1. #1
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    75

    Default Another politician in our corner.......


  2. #2
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    3,895

    Default

    $123,049 average

    I am sure alot of people will dispute that figure

  3. #3
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    75

    Default

    Typical skewing of information to the uninformed for his own political agenda......

  4. #4
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    441

    Default

    1. Nothing in the link says anything about the fire service, including Federal FF.

    2. Federal Gov't employees are vastly overpaid, over "benefited", and underworked. Compared to like positions in the "REAL" world. Just in pay/benefits over twice what a typical business would pay. Add in the slow pace and nonproductive system and it's worse. The $ payout by the Feds come from only TWO sources. The taxpayer's back pocket (yours and mine) and by borrowing from the Chicoms. And many states are as bad or worse.

    Any specifics otherwise?

  5. #5
    Forum Member
    sfd1992's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Wa
    Posts
    403

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fireinfo10 View Post
    1. Nothing in the link says anything about the fire service, including Federal FF.

    2. Federal Gov't employees are vastly overpaid, over "benefited", and underworked. Compared to like positions in the "REAL" world. Just in pay/benefits over twice what a typical business would pay. Add in the slow pace and nonproductive system and it's worse. The $ payout by the Feds come from only TWO sources. The taxpayer's back pocket (yours and mine) and by borrowing from the Chicoms. And many states are as bad or worse.

    Any specifics otherwise?
    So it's OK for a politician to attack government employee compensation, pensions, etc., as long as they don't mention the fire service?

    A bit short-sighted, don't you think?

    As government employees, with taxpayer funded salaries, benefits and pensions, we are in the same crosshairs that the folks in the article are. Plenty of citizens consider Firefighters to be "vastly overpaid, over "benefited", and underworked. Compared to like positions in the "REAL" world." In many areas, firefighters are under attack, by politicians and others using the same tactics and language Mr. Pawlenty uses in the article. But, again,since he doesn't mention firefighters its OK?

    Very brotherly of you.

  6. #6
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    357

    Default

    May we remind Gov. Pawlenty that the truly overpaid in this country are the Corporate CEO's. Bonuses, company paid jets and other lucrative compensation.

    Some of this corporate compensation was paid for by taxpayers, with the bailout money given to Wall Street firms.

    It is quite a travesty when taxpayer money is used to bailout corporations (corporate welfare) and some of those CEO's are still awarded bonuses, when their company was essentially bankrupt.

    There are many government employees that work in essential government services. Whether firefighters, LE, EMS, highway maintenence and others. To try to blame hardworking Americans, when the blame goes elsewhere (Wall Street, etc.), really shows how shortsighted Gov. Pawlenty is.

  7. #7
    55 Years & Still Rolling
    hwoods's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Glenn Dale Md, Heart of the P.G. County Fire Belt....
    Posts
    10,739

    Post Well...........

    Not knowing the source of all the information Mr. Pawlenty used for his diatribe, I won't comment on it directly. I'm a former IAFF Member, and I have only one problem with the Union, and that is not relevant to this discussion. Fire and EMS Services, Law Enforcement, and many other functions of Government are absolutely necessary to the continued existence of our Nation. Having public employee unions is, in my opinion, necessary for the well being of those employees, and should be a normal course of Business.

    Where I have a problem with this thing is that, again my opinion, there are wayyyy too many people out there getting paid for a unnecessary job. There are a lot of positions that simply aren't needed for the work that an Agency does, indeed, there are whole Cabinet Level Agencies that could have some of their functions farmed out to other agencies, and other functions simply terminated. Living practically in the Shadow of the Heart of our Government, I tend to see things a bit differently, because I hear and see more of the Day to Day stuff.........
    Never use Force! Get a Bigger Hammer.
    In memory of
    Chief Earle W. Woods, 1912 - 1997
    Asst. Chief John R. Woods Sr. 1937 - 2006

    IACOJ Budget Analyst

    I Refuse to be a Spectator. If I come to the Game, I'm Playing.

    www.gdvfd18.com

  8. #8
    Forum Member
    DeputyChiefGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Somewhere between genius and insanity!
    Posts
    13,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sfd1992 View Post
    So it's OK for a politician to attack government employee compensation, pensions, etc., as long as they don't mention the fire service?

    A bit short-sighted, don't you think?

    As government employees, with taxpayer funded salaries, benefits and pensions, we are in the same crosshairs that the folks in the article are. Plenty of citizens consider Firefighters to be "vastly overpaid, over "benefited", and underworked. Compared to like positions in the "REAL" world." In many areas, firefighters are under attack, by politicians and others using the same tactics and language Mr. Pawlenty uses in the article. But, again,since he doesn't mention firefighters its OK?

    Very brotherly of you.
    I doubt he's even a firefighter.
    ‎"The education of a firefighter and the continued education of a firefighter is what makes "real" firefighters. Continuous skill development is the core of progressive firefighting. We learn by doing and doing it again and again, both on the training ground and the fireground."
    Lt. Ray McCormack, FDNY

  9. #9
    Forum Member
    DeputyChiefGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Somewhere between genius and insanity!
    Posts
    13,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fireinfo10 View Post
    1. Nothing in the link says anything about the fire service, including Federal FF.

    2. Federal Gov't employees are vastly overpaid, over "benefited", and underworked. Compared to like positions in the "REAL" world. Just in pay/benefits over twice what a typical business would pay. Add in the slow pace and nonproductive system and it's worse. The $ payout by the Feds come from only TWO sources. The taxpayer's back pocket (yours and mine) and by borrowing from the Chicoms. And many states are as bad or worse.

    Any specifics otherwise?
    Why don't you provide the specifics?
    ‎"The education of a firefighter and the continued education of a firefighter is what makes "real" firefighters. Continuous skill development is the core of progressive firefighting. We learn by doing and doing it again and again, both on the training ground and the fireground."
    Lt. Ray McCormack, FDNY

  10. #10
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,961

    Default

    Something that I find to be frequently (and conveniently) left out of this discussion by people like this guy is the relatively simple explanations for some of the perceived "public vs private" disparities.

    There are very real differences between public employers and private employers and what they provide and the way they provide it. These differences are a large part of the reason that job security in the public sector appears to be better than the private sector.

    1.) The ability to reduce costs is not the same. For example, in order to reduce costs and get back on their feet GM shut down some of their Brands, closed manufacturing facilities and layed off workers. With less overhead, less revenue is needed to achieve the same level of profitability. The impact on the general public is essentially that fewer GM cars are available for purchase, but a person can easily go to a Ford, Toyota, Dodge, etc. dealer to purchase a vehicle.

    For a public employer like a local municipality, the prime way to achieve substantial savings is often to layoff employees. This pretty much equates to a reduction in that municipality's ability to provide the same level of services. The impact on the general public is oftentimes a measurable reduction in services provided - less cops on patrol, less firemen on duty, grass on public property gets cut less often, less DPW workers plowing streets, etc. In this situation, the general public can't just "drive across the street" to obtain these services elsewhere. Since a lot of these services are things the public wants and/or demands, most of the jobs often remain filled.

    2.) Many private manufacturing corporations have shipped jobs overseas in order to reduce operating costs by employing low wage workers rather than paying a reasonable wage to American workers here. So jobs are lost and people end up unemployed.

    For the public employer, the option to ship the jobs overseas just doesn't exist. Kind of hard to patrol Main Street from the other side of the world. So less people end up unemployed.

  11. #11
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    291

    Default

    I wish I made that much... Hell I still have to pay for my health insurance, taxes, retirement. Maybe Mr. Pawlenty should spend a day or a week doing what I have to do. I don't belong to a union but sometimes wish I did so numbskulls like this would be put in their place.

    Of course he never mentions anything about fire fighters which is the only good thing about the article.

  12. #12
    Savage / Hyneman 08'

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    450

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FIRE117 View Post
    May we remind Gov. Pawlenty that the truly overpaid in this country are the Corporate CEO's. Bonuses, company paid jets and other lucrative compensation.

    Some of this corporate compensation was paid for by taxpayers, with the bailout money given to Wall Street firms.

    It is quite a travesty when taxpayer money is used to bailout corporations (corporate welfare) and some of those CEO's are still awarded bonuses, when their company was essentially bankrupt.

    There are many government employees that work in essential government services. Whether firefighters, LE, EMS, highway maintenence and others. To try to blame hardworking Americans, when the blame goes elsewhere (Wall Street, etc.), really shows how shortsighted Gov. Pawlenty is.
    I think you have two different issues here.

    If you think corporate CEOs are overpaid, fine. It's a private sector job and we have nothing to say about it. Their compensation is between them and their company. Doesn't matter who thinks it is excessive.

    The other issue is corporate bailouts. If the companies in question were run so badly they were going bankrupt the govt has no business in proping them up. At this piont CEOs getting big bonuses DOES become our business. Getting a bonus for running the company down? Fine. Stupid, but fine. Not my money. Taxpayer funded bonus? Not ok by any strectch.

    Bottom line is the govt should not have done this to begin with, and now it is handled badly.

    When a company is going under you either make changes to become profitable again or you go under. Getting bailed out so you can continue to do all the things that got you into this mess flies in the face of logic.
    We do not rise to the occasion. We fall back to our level of training.

  13. #13
    Forum Member
    johnny46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    2,094

    Default

    If unions booted substandard members, they would be looked upon as an assurance of quality work. Too often, unions protect people who don't do their jobs, and there is a common attitude of entitlement amongst public workers. We need unions, but the unions need to do what's right, not simply what will benefit them.
    Logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead.

  14. #14
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,439

    Default

    So in a nutshell:

    Government employees are evil, except for my job, that one is cool.
    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

  15. #15
    55 Years & Still Rolling
    hwoods's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Glenn Dale Md, Heart of the P.G. County Fire Belt....
    Posts
    10,739

    Thumbs up Yep!!...........

    Quote Originally Posted by MarcusKspn View Post
    So in a nutshell:

    Government employees are evil, except for my job, that one is cool.
    You are, of course, absolutely Correct...... And, Let us not forget our Dedicated Retirees such as myself. Getting by on a limited income that only provides 7 Checks a month to our Bank is hard......
    Never use Force! Get a Bigger Hammer.
    In memory of
    Chief Earle W. Woods, 1912 - 1997
    Asst. Chief John R. Woods Sr. 1937 - 2006

    IACOJ Budget Analyst

    I Refuse to be a Spectator. If I come to the Game, I'm Playing.

    www.gdvfd18.com

  16. #16
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    4,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnny46 View Post
    If unions booted substandard members, they would be looked upon as an assurance of quality work. Too often, unions protect people who don't do their jobs, and there is a common attitude of entitlement amongst public workers. We need unions, but the unions need to do what's right, not simply what will benefit them.
    And I'm sure that's exactly what a lot of American's think.

    What I do find interesting is how quickly some will immediately attack the writer of the article, but I have yet to see anyone provide any information disputing what he says.

  17. #17
    MembersZone Subscriber
    tree68's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Jefferson County, NY USA
    Posts
    2,284

    Default

    That $123K is the highest civilian pay (for "GS" employees) not including "locality pay." The "rest of the US" locality pay makes that max $148K. Some areas may go as high as $160K. That's for a GS-15, Step 10, which is to say top management with a lot of years on the job. Not a wet-behind-the-ears dishwasher, a mechanic, or a warehouse clerk. WG rates (generally the "trades") top out just over $100K.

    An article in USA Today (via Monster.com) indicates that the average pay for 8 of ten careers that exist both in the federal arena and private industry is around $67K on the government side (vs $60K on the private side, but that's another story).

    While there are certainly people making the kind of money the story suggests, there are many more making a lot less. I don't have anything to back it up, but my gut feeling is that the average pay for a federal worker is closer to the $40K-$50K range. Probably lower.
    Opinions my own. Standard disclaimers apply.

    Everyone goes home. Safety begins with you.

  18. #18
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    4,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tree68 View Post
    That $123K is the highest civilian pay (for "GS" employees) not including "locality pay." The "rest of the US" locality pay makes that max $148K. Some areas may go as high as $160K. That's for a GS-15, Step 10, which is to say top management with a lot of years on the job. Not a wet-behind-the-ears dishwasher, a mechanic, or a warehouse clerk. WG rates (generally the "trades") top out just over $100K.

    An article in USA Today (via Monster.com) indicates that the average pay for 8 of ten careers that exist both in the federal arena and private industry is around $67K on the government side (vs $60K on the private side, but that's another story).

    While there are certainly people making the kind of money the story suggests, there are many more making a lot less. I don't have anything to back it up, but my gut feeling is that the average pay for a federal worker is closer to the $40K-$50K range. Probably lower.
    I'm curious if Senators and Representatives and their salaries are included.

  19. #19
    55 Years & Still Rolling
    hwoods's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Glenn Dale Md, Heart of the P.G. County Fire Belt....
    Posts
    10,739

    Talking Well..........

    Quote Originally Posted by Catch22 View Post
    I'm curious if Senators and Representatives and their salaries are included.

    No, it only includes people who Work.........
    Never use Force! Get a Bigger Hammer.
    In memory of
    Chief Earle W. Woods, 1912 - 1997
    Asst. Chief John R. Woods Sr. 1937 - 2006

    IACOJ Budget Analyst

    I Refuse to be a Spectator. If I come to the Game, I'm Playing.

    www.gdvfd18.com

  20. #20
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,961

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Catch22 View Post
    And I'm sure that's exactly what a lot of American's think.

    What I do find interesting is how quickly some will immediately attack the writer of the article, but I have yet to see anyone provide any information disputing what he says.
    I thought that was what I was doing above.

  21. #21
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,961

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnny46 View Post
    If unions booted substandard members, they would be looked upon as an assurance of quality work. Too often, unions protect people who don't do their jobs, and there is a common attitude of entitlement amongst public workers. We need unions, but the unions need to do what's right, not simply what will benefit them.
    I would tend to agree, however our employers' action is often a major factor in those situations. There have been numerous times that I've seen the Union put into the position of having to "defend" that substandard employee because the employer can't exercise a little restraint and follow proper procedure for disciplinary action.

    For example, I've seen a person in a "last chance" status fail a drug test and then be fired for it. The Union was obligated to "fight" the action because 1) they have to do so and 2) because the employer acted improperly and you need to "protect" the rights of the "good employees" for the future.

    This person got reinstated because the employer improperly ordered and administered the drug test and the results became inadmissible evidence. With no admissible evidence to justify termination, there was no choice but to reinstate him.

  22. #22
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    4,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    I thought that was what I was doing above.
    I stand corrected. I meant that as a direct comment toward those that like to come in wailing and thrashing about because some politician said something they think the "brothers" should be livid about without a shred of individual thought or information.

    If you've got information backing your opinion, that's great. Unfortunately, it seems to be a rarity these days.

  23. #23
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,678

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    I would tend to agree, however our employers' action is often a major factor in those situations. There have been numerous times that I've seen the Union put into the position of having to "defend" that substandard employee because the employer can't exercise a little restraint and follow proper procedure for disciplinary action.

    For example, I've seen a person in a "last chance" status fail a drug test and then be fired for it. The Union was obligated to "fight" the action because 1) they have to do so and 2) because the employer acted improperly and you need to "protect" the rights of the "good employees" for the future.

    This person got reinstated because the employer improperly ordered and administered the drug test and the results became inadmissible evidence. With no admissible evidence to justify termination, there was no choice but to reinstate him.
    You really think that's a good thing? The guy failed a "last chance" test. If your at a "last chance" stage...haven't you already failed before?
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  24. #24
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,961

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    You really think that's a good thing? The guy failed a "last chance" test. If your at a "last chance" stage...haven't you already failed before?
    Like many, you seem to be missing the point. The point isn't that an employee with an obvious drug problem got his job back. The point is that employers frequently disregard established rules and procedures for handling numerous "disciplinary" situations and that directly leads to "bad employees" getting their jobs back!

    Obviously there is a problem and this employee should be terminated. However, the employer has to abide by the proper procedures to do so. In this particular case, I forget some of the detail, but basically they ordered the person to take the drug test in violation of the established drug testing policy. It's basically the same concept as the handling of evidence in a criminal trial. If the evidence was wrongfully obtained (i.e. no search warrant), then legally the evidence doesn't exist and the criminal could potentially avoid prosecution.

    Another good example was the aftermath of that fatal fire in DeKalb County, GA. Errors were made and clearly disciplinary action of some sorts was warranted. The County basically overreacted to the public outcry regarding a perceived dereliction of duty and fired several people pretty much immediately.

    In the end, exactly what I said would happen, happened. The union firefighters all got their jobs back directly because the County failed to follow the proper procedures to investigate the incident and take disciplinary action. Instead of being patient and doing it the right way, they basically just gave the public what they wanted - some "heads on a platter".

    Unfortunately, when these thing happen, the typical reaction from the public seems to be to blame the "Union" for protecting the "bad employee" rather than recognizing that the employer (in some cases public officials that they elected) engaged in procedural errors and/or misconduct that directly caused their action to be reversed.

    It's basically the same thing as blaming the Defense Attorney for a criminal's acquittal because of misconduct by the Police or DA.

  25. #25
    Forum Member
    natedog54's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Twin Cities, MN
    Posts
    59

    Angry

    Quote Originally Posted by Leeland View Post
    I wish I made that much... Hell I still have to pay for my health insurance, taxes, retirement. Maybe Mr. Pawlenty should spend a day or a week doing what I have to do. I don't belong to a union but sometimes wish I did so numbskulls like this would be put in their place.

    Of course he never mentions anything about fire fighters which is the only good thing about the article.
    Ever listen to Jason Lewis on 100.3 KTLK? That SOB is constantly talking about how "police and firefighters need to stop living frivalously off the backs of the taxpayers." Really Mr. Lewis? Frivalously? Do your f-ing research.

    In MN, what is it? 95% of all fire departments are volunteer or paid on call? $7.50 to maybe $10.50 per hour (when actively on a call), if they get paid at all, and maybe a small pension. All for risking your life to help others like him. And, last time I checked, I didn't get an employee discount on my taxes for being on the fire department.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. A Politician gets it!!
    By BryanLoader in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 02-25-2010, 06:42 PM
  2. An honest politician????
    By kjohn23 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 10-05-2006, 02:11 PM
  3. ANOTHER "WISE" POLITICIAN?
    By MalahatTwo7 in forum News Center
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-04-2006, 01:02 PM
  4. Another stupid politician...
    By CDean867 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-09-2005, 07:44 PM
  5. Hey FDNY-Your contract is probably around the corner!
    By GeorgeWendtCFI in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 05-07-2005, 10:16 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register