[Vision2020] Stout Not Wrong n Union Support / Police UnionStandNot a Conflict

[John Dickinson]

Hi-

I'll give a few things about the unionization of the Moscow police that are
advantages for the community, but I would like to begin with my fundamental
reason for supporting the Moscow police in their request to form a labor
organization - I believe that all workers should have the right to organize.


The benefits include lower turnover of police members. Police department in
our area that are unionized have a turnover rate of about 1%, those without
unions, like ours, have turnover rates around 15%. The savings in officer
training alone will save the city $100,000.

No manager ever thinks that a union will be able to achieve anything that
couldn't be achieved by just talking with management. The truth is that talk
is cheap and that virtually every aspect of work that makes work worthwhile
for the employee has been obtained by a union - wages, vacations, working
hours, insurance, retirement plans, etc. Even workers who are not now
working in a union job have these benefits. I know this might be a stretch,
but it may be that another benefit of the police unionizing would be
improved working conditions for others in the community.

What are the negatives? Unions sometimes strike. In Idaho, organized police
departments are prohibited from striking. So when a union request or demand
is presented to a city council, the council can say "No" and the police
continue to work. So why would they organize? I think there are two benefits
for the police officers - One, once they create a "labor organization' (the
Idaho legal name for an organization the collectively bargains - it need not
be a union, it could be a person hired to speak for them regarding working
conditions) they speak with a single voice to the city. (I need to add
another parenthetical remark here - too many of them, sorry. The Moscow
police officers have submitted several petitions requesting permission to
organize, the latest was submitted a few weeks ago and 100% of the police
officers signed their name to that request.) Two, if there is a dispute
between the police and the city over a request/demand, the matter is turned
over to binding arbitration. In Idaho this is a judge who listens to both
sides of the story and makes a decision. I don't think the city should fear
such a process. Employees cannot expect large increases in benefit packages
because cities are only allowed 3% increases in revenues without a vote of
the community, so demands larger than 3% are difficult for employees to
justify. 

A few last little points, some personal and some just about Idaho. The
issues that I hear most often discussed concerning the police and other city
employees are the merit pay evaluation and the health insurance benefit. 

Merit pay is a pay for performance system. Every faculty member has a
performance evaluation each year and it is used to determine their pay for
the subsequent year. These systems are full of dangers and I would guess
that most faculty members don't like them. I was a department chair at UI
for 15 years and I evaluated faculty for all those years. I believe the
system works, but only if the administrator in charge is able create an
evaluation that is realistic, fair, and comprehensive. If an administrator
decided to count tickets issued or DUIs convicted or convictions for rolling
stops, then the evaluation ceases to be fair or comprehensive. I support
merit pay and pay for performance. 

Who among us is really happy with the health insurance plan we are on? I
suspect only the healthy. Every health insurance plan in this country is
expensive for both the employee and the employer and is less comprehensive
than any sick person would like. I would love to see a solution to this
problem for the Moscow police, for all Moscow city employees, for every
person in Moscow. It is a complex and difficult problem. Any union can't
solve this problem, but perhaps by pointing out the failures with the
current system, we might come to a better solution - one that provides more
coverage to more people at a reduced cost by including more healthy people
in the plan. I don't know how to solve this problem. I suspect it will take
a national solution.

Lastly, Idaho is a right to work state. This means that no one can be forced
to join a union. In practice this means that if the Moscow police decide to
create a labor organization that many members might not join the
organization to save the monthly dues (estimates are that about 25% to 33%
might not join). The major advantage of this is that sometimes unions have
rules that make simple tasks harder - for example, union rules might make it
more difficult to reassign workers to specific shifts. But since we live in
a right to work state, we can move the non-union people around as needed.

My Summary - organizing is a fundamental right of workers and the benefits
outweigh the disadvantages. It is not about the smiles on council members
faces, it is about the rights and well-being of members of the community.

John Dickinson
Moscow City Council

 

-----Original Message-----
From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
On Behalf Of g. crabtree
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 6:58 PM
To: Tom Hansen; Moscow Vision 2020
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Stout Not Wrong n Union Support / Police
UnionStandNot a Conflict

 

Ray writes a fine letter as far as it goes. The question I have yet to see 

answered satisfactorily is how is a unionized police force is good for the 

city and by extension the citizens? It's easy to see that it will be good 

for the union. More dues. It will be good for politicians who support it. 

More contributions. It might be good for the police. More wages and 

benifits, perhaps. But good for the people of Moscow as a whole? That hasn't


been established by any stretch of the imagination. In fact its not too hard


to envision several negative outcomes that will be brought about by union 

recognition not the least of which will be greatly increased costs.

 

gc

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Tom Hansen" <thansen at moscow.com>

To: "Moscow Vision 2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>

Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 3:32 PM

Subject: [Vision2020] Stout Not Wrong n Union Support / Police Union 

StandNot a Conflict

 

 

> >From today's (May 22, 2006) Moscow-Pullman Daily News with a special 

> >thanks

> to Ray von Wandruszka and Margaret Davis -

> 

> -------------------------------------------------------------------

> 

> Stout not wrong in union support

> 

> Recently there has been a spate of letters to the editor from people who

> take issue with Moscow City Councilman Bob Stout's support of a police

> union. A recurring theme in these letters reads something like this: ". I

> thought city councilors were elected to represent all residents, not just 

> a

> small group of employees . " Well, the writers either did not pay 

> attention

> in civics class, or found the material too challenging. Allow me to 

> explain

> the matter (for clarity, I'll write very slowly from here on): If Stout 

> were

> to support, say, a children's playground, then he would not do this solely

> as a representative of the 100-odd kids and their parents who use the

> facility, but because it is a good thing for the city of Moscow - a 

> feature

> that makes it a better place to live.

> 

> The same is true for the union issue: Bob Stout does not support a police

> union because he represents police personnel to the exclusion of clueless

> letter writers, but because he believes that such a union would benefit 

> the

> police force and thereby the city. You may agree, or disagree, but please,

> spare us cockamamie arguments about representation. A city councilor is 

> not

> your personal mouthpiece - even if you labor under the illusion of 

> speaking

> for the people. Councilman Stout has a degree in political science, and 

> has

> this representative democracy thing down pat. Clearly, the same cannot be

> said about his critics.

> 

> Ray von Wandruszka, Moscow

> 

> -------------------------------------------------------------------

> 

> Police union stand not a conflict

> 

> In his letter published in the Monday, May 15 Daily News, Jim Anderson 

> says

> that Bob Stout ought to recuse himself from voting on the issue of the

> police union.

> 

> Anderson maintains that because Stout has made his opinion known in the

> past, that his expressed opinion represents a conflict of interest.

> 

> If this were the case, then every political platform would represent a

> conflict of interest when the issue came to a vote.

> 

> People voted for Stout because of his stands on the various issues. The

> police, as every working group, ought to have collective bargaining 

> rights.

> 

> Moscow's police are willing to do a very difficult, dangerous, and 

> sometimes

> thankless job. They ought to be valued and supported by the community they

> protect.

> 

> Margaret Davis, Moscow

> 

> -------------------------------------------------------------------

> 

> Simply stated, constituents vote for candidates for the same reason that

> they join political organizations, they strongly believe in the positions

> expressed by the candidates and/or political organizations.

> 

> The same holds true concerning Councilman Aaron Ament.  People knew, and

> understood, where Aaron Ament stood on virtually all issues when they 

> voted

> him onto the Moscow City Council.

> 

> Councilpersons Ament and/or Stout should not be recused simply because 

> they

> are loyal to comments they expressed while campaigning.

> 

> Seeya round town, Moscow.

> 

> Tom Hansen

> Moscow, Idaho

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060523/2385e94e/attachment-0001.htm