1 posted on
03/13/2010 8:37:47 AM PST by
redreno
To: redreno
They never make the economically obvious choice of simply eliminating jobs. That would be an acknowledgement that the kingdom is too big, and that the king has too big of an army.
2 posted on
03/13/2010 8:42:08 AM PST by
jiggyboy
(Ten per cent of poll respondents are either lying or insane)
To: redreno
I’ll bet there are long, long, waiting lists of people who want to be firefighters.
Fire the current workers and hire new.
Obviously a certain amount of judgement needs to be used in order to maintain a certain level of fire crew experience.
3 posted on
03/13/2010 8:44:27 AM PST by
Balding_Eagle
(If America falls, darkness will cover the face of the earth for a thousand years.)
To: redreno
Could they put the city in bankruptcy and do it that way?
To: redreno
The most logical approach is to privatize the fire services. They simply put the jobs up for bid. They fact is that firefighters are the Worlds most expensive insurance policy. As important as they are the majority of the time they sit around and watch TV at the taxpayers expense. It is time to eliminate the repulsive costs of keeping these people on staff. Private firms would do best at managing and paying these people. We would eliminate the repulsive pay and benefits packages and the ridiculous pension plans that allow people in their forties and fifties to retire with lifetime pay and benefits.
7 posted on
03/13/2010 10:06:25 AM PST by
Jim from C-Town
(The government is rarely benevolent, often malevolent and never benign!)
To: redreno
I do believe there was a tax break just introduce for new hires, perhaps there is a loophole businesses are using, fire your workforce and then re-hire, get a tax break.
8 posted on
03/13/2010 10:08:40 AM PST by
Eye of Unk
("Either you are with us or you are for the terrorists." ~~George W. Bush)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson