Home › Opinion › Opinion
Howry: Public needs to know what its employees earn
A firestorm over wages
Download this story as a podcast!
STORY TOOLS
More from Opinion
Taxpayers are good bosses. They pay reasonably well, they provide great benefits and they offer retirement packages far more generous than what is available in the private sector. There is lots of security working for the taxpayers. Layoffs are far and few between, and they don't demand accountability to a profit/loss statement. A person has to work hard to lose a job with the taxpayers.
There is a drawback to working for the taxpayers. Taxpayers require that certain information be open and accessible to the public. It's their way of ensuring accountability. Employers must know what they're paying their employees to make sure they're getting what they pay for. In this sense, taxpayers are no different from any other employer.
Most people prefer to keep private what they earn. The trade-off for working with the public is that one must forfeit this area of privacy. For many, the benefits far outweigh the loss of privacy and, for some, there is the belief that it is a necessary part of the relationship that goes with public service.
Aug. 5, The Star presented one of its periodic reports on what some public employees earn. The report focused on overtime that was being earned by county firefighters and sheriff's deputies. The report showed that some firefighters and deputies are earning, with overtime, more than their supervisors and that some are among the highest wage earners on the county payroll.
The story also addressed the concern among county officials that excessive overtime could have an impact on employees' effectiveness as well as having an adverse affect on their home life. Some were mildly criticized for being "overtime mercenaries."
The story did not report that there was anything wrong, illegal or unethical about how overtime was being distributed. The story did not say that those who worked overtime didn't earn the pay or that it was unnecessary. The story did not attempt to cast anyone in a bad light or suggest that anyone was taking advantage of the situation at their boss' — the taxpayers' — expense.
The reaction to the story was predictable in a county that holds public safety in such high regard. The reporter and The Star were accused of bias, of being anti-cop and anti-firefighter. We also were accused of being one-sided, unfair and inaccurate.
The biggest complaint was that we didn't tell the other side of the story about how deputies and firefighters make tremendous sacrifices in their jobs to protect us. We failed, the critics said, to talk about the dangers they face and how they are modern-day heroes who selflessly protect our lives, our loved ones and our homes.
All of which is true, and all of which is printed in the newspaper almost on a daily basis in columns, letters to the editor, editorials and news stories. No one doubts the sacrifices, hardships and dangers public-safety employees must endure. No one begrudges the pay they earn and, in fact, most would like to pay more if it were feasible.
Some might question, however, guaranteed overtime that is paid, whether it is worked or not. They also might question the appropriateness of the guaranteed overtime being applied to retirement. But, in the overall scheme of things, those are but niggling matters.
What neither the story nor the critics addressed was that no one was forced to become a deputy or a firefighter. It was a choice and one they clearly knew would require sacrifices; that the jobs would be demanding and tough and dangerous and, sometimes, thankless. That comes with the territory when one chooses to enter public service, and we are grateful to those who make that choice.
While the vast majority of firefighters and deputies know this and accept it, others either never knew or have forgotten whom they work for. They regard their bosses as nuisances at best, and, in extreme cases, as the enemy. They can be arrogant, abusive and scary. One high-ranking officer in the Sheriff's Department who was angered by the story told our reporter that her reputation wasn't good in the department and that she had "better watch it." Is there any way to take that other than a threat?
There are knee-jerk types, both in the ranks and in the community, who believe any scrutiny of public-safety employees is totally unwarranted and unnecessary. Even the mildest of scrutiny is met by shrill attacks, assigning unscrupulous motives and alleging bias, irresponsibility, inaccuracies and unfairness. They would prefer that we would be grateful to our public-safety employees, say thank you, and then shut up. Hopefully, they are in the minority.
We are lucky in Ventura County to have so many honest, hard-working and dedicated public-safety employees. They are lucky to have such generous and supportive bosses.
— Joe R. Howry is editor of The Star. He can be reached by phone at 437-0200 and by e-mail at jhowry@VenturaCountyStar.com.
Posted by NothingButTheTruth on August 12, 2007 at 8:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Joe, I'm not sure what the point is that you're trying to make. Are you saying employers are refusing to give you salary information of public employees? If so, why didn't you say that? It is ALLEGED that "excessive overtime could have an impact on employees' effectiveness". Joe, allegations are not proven facts. You tend to vacillate back & forth between bashing employees for working overtime and then saying they are doing nothing wrong. Joe it's like the indians used to say "the white man speaks with forked tongue." Your ONLY significant and specific gripe was about a "high ranking Sheriff official" [not paid overtive] for a remark to a fellow reporter. The report was supposed to "focus on overtime"; you said some earn more than their supervisors... so? Sounds to me like you're jealous. Well Joe, go ask your boss for a raise!
Posted by Tom_Johnston on August 12, 2007 at 8:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Joe, I think you miss the point here.
The benefits and disadvantages of being a public employee are well known, especially to those of us in that sector of employment. That is not what this article is about, nor is it what the criticism is about.
That all this information is public isn't really the point either. I'm pretty sure most public sector employees get that too.
My point at least is that this is tired and lazy journalism. This article has appeared in barely different form before. We've heard this story before.
The article was as dull as reading the County budget might be.
There was no attempt to find out why this happens. Why do some County Unions have negotiated contracts that mandate overtime? I can assure you that most of the County Unions do not have this in their contracts.
By focusing on the top 20, we fail to hear or learn about what the average worker in Fire or the Sheriffs department is doing. Most of those top 20 appear to have been supervisory. I'm not saying they don't work hard, but they were not rank and file workers. We don't learn anything about the impact on their lives or families. We don't know if they like this or not.
We learned nothing about whether additional hires might make a difference or benefit. Is the overtime required because we can't recruit? Or because we won't open positions and then recruit? Beats me, this article didn't go there did it?
I'm seeing the same kind of reporting that I've seen in regards to other union activities within the County, public and private, issues of Public Safety and Health, and with the recent St John's closure issues. I see not so subtle bias and a tendency to sensationalize.
With this article we can now add lazy and incomplete to the list. To be fair, the Star does do great journalism, this article just wasn't one of those.
I'd tell you that I look forward to next years "Overtime Excess!" feature, but I'm sure I can stifle my yawn until then.
Posted by T_T on August 12, 2007 at 10:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I do not think that Joe misses any point. He states facts. My conclusion is that the county management of its employees' overtime is poor (I certainly cannot blame the hard worker). I cannot imagine any private organization paying its employees equivalently and allowing so much paid overtime.
Posted by Justme on August 12, 2007 at 11:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I am a proud county worker and a manager. As a manager I have a flat salary regardless of the long hours I work. So I find it odd that the high ranking managers/supervisors in the public safety arena get OT while most of the high ranking staff in other area's of the county do not. Makes me go hmmmmmmmm!
Posted by Tom_Johnston on August 12, 2007 at 5:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
T_T....I think you miss the point.
This article, as it has in the past, singles out a relative handful of workers, many of this top 20 are in fact salaried managers.
Most of those not salaried managers would appear to be lower level managers or supervisors. Not rank and file.
The County of Ventura employs some 6000 or so people. Is this article singling out a small portion of 20 people relevant? It is not even statistically a fair pool to look at.
What it is is bogus. An attempt to grab sensational (such as they are in Ventura County) headlines. Stir up the people...get them to buy papers.
If the 6000 employee number is even close, this article at most singles out less than 0.4% of County workers. This is a waste of time and newsprint. It's bad journalism, it's lazy journalism. It's like watching Rocky XX. We've seen this movie before!
Yes, the Star invoked a reaction from some angry County workers and family (mainly firefighters), and I think this was expected. I don't fault them for their outrage, but again the real issue here is not what this article purports to reveal about overtime practices in the County, but rather what it reveals about the Star and an uneven level of journalistic excellence
Posted by sldiaz on August 13, 2007 at 11:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Joe, once again you did a horrible job at proving a point (at least I think that is what you were trying to do) In fact, this time, you probably enraged more readers by defending, what you call a JOURNALIST. I agree with Tom J. that they appear to be lazy. Again, print both sides of the story. I can understand the frustration of the officer who read the article and was not pleased.....last I heard, there are alot of Firemen and Police Officers that are canceling their subscriptions. Nice going!
Posted by KC on August 13, 2007 at 12:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Joe - if you're going to print the top 20 salaries for police officers and firefighters, you should also print the AVERAGE. By posting salaries that are all 6-figures, you are creating a bias that all firefighters and police officers make too much money. While you're at it, print the average salaries for these departments in surrounding areas, such as Santa Monica, LA and Santa Barbara -you will see that the salary and benefits for Ventura County are often less.
I think people are just asking for the entire story - not this one-sided journalism that you've produced consistently every year for the past 5 years. Yes, a new original twist would be appreciated.
Posted by Tom_Johnston on August 13, 2007 at 7 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm not sure that journalism always need to tell both sides of a story. Reporters at the Star are not referees. I do expect at least some point of view (though not to the point of obvious and systematic bias).
This story told nothing new...nothing interesting, nothing more controversial than a few fire personell taking personal outrage..kind of like poking a stick into a someone's eye. Yep, they'll get PO'd!
KC has some good points.....so, Joe, point your reporter in that sort of general direction..let's no have them just "dial it in" again.
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.