More than 6,400 Mass employees make over $100K

[Piscator]

Looks like UMass owns the top 9 out of 10 spots but $228,000 for a State Police Lieutenant? Wow, hope he's catching a lot of bad guys......


Massachusetts top paid employees for 2010 - Boston.com

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Piscator

Looks like UMass owns the top 9 out of 10 spots but $228,000 for a State Police Lieutenant? Wow, hope he's catching a lot of bad guys......

Massachusetts top paid employees for 2010 - Boston.com

Shovel ready projects that require SP details. Getting paid overtime to sleep in your car must be nice.

[JohnR]

Surprised this did not get more traction.

A lot of these folks making large coin, especially in their last three years before retirement is a gift that keeps giving. Its great if you can have it but it is unsustainable.

[Karl F]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Surprised this did not get more traction.
.

Really?

Knowing that several jackbooted staties actually read striper boards?

I read my local town report.. local yocals are pulling in well over 100K working the OT, details, and "longevity" bumps, and they all can tell you exactly how many minutes until their pension kicks in, and the up to date balance in their plans....and the DD's is the best protected store front in town.

It's Mass.. the land of Patronage.. remember the 75K a year doorman jobs at the statehouse they were handing out 2 decades ago, to their cousins and in-laws... the 100K a year tool booth jobs...???
it got some ink, but not much action...

we are just used to it... effin SADLY....

[Fly Rod]

I didn't see the thirty five thousand dollar a year social worker on that list.

[TheSpecialist]

That list is crap, look at the 40 hour salary for putting your life on the line. I say good for them they are working many more hours than most of us. Any job that pays a decent hourly wage can turn into a high wage job if you want to work like a dog...

[Raider Ronnie]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

That list is crap, look at the 40 hour salary for putting your life on the line. I say good for them they are working many more hours than most of us. Any job that pays a decent hourly wage can turn into a high wage job if you want to work like a dog...

Spoken like a union man !

[striperman36]

Originally Posted by Raider Ronnie

Spoken like a union man !

Most jobs are salaried, if I put it down to an hourly wage, I'd be well below most union rates.

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by striperman36

Most jobs are salaried, if I put it down to an hourly wage, I'd be well below most union rates.

There in lies the problem, salaried should equal 40 hours no more , no less.

[TheSpecialist]

Salary Labor Laws
By R. E. Peters, eHow Contributor
updated: December 22, 2010

Federal labor laws for salaried employees do offer some protections. The minimum wage and overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) apply to all employees who come within that law's coverage, whether the employees are paid hourly or they are on a salary. The "white collar" exemption to the FLSA does exclude some salaried employees from the law's protections, but only if the employees' work duties meet the tests listed in the FLSA and accompanying regulations. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) does not refer to salaried employees, but does specify that professional employees come within the coverage of the federal collective bargaining law. The NLRA does not require employers to bargain collectively with supervisory employees.

Fair Labor Standards Act: Minimum Wage
The Fair Labor Act is a federal wage law that sets the federal requirements for employee wages and work hours. The FLSA requires employers to pay their employees the specified federal minimum wage, although some states require a minimum wage higher than the federal level. Although the FLSA's minimum wage requirement is expressed as an hourly rate, the law does not exclude employees who are paid in some other way. If employees are paid a salary, or at at piecework rate, or if employees' pay includes tips, they are still entitled to receive pay that is the equivalent of the FLSA's minimum hourly wage rate. Labor laws for salaried employees are often different than those that apply to hourly employees.
FLSA: Overtime Pay
The FLSA also states that employees must be paid overtime at the rate of at least

1 1/2 times the employees' regular pay rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a work week. The regular rate of pay for salaried employees is calculated by dividing the salary by the total number of work hours for which the salary provides compensation. For example, if an employee receives a weekly salary of $450 and works 45 hours per week, the employee's regular rate of pay is $10 per hour. In addition to the weekly salary, the employee must receive overtime pay (an additional $5 per hour) for the five overtime hours in the work week.
White Collar Exemption
The FLSA exempts certain "white collar" workers from the federal minimum wage and overtime labor laws. Exempt from FLSA coverage are executive, administrative, professional and outside sales employees, as well as some skilled computer employees. For the exemption to apply, the employee generally must be paid on a salary basis at a rate of at least $455 per week. The employee's actual work duties must also meet all the tests listed in the FLSA and the accompanying regulations issued by the U.S. Department of Labor. For example, an exempt executive employee must not only be paid on a salary basis, but must also have work duties that involve managing a business, directing the work of other employees and having the authority to hire or fire employees. It is often difficult for salaried employees to receive overtime pay.
Highly Compensated Employees
The U.S. Department of Labor revised the regulations for the FLSA's white collar exemption in 2004 to provide a streamlined exemption test for employees who are paid on a salary or fee basis, and earn at least $100,000 per year. Such highly compensated employees are exempt from the overtime labor law if their duties meet at least one of the work duty tests listed in the regulations for exempt executive, administrative or professional employees.
No FLSA Requirements
Although the Fair Labor Act contains specific minimum wage and overtime requirements, the law does not set federal labor standards on a number of employment issues for either hourly workers or salaried employees. For example, the FLSA's provisions do not require premium pay for working on weekends or at night, do not set a maximum number of work hours per week, and do not address issues such as severance pay, vacations, sick leave, lunch breaks or pay increases.
National Labor Relations Act
The National Labor Relations Act is the U.S. labor law that governs collective bargaining between an employer and its employees' bargaining representative. Supervisory employees are expressly excluded from the NLRA's coverage. In other words, the NLRA does not require an employer to bargain with a representative of its supervisory employees. The NLRA's definition of a supervisory employee does not refer to whether the employee is paid on an hourly or salary basis. Instead, a supervisor is defined as an individual who has the authority to hire, fire or discipline other employees.
Professional Employees
Professional employees do come within the coverage of the NLRA. The definition of professional employee in the NLRA does not turn on whether an employee is paid on a salary or hourly basis. Instead, the professional employee definition is based on the employee's work duties, as well as the type of training and education the employee has received. The NLRA states that professional employees and nonprofessional employees will not be placed in the same unit or group for bargaining collectively with their employer unless a majority of the professional employees vote to be included in such a collective bargaining unit.


Read more: Salary Labor Laws | eHow.com Salary Labor Laws | eHow.com

[TheSpecialist]

BTW the NLRA which covers all employees both Union and Non Union was brought to you by the Labor Unions.

No need to thank us, but just don't hate.


If you want to hate, hate on the CEO's making far more money than they will ever need....

[spence]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

There in lies the problem, salaried should equal 40 hours no more , no less.

Not when you're exempt.

It really depends on the job and how easy it is to measure productivity.

-spence

[striperman36]

Originally Posted by spence

Not when you're exempt.

It really depends on the job and how easy it is to measure productivity.

-spence

And most jobs are salaried and exempt, at least the one's I end up working at. In most cases, weekly hours have gone up, workload is up, expectations that you'll work more are up. Stress is up
And having a good time at the office is down,,, frowned upon in many cases

[Fly Rod]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

That list is crap, look at the 40 hour salary for putting your life on the line. I say good for them they are working many more hours than most of us. Any job that pays a decent hourly wage can turn into a high wage job if you want to work like a dog...

B]TRUE![/B]

Every year the daily city paper prints which city employees are making the highest pay. Here it is always the cops. Your average cop starts out at 40,000 some end up making over a hundred thou with the private road work details. Good luck to them for the hours they put in. Most of these shifts are 8 hours. Regular city employees do not make anything close to a hundred thou.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

That list is crap, look at the 40 hour salary for putting your life on the line. I say good for them they are working many more hours than most of us. Any job that pays a decent hourly wage can turn into a high wage job if you want to work like a dog...

You have no idea what you're talking about.

In the private scetor, your comment would make sense. Because if someone can make that much money, it';s up to the consumer to decide whether or not they want to absorb that cost. If the company can make a product that people want so badly that they are willing to absorb that cost, kudos to the company.

Public servants are in a very different position. The public cannot freely choose not to bear the burden of that cost, because the cost is a tax that is imposed by rule of law. That's not even remotely comparable to what happens in the free market.

Because of that difference, it's imperitive that public servents come up with compensation that we can reasonably absorb. The current Massachusetts tax levels, combined with the current deficits, tell me that municipal employees are being a bit too generous with themselves.

[Swimmer]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Surprised this did not get more traction.

A lot of these folks making large coin, especially in their last three years before retirement is a gift that keeps giving. Its great if you can have it but it is unsustainable.

Retirement isn't based on overtime, just your base salary, which for a lt. on the MSP is probably $120,000 walking in the door. All those details they get is the reason why none of them are ever working the regular shifts on the road.

On the Mass. pike troopers are ordered to work details. If a guy is exhausted after working a double shift, say 4-12 and 12-8, he gets ordered to work a detail during the day shift if no one else takes it, so it doesn't go unfilled. Kind of insane really, but that is the reason most of them are in the cruisers during the detail, because they are too tired to stand up.

[Swimmer]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You have no idea what you're talking about.

In the private scetor, your comment would make sense. Because if someone can make that much money, it';s up to the consumer to decide whether or not they want to absorb that cost. If the company can make a product that people want so badly that they are willing to absorb that cost, kudos to the company.

Public servants are in a very different position. The public cannot freely choose not to bear the burden of that cost, because the cost is a tax that is imposed by rule of law. That's not even remotely comparable to what happens in the free market.

Because of that difference, it's imperitive that public servents come up with compensation that we can reasonably absorb. The current Massachusetts tax levels, combined with the current deficits, tell me that municipal employees are being a bit too generous with themselves.

The consumer is deciding to absorb the cost by continually voting the same town boards right back into office. Certain segments of society go to the town meetings and vote the school budgets in then get up and leave. The rest of the people in attendence care about being safe and vote the fire and police budgets in the affirmative. What a ridiculous asertion, "it's imperitive that public servents come up with compensation that we can reasonably absorb". Jim you just about call public servant thieves, but you think it should be left up to them to figure out a just compensation. Were you an actuary for an insurance company? Did you help set the usurious rates for homeowners I pay, and for collision for my car?

I don't think you should hide behind the anonimity of the internet. I think you should state your purpose at a town meeting where you live. Ya sure he is saying, and have every cop in town after me. After being on a police department for 37 years, I can truthfully say that never happened, and I worked with some pretty foolish people.

Do you fish?

[Chesapeake Bill]

Swimmer,

You hit it right on the head. The overtime money is typically DHS funding through UASI grants and other Federal programs that are not counted toward retirement. SO using the salaries of employees (especially police) is not a good indicator of how much the state is on the hook for as far as retirement benefits go. It is an indicator of how well representatives are able to get funding back to their states. But why limit ourselves to the facts when we can have a proper witch hunt? The fire is so much brighter to the uninformed...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Swimmer

The consumer is deciding to absorb the cost by continually voting the same town boards right back into office. Certain segments of society go to the town meetings and vote the school budgets in then get up and leave. The rest of the people in attendence care about being safe and vote the fire and police budgets in the affirmative. What a ridiculous asertion, "it's imperitive that public servents come up with compensation that we can reasonably absorb". Jim you just about call public servant thieves, but you think it should be left up to them to figure out a just compensation. Were you an actuary for an insurance company? Did you help set the usurious rates for homeowners I pay, and for collision for my car?

I don't think you should hide behind the anonimity of the internet. I think you should state your purpose at a town meeting where you live. After being on a police department for 37 years, I can truthfully say that never happened, and I worked with some pretty foolish people.

Do you fish?

Swimmer, you asked some great, probing questions. I'll try to respond.

"The consumer is deciding to absorb the cost by continually voting the same town boards right back into office."

I agree, but to a lesser extent. Here's why. If McDonald's gives all their employees a fat raise, and that causes the price of a Big Mac to go up to a price I think is unreasonable, I can easily buy at Burger King (or another competitor) instead. I don't think the same thing applies to politics. I live in CT, which is a state that has been run into the ground by liberals. It's a lot harder for me to say I'm moving to Kansas, than it is for me to switch from McDonalds to Burger King. Does that make sense? I'm much more "stuck" with the decisions made by politicians, than I am with decisions made by private businesses.

"The rest of the people in attendence care about being safe and vote the fire and police budgets in the affirmative."

Hogwash. If you can show me data that says that towns where cops get fat pensions are "safer" than towns where cops have 401(k)'s, I'd love to see it. Same with teachers. There is zero correlation between student performance and teacher compensation.

"you just about call public servant thieves, but you think it should be left up to them to figure out a just compensation."

You're right, it's not the public servents who design compensation...it's their unions, and the elected officials. I do not blame cops for accepting pensions, hell, I'd take it if someone offered me one. But here are 2 irrefutable facts...(1) Massachusetts and CT have tax rates much higher than the national average, so those states have collected a whole lot of money (2) Massachusetts and CT have massive debt and deficits, menaing that despite the fact that they collected so much, they spent a whole lot more. If that's not irresponsible, what the heck is?

"Were you an actuary for an insurance company? "

Yes.

"Did you help set the usurious rates for homeowners I pay, and for collision for my car?"

First, if you thought those rates were excessive, you were free to purchase elsewhere. Second, despite public perception, personal insurance is highly regulated, and has unbelievably thin profit margins. The best companies out there still spend 95 cents of every dollar they collect in premiums. So while you may feel ripped off if you don't have any claims, remember that you are part of a large group that's barely breaking even.

"I think you should state your purpose at a town meeting where you live"

I do. And no, I'm not worried about cops being after me. Please don't put stupid words in my mouth. At the same time, I've never had a cop give me a direct answer to this question...

"If the private scetor did away with pensions 15 years ago because they were simply too expensive, why is it fair that muncipal employees still get pensions? Put another way, why is it unfair for me to expect cops to live with benefits that are similar to what's available to the taxpayers?"

I respect cops, teachers, firefighters. But their financial security is NOT more important to society than anyone else's financial security. If everyone else has to find a way to live with whatever we can accumulate in our 401(k)'s, then certainly cops can too. It makes no sense for public servents to get benefits that dwarf anything available to the public which they claim to serve. A guaranteed pension after only 20 years of service, is simply too expensive. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be looking at the deficits we're looking at.

Swimmer, the numbers speak for themselves. Many states and towns are literally facing bankruptcy because of these union benefits. There are 2, and only 2, explanations for this. Either those municipalities set tax rates unreasonably low, or they promised benefits that were unreasonably rich. You tell me which you think is the case.

"Do you fish?"

Whenever I can!

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Chesapeake Bill

Swimmer,

You hit it right on the head. The overtime money is typically DHS funding through UASI grants and other Federal programs that are not counted toward retirement. SO using the salaries of employees (especially police) is not a good indicator of how much the state is on the hook for as far as retirement benefits go. It is an indicator of how well representatives are able to get funding back to their states. But why limit ourselves to the facts when we can have a proper witch hunt? The fire is so much brighter to the uninformed...

Bill and Swimmer, here in CT, I do not know of a town where overtime does not contribute to cops' pensions. I have served on my town's board of education, so I know a lot about public unionized employees compensation. As a former benefits actuary, I also know exactly how much more expensive a pension is than a 401(k). If I'm uninformed, can you please point out somethiong I said that's wrong, instead of insulting me simply because you don't like what I'm saying?

Bill, instead of hurling insults at me (and baseless insults at that), can you try to answer a simple, direct question?

"If the entire private sector has to live with whatever we can accumulate in our 401(k)'s, why is it unfair to ask our public servents to do the same?"

Try not to call that question a "witchhunt", and instead try answering it.

And why on Earth is it reasonable that cops can collect those pensions afetr 20 years of service, with no age minimum? My first cousin was a police officer in New Haven, CT. He retired at age 43, and yes, his overtime fattened his pension. He works for 20 years, and gets a pension for 50 years?

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

B]TRUE![/B]

Every year the daily city paper prints which city employees are making the highest pay. Here it is always the cops. Your average cop starts out at 40,000 some end up making over a hundred thou with the private road work details. Good luck to them for the hours they put in. Most of these shifts are 8 hours. Regular city employees do not make anything close to a hundred thou.

If you think most details that are paid out for 8 hours are actually 8 hours long, you are mistaken. Very ofter a case of beer to the guy overseeing the work (phone company, construction etc) will turn a 3 hour detail into an 8 hour detail with the sign of a paper. The city doesn't pay but the company and ultimatly the consumer does in the end.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Bill and Swimmer, here in CT, I do not know of a town where overtime does not contribute to cops' pensions.

CT Town Reaches Police Pension Agreement
January 31, 2011 (PLANSPONSOR.com) – The town of Stratford, Connecticut, has hammered out an agreement with its police union to institute a 401(k) for new hires instead of traditional pensions.

A Connecticut Post story said under the new contract, the town will match 401(k) contributions made by future employees up to 6%. The agreement does not change the pension benefits for current employees.

About 60 officers hired between 1996 and July 1, 2010, will receive pensions based strictly on base pay. Officers hired before 1996 -- there are about 39 of them -- will continue to receive pensions calculated from their base pay plus overtime, the news report said.

Several police and fire department retirees now receive more than $100,000 in pension payments each year, including a police captain who retired last spring with an annual pension of $134,000 -- far above his last salary, according to the newspaper.

A $1,200 cap on health insurance obligations has also been erased, making current and future employees responsible for 12% of their insurance premiums. On July 1, 2012, that amount will increase to 13%.

The agreement still has to be ratified by the Town Council.

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You have no idea what you're talking about.

In the private scetor, your comment would make sense. Because if someone can make that much money, it';s up to the consumer to decide whether or not they want to absorb that cost. If the company can make a product that people want so badly that they are willing to absorb that cost, kudos to the company.

Public servants are in a very different position. The public cannot freely choose not to bear the burden of that cost, because the cost is a tax that is imposed by rule of law. That's not even remotely comparable to what happens in the free market.

Because of that difference, it's imperitive that public servents come up with compensation that we can reasonably absorb. The current Massachusetts tax levels, combined with the current deficits, tell me that municipal employees are being a bit too generous with themselves.

By your logic then, we should send everyone home at 40 hours, then have none to pick up the rest of the work. Or should we hire enough people to pick up the extra work, whether or not that work is temporary or non consistent and pay training, and benefits, and salary. do you not think that option 2 would be more expensive to the public? As far as the police goes the details are predominately funded by the private companies and not the taxpayer. Also as a consumer I demand not to sit in line at a toll booth when there are other booths with no one manning them. Either hire more people or pay the piper. I f they have fifty details a day, and it cost them for 50 new officers to cover these details say 80-90 thousand with benefits, but we could work 50 cops and pay each one 60 thousand in ot a year it is not cheaper?

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

CT Town Reaches Police Pension Agreement
January 31, 2011 (PLANSPONSOR.com) – The town of Stratford, Connecticut, has hammered out an agreement with its police union to institute a 401(k) for new hires instead of traditional pensions.

A Connecticut Post story said under the new contract, the town will match 401(k) contributions made by future employees up to 6%. The agreement does not change the pension benefits for current employees.

About 60 officers hired between 1996 and July 1, 2010, will receive pensions based strictly on base pay. Officers hired before 1996 -- there are about 39 of them -- will continue to receive pensions calculated from their base pay plus overtime, the news report said.

Several police and fire department retirees now receive more than $100,000 in pension payments each year, including a police captain who retired last spring with an annual pension of $134,000 -- far above his last salary, according to the newspaper.

A $1,200 cap on health insurance obligations has also been erased, making current and future employees responsible for 12% of their insurance premiums. On July 1, 2012, that amount will increase to 13%.

The agreement still has to be ratified by the Town Council.

Seems as though I am not the only one who has no idea about what sprouts from my mouth.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

Seems as though I am not the only one who has no idea about what sprouts from my mouth.

ZSpecialist, and Dad -

And the cops hired before 1996? I assume their pensions are fattened with overtime?

I never said there aren't towns that don't consider overtime, I said I wasn't aware of any, and now I am.

So Specialist, I guess there's no budget crisis facing governments because of benefits? Do you really believe that?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

By your logic then, we should send everyone home at 40 hours, then have none to pick up the rest of the work. Or should we hire enough people to pick up the extra work, whether or not that work is temporary or non consistent and pay training, and benefits, and salary. do you not think that option 2 would be more expensive to the public? As far as the police goes the details are predominately funded by the private companies and not the taxpayer. Also as a consumer I demand not to sit in line at a toll booth when there are other booths with no one manning them. Either hire more people or pay the piper. I f they have fifty details a day, and it cost them for 50 new officers to cover these details say 80-90 thousand with benefits, but we could work 50 cops and pay each one 60 thousand in ot a year it is not cheaper?

"By your logic then, we should send everyone home at 40 hours, then have none to pick up the rest of the work."

Have you ever worked in the private sector? I'm expected to do my job, regardless of how many hours it takes. That is standard, accepted practice, except for municipal employees I guess.

Specialist, I see that you ignored my question. Gee, I wonder why? I'll post it again...

""If the entire private sector has to live with whatever we can accumulate in our 401(k)'s, why is it unfair to ask our public servents to do the same?"

[Chesapeake Bill]

Jim,

My statement was not pointed at anyone in particular. But hey, if you feel guilty that's all on you.

It looks as though someone already answered the question for me.

[Piscator]

Details and overtime are typically viewed as two different things. Overtime counts toward pension and retirement "credit" and details do not as they are funded by the company needing it (which in turn passes the cost on to the consumer). Soooo, we are all paying for it in the end anyway. We are not paying the "detail" portion in pensions later.
The other question is, at what point does working all the "detail" & "overtime" hours impact the person performing their job. The rules are very lenient on allowing a lot of hours being worked in the course of the week and i hope it does not affect performance

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Chesapeake Bill

Jim,

My statement was not pointed at anyone in particular. But hey, if you feel guilty that's all on you.

It looks as though someone already answered the question for me.

Bill, I think you'll agree that I responded dircetly to your many questions. You dodged mine completely. Who answered my question? Where? Please post the answer to my question, if you'd be so kind. Or better yet, please give me your own answer.

Is that too much to ask? If you want engaging debate, you can't just ask questions and hurl insults. My question is fair, simple, and gets right to the heart of this matter. Please answer directly. I sincerely tried to respond to your points, please show me the same courtesy.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

There in lies the problem, salaried should equal 40 hours no more , no less.

Specialist, do you know what would happen if if all non-union workers in the private sector got paid overtime for every hour over 40 hours a week? Everything you buy, everything, would cost 25% more. Would that make you better off, or worse off?

Now, let's say that everyone in the private sector also had those insane healthcare and retirement benefits that union employees get. Tack on another 30% to the cost of everyhting you buy.

Are you getting it now? The reason that the private sector can't operate that way, is that no one would voluntarily buy anything that we produced.

Public unionized empmloyees are the only ones who can get away with that, because they use rule of law to FORCE their customers to absorb those costs.

I keep asking this question, and no one will answer. "Why is it fair for public employees to force upon their customers (taxpayers) costs which no one would voluntarily pay for in the private sector?"

That's a fair question, and I am a reasonable guy. If there is a good answer to that question, please share it, and you'll convince me.