Lets Talk Chi Town 911

Sunday, November 26, 2006

Watch Selection Theory?

Does anyone know the theory behind the watch selections? How does one bid for 1st watch and get put on management 2nd watch? How does one who asked for 2nd watch management get passed up by someone from 1st watch who didn't want 2nd watch? Does anyone have any ideas?

posted by oldschoolcos @ 11/26/2006 02:53:00 PM  

4 Comments:

  • At 26 November, 2006 22:09 , Anonymous Anonymous said...

    Yeah , it's called the "Screw You" theory! The only one the current management team has.

     

  • At 26 November, 2006 23:30 , Anonymous Anonymous said...

    You seem so surprised that something like this can happen. Remember, these are the same leaders that have let the operations section of the OEMC become a joke. Since the passing of Greg Bishop, NO Executive Director (or any of his underlings for that matter) has been able to answer the needs of the operations section. Sorry folks, that includes Cortez Trotter. We work with outdated equipment and inferior technology. If you don't believe me, look at the chairs you sit in. Look at the mapping program you use every single call. Can anybody remember the last time that joke of a program was ever updated? Over the last 10 years, how many new address have been added to the city? Do you think it might be a little important to update our data base with that info? Especially when a person calling for help gives us an address, THAT DOESN'T FRICKIN' EXIST ON OUR RECORDS!!! For all the discipline our members have received, why hasn't the joker who is in charge of that program EVER been held accountable for SEVERLY dropping the ball on this. Let's face it, it seems the only people held accountable for mistakes in our building IS US. When Marista severly screwed up the watch selections and furlough picks last year (for those of you that weren't here for that tragedy, we picked our furloughs the day before the 1A period started for 06) I don't recall her receiving the heavy handed discipline that seems to be reserved for us. Then again, she must have done a bang up job last year because she was allowed to work her magic with the same level of incompetence we have come to expect for this years picks. Of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong. (Thanks Dennis Miller for the last line !!!)

     

  • At 28 November, 2006 06:00 , Anonymous Anonymous said...

    Schicklegroover said...
    Hey SCC and the rest of us on the shit-end of the stick: O.T. but purty damn important and oh, so sweet for those of us (just me I think) attempting to address oversight issues with Nationwide Retirement, City Finance, Finance Committee and FOP and recieving NO RESPONSE whatsover from anyone. Post where you see fit.

    FORBES MAGAZINE -
    Billion-Dollar Retirement Rip-Off
    Neil Weinberg, 11.27.06

    In a move that could have far-reaching consequences for a $140 billion industry, the Orange County, Fla., Sheriff’s Office has filed a class action charging units of Nationwide Financial Services with receiving illegal kickbacks from fund companies whose products it included in public employee retirement plans.

    The suit, filed in United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, near Nationwide’s (nyse: NFS - news - people ) headquarters, seeks as much as several hundred million dollars and aims to include as plaintiffs some 7,600 other public employee retirement plans that are Nationwide customers.

    The suit involves so-called 457 retirement savings plans, which are a public-sector equivalent of the 401(k). The 457 market, with $143 billion in assets, is dominated by variable annuities, which are bundles of mutual funds or separately managed accounts bundled into life insurance policies by Nationwide and other vendors. Variable annuities have been widely criticized as poorly disclosing what are sometimes excessive fees.

    The Orange County suit claims that over the past decade and a half, Nationwide received kickbacks from the firms whose funds it included as investment options based on a percentage of plan assets gathered. Insurers refer to the payments as revenue sharing. To critics, they smack of pay-for-play. In the Orange County Sheriffs’ case, Nationwide’s fees were frequently equal to 2% to 3% of assets annually. The plan recently switched to a Vanguard-based plan that cut fees by roughly two-thirds.

     

  • At 04 December, 2006 17:45 , Anonymous Anonymous said...

    what's up? Has this blog ended now that chicagodispatch is back up?

     

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home