Posted on 04/26/2006 8:49:09 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
Do have a reference source for that ? I've never seen any mention of any employee contribution required for the public-safety employee pension. The info I've seen has been strictly 3% benefit per year service multiplied by final salary. You may be thinking of a different contribution-based plan.
California is different. It is by far the most generous in the country.
I finally found some numbers at the Legislative Analysts Office, and you are correct that there is an employee contribution. However, it is only 5% -- and since the California public-safety employees do not pay SS/M taxes, that 5% is actually less than the 7.65% regular folks have to contribute. And in 20 counties, the employer pays this 'employee' (???) portion for them. The employee contribution is fixed, and the benefit is defined, so no matter what happens to the investment returns, the employee gets his pension -- even if the State has to make up the difference.
In 2006, the difference California expects to have to 'make up' will be $3.6B
The California Highway Patrol had this same pension plan before the firefighters got it, and my cousin retired last year at age 52 with 90% of his final year's salary. Not even averaged over 3 years or 5 years, but the HIGHEST of the last 5 years of service. Between that and his National Guard retirement, his retirement income is $110K -- without ever saving anything outside. Great for him, bad for the taxpayer.
There's nothing a division chief can do that can't be done by a battalion chief, except for sucking up to upper management. So a shortage of division chiefs isn't going to materially impact firefighting, since you can just 'field promote' BC's. In fact, that's the way the Incident Command System works in the initial stages of an incident. A shortage of BC's, on the other hand, would be a disaster.
"Firefighters are a proper government expense"
Tell that to the federal government who will soon spend millions of tax dollars to "study" Forest Service federal wildland firefighters to determine whether the service they provide is "inherently governmental"
FYI, In contrast a Forest Service battalion chief in southern california makes about 58K base salary at the top step. This BC works right along side CDF BC's managing the same incidents, wildland fires, urban interface and all risk.
58K seems like a reasonable wage for the skills required.
100K while working and 90K retirement at age 50 does not.
I am curious as to what you would consider the "skills" required to perform as a battalion chief?
Is this a field you are familiar with?
"$100,000/yr salaries for jobs that require nothing more than a high-school diploma"
respectfully, this statement is false in its pretense that you can make a 100K salary based on a high school diploma.
Firefighting and fire management in and of itself cannot be learned in school. It takes years of specialized classroom and hands on training to acquire the skills necessary to operate safely in the fire (structural and wildland) and all-risk environment.
Then factor in the medical skills, typically EMT or Paramedic that most departments require now for entry level jobs. This is a high-risk profession, with science, human behavior and leadership skills required.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.