GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-26-2011, 10:46   #41
Kadetklapp
Methberry PD
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,603
Quote:
Originally Posted by wprebeck View Post
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. Someone at national FOP needs to pull their head out.

Last edited by Kadetklapp; 04-26-2011 at 10:48..
Kadetklapp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2011, 11:47   #42
FiremanMike
Way too busy
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 3,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadetklapp View Post
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.
FiremanMike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2011, 12:38   #43
Kadetklapp
Methberry PD
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,603
Quote:
Originally Posted by FiremanMike View Post
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.

Last edited by Kadetklapp; 04-26-2011 at 12:43..
Kadetklapp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2011, 12:47   #44
pgg00
Senior Member
 
pgg00's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Fled the emerald triangle
Posts: 2,548
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.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


WiskyT :whistling:
There's nothing like the fact that you can take educated professionals with everything on the line and add a little booze and they act like juniors in HS.
pgg00 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2011, 14:03   #45
Dukeboy01
Pretty Ladies!
 
Dukeboy01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Lexington, KY
Posts: 2,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadetklapp View Post
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.

Quote:
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.
__________________
"You want it to be one way... but it's the other way." - Marlo Stanfield
Dukeboy01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2011, 14:33   #46
Kadetklapp
Methberry PD
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,603
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dukeboy01 View Post
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....
Kadetklapp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2011, 15:04   #47
jtull7
Pistolero
 
jtull7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico
Posts: 6,840
From what I can tell, elected officials in Ohio hate just about everybody, except themselves and their precious base.
__________________
Cocked, locked, and ready to rock!

Every day I face Ogden, Utah, and pray that God might bless John Moses Browning.

Outpost Member #69 I collect and shoot many fine firearms. CCW: NM, CT, and NH. N5JHT. WFR. Former LEO. SAR. Bilateral trans-tibial amputee. Survivor of bubonic plague. Tough sum-*****.
jtull7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2011, 16:42   #48
wprebeck
Got quacks?
 
wprebeck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In a flooded corn field
Posts: 8,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadetklapp View Post
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.
__________________
Take 'em!
wprebeck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2011, 17:19   #49
jtull7
Pistolero
 
jtull7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico
Posts: 6,840
BTW, when I started in LE, I made $4.92/hour or $9,400 a year. I thought I was rich.
__________________
Cocked, locked, and ready to rock!

Every day I face Ogden, Utah, and pray that God might bless John Moses Browning.

Outpost Member #69 I collect and shoot many fine firearms. CCW: NM, CT, and NH. N5JHT. WFR. Former LEO. SAR. Bilateral trans-tibial amputee. Survivor of bubonic plague. Tough sum-*****.
jtull7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2011, 17:25   #50
amd65
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: North Coast of Ohio
Posts: 862
Send a message via Yahoo to amd65
Ohio voter here...
__________________
Strange things happen when worlds collide
amd65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2011, 19:00   #51
Dukeboy01
Pretty Ladies!
 
Dukeboy01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Lexington, KY
Posts: 2,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadetklapp View Post
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?
__________________
"You want it to be one way... but it's the other way." - Marlo Stanfield
Dukeboy01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2011, 21:31   #52
razdog76
Heavy Mettle
 
razdog76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadetklapp View Post
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.

Quote:
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/2...essrelease.asp, and none of this was due to SB 5.

Quote:
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.
__________________
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Quote:
Originally Posted by blueiron
'..You can lead an ass to facts, but you can't make them think...'
razdog76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2011, 00:01   #53
MeefZah
Cover is Code 3
 
MeefZah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 3,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by amd65 View Post
Ohio voter here...
Your thoughts, as a non-cop?
__________________
"No amount of indoctrination or textbook learning will in themselves develop more than efficient mediocrity. Operations should be handled with a combination of force, subtlety, shrewdness, guile, and knowledge born of actual experience." - DF
MeefZah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2011, 04:00   #54
amd65
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: North Coast of Ohio
Posts: 862
Send a message via Yahoo to amd65
My thoughts, as a non cop, non public sector employee is to not support collective bargaining rights for public sector employees.
__________________
Strange things happen when worlds collide
amd65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2011, 05:49   #55
FiremanMike
Way too busy
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 3,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by amd65 View Post
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.
FiremanMike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2011, 06:41   #56
Kadetklapp
Methberry PD
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,603
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.
Kadetklapp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2011, 07:06   #57
FiremanMike
Way too busy
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 3,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadetklapp View Post
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
FiremanMike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2011, 07:29   #58
wprebeck
Got quacks?
 
wprebeck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In a flooded corn field
Posts: 8,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadetklapp View Post
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.
__________________
Take 'em!
wprebeck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2011, 08:23   #59
Kadetklapp
Methberry PD
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,603
Quote:
Originally Posted by wprebeck View Post
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.
Kadetklapp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2011, 08:27   #60
FiremanMike
Way too busy
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 3,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadetklapp View Post
Not sure why firemanmike is even on a gun board with his typical leftist mindset. It's disturbing to me actually.


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.
FiremanMike is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:09.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 643
142 Members
501 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31