4 ms·
You are talking about a profession, at least in urban environments, there is serious personal safety risk. I have a close friend who is "retired due to injury"
by jmspring 11y ago
You are talking about a profession, at least in urban environments, there is serious personal safety risk. I have a close friend who is "retired due to injury" from one bay area municipal service. Not only did he work at Cal Fire and other dangerous places, but this particular bay area city as well.
I think California f'd up by continually raising pension obligations in the good times (signing contracts to such) without thinking about the lean years -- this happened a lot pre-dotcom bubble in 2000.
I don't think first responders shouldn't get their earned pension.
I do, however, take issue with, say an administrator (say fire chief) retiring from one jurisdiction and then taking up a job in a second and getting a paycheck and a pension, or ultimately two pensions. This scenario is an issue.
- seizethecheese 11y ago> You are talking about a profession... there are serious personal safety risks. This is sort of a myth. Firefighting is far less risky than many jobs out there, for instance it is four times less deadly than being a garbage collector [1]. [1]http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-dangerous-jobs/ http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-dangerous-jobs/
- jmspring 11y agoSaid friend dealt with falling through a fire grate in one case and witnessed the remains of a deceased across a fire grate which was the ultimate cause of said structure fire. I'm just going off of stories from multiple first responders I've known or talked with over the years. I don't begrudge them a cent of their pensions. The managers, a whole different manner.
- seizethecheese 11y agoSo should the dozens of riskier professions also get a 30 year pension at an equal or higher rate then their pay too? I'm not saying they shouldn't, but it would bankrupt many institutions.