Lacey Fire

On behalf of Wall Street, states go after public pensions

By Harold Schaitberger

Workers have been under siege since the recession began. Allowing states to go into bankruptcy and
walk away from their moral and legal obligations to public employees would continue the assault and
hasten the destruction of the middle class.

The bankruptcy scheme designed by Newt Gingrich has the appearance of a think‐tank white paper
drafted by bean counters and policy wonks who prefer to envision the world as they wish it could be,
not as it really is.

If we decided during the recession that banks are too big to fail, it stands to reason that states also are
too big to fail.

Given the opportunity to file for bankruptcy, states would have the latitude in court to abrogate
contractual obligations, skewer wages, pensions and benefits. The pension plan and health care benefits
that Mr. Gingrich and other current and former members of Congress are entitled to would remain
intact. Hypocritical politicians would be spared from making any sacrifice.
So where is this clarion call coming from?

Mr. Gingrich is taking his direction from bankers, who desperately want to convert defined benefit plans
to defined contribution plans so they can have access to the billions of dollars of retirement savings that
they can’t touch now.

He is looking out for Wall Street bond traders and investment houses, because a state’s ability to wipe
away pension obligations would ensure that it has more capital to pay creditors.

There is no doubt that investors and bankers rank higher than workers in Mr. Gingrich’s think‐tank plan.
But the bankruptcy scheme would cause more fiscal carnage than the economic devastation we’ve
witnessed over the past two years by destroying the retirement security of middle class workers, the
economic foundation of our great country. Allowing states to file for bankruptcy isn’t just misguided, it is
economically irresponsible.

It’s also unnecessary. Mr. Gingrich and other opponents of public employees repeatedly trumpet the
same mistruths about public employee pensions – pension obligations are out of control, they are a
financial albatross, fiscal doom is on the horizon unless the outrageous benefits of these untouchable
elitists aren’t reigned in.

The gaping hole in the logic is large enough to carry the freight train holding Mr. Gingrich’s personal
wealth. Most pension funds for fire fighters remain sound. Those that aren’t can be repaired.
First responders aren’t economists, but even fire fighters and paramedics understand that these are
challenging times. That’s why so many have gone back to the bargaining table, agreeing to pay cuts and
negotiating concessions to reduce wages and benefits. First responders will continue to help public
officials overcome fiscal hardships because everyone has a role to play in overcoming this brutal
recession. Not just workers.

Governors, talking heads and presidential hopefuls like Mr. Gingrich all want a scapegoat. Public
employees have provided intellectually lazy finger pointers with an easy target for their bottomless pit
of attacks.

But the discussion surrounding public employee pensions is riddled with mistruths and generalizations.
The pension funds of fire fighters – most of whom do not receive Social Security benefits – are in good
fiscal health in many states. Drastic pension underfunding is the exception, not the rule.
Newly‐elected Governor Rick Scott, in Florida, blames public employees for that state’s financial
problems, but that state’s pension fund for fire fighters is 90 percent funded, which independent
analysts consider extremely fiscally healthy.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, blames public employees for his state’s fiscal problems, but that
state’s pension fund for fire fighters is funded at 105 percent.

In Indiana, the pension fund for fire fighters is funded at 93 percent.

Wall Street’s recklessness caused our nation’s financial collapse. Public employee pensions didn’t cause
the problem, and enabling states to walk away from their obligations won’t solve a single problem. But it
will help further enrich Wall Street at the expense of the middle class.

The middle class has paid dearly over the past two years. As our country struggles to emerge from the
lingering effects of a debilitating recession, we need to concentrate on creating jobs and getting people
back to work. We need to concentrate on rehabilitating the middle class. Taking aim at workers with
laws that will destroy the retirement security of millions of Americans won’t contribute to our nation’s
recovery.

Someone who wants to run for president should be able to understand that.

Harold Schaitberger is the general president of the International Association of Fire Fighters.

In the last two months, we stopped posting to our blog for a variety of reasons but one of those reasons was to step away and try to silence our critics who would accuse us of tampering or influencing the political process. We’ve heard from our big fans such as Mr. Mike Oakland or the “editorial page” editor from the Olympian and from his friend Mr. Greg Cuoio indirectly, and I cannot tell you how frustrating it is to bite our lip as disinformation and “the same old, same old” is spread by these usual suspects.
Here’s the deal. We’re not interested in waging a political war or going after people’s jobs. It really does matter to us that in our profession that we want to see a high quality service available and be responsive to our community’s needs. When we hear rhetoric about health insurance and fire fighters not paying their share, it’s frustrating that the issue is brought up, not with a sense of urgency to solve the issues of costly healthcare but instead becomes a political vendetta. The claims that the fire fighters are unwilling to work towards solving costs regarding rising health insurance or is deaf to our local or national economic crisis is irresponsible. We recognize that a health care is a serious issue and we are very, very aware of the financial situation that the fire district is in.
No politician can expect to solve a complex problem pointing fingers and assigning blame in a large organization then miraculously hope to solve or find solutions and then get organizational acceptance without significant repercussions. There are reasonable cost-effect solutions that exist that are within reach that allow the organization to move forward and help secure a stable fiscal future for the fire district. Lacey’s fire fighters are 100% behind ensuring that their employer is financially stable but will fight tooth and nail if we are arbitrarily blamed as the root cause of the department’s financial condition. Keep in mind, we offered to extend labor contracts months ago that essentially omitted any cost increases. There were COLA’s in the language but with flat inflation, it simply wasn’t a factor.
In the months ahead, we hope that cooler heads prevail and that with the new commissioners on board, that the board will have the temperament and wisdom to shelve the petty politics and move forward with short and long term visions and planning that is truly productive to the organization.

For decades, fire departments have fought over staffing funding with budget masters, mayors, and city councils trying to get the revenue that put fire fighters on the street. The problem, simply put, how can you prove that the absence or presence of a fire fighter may have made a difference on an emergency call? Its true that fire departments have in the past had a hard time justifying their existence because the lack of statistics or the fight over their interpretation. Other reasons were that budget managers found that hiring fire fighters or police officers was not as “glitzy” or public relations “fertile” as perhaps other spending choices.
One of the battle grounds for fire fighter staffing has been crew size. Many departments, both volunteer and paid, respond with only one or two fire fighters on a fire engine because that’s what they have funding for. Other departments because of budget cuts have reduced staffing from four or three people on an engine or even shut stations or equipment down because they can’t afford to. In the case of Lacey Fire District, we have a fire station that used to have three people assigned to it, and its now down to two. And at the main station, we are frequently shutting down the ladder truck or an aid car because we lack staffing to keep it them on the road. To most people, this problem goes un-noticed but for the responders, we can tell you its huge problem!
Last month, the National Institute of Science and Technology released a study that stated that the number of fire fighters on a crew or fire engine has huge implications on the efficiency or effectiveness of the said crew. The study found simply that a fire crew of two people versus three people trying to do the same common fire fighting tasks at a house fire were several minutes slower on average than the bigger crew. And with the same numbers of people trying to do a search and rescue in a home that the crew of three was 25% faster over the shorthanded crew.
Here’s a quote from the federal researchers, “The fire modeling showed clearly that two-person crews cannot complete essential fireground tasks in time to rescue occupants without subjecting either firefighters or occupants to an increasingly hazardous atmosphere.”
If you would like to read the report for yourself please go here.
We hope you consider that next time you see a fire engine with one or two people on it, ask yourself are they really saving money or lives? This study is proving the obvious.

At Lacey Fire District, the union has been drug through the mud frequently that we’re anti-volunteer and we’re chasing away volunteers. In truth, most of the career members at Lacey started as volunteers, and even some still are volunteers in other communities. In many departments, the existence of paid fire fighters has been a saving factor for volunteer programs because they gap fill for shortages or help to directly address the ever increasing technical workload and tasks. The largest factor impacting volunteer fire fighters has been the changing economies and lifestyles of those in our community.

In Lacey, it wasn’t even a decade ago where people worked shifts at the Olympia Brewery, worked at a much busier Weyerhaeser and George Pacific Mills, Hardel lumber and Cascade Pole, Kay Packaging, or even Lacey Plywood. It was shift work and people had the time and income to do such things as fire fighting even during the weekdays. Or the farmers and students who lived in very rural areas of South Lacey had all night to respond and leave and return to their jobs at day without upsetting a boss.

We’re not anti-volunteer, we just ask that you consider the world that we’re in and understand that volunteers in the fire service are becoming harder to find as communities change, costs and training requirements are quite substantial and growing, and its not accurate to assume that paid fire fighters are out to eliminate volunteers.

If you don’t believe us, look here: Few volunteers news.