Gilroy
– Those who responded to a Dispatch survey said they think
firefighters deserve the raise and improved benefits they are
asking for, but not at the expense of taxpayers.
By Lori Stuenkel
Gilroy – Those who responded to a Dispatch survey said they think firefighters deserve the raise and improved benefits they are asking for, but not at the expense of taxpayers.
In a voluntary, unscientific poll conducted on The Dispatch Web site during March and April, 370 people answered nine questions pertaining to firefighter pay and retirement benefits, and whether the city should meet the demands of Firefighters’ Local 2805. Contract negotiations between the union and the city reached an impasse in late February, with firefighters asking for a 9 percent pay raise and earlier retirement, among other things, while officials say the city can’t afford the package.
According to the survey, a slim majority of respondents said firefighters deserve a 9 percent pay increase, as well as a retirement package equal to that of Gilroy police, who can retire with 90 percent of their salary after 30 years of work.
“That sounds like a very educated group of people – knowing of the situation to answer the questions,” said Jim Buessing, fire union secretary and treasurer. “It means they’re keeping track, and understanding what the situation is.”
But at the same time, 68 percent of respondents said the city should not raise taxes to pay for it. City officials have said the demands equal a 26-percent increase in total compensation over the next three years, which they cannot afford.
“The same people that gave us those answers – any magic wand that they have that can provide the funding without increase in any way from the revenue, I would like to see it,” Mayor Al Pinheiro said.
The Gilroy resident who submitted the survey questions, Frank Mikrut, said that dichotomy is part of the reason firefighter compensation has become a flashpoint.
“If the city wasn’t in such a bad financial condition, it wouldn’t be an issue. The state is draining the city, we don’t have the funds, and it doesn’t seem fair that (firefighters) get so much and then we can’t fund other things,” Mikrut said. “If the people feel that (firefighters) should get these benefits, then they can’t cry about sidewalks not getting fixed, or any of these other cutbacks.”
Mikrut, 62, a 20-year Gilroy resident, said he got factual information for the questions from articles in The Dispatch and generated the questions himself. The questions were posted on The Dispatch Web site, and respondents were locked out after answering them once.
“My biggest interest is the retirement benefits,” said Mikrut, who completed the survey online. “It doesn’t seem fair that these guys … retire so early and with such good benefits when the rest of us wait ’till 65 and with a 401(k) at that. I could see 50 percent of the retirement pay, but 90?”
Buessing, despite the results, called the wording of the questions biased. He said he took the survey, but did not know if many firefighters did.
“I thought they were biased toward a certain reaction to the questions,” he said. “Therefore, it’s a non-objective questionnaire in my mind. Someone that didn’t have a clue what was going on could easily answer those, but based on the question, come up with a completely different response.”
The first question asked, “Do you think that a firefighter’s compensation of more than $100,000 per year is excessive since they are on the job only 10 24-hour shifts per month?”
“Well, certainly, they’re biased,” Mikrut said. “Everybody’s got a bias, including firefighters. The whole purpose is let’s get a feel for what other people are thinking besides me.”
Most of the answers leaned in favor of the firefighters’ demands, if only slightly.
For that first question, 47 percent of respondents said firefighters are overly compensated, while 53 percent said they are not.
Fewer respondents – 43 percent – thought people earning that much money can “well afford” to provide for their retirement with a 401(k).
“It’s nice that people feel that way, and I’m pleased to hear that,” said Ken Heredia, Local 2805’s chief negotiator. “I’m glad it didn’t go the other way.”
He said he was not surprised that respondents rejected the idea of higher taxes.
“People definitely want to see (firefighters) compensated, but they don’t want their own increases,” he said, noting that voters have rejected such tax increases in past years. “But there would be no need to increase taxes to reach that level of compensation.”
Survey question 5, which asked whether firefighters should get the same retirement benefits as police officers, garnered the most lopsided response: just over 69 percent of people said that they should. Sixty-seven percent said a firefighter’s job is just as dangerous as a police officer’s.
Police negotiated for the “3 at 50” retirement package in 2001, which allows them to retire at 50 years old with 90 percent of their salary. Under their current “2 at 50” formula, firefighters can retire at 56 with 90 percent of their salary.
“They might deserve certain things, but that’s not the question. The question is, how do you fund it?” Pinheiro said. “Anywhere from 75 to 80 percent of each dollar for the city goes to police and fire and you have a remainder of 20 percent to do the rest of city business. Without taking from those 20 cents, how do you provide the things we need to provide?
“We’re lucky that we’ve been able to not cut back on the services, not cut back on police and fire.”
In other survey questions, 66 percent of people said they were not going to receive a 9 percent raise over three years; 61 percent said they do not approve of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s plan to reign in state employees’ pension packages; and 57 percent said firefighters’ salaries should not be rolled back as some industries – airlines, for example – are doing.
