Recently, Wisconsin caught the eye of the public safety community when the governor and legislators became embroiled in a stand-off over their state’s budgetary imbalance. The governor’s solution to balancing the budget included drastic cuts to government workers (labor) and their benefits and programs.
Wisconsin isn’t unique. Many state retirement systems are moderately to grossly underfunded, and political leaders often blame these financial woes on public employees and their benefits. An untold number of cities are asking for significant concessions from their employee groups. The consequence: Aging Baby Boomers–experienced leaders, fire chiefs, senior firefighters–are leaving fire departments due to deep concessions affecting their eventual retirement earnings.
While this is occurring, local politicians are running for city halls by running against City Hall. Add in the stock market crash, loss of jobs, the housing market hitting rock bottom and city managers’ credo, “Never waste a good recession,” and public employees have a lot of reasons to be very anxious. As in Wisconsin, new governors are finding out that their benefit programs are underfunded based in part on political decisions from past governors. Now they need a plan to fix the problem. How? By blaming labor: “Those greedy labor unions” in general, “public safety pensions” specifically and “fat cat” administrators in particular.
However, they fail to mention that many pension funds were not appropriately funded. At times it was easy for governments to defer funding pensions, to spend the money elsewhere and/or not pay the debt. Now the “easy” solution is to take it away or blame the problem of costly public safety and civil servants on their predecessor or the other political party. One must remember that politicians willingly agreed to these benefit programs over the last 30 years. This is not just Big Government; councils and boards made decisions to enhance benefits as well. Virtually every community has done this–and in good faith at the time.
The Blame Game
Recessions aren’t new; 10 of them have occurred since WWII (2007, 2001, 1990, 1981, 1973, 1970, 1960, 1957, 1948, 1945). It stands to reason that administrators found a way to provide benefits during these recessions when money was tight. It’s also a reasonable assumption that cities and/or districts increased healthcare options at a time when healthcare costs weren’t doubling every five years. Furthermore, many retirement boards offered enhanced retirement plans based on their mission to provide the very best employee retirement benefits.
Bottom line: When they had excess money, plan administrators enhanced benefits, and communities learned that an enhanced plan would cost them nothing. Older, more costly employees could retire earlier and be replaced with younger, less-expensive members–a considerable savings.
Benefit plans are based upon the nature of the workforce. If you’re in an industry where employees tend to move from company to company, transportable retirement and healthcare is important to you. However, cities and districts–along with the citizens we serve–value longevity, so defined benefits are more important and are a part of our total compensation.
There has been a confluence of factors and events not easily understood by the average citizen or by firefighters–and one that’s certainly not the fault of the fire service. This blame game has been expertly orchestrated by politicians trying to hold on to their jobs by deflecting their own responsibility for the problem, and the press who wants to keep the issue alive (in the media) while saying nothing about greedy bankers, homeowners and stock brokers. The majority of our firefighters have never seen a recession of this magnitude. Not only do they face the same pressures as the general public (possibly being upside down in their homes, taking home reduced benefits and having fewer OT opportunities), they face an angry public who blames them for their loss of home, job, 401(k), etc.
Here is the point: Firefighters can’t defend themselves against misplaced emotions and unwarranted attacks, but fire chiefs can–and should.
Understanding the Battle
What if we approach this issue like an actual incident? What operating mode would you take–offensive, defensive, investigating or passing command? Here’s my size up:
“Chief 6100, on the scene of a large marketing disaster; corrected address, the American public; in attack mode; establishing PR command. The Command Post is located on Main Street, USA. We will be making a direct attack on the corner of press and politics.”
Here are some quick facts and my speaking points:
- The economy went south.
- The Federal Regulatory Commission failed to manage the banking industry.
- Banks went under. Banks were bailed out. Individuals were not.
- The stock market crashed because that is what the stock market does every 3 to 7 years with a high degree of certainty: 2007, 2002, 2000, 1997, 1992, 1989, 1987, 1980, 1973, etc.
- The housing market crashed, due to greed on most everyone’s part.
- Business plummeted because of the market
- Jobs were lost.
- Retirement benefits interject billions into state economies (in California, $11 billion per year).
- According to the Pew Center and the National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems, most systems are funded at 78 percent. Pension funds have the luxury of time and compounding inertest to recoup losses.
- There are approximately 1.2 million firefighters (80 percent are volunteers, 300,000 paid) protecting 80 percent of the U.S. population.
The aforementioned factors created a perfect financial storm, and firefighters have made personal and financial sacrifices as a result, including but not limited to staff, grant and program cuts. Yet most firefighters that have their own retirements do not draw Social Security due, thereby saving the U.S. taxpayers money. Furthermore, most firefighters have healthcare, thus never burdening, local, state or national healthcare systems.
Question to ponder: Are 300,000 paid firefighters the real issue here?
Weather the Storm
Take the lead. This issue will not self-neutralize. Doing nothing allows the firestorm (i.e., political storm) to grow. Fire chiefs must ask–and answer–the questions that aren’t being asked. Shouldn’t everyone have some form of healthcare and retirement? We should take great pride in our achievements, not run and hide from them. One of those achievements is ensuring we have healthcare and retirement benefits so we don’t become a burden to our families or the American public (Social Security, Medicare or the welfare system). Firefighters are responsible Americans and model citizens in just about every aspect of our existence: values, service, community involvement, financial and retirement. We live modestly and take care of our own. We are self-reliant, caring and compassionate, and, when necessary, brutally aggressive if life and property are at stake. Our profession is also admired more than any other. Never forget this last point.
This is not the time for “servant leadership.” Nor can you protect your members when you lead from the middle. This situation requires a leader who stands up to community service groups, our citizens and press, and says, “Don’t attack the firefighters who have sworn by an oath to serve and protect.”
A Political Hill Worth Dying On
It’s amazing to think about how, in 10 short years, firefighters went from being absolutely revered to being the target of scorn. My brother-in-law was a member of a USAR team that worked on the pile in the aftermath of 9/11. His money wasn’t any good in New York–that’s how much they respected the firefighters for their sacrifice. And that extended to the rest of us across the country. We were cheered, honored and honked at by our citizens on highways and byways throughout this country. The sacrifice on the East Coast had an awakening on the American psyche toward first responders.
9/11 wasn’t the first time it had happened. It occurred years earlier with the movie “Backdraft.” “You go, we go”: Though these words seemed corny and the fires larger than life, the movie captured the culture of the fire service, and accurately portrayed the good-natured bantering, the fellowship and camaraderie. It also portrayed the hard edge and raw aggression necessary to save lives and one another, as well as our values and our extraordinary, selfless commitment to put strangers’ lives ahead of our own.
Why was this movie so popular? Because our citizens understand our commitment and dedication, and the communities we serve admire us for it. They know we didn’t cause the stock market to crash, the banking industry to implode or the housing market to evaporate. It’s that sentiment we have to tap into.
So what’s your assessment? Hopefully it is not cowering and sitting back, being mulled by faceless reporters who stir up politicians, who stir up other reporters, who stir up some of our community members, who actually love their firefighters but are mislead into seeing us as part of the problem.
Defense or offense? You decide. I believe that you take the fight where you want it. Be proactive. Don’t wait for it to come to you. Bottom line: As in our role in emergency management, we did not cause this global incident. It’s not our fault; we are victims as well, but we will not be portrayed as villains.
