Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpecialist
1st I have and still do work in the private sector, in fact every job I have had has been in the private sector. Since High School I have worked for 4 different private companies, with the exception of 1 all offered 401k, and the current one offers a pension as well. So in all 4 private sector jobs, ot was offered to complete the days tasks as opposed to hiring more employees. It makes more sense because it cost less money, and the ot is not always consistant. My salary is probably less than yours, and when I work ot I have the chance to get into 6 figures. On some weeks it is not uncommon to work as many as 30 hours of ot. Now if you make say $100,000 a year and 50-60 hrs a week , how is it any differant than someone to make 60 or 70,000 a year and then work as many hours as you and turn it into 90-100,000. ? Most of the employees in that article probably make 60-70,000 as a base salary, they then work an enormous amount of extra hours like you do and they made more. Big friggin woop. Now if you got all of your work done within yourr 40 hours, you make out, no? The reasons givem for the Massport workers was that due to constuction and some other problems some employees worked more hours, but it was n, because it was a temporary thing to worth it to hire any new employees.
As fas as your benefits question goes, this posting had nothing to do with benefits, 401k's or pensions, it was about the amount of money some people made in one year. Are the costs out of control absolutely, should something be done, for sure but what I don't know.
I will also tell you this that my pension in know way will ever meet or exceed my salary. Those are the promplem pensions.
|
"So in all 4 private sector jobs, ot was offered to complete the days tasks as opposed to hiring more employees. It makes more sense because it cost less money"
If the pensions are fattened by the overtime (as they are in many cases), then that system does not cost less money. It makes cops rich and taxpayers poor. If the pensions do not reflect overtime, you have a point.
"Now if you make say $100,000 a year and 50-60 hrs a week , how is it any differant than someone to make 60 or 70,000 a year and then work as many hours as you and turn it into 90-100,000. ? "
First, I don't work 50 hours on average, though I do some weeks...In some cases, you are right. In the case of some police departments, where the overtime is so steady, it would in fact be cheaper to hire additional employees to do that work at base pay instead of 150% of pay. They could hire part-time officers to do the extra work. But the unions won't allow that, because they want those cops to get rich.
"this posting had nothing to do with benefits, 401k's or pensions, it was about the amount of money some people made in one year."
Granted. But my question (about benefits) is pretty closely tied to the issue of public employee compensation, it's an issue that effects us all, and it's an isue that provides a huge benefit to a small number of people, while asking a large number of people to make huge sacrifices.
"Are the costs out of control absolutely, should something be done, for sure but what I don't know"
It's not rocket science, there are 2 choices. Raise taxes or cut benefits. We need to decide which is more fair. If cutting benefits meant that cops/teachers would have to eat cat food, I'd say raise taxes. But if cutting benefits simply means that cops/teachers have to live like the rest of us, then I say cut benefits.
I have no problem with folks in the private sector getting rich, because they still have to make their customers want to pay for their product or service. But no one in public service should be rich, because taxpayers do not have the option of refusing to pay.
Good, thoughtful post. Thanks.