Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 31 of 31

Thread: Another creative example of public employee pay abuses at taxpayer expense.

  1. #21
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,364
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=piney;4060996]I don't know, I have several cops in my extended family, suffolk, nassau, city, and none of them 3 years in make anything like that.[/QUOTE]

    And FWIW...cops should be able to afford to live relatively close to where they patrol. What are they supposed to do? Work in Suffolk and commute to Binghamton every day so that they could get paid 35k a year instead?

  2. #22
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    18,353
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=piney;4060996]I don't know, I have several cops in my extended family, suffolk, nassau, city, and none of them 3 years in make anything like that.[/QUOTE]

    NYC I cant speak for BUT I have seen it first hand (Nassau and Suffolk) their contract are almost identical. The W2 I quote of course includes OT, differential pay etc... they dont like to talk about it because it is not helpful BUT believe me it is fact.

    [B]From Newsday March 12, 2010... [email]rick.Brand@newsday.com[/email][/B] The 108K figure is without overtime.

    Quick SummarySuffolk County police officers with six years on the job will make $108,608 annually - the first time a contract puts the pay into six figures for that level of experience.
    Last edited by southparkcpa; 07-13-2011 at 09:38 AM.

  3. #23
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,638
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4061009]And FWIW...cops should be able to afford to live relatively close to where they patrol. What are they supposed to do? Work in Suffolk and commute to Binghamton every day so that they could get paid 35k a year instead?[/QUOTE]

    competitive cost of living wages are unreasonable, only the private sector employees can make money

  4. #24
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,554
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=piney;4060972]the only caveat to this is when the process is corrupt, if you have negotiation between two entities where the best interest of the politician is not in getting the best deal for the taxpayer but the best deal to receive continued support from the union you have a problem.

    or in Warfish terms:

    TLDR: when the seller and the buyer are secretly sleeping together it can compromise the integrity of the deal.[/QUOTE]

    Spot on. Here is the breakdown in a nutshell. Union collects dues from members. They take the dues money and its exclusive use is to purchase politicians. That and the union bosses salaries are their only expenses. Once they own the politicians they essentially negotiate with their "employee" on their next contract. It is a backwards system that screws taxpayers.

    Unions as a group contribute 500% more then the next largest political donor group "Private Industry" to politicians. Its worth noting that they contribute almost exclusively to Democrats. [url]http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/270897/labor-unions-biggest-political-donors-veronique-de-rugy[/url]

    Essentially they own the Democrats. That's why we look at these contracts and wonder why they are so skewed. Its because the boss (union) is negotiating their contract with their employee (union owned politician). This system is fundamentally flawed.

  5. #25
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    18,353
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=piney;4061011]competitive cost of living wages are unreasonable, only the private sector employees can make money[/QUOTE]

    I personally dont care so much about the salary..I simply point out that they earn MORE than NYC police and the debate about cops earning 100K and more was questioned. Many do.

  6. #26
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,638
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4061015]Spot on. Here is the breakdown in a nutshell. Union collects dues from members. They take the dues money and its exclusive use is to purchase politicians. That and the union bosses salaries are their only expenses. Once they own the politicians they essentially negotiate with their "employee" on their next contract. It is a backwards system that screws taxpayers.

    Unions as a group contribute 500% more then the next largest political donor group "Private Industry" to politicians. Its worth noting that they contribute almost exclusively to Democrats. [url]http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/270897/labor-unions-biggest-political-donors-veronique-de-rugy[/url]

    Essentially they own the Democrats. That's why we look at these contracts and wonder why they are so skewed. Its because the boss (union) is negotiating their contract with their employee (union owned politician). This system is fundamentally flawed.[/QUOTE]

    agreeing with that point, but I will always take umbrage when a worker is targeted instead of the system or the politician.

  7. #27
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,554
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=piney;4061039]agreeing with that point, but I will always take umbrage when a worker is targeted instead of the system or the politician.[/QUOTE]

    Agreed. People always look at anything that is not pro union as some sort of attack on the workers. If we say the teachers unions policies are harming our children immediately the reaction is that "you hate teachers". It is absurd. The problem lies in the system not the workers.

  8. #28
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Staten Island
    Posts
    8,673
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4061015]Spot on. Here is the breakdown in a nutshell. Union collects dues from members. They take the dues money and its exclusive use is to purchase politicians. That and the union bosses salaries are their only expenses. Once they own the politicians they essentially negotiate with their "employee" on their next contract. It is a backwards system that screws taxpayers.

    [/QUOTE]

    Municipal service unions are limited in the amount any monetary contribution can be, just like the private sector. Additionally, most union dues are utilized for legal services, prescription/dental/eye plans, scholarships, special events, death benefits etc.

    [QUOTE=southparkcpa;4061016]I personally dont care so much about the salary..I simply point out that they earn MORE than NYC police and the debate about cops earning 100K and more was questioned. Many do.[/QUOTE]

    Nassau/Suffolk has always made more than NYPD, at least as long as I've known. Isn't part of that because of the amount of taxes paid in those counties? Chicken or egg?:confused:

  9. #29
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    18,353
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Jetworks;4061251]Municipal service unions are limited in the amount any monetary contribution can be, just like the private sector. Additionally, most union dues are utilized for legal services, prescription/dental/eye plans, scholarships, special events, death benefits etc.



    Nassau/Suffolk has always made more than NYPD, at least as long as I've known. Isn't part of that because of the amount of taxes paid in those counties? Chicken or egg?:confused:[/QUOTE]

    I had it fully explained to me by the Chief of Police in a village in Suffolk County when I was auditing their books but when I posted what he told me, people called me out on it.

    I really don't care as I dont pay NY taxes anymore. BUT, the taxes are driven by the costs. That I am certain of. I was, in another life, an expert on municipal finance.

  10. #30
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,638
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4061116]Agreed. People always look at anything that is not pro union as some sort of attack on the workers. If we say the teachers unions policies are harming our children immediately the reaction is that "you hate teachers". It is absurd. The problem lies in the system not the workers.[/QUOTE]

    I can agree with that

  11. #31
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    7,280
    Post Thanks / Like

    D.C. Council wants to cap police chief's high salary

    [QUOTE]Cathy Lanier is the fourth-highest-paid police chief in the country, and a D.C. Council committee want to stop her salary from climbing any higher.
    The committee headed by Ward 3 Councilwoman Mary Cheh has recommended the council approve Lanier's $253,817 annual salary when it meets on Tuesday, but suggests the approval also cap her salary at that mark. The committee is suggesting the same be done for D.C. schools Chancellor Kaya Henderson's $275,000 annual salary, which is also the fourth-highest in the country among people in similar positions. The salaries for both Lanier and Henderson are higher than the $199,700 cap on members of President Obama's Cabinet.

    "I have no complaint with the work Chief Lanier has done," Cheh told The Washington Examiner. "But in these times, when city employees are taking a pay cut through furloughs and some are losing their jobs, it's not appropriate for officials to make more than the president's closest advisers."

    Source: Report from the D.C. Council's government operations committee

    The District caps salaries for top officials at $179,096, so Mayor Vincent Gray had to go to the council to get approval for Lanier's and Henderson's paychecks. At $275,000, Henderson will take home the same salary as her predecessor, Michelle Rhee. Lanier, however, has seen her salary balloon more than $75,000 from when she started in 2007 with an annual paycheck of $175,000.

    But Lanier's current contract ends in January, and if the council doesn't move to give her blanket approval for her above-the-cap salary, it might be able to force her to the negotiation table, police union chief Kris Baumann said.

    "She has one of the greediest contracts I've ever seen," Baumann said. "They should let it lapse."

    The vote to approve and cap the salaries will be just one of many scheduled for Tuesday's busy council session, the last before the two-month summer break.

    The council will also take up a supplemental budget to approve spending about $100 million in new revenue that is predicted to fill the city's coffers this year. The vote will almost certainly include a push to kill a tax on out-of-state municipal bonds, although council members involved in the effort refused to discuss specifics of their plan.

    It's also likely that there will be a robust discussion around at-large Councilman Phil Mendelson's emergency bill that would make the District a licensed gun dealer. Although a U.S. Supreme Court ruling required the District to lift a ban on handguns, there are currently no dealers able to sell guns in the city.

    [email]fklopott@washingtonexaminer.com[/email][/QUOTE]

    [url]http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/dc/2011/07/dc-council-wants-cap-police-chiefs-high-salary[/url]

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us