As municipal employees, that information is publicly available already. All he did is put the information in an easy-to-find place, rather than waiting until someone showed up with a FOIA form.

try "embarrassing the union"

/attack this post immediately!!!!!

It shouldn't include names.

I wonder what a bigger threat to jobs are, the recession or unions.

Teachers are used to it. If you're a public employee, this shouldn't be a problem.

sloppy shoes: It shouldn't include names.

no, it should.

As a municipal employee, you're a public servant on paid for by public taxes.

Your name, contact information and salary are all public. Don't like it? Don't take the job!

Gee, I wonder what the union wants kept hidden...

Dumbass tag is for who here?

MDGeist: Gee, I wonder what the union wants kept hidden...

I think that it's the $10 and hour crossing guard pay.

Why would that be embarrassing?

Do the employees or the union think the work they do isn't worth what they're getting paid for it?

Hmmmm, interesting.

I have no problem telling folks what my hourly rates are for my work because I know that's the going rate for the industry in my area (more or less depending on the client and how badly I need the work, of course).

"The mayor is just trying to embarrass the men and women in the uniformed ranks for doing jobs that most people in the city appreciate," said Cunningham.

And just what would they have to be embarrassed about?

And wouldn't this showcase how your union was able to "negotiate" such great salaries and benefits for your members? Think of it as free advertising.

TyrantII: no, it should.

As a municipal employee, you're a public servant on paid for by public taxes.

Your name, contact information and salary are all public. Don't like it? Don't take the job!

And anybody with half a brain knows that while information may indeed be public, putting it behind a few hoops and barriers is quite good for society.

Much of what private detectives do is public record- but most people don't know how to do it so less people get stalked and harassed.

The public has a right to know the basic structure and accounting of the system- and individual knowledge if they are willing to put an effort into looking into it.

Eastern Michigan University has a book at the library, held on a "special" shelf behind the checkout counter that lists every salaried employee and what they earn each year.

/It's a very interesting read

Good.

Taxpayers deserve to know what their employees are paid. This is especially so when a union is in play.

Look, being a cop is a dangerous job, but upwards of 60 grand a year? I guess it doesn't say how long they've been with the force, or what the cost of living is like in Buffalo, but my God.

jcsturgeon: Look, being a cop is a dangerous job, but upwards of 60 grand a year? I guess it doesn't say how long they've been with the force, or what the cost of living is like in Buffalo, but my God.

Don't forget that many retire after 20 years - with enormous pensions.

jcsturgeon: Look, being a cop is a dangerous job, but upwards of 60 grand a year? I guess it doesn't say how long they've been with the force, or what the cost of living is like in Buffalo, but my God.

In Massachusetts, that means you just started.

I thought firemen were Real American Heroes.

Now they're overpaid slackers because they have union representation?

Interesting. If you guys are so jealous of what union members can negotiate, perhaps you should organize yourselves instead of cutting down people who already have.

Lagrange: jcsturgeon: Look, being a cop is a dangerous job, but upwards of 60 grand a year? I guess it doesn't say how long they've been with the force, or what the cost of living is like in Buffalo, but my God.

Don't forget that many retire after 20 years - with enormous pensions.

According to the document, the Chief makes more than $113,000 a year.

A Dark Evil Omen: I thought firemen were Real American Heroes.

Now they're overpaid slackers because they have union representation?

Interesting. If you guys are so jealous of what union members can negotiate, perhaps you should organize yourselves instead of cutting down people who already have.

So I can pay even higher taxes, or more money for my goods and services with no corresponding increase in quality?

Yeah, no thanks.

Lagrange: A Dark Evil Omen: I thought firemen were Real American Heroes.

Now they're overpaid slackers because they have union representation?

Interesting. If you guys are so jealous of what union members can negotiate, perhaps you should organize yourselves instead of cutting down people who already have.

So I can pay even higher taxes, or more money for my goods and services with no corresponding increase in quality?

Yeah, no thanks.

Negotiating a higher salary and proper benefits for yourself will cause you to pay higher taxes and make your goods more expensive?

I suppose if you ended up in a higher tax bracket the former would probably be true...

A Dark Evil Omen: I thought firemen were Real American Heroes.

Now they're overpaid slackers because they have union representation?

Interesting. If you guys are so jealous of what union members can negotiate, perhaps you should organize yourselves instead of cutting down people who already have.


No. They are overpaid because they get overtime. They shouldn't work overtime. (Which is a legitimate argument, because their overtime bill will be huge- though many do rely on it in tough times).

But the fire department is probably correct- the city doesn't want to have to increase its fixed cost and hire more firemen- thus decreasing the overtime. It's often a political and accounting argument- you get to blame it on tough times or someone else's budget- depending on how overtime is analyzed within the city.

A Dark Evil Omen:
Negotiating a higher salary and proper benefits for yourself will cause you to pay higher taxes and make your goods more expensive?

I suppose if you ended up in a higher tax bracket the former would probably be true...

If I were a municipal employee, of course it would - and regardless of tax bracket.

Who do you think pays municipal employees' salaries?

jcsturgeon: Look, being a cop is a dangerous job, but upwards of 60 grand a year? I guess it doesn't say how long they've been with the force, or what the cost of living is like in Buffalo, but my God.

That's actually quite reasonable, especially compared to other cities. In Boston there is (or was) some scheme where you could increase your salary if you had a degree, so cops would get bullshiat degrees. Can't really blame them, they're just taking advantage of what the system provides. Anyway, many cops were making well over $100K after factoring in voluntary critical additional duties like standing there watching someone dig a hole in a sidewalk and earning overtime for it.

Anyway, I can see $60-80K, but if you're pulling over $100K as a beat cop you'd better be on the caliber of Sgt. Angel.

sloppy shoes: A Dark Evil Omen: I thought firemen were Real American Heroes.

Now they're overpaid slackers because they have union representation?

Interesting. If you guys are so jealous of what union members can negotiate, perhaps you should organize yourselves instead of cutting down people who already have.


No. They are overpaid because they get overtime. They shouldn't work overtime. (Which is a legitimate argument, because their overtime bill will be huge- though many do rely on it in tough times).

But the fire department is probably correct- the city doesn't want to have to increase its fixed cost and hire more firemen- thus decreasing the overtime. It's often a political and accounting argument- you get to blame it on tough times or someone else's budget- depending on how overtime is analyzed within the city.

Oh, I absolutely agree. Firemen are worth every penny they're paid and almost certainly much more than that beside. Setting up a site like this showing employee pay without context (like, say, how many hours a week they work) is a good way to create bogus outrage and deflect criticism (it's not my fault the city's budget is high! It's that damned union making us overpay those lazy firemen and police!), as we see in this very thread.

dr.zaeus: Lagrange: jcsturgeon: Look, being a cop is a dangerous job, but upwards of 60 grand a year? I guess it doesn't say how long they've been with the force, or what the cost of living is like in Buffalo, but my God.

Don't forget that many retire after 20 years - with enormous pensions.

According to the document, the Chief makes more than $113,000 a year.

Yes, he is the fire Chief, its a CEO type job. $113k isn't much at all really, especially not in a city.

A Dark Evil Omen:
Negotiating a higher salary and proper benefits for yourself will cause you to pay higher taxes and make your goods more expensive?

I suppose if you ended up in a higher tax bracket the former would probably be true...

Americans are afraid of unions because they are afraid of society. They don't truly understand politics or community- we have become a nation of individuals who believe our only obligations are to what we desire.

A union shatters that ideal- you must pay union fees and often fight publicly for things you disagree with, and internally struggle with other members when you feel you can do better on your own. We have very little concept and appreciation for values we do not share ourselves. A union is a very sordid ordeal for people to deal with- much to complex and intricate for our petty little lives.

dr.zaeus: According to the document, the Chief makes more than $113,000 a year.

I love how some are calling this HUGE money. I work with friggin computers make more than the chief with less responsibility. If you want to complain about huge money ask how John McCain worked in govt his whole life and became a millionaire (not counting the marriage money)

Lagrange: If I were a municipal employee, of course it would - and regardless of tax bracket.

Who do you think pays municipal employees' salaries?

And who do you think protects your building from burning down or from violating fire code?

Who do you think buys the products- directly or indirectly- that pay your salary?

monoski: I work with friggin computers make more than the chief with less responsibility.

We're all impressed.

A Dark Evil Omen: I thought firemen were Real American Heroes.

Now they're overpaid slackers because they have union representation?

Interesting. If you guys are so jealous of what union members can negotiate, perhaps you should organize yourselves instead of cutting down people who already have.

THIS.

I've just never understood the problem the general public seems to have with collective bargaining. Union workers are not millionaires, usually they're just lower middle class laborers doing jobs most of us would avoid like the plague. Just because you can't demand a raise or better working conditions at your job doesn't mean no one else should. Stop being such serfs.

And just because someone is a municipal employee, it doesn't mean you have any right to treat them like shiat. Typical response, you don't want to have to pay them, then complain that they don't do their jobs perfectly and read your mind when it comes to services. The American people are lousy employers.

sloppy shoes: A Dark Evil Omen:
Negotiating a higher salary and proper benefits for yourself will cause you to pay higher taxes and make your goods more expensive?

I suppose if you ended up in a higher tax bracket the former would probably be true...

Americans are afraid of unions because they are afraid of society. They don't truly understand politics or community- we have become a nation of individuals who believe our only obligations are to what we desire.

A union shatters that ideal- you must pay union fees and often fight publicly for things you disagree with, and internally struggle with other members when you feel you can do better on your own. We have very little concept and appreciation for values we do not share ourselves. A union is a very sordid ordeal for people to deal with- much to complex and intricate for our petty little lives.

Oh, bollocks to that. It's a PR issue. People deal with all of that stuff every single day in their lives and their jobs, and are happy and often proud of how much of that stuff they deal with in their wok, but people have got it in their heads that they don't deserve to make a decent wage. That's all. They don't deserve a decent wage, they don't deserve the ability to negotiate straight across with their companies for wages and benefits.

At least since Reagan (and, let's be realistic, through pretty much all of the 20th century and even before that) there has been a continuous campaign waged against working people to convince them that it is only right and proper that their work should go to someone else's benefit If they're not getting what their work is worth they've been taught that it's their own fault for not working hard enough, or not being good enough at negotiating (as if a single person is in a position to negotiate with an entire company), or simply not being as smart or good as their "betters".

Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: jcsturgeon: Look, being a cop is a dangerous job, but upwards of 60 grand a year? I guess it doesn't say how long they've been with the force, or what the cost of living is like in Buffalo, but my God.

That's actually quite reasonable, especially compared to other cities. In Boston there is (or was) some scheme where you could increase your salary if you had a degree, so cops would get bullshiat degrees. Can't really blame them, they're just taking advantage of what the system provides. Anyway, many cops were making well over $100K after factoring in voluntary critical additional duties like standing there watching someone dig a hole in a sidewalk and earning overtime for it.

Anyway, I can see $60-80K, but if you're pulling over $100K as a beat cop you'd better be on the caliber of Sgt. Angel.

This is a tricky situation.

On the one hand there is at least one thread a week here about how terrible cops are at their jobs in various areas and how much they abuse their power and get corrupt.

The solution to that problem is, of course, increasing the caliber of police officer hired, which is going to take money. A police officer making more money will be less likely to turn corrupt out of desperation (though no doubt equally likely to become corrupt if they were just immoral to begin with, and greedy bastards will always trade it all for a little more), so paying them twice that of a decent waiter is hardly an outrageous situation.

A good change would no doubt be eliminating overtime and hiring the numbers you need to fill the hours for most employees. Cops, along with many other jobs, should not be overworked. You don't want a burnt out cop pointing a gun at you. Hell, you could even keep the hourly equivalent of their salaries the same and put them on 4 day weeks and likely see an improvement. Throw in some moonlighting limitations perhaps.

You aren't going to get good people to put up with all the bullshiat that people throw at them on top of risking their lives and pay them poorly.

sloppy shoes:

And who do you think protects your building from burning down or from violating fire code?

Who do you think buys the products- directly or indirectly- that pay your salary?

I don't understand what this has to do with my not wanting to pay more in taxes, or more for goods and services, due to a further expansion of organized labor.

Smackledorfer: The solution to that problem is, of course, increasing the caliber of police officer hired, which is going to take money.

It would probably help if they didn't forbid people from becoming police officers if they score above a certain IQ. I find that really interesting, actually: if you score above a certain IQ, you won't be hired as a police officer. In a weird sort of way, it makes sense.

Depending on the city contract, pensions can be based one year's best salary including OT. Not unheard of police / fireman making $100,000 annually in retirement.

A Dark Evil Omen:
Oh, bollocks to that. It's a PR issue. People deal with all of that stuff every single day in their lives and their jobs, and are happy and often proud of how much of that stuff they deal with in their wok, but people have got it in their heads that they don't deserve to make a decent wage. That's all. They don't deserve a decent wage, they don't deserve the ability to negotiate straight across with their companies for wages and benefits.

At least since Reagan (and, let's be realistic, through pretty much all of the 20th century and even before that) there has been a continuous campaign waged against working people to convince them that it is only right and proper that their work should go to someone else's benefit If they're not getting what their work is worth they've been taught that it's their own fault for not working hard enough, or not being good enough at negotiating (as if a single person is in a position to negotiate with an entire company), or simply not being as smart or good as their "betters".

Don't "oh bollocks" me you fake Brit!

I agree with your point- there is a continuous campaign against unions and fair wages, certainly. There is also a fool-hearted belief that the people at the top must deserve to be there because they are there.

But my statement comes from people who are anti-union, but would benefit greatly if they collectivized their positions. I mean, take an honest look at the anti-union rhetoric on Fark. While some of it is trolling, people still make the consistent claim: "unions protect the lazy." I have yet to meet an honest non-union person who can claim they have never worked with lazy people at all levels of society- in pretty much any position. Not to mention that all the people complaining about seeing union workers take breaks are probably posting to Fark during the work day.

Look at all the anti-union rhetoric that starts, "Why should you be allowed to gang up on me and force me to pay you both more?"

The PR battle has been won against unions because people genuinely believe the stupid philosophical arguments against them. However, I stand by my claim that a significant reason people are afraid of unions is the extra effort required to maintain a proper union- something people are just too 'lazy'- perhaps that is the right word- to do.

James F. Campbell: It would probably help if they didn't forbid people from becoming police officers if they score above a certain IQ. I find that really interesting, actually: if you score above a certain IQ, you won't be hired as a police officer. In a weird sort of way, it makes sense.

I've heard that frequently. I've never seen actual proof. There was a guy whining about it to the newspaper a few years back but it later turned out he had mental health issues in addition to being a genius.

Is there an actual set in stone guideline in the hiring process that prevents a high IQ from joining up? Also, I'm curious what the cut-off point is.

That's what you get for working for the stupid government. Deal with it Mr Smarty McGovernmentdrone.

Lagrange:
I don't understand what this has to do with my not wanting to pay more in taxes, or more for goods and services, due to a further expansion of organized labor.


Because, genius, capitalism is a system of inter-connectivity. If you keep trying to screw everyone else over, and demanding they can't get their fair share, eventually you will screw yourself over.

If you don't have people getting justly rewarded for their work in your hometown, they won't buy anything. Your local economy will go to shiat, people will pay less taxes, services will decline, schools will decline, property values will decline.

Oh, and by the way- having excellent public services draws more people to live to your town. And businesses.

Collective bargaining is not some tool of the devil- but merely a mechanism to fairly level out the playing field that often results in feudalism in unregulated capitalism. If you are upset about having to contribute your fair share, this I cannot help you with.

This is one of the most successful ways to get people motivated and keep people held accountable. I would recommend businesses starting to do this also. That being said, upper management must also do the same.

You know, I still say that the highest salary a public official is paid should be directly tied to the salary of the lowest paid person in that department. For example, no school administrator should make more than twice what a teacher does, ever. (No, not even on at the state level!) No foreman on a Caltrans sight should make more than double what the guy shoveling asphalt makes for another example.

The person putting in the raw labor should be compensated more than the bare farking minimum. I have never understood the top down model of payments in reality, as those are the people actually doing what needs to be done in order to accomplish the stated goal. Get a dozen architects together, and you will not get a house built, but they sure design a great on! Get a dozen contractors/workers together, and you will get a house. Sure, it might not be optimally laid out, and your water heater will be in your living room, but you'll have a house.

I personally feel ALL companies highest paid salary should be tied to the salary/pay of the lowest level employee. That way, if big CEO dude wants a raise, he has to raise the pay of EVERYONE in the company. It makes it far less advantageous to vote a huge salary increase on themselves without using putative means or penalties. I don't want to see the government put salary caps into place, but I do not want to see companies top swath make 95% of the profit while the people doing the actual real work scramble for crumbs off of the proverbial table either.

This is the best idea I have heard yet, anyone see a downside to it that I have not?

sloppy shoes: Lagrange:
I don't understand what this has to do with my not wanting to pay more in taxes, or more for goods and services, due to a further expansion of organized labor.


Because, genius, capitalism is a system of inter-connectivity. If you keep trying to screw everyone else over, and demanding they can't get their fair share, eventually you will screw yourself over.

If you don't have people getting justly rewarded for their work in your hometown, they won't buy anything. Your local economy will go to shiat, people will pay less taxes, services will decline, schools will decline, property values will decline.

Oh, and by the way- having excellent public services draws more people to live to your town. And businesses.

Collective bargaining is not some tool of the devil- but merely a mechanism to fairly level out the playing field that often results in feudalism in unregulated capitalism. If you are upset about having to contribute your fair share, this I cannot help you with.

Jesus Christ I'm sick of being civil to people who turn out to be complete assholes.

If you want to make a point as part of an adult conversation, make it without vitriol or shove it straight up your ass, you patronizing douchebag.

Lagrange: I don't understand what this has to do with my not wanting to pay more in taxes, or more for goods and services, due to a further expansion of organized labor.

I've been fighting for a return to child labor and a repeal of the minimum wage here in the US - just think how prices would plummet!

MindStalker: dr.zaeus: Lagrange: jcsturgeon: Look, being a cop is a dangerous job, but upwards of 60 grand a year? I guess it doesn't say how long they've been with the force, or what the cost of living is like in Buffalo, but my God.

Don't forget that many retire after 20 years - with enormous pensions.

According to the document, the Chief makes more than $113,000 a year.

Yes, he is the fire Chief, its a CEO type job. $113k isn't much at all really, especially not in a city.

correct. The thing with high rank law enforcement or other government is you want to pay them enough that they don't go looking for bribes/kickbacks to earn more.

sloppy shoes: A Dark Evil Omen: I thought firemen were Real American Heroes.

Now they're overpaid slackers because they have union representation?

Interesting. If you guys are so jealous of what union members can negotiate, perhaps you should organize yourselves instead of cutting down people who already have.


No. They are overpaid because they get overtime. They shouldn't work overtime. (Which is a legitimate argument, because their overtime bill will be huge- though many do rely on it in tough times).

But the fire department is probably correct- the city doesn't want to have to increase its fixed cost and hire more firemen- thus decreasing the overtime. It's often a political and accounting argument- you get to blame it on tough times or someone else's budget- depending on how overtime is analyzed within the city.

Because firefighters/cops have never been found to abuse overtime to increase their pay....

Number41: Lagrange: I don't understand what this has to do with my not wanting to pay more in taxes, or more for goods and services, due to a further expansion of organized labor.

I've been fighting for a return to child labor and a repeal of the minimum wage here in the US - just think how prices would plummet!

Why? Those are the sort of jobs the robots do now.

I guess we could compromise: how about child robots? Work for penny worth of electricity a day, and we won't hire one more then say, 12 years old.

sloppy shoes: A Dark Evil Omen:
Oh, bollocks to that. It's a PR issue. People deal with all of that stuff every single day in their lives and their jobs, and are happy and often proud of how much of that stuff they deal with in their wok, but people have got it in their heads that they don't deserve to make a decent wage. That's all. They don't deserve a decent wage, they don't deserve the ability to negotiate straight across with their companies for wages and benefits.

At least since Reagan (and, let's be realistic, through pretty much all of the 20th century and even before that) there has been a continuous campaign waged against working people to convince them that it is only right and proper that their work should go to someone else's benefit If they're not getting what their work is worth they've been taught that it's their own fault for not working hard enough, or not being good enough at negotiating (as if a single person is in a position to negotiate with an entire company), or simply not being as smart or good as their "betters".

Don't "oh bollocks" me you fake Brit!

I agree with your point- there is a continuous campaign against unions and fair wages, certainly. There is also a fool-hearted belief that the people at the top must deserve to be there because they are there.

But my statement comes from people who are anti-union, but would benefit greatly if they collectivized their positions. I mean, take an honest look at the anti-union rhetoric on Fark. While some of it is trolling, people still make the consistent claim: "unions protect the lazy." I have yet to meet an honest non-union person who can claim they have never worked with lazy people at all levels of society- in pretty much any position. Not to mention that all the people complaining about seeing union workers take breaks are probably posting to Fark during the work day.

Look at all the anti-union rhetoric that starts, "Why should you be allowed to gang up on me and force me to pay you both more?"

The PR battle has been won against unions because people genuinely believe the stupid philosophical arguments against them. However, I stand by my claim that a significant reason people are afraid of unions is the extra effort required to maintain a proper union- something people are just too 'lazy'- perhaps that is the right word- to do.

Hrm. I tend to agree with you, but I think we're coming at the same idea from opposite ends. I don't believe that people who work hard for a living and support themselves and their families are lazy or afraid of effort. If they were... Well, if I believed that I would probably be generally against organized labor.

I tend to think that the general fear of the effort of maintaining a union comes primarily from social atomism (which is part of what you said and I entirely agree with it), but also partly out of an assumption, created by the endless anti-union rhetoric everyone in the US is hammered with from day one, that it would be effort wasted.

In other words, I don't think they're afraid of organizing because they're lazy, I think they're lazy because they're afraid of organizing.

/And I come by the vague quasi-Britishisms honestly, my mother's family is all Anglican. orz

Dughan: You know, I still say that the highest salary a public official is paid should be directly tied to the salary of the lowest paid person in that department. For example, no school administrator should make more than twice what a teacher does, ever. (No, not even on at the state level!) No foreman on a Caltrans sight should make more than double what the guy shoveling asphalt makes for another example.

The person putting in the raw labor should be compensated more than the bare farking minimum. I have never understood the top down model of payments in reality, as those are the people actually doing what needs to be done in order to accomplish the stated goal. Get a dozen architects together, and you will not get a house built, but they sure design a great on! Get a dozen contractors/workers together, and you will get a house. Sure, it might not be optimally laid out, and your water heater will be in your living room, but you'll have a house.

I personally feel ALL companies highest paid salary should be tied to the salary/pay of the lowest level employee. That way, if big CEO dude wants a raise, he has to raise the pay of EVERYONE in the company. It makes it far less advantageous to vote a huge salary increase on themselves without using putative means or penalties. I don't want to see the government put salary caps into place, but I do not want to see companies top swath make 95% of the profit while the people doing the actual real work scramble for crumbs off of the proverbial table either.

This is the best idea I have heard yet, anyone see a downside to it that I have not?

Sure. Upper Management needs a raise that isn't in the budget? Ax a few botton guys, and viola! You have the money.

Dughan: You know, I still say that the highest salary a public official is paid should be directly tied to the salary of the lowest paid person in that department. For example, no school administrator should make more than twice what a teacher does, ever. (No, not even on at the state level!) No foreman on a Caltrans sight should make more than double what the guy shoveling asphalt makes for another example.

The person putting in the raw labor should be compensated more than the bare farking minimum. I have never understood the top down model of payments in reality, as those are the people actually doing what needs to be done in order to accomplish the stated goal. Get a dozen architects together, and you will not get a house built, but they sure design a great on! Get a dozen contractors/workers together, and you will get a house. Sure, it might not be optimally laid out, and your water heater will be in your living room, but you'll have a house.

I personally feel ALL companies highest paid salary should be tied to the salary/pay of the lowest level employee. That way, if big CEO dude wants a raise, he has to raise the pay of EVERYONE in the company. It makes it far less advantageous to vote a huge salary increase on themselves without using putative means or penalties. I don't want to see the government put salary caps into place, but I do not want to see companies top swath make 95% of the profit while the people doing the actual real work scramble for crumbs off of the proverbial table either.

This is the best idea I have heard yet, anyone see a downside to it that I have not?

As long as it applies both to public service and to private enterprise equally, I'm all for it, but that's because I'm a filthy commie. I don't agree that that's a solution if it only applies to public service because we want the best and brightest we can get in the public service, not people who are unemployable in the private sector.