(AP) – Life is good for the full-time lifeguard staff at California's Newport Beach, or at least it was, until someone caught a glimpse of their paychecks. Since a newspaper editorialized about salaries, benefits, and overtime pay that in at least two instances top $200,000 (with $400 for sun protection), a swell of anger from beachgoers and budget-watchers has blindsided the lifeguards. Only about half of that paycheck is salary, the rest is in the perks; after adding in overtime, special compensation, pension—Newport Beach's lifeguards can retire at 50 with 90% of their salary—medical benefits, and life insurance, even the lowest-paid officer made more than $98,000. The news comes as the city struggles to rein in pension costs.

Those whose salaries are in question point out that they hold management roles, have decades of service and are considered public safety employees under the fire department. "Unfortunately, there's a lot of disinformation out there. People get this idea that we're talking about 17-year-old kids in lifeguard towers making $200,000 and that's not correct," said the president of a lifeguards’ union. "We're professional level. Lifeguarding here is different than any other place in the entire world."



http://www.newser.com/story/119029/newport-beach-lifeguards-make-200k-a-year.html

LOL. They wanna cut people's pensions....but there is no uproar over CEO's making tens of millions of dollars a year and getting bonuses that stump the yearly salary of these lifeguards and everybody else when THEY are the ones who don't do shit. So freaking what. If these lifeguards can make that kind of money, then let them.

Nystyle709 wrote:

LOL. They wanna cut people's pensions....but there is no uproar over CEO's making tens of millions of dollars a year and getting bonuses that stump the yearly salary of these lifeguards and everybody else when THEY are the ones who don't do shit. So freaking what. If these lifeguards can make that kind of money, then let them.

Oh I think there is an uproar over CEO salaries but those aren't paid by taxpayers. Not directly anyway. Still, I guess we can make "Become a CA lifeguard" to Tony's list of how to become a millionaire. Does that really seem right?

Nystyle709 wrote:

The median wage for most of them is under 40K a year too. They make over that amount of money because the work OVERTIME. If you actually read what I wrote, instead of quoting only one part, you'll see that I said them making 200k isn't standard. They have to WORK for it. And what do you mean 'struggling to support them'? Struggling to support who? HOW?! It's wrong for them to have health benefits? Dental benefits? Read the article. These lifeguards 'perks' are health benefits and life insurance. That's what they get after dedicating half their damn lives to public service. LOL, and you have a problem with that? Cities are broke because of greed and mismanagement. It has nothing to do with them and it's not their fault. To fix the mess cause by said greed and management, they look to cut services from the public sector when they weren't the ones who caused this fiasco. That's not right and it's not fair. Why should the financial crisis and cities budget be fixed and balanced on the backs of the middle class who actually work for their 200k salaries? Who actually put in the time and sacrifice more than enough to make that kind of money? Bullshit.[/b]

I think we hit a nerve here. In some cases the mismanagement had to do with state and local governments not adjusting the Cadillac benefit packages of public employees after their wages and benefits caught up to and in many cases surpassed those in the private sector. I concede that the average rank and file public worker isn't going to become a millionaire off the system but too often they are the ones who won't concede that the system is unsustainable. Many members of private unions have recognized that if they don't make some give backs on the job, they won't have jobs. It wasn't that long ago that it was pointed out to a high official in our state's teacher's union that the public didn't have the money to pay for the benefits her organization was demanding. Her response was, "Well they better find the money." That attitude doesn't endear me to her cause.

TMI DNR ^^^

At this point, you may note that I did not even attempt to read any of the above two posts.

Nystyle709 wrote:

...I've noticed that you don't like to participate in discussions where your sentiments aren't shared. I've given valid reasons for my arguments. Tis all good though. *insert Nystyle dig here*. [/b][img]

No, I just don't like to engage in pointless "discussions" akin to beating a dead horse that will go on and on without really going anywhere.

Shale wrote:

Nystyle709 wrote:

...I've noticed that you don't like to participate in discussions where your sentiments aren't shared. I've given valid reasons for my arguments. Tis all good though. *insert Nystyle dig here*. [/b][img]

No, I just don't like to engage in pointless "discussions" akin to beating a dead horse that will go on and on without really going anywhere.

LOL! It's 'pointless' for me to disagree with you? IYSS. LOL, what a crack up.

I can't hate (no matter how silly it sounds.) Get that money.