Oakland fires 80 police officers, lists crimes cops will no longer respond to | Raw Story

[archerships]

The department's chief had said in recent days that unless the city could meet the union's demands, officers would no longer respond in person to reports of a variety of crimes, including vehicle accidents, grand theft, identity theft, burglary, embezzlement, vandalism, registering sex offenders, stray animals and others.

via rawstory.com

Note that Oakland has 776 officers, each making an average of $188,000. If they each took a pay cut of $20,000, they could save the jobs of every officer whose job was on the line. Of course, it would mean officers would only be making $168,000/year. Could they survive on such a paltry sum?

I would also note that the officers claim they will no longer respond to burglaries, car accidents, and a host of other crimes. What exactly will the remaining 700 officers be doing?

And liberals wonder why the second amendment is necessary. If the cops don't respond, who will?

Posted via email from crasch's posterous

Comments

[nasu-dengaku.livejournal.com]

For $188k a year, they should know the difference between a gun and a taser.

[crasch.livejournal.com]

Indeed. Although I'm not sure BART cops are counted as part of OPD. No doubt, they're similarly well-compensated however.

[jhogan.livejournal.com]

Well, the article says that the officers "costs" $188k/year, which is very different. That cost will include things like employment taxes, and depending how they measure it, could include facilities, equipment (including cars), training, special insurance, etc. It's hard to say whether mgmt or the union is being unreasonable without seeing a breakdown of that $188k.

[crasch.livejournal.com]

According to this article, the $188 K is average annual total salary and expenses:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/12/BA3A1EDACT.DTL

[jhogan.livejournal.com]

I think you mean "salary and benefits" (which is what that link says), but yeah, if that link is correct $188k is pretty ridiculous.

[crasch.livejournal.com]

Gah, expenses ==> benefits.

[cramer.livejournal.com]

average. So there are those that make more (probably A LOT) and those (read: many) that make less.

This is a very strong reason to outlaw "unions". Their time has LONG past.

[easwaran.livejournal.com]

Wait, what does the union have to do with pay disparity? We probably need better regulations on unions, but if owners are allowed to organize (read, form publicly traded corporations), I don't see why workers shouldn't also be allowed to organize. Though maybe the solution is to have employees form their own corporation, which is a workforce supply corporation, that then sells the services of its members to other corporations that want labor? I don't see any reason to treat unions and corporations asymmetrically.

[candid.livejournal.com]

This may be an argument for private-sector unions, but it doesn't really apply to government employees.

[easwaran.livejournal.com]

I don't see the difference - taxpayers organize as a government to form a single employer, just as shareholders organize as a corporation to form a single employer. Employees of the government are generally taxpayers as well, but they also might be shareholders. Only in the case of co-ops, where the shareholders and employees always exactly coincide, is it clear to me that unions have no role.

[easwaran.livejournal.com]

What does it cost for health insurance for an average employee of the average Oakland business? What does it cost for health insurance for a police officer? What are the employment prospects for a retired police officer? (This is important for figuring out what a reasonable pension benefit looks like - I imagine a good number of retired police officers have injuries that make them unfit for a lot of work.) How is the average salary divided among individual police officers? (That is, what is the actual median pay of the police officers?)

My suspicion is that when you look at all these things, the median police officer will have a salary of around $80k, rather than $180k, and that many rookies will have substantially lower pay. If that's right, then you're totally right that the union should be willing to take some sort of pay cut for all the officers in order to save the jobs of many of them, but it's a bit fast to claim just from the given information that they can all easily absorb a $20k pay cut.

We need more information about all this.

[crasch.livejournal.com]

If that's right, then you're totally right that the union should be willing to take some sort of pay cut for all the officers in order to save the jobs of many of them, but it's a bit fast to claim just from the given information that they can all easily absorb a $20k pay cut.

The $20 K pay cut is just a ball park figure. Maybe some officers are making $250+ K and some are making $80 K. It doesn't change the fact that some officers are making exorbitant salaries--the median income in Oakland is $50 K. (1) Even if the Jr. officers are "only" making $80 K, a $20 K pay cut would still leave them with a salary/benefits package $10 K greater than the median income for Oakland (2).

If you want to find more detailed stats. to try to justify the Oakland police's salary, be my guest.

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakland,_California

[easwaran.livejournal.com]

That all seems right - it's not obvious to me why a police officer in Oakland needs to make so much more than the average resident. (But of course, it's also not obvious to me why a computer programmer or a lawyer or a CEO in Oakland needs to make so much more than the average resident.)

But even if that's right, there's something dishonest about offering someone a salary and building the expectation that they can count on that salary for the future, and then suddenly cutting it by 25%. There's an ethical difference between promising someone an overly high salary and then cutting it to a reasonable level, versus only promising them the reasonable level from the beginning.

But I really have no idea how to justify the salary of most people in whatever job, let alone police officers - I'm just suggesting that their "salary plus benefits" will be much higher than for many people in other lines of work with the same salary, because police officers are in a risky line of work and will thus have much more expensive benefits.

I'm just reacting to instantly blaming the union for all the problems, when they're probably only the source of some of them.

[crasch.livejournal.com]

If I think the iPhone 4 is an overpriced piece of junk, I can refuse to give Apple my money. Apple can't send police to my house to arrest me and throw me in jail. Moreover, I can easily choose an alternate service among Apple's many competitors, or not buy a phone at all.

Therefore, Steve Jobs' billions don't bother me, because they came from people who voluntarily gave him their money, despite many other easily available options, including not buying a phone at all.

The police pay makes me angry because our elected representatives are supposed to be careful stewards of our money. Yet the amount of pay the Oakland police are getting is far above the amount that would be necessary to hire a competent force, in my opinion. (I would grant that the police might require more pay than other professions to attract competent workers, due to the greater risk and difficulty of the job, but I don't think it's anywhere near $188 K).

But what can I do if I'm an Oakland resident unhappy with the police pay?

I could lobby the city council. The unions, because they get paid directly out of the city budget, have a much stronger incentive to lobby and campaign than I do. Even if I succeed, I will reduce my personal tax bill by a few 100 dollars. A police officer stands to gain hundreds of thousands of dollars over the life of his career. He and his fellow officers are therefore much more strongly motivated than I am to donate and to campaign.

Therefore, the city council members are probably beholden to the police union, among others, for campaign staffing and contributions. So lobbying is unlikely to be successful.

I could become an activist and run for office. Running for office is costly in time and money--a campaign will likely cost tens of thousands of dollars, and require full-time campaigning. If I'm very lucky, I will successfully survive vigorous opposition from the Police/Fire/Teacher/Prison/Service worker's unions and get elected. Even then, in order to cut their pay, I would I still would have to persuade the other city council members.

Another alternative is to move to an entirely different city. Sell my house, leave my job, leave my neighborhood, my friends. This too, is very costly, and I'm not likely to do it, unless things become very bad.

Finally, I could just ignore them, and stop paying my taxes. Eventually, they'll come to collect, and try to kill me if I resist.

That's it. Those are my options.

The police know that the citizens can't easily switch to a different service, and that they can come kill you if you refuse to pay. So they extort the public for more money, even though they could take a pay cut that would save all the officers jobs, and still leave the average officer with an income three times the average.

And that pisses me off.

[pasquin.livejournal.com]

How different is this from the Mafia saying,"Nice town you have here. Wouldn't it be a shame if anything happened to it?"

[halleyscomet.livejournal.com]

I think even Brady would want a gun under those circumstances.