Firefighters fight uphill battle explaining wage concessions

Few things are as unabashedly American as mom, baseball and apple pie.

Then one day you learn your mother wasn't all that fond of you. And it turns out those big leaguers were a bunch of steroid freaks. Then you discover the apple pie you love packs enough fat to stop your heart.

That, in brief, puts into perspective what Southern Nevada firefighters are experiencing these days. Once considered heroes who were essentially politically untouchable, they're increasingly being criticized for their high salaries and benefits as well as their unwillingness to take deep pay cuts to help balance recession-strapped local government budgets.

From the reaction I'm getting after Tuesday's column on the North Las Vegas firefighter union's attempt to remind skeptics that its members are sacrificing sufficiently, the first responders still have some work to do.

Valley firefighters getting blasted by the citizens: In all my years as a columnist, I've never seen anything like it.

In an advertisement in today's Review-Journal, the North Las Vegas union has attempted to explain how members offered to defer their cost of living allowances for the next two years, but city officials say that isn't nearly enough at a time they are compelled to lay off 204 workers to offset a $33.4 million shortfall.

Writes one reader: "I am one of the other 204 employees which are losing their job. I feel it's just as much the firefighters' and police department's position to give up employees as we have. Why put all the jobs lost on Teamsters positions, public works, administration and other vital parts of the city? The city spent a lot to train me at my position and now they're going to lose it. I know from experience how hard their job is. I went through training in the military. That's my opinion."

Says another, "They do have a dangerous job, but they are no better than any other city or county worker that has taken pay cuts. I have no problem with job cuts."

Still another says: "What a joke. If these heroes don't think that they are overpaid, they should have a reporter follow them for a week and see how much work they actually do. That will never happen because it will expose how overcompensated they are. And I love the argument that laying them off would put the public in danger. I don't believe it would, but it seems by their logic they'd rather put the public at risk than take a small pay cut. The firefighters also don't seem to mind laying off the newbies as long as the senior members don't have to make concessions. Pure greed."

Ouch. Someone call a paramedic.

While they were mightily outnumbered, some readers came to the firefighters' defense.

One writes, "I'm so pleased to see that the North Las Vegas firefighters are stepping up and offering to give up raises to help their city. They are showing why firefighters have always been held in such high regards. Hopefully the city will come to their senses."

Another offers, "I'm glad to see some of the firefighters in this valley are willing to give back. I think it is ridiculous that the cities are still wanting to lay off firefighters and close down fire engines."

And another says, "Nice. Finally some evidence the firefighters get it and are trying to step up and do the right thing. Take care of business boys, we'd like to respect you again."

But many more reflected the tenor of this reader: "Does anyone other than the firefighters and their families honestly believe that they are not overpaid? I'm not disputing that they do a good job, but that doesn't mean they should be grossly overpaid."

With public sentiment running against them for the first time in memory, valley firefighters are overdue for an emergency response.

John L. Smith's column appears Sunday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday. E-mail him at Smith@reviewjournal.com or call (702) 383-0295. He also blogs at lvrj.com/blogs/smith.