Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Close to Home — What it’s like on the street where you live
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
Why Financial Reform of Near-Bankrupt City May Be Impossible: Aguirre Jeered Yesterday by Business, Labor Moochers
Don, which adjustments should we make for older workers? Should they have to carry less hose up the hill or up the stairs? Only have to carry folks under 100 lbs down ladders? Many people do physical labor into their 70's. At their own pace. They don't work at 100% of capacity for long periods. Unfortunately, firefighting is a career which requires everyone to be able to perform at their peak... on the tenth run of the shift... in the middle of the night. A MET, or metabolic equivalent, is defined as the amount of energy expended while in a resting state, just lying down. Wikipedia tells us that "intensive running (8 minutes/mile, or 12 km/h) or climbing can yield workouts of 12 or more METs." Now, let me share a little piece of knowledge from our wellness center. A firefighter wearing full turnouts and breathing apparatus uses 9 METS just standing still. From a NIOSH fatality report: "Fire fighting tasks are strenuous and often require fire fighters to work at or near maximal heart rates for long periods. The increase in heart rate has been shown to begin with responding to the initial alarm and persist through the course of fire suppression activities. Even when energy costs are moderate (as measured by oxygen consumption) and work is performed in a thermoneutral environment, heart rates may be high (over 170 beats per minute) owing to the insulative properties of the personal protective clothing." The federal fire agencies have a maximum age of 57 for firefighters. You MUST retire by then. They have no effective union driving that choice -- so why 57? Go back and read the above paragraph again. You say older workers could perform better than I believe. I don't need to "believe" anything. I've seen folks in their early 60's try to perform on the fireground. Very, very few of them are performing at the high level the public deserves.— March 17, 2008 10:43 a.m.
Stretches
Wow, I didn't know that a plane hitting the Sunroad building would continue flying to the nearest residential neighborhood.... what's that, a mile as the crow (or stricken aircraft) flies? Any info from DeMaio about how he's gotten rich telling governments how to "save" money?— March 17, 2008 10:08 a.m.
Why Financial Reform of Near-Bankrupt City May Be Impossible: Aguirre Jeered Yesterday by Business, Labor Moochers
So if SS is a Ponzi scheme, (and I don't argue that point) why would the city switch to it? Wouldn't it make more sense to leave the system that works and is cheaper, i.e. SPSP, in place? Frankly, it doesn't affect me all that much, as I'm not eligible for either. However, that's one reason I get a better retirement -- because I'm not eligible for SPSP or SS. You still haven't commented on the effect on the city's worker's comp insurance of having older public safety workers. I see the over 60 firefighters that we have -- folks who started late in life. They're hurting at real fires. They're not all that effective and get hurt often. Yep, it sure makes sense to keep them on the payroll.— March 16, 2008 1:47 p.m.
Why Financial Reform of Near-Bankrupt City May Be Impossible: Aguirre Jeered Yesterday by Business, Labor Moochers
Don, oddly, the Libertarian think tank Cato Institute holds up SPSP as what a replacement for Social Security should look like. In SS, the city MUST match 6.2%. From your column in January, "The City matches their annual contribution, which is between 3.05 and 6.1 percent of their pay." Pete Wilson didn't put in SPSP because it was more expensive for the city. It's cheaper. Perhaps the rest of the country should switch to a system like SPSP.— March 16, 2008 8:30 a.m.
Why Financial Reform of Near-Bankrupt City May Be Impossible: Aguirre Jeered Yesterday by Business, Labor Moochers
Few private sector employees are not in Social Security. The SPSP defined contribution system is nothing more than a city run replacement for SS.— March 15, 2008 9:36 p.m.
Why Financial Reform of Near-Bankrupt City May Be Impossible: Aguirre Jeered Yesterday by Business, Labor Moochers
Well, first off, you're not going to see public safety workers retiring at 67. The city currently pays $25 million/year for worker's compensation insurance. Imagine what it would be if folks worked that long. Double? The age 50 retirement for public safety in San Diego goes back almost 100 years. It's not the cause of the city going broke. DROP was originally designed for public safety workers. It turns out that it works better the younger folks retire. And yes, Billy, private employees retire later. Private employees tend to move jobs more than public employees. There are also less and less defined benefit plans in the private realm, though there is now talk of using DROP in private defined contribution plans. Rembember, DROP is a fairly new tool. It's only been around for the past decade or so. Why are there less DB plans? Well, the CEO's of private companies can't be making $100+ million/year if they pay all that into employee retirements, can they?— March 15, 2008 7:26 p.m.
Why Financial Reform of Near-Bankrupt City May Be Impossible: Aguirre Jeered Yesterday by Business, Labor Moochers
Don, you also hear actuaries saying that it could make the city money. So why isn't it? What's special about San Diego that makes it not work? (Besides the Republicans) Why does DROP work in Philly, Houston, LA and now San Fran and not here? That's the whole point of having in our contract that the city has to work with us to figure it out. Yet the city doesn't want to do that. The mayor just wants to walk away. And frankly, that's dumb. Do we need to drop the percentage from 8% to 7%? Would that make the city money? How about shorten the time frame? See no one knows... why would you walk away from something that could make the city money without trying to fix it first?— March 14, 2008 8:23 a.m.
Why Financial Reform of Near-Bankrupt City May Be Impossible: Aguirre Jeered Yesterday by Business, Labor Moochers
Don, I don't believe this posted earlier, so I'll try again. The folks leaving in 2013 won't be going anywhere else, they'll be retiring. Think about it; you're over 50, you're planning to DROP in a "few" years, the mayor says, "If you don't DROP by June 30th you can't DROP at all." What would you do? Stand in line at the retirement office? Or wait it out for a few years for 3% more/year? Darn right, you'd DROP. About 20% of the department is currently over 50 and not in DROP. A bunch more are in DROP, I believe about another 20%. So, if the mayor gets his way, he'll start a "run on the bank". You'll see about 40% of the dept leave within 5 years. Nope, that won't cause any OT problems. All those 5 year wonders will really save the city during the next fire storm. (Tongue in cheek) Note that 5 years is after he's termed out, should he be reelected. Meanwhile, even Joseph Esuchanko says that DROP can be beneficial for both parties. So why is the mayor unilaterally trying to eliminate DROP rather than finding the middle ground where DROP is beneficial to all? Sure, actuaries have stated that it's losing the city money. Others have stated that it's saving money. So which is it? And if it's broken, how do we fix it?— March 13, 2008 9:02 p.m.
Why Financial Reform of Near-Bankrupt City May Be Impossible: Aguirre Jeered Yesterday by Business, Labor Moochers
JV, you may find this hard to believe, but I think that that list is ridiculous. Now why don't you post Harry's outdated list of city employees here. The city of SD is roughly ten times the size of Vallejo and had ONE FD employee who made over $200K in 2006. That's it, ONE. Here's one thing to consider, though. The city of Vallejo has a very small FD. And over 25 employees walked out the door. All at once. The city had to cover it's fire stations somehow, so it paid OT. What choice did it have? It's basically the same thing that's going to happen here in 2013, should Sanders eliminate the DROP in this next contract. Everyone who's not in it and is eligible will all DROP June 30 this year. July 1, 2013 about 20% of the dept. will walk out the door. The city will pay OT to staff stations. BTW, I know this will really blow you away, but I'm really incensed by some of the other activities of the FD union up there that I'm hearing about. Maybe rather than whining about them, you should be glad it's not that bad here. Oh, and could you explain what you meant by, "salaries will to be changed at all"?— March 13, 2008 3:12 p.m.
Why Financial Reform of Near-Bankrupt City May Be Impossible: Aguirre Jeered Yesterday by Business, Labor Moochers
Don, as you mention, there's actually a trifecta of issues here. Employee compensation, corporate welfare and city income. All three need to be addressed. The city currently has $3 billion in unfunded, deferred maintenance. The city's retirement bill last year was $167 million. If the entire retirement bill went away, how long would it take to fulfill that $3 billion, assuming that nothing new broke? That's right, about 18 years. We all know that the entire retirement bill isn't going to go away, no matter how much Johnny Vegas sputters. It's going to take a whole heck of a lot more that just that to fix the city. Say we file for bankruptcy and reduce employee salaries by 20%. I'm not going to add up all of the departments, but that's about $100 million between fire and PD. So maybe we're talking $150 million between all departments. That and the $167 million pension tab will both take over ten years to pay off the $3 billion. Assuming that nothing new broke, no fire stations were added, etc. And... we know that we're not completely eliminating the retirement bill or reducing salaries 20%. It's political death in this city, but income simply needs to be increased. Don't worry, though. The mayor says that service levels won't be hurt.— March 13, 2008 2:31 p.m.