spin:
No. This is spin:
Two months after firefighters helped elect a new majority, they received a 19 percent raise.
Nowhere does that state the 19% was spread out over a period of time. Nowhere does it state that 3% of that had already been negotiated in prior contracts.
That is misleading at best, and an intentional lie at worst.
Public sector unions help select the people who determine their salary and benefits. Apparently taxpayers are left out of the boardroom on this.
Sorry. I can't see anything wrong with the first statement. Politicians promise all the time. If a politician runs on a campaign of "If elected, I will raise the minimum wage to $10.00 per hour.", then the people of course, will vote for him.
As far as taxpayers being "left out of the boardroom", where were they when Citizens United allowed corporations the right to back politicians with nearly unlimited funds in order to pimp their agenda?
Seems to me a hell of a lot more of the taxpayers (which also consist of firefighters and policemen and teachers) were "left out of the boardroom" in that situation...
More spin:
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.
Nope. I knew there was a contract. I never said firefighters were working for minimum wage, either. But you knew that too, didn't you?
I can't judge any of that until I know what they were paid before the big raise. Perhaps there was "years of inequity".
Apparently, since a new contract was negotiated, there were "years of inequity". As I was told:
The reason for the increase in question was that Ormond’s Firefighters at that time were being paid about that much less than the average of the other comparable departments in the area. This essentially brought Ormond up to the standard at the time.
