depends what's meant by "progress." Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 11:56 a.m., Jan 30, 2009 > Report it
It's my understanding this new contract is the first step in moving towards long term solutions for getting costs under control.
My point, there are steps that can be taken, and solutions negotiated, where all parties come together for good.
Now that Vallejo's PD has reached an agreement, other labor groups in the city will follow suit. Its all driven by the two emotions, fear and greed. They seem to have great influence over our decisions about financial stability. In the Vallejo situation I suspect the fear of bankruptcy and the unknown results thereof were, and will be, the motivating factors that led to, and will lead to future agreements.
I'm sure public employee labor groups all over the State are watching with great interest to see what happens. San Diego's groups are in a similar situation. The difference being San Diego's revenues sources are much more diverse than Vallejo, who really depended heavily on the presence of the Naval facilities.
By JustWondering 12:59 p.m., Jan 30, 2009 > Report it
Hey, this thread is still going??
By JohnnyVegas 1:02 p.m., Jan 30, 2009 > Report it
My point, there are steps that can be taken, and solutions negotiated, where all parties come together for good.
==================================
And what you fail to understand, or just flat out ignore, is that public unions do NOT "come together for the good", if they did Vallejo would not have had to file BK.
By JohnnyVegas 1:03 p.m., Jan 30, 2009 > Report it
Well knock me over with a feather. Mr. Vegas posts another useless troll like comment that adds nothing. The fact is Vallejo and one of its labor groups came to an agreement to start towards fiscal responsibility. Nothing more. The other groups will fall in line and progress, not obstruction will be made.
By JustWondering 2:50 p.m., Jan 30, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #641: The Vallejo council warned the unions that bankruptcy was possible if they didn't get reasonable; they wouldn't talk, and the city took that path. Now, there may be some agreements. I don't know if the unions are making significant concessions. Yes, this will be watched all over the state. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 5:32 p.m., Jan 30, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #642: We're not only still going, we may be headed for 700. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 5:35 p.m., Jan 30, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #643: President Obama wants the bankers on the dole, who are living on $50 million salaries while they get bailed out by government, to take less money for the public good, especially since their stupidity almost drove the world off the cliff, and could still do so. Will the nabobs listen? I doubt it. If they don't, Congress should decree that the top officials of banks in which the U.S. government has an equity interest should not be paid more than the Secretary of the Treasury. Some would get a well-deserved 95 percent haircut, or more. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 5:40 p.m., Jan 30, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #644: I'm sure everyone hopes the two will reach a responsible agreement. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 5:43 p.m., Jan 30, 2009 > Report it
Here is more interesting news out of Vallejo.
With the reality of the pending bankruptcy and possible eviseration of their contracts by the courts, more union groups are falling in line.
IBEW Vice President Ken Shoemaker said after the hearing he remains hopeful about reaching a new contract deal soon. Shoemaker added that recent negotiations look positive, but is withholding judgment on the latest proposal until he sees it in writing.
Read more here: http://www.timesheraldonline.com/news...
By JustWondering 6:49 a.m., Feb 4, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #649: if the cuts are severe enough, this may show that bankruptcy is a very good strategy to force unions to be realistic. There is an important question here: should government employees, who already have the protection of civil service, also be allowed to have labor unions? Best, Don Bader
By dbauder 7:15 a.m., Feb 4, 2009 > Report it
There JW goes again, reviving a thread we killed off last week.
Oh-Oh, I think I just made another "troll" post :)
By JohnnyVegas 10:01 a.m., Feb 4, 2009 > Report it
Finally, some solid numbers on public servant pay:
http://voiceofsandiego.org/pdf/08dema...
JF, looks like those gold-plated salaries you deny exist are an established fact in San Diego.
I don't begrudge firefighters a decent salary, but anything over $100k is just too much in today's economy. There are too many fire and police employees making executive level compensation while the rest of the economy is going down the tank.
Time to trim back salaries, or the city will be forced to trim back positions.
By Fred_Williams 10:05 a.m., Feb 4, 2009 > Report it
Hey, since we are talking "real" numbers (not JF numbers), let me throw this one in (those poor underpaid FF's and cops!....I say we give them a 25% raise today to help them make ends meet);
"Of the 1,255 city employees who earned $100,000 or more last year, fully 78 percent were in the Police or Fire department. In fact, the second-highest-paid person on San Diego's payroll was a fire battalion chief who pulled down $221,625, including a staggering $84,191 in overtime. Only Jay Goldstone, the city's chief operating officer, with responsibility over the entire municipal bureaucracy, earned more than the fire battalion chief. Goldstone was paid $250,000, with no overtime allowance. "
http://www3.signonsandiego.com/storie...
By JohnnyVegas 10:07 a.m., Feb 4, 2009 > Report it
Interesting to note how much overtime contributes to the problem.
How much of that overtime is accrued "working" special events like golf tournaments, football and baseball games, truck-pulls, and marathons?
Organizers and beneficiaries of events that are known to require additional policing and paramedics on standby have to pay that expense themselves.
How much does Spanos or Moores pay for having police and paramedics tend to their customers and employees?
Anything?
And when police or paramedics work these events, don't they consider it a perk? Then why are we paying overtime as well?
There's lots of room to cut these kinds of expenses, and maybe keep a few more libraries and sports fields open for the kids instead of giving away our tax money to corrupt bazillionaires and pampered public "servants".
By Fred_Williams 10:23 a.m., Feb 4, 2009 > Report it
Response to posts #651 and 652: DeMaio's report shed some light on what we have been talking about. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10:31 a.m., Feb 4, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #653: Yes, overtime abuses are legion. I hope the public understands this report. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10:34 a.m., Feb 4, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #654: I don't know if the FD and PD employees get overtime for working these special events. I have been told that both the Padres and Chargers pay minimal amounts for the services provided. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10:38 a.m., Feb 4, 2009 > Report it
All the regulars here know pensions are a percentage of the BASE salary, NOT including overtime. Don’t believe me? Visit www.SDCERS.org and read the pension rules and formulas for yourself. The UT knows it and so does Councilmember DeMaio. Why don't they mention it or choose NOT to disclose this openly? Because they want to spin information and opinion to their advantage. Seems there are some ethical issues with both of them.
Let's consider the firefighters who earned extra money during the wildfire storms. FEMA and the State paid for or reimburse the City for these costs. Funny how that's omitted isn't it?
Regarding cops: if one works the DUI patrol for OT, that money comes back from the State and Feds in the form of grants aimed at combating drunk drivers. Again no direct cost to City taxpayers. But carefully omitted...hmmmm there seems to be a trend.
What about overtime at a Padre or Charger game, that OT is paid for by the teams. Yes, Don is correct, the Chargers have a sweetheart deal but others NOW pay full boat costs INCLUDING the costs associated with benefits. Why the Chargers still get away with these reduced rates is beyond me. Maybe Jerry S or Jay G have an answer as why these contracts have not been amended over Jerry's last three years????
The bottom line is this - SDPD and the SDFD are the lowest staffed (per capita) major city police and fire departments in the United States. Just because they don’t have the people, doesn’t mean the job isn’t there to be done. So you have two choices: either hire more people or pay overtime. It's the City that has the hiring authority not the labor groups. It's the City who decides to pay overtime rather than hire full time employees. Why? Because it MORE COST effective to pay overtime without any benefits then to pay for the cost of a new employee WITH the associated benefits cost.
Now I will sit back to be called a liar by the likes of “Johnny Vegas”. While this is a common occurance, it is equally common that they fail to post alternative facts and sources that prove what I say is false. Visit SDCERS and grab a city budget. Read it for yourself.
By JustWondering 11:47 a.m., Feb 4, 2009 > Report it
Now I will sit back to be called a liar by the likes of “Johnny Vegas”. While this is a common occurance, it is equally common that they fail to post alternative facts and sources that prove what I say is false. Visit SDCERS and grab a city budget. Read it for yourself.
By JustWondering
==================================
"JustWondering" (let me repay your quotation marks), this if for you buddy;
The Intergenerational Transfer of Public Pension Promises
Robert Novy-Marx
University of Chicago - Booth School of Business
Joshua D. Rauh
University of Chicago - Booth School of Business; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)
September 2, 2008
Abstract:
"The value of pension promises already made by US state governments will grow to approximately $7.9 trillion in 15 years. We study investment strategies of state pension plans and estimate the distribution of future funding outcomes. We conservatively predict a 50% chance of aggregate underfunding greater than $750 billion and a 25% chance of at least $1.75 trillion (in 2005 dollars). Adjusting for risk, the true intergenerational transfer is substantially larger. Insuring both taxpayers against funding deficits and plan participants against benefit reductions would cost almost $2 trillion today,
>>>>>even though governments portray state pensions as almost fully funded."<<<<<
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf...
By JohnnyVegas 12:11 p.m., Feb 4, 2009 > Report it
The bottom line is this - SDPD and the SDFD are the lowest staffed (per capita) major city police and fire departments in the United States. Just because they don’t have the people, doesn’t mean the job isn’t there to be done. So you have two choices: either hire more people or pay overtime.
=======================================
How about we cut pay and pensions 80%, to market rate for a GED, and hire 80% more cops and FF's?
By JohnnyVegas 12:13 p.m., Feb 4, 2009 > Report it
JF, looks like those gold-plated salaries you deny exist are an established fact in San Diego.
By Fred_Williams
====================
JF ran for the hills.
But here, let me give you JF's response (after years of hearing his basic "we're underpaid and deserve more" lines);
JF: " $100K is underpaid compared to other FD's. In Los Angeles, Orange County, Riverside (insert higher paid agency here) the starting pay is (insert % higher here) more than San Diego, therefore we are underpaid and deserve more, because San Diego needs "competitve" salaries and benefits to get the "best" applicants and to keep current employees from going to other "higher paying" agencies."
Did I leave anything out??????? Isn't this JF and JW's basic argument???????
By JohnnyVegas 12:25 p.m., Feb 4, 2009 > Report it
Hey Johnny,
Why don't you be the first to come work for the PD or FD. Both are hiring now. Then you can choose to return 80% of your salary and benefits to city while blazing a trail, setting the bar and establishing a new baseline.
What no response? What's that... no sane person would follow you down that road. Of course not, it's just crazy. Besides you forgot about the City's living wage ordinance, an 80% cut would be in violation of their own ordinance.
Comments like #660 and 661 are, as Mr. Bauder so eloquently put, inflammatory or inaccurate information just go get others excited. So as you mentioned in comment #651 above: "Oh-Oh, I think I just made another "troll" post." If nothing else, you've proved over and over you have incredible expertise in the area of troll posting.
By JustWondering 12:49 p.m., Feb 4, 2009 > Report it
If nothing else, you've proved over and over you have incredible expertise in the area of troll posting.
By JustWondering
===============================
Why thank you JW.
The honor is extra special coming from you!
By JohnnyVegas 1:39 p.m., Feb 4, 2009 > Report it
Response to posts # 658 to 663: It looks like DeMaio's study has kicked up some dust. Good. It's an area that needs some probing -- beyond what shows up on this blog, of course. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 3:42 p.m., Feb 4, 2009 > Report it
I'm calling bulshytt on this repeated "invitation" to join the police or fire department, with the implication that ONLY police and fire are qualified to comment on these public policy subjects.
1. How about YOU try to get a job out in the real world?
2. All of us are qualified to have opinions about how much we pay so-called public servants. This is something we call "democracy".
3. Cops and firefighters are NOT superior human beings. They are people who choose to do a not particularly difficult or dangerous working class job.
So, Just Wondering, where are you on that list from the City? How much are we over-paying you, in addition to providing you with a plump pension, extraordinary benefits, and unshakable job security?
Remember, neither police nor firefighters are even on the top ten list of most dangerous jobs. It's far more deadly to work at a 7-11 or as a taxi driver.
It's time to stop extorting the rest of the public with your claims for special treatment.
Cops and firefighters should be well-paid, but current compensation is over the top. We can't afford it.
Best,
Fred
By Fred_Williams 4:59 a.m., Feb 5, 2009 > Report it
Mr. Williams you can call bullsh*t all you want. As Don mentioned in comment #638 above; "[everyone] are all encouraged to state your views here." My view is you, JohnnyV and anyone else who believes city employees are over compensated for their labors are all welcome to join and see for yourselves.
As far as I can tell no one has removed any of your comments. Yet, according to you, counter points of view are not allowed. How so? For example, in comments #652, #653 above, "Johnny(I only post some of the facts that support my positions)Vegas" and you comment about on your frustration on salary compensation for public safety employees.
Neither you or Johnny chose to investigate the data beyond what you were fed by a politician. A naive mistake. Mr. DeMaio's obvious attempt to further vilify city workers is it not the WHOLE truth, and worse, he knows it. His silence about the recovery of overtime costs to city speaks volumes about his personal integrity. But what’s worse, you took the bait, hook, line and sinker! You’ve been used by a politician. How’s it feel to be slimmed?
But let's back to the issue, since this overtime is being spent, it seems there's a need for this staffing. Since there is a need why doesn't the City hire people to do the jobs and thus eliminate the overtime you, and Mr. DeMaio find so offensive? Why, because Carl knows it's CHEAPER to pay the overtime then to hire employees in the long run. It's been proven over and over. But Carl, our newest political hack, wants to stir the pot, for his own political gains, because patsies like you make a stink about it, doing his dirty work for him.
My questions to you Fred, is it honest to omit the information about reimbursements to the City while complaining about the overtime compensation? How dishonest is it for a politician to do it, or is it something we expect or just accept now-a-days?
Regarding your comment #1 My income comes from multiple sources because I choose to more simultaneously with my life than just one endeavor at a time. In fact, I practice in four distinctly different areas and receive substantial compensation for it. And, for the record, I do not appear on the list you linked into your comment. My time is better spent doing more rewarding ($$$) tasks.
Regarding comment #3 well that's an opinion and no one suppressed it. So Don's correct, all encouraged to state their views here, no matter what they are.
By JustWondering 7:29 a.m., Feb 5, 2009 > Report it
BTW...thanks to fumber...I have missed his insights. They brighten my day in oh so many ways!
By JustWondering 7:34 a.m., Feb 5, 2009 > Report it
JW, you and I agree...Fumber is the most insightful poster to ever inflict upon himself the indignity of eating my "spooge infested bile omelet". We both deeply admire and appreciate his viewpoints, even when he's not the public payroll.
As to your points, remember that the information came not from DeMaio, but from the city. I'll ignore the rest of your towering tirade since its foundation has been removed.
You haven't explained why firefighters figure so prominently in the $100k+ list, except to claim that overtime is a money saver.
I have doubts about that, and am not convinced that the city gets full reimbursement for overtime spent on special events. At least we know the Chargers aren't paying their fair share. Nor do I accept that officers and paramedics assigned to those events are suffering so badly that they need to be paid overtime. How about showing a little community spirit?
Yet all of this is a side show to the basic reality we face.
The city is broke, and it's getting broker every day.
We have to reduce costs. I say there is evidence that we're overpaying public employees. The numbers seem to bear this out. It's not just fire and police, but folks like former UT writers on the Mayor's staff who get paid $140k for doing...well...okay, nobody knows what he does.
What do you suggest we cut, or alternatively, how do you propose to pay off the enormous pension deficit while preventing deep cuts to services? Which tax-hike do you recommend?
Simply repeating that you're above any consideration for cutbacks doesn't really amount to much of a case given our city's dire financial straits.
Best,
Fred
By Fred_Williams 9:28 a.m., Feb 5, 2009 > Report it
I believe I did explain the why firefighters figure so prominently in the list. If not, the majority of it comes from contractually mutual aid obligations the City has agreed to fulfill. Which is reimbursed 100% by the feds and the state.
In regards to special events, more specifically fire department staffing. It is the City that requires promoters to staff certain number and classification. As I mentioned earlier, for the most part the city gets full boat reimbursement including salary and benefits now-a-days. But only pays base overtime salary which does NOT include benefits. So in most cases the city now makes a little money on special events.
As to the infamous "100K" list...."As to your points, remember that the information came not from DeMaio, but from the city." Of course it came from the city, who else would be compiling the data. It's not the data, it's how the information is spun and exploited. Funny how the Voice of SD has this PDF document linked to Mr. DeMaio. Funny how Mr. DeMaio bemoans the same points. Not so funny is purposely deciding to not tell or share the WHOLE truth about overtime reimbursements to the City.
If as you and Johnny V claim the city is broke and becoming "broker" everyday. Why, as you put it, are Mayor Sanders, Jay Goldstone, Ms. Tevlin, and all of our councilmember’s denying it? Broke, in the financial sense means: to become destitute of money or possessions. The City is neither. The city pays its bills. The City has billions in assets. Anytime anyone brings up Chapter 9 bankruptcy to the Mayor, he stops that talk immediately. Is he lying to us for his own political gains? Is he not a
community team player?
CONTINUED.....
By JustWondering 10:38 a.m., Feb 5, 2009 > Report it
CONTINUED...
Regarding taxes and fees:
First and foremost compare the City’s tax and fee structure to other large City in California. While doing that compare the services provided. Are we being honest with ourselves or just denying the facts?
Impose a fee for trash collection as long as fee imposed by the 1919 People Ordinance for Trash Collection is removed. If you don't like that, the original ordinance includes language saying the cost of refuse collection should be covered by the tax, if it's not covered, raise the fee within the property tax to the appropriate level. Just don't bill me twice.
Get the voters behind raising theTOT
Raise the rental car tax fees.
Raise the real estate transfer tax.
Impose developer fees following models similar to LA and SF
Work on separating long term business real estate holding from single family prop 13 tax protections.
Here another idea, but I’ll admit it’s a real reach, right now. AB/InBev now owns SeaWorld. Does the world's largest producer of beer really want an entertainment unit? If not, get the city to work with Disney or another entertainment giant to purchase the park. Then sell off a couple hundred acres of greatly under utilized Fiesta Island for a new theme park. If it’s Disney, they can bring the cruise ship here as a stop, before heading to the Mexican Rivera.
By JustWondering 10:38 a.m., Feb 5, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #665: Fred, if you joined the PD, would you be concerned about getting shot in the back? Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 11:40 a.m., Feb 5, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #666: Fumber, what do you have on YOUR hands? Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 11:42 a.m., Feb 5, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #667: You asked Fred how it felt to be slimmed. I think you meant slimed. But my guess is that a lot of readers would like to be slimmed. Any recommendations for how? Please don't suggest NutriSystem. I have seen enough of those ads to last three lifetimes. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 11:48 a.m., Feb 5, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #668: ...except right before breakfast, lunch or dinner. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 11:50 a.m., Feb 5, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #669: Now we're getting somewhere, after 668 posts. Just how does San Diego pay off that pension deficit? JF and JW have argued that they are underpaid. True or not, is the statement relevant when the City cannot afford to dole out the salaries and pensions it is now committed to? My assertion all along in this colloquy has been that no matter how poorly SD salaries/fringes compare with those in other metro areas, the only relevance is whether the City can afford them. And it clearly cannot. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 11:58 a.m., Feb 5, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #670: Why do San Diego politicians deny that the City is broke? Easy. They're liars. That's what politicians do for a living. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 12:02 p.m., Feb 5, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #671: There is no doubt that San Diegans are undertaxed. However, from a public relations perspective, I would suggest that police and firefighters NOT launch a campaign for higher taxes so their salaries and benefits can be paid. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 12:05 p.m., Feb 5, 2009 > Report it
"Johnny(I only post some of the facts that support my positions)Vegas" and you comment about on your frustration on salary compensation for public safety employees.
=========================================
LOL....stop it JW, you're killing me!
BTW, can you "edit" some of your comments down to a level I can manage on a 5 minute break....instead of posting a novel.
No, wait-you posted not one, but TWO novels today!
By JohnnyVegas 1:10 p.m., Feb 5, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #665: Fred, if you joined the PD, would you be concerned about getting shot in the back? Best, Don Bauder
================================
Fred is only concerned about getting shot in the back by "friendly fire".........
Remember the qualifications- GED, clean record and no drug use.
Nothing in there about common sense (I hope Fumbler is not a SDPD cop!)!
By JohnnyVegas 1:14 p.m., Feb 5, 2009 > Report it
Well I agree..."They're liars. That's what politicians do for a living."
Now the more relevant question: Why does or would the electorate re-elect liars? Repeatedly?
By JustWondering 1:28 p.m., Feb 5, 2009 > Report it
Johnny, I'll do my best to 'edit' my comments "down to a level you can manage". But writing to a level where first grade contributors, like you, can manage is difficult, if not completely impossible.
By JustWondering 1:38 p.m., Feb 5, 2009 > Report it
I don't know Don, ya gotta admit, you get a chuckle or two out of Fumber's retorts. He certainly earns it for "phraseology". His talent in stringing together descriptive adjectives and nouns is unique.
By JustWondering 1:43 p.m., Feb 5, 2009 > Report it
Johnny, I'll do my best to 'edit' my comments "down to a level you can manage". But writing to a level where first grade contributors, like you, can manage is difficult, if not completely impossible.
By JustWondering
===============================
Hey, that is an insult!
I was promoted to second grade.
By JohnnyVegas 1:50 p.m., Feb 5, 2009 > Report it
Come on now, tell the truth, I know it's a difficult. You were promoted but only after repeating 1st grade.
By JustWondering 2:03 p.m., Feb 5, 2009 > Report it
Response to #676...
I do not recall me ever saying I believe I am underpaid. I believe JF and I have argued wages are reasonable now, but lower than others within the State of California, doing the same work.
I believe you, JV, Fred and others think the only answer is to lower our wages. JV suggests a 80% cut in comment #660, but that's JV he typically posts answers that are, well you know, posted by "one who posts inflammatory or inaccurate information just to get others excited." You know, a troll.
Furthermore, you say the City cannot afford it. To my knowledge the city has been, and still is, paying its bills. Unless the Mayor's lying about that too!
By JustWondering 2:06 p.m., Feb 5, 2009 > Report it
Response to #s 679 and 680: It never occurred to me that fumber might be a SD cop. Fumber, step forward. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 2:53 p.m., Feb 5, 2009 > Report it
Response to #681: Yes, San Diego keeps electing them. So does the nation. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 2:55 p.m., Feb 5, 2009 > Report it
Response to #s 682-685: I wonder if Johnny and fumber knew each other in second grade. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 2:59 p.m., Feb 5, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #686: The City is far behind on infrastructure improvement and far, far behind on normal maintenance. So it is cheating its residents. I don't know if it cheating its vendors by not paying them. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 3:03 p.m., Feb 5, 2009 > Report it
Good point on deferred maintenance and my car's suspension think so too as the streets in the local neighborhood are beginning to look like the roadways in Gaza.
By JustWondering 3:23 p.m., Feb 5, 2009 > Report it
JV suggests a 80% cut in comment #660, but that's JV he typically posts answers that are, well you know, posted by "one who posts inflammatory or inaccurate information just to get others excited." You know, a troll.
===================================
Yes, my comment stating we should cut PD/FD compensation 80%.
Here, let me help you out JW=
sar·casm (sär'kāz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n.
A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.
The use of sarcasm. See Synonyms at wit1.
[Late Latin sarcasmus, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein, to bite the lips in rage, from sarx, sark-, flesh.]
By JohnnyVegas 4:14 p.m., Feb 5, 2009 > Report it
Response to post $691: One reason San Diegans oppose taxes so strenuously is that they spend so much money having their cars repaired for pothole damage. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 6:52 p.m., Feb 5, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #692: And now bloggers use the word "snark" to denote sarcasm. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 6:55 p.m., Feb 5, 2009 > Report it
Nor do I accept that officers and paramedics assigned to those events are suffering so badly that they need to be paid overtime.
===================
Will you accept that the Fair Labor Standards Act requires it? Employees of the city cannot be forced to volunteer in their position.
By JF 8:23 p.m., Feb 5, 2009 > Report it
JF and JW have argued that they are underpaid.
===============
Sorry Don, but in reference to increasing taxes I wrote, "Apply that increase to increasing staffing, not increasing benefits."
Given the current economic climate, I don't think we should get a raise at all. Plus that helps the unfunded ratio, as the assumption is for a 4% raise each year. If the raise is lower, the unfunded ratio goes down.
By JF 8:36 p.m., Feb 5, 2009 > Report it
Fred whined that firefighters and cops don't have all that dangerous of a job. I guess he forgot about the firefighters killed in the helicopter crash up north this summer. Oddly, so did the feds, since wildland firefighters are counted as "forestry workers" in stats, not as firefighters.
Oh, and he missed this quote from Forbes, "Badge-wielding types took a serious hit. Of all occupations, protective-service occupations suffered the greatest relative increase in workplace fatalities in 2007, jumping 20% to 314. Nearly one-half of those were police officers; indeed, enough men in blue perished in the line of fire to earn a spot on the list of America's 10 most dangerous jobs."
By JF 8:44 p.m., Feb 5, 2009 > Report it
Interesting to note how much overtime contributes to the problem.
================
Well, here's part of the problem. The city eliminated many of the staffers from the department. You know, the lower paid management analysts and such. As it turns out, the work load remains the same. The county still wants EMS reports, the city council still wants compliance reports, etc. So now, the city pays battalion chiefs and captains OT to fill the jobs of those staffers that have been eliminated. It probably costs less in the long run.. but meanwhile, Carl is whining...
By JF 8:52 p.m., Feb 5, 2009 > Report it
JF, good to have you back-I knew you couldn't stay away for long.
As for cop fatalities, they average 150-200 per year, and the vast majority are from traffic deaths. Very few are from homicide. Plus cops sit around for 30%-50% of their shifts writing reports, which can't hurt.
It is a very safe job.
Very few are from homicide.
By JohnnyVegas 8:54 p.m., Feb 5, 2009 > Report it
I'm calling bulshytt on this repeated "invitation" to join the police or fire department, with the implication that ONLY police and fire are qualified to comment on these public policy subjects.
==================
That's not the implication at all. The implication is that you can't handle the job, even though you say it's easy.
Besides, why wouldn't you want the job? It's cushy, right? Lot's of days off to still have your own business? Good pay.. etc. I really can't see why you wouldn't apply.
By JF 8:56 p.m., Feb 5, 2009 > Report it
Very few are from homicide.
============
So? Dead is dead.
By JF 8:57 p.m., Feb 5, 2009 > Report it
That's not the implication at all. The implication is that you can't handle the job, even though you say it's easy.
Besides, why wouldn't you want the job? It's cushy, right? Lot's of days off to still have your own business? Good pay.. etc. I really can't see why you wouldn't apply.
By JF
======================
#1-Let me give you props for being poster #700.
#2- At least 50% of the adult population aged 20-50 has the ability, qualifications and could competently perform the duties of either cop or FF.
By JohnnyVegas 9:11 p.m., Feb 5, 2009 > Report it
Hey JF, there was a FF who posted here and over at Voice of San Diego named Jim Fowler- I had always thought that was you because of the intitials and the occupation, but you're not Jim Fowler-correct?
By JohnnyVegas 9:13 p.m., Feb 5, 2009 > Report it
Johnny,
There is no San Diego firefighter named Jim Fowler.
You say Jim Fowler posted here, but if you search Jim Fowler on this site, the only hits are you thinking I'm Jim Fowler.
As I've said before, I believe you're deluded. That's the only possible explanation for your repeated insistence on such things.
By JF 9:27 p.m., Feb 5, 2009 > Report it
At least 50% of the adult population aged 20-50 has the ability, qualifications and could competently perform the duties of either cop or FF.
======================
Yes, but not the desire. That's why I keep repeating my invitation to you. Since it's so damn easy and pays so well, why wouldn't you apply? Surely you'd fly through the hiring process. You could practice law on your days off. You'd have excellent benefits and a paid retirement.
It doesn't matter who has the ability. I think the percentage is lower, but so what? What matters is how many people apply. In Miami last week people camped out for applications. Here we have to bet people to apply. Why? I don't know...
By JF 9:32 p.m., Feb 5, 2009 > Report it
Response to posts #s 695-705: Little did I dream when I wrote a column about SDCERS's dismal third quarter that the responses would be at 705 and still rising. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10:31 p.m., Feb 5, 2009 > Report it
Don, since you brought SDCERS back up, I watched the Board of Administration video again. Their next meeting is scheduled for Feb. 20th where they'll decide the Interest Crediting Rate for DROP accounts. Here's my prediction which is based upon the boards conflicted fiduciary duties:
For active DROP accounts, this is the employee is still working for the City during the 5 year DROP term, the SDCERS board will lower the interest crediting rate to 3.5% from its current 7.75%.
For retired DROP accounts, this happens when the employee leaves employment with the City but elects to leave their DROP account with SDCERS. If they choose this, their DROP account is converted into an annuity with one of two terms; 20 year or life expectancy per IRS tables. My prediction is the board will leave that interest crediting rate at the Plan's assumed rate of return of 7.75%. The reasoning behind both is the length of i term
Decoupling the rates of crediting thus fulfills both fiduciary duties. First it helps to maintain the overall financial health of the system. It also slightly reduces the payment obligations of the City. Second it supports the board other fiduciary duty to maximize member benefits. What I find interesting is the conflict between these two duties. There is a chicken or the egg argument.
Finally my apology to Johnny V for another long post.
By JustWondering 6:30 a.m., Feb 6, 2009 > Report it
Johnny,
There is no San Diego firefighter named Jim Fowler.
================
No, there was a Jim Fowler who posted here. As for sesarching this site-they erased all the old posts when the online format switched over.
No biggie.
By JohnnyVegas 10:52 a.m., Feb 6, 2009 > Report it
For active DROP accounts, this is the employee is still working for the City during the 5 year DROP term, the SDCERS board will lower the interest crediting rate to 3.5% from its current 7.75%.
==============================
Since The market has dropped over 30%-40% since September, and virtually all gov pension funds have followed, why not drop the 7.75% ( I thought it was 8%) return to actual market rate of negative 35%??????
By JohnnyVegas 11:04 a.m., Feb 6, 2009 > Report it
i am not a police officer...the pay they receive is fair for the job they do and the constant demand that they receive less by posters here, smacks of liberal dope smoking pipe dreaming.
By fumber
=========================
Fumbler, if I want any comments from the peanut gallery I will come down to County and visit you.....BTW, what are visiting hours at County these days?
By JohnnyVegas 11:06 a.m., Feb 6, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #707: Isn't "dope smoking pipe dreaming" redundant? Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 1:06 p.m., Feb 6, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #708: A level of 3.5 percent is an improvement and more realistic, or less unrealistic. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 1:10 p.m., Feb 6, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #710: I think you are being sarcastic again. The drop was 35 percent over a year, but this number covers a lot of years. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 1:14 p.m., Feb 6, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #711: Fumber has some unappetizing obsessions, as his posts reveal, but none bad enough to get him incarcerated. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 1:18 p.m., Feb 6, 2009 > Report it
JW, thanks for the heads up about the 3.5% adjustment. If Don Bauder says it's reasonable, I'll trust his judgment.
While we may sometimes excoriate each other, at least we all care enough to have these conversations. Glad you post here.
Have a great weekend, and watch out for the rain tonight. I've heard it's gonna blow and maybe flood in lovely San Diego...
Best,
Fred
By Fred_Williams 5:02 p.m., Feb 6, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #716: San Diego needs rain. Be thankful. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 8:29 p.m., Feb 6, 2009 > Report it
#697
My cousin, who is a cop in Phoenix, directed me to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund site. They show that 1671 LEOs were Killed in the line of duty between 1998-2007. That's an average of 167 per year or one death every53 hours. 933 of those were accidental deaths and 738 were felonious deaths.585 of those felonious deaths were shootings; 492 of the accidental deaths were from auto accidents.
According to the website, during the past century, fire arms have been the leading cause of fatalities at 49%.
The second greatest cause of deaths has been from automobiles, at 15%.
Apparently, the vast majority of the deaths are not auto accidents.
By removed 12:31 a.m., Feb 7, 2009 > Report it
JJ thanks for clearing up another misstatement from Johnny Vegas in #699 above. Vegas has an extended history of posting inflammatory or inaccurate information just go get others excited.
Mr. Bauder was kind enough to define this as being a TROLL in comment #584 above. Guess Mr. Bauder recognized it too, as he encouraged Johnny to defend himself.
By JustWondering 11:03 a.m., Feb 7, 2009 > Report it
Response to posts #718 and 719: You're up, Johnny. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 12:06 p.m., Feb 7, 2009 > Report it
According to the website, during the past century, fire arms have been the leading cause of fatalities at 49%.
The second greatest cause of deaths has been from automobiles, at 15%.
Apparently, the vast majority of the deaths are not auto accidents.
=====================================
Wow, and from such a non biased authority.
Traffic accidents by far account for the largest amount of LE deaths- there is no argument about that= and the 15% number you quote is so far off base it is laughable.
As for 585 shooting deaths, that accounting MUST include self inflicted wounds-if it is even accurate.
BTW- even using your bogus numbers of shooting deatsh, 585 over 10 yesars, that is about 58 per year, compared to on the job construction deaths of between 2,000-4,000. Do the math.
By JohnnyVegas 12:19 p.m., Feb 7, 2009 > Report it
Here, this is for the JJ "gimmick" account;
80% OF POLICE DEATHS DUE TO ACCIDENTS, GUNS
Organized Crime Digest , Jan 31, 2006
The National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund said preliminary data show 80 percent of the 153 police line-of-duty deaths last year resulted from traffic accidents and shooting incidents.
California with 17 deaths had the highest number, followed Texas, with 14, and Georgia, with 10.
>>>>>Traffic-related incidents claimed 62 lives. There were 60 deaths from shooting incidents.<<<<<
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi...
=================
Now, lets see, JJ said 15% of cop deaths were from traffic accidents and 49% were from shootings....Hmmmm...me thinks JJ doesn't understand %'s.
By JohnnyVegas 12:25 p.m., Feb 7, 2009 > Report it
Response to posts #721 and 722: You have made your point, Johnny, but if it's 62 from traffic accidents and 60 from shootings, the traffic accidents would not be "by far" more numerous than the shootings. It looks close to a split. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 1:38 p.m., Feb 7, 2009 > Report it
OK, it appears there have been more deaths by violence recently than I estimated, but accidents still are the largest cause of fatalities in PD work, not shoot outs.
Here is a report on work related deaths- tree cutting/loggers is by far the most dangerous job. This article says they make $60K per year, but the level of danger in their job is 30 times that of the median job, so this is a job that is far more dangerous than PD work, yet is paid less than half of what PD work is paid when you include benefits (this tree cutting job pays 1/4-1/3 of PD when PD OT is added in)-without the job security or long term employment guarantee (oh, and be sure to read the fictional comment that a FF makes at the end-just like here!);
"One of the most dangerous jobs is timber cutting. People who cut down trees have an accident rate of 118 per 100,000 workers. Most of the deaths occur due to falling trees. The death rate for timber cutters is nearly 30 times that of the average worker. Timber cutters earn around 60,000 US dollars (USD) over a ten month period."
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-the-...
By JohnnyVegas 2:17 p.m., Feb 7, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #724: Since in this colloquy we have been making comparisons of FD/FF pay with other jobs, both public and private sectors, I think it is fair to introduce this evidence. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 3:30 p.m., Feb 7, 2009 > Report it
By JohnnyVegas:
"Very few are from homicide.","As for cop fatalities, the vast majority are from traffic deaths. Very few are from homicide", "accidents still are the largest cause of fatalities in PD work, not shoot outs.".
In typical jv fashion, you change your terms. First it's homicides, then it's shootings; first it's traffic accidents now it's just accidents. Make up your mind
From the FBI(is that a non biased enough authority?):
The number of LEO's accidentally killed between 1996-2005:725
(471 traffic accidents:410 auto-61 motorcycle).
The number of LEO's feloniously killed Between 1996-2005:575
That's 575 felony deaths vs 471 traffic deaths. More than "a few" homicides and traffic accidents are not the majority.
And by the way, accidental shootings are classified by the FBI as just that, ACCIDENTS. Apparent or confirmed suicides are not included in either classification.
Also the data you quote in #722 is not correct.
The FBI lists 43 t/a deaths in 2005, not 62. So that's 60 vs 43; again less t/a deaths.
Overall, more total deaths are accidental than homicides, which one would hope and no one is disputing. But your original post didn't say accidental deaths. It said traffic deaths.
BTW, according to NIOSH, construction deaths are around 1100-1200 per year, with a high of 1239 in 2006. Deaths in 2007 fell to 1178 Not the 2000-4000 as you claim. But as we all know, facts are irrelevant to you. Good qualities for the legal profession. I bet your mommy is proud.
By removed 4:34 p.m., Feb 7, 2009 > Report it
BTW,
I don't make stuff up either, as you seem to like to do, johnnyvegass.
From the NLEOMF website:
http://www.nleomf.com/TheMemorial/Fac...
A summary of the top ten leading causes of law enforcement fatalities during the past century follows (does not include 1999 figures):
1. Firearms (6,846 or 49%)
2. Automobile Accidents (2,090 or 15%)
3. Motorcycle Accidents (1,022 or 7%)
4. Struck by Vehicle (955 or 7%)
5. Job-related Illness (588 or 4%)
6. Aircraft Accidents (311 or 2%)
7. Stabbings (197 or 1%)
8. Fall (147 or 1%)
9. Drowning (142 or 1%)
10.Beaten (134 or 1%)
By removed 4:42 p.m., Feb 7, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #726: That's the first time you have put something in all caps, fumber. You must be getting emotional about this topic. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 8:37 p.m., Feb 7, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #727: Again, it looks like neither side (auto fatalities vs. homicides) has a big lead. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 8:42 p.m., Feb 7, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #728: I'm sure you realize that by going back 100 years, you are stacking the statistical deck against auto/motorcycle accidents. More recent time frames would seem to make the point more equitably. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 8:45 p.m., Feb 7, 2009 > Report it
response to posts730/731.
It's not about which "side has a big lead.".
It's about refuting johnnyvegass's claim that the vast majority are from traffic deaths and very few are from homicide.
It's simply not true, as the FBI statistics show. As a matter of fact I neglected to post on other FBI statistic. Of those 575 deaths reported, 532 involved the use of fire arms by the assailants. Not only are there more homicides than traffic deaths, there are also more shooting deaths.
There were also more than 19000 officers shot who survived during the measured period.
But again, I only use the FBI statistical analysis, which is probably not a reliable or unbiased enough source for some of you.
It's also not about stacking the deck. Of course I realize the data is more heavily weighted the further back you compare statistics. Had you taken the opportunity to review the link I provided, you would find that issue addressed.
By removed 12:41 a.m., Feb 8, 2009 > Report it
It doesn't matter at all. Some cop's wife or husband is still going to the funeral. The city, state and feds are still paying out for a line of duty death.
By JF 6:54 a.m., Feb 8, 2009 > Report it
Response to posts #732 and 733: Seemingly, "vast majority" doesn't apply to either homicides or auto/motorcycle accidents. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 7:44 a.m., Feb 8, 2009 > Report it
JF,
A cop's life, and the family's grief, is not greater or less than any other's.
Do not lumberjack families suffer far more when their breadwinner dies? Where are the special scholarships for their children?
How about when a clerk at a store is shot? Those deaths outnumber LEO deaths by a huge factor, and I can guarantee you the families are left far worse off than the kids of a cop who dies on the job, whether from violence or accident.
Again, cops and firefighters are not heros, just guys doing a difficult and dangerous job...like so many others in this world.
Let's stop with the slavish adoration already. It's one of the root causes of the ridiculous situation we face today, where cops and firefighters consider themselves above everyone else.
By Fred_Williams 8:33 a.m., Feb 8, 2009 > Report it
You are correct, JF.
Dead is dead.
As I said, I have a cousin who is a cop(another is a FF btw). My point was simply to dispel johnnyvegasshoeles notion that few cops are victims of intentional violence( would consider the FBI's term Felonius Deaths as intentional). As it turns out, according to the FBI's most recent data, a cop is actually slightly more likely to suffer a violent death at the hand of another than be killed in a t/a.
By removed 8:34 a.m., Feb 8, 2009 > Report it
"Let's stop with the slavish adoration already. It's one of the root causes of the ridiculous situation we face today, where cops and firefighters consider themselves above everyone else."
So I guess that lawyers, businessmen, politicians and bankers who "consider themselves above everyone else" have played no part in creating this situation.
I agree that JF is a little over the top with his opinions at times, but no more so than johnnyvegass. And I would hardly consider either one of them to be representative of their respective groups as a whole, but apparently you do??
In my own personal dealings with PD,FF and lawyers, I have found that not to be the case. How about in your case, what has your personal experience been like??
By removed 8:58 a.m., Feb 8, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #735: If we want to talk about underpaid people who put their lives at risk, then are not properly treated -- or ignored completely -- when they return with injuries and/or psychological trauma, we should be talking about the military. Now there is a disgrace. Beset, Don Bauder
By dbauder 9:31 a.m., Feb 8, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #736: We could use similar data with municipal FFs. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 9:34 a.m., Feb 8, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #737: Yes, let's shift the focus to bankers (this would include the former investment bankers who are now called bankers) and their lawyers. In short, Wall St. These are the biggest enemies of the nation. They have brought us to the financial brink. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 9:37 a.m., Feb 8, 2009 > Report it
JOHNNY VEGASS MUNCH : YOU ARE A BLEEPING IDIOT...WHY DONT YOU JUST ADMIT THAT YOU ARE AN INCREDIBLE BLOW HARD AND A MORON.
By fumber
===================
Who unlocked Fumblers cell?
By JohnnyVegas 11:50 a.m., Feb 8, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #741: Maybe fumber is an escape artist. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 12:27 p.m., Feb 8, 2009 > Report it
BTW,
I don't make stuff up either, as you seem to like to do, johnnyvegass.
From the NLEOMF website:
http://www.nleomf.com/TheMemorial/Facts/...
==================
Bwahahahah....PLEASE!
You don't have to make it up, the NLEOMF is doing it for you......!!
BTW-you (NLEOMF= no bias there at all!!) might try using stats that don't go back to the 1800's whne cops didnt use cars.
By JohnnyVegas 12:43 p.m., Feb 8, 2009 > Report it
Hey JJ, since I have already shot down your bogus claim that cop/FF are "dangerous" jobs, why don't you bring up their second most infamous whopper-that they die at age 58.
I would love to blow that one out of the water!
By JohnnyVegas 12:45 p.m., Feb 8, 2009 > Report it
If we want to talk about underpaid people who put their lives at risk, then are not properly treated -- or ignored completely -- when they return with injuries and/or psychological trauma, we should be talking about the military.
============
I fully agree. Now work to bring them up to our level, not us down to their level.
By JF 2:08 p.m., Feb 8, 2009 > Report it
"Hey JJ, since I have already shot down your bogus claim that cop/FF are "dangerous" jobs."
Again johnnyvegasshoele displays his lack of reading comprehension skills.
First can you please show where I even discussed firefighters in any of my posts. I didn't. The ONLY mention of firefighters I made was that I have a another cousin who is one.
Second, can you list my "bogus claim" that cop/FF are "dangerous" jobs". Can you even find the word dangerous in my postings? No you can't.I made no reference at all to their danger. I simply used FBI stats to show a cop is actually slightly more likely to suffer a violent death at the hand of another than be killed in a t/a, refuting your claim that "for cop fatalities" "the vast majority are from traffic deaths. Very few are from homicide."
Indeed you are the one that compared cops to construction workers and timber cutters. I made no comparisons at all.
If you read further, you would have also read that I agreed with Don that Of course I realize the NLEOMF data is more heavily weighted the further back you compare statistics.
Did you ever consider that quote was tossed in just to get a reaction from you?? I guess it worked. And why don't you explain exactly how is the NLEOMF is biased. Are they making up names of dead cops or what. I wouldn't think that they are any more biased about their members than any other organization, like say the ABA perhaps.
And now I supposed you'll also claim that the FBI's statistical analysis is flawed and they are biased also.
As for pd/ff age at death, except for my cousins living long and healthy lives, I really don't care. I'm not a public safety advocate and it's not something I get riled up aboutat all; not like you apparently seem to.
So there you go . You didn't like NLEOMF stats, so I gave you the FBI's. Refute the FBI's statistics on LEO deaths, show us all that they are bogus. And don't just start throwing unsubstantiated numbers around give us your source so that we can all see for ourselves.
In other words put up or shut up. I think if you could have you already would have. Prove me wrong!!!
By removed 3:08 p.m., Feb 8, 2009 > Report it
Again johnnyvegasshoele displays his lack of reading comprehension skills.
============================
Stop it, you're killing me.
So who's gimmick account are you?
By JohnnyVegas 4:54 p.m., Feb 8, 2009 > Report it
Oppsss...make that "whose"!
By JohnnyVegas 4:55 p.m., Feb 8, 2009 > Report it
Don,
Do we all earn a toaster if this thread reaches 1000 posts? Has the SD Reader kept any stats on responses? I'm just wondering.
By JustWondering 5:28 p.m., Feb 8, 2009 > Report it
Response to posts #743 and #744: There are lies, damned lies and statistics. Was it Mark Twain who said that? Or was that from the Devil's Dictionary? Or from somewhere else? Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 6:06 p.m., Feb 8, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #745: The problem is that the U.S. can't afford to support its military, just as San Diego can't afford current salaries, benefits, and retirement ages of the FF and FD. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 6:10 p.m., Feb 8, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #746: The gentleman wants you to spew statistics or eat humble pie. Your choice, Johnny. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 6:15 p.m., Feb 8, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #747-749: I'm sure the Reader keeps tracks of numbers of clicks, hits, etc. and we're certainly pleased by lots of participation, such as in this particular blog. However, If you are asing whether I make more money when there are more comments, the answer is no. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 6:19 p.m., Feb 8, 2009 > Report it
Don,
Not asking about your compensation at all and your response sounds abit cynical too. I have no alterior motive other than wondering if any piece had ever generated so many comments. Sadly, looking back through them, there seems to be only a handful who comment. Nevertheless we are passionate in our views.
By JustWondering 8:38 a.m., Feb 9, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #754: Oh, definitely this represents by far the largest number of responses to my blog. I think the previous high was around 200. This one has been a winner both quantitatively and qualitatively. There has been a lot of meat in these responses. As to other Reader blogs: I just don't know, but my guess is it is the all-time winner. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 9:12 a.m., Feb 9, 2009 > Report it
I want a toaster...
By Fred_Williams noon, Feb 9, 2009 > Report it
I want a toaster...
============
Just remember to unplug it or some of us "non-heros" may visit.
By JF 7:17 p.m., Feb 9, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #756: Instead of a toaster, Fred, I will give you a bank. How big a one do you want? Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 7:34 p.m., Feb 9, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #757: Fred may complain that by the time you get there, he will be toast. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 7:37 p.m., Feb 9, 2009 > Report it
Fred may complain that by the time you get there, he will be toast.
=============
Well, the studies do say that we need 22 more stations. Perhaps Fred should watch his new councilmember questioning the Fire Chief about response times in District 3 at the last PS&NS meeting.
By JF 8:26 p.m., Feb 9, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #760: Don't blame Fred. I said it -- he didn't. You yourself have said response times will slow down without more stations. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10:57 p.m., Feb 9, 2009 > Report it
I believe that the chief said that we meet national response standards around 50% of the time.
The fire in Penasquitos the other day is a perfect example. The first due engine was already tied up at a medical aid. The truck company responding from the same station is larger and thus slower. The fire was less than two miles from the station, yet the first unit didn't arrive for 8-9 minutes. Good thing that truck company wasn't browned out like the mayor and DeMaio want... the next unit didn't arrive until 11-12 minutes after the 911 call. An effective firefighting force wasn't on scene until 15 minutes after the call. The residents suffered a $500K uninsured loss in what should've been a bedroom fire.
By JF 6:44 a.m., Feb 10, 2009 > Report it
JF.... I thought those were the more infamous counter-top "toaster ovens", not just your run-of-the-mill bread tosters that were/are the cause of many a home kitchen fire???
By JustWondering 7:17 a.m., Feb 10, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #762: In this colloquy, we have been mainly talking about FF pay. Now we are talking about inadequate equipment (not for the first time). Yes, the situation is pathetic. The city concentrated for years on showdog initiatives, such as subsidizing billionaire sports team owners and spending phantom money on the Republican convention, and looked the other way as the infrastructure rotted. Now the city is deeply in the hole and can't change directions. Any and all suggestions are welcome. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 7:40 a.m., Feb 10, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #763: I don't know the answer to that one. Maybe someone can enlighten me and others who share my ignorance. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 7:43 a.m., Feb 10, 2009 > Report it
JW, yes, it is typically toaster ovens. But I've seen many causes of fires over the years. For a while, I had a run of fires caused by salt water from fish tanks splashing in power strips eventually shorting out. Not enough heat to set off sprinklers, but a whole lot of smoke. That's a bad thing in a high rise.
By JF 8:38 a.m., Feb 10, 2009 > Report it
Any and all suggestions are welcome.
======================
The absolutely cheapest solution to increasing fire protection seasonally is to buy (relatively) inexpensive pick-up based fire trucks and staff those on an as needed basis. Sell one of the PD's four brand new helicopters to pay for them. There's absolutely no need for them to have four ships. Of course, DeMaio would have a cow because of the OT. Let's see... the post office hires temporary workers during the holidays, we pay OT during high fire season. Makes sense, no?
I have to wonder if CCDC or SEDC could pay for the fire and police protection in their respective areas. They seem to be able to pay dozens of security guards to ride Segways around downtown. Why not fire protection? That would free up money to staff stations elsewhere.
Have smaller cities such as IB, Coronado, National City, La Mesa, Del Mar, Solana Beach and perhaps even Chula Vista contract with the SDFD for services. That would eliminate tons of overhead for them and provide profit for the city to staff new stations within the city.
The People's Ordinance requires trash pick up once a week. It doesn't say where. Provide neighborhood dumpsters rather than individual house trash pickup. A ton of savings there.
All that and not a tax or fee increase...
By JF 8:53 a.m., Feb 10, 2009 > Report it
Those are reasonable suggestions. The Rancho Penasquitos example you provide above is indicative of the folly of not separating fire from paramedics. There is overlap, yes, but too often we send a fire truck when all that's needed is an ambulance. This seems to be city policy, and when a fire needs to be put out the crew is instead helping with a heart attack.
As to toasters, well JF, get over yourself. I don't leave any hazard unattended...remember, I'm former military. I don't need your paternal oversight. I'll take care of myself, thanks.
Besides, toasters aren't as big a problem as candles.
You know when your girlfriend decides to "set a romantic mood" and lights up a dozen of the smelly things, puts them too close to drapes and curtains, lets them burn all night long after you both fall asleep in post-coital bliss...those things are dangerous.
But instead of doing something to tell women to knock it off, the city has banned "novelty lighters" instead.
What a city!
By Fred_Williams 10:42 a.m., Feb 10, 2009 > Report it
Don,
Do we all earn a toaster if this thread reaches 1000 posts?
==================================
Toaster, smoaster
I would prefer a SDFD FF "Bobble Head" doll, the kind they give away at baseball games.
If it would be in the image of JF it would be the icing on the cake.
I would turn it into a vodoo doll and stick pins in it while singing a black magic chant to put the true American working mans curse on JF (that means JF would have to find a real job in the real world-not the Fantasyland of gov employment).
By JohnnyVegas 10:48 a.m., Feb 10, 2009 > Report it
Response to posts #766-769: There have been some very good suggestions on this blog. Now we are getting some of a different nature. And the quality continues. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 11:20 a.m., Feb 10, 2009 > Report it
I'm sorry, candles at Fred's is something I really didn't need in my mind's eye.
By JustWondering 11:51 a.m., Feb 10, 2009 > Report it
Fred is very sexy though JW....oh...I know what it is, you are saving yourself for Fumbler's candles!
By JohnnyVegas 12:07 p.m., Feb 10, 2009 > Report it
Response to posts #771-773: Going from serious discussion to frivolity is like going from the sublime to the ridiculous. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 2:02 p.m., Feb 10, 2009 > Report it
Fumbler's posts can never be considered "serious discussion"...!
I still want to know how he has internet access in the joint.
By JohnnyVegas 2:14 p.m., Feb 10, 2009 > Report it
OMG, my trademark "lines" are getting wider media coverage-this time from Ron York, who runs Poilcepay.net, which is a consulting firm for helping PD's get better pay and benefits (as if they need it)......Im not kidding you (Ron's article was reposted on Vallejoisburning.com website);
http://ibvallejo.com/index.php?option...
By JohnnyVegas 2:36 p.m., Feb 10, 2009 > Report it
This seems to be city policy, and when a fire needs to be put out the crew is instead helping with a heart attack.
==============================
Fire engines only respond to about 2/3 of the calls for medical assistance in this city. Other cities in the county send an engine on ALL medical calls. We're already ahead of the 'savings curve'.
I would suggest that it is not "folly" to send a paramedic (at least one) and three EMT's to the scene of a dire medical emergency.
As has been mentioned before, San Diego has an award winning dispatch center which is very good at separating out the calls that don't require an engine. Alas, many in the community have learned the "key words" that they use to trigger a full engine and ambulance response. I can't tell you how many "chest pain" calls turn out to be something minor. They know if they tell the dispatcher that they have a stubbed toe, they'll have to wait longer for an ambulance. Don't blame us for that; blame your community members.
Time is of the essence in many medical calls, just as it is for fires. That's why we go. Don't blame a slow fire response on the FD going to too many medical calls. That's a red herring. The true issue is not enough fire engines.
By JF 7:22 p.m., Feb 10, 2009 > Report it
Since Johnny is so big on quoting from the Vallejo Independent Bulletin, how about this:
"Here is a Vallejo vs. Chico comparison.
Vallejo CAFR 2007
Property taxes 23,812,446
Sales taxes ...12,517,648
Other taxes ...6,686,545
Utility taxes 12,746,862
Tot Tax Revenue 55,763,501
Fire service .. 25,238,098
Police service 38,050,873
City Manager 405,000
Safety Services cost 63,288,971
Total General
Fund expenses.. 83,178,534
Vallejo Demographics 2005
Median income.. 50,030
Population..... 117,483
Violent Crime.. 1,206
Land Area sq mi 30.20
Vallejo Ratios
Vallejo General Fund Public Safety 76%
Vallejo tax per resident $474
Vallejo Violent
crime per 100 residents 1.02
Vallejo Manager wage per tax rev.(*100) .73
..................................
Chico CAFR 2007
Property taxes 37,062,036
Taxes ........ 27,165,852
Tot Tax Revenue 64,227,888
Safety Services cost 34,653,773
City Manager 89,000
Total General
(minus Chicos GVRD)
Fund expenses.. 87,055,547
ChicoDemographics 2006
Median income.. 29,359
Population..... 71,427
Violent Crime.. 337
Land Area sq mi 22.4
Chico Ratios
Chico General Fund Public Safety 40%
Chico tax per resident $899
Chico Violent crime per 100 residents .47
Chico Manager
wage per tax rev.(*100) .14"
See the problem with Vallejo? Taxes per capita are just under twice as much in Chico. Yet the Vallejo city manager makes 405,000 and the Chico city manager makes 89,000. The same goes for other city employees, I'm sure -- just not to that extent. San Diego is not Vallejo...
By JF 7:49 p.m., Feb 10, 2009 > Report it
Response to posts #775-779: Interesting stats on Vallejo and Chico. And I love fumber's coined word "pantywaste." It describes one of his obsessions so graphically. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 8:12 p.m., Feb 10, 2009 > Report it
I wonder if the panty "waste" was intentional or just a typo?
By JustWondering 6:14 a.m., Feb 11, 2009 > Report it
Seems salary issues are everywhere, including Vegas, no not Johnny Vegas. I'd give the media consultant responsible for this print add, published in response to criticisms about public employee’s salaries, an "A" for effective creativeness. http://media.lvrj.com/documents/salar...
By JustWondering 6:56 a.m., Feb 11, 2009 > Report it
Fumbler, I have to hand it to you, you're never at a loss for words.
Now keep it clean, or I am going to have your cellie wash your mouth out with soap.
By JohnnyVegas 7:55 a.m., Feb 11, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #781: I've always wondered that. He has always spelled it "pantywaste." Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10:17 a.m., Feb 11, 2009 > Report it
Response to posts #783 and 784: At last. An explanation from fumber. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10:20 a.m., Feb 11, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #782: Back to the issue at hand. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10:21 a.m., Feb 11, 2009 > Report it
Doing my bit to take this thread to 1000,
Fumber, I want to thank you again.
With your help, I've now sold over two million bottles of "Fred's Panty Waste" through my retail partners in the adult book and entertainment industries.
Of course, I'd never have made it this far without my business partner, J.W. By providing a fresh harvest of chunky panty paste every morning, he's been absolutely critical in supplying the raw materials that makes "Fred's Panty Waste" such a commercial success.
To celebrate our groundbreaking business, J.W. and I have set up the Fumber Memorial Scholarship fund, which will pay for you to finally attend and graduate from middle school. We're honored to assist you in your academic goals, and hopeful that when you've completed your course of education that you'll finally get a job and move out of your mother's basement.
Again, Fumber, let me offer my deepest thanks and humble appreciation for all you have done to make "Fred's Panty Waste" such a huge hit.
See you at the Brass Rail later tonight, my friend.
Best,
Fred "Panty Waste Mogul" Williams
Founder and CEO
F.P.W.-Inc. (NASDAQ FPWI)
1234 Smegma Street
San Diego, CA 92101
By Fred_Williams 11:17 a.m., Feb 11, 2009 > Report it
Re:
http://media.lvrj.com/documents/salar...
Very nicely done.
I'd suggest we produce something similar for San Diego and send it to the Reader. I'd put Gerry Braun on the list, as well as the honchos at CCDC and the Chamber.
JF and JW, you guys should know I'm not inherently anti-police or firefighters, but believe that your take-home pay has gotten out of proportion to the work you perform, especially when one considers the current state of the economy.
I'm not alone in this. JF, I've seen your comments over at VOSD where an even larger group of commenters have negative thoughts about current public employee salaries.
While I'm highly critical of the current situation, I'm gratified to see JF making some especially cogent suggestions on modifications to agreements and alternative revenue sources. As you probably know, I'm also a harsh critic of how CCDC and SEDC have misused public funds, and how redevelopment in San Diego has shortchanged public services like firefighting. I've also suggested (and received criticism) that we dramatically expand the amount of volunteerism here in San Diego so that we can respond to city-wide emergencies like the inevitable firestorms, flooding, and earthquakes that plague our region.
I think the firefighters and police would get a lot of credit and support if they got in front of this issue instead of trying to defend the status quo.
I'd really like to see cops and firefighters lead the charge in demanding that the city stop paying outrageous salaries. By offering to curtail their own income, they could force every other employee of the city to accept a temporary $100k wage cap.
Can you imagine the political capital you'd have?
You've got some great ideas, but if you don't capture the public's imagination with something bold, not just tinkering around the edges, you'll see that you're more resented than respected in the future.
Best,
Fred
By Fred_Williams 11:27 a.m., Feb 11, 2009 > Report it
Fred, no personal offense, but I must file for immediate dissolution of "our" partnership. Maybe I should consider Mr. Vegas' services to dissolve it. Then again, maybe not.
Regarding volunteers the PD has been "in front" of this issue for years. With more than 400 volunteers, some with hundreds of hours every month. Unfortunately, the "reserves" program doesn't draw what it used in the 60's and 70's... I believe there are fewer than 35. This is most likely due to the required training as mandated by the state as well as ongoing educational requirement. Not to many folks can meet the training requirements while holding onto a "regular" job to feed themselves and family.
By JustWondering 12:02 p.m., Feb 11, 2009 > Report it
For those keeping score in Vallejo's BK proceedings... more news...
"The Vallejo City Council voted 5 to 2 Tuesday night to approve an updated contract with the city's managerial and office workers.
The Confidential, Administrative, Managerial and Professional Association of Vallejo (CAMP) employees are the second of four labor groups to reach a deal. The council, by approving the negotiated deal, removed the 40-plus member employee group from a pending federal bankruptcy court decision on the same issue...."
As I mentioned before, labor groups can read the writing on the wall too. With this second group "falling in line" Vallejo has exempted two of its four labor groups from the Bankruptcy Court's actions.
By JustWondering 12:13 p.m., Feb 11, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #788: The stock of your company belongs on the New York Stock Exchange, not NASDAQ. You realize that when you laud fumber for the innovation that you are now making millions of dollars on, you are setting yourself up for a lawsuit. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 12:43 p.m., Feb 11, 2009 > Report it
Fred with another clever post^^^^^.
As for Vallejo-the IAFF (FF union) is going to be taking a major shot in the shorts. They are headed for disaster.
I have a feeling the judge may not go along with the deals already cut with the city and the VPOA and the second union that has settled. We will have to wait and see.
The BK judge has been in major disagreement with the unions arguments, and that is not a good sign = for the unions.
By JohnnyVegas 12:44 p.m., Feb 11, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #789: Have you ever known anybody that cared more about political capital than capital? Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 12:52 p.m., Feb 11, 2009 > Report it
Response to posts #790, 791 and 793: We all have to study what is going on in Vallejo. It may help San Diego decide whether or not to go into bankruptcy. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 12:56 p.m., Feb 11, 2009 > Report it
Q: How do you clean up spilled panty waste?
A: Cover it with clitty litter.
By JF 8:08 p.m., Feb 11, 2009 > Report it
Just Wondering brought up the use of volunteers. Meanwhile, a good chunk of the OT in the FD is used paying firefighters to do the job that admin staff used to do. It's cheaper to pay a firefighter $40K in OT than pay staff $40K + benefits. Nonetheless, that's $40K that could be saved if volunteers did the work. Oddly enough, that volunteer opportunity is listed on the city web site and no one has volunteered. Any takers here? Anyone with moderate computer skills? Fred?
It doesn't bode particularly well for the future of volunteer firefighters in SD when we can't even get someone to volunteer a few hours to do office work.
By JF 8:17 p.m., Feb 11, 2009 > Report it
Johnny,
As I've said before, I don't think the contracts afforded the Vallejo firefighters are warranted. Further, I think they've hired an idiot as an attorney.
Oh, and there's someone posting in the Vallejo Time-Herald using your "trademark" and exact phraseology. But that couldn't be you... they claim to be from Beaumont.
By JF 8:42 p.m., Feb 11, 2009 > Report it
Fred,
Apparently you missed our press conference yesterday. We offered to work with DeMaio and develop solutions. The thing is he doesn't want to talk with us. He simply wants to bad mouth us and try to break the union. That's not going to work.
Speaking of political capital, we can count to five. Carl isn't one of them.
By JF 8:45 p.m., Feb 11, 2009 > Report it
And 800
By JF 8:46 p.m., Feb 11, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #796: Wow. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 9:18 p.m., Feb 11, 2009 > Report it
Response to posts 797-800: It's clear the topic of FF pay and pensions is a hot one. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 9:22 p.m., Feb 11, 2009 > Report it
Here is a GREAT article on public sector compensation-it really hits the nail on the head and completely blows JF and JW in the dust;
The reality today is this - a mid level bureaucrat in the public sector probably will make about $65K per year, which with benefits of 58% (on the low side) will normalize to $102K per year. A white collar worker or skilled technician in the private sector, doing work requiring equivalent skills will probably earn $50K per year if they’re lucky, with an overhead benefit of 30%, which equates to $65K per year.
>>>>Public employees now make about twice as much as private sector employees make.>>The solution is to cut their pay and their benefits to levels equivalent to what people make in the private sector.<<<<<
This step would not only restore equity to the workforce, but would immediately eliminate the structural deficits endured by state and local governments.
http://ecoworld.com/blog/2009/02/08/c...
By JohnnyVegas 10:13 p.m., Feb 11, 2009 > Report it
BTW-I thought we were killing this thread off at 500 posts, what happened????????
Hey JF, I have a question, does SDFD pay full salary during academy training??????? What about PD??????
If, as you claim, SDFD does not have enough applicants why don't they hire a huge class of recruits, pay them minimum wage to go through academy training and then once they graduate pay at the normal entry level salary? Academy training should be about 3-4 months, plenty of recruits would take minimum wage up front for that period (far shorter than my 4 years at SDSU for my BA which paid zero) knowing there is better pay when you graduate. Plus it is more equitable to taxpayers.
Also, why not limit benefits during the first year, just like the private sector does. No job I know of today allows dental benefits until your first year is up.
Don't tell me you have to be "competitive", I don't buy that. Especially in this economy.
I would also do that for PD.
By JohnnyVegas 10:25 p.m., Feb 11, 2009 > Report it
Re: 796...smirk.
Re: 797...post the link. I'll look into it. That may be something I can do to help. Thanks.
Re: 799...okay, let's count. Hueso and Young are in your pocket we all know. So that's two. Emerald owes you for all the campaign signs, as does Gloria. So that's four.
Is Lightner in debt to the firefighter's union too?
What about Faulconer? You helped elect him too.
So I guess all the citizens of San Diego can count on is DeMaio and Frye...not because they're anti-firefighter (nobody is) but because they're not beholden to your extraordinarily active and powerful union.
But maybe our council will learn to count other numbers, like the people who are deeply disturbed that SOME people can elect their bosses and thereby dictate their labor contracts. Instead of public servants, they become public masters. The disenfranchised majority could revolt. We live in interesting and volatile times, my friend.
So we'll see.
The basic fact remains that we're in very bad shape as a city. What can we afford?
Is it really reasonable to pay firefighters in excess of $100k in salary and "overtime" (sometimes spent sleeping, shopping, watching golf games, or playing cards) as well as gold-plated pensions along with guaranteed job security?
Now if the firefighters union would go after the real culprits who robbed us blind, resulting in the pension underfunding, I'd be a big fan. But I've never seen a public employee with the gumption to state the obvious truth that crooks like Moores ripped off the city and we need our money back.
Rather, firefighter union flunkies, I mean Saathoff in particular, campaigned to give away money to sports moguls knowing full-well that it would take away money from future pension contributions. (But he sure did get a big payoff.)
So, JF, who has so much time to post on such a variety of media in defense of the indefensible while working "mandatory overtime"...why don't you turn your talents toward those who really harmed you? Not just Moores, but staffers like McGrory and Gwinn too.
I look forward to the new leadership you'll bring to the firefighters of San Diego.
Best,
Fred
By Fred_Williams 11:59 p.m., Feb 11, 2009 > Report it
I love how Johnny always gives us HIS part of the truth and not the whole truth.
In the article he cites above: http://ecoworld.com/blog/2009/02/08/c...
Johnny skips over the private sector analysis...
"In the private sector, this “overhead” that is actually compensation that directly benefits the employee can vary, with the 10% figure representing the low end of the spectrum. At the higher end, a private sector worker who makes, for example, $65,000 per year, may also have several benefits that increase their actual compensation. They will earn the employer’s payments on their behalf, which amounts to an additional 10% for social security and medicare. They will also potentially have their health insurance paid for, adding as much as another $12,000 per year or more. Sometimes there is an employer’s matching contribution to a 401K plan, possibly adding up to another 5%. If you add this all up, these lucky employees actually earn not $65,000 per year, but $86,750 per year ($65K times 115% plus $12K). In addition, the private sector employee may not work 2,080 hours per year - they may have 10 paid holidays and 10 vacation days, meaning they only work 1,920 hours per year. If you normalize this for a full year that totals 2,080 working hours ($87K divided by 1,920 times 2,080), you get a real annual compensation of $93,979 per year, or an “overhead” of 46%."
You see I can pick and choose too. In reading the paragraph above it sounds like private and public sector compensations are comparable as cited by the author. I have concerns about "comparable" i.e. job tasks, between private and public jobs. But the point is they seem to be within the ballpark.
With that said, I strongly suggest each of you follow the link above, read it for yourselves understand it and reach your own conclusion taking into account whatever bias the author may add.
For me, I agree with our President when he says, "Change is coming".
As we've seen in Vallejo, two of the four labor groups, have reached new agreements. Starting down the road of responsibility, while reining in, what others have called unsustainable costs. This will happen in San Diego too.
By JustWondering 6:51 a.m., Feb 12, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #803: There have been other studies indicating that public sector pay/benefits are higher than private sector pay/benefits, and for comparable jobs. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 6:58 a.m., Feb 12, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #804: I agree the "competitive" argument doesn't wash in this economy -- or, actually, in any economy. The relevant question is whether the municipality can afford the payments it has promised. I don't see evidence that SD FFs are leaving en masse to take jobs elsewhere. Those "elsewheres" probably have almost as many financial headaches as San Diego. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 7:03 a.m., Feb 12, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #805: Yes, Saathoff certainly got his. Maybe he will get his just deserts. But that's counting on the judicial system to do its job. Pardon my cynicism. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 7:07 a.m., Feb 12, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #806: But will San Diego have to go bankrupt to get those changes? I am afraid so. Best, Don Baude
By dbauder 7:11 a.m., Feb 12, 2009 > Report it
Johnny, in #804 above you've asked about full salary. The question needs clarification. But in checking the City HR website, there are salary schedules for "recruits" which are lower. But you already knew as a person who attended an Academy.
You also mention competition. I assume you meant in the context of public safety positions. Which, I suspect, is a pebble in your shoe, since these public safety jobs are NOT competing against private sector jobs. I'm not sure why you continue to attempt to contrast them.
SD public safety jobs compete against offers from other municipal, county, state and federal employers and their compensation packages. So if Agency A is offering $100 to fix a widget but Agency B pays $200 to fix the same widget, what rate of compensation would you want?
Go on...it's okay, you can admit it, you'd want the higher one.
This is driving force behind most every profession in our culture. Whether its overpaid sports athletes in "Free Agency" to a guy or gal digging a ditch, to a Wall Street CEO. Everyone of them would pick the higher rate of compensation. So until you can get EVERY agency to adopt your proposal, or we slide even deeper into a depression and have a 25% unemployment rate - the idea might sound good here but is unworkable in the real world.
By JustWondering 7:12 a.m., Feb 12, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #807: Fumber comes up with the solution. He can lead a national campaign to outlaw labor unions. Actually, labor union puissance, as well as participation, has declined very sharply in the private sector. It's only in the public sector, where there is almost no foreign competition, that unions are flexing their muscles these days. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 7:17 a.m., Feb 12, 2009 > Report it
Another interesting comment is #804 is about killing off this thread after post #500. Well you certainly have opinions. Of the 300 or so posts since, you offered your thoughts 75 times, or 25% of the posts past number 500. So I guess you're 25% responsible for this thread continuation.
By JustWondering 7:22 a.m., Feb 12, 2009 > Report it
Fred... you said in post #805 above [...SOME people can elect their bosses and thereby dictate their labor contracts.]
This argument seem weak, considering the recent historical record and here's why.
The context of your statement pertained to Council members. But it's the Mayor, his staff, and or hired consultants who negotiate labor agreements, not council members.
If ALL POWERFUL labor unions you allude to have such control over their contracts then why were FF:
1. Denied a wage increase
2. Forced into a new health care system where benefit were reduced and costs to the employee increased.
3. Required to contribute more towards their retirement costs which is net take home pay reduction.
Just Wondering...
By JustWondering 7:37 a.m., Feb 12, 2009 > Report it
You also said in the post above ...[Is it really reasonable to pay firefighters in excess of $100k in salary and "overtime" (sometimes spent sleeping, shopping, watching golf games, or playing cards) as well as gold-plated pensions along with guaranteed job security?]
Why don't you submit a FOIA request and discover how much of the overtime you complain about is reimbursed, at a profit to the City, rather than raising bogus, they're sleeping, they're eating, no one pays me to sleep whine.
As JF and others have pointed out, the City decides how many FF it wants to hire, not the Union. It's the City that WANTS to PAY overtime RATHER than hire permanent employees. Why? Because it saves the taxpayers money. I'm sure the Union wants it the other way, and I suspect the citizens, who would benefit from improved response times, would want it that way too.
Then you go on with other nonsense about going after folks. Isn't that the people's prerogative? If I remember my gov-ment classe, it's the people who elected these folks, it the people who can recall them, ala former Gov. Gray Davis. Pointing a finger playing the blame game rarely accomplishes anything.
Boy I sure glad I had my caffeine this morning....I on a Johnny Vegas roll...
By JustWondering 7:51 a.m., Feb 12, 2009 > Report it
puissance.... love learning new words.. thanks Don
By JustWondering 7:56 a.m., Feb 12, 2009 > Report it
Yikes... I starting to type like Johnny V. My typo hero... time for a respite.
By JustWondering 8:01 a.m., Feb 12, 2009 > Report it
Response to posts #s 814-818: The battle continues.... Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 9:22 a.m., Feb 12, 2009 > Report it
Fred,
There is a whole list of city agencies wanting volunteers at:
http://www.sandiego.gov/volunteer-pro...
Most city agencies are looking for help.
Johnny, they're looking for folks in the Attorney's Office and Family Justice Center. I assume that you're going to volunteer to save the city the cost of paying someone. Kind of hard to whine about someone else making money if you're not willing to step up to replace them, isn't it?
By JF 10 a.m., Feb 12, 2009 > Report it
Fred,
Don't you think Aguirre would've gone after McGrory and Moores if he possibly could have?
I'd love to see McGrory in jail, but it's not going to happen. What purpose would it serve to go after him? The past is done. Now we have to fix it.
You say that the union has to make sweeping changes. You mean like figuring out how to fund retiree health care to eliminate the liability to the city? Yes, the local is working hard on that. Alas, most of the money saving ideas and grants that we've brought to the city have not been noticed by the public. It's been millions of dollars....
By JF 10:08 a.m., Feb 12, 2009 > Report it
You see I can pick and choose too. In reading the paragraph above it sounds like private and public sector compensations are comparable as cited by the author.
=============================================
JW-if you read that article and that is what YOU got out of it, may I suggest to put the bong down.
By JohnnyVegas 11:10 a.m., Feb 12, 2009 > Report it
This is driving force behind most every profession in our culture. Whether its overpaid sports athletes in "Free Agency" to a guy or gal digging a ditch, to a Wall Street CEO.
================================
JW= PD and FF are not "professions", they are occupations.
And why do you always compare yourself to PRO athletes or CEO's???? You're neither, PD, FF are just your basic entry line employees.
By JohnnyVegas 11:15 a.m., Feb 12, 2009 > Report it
I'd love to see McGrory in jail, but it's not going to happen.
==================================
McDorky is the biggest factor-by far- for the upside down financial boat we are in.
He should be in prison, for fraud.
And to think that loser is pulling down free medical care for life and a huge San Diego city pension while he works for Sol Price-probably making a 6 figure income there too.
By JohnnyVegas 11:18 a.m., Feb 12, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #820: Is the City thinking of replacing current workers with volunteers, or augmenting the current workers? I would guess it is the latter. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 1:50 p.m., Feb 12, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #821: How many millions? The City admits the pension fund is $2 billion in the hole and my guess is that it's more like $2.8 billion. So the union is going to have to come up with lots of millions of concessions. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 1:54 p.m., Feb 12, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #s822 and 823: I think we are agreed that a FF doesn't require the education of a psychiatrist, say. The latter is a profession. Best, don Bauder
By dbauder 1:58 p.m., Feb 12, 2009 > Report it
Response to post # 824: McGrory may pull down 7 figures working for the Price family. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 2 p.m., Feb 12, 2009 > Report it
Is the City thinking of replacing current workers with volunteers, or augmenting the current workers?
==============
Don, I might refer to you post 797 from last night...
By JF 4:34 p.m., Feb 12, 2009 > Report it
I think we are agreed that a FF doesn't require the education of a psychiatrist, say.
=================
You're making the mistake of believing that education is the sole factor in determining worth to society.
A podiatrist also requires more education than a paramedic. Which would you want showing up at your home should you suffer a stroke? In terms of saving lives, a paramedic has vastly greater worth to society than most professions.
By JF 4:37 p.m., Feb 12, 2009 > Report it
You're making the mistake of believing that education is the sole factor in determining worth to society.
=================
JF- No one said education is the SOLE factor in worth to a JOB (not society).
But is is the BIGGEST factor. If it wasn't there would be no need for colleges or graduate schools.
What you fail to understand JF is your oversized pay and pension are due to socialist reasons-you're in a gov run monopoly.
If there was competition from the private sector for FF duties your pay scale would drop 80-90%.
By JohnnyVegas 4:48 p.m., Feb 12, 2009 > Report it
If there was competition from the private sector for FF duties your pay scale would drop 80-90%.
====================
Yes, but there's not. No private company has been able to make a profit with private fire protection. Even Rural/Metro had to give up it's contract in Scottsdale because it was unprofitable. I just have to laugh at the idiots screaming, "Privatize fire protection!!!" It'll never happen.
By JF 5:54 p.m., Feb 12, 2009 > Report it
Yes, but there's not. No private company has been able to make a profit with private fire protection.
By JF
===========================
So you admit that if there was competiton for FF protection the free market laws of supply and demand would force wages down-good, we are making progress JF.
I have never seeen a private company given the chance to compete for a Fire Fighting/Protection contract. If it were open to competition then there can be little doubt that a well run FD could profit while paying FF's half of what they are paid by the SD/any muni today.
By JohnnyVegas 6:16 p.m., Feb 12, 2009 > Report it
New on the Nightly Business Report on PBS:
Explicitly referring to "gold-plated, platinum-plated" public employee pensions and health care obligations, Jim Chanos says state and local finances are in a mess...watch for yourself.
http://www.pbs.org/nbr/site/research/...
San Diego needs to combat its problems before it's too late...
By Fred_Williams 7:20 p.m., Feb 12, 2009 > Report it
Re: 832
For my dear friend and biggest fan, Fumber, I will gratuitously do as he commands and "say":
"LIBERALS HAVE MADE UNIONS AN UNBREAKABLE FORCE"
Only to continue on with the obvious point that nothing is unbreakable and not every unionist is liberal nor does every liberal support unions.
There are good and bad aspects to unions and their collective bargaining powers.
What we've seen in the public sphere in the last few decades, Fumber my buddy, is unions at their worst...led by a self-dealing group of insiders they not only hurt the city, they've hurt the union members too.
I don't think anyone would call Ron Saathoff a liberal, but he's the one who seems primarily at fault -- using the union as a cover for law breaking while deceiving his own membership about his secret deals with managers like Jack McGrory.
Are liberal judges, liberal city attorneys and liberal prosecutors to blame for never even lifting a finger to prevent, let alone actually pursue those responsible? Hardly, since most of them seem to be self-identified "conservatives".
I don't blame good people like JF for defending what was promised to them. He's not the bad guy. He did what they asked and expects them to keep their word.
And the cold reality is that those promises will be broken -- they never should have been given or believed in the first place. So now we have to change things before it gets out of hand. So far it seems the firefighters and police unions are more interested in defending their turf than in finding a realistic solution.
They've yet to admit that since they were part of the original problem, they have a responsibility to be part of the solution.
I look forward to the inevitable day when that will change, and hope it's sooner rather than later. Unions aren't inherently bad, though they can behave badly. When they're out of line, their members, like JF, ought to set them straight.
I believe JF is doing so, and this conversation has helped to draw forth some serious proposals that I've not seen anywhere else. If he can get the union to adopt these, or even go farther, San Diego will be a far better place in the future.
Best,
Fred
By Fred_Williams 7:42 p.m., Feb 12, 2009 > Report it
Explicitly referring to "gold-plated, platinum-plated" public employee pensions and health care obligations, Jim Chanos says state and local finances are in a mess...watch for yourself.
=======================
12 minute video-he talks about "gold plated, platinum plated pensions" at the 8 minute mark.....LOL!
By JohnnyVegas 8:29 p.m., Feb 12, 2009 > Report it
Response to posts #s 829-837: I'll just address a few things. When we discussed professions, we were not talking about one professional's worth to society. It was a definitional matter. As to fumber's observation: private sector unions have already been broken by foreign competition. The auto, steel, rubber workers are all a shadow of their former selves in terms of power. As I have stated, the exception is the public sector unions, which have very little competition, foreign or otherwise. There is a very good question whether government workers, who have the protection of civil service, should be permitted to unionize. I have raised this before and haven't seen it discussed. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10:29 p.m., Feb 12, 2009 > Report it
That is a great comment, there's no doubt now we'll reach 1000 posts.
So, what exactly do public employees Unions "really" do? No, really, it's a serious question, especially in the context of most of this thread, public safety workers.
For example, in the City, sworn PD and FF personnel cannot legally strike. And "Job Actions" have been categorized into the same area. Doesn’t this gut the "real" power of unions, where the ability organize and withhold labor IS the big bargaining chip in the game?
In San Diego, when impasse over compensation or other issues is reached the city just imposes their last best offer. It happened during last year’s contract negotiation, when Mayor Sanders and the Muni Employees Association (MEA) reach such an impasse, the result the Mayor imposed the city's last best offer. The labor group appealed to the council to override but could not garner enough votes. Does this sound like an all-powerful union to you? Heck they couldn't get a couple of votes to give themselves a raise.
True there were some 11th hour negotiations with the unions and each side claimed partial victory while complaining the others were inflexible.
This gets back to my original question, what exactly do these unions/association really do?
Do they really accomplish it, or are they the ones we like to label as villains? Is our perception of them accurate? I'd argue each side tells its own smoke and mirrors version of the truth. One they've carefully constructed, but the message has to pass through a prism controlled by our local media. And we all know what happens to light when it passes through a prism, it get distorted.
By JustWondering 7 a.m., Feb 13, 2009 > Report it
As I have stated, the exception is the public sector unions, which have very little competition, foreign or otherwise. There is a very good question whether government workers, who have the protection of civil service, should be permitted to unionize.
=================================
There is no reason for a nonprofit to be unionized. This is especially true in gov.
Public unions are not subject to the law of supply and demand of a free market, which in and of itself is enough reason to bar public unions.
Public unions operate in an artificial environment without the invisible hand of the free market to guide it (isn't that what Sam Adams said???).
By JohnnyVegas 11:36 a.m., Feb 13, 2009 > Report it
Johnny:
How does that old tune go??? Turn out the lights... the parties over....
A Los Angeles Superior court judge issued a potentially deadly blow this week to the county of Orange in its long-standing lawsuit seeking to rescind generous retirement benefits granted to deputy sheriffs in 2001.
The lawsuit has drawn the attention of policymakers and law enforcement unions across the state because a ruling in favor of the county could unravel pension benefits granted to law enforcement officers statewide.
Judge Helen Bendix, in a tentative ruling late Tuesday, granted the Orange County sheriff's deputies' motion for dismissal. A final hearing is scheduled for Friday. If Bendix's thinking remains unchanged, it could spell the end of the county's legal challenge, which has already cost taxpayers more than $1.5 million in fees
By JustWondering 11:42 a.m., Feb 13, 2009 > Report it
JW, since you obviously do not follow the news, let me help you out here with your missing link post.
The judge in the OC pension case issued a "tenative", not a final, ruling. So there has been no final ruling issued in the case you cited above. Tenative rulings can and do get changed.
Second, this is the first round in a 3 round fight, the starting line, not the finish line. There is only one round that counts in this fight, round 3-the final round at the CA Supreme Court.
When it is all over the unlawful gift of public funds for work already performed and the violations against deficit spending will be wiped out, and all those deputies are going to get a pension haircut.
My advice-prepay the rent on the doublewides now- while the cash flow is still coming in.
By JohnnyVegas 2:40 p.m., Feb 13, 2009 > Report it
JV, since you obviously have trouble reading, let me quote from Just Wondering's post.
"If Bendix's thinking remains unchanged..." Seems to me that Just Wondering understands the tentative part just find. And that you have the reading comprehension of a 7th grader.
By JF 2:45 p.m., Feb 13, 2009 > Report it
Opps....I forgot to add in the comment about the lawsuit costs of $1.5 million.
JW, the unlawful pension benefits total over $500 million in todays dollars-so do the math, if OC spends another $1.5 million for a total of $3 million to wipe out a $500 million dollar present day debt, that is a return of over 99 to 1 on money invested.
That type of return even makes the DROP scam look pathetic. I'll take those 99 to 1 odds any day of my life.
By JohnnyVegas 2:46 p.m., Feb 13, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #839: What do municipal unions do? Come on. You know. They put pressure on elected officials. They try to steer public opinion in their direction. They are behind lawsuits. They lobby. Why do you think the mayor is such a whore to unions? Union propagandists have been telling him how many votes he may lose if he doesn't cave in. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 3:12 p.m., Feb 13, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #840: I wish you would tell us more about your sex life, fumber. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 3:15 p.m., Feb 13, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #841: Adam Smith said it while he was chug-alugging a Sam Adams. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 3:20 p.m., Feb 13, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #842: I don't know if this decision means the party is over in Orange County. I do know this: such suits will crop up elsewhere, both in the public and private sectors. So will bankruptcies. Through the years, governments and corporations have granted retirement benefits that they should have known would not be affordable. The time of reckoning has come. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 3:25 p.m., Feb 13, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #843: If such suits don't get fair hearings in the three steps, the next step will be the bankruptcy court. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 3:29 p.m., Feb 13, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #844: If Johnny has the reading comprehension of a 7th grader, why do you keep urging him to join the fire department? Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 3:32 p.m., Feb 13, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #845: Aguirre was belittled for trying to eliminate excessive and illegally-granted pension benefits. But the potential payoff made the gamble worth it. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 3:35 p.m., Feb 13, 2009 > Report it
why do you keep urging him to join the fire department?
=======================
Because he will fail in his endeavor, thus showing that his "anyone can do it" bit is crap.
By JF 4:01 p.m., Feb 13, 2009 > Report it
JF, you "put your life on the line"? How often?
How many fire calls have you had this year so far?
Isn't the truth that the overwhelming majority of calls are medical -- something we shouldn't be sending an entire crew to cover except for the union dictated work rules?
Convenience store clerks put their lives on the line every day too, with a much higher rate of job related deaths...should we give them double-dips too?
Get off that "I'm a fireman, you all bow down to me" trip and you'll make better sense.
Best,
Fred
By Fred_Williams 5:26 p.m., Feb 13, 2009 > Report it
Whoops. The comment above was intended for another place where JF is telling all us mere mortals how special he is...my apologies.
Here's what I wanted to add to this thread:
http://www.economist.com/world/united...
Look at the graph near the bottom. Interesting...
fred
By Fred_Williams 5:28 p.m., Feb 13, 2009 > Report it
Response to #846. Hey Don, news flash: the Mayor won WITHOUT union support and is termed out. He stood up to labor groups, went to impasse, and got concessions too.
"They lobby." What are you saying they shouldn't have a voice? Private groups lobby, citizens lobby, non-profits lobby, everyone lobbies in one way or another. Seems like that's a reach if everyone is lobbying.
"They try to steer public opinion in their direction." Did the UT, your former employer "try to steer public opinion"? Maybe we should shut them down too! Heck today's lead editorial and cartoon was just another hit piece on the DROP, obviously timed to get under the skin of SDCERS board members who vote next Friday on the rates.
"They are behind lawsuits." Which lawsuit are you referring to? If we are a nation of laws, isn't this the proper method of recourse if you cannot reach a settlement in a dispute?
While I will admit our entire culture is litigation happy, I believe we should probably point trial lawyers, "ambulance chasers" and attorneys who advertise for clients on TV. Remember Sam Spital? All driven by greed and the belief that I'm entitled to my share too.
"Why do you think the mayor is such a whore to unions?" Well, if he's a whore, the unions are the ones who got screwed in their last contract negotiations.
Your arguments just don't cut the mustard this time.
By JustWondering 6:38 p.m., Feb 13, 2009 > Report it
Response to Johnny comment in #843
Tentative sment-a-tive... you sound just like the former San Diego City Attorney who was booted out of office.
Round 2 and 3 only happen if the plaintiff wants to continue. I believe our current City Attorney, Mr. Goldsmith, is conducting his own analysis of the former City Attorney's litigation.
Did I mention he was booted out of office by the voters after a single term?
I suspect Mr. Goldsmith's analysis will include a careful examination of the logic behind the trial judge's ruling as well as the appellate court's courts decision. Only then, will he present the arguments, for and against, to City Council to see if they will authorize additional tax dollars to pursue it.
The folks in Orange County have dropped $1.5 million into the litigation rat hole...I'm just wondering if they have the stomach and political will to pay a whole lot more of tax dollars to trial lawyers during these economic times.
BTW thanks for the advise, but my California Ranch style home, built in the early 50's very comfortable.
By JustWondering 6:56 p.m., Feb 13, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #843: If such suits don't get fair hearings in the three steps, the next step will be the bankruptcy court. Best, Don Bauder.
"Get a fair hearing", what's the IF imply? It sounds like you've made up your mind before hearing or understanding THE EVIDENCE presented.
By JustWondering 7:02 p.m., Feb 13, 2009 > Report it
Round 2 and 3 only happen if the plaintiff wants to continue.
=====================
With litigation costs a mere $1.5-#3 million TOTAL, with a pay off of $500+ million, what on earth makes you think the case would not continue??
If the judge changes her ruling and goes against the sheriffs union do you think for one second they are not going to fork over $1.5 million to try to save their retroactive pensions??? Of course they will spend that-it is peanuts compared to the big pay off of $500 million.
Get serious JW.
Last=JF-
I could pass any test you could pass, only I would perform better than you on every portion. That includes your SDFF test, which is not hard, intellectually or physically.
Here JF, I have a challenge for you-why don't you take the LSAT and see if you can pass it.
By JohnnyVegas 7:39 p.m., Feb 13, 2009 > Report it
OK Kids, that's it for me tonight, Johnny "Troll" Vegas signing off to get hsi beauty sleep.(thanks for the new nickname JW!!!).
By JohnnyVegas 7:42 p.m., Feb 13, 2009 > Report it
I could pass any test you could pass, only I would perform better than you on every portion.
======================
Once again, I'd like you to show me where I said you couldn't pass the test. Once again, you're putting words in my mouth. I only said that you couldn't get hired. First off, you aren't qualified to even take the test.
The simple fact that you won't take the test makes a point I've been trying to get across. Not everyone wants the job. In fact, a lot of people don't want the job. You go off spouting about thousands of applicants for every opening, but that simply isn't true.
By JF 9:31 p.m., Feb 13, 2009 > Report it
Hey Johnny T. Vegas, if you believe the Orange County Case or the SD case is such a WINNER, why WOULDN'T you take it on a contingency basis. To start with you save Orange County tax- payers, 1.5 million right off the top.
Then you could negotiate for 10% of whatever the actuarial says you saved the government. 10% or 500M is $5M and just think of the civic duty you'd be doing for your community, for California, for the Nation. Heck, you could turn around this whole economic mess were in all by yourself.
And when you win, you LOL and say I told you so! Problem is, all the good lawyers according to you and Don, are losing these cases at the trial level and appellate level...
By JustWondering 10:04 p.m., Feb 13, 2009 > Report it
Response to posts #853-862: These posts demonstrate the passionate intensity suffusing the pension debate in San Diego. As the City sinks further into the slough, there will be further intensification. The municipal unions have quite a challenge to win public opinion to their sides. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 11:17 p.m., Feb 13, 2009 > Report it
Problem is, all the good lawyers according to you and Don, are losing these cases at the trial level and appellate level...
By JustWondering
===========================
JW-just in case you did not know this (more likely refused to acknowledge), the final ruling in the OC pension case was NOT issued Friday-it was postponed so the judge could study it more.
BTW-the OC case is not at the appeals level yet, so your claim that the case is "losing" at the appeals level is not correct ( OK-Im not going to call you a troll for that gross mistatement of fact!).
Take care.
Johnny "T"!
By JohnnyVegas 8:44 a.m., Feb 15, 2009 > Report it
Here is a RELEVANT, EXTREMELY GOOD article on the San Diego County pension nightmare-which has been well documented (with their pension "obligation" bond fiasco);
http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/articl...
Well, JF, JW, this is not a City problem, but the basic root cause is still the same-what say you two about this?????
Mark my words-I said 2-3 years ago that Chula Vista, which all the SDPD were trying to get pay boosts from by comparing their pay to CV, would go BK just like SD has, and those words will become reality.
CV is going to file BK sooner or later and Ill go to the mat with that statement.
By JohnnyVegas 8:53 a.m., Feb 15, 2009 > Report it
The county did the same thing that the UC system did -- and the city did. Rather than continuing to build the system up for bad times, they raided the system by not paying in and used the money for something else. Now they don't have the interest gains on the capital they failed to put in. The money they used for "something else" is committed to that "something else" and can't be put in the system. And... the county still doesn't have a fire department.
Here's my beef with all of this. In the city's case, that "something else" was corporate welfare. That has not gone away. When the city ends corporate welfare and the residents take a little pain in the form of fee or tax increases, then I'll be glad to help out by cutting pay or benefits. So far, the only solution given has been to strip benefits from employees... sorry, that's not going to solve the problem alone.
By JF 3:25 p.m., Feb 15, 2009 > Report it
JF-I agree with you about the corporate welfare 100%. The City is not the piggy bank of Moorse or Spanos.
BUT, that is only a small fraction of the problem, the main problem was ther 50% pension boosts. Take out those pension boosts and the corporate qelfare does not BK the pension system.
Last-your union ALLOWED the underfunding, in exchange for the higher pension payments. It was a quid pro quo scam and under those circumstances your union, and all the others, are just as much to blame.
Scott Lewis at VoSD wrote a great article about the same type of pension problems - but with the county. They didn't give away any corporate welfare but they are in the same boat. Go read that and get back to me.
By JohnnyVegas 4:59 p.m., Feb 15, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #864: I think you are assuming that the mark of a good lawyer is the winning of cases. It isn't necessarily so. Winning is important, of course, but a good lawyer will often take on a very difficult case in which the cards are stacked against him or her, such as the pension case that Aguirre pursued and Goldsmith may kill. The courageous lawyer may not win that one, but he will have brought the spotlight on a cancerous problem. Similar suits may come out differently. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 5:22 p.m., Feb 15, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #865: Some time ago, in commenting about the City's insolvency, I said that the County was broke but didn't know it. Chula Vista? Perhaps the biggest mess in San Diego County. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 5:31 p.m., Feb 15, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #866: The day the City of San Diego ends corporate welfare will surely be a frigid day in hell. San Diego, thy name is corporate welfare. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 5:35 p.m., Feb 15, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #867: The city is not the piggy bank of Moores and Spanos? Please. You must have meant that the city SHOULD NOT be the piggy bank of Moores and Spanos. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 5:39 p.m., Feb 15, 2009 > Report it
Just when this thread was about to die...
DeMaio said that benefits cost 61% of salary for city workers and that the national average was 34%. He said this was an outrage. Well, it turns out that it is an outrage... that he used a different method of calculating the ratio. When the ratio is calculated using the same method as the BLS uses -- remember them, the federal agency that does this kind of thing -- the ratio here in SD is 38%. Wow, so we're about 10% high. Shocking, given the sunshine tax.
http://www3.signonsandiego.com/storie...
What's shocking is that DeMaio made millions on government contracts to analyze this kind of thing and yet still makes basic mistakes.
How about a little story on that, Don?
By JF 7:02 a.m., Feb 17, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #872: I saw the U-T story this morning, but only skimmed it, because I had never used those numbers by DeMaio anyway -- or, at least, I can't remember having used them. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 11:34 a.m., Feb 17, 2009 > Report it
JF-somehow I knew you would be all over that article-especialy when I saw your post under it.
I would like to know if they are including the vacation and sick pay in the fringe numbers. Beacuase this guy says that Gov fringes START at 58% and go up substantially for PD/FD;
"The reality today is this - a mid level bureaucrat in the public sector probably will make about $65K per year, which with benefits of 58% (on the low side) will normalize to $102K per year. A white collar worker or skilled technician in the private sector, doing work requiring equivalent skills will probably earn $50K per year if they’re lucky, with an overhead benefit of 30%, which equates to $65K per year. Public employees now make about twice as much as private sector employees make."
http://ecoworld.com/blog/2009/02/08/c...
By JohnnyVegas 11:56 a.m., Feb 17, 2009 > Report it
Yet again Mr. Break time Johnny(broken record) vegas.
By Xray 1:51 p.m., Feb 17, 2009 > Report it
So how does that jibe with your claim that all firefighters make $200K? Or $300K with overtime? Sorry, Johnny, but your numbers are making less and less sense. Even those folks on your side disagree with your analysis.
By JF 6:54 p.m., Feb 17, 2009 > Report it
What do you mean how does it vibe????
If you believe that benefits are equal to the base pay then I am correct.
They appearantly did not include the cost of your vacation pay, holiday pay or sick leave-that alone is equal to 20-25% of base pay.
By JohnnyVegas 7:12 p.m., Feb 17, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #s874-877: Various studies have shown private sector pay, and fringes in particular, are below that of comparable jobs in the public sector. That does not include top management in the private sector, which remains far ahead. Obscenely ahead. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 9:18 p.m., Feb 17, 2009 > Report it
Turning back to the original article, any predictions on what the SDCERS board will do this Friday in regards to the interest crediting rate for, as others have it, the infamous DROP interest crediting rate.
With our economy still in a downward spiral, the hit editorial piece that was purposely timed by the UT last Friday and the City's own issues, I expect them to lower the rate by 4 percent or tie it to the five year T-Bill index, resetting each July 1st.
Any other predictions?
By JustWondering 7:03 a.m., Feb 18, 2009 > Report it
On the morphed threat topic here is an interesting analysis that Johnny T. Vegas will like:
Miller, a columnist for Governing magazine: "Retroactive pension increases serve no purpose except to buy favors with incumbent union members to get a contract signed ... at the expense of future taxpayers who don't even know what hit them."
It's worse than that, actually. It's politicians paying off their own employees in exchange for campaign support, and often campaign cash, to benefit their political careers. If politicians did that for contractors and weren't careful about it, they could end up in prison.
So, can we point the finger of responsibility at our political leaders in the late 90's, 2000 and 20001? Was it their greed for political power, to keep it, or gain higher office the root cause of this mess? Were the City management officers, McGrory, Uberraga (sp) Herring et. al all corrupt and so smart they outwitted everyone by getting past the statute of limitation?
By JustWondering 7:12 a.m., Feb 18, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #879: If I were a betting man, I would say the expected return would be cut in half, roughly. That would put it in the ballpark you suggest. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 8:02 a.m., Feb 18, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #880: Miller's analysis, as quoted, is on the mark. Yes, we can point the finger of guilt at SD pols and bureaucrats who arranged lucrative retirements for themselves. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 8:05 a.m., Feb 18, 2009 > Report it
So, can we point the finger of responsibility at our political leaders in the late 90's, 2000 and 20001? Was it their greed for political power, to keep it, or gain higher office the root cause of this mess? Were the City management officers, McGrory, Uberraga (sp) Herring et. al all corrupt and so smart they outwitted everyone by getting past the statute of limitation?
By JustWondering
==================================
JW, the parties you're leaving out of this equation are the public unions themelves.
The unions went along with Jack/Susan G.'s underfunding scams in order to BENEFIT from the unearned retroactive pension increases.
If the unions had done their job of protecting their pension fund instead of allowing greed to enter into the action there would be no problem today. The unions would be getting smaller-but fully funded- pensions, and the City would not be bankrupt.
I see you and me pull much of our info off of www.pensiontsunami.com
JW's partner in crime, Johhny "T(roll)" Vegas.
By JohnnyVegas 11:40 a.m., Feb 18, 2009 > Report it
I'm not sure I agree with the statement, "If the unions had done their job of protecting their pension fund instead of allowing greed to enter into the action there would be no problem today.
When did it become the Union's job to protect the pension fund?
While it's true, Mr. Sathoff, a union rep and CERS board member voted in favor of the underfunding, you forgot to mention that Mr. Rhoades, a POA Association Board member and CERS board member voted against it.
But unions only had a few of the votes on the SDCERS board and could not control the outcome.
I suggest it the City Manager's and Mayor's offices that were the swaying factor, not the unions. Sadly while some have been indicted, the real architects behind it, the ones you mentioned in your response were never charged.
By JustWondering 5:31 p.m., Feb 18, 2009 > Report it
When did it become the Union's job to protect the pension fund?
===============================
OMG!!!
Are you SERIOUS????????
It has ALWAYS been the unions job to protect it's pension fund.
It is called a "fiduciary duty", and the duty is owned by the pension fund directors, on behalf of ALL the funds participants 9as in you-the unions), to safe guard and administer the fund in a prudent, safe and non reckless/negligent manner.
Your directors BROKE that duty, by AGREEING to the underfunding scam, in a quid pro quo fruad for larger/increased pensions.
Don, I know JW isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, but can you please explaint to JW, in very basic (baby) terms, what a "fiduciary duty" is, so JW knows that it IS the JOB of the pension fund to safe guard it's assets.
Thank you.
Johnny "T" Vegas.
By JohnnyVegas 6:41 p.m., Feb 18, 2009 > Report it
BTW JW, your claim that the unions were not the ones responsible for the underfunding is pure nonsense.
The underfunding would have never been allowed if the rank and file union members objected to it-it is that simple.
If the directors tried to go along with it without rank and file support, the rank and file could simply recall the directors-who in addition would probably be held personally liable for the mess we are currently in by breaking that "fiduciary duty" that they owe to the fund.
By JohnnyVegas 6:47 p.m., Feb 18, 2009 > Report it
So John, if we subscribe to your theory that the Union control the pension fund, which is utterly insane, and they have a duty to protect it, then what duty did our city leaders have? Remember, it was your elected leaders, the management staff they hired and retained along with your elected City Attorney who proposed the underfunding in the first place. Do they hold any responsibility? I'll give you a simple, very to easy to understand example, since you're not able to grasp simple concepts. In the January SDCERS board meeting a question was asked about the MOUs between labor groups and the city. One MOU specifically spelled out the interest credit rate for DROP accounts. SDCERS Fiduciary Counsel explicitly told the Board they WERE NOT bound by any MOU agreement between the City and its labor group. She went on to tell the Board they had two fiduciary duties. One to safe guard the systems assets and two maximize member benefits.
So tell me John, How do the “unions” hold a fiduciary position when they are not in a position to control? Especially when board members, associated union groups recues themselves from certain votes and are not allowed by the System’s general counsel to be in the room for any discussion!
The answer, of course, as Mr. Bauder pointed out, posts from certain bloggers “are inflammatory or inaccurate information just go get others excited.” In other words they are trolls.
By JustWondering 8:26 p.m., Feb 18, 2009 > Report it
Response to posts #883-887: Remember, McGrory/Golding began raiding the pension fund to pay for the 1996 Republican convention. As the practice continued, the City raised the workers' benefits to placate the unions and their members. It was a road to perdition. The unions did play a role -- and not just Saathoff. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10:09 p.m., Feb 18, 2009 > Report it
Don, I know JW isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, but can you please explaint to JW, in very basic (baby) terms, what a "fiduciary duty" is
===============
While you're at it, explain the difference between jive and jibe to Mr. Vegas.
By JF 10:45 p.m., Feb 18, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #889: A fiduciary is charged with investing funds of a beneficiary wisely. As to jive, jibe, or gibe, I can't find Johnny's use of the words so can't comment. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 7:41 a.m., Feb 19, 2009 > Report it
Remember, it was your elected leaders, the management staff they hired and retained along with your elected City Attorney who proposed the underfunding in the first place. Do they hold any responsibility?
=================================
JW-I already agreed with you on this point.
I have said since the begining of time that Jack McDorky was by far the one most respopnsible for the pension crisis (as you have posted) because he came up with the scam- and that is exactly what it turned out to be a huge scam.
Now having laid the majority of the scam on McDorky, the pension fund could have, and should have, refused to play ball with him. They could have said no, but the scam benefitted the unions as much as Golding-that's why they refused. The unions share a partial responsibility for that. A shared responsibility, not 100% (and I have never claimed the unions were the only party at fault).
By JohnnyVegas 7:44 a.m., Feb 19, 2009 > Report it
Don see comments 876 and 877 to answer JF's question about jive and jibe.
Don you said, 'A fiduciary is charged with investing funds of a beneficiary wisely."
If you would, please comment on Mr. Vegas's statement in #885 above. More specifically, how the Unions control the investing schemes of SDCERS funds to meet your definition of a fiduciary.
Every document I've read indicates SDCERS has a professional investment manager who reports to the board. The manager uses outside "Investment Professional's" advice to guide them in their investment decisions. It seems to me, this meets or exceeds the standards and practices of the industry.
So do you believe the Unions are fiduciaries of SDCERS? Or is Mr. Vegas just trolling again?
By JustWondering 7:58 a.m., Feb 19, 2009 > Report it
Ooops, Johnny is back pedaling in comment 891 above...
What he really meant to say is the City, its elected leaders and Management officers, borrowed the money from the pension plan (in the form of underpayments) for its pet projects and now doesn't want meet their obligations and pay back the money.
This sounds very similar to housing crisis. Maybe if you ask President Obama, he'll offer a bailout to us too.
By JustWondering 8:05 a.m., Feb 19, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #891: Remember, McGrory was being led around by the nose by Golding. We'll never get either to talk. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10:24 a.m., Feb 19, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #892: Johnny uses jibe correctly in #876. Somehow, "vibe" is used in 877. Could be a typo. In re SDCERS: the board in consultation with the staff decides how assets will be distributed (e.g. x percent domestic equities, x percent foreign fixed, etc.) Various money managers are hired for each category. The board is a fiduciary. The unions have enormous power, but I wouldn't call them fiduciaries. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10:34 a.m., Feb 19, 2009 > Report it
Response to post #893: You state it well. The City borrowed money from the pension plan and now doesn't want to pay it back. This process is sometimes called theft. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder 10:37 a.m., Feb 19, 2009 > Report it
Don thanks for the clear and concise response in #895.
By JustWondering 10:47 a.m., Feb 19, 2009 > Report it
Johnny uses jibe correctly in #876. Somehow, "vibe" is used in 877. Could be a typo.
Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder
=======================
Yes, post #876 was JF using the word "jibe", and I typed it as "vibe".
I don't know what jibe means, nor vibe for that matter.
JW, can you help me out there, what does jibe mean???
By JohnnyVegas 11:10 a.m., Feb 19, 2009 > Report it
The board is a fiduciary. The unions have enormous power, but I wouldn't call them fiduciaries. Best, Don Bauder
By dbauder
===================================
The Board of Directors of the unions had the fiduciary duty to properly manage the fund, and that by extenion means the unions, as the BoD are the unions representatives-although the rank and file does not owe a fiduciary duty per se.
But don't tell me the pension underfunding could have gone through without complicity/approval of the unions. Just not true. Nothing like this could have even come close to passing without the unions playing along.
Suggestion to Don;
How about we get Don to interview Jack McDorky and Susan Golding, and see if they will make a public comment on their actions with the pensions, MP-I, MP-II and see if they feel they have any responsibility for the problems that have resulted/been encountered.
OK, who is going to be Post #900????? Not me.
By JohnnyVegas 11:17 a.m., Feb 19, 2009 > Report it
Now back to the original point of this thread....
David Wescoe, the SDCERS administrator has posted his point of view for the up coming decision regarding the DROP interest crediting rate. Here is the link: http://www.sdcers.org/boardagendas/ta...
What I found most interesting is last paragraph on page 1. In particular sentence #2 to end of the paragraph, where the rate of return for a 20+ year annuity may NOT be greater than the rate paid to a 5-year DROP account that is accumulating funds.
On page two Wescoe goes on and discusses how the rate of return should be decided by index or indices. This relieves the board of the responsibility of setting an arbitrary or inflated rate of return. This also fulfills one of their fiduciary duties by protecting the system.
Also of note in the PDF file was the Mayor's plea and argument for reasonableness when considering the crediting rate. While I agree its important to be reasonable and apply common sense.
But the Mayor's position that the Boards decisions must not only take into account the welfare of Plan, participants but also the Plan Sponsor.
To use Johnny's expression, OMG you've got to be kidding.
IT WAS JUST THIS KIND OF THINKING THAT GOT US INTO THIS MESS. HAS NOTHING CHANGED?
The SDCERS Board has no authority WHATSOEVER to curtail the City's spending binges as evidenced by 1996 RNC as well as other projects.
If the Mayor is implying SDCERS should lower the rate of return ONLY to relieve the City from past obligation, he and his staff have learned nothing from past, dooming the citizens of San Diego to repeat this mess in the future when he will not be Mayor.
By JustWondering 11:22 a.m., Feb 19, 2009 > Report it
Johnny, your statement to me in 885 above was...
OMG!!!
Are you SERIOUS????????
It has ALWAYS been the unions job to protect it's pension fund.
It is called a "fiduciary duty","
Don's response: The unions have enormous power, but I wouldn't call them fiduciaries.
You can't be a fiduciary if you don't have control over the assets.
It's just that simple.
By JustWondering 11:35 a.m., Feb 19, 2009 > Report it
Don's response: The unions have enormous power, but I wouldn't call them fiduciaries.
You can't be a fiduciary if you don't have control over the assets.
It's just that simple.
By JustWondering
===============================
Actually Don's response was the union's Board of Directors DO have a fiduciary duty;
"The board is a fiduciary. The unions have enormous power, but I wouldn't call them fiduciaries."
Now JW, as I have stated, since the board represents the unions and does their bidding the unions do control their pension funds-through their BoD.