Why do elected officials in Ohio hate the police so much? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Why do elected officials in Ohio hate the police so much?


Dukeboy01
04-10-2011, 16:02
Seriously, what did you guys do to them? Between stuff like this and the damage done to your collective bargaining rights it looks like they are out to get you.

http://www.policeone.com/police-administration/articles/3532201-Ohio-cops-to-pay-5-per-hour-for-off-duty-jobs/

$5.00 an hour for an admin fee is nonsense. I can see how the Cincy FOP left themselves vulnerable to such shenanigans by

1. Having the PD schedule the off- duty gigs
and
2. Capping the hourly wage amount by contract.

Still, the city claiming that much for every hour worked is ridiculous.

FiremanMike
04-10-2011, 16:55
Honestly, I'm done talking about it. I was literally ANGRY for three weeks solid thinking about all this, reading viewer response on news sites, and *****ing at the station about it.

I've gotten into several arguments over the Internet with mutt cops who basically tell me we deserve what we're getting, I just can't stomach it anymore.

txleapd
04-10-2011, 16:59
Come to Texas.... We're hiring.

FiremanMike
04-10-2011, 17:04
I'm honestly concerned that the referendum to our lost collective bargaining rights will lose in November.. Perhaps I'm just being pessimistic, who knows.. Either way the republican party (which I used to be a proud member of) has publicly stated that they want Ohio to be a right to work state.

FiremanMike
04-10-2011, 17:05
Come to Texas.... We're hiring.

My wife will never move, besides I'm looking at Vermont and Montana, it's my understanding that they have the ability to secede from the union if things get too bad (supposedly written into their state contract..)

Dragoon44
04-10-2011, 17:07
Listen youse, pays youse money or youse sleeps wit da fishes.
:supergrin:

MeefZah
04-10-2011, 17:55
Meh.

Mike and some others will hate me ...

...but I'm here to tell you, I work a non-union police job and I make $30,000 a year.

I work a second part time gig (for the state police) to make ends meet... and at that gig I'm made to pay the FOP $50 / month, but they refuse to provide me with any union services because I'm a part time employee. So I have to pay in, but I get nothing for it. So in that case, the union is "extorting" me.

$31 / hour minus $5 an hour is still way the **** more than I make at either job, even at an overtime rate at either job. So I have a hard time feeling sorry for poor CPD; and I guarantee that in this economy publicly crying about "only" making $26 / hr to stand around at Kroger and flirt with the cashiers is going to piss off a lot of the electorate who work hard ass jobs for near minimum wage.

This article doesn't specifically report on it, but there is a sense of entitlement that a lot of cops have that I am sick of, and the general public is sick of. We can be our own worst enemy with this sort of thing.

I'm not gonna say that higher paid coppers don;t deserve what they make, but crying about it in a public forum isn't going to win any sympathy from most people.

FiremanMike
04-10-2011, 18:09
Once the unions are gone, your 30k/year job will become a 20k/year job.

The fact of the matter is, cities have been managing their budgets for years and years. Layoffs, pay freezes, furloughs, hiring freezes, and many other occasions where the unions and the cities work together. To say that any public union has bankrupted any local municipality is a plea to ignorance. Local governments, even state governments, cannot print money the way the federal government can, so if a municipality can't afford something, it doesn't happen, no matter how strong the union is.

To say your union dues go for nothing is nothing more than rhetoric. You work in a situation that has certain benefits and safety factors built in that were negotiated by your union. You are not afforded some of the benefits given to full time officers, and I disagree with that, but the truth is you are benefiting from working in a union shop whether you care to admit it or not.

I recognize that you are upset the union didn't/counldnt do more for you in your previous situation, and I think it has clouded your judgement on this.

You want to ***** about how much Columbus police make? How about how much I make? The truth of the matter is that we make the money we make because our respective cities can afford to pay us at these rates (refer to my above comment that cities can't pay more than they can afford). Now, thanks to changes in state laws, our cities are forced to give us massive pay cuts (20% in my case). Where exactly do you think this money is going?? Into your department?? Into public works?? Not likely, realistically many cities across the state are going to find themselves sitting on huge bank accounts and no one is going to really know what to do with all this money.

Hey.. You called me out..

Look at that, I'm angry again.

MeefZah
04-10-2011, 19:52
You want to ***** about how much Columbus police make?

I knew you'd bite.

FYI my reference to "CPD" was Cincinnati, not Columbus; from the article the OP posted.

Otherwise I don't completely disagree with you except you missed the point of my post... the union publicly griping about cops getting lower pay pisses off those in the public who get much crappier pay AND who pay the salaries of said cops.

Oh and my reference to my $30k a year was intended to demonstrate how little I (and a lot of other non-union cops) make compared to some agencies... when I do the same job. More of one, actually. But then, I'd do this job for free, so why am I even beetching?

AJE
04-10-2011, 19:59
I get that impression sometimes too.

razdog76
04-10-2011, 20:12
I'm, with FiremmanMike on this one. Show me a right to work state, and I will show you a lower salary.

Now, I don't make near the wage, or benefits of any of the larger Ohio cities, and near the bottom of my county's sister agencies. Our contract is expired, and every time it ends up going to binding arbitration with a victory for labor.

I can also guaranty that any dollars saved on the labor will only cause the best officers to leave as they have continuously for the ten plus years I have worked there, and will still be spent by increasing the management paycheck. This is why when they were crying layoff, money was suddenly "found" when a forensic accountant was hired, but before they records were turned over.

BTW, I have always been for some sort of measurement of production, but this also assumes that the evaluations are done in a fair and consistent manner. This is something that SB 5 also assumes.

It is purely a shell game.

razdog76
04-10-2011, 20:23
I knew you'd bite.

FYI my reference to "CPD" was Cincinnati, not Columbus; from the article the OP posted.

Otherwise I don't completely disagree with you except you missed the point of my post... the union publicly griping about cops getting lower pay pisses off those in the public who get much crappier pay AND who pay the salaries of said cops.

Oh and my reference to my $30k a year was intended to demonstrate how little I (and a lot of other non-union cops) make compared to some agencies... when I do the same job. More of one, actually. But then, I'd do this job for free, so why am I even beetching?

Is there a disparity between agencies, absolutely! Do I agree with it, no. This is a major problem with this state, and a particular problem that SB 5 will create for smaller departments.

The smaller departments already have more expensive insurance, and get paid less, so how will they be able to afford it when the premium goes up, by law? How will these smaller agencies be able to retain people when those people can make more by trucking? The answer is they will not, and they will begin to fold.

One of three things will happen, a greater demand on County Deputies, an expanded Highway Patrol, or a mix of both.

Kahr_Glockman
04-10-2011, 20:35
I'm, with FiremmanMike on this one. Show me a right to work state, and I will show you a lower salary.



Texas is a right to work state. I am currently making $37k a year before OT. If the year continues to rock along at the rate it is going I will probably hit $40k. My agency is not at the top of the pay scale as far as the area is concerned.

APD pays a little less while in the academy but you will be over $50k with in a couple of years. Round Rock PD starts at $50k. The agencies around Houston and Dallas are in the mid to high 40s to start. For lower paying agencies as a rule they are the rural areas with almost no population base.

Round Rock, Austin, San Antonio and a few others have collective bargaining but for the most part it is non-existant.

FWIW I started in a small SO making $24,700 a year with no OT authorized. We had to take everything as Comp-Time. They paid pretty good for a small town.

razdog76
04-10-2011, 20:56
Texas is a right to work state. I am currently making $37k a year before OT. If the year continues to rock along at the rate it is going I will probably hit $40k. My agency is not at the top of the pay scale as far as the area is concerned.

APD pays a little less while in the academy but you will be over $50k with in a couple of years. Round Rock PD starts at $50k. The agencies around Houston and Dallas are in the mid to high 40s to start. For lower paying agencies as a rule they are the rural areas with almost no population base.

Round Rock, Austin, San Antonio and a few others have collective bargaining but for the most part it is non-existant.

FWIW I started in a small SO making $24,700 a year with no OT authorized. We had to take everything as Comp-Time. They paid pretty good for a small town.

Our top out is 47k, but I work mad OT too. Up until the last few years, much of it was mandatory to maintain minimum staffing... it is cheaper to pay OT, than to hire and train new staff, and the agency could never keep up with turnover.

BTW, forcing compensatory time is a Fair Labor Standards Act violation. The agency could prevent you from exceeding 40 hours/week, but it is your choice on how you receive your OT wage if the employer offers comp time.

As I mentioned earlier, the disparity in wage is terrible. The first full time commission I was offered paid 12.5/year, 11.5/year if I wanted medical.

Dukeboy01
04-11-2011, 06:48
We're relatively new to the collective bargaining game. We've only had it since 2004, when it was granted to public safety employees in Lexington and Louisville. Fun fact: It was signed into law by a Republican governor.

I like to think that we have the opportunity to avoid a lot of the mistakes other unions have made over the years. The last thing we need is to end up like the UAW.

There has definitely been some overreach by unions, particularly other public employee unions like the teachers. They've definitely tied themselves too closely to the Democrats over the years and a lot of this union busting legislation is political pay- back by the GOP, pure and simple. I think cops and firefighters are being sucked into that tornado.

It doesn't help that Obama and the last Congress have run up the tab as far and as fast as they did which has given rise to the Tea Party. (Bush ran it up as well, but not like Obama.) I'll be the first to say that government has done too much for too long, but there are some things that government has to do, like provide for the rule of law. Whatever government undertakes to do, they should do well. That includes compensating the people who undertake the work.

I'll be the first to agree that the smart thing to do is keep a low profile and complaining about pay in public during these tough times is in poor taste, to say the least. But the amount of money CPD officers are being hit for an "administration fee" is nuts. $4.90 out of $31.00 an hour is almost 16%. No way is that equitable to the man hours spent by the city to coordinate the off- duty assignments.

What's ironic is that CPD just finished a round of negotiations and got a new contract. Why wasn't this on the table then? Instead it looks like the city searched for and found a way to do an end run around the contract and stick it to their employees. Good faith is required on both sides and the city is violating that.

merlynusn
04-11-2011, 09:38
I'm in a right to work state. Our wages are relatively good (even though they have reneged on the promised raises the last 3 years). Our off duty is $27 an hour base and an individual employer can use a higher wage if they want. All off duty is run through the department with a job site coordinator. Currently the coordinator does all the legwork (except approving the jobsite initially) and gets the coordinator fee, which is paid for by the business. We believe the department is going to try to take over all the coordinating and thus get that fee. But we don't pay an admin fee to the city or department. If they tried it, I imagine there would be major problems.

razdog76
04-11-2011, 11:08
What's ironic is that CPD just finished a round of negotiations and got a new contract. Why wasn't this on the table then? Instead it looks like the city searched for and found a way to do an end run around the contract and stick it to their employees. Good faith is required on both sides and the city is violating that.

This touches another point of contention I have, while I can completely understand economic hardship, it seems very rare that any municipality does. It is exactly like budgeting monthly bills, if the electric bill is high, you figure out why, and adjust spending.

Instead, the emphasis seems to be to lower the priority to public safety, and redirect it to pet projects with a return return that risks stability.

In this sense, public safety is being treated exactly as the private sector because labor costs are variable. However, by doing this it does not appear to improve areas as far as living conditions, and potential for development.

rod727
04-11-2011, 13:36
We're relatively new to the collective bargaining game. We've only had it since 2004, when it was granted to public safety employees in Lexington and Louisville. Fun fact: It was signed into law by a Republican governor.

I like to think that we have the opportunity to avoid a lot of the mistakes other unions have made over the years. The last thing we need is to end up like the UAW.

There has definitely been some overreach by unions, particularly other public employee unions like the teachers. They've definitely tied themselves too closely to the Democrats over the years and a lot of this union busting legislation is political pay- back by the GOP, pure and simple. I think cops and firefighters are being sucked into that tornado.

It doesn't help that Obama and the last Congress have run up the tab as far and as fast as they did which has given rise to the Tea Party. (Bush ran it up as well, but not like Obama.) I'll be the first to say that government has done too much for too long, but there are some things that government has to do, like provide for the rule of law. Whatever government undertakes to do, they should do well. That includes compensating the people who undertake the work.

I'll be the first to agree that the smart thing to do is keep a low profile and complaining about pay in public during these tough times is in poor taste, to say the least. But the amount of money CPD officers are being hit for an "administration fee" is nuts. $4.90 out of $31.00 an hour is almost 16%. No way is that equitable to the man hours spent by the city to coordinate the off- duty assignments.

What's ironic is that CPD just finished a round of negotiations and got a new contract. Why wasn't this on the table then? Instead it looks like the city searched for and found a way to do an end run around the contract and stick it to their employees. Good faith is required on both sides and the city is violating that.


Its not about Cops and Firefighters unions unfortunately they are caught up in the residual actions of other public sector unions.

rdrkt
04-11-2011, 16:30
Oh and my reference to my $30k a year was intended to demonstrate how little I (and a lot of other non-union cops) make compared to some agencies... when I do the same job. More of one, actually. But then, I'd do this job for free, so why am I even beetching?
If you aren't happy about your pay or benifits don't complain about the other depts who are paid well join them.

MeefZah
04-11-2011, 16:43
If you aren't happy about your pay or benifits don't complain about the other depts who are paid well join them.

Yeah, good call, I'll go sign up right now.

rdrkt
04-11-2011, 18:33
Yeah, good call, I'll go sign up right now.

You are the one on the soap box. My dept does more work and is lower paid then all of the surrounding counties by a large margin. I find it unfair but its up to me to make the change.

razdog76
04-11-2011, 19:44
The reason for having a public safety union is to be able to advocate for wage, benefits, maintain due process, and to counter unfair labor practices. Having people pay their fair share is a necessary part of paying for attorneys, and other costs to accomplish those missions regardless of whether the employee wants/is able to join the union.

IMHO, MeefZah does have a beef when the union will not represent him because he is not a full time employee. While his union is taking his fair share, they are not satisfying any of the objectives.

...but I'm here to tell you, I work a non-union police job and I make $30,000 a year.

I work a second part time gig (for the state police) to make ends meet... and at that gig I'm made to pay the FOP $50 / month, but they refuse to provide me with any union services because I'm a part time employee. So I have to pay in, but I get nothing for it. So in that case, the union is "extorting" me.

MeefZah
04-11-2011, 19:46
You are the one on the soap box. My dept does more work and is lower paid then all of the surrounding counties by a large margin. I find it unfair but its up to me to make the change.

I'm not on a soap box. I was replying to another post with some personal observations. In the portion of my first post that you quoted, did you read the last sentence I wrote?

MeefZah
04-11-2011, 19:55
IMHO, MeefZah does have a beef when the union will not represent him because he is not a full time employee. While his union is taking his fair share, they are not satisfying any of the objectives.

Thanks.

The thing is, I pay the dues without complaint. I mean, I griped on here, but that was because of the extreme irony of the FOP saying "it isn't fair that the city of Cincinnati takes $5 / hr from these officers and gives them nothing in return" while simultaneously saying "it's perfectly fair for the FOP to take $50 / month from MeefZah and every other part time state cop and give them nothing in return". I mean, WTF?

As far as Mike's comment that there are unseen benefits to working in a union shop, okay, under ordinary circumstances I'd give him that. But in this case the only benefit I get is the little placard to go on my license plate (cool, man!) and the hourly rate of pay which was negotiated with the union. Oh, and I have to buy the placard. I am an "ETA" employee meaning I am essentially always on probation, thus making my employment forever at-will. I have no due process. I have no raises - my base rate of pay is what I will make, forever, as an ETA; unless there are cost-of living raises. Hell, the union even specifically negotiated that ETA's don't get bulletproof vests. You have to be full time to get one. Now, having said that, the state hires their full time from their ETA, so for most guys, it's a temporary thing. In my case, I only want it as a part time job, so I really get nothing out of the deal.

FiremanMike
04-12-2011, 05:41
I can also guaranty that any dollars saved on the labor will only cause the best officers to leave as they have continuously for the ten plus years I have worked there, and will still be spent by increasing the management paycheck. This is why when they were crying layoff, money was suddenly "found" when a forensic accountant was hired, but before they records were turned over.

BTW, I have always been for some sort of measurement of production, but this also assumes that the evaluations are done in a fair and consistent manner. This is something that SB 5 also assumes.

It is purely a shell game.

You betcha!

Thanks.

The thing is, I pay the dues without complaint. I mean, I griped on here, but that was because of the extreme irony of the FOP saying "it isn't fair that the city of Cincinnati takes $5 / hr from these officers and gives them nothing in return" while simultaneously saying "it's perfectly fair for the FOP to take $50 / month from MeefZah and every other part time state cop and give them nothing in return". I mean, WTF?

As far as Mike's comment that there are unseen benefits to working in a union shop, okay, under ordinary circumstances I'd give him that. But in this case the only benefit I get is the little placard to go on my license plate (cool, man!) and the hourly rate of pay which was negotiated with the union. Oh, and I have to buy the placard. I am an "ETA" employee meaning I am essentially always on probation, thus making my employment forever at-will. I have no due process. I have no raises - my base rate of pay is what I will make, forever, as an ETA; unless there are cost-of living raises. Hell, the union even specifically negotiated that ETA's don't get bulletproof vests. You have to be full time to get one. Now, having said that, the state hires their full time from their ETA, so for most guys, it's a temporary thing. In my case, I only want it as a part time job, so I really get nothing out of the deal.

I see how you keep trying to draw me back into this.. fine..

I would argue that your position exists in and of itself solely because of the union. I'm certain the state of Ohio could hire securitas to come in and do it for $8/hr. The only union benefit you miss out on is attorney representation for your own mishaps, but pretty much every other union benefit out there is afforded to you, including pension and past practices (so really, you are indirectly afforded a union attorney who has argued previous cases that will now benefit you).

This is why I think we'll lose referendum, because even amongst the ranks of the brotherhood we have *****ers standing up in the balcony saying "hey you guys don't help me enough, I hope you all enjoy your paycut."


I'll end with this. It is certainly obvious that you couldn't care less about our struggle, because you feel you've been wronged by the union in the past. But how's about you shut your mouth and keep it to yourself. As you sit on your soapbox and try and perpetuate your weak points, many of us across Ohio are trying to figure out how to tell our children that daddy is going to be making a lot less money real soon.

MeefZah
04-12-2011, 06:17
It is certainly obvious that you couldn't care less about our struggle, because you feel you've been wronged by the union in the past.

I'm not sure where you keep coming up with this, I was not union at MG. Ironically, had I been, I'm sure none of that garbage would have happened. I don't feel "wronged" by the union. They are / were uninvolved with that issue.

As far as rate of pay at the state, for part time, it is still the second lowest paid agency in the metro area (Columbus State CC PD gets that honor, at $14.90 / hr to start. Incidentally most armed security in the metro area is around $14.00 / hr non union and unarmed court security starts at $15.90 / hr non-union). Full time at the state top pay is on par with a lot of other agencies, though. And yes, you are correct in a few points, I do pay into PERS-LE; so that is a benefit I forgot. I also get sick days, forgot them too. However, all the "past practice" in the world can't help when the union agrees that a part time employee should be considered "at will" and can be dismissed at any time for any reason. As far as the union saving us from being replaced with security, okay; when security gets sworn and has arrest and investigative powers then maybe the union can stand up to protect the job for us coppers. I'm not sure how I'd feel about Wackenhut running a rape investigation, but the state is looking to save money so maybe it's in the cards.

Having said that, I think you are missing the points of my posts since your judgement is clouded. Just because someone isn't beating the war drum with you doesn't mean they hope you fail. I hope the referendum passes and I hope you make scads of money, the kind you can roll around naked in bed with. My posts have simply been intended to represent the irony of the union taking but not giving; the disparity between pay rates for guys who are essentially doing the same job in various regions of the state, with / without unions, and part / full time; and to point out that the public who makes $8 / hr doesn't like to hear about cops making $26 / hr complaining that they are underpaid.

I guess, if you are worried about making a whole lot less money, you can always take the other guy's awesome advice and go find another job. I think you can just sign up for any agency you want and you're in, automatically.

Morris
04-12-2011, 10:20
Having said that, I think you are missing the points of my posts since your judgment is clouded. Just because someone isn't beating the war drum with you doesn't mean they hope you fail. I hope the referendum passes and I hope you make scads of money, the kind you can roll around naked in bed with. My posts have simply been intended to represent the irony of the union taking but not giving; the disparity between pay rates for guys who are essentially doing the same job in various regions of the state, with / without unions, and part / full time; and to point out that the public who makes $8 / hr doesn't like to hear about cops making $26 / hr complaining that they are underpaid.

A-frackin-men!

ateamer
04-12-2011, 10:28
and to point out that the public who makes $8 / hr doesn't like to hear about cops making $26 / hr complaining that they are underpaid.


No one who is making $8/hour has a job that requires the training and decision making that ours does, nor will their job carry the consequences that ours does for mistakes.

strangepork
04-12-2011, 11:41
http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/2/homer_bushes.gif

DaBigBR
04-12-2011, 12:05
No one who is making $8/hour has a job that requires the training and decision making that ours does, nor will their job carry the consequences that ours does for mistakes.

While I agree, try to convince them of that. And they vote.

FWIW when I started as a full time officer in August or 2005 I was making $11.89/hour.

Naelbis
04-12-2011, 12:57
No one who is making $8/hour has a job that requires the training and decision making that ours does, nor will their job carry the consequences that ours does for mistakes.
I barely made $11 an hour when I started and one of the small local PD's payed less than that. No collective bargaining in my state, only market forces. :upeyes:

Hunca Munca
04-12-2011, 14:40
No one who is making $8/hour has a job that requires the training and decision making that ours does, nor will their job carry the consequences that ours does for mistakes.

They do at small departments in Western Pennsylvania!!!

Dukeboy01
04-13-2011, 09:44
Well, our elected officials hate us too...

http://www.kentucky.com/2011/04/13/1705636/gray-to-propose-laying-off-city.html

Money quote:

Save $5.6 million in police, fire and corrections collective bargaining contracts, plus $3.1 million through a variety of other means, including eliminating unscheduled overtime in the fire department and not filling vacancies.

"Our negotiations with unions just didn't adequately factor in the long-term financial health of the city," Gray said.

He also said there must be "permanent changes in the benefits" offered to future employees in those departments, otherwise, "we will never catch up."

A $5.6 million dollar cut split evenly between the PD and the FD would workout to a 10% pay cut acrosss the board. Not gonna happen. Which means layoffs, except he just cut our authorized strength from 595 positions to 535 by eliminating the 60 vacancies we have. A lieutenant told me that puts our officer to citizen ration at 1.78 officers per 1,000 citizens. In practice the mayor's office is pretty weak. . The council runs the show and I don't see them being willing to pull the trigger on layoffs of police or fire.

There's an awful lot of crap that he didn't touch at all. The 28 layoffs he proposed are low- level employees primarily in make- work jobs at city hall.

VPD4327
04-20-2011, 20:09
No one who is making $8/hour has a job that requires the training and decision making that ours does, nor will their job carry the consequences that ours does for mistakes.


I certainly hope your're only speaking of non LE...I started out in a sheet hole for $9.00/hr with no benefits. 39 hrs a week-you go over cause of a late arrest, it's on you. Start putting in pay slips for it and you'll find you're way out the back door. Granted, it was a stepping stone agency but the principal is the same.

ZombieKing
04-21-2011, 00:04
No one who is making $8/hour has a job that requires the training and decision making that ours does, nor will their job carry the consequences that ours does for mistakes.

True.

But the $8 an hour person doesn't want to hear that nor do they care. They simply focus in on the dollar amount without considering any other factors.

Kadetklapp
04-26-2011, 06:52
Meh.

Mike and some others will hate me ...

...but I'm here to tell you, I work a non-union police job and I make $30,000 a year.

I work a second part time gig (for the state police) to make ends meet... and at that gig I'm made to pay the FOP $50 / month, but they refuse to provide me with any union services because I'm a part time employee. So I have to pay in, but I get nothing for it. So in that case, the union is "extorting" me.

$31 / hour minus $5 an hour is still way the **** more than I make at either job, even at an overtime rate at either job. So I have a hard time feeling sorry for poor CPD; and I guarantee that in this economy publicly crying about "only" making $26 / hr to stand around at Kroger and flirt with the cashiers is going to piss off a lot of the electorate who work hard ass jobs for near minimum wage.

This article doesn't specifically report on it, but there is a sense of entitlement that a lot of cops have that I am sick of, and the general public is sick of. We can be our own worst enemy with this sort of thing.

I'm not gonna say that higher paid coppers don;t deserve what they make, but crying about it in a public forum isn't going to win any sympathy from most people.

I'm with you.

Sorry guys. I'm a citizen before i'm a cop. I'm tired of public sector unions holding taxpayers hostage.

Second to that, the FOP is a joke. They refuse to even offer membership to part time or volunteer police officers in my AO. They refuse to offer membership to correctional officers, probation officers, or anyone else that they deem not "cop" enough for their organization. The FOP does an excellent job of pitting police officers against each other. I have no candy for the FOP specifically or unions in general.

FiremanMike
04-26-2011, 09:19
Sorry guys. I'm a citizen before i'm a cop. I'm tired of public sector unions holding taxpayers hostage.



That's just typical right wing/tea party rhetoric, and it's bull****.

Once again, cities can't print money. If they cant afford their public safety forces, they go to them for pay freezes or just lay them off, it's been happening this way all along.

Cities are paying their cops and firemen exactly what they can afford to pay them, no more, and some times less..

Kadetklapp
04-26-2011, 09:28
That's just typical right wing/tea party rhetoric, and it's bull****.

Once again, cities can't print money. If they cant afford their public safety forces, they go to them for pay freezes or just lay them off, it's been happening this way all along.

Cities are paying their cops and firemen exactly what they can afford to pay them, no more, and some times less..

No, I'm sorry, but it's not. An "organization" (corporation) is contracted to demand better pay/benefits for public service agents. The taxpayers are forced to pay these higher wages/benefits or the employees strike/sit-out/whatever. That's extortion. I cannot lend my support to such an organization. They also drive a wedge between employees it doesn't consider "good enough" for it's services but has no problem taking their money.

You have politics, money, and special interests involved. It's a dirty game. Instead, why don't we hold elected officials accountable (sheriff's, judges, prosecutors)?

I worked for a beast of a sheriff. I'm still counting the days until he lands his own ass in federal prison. He was about as corrupt as they get and treated us horribly. Lots of folks lost their jobs. However I still in good conscious cannot support a "union" for government employees.

wprebeck
04-26-2011, 10:08
I'm with you.

Sorry guys. I'm a citizen before i'm a cop. I'm tired of public sector unions holding taxpayers hostage.

Second to that, the FOP is a joke. They refuse to even offer membership to part time or volunteer police officers in my AO. They refuse to offer membership to correctional officers, probation officers, or anyone else that they deem not "cop" enough for their organization. The FOP does an excellent job of pitting police officers against each other. I have no candy for the FOP specifically or unions in general.

<---- is a corrections officer.

I'm also an active member of the FOP, having once been a shift union representative and currently chair of the legislative committee and represent our lodge as a legislative agent in the state legislature.

The FOP isn't anti-corrections at all...they simply require that arrest authority be a prerequisite for membership. Lexington corrections has a lodge, and is currently trying to decertify their present collective bargaining agent in favor of the FOP. We've had them for representation for eight years now.

In that eight years, I've gotten a substantial pay increase (started at $10/hr, eleven years ago, and am making over 90% more now). I have a FREE lawyer that covers me for ANY actions against me, be they criminal or administrative, on or off duty, so long as they are job related (they wont represent me for a DUI, but will for a lawsuit filed if I was working off duty and caught an excessive force complaint).

We also have a better contract than we did when the lying, thieving Teamsters were our representatives. They'd sell out someone in a heartbeat, the FOP has tried to keep things equal for all.

So, say what you want. I've seen what its like not being with the FOP, and how things are with them. Ill take the latter, based on eight years of membership, the last four of which have seen me directly involved. I speak with state and local elected officials to help better working conditions and the like for our officers. Yeah, I'm one of the hated and loathed "lobbyists" that we hear about. Wouldn't have it any other way. Matter of.fact, I'm introducig a state rep at tonights meeting that has been invaluable to us - we've got a little show of appreciation for her.

Oh, and duke - when you gonna get back down there?

Anyway, wanted to clear that up with the whole FOP is anti-corrections thing. They're (we're) not.

wprebeck
04-26-2011, 10:19
KK -

You might also check state laws and specific union contracts....most, if not all, contracts for public safety agencies do not allow job actions like strikes or sick outs. Participating in such activities is.grounds for.summary termination, as it should be. In addition, many states have laws prohibiting strikes by public safety agencies, specifically police.

Again, that's as it should be. Negotiating for pay and wages is one thing. Putting the public safety at risk is another. We can, and have (not my lodge, we assisted another) picketed/protested, though.

Oh, and to my knowledge, we aren't incorporated. I'll check on that, and correct it, if im wrong.

Point is, the FOP is a big asset. Sorry you don't see it that way. I've got personal experience with them, and you apparently bought into the anti-union hype. Hope that changes, and if you ever have questions, let me know. I can put you in touch with the state leadership in your area.

Kadetklapp
04-26-2011, 10:46
KK -

You might also check state laws and specific union contracts....most, if not all, contracts for public safety agencies do not allow job actions like strikes or sick outs. Participating in such activities is.grounds for.summary termination, as it should be. In addition, many states have laws prohibiting strikes by public safety agencies, specifically police.

Again, that's as it should be. Negotiating for pay and wages is one thing. Putting the public safety at risk is another. We can, and have (not my lodge, we assisted another) picketed/protested, though.

Oh, and to my knowledge, we aren't incorporated. I'll check on that, and correct it, if im wrong.

Point is, the FOP is a big asset. Sorry you don't see it that way. I've got personal experience with them, and you apparently bought into the anti-union hype. Hope that changes, and if you ever have questions, let me know. I can put you in touch with the state leadership in your area.

I should have been more specific- in my AO, the FOP refuses representation to correctional officers or part-time police officers, as well as reserve officers (obviously they aren't paid). I've been told over and over again that this is because individual lodges can decide who can be members, but that makes very little sense to me.

If public safety employees are not allowed to strike, then what's the purpose of a union? I guess I don't see what good it does if there is no "threat" if the union does not get it's way. Now it just looks like a scam.

I understand lots of you are union supporters, and have had good luck with unions, and that's fine. However, and I reiterate, I will not support organizations which exist to wring out taxpayers and jack off politicians.

Here's a little story (although it has nothing to do with unions in general, just the fop in particular):
My dad gets killed on the job in 2003. The state FOP comes pouring out of the woodwork (much to the surprise of the local yokel lodge) and are on-site shaking babies and kissing hands. The "crisis team" swoops in and takes over arrangements and handles things beautifully. Of course, after dad is put in the ground they take off and things are left to run their course. COPS was great to our family and did a lot to help heal us. However, when my family was denied the federal death benefit for law enforcement officers, things got bad. Initially, the FOP provided their lawyer to my mother to assist in filing the appeal for the death benefit. It was denied again. My mother and I went to the state FOP headquarters to find out what could be done. It was then we were told that since my father was not a member of the FOP, they are declining to do anything more. That's fine. completely their prerogative and we were thankful for what had been done to that point. However, they claim they were so wonderful for helping out, but their own lodge wouldn't allow my dad to be a member of their wonderful organization, because the local lodge shut out everyone but their own little niche of city cops, full time deputies, and state troopers. Basically discrimination against anyone they don't feel is "cop enough" to pay dues to them. Whatever, life goes on.

To this day I cannot be a member of the FOP because evidently being a full-time special deputy and a part-time paid town marshal are not enough. :dunno: Someone at national FOP needs to pull their head out.

FiremanMike
04-26-2011, 11:47
No, I'm sorry, but it's not. An "organization" (corporation) is contracted to demand better pay/benefits for public service agents. The taxpayers are forced to pay these higher wages/benefits or the employees strike/sit-out/whatever. That's extortion. I cannot lend my support to such an organization. They also drive a wedge between employees it doesn't consider "good enough" for it's services but has no problem taking their money.

You have politics, money, and special interests involved. It's a dirty game. Instead, why don't we hold elected officials accountable (sheriff's, judges, prosecutors)?

I worked for a beast of a sheriff. I'm still counting the days until he lands his own ass in federal prison. He was about as corrupt as they get and treated us horribly. Lots of folks lost their jobs. However I still in good conscious cannot support a "union" for government employees.

I'm sorry sir, but you are completely ignorant to the way public safety unions work. We cannot strike, we cannot really make demands. In the end, if we demand something the city refuses to give, it goes to fact finding who looks at all the figures and makes a binding decision that both parties must accept. If you're curious, in Ohio, the last figure I heard is that the arbitrators sided against the union around 85% of the time.

Kadetklapp
04-26-2011, 12:38
I'm sorry sir, but you are completely ignorant to the way public safety unions work. We cannot strike, we cannot really make demands. In the end, if we demand something the city refuses to give, it goes to fact finding who looks at all the figures and makes a binding decision that both parties must accept. If you're curious, in Ohio, the last figure I heard is that the arbitrators sided against the union around 85% of the time.

So then why have a union? Again I ask WHY HAVE A UNION???

These guys who ***** and moan when they have to make concessions, I can't help but shake my head and laugh pitifully. Guys, if you're holy union hadn't mandated earlier pay increases that put your city on the broke, then you wouldn't be having to make life-altering concessions four years down the road! Again, just because we are police officers or firefighters or street sweepers does not mean we get to shake-down the taxpayer for pay and retirement packages that the municipality simply cannot afford. It's math. Unions in private industry are not a friend of mine either, but again, it's PRIVATE INDUSTRY. Government is not FOR profit. Therefore, its not supposed to be possible for the government to float bloated pay scales, bonuses, and retirement packages.

pgg00
04-26-2011, 12:47
I've never had a union and I make over $70k a year. When I first started I made $12.50 an hour (non-union). The sheriff's office north of me made less the $10 an hour and they were union. Go figure.

Dukeboy01
04-26-2011, 14:03
So then why have a union? Again I ask WHY HAVE A UNION???

These guys who ***** and moan when they have to make concessions, I can't help but shake my head and laugh pitifully. Guys, if you're holy union hadn't mandated earlier pay increases that put your city on the broke, then you wouldn't be having to make life-altering concessions four years down the road! Again, just because we are police officers or firefighters or street sweepers does not mean we get to shake-down the taxpayer for pay and retirement packages that the municipality simply cannot afford. It's math. Unions in private industry are not a friend of mine either, but again, it's PRIVATE INDUSTRY. Government is not FOR profit. Therefore, its not supposed to be possible for the government to float bloated pay scales, bonuses, and retirement packages.

In a perfect world there would be no need for unions, public or otherwise. We need them because we don't live in a perfect world.

The value doesn't lie in the existance or not of any particular union. The value lies in the ability to collectively bargain. Think of this way: It would be great for me to negotiate my own deal with my city just for me. I could document my worth to the city and prove my case with a pretty Powerpoint. My fellow officers who weren't smart enough to build a spreadsheet to prove their individual cases could get hosed by the city and their pay increases could go to me. I'd sign a contract with the city for a six- figure pay package and life would be swell.

There's just a few problems. First of all, the city doesn't want to negotiate with any of us, much less 535 individual police officers. Without state mandated collective bargaining, they wouldn't deal with any of us. Sure, we're free to quit if we don't like it. Prior to collective bargaining at my agency a lot of folks did.

Another problem is that if the city did negotiate an indvidual contract with me there would be no one to help me if the city decided to break it. I couldn't afford to pay for a lawsuit and the inevitable appeals process on my own. However, as a group we can afford to fight those battles. We also make it difficult, if not impossible, for the city to renege on the deal after the contract is signed.

Another problem is, despite my bravado a few paragraphs ago about being one of the few "smart" enough and valuable enough to negotiate my own individual kick- ass deal, I'm really not. I'd do better than most in such a free for all system than most, but I lack the resources and expertise to read the budget and find the hidden slush funds myself. With collective bargaining I pay a little in monthly dues along with everybody else and the FOP pays for an accountant and a lawyer to help us negotiate a contract.

These guys who ***** and moan when they have to make concessions, I can't help but shake my head and laugh pitifully. Guys, if you're holy union hadn't mandated earlier pay increases that put your city on the broke, then you wouldn't be having to make life-altering concessions four years down the road! Again, just because we are police officers or firefighters or street sweepers does not mean we get to shake-down the taxpayer for pay and retirement packages that the municipality simply cannot afford. It's math. Unions in private industry are not a friend of mine either, but again, it's PRIVATE INDUSTRY. Government is not FOR profit. Therefore, its not supposed to be possible for the government to float bloated pay scales, bonuses, and retirement packages

The union doesn't mandate anything. Neither does the government. The salaries and benefits are agreed to by both parties. If the matter goes to arbitration, then both sides are given the opportunity to present their case as to why or why not something might or might not be affordable. The arbitrator decides who is telling the truth and who's not.

Financial forecasts are a tricky business. If something truly turns out to be unaffordable, then the city can ultimately declare bankruptcy and break the contract if the forecast was that far off.

More often than that the government is a long way from declaring bankruptcy. They'd just rather demand concessions from the unions than cut spending elsewhere. That's the situation we're going to be in when we start negotiations in a few weeks. The city is forecasting revenue growth over last year with no tax increases or fees. Yet the mayor's proposed budget wants $5.6 million in concessions from us and the fire department. Something's up.

Kadetklapp
04-26-2011, 14:33
In a perfect world there would be no need for unions, public or otherwise. We need them because we don't live in a perfect world.

The value doesn't lie in the existance or not of any particular union. The value lies in the ability to collectively bargain. Think of this way: It would be great for me to negotiate my own deal with my city just for me. I could document my worth to the city and prove my case with a pretty Powerpoint. My fellow officers who weren't smart enough to build a spreadsheet to prove their individual cases could get hosed by the city and their pay increases could go to me. I'd sign a contract with the city for a six- figure pay package and life would be swell.

There's just a few problems. First of all, the city doesn't want to negotiate with any of us, much less 535 individual police officers. Without state mandated collective bargaining, they wouldn't deal with any of us. Sure, we're free to quit if we don't like it. Prior to collective bargaining at my agency a lot of folks did.

Another problem is that if the city did negotiate an indvidual contract with me there would be no one to help me if the city decided to break it. I couldn't afford to pay for a lawsuit and the inevitable appeals process on my own. However, as a group we can afford to fight those battles. We also make it difficult, if not impossible, for the city to renege on the deal after the contract is signed.

Another problem is, despite my bravado a few paragraphs ago about being one of the few "smart" enough and valuable enough to negotiate my own individual kick- ass deal, I'm really not. I'd do better than most in such a free for all system than most, but I lack the resources and expertise to read the budget and find the hidden slush funds myself. With collective bargaining I pay a little in monthly dues along with everybody else and the FOP pays for an accountant and a lawyer to help us negotiate a contract.



The union doesn't mandate anything. Neither does the government. The salaries and benefits are agreed to by both parties. If the matter goes to arbitration, then both sides are given the opportunity to present their case as to why or why not something might or might not be affordable. The arbitrator decides who is telling the truth and who's not.

Financial forecasts are a tricky business. If something truly turns out to be unaffordable, then the city can ultimately declare bankruptcy and break the contract if the forecast was that far off.

More often than that the government is a long way from declaring bankruptcy. They'd just rather demand concessions from the unions than cut spending elsewhere. That's the situation we're going to be in when we start negotiations in a few weeks. The city is forecasting revenue growth over last year with no tax increases or fees. Yet the mayor's proposed budget wants $5.6 million in concessions from us and the fire department. Something's up.

Ok, I see your explanation and I accept it, however, I still see no underlying purpose for a city or agency to agree to any union's terms. Where is the trade-off? You collectively bargain, why? I know why you the officer would, but why would the agency? If the agency is paying $30,000 a year, and Officer X wants $40,000 a year, well, in my eyes, Officer X is free to apply elsewhere or take the $30k a year. What's keeping him there if he is unhappy with the pay? I'm confused here....

jtull7
04-26-2011, 15:04
From what I can tell, elected officials in Ohio hate just about everybody, except themselves and their precious base.

wprebeck
04-26-2011, 16:42
Ok, I see your explanation and I accept it, however, I still see no underlying purpose for a city or agency to agree to any union's terms. Where is the trade-off? You collectively bargain, why? I know why you the officer would, but why would the agency? If the agency is paying $30,000 a year, and Officer X wants $40,000 a year, well, in my eyes, Officer X is free to apply elsewhere or take the $30k a year. What's keeping him there if he is unhappy with the pay? I'm confused here....

Its not all about money. While my pay has gone.up substantially, working conditions and the like are better with a union. Im in a hazardous duty retirement because of a union. I have a good position at work that's widely considered one of THE best jobs in the entire 450+ officer.department. I can't be moved out of it without just cause, and also have a lieutenant who is the best in the agency to work for. He is in his position due to the union contract, as well.

Off days, vacation selections, shifts, job assignments...all are awarded according to union contract. Hell, we had to file a "class action" grievance recently, just to get latex gloves that were a barrier for bloodborne pathogens. Yeah....something that is OSHA mandated...we had to file a grievance just to get. Sad, isn't it?


There are many other instances of issues just like this. Were it not for our contract, I wouldn't be allowed to work an off duty job for extra cash. We would be moved around from position to position without regard to seniority, etc. Off days could be changed at will, as could your shift hours. All those are guaranteed by contract.


Money is nice, don't mistake what Im saying....its just that language for working conditions is as, if not more, important. And, on your problems...im currently at our monthly meeting, and a National Trustee is here with us. I'll talk with him after the meeting, and get some info. We started our own lodge here, after years of being in the "open lodge", with Feds and every other badge wearer that didn't have their own lodge.

jtull7
04-26-2011, 17:19
BTW, when I started in LE, I made $4.92/hour or $9,400 a year. I thought I was rich.

amd65
04-26-2011, 17:25
Ohio voter here...

Dukeboy01
04-26-2011, 19:00
Ok, I see your explanation and I accept it, however, I still see no underlying purpose for a city or agency to agree to any union's terms. Where is the trade-off? You collectively bargain, why? I know why you the officer would, but why would the agency? If the agency is paying $30,000 a year, and Officer X wants $40,000 a year, well, in my eyes, Officer X is free to apply elsewhere or take the $30k a year. What's keeping him there if he is unhappy with the pay? I'm confused here....

The agency or the hiring government wouldn't if they didn't have to. There's no arguing that. If they had their way they would be able to tell their employees to pound sand.

One advantage that I can think of is that it provides structure and rules for all parties. I know that's kind of abstract, but that can be a helpful thing to both sides.

But, like weprebeck said, ultimately collective bargaining is about more than the money. In fact, IMO, the money ultimately has little to do with it. The non- financial items in a contract are worth way more than any cash.

Is your agency allowed to order you to work more than 16 hours in a row absent a declared emergency, like a natural disaster? Mine's not. How many days notice must they give you before they involuntarily change your RDO schedule, absent exigent circumstances? I get five. If you are accused of misconduct by a suspect, is there a disciplinary process with a review board or does the chief just get to bawl you out and fire or suspend you without pay at will? If you have a take home vehicle can the city just take it away or change the rules on how you use it or do they have to wait to bring it up during negotiations?

razdog76
04-26-2011, 21:31
So then why have a union? Again I ask WHY HAVE A UNION???

These guys who ***** and moan when they have to make concessions, I can't help but shake my head and laugh pitifully. Guys, if you're holy union hadn't mandated earlier pay increases that put your city on the broke, then you wouldn't be having to make life-altering concessions four years down the road!

Well, a union would have negotiated pay which would mean that both sides agreed to it, or an independent third party (arbitrator) awarded it. Moreover, previously negotiated pay would be by an annual fiscal budget.

Typically in municipal finances, if a subordinate organization does not utilize funds in the budget, then that money will not be a part of their budget for the following year. For instance, if you budget $100/month for car insurance, and your rates decrease to $80/month, then you would reallocate the surplus $20.

Again, just because we are police officers or firefighters or street sweepers does not mean we get to shake-down the taxpayer for pay and retirement packages that the municipality simply cannot afford. It's math.

It is math. Much like the private sector, your value to the organization is demonstrated by the budget. State of Ohio employees have been on a wage freeze for the last couple of years, and there have been layoffs. However, when contracts were made they were based on the best information at the time, and were adjusted as was deemed necessary. My agency has not been replacing people as they separate leaving us with 4-7 cars for 688 square miles, and 12 hour shifts.

Meanwhile Kasich reappointed all of Taft's previous cabinet, that was so good at doing their job all of the businesses left for other states and countries. Some received immediate raises, and one is "double dipping." So, I ask you how is this justified?

The purpose of SB 5 has nothing to do with saving any money. Deficits were publicized, and then SB 5 was introduced. Data was then published a few weeks later on the "estimated" savings that surprisingly matched the deficit amounts to the dollar. The purpose is to eliminate unions in Ohio. If you do not like your union, then find a new one, or quit.

I might add that the unemployment rate has decreased to 8.9% http://jfs.ohio.gov/releases/unemp/201104/unemppressrelease.asp, and none of this was due to SB 5.

Unions in private industry are not a friend of mine either, but again, it's PRIVATE INDUSTRY. Government is not FOR profit. Therefore, its not supposed to be possible for the government to float bloated pay scales, bonuses, and retirement packages.

Okay, the private sector has retirement packages. Only 2% of the Ohio budget goes to retirement contribution. This has nothing to do with county, township, or municipalities. They all have separate budgets, so where do you get bonuses, and bloated pay scales?

While I think I am fairly paid in my county, there are agencies in the adjacent county (Franklin) that pay much more. There are men and women in Perry County that don't make anything. Why is there such a disparity? Because of the way tax revenue is dispersed. Most agencies do not enjoy any of this "bloat" you mention. So, by your logic, it is important to you to hurt the people that can stand less hurting in order to address what you deem as bloated.

MeefZah
04-27-2011, 00:01
Ohio voter here...

Your thoughts, as a non-cop?

amd65
04-27-2011, 04:00
My thoughts, as a non cop, non public sector employee is to not support collective bargaining rights for public sector employees.

FiremanMike
04-27-2011, 05:49
My thoughts, as a non cop, non public sector employee is to not support collective bargaining rights for public sector employees.

And your reasoning is?

I cannot stress enough how little SB5 effects the budget, and I also can't stress enough how the loss of collective bargaining will not put money back into the pockets of the taxpayer. I've said it several times throughout this thread, but it's worth mentioning again (because to be honest, I think the unions are doing a poor job of driving this home), cities are NOT going bankrupt on the backs of the safety unions. Cities cannot print money, so if they can't afford what the union "demands" they simply freeze their pay or lay people off. Chopping our benefits is not going to suddenly cause the tax rates to go down, it's not going to turn poor cities into rich ones, all it does is further punish the middle class while making no effort to change the burden on those receiving welfare or those who are very rich.

I find myself particularly disturbed at the utter arrogance of Kasich at this point, who on one hand is perpetuating this myth that firemen, cops, and teachers are bankrupting the state and we simply MUST do everything in our power to curb their spending, all while publicly and overtly giving huge tax incentives to major corporations.

On a final note, collective bargainig is good for both the cities and the public safety forces. It forces the cities to be accountable for their finances, and forces the unions to be responsible in their requests. Another myth is that unions go into negotiations with absurd demands and the cities have no option other than to agree, and this couldn't be further from the truth. Both sides are held to the same standard of responsibility, because in the end if they truly comfe to an impasse, a third party arbitrator is brought in, looks at the facts and figures, and his decision is binding and must be placed into the contract (incidentally, history shows us that arbitrators side with the municipality about 85% of the time).

Everyone needs to be making some sacrifice, there's no doubt about it, but firemen, cops, and teachers have been making financial sacrifices for quite some time. Most of us are running on skeleton crews with aging equipment, doing our best to continue providing our service to the public. As budgets have been continually failing, we have gone out of our ways to make concessions to municipalities to help them stay in the back, in spite of that, our governor is very publicly stating that this crisis is our fault, and while I cannot speak for anyone else, it makes me truly sad to find out just where I stand.

Kadetklapp
04-27-2011, 06:41
I'm going to say this- I'm not familiar with Ohio, although I know it's politics lean heavily to the left and have for years.

Again, I will not support unions in public sector workforce. If you don't like the wage, the benefits, or the retirement, then quit. I won't for a minute believe that municipalities "appreciate" and "benefit" from union involvement in workforce disputes because it "levels" the playing field and makes everyone happy and hug. I call bull**** on that.

Again, if there is no threat of strike, then it makes it pretty pointless to have a union in place, doesn't it? I mean, what's to lose for a city or agency to tell you to go get boned when you refuse to accept a pay cut or demand a pay increase? Somethings got to give. The entitlement I hear in some of your responses makes the same argument the welfare rats are always making. That because of their situation, they are "OWED" something.

Sorry guys.

FiremanMike
04-27-2011, 07:06
I'm going to say this- I'm not familiar with Ohio, although I know it's politics lean heavily to the left and have for years.


Obviously, and btw, Ohio is historically right leaning.


Again, I will not support unions in public sector workforce. If you don't like the wage, the benefits, or the retirement, then quit.


This is such a bull**** cop out answer. First off, I've been at my department for 11 years, my budget is based off my wage, my house, my bills, etc. Now, I get to take a 20% paycut that my city doesn't need to give me but may have no choice because of a potential change in state law. I'm not going to get into the specifics of my city because then everyone will know where I work, but we have some MAJOR businesses here that are financially sound and not going anywhere.

I won't for a minute believe that municipalities "appreciate" and "benefit" from union involvement in workforce disputes because it "levels" the playing field and makes everyone happy and hug. I call bull**** on that.


Our city benefits because we have good people who stick around through a whole lot of bull**** because our pay is decent and our benefits are good. I'm sure the city would love to pay the firefighters $10 an hour and the cops $12 an hour, but then we would end up with a revolving door of public safety personnel who would only stay long enough to find a different job. You can call bull**** all day if you want, but the fact of the matter is, you both admittedly and obviously have no idea what it's like to work in a union public safety department in Ohio, yet you continue to attack those of us who do.


Again, if there is no threat of strike, then it makes it pretty pointless to have a union in place, doesn't it? I mean, what's to lose for a city or agency to tell you to go get boned when you refuse to accept a pay cut or demand a pay increase? Somethings got to give. The entitlement I hear in some of your responses makes the same argument the welfare rats are always making. That because of their situation, they are "OWED" something.


It's been explained to you several times in this thread, so I honestly don't know why I'm wasting my effort to explain it again. The city and the union are both equally responsible for negotiations of contracts. Neither side can make absurd demands, because the other side will refuse, and it will go to a third party independent arbitrator who will make a binding decision. Even if both sides really don't like the decision the arbitrator makes, tough, it's made and now it's in the contract.

But wages and benefits are about 5% of what goes into being in a union. Much of it is about safe equipment, work hours that aren't obscene, and keeping both sides accountable for their actions. Again, this has been explained to you several times in this thread, please try and let it soak in for once.

If you think I sound entitled because I find it absurd that I should be forced to take a 20% paycut that WON'T lead to any decrease in taxes, all while the governor continues to give multi-million dollar checks to major corporations, then I guess I'm entitled. I see this for what it is, the rich and powerful taking money from the middle class to give to other rich and powerful people. I've sacrificed quite a bit for the citizens of this state, and I don't like to be spit on.


Sorry guys.

No you're not, you're nothing more than a rabble rouser. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, yet all you want to do is perpetuate right-wing/tea party myth and propaganda, on top of that you don't even live in Ohio, you don't work in a Union shop, and your perspective is from the outside looking in. I'm sorry you feel like the union boned you back in the day, but that doesn't mean we need anyone else, especially a "brother" officer, campaigning against us, especially when they lack any of the facts.

wprebeck
04-27-2011, 07:29
I'm going to say this- I'm not familiar with Ohio, although I know it's politics lean heavily to the left and have for years.

Again, I will not support unions in public sector workforce. If you don't like the wage, the benefits, or the retirement, then quit. I won't for a minute believe that municipalities "appreciate" and "benefit" from union involvement in workforce disputes because it "levels" the playing field and makes everyone happy and hug. I call bull**** on that.

Again, if there is no threat of strike, then it makes it pretty pointless to have a union in place, doesn't it? I mean, what's to lose for a city or agency to tell you to go get boned when you refuse to accept a pay cut or demand a pay increase? Somethings got to give. The entitlement I hear in some of your responses makes the same argument the welfare rats are always making. That because of their situation, they are "OWED" something.

Sorry guys.

Its good to see you don't have a biased opinion on the issue. One wonders how you would.feel, had the FOP not treated you and your family the way they did.


Personally, I take offense at your suggestion that we (union members) are somehow on the same level as welfare receipents. I earn my check, thank you very much. Spending the day around a few hundred criminals who may or may not decide to assault you just because you wear a uniform isn't quite the same, and you know it. God forbid we actually use a mechanism to IMPROVE our working conditions. Do you have a clue.as to how miserable life is under a boss who not only doesn't like his emplyees being sworn officers, he does everything he can to try and make life hard for them? Were it not for our union contract, well....you'd likely have a private company running the jail. And we all know how well those usually turn out.

See, working in a jail isn't like working the streets. There's not always.some little.young squirrelly idiot.willing to do what we do for little pay and fewer benefits. I've seen many of my coworkers leave my agency and go work for half the pay for some smaller agency, just so they could be he "real police". Many end up bouncing from one department to another, following your "if you don't like it, quit" philosophy. That's not good for the.officer, for the agency, or for the community they serve. Isn't retaining officers important? Shouldn't hiring good people and KEEPING them be the priority here?

Let's contrast a couple of local.agencies here -

Agency #1 is the big dog on the block. Merged department, consisting of around 1200 sworn. They got a crappy mayor who.was anti-public safety and hired a chief that did exactly what he.was told to do. This.resulted in several hundred folks leaving. Many retired, many went to different agencies. Several centuries worth of LE experience was lost and replaced with little children who (relatively speaking) are barely.out of puberty. I've got 11 years on, and that's more than half of the.department in question. What's worse - the mayor.and chief consistently violated the.union contract, costing the taxpayers.a LOT of money. The mayor was even sued by the sheriff, due to trying to take.tax money.that belonged to the sheriff by law.

So, the end result is a department that has.crappy morale, bled out experienced officers due to crappy management, and can't hire enough people to even begin to replace the losses. When I applied for the departments prior to merger, the county police didn't even hire every year. They didn't need to. And the city police - I did a hiring process that had over 1100 people fghting for 25 jobs. Now, they can't get anything remotely like that....

And that's with a union that protects them. How much worse would.things.be without the union? Is.the community better served by having a department that treats its people like crap, and forces.them to leave? Im.hoping you don't really think.the answer is yes..

Now the other side.of the coin. There exists in this county, two.smaller agencies. Both are union, both are highly paid agencies. Both treat their employees well, offer good benefits in addition to the pay. Rarely does anyone leave these departments, except for retirement...which seems to happen after 25+ years or so (in a 20 and out system).

Guess which departments have lists a mile.long for.lateral transfers? Hell, one guy I know used to work for Dukeboys agency, and made the daily drive from Lexington (75 miles) because it was worth it.

Now, the agencies above are all union shops. I've told you about how things are with a hostile boss in place. The union is the ONLY thing keeping officers at the larger agency. Were it not for the protections given by contract, id bet half the people.currently at that agency would leave. Given that so many DID leave, even WITH union protection...I bet im.not far off the mark. How does that serve.the community, KK?

You can't expect things to be all rosey and that your bosses will do the right thing. That what a union contract is for - to.ensure.that you don't get hammered just because you have an unfriendly boss. If you'd rather worknfor an agency like that, its your prerogative. Just don't start the insults by comparing those of us who'd prefer a little protection in our working conditions to ghetto rats that don't lift a finger to earn any honest money.

With you comments, you've insulted me, my wife, every single officer in my county, and thousands more. All because your local FOP pisses you off. Nice.

Kadetklapp
04-27-2011, 08:23
Its good to see you don't have a biased opinion on the issue. One wonders how you would.feel, had the FOP not treated you and your family the way they did.

blah blah blah

With you comments, you've insulted me, my wife, every single officer in my county, and thousands more. All because your local FOP pisses you off. Nice.

I was in a good mood today, but you both took it out of me.

Unions are a good slice of what is wrong with America today.

You aren't going to change my mind.

I am a citizen before I am a cop.

I'm terribly sorry you aren't.

I worked in jails, I've worked the road. I've never seen fit for a union to come in and I know for a fact they would have only made things worse. A union places a burden on the taxpayer that cannot be supported. Look at Detroit, NYC, and other places.

Not sure why firemanmike is even on a gun board with his typical leftist mindset. It's disturbing to me actually.

FiremanMike
04-27-2011, 08:27
Not sure why firemanmike is even on a gun board with his typical leftist mindset. It's disturbing to me actually.

:wow:

Just so you know, I've been a registered republican since I turned 18. My right wing views haven't changed, what has changed is that the right wing has gone to the extreme right, and left us in the dust. Make no mistake, the current right wing cares nothing about anyone who isn't rich.

Kadetklapp
04-27-2011, 08:32
:wow:

Just so you know, I've been a registered republican since I turned 18. My right wing views haven't changed, what has changed is that the right wing has gone to the extreme right, and left us in the dust. Make no mistake, the current right wing cares nothing about anyone who isn't rich.

BS. You cannot tell me you are "right wing" when you are coming here rambling leftist propaganda about how poorly the teacher is treated and equal pay for blah blah blah. BULL.

BTW, I worked in UAW shop when I was in college working for the Indiana Department of Transportation. What a JOKE. No collective bargaining, and not much of anything else. Weak representation, horrid safety issues, the list goes on. They were more than willing to take my bi-weekly contribution though. Oh, all this under a DemocRAT governor. :upeyes:

FiremanMike
04-27-2011, 08:35
BS. You cannot tell me you are "right wing" when you are coming here rambling leftist propaganda about how poorly the teacher is treated and equal pay for blah blah blah. BULL.

BTW, I worked in UAW shop when I was in college working for the Indiana Department of Transportation. What a JOKE. No collective bargaining, and not much of anything else. Weak representation, horrid safety issues, the list goes on. They were more than willing to take my bi-weekly contribution though. Oh, all this under a DemocRAT governor. :upeyes:

Yep, now you're comparing private sector unions to us..

I'm done with you.

Kadetklapp
04-27-2011, 08:44
Yep, now you're comparing private sector unions to us..

I'm done with you.

I'm heartbroken.

Kadetklapp
04-27-2011, 08:45
Oh, and the last time I checked, INDOT is a public service agency.
Founded in 1990 as a joint local of the UAW and AFT (American Federation of Teachers), Local 9212 represents 8,500 Indiana state employees in 43 agencies. These include the Indiana Department of Transportation, the Family and Social Services Administration, the Department of Correction and the Department of Natural Resources. Members work in a variety of occupations including skilled trades, correctional officers, police, firefighters, health care and telecommunications.

wprebeck
04-27-2011, 09:24
It's good to see you're so objective, and don't let how the local FOP lodge treated you affect that objectivity.

Tell ya what - since you like insulting people so much, let's do this:

You worked for a jail, right? What, some backwoods little hick town that had maybe 40 beds filled on a busy week? I work for the largest jail in my state, with an inmate population greater than most of the towns in your county. Think things might be a little different in the big city, than in the sticks? Think that maybe an agency of 450+ sworn officer has some problems that don't really occur when you have 10 employees or so?

Then, you insult my wife's agency - she works for the merged department here. I'd be willing to bet a decent amount of cash that she has more officers on here shifdt, in her division, than your entire agency has total. Ever think that life works differently with an agency that has over 1200 sworn officers?

I've listed numerous issues that the union HAS made better. Of course, you drank the Kool Aid, and won't even consider that we might be correct. Your opinion is that, if you don't like it - leave. And that betters the profession and helps protect the community better how? Let's see - what agency gets the best people -

Agency #1 - No union protection. Retirement plan sucks, benefits suck, working conditions are deplorable. Officers are subject to the whims of the chief, and the suckasses get the good assignments/off days/vacation picks. The rest of the department gets the crumbs that are left. Mandatory OT isn't handed out fairly, it's given to whomever it on the **** list that day. That is, unless a suckass didn't want it, in which case, they got it.

Agency #2 - Collective bargaining exists. Good retirement plan, pay and bennies are decent. No one is getting rich, but you ain't making $10/hour risking your life for the hood rats on your beat, either. OT, if it exists, is awarded by seniority amongst the area where it's available. If needed, a forced OT list is kept, and officers are rotated thru it. Mandated OT is limited to 16 hours per week, whereas BEFORE the union, it was anywhere from 24-32 hours per week.


Hmmm....where would most folks WANT to work? Is public safety enhanced by the actions of Agency #2, or does the community suffer? Exactly HOW does the community suffer by Agency #2 having better working conditions that don't actually COST the taxpayer anything, but contribute towards a happier workforce?

Since you mentioned a few bigger cities like NYC - let's get ChiefWPD and Seanmac45 in here. They both retired from NYPD as command level officers. I'd be willing to bet they wouldn't have worked at NYPD without a union.

Your problem is twofold -

First, you believe that a department should be able to treat staff anyway they want, and that this is allowable - even encouraged. "If you don't like it, leave". As I explained in a prior post, that was done with LMPD. The community lost hundreds of officers that had 25+ years on...literally centuries, and I'm not exaggerating, of experience was lost with this attitude. How in the holy hell can you even begin to believe this is a GOOD thing for the taxpayers, the community, or the profession? This occupation relies on the more experienced officers training the new ones, and helping them along in their careers. When there are no more experienced ones, what happens? My wife has a decade on this job - she's one of the most senior people in her platoon, on day shift. Eight years ago, being on dayshift with ONLY ten years on was virtually unheard of - but, due to the treatment of this agency by both the mayor and chief (AND WITH UNION PROTECTION, NO LESS), they still bailed in record numbers. So much so, the department is hiring retarded idiots these days, and still can't keep up with the attrition rate.

So, your "leave it if you don't like it" option is a big FAIL for the agency, for the officers, for the community, and for the profession. To think otherwise is to be blind to the reality of this job....and, I'm as right-wing as they get. REgistered Republican, think .gov should back the hell out of most things, etc, etc.

I don't need to justify my political beliefs to you, though. I have real life experience in working for an agency that would run roughshod over its employees, were it not for a union.

Perhaps you missed it in my last post - we had to file a class action grievance on behalf of ALL of the 450+ members of my union/agency, in order to force the administration to follow basic OSHA standards. Due to cost issues, the agency REFUSED to buy latex gloves for officers that were protective aganist bloodborne pathogens. Not only is this a contractual violation (they're required to issue PPE), but it's an OSHA mandate. Looked that one up, before I filed a grievance that got the ball rolling on the whole issue.

Seriously - they gave us food service quality gloves to deal with inmates that are HIV/Hep/MRSA/God only knows what positive. These inmates, believe it or not, like to fight. WIth each other, and with us. Blood gets everywhere at times - I've personally seen a fight that ended in an inmate with a good head wound and blood all over the floor and the officers that he assaulted. And the agency won't buy us gloves to protect us from the diseases these filthy scum contract.

SO, is the community better served by the filing of a grievance that costs no money...or, by calling OSHA and filing a formal complaint that literally generates a federal investigation that would result in fines for the department (AKA - taxpayer)?

To make matter worse - the sheriff department staffs court holds in our building for transportation of the inmates to court and back. Our agency bought the deputies good gloves, but wouldn't give them to us. Go figure.

So, I've been there - done that. You? Not so much. But, you DO like to swallow the party line blindly.

Your second problem -

You've allowed your disgust and dislike of your local lodge to affect your outlook on ALL public safety unions. NIce way to be objective there, Junior. Let go of the hate, and try to make things better - or, at the least, don't hate those of us who DO try to make life better.

As for your UAW comment - I was a Teamster when I first started. They got the boot a few years ago in favor of the FOP. That's because the Teamsters are run by worthless scum who make money off the backs of their employees and sell them out for nothing. Agan, been there - done that. The FOP is a different animal. By cops, for cops.


And hey - if you'd prefer to work in an agency that treats you poorly, go ahead. I know more than one guy that does - and *****es about it constantly. Just don't begrudge those of us that actually put time and effort into making things better. And the FOP does that. If you can't see it, that sucks for you. It would be nice to lay off the insults, though. We all do the same job - we can disagree nicely about having unions assist us.

Or, you could be like the rest of the clowns on here - get something in your head that you know nothing about, and preach it as gospel. Your call. But, being that you DON'T work in an FOP agency, never have, and have a personal vendetta against them - your opinion of them is much like the opinion of a certain few GNG's and police work. Irrelevant and uninformed.

Kadetklapp
04-27-2011, 09:27
I'll tell ya what, your rant is more than I'm willing to read. I saw you blow off something about a hick town and a 40 bed jail. Ya, it was a 52 bed jail with 125 inmates in it.

I'm not going to read your diatribe. I don't know your wife well enough to insult her by the way. Pics?

PS- You must have failed to read the part where I worked in a public service union shop. It sucked. No redeeming qualities whatsoever. Next.

cowboywannabe
04-27-2011, 09:37
i can tell you because ive worked for both unionized large agency and non-union small agency.

Agency #1 - No union protection. Retirement plan sucks, benefits suck, working conditions are deplorable. Officers are subject to the whims of the chief, and the suckasses get the good assignments/off days/vacation picks. The rest of the department gets the crumbs that are left. Mandatory OT isn't handed out fairly, it's given to whomever it on the **** list that day. That is, unless a suckass didn't want it, in which case, they got it.

Agency #2 - Collective bargaining exists. Good retirement plan, pay and bennies are decent. No one is getting rich, but you ain't making $10/hour risking your life for the hood rats on your beat, either. OT, if it exists, is awarded by seniority amongst the area where it's available. If needed, a forced OT list is kept, and officers are rotated thru it. Mandated OT is limited to 16 hours per week, whereas BEFORE the union, it was anywhere from 24-32 hours per week.


all of this is true.

small non-union agencies are just training grounds. turn over is high, burn out is high, moral is low, efficiency is low, attitudes are marginal, city hall doesnt care, family is a distance second, risk far out paces the rewards....professionalism is lower....

wprebeck
04-27-2011, 09:37
I'll tell ya what, your rant is more than I'm willing to read. I saw you blow off something about a hick town and a 40 bed jail. Ya, it was a 52 bed jail with 125 inmates in it.

I'm not going to read your diatribe. I don't know your wife well enough to insult her by the way. Pics?

PS- You must have failed to read the part where I worked in a public service union shop. It sucked. No redeeming qualities whatsoever. Next.

Stay classy with the pics comment.

And, I addressed your experience with the UAW. We were Teamsters, and they sucked. No questions about it. That's why they got the boot, and we voted in the FOP. Different animal entirely.

Kadetklapp
04-27-2011, 09:46
Stay classy with the pics comment.

And, I addressed your experience with the UAW. We were Teamsters, and they sucked. No questions about it. That's why they got the boot, and we voted in the FOP. Different animal entirely.

Again, we can't get the FOP to even consider true representation for 75% of my full-time agencies employees. If national or even state would nut up and start yanking local leadership, this could change but they can't and they wont.

I would appreciate the FOP union in my AO for ONE thing, and that would be legal protection against both scumbag lawsuits and crazy sheriffs/elected officials. But I know in my state, being an at-will employee that's not going to happen.

Do I think less of you guys who are in a union shop as cops? No, but what gives you the right to think of me less since I'm not? In our experience, unions serve to protect dim-witted and dangerous employees, stir up discontent and sadness, and suck money from paychecks. Not what we want around here.

cowboywannabe
04-27-2011, 09:57
Again, we can't get the FOP to even consider true representation for 75% of my full-time agencies employees. If national or even state would nut up and start yanking local leadership, this could change but they can't and they wont.

I would appreciate the FOP union in my AO for ONE thing, and that would be legal protection against both scumbag lawsuits and crazy sheriffs/elected officials. But I know in my state, I don't have a right to work, so that's not going to happen.
Do I think less of you guys who are in a union shop as cops? No, but what gives you the right to think of me less since I'm not? In our experience, unions serve to protect dim-witted and dangerous employees, stir up discontent and sadness, and suck money from paychecks. Not what we want around here.

bro, a right to work state means that you dont have to join a union if one is place to work at a specific job.

what youre talking about is an "at will" employee.

Kadetklapp
04-27-2011, 10:02
bro, a right to work state means that you dont have to join a union if one is place to work at a specific job.

what youre talking about is an "at will" employee.

You are correct. I misspoke, er, typed.

DaBigBR
04-27-2011, 10:13
Can we all just agree that there are good unions and bad unions and remain friends?

I would absolutely love to be union protected right now, but two years ago, the thought never crossed my mind. Had we been union protected then, the BS that has transpired to make me desire protection now probably would never have happened.

I see the unions a lot of the time like I see the NRA. Their politicing can be extreme, but often times you have to demand the extreme to settle on the reasonable.

cowboywannabe
04-27-2011, 10:20
I see the unions a lot of the time like I see the NRA. Their politicing can be extreme, but often times you have to demand the extreme to settle on the reasonable.

this is so true....ask for the moon in order to get an 8' cieling....

of course they do the opposite, asking for a 10% pay cut and settle for a pay freeze....

wprebeck
04-27-2011, 17:05
Again, we can't get the FOP to even consider true representation for 75% of my full-time agencies employees. If national or even state would nut up and start yanking local leadership, this could change but they can't and they wont.

I would appreciate the FOP union in my AO for ONE thing, and that would be legal protection against both scumbag lawsuits and crazy sheriffs/elected officials. But I know in my state, being an at-will employee that's not going to happen.

Do I think less of you guys who are in a union shop as cops? No, but what gives you the right to think of me less since I'm not? In our experience, unions serve to protect dim-witted and dangerous employees, stir up discontent and sadness, and suck money from paychecks. Not what we want around here.

I don't think less of you. On the contrary, I would be willing to HELP you get a lodge in your area by using whatever contacts I have.

I just don't appreciate being compared to welfare clowns and being told that I'm "entitled", just because I know how much a union is needed within my department. If you want or have to work a public safety job that isn't covered by collective.bargaining - I understand. If you have the "wrong" union for your employment type, and they're not.helping you at all....I get it. Been down that road. But, the FOP listens. They really do - corrections has made huge gains within the FOP as far as acceptance goes, and my lodge is the 3rd largest in the state, overall. We are quickly becoming a force to be reckoned with, instead of some bunch of yahoo jail guard wannabe types.

Of course, the union is only.worth what the leadership and memwbers make it....for the first couple.of years here, that wasn't a lot. Things have changed, and we're doing a LOT better.

If you really DO want some help getting in a lodge, or starting one, let me know. I'll get you whatever help I can.

razdog76
04-27-2011, 18:14
While this topic has certainly swayed to wage, and benefits, IMHO this is not the paramount importance of the right to unionize for LEO's and Firefighters.

The bigger issue is to have a safety net so that you are not an at-will employee. There are agencies out there that would have no issue whatsoever in terminating an officer for an OIS, or anything that has been spun in the media.

In this forum, we constantly look at examples of this. I would say that for the most part we try to write the thread titles to reflect the incident in a crass manner. Some are blatant attempts to sway public opinion instead of reporting the facts, some are certainly below what we would generally consider professional/legal conduct.

In the private sector, it is relatively easy to find a new job as compared to being hired as a full time LEO or Firefighter. Look at the application process.

Additionally, in our profession it is very easy to become blackballed by an agency that provides unofficial/undocumented references. An HR lawsuit waiting to happen, but still difficult to prove. It certainly may be possible to be employable in another field, but I have not done the things I have done to be employable in another field, I did them to become a better cop.

BTW Kadetklapp, you have repeatedly equated union with right to strike. To strike is very costly for both sides, off the table for sworn personnel in Ohio anyway, and unethical for public safety anyways. That is why arbitration was set up, so that issues at an impasse could be addressed in a dignified manner by an impartial third party.

Dukeboy01
04-27-2011, 19:19
We don't even have binding arbitration. If we reach an impasse we can go to fact finding and mediation, but the mediator's recommendation isn't binding on either party. Somehow we still make it work.

Razdog's hit the main point of collective bargaining again: The pay and benefits are nowhere near the most important things.

Look at this way: In a police department you have people sworn to uphold the rule of law. Should those people's performance of their job duty be more or less free from political interference?

rgregoryb
04-27-2011, 19:38
It's g

You worked for a jail, right? What, some backwoods little hick town that had maybe 40 beds filled on a busy week? I work for the largest jail in my state, with an inmate population greater than most of the towns in your county. Think things might be a little different in the big city, than in the sticks? Think that maybe an agency of 450+ sworn officer has some problems that don't really occur when you have 10 employees or so?



Oh noes.................the dreaded my peepee is bigger than your peepee argument.

Oh before you go all big city popo on me, we were FOP, until we realized they don't do much except take $$$ and we went IBPO. 450 officers would staff 3 of our 6 precincts. We were County PD, also had County SO total well over 2000 sworn.

Guess what....there is no more $$$$, cuts and I mean painful cuts are coming. I've been retired since 2004, thought I had it made, insurance went from 300.00 mo to 800.00 month (my part) it ain't over yet. Why do public sector unions think they don't have to suffer? We all will.

Kahr_Glockman
04-27-2011, 20:09
I just heard that the Democrats in Mass. just voted to cut the collective bargaining rights of the public sector employees. The public sector unions are extremely pissed off. They thought that they had spent enough to keep themselves safe.

Guess not.

Naelbis
04-28-2011, 05:41
Yes..every working man must suffer so the welfare checks can continue to roll out...god forbid that someone has to get a job or starve when they can just hose those who actually work instead...

MeefZah
04-28-2011, 14:00
Hay Kadet Klapp, I just wanted to tell you that I agree with a good bit of your posts in this thread. I think you summed up a good bit of the way I feel.

Kadetklapp
04-28-2011, 14:44
Hay Kadet Klapp, I just wanted to tell you that I agree with a good bit of your posts in this thread. I think you summed up a good bit of the way I feel.

I'm sorry it had to degenerate into name-calling and tongue-lashing, and nothing was accomplished I'm sure. I guess that invisible geographical line separating Indiana and Ohio (and I guess KY) makes working in public safety worlds different than I'm used to. I cannot fathom a union take-over.

I still don't understand what benefit the union provides. If it's not hostage-taking, then what is it? If you aren't allowed by law to strike, then what leg does a union stand on? Someone has to be under "threat" to concede.

When I was working in a UAW shop, we had grievances about safety issues involving failing brakes on our trucks, warning lights not working, inadequate radio systems, etc. Our union stewards were a joke and about as useful as a de-barked chihuahua would be for a guard dog. We had to go thru OSHA to get the problems addressed. OSHA visits are NOT pleasant. They make a managers life hell. After one swoop thru the sub-district from OSHA, things were pretty much cleaned up. I still don't know why I had to pay union dues only to have a taxpayer agency come in and solve the problem.......

MeefZah
05-19-2011, 22:45
Local judge orders 9 of his staff to leave the FOP:

http://www2.nbc4i.com/news/2011/may/19/ohio-judge-tells-staff-leave-police-union-ar-496486/

Can't say I agree with this... :shocked:

Naelbis
05-20-2011, 01:22
Local judge orders 9 of his staff to leave the FOP:

http://www2.nbc4i.com/news/2011/may/19/ohio-judge-tells-staff-leave-police-union-ar-496486/

Can't say I agree with this... :shocked:
I really don't think that is legal....:shocked:

MeefZah
05-21-2011, 20:35
Local judge orders 9 of his staff to leave the FOP:

http://www2.nbc4i.com/news/2011/may/19/ohio-judge-tells-staff-leave-police-union-ar-496486/

Can't say I agree with this... :shocked:

WTF, over?

http://www.zanesvilletimesrecorder.com/article/20110521/NEWS01/105210301/1002/rss01

Zut
05-22-2011, 06:51
Just remember that "right to work" typically have much lower taxes and cost of living. I moved to Georgia from Ohio in the early 80's and love it. I make less, but my standard of living is MUCH higher...

FiremanMike
05-22-2011, 09:06
Just remember that "right to work" typically have much lower taxes and cost of living. I moved to Georgia from Ohio in the early 80's and love it. I make less, but my standard of living is MUCH higher...

That's fine in theory, but at no point during these "discussions" has the Governer even suggested that we would see a decrease in taxes.