.
.
Firefighters are simple working class people who find themselves drawn into this profession by an overwhelming desire to help and serve their neighbors. I know that sounds corny but I’ve found this to be quite accurate over my years in the “fire service”. Those rare individuals who are drawn by other motivations do not last very long. Once they experience the difficult work, the time away from family, the physical and psychological trauma and the long hours they tend to move on to another, less demanding and punishing, line of work.
A true firefighter endures these hardships as a badge of honor. He knows there aren’t many people who can do this job and remain healthy and happy. The truth is that not even those of us who continue to do this job for years escape unscathed. Many of us are beaten down by hundreds of hours on the fireground and other emergency scenes enduring countless physical trauma and unparalleled stress. The percentage of firefighters who suffer permanent disabilities is much higher than that of the average worker. So is the divorce rate.
Yet, despite all this, we survive and prosper in our profession because we feel that what we do is important – that we matter. We know how much we help people on a day-to-day basis. Most of those individuals whom we’ve assisted show their gratitude and appreciation freely. These people are never among those who publicly question our dedication, abilities or benefits. They know how quickly we’ve responded to their call for help and how respectfully we’ve treated them or their property once we’ve arrived. They understand the value of a highly trained, professional and fully staffed fire department in their city and are confident that we’ll always give a 100% effort to keep them and their loved ones safe.
Professional firefighters pride ourselves in treating every request for aid in the same manner. It doesn’t matter to us if a person is rich and influential or poor and homeless. There’s no place for preferential treatment or personal prejudices or biases at an emergency scene. We take an oath to “…support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and the Home Rule Charter of the City of Providence.” We take this oath very seriously and consider our job as a noble profession as opposed to merely a career.
Professional urban firefighters are continually rated as one of the most dangerous professions and are always rated at or near the top of the list of most stressful occupations. Firefighters are also always at or near the top of any poll of the most highly respected professions.
As firefighters who are willing to go above and beyond our assigned duties on every call we depend on the benefits we’ve negotiated to protect our livelihood and/or our families in the event that we are injured on duty. We depend on responding to structure fires with adequate staffing on duty to assure firefighter and public safety. We depend on our medical coverage while active members and in retirement to adequately cover us for any illnesses we’ve contracted due to our numerous exposures to toxins and carcinogens, including carbon monoxide and cyanide, in our firefighting careers. These benefits are some of the benefits Governor Chafee’s and Providence City Council’s proposals aim to strip away from us.
I’ll be retired in a couple of years but I can’t help but wonder if the loss of these safety nets, particularly for our families, will affect the way future Providence firefighters fight fires. Will they be as willing to risk life or limb at all fires or will they tend to take a defensive posture (fighting the fire from the exterior) more quickly than presently. This would go against everything the Providence Fire Department stands for but it is safer for the firefighters, even if it would jeopardize victims and their property. I’m glad I won’t be around to see it!
Capt. Tom Kenney
Providence Fire Department
Monday, April 23, 2012
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Has partisanship ruined our government?
.
.
What has happened to the world we live in over the last twenty years or so? I ask myself that question often. It seems like there’s no room for common ground to build alliances to work together for the common good of all. It sometimes seems that everyone thinks that anyone who disagrees with them is the enemy. We need to be more tolerant of opposing views in order to meet somewhere in the middle and attempt to get things accomplished.
I believe in the motives behind the ACLU – protecting everyone’s civil liberties as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. I believe the ACLU is right in defending the rights of a black young woman being denied entrance to an institution of higher learning based on her race. I also believe the ACLU would be right in defending the rights of a white man being denied employment based on the color of his skin simply to reflect diversity, however desirable the result might be, in the workplace.
I do not believe that the ACLU should be taking on cases of individuals who claim to be bothered or embarrassed by public displays of religious beliefs or cultural pride simply because it makes them feel different. Everyone is different than the majority in some way. Everyone is uncomfortable with others’ actions or words or displays at some time. Get over it. We are supposed to be a melting pot. People are embarrassed in the process of life. There are not only winners…there are also losers. This politically correct world we’ve begun to create for ourselves is hurting our future generations, not helping them.
There are more sides to issues than simple black and white answers can convey. The opinions expressed above are my own. You may agree or disagree with them but that doesn’t make one opinion right and another wrong. We should be allowed to disagree and peacefully discuss the issue and, hopefully, meet somewhere in the middle.
The same is true for political party affiliation. Gone are the days when most people would go to the voting booth and pull the single lever of Democrat or Republican. Most of us like to look at ourselves as independent voters. In spite of this the partisan divide in federal and state government has never been so wide, at least in my memory.
I believe that most voters vote for a candidate (or party) based upon his/her worst fears. So to, the candidates seem to pander to those fears when politicking for an office. The immigrant community, especially those who are undocumented or have loved ones who are undocumented, will vote for any candidate that promises that anyone caught being here illegally will be given an opportunity for citizenship. These individuals pretty much don’t care what the candidate’s other views are.
The rich, so-called 1%, of wealthy Americans are looking for a candidate who will continue the Bush tax breaks and be friendlier to big business and Wall Street so that they can keep more of their investment portfolio. These individuals are usually touting the evils of big government and the benefits of a free market society. Any candidate who assures them that these are his priorities also will get their vote.
The capitalists, and so-called job creators, want business restrictions lifted to allow them to make better profits in their business. Any politician who promises to ease the limits on outsourcing jobs overseas or allows them to skirt some of the environmental laws to increase their bottom line can count on their vote.
People who are part of the entitlement minded Americans who believe that the government should take care of them and their families with free housing, food stamps and Welfare checks every month do not want the government to abandon them. Many of these families are multi-generational recipients of social handouts. If a candidate threatens to investigate Welfare fraud, cut benefits and reduce the number of social programs these voters will rally around his opponent.
Many of our elderly citizens vote on the single issue of protecting their Social Security payments and Medicare coverage. Any candidate who threatens the security of these systems will face their wrath at the polls. They are scared enough regarding such proposals that virtually anything else the candidate stands for is disregarded when they are at the polls.
Many working people, especially those in unionized labor, are deathly afraid of the latest trend in anti-labor policies – the breaking of contracts and abolishment of collective bargaining. They would rather vote for someone who holds opposing views on almost every other issue than allow someone who is anti-labor be elected to public office.
And finally, the conservative Christians will only vote for someone who has the same views on the sanctity of life and when life begins. Most favor marriage being only between a man and a woman and will penalize a candidate who believes in marriage equality proposals.
While there are a multitude of factors that influence my vote the biggest factor to me personally, at this point in my life, is how a candidate feels (and will vote) on labor related issues – especially with the battle lines being drawn all around the country regarding this. Also, I could never find a candidate who would have beliefs which completely echoed my own. And I certainly couldn’t find a candidate who would vote the way I would like him to vote on every issue, because my beliefs are scattered on both sides of the political divide.
I believe that illegal immigrants are just that – illegal. They are costing the taxpayers millions of dollars in tax revenue and taking jobs from U.S. citizens. They are also cheating those would-be immigrants who are attempting to enter this country in the proper manner. When we (our government agencies) encounter illegals they should be detained and deported.
As far as the Bush tax cuts are concerned I believe that they should be repealed and set back to where they were under the Clinton administration. If you look at our country’s history the highest tax bracket has risen during or directly after our nation has faced economic hardship – after WWI, the Great Depression and WWII. Also, the tax breaks have not had the effect that they were intended to bring about. There has been a substantial loss of jobs, not job creation.
I think the Welfare system is completely broken. There are, however, many citizens who could not survive without some sort of assistance. The answer, I believe, is to temporarily put more money into investigation of fraud along with swift and substantial penalties for those who are guilty of this. Also, anyone capable of working should be required to work at least part time in order to remain qualified for Welfare payments, food stamps or subsidized housing.
I also truly believe that the Social Security system must be protected at all costs, or at least until another system is fully funded and operational for future retirees. Too many Americans rely on SS to survive and as therefore the integrity of the system is a matter of the government’s responsibility to keep that promise.
What we desperately need is a renewed era of bipartisanship to fix the present stalemate in government. Either that or a sufficient enough number of Independent representatives in government that would represent the swing votes on any pending legislation.
.
What has happened to the world we live in over the last twenty years or so? I ask myself that question often. It seems like there’s no room for common ground to build alliances to work together for the common good of all. It sometimes seems that everyone thinks that anyone who disagrees with them is the enemy. We need to be more tolerant of opposing views in order to meet somewhere in the middle and attempt to get things accomplished.
I believe in the motives behind the ACLU – protecting everyone’s civil liberties as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. I believe the ACLU is right in defending the rights of a black young woman being denied entrance to an institution of higher learning based on her race. I also believe the ACLU would be right in defending the rights of a white man being denied employment based on the color of his skin simply to reflect diversity, however desirable the result might be, in the workplace.
I do not believe that the ACLU should be taking on cases of individuals who claim to be bothered or embarrassed by public displays of religious beliefs or cultural pride simply because it makes them feel different. Everyone is different than the majority in some way. Everyone is uncomfortable with others’ actions or words or displays at some time. Get over it. We are supposed to be a melting pot. People are embarrassed in the process of life. There are not only winners…there are also losers. This politically correct world we’ve begun to create for ourselves is hurting our future generations, not helping them.
There are more sides to issues than simple black and white answers can convey. The opinions expressed above are my own. You may agree or disagree with them but that doesn’t make one opinion right and another wrong. We should be allowed to disagree and peacefully discuss the issue and, hopefully, meet somewhere in the middle.
The same is true for political party affiliation. Gone are the days when most people would go to the voting booth and pull the single lever of Democrat or Republican. Most of us like to look at ourselves as independent voters. In spite of this the partisan divide in federal and state government has never been so wide, at least in my memory.
I believe that most voters vote for a candidate (or party) based upon his/her worst fears. So to, the candidates seem to pander to those fears when politicking for an office. The immigrant community, especially those who are undocumented or have loved ones who are undocumented, will vote for any candidate that promises that anyone caught being here illegally will be given an opportunity for citizenship. These individuals pretty much don’t care what the candidate’s other views are.
The rich, so-called 1%, of wealthy Americans are looking for a candidate who will continue the Bush tax breaks and be friendlier to big business and Wall Street so that they can keep more of their investment portfolio. These individuals are usually touting the evils of big government and the benefits of a free market society. Any candidate who assures them that these are his priorities also will get their vote.
The capitalists, and so-called job creators, want business restrictions lifted to allow them to make better profits in their business. Any politician who promises to ease the limits on outsourcing jobs overseas or allows them to skirt some of the environmental laws to increase their bottom line can count on their vote.
People who are part of the entitlement minded Americans who believe that the government should take care of them and their families with free housing, food stamps and Welfare checks every month do not want the government to abandon them. Many of these families are multi-generational recipients of social handouts. If a candidate threatens to investigate Welfare fraud, cut benefits and reduce the number of social programs these voters will rally around his opponent.
Many of our elderly citizens vote on the single issue of protecting their Social Security payments and Medicare coverage. Any candidate who threatens the security of these systems will face their wrath at the polls. They are scared enough regarding such proposals that virtually anything else the candidate stands for is disregarded when they are at the polls.
Many working people, especially those in unionized labor, are deathly afraid of the latest trend in anti-labor policies – the breaking of contracts and abolishment of collective bargaining. They would rather vote for someone who holds opposing views on almost every other issue than allow someone who is anti-labor be elected to public office.
And finally, the conservative Christians will only vote for someone who has the same views on the sanctity of life and when life begins. Most favor marriage being only between a man and a woman and will penalize a candidate who believes in marriage equality proposals.
While there are a multitude of factors that influence my vote the biggest factor to me personally, at this point in my life, is how a candidate feels (and will vote) on labor related issues – especially with the battle lines being drawn all around the country regarding this. Also, I could never find a candidate who would have beliefs which completely echoed my own. And I certainly couldn’t find a candidate who would vote the way I would like him to vote on every issue, because my beliefs are scattered on both sides of the political divide.
I believe that illegal immigrants are just that – illegal. They are costing the taxpayers millions of dollars in tax revenue and taking jobs from U.S. citizens. They are also cheating those would-be immigrants who are attempting to enter this country in the proper manner. When we (our government agencies) encounter illegals they should be detained and deported.
As far as the Bush tax cuts are concerned I believe that they should be repealed and set back to where they were under the Clinton administration. If you look at our country’s history the highest tax bracket has risen during or directly after our nation has faced economic hardship – after WWI, the Great Depression and WWII. Also, the tax breaks have not had the effect that they were intended to bring about. There has been a substantial loss of jobs, not job creation.
I think the Welfare system is completely broken. There are, however, many citizens who could not survive without some sort of assistance. The answer, I believe, is to temporarily put more money into investigation of fraud along with swift and substantial penalties for those who are guilty of this. Also, anyone capable of working should be required to work at least part time in order to remain qualified for Welfare payments, food stamps or subsidized housing.
I also truly believe that the Social Security system must be protected at all costs, or at least until another system is fully funded and operational for future retirees. Too many Americans rely on SS to survive and as therefore the integrity of the system is a matter of the government’s responsibility to keep that promise.
What we desperately need is a renewed era of bipartisanship to fix the present stalemate in government. Either that or a sufficient enough number of Independent representatives in government that would represent the swing votes on any pending legislation.
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Can We Ever Trust Politicians Again?
.
.
Are there any politicians out there who actually stand for something? Are there any out there who actually keep their word?
Case in point – Governor Chaffee. He campaigned by stating he was behind the working men and women of the state, including state and municipal union workers. He was labor-friendly, he said. Although there were tough times ahead the sacrifices would be shared, not put squarely on the backs of state and municipal employees. He pointed to his record as the Mayor of Warwick to show that he was a fair negotiator.
Case in point – Mayor Taveras. Not only did he propose a new era in joint communication and cooperation between the City’s labor unions and his Administration at City Hall, but he actually renegotiated and signed contracts which brought about further concessions by the unions which seemed fair to both sides. Also, he was left a financial mess by his predecessor.
Case in point – Congressman Cicilline. Enough has been said about this clown. Everyone knows by now that he never tells the truth. He is a lost cause, and I hope someone runs against him in the Democratic primary.
As far as Governor Chaffee is concerned, he better wake up very quickly. Organized labor put him over the top in the last election because he promised to treat us fairly. Contrary to public opinion labor was not looking for someone to roll over and give away the candy store. We realized that times were tough all over and not getting better very quickly. We knew that there were difficult decisions ahead and that we were going to have to sacrifice just like everyone else. We wanted, however, to be treated fairly in the process. Instead, this governor is proposing what is tantamount to stripping labor of our collective bargaining rights. Giving employers (whether government or private) carte blanche to refashion the employee and retirement benefits of their employees is morally and ethically wrong. It is also probably illegal. He (the governor) is setting the stage for drawn out legal battles which will benefit no one.
Mayor Taveras. Ouch! As a longtime employee of the City I had very high hopes that Mayor Taveras would change things for the better. Indeed, I voted to approve a contract re-opening that gave away some of our benefits in order to help the City through a tough financial crisis and as a good faith gesture that we and the Administration could work together in an atmosphere of mutual respect and trust. What did he do? He decided to attempt to strip my retirement benefits as well. Everything he has done over the last few months has been to steer the City toward the brink of bankruptcy in order to get out from under contractual obligations. While some may applaud him for doing that, I believe he has been negligent in exploring all other reasonable options. There are a couple of options with regards to the pension system which would save as much, or more, than his present plan.
The problem seems to be that if he were to get the concessions required or simply instituted the needed changes and fight the legal fight regarding those changes he wouldn’t be able to get “all” the changes he wants. From what I understand, the meeting he held with retirees to explain the changes he was proposing is one of the things he needed to do if he were to request a judge to let the City out from under the burden of the contracts of retirees (and employees). There was no way he believed that he would be able to forge closer to an understanding with retirees by explaining his proposals at that meeting. Also, although the meeting was said to be about the Mayor explaining his justification for temporarily halting the COLAs, he got up on stage and explained that he also wanted additional changes to their retirement benefits. He wanted them to begin paying 20% of their health care and wanted to require them to join Medicare at 65. These are all costly items to a retiree and the Mayor wants all three of them! That would be a hardship.
I’m speaking about 90% of the retirees facing a hardship by these concessions. The media always points to the 10% of City retirees who receive outlandish pensions due to years of 6% COLAs. Many of these retirees collect a bigger retirement check than the active workers on their old job receive! That’s completely ridiculous.
That would be the first place I would attack if I were the Mayor. I would propose and push a City Ordinance that capped ALL Providence pensions at the current base pay of the individual performing that job now. This is going forward, as well as being applied to current retirees. This would mean a dramatic reduction in a small percentage of pensions but it would be considered, by most reasonable people, a fair solution. No one should ever receive more in retirement than the person working today at the same job!
I would also propose that no employee of the City be able to collect a service pension until he/she were 50 years old. I believe that this could be negotiated into every Providence union’s contract without too much trouble.
These 2 changes would solve the long-term problems of the City’s pension system. It wouldn’t immediately replace the hundreds of millions of dollars the City has neglected to pay into the system overnight, but it would create a sound and sustainable pension system. This crisis wasn’t created in a day, so why would we think we should fix it in a day. This is a long-standing crisis which requires a thoughtful and fair, long-term solution.
Tom Kenney
.
Are there any politicians out there who actually stand for something? Are there any out there who actually keep their word?
Case in point – Governor Chaffee. He campaigned by stating he was behind the working men and women of the state, including state and municipal union workers. He was labor-friendly, he said. Although there were tough times ahead the sacrifices would be shared, not put squarely on the backs of state and municipal employees. He pointed to his record as the Mayor of Warwick to show that he was a fair negotiator.
Case in point – Mayor Taveras. Not only did he propose a new era in joint communication and cooperation between the City’s labor unions and his Administration at City Hall, but he actually renegotiated and signed contracts which brought about further concessions by the unions which seemed fair to both sides. Also, he was left a financial mess by his predecessor.
Case in point – Congressman Cicilline. Enough has been said about this clown. Everyone knows by now that he never tells the truth. He is a lost cause, and I hope someone runs against him in the Democratic primary.
As far as Governor Chaffee is concerned, he better wake up very quickly. Organized labor put him over the top in the last election because he promised to treat us fairly. Contrary to public opinion labor was not looking for someone to roll over and give away the candy store. We realized that times were tough all over and not getting better very quickly. We knew that there were difficult decisions ahead and that we were going to have to sacrifice just like everyone else. We wanted, however, to be treated fairly in the process. Instead, this governor is proposing what is tantamount to stripping labor of our collective bargaining rights. Giving employers (whether government or private) carte blanche to refashion the employee and retirement benefits of their employees is morally and ethically wrong. It is also probably illegal. He (the governor) is setting the stage for drawn out legal battles which will benefit no one.
Mayor Taveras. Ouch! As a longtime employee of the City I had very high hopes that Mayor Taveras would change things for the better. Indeed, I voted to approve a contract re-opening that gave away some of our benefits in order to help the City through a tough financial crisis and as a good faith gesture that we and the Administration could work together in an atmosphere of mutual respect and trust. What did he do? He decided to attempt to strip my retirement benefits as well. Everything he has done over the last few months has been to steer the City toward the brink of bankruptcy in order to get out from under contractual obligations. While some may applaud him for doing that, I believe he has been negligent in exploring all other reasonable options. There are a couple of options with regards to the pension system which would save as much, or more, than his present plan.
The problem seems to be that if he were to get the concessions required or simply instituted the needed changes and fight the legal fight regarding those changes he wouldn’t be able to get “all” the changes he wants. From what I understand, the meeting he held with retirees to explain the changes he was proposing is one of the things he needed to do if he were to request a judge to let the City out from under the burden of the contracts of retirees (and employees). There was no way he believed that he would be able to forge closer to an understanding with retirees by explaining his proposals at that meeting. Also, although the meeting was said to be about the Mayor explaining his justification for temporarily halting the COLAs, he got up on stage and explained that he also wanted additional changes to their retirement benefits. He wanted them to begin paying 20% of their health care and wanted to require them to join Medicare at 65. These are all costly items to a retiree and the Mayor wants all three of them! That would be a hardship.
I’m speaking about 90% of the retirees facing a hardship by these concessions. The media always points to the 10% of City retirees who receive outlandish pensions due to years of 6% COLAs. Many of these retirees collect a bigger retirement check than the active workers on their old job receive! That’s completely ridiculous.
That would be the first place I would attack if I were the Mayor. I would propose and push a City Ordinance that capped ALL Providence pensions at the current base pay of the individual performing that job now. This is going forward, as well as being applied to current retirees. This would mean a dramatic reduction in a small percentage of pensions but it would be considered, by most reasonable people, a fair solution. No one should ever receive more in retirement than the person working today at the same job!
I would also propose that no employee of the City be able to collect a service pension until he/she were 50 years old. I believe that this could be negotiated into every Providence union’s contract without too much trouble.
These 2 changes would solve the long-term problems of the City’s pension system. It wouldn’t immediately replace the hundreds of millions of dollars the City has neglected to pay into the system overnight, but it would create a sound and sustainable pension system. This crisis wasn’t created in a day, so why would we think we should fix it in a day. This is a long-standing crisis which requires a thoughtful and fair, long-term solution.
Tom Kenney
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Quick & Fair Resolution to Providence's COLA Dispute
While reports seem to always showcase the City’s “top 25” retirees, no one seems to want to talk about the average (the majority) retiree from Providence who is making somewhere between $20K - $40K – in many cases for 30+ years of service to the City.
Taveras’ plan does nothing to separate the financial burden of these two groups – and that is just plain wrong.
While most of us (if not all) would agree that making more in retirement than a current employee in the retiree’s old job is wrong, Taveras’ proposals do nothing to correct this imbalance. The mayor should consider making a single proposal, capping all current and future pensions at 100% of the current active employee in the position from which the pensioner retired. This would be a “fair” solution to the unfunded liability problem for the current and future stability of the system, even if not a popular move to some of the current retirees who would be immediately affected.
I would like to see a savings projection if this were to be implemented. My guess is that it would be substantially more than Taveras’ target of $29 million.
Taveras’ plan does nothing to separate the financial burden of these two groups – and that is just plain wrong.
While most of us (if not all) would agree that making more in retirement than a current employee in the retiree’s old job is wrong, Taveras’ proposals do nothing to correct this imbalance. The mayor should consider making a single proposal, capping all current and future pensions at 100% of the current active employee in the position from which the pensioner retired. This would be a “fair” solution to the unfunded liability problem for the current and future stability of the system, even if not a popular move to some of the current retirees who would be immediately affected.
I would like to see a savings projection if this were to be implemented. My guess is that it would be substantially more than Taveras’ target of $29 million.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Who is to blame for Providence’s possible bankruptcy?
Active Providence firefighters and retirees explain that they never missed a payment into their retirement system. They say it was mismanagement (bordering on criminal mismanagement) by elected officials which has lead to the unfunded liability which threatens the entire system. They say the pension provisions, including COLA’s, have been negotiated fairly and are protected as part of their CBA, which was signed by the mayor and ratified by the City Council. They say it is not fair to blame them and the City cannot break a contract…period!
City and state officials, general taxpayers, bloggers, newspapers and other media say the taxpayers can’t afford it. There is no other choice than to nullify the contract and make the necessary unilateral cuts they deem to be fair…period!
Neither side believes they should have to find any compromise between the two positions. Something has to move.
No one wants to talk about the fact that the City of Providence (as are all other municipalities in the State of RI) is struggling in their financial efforts to avoid bankruptcy due primarily to the millions of dollars in state aid to cities and towns which have been pulled out from under them by former Governor Carcieri.
No one wants to talk about the fact that the last three mayors of Providence (Cianci, Paolino & Cicilline) continually failed to meet the City’s annual obligation in funding the pension system…or the fact that Cianci raided the pension on more than one occasion to “borrow” money from the system.
No one wants to talk about the fact that Mayor Cianci is the sole person responsible for the 5% & 6% COLA’s which are responsible for creating the obscene pensions often mentioned in reports about the outlandish sums being paid to some fire and police department retirees. He, and only he, signed the contracts for the city which awarded these unsustainable COLAs.
No one wants to talk about the fact that these previously mentioned factors are the reasons Providence’s police and fire pension system has been unsustainable…not the pensions being paid to 90% of the retirees from this system who are being paid 3% COLA’s on a much smaller based pension.
No one wants to talk about the fact that there have been numerous concessions and changes to the Providence police and fire pension system over the past several years as a result of both fire and police unions negotiating give-backs to the city when called upon to participate in “shared sacrifice” to help the city through tough economic times.
No one wants to talk about the fact that the highest single cost for employees and retirees is an out-of-control health insurance system that need to be brought under control and not just absorbing or passing on the already obscene premiums.
Some of these changes are listed below:
1. Providence firefighters have paid an extra 1.5% toward pension & OPEB (other post employee benefits) costs than the Providence police for the last 15 years or so. This 1.5% is officially being held for OPEB by the City of Providence (or at least it should be) via contract agreement. Providence police have no such agreement and don’t pay the additional 1.5% over the base pension contribution of 8% despite being in the same pension system as firefighters and having some benefits not accorded firefighters including a 5% pension bump up at 25 years and 30 years.
2. Providence firefighters earn the right to retire at 50% of base pay at 20 years of service. As of our last contract any member who chooses to retire after 20 years will have to wait for 5 years before they are able to begin collecting their pension and an additional 3-4 years before collecting any COLA. This is a change from being able to collect their base pension immediately upon reaching 20 years and the waiting 3-4 years for COLAs to begin.
3. As of our last contract Providence firefighters are required to utilize Medicare coverage as their primary health care coverage for themselves and their spouse once they turn 65 years of age. This change will add over $5,000 per year in costs to retirees plus additional co-pays and prescription costs.
4. The accidental disability pension rate for current retirees is under 20% compared to the 90-95% during the late 80’s and 90’s. Any suspected abuse of the disability pension system has been cleaned up over the past 10-15 years.
There are some things that could be done to amend Providence ’s police and fire pension system which would most certainly be welcomed by the active membership of both unions and the City should at least attempt to negotiate with the retirees.
The first (and most immediately important) is to address the COLA issue. Retirees should NEVER make more in retirement than the person who is actively performing the same job. This is common sense and although the retirees have no legal requirement to give up their annual raises they must certainly be worried about the issue going to court once again and the outlandish amount of their pension being judged by the public, the media and by a judge.
1. Cap the pensions of 5% & 6% COLA retirees where they are. No more raises…period!
2. Cap the pensions of 3% COLA retirees at 75% of the current active member’s base pay for the job the retiree left.
3. Calculate future COLA’s to coincide with active members’ raises. This way if an employee retires at a pension of 75% of his base pay his retirement will never exceed 75% of an active member’s base.
4. Negotiate a change for new employees to be required to reach a minimum age before being eligible to collect a service pension.
5. Have an audit of the system and determine if a raise in contribution percentage is required for current employees.
City and state officials, general taxpayers, bloggers, newspapers and other media say the taxpayers can’t afford it. There is no other choice than to nullify the contract and make the necessary unilateral cuts they deem to be fair…period!
Neither side believes they should have to find any compromise between the two positions. Something has to move.
No one wants to talk about the fact that the City of Providence (as are all other municipalities in the State of RI) is struggling in their financial efforts to avoid bankruptcy due primarily to the millions of dollars in state aid to cities and towns which have been pulled out from under them by former Governor Carcieri.
No one wants to talk about the fact that the last three mayors of Providence (Cianci, Paolino & Cicilline) continually failed to meet the City’s annual obligation in funding the pension system…or the fact that Cianci raided the pension on more than one occasion to “borrow” money from the system.
No one wants to talk about the fact that Mayor Cianci is the sole person responsible for the 5% & 6% COLA’s which are responsible for creating the obscene pensions often mentioned in reports about the outlandish sums being paid to some fire and police department retirees. He, and only he, signed the contracts for the city which awarded these unsustainable COLAs.
No one wants to talk about the fact that these previously mentioned factors are the reasons Providence’s police and fire pension system has been unsustainable…not the pensions being paid to 90% of the retirees from this system who are being paid 3% COLA’s on a much smaller based pension.
No one wants to talk about the fact that there have been numerous concessions and changes to the Providence police and fire pension system over the past several years as a result of both fire and police unions negotiating give-backs to the city when called upon to participate in “shared sacrifice” to help the city through tough economic times.
No one wants to talk about the fact that the highest single cost for employees and retirees is an out-of-control health insurance system that need to be brought under control and not just absorbing or passing on the already obscene premiums.
Some of these changes are listed below:
1. Providence firefighters have paid an extra 1.5% toward pension & OPEB (other post employee benefits) costs than the Providence police for the last 15 years or so. This 1.5% is officially being held for OPEB by the City of Providence (or at least it should be) via contract agreement. Providence police have no such agreement and don’t pay the additional 1.5% over the base pension contribution of 8% despite being in the same pension system as firefighters and having some benefits not accorded firefighters including a 5% pension bump up at 25 years and 30 years.
2. Providence firefighters earn the right to retire at 50% of base pay at 20 years of service. As of our last contract any member who chooses to retire after 20 years will have to wait for 5 years before they are able to begin collecting their pension and an additional 3-4 years before collecting any COLA. This is a change from being able to collect their base pension immediately upon reaching 20 years and the waiting 3-4 years for COLAs to begin.
3. As of our last contract Providence firefighters are required to utilize Medicare coverage as their primary health care coverage for themselves and their spouse once they turn 65 years of age. This change will add over $5,000 per year in costs to retirees plus additional co-pays and prescription costs.
4. The accidental disability pension rate for current retirees is under 20% compared to the 90-95% during the late 80’s and 90’s. Any suspected abuse of the disability pension system has been cleaned up over the past 10-15 years.
There are some things that could be done to amend Providence ’s police and fire pension system which would most certainly be welcomed by the active membership of both unions and the City should at least attempt to negotiate with the retirees.
The first (and most immediately important) is to address the COLA issue. Retirees should NEVER make more in retirement than the person who is actively performing the same job. This is common sense and although the retirees have no legal requirement to give up their annual raises they must certainly be worried about the issue going to court once again and the outlandish amount of their pension being judged by the public, the media and by a judge.
1. Cap the pensions of 5% & 6% COLA retirees where they are. No more raises…period!
2. Cap the pensions of 3% COLA retirees at 75% of the current active member’s base pay for the job the retiree left.
3. Calculate future COLA’s to coincide with active members’ raises. This way if an employee retires at a pension of 75% of his base pay his retirement will never exceed 75% of an active member’s base.
4. Negotiate a change for new employees to be required to reach a minimum age before being eligible to collect a service pension.
5. Have an audit of the system and determine if a raise in contribution percentage is required for current employees.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Worcester Rescue One / Rescuers to Victim
.
.
We all know that this can happen
Any time we go out that door
Although we seldom give it any thought
This is what we signed on for
Ours can be a dangerous profession
There’s no way around it
We try to take every precaution
The situation will permit
Another fire in a wooden three-decker
In this old New England town
Houses built too close together
Worn, damaged and run down
Everyone’s asleep at four in the morning
Assuming they’re safe in their beds
A spark or an ember go too long unnoticed
The fire slowly but surely spreads
It consumes more fuel gaining momentum
Before it’s finally detected
Smoke and fire are silent killers
They strike when unexpected
By the time the first alarm was sounded
And trucks were on the scene
Smoke was thick and flames were raging
The night air filled with screams
The first-in Engine reports heavy fire
They see flames while on the way
The Chief calls for a second alarm
Reinforcements for this fray
Occupants are lead from the building
But not all are accounted for
The firefighters must conduct a search
By going floor to floor
As they search for victims trapped inside
And put water on the fire
The building begins to lose its integrity
As the flames just grow higher
The order to evacuate the building
Is given by Command
All firefighters depart the structure
Their hoses left unmanned
At just this time a civilian insists
His roommate is still inside
Second floor in the rear apartment
If he hasn’t already died
Time for a search and rescue team
To make one last try
Get in and out as quickly as possible
Before things can go awry
Two brave men from Rescue One
Attempted to test fate
Reach the victim and pull him out
Before it was too late
As they made their way up the stairs
The building just let go
Burying them both amidst the rubble
And trapping them below
One would live and one would die
As fate played its hand
Why God took one and not the other
Is tough to understand
The Jakes who work in Worcester, sadly
Have been here once before
It’s tough to think that again this Christmas
They’ll go through this hell once more
The holidays should be a joyful time
A time without such heartache
But once again our brothers in Worcester
Must bury a brother Jake
Firefighters from all around the country
Will bid firefighter Davies farewell
For he died the same way he had lived
While answering the bell
.
We all know that this can happen
Any time we go out that door
Although we seldom give it any thought
This is what we signed on for
Ours can be a dangerous profession
There’s no way around it
We try to take every precaution
The situation will permit
Another fire in a wooden three-decker
In this old New England town
Houses built too close together
Worn, damaged and run down
Everyone’s asleep at four in the morning
Assuming they’re safe in their beds
A spark or an ember go too long unnoticed
The fire slowly but surely spreads
It consumes more fuel gaining momentum
Before it’s finally detected
Smoke and fire are silent killers
They strike when unexpected
By the time the first alarm was sounded
And trucks were on the scene
Smoke was thick and flames were raging
The night air filled with screams
The first-in Engine reports heavy fire
They see flames while on the way
The Chief calls for a second alarm
Reinforcements for this fray
Occupants are lead from the building
But not all are accounted for
The firefighters must conduct a search
By going floor to floor
As they search for victims trapped inside
And put water on the fire
The building begins to lose its integrity
As the flames just grow higher
The order to evacuate the building
Is given by Command
All firefighters depart the structure
Their hoses left unmanned
At just this time a civilian insists
His roommate is still inside
Second floor in the rear apartment
If he hasn’t already died
Time for a search and rescue team
To make one last try
Get in and out as quickly as possible
Before things can go awry
Two brave men from Rescue One
Attempted to test fate
Reach the victim and pull him out
Before it was too late
As they made their way up the stairs
The building just let go
Burying them both amidst the rubble
And trapping them below
One would live and one would die
As fate played its hand
Why God took one and not the other
Is tough to understand
The Jakes who work in Worcester, sadly
Have been here once before
It’s tough to think that again this Christmas
They’ll go through this hell once more
The holidays should be a joyful time
A time without such heartache
But once again our brothers in Worcester
Must bury a brother Jake
Firefighters from all around the country
Will bid firefighter Davies farewell
For he died the same way he had lived
While answering the bell
Friday, September 30, 2011
The Greatest Geneation vs. Our Generation
.
Tom Brokaw wrote a book chronicling the character of “The Greatest Generation” of Americans. That was the generation of our fathers or grandfathers – depending on our age. They were not self-absorbed people who put their own interests in front of society’s, regardless of the cost. Just the opposite, they realized that their own prosperity (and freedom) was also intertwined with the prosperity and freedom of the rest of society. This strength of character was not limited to one group of citizens either, it was equally shared between the haves and the have-nots.
In 1932, in the middle of the Great Depression, when the country and many of its citizens were in unprecedented distress, the top tax bracket rose from 25% to 63%. In 1940, when the country joined the struggle in World War II and the country had to ration and struggle to support the war effort, it rose to 81.1%. And in 1944 when the country began to emerge from WWII and attempt to get its economy back on track, it again rose to 94% and the lowest tax bracket rose to 23% from only 4.4% just three years prior.
The rate fluctuated to a 70% top tax bracket when President Carter left office. It dropped from 70% to 28% during the Regan Administration alone, but eventually rose to 39.6% under Bill Clinton during the 90’s – arguably the best economic times this country has enjoyed in almost a century. The stock market and the housing market were booming and unemployment was at an all time low.
When George W. Bush took office and began lowering the top tax bracket from 39.6% to 35% he also lowered the Capital Gains tax from 20% to 10% - another tax break exclusively for those who could afford to make investments rather than simply struggle to pay the bills. He also shifted many federal funded programs to the state level - which devastated state budgets across the country. These shortfalls were passed on to municipalities via shrinking state funded financial assistance. The result of these shrinking funds on the municipal level was inevitably passed on to the property holders in the form of higher real estate and property taxes.
The Bush tax breaks to the very rich were intended (so he claimed and Republicans continue to claim) to stimulate businesses and investors to create jobs thereby helping the lower and middle income families. Has that happened? Since the Bush tax breaks have been in place the level of unemployment has risen to historic highs. Not since the Great Depression has America’s lower and middle income families been in such dire financial shape. Maybe it’s time to raise the top tax bracket in the USA back to 63% to get us out of this Depression.
The Greatest Generation stepped up and showed their true integrity and character when things looked bleakest. Our present generation is setting an example for our kids and grandkids just as our parents and grandparents did for us. What are we showing them? We’re teaching them that if governmental promises and contracts are placing too much of a burden on us we can simply ignore them and walk away.
I don’t think we’ll have any books praising our generation any time soon!
Tom Brokaw wrote a book chronicling the character of “The Greatest Generation” of Americans. That was the generation of our fathers or grandfathers – depending on our age. They were not self-absorbed people who put their own interests in front of society’s, regardless of the cost. Just the opposite, they realized that their own prosperity (and freedom) was also intertwined with the prosperity and freedom of the rest of society. This strength of character was not limited to one group of citizens either, it was equally shared between the haves and the have-nots.
In 1932, in the middle of the Great Depression, when the country and many of its citizens were in unprecedented distress, the top tax bracket rose from 25% to 63%. In 1940, when the country joined the struggle in World War II and the country had to ration and struggle to support the war effort, it rose to 81.1%. And in 1944 when the country began to emerge from WWII and attempt to get its economy back on track, it again rose to 94% and the lowest tax bracket rose to 23% from only 4.4% just three years prior.
The rate fluctuated to a 70% top tax bracket when President Carter left office. It dropped from 70% to 28% during the Regan Administration alone, but eventually rose to 39.6% under Bill Clinton during the 90’s – arguably the best economic times this country has enjoyed in almost a century. The stock market and the housing market were booming and unemployment was at an all time low.
When George W. Bush took office and began lowering the top tax bracket from 39.6% to 35% he also lowered the Capital Gains tax from 20% to 10% - another tax break exclusively for those who could afford to make investments rather than simply struggle to pay the bills. He also shifted many federal funded programs to the state level - which devastated state budgets across the country. These shortfalls were passed on to municipalities via shrinking state funded financial assistance. The result of these shrinking funds on the municipal level was inevitably passed on to the property holders in the form of higher real estate and property taxes.
The Bush tax breaks to the very rich were intended (so he claimed and Republicans continue to claim) to stimulate businesses and investors to create jobs thereby helping the lower and middle income families. Has that happened? Since the Bush tax breaks have been in place the level of unemployment has risen to historic highs. Not since the Great Depression has America’s lower and middle income families been in such dire financial shape. Maybe it’s time to raise the top tax bracket in the USA back to 63% to get us out of this Depression.
The Greatest Generation stepped up and showed their true integrity and character when things looked bleakest. Our present generation is setting an example for our kids and grandkids just as our parents and grandparents did for us. What are we showing them? We’re teaching them that if governmental promises and contracts are placing too much of a burden on us we can simply ignore them and walk away.
I don’t think we’ll have any books praising our generation any time soon!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
