Vanguard Analysis of Fire Staffing and Budgetary Changes Shows Savings Fall Short – The issue of fire staffing is one that bedevils many observers. One of the key questions that the council is going to have to wrestle with is the issue of overstaffing versus overtime.
“Overtime in the fire service has been misunderstood by the lay person, including City Administration and Elected officials for over thirty years. A lay person’s assessment of overtime is work that is done because it could not be completed during normal working hours,” Davis’ Interim Fire Chief Scott Kenley writes in his audit of the department.
He explains, “In the fire service, overtime is the cost of providing employees time off in the form of vacation, compensatory time off and sick leave. In reality, the term overtime in the Fire Department’s budget should be renamed, ‘Constant Staffing.’ “
Mr. Kenley, no apologist for fire staffing and budgets, puts forth a plan to reduce fire staffing from 42 to 36.
As he wrote, “In 1999, the Department increased its authorized funded positions for suppression personnel from thirteen per shift to fifteen per shift with a minimum staffing of twelve.”
Critical to this analysis is the rise in the cost of benefits. Chief Kenley notes, “At the time, the collective wisdom in the industry was that overstaffing reduced overtime, and any day where there were extra personnel, station thirty-one staffing would increase to the point that the engine could be staffed with three or four in addition to the two assigned to the rescue. Over time, the benefit package increased, ultimately passing fifty-percent of salary. This caused the industry to re-assess the practice of overstaffing versus overtime.”
The critical level is if the benefit package is under 40%, it is cheaper to have additional people on shift rather than people taking overtime. But when the benefit package rises above 40%, it is cheaper to pay people overtime because it reduces the number of employees and unfunded liabilities.
He proposes that this shift be accomplished through attrition.
Basically each firefighter works 122 24-hour shifts. That creates what will be three 12-person shifts, which means 36 people in total will work 122 shifts each a year.
Overtime occurs because any time an individual takes a vacation day or misses time for sickness, you either have to hire someone to replace them or you pay someone overtime to do that work.
As Rich Rifkin noted in a comment Thursday, “Currently, firefighters get 20 days every 30-day month off work. That is not vacation or holiday time. That is the number of ‘weekend’ days for them.”
Additionally, firefighters get 12 paid holidays, he writes, and adds that they get 10 days of paid vacation time per year.
“I am not sure why firefighters deserve one single day of paid vacation per year. They are only on duty 1/3rd of the year. Isn’t 2/3rds of the time not at work enough rest and relaxation time?” he writes.
But there’s a dilemma here. Basically the firefighters work what is equivalent to 366 8-hour shifts a year.
As Mr. Rifkin notes, not all shifts are created equally. For example, some of that time is rest time, some of that time is sleep time.
Bobby Weist, the union president, argued that much of that sleep time is not rest time.
“There are many nights we are up 24 hours responding to calls,” he continued. “If you’d like I can give you a call each time I go out and remind you of that.”
That leads us to one critical question – could the fire department move to 12-hour rather than 24-hour shifts? The advantage of that would be that everyone would be working for the full 12 hours rather than being paid at least some of the time to sleep.
But Chief Kenley believes the 24-hour shift is most cost effective for the city.
“12 hour shifts would require an additional shift of twelve firefighters to cover those days when the other crews are off,” he told the Vanguard. “Two shifts each day. Each shift needs at least one day off, hence four shifts instead of three. Therefore, a 12 hour shift, regardless of staffing, would increase the cost by a minimum of 25%.”
IMPACT OF BUDGET NEGOTIATIONS – City Falls Short of their Goals
The council moved the ball forward on Tuesday by approving by a 5-0 a resolution approving the employment contract between the City of Davis and the Individual Police Management Group.
The Individual Police Management Group includes lieutenants, a captain and an assistant police chief in the Police Department.
There are four critical elements of the agreement – the reduction of retiree health, the reduction in payments to the cafeteria cashout from $1500 per month to $500 over a three-year period, the pick up by employees of their 9% PERS share plus 3% of the employer’s share, and the movement toward a two-tier retirement system.
The following is from the city’s release:
Term of Agreement
Over the past several months, the City and representatives of the Individual Police Management Employees met and conferred in good faith to negotiate a new MOU effective immediately through June 30, 2015.
Retirement Benefits
As with many other California public agencies, the City Council believes employees should pay at least the full portion of the employee share of retirement costs, as is common in many other California public agencies. Currently all Police Management Employees pay the full 9% employee portion, but with this agreement, employees will now also pay an additional 3% towards the employer portion. This is an approximate savings of $22,000 annually.
Two-Tier Retirement Benefit
Another objective was to explore differential compensation packages for future employees. Police Management employees have agreed to implement a “two-tier” retirement system.. New employees will fall under a “3%@55” formula, meaning they would receive 3% of salary for each year served beginning at age 55, instead of the current 3%@50 formula. This change requires agreement from all public safety employees, including sworn police employees and Davis firefighters.
Retiree Medical Benefit
Both sides have agreed to a sustainable retiree medical benefit that reduces the long -term liability of retiree medical costs, while still providing a benefit. Currently, retiree health consumes 20 percent of payroll. This proposal brings it down to 16 percent for this group, for an approximate annual savings of $29,000.
The City has proposed changing its retiree health benefits plan to require employees to work longer before becoming eligible for 100% coverage. Coverage would be calculated for the employee and one family member at the Medicare rate instead of a full family at the full premium non-Medicare rate. These changes must be accepted by the Davis Police Officers Association in order to be implemented for the Independent Police Management Group.
To offset the significant changes made to the retiree medical benefit, the City has provided a salary increase of 2% in 2012-13, 2% in 2013-2014 and 1% in 2014-15.
Health Benefit
Health costs have risen at an alarming rate and continue to increase. The City Council identified a need to effectively manage health benefit costs while maintaining comprehensive coverage for all employees. The current contract provides a cash payout to any employee not taking the full health insurance allowance. The new contract would cap the cash-out provision for current employees at $500 per month over a three-year phase in process.
Effective with this agreement, the City will reduce the contribution from $1738.44 to $1,561.55 per month to an employee’s cafeteria plan to purchase health insurance. To help rein in escalating health benefit costs while maintaining coverage for all employees, the agreement also implements a 50/50 cost sharing provision with future increases to health care costs shared between the City and the employee.
Combined, the reduction in the cash out contribution and the cost-sharing provision will have an approximate costs savings in the first year of $27,000.
The city figures the first year total compensation reduction of this contract is approximately 3.5%.
The question is how this fits into the big picture. The answer is that, while it moves the ball forward, it does not go as far as the city hoped.
According to the city manager, if all the groups take the proposal that police management took, it would amount to about $3.3 million in all funds savings by the end of the contract.
Year 1 assumes an effective date of December 1 for the new labor agreements, he told the Vanguard. And the total savings for this year would be about $1.9 million, but the budget projected about $4 million in savings total this year.
By the end of the contract, year 4, it would create about a $3.3 million savings in all funds, but again that falls short of the $4 million in general fund savings the city was projecting in June.
And that savings assumes that fire stays at 36 staffers rather than hiring back up to 42. It also assumes inflators for PERS retirement increases and medical premium increases.
Bottom line, while this contract moves the city forward, it gets them less than half way to where they wanted to be when they passed the budget in June.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
As Rich wrote in a previous post we need to look at why someone is getting “overtime” when he “works” for the 11th day in a month and why guys that get 20 days off every month need even more “vacation”.
I am sure that we got rid of vacation pay and overtime we would not see even a single firefighter quit, and if we did there would be HUNDREDS of quality guys reaty to take his place.
medwoman wrote in the previous post:
> Firefighters, like doctors who take in house call,
> are not “paid to sleep, or shop, or do dishes”.
My best friend is a firefighter and since he is not a firefighter/paramedic he never goes out on medical only calls in the ambulance (aka “the box”). He works in a suburban district and will go MONTHS on end without having to get up at night. His newer fire station has separate rooms for each firefighter and he does not even hear the alarm for medical calls at night since they just go to the paramedic rooms. On a typical day he might “work” about an hour or two and they are able to get a lot of the “work” at the station done by the “hang arounds” who hope to get a job there so they can make more than $1K a day sleeping, watching TV, eating and working on their race cars and boats in the air conditioned station.
My wife’s best friend is married to a doctor in a small practice and his life is nothing like my firefighter friends. He works close to 10x as much and makes less money despite his Ivy League undergrad and top Med school education (and student loan debt) vs. the two years of junior college for my firefighter friend. Let’s not forget that my firefighter friend can soon “retire” with a pension worth ~$150K a year and full family health care worth ~$24K a year while the rest of us will probably be working full time until we die…
I am not sure I follow why 12 hr shifts wouldn’t work. Why 4 day-12 hr shifts. Similar to hospital employees.
I agree with SODA. There are a lot of ways to cover the 24×7 requirement. I also think that we can train part-time semi-volunteer firefighters to cover the graveyard shift on a rotating schedule. Take a person working a full-time 9-5 job that is capable and needs the work. They come home from work, have dinner with the family kiss the wife or husband goodnight, and go to the fire station to work midnight – 8:00 AM making $15-25 per hour (pay increases with experience) without benefits on a rotating 3/2 day per week schedule… they would basically be paid for sleeping. The other shifts could be covered too… the 4:30 – midnight swing shift and the 8:00 AM -noon day shift. There could even be a part-time shift that would allow college students working as a firefighter while attending classes.
There is no reason that these and other types of creative staffing solutions should not be pursued. Police work is different because of the requirement that officers carry weapons and are licensed to use deadly force. Firefighting does not have similar work requirements, and the work can be done by almost any able-bodied person.
It is our community paying the taxes that fund the fire stations. The community could derive enhanced income-earning benefits for a greater number of residents while lowering the overall costs for fire safety for the city.
The only reason that this type of solution is not pursued – that I am aware of – is union blocking and lack of political support because the unions help fund political campaigns.
“As Rich wrote in a previous post we need to look at why someone is getting “overtime” when he “works” for the 11th day in a month and why guys that get 20 days off every month need even more “vacation”. “
I’m not trying to defend the system, but the guy who is working an 11th day in the month has worked the same hours after the guy working the more typical arrangement. Rich’s point is a good one.
SODA: the follow up question is a 12 hour shift with three shifts means 2 days on, one day off. The question I guess is why that arrangement wouldn’t work?
“The only reason that this type of solution is not pursued – that I am aware of – is union blocking and lack of political support because the unions help fund political campaigns.”
You could make that argument previously, but no one on the current council took fire union support, and Chief Kenley is notably hostile to unions. So if he sees a problem with it – I’m following up on my question from yesterday, then we need to listen without falling back into union blocking and political support charges – as they don’t apply in the present situation.
[i]You could make that argument previously[/i]
Good point. I should have made it clear that I was pointing out the reason for why we had not previously considered creative staffing solutions. However, mine was more a point that nationally there isn’t much of this going on and the reason is the union-political connection. For example, I cannot find any objective arguments against creative staffing ideas, but I also cannot find any good examples of this occurring. In some cases the municipality has had to fire all the firefighters and go to an all-volunteer arrangement. Or in other cases, a city with another city in close proximity will outsource fire safety so that one city is covering both… saving in personnel costs.
However, there are not any examples of creative staffing like I suggest. It seems that the business of firefighting backed by unions effectively blocks the approach. That block is simply that no non-union firefighters are allowed to be hired, and all firefighters are covered in the collective bargaining agreements that ensure they are paid the same and have the same or similar benefits.
Even though we don’t see the political-union connection being as big of a concern now in Davis, I remain skeptical that anything has changed until there are actions indicating things are changing.
Don’t disagree, seem to be fighting that mindset across the board and pressing for more creative solutions
David wrote:
> I’m not trying to defend the system, but the guy
> who is working an 11th day in the month has worked
> the same hours after the guy working the more typical
> arrangement.
The firefighters have a lot of people thinking that they “work” 24 hours a day. A cousin worked in the Tenderloin station in SF for years and he came close to “working” 24 hours a day (he liked the “action” and never transferred to one of the quiet Sunset stations like most older firefighters) but most suburban firefighters spend very little time “working”.
When I (and so many others) went on business trips we were away from our family for 24 hours a day like firefighters, but we were not paid to sleep, eat and watch TV. Why is this different for firefighters? When I worked for a “Big 8” accounting firm we would often “work” until after midnight while on the road and we could put in for overtime (but we were pressured not to and the people that put in for overtime were always the first to be “let go”).
Many people are on call 24 hours a day like rural tow truck drivers and rural doctors and large animal veterinarians, but most only get paid when they actually work not for the hours they are “on call” but don’t work.
I don’t want to mention the fire department where my friend works (it’s not in Yolo County) but the amount of “work” they do is so low that it is crazy (ALL the firefighters spend more time doing personal stuff online, playing video games and watching TV than working). The guys that work with my friend all have cars, trucks, boats, race cars, jet skis and other toys in great shape since they typically pull them in to the nice well lit fire truck bays to work on them while getting paid. Even better most firefighters are able to get the “hang around” guys to wash and wax their trucks and change the oil on their ski boats and jet skis (with the exception of the rare “affirmative action” hire these “hang around” guys are the guys that get hired).
I want to make it clear that I do not hold any personal animus toward the actual people working for the fire department. In some respects I am just envious that they had the drive and luck to pursue the job… it is like they won the lottery for a good paying job that is relatively easy and that did not require a decade of college education and years of struggle playing work politics to scramble up the corporate ladder. My problem is with the unions blocking the types of changes we should be making, and the politicians for not taking the required steps… steps that might seem extreme if you approach it from an emotional mindset that the changes are harmful to people, and not the business mindset that the organization is fiscally unsound and financially unsustainable and change HAS To happen. In fact, I have less of a problem with the unions because they are simply pursuing their self-interest.
Related to the public-sector unions, my beef is that they are allowed to exist, not that they behave like a union is expected to behave.
My biggest beef is with the politicians. They need to stop worrying about appearing uncaring to these employees that we have inappropriately labeled as heroes of some type instead of just being valued employees like all other valued employees. The adjustment transactions we should be pursuing should be strictly business. Policy makers made mast mistakes similar to banks and real estate companies getting swept up in the wild exuberance of the last two decades of real estate equity over-inflating the growth of the economy. A percentage of the tax revenue flowing in that was used to inflate the pay and benefits of public-sector employees has been proven to have been fake. Except for the bailouts by the federal government, the corrections and adjustments have taken place in the private-sector. There is no good reason why the same is delayed and rejected in the public sector.
SOD and Jeff
SOD
I do not dispute the point that you are making that firefighters in Davis have a relatively low intensity job compared with the firefighter working the Tenderloin. However, I do not feel that this in any way negates my point that they are not paid to sleep but to provide immediate readiness should a major problem arise. I do not begrudge the relatively more peaceful night time existence of the rural doctor who probably does not get called many times every single night he is on call just because I chose the more rigorous “action packed” call schedule of a very busy high risk center.
Jeff
I applaud your consistency in not blaming the firefighters for getting the best deal that they can. These would seem to be consistent with your world view that everyone has the right to accumulate as much wealth as they can legally.
I will point out the morality does not seem to hold any value for you in this equation since you seem to reduce any concern about those who do not start on an even playing field to “emotionalism”. Fair enough. That is how you see the world.
But for anyone who is using the comparison with wages or benefits provided to those in the private sector with those in the public sector, I would pose this question. Why is this a more valid comparison, and why demonize the unions and or the politicians when they are using the system in exactly the same way as are the corporate leaders who send their lobbyists in to influence politicians. I don’t seem to recall either of you ever complaining about
promotion of self interest by private business. I would genuinely be interested in hearing why you think that advocating for one’s own best interest is just enlightened self interest when done by the private sector and “corrupt” or “thuggery” when done by unions.
Medwoman:
It is really quite simple. Please note that I have a similar problem with corporate welfare as I do government payments to individuals. For those that should otherwise stand their own, I want the government to stop meddling. But aside from that, the problem with your comparison is that the public-employee unions have a monopoly and an unfair political advantage. They are also “our” employees… meaning taxpayer employees. Government is by and for the people, and they are government. They are government that organizes outside of government to have power over the very people that they work for. Conversely, private business is not by and for the people by any Constitutional definition or legal protection. You can decide as a consumer to not purchase a product or service from most private business. Those that hold us as captive customers need to be regulated (i.e. communications and energy providers). But otherwise these companies can fail if they don’t run a financially sustainable operation. They are tax-paying entities and they should have a right to lobby politicians for pursuing their self-interest so they don’t fail. Unions are not tax-paying entities. Public-sector unions hold an unfair advantage in the democratic system for influencing direct payments to themselves… direct payments that come from the pockets of their neighbors lacking power to prevent it… other than demanding that their elected politicians, the ones that receive campaign money and labor from the unions, do something about it.
Even FDR rejected the idea that we should allow public employee unions.
The reason that they were allowed is simply because politicians noted the power of private-sector unions in helping win elections. The idea to also allow public-sector working to organize was motivated by politicians wanting more of the same.
It is corruptive to our democratic process, and it is breaking the financial backs of communities all over the nation.
You really cannot make the comparison with public-sector unions and private-sector business and unions. They are different animals.
In terms of comment about “emotionalism”… void of feeling (if we could do that), and looking at this as a simple business problem that we need to solve, it is really quite simple. These employees are grossly over compensated, cities are going broke because of it. And because of that the rest of us are having services cut. So, in essence, the unions in pursuing maximum benefit for their members are causing those members to screw their neighbors while they are living the high-life.
I think you have strong egalitarian senses and impulses. How is this fair in your mind?
“Even FDR rejected the idea that we should allow public employee unions.”
this is a misconception, fdr did not oppose public employee unions, he was opposed to federal public employee unions striking.
medwoman wrote:
> I would genuinely be interested in hearing why you
> think that advocating for one’s own best interest is
> just enlightened self interest when done by the private
> sector and “corrupt” or “thuggery” when done by unions.
There are checks and balances in the private sector (Type “Hostess” in Google News to see how this works) that the public sector does not have.
The politicians and union “thugs” have cooked the books for years but even after doing things that would put a CPA following FASB in jail the “official” word is that the public pensions are BILLIONS underfunded.
As a health care professional I don’t need to tell medwoman that the cost of health care/health insurance has been going up by close to 10% a year.
It will be “nice” to pay everyone $10K a month and let them retire at 50 with a 90% pension and health insurance for the whole family, but this is a promise that can’t be kept (if you do the math) and the sooner we admit this the easier it will be to fix the problem.
[i]this is a misconception, fdr did not oppose public employee unions, he was opposed to federal public employee unions striking.[/i]
He gave very mixed signals on this. He was certainly anti-strike. But at times he was also communicating his anti-public-sector union position.
For example…
[quote]“All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service.”[/quote]
Jeff wrote:
> “Even FDR rejected the idea that we should
> allow public employee unions.”
Then Growth Issue wrote:
> this is a misconception, fdr did not oppose public
> employee unions, he was opposed to federal public
> employee unions striking.
I’m no FDR expert, but I’ve read a lot about the man and I’ve read in multiple places that FDR was against public sector unions.
A quick Google search found the information below (that sure seems that he did not want public sector unions):
In a leter to the National Federation of Federal Employees in 1937, Roosevelt reasoned:
“… Meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the government. All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations … The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for … officials … to bind the employer … The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives …
“Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of government employees. Upon employees in the federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people … This obligation is paramount … A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent … to prevent or obstruct … Government … Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government … is unthinkable and intolerable.”
jeff from the same letter however:
[quote]It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that “under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government.”
I congratulate the National Federation of Federal Employees the twentieth anniversary of its founding[/quote]
Jeff
[quote](if we could do that), and looking at this as a simple business problem that we need to solve[/quote]
Yes, but unlike you, I do not view everything as a simple business problem. As you said yourself:
[quote]You really cannot make the comparison with public-sector unions and private-sector business and unions. They are different animals. [/quote]
So since you acknowledge that public and private enterprises are quite different in their nature, why do you, when it suits your purpose, act as though they should be evaluated and judged in the same way ?
SOD
[quote]There are checks and balances in the private sector (Type “Hostess” in Google News to see how this works) that the public sector does not have.
[/quote]
Agreed. And there are a different set of checks and balances with regard to public employees and politicians.
For one thing, no one seems to acknowledge that public employees bargain for their salaries and benefits as a group. This has the advantage that they have greater group leverage, but the disadvantage that they cannot promote their own greater compensation as individuals as Jeff never seems to tire to point out as a major advantage of a right to work environment.
Also, there is the check and balance of being able to vote out of power those politicians with whose policies we do not disagree. We would have had no ability whatsoever to remove Mr. Romney from BAIN if we did not approve of his performance.
[i]So since you acknowledge that public and private enterprises are quite different in their nature, why do you, when it suits your purpose, act as though they should be evaluated and judged in the same way ?[/i]
They are different animals, but I don’t think they should be.
Your are mixing up my statements of the current reality with my statements for what I would like to see going forward.
[i]We would have had no ability whatsoever to remove Mr. Romney from BAIN if we did not approve of his performance.[/i]
That would be unconstitutional to remove the head of a private corporation because your politics did not agree with his. BAIN did much more good than harm. Too bad Bain did not purchase Hostess, since it would have probably saved thousands of jobs.
Don’t you think it is evidence of the problem with unions that they would kill their host company and all lose their jobs instead of accepting labor work and benefit concessions to keep the company alive? There is something fundementally wrong… breaks all the Darwinistic rules, don’t you think?
But then again, they voted for Obama so maybe they think he will take care of them now. That safety net is so large and deep, why worry about having a job?
Still seeing them thar 4 members on the truck crews. When’s it going to be 3? I really don’t take anything the CC does seriously until I see evidence of reduction of this obvious and gross waste of our money . Been saying it for 12 years.
Jeff
My point with regard to Mr. Romney and BAIN was, as I am sure you are aware, was not my confusion over the constitutionality, but a demonstration that there are basically no “checks and balances” with regard to the private sector. It is essentially a free for all with the very very rich calling the shots and employing the rational that you and Mr. Romney seem to share that being rich in and of itself makes one virtuous. I don’t buy it.
And as for your choice of example with the Hostess case, for someone in the health care field you could hardly have chosen a worse example. Hostess is a manufacturer of a product which they call food but which has no nutritional merit. I no more mourn the loss of this company than I would that of a tobacco manufacturer. But, then, according to what you have said many times Jeff, those employees that lost their jobs can just go out and find another. Oh, wait, no jobs available ? Then they probably aren’t available for any of those people who you describe as just too lazy to go out and find work either….eh ? And why should the workers make concessions to “keep the company alive” when the owners are not willing to make concessions. I guess that for you ” creative destruction” is only a positive when it is initiated by those at the top.
Medwoman: It is a bit silly that you claim there are no checks and balances with Bain. Financial service business is highly regulated. They are also governed by the checks and balances of the marketplace. You cannot be a bad operator for long without suffering the consequences (unless government bails you out). I really don’t understand your point especially when you are comparing this to government. What is the check and balance for the union-Democrat party consortium? There is no higher power is there? They have been getting there way in this state for decades, without much sign of check and balance.
I do get your point about junk food; so are you actually happy that 18,500 people will lose their job? I agree that they can go out and get a new job… but 18,500 is a lot of jobs. With an economy still about ready to head into a next recession, it probably was not a good idea to play a game of union-management chicken. I wonder if Obama and the Democrats are trying to figure out a way to punish or shame the owners back to the negotiations table… or maybe one of those bailouts will happend again!? Probably not now that the election is over.
And your point that the onwers were not willing to make concessions is a sign that you might not know the details… or maybe you don’t have any background in private-sector business that does not have the benefit of the soft money of government as a steady safety net to cover escalating spending. In fact, I think hyper-inflated healthcare costs are caused by some of this soft money problem… too many public-funded services and providers. I was a juror in a civil case where an illegal immigrant was suing a farmer for his injuries after pulling out in front of a farmer’s truck. His UCD Med Center bill was $2.5 million. On cross exam of the UCD witness, when asked how those charges compared to the industry standard, he said “We are a teaching hospital, we don’t care about what other hospitals charge.” So, where is the check and balance for that?
The union strike for a company on the brink of financial collapse ensured it was damaged beyond the ability to make concessions. Then this next strike. It is a private company. How stupid were these unions!
Unions have the same problem as liberals… it is probably why they get along so well… their frustration is that they have not figured out a way to enslave the producers that they need for jobs and tax revenue. So they play uninformed guessing games of chicken. Like California raising taxes to the highest in the country for all categories. The smug elites on the left think that the producers will just hang around. Some will, but many will not.
In the Enterprise tonight, Tom Elias’s writes about the exodus of wealth and business from this state over the last 20 years. As a good left elite, Mr. Elias goes on to make some baseless nuanced claim that there are uncounted riches coming back in to replace those that leave. That argument is grapsing at ideological straws just like the Hostess unions were graping at baseless claims that the company owners had uncounted riches they sould share. It did not work out well for the unions, and it likely will not for Mr. Elias either. But then, there is the check and balance you might be looking for. When unions get it wrong, they lose their job. When elite leftists get it wrong, they lose the state.
Jeff
[quote]so are you actually happy that 18,500 people will lose their job?[/quote]
Real question or just a barb tossed into the conversation ? I am sure you know from past communications that I am never happy about the loss of jobs be it one or 18,500. You however, seem to be unconcerned, and even applaud the loss of some jobs which you have described in the past as “creative destruction”. I would posit that the loss of the job of an individual is never “creative” for that individual at the time it occurs. But to blame this on the union, when the leadership was obtaining bonuses ( yes, Jeff, I did check the details) is ridiculous.
However, since we have no ability to affect the decisions of corporate leaders ( which was part of my point about lack of checks and balances ) but we do have the ability to express alternative ideas, I would like to pose a few ideas for how to lessen the impact on the workers.
1) Use the money that was proposed for the bonuses for the executives ( money they obviously had since they were going to spend it ) to mitigate the effects on the workers. Maybe job retraining, aid in finding similar work with other companies including relocation expenses….
Maybe help with educational expenses to learn new skills.
2) Employ these people in public works projects ( oh, my god, socialism….)
[quote]it probably was not a good idea to play a game of union-management chicken.[/quote]
Agreed. But both sides chose to engage in the game. I fail to see why you blame only the union.
[quote]Unions have the same problem as liberals… it is probably why they get along so well… their frustration is that they have not figured out a way to enslave the producers that they need for jobs and tax revenue.[/quote]
A paraphrase to ensure that you understand at least this liberals position which you have erroneously stated above.
The union and liberal problem is not frustration with inability to enslave producers, but rather frustration with the inability to stop the ongoing shift in balance of wealth and power from those who actually do the work to those who are merely accumulating more and more of it regardless of whether they are using it to generate jobs and stimulate the economy or whether they are merely hoarding it.
Jeff
[quote]In fact, I think hyper-inflated healthcare costs are caused by some of this soft money problem.[/quote]
And I think that giving one example and falling back on your basic philosophy is a very simplistic way of looking at the increasing cost of health care. Yes, it is true that the academic and teaching centers have different expense considerations than do private health care providers. And, to some degree this is justifiable since they have a mission which is not shared by private practitioners and hospitals and that is training the next generation of health care professionals. We certainly do not want those efforts to be undermined or diluted or to have medicine go back to an apprenticeship type model.
So what do I think are the primary drivers of excessive health care costs:sad: not in order of cost)
1) Lack of integration resulting in repetition of tests and procedures.
2) Excessive use of expensive tests when history, physical exam and clinical judgement would be adequate.
Younger doctors have been trained to rely heavily on very expensive radiologic tests rather than their own
capacity for observation, physical exam and judgement.
3) Direct advertising of medications to patients who then pressure their docs for the latest med they saw on TV
often unaware that the older medication which costs pennies per day has been shown more effective than the
new drug.
4) Fee for service. This should be stopped immediately as it incentivizes unnecessary testing and procedures.
Should be replaced by compensation based on outcomes. This would place the incentive on the side of
prevention which is always more cost effective than fixing the problem once it has become advanced.
From the point of view of a doctor, most insurance companies serve only as an
impediment between the doctor and the patient by establishing arbitrary restrictions and non medically related
protocols that must be followed in order for the company to cover the indicated care. I will provide one example.
A woman presents to me with large tumors on her uterus which are obvious on exam, have been confirmed at
the time of previous Cesarean section and with regular but very heavy menstrual cycles resulting in anemia.
Within the system in which I work, the patient and I decide at this visit that a hysterectomy is needed, we
schedule it and move forward in the most cost effective manner possible. In fee for service, what happens ?
The patient arrives and it is just as obvious to the doctor what is needed, but what steps have to occur prior to
the surgery ? 1) An US – presumably to prove she has the tumors that we already know are there! 2) An
endometrial biopsy – presumably to prove that she doesn’t have uterine cancer, which we already know she
doesn’t have because her periods are regular.
So why are we running unnecessary tests ? Money.
The doctors won’t object since they get paid separately for each visit. The patient is charged a copay for every
visit so in this scenario the doctor gets paid for three to four visits ( assuming the patient comes back after each
test to discuss results) instead of the one visit that was needed. The radiologist is not going to object since they
get paid for the US. The pathologist won’t object since they get to charge for reading the slide.
So why doesn’t the patient object ? Because she hasn’t gone to medical school and doesn’t know that she doesn’t
need all this stuff. She has been sold the bill of goods that she is getting the best health care in the world.
Can you imagine how much people would protest in the retail world if the equivalent occurred.
Let’s say someone turns up at the Redbarn Nursery and wants to buy a rosebush. Don tells them that he will be
happy to sell them the rosebush, but first has to run a test on the water on their property, a soil sample, and an
analysis of the health of all their existing plants and that they will have to pay for each and every test and that
they will have to return after each test for him to review the results with him in person. Oh, yes, their insurance
company will pay for part of these costs, but the copay for each visit is on them. Sound like the best rosebush
delivery system in the world ?
5) Medical legal. We need to stop holding litigation over doctors heads for every conceivable adverse outcome.
Major reform in this area would do much to reduce unnecessary testing that doctors do as a CYA.
So Jeff, your ” soft money ” may play some roll in driving health care costs, but I believe it is probably inconsequential in comparison to the factors I have listed, played out across the country every day in fee for service medical offices.
As a career firefighter who is in the last couple years of work, I have an thing or two to say to some of the claims made above.
1. I will not argue the point of some fire departments or stations not being busy all the time and having a lot of down time. This is true, even in the department I work at which runs over 30k calls a year with only 12 stations. Some are just busier than others. I wont argue there are SOME fire fighters who are lazy and not just lazy but borderline comatose.
The point I will argue is, the Capt. of the station sets the rules, As a Capt. myself, No Fire fighter is ever allowed to bring a boat, RV, race car, model airplane, etc to the station. A typical day in our city is report for duty at 0800. Check out gear, station meeting at 0830ish to outline days activities, we then clean station, bathrooms, trash, vacuum, apparatus. lawns(Saturdays), windows(sundays). This takes us to at least 1000. We then have a conditioning or work out time till 1130. shower and make lunch. Lunch is 12-1. After lunch the day is filled with any one of the following activities, Business Inspections, Public Demos, Training (training includes any of the following, Confined Space, Swiftwater, ladder drills, hose pulls, pumping evolutions, truck operations, hi rise drills, paramedic classes, Hazardous materials training, Haz mat drills, Wildland training, wildland drills, wildland weed abatement, burn preps, ARFF drills, (aircraft rescue and firefighting) studying for promotional exams. Creating training programs. No we do not do all of these everyday. Yes we are Required to have a minimum of 20 hours of training every month and we do at least one of these every day. This takes us to around 5pm. Dinner is after 5pm. After dinner, dishes are cleaned and usually this ends the formal work period. We are required to do night drills and multi-company drills once a month. Most fire fighters spend at least an hour studying for promotion or classes they are taking. The TV gets turned on around 7pm and guys may go to bed at 9pm.
Everything listed above is done concurrently with medical aid calls, fire calls, Public assist calls. there is no day that goes by without at least 5 interruptions in this schedule.
I work 10 days a month. Complete days, 24 hour days, and in my department they are 48 hours straight. That is 48 hours away from my family, no interaction with wife or kids other than phone, No tucking in my little girls, no helping my son with his homework, no going to bed with my wife every night, not being there when my baby walks their first steps. Celebrating Christmas the day before because I have to work the next 48 hours.
I am not complaining. I chose this profession because I wanted to be the one running into the burning building when everyone else was running out. I wanted to be the one who cut people out of those mangled wrecks and saved their lives. You just need to be aware of what we give up to do this job.
On the subject of OverTime. We trade time for money. I work 56 hours every week. I get paid hourly less than a DR, less than a mechanic, less than a plumber. The reason we make as much money as we do is we trade large blocks of time for money. You think OT as big dollars when in reality is DAYS of our lives that we miss with our families. Yes, when I work 120 hours in a row, I am going to get a big paycheck. It is simple math, hours for dollars.
The reason we are “paid to sleep” is when your husband, wife has a heart attack, stroke, at 3am, do you really want to wait till I get a phone call at home, get up, get in my car, drive to the station, get in the fire engine/ambulance and then drive to your house? My brother in law would always bring this up to me until the day my sister had a bad asthma attack at 2am. She quit breathing and had to be intubated by the Paramedic on scene. the paramedic told my brother in law, that if they had been delayed 4 minutes she would have died. Their response time from the fire station was 5 minutes, This means when the 911 call was made, my sister had less than 10 minutes to live. My brother in law now realizes the need for on duty fire fighters 24-7-365.
and finally retirement benefits. Well the good news is, I do get a good retirement, Up to 90% of my BASE salary.(Overtime is NOT use to determine the amount of retirement received, anyone who says different is either lying or misinformed).
Now the bad news, retired fire fighters don’t live very long, 12 years is about the average. Cancer rates are high, Heart attacks, strokes, breathing problems from the toxic fires, bad joints, bad backs, blown out knees, and the list goes on. So even with the city paying a Portion of my retirement and me paying the rest, the odds of me ever getting more money out than I put in is very low.