Letter: Pensions a legitimate source of concern

EDITOR,
In the Feb. 25 Press-Banner, retired San Jose firefighter Bob McMurtry says the San Jose Mercury News “reported our retirement questions incorrectly” to “sell papers” (Letters, “Bias unfair to police, fire crews”). As a Mercury News reporter who has written many articles on the subject, I can assure your readers our coverage has been factual.
This is an emotional topic for firefighters and I understand their frustration. They work hard and played by San Jose’s rules to win better pay and benefits for themselves that the city now says are unaffordable.
But McMurtry’s letter was filled with misstatements. San Jose’s pension system isn’t “private.” And its problems aren’t imaginary. The city’s $156 million pension bill will be $256.2 million in July and over $400 million in four years, consuming a third of the city’s general fund.
The city has seen police and firefighter salary costs rise 62 percent while staffing grew just 2 percent in the last decade. That doesn’t include a 167 percent rise in the city cost for their health and retirement benefits. The base San Jose firefighter salary in 2010 was $98,238 and with other cash compensation totaled $110,079, not including benefits that bring total compensation to $172,292. The mean California firefighter salary in 2009 was $66,950.
While firefighting can be dangerous, federal statistics show fishing, logging, farming, construction, trash-hauling and other blue-collar jobs are deadlier. In San Jose, 84 percent of firefighter calls are medical.
Three-fourths of San Jose firefighters don’t live in San Jose and won’t have to pay higher taxes to cover its pension bill.
But, to their credit, the city’s firefighters recognize the problem and just approved a contract that reduces their compensation 10 percent and offers to consider reduced pensions for present and future firefighters.
John Woolfolk, Felton