[Vision2020] Stout Not Wrong n Union Support / Police
UnionStandNot a Conflict
g. crabtree
jampot at adelphia.net
Tue May 23 06:50:31 PDT 2006
John, Thanks for taking the time to respond. Your paragraph outlining the benefits of a police union is a little on the sparse side. If turnover is the biggest problem at a cost to the city of $100,000. the obvious solution would seen to be to move a few bucks from the training budget to the compensation side of the ledger. Giving a significant percent of that money to the union to achieve that end wastes monies that could be better utilized elsewhere. I am all in favor of our local constabulary being compensated at a fair rate but I still see no indication that a union presence will aid in that goal.
gc
----- Original Message -----
From: John Dickinson
To: 'g. crabtree' ; 'Tom Hansen' ; 'Moscow Vision 2020'
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 1:38 AM
Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Stout Not Wrong n Union Support / Police UnionStandNot a Conflict
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/f61c9375/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list