Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 9/16/2009 11:38:51 PM EST
A local agency recently asked it's officers to vote whether or not to forego their 2% pay raise for 6 months, in order to have enough money to keep a 7 officers from being laid off. The city made an ultimatum for the department, and this was the best way the department could work around the union contract, I guess, and attempt to keep the officers.

So the question is, would YOU forgo a 2% pay raise for six month, in order to save the jobs of 7 of your fellow officers?

FYI, from what I hear, a surprising number voted no, but there was a still a majority to vote yes.
Link Posted: 9/16/2009 11:41:08 PM EST
Easy answer.... "Yes"
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 12:20:15 AM EST
Originally Posted By BiteDog:
Easy answer.... "Yes"


Agree.

Unfortunately these types of concessions are all too often the start of a slide down that "slippery slope" of more concessions which usually ends with the people still being laid off AND everybody else is left with the lower pay. YMMV
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 12:47:00 AM EST
I voted Yes, but I can see where some officers might vote no. It all depends if there are some lazy shitbags that don't do the work and other officers have to pull their weight and the weight of the "other guy (or gal)". If there aren't any lazy slugs, then Yeah I'd hold off on the pay raise. If there are some lazy slugs, then hell no. Fire their ass and get someone who will do the job.
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 12:53:16 AM EST
i might know which agency your talking about...and being a state employ who has been laid off because of a budget issue...i'd vote yes, i can understand the snowball deal, but
it is hard as hell for guys to get a law enforcement job here in florida...you know that, and these guys havent done anything wrong...besides be newer...
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 1:03:48 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/17/2009 1:06:21 AM EST by shrikefan]
Originally Posted By AJFinn:
I voted Yes, but I can see where some officers might vote no. It all depends if there are some lazy shitbags that don't do the work and other officers have to pull their weight and the weight of the "other guy (or gal)". If there aren't any lazy slugs, then Yeah I'd hold off on the pay raise. If there are some lazy slugs, then hell no. Fire their ass and get someone who will do the job.


It is a union so the lazys would probably still be there. Then the others would still have even more work to make up for the laid off AND the lazys.

ETA - Is 1% take home really going to make that much difference in somebody's everyday life?

Link Posted: 9/17/2009 1:16:01 AM EST
2%?

Yeah.
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 1:22:50 AM EST
Yes. However, I do not count not getting a raise as a pay cut. because I do not believe the raise exists until the first check with it clears the bank.

As I told one of my coworkers bitching about not getting a raise this year––-Our raise was not taking a paycut like everyone else.
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 1:25:26 AM EST
Originally Posted By AJFinn:
I voted Yes, but I can see where some officers might vote no. It all depends if there are some lazy shitbags that don't do the work and other officers have to pull their weight and the weight of the "other guy (or gal)". If there aren't any lazy slugs, then Yeah I'd hold off on the pay raise. If there are some lazy slugs, then hell no. Fire their ass and get someone who will do the job.


One of the keys to dealing with lazy shitbags successfully is find something they like to do then do it all. Or find something they hate to do and you do it but make them do somethign else. Nobody loves every facet of the job. But you put one of those lazy slugs in the right slot and they might be the best motherfucker to ever do it. It don't always work but it does work often.
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 2:09:50 AM EST
Yes , even gave up .50 cents an hour to keep a guy once at a tight a$$ed outfit I worked my last 13 years but not in LE .
John
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 2:11:03 AM EST
Yes.

Out of curiosity, 7 out of how many employees? 7 out of 20 and 7 out of 300 are two different ballgames.
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 3:40:32 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 3:52:16 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 4:17:13 AM EST
Originally Posted By BiteDog:
Easy answer.... "Yes"


+1 In a heartbeat. If we trust eachother with our lives, then that includes the family life.

InLeo
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 4:25:59 AM EST
I don't know if I would take a pay cut so to speak to save some guys with less seniority, but would I forgo a raise to save those guys.. you bet! I know in essence it's techincally a pay cut because you won't be earning more, but I view it as you'll just make the same as you did before. No biggie to me. We have that all the time working for the county. Any raises are brought up during the budget & must be approved by the commissioners. I've had a few years where we haven't gotten any raises.. and last year's was only a $1000

Link Posted: 9/17/2009 4:27:46 AM EST
We faced this same question, voted, and the answer was no. The guy on the choppong block was not hurt and understood the decision. However, we have a two year recall built into our contract for layoffs. In the end no one was let go. The general thought during the vote was family first, or the needs of the many out weight the needs of the few. Thats not to say if he was laid off we would not have taken care of him.

Bucky145
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 4:36:49 AM EST
Nice post Vanilla, IM me when you get a chance.
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 6:30:49 AM EST
Easy answer is yes, to save someone's job, but you have to trust the city will keep its word. It does not have too, if there still are money problems after deal they can still lay people off. Now you have give up the raise and still have layoffs, so it is not so clear cut and remember you can never makeup this 2% in future contacts. A FD did not give up raise but rather a number of days, either work for free or vacation days, if I remember correct it was four days to make up short fall, this was a large FD and this worked to stop layoffs, if the city backs out well you still have the raise and know where the city leaders are at.
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 6:31:02 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 6:51:25 AM EST
Sounds like you guys need a better union.

However, it would be a yes from me.
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 8:02:37 AM EST

Originally Posted By Bonk2029:
Yes.

Out of curiosity, 7 out of how many employees? 7 out of 20 and 7 out of 300 are two different ballgames.


Closer to 300 employees.

FYI, the officers losing their jobs would likely be newer people, I think all of them with less than 2 years on. The vote of yes went to the city yesterday, I heard on the radio this morning. The city rejected it.
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 8:06:26 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 8:11:58 AM EST
10-4
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 8:12:06 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/17/2009 8:12:39 AM EST by shrikefan]
Originally Posted By vanilla_gorilla:

Originally Posted By Bonk2029:
Yes.

Out of curiosity, 7 out of how many employees? 7 out of 20 and 7 out of 300 are two different ballgames.


Closer to 300 employees.

FYI, the officers losing their jobs would likely be newer people, I think all of them with less than 2 years on. The vote of yes went to the city yesterday, I heard on the radio this morning. The city rejected it.


HMMMM....so it isn't really about saving money then.
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 8:52:48 AM EST
Originally Posted By shrikefan:
Originally Posted By vanilla_gorilla:

Originally Posted By Bonk2029:
Yes.

Out of curiosity, 7 out of how many employees? 7 out of 20 and 7 out of 300 are two different ballgames.


Closer to 300 employees.

FYI, the officers losing their jobs would likely be newer people, I think all of them with less than 2 years on. The vote of yes went to the city yesterday, I heard on the radio this morning. The city rejected it.


HMMMM....so it isn't really about saving money then.

that is bullshit of epic status...someone has something personal in this

Link Posted: 9/17/2009 4:16:42 PM EST
No.

We went down that road a few years ago, and SHOCKER, the County lied and did layoffs anyway.

Emory
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 4:46:43 PM EST
Forego a 2% raise.

Yes.

We just took a 5% "temporary" cut, it expires at the end of the year.

Word on the street is that we will be asked to take a %5.4 permanent cut at the start of the next contract.

Word on the street is everyone should buy winter clothes, because someplace will have frozen over before that happens.

I would also have your union let the management know, that you will take that cut as a temporary measure in extraordinary times, but they need to come up with a solution to the problem.
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 4:50:04 PM EST
Originally Posted By The_Beer_Slayer:
2% for 6 months? when the majority of the rest of the country won't see anything or will be unemployed?

fuck yes i would. I would hope my co workers wouldn't be that selfish.


Dear Sir,

I can't speak to everyone's situation.

But, in my 16 years at my current employer, during OK times, Good times, and now, we have supposedly been in "crisis" about 80% of the time.

The underlying problem, is poor management.
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 4:51:51 PM EST
Originally Posted By crofoot629:
No.

We went down that road a few years ago, and SHOCKER, the County lied and did layoffs anyway.

Emory


I said yes BUT I don't trust any politician. "I won't get re-elected."

Link Posted: 9/17/2009 5:46:03 PM EST
Originally Posted By PalmettoSharpshooter:
Originally Posted By crofoot629:
No.

We went down that road a few years ago, and SHOCKER, the County lied and did layoffs anyway.

Emory


I said yes BUT I don't trust any politician. "I won't get re-elected."



Surely you know how to tell when a politician is lying.

Link Posted: 9/17/2009 11:31:13 PM EST
I'm torn on this. They're probably going to can the 7 newest people which is unfortunately the way it works. I'd be all for it if they shitcanned the shitbags of the dept and split their salary between everyone else. Next year, the city won't hire anyone else because they managed to make it work without those positions this year, and look at all the money they saved.
Link Posted: 9/18/2009 1:31:30 AM EST
The problem that I have with the idea of taking a pay cut to save fellow officer's jobs is that there is so much waste in most city/county/ state budgets. In lean budget times, government should be cutting back in areas that are luxuries, or where there is duplication of services. If police unions don't fight against pay cuts, furloughs, and staff reductions, this waste is tacitly encouraged to continue.

I would be hard pressed to agree to a pay cut if my employer still had a 'Diversity Coordinator' or a 'Human Rights Director' still on staff. At best, such positions are luxuries. At worst, they are completely unnecessary. They should go before any positions in the essential services of law enforcement, fire service, or EMS.

Before accepting a pay cut to prevent staff reductions, I would press the union to mount a fierce PR campaign against any such moves. But in the end, my co-workers are family, even the newest guys and gals. And if push came to shove, I would probably agree to the pay cut if I knew it would save their jobs. Sadly though, I think most government managers know that most of us feel this way and will use that to break our will.
Link Posted: 9/18/2009 10:38:11 AM EST
Its definitely a rough year for county work here. We have a county wide budget shortfall and they are looking to cut some benefits. For patrol deputies, the failure of the county commission to replace fleet cars over the last year means our take home cars are being pulled back in for fleet cars. Now they want us to cut even more including the possibility of a 5 percent pay cut. Hard to maintain troop morale with that news when you are already the lowest paid agency in the area.
Top Top