Hey, there! Log in / Register
City Council brings in outside analyst to review firefighter arbitration decision
By adamg on Tue, 05/11/2010 - 10:47am
City Council President Mike Ross reports Thomas Kochan, a professor of work and employee relations at MIT's Sloan School of Management to review the 19% retroactive pay increase an arbitration panel recently agreed to give firefighters.
In a letter to Mayor Menino, Ross writes Kochan has already found "a number of differences in the estimates and methodologies used to arrive at them."
The council can reject the proposed settlement. Although councilors had talked of discussing the issue tomorrow, they may hold off until after Menino forwards them details on how he would fund the proposed contract.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
19%
Would you please stop referring to the award as a 19% increase. It is clearly 16.5% and I'm not the MIT guy, who by the way was not hired but doing it free, who will say the same thing.
Thanks
T
Question is why anyone is
Question is why anyone is getting a pay raise at all in this economic climate?
I work for a private business and we've seen ZERO raises the last three years.
The only ones who got raises on that magnitude are wall street bankers.
Google is your friend
So are various search functions within UHub.
Yeah, I know - you just wanted a fact free rant about how you didn't get a raise this year. I didn't either. But that has nothing to do with this issue, which is far more complex than you clearly can be bothered to read up on if you are making statements like this. Too bad - there will be a quiz later.
you also don't have to run into burning buildings ...
when other people are running out.
I did not get a raise either. But I kind of knew that when I took my current job.
Come on
That's a big fiery red herring, Pete. They kind of knew they'd run into burning buildings when they took the job too.
However, the best explanation for why this "raise" could be considered valid would be that during the time we *weren't* in such an economic downturn, they were working without a contract due to dispute. The end result was that they didn't get raises that would have likely been included in their contract that the city was in no rush to sign with them. If you give them all those raises at once, it would add up to a 19% hike up in pay (or 16.5% or whatever other number you want to use to represent the raises they weren't getting because they were working in protest).
Now, you can question whether the jump in pay is equitable to comparable jobs in comparable cities over the same time period. You can complain that they should do it like the military did by simply giving them "more than cost of living" increases over the next X many years until they're up to par instead of 19% all at once. You can argue a lot of things, but it's not like their job has changed and NOW we're asking them to fight fires...so we should pay them more. That's just beating the "Hero!" drum and doesn't inform the situation at all. I'm tired of being told that all of the people covering my security are so damned important. Sure, they're a cog in life just like all of the other cogs. They should get a fair wage and be held to a reasonable standard of professionalism.
Yea you are right but they do take fire danger into consideratio
n. Its mentioned a lot in that link actually.
But I'm basing my sarcastic comment on the possible fact that the city has enough money to have paid these guys and keep the libraries open and the arbitrator that looks at these things knows all this stuff already. You also base these salaries (teachers who also have step raises, firefighters, police, highway and other acsme union jobs) on these factors (Bostons 2.3 billion dollar budget) each year.
And it is kind of true that I took my job knowing that I don't get a raise and I have a chance of getting fired if I don't do a good job. I also work less hours and get paid more than the base salaries of cops and fireman (and a lot less opportunity to make as much I should add). I'm not going to complain about how I would love to work 24 hours and then have 3 days off because Id have more vacation time. I just hate that stuff.
They also take the burning building factor into account apparantly when they looked at this stuff.
And from 2008, how much money did the City have that they did not give the firefighters and what kind of interest did they or could they have made off it?
$56 million
That's what the city set aside from FY 2007 to FY 2010 for collective bargaining raises. Interest very little - this money probably has to be in very short term treasuries - a few million at most. Let's call it a round $60 million. Probably not all of this is for the firefighters as we have lots of unions constantly negotiating contracts.
a few million ain't bad is it?
Do you know what I'm asking though? Lets say for 3 years the City did not give a union a pay raise. Lets say 3% is 30 million (90 million over 3 years). Now say that union gets the 3% retro 5 years later. Who gets that x million in interest?
And I'm sure that interest is lost with what it cost the city to pay these negotiators anyway but it still seems like there is some money floating around there somewhere. Just wondering who gets that money.
Who gets the money
When the city makes money on interest (which again is minimal given the current economic climate), ultimately the citizens of the city get some benefit in having that money available for other budget items or to pay for this contract. It seems like you think this money just magically appears out of the city's bank account when demanded by the BFD. Or are you trying to imply that any interest is also owed to the firefighters? Look, if you are a taxpayer in the City of Boston, then you are either saving or spending money ultimately here, so it seems odd that you are waving the issue around like it doesn't impact you. If you aren't a tax payer in the city, then I don't get why you are so aggrieved by this terrible treatment of the BFD when it is among the highest paid fire department in the country and (as of now) one of the only major ones without any drug testing policy.
What I really hope comes out of this mess is that the public sector pension and compensation plans are completely out of whack with the economic realities of the country. By all means, let's resolve this issue as it pertains to past contract disputes, but I hope the issue of sustainability of these kinds of compensation packages is examined in regards to future contracts with various unions. Take a good look at the protests in Greece and you see where the problems will lie with trying to resolve these budget issues too far down the line. People are rioting because they are being asked to pay their taxes and/or not retire in their 50s.
Baffled
I'd like to know when politicians became so trustworthy? I mean really, everything the Mayor says is gospel?
I was just asking Vaughn...
I was just wondering where that money went.
And yea, I don't live in Boston but pay thousands of dollars in real estate taxes on property I own there. I don't get anything out of the libraries or schools, but the fire department is probably one of the few services that might help me. On the other hand, if my place burned down, I might make out on the deal money wise but thats not here nor there.
I also dont have to deal with overides like I do with the town that I live in and my property values have gone down the last 5 or so years.
Vaughn is correct
Vaughn's outline is correct - but my guess is that the interest is somehow factored into the arbitrator's settlement.
Apparently it's not just wall
Apparently it's not just wall street bankers...but it seems to me a raise will help whomever is getting it...because of the economic climate.
Ross is a coward.
He is trying to look all deliberative and taking his time to come to a proper decision. But this decision is pretty clear. You vote for this raise and you bankrupt the city. However, Ross has no balls like most politicians and will drag this out in hopes that when the public isn't looking they can make their decision and spare themselves of the anger that will rain down upon them from the taxpayers.
did ross reach out to a college professor for the arizona vote?
did ross reach out to a college professor or the head of immigration for the united states about the arizona resolution that he sponsored? i am gonna guess no. he is a coward and nothing better than a used car salesman. unlike his father he does not speak truth to power. he goes along to get along.