Mayor Signs Sick Leave Legislation

[BMIG]

Under new law the mayor has signed. City police and firefighters will be forced to retire if they spend more than 172 days on extended sick leave or limited duty in any two year period.

[SkyMedic]

What if you get hurt on the job? What if you break your hip skiing or from a fall working your part time? That is not very fair, while it might get some folks that are milking it to sh&$ or get of the pot, it will also affect those that have been dealt a bad blow and are recovering slowly. Stay safe guys and DONT get hurt!

[1014engine]

The way this sounds, a guy could work his whole career and not use a single day of sick leave; then, in his last year before being eligible to retire he gets sick/injured and it's taking him a while to recover - they're gonna kick him to the curb with a reduced pension?

What is the union's position on this? True, there are no doubt a few slugs who are milking the system, but there's got to be a better way to weed them out.

[tillerdude]

My understanding of it is at 172 days they can retire you but if its something that you will recover from and be able to return to full duty from than it will go befor the medical review board for an extension

[staticx]

Is that 172 working days, or just 172 consecutive days?

[ESBagpiper]

This is part of the Patterson Bill that was introduced late last year. Its mainly aimed at MPD they have 300+ Officers on POD/SL or Light Duty and the City Council wants them gone. However it greatly effects one of our Lts. at the Training Academy and a half dozen on light duty. Our Union has known about it all along and has spoken out against at numerous Council Meetings.
The article is in the Washington Post's Metro section on 6/25.

[Pumperman]

......and if you were hired after 1980 your disabilty pension will qualify you for welfare and foodstamps and section 8 housing. Most of our members retired on disability that were hired after 1980 get about 40% of 70% of their salary. So a member making 50K would get 70% of that ($32,000) x 40% for around $12,800 a year. A nice thank you for your service of getting burned alive or shot up.

[ESBagpiper]

Your not totally correct. Its more like a scale. If your 100% disabled you get 70% then is goes down from their, but no lower then 40%. It's also based on what you can earn when your retired, if you are married and your spouce works and the amount of college you have. So the smarter you are the less you get and if you make more than that amount for a few years they can drop you completely. I think 70+ people have retired on this system, almost all MPD. 15 to 20 of them have given up their disability retirements completely and gone on to something else and 1 of our own can back to work.

[Pumperman]

You spell it all out, but the Brothers we have under this mess are hurting.

[captain4life]

I believe is not the potential you can make or you spouse, but the actual type of injury, each type will have a percentage attached to it [ a lost hand will give you 50%, a foot 25% etc], however a second item does occur, the amount you can make before loosing the retirement. I believe it based upon a percentage [50% or even 25%, need to look it up] of the amount of retirement.
If you take 50% use Pumperman figures of a retirement of $12,800, if you make more that $6,400 a year for more than two years, you loose the disability retirement.
Ok, tell me where in the US, let alone in the DC area where you can live for $6,400 a year? :(

[HugDeez4Me]

This is always a disturbing subject. We all know that one of our own has suffered severe burns and is now (reportedly) being processed for retirement. But look at what some of the smart folks have done (not from DCFD). His case study, or the case study from the incident has made a world tour. It has been the subject for a variety of general sessions for the National Fire Academy and other agencies. Why can’t this Department do something to utilize the ONE person who survived and can give accurate account of this incident?



You would think that after all that he has sustained, with the courage he has displayed by even returning back to work, expressing the desire to continue to do his job, that the Department’s elite could use some of their creativity to utilize him in a position created specifically for him. I do find it rather amazing that he was able to come back to work, be a productive member of the Training Academy staff, even serve as the Lead Sergeant for a recruit class, but yet the Department finds a way to keep “A. V. Bob” in a position created especially for him. Nothing personal against Bob, but if he can spend 18 years at the Training Academy with no one ever knowing what he does or when he comes and goes, then you can find a way to keep Joe on this job until he is eligible to retire. I think a sacrifice like his deserves at least that much.

Can't these cases be looked upon on an individual basis? Wouldn't that be more appropriate?