Well, well, well. Look who's right (me) and look who's misrepresenting lying (Costello)!
After an exhaustive Google search, I sent an email to the local Firefighters Union requesting information on this super-duper raise. And got a reply (emphasis added mine):
Ha! Let me break down the spin for you:
-The article said what they were paid regular raises before the big raise: 3% a year for the previous 5 years. I actually copied that right out of the article and posted it, so I don't know how you missed it.
-19% over a three year contract is 6.3 percent a year. That is a fairly high raise.
-Ormond firefighters being paid less than average to comparable departments is totally irrelevent. I'm not sure why he thought that was important, but it doesn't mean anything to me. Obviously the pay, benefits and conditions were acceptable enough if :
No firefighters had quit the year before. And the city had received 76 applications for the last opening in the department [from the article I linked]
So it sounds like a fairly popular job for being paid less than average. So would someone in charge of the city's finances reasonably conclude that firefighters were underpaid if you had so many new applicants, and no one left for greener pastures?
You did nothing to refute my point. Public sector unions help select the people who determine their salary and benefits. Apparently taxpayers are left out of the boardroom on this.
I appreciate you wasting time doing all this research. I guess your intent was to disprove that there was such a contract, or to show firefighters were working for minimum wage before the contract, but as is often the case, you do this to avoid the point, and unfortunately your research just confirmed the contract.
