• filter:

Overtime to 'Off Time' passed house today

  • Text Only
  • Search this Topic »
Voting History
rated:
This bill passed today
H.R. 1180: Working Families Flexibility Act of 2017
http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/02/news/economy/overtime-pay-bill-p... 

Basically means that if you work 10 hours of OT, instead of getting paid that OT, you can get 15 hours of Paid time off.
Saves employers money since they don't pay any more than they expect but it does screw the employees who like earning that little 'extra'.

Some restrictions : 
Employee needs 1000 hours of employment (roughly 25 weeks of FT) before they are 'eligible'.
Cannot be in the public sector (So firefighter overtime is protected for example)

I'm not sure how this affects individual states as each OT rule can override it.

I assume this is a good thing for employers.
edit : My math sucks.

Member Summary
Most Recent Posts
^^^ You missed this part:

"(E) WRITTEN REQUEST.—An employee may withdraw an agreement described in paragraph (2)(B) at an... (more)

scripta (May. 11, 2017 @ 1:01p) |

Good catch.

So outside of potential discrimination on who gets awarded OT work (not saying that's not a significant risk)... (more)

Shandril (May. 15, 2017 @ 2:09p) |

That's not discrimination. It's competitive bidding. If they have employees willing to work OT under the OT compensati... (more)

IMBoring25 (May. 15, 2017 @ 2:31p) |

Staff Summary
Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

rated:
Depends on whose option it is - employee's or employer's.

rated:
lotusgardener said:   Depends on whose option it is - employee's or employer's.
  I think the employer decides, so the "Working Families Flexibility Act" doesn't give flexibility to any working family, but to the employer.  It still would need to pass the Senate, which is far from certain.

rated:
Public Sector Employees: "Hahahaha" (Laughs in entitlement)

How strange that this doesn't apply to public sector workers when they are the biggest abusers of overtime pay.     

rated:
RailroadTrack said:   Public Sector Employees: "Hahahaha" (Laughs in entitlement)

How strange that this doesn't apply to public sector workers when they are the biggest abusers of overtime pay.     

  I wouldn't say that they are the biggest 'abusers'

In Cali, Firefighters were understaffed 3 years ago and were constantly asking for funds to up the staff before fire season.  They were denied, then the fires started.  Those guys were working 24 hour shifts with no replacements in sight.  Which amounted to a ton of overtime.  

If you staff your departments at the 'min' and emergencies happen (because Governments NEVER spend enough on infrastructure) then a ton of people are going to make OT.

On the 'other hand' there were stories about policemen that were retiring that year so they were volunteering for all the OT, so their pensions were incredible when they retired, that's abuse.
 

rated:
They should let the employee decide. I rather convert overtime hours to PTO so I can have it for vacations and emergencies.

rated:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1180/text 

It would be the employee's option to elect overtime pay or comp time. It also requires employers to pay out unused comp time each year, at the request of the employee, or when the employee separates.I can see employers abusing this law to get "surge support" with no overall increase in wages, but on a per-hours-worked basis the cost to the employer is basically the same either way, they either pay out in paid time off or in overtime wages.

Also, the reason it doesn't apply to public sector employees is that they already have a comp time option (and it's only 1 hour per hour worked, not 1.5 hours): https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-administration/fact-sheets/compensatory-time-off/ 

(Note: updated to include an example of possible abuse)

rated:
doveroftke said:   https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1180/text 

It would be the employee's option to elect overtime pay or comp time. It also requires employers to pay out unused comp time each year, at the request of the employee, or when the employee separates. While I'm certain there will be abuse of this law as there is with every other employment law, it's written so that the cost to the employer is basically the same either way, they either pay out in paid time off or in overtime wages, so in general there's no incentive for the employer to coerce the employee into taking one option or another.

Also, the reason it doesn't apply to public sector employees is that they already have a comp time option (and it's only 1 hour per hour worked, not 1.5 hours): https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-administration/fact-sheets/compensatory-time-off/

  I was going to say that at my workplace they'd just move all OT to additional time off, then not give you any time off, then not pay out at the end of the year. A law that makes employers pay out for unused PTO would be a good thing.

rated:
I'm pretty free market laissez-faire but this is quite bullshit. Too many ways for it to be abused by employers. I can think of more than 1 just with my employer who is fortune 100.  Also, how does this apply in states with doubletime like California? Or with employers who cap amount of PTO that can accrue?

rated:
soundtechie said:   
doveroftke said:   https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1180/text 

It would be the employee's option to elect overtime pay or comp time. It also requires employers to pay out unused comp time each year, at the request of the employee, or when the employee separates. While I'm certain there will be abuse of this law as there is with every other employment law, it's written so that the cost to the employer is basically the same either way, they either pay out in paid time off or in overtime wages, so in general there's no incentive for the employer to coerce the employee into taking one option or another.

Also, the reason it doesn't apply to public sector employees is that they already have a comp time option (and it's only 1 hour per hour worked, not 1.5 hours): https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-administration/fact-sheets/compensatory-time-off/

  I was going to say that at my workplace they'd just move all OT to additional time off, then not give you any time off, then not pay out at the end of the year. A law that makes employers pay out for unused PTO would be a good thing.

 
You bring up another possible avenue for abuse: Employer badgers employees to take comp time, pays time off from comp time bucket first (because that has to be used or paid out), refuses additional PTO requests, and employee has to forfeit unused PTO at separation. The bill really needs a provision that all PTO be paid out at separation (honestly can't believe this isn't already a federal law).

I don't mind the comp time concept, some employees do prefer comp time over overtime (though I'm guessing it's only a small percentage), but this bill doesn't cut it IMHO.

rated:
RailroadTrack said:   
How strange that this doesn't apply to public sector workers when they are the biggest abusers of overtime pay.     

  employees can't force themselves into working overtime

rated:
Three card monte. You're angry I'll take care of it. BS. This congress more than any in decades is against the people. Those that got fooled can you admit it? Oh & your jobs aren't coming back either.

rated:
zapjb said:   Oh & your jobs aren't coming back either.
  they will if/when we invade NK

rated:
forbin4040 said:   Some restrictions : 
Employee needs 1000 hours of employment (roughly 12 weeks of FT) before they are 'eligible'.
Are you sure about the emphasized part?

rated:
jd2010 said:   I'm pretty free market laissez-faire but this is quite bullshit. Too many ways for it to be abused by employers. I can think of more than 1 just with my employer who is fortune 100.  Also, how does this apply in states with doubletime like California? Or with employers who cap amount of PTO that can accrue?Could you provide examples of how this can be abused? I read the text and I can't figure out any problems with it. The agreement is voluntary and the employee can request and employer must provide monetary compensation instead of PTO at any time. Any unused PTO must be paid out if not used in any 12 month period or upon termination. PTO is accrued at 1.5x rate and paid out at 1x rate, which is equivalent to 1.5x overtime. And I'm pretty sure state laws supersede federal laws, so I'd expect doubletime to accrue PTO at 2x instead of 1.5x.

rated:
scripta said:   
forbin4040 said:   Some restrictions : 
Employee needs 1000 hours of employment (roughly 12 weeks of FT) before they are 'eligible'.

Are you sure about the emphasized part?

  lol whoops.  I got thinking about how I work 80 hours a week..haha
 

rated:
I don't think it's a bad bill. It's the legislative equivalent of telling businesses to hire more employees instead of working the existing ones to death.

rated:
scripta said:   
jd2010 said:   I'm pretty free market laissez-faire but this is quite bullshit. Too many ways for it to be abused by employers. I can think of more than 1 just with my employer who is fortune 100.  Also, how does this apply in states with doubletime like California? Or with employers who cap amount of PTO that can accrue?
 

Could you provide examples of how this can be abused? I read the text and I can't figure out any problems with it. The agreement is voluntary and the employee can request and employer must provide monetary compensation instead of PTO at any time. Any unused PTO must be paid out if not used in any 12 month period or upon termination. PTO is accrued at 1.5x rate and paid out at 1x rate, which is equivalent to 1.5x overtime. And I'm pretty sure state laws supersede federal laws, so I'd expect doubletime to accrue PTO at 2x instead of 1.5x.
 

  
Comp time ≠ PTO. This law would only apply to a very specific bucket of comp time hours and PTO would continue to be unregulated at the federal level.

rated:
Unless you are paid by the hour, who cares? Majority of people are in FWF and are likely salary. So were still enjoying the fun game of "Work overtime, maybe sometime all that hard work will be reflected in your promotion, wink wink"

rated:
jd2010 said:   I'm pretty free market laissez-faire but this is quite bullshit. Too many ways for it to be abused by employers. I can think of more than 1 just with my employer who is fortune 100.  Also, how does this apply in states with doubletime like California? Or with employers who cap amount of PTO that can accrue?
  
State law still applies in places like CA. PTO accrual and comp time are not the same thing.

rated:
forbin4040 said:   
RailroadTrack said:   Public Sector Employees: "Hahahaha" (Laughs in entitlement)

How strange that this doesn't apply to public sector workers when they are the biggest abusers of overtime pay.     

  I wouldn't say that they are the biggest 'abusers'

In Cali, Firefighters were understaffed 3 years ago and were constantly asking for funds to up the staff before fire season.  They were denied, then the fires started.  Those guys were working 24 hour shifts with no replacements in sight.  Which amounted to a ton of overtime.  

If you staff your departments at the 'min' and emergencies happen (because Governments NEVER spend enough on infrastructure) then a ton of people are going to make OT.

On the 'other hand' there were stories about policemen that were retiring that year so they were volunteering for all the OT, so their pensions were incredible when they retired, that's abuse.

We can't afford more, because they get paid too much. They get 90% of their peak six figure salary on retirement and get to retire quite early and they get cost of living increases.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/06/in-california-many-police-and-firefighters-get-100-000-pensions/239796/

This is already affecting California now, but it will really put a strain on California in a decade or so as the high pay pensioners add up.


 

rated:
riznick said:   forbin4040 said:   
RailroadTrack said:   Public Sector Employees: "Hahahaha" (Laughs in entitlement)

How strange that this doesn't apply to public sector workers when they are the biggest abusers of overtime pay.     

  I wouldn't say that they are the biggest 'abusers'

In Cali, Firefighters were understaffed 3 years ago and were constantly asking for funds to up the staff before fire season.  They were denied, then the fires started.  Those guys were working 24 hour shifts with no replacements in sight.  Which amounted to a ton of overtime.  

If you staff your departments at the 'min' and emergencies happen (because Governments NEVER spend enough on infrastructure) then a ton of people are going to make OT.

On the 'other hand' there were stories about policemen that were retiring that year so they were volunteering for all the OT, so their pensions were incredible when they retired, that's abuse.

We can't afford more, because they get paid too much. They get 90% of their peak six figure salary on retirement and get to retire quite early and they get cost of living increases.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/06/in-california-many-police-and-firefighters-get-100-000-pensions/239796/

This is already affecting California now, but it will really put a strain on California in a decade or so as the high pay pensioners add up.


 

You know, you're also free to be a fire fighter or police if you envy the pay. Didn't we just have a thread discussing how more dangerous jobs are compensate more?

rated:
I am...skeptical that this makes it through the Senate.

rated:
rufflesinc said:   
You know, you're also free to be a fire fighter or police if you envy the pay. Didn't we just have a thread discussing how more dangerous jobs are compensate more?

Sounds like I got sand in your shorts. I've considered it. I wish I made that decision decades ago. I think I'm too old and damaged. I doubt they would hire me.

Budgeting matters. If I have 1 million to spend. I can pay 5 people 200k or 10 people 100k.

rated:
Per Transparent California's website:  http://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/search/?q=Firefighter 

Below are just the first few names of those with the job title of "fire fighter".  You can flip through all of the the pages to see all salaries and overtime pay.

As Riznick correctly points out, the pensions are going to create an unsustainable burden on California taxpayers.  

My neighbor, who was a police officer, retired and moved out of California.  He worked as much overtime as he could get the last couple of years with the intention of spiking his pension.  They all do that.  Who wouldn't do the same if you had the opportunity.


Name  Job title  Regular pay  Overtime pay  Other pay  Total benefits  Total pay &benefits 
Donn D Thompson  Firefighter III 
Los Angeles, 2016 
$88,358.40 $307,541.73 $29,012.80 $14,571.89 $439,484.82
Michael Ayala  Firefighter 
Santa Monica, 2016 
$104,142.00 $139,104.00 $43,027.00 $73,721.00 $359,994.00
Curt S Wasserman  Firefighter III 
Los Angeles, 2016 
$87,792.15 $218,597.72 $30,948.34 $14,571.89 $351,910.10
Joshua R Ornelas  Firefighter III 
Los Angeles, 2016 
$88,358.40 $211,928.01 $28,647.06 $14,571.89 $343,505.36
Bryce Johnson  Firefighter 
Santa Monica, 2016 
$104,142.00 $126,572.00 $33,380.00 $77,466.00 $341,560.00
Armando Gabaldon  Firefighter III 
Los Angeles, 2016 
$87,950.03 $217,564.97 $11,913.74 $14,571.89 $332,000.63
James Charron  FIREFIGHTER PARAMEDIC 112 
Beverly Hills, 2016 
$129,726.92 $75,748.52 $36,583.14 $86,502.81 $328,561.39
Derek Sandeman  FIREFIGHTER PARAMEDIC 112 
Beverly Hills, 2016 
$126,041.13 $73,972.78 $40,329.25 $85,234.45 $325,577.61
Daniel Galvan  Firefighter 
Santa Monica, 2016 
$104,142.00 $108,873.00 $48,494.00 $62,963.00 $324,472.00
Bradford Mchenry  FIREFIGHTER PARAMEDIC 112 
Beverly Hills, 2016 
$129,726.92 $66,770.50 $36,129.73 $86,969.54 $319,596.69
James R Callison  Firefighter III 
Los Angeles, 2016 
$87,966.35 $178,255.21 $37,387.63 $14,571.89 $318,181.08
Mark Hogan  Firefighter 
Fremont, 2016 
$101,095.00 $119,987.00 $19,913.00 $76,639.00 $317,634.00
Jose M Perez  Firefighter III 
Los Angeles, 2016 
$88,358.40 $184,423.82 $29,696.77 $14,571.89 $317,050.88


rated:
bighitter said:   
As Riznick correctly points out, the pensions are going to create an unsustainable burden on California taxpayers.  

My neighbor, who was a police officer, retired and moved out of California.  He worked as much overtime as he could get the last couple of years with the intention of spiking his pension.  They all do that.  Who wouldn't do the same if you had the opportunity.

 

And as I pointed out to Riznick , both of you are free to become firefighters or police officers, and reap the same benefits. It's quite hypocritical to see the same people who respond to complaints that exec pay is to high with "you can work hard and do it too" but whine about the people who put their neck on the line for your life and your property making low six figures.

As to overtime pay, an employee cannot force themselves into working overtime if the employer does not want them to.

rated:
riznick said:   
rufflesinc said:   
You know, you're also free to be a fire fighter or police if you envy the pay. Didn't we just have a thread discussing how more dangerous jobs are compensate more?

Sounds like I got sand in your shorts. I've considered it. I wish I made that decision decades ago. I think I'm too old and damaged. I doubt they would hire me.

 

  You had the same opportunities.. If you have regret, sounds like you're the one with sand in your nether regions

rated:
rufflesinc said:   
bighitter said:   
As Riznick correctly points out, the pensions are going to create an unsustainable burden on California taxpayers.  

My neighbor, who was a police officer, retired and moved out of California.  He worked as much overtime as he could get the last couple of years with the intention of spiking his pension.  They all do that.  Who wouldn't do the same if you had the opportunity.

 

And as I pointed out to Riznick , both of you are free to become firefighters or police officers, and reap the same benefits. It's quite hypocritical to see the same people who respond to complaints that exec pay is to high with "you can work hard and do it too" but whine about the people who put their neck on the line for your life and your property making low six figures.

As to overtime pay, an employee cannot force themselves into working overtime if the employer does not want them to.

  But what if they don't want to leach off the taxpayers and want productive jobs instead?

rated:
dk240t said:   
rufflesinc said:   
bighitter said:   
As Riznick correctly points out, the pensions are going to create an unsustainable burden on California taxpayers.  

My neighbor, who was a police officer, retired and moved out of California.  He worked as much overtime as he could get the last couple of years with the intention of spiking his pension.  They all do that.  Who wouldn't do the same if you had the opportunity.

 

And as I pointed out to Riznick , both of you are free to become firefighters or police officers, and reap the same benefits. It's quite hypocritical to see the same people who respond to complaints that exec pay is to high with "you can work hard and do it too" but whine about the people who put their neck on the line for your life and your property making low six figures.

As to overtime pay, an employee cannot force themselves into working overtime if the employer does not want them to.

  But what if they don't want to leach off the taxpayers and want productive jobs instead?

  So you're saying police officers and firefighters aren't productive jobs? Got it, you should tell that to their faces when they come after to your home invasion or your house catch on fire. Better yet, tell them that when they're on the tail end of an overtime shift.

rated:
bighitter said:   Per Transparent California's website:  http://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/search/?q=Firefighter 

Below are just the first few names of those with the job title of "fire fighter".  You can flip through all of the the pages to see all salaries and overtime pay.

As Riznick correctly points out, the pensions are going to create an unsustainable burden on California taxpayers.  

My neighbor, who was a police officer, retired and moved out of California.  He worked as much overtime as he could get the last couple of years with the intention of spiking his pension.  They all do that.  Who wouldn't do the same if you had the opportunity.



Name  Job title  Regular pay  Overtime pay  Other pay  Total benefits  Total pay &benefits 
Donn D Thompson  Firefighter III 
Los Angeles, 2016 
$88,358.40 $307,541.73 $29,012.80 $14,571.89 $439,484.82
Michael Ayala  Firefighter 
Santa Monica, 2016 
$104,142.00 $139,104.00 $43,027.00 $73,721.00 $359,994.00
Curt S Wasserman  Firefighter III 
Los Angeles, 2016 
$87,792.15 $218,597.72 $30,948.34 $14,571.89 $351,910.10
Joshua R Ornelas  Firefighter III 
Los Angeles, 2016 
$88,358.40 $211,928.01 $28,647.06 $14,571.89 $343,505.36
Bryce Johnson  Firefighter 
Santa Monica, 2016 
$104,142.00 $126,572.00 $33,380.00 $77,466.00 $341,560.00
Armando Gabaldon  Firefighter III 
Los Angeles, 2016 
$87,950.03 $217,564.97 $11,913.74 $14,571.89 $332,000.63
James Charron  FIREFIGHTER PARAMEDIC 112 
Beverly Hills, 2016 
$129,726.92 $75,748.52 $36,583.14 $86,502.81 $328,561.39
Derek Sandeman  FIREFIGHTER PARAMEDIC 112 
Beverly Hills, 2016 
$126,041.13 $73,972.78 $40,329.25 $85,234.45 $325,577.61
Daniel Galvan  Firefighter 
Santa Monica, 2016 
$104,142.00 $108,873.00 $48,494.00 $62,963.00 $324,472.00
Bradford Mchenry  FIREFIGHTER PARAMEDIC 112 
Beverly Hills, 2016 
$129,726.92 $66,770.50 $36,129.73 $86,969.54 $319,596.69
James R Callison  Firefighter III 
Los Angeles, 2016 
$87,966.35 $178,255.21 $37,387.63 $14,571.89 $318,181.08
Mark Hogan  Firefighter 
Fremont, 2016 
$101,095.00 $119,987.00 $19,913.00 $76,639.00 $317,634.00
Jose M Perez  Firefighter III 
Los Angeles, 2016 
$88,358.40 $184,423.82 $29,696.77 $14,571.89 $317,050.88


  
So you basically cherry picked the highest earning firefighters in the state.  BTW, that $14,571.89 for LA benefits is just their total budget divided by headcount.  Which is misleading because it includes seasonal, volunteer and part-timers who probably don't get any sort of benefit package.  LA has more issues with forest fires than San Fran does so they use a lot more non-"Professional" firefighters.  

Scroll down the list a bit..  you start seeing a pattern.  Bay Area has much higher base salary but far less OT pay than LA.  All the guys banking in LA have tons of overtime.  Which should tell you that they are seriously understaffed and/or their union has "negotiated" substantial OT payment terms that trigger easily.  It really is an "LA" issue and not a "California" one.

rated:
rufflesinc said:   
bighitter said:   
As Riznick correctly points out, the pensions are going to create an unsustainable burden on California taxpayers.  

My neighbor, who was a police officer, retired and moved out of California.  He worked as much overtime as he could get the last couple of years with the intention of spiking his pension.  They all do that.  Who wouldn't do the same if you had the opportunity.

 

And as I pointed out to Riznick , both of you are free to become firefighters or police officers, and reap the same benefits. It's quite hypocritical to see the same people who respond to complaints that exec pay is to high with "you can work hard and do it too" but whine about the people who put their neck on the line for your life and your property making low six figures.

As to overtime pay, an employee cannot force themselves into working overtime if the employer does not want them to.

  That's just it Ruffles, the other government employees collude against taxpayers to allow the soon-to-be retiring employee to get as much overtime pay as they can physically perform with the understanding that when it's their time they will have the chance as well.

rated:
stanolshefski said:   
rufflesinc said:   
bighitter said:   
As Riznick correctly points out, the pensions are going to create an unsustainable burden on California taxpayers.  

My neighbor, who was a police officer, retired and moved out of California.  He worked as much overtime as he could get the last couple of years with the intention of spiking his pension.  They all do that.  Who wouldn't do the same if you had the opportunity.

 

And as I pointed out to Riznick , both of you are free to become firefighters or police officers, and reap the same benefits. It's quite hypocritical to see the same people who respond to complaints that exec pay is to high with "you can work hard and do it too" but whine about the people who put their neck on the line for your life and your property making low six figures.

As to overtime pay, an employee cannot force themselves into working overtime if the employer does not want them to.

  That's just it Ruffles, the other government employees collude against taxpayers to allow the soon-to-be retiring employee to get as much overtime pay as they can physically perform with the understanding that when it's their time they will have the chance as well.

  And how many govt employees are there versus total taxpayers/voters? The government employees aren't writing the rules. THat is done by elected officials or directly by voters

rated:
rufflesinc said:   
riznick said:   
forbin4040 said:   
RailroadTrack said:   Public Sector Employees: "Hahahaha" (Laughs in entitlement)

How strange that this doesn't apply to public sector workers when they are the biggest abusers of overtime pay.     

  I wouldn't say that they are the biggest 'abusers'

In Cali, Firefighters were understaffed 3 years ago and were constantly asking for funds to up the staff before fire season.  They were denied, then the fires started.  Those guys were working 24 hour shifts with no replacements in sight.  Which amounted to a ton of overtime.  

If you staff your departments at the 'min' and emergencies happen (because Governments NEVER spend enough on infrastructure) then a ton of people are going to make OT.

On the 'other hand' there were stories about policemen that were retiring that year so they were volunteering for all the OT, so their pensions were incredible when they retired, that's abuse.

We can't afford more, because they get paid too much. They get 90% of their peak six figure salary on retirement and get to retire quite early and they get cost of living increases.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/06/in-california-many-police-and-firefighters-get-100-000-pensions/239796/ 

This is already affecting California now, but it will really put a strain on California in a decade or so as the high pay pensioners add up.


 

You know, you're also free to be a fire fighter or police if you envy the pay. Didn't we just have a thread discussing how more dangerous jobs are compensate more?

  Interesting, where is this thread?

rated:
GreyRabbit said:   
rufflesinc said:   
riznick said:   
forbin4040 said:   
RailroadTrack said:   Public Sector Employees: "Hahahaha" (Laughs in entitlement)

How strange that this doesn't apply to public sector workers when they are the biggest abusers of overtime pay.     

  I wouldn't say that they are the biggest 'abusers'

In Cali, Firefighters were understaffed 3 years ago and were constantly asking for funds to up the staff before fire season.  They were denied, then the fires started.  Those guys were working 24 hour shifts with no replacements in sight.  Which amounted to a ton of overtime.  

If you staff your departments at the 'min' and emergencies happen (because Governments NEVER spend enough on infrastructure) then a ton of people are going to make OT.

On the 'other hand' there were stories about policemen that were retiring that year so they were volunteering for all the OT, so their pensions were incredible when they retired, that's abuse.

We can't afford more, because they get paid too much. They get 90% of their peak six figure salary on retirement and get to retire quite early and they get cost of living increases.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/06/in-california-many-police-and-firefighters-get-100-000-pensions/239796/ 

This is already affecting California now, but it will really put a strain on California in a decade or so as the high pay pensioners add up.


 

You know, you're also free to be a fire fighter or police if you envy the pay. Didn't we just have a thread discussing how more dangerous jobs are compensate more?

  Interesting, where is this thread?

  https://www.fatwallet.com/forums/finance/1558429

rated:
GreyRabbit said:   rufflesinc said:   
.. .


 

You know, you're also free to be a fire fighter or police if you envy the pay. Didn't we just have a thread discussing how more dangerous jobs are compensate more?

  Interesting, where is this thread?


Think that was the gender pay equality thread most recently.

rated:
rufflesinc said:   
stanolshefski said:   
rufflesinc said:   
bighitter said:   
As Riznick correctly points out, the pensions are going to create an unsustainable burden on California taxpayers.  

My neighbor, who was a police officer, retired and moved out of California.  He worked as much overtime as he could get the last couple of years with the intention of spiking his pension.  They all do that.  Who wouldn't do the same if you had the opportunity.

 

And as I pointed out to Riznick , both of you are free to become firefighters or police officers, and reap the same benefits. It's quite hypocritical to see the same people who respond to complaints that exec pay is to high with "you can work hard and do it too" but whine about the people who put their neck on the line for your life and your property making low six figures.

As to overtime pay, an employee cannot force themselves into working overtime if the employer does not want them to.

  That's just it Ruffles, the other government employees collude against taxpayers to allow the soon-to-be retiring employee to get as much overtime pay as they can physically perform with the understanding that when it's their time they will have the chance as well.

  And how many govt employees are there versus total taxpayers/voters? The government employees aren't writing the rules. THat is done by elected officials or directly by voters

  The largest donor to political campaigns at the state and local level is usually government employee unions (i.e. AFSCME, AFT, NEA, etc.).

rated:
stanolshefski said:   rufflesinc said:   
stanolshefski said:   
rufflesinc said:   
bighitter said:   
As Riznick correctly points out, the pensions are going to create an unsustainable burden on California taxpayers.  

My neighbor, who was a police officer, retired and moved out of California.  He worked as much overtime as he could get the last couple of years with the intention of spiking his pension.  They all do that.  Who wouldn't do the same if you had the opportunity.

 

And as I pointed out to Riznick , both of you are free to become firefighters or police officers, and reap the same benefits. It's quite hypocritical to see the same people who respond to complaints that exec pay is to high with "you can work hard and do it too" but whine about the people who put their neck on the line for your life and your property making low six figures.

As to overtime pay, an employee cannot force themselves into working overtime if the employer does not want them to.

  That's just it Ruffles, the other government employees collude against taxpayers to allow the soon-to-be retiring employee to get as much overtime pay as they can physically perform with the understanding that when it's their time they will have the chance as well.

  And how many govt employees are there versus total taxpayers/voters? The government employees aren't writing the rules. THat is done by elected officials or directly by voters

  The largest donor to political campaigns at the state and local level is usually government employee unions (i.e. AFSCME, AFT, NEA, etc.).

Political donations don't vote, voters do.

rated:
stanolshefski said:   
...
  The largest donor to political campaigns at the state and local level is usually government employee unions (i.e. AFSCME, AFT, NEA, etc.).


  
Do you have a source for that or is that just your anecdotal observation?

Nationally public sector unions are outspent 2 to 1 by just the energy industry private money but thats nationally.  I can't seem to find anything braeking it all down for state & local levels specifically.
I spot checked our mayor and my state rep and only a minor % of their money comes from public sector but of course thats just 2 data points so not too  meaningful.  Though this is liberal & union heavy oregon.


 

rated:
rufflesinc said:   stanolshefski said:   rufflesinc said:   And how many govt employees are there versus total taxpayers/voters? The government employees aren't writing the rules. THat is done by elected officials or directly by votersThe largest donor to political campaigns at the state and local level is usually government employee unions (i.e. AFSCME, AFT, NEA, etc.).Political donations don't vote, voters do.LOL. Voters are also easily manipulated and have very short and unreliable memories.

Skipping 41 Messages...
rated:
That's not discrimination. It's competitive bidding. If they have employees willing to work OT under the OT compensation structure they would prefer to use, why should the employer be forced to spread the work around to less-accommodating employees?

  • Quick Reply:  Have something quick to contribute? Just reply below and you're done! hide Quick Reply
     
    Click here for full-featured reply.


Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2017