Madison

[lil mike]

Puhleeze! You don't think I know who Fred Costello (or Kelly for that matter) is? The Reformed Mormon (ya know...so he can smoke and drink but still thump his Book of Mormon and try to drive out the evil bikini bars so the planned development - Ormond Crossings - he's backing as a former member of the Planning Commission and has a financial interest in can be built) is? He's the king of the teabaggers here in Ormond! Of course, you know that too, since you're probably a member of the same 9/12 group he's in, huh? Can you share with us the racial joke posted on the 9/12 website? He's also hated by every cop in town.

Why is he hated. HB303. Look it up. Here's a letter:

Oh. And now he wants to raise our taxes! so his buddies in Ormond Crossing won't have to pay as much property taxes!

Edited to add: I just spoke to an Ormond Police Officer about Costello.

Ahh...the sweet smell of voter's remorse. Coming soon to 2012!

You totally missed my point.  Although I suspect it was purposeful.  You're firing blanks.

[Howey]

You totally missed my point.  Although I suspect it was purposeful.  You're firing blanks.

Nah. I get your point. The firefighters got a big raise and that pissed Costello off. Oh well...I've seen crooked pols get pissed off before...

I can't judge any of that until I know what they were paid before the big raise. Perhaps there was "years of inequity".

Shouldn't give him the right to take away the policemen's retirement, though, should it?

Or raise everyone's taxes, including yours, 42%? Sounds like he's got a big ol' tri-cornered hard on.

Not too big though, since he didn't mind treating all the firefighters and police in his dental practice with all that insurance the unions negotiated for.

[FooFa]

No one's retirement should ever be cut for any reason. It also shouldn't be stolen. When Enron had the 'accounting firm' give it all the fake numbers and people lost their 401K's the president said that nothing like that would ever happen again. Then the bailout made Enron look like a kool aid stand.

[Howey]

Oh, in our own News Journal, one of the best reasons why I oppose public sector unions:

http://www.news-journalonline.com/news/politics/legislature/2011/03/06/will-florida-lawmakers-target-unions.html

Two months after firefighters helped elect a new majority, they received a 19 percent raise.

Case, as they say, closed.

I can't judge any of that until I know what they were paid before the big raise. Perhaps there was "years of inequity".

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):

The 2004 to 2007 contract (approved while Mr. Costello was Mayor) provided for an approximate 19% TOTAL increase over the three year period of the contract. That total included an already implemented step increase per year (just over 2% per year) that was built in to the pay matrix (step plan) being used at the time. That (approx.) 2% would have been implemented anyway, so the actual increase was really around 13% (total over the three years) more than what was already provided for. No contract since that one (2004-2007) has included a pay matrix for raises, as it was done away with in the 2007-2008 contract. Ormond Beach firefighters have not received any form of raise since 2007.

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.
 
On a side note Ormond Beach firefighters also pay 8.4% of their salaries into their pension plan.
 
I hope this answered your question. If you would like any further information, please let me know.
 
Thank you for your support.
 
(Name and Position Removed)
IAFF Local 3499
Ormond Beach Firefighters Association

[lil mike]

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.

[lil mike]

No one's retirement should ever be cut for any reason. It also shouldn't be stolen. When Enron had the 'accounting firm' give it all the fake numbers and people lost their 401K's the president said that nothing like that would ever happen again. Then the bailout made Enron look like a kool aid stand.

I don't think the situations are comparable.  The employees that lost their shirt in their 401ks did so because they had most of the 401ks invested in Enron stock.  So when the stock tanked, so did their retirement.

How would you save everyone's retirement when they were based on promises that just can't be met?  I mean, that's a question a lot of people are asking now, but if you are saying no one's retirement should be cut for any reason... I'd like to know how to make that happen.

[Howey]

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.

[uselesslegs]

Well, I say we figure out a way to come to a reasonable compromise soon, because a thought occurred to me the other day...when talks of privatization cropped up across the blogosphere.

If police, teachers, and firemen (for starters) can start to itemize services preformed and rendered, we're waaaayyy more fucked that what we pay them now.

[FooFa]

I don't think the situations are comparable.  The employees that lost their shirt in their 401ks did so because they had most of the 401ks invested in Enron stock.  So when the stock tanked, so did their retirement.

How would you save everyone's retirement when they were based on promises that just can't be met?  I mean, that's a question a lot of people are asking now, but if you are saying no one's retirement should be cut for any reason... I'd like to know how to make that happen.

The similarity is in the corruption that allows those super rich to largely remain untouched in these things. My thought that retirement should be untouchable is possibly based on a false premise. It's my understanding that 'retirement' is something that people pay regularly into out of their income and in a best case there will be at least some interest to boot. Realizing that's never guaranteed, I would think that at the least, the saved money would be available. Wouldn't it be the same idea as banks insuring your funds in the event of a robbery? Of course any stock market investment is a gamble so I understand false projections lead to new balance sheets. And if the entire retirement is based on a gamble then that's what you've signed up for. Perhaps this will better help you explain what I'm missing. Is it not similar to us paying into social security because it's our money and therefor shouldn't have ever been touched by the gov in the first place.

[Howey]

I think lilMike's missing another point here.

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?

The contract granting the raise was negotiated in 2004. Times were different then. The economy was booming. First responders, such as firefighters and policemen, were rightfully riding the wave of respectability following 9/11, cities and municipalities across America appreciated and honored their service to our country and cities by recognizing the tremendous effort of their duty in protecting us. Funds, allocated by George Bush, were flooding into local economies to strengthen, improve, and enhance the salaries of first responders.

Domestic Preparedness was incorporated under the Department of Homeland Security to provide of terrorism incidents (chemical, biological, In 2002, the federal budget offered $4.8 billion for was set aside for new equipment and technology Responder Program was proposed as a way for the federal government to fund planning, training,

My. How times change...

Today, the very people who honored our first responders are vilifying them.

Shame!

[lil mike]

No. This is spin:

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.

I think it's a fair point to say it didn't tell the whole story but this came directly from the News Journal.  I didn't embelish it, and it wasn't a lie.

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...

Citizens United again?  I guess like the 2nd amendment, you must think that the 1st only applies to governments too.  At least you're consistent...

I think the problem here is that you don't see anything wrong with the first statement.  To you, promising bread and circuses is how the art of politics is supposed to work.  I don't think I can cross that bridge to explain to you why I disagree with that.  I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

More spin:

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?

Apparently, since a new contract was negotiated, there were "years of inequity". As I was told:

I don't think the fact that there was a new contract is a prima facie proof that there were "years of inequity".   When a contract expires, you renegociate a new one.  Since they were getting raises every year before, I think they may have a very different view of what "years of inequity" really mean than I would.

Now maybe you could explain to me, what exactly were you looking for when you were googling to reply to me on this issue?  I mean, the fact that you tracked down a union rep shows you put some effort into it, but for what?  What exactly were you looking for and what did you ask him?  I

[lil mike]

The similarity is in the corruption that allows those super rich to largely remain untouched in these things. My thought that retirement should be untouchable is possibly based on a false premise. It's my understanding that 'retirement' is something that people pay regularly into out of their income and in a best case there will be at least some interest to boot. Realizing that's never guaranteed, I would think that at the least, the saved money would be available. Wouldn't it be the same idea as banks insuring your funds in the event of a robbery? Of course any stock market investment is a gamble so I understand false projections lead to new balance sheets. And if the entire retirement is based on a gamble then that's what you've signed up for. Perhaps this will better help you explain what I'm missing. Is it not similar to us paying into social security because it's our money and therefor shouldn't have ever been touched by the gov in the first place.

When you say retirement, you are actually talking about many different things, so I don't think you can put all of the different types of retirement plans and programs into one little box like that.  For some people retirement is only a 401k or SEP and that's it.  The only retirement they'll have is what  they save.  Other types, the defined benefit types, are various types of pension plans.  Some people contribute to them, and others don't. 

So I think there is a big difference between people who have their own money invested and those that just have someone else's promises invested.

[Howey]

I think it's a fair point to say it didn't tell the whole story but this came directly from the News Journal.  I didn't embelish it, and it wasn't a lie.

It was a lie by (go figure) Costello, who (duh) happens to be a Republican State Senator (or whatever). Not you. Although I do implicitly blame the N-J, in their newly christened Teabagger-Libertarian philosophy of perpetuating that lie. This was, as opposed to the last piece you published from the N-J a news story, not an opinion piece.

As a purveyor of news stories, the N-J was remiss in not checking what was quoted as fact (but was, in fact, a lie) by Costello (will he be burning in Reorganized Mormon hell for this lie? Ask him at the next 9/12 meeting.)

But...like Fox News...that's the way they roll now.

Citizens United again?  I guess like the 2nd amendment, you must think that the 1st only applies to governments too.  At least you're consistent...

Incorrect. I'm consistent in believing that the 1st Amendment only applies to people, not corporations. I have no idea what you mean about the 2nd Amendment, but that's another discussion.

I think the problem here is that you don't see anything wrong with the first statement.  To you, promising bread and circuses is how the art of politics is supposed to work.  I don't think I can cross that bridge to explain to you why I disagree with that.  I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Funny how you should mention "bridge". Was that a Palin-inspired Freudian Slip? Let's put it this way: If a Libertarian candidate tells you "Vote for me and I'll shut down the government.", you'd vote for him.

I don't understand why a group of people so literal in their philosophy are so obtuse in their philosophy! Do you really think politicians shouldn't promise anything to get elected?

I don't think the fact that there was a new contract is a prima facie proof that there were "years of inequity".

Of course you don't. 

Now maybe you could explain to me, what exactly were you looking for when you were googling to reply to me on this issue?  I mean, the fact that you tracked down a union rep shows you put some effort into it, but for what?  What exactly were you looking for and what did you ask him?  I

The answer to that question is in here too.

I'm still waiting on a response to this:

I think lilMike's missing another point here.

The contract granting the raise was negotiated in 2004. Times were different then. The economy was booming. First responders, such as firefighters and policemen, were rightfully riding the wave of respectability following 9/11, cities and municipalities across America appreciated and honored their service to our country and cities by recognizing the tremendous effort of their duty in protecting us. Funds, allocated by George Bush, were flooding into local economies to strengthen, improve, and enhance the salaries of first responders.

My. How times change...

Today, the very people who honored our first responders are vilifying them.

Shame!

[FooFa]

So I think there is a big difference between people who have their own money invested and those that just have someone else's promises invested.

If that's the crux of it then I would be on the side of the business. It reminds me of that mensa member who said the gov should keep their hands of her medicare.

[ekg]

blocked

Judge temporarily blocks Wisconsin anti-union law

A Wisconsin judge on Friday issued a temporary order blocking the state's highly controversial new law stripping the collective bargaining rights of public employee unions.

Judge Maryann Sumi of Dane County issued the order in response to a request by District Attorney Ismael Ozanne (D). As The Associated Press summarized, Ozanne contended that the legislative committee that passed the bill "met without the 24-hour notice required by Wisconsin's open meetings law."

The measure was signed by Gov. Scott Walker (R) last week. The Republican-led Wisconsin Senate passed it despite the absence of the chamber's 14 Democrats, who fled the state in protest and kept the bill in limbo for weeks.

During those weeks, tens of thousands gathered around Madison and in the capitol to demonstrate against Walker's proposal, sparking national interest as governors of other states considered similar measures.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/18/judge-temporarily-blocks-wisconsin-anti-union-law/