I would assume profit since their unpaid EMS fees are well over 120 million every year but I cannot say for sure. But the union would likely not offer that suggestion if it was a gross income. Would make no sense for them in a negotiation manor.
I do find the attitude of if you don't like it go somewhere else ridiculous. What if they want to work in the area and field where they can make a difference. Do they not have any recourse to make their work situation better? Police officers and firefighters go in knowing that they will have a larger workload then any other surrounding departments and still do it with threat of being killed and with firefighters knowing that their life is cut by 10-15 years by cancer due to the toxic environments they are exposed to throughout their careers. But they still do it. Why? Because they both want to protect the community their serve.
Not really the same thing. Infrastructure improvements are building an asset you get benefit from for many years. If the bus lane is useful for 20 years, it's an amortized $10 million a year. Salaries are operating expense, so a $90 million raise is $90 million every year (and growing). Rocket River[/QUOTE] That's topline revenue. They don't have profit because they don't have a P&L. Their fees go into the general fund and they have a budget funded from the general fund. Here is their 2017 budget proposal: http://houstontx.gov/budget/17budprop/III_FIR.pdf
Cool. No P&L but it looks like their annual expenditures in the budget are just over $500 million. So they are pretty close to paying for themselves, which is as it should be. If they were walking away with a $500 million annual surplus, I was going to be pissed. Essential services shouldn't be for profit.
I don't really consider 20% to be all that close to paying for themselves. But, it's cool. City taxpayers have a common interest in HFD services, so paying out of taxes is fine. Related, City Council is considering a proposal to increase fees for some HFD services: https://www.chron.com/news/houston-...ses-sharp-hike-in-ambulance-fees-13063605.php
Sorry. Just looked at expenditures and went with the $500 mill quoted earlier as revenue. You are absolutely right, I was mistaken.
So the Police Officer's Union filed a temporary restraining order against the proposition https://www.bizjournals.com/houston...irefighters-accept-tony-buzbees-pro-bono.html
I wish the Policeman's Union would have been more vocal before the referendum and explained how the prop would hurt them and what actions they would take if it passed. The article does not do a good job of explaining what state law/constitution provisions this measure would violate. Dallas supposedly has this pay parity. I already don't like Tony Buzzbee for mayor. I think it's great he'll do pro bono work for the firefighters union to try to mediate the situation without litigation. But this is absolutely political opportunism. It doesn't seem to me like there's much opportunity for mediation, but if there is he can claim credit for finding it. And if there's no resolution, he'll take it as ammunition to attack Turner with. You can see it in the other platform items he's named -- pay-to-play, corruption, crime (are the police you're 'mediating' with not doing a good enough job?), and drainage (has the city not done a good enough job, even though it's mostly the state and county that have the responsibility?). Looks to me like he'll be going at this election campaign full throttle and will be taking no prisoners. I can tell already his grandstanding will rub me the wrong way.
I agree the article doesnt attempt to explain the reasoning behind the police union's challenge in regards to the state constitution and i agree, on questioning why they waited till after the election to say they do not support it. Do they think it will drag their pay down? I can see that argument. To me its different jobs, different skill sets, different requirements etc and therefore pay should not be associated. Obviously they're all first responders but they address different problems
We did campaign against it prettt heavily prior to the November election. I can think of at least 5 instances the HPOU President was on local news explaining the issues the union had with the prop as written and the consequences that would adversely effect several city departments as a result of its implementation. There were block walks in the same districts that the firefighters were walking in. The biggest issue is this became the Fire Department vs Mayor Turner and the mayor did a terrible job of attempting to explain the real issues, only spent campaign time calling the fire fighters liars instead of addressing the same issues the police union was attempting to show.
Thanks. I was aware the Policeman's Union opposed it, and the logic of the opposition was self-evident I thought. But I didn't see the police's effort to oppose it. Maybe I listen to the wrong radio stations. I heard from the mayor, from the firefighter's union, I saw the fire fighter yard signs, but I only heard passing reference to the police's opposition. Fire fighters unfortunately beat you on enthusiasm and saturation. On a tangent, this direct democracy stuff where people vote in referenda on actual policy choices -- it's a helluva terrible idea. Fortunately, this is just a municipal decision and not the mother of all bad referendum efforts -- Brexit. Voters -- including me -- are not educated enough on the particulars to decide policy. They should choose people to become the subject matter experts to make these decisions on their behalf. Nevada has a good policy on this. In Nevada, you can change the state constitution by a referendum. But the referendum has to win a second time two years later in order to make the change. That way, the people have to really want something or at least there has to be nobody sufficiently hurt by it that they'd organize a No campaign the second time around. If we did that in Houston, the policeman's union would have 2 years to talk people out of doing this policy.
https://www.click2houston.com/news/...-lay-off-400-firefighters-to-implement-prop-b City Councilman Jack Christie told KPRC2 the plan includes decreasing firefighter shifts from four to three, which could result in about 220 firefighter layoffs. It’s unclear from where the remainder of the cuts will come to reach the proposed total of up to 400. Benton said no firefighters will be laid off Friday, and the council still has to approve Turner’s plan and vote on what it is willing to pass in order to balance the budget and pay firefighters.
Turner is going to have a hard time surviving this firefighter fiasco. Too much opportunity for rivals to second guess and criticize his choices from the safety of their armchairs.
