|
|
Post by Truth on Aug 17, 2006 7:38:02 GMT -5
Thought I'd throw this out there.
|
|
|
|
Post by USER7777 on Aug 20, 2006 19:44:51 GMT -5
Thought I'd throw this out there. Good idea for the post........I'd vote yes! |
|
meeko
Just Joined
Posts: 1
|
Post by meeko on Sept 10, 2006 8:05:08 GMT -5
We need to give the firemen a break. We need more info, befor we judg.
|
|
|
|
Post by Captain Oswego on Sept 10, 2006 12:28:42 GMT -5
That door swings both ways. The city officials and the public need to be given more info by the OFD. Nothing hidden, nothing concealed, no surprises.
A budget is a necessary part to having a well run business. Care must be used in establishing the budget. In all fairness to all parties concerned, said budget should include all necessary day to day expenses for normal activities encountered throughtout the fiscal duration of the budget.The business must be run so that it carries on within the confines of the mutually established budget.
Willful abuse of the budget for greedy purposes is one of the key factors that irks the taxpayer. The present day abuse of the budget by the OFD provides a golden parachute for life for a few, at the expense of many, the people paying the taxes
|
|
|
|
Post by aguest on Sept 10, 2006 15:17:50 GMT -5
So how are we supposed to know how much money goes where?
Is there some magical box that throws money where it is needed?
I know a budget was just passed or something. Do we get to see the break down of it?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Glider on Sept 10, 2006 19:43:41 GMT -5
Welcome to Oswego Politics 101. You see, you're not supposed to know how much money goes where.
Sure there is some kind of magical box that throws money where it is needed, (and where it isn't needed, too). They call it the City Council. You have to remember, the code of honor is to take care of your friends and relatives.
Yes, a budget OR SOMETHING was just passed, if that's what you want to call it. It doesn't mean much around Oswego.
Of course you don't get to see a breakdown of where the money goes. You're not supposed too. That would take the mystery out of the hoo-doo politics in Oswego.
What are you trying to do, rock the boat or something and put a stop to the EASY MONEY some have here in OZwego?
|
|
|
|
Post by USER7777 on Sept 13, 2006 21:06:06 GMT -5
Thought I'd throw this out there. :oYES THERE IS! :oIF YOU DIDN'T SEE THE STORY N NEWS 10 NOW GO THERE: www.news10now.com |
|
|
|
Post by bilbobaggins on Sept 14, 2006 5:21:05 GMT -5
Here's yer story.
Oswego firefighters fight for overtime
Updated: 9/13/2006 5:29:08 PM
By: Joleene Des Rosiers
City of Oswego firefighters say overtime cash has always been available. That is until now.
According to Tim Amedio, President of the Oswego Firefighters Association, City Hall refuses to give them anymore cash for overtime. And to them it can mean life or death.
"Putting us out on the street with less than the required amount of manpower...is akin to putting the police department out on the street with guns and no bullets," Amedio says.
Amedio says for almost two years, the department was down three bodies. That meant other firefighters had to be called in on overtime - to keep the department properly staffed.
"The city's lack of hiring in a timely fashion has lead greatly to the increased overtime in this department. It's something we have absolutely no control over," Amedio said.
But City Hall begs to differ. Dick Atkins is chair of the Administrative Services Committee. That means he's the guy that doles out the cash. He says he's done his homework and found the department to be out of line with overtime.
"They had over $377,000 in overtime allotted to them? Something is wrong. It's a tremendous amount of overtime. Something is not being managed properly," Atkins said.
The fire department isays they aren't messing around. They've gone as far as to hire their own attorney, paying for it with union dues in an effort to get the message across.
"We've enlightened the city on the potential hazards and the liability issues surrounding running with less people and creating a dangerous working environment. Hearing from our attorney may provide a little more teeth to the matter," says Amedio.
"To muddy up the water with an attorney seems a little bizarre to me. It just sounds like they want they're cake and to eat it, too," adds Atkins.
The department can no longer transfer patients to Syracuse area hospitals because that, too, requires overtime. Last month they asked the city for $120,000. They were only granted half of that. The department says they fear it will take a major disaster before the city understands their need.
Amedio has asked the City Chamberlain for the numbers showing revenue they have generated by transferring patients to Syracuse. They say this revenue pays for their much-needed overtime and still leaves surplus for the city.
--------------------
I got word from the inside that someone's messing with the books. Take that for what its worth.
|
|
|
|
Post by chicky on Sept 14, 2006 11:17:50 GMT -5
I know someone in the fire department who will be retiring next year and last summer he worked all the overtime he could get his hands on to bump up his retirement, not sure what he's done this year. Here's how part of it works; if you are scheduled for overtime you can refuse and it goes to the next person in line,etc. and most of them will refuse so you get it all the time until you have accumulated "enough". I also know that they pay each other not to work the overtime, the soon to be retiree will work the overtime and pay the buddy the amount he should have gotten paid if he had worked. Obviously I cannot prove any of this, but I heard all this from the horses mouth. Some code of conduct huh.
|
|
|
|
Post by Truth on Sept 14, 2006 12:01:47 GMT -5
I know someone in the fire department who will be retiring next year and last summer he worked all the overtime he could get his hands on to bump up his retirement, not sure what he's done this year. Here's how part of it works; if you are scheduled for overtime you can refuse and it goes to the next person in line,etc. and most of them will refuse so you get it all the time until you have accumulated "enough". I also know that they pay each other not to work the overtime, the soon to be retiree will work the overtime and pay the buddy the amount he should have gotten paid if he had worked. Obviously I cannot prove any of this, but I heard all this from the horses mouth. Some code of conduct huh. I think retirement pay should be based on the salary, not to include overtime. The example you provided explains why. It would resolve the abuse. But if I as a fireman, I'd play the overtime game because I'd be stupid not to. Yeah, I understand what I'm saying. We all want more money and if I'm not breaking the law, why not. Imagine if you will, the potential situation that could exist if overtime was not part of the retirement calculation. Who would be pushed to work the overtime? More than likely the young guys who don't make as much money. And that translates in less money the city will owe the firefighters. |
|
|
|
Post by dshumphrey on Sept 26, 2006 15:42:28 GMT -5
The need for OT versus how it is filled are two different issues. The fire department does utilize a system that allows members close to retirement to get more overtime but that is an in house agreement between them. I am retiring from a civil service job in November and I too have boosted my overtime in the past 3 years to get a better retirement check every month the rest of my lfe but it was all legitimate overtime. You need to realize also that all the risks of the job are there each time you work, whether straight time or overtime. I face injury, lawsuits etc each time I work and some of my worst shifts were on OT but in the long run it will be worth it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Honey Bun on Sept 26, 2006 22:40:55 GMT -5
dshumphrey,
I read and reread your post several times and am puzzled just why you wrote it. I will try to give the readers my thoughts, line by line. dsh will stand for what you wrote. HB will be my thoughts.
dsb: "The need for OT versus how it is filled are two different issues.
HB: Really, now?
dsh: The fire department does utilize a system that allows members close to retirement to get more overtime but that is an in house agreement between them.
HB: Hellooooo. Welcome to Oswego and it's, up to now, well hidden dirty little secrets. Just what do you think that all the flap by the taxpayers is all about?
dsh: I am retiring from a civil service job (read paid by taxpayer money) in November and I too have boosted my overtime in the past three years to get a better retirement checkevery month the rest of my lfe(sic) but it was all legitimate overtime.
HB: This is exactly what the outrage is all about, abuse of taxpayers money. How many know or realize what the word BUDGET means? No one is saying that necessary overtime shoudn't be paid, I emphasize "Necessary". But it should have to be paid once, not every month for life. That is pure greediness of the retiree at the cost of the taxpayer. This is what the complaining is about.
dsh: You need to realize also that all of the risks of the job are there each time you work, whether straight time or overtime. I face injury, lawsuits etc each time I work and some of my worst shifts were on OT.
HB: Oh, poor baby. Now really, when did you first discover this, a few weeks before you filed for retirement. Your talking to adults now. Do you really have the idea that if you come out and publically announce that you were part of this legal larceny, that it would make matters okay. Through plain greediness, you boosted your pension for life with these slimy tactics.
dsh: but in the long run it will be worth it.
HB: Ha, I'm not even going to try to touch on that gem. It's self explanatory.
|
|
bear
Full Member
Posts: 61
|
Post by bear on Sept 27, 2006 6:46:08 GMT -5
I know that when I have OT at work, my boss let's me know and has me cut some time somewhere to not have it. I think that it shouldn't be the fault of the firemen, hell I would take the overtime too. Look at who is in charge and he should look to where it should be cut. Is all the overtime really necessary or are they just dogging it to collect it? They can't cut a shift once in awhile to save some overtime? I'm sorry but I might be ignorant but there has to be ways to cut it. I know you can predict when a fire or accident is going to happen, but come on, they have to be able to do something. It's getting out of hand and somethings gotta happen. Just don't blame the firemen. If you were given the overtime, you would take it to, no matter what you do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Truth on Sept 27, 2006 7:40:35 GMT -5
I appreciate all that the firemen do in terms of their jobs.  The problem lies in an abuse. The abuse being a padding of their retirement. Overtime should not be a factor in the retirement pay calculation. What the hell is that? What properly run business does this? Because the retirement comes out of our pockets, and many of us watch how much we spend, of course we are going to have issue with paying more than we see fit. It's time for a change in the retirement policy. Maybe the city as a whole should move to the 401K type of retirement. It would save the taxpayers quite a bit in the long run. |
|
|
|
Post by dshumphrey on Sept 27, 2006 15:38:23 GMT -5
HoneyBun let me clear up a couple of items that may have puzzled you.
-the need for OT versus how it is filled. I agree OT shouldn't be offered if not necessary but what taxpayer cares who works it?
-How is boosting my retirement by working overtime abuse of taxpayers money? You obviously don't know how the retirement system works. I have contributed to this for almost 25 years out of my pocket, none of it comes from yours. The money put in is invested in much the same way as any other retirement system and grows with how well it is invested. Once I retire, you pay NO part of my retirement but I get a return on my investment.
-As far as the risks of the job, no I realized these risks while in college readying myself for a life dealing with inmates. I don't look for or ask for your 'poor baby' comments and would think you might be better suited to posting on Inside Oswego. I have had to physically control murderers, rapists and thiefs over the years at a pay grade below much of the general public's but I don't regret that decision one bit. I've always loved my job but it's time to move on.
I know it's easy to post behind a name like you have and remain anonymous but mine is right out there along with my email address. If you'd like any further accurate details, not uniformed opinions, feel free to stop in and see me or write.
|
|
|
|
Post by Truth on Sept 27, 2006 18:25:07 GMT -5
I know you are addressing Honey Bun, but let me step in.
OK, misconceptions abound?
If the OT is a flat rate, and regardless who works, then who works the OT is a non-issue. If working overtime is cheaper than hiring another warm body, no one would complain, except those working it. If staffing more is justified then so be it and the requirement should be met. But how is OT need determined? Is OT in fact needed?
And you are saying that retirement pay does not come out of taxpayers pockets like the salaries do? In other words, its not a pension but like I thought but a 401K style retirement where it is up to the employee to put his own money, matched by the employer up to a certain percentage?
|
|
|
|
Post by dshumphrey on Sept 27, 2006 19:58:54 GMT -5
The OT is of course higher for employees at a higher pay grade. I personally do not understand how it is cheaper to have someone on OT than hiring another person but I have been told by the county that when benefits are added in that it is sometimes cheaper to fill with OT.
I can't speak for other departments but OT is determined with us by the State's minimum staffing levels. There are always a mandatory number of officers on duty and if one calls in sick etc then it is filled with OT.
The NY State retirement system is complex with many levels of participation and our retirement pay does not come out of the tax payers pocket. It like a 401K is money that has been invested along with money that is currently being added by employees.
|
|
|
|
Post by Honey Bun on Sept 27, 2006 22:43:25 GMT -5
dshumphrey,
I guess that I owe you an apology for saying "Poor Baby". I spoke about this to my husband and he said that to apologize to you is the civil thing to do, since this is a rather civil chat room.
But wait a darn minute, your not off the hook yet. You know what you did, don't you? You threw the readers, at least myself, a curve ball.
Take another look at the heading of this thread. It's all about the "ABUSE BY FIRE DEPARTMENT" of overtime. This is a very sore topic in the city with the taxpayers.
The running thread about abuse has always concerned the OFD. You even mentioned OFD overtime early on in your post. I, and I'm sure other readers felt that when you mentioned that you worked much overtime as a civil service worker to pad your pension, you led me to believe that you were a fireman, too. I only wish that you had clarified the issue.
So, I apologize, but no more curveballs, you hear. I've got a wicked rolling pin and I know how to use it. That's what grammas are good at.
Take care. Honey Bun
|
|
|
|
Post by Truth on Sept 28, 2006 7:27:01 GMT -5
The NY State retirement system is complex with many levels of participation and our retirement pay does not come out of the tax payers pocket. It like a 401K is money that has been invested along with money that is currently being added by employees. That makes much more sense. It is far cheaper for the taxpayer if say 10% of the employee's salary is matched yearly, as opposed to paying 20 years at a full salary. And 10% is pretty high for a match but I used it for the sake of argument. Say the employee retires at $60K and lives for another 20 years. That's $1.2 million he get in retirement if his salary is matched. If 50% of his pay is provided, over twenty years that's $600K. Now if the employess was matched yearly up to 10% of his salary and works for 20 years, and averaged $45K over all those years making $900K total, the taxpayers would have paid only $90K towards his salary. I think my numbers are right, but you can clearly see the savings. And of course, I made this as simple as possible. |
|
|
|
Post by dshumphrey on Sept 28, 2006 18:34:44 GMT -5
 *ducks the rollling pin* whew. Thank Honey and Truth you summed it up well. I know this is a sore issue and understand completely how everyone, including myself feels about 'padding' someones pay that isn't working anymore. I can think of many other civil service issues that frost my butt more but I will let them go until I see a topic on it. Thanks again for the intelligent discussion and again thanks to admin for setting this up as an alternate site to air these views on |
|
|
|
Post by chicky on Sept 29, 2006 11:26:24 GMT -5
I'm not sure about the rest of you, but this is just getting more confusing. You admit you boosted your overtime over the last three years, but this doesn't affect the taxpayers??? then why the need to BOOST it?  I don't believe anyone has a problem with legitimate overtime when needed, the problem is with the firemen refusing the OT so the next one on the retirement list gets all they can for the 3 years prior to retirement. You think that's fair??? I'm sure all of us who have a job would love to have OT to boost our weekly income to say nothing about boosting our retirement, but our employers run businesses like a business and managing your OT is very important for the businesses bottom line, unlike the OFD, which thinks the councilmen & taxpayers will just keep bending over for them. Sooner or later the City of Oswego will run like a business and the taxpayers might see some savings and the first place a business looks is in their payroll. All the risks of whatever job a person has are there all the time too whether they are working straight time or OT. Your statement says to me because your job involves more risks you should be able to boost your retirement, sorry just doesn't fly. I'm sure we could debate this forever and I won't change your opinion and you won't change mine either, but whether you want to believe it or not the taxpayers are paying for your boost in your retirement. |
|
|
|
Post by Slap Shot on Sept 29, 2006 17:56:24 GMT -5
Good point. Never thought of that.
|
|
*ducks the rollling pin* whew. Thank Honey and Truth you summed it up well. I know this is a sore issue and understand completely how everyone, including myself feels about 'padding' someones pay that isn't working anymore. I can think of many other civil service issues that frost my butt more but I will let them go until I see a topic on it. Thanks again for the intelligent discussion and again thanks to admin for setting this up as an alternate site to air these views on
I don't believe anyone has a problem with legitimate overtime when needed, the problem is with the firemen refusing the OT so the next one on the retirement list gets all they can for the 3 years prior to retirement. You think that's fair??? I'm sure all of us who have a job would love to have OT to boost our weekly income to say nothing about boosting our retirement, but our employers run businesses like a business and managing your OT is very important for the businesses bottom line, unlike the OFD, which thinks the councilmen & taxpayers will just keep bending over for them. Sooner or later the City of Oswego will run like a business and the taxpayers might see some savings and the first place a business looks is in their payroll. All the risks of whatever job a person has are there all the time too whether they are working straight time or OT. Your statement says to me because your job involves more risks you should be able to boost your retirement, sorry just doesn't fly. I'm sure we could debate this forever and I won't change your opinion and you won't change mine either, but whether you want to believe it or not the taxpayers are paying for your boost in your retirement.