Quote:
Originally Posted by molson
Firefighters definitely draw early pensions. Plenty of other government employees do too, but police and firefighters have their own seperate deals and younger retirement ages. Plenty continue to work, but requiring firefighters, police, and military to work until they're 65 to get the same retirement benefits as someone with a desk job seems a little silly. I'm really surprised this is such a controversial thing at fofc.
|
What's the dividing line that you're using to say "early pension is fair/good"? I was taking issue with the argument that it's because they can't cross train or do other jobs? I thought that was what the GI Bill was for. Never mind that there are good jobs in the military that can train you for future jobs. But like other companies or fields, there are bad jobs, too. If you're a grunt at HP or GE, you're not getting the same level of training as a higher level engineer. One could make the same argument in the military (glibly "the world needs ditch diggers, too").
Or is there another line we're talking about? Is it that it's a physically demanding job? Why not construction workers or factory workers, too? Is it that it's in service to country? How about other civil service? What is the combination of factors that makes military specially qualified for a pension at 20 years regardless of age whereas almost every other job uses a combination of service time and age?
SI