I am not trying to be flip or anything, but it was your career choice.
That was my point – directed toward both sides.
My pension turned out to be a darn good deal for me, but I did
pay for it with less salary than I could have made doing something else, and I was stuck where I was for a few years longer than I would have stayed if it were not for the pension.
My back of the envelope figuring was an exercise to point out that you can either have my services at a lower cost now, provided you can entice me to do it based on a sure-thing payoff in retirement, or you will have to pay me more today.
Like ziggy, I am a taxpayer who would rather not have these unfunded future liabilities out there. I want something that is more 'sure'.
We agree. Nobody wants their government to go broke, least of all the guys who are collecting a pension that is paid for, or guaranteed, by that government. I’m just pointing out that the pension for civil service folks has always been used as the carrot that keeps them around doing their jobs at lower salaries than the labor and work conditions would value it. Now, if we’re just talking about not having future “surprises” in the pension costs then we agree, but if people are reasoning that they are going to lower the overall costs by reducing or eliminating the pension, then they have another think coming. That carrot dangling out at the end of a career was what kept me going to work long after I decided “this place sucks, I should go do something else”.
Here is an extreme case that someone can use
I think every system is going to have some weirdness built in. If it is deliberate then it needs to be rectified in the cases where it is rewarding people for something that is not based in common sense. I benefited from something like that even though I tried to get it changed. For my last year at work I changed places with my day-shift counterpart, and also did our boss’ job at the same time. They paid me my boss’ salary, but they also gave me extra pay because I was
assigned to work night shift (7p-3a). I raised a little fuss about the fact that the guy who was actually working those hours during that year was not getting paid the extra pay – which he deserved. The official interpretation was that nobody ever thought someone would be out of his normal assigned shift for so long, but still be assigned to that shift, so the contract was written to reflect permanent assignment and not temporary assignment. I got the pay and it went toward my pension. It comes out to a whopping $378 a year.
And we all know that people game the system. Not everybody, but enough to make us cringe. I think you know about Houston.. and the police chief that got a raise the last day of his work (or close, not sure exactly)... and the pension liability grew by over $1 million (IIRC)...
That was not a pension glitch, rather, it was a political [-]payoff[/-] blandishment, by a mayor who owed that chief a huge political debt. There will always be such things going on in one fashion or another - those kind of debts get paid somehow and in this particular case the currency was the pension.
BTW, I was promised a pension by my mega corp... it was taken away... and the 'cash' I got was not even close to making up for what the promise was... I was promised that if I worked until I reached 50 I would have cheap medical insurance until medicare... it was taken away when I was 49.
I’ll have to go back to my original thesis, as paraphrased by you:
I am not trying to be flip or anything, but it was your career choice.
It's like I said to Ziggy, just because your employer screwed you, doesn't mean that you are justified in screwing your employees.
And I think that there is an additional factor at play here. The average guy or gal working for XYZ Amalgamated Inc., is more easily replaced than Detective Jones down at the cop shop. There is not (well, there
shouldn't be) a law enforcement agency in this country that does not reject 95%+ of all applicants that walk in the door looking for a job. I'm sure there are plenty of jobs out there that will take the five top candidates for a position out of 100 applicants, but that doesn't mean that many more of the 100 weren't acceptable (or even desirable). It's that we throw up so many additional barriers to employment that not only aren't a concern to private business, but which would be illegal for them to even consider.Those other 95 may all be wonderful people who would do
somebody a great job, but for
us, they are unacceptable and we would
never offer them a job.
I think folks like you got screwed by your employer because it was easy to get away with. Mostly because they didn't have to reject 95 out of 100 applicants for unsuitability. "Take the deal or leave, we always have people lined up in HR wanting your job." They might not get someone as good as you were, but they would be reasonably certain they would get someone
acceptable. In my line of work, unacceptable hires make the front page of the newspaper - or, at the extreme - people die.
Absent the political implications of shafting public safety workers, I'm sure my employer would have at least seriously considered screwing us out of our pensions as so many private employees were - if weren't for the liability. When a poorly qualified, poorly trained, poorly supervised, and poorly managed guy or gal equipped with guns, badges, handcuffs, F-16's, or whatever; goes wrong side up, the costs are huge. And the money to pay those judgments are just as much tax dollars as is the money that goes to pay salary, pensions, training costs, management costs, etc. So, this kind of employer has to consider what it takes to get the right people in the right slots. And even with all of their best efforts, they're still going to get the occasional sleeper who suddenly goes rogue and costs them millions. It's cheaper to spend the money on hiring and retaining the right people for the job.
Wow, that's amazing that so many law enforcement workers that have switched successfully to other professions.
I don’t think it’s all that surprising. It’s like the military in that people get attracted to the work for different reasons. Some just want a safe civil service job where they get paid regularly and as long as they do what is required and keep their nose clean, they will collect a decent pension at the end. Others join for the adventure aspect, the excitement, to do a service for their country/community. That latter group often includes people who are highly motivated, fairly intelligent, and ambitious. Some of those in the latter group decide to take their talents elsewhere to make more money, or because the good stuff about the job didn’t overcome the not-so-good stuff.
Some of that latter group hang around though, because there are assignments that appeal to them. Places like where I worked, that were more demanding and more rewarding. You could really see the differences between the two groups when you contrast them in that light. We changed our personnel policies once and had an influx of that first group apply to come work there because all they knew about were the goodies. Some of the interview panels had hilarious, but educational, results. Like the young officer with about 10 years in some comparatively safe and sane assignment. When presented with a hypothetical (that was based on everyday experiences in our particular area of LE) she ended the interview and withdrew her application. Her response to the scenario was, "Is this the kind of s*%t you people do around here? You are all insane. Somebody could get
killed doing this."
Speaking from management's viewpoint, you need both kinds of people. But you have to put up with the downside to either group. The first group, the people who would have been just as happy delivering your mail, are the people who will almost never astound you with their work ethic, creativity, intelligence, or bravery. The second group, if you motivate them properly and harness them adequately, they will be your secret weapons to solve tough problems. But you have to law awake at night worry about all of that energy and creativity straying from productive to, "WTF were you thinking?"
Hey Leonidas, were you by chance with the US Marshals Service
No, a large local police agency.
Good sense of humor coupled with dedication and maybe a touch of cowboyism
You have to posses a good sense of humor in this line of work. As for cowboyism, I reckon it depends on what ya mean by that pardner. I don’t deny believing in the cowboy code of ethics:
- Live each day with courage.
- Take pride in your work.
- Always finish what you start.
- Do what has to be done.
- Be tough, but fair.
- When you make a promise, keep it.
- Ride for the brand.
- Talk less and say more.
- Remember that some things aren’t for sale.
- Know where to draw the line.
You kinda glossed over the part about the chances of getting your assets shot off...
I don’t deny that perhaps I was a bit crazy in my younger years, and that maybe the risks were part of the draw. Of course back then I was bullet-proof and convinced that God was on my side and nobody could stand against us. Go to a few funerals of twenty-something friends and the shine on one’s invincibility gets a little less glittery.
I was twenty-two or twenty-three when a very good friend of mine was accidentally killed by another officer when he mistook her for a bad guy with a gun (she was undercover). A .357 semi-jacketed hollow point went between the panels of her body armor and turned her kids into orphans. I realized that God might be on my side, and you still have got to be one mean sumbitch to be against me, but sometimes bad stuff happens even to the good guys.
It may be different for other people, but personally I never lay awake at night worrying about the risks to myself. Mostly I worried about leaving my family behind and what would happen to them. When I became responsible for leading other people I worried about their families. You don't go to one of those funerals and look at the family without thinking about your family standing in their place. You know that the tragedy and grief will never stop for them, and it even carries on into the next generation. This is from the memorial page for my friend, who died almost 30 years ago:
I never knew my grandmother but have learned great things about her. I'm 11 yrs old and have a new grandmother. I still miss my Grandmother and when I die I hope I met her at the pearly gates. I am teaching my homeroom class what my family has been through I cry every time I talk about it but they understand.
Sometimes I wonder if Grandma Kathleen were still alive if my life would be different. Of course my mother is very open with her feelings of her mother's death. My Uncle is still not completely over the fact that his mother died before she was supposed to. I hope that anyone who looks at this reflection and cry as my mother did.
This is why I always avoid trying to argue "fairness" when it comes to compensation for people in dangerous public service jobs (fire, police, military). How can you put a price on that kind of tragedy and pain? The best way I know to express it is to say that there were many days when I couldn't believe people wanted to actually pay me money for what I did, but there were also many days when I knew that there wasn't enough money in the world to compensate me for what I had to go through, or, more importantly, what my family had to go through.
When people say "you're overpaid for what you do" I would have to agree. And when they said "I wouldn't do your job for a million bucks", I would have to agree again. These are jobs that are often tedious and boring, but which are all too often punctuated by moments of terror. You can go from a zero stress environment to fighting for your life, and the lives of others, in a second. I just don't know a way to put a dollar amount to that, so I just stick with "what would it cost you to replace me?"
A standing military (or militia or police force or fire/rescue squad) is a waste of money... until you need it. And then it's pretty hard to find a good one by throwing wads of cash their way.
Absolutely. We’re just a pain in the butt that costs money until you need us, and then we’re the greatest invention since meat on a stick.
It's like that sign I used to see at high-performance auto parts stores: "Speed is a question of money. How fast can you afford to go?" A public response to danger is a question of how much you're willing to spend on quality and quantity. But you can't create competence and experience the morning that the war is about to kickoff, you have to invest in a response long before the bad guys show up to carry off your booty and have their way with your women. In this case, the folks making the budgetary decisions just decided to pay some bills on some future uncertain date. And, now that the vague, hazy and uncertain tomorrow is upon them (or their successors) everybody is acutely aware of the amount to be paid.
I think the only reason that the general public is even aware that public pensions are underfunded is because the accounting rules didn't require such realistic cost accounting until relatively recently. So this isn't a new problem, and it's certainly not unsolvable. But it's the first time that it's been so easily identifiable.
True. And the out-of-sight out-of-mind concept works here as well. Now that the bills are coming due people are suddenly realizing that “we want more cops on the beat but don’t want to pay more taxes” equals paying the fiddler eventually.
We the voters and/or non-voter also bear some of the responsibility…
We agree.
… but I primarily blame the unions (and the public employee who elected them) and elected official who lacked the courage to stand up to them.
That’s not true in all cases though. In my city we never had any kind of collective bargaining, and even now all we have is “meet and confer” which is a very weak version. But all too often it’s a political response not to union strength (although in some places the unions are very strong), but to economic realities. Politicians wanted to hire more cops and keep the trained and experienced employees on the job. Faced with “pay me now or pay me later” they chose later. It’s a great idea at the time because some future mayor is going to have to figure out how to pay the bill, not the guy who is reaping the benefits.
I will admit that our union's endorsement is highly sought after. Not because we have some phenomenal power to get the voters to go along with us. Rather is is because the candidates know that putting our endorsement in their advertising makes them appear to be "pro law-enforcement". Something that
does sway voters. Hey, we didn't create this situation, we just live with it and use it to our advantage. It's not that we have them bent over the negotiating table, it's more like we need something from each other. It's politics, plain and simple. If you figure out how to remove politics, and still have public accountability for how tax dollars are spent, you should get a Nobel Prize.
I know the guys who negotiated our first contract, and I know the story. It reads like something out of a novel. They met the mayor for cocktails to have an off-the-books pre-negotiation meeting (at the mayor's request). They knew he was going to basically tell them what they were going to get, and they were right. He wrote a dollar amount on a cocktail napkin and slid it across the table. They almost choked on their drinks, because it was significantly higher than anything they had dreamed about.
What do
you do when your boss says he thinks you deserve a raise? Me, I say, "thank you".
The hilarious thing is that the majority of city council members later said to the negotiating team (in similar unofficial meets): "You guys cheated yourselves, we would have approved a hell of a lot more than that."
