If I may, this was a very moving, very personal story, and it touched me enmotionally.

This is clearly an individual who understands the difference between rights and privileges — and between rights and responsibilities.

Most news coverage about public-sector compensation, pensions and unions assumes or reinforces the difficulty of holding a public job. There is an equal and opposite assumption that private-sector jobs are cushy. More and more I think the opposite is true.

EDITOR’S NOTE: That’s why we thought it deserved the “guest essay” treatment.

From what we’ve observed over the past 20 years, it is almost impossible to be fired from public employment in Park Ridge unless you commit a crime, especially if your employment has continued for a few years (a/k/a, teacher “tenure”). And we’re now finally seeing what a horror story those defined benefit public pensions are becoming for the people who have to pay for them.

Thank you.

great fiction…provide transparent details to prove the story is true

EDITOR’S NOTE: We can provide nothing more about the anonymous essayist than we can prove about you or any other commentator who doesn’t sign his/her name. Believe it or not, as you choose.

2:50PM,

Which part of the essay don’t you believe? This person’s situation is all too common in the private sector where we don’t have the job security or the benefits that the public sector workers enjoy.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Let’s not be too harsh with 2:50 p.m. – he/she probably has numerous stories about firefighters and teachers who had to move to other states to get work because their firehouse or elementary school closed down.

I believe the commentary about the Firemen’s contract has gotten a bit off track. It is universally accepted that fire fighting is one of the more dangerous occupations that exist. That ought not to be in dispute in the discussions about the new contract. Having had a major house fire in Park Ridge, I’m glad there were enough fire fighters to douse the fire. And I have no difficulty believing that fire fighting is a full time occupation for the firemen involved.

I’m as parsimonious as the next taxpayer. And if I thought that Park Ridge could have negotiated a smaller pay increase than the contract that was just approved, I would have supported the City Council rejecting what was proposed. But, no one on the City Council expressed any hope that was possible. I agree with them.

Should Mayor Schmidt veto the contract, (and assuming his veto is not over ridden) Park Ridge will pay perfectly good tax dollars for the issue to go to arbitration. There is no way any arbitrator would award zero pay increases to the firemen. Since the new contract between Park Ridge and the fireman’s union is pretty conservative, it strikes me that an arbitrator would probably award the firemen pretty close to what was negotiated in the new contract….if not more. I don’t see anything to be gained by vetoing the contract.

This is not to say that I am happy with the new contract. But, I am not outraged by it either. The new contract strikes me as being reasonable. Every single alderman on the City Council apparently agrees. Arguments about whether the firemen work a sufficient number of days or whether firefighting is as dangerous as it is known to be are not relevant to any salient point about the contract.

EDITOR’S NOTE: For the record, Mr. Godfrey, we aren’t “outraged” by the new firefighters contract, but we are far less apathetic about it than you seem to be.

Unfortunately, we can’t agree with your reasoning because it’s basic premise – that firefighting is “one of the more dangerous occupations that exists” – appears flawed. While it most certainly is more dangerous than being an accountant, lawyer, bartender, business consultant or party planner, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics firefighting doesn’t even crack the Top 10 most dangerous jobs (based on fatalities per 100,000) – and takes a back seat to taxi driving, truck driving, construction work, roofing and sanitation services.

As for firefighting being a full-time occupation, we don’t have enough space here to relate all the anecdotes about all the “side jobs” most firemen seem to work on their typical 4 days off per week, per the 24 on, 48 off model.

That leaves your argument that the City couldn’t get a better deal than the one it approved, and that an arbitrator would likely uphold it or even award a better one. That very well may be true, given the limp and desultory posture adopted by the City’s “negotiating team.” But as we have stated, irrespective of what an arbitrator may award, the City always has layoff power – unless it gives it away, as the City’s negotiating team has done in this new contract.

Finally, to argue that whether or not firefighting is highly dangerous and/or a full-time job (as most people understand the term) is irrelevant to the reasonableness of the new contract would appear to fatuously ignore the two most prominent justifications for such a contract. Taking your reasoning one small step further, the City’s negotiating strategy would consist of nothing more than hand-wringing in response to whatever demands the unions made.

I believe the essay comment because what is not to believe about some anonymous bloggers opinion. I believe also the bloggers here have no basic understanding of economics as they’ve shown to be over and over. What is hysterical about this blog is not one of the Aldermen submitted the requested statement of explanation, not even the Alderman known as MiniSchmidt. The bloggers here had to go with an anonymous opinion pulled from the comment section because nobody even submitted anything like a real essay or letter. I believe also the bloggers here won’t let the lack of submissions affect their inflated opinions of themselves and their importance. The bloggers here are very important for propping up the failing administration of Mayor Schmidt.

EDITOR’S NOTE: And yet you just can’t seem to stay away, can you. Now if only you could actually discuss the issues.

So “Editor” since your all over how much the fireman make and how little they work, how much money do you make doing what you do? (You are a lawyer right?) I mean you seem highly critical of these people and seem quite willing to bring in a heartbreaking story written by some unknown individual to show how unfairly they are being compensated. So again, how much are you yourself hurting in this economy? I just want to know who is, and I don’t mean by name but by background, really directing this spin.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We don’t think the essay was “heartbreaking,” and we have no idea why anyone else would. This is simple economics and government, not “Days of Our Lives.” Whether this editor or anyone else associated with this blog is “hurting” and how much is irrelevant, because the number of Park Ridge foreclosures, pre-foreclosures and homes that are under water prove the point.

Nobody associated with this blog draws a government check, which is the central issue of the firefighters’ contract.

3:46

Au Contraire, alas, Minischmidt Aka knightmare did respond.

(If I may, this was a very moving, very personal story, and it touched me enmotionally. By 5th ward taxpayer on 09.28.11 12:11 pm)

he got all gooey and touchy feely. Funny, though, since he is a numbers guy you wouldn’t think he has any emotion in him.

EDITOR’S NOTE: So Ald. Knight is “5th Ward Taxpayer”? And you are who…Cedric the Entertainer?

Hey, if the contract is vetoed and it goes to arbitration, make a valuable change…. ALL NEW EMPLOYEES GET A 401K (Even with a city contribution) AND NOT A PENSION! Maybe even go further and say pensions will be only be partially funded at graduated levels based on years of service. It’s not the salary that’s killing our budget, it’s the pensions.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We understand such a change would have to be made in Springfield by our stellar group of legislators who have already helped us overtake California as the state most likely to default on its debt.

Trying to seriously discuss issues with most of the bloggers here would be like trying to explain to somebody why and how to change the oil in their car after they just wrapped it around a telephone pole. This blog is a wreck.

EDITOR’S NOTE: And yet you keep coming back.

Really? So your law firm receives no revenue from taxpayers. Before you answer that question please make sure you have looked at your firm’s website….”RSP represents towns, villages and cities, fire districts, park districts, school districts, highway road districts, and townships.” So again I ask how much is your compensation per year?

EDITOR’S NOTE: Hey, you’re starting to actually do some research…that’s a good first step toward intelligent participation.

As a non-government employee, this editor’s compensation – like 95+ percent of the residents of Park Ridge’s – is not required to be a matter of public record, not unlike the income firefighters make from their “side jobs” isn’t a matter of public record even though their firefighters’ compensation is. And because this editor has not done work for any of the governmental bodies his firm represents, he personally is not compensated based on those fees.

Can we stick to the issue here, which is whether the firefighters contract is a good or bad deal for the city?

So far, I’ve heard nobody give a reason why the firefighters deserve either a 3-year contract or a raise. Hello.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Good point. By our count, the strongest argument given for it seems to be the blanket conclusion that it’s not a bad deal for the City – hardly a ringing endorsement.

“As a non-government employee, this editor’s compensation – like 95+ percent of the residents of Park Ridge’s – is not required to be a matter of public record.” That’s what makes it so slimey doesn’t it?

“And because this editor has not done work for any of the governmental bodies his firm represents, he personally is not compensated based on those fees.” I see. Because you could easily earn what you earn by hanging out a shingle and going into business by yourself? I doubt it.

Since you refuse to answer a simple question, let me guess. It’s got to be well over $250,000 a year?

EDITOR’S NOTE: You sound like a long-time subscriber to The Enquirer and The Globe, Zippy. Or maybe just someone who considers the Jewel check-out lane a branch library? If you really need to pursue this particular prurient interest, however, check out: http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/what_americas_lawyers_earn/. And then maybe you can return to the topic of this post rather than these irrelevant frolics and detours.

6:29 AM,

Why is it any of your business what the editor of this blog earns?

The taxpayers pay the salaries of the public employees – that’s why we get the information on salaries and benefits. If you start paying the salary of the blog editor, then you’re entitled to information about his compensation.

Let’s get back to the firefighters’ contract rather than continue with the red herrings.

Because 8:23 I have an significant issue with someone criticizing a fireman or police officer for earning far less than him under the guise of “public funds” when in fact he himself, by way of his law firm, is gorging himself at the public trough.

As for Pub dog’s response, really? I have no doubt the law business is hurting as well as any other profession, but you honestly want to compare your earnings to the “average lawyer”. You are not working in the county prosecutors’ office, as a public defender or as first, second or third year associate.

You’re total deflection of the question leads me to believe that my guess of salary was either correct or perhaps even low. Which leads me back to the inherent flaw in our system which is when Mr. Attorney pushes papers around and spins stories behind the scenes, at the cost of the taxpayers, then makes at least twice as much as a fire person or police officer and then complains about what that fire person or police officer earns. Oh and let’s not get into how much they work because coming from you, who has so much free time during all hours of the day to write the piles of minutia for this blog, doesn’t hold water.

EDITOR’S NOTE: First, the only “public trough” that is relevant to the firefighters’ contract in issue is the City of Park Ridge public trough; and RSP does no work for the City of Park Ridge, so your arguments on that count are stupid.

Second, by your standard the only people qualified to question or criticize the firefighters’ contract would be other Park Ridge firefighters or somebody who can prove they earn no more (and have no better pension and benefits) than those firefighters. Such a requirement is, in a word, demented.

Which at least keeps them consistent with your previous comments to this post on 9/28 @ 4:15 pm, 9/28 @ 8:44 pm, and 9/29 @ 6:29 am. Now, do you actually have any relevant policy argument to make?

9:41 AM,

Your post is just another red herring to try to get us off of the topic at hand. Let’s debate the issue. Do you have anything to say that’s on point?

dan knight and dave schmidt receive taxpayer dollars as compensation for their participation in government as alderman and mayor respectively. Bob trizna was appointed by the mayor and approved by alderman knight to the library board. seems they should make themselves completly transparent and show us all income they recieve and show us how they spend their money.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Don’t take this the wrong way, but it would appear that your physician needs to change your meds; or you need to see a new physician. And you might want to take 9:41 am with you – you might qualify for a two-fer discount.

the editor said: Nobody associated with this blog draws a government check,

Anon at 12:01 said: dan knight and dave schmidt receive taxpayer dollars as compensation for their participation in government as alderman and mayor respectively.

12:01 does state fact, does the editor want to try again with his statement?

especially since both the mayor and the alderman have publically stated they post on this blog and they acted in an official manner to apppoint the editor of the blog to a governmental position.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Merely posting on this blog does not make them associated with this blog any more than you are. Which is why, no matter what you might think and how regularly you post your irrelevant and wacky comments, you most definitely em>aren’t “associated” with this blog.

EDITOR’S NOTE: To the anonymous commentator who began his/her comment with “Pure comedy.” If you choose to continue to confine yourself solely to wild unsubstantiated accusations about individuals rather than issues, your comments will not be published until you identify yourself rather than hide behind the anonymity this blog customarily provides to commentators on the issues.

Hi, addressing Anonymous 9.28 6:10 pm… no, I am not Alderman Knight. I am just a 5th ward taxpayer. You’re not likely to see my real name or pseudonym on any ballot. Sadly, my real name IS on a property tax bill, state income tax return and IRS Form 1040. It would seem the guest essayist featured above has his or her name on those documents, too. We both have a right to question how the government spends our tax money. The reason there is such a national debate over government spending is that many taxpayers have — finally — starting asking questions and elected officials have — continually — not answered. For decades now the size of government has grown and grown, and now it’s reached a breaking point. It used to be that civil service was noble. Now it’s lucrative. And that leads to abuses. It’s not just a dollars-and-cents, quantitative analysis. It’s about how we want to run our own lives. That’s why the guest essay touched me in the way it did.

EDITOR’S NOTE: And that’s why we published it.

I don’t know if it’s realistic to describe public sector jobs as “lucrative” — of course some lucre is involved but compared to the top 10 percent of the private for-profit sector (or even some major non-profits)the best-paid public servants make bupkes. Its only when you compare the public sector’s wage and benefit package and security to the other 90% of the private sector’s “take” that the public sector jobs seem highly compensated. The sad fact is that women entering the workforce in the late 1970s – 80s and major household borrowing in the 90s hid the fact that real individual wages in the private sector have stagnated since l973. The top payees (I don’t say “earners”) and the corporations take home the bulk of the productivity gains earned by everyone. Unfortunately, while most of us can buy the latest gimcrack electronic gimmicks made by some starveling paid pennies a day overseas, the average American can’t pay for the important stuff. Housing is supposed to be no more than 1/3 of your gross income (or was it take-home?). Today, even mediocre housing costs about 1/2 of the average person’s income. And don’t even ask about college or health care.
If we didn’t compensate the majority of American workers so poorly, relative to their employers’ profitability, we wouldn’t be so envious of the mopes, er, the folks, in the public sector. Yes, let’s make our taxpayer’s employees work their butts off and earn their pay, every day. but when it comes to real solutions, they’re not the problem. They’re just an easier target than those who are really taking home their share of the bacon plus yours, and yours, and yours, and …..

EDITOR’S NOTE: The fundamental error in your assertion that “[i]f we didn’t compensate the majority of American workers so poorly, relative to their employers’ profitability…” is that, if you believe in a capitalistic system rather than a socialistic one, the comparison you make is meaningless. Plus, in a public-sector work environment, the “employer’s profitability” actually translates to the level of taxes the ordinary residents pay, not to how many additional millions of dollars some business owner can spend on a yacht.

huh? the total uncoupling of profits and wages say otherwise.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Where does it say that a “coupling” of wages to profits is required, or even desirable? Are you saying that if a business owner spends a boatload of cash on technology, thereby enabling his employees to produce more products (and greater profits) with no more time or effort on their part, the employer should nevertheless increase their wages in order to “couple” them to his profits?

“Job One” of a business corporation is to sustainably maximize long-term profits for its shareholders while con­forming to the basic rules of our society, as embodied in both its applicable laws and its ethical customs. That’s it, that’s all.