Town Square

Post a New Topic

Fire union funds pour into 'No on D' race

Original post made on Oct 27, 2011

More than $70,000 in contributions from public safety unions have poured into the "No on Measure D" campaign in the past month, making it by far the highest-spending campaign on this fall's Palo Alto ballot.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Thursday, October 27, 2011, 9:25 PM

Comments (18)

Posted by Karen, a resident of Green Acres
on Oct 27, 2011 at 11:54 pm

I was on the fence, mostly through lack of knowledge, but the more I read up on this issue, the angrier I get. The fire union is spending our own tax dollars to try to scare us into voting to preserve their privileged position in city politics and at the public trough. This has gone on long enough. Send a message that the public is not so naive that we will tolerate handing our children the pension bills for 200K a year, two day a week firefighters.


Posted by Vote-Yes-On-Measure-D, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 28, 2011 at 7:56 am

It's a real shame that the Palo Alto City Clerk does not put this information on-line, so that we can see who the contributors to the various campaigns are, and how much they contribute.

$70K is a lot of money. For "underpaid" firefighters, that comes to about $600/ff. Given that most of these guys are dragging down over $120K a year, maybe it's not that much. But very few people in Palo Alto tend to give that much for other causes.

By the way, money not spent can be transferred to other, similar campaigns in other towns and cities. So, it becomes something to watch after the campaign is over. The media, more often than not, is "union friendly", so they can not be depended up to "follow the money" after the election ends.

For the average "fire fighter" (who no longer actually fights very many fires), this is about "big money". With entry level salaries at/near $100K, and healthy yearly pay increases, the typical fire fighter being employed today will make around $4M during his (typical) 27 years of service, and then another $4-$6M in pension payouts over a (nominal) 30 years of retirement, with payouts for his surviving spouse continuing until her death.

For people whose skill level base is just a high school education, this is obviously a job "to kill for". Is there any wonder that fire departments report that there are often 500 applications for only 1 opening?

Given the failure of self-government to prudently manage the public's money, having made promises for future compensation to current employees that is simply unsustainable--every community in the US is going to have to "fight the good fight" and work through the reforming of their local/county/state governments, or we will find that our generation has bankrupted the US for future generations.

Measure D's removal of "binding arbitration" from the City's Charter is a very small step in a very long march. But it's the right thing to do at the right time.

So .. let's Vote Yes on Measure D for our children, and our children's children ..






Posted by George, a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Oct 28, 2011 at 8:15 am

Palo Alto voters have proven, time and time again, that you can't buy an election here. YES on D will send the message loud and clear again.

Disproportionate spending by the fire union, or anyone else, has a way of blowing up in the face of the spender.

Palo Altans have long memories. They remember last year's Measure R, the feather-bedding fire initiative Tony Spitaleri tried to sneak through. It went down in flames 3-1.

The YES on D vote is likely to beat that, 80-20 is my prediction.


Posted by CPG, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Oct 28, 2011 at 8:58 am

The Firefighters just continue to dig the hole deeper and deeper.


Posted by Ernesto USMC, a resident of Ventura
on Oct 28, 2011 at 10:12 am

It's ludicrous to use tax dollars to pay so much above market rate for firefighting services (the comment about 500 applicants per job opening above might even be an understatement).

Why does a firefighter deserve to retire at 50 on a taxpayer funded six figure pension when private sector workers who pay their salaries, make less than they do on average, and are forced to save for themselves AND fund exorbitant retirements for firefighters?

Let's be realistic about what the job is. Most firefighters work 2 shifts per week and are paid whether they are working or sleeping in the station. Union backed overstaffing has led to a lot more of the latter than should be occurring. Most calls are routine medical calls that could and should be handled by ambulance services which are more cost-effective and better specialized and suited to the task. The job is statistically much safer than construction or most blue collar jobs. No PA firefighter has ever died in the line of duty, and nationwide more firefighters die each year of natural causes and car accidents than they do fighting fires.

The firefighters nonetheless play out the same arguments: the fear card ("if you try to pay me only market rate, your house could burn down with your family in it"), the hero card ("despite the statistics grossly to the contrary, our job is so dangerous that we deserve to be compensated at 4-5X what a frontline soldier is paid with combat pay"), and, most recently, the Wisconsin card ("anything that might pay us less will make PA the next Wisconsin.")

Flagrant government waste has made it impossible for me to support any new govt. revenue until they show they can spend our tax dollars with some common sense. Paying inflated pensions to well-connected union firefighters is certainly not one of them. Measure D is only a small step, but its one in the right direction.


Posted by JustMe, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Oct 28, 2011 at 10:15 am

Why are you naming individual contributors to the Yes side? Is that an effort to intimidate them? Why are individual contributors to the No side not named?

To all the contributors to the yes side, especially those publicly named, I give my thanks and admiration.


Posted by Chris Kenrick, Palo Alto Weekly staff writer, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Oct 28, 2011 at 10:20 am

JustMe,

To answer your question, the only contributors listed for the "No on D" campaign were the Palo Alto Professional Firefighters and the Palo Alto Peace Officers Association. There were no individual contributors listed in the "No on D' disclosure form, hence none in the story.


Posted by JustMe, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Oct 28, 2011 at 11:24 am

Chris,
That's right, no individual contributors were named for the "no" side, but a whole list of individual contributors were names for the "yes" side. Why the disparity?

Temember Proposition 8? Remeber how the "No on 8" side targeted "yes on 8" contributors for personalized protests and intimidation? Is that the new Ametican way? Get a list of you opponents and publicy harrass them and, as I recall on the proposition 8 champaign, make personal threats? I am all for rational debate and airing of the issues, but I am not in agreement that we should threaten our opponents by identifying them openly for the kooks. It becomes a campaign of fear.


Posted by Voting No on D , a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Oct 28, 2011 at 11:35 am

I don't think completely taking away the option for a binding arbitration is the way to go. I do feel people are very upset with the pay firefighters get and especially upset with the pensions they receive with possible retirement at age 50. I don't feel that voting yes on Measure D is going to correct these frustrations or even lower pay and reduce pension benefits.

I think a better approach is to reform Article V and not just remove it. It was rarely used (only 6 times) and second it seems to be a fair approach to settling disputes.

And if Measure D removed the union behind the firefighters, then I would vote YES. :)


Posted by Alison, a resident of Midtown
on Oct 28, 2011 at 5:46 pm

I agree D is only a small step but it's a step in the right direction. We next have to vote out Gail Price and the other members of the council who wave been bought by te fire union.

After that, the fire service contract should be put out to bid. If the PA firefighters are as much of a value add as they seem to think they are at six figures and full pensions at 50, they should have no problem retaining their position. If a more efficient, more fairly conpensated force can do the job, then the public wins.


Posted by the nerve, a resident of Midtown
on Oct 29, 2011 at 6:27 pm

another attempt by city management to privatize public funds while presenting convultued information to council to fit their plan for lack of transparency. public funds MUST remain just that. Transparency transparency transparency. KUDOS for those who challenge this no matter what it takes. im sure its all legal. cannot wait to vote :)


Posted by Question, a resident of Midtown
on Oct 29, 2011 at 11:00 pm

No on D.

D is about removing labor rights to negotiate - SO THE CITY CAN IMPOSE a contract on safety unions like the city manager and council did in 2009 to SEIU employees.

The blaming of labor by citizens and media over the past 5 years has grown to ridiculous and hysterical proportions.

The blind uninformed anger of the people who post -
is led by half truth press releases from the city and the lack of critical news coverage. -
It is sad.

Didn't the firemen and women just give up 9%?


Posted by Rob, a resident of Community Center
on Oct 29, 2011 at 11:22 pm

If the firefighters find the job intolerable in a post D world, they can leave and get a better job. There will be hundreds waiting to take their place even at much lower, market rate compensation.

Giving back 9% of a salary that is above market rate by about 50% doesn't make the fire union suddenly poor. They found 70K of taxpayer funded $ to pour into the measure d fight after all.


Posted by Mark Weiss, a resident of Barron Park
on Oct 30, 2011 at 11:25 pm

I am still no on D. Good to see Professor Bill Gould speaking out against it.


Posted by R, a resident of Midtown
on Oct 31, 2011 at 12:14 am

The competition for a firefighting career isn't over the salary and pension. When a position opens and 500 to 2000 people apply you think its because of the starting salary? At half of that pay and pension you would still have the same turnouts. The reason why they DESERVE a higher than average salary is because Palo Alto residents, who they serve, make a higher than average salary as well. Is it fair that a palo alto fire fighter would like to make enough money to live and retire in the city it serves?

And yeah, try calling ambulances with 21 year old EMT's out to car accidents, infant trauma, or cardiac arrest and then see why we strategically place highly skilled, mainly paramedic, firefighters around this wealthy city. There isn't a single person who has had their life saved by a firefighter ever complaining about how much they make.

How much is your life worth?


Posted by Voting Yes, a resident of Ventura
on Oct 31, 2011 at 10:11 am

R, why do you assume EMT's are 21 years old and imply they are not up to performing their full time specialized job better than the "mainly paremedic" PA firefighters? EMTs have better more specialized medical training than firefighters. If you are really concerned with safety, adding EMT specialists is the right thing to do. The fact that they are displacing overpaid firefighters means that you can add more than 1 real paramedic on duty for every "mostly paramedic" firefighter offset.


Posted by R, a resident of Midtown
on Oct 31, 2011 at 12:13 pm

No disrespect to EMT'S regardless of age but there is a huge difference in a EMT and a paramedic. Do a little reaearch and find out before you think "EMT specialists" can perform everything necessary. Either, way, salary and pensions should equate to the area we are in.


Posted by Lupe, a resident of Barron Park
on Oct 31, 2011 at 12:52 pm

Overpaying firefighters hurts the whole city. Our roads and parks and schools and police could all use more money. Paying 150 thousand and pensions over 100 thousand at 50 for two shift per week of work that is far easier and safer than police work is ridiculous no matter where you live.

The fire union has succeeded in making the city less safe and lowering the quality of life overall by fighting for bloated pay and inefficient work rules. If we want city sponsored welfare, upper middle class bureaucrats are not the moat deserving recipients.

I'm done with any new form of government revenue period until the city shows it can manage costs responsibly and that it serves the public interest and not the interests of those living large on the publics dime.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Palo Alto quietly gets new evening food truck market
By Elena Kadvany | 3 comments | 3,494 views

See Me. Hear Me. Donít Fix Me.
By Chandrama Anderson | 2 comments | 1,735 views

Foothills Park: a world away
By Sally Torbey | 10 comments | 1,558 views

Universal Language
By Cheryl Bac | 2 comments | 1,357 views

Candidate Kickoff Events: Public, not just for supporters
By Douglas Moran | 6 comments | 921 views