Budget: Police

The Political decisions of Omaha.

Moderators: nebugeater, Coyote, Omaha Cowboy, Brad

User avatar
Admin
Law Enforcement
Posts: 1340
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2003 9:36 pm
Location: Omaha
Contact:

Postby Admin » Fri Aug 27, 2010 8:11 pm

Ad hominems are not permitted here. Kiss and make up.
Or we will delete this whole thread.

cdub
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1207
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 1:38 pm
Location: Basement with my red swingline

Postby cdub » Mon Aug 30, 2010 12:25 pm

Residency requirements are generally not permissible any more because courts have ruled that they unfairly limited ones ability to choose where to live and who to associate with, or something like that.  Anyway, it has nothing to do with ones ability to do a job and so is no longer considered valid.  Certain jobs may be required to respond within a given time frame, which may limit how far from work they can be, but without regard to jurisdiction.

User avatar
Seth
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1439
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Ford Birthsite Neighborhood

Postby Seth » Mon Aug 30, 2010 1:35 pm

Residency requirements wouldn't make a difference in this case.  What percent of the city population are the police and fire department employees?  Even if they all did pay the same taxes, they would still be better off voting for higher pay and benefits, because they'd only have to pay a very small percent of it back in higher taxes.

joeglow
Planning Board
Posts: 2729
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:04 pm

Postby joeglow » Wed Sep 15, 2010 3:13 pm

States cutting benefits for public-sector retirees

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... gD9I87UJO0

AP wrote:The security guards at the headquarters of New Jersey's pension fund have never seen anything like it before: lines of public employees extending out the door and into the street.

Day after day, workers come in droves to apply for retirement. They often line up before dawn.

The rush has been set off in part by Republican Gov. Chris Christie's campaign in this cash-strapped state to make government employment — and retirement — less lucrative.

Since 2008, New Jersey and at least 19 other states from Wyoming to Rhode Island have rolled back pension benefits or seriously considered doing do — and not just for new hires, but for current employees and people already retired.

After telegraphing his intentions for months, Christie spelled out the details of his proposal Tuesday. They include: repealing an increase in benefits approved years ago; eliminating automatic cost-of-living adjustments; raising the retirement age to 65 from 60 in many cases; reducing pension payouts for many future retirees; and requiring some employees to contribute more to their pensions.

"We must reverse the damage caused by fairy-tale promises that have fattened benefits and pensions to unsustainable levels," the governor said.



Most all states are starting to realize the unsustainability of current pensions packages and are rolling them back.  Hopefully, Omaha wises up soon.

icejammer
County Board
Posts: 3595
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 11:39 am
Location: Council Bluffs

Postby icejammer » Wed Sep 15, 2010 10:58 pm

joeglow wrote:States cutting benefits for public-sector retirees

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... gD9I87UJO0

AP wrote:Since 2008, New Jersey and at least 19 other states from Wyoming to Rhode Island have rolled back pension benefits or seriously considered doing do — and not just for new hires, but for current employees and people already retired....



Most all states are starting to realize the unsustainability of current pensions packages and are rolling them back.  Hopefully, Omaha wises up soon.


Yes, because 20 states is most all.........
"Destiny is not a matter of chance, it is a matter of choice; it is not a thing to be waited for, it is a thing to be achieved."

--William Jennings Bryan

User avatar
Uffda
Planning Board
Posts: 2984
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2005 9:52 pm
Location: Omaha

Postby Uffda » Thu Sep 16, 2010 6:35 am

according to the article Wyoming didn't roll back benefits

_ In Wyoming, as of Sept. 1, employees will have to start paying 1.4 percent of their salaries into a pension fund — the first time in a decade the workers have had to contribute anything.


Also sounds like some of the problem is states skipping payments. I wonder if I can skip my bill payments.

joeglow
Planning Board
Posts: 2729
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:04 pm

Postby joeglow » Thu Sep 16, 2010 6:58 am

icejammer wrote:
joeglow wrote:States cutting benefits for public-sector retirees

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... gD9I87UJO0

AP wrote:Since 2008, New Jersey and at least 19 other states from Wyoming to Rhode Island have rolled back pension benefits or seriously considered doing do — and not just for new hires, but for current employees and people already retired....



Most all states are starting to realize the unsustainability of current pensions packages and are rolling them back.  Hopefully, Omaha wises up soon.


Yes, because 20 states is most all.........


Wow!  THAT is what you choose to comment on???  Thanks for the insight...  If I change it to 40%, could you offer something worthwhile?

joeglow
Planning Board
Posts: 2729
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:04 pm

Postby joeglow » Thu Sep 16, 2010 6:59 am

Uffda wrote:according to the article Wyoming didn't roll back benefits

_ In Wyoming, as of Sept. 1, employees will have to start paying 1.4 percent of their salaries into a pension fund — the first time in a decade the workers have had to contribute anything.


Also sounds like some of the problem is states skipping payments. I wonder if I can skip my bill payments.


So.....they have rolled back benefits - i.e. they are requiring employees to contribute a larger percentage.  According to your logic, if a company makes you pay more for benefits, it is akin to skipping bill payments?  Odd logic.

icejammer
County Board
Posts: 3595
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 11:39 am
Location: Council Bluffs

Postby icejammer » Thu Sep 16, 2010 7:19 am

joeglow wrote:
Uffda wrote:according to the article Wyoming didn't roll back benefits

_ In Wyoming, as of Sept. 1, employees will have to start paying 1.4 percent of their salaries into a pension fund — the first time in a decade the workers have had to contribute anything.


Also sounds like some of the problem is states skipping payments. I wonder if I can skip my bill payments.


So.....they have rolled back benefits - i.e. they are requiring employees to contribute a larger percentage.  According to your logic, if a company makes you pay more for benefits, it is akin to skipping bill payments?  Odd logic.


No, if you actually read the article you would see that some States have not been putting in their share of contributions, which aggravates the shortages in these pension funds.
"Destiny is not a matter of chance, it is a matter of choice; it is not a thing to be waited for, it is a thing to be achieved."

--William Jennings Bryan

DeWalt
Human Relations
Posts: 586
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 7:12 am
Location: Omaha

Postby DeWalt » Thu Sep 16, 2010 7:21 am

Seth wrote:Residency requirements wouldn't make a difference in this case.  What percent of the city population are the police and fire department employees?  Even if they all did pay the same taxes, they would still be better off voting for higher pay and benefits, because they'd only have to pay a very small percent of it back in higher taxes.


To me it's the principle of the thing.  The guys who are constantly pushing for more benefits, higher pay, richer pensions, etc. - are not only the ones who are directly benefiting from them, but are choosing to live in place where they don't have to pay the increased property taxes.  

It's not about the gross total tax revenue.  It's about the sheer and utter hypocrisy.

icejammer
County Board
Posts: 3595
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 11:39 am
Location: Council Bluffs

Postby icejammer » Thu Sep 16, 2010 7:23 am

joeglow wrote:
icejammer wrote:
joeglow wrote:States cutting benefits for public-sector retirees

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... gD9I87UJO0

[quote="AP"]Since 2008, New Jersey and at least 19 other states from Wyoming to Rhode Island have rolled back pension benefits or seriously considered doing do — and not just for new hires, but for current employees and people already retired....



Most all states are starting to realize the unsustainability of current pensions packages and are rolling them back.  Hopefully, Omaha wises up soon.


Yes, because 20 states is most all.........


Wow!  THAT is what you choose to comment on???  Thanks for the insight...  If I change it to 40%, could you offer something worthwhile?[/quote]

All I'm saying is just because 40% of States are choosing to do so, doesn't mean that Omaha should follow their lead.  Omaha should do what it needs to do regardless of what other governmental entities are doing, not because others are doing it.  Thanks for the math lesson though, I really couldn't come up with that 40% on my own, and now that I know you consider 40% to be "most all", remind me not to use your accounting services.
"Destiny is not a matter of chance, it is a matter of choice; it is not a thing to be waited for, it is a thing to be achieved."

--William Jennings Bryan

joeglow
Planning Board
Posts: 2729
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:04 pm

Postby joeglow » Thu Sep 16, 2010 8:25 am

icejammer wrote:
joeglow wrote:
icejammer wrote:[quote="joeglow"]States cutting benefits for public-sector retirees

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... gD9I87UJO0

[quote="AP"]Since 2008, New Jersey and at least 19 other states from Wyoming to Rhode Island have rolled back pension benefits or seriously considered doing do — and not just for new hires, but for current employees and people already retired....



Most all states are starting to realize the unsustainability of current pensions packages and are rolling them back.  Hopefully, Omaha wises up soon.


Yes, because 20 states is most all.........


Wow!  THAT is what you choose to comment on???  Thanks for the insight...  If I change it to 40%, could you offer something worthwhile?[/quote]

All I'm saying is just because 40% of States are choosing to do so, doesn't mean that Omaha should follow their lead.  Omaha should do what it needs to do regardless of what other governmental entities are doing, not because others are doing it.  Thanks for the math lesson though, I really couldn't come up with that 40% on my own, and now that I know you consider 40% to be "most all", remind me not to use your accounting services.[/quote]

Sometimes I feel like I am pissing in the wind.  Speaking of math, it flat out DOES NOT WORK.  Much like social security, when the plans were established, there were MUCH different criteria at work - growing population bases, shortened life spans, more nationalized economies.

Now, we have shrinking population bases (as a percentage of workers to retirees), MUCH longer life spans (people can work for 20 years and draw their full time salary for FIFTY years after retirement) and an economy that will not grow at levels seen in the past due to the global economy (and the majority of the rest of the world operating at much lower costs).

For the 100th time, there is a reason why private companies got away from them and those that didn't flat out went bankrupt (i.e. GM).  Sadly, greedy, ignorant taxpayers figure governments have an unlimited supply of money.  Thus, since bankruptcy is never a concern (per se, as they can always tax more), they would rather stick their heads in the sand, pretend like nothing is wrong, turn it into a political or class warfare argument and ignore the facts.  

If this is what you what you want to hang your hat on, fine.  However, drop any discussions about street cars, new stadiums, downtown development, etc.  All of our money is going to HAVE to go to funding 50 years of retirement for 20 year employees.  I assure you, it is only going to get worse (however, if you spend 20 minutes looking at the history of pensions and their financial impact and sustainability, you would already know this).

User avatar
Bosco55David
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1429
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 1:25 am
Location: Tampa, FL (formerly Omaha and Council Bluffs)

Postby Bosco55David » Thu Sep 16, 2010 2:09 pm

joeglow wrote:For the 100th time, there is a reason why private companies got away from them and those that didn't flat out went bankrupt (i.e. GM).  Sadly, greedy, ignorant taxpayers figure governments have an unlimited supply of money.  Thus, since bankruptcy is never a concern (per se, as they can always tax more), they would rather stick their heads in the sand, pretend like nothing is wrong, turn it into a political or class warfare argument and ignore the facts.


And, for the 100th time, you're wrong. There are plenty of completely solvent private sector pensions out there. My mother draws one. Her dad drew one until he died. A family friend is 2 years away from drawing his.

The private sector isn't getting out of the pension game because they have to, they're during it because the decline of unionization is letting them. It's no surprise that when the labor get rid of the stick that gives them a fair share of the pie, the bosses are going to take more of that share for themselves.

joeglow
Planning Board
Posts: 2729
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:04 pm

Postby joeglow » Thu Sep 16, 2010 3:03 pm

Bosco55David wrote:
joeglow wrote:For the 100th time, there is a reason why private companies got away from them and those that didn't flat out went bankrupt (i.e. GM).  Sadly, greedy, ignorant taxpayers figure governments have an unlimited supply of money.  Thus, since bankruptcy is never a concern (per se, as they can always tax more), they would rather stick their heads in the sand, pretend like nothing is wrong, turn it into a political or class warfare argument and ignore the facts.


And, for the 100th time, you're wrong. There are plenty of completely solvent private sector pensions out there. My mother draws one. Her dad drew one until he died. A family friend is 2 years away from drawing his.

The private sector isn't getting out of the pension game because they have to, they're during it because the decline of unionization is letting them. It's no surprise that when the labor get rid of the stick that gives them a fair share of the pie, the bosses are going to take more of that share for themselves.


And those that are succeeding have cut their benefits from what was offered.  You no longer see successful plans that offer free healthcare.  You no longer see successful plans that give you 50 years of payments for 20-25 years of service.  Those that succeed require you to work to 65 and pay a chunk of your healthcare and it is usually only offered until you qualify for medicare.  So, NO you do not see plans like governments have that succeed.

User avatar
Seth
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1439
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Ford Birthsite Neighborhood

Postby Seth » Thu Sep 16, 2010 7:36 pm

I have to say that I more or less agree with Joe on this one; most current government pension systems are unsustainable as they exist today.  All of the entities who are cutting back and skipping contributions are only making it worse.  Have you ever read the pamphlets they give you with your 401(k) statements?  The amount of appreciation you forfeit by slacking on your early contributions really kills you a few decades down the road.  That's exactly what government agencies are doing.  It's not surprising, though, as our political system only forces those in office to look 2, 4, or at most 6 years down the road.  Those in charge are inevitably going to choose short-term gain (or decrease outcry) at the expense of long-term insolvency.  It's exactly the same with the sell-off and privatization of government buildings, services and assets; a small short-term band-aid that is going to bite us bigtime when the money is spent in just a couple years and the assets are either gone forever or locked up in a century-long lease (look at Chicago!).

I'm not fundamentally against pensions, but the time is here when they need to be evaluated and long-term projections need to be taken seriously.  Employers have to look at the life-long cost of an employee, not just their working pay and benefits.  With a pension system, the employer takes all of the risk, rather than the employee (as in the case of 401(k) or other private retirement savings programs).  Whether this is fair is a matter of debate, but the fact remains.

Unions hinder the process because, just as politicians, they're only considering their self-interest for the next 3-5 years of the contract.  On top of that, they also twist the supply-and-demand capitalism of employment so that the cost doesn't always reflect the  value of their service.  I could go on, but this isn't an anti-union tirade.

User avatar
Bosco55David
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1429
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 1:25 am
Location: Tampa, FL (formerly Omaha and Council Bluffs)

Postby Bosco55David » Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:30 pm

joeglow wrote:And those that are succeeding have cut their benefits from what was offered.  You no longer see successful plans that offer free healthcare.  You no longer see successful plans that give you 50 years of payments for 20-25 years of service.  Those that succeed require you to work to 65 and pay a chunk of your healthcare and it is usually only offered until you qualify for medicare.  So, NO you do not see plans like governments have that succeed.


Oh yeah? I guess you better tell that to my mom. That nice pension for 30 years of service and nearly free healthcare must be a figment of her imagination.

joeglow
Planning Board
Posts: 2729
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:04 pm

Postby joeglow » Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:15 pm

Bosco55David wrote:
joeglow wrote:And those that are succeeding have cut their benefits from what was offered.  You no longer see successful plans that offer free healthcare.  You no longer see successful plans that give you 50 years of payments for 20-25 years of service.  Those that succeed require you to work to 65 and pay a chunk of your healthcare and it is usually only offered until you qualify for medicare.  So, NO you do not see plans like governments have that succeed.


Oh yeah? I guess you better tell that to my mom. That nice pension for 30 years of service and nearly free healthcare must be a figment of her imagination.


That anecdotal example proves NOTHING.  There was a 22 year police officer on the news tonight retiring with a guaranteed salary of $72,000 a year for life.  Using your logic, since he is getting a check tomorrow (theoretically), the system is 100% perfect.  

Some of us are able to see where the road is going BEFORE we drive off the cliff.

User avatar
Uffda
Planning Board
Posts: 2984
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2005 9:52 pm
Location: Omaha

Postby Uffda » Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:40 pm

So.....they have rolled back benefits - i.e. they are requiring employees to contribute a larger percentage.  According to your logic, if a company makes you pay more for benefits, it is akin to skipping bill payments?  Odd logic.


No, if you actually read the article you would see that some States have not been putting in their share of contributions, which aggravates the shortages in these pension funds.



Thanks Jammer that was what I was referring to.  As for Wyoming -- they had lots of surplus in the budget and instead of putting some aside for a rainy day they spent it.  Although now they are requiring a 1.4% input by employees - on a 50,000 salary that is what $700/yr -- my pension contribution this past month was $412  -- I think I could deal with the $700/year and the very low property tax and no income tax of wyoming.[/quote]

User avatar
Bosco55David
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1429
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 1:25 am
Location: Tampa, FL (formerly Omaha and Council Bluffs)

Postby Bosco55David » Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:37 am

joeglow wrote:That anecdotal example proves NOTHING.  There was a 22 year police officer on the news tonight retiring with a guaranteed salary of $72,000 a year for life.  Using your logic, since he is getting a check tomorrow (theoretically), the system is 100% perfect.


On the contrary. You've taken the absurdly extreme stance that ALL pensions are unsustainable. The fact that I can point to solvent pension funds proves you incorrect, but that's the problem with arguing absolutes.

Once again, it's not me, it's you.

Some of us are able to see where the road is going BEFORE we drive off the cliff.


Again, this is getting to the point of absurdity. I think everyone and their mother agrees that we need to do something about reigning in these pensions. The problem is you and your ilk think anything that leaves the pensions intact is unacceptable. heck, it's not like that stance is limited to local issues either. You'd think after you'd got obliterated by the moderates a few times, maybe you'd wise up.

I don't even know what the point is though. We had the vote and your side lost. The issue is settled for the next few years. Now we'll move on to the fire contract where we'll see the same thing play out again. Stothert, Nabity, Thompson and Becka will all try to blame it on those evil unions, it'll get fought out in the negotiations and even though there will be some hurt feelings the cooler heads will prevail and all the while you'll be here throwing a |expletive| fit like a teenage girl on her period.

It's about as predictable as you copying and pasting whatever anti-union blurbs show up on Becka's facebook page.

DeWalt
Human Relations
Posts: 586
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 7:12 am
Location: Omaha

Postby DeWalt » Fri Sep 17, 2010 9:17 am

You can tell which way this reporter leans on the issue, but as expected, quite a few local policemen are "retiring" before the pension changes take effect October 1st.  

http://www.wowt.com/home/headlines/103093139.html

DeWalt
Human Relations
Posts: 586
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 7:12 am
Location: Omaha

Postby DeWalt » Fri Sep 17, 2010 10:48 am

By the way, your dream "fixer upper" on Cuming Street sold.  Bummer, huhh?  :)

User avatar
Bosco55David
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1429
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 1:25 am
Location: Tampa, FL (formerly Omaha and Council Bluffs)

Postby Bosco55David » Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:00 pm

DeWalt wrote:By the way, your deam "fixer upper" on Cuming Street sold.  Bummer, huhh?  :)


Naw, I agree with your assessment that the house was U-G-L-Y.  :P

DeWalt
Human Relations
Posts: 586
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 7:12 am
Location: Omaha

Postby DeWalt » Fri Sep 17, 2010 7:47 pm

Bosco55David wrote:
DeWalt wrote:By the way, your deam "fixer upper" on Cuming Street sold.  Bummer, huhh?  :)


Naw, I agree with your assessment that the house was U-G-L-Y.  :P

I'm sure it's well on its way to becoming Section 8 Housing.

User avatar
Seth
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1439
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Ford Birthsite Neighborhood

Postby Seth » Wed Sep 22, 2010 7:15 pm

DeWalt wrote:By the way, your dream "fixer upper" on Cuming Street sold.  Bummer, huhh?  :)


Are you talking about the 2 1/2 story between 34th and 35th?  My wife and I actually went to look at it.  It was a real gem; I don't think it had any upkeep in the past 50 years besides many layers of 5-dollar-a-gallon paint.  The wolf mural on the garage almost sold us, though, haha!

User avatar
Bosco55David
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1429
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 1:25 am
Location: Tampa, FL (formerly Omaha and Council Bluffs)

Postby Bosco55David » Wed Sep 22, 2010 8:44 pm

Seth wrote:
DeWalt wrote:By the way, your dream "fixer upper" on Cuming Street sold.  Bummer, huhh?  :)


Are you talking about the 2 1/2 story between 34th and 35th?  My wife and I actually went to look at it.  It was a real gem; I don't think it had any upkeep in the past 50 years besides many layers of 5-dollar-a-gallon paint.  The wolf mural on the garage almost sold us, though, haha!


That's the one.

User avatar
Stargazer
County Board
Posts: 3918
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 11:06 am
Location: west Omaha

Postby Stargazer » Mon Nov 08, 2010 9:29 pm

http://www.omaha.com/article/20101107/NEWS01/101109766

Wouldn't it make more sense to cut those officers closest to qualifying for their full pensions? ... and retain rookies in their place?  Of course it would... but then I'm sure the union has us legally bound to retain those highest tenured officers.

User avatar
Bosco55David
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1429
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 1:25 am
Location: Tampa, FL (formerly Omaha and Council Bluffs)

Postby Bosco55David » Mon Nov 08, 2010 9:36 pm

Stargazer wrote:http://www.omaha.com/article/20101107/NEWS01/101109766

Wouldn't it make more sense to cut those officers closest to qualifying for their full pensions? ... and retain rookies in their place?  Of course it would... but then I'm sure the union has us legally bound to retain those highest tenured officers.


They'll always ditch the newbies first. They're not going to start cutting people who have significant time built up in their pensions. That's needed to protect the employee.

Another thing to consider is that OPD is a pretty young department. Chief Hayes has made it pretty clear he wants to retain as many experienced officers as possible.

joeglow
Planning Board
Posts: 2729
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:04 pm

Postby joeglow » Mon Nov 08, 2010 11:30 pm

Oh, and I am waiting for the obligatory "every other city is throwing away money they don't have on pensions they cannot afford, so we MUST do the same, lest we only get mouth breathing morons willing to work the job."

User avatar
Bosco55David
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1429
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 1:25 am
Location: Tampa, FL (formerly Omaha and Council Bluffs)

Postby Bosco55David » Mon Nov 08, 2010 11:52 pm

joeglow wrote:Because apparently hospitals and police officers are incapable of doing what EVER OTHER PROFESSION can do: evaluate who the best are (i.e. not just be lazy and adopt a "last hire, first fired" mentality).  Oh, and teacher's unions as well.


It's not about evaluation as that's a separate matter in itself. This is a protection put in place so the guys who have 10 or 20 years on the job don't lose their accrued retirement time because limp |expletive| accountants like yourself want to save some money.

joeglow
Planning Board
Posts: 2729
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:04 pm

Postby joeglow » Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:53 am

Bosco55David wrote:
joeglow wrote:Because apparently hospitals and police officers are incapable of doing what EVER OTHER PROFESSION can do: evaluate who the best are (i.e. not just be lazy and adopt a "last hire, first fired" mentality).  Oh, and teacher's unions as well.


It's not about evaluation as that's a separate matter in itself. This is a protection put in place so the guys who have 10 or 20 years on the job don't lose their accrued retirement time because limp |expletive| accountants like yourself want to save some money.


Ahhh.  Personal attacks are the sign that someone feels confident in their argument.  However, I am glad to see you have your copy of the police union play book.  Oddly enough, it is the same as the fire fighters and teacher union's (or any government union for that matter).

mrdwhsr
Library Board
Posts: 337
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:51 pm
Location: Omaha Metro Area

Postby mrdwhsr » Wed Nov 10, 2010 12:01 pm

Bosco55David wrote:
Stargazer wrote:http://www.omaha.com/article/20101107/NEWS01/101109766

Wouldn't it make more sense to cut those officers closest to qualifying for their full pensions? ... and retain rookies in their place?  Of course it would... but then I'm sure the union has us legally bound to retain those highest tenured officers.


They'll always ditch the newbies first. They're not going to start cutting people who have significant time built up in their pensions. That's needed to protect the employee.

Another thing to consider is that OPD is a pretty young department. Chief Hayes has made it pretty clear he wants to retain as many experienced officers as possible.



A little off the pension discussion but aren't there a couple of guys posting in this forum that want to join the Omaha Police Department someday? With OPD cutting the newbies that doesn't bode well for those who could be hired in the near future.

And for those who think these cut-backs aren't a big deal because you don't want a job with OPD, a reduced force means fewer patrols and slower response times.

User avatar
Bosco55David
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1429
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 1:25 am
Location: Tampa, FL (formerly Omaha and Council Bluffs)

Postby Bosco55David » Wed Nov 10, 2010 3:29 pm

mrdwhsr wrote:A little off the pension discussion but aren't there a couple of guys posting in this forum that want to join the Omaha Police Department someday? With OPD cutting the newbies that doesn't bode well for those who could be hired in the near future.


That would be me and 2Adam29. As much as it sucks for us that this is going to delay our goals, it sucks alot less than it would for the guy who might lose half of his accrued pension time so the bean counters can save money. I have a pretty tough time putting my own self interest there first.  

And for those who think these cut-backs aren't a big deal because you don't want a job with OPD, a reduced force means fewer patrols and slower response times.


On a force that has been historically understaffed as it is

joeglow
Planning Board
Posts: 2729
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:04 pm

Postby joeglow » Wed Nov 10, 2010 4:42 pm

Bosco55David wrote:As much as it sucks for us that this is going to delay our goals, it sucks alot less than it would for the guy who might lose half of his accrued pension time so the bean counters can save money.


As much as it sucks for "the guy who might lose half of his accrued pension time so the bean counters can save money", it sucks a lot less than it does for the taxpayer taking the a$$ pounding from the police and fire unions.

User avatar
Bosco55David
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1429
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 1:25 am
Location: Tampa, FL (formerly Omaha and Council Bluffs)

Postby Bosco55David » Wed Nov 10, 2010 5:46 pm

joeglow wrote:As much as it sucks for "the guy who might lose half of his accrued pension time so the bean counters can save money", it sucks a lot less than it does for the taxpayer taking the a$$ pounding from the police and fire unions.


Of course you'd feel that way. You're blatantly hostile to any unionized profession, radically conservative and would have no problem destroying someone's livelihood to save a buck or two on your property taxes. You're entitled to feel that way of course, but once again you'll never get your way thanks to unions that have bonded together and put a stop to that way of thinking.

joeglow
Planning Board
Posts: 2729
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:04 pm

Postby joeglow » Wed Nov 10, 2010 5:58 pm

Bosco55David wrote:
joeglow wrote:As much as it sucks for "the guy who might lose half of his accrued pension time so the bean counters can save money", it sucks a lot less than it does for the taxpayer taking the a$$ pounding from the police and fire unions.


Of course you'd feel that way. You're blatantly hostile to any unionized profession, radically conservative and would have no problem destroying someone's livelihood to save a buck or two on your property taxes. You're entitled to feel that way of course, but once again you'll never get your way thanks to unions that have bonded together and put a stop to that way of thinking.


You clearly have not read what I have posted.  I come from a union family and strongly support unions when they stand up for workers rights.  I oppose unions when they try to swing the pendulum too far the other way.  Unfortunately, with government unions it is too easy to do just that.

User avatar
Bosco55David
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1429
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 1:25 am
Location: Tampa, FL (formerly Omaha and Council Bluffs)

Postby Bosco55David » Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:00 pm

joeglow wrote:You clearly have not read what I have posted.  I come from a union family and strongly support unions when they stand up for workers rights.  I oppose unions when they try to swing the pendulum too far the other way.  Unfortunately, with government unions it is too easy to do just that.
In that case you're basically clueless (no shocker there) as every union I've ever known has clauses in the contract ensuring that in the event of layoffs those with the lowest seniority go first, yet you're making this a government union issue.

joeglow
Planning Board
Posts: 2729
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:04 pm

Postby joeglow » Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:29 pm

Bosco55David wrote:
joeglow wrote:You clearly have not read what I have posted.  I come from a union family and strongly support unions when they stand up for workers rights.  I oppose unions when they try to swing the pendulum too far the other way.  Unfortunately, with government unions it is too easy to do just that.
In that case you're basically clueless (no shocker there) as every union I've ever known has clauses in the contract ensuring that in the event of layoffs those with the lowest seniority go first, yet you're making this a government union issue.



And that is an instance where I oppose all unions.

User avatar
Bosco55David
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1429
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 1:25 am
Location: Tampa, FL (formerly Omaha and Council Bluffs)

Postby Bosco55David » Wed Nov 10, 2010 8:18 pm

joeglow wrote:And that is an instance where I oppose all unions.


I don't think anyone in a union gives a darn.

joeglow
Planning Board
Posts: 2729
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:04 pm

Postby joeglow » Wed Nov 10, 2010 8:40 pm

Bosco55David wrote:
joeglow wrote:And that is an instance where I oppose all unions.


I don't think anyone in a union gives a darn.


Honestly, I don't care if they give a darn and, frankly, leave it between the parties involved and the private company.  However, when it comes to government unions, while they may not give a darn, I will exercise my right to do what is right.  And, in looking at the thug behavior the fire union has exercised when went after Jean Stothert, American Taxpayers for Freedom, Nabity, etc. it is clear they do give a darn about the masses cutting off their lotto pensions.

User avatar
Bosco55David
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1429
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 1:25 am
Location: Tampa, FL (formerly Omaha and Council Bluffs)

Postby Bosco55David » Wed Nov 10, 2010 9:09 pm

joeglow wrote:I will exercise my right to do what is right.
Rant ad nauseum about something that you'll never have any impact on?


Return to “Omaha Metro Area Government”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest