|
Zonie63 -> RE: Rioting is the answer (9/11/2014 8:17:49 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kdsub
Zonnie I worked for a municipality for many years and I can tell you that comparable salaries between private and public service are not even close. I could have easily made double my salary in the private sector. Now I am talking small cities as in the vast majority...and only those in my area. I know this because we often did salary studies and decided to try and match median salaries at 50 percentile private and the 75th percentile for cities in our area. This is the only way we could attract and keep good employees.
I would think it would mainly depend on the local economy, what kind of work is available, and one's chosen field (and how good one is at it). If you're in a specialized field which is in demand and you're good at what you do, then you could probably write your own ticket. A top lawyer could likely do better in the private sector than working in government. I get that part of it, although it's not strictly true in all areas or professions.
There's local article from a couple of years ago about this:
quote:
If you feel a tad underpaid in your current job, you may want to consider dropping off an application at the city of Tucson or Pima County.
An Arizona Daily Star review of city salaries last year showed the 1,000th highest-paid employee earned $72,411, which is $37,000 more than the average Tucsonan.
Pima County paid its 1,000th top earner $63,258, about $28,000 more than the average resident pulls down.
Collectively, those top 1,000 city paychecks clock in at $89.4 million, excluding benefits and pensions. For the county, it was $85.3 million.
Tucson pays 192 employees $100,000 or more and spent $22.1 million total on those salaries, or roughly $2 million more than what the city is asking taxpayers to approve for a road repair bond in this November's bond election.
In comparison to similar communities in the region, the Star's analysis shows Tucson trends toward the high side in how much it pays its top workers. Only Mesa showed a higher figure for its 1,000th salaried employee, at nearly $78,000.
The article went on to quote the mayor who pointed out that this survey only covered the top-level workers and not the average worker, but still, a clerk at city court will typically earn more and get better benefits than a clerk at Walmart, so who's kidding whom?
The irony is that, despite all these efforts to attract and keep "good" employees, considering the state of affairs in our local government(s), I have reason to doubt just how "good" these people actually are.
Did you ever hear of the municipality of Bell, California?
quote:
Because we could not pay comparable private wages we, and I'm sure many cities did and do, use benefits such as liberal sick leave and retirement packages to attract good workers. This does present a problem down the line as proven in many states and municipalities...especially when the pension type was a defined benefit package. Today most have or are switching to the 401K type.
Yes, that's an issue that's looming large over our city budget as well.
quote:
I like the idea of fines issued by income but that I'm afraid would be a boondoggle in my opinion.
Possibly, although if a billionaire gets a speeding ticket, it could be a tremendous windfall. Or maybe a Walmart truck getting a citation with the fine based on the gross earnings of the entire company. If nothing else, the police would stop going after the small fry and start targeting the bigger fish.
quote:
As far as wanting something for nothing... just try and get a general budget increase anywhere in the US today... Not going to happen in the majority of cities... But reduce services and listen to the uproar over wasted money and how they could do it better... bullcrap.
Butch
But there is wasted money, and whatever uproar there might be over it is perfectly righteous. It's not "bullcrap" at all.
As far as not getting any budget increases, it depends on the level of government you're talking about. But it's true...times are tough and money is tight. Those in the private sector are also acutely aware of this, especially those at the lower end of the economic scale. So, when someone making a six-figure (taxpayer-financed) salary tries to sell the idea that "there's not enough money," there might be a bit of an uproar over something like that, sure.
Seriously, if they're so fucking "good" that they deserve such high salaries, then why can't they show off their brilliance and intelligence and figure out a way to provide the same services with the resources they have? Isn't that what we're paying them to do? Everyone has to tighten their belt these days, and it's no picnic in the private sector either.
|
|
|
|
