Measure D -- absentee results:
Yes 55,361 26.2%
No 156,233 73.8%
Ouch.
Stick a fork in Measure D. It's done.
Man, it looks like election night -- at least for OC -- is over as soon as it started.
Let the recriminations begin.
UPDATE: I'll can't make a final judgment until all the results are in, but it looks like Sergeant from Tin Star is going to win the OC Blog beer stein! His prediction: No 66%, Yes 34%.
Because if it's true, I want an application.
Join the thousands already in the applicant line.
One need only go online and look at the salary ranges for deputies and firefighters and know Greenhut might have stretched the truth a bit.
Like I said. I would like to see the numbers making up his assertion.
Haven't we covered this already? He got the number straight off the OCFA's budgets, and their validity was confirmed by a union rep. It's not "salary", it's "salary and cost of benefits" - i.e., the cost of the county to employ them, just as a company will look at the total cost to employ a worker rather than just his base pay.
Posted by: Jason | November 09, 2005 at 08:28 PM
Jason,
I would like to see an apples to apples comparison of other departments. I don't think we are getting the whole story.
Looking the jobs listing, the base pay doesn't make sense to earn that type of compensation. Like I said, I would like to see an itemized list. Because I would bet there are things in there that aren't part of gross or net pay.
Remember who bothered the deputies got when the fire union asked about their compensation. Yet they are silent when the firefighters pay get published. I bet there are just as many if not more in other departments getting equal compensation and benefits.
Posted by: Blog Watcher | November 09, 2005 at 08:36 PM
Jason,
Do you think it is a possibility the union rep was screwing with Greenhut just to get him wound.
It wouldn't be the first time something like that has gone on with a member of the media.
And can you find those figures Greenhut so piously claims as fact?
Posted by: Blog Watcher | November 09, 2005 at 08:56 PM
According to Greehhut's previous editorial, he obtained the numbers from the OCFA's own budget report.
You may be right, there may be some numbers included in his salary figures that could be misconstrued, but lets not quibble over numbers.
Greenhut is no fan of unions and can only appreciate their importance when it comes to things like sweatshops and menial labor.
The OCFA provided him with a platform to launch his attack on all public safety unions and he ran with it. That's what the enemy does when they sense weakness and stupidity in their opponents. Joe Kerr was warned that this was going to happen and he pushed forward anyway. There's no sense crying about it now.
As the saying goes...you can't put the sh*t back in the donkey!
Posted by: Green Machine | November 09, 2005 at 09:12 PM
I guess we run in different circles. I never heard that saying till today.
Posted by: Blog Watcher | November 09, 2005 at 09:26 PM
And I'm glad we both agree that Greenhut would have no problem using numbers that could be misconstrued.
Posted by: Blog Watcher | November 09, 2005 at 09:27 PM
Imagine that...common ground.
Posted by: Green Machine | November 09, 2005 at 10:23 PM
Do you think it is a possibility the union rep was screwing with Greenhut just to get him wound.
It wouldn't be the first time something like that has gone on with a member of the media.
Are you suggesting that public servants lie to members of the media, and that it's been going on right under our noses? Preposterous!
And can you find those figures Greenhut so piously claims as fact?
I searched for the budget on OCFA's website, but I don't think it's there. I'm not surprised it's not on the website for all to see - I just figured he went to the County Records office or wherever they keep official public records like that on file.
Posted by: Jason | November 10, 2005 at 08:55 AM
Jason. Given Greenhut's obvious hatred of firefighters, I'm a bit skeptical.
Posted by: Blog Watcher | November 10, 2005 at 09:00 AM
Given Greenhut's obvious hatred of firefighters, I'm a bit skeptical.
Very well - skepticism on all things about which one lacks personal knowledge is a healthy thing.
On the other hand, I'm more than a bit disappointed with the propensity of otherwise intelligent people to continuously (and, IMO, without merit) infer from someone's comments regarding unions and their actions an automatic hatred of the individual employees represented by said union. I don't like the CTA, but introduce me to any individual teacher and I'd probably get along just fine. When I was at Boeing I railed against the restrictions placed on production by the UAW, but I built great friendships with the techs and QA inspectors I worked with.
It's been happening ever since Schwarzenegger took office (and probably before, but I took less notice then), and got way out of hand during the runup to this special election. I know that for every situation the affected party will immediately look to conflate an honest (if a little ascerbic) questioning of the motives and actions of a union with hatred of the heroes who wear the uniform that's become symbolic of the union - but I hope (in vain, it would seem) that any third party would genuinely seek understanding rather than embrace an emotional knee-jerk response.
Posted by: Jason | November 10, 2005 at 12:54 PM
We are the champions!!!! (Made ya look!)
Posted by: anon ii | November 21, 2005 at 08:40 PM