Firefighting isn’t a uniquely dangerous job
The pending proposal to lower the firefighter pension age from 57 to 55 is based on the premise of “reducing exposures to dangers.” However, this logic invites a fair bit of scrutiny: if the primary goal is minimizing danger, why not set the age at 35? That would reduce exposure even further. While firefighting is undeniably risky, it is worth noting that workers in many other—and arguably more dangerous—professions do not have the luxury of retiring on a full pension at age 55.
According to OSHA, the data shows that the most hazardous roles in the United States are actually found in industries like logging, roofing, and transportation:
- Logging Workers
- Roofers
- Fishing and Hunting Workers
- Helpers in Construction Trades
- Aircraft Pilots and Flight Engineers
- Drivers/Sales Workers and Truck Drivers
- Refuse and Recyclable Material Collectors
- Structural Iron and Steel Workers
- Underground Mining Machine Operators
- Miscellaneous Agricultural Workers
Evidently, the leading cause of death among firefighters is heart disease rather than on-site accidents. This is often attributed to the nature of the job, which can be essentially sedentary for long stretches until an alarm sounds, triggering a sudden, high-stress physical demand. Rather than simply shortening the career span, the focus might be better placed on physical fitness. Keeping fit in the station isn’t just a matter of policy—it’s the most effective way to save a life.
Herman Mayfarth, Corona
Firefighters get giant pensions already, now they want more?
In his March 29 letter to the editor, Brian Rice of the California Professional Firefighters advocates for AB 1383, a bill designed to roll back the 2012 Public Employees Pension Reform Act. Mr. Rice argues that lowering the retirement age reduces “exposure to danger,” but this framing ignores the fact that firefighters already receive high salaries as compensation for the risks inherent to their work. Using those same risks to justify shorter careers and increased pension costs essentially asks taxpayers to pay for the same risk twice.
Furthermore, the perceived danger is often overstated for local departments, as 80% to 90% of all calls are for EMS and medical rescues rather than actual fires. Mr. Rice also takes aim at the pensionable compensation cap, which stands at $186,000 for 2025 and applies only to those hired after 2013. This cap hardly seems restrictive when data from Transparent California shows 200 firefighters drawing pensions of $500,000 or more in 2024.
With pension liabilities already straining city budgets, AB 1383’s provision to allow bargaining for even more generous pension formulas is fiscally reckless. Rather than a safety measure, this bill appears to be a strategic move to expand benefits at the expense of municipal solvency.
Jacqueline Zuanich-Ferrell, Manhattan Beach