Careers

Firefighters making 90k, DB pension, and 4 day weekends

  • Last Updated:
  • Mar 4th, 2018 10:37 am
Tags:
Deal Guru
User avatar
Aug 20, 2012
10694 posts
1071 upvotes
Pacific Ocean
Anglia15 wrote:
Feb 9th, 2018 12:21 pm
Is there any surprise why so many people in this country strive to work in public sector settings.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-i ... e37900341/
2 things are for sure in life - death and taxes. You forget the taxes. $90k less taxes aint that much. Then divide the amount by 52 weeks, then by 48hrs/wk. Dude makes a net of just over $20 bucks/hr.
If the glove don't fit you must acquit! #WINNING
Deal Addict
Oct 6, 2015
1300 posts
685 upvotes
clseea wrote:
Feb 10th, 2018 5:40 pm
What does any of that mean with respect to establishing a defensible compensation strategy? The verbosity of your replies is nauseating.
Setting rates at the market is a defensible compensation strategy in and of itself.
Deal Addict
Oct 6, 2015
1300 posts
685 upvotes
aznnorth wrote:
Feb 10th, 2018 5:46 pm
2 things are for sure in life - death and taxes. You forget the taxes. $90k less taxes aint that much. Then divide the amount by 52 weeks, then by 48hrs/wk. Dude makes a net of just over $20 bucks/hr.
That's cold comfort to the other people qualified to be firefighters who are stuck stocking shelves at Wal-Mart for half of that, and actually have to pay taxes to support the salaries of the lucky "chosen few".
Deal Fanatic
Nov 21, 2011
8251 posts
1378 upvotes
Edmonton
burnt69 wrote:
Feb 10th, 2018 5:49 pm
Setting rates at the market is a defensible compensation strategy in and of itself.
Lol.. Ok, please explain what the "market" rate is for firefighters then. "Average" based on your opinion?
Member
Jan 3, 2017
308 posts
218 upvotes
If OP is upset at what firefighters make he would be absolutely livid if he knew what 911 operators make. My wife has been one for 19 years and I can't believe how much she makes
Deal Fanatic
Nov 21, 2011
8251 posts
1378 upvotes
Edmonton
burnt69 wrote:
Feb 10th, 2018 6:10 pm
That's cold comfort to the other people qualified to be firefighters who are stuck stocking shelves at Wal-Mart for half of that, and actually have to pay taxes to support the salaries of the lucky "chosen few".
I get it now... You're mad you're stuck at Walmart
Member
Jan 3, 2017
308 posts
218 upvotes
burnt69 wrote:
Feb 10th, 2018 4:37 pm
But the rejection process to become a doctor is in the university system, and is *prior* to such an individual investing a large amount of money to train themselves as a doctor. It is *not* a doctor becoming fully qualified to be a doctor, and being told, by the Province, that they can't be a doctor. A person who fails the educational process to be a doctor has the circumstances of their failure very clearly explained to them at the University level (or licensing/registration level) and has full and complete access to the relevant administrative courts to appeal any decisions that are made against them. A qualified firefighter who is randomly rejected because they are on a pile of 300 other qualified applicants for 32 jobs has almost no avenue for appeal nor even an entitlement to an explanation.
Your argument is rubbish. You obviously have very little correct knowledge on exactly how much time/money a person invests to become a fire fighter or else you would not be using a Dr. as a comparison.

My wife and her side of the family is heavily invested in emergency services as a career choice. I myself am not but I do know the requirements to get into fire fighting policing etc. The financial and time considerations are extremely small compared to any post secondary career choice. My wife's father and her grandfather are/were both cops. Her two brother are both firefighters, she is a 911 operator.

None of these career choices require any formal education or schooling other than a high school diploma. Further schooling and training is provided when you are offered a job after passing testing. Testing is something that anyone can do and train for on their own time with no money needed. (ie: fitness) You may have to be pay small for your testing but these fees are small, like $150 small. Any police course, firefighter course, 911 course etc you advertised thru schools that help you gain a job are nothing more than a university trying to make a buck. More $$ is needed when you actually get hired ie) police college but at that point you have already been offered a job

A lot of the decision making that goes into the hiring process don't even take these 1 or 2 year long courses into consideration. My wife took a 1 year job share a few years back when we had a 3rd child to work more stable hours job while our youngest was a newborn. she transferred to a different department where she was in charge of the actual testing and interviewing of the candidates for emergency services. she was on the panel of the board who made the final hiring decisions. Graduation of any police/fire fighting 911 courses at a university or college did not even enter their thought process when deciding which candidates to hire.
Deal Addict
Oct 6, 2015
1300 posts
685 upvotes
clseea wrote:
Feb 10th, 2018 7:48 pm
I get it now... You're mad you're stuck at Walmart
Very uncalled for. I haven't even a fraction of the physical strength required to be a firefighter, and accordingly, would never waste my time with such a career path for which my unsuccess would be pretty much assured.
Last edited by burnt69 on Feb 10th, 2018 8:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Deal Addict
Oct 6, 2015
1300 posts
685 upvotes
clseea wrote:
Feb 10th, 2018 7:41 pm
Lol.. Ok, please explain what the "market" rate is for firefighters then. "Average" based on your opinion?
I gave you a definition of what a market rate is, the rate/price at which qualified applicants is equal to available positions at a given price. The equilibria point between supply and demand. The same way that 'market' prices are determined for everything else.
Deal Addict
Oct 6, 2015
1300 posts
685 upvotes
fryguy1987 wrote:
Feb 10th, 2018 8:06 pm
Your argument is rubbish.
My argument is simply that the employers should determine, using objective criteria, who is qualified or not, and then compensation (prices of labour) should be set on market principles such that the number of qualified applicants for a given position or set of positions in the public sector is only slightly above the demand for a given position or set of positions in the public sector.

This business of paying certain occupations in the public sector dramatically in excess of the compensation of the average taxpayer, when you have 8 or 9 out of 10 qualified applicants rejected, is a very dysfunctional system which robs the taxpaying public and ultimately makes the economy systemically uncompetitive. Worse, as alluded to by the OP, it causes a lot of otherwise great people who could make good contributions in the private sector to chase the public sector instead. Depriving the productive private economy of such labour.

What's your argument? That the public sector should be forced to sort through hundreds, sometimes thousands of job applicants, and then proceed to decide, behind closed doors and with little to no accountability (to the public, to applicants), who will be lucky enough to be 'chosen' to be a public servant? Because that's what it sounds like. Its highly wasteful. Its highly prone to cronyism, nepotism, and breach of public trust. And it saddles hard working taxpayers with extreme amounts of taxes and debt for no demonstrable benefit. Its continued sustainability is very questionable given the fiscal situation of government as well, something that all young people considering a 'career' in the public sector need to understand, even if they have friends or relatives in the public sector who can get them in.
Last edited by burnt69 on Feb 10th, 2018 8:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Deal Fanatic
Nov 21, 2011
8251 posts
1378 upvotes
Edmonton
burnt69 wrote:
Feb 10th, 2018 8:19 pm
I gave you a definition of what a market rate is, the rate/price at which qualified applicants is equal to available positions at a given price. The equilibria point between supply and demand. The same way that 'market' prices are determined for everything else.
So unless you have the exact number of qualified applicants as you do positions available, you're overpaying?
Deal Addict
Oct 6, 2015
1300 posts
685 upvotes
clseea wrote:
Feb 10th, 2018 8:33 pm
So unless you have the exact number of qualified applicants as you do positions available, you're overpaying?
There's an argument to be made that if a particular role or skill might experience a medium to longer term shortage, that compensation needs to artificially rise in the short term to stimulate more medium and long-term supply. Especially in professions/occupations for which training lead times are lengthy. And I think its reasonable to give a public sector hiring authority a small amount of discretion to reject a small number of candidates who may be 'qualified' per the objective criteria, but are subjectively unqualified. But when you have a dramatic multiple of applicants relative to jobs available, that's a sign of compensation that vastly exceeds compensation implied by market principles.
Deal Fanatic
Nov 21, 2011
8251 posts
1378 upvotes
Edmonton
burnt69 wrote:
Feb 10th, 2018 8:17 pm
Very uncalled for. I haven't even a fraction of the physical strength required to be a firefighter, and accordingly, would never waste my time with such a career path for which my unsuccess would be pretty much assured.
Not at all. You seem very bitter about not being what you call a "lucky one".
Deal Fanatic
Nov 21, 2011
8251 posts
1378 upvotes
Edmonton
burnt69 wrote:
Feb 10th, 2018 8:37 pm
There's an argument to be made that if a particular role or skill might experience a medium to longer term shortage, that compensation needs to artificially rise in the short term to stimulate more medium and long-term supply. Especially in professions/occupations for which training lead times are lengthy. And I think its reasonable to give a public sector hiring authority a small amount of discretion to reject a small number of candidates who may be 'qualified' per the objective criteria, but are subjectively unqualified. But when you have a dramatic multiple of applicants relative to jobs available, that's a sign of compensation that vastly exceeds compensation implied by market principles.
You didn't answer my question, but the number of applicants doesn't indicate the number of qualified applicants.

And again, established compensable factors and point factoring should be determining compensation.
Deal Addict
Oct 6, 2015
1300 posts
685 upvotes
clseea wrote:
Feb 10th, 2018 8:40 pm
Not at all. You seem very bitter about not being what you call a "lucky one".
When did I say I'm bitter? I'm not a firefighter. I was merely pointing out that in that particular recruiting process I quoted, there are literally hundreds of applicants who qualified per their criteria, but for reasons most likely having nothing to do with their qualifications, were not selected.

~200 candidates weren't even interviewed despite passing the objective tests. Will they ever find out that perhaps the only defect in their applications was a minor error in punctuation? Or not volunteering as much as someone else? Or growing up in Kamloops instead of metro Vancouver? Just so many variables, and when you have an applicant pool that vast, meaningful feedback is most likely non-existent. Or not having a brother-in-law who is on the hiring panel? It casts that particular organization as being very unprofessional, and such compensation practice damages the reputation of the public sector in its public responsibility of stewardship of public resources.

Top

Thread Information

There is currently 1 user viewing this thread. (0 members and 1 guest)