Marine Patrol Seeking Recruits - Summer 2013

[mcdude]

Chronically Underemployed?
Looking for fun and adventure?
JOIN the MARINE PATROL!!

http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/n...l-trainee.html

Position Description:	The Seasonal Marine Patrol Officer Trainee may be assigned to working any of the patrol areas located throughout the State. Throughout their patrol season, officers may be called upon to perform any or all of the following duties: Patrol assigned areas using State patrol boats. Respond to emergencies and other calls for assistance. Enforce State boating and criminal laws. Investigate boating accidents and drownings. Conduct inspections of commercial boats and testing of commercial boat operators. Conduct Boating Safety Education Classes. Install, maintain, and remove State marine aids to navigation. Conduct criminal investigations and generate cases for prosecution. Interact with other law enforcement and safety agencies.
Position Salary:	$14.69/hour - effective January 2, 2009
Minimum Requirements:	Because the position of Seasonal Marine Patrol Officer Trainee is a certified part-time police officer in the State of New Hampshire, the minimum requirements are accordingly demanding. Minimum 18 years of age at the time of appointment. US Citizen. No criminal convictions. Valid driver license. High school graduate or GED Good physical health. Ability to attend and successfully complete marine patrol training. Ability to work varied shifts, weekends and holidays throughout the summer months. Desirable Applicant Traits.
Other Beneficial Traits for an Applicant to Possess Include:	Previous law enforcement experience or training. Previous boating experience. Knowledge of New Hampshire lakes and waterways. Possess a vehicle capable of towing a state patrol boat.
Employment Selection Process:	Trainee submits a completed application. Application is reviewed. Then the following are administered: Written examination . Physical Agility Test . Interview. Psychological evaluation. Medical examination. Drug Screening. Background investigation. Marine Patrol classroom training. Marine patrol practical on-the-water training. Field training officer review. Probationary assignment of patrol duties. Attendance of New Hampshire part-time Police Officer Academy. Swim Test – 100 Meters.

[secondcurve]

How do they come up with $14.69 an hour. Wouldn't $14.75 or even $14.65 make more sense?

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by secondcurve

How do they come up with $14.69 an hour. Wouldn't $14.75 or even $14.65 make more sense?

Most raises are given by a percentage increases. Therefore most wages could be an even number or an odd number.

If you make $14.75 now and get a 2.5% increase, your new rate will be 1.025 x $14.75 = $15.11. You go from an even number to an odd number.

Therefore wages could be odd or even depending on the percentage increase.

I never really believed in percentage increases because the more you make the more you get. The difference from the lowest wage to the highest wage keeps getting further apart.

[secondcurve]

Originally Posted by Rusty

Most raises are given by a percentage increases. Therefore most wages could be an even number or an odd number.

If you make $14.75 now and get a 2.5% increase, your new rate will be 1.025 x $14.75 = $15.11. You go from an even number to an odd number.

Therefore wages could be odd or even depending on the percentage increase.

I never really believed in percentage increases because the more you make the more you get. The difference from the lowest wage to the highest wage keeps getting further apart.

I understand how percentages can result in odd numbers, I am just surprised they don't round to the nearest nickel. As far as your last comment, this logic is what will drive this country to ruin. The end result of such thinking is the rich become less rich and the poor become destitute.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by secondcurve

I understand how percentages can result in odd numbers, I am just surprised they don't round to the nearest nickel. As far as your last comment, this logic is what will drive this country to ruin. The end result of such thinking is the rich become less rich and the poor become destitute.

The government won't allow to round to the nearest nickel because it would show disrespect to Abraham Lincoln who is on the penny. Also Lincoln was from Illinois, and Illinois is a critically important state in U.S. elections.

[RailroadJoe]

Do away with the penny and then they can put Lincoln on a new $3.00 bill. That way it will be the price of a stamp in years to come.

[Merrymeeting]

Originally Posted by Rusty

... your new rate will be 1.025 x $14.75 = $15.11. You go from an even number to an odd number...

All the schools I went to to taught me that 1 and 5 were both odd numbers. Perhaps you meant with rounding? ( 1.025 x $14.75 = $15.12 )

[PaugusBayFireFighter]

This job is a great stepping stone for someone looking for a State Trooper or FT Marine Patrol job. One of my sons, currently in the Navy, would jump at this...maybe next time!!!

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by Merrymeeting

All the schools I went to to taught me that 1 and 5 were both odd numbers. Perhaps you meant with rounding? ( 1.025 x $14.75 = $15.12 )

That's right. Thanks for the correction.

[Belmont Resident]

Originally Posted by Rusty

Most raises are given by a percentage increases. Therefore most wages could be an even number or an odd number.

If you make $14.75 now and get a 2.5% increase, your new rate will be 1.025 x $14.75 = $15.11. You go from an even number to an odd number.

Therefore wages could be odd or even depending on the percentage increase.

I never really believed in percentage increases because the more you make the more you get. The difference from the lowest wage to the highest wage keeps getting further apart.

That harder you work the more you make and the more you get.
Employee's who work harder and do what is necessary to make themselves better at their job then the guy next to them doing the nothing to improve themselves should be paid at a higher rate and should be considered more valuable to the company.
A. You have an person who has been doing the same exact job for 10 years with no ambition to do more then what is required.
B. You have the guy who has been at the job 1 year and does the same job as the other guy but has also learned how to do the job of 2 other guys so that when they are out he can help take up the slack.
Let's see if I had to choose who to let go it would not be the one who shows initiative and wants to learn more then whats required to do his job and improve himself.
Job pay and job security for performance, unlike that whole union crap where your job security is based on seniority not performance.

[8gv]

"Meritocracy"

The individual benefits.

The employing entity benefits.

But it's often seen as unfair due to inequal outcomes.

[PaugusBayFireFighter]

BR, I think we agree on the premise that someone should get paid for how well they do their job, period.

[NoRegrets]

Originally Posted by PaugusBayFireFighter

BR, I think we agree on the premise that someone should get paid for how well they do their job, period.
I'm certainly not a "union guy", even though I was a member of 2 for 25+ years. If I were in the private sector I would have the same view towards unions as many. On the flip side, I'm retired at 45 and my family is protected because of the union mumbo jumbo.

I am sure you took your risks and it payed off well for you. Nice to be retired at 45! I will work for at least 6 months after I die.

Being able to collect a retirement pay for possibly 40 years seems to be the reason Greece is bankrupt and tax payers are turning against government unions.

[BroadHopper]

Whether you are blue or white collar non-union employee, most large corporation pay based on merits and what other companies are paying for the same job. Merits are based on performance as well as the inflation rate.

Large corporations reward excellent employees with promotions or bonuses. Some even share profits to employees.

I work in a union shop once, and I find at times salary artificially inflated. I've seen union employees that are not worth squat get the same wage increases as excellent workers.
I've also seen increases that are not in step with the inflation.
A lot of union employees shop around, one town can pay more or have more benefits than another.

[fatlazyless]

As I understand, the first test for an applicant is the physical fitness test(s), and those seem to be very demanding. For someone who is on-board a boat all day long in a confined space it is a little bit of a surprise to me that they would have a high standard of physical fitness for an MP officer, because it does not seem like the physicality of the day-to-day job activity is all that strenuous or anything.......just cruise around in a very nice boat......on a huge 22-mile long lake.......big scenic views......lean back against the comfy leaning post......you get free gas plus get paid too boot......what a great gig........and make nice chit-chat with other boaters and dispatch; .......10-4 roger-dodger.....over & out......& i do mean out....this Bud is for me......and "you have yourself a great day......good buddy!":

[PaugusBayFireFighter]

Originally Posted by NoRegrets

I am sure you took your risks and it payed off well for you. I will work for at least 6 months after I die.

Being able to collect a retirement pay for possibly 40 years seems to be the reason Greece is bankrupt and tax payers are turning against government unions.

Just to clarify,

[diz]

Originally Posted by PaugusBayFireFighter

Out of every dollar that funds a firefigter's pension and health insurance plan, 100 cents comes from the workers because the "contributions" consist of money that employees chose, through negotiations, to take as deferred wages – as pensions when they retire – rather than take immediately in cash.

I'm not sure I follow this. How does your pension consist solely of money deferred from your actual time of employment when there's no way of knowing how long your pension will be paid? In other words, how can you choose whether to take x number of dollars now or in pension when you don't know how many dollars you'll receive over your retirement? Doesn't that mean you could end up saying I'll defer $100,000 but collect $200,000 because my pension was paid to me for 40 years? Will your pension eventually run out when you've collected all of your deferred contributions?

[BroadHopper]

I do know that many retirement plans invest heavily in stocks, bonds etc. Original budgets were based on what they forecast is the return on their investments to level fund the plan. Because of the market crash of 2008 many retirement plans lost a lot of equity, many have not been able to regain that equity. Many retirees were guaranteed an x amount of benefit, with the money gone many retirement plans cannot afford it. This is when the union demand that employers make good to their contracts by 'level funding' the retirement plans. This is a big reason why many municipalities are bankrupt. I do know the Mass. Teachers Retirement Plan have repeatedly requested employers to level fund the plan because the retirement was negotiated in union contracts. I do know that the pension plan recipients were told that if the employers don't contribute there will be a cut in benefits.

Just because you paid into the retirement plan and expect it back, because of bad investments it may not be there.


I am not saying this is the fault of the employees or the employers, but the fault of the government not being able to regulate the safety of the retirement plans. This is all the more reason why social security should never invest in stocks and bonds.


It is nice that the unions are able to retain retirement benefits that were due to their members. In my case because of the market crash I did not have that luxury, I am only receiving 30 cent on the dollar that which I am entitled. One retiree I know, employer went bankrupt and dissolved, he is getting 10 cents on the dollar. One reason many retirees are back in the work force.

[PaugusBayFireFighter]

Originally Posted by diz

I'm not sure I follow this. How does your pension consist ?

Great question for a confusing subject

I hope that clears up some confusion, great question, the same question I asked when retirement became an option for me.

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

I do know that many retirement plans invest heavily in stocks, bonds etc. Original budgets were based on what they forecast is the return on their investments to level fund the plan. Because of the market crash of 2008 many retirement plans lost a lot of equity, many have not been able to regain that equity. Many retirees were guaranteed an x amount of benefit, with the money gone many retirement plans cannot afford it. This is when the union demand that employees make good to their contracts by 'level funding' the retirement plans. This is a big reason why many municipalities are bankrupt. I do know the Mass. Teachers Retirement Plan have repeatedly requested employees to level fund the plan because the retirement was negotiated in union contracts. I do know that the pension plan recipients were told that if the employers don't contribute there will be a cut in benefits.

Just because you paid into the retirement plan and expect it back, because of bad investments it may not be there.


I am not saying this is the fault of the employees or the employers, but the fault of the government not being able to regulate the safety of the retirement plans. This is all the more reason why social security should never invest in stocks and bonds.


It is nice that the unions are able to retain retirement benefits that were due to their members. In my case because of the market crash I did not have that luxury, I am only receiving 30 cent on the dollar that which I am entitled. One retiree I know, employer went bankrupt and dissolved, he is getting 10 cents on the dollar. One reason many retirees are back in the work force.

agree and understand this, it is also the exact reason that the POstal Service on a Federal Level, MBTA on the state level, and Govt's are costing a fortune. They credit carded the expenses.
They need to adapt to the econnmy and pass more of the burden onto the employee like the private sector, or it will never survive. Which all of the options above are already bankrupt and operating in the red for years. Only businesses I know that can operate in the red and still exist.

At some point they have to say anyone hired after a specific day must go into a 401k plan or something like it, instead of what they have now. So much taxes and revenue goes into these retirement/benefits programs, it is bleeding everyone dry.

..coming from someone who has a couple immediate family members in these programs, also I have a friend who is a probation officer, who is eligible to retire next year due to their plan, he is 34

[fatlazyless]

Looking at the physical agility test by clicking on the link, it says that for a male applicant age 60-69, I am 61; it goes like so;

run a mile in 17:49 minutes

.65 unknown exercise.....probably a 65-lb benchpress(?)

18 sit-ups

9 push-ups
.................

And, that is probably just the introductory test that one must take before going further with the application and interview.

18-sit-ups........for someone in their sixties, that seems like it is probably a little strenuous. It's interesting that the Marine Patrol seems to place some pretty big hurdles at the entrance to the applicant by starting them off with a demanding psysical fitness test.

[lakershaker]

Since most private sector employees no longer have the opportunity to be part of a defined benefit plan, they take the market risk of appreciation by being in a 401k, and don't fully understand the massive benefit of a DB pension plan. A good way to understand it is to look at the cost/benefit of buying an annuity. For a 45 year old male from Massachusetts to receive $80,000 per year for the rest of his life (with no inflation increase in the future), he would have to purchase an annuity for $1,759,916. That is the after-tax value of the pension plan. Another way to look at that is, if over a 20 year career you wanted to end with that amount of savings to buy that annuity, you would have to save about $88,000 each year - AFTER TAX! Pre-tax, that would be having to EARN income of an ADDITIONAL $135,375 per year. This is in addition to what you actually earned to live off of and pay your bills and received in a paycheck.

Now, a retort to that could be "well, you don't need to save all of that because you will earn some rate of return during those 20-years." That's true, but to guarantee that amount ($1.76 mil) at the end of the 20-years, you would have to invest in government guaranteed debt. Today, 10-year debt yields only 1.72%, so don't expect much of a return.

Overall, I am very appreciative of the work public sector employees do, but when you look at the value of the pensions, I think it is costing us all too much money. Really, with the $135k you have as an allocated contribution to the pension, plus the $100,000 most are earning at the end of their careers, is it worth a quarter million dollars per year per employee? I can't think it is (especially when where I live, all of our firemen are volunteers!)

Just my $0.02...

[upthesaukee]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Looking at the physical agility test by clicking on the link, it says that for a male applicant age 60-69, I am 61; it goes like so;

run a mile in 17:49 minutes

.65 unknown exercise.....probably a 65-lb benchpress(?)

18 sit-ups

9 push-ups
.................

And, that is probably just the introductory test that one must take before going further with the application and interview.

18-sit-ups........for someone in their sixties, that seems like it is probably a little strenuous. It's interesting that the Marine Patrol seems to place some pretty big hurdles at the entrance to the applicant by starting them off with a demanding psysical fitness test.

Bench Press is at your age is .65 x your weight. If you weigh 180, you have to bench press 180 x .65 = 117. You can do 3 presses, but only one at your target weight. It is done with free weights. After you take the written exam, this is the first exercise to do. If you make the press, you move on; if not, you go home.

The sit ups and pushups are in a minute. Situps are with feet flat on the floor, knees bent, and if I remember it right, hands behind the head, and the elbows have to touch your knees. Pushups are done with the legs and back straight. You must come down to 3 inches from the floor, and they use a 3 inch cube to measure it. You start in the up position, down and up is one...If you rest, you must rest in the up position.

The mile and a half is just that...a mile and a half on an indoor wooded track upstairs at the facility.

I did the training getting ready to take the exam. Nearly aced the written, could not do the bench press (I have no tricep in my left arm due to a disc injury, muscle atrophied) ...could not lock out the left arm. In training, no problems with the 18 situps or the pushups and was running the mile and a half under 16 mins.

If you are in good shape, not too bad a test. I was doing 185 multiple reps on my Crossbow (like a Bowflex), but that is progressive, and the free weights did me in. Oh well. At least, as a MP officer, I didn't have to put up with abuse from some folks here on the forum .

[jrc]

Less, if you were a women you only need to do four push-ups and five sit-ups.

Maybe a minor operation and Lesley can get a government job? Sometimes you need to do what it takes.

BTW didn't you get fired for doing pushups once, talk about the irony.

[Altonbayicefishingfool]

On another note.... Wasn't it the Marine patrol who just laid off 4 full timers and a bunch of part timers??? And now their recruiting.....hmmmmmm

[secondcurve]

Originally Posted by PaugusBayFireFighter

Just to clarify, my retirement pension is not paid by tax payers. Firefighter retirement benefits are not paid by the "taxpayers," cities, counties or state. Benefits are deferred compensation, and are paid by the employee funded retirement systems (typically CALPERS or a 1937 act Retirement Fund which are not government agencies). These funds come from employee and employer contributions made while the employee was working, and the vast majority of benefits paid come from market growth and interest from the investment of those contributions. Out of every dollar that funds a firefigter's pension and health insurance plan, 100 cents comes from the workers because the "contributions" consist of money that employees chose, through negotiations, to take as deferred wages – as pensions when they retire – rather than take immediately in cash.
Firefighters pay more into their retirement system than other public or private sector employees. By saving more towards retirement, they earn more once retired - no different than a 401K in the private sector.
Also, Firefighter/Police do not receive Social Security, this is a cost savings to cities and counties that employ them (the employers do not pay the 6+% payroll tax for Social Security) but also means retired firefighters can't collect this benefit. The lack of Social Security benefits and the payroll savings to local government is rarely mentioned in discussions about public employee benefits. Because firefighters can't collect social security, they have negotiated increased retirement benefits.
It's a misconception I wish more new. At times I'm embarrassed to say I'm a retired firefighter because people assume THEY are paying me while they are still working.

PBF: If you don't think the tax payers fund your pension you are sadly mistaken. You say the employee makes his/her own contributions to the plan but isn't it the tax payer who funds/pays the firefighter's inflated wages so he/she can contribute to the pension plan?. Also, you say a firefighter's employer funds the other half of a fire fighter's pension, not the tax payer. However, isn't a fire fighter's employer a city or town? The last time I checked there is only one way a city or town can generate revenue.

[PaugusBayFireFighter]

Originally Posted by secondcurve

PBF: If you don't think the tax payers fund your pension you are sadly mistaken. You say the employee makes his/her own contributions to the plan but isn't it the tax payer who funds/pays the firefighter's inflated wages so he/she can contribute to the pension plan?

I've learned over the span of my career that there are always plenty of people who dislike the "inflated", over paid, under worked, firefighters and police. I've also learned that I don't have to worry about those people or what they think of us.

[secondcurve]

Originally Posted by PaugusBayFireFighter

I've learned over the span of my career that there are always plenty of people who dislike the "inflated", over paid, under worked, firefighters and police. I've also learned that I don't have to worry about those people or what they think of us.
I provided a link in another post as to how the civil service pension system in Massachusetts works. If anybody cares you are welcome to read it.

I'm not here to argue or debate, just to enjoy my retirement. That's all I have to say about that!

You may have to worry about the situation when the well runs dry which in my opinion isn't too far down the road. In the meantime continue to be fat, dumb and happy.

[Blue Thunder]

Originally Posted by secondcurve

You may have to worry about the situation when the well runs dry which in my opinion isn't too far down the road. In the meantime continue to be fat, dumb and happy.

Once again, Secondcurve didn't disappoint with another stupid remark.....

[secondcurve]

Sorry Blue Thunder but when a 45 year old retired Massachusetts civil servant doesn't think his pension has anything to do with the Massachusetts tax payer I lose my mind. When too many folks start to view their state/government benefits as god given rights delivered from heaven we are screwed. This is what Mitt Romney was trying to say when he made his infamous 47% comment. I am willing to pay my fair share and even more but there needs to be shared sacrifice. These are the facts my friend and the sooner we collectively realize them the better off this country will be.

[BroadHopper]

I have no problem paying public employees as they do a lot of work with so little. And firefighters, policemen, and our armed forces put themselves in harm's way. I salute you and you deserve every penny.

It's when times ae tough and the private sector is taking a huge hit. The average American wages is going down while inflation is going up. At his stage of the game who is going to pay the public sector's current wages?

The unions needs to see reality as it is. If the taxpayers can't afford it, the union members need to step up to the plate and gives the taxpayers a break.

The crooked politicians needs to step up and reduced their pay and benefits, reduce pork barrels and allow their employees the benefits they deserve.

[upthesaukee]

Perhaps we can get this thread back on track.

The politics of retirement plans of any kind, someone who moved to NH and is collecting a retirement from another state, etc. are not part of this thread, IMHO.

Marine Patrol has announced the testing and hiring of Seasonal Marine Patrol Officers, something that is done almost every year. That is what this thread is about.

Time to stop the bickering and name calling that has once again entered a thread on this forum.

[Blue Thunder]

Originally Posted by secondcurve

Sorry Blue Thunder but when a 45 year old retired Massachusetts civil servant doesn't think his pension has anything to do with the Massachusetts tax payer I loose my mind. When too many folks start to view their state/government benefits as a god given rights delivered from heaven we are screwed. This is what Mitt Romney was trying to say when he made his infamous 47% comment. I am willing to pay my fair share and even more but there needs to be shared sacrifice. These are the facts my friend and the sooner we collectively realize them the better off this country will be.

I know very few, if any, government employees who view their benefits as "god given rights". Those benefits were negotiated in good faith many years ago by both sides, often in lieu of pay raises when cities and towns couldn't afford it. Private industry was booming and paying their employees handsomely with the benefits to boot. The public employee got left behind. Don't hold the public employee responsible today for something that they had nothing to do with 25 years ago.
I have been a firefighter myself for 34 years (disclosure complete). It is not not my primary employment so I won't be receiving a pension from it. I run into burning buildings when everyone else is running out. 99.9% of the people that I know say I'm crazy to do it. Maybe so. Whatever we pay our firefighters and police officers in todays world isn't enough given the dangerous life threatening situations they are put in EVERY day. You are broad brushing it too much for me....
BT

[PaugusBayFireFighter]

Back on topic.
This job is a fantastic opportunity for a young man or woman with ambitions to become a full time Marine Patrol, police officer or any other law enforcement position. Even if it's part time, it will make for great training and a very important job resume for future full time employment. I mentioned before that I'd love to see preference given to a returning soldier who has done similar work but in a war zone. We have so many qualified soldiers coming home unable to get jobs because they don't have the state license required to be hired. This position is entry level, so the certification and training are part of the deal.
I wish my 4 boys were in the states to apply, but they have a bit of time before they fulfill their military obligations.

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by secondcurve

You may have to worry about the situation when the well runs dry which in my opinion isn't too far down the road. In the meantime continue to be fat, dumb and happy.

I fully respect those that risk their lives to say others everyday, if ther eis no fire or a shooting that day, then they deserve a break

but I also believe the program is flawed, even just because of the # of people we need in those positions, they should also in my eyes be the highest paid, but the govn't, tax payers cannot afford the current system. If the current system worked, the private section would not have gotten rid of it years and years ago.
it might work with a minimal amount of employees, but when you get to a certain amount, the program becomes unbalanced

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by Blue Thunder

Those benefits were negotiated in good faith many years ago by both sides, often in lieu of pay raises when cities and towns couldn't afford it. Private industry was booming and paying their employees handsomely with the benefits to boot. The public employee got left behind. Don't hold the public employee responsible today for something that they had nothing to do with 25 years ago. BT

I think this is the major problem (not saying you are), years ago those deals worked, now they do not work, and no one is willing to adjust with the times on both sides. There has to be a negotiation or we will end up in the gutter.

[Belmont Resident]

My wife grew up in Toms River NJ and is still in contact through social media with old friends.
Apparently some volunteer electrical workers came to NJ looking to help with repairs. They were told they could not be used because they were not union workers. So they left NJ and went to another state to help out.
This is why many of us do not like unions. As a person many of the workers are great people, but as a union they cannot think for themselves and when striking become an angry mob who acts like a child when he cannot have his own way. Instead of just striking they have to create problems for those who are willing to step in and actually work.
Oh and then there's the really bright ones who put signs on their kids and send them to do their bidding as was posted on FB during the last Verizon strike, the one where most American were saying fire the whole lot and hire people who want to work instead of making unreasonable demands.
Yes unreasonable because they were striking over the same exact thing that every company in America is dealing with. Passing more health costs onto the employee. Most would be thankful to have a job and be able to support their family but not union workers, they are better then the rest of us.
Sorry I like the other 90% in this country feel that the sooner unions are done away with the better off this country will be.
Labor laws have changed with time, unfortunately unions have not.

[tis]

I heard that about those electrical workers driving 24 hours from Alabama ( I heard to NY) to help but were turned away since they were union. Can you imagine? All those people are so desperate yet the workers weren't allowed????!!!! I think often it is the union bosses not the union members who are so greedy.

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by tis

I heard that about those electrical workers driving 24 hours from Alabama ( I heard to NY) to help but were turned away since they were union. Can you imagine? All those people are so desperate yet the workers weren't allowed????!!!! I think often it is the union bosses not the union members who are so greedy.

Remember Jimmy Hoffa?

[BroadHopper]

Not only union restrictions but state license. Trade people license in one state cannot work in another state unless the state makes an emergency agreement. My daughter is a licensed insurance adjuster/appraiser in Mass. When Katrina hit the Southern states, MetLife sent her to Louisiana to help out in the emergency, only to return home because Louisiana will only allow adjusters license in the state. To qualify requires so many hours working in the state and to past a test. You would think states would waiver license restrictions in case of emergency? Do license requirements vary that much between states? I would not think so. Most states adopt the RBC codes and the Feds set guidelines.

[P-3 Guy]

Originally Posted by PaugusBayFireFighter

We have so many qualified soldiers coming home unable to get jobs because they don't have the state license required to be hired.

The new GI Bill is a tremendous benefit for veterans, and it will even pay the exam/license fee for state professional licenses. If you're a qualified veteran with GI Bill benefits, not having a state professional license shouldn't be an excuse. If you're not qualified in a trade and want to get the training, the GI Bill will pay for the classes and provide a housing allowance; the eligible veteran just needs to supply the initiative.

[P-3 Guy]

Originally Posted by PaugusBayFireFighter

Just to clarify, my retirement pension is not paid by tax payers. Firefighter retirement benefits are not paid by the "taxpayers," cities, counties or state.

I certainly appreciate the job that first responders do in protecting our lives and property, and I intend no disrespect. But to deny that your pension is funded by taxpayer dollars is to stick your head in the sand. If part of your pension is funded by deferred compensation, where do you think that compensation comes from? Yup, the taxpayer. It doesn't matter whether or not it gets paid to you first before going into the pension fund, the dollars come from taxes collected by your employer.

Originally Posted by PaugusBayFireFighter

These funds come from employee and employer contributions made while the employee was working...

If your employer is a government entity and it makes contributions to your pension fund, where do those dollars come from if they're not from tax revenues?

[HomeWood]

This is what I will be looking into when I retire around 49 years old after about 28 years of law enforcement. Only about 16 years to go! A seasonal summer gig like this would be perfect when we move back up. This is my stay on topic point.

Now, us lowly civil servants know we won't become mega millionaires with our public sector jobs, but there is a trade off for a young age retirement and life long pensions. I contribute to my pension with my own pay into the state system. I'm not sure exactly how it works, but our pension system is tied into the stock market and there is billions in there. I'm not sure how much if any tax dollars are contributed to it, but from what I understand it is largely a self sustaining system. I do know that if the market takes a big enough hit, pensions could be in trouble. There was talk of this within the last several years.

Then there is the city supplement retirement check that is separate from the state pension check. That supplement ends when I start to collect social security. I guess the city may use tax dollars for that supplement program.

I also have a city 401k that I contribute to and I have a Roth IRA. I'm thinking beyond just the pension.

This is the deal I signed up for and I expect it to be fulfilled. It's not about having an entitlement mentality. Welfare moochers have an entitlement mentality. It's about receiving the pay and benefits I was promised for my years of service. I will have earned it and I won't feel guilty for receiving it.

I'm in a right to work state too, so the union debate to us here is a moot point. NC state law prohibits public sector employees from collective bargaining.

[Blue Thunder]

Originally Posted by HomeWood

This is what I will be looking into when I retire around 49 years old after about 28 years of law enforcement. Only about 16 years to go! A seasonal summer gig like this would be perfect when we move back up. This is my stay on topic point.

Now, us lowly civil servants know we won't become mega millionaires with our public sector jobs, but there is a trade off for a young age retirement and life long pensions. I contribute to my pension with my own pay into the state system. I'm not sure exactly how it works, but our pension system is tied into the stock market and there is billions in there. I'm not sure how much if any tax dollars are contributed to it, but from what I understand it is largely a self sustaining system. I do know that if the market takes a big enough hit, pensions could be in trouble. There was talk of this within the last several years.

Then there is the city supplement retirement check that is separate from the state pension check. That supplement ends when I start to collect social security. I guess the city may use tax dollars for that supplement program.

I also have a city 401k that I contribute to and I have a Roth IRA. I'm thinking beyond just the pension.

This is the deal I signed up for and I expect it to be fulfilled. It's not about having an entitlement mentality. Welfare moochers have an entitlement mentality. It's about receiving the pay and benefits I was promised for my years of service. I will have earned it and I won't feel guilty for receiving it.

I'm in a right to work state too, so the union debate to us here is a moot point. NC state law prohibits public sector employees from collective bargaining.

You may not be eligible for SS due to a Federal rule called the WEP, Windfall Elimination Provision. As a government employee you are contributing to your retirement system so therefore you are not contributing to SS. If I'm doing the math correctly you started in your LE career at a very young age. Chances are you didn't work at another non government job for ten years (40 quarters) and pay into SS. So unless you retire and then get a job where you will be paying into SS for at least ten years its more than likely you won't be collecting much, if any SS.

[secondcurve]

Originally Posted by HomeWood

This is what I will be looking into when I retire around 49 years old after about 28 years of law enforcement. Only about 16 years to go! A seasonal summer gig like this would be perfect when we move back up. This is my stay on topic point.

Now, us lowly civil servants know we won't become mega millionaires with our public sector jobs, but there is a trade off for a young age retirement and life long pensions. I contribute to my pension with my own pay into the state system. I'm not sure exactly how it works, but our pension system is tied into the stock market and there is billions in there. I'm not sure how much if any tax dollars are contributed to it, but from what I understand it is largely a self sustaining system. I do know that if the market takes a big enough hit, pensions could be in trouble. There was talk of this within the last several years.

Then there is the city supplement retirement check that is separate from the state pension check. That supplement ends when I start to collect social security. I guess the city may use tax dollars for that supplement program.

I also have a city 401k that I contribute to and I have a Roth IRA. I'm thinking beyond just the pension.

This is the deal I signed up for and I expect it to be fulfilled. It's not about having an entitlement mentality. Welfare moochers have an entitlement mentality. It's about receiving the pay and benefits I was promised for my years of service. I will have earned it and I won't feel guilty for receiving it.

I'm in a right to work state too, so the union debate to us here is a moot point. NC state law prohibits public sector employees from collective bargaining.

Looks like your the best house in a bad neighborhood according to the below excerpt from a September 2012 article I just found on the web:

"The percentage of unfunded liability varies from state to state. North Carolina has the lowest at 37.1 percent (if having a third of your pension debt unfunded can truly be called low). Illinois has the highest at 71.8 percent. Something else to keep in mind when thinking about all those raises the teachers in Chicago just received."

Everyone out there should be focused on these unfunded state pensions because ultimately, the US government will be asked to bail out the state systems since these pensions are insolvent. The problem is the US government is insolvent, too.

While I agree that it is difficult not to receive a pension that was promised that is exactly the way it works in the private sector. Case in point: I was working for a triple A rated, large multinational several years back. In june it announced its pension would be terminated in December! That was it. End of story. I didn't whine but I did leave and join another organization for a better deal to help me make up the shortfall. That is the way it works in the real world.

[Belmont Resident]

Originally Posted by secondcurve

Looks like your the best house in a bad neighborhood according to the below excerpt from a September 2012 article I just found on the web:

"The percentage of unfunded liability varies from state to state. North Carolina has the lowest at 37.1 percent (if having a third of your pension debt unfunded can truly be called low). Illinois has the highest at 71.8 percent. Something else to keep in mind when thinking about all those raises the teachers in Chicago just received."

Everyone out there should be focused on these unfunded state pensions because ultimately, the US government will be asked to bail out the state systems since these pensions are insolvent. The problem is the US government is insolvent, too.

While I agree that it is difficult not to receive a pension that was promised that is exactly the way it works in the private sector. Case in point: I was working for a triple A rated, large multinational several years back. In june it announced its pension would be terminated in December! That was it. End of story. I didn't whine but I did leave and join another organization for a better deal to help me make up the shortfall. That is the way it works in the real world.

Good points, and lets hope the government stays away for bailouts and lets things work out the way they should have a long time ago.
Like the housing market, no one forced many of the homeowners to sign on the doted line full well knowing they were putting themselves in a position to fail should something change.
It is easy to cast blame on the banks but in the end the decision is ours on how far our income can be stretched.

[TiltonBB]

What about the expense to the taxpayer that comes with replacing the worker with 20 years experience with a new person?

The new hire in a police or fire department must attend an academy and the cost of their salary as well as their training while at the academy is paid with our tax dollars. The new hire will be less experienced and make more mistakes than someone with 20 years experience. Public sector workers that retire in their early 40's are costing the taxpayers a fortune.

What about retiree benefits? I know of some municipal jobs with early retirement that provide medical and dental benefits to the retiree and their family for the rest of their lives.

Early retirement of public sector workers is a scam on the taxpayers and it continues so that the politicians can get the endorsement and support of the public sector unions.

I agree that it has been a negotiated benefit but maybe that says more about the politicans that people vote for than the workers taking advantage of the opportunity!

[Lakesrider]

Is this the boating forum, or the payroll forum?

[Senter Cove Guy]

This thread has gone from fun to pathetic.

[NightWing]

Back in 1991, the starting rate for MP Officers was $7.87/hr.