Comments on: Santa Rosa raises top pay for police, fire chiefs

By: John

John — Sun, 31 Jul 2011 22:22:39 +0000

@ GAJ – This discussion is way off topic from the article however…

My issue with you is you preach cutting salaries of public safety based upon the reported wages of people who choose to work as much overtime as is available. There is a good portion of people who choose not to work any overtime so their wages are not reported in the news because they are not ‘Sensational’. Yet you want to use one number (overtime wages) to justify your desire to cut ALL salaries. You don’t look at the entire picture when you pick and choose your quotes and links to inflame readers into agreeing with you. It’s always an incomplete one sided arguement in your posts.

So my question is really this… what would you expect the average working class employee to earn per year (working a 40 hour week)? Then add 16 hours of overtime per week. What does your total add up to?

Using the bottom of average middle class wages of $40k/year and using the above question/calculation method I get $64k/year. That sounds an awful lot like the base firefighter wage. Is that so unreasonable?

4 3

By: Retired cop

Retired cop — Sun, 31 Jul 2011 02:10:23 +0000

Overtime in Police and Fire are next to impossible to control. Near the end of their shift, fire responds to a call that will take 6 hours to contain, you pay. Police arrest someone just before they get off duty, they have to book them and finish the report before they go home because that person will be in front of a judge the next day, or at a bail hearing. Someone calls in sick, you fill it by holding people over. There isn’t much choice in the matter. Ever major felony or homicide cost tens of thousands in overtime because you dont stop until the trail is cold or you catch them. To do otherwise is negligent to due diligence…

Police and Fire will always be the largest part of any budget. That if just a fact and a cost doing business.

5 5

By: River Rat

River Rat — Sat, 30 Jul 2011 22:19:53 +0000

@Bill

You just voted them INTO office. Remember? We now have a pro-biz majority. Remember? The ones who know what’s best for SR. Plus a retired cop as mayor.

How many of you voted for them?

5 1

By: GAJ

GAJ — Sat, 30 Jul 2011 19:11:31 +0000

Overtime has always been a huge concern when articles are printed about ballooning total pay for Public Safety which is taking ever larger percentages of City budgets.

It would be nice to know exactly what the rules are is all.

As “Lets Be Reasonable” stated it would be nice to get some clarity for cities within the County as well as the County itself.

The PD should do a story on the issue of overtime as I’ve been under the impression it was a growing part of the budget and a driver of six figure total pay for Firefighters and beat cops.

When I ran my company with hundreds of employees here in Sonoma County controlling overtime was key to keeping costs under control. The more overtime the less feet you could have on the floor to the detriment of customer service and eventually the enterprise itself.

1 1

By: Lets be Reasonable

Lets be Reasonable — Sat, 30 Jul 2011 16:18:26 +0000

@John – you might want to describe how Fire shifts work. I’m not sure I remember – is it 3 24-hour shifts one week and then 2 the next? Do you have any off weeks? Your shifts do include sleep time, though of course you can be sent out on a call at any time. And how does FLSA play into this? I know your overtime rules are different than normal shift employees, but I don’t know the details.

3 1

By: John

John — Sat, 30 Jul 2011 01:51:51 +0000

@ GAJ – I didn’t know you were talking about cops. Although I don’t know any cops that work less than 8 hours per shift or less than 40 per week so I’m not sure what your point is.

This article talks about management SALARIES. No mention of overtime anywhere in it!

http://www.watchsonomacounty.com/2011/07/cities/santa-rosa-raises-top-pay-for-police-fire-chiefs/#comment-83743

Managers don’t get overtime as far as I know. I don’t follow your claim of abuse. Where is it?

Being a firefighter I am expected to work an average of 56 hours per week. Of that none of it is paid as overtime. I just want to know what you think of that? You’ve voiced concern about our yearly earnings before but Never been willing to consider overtime. Now it appears it is your new battle cry. So I would like to talk about it seeing as YOU brought it up. Your thoughts please.

5 6

By: GAJ

GAJ — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 23:00:59 +0000

@John:

Source please?

If cops are ineligible for overtime pay until they reach 56 hours in a week that’s certainly news to me.

How about daily overtime?

Looking forward to the sources and details.

2 2

By: bill

bill — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 18:52:00 +0000

Using convoluted formulas to give cops more money flies in the face of fiscal reality.

Once again our elected officials cave to public safety at our expense. This fiscal climate is NOT conducive to any pay raises and more layoffs for public safety should be where budget balance occurs.

Time to recall these officials who have lost the public trust.

16 2

By: John

John — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 16:26:13 +0000

@ GAJ – How does your latest battle cry apply to a 56 hour work week? That’s 56 hours straight pay. Not 40 hours straight and 16 overtime but 56 straight.

Are you suggesting that 832 regular time hours per year should be overtime?

4 0

By: Observer

Observer — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 04:29:03 +0000

To the downfall of California, the Sheople can’t even grow a spine. They couldn’t elect a person who could solve a financial problem if their budget depended on it. You may have grown more frustrated, but the Sheople are as dumb as they were last year. They don’t even want to get a clue about it.

9 4

By: Pearl Alquileres

Pearl Alquileres — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 02:27:43 +0000

Keep beating that hornets nest!
The sheeple are growing fangs.

5 10

By: Lets be Reasonable

Lets be Reasonable — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 21:24:50 +0000

@Bear – Overtime is not considered when looking at “compaction.”

5 1

By: STEVE HUMPHREY

STEVE HUMPHREY — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 20:52:38 +0000

You have to love the logic in this. We are raising the Chiefs pay in order to seperate their compensation from the subordinates that they manage. Shouldn’t that logic be reversed? Shouldn’t subordinate pay wages NOT be increased to a level so close to their superiors?
I believe those that negotiate with the unions…unions that have raised the wage level to this extreme, should bring this up at their next pow wow.
The unsustainability of this path is so evident.

18 5

By: DanFox

DanFox — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 20:19:00 +0000

@Skeptical, @Bill me – you’ve both missed the boat here. The chiefs’ salaries haven’t been increased and the City Council’s act does not affect their pensions.

Perhaps you’re not familiar with what a salary range is. It will state (for example) that the range for a particular employee is $70K – $90K/year. The employee may in fact be making $80K/year. What the City Council did in effect was to increase the top of the range to $100K/year.

This does not increase the actual salary, which in my example stays at $80K/yr.

What it does, however, is to create the danger that the City Manager may increase it without attention from the public later – and THAT would be a shame. I do hope someone will keep an eye on the flow of information out of SR City Hall so that there is an opportunity for public outcry if that happens.

I do agree that it was incredibly, INCREDIBLY stupid for the SR City Council to take that particular action at this time. Just what were they THINKING?!

And @Jason M – I think that your whining about “overpaid, greedy, selfish public safety employees” is ill-considered. It appears from the article that the City Manager and City Human Resources Director were the instigators behind this (IMHO stupid) move. Rather than condemning the chiefs, they should be lauded for turning down the 8% raises they were granted in 2008 in order to help balance the city’s budget – now just how “greedy and selfish” was that?

8 6

By: Skeptical

Skeptical — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 12:03:05 +0000

This is also an irresponsible gift of pension funds . . . maybe a followup story on that would be helpful. These guys are both ready to retire at 90% (or more) of their salary. So while their salaries have been increased for the next few years of their employment, they will be reaping a windfall in their pension for decades to come. This whole thing is really disappointing at so many levels.

30 3

By: Bill me

Bill me — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 06:10:18 +0000

If there was any credibility left in our Council and Manager, regarding budgets/cuts/and fees, this latest deal confirms it is misguided. I don’t know about the rest of you, but any, repeat ANY public employee receiving a raise when the economy is in the dumpster, should be the subject of a “Bell” type investigation. Outright theft and rape of public employees and taxpayers. Shame on our City.

35 2

By: Jason M.

Jason M. — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 05:07:22 +0000

Disgusting bureaucracy.

Overpaid, greedy, selfish public safety employees.

33 7

By: FurloughedWorker

FurloughedWorker — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 04:48:27 +0000

A slap in the face to the hundreds of City workers (not police and fire) who are in their second year of doing unpaid furlough days.

40 2

By: Fiscal Conservative

Fiscal Conservative — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 02:21:09 +0000

What a bass akwards move this is.

37 1

By: bear

bear — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 23:37:49 +0000

I think everyone should get overtime for more than 8 hours a day or 40 hours a week. Otherwise employees health and safety are at the mercy of management.

But overtime should NOT be counted as base pay, and if highly paid managers are not eligible for it, then that’s too bad. “Compression” should be measured by base pay. Who actually does the work, after all?

Haven’t you noticed that management always wins? Please try to make a distinction between management and people who do the actual work.

27 6