Omaha Forums

Bosco55David wrote:

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?

Yeah, because no group of individuals has ever effected change in our government.  

However, it doesn't surprise that a supporter of government unions adopts the philosophy of waiting for someone else to do the heavy lifting.

Is Union Support a Conflict of Interest:

"Public employee unions, like police and fire, have picked sides in political races for years. But city council member Jean Stothert says campaign donations have an impact on a council member's vote when it comes time to approve a union contract.

"That should never be," says Stothert. "You should not be unduly influenced with your votes by who gives you money. And that sometimes unfortunately happens. And we all know it happens."

She has drafted a proposed ordinance that would keep any council member from voting on a public union contract if they took campaign money from that union."



http://www.wowt.com/home/headlines/Is_U ... 08928.html

I have to say that if they can't vote on union contracts if they took campaign money then they also shouldn't be able to vote on any issue where they also took campaign money from someone or a company involved... could end up being a lot of non voting.

Uffda wrote:I have to say that if they can't vote on union contracts if they took campaign money then they also shouldn't be able to vote on any issue where they also took campaign money from someone or a company involved... could end up being a lot of non voting.

I'd second that, why single out just one source of campaign contributions?  I believe that may run afoul of Constitutional issues...

Uffda wrote:I have to say that if they can't vote on union contracts if they took campaign money then they also shouldn't be able to vote on any issue where they also took campaign money from someone or a company involved... could end up being a lot of non voting.

Or we could simply limit campaign contribution sources to individuals and keep the cap at $2500 or whatever it is.  Just a thought.

I will go with that but I say cap it a 100.  It has become too much about the money.

Police in France are going to strike because they can't drink while on duty anymore... what a different world over there.

Brad wrote:Police in France are going to strike because they can't drink while on duty anymore... what a different world over there.

What a great job that would be, a drunk cop.  :)

S33 wrote:

Brad wrote:Police in France are going to strike because they can't drink while on duty anymore... what a different world over there.

What a great job that would be, a drunk cop.  :)

I would pay to see the experience of DTO pulling someone over on their birthday.  Well, legally pulling someone over, anyway...    Best. COPS. Evar.

Why?

http://www.omaha.com/article/20110714/N ... -000-raise

Omaha Police Chief Alex Hayes would get a $35,000 raise under a new labor agreement up for approval by the City Council.
If the deal goes through, it would increase Hayes' salary by 27 percent, from $130,658 to $165,670.

Stargazer wrote:Why?

Pension Spiking: "the process whereby public sector employees grant themselves large raises or otherwise artificially inflate their compensation in the years immediately preceding retirement in order to receive larger pensions than they otherwise would be entitled to receive."

The question should be: why is this not prohibited by the new union and management contracts?

“We're moving the whole pay scale up,” he said.

Gotta love the public sector. Pay scales move up, while everyone else's pay scales creep downward or stagnate.

Just looking around... found Minneapolis police chief is at $148,421... St Louis is $127,000.  It's sickening... yes, we have similar population to these cities... but the challenge of policing is no where NEAR the same, given our predominantly suburban demographic... yet, our guy is making considerably more than even these cities.

Oh, and I happened across this compensation survey...

http://www.theblueline.com/salary1.html

We're 19th highest paying city for police officers... of ALL cities... not just larger ones.  It's rigoddamndiculous... and we seem to be bending over and taking it.

Stargazer wrote:We're 19th highest paying city for police officers... of ALL cities... not just larger ones.  It's rigoddamndiculous... and we seem to be bending over and taking it.

Not to nitpick, but they're not 19th highest paying (not even close), just 19th in terms of this site's index, which includes pay, benefits, cost of living, etc.  Also, the numbers are nearly 7 years old, take it for what it's worth.

Yeah, underscore... benefits.  I'm trying to think what kind of benefits I get after I retire... oh that's right, whatever I can afford out of pocket, after the taxes I pay towards funding those guys benefits.

I don't see much problem here. Those numbers are pretty much in line with those of similar ranks in other major cities.

Bosco55David wrote:I don't see much problem here. Those numbers are pretty much in line with those of similar ranks in other major cities.

Wow.......  So that is the extent of your objective analysis:  "Someone else is doing it too."

joeglow wrote:

Bosco55David wrote:I don't see much problem here. Those numbers are pretty much in line with those of similar ranks in other major cities.

Wow.......  So that is the extent of your objective analysis:  "Someone else is doing it too."

Its at least as good as the, "Its better than I get so clearly its not fair" argument.

cdub wrote:

joeglow wrote:

Bosco55David wrote:I don't see much problem here. Those numbers are pretty much in line with those of similar ranks in other major cities.

Wow.......  So that is the extent of your objective analysis:  "Someone else is doing it too."

Its at least as good as the, "Its better than I get so clearly its not fair" argument.

It's a $35,000 raise... I think that says enough - especially considering the fact Omaha has a deficit right now, so where will it come from?

joeglow wrote:Wow.......  So that is the extent of your objective analysis:  "Someone else is doing it too."

Actually I was pointing out that based on the market (which you are a fan of...when it suits you) their salaries are about average, although I guess when you get right down to it there isn't much difference is there?

Bosco55David wrote:

joeglow wrote:Wow.......  So that is the extent of your objective analysis:  "Someone else is doing it too."

Actually I was pointing out that based on the market (which you are a fan of...when it suits you) their salaries are about average, although I guess when you get right down to it there isn't much difference is there?

I agree with you when it is an arm's length agreement.  It is clear that most interactions between union members/leaders and city leaders is NOT arm's length.

Additionally, based on Stargazers' analysis, I cannot justify a $35,000 raise to bump up so far above comparable (and larger) cities with MUCH more difficult issues.

cdub wrote:

joeglow wrote:

Bosco55David wrote:I don't see much problem here. Those numbers are pretty much in line with those of similar ranks in other major cities.

Wow.......  So that is the extent of your objective analysis:  "Someone else is doing it too."

Its at least as good as the, "Its better than I get so clearly its not fair" argument.

I agree with that.  Fortunately, that is not an argument I am playing (especially since I am on par, using Bosco's definition).

DTO Luv wrote:I think I found an area where they can make cuts to the police. I saw a police "Chaplain" van out today. What does the police department need a religious person there for? Also I can't say that makes me happy that tax money is being spent endorsing a religion.

Are you opposed to the City contractually hiring a man with a PhD in Counseling & Psychotherapy, who also happens to be an ordained minister?


Sounds to me like somebody has a SERIOUS problem with prejudices.

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.

I think we need to be honest about Unions.

First of all, there is a big difference between Private Sector Unions and Public Employee Unions.  And we all know why.

Second, unions bring both good AND bad.  It is great to provide employee protection, and very necessary.  But when - especially with Public Employee Unions - salaries and benefits become exorbitant, taxpayers have a right to revolt.  There is a point at which "public servants" is a completely self-contradictory term.  It's more like "public racketeers."  

Third, the longer Unions are in place, the more extreme their demands become.  When you're talking 5% raises, that doesn't sound like much - until you factor in the automatic cost-of-living increases, the ladder scale for pay, and increased benefits.  There are Public Employee Union members who are making double what they made just 5-10 years ago.  

Fourth, when all the loud hyperbole has blown over, there needs to be a fair and equitable balance.  Not extremes, but balance.



Nobody really pays much attention to Public Employee Unions during economic booms.  But when down-turns come, and people are being laid off & losing homes, they start saying, "Holy |expletive|!  OFD Captains - in their early 40s - are making almost $100,000 per year, and my taxes are paying for it!"

DeWalt wrote:[First of all, there is a big difference between Private Sector Unions and Public Employee Unions.  And we all know why.

What, exactly, is that big difference?  I don't know why.

DeWalt wrote:[Second, unions bring both good AND bad.  It is great to provide employee protection, and very necessary.  But when - especially with Public Employee Unions - salaries and benefits become exorbitant, taxpayers have a right to revolt.  There is a point at which "public servants" is a completely self-contradictory term.  It's more like "public racketeers."

I'll agree with the good and bad.

DeWalt wrote:[Third, the longer Unions are in place, the more extreme their demands become.  When you're talking 5% raises, that doesn't sound like much - until you factor in the automatic cost-of-living increases, the ladder scale for pay, and increased benefits.  There are Public Employee Union members who are making double what they made just 5-10 years ago.  

Firstly, just using the rule of 70, it would take 14 years of 5% increases to double one's salary.  Second, who has received 5% raises for the last 5-10 years?  No one I know of, private or public.  Now, there may well be those who've doubled their salary in 5-10 years, but only through promotion to a higher grade/pay scale/position/whatever-your-organization-calls-it, but that happens in both the private and public sectors.

DeWalt wrote:[Fourth, when all the loud hyperbole has blown over, there needs to be a fair and equitable balance.  Not extremes, but balance.

I don't think anyone would disagree there needs to be balance, but who's definition of 'balance' are we going to use?

DeWalt wrote:[Nobody really pays much attention to Public Employee Unions during economic booms.  But when down-turns come, and people are being laid off & losing homes, they start saying, "Holy |expletive|!  OFD Captains - in their early 40s - are making almost $100,000 per year, and my taxes are paying for it!"

And therein lies the problem with American culture today, nobody pays attention to what goes on in governance when the good times are a-rollin', and suddenly when they do, they focus so narrowly on what they perceive to be a problem, that they often miss the forest for the trees.

icejammer wrote:

DeWalt wrote:First of all, there is a big difference between Private Sector Unions and Public Employee Unions.  And we all know why.

What, exactly, is that big difference?  I don't know why.

With the UFCW - working at your local packing plant - if/when union wages & benefits get to the point where they cannot be sustained, the company either completely re-organizes or goes broke.  No matter how big or small the company, it eventually happens.  THAT was one of the primary problems with the Big Three Auto Makers.

It's a built-in system of checks & balances.  And as much as we hate the rhetoric, it's a reasonably good system.


With Public Employee Unions, there is no such system of Check & Balances.  The City of Omaha is NOT going to declare bankruptcy, and the State CIR is ALWAYS going to side with the Public Employee Unions.  So how are the Police & Fire Unions kept in check, and balance maintained?

What we are currently seeing, across Europe, is "the next step" of Public Employee Unions run amok.  Is that what we want here?

icejammer wrote:Firstly, just using the rule of 70, it would take 14 years of 5% increases to double one's salary.  Second, who has received 5% raises for the last 5-10 years?  No one I know of, private or public.  Now, there may well be those who've doubled their salary in 5-10 years, but only through promotion to a higher grade/pay scale/position/whatever-your-organization-calls-it, but that happens in both the private and public sectors.

Are you aware that Public Employee Union members have received raises EVERY year, even when there was no "raise" given?  It's built in to the "ladder system."

Cost of living increases, and experience/seniority increases are automatic.

icejammer wrote:I don't think anyone would disagree there needs to be balance, but who's definition of 'balance' are we going to use?



And therein lies the problem with American culture today, nobody pays attention to what goes on in governance when the good times are a-rollin', and suddenly when they do, they focus so narrowly on what they perceive to be a problem, that they often miss the forest for the trees.

The definition is part of the process - and it has to be arrived at after a lot of yelling, hollering and bickering.  Dave Nabity & others have their place.  So do the most vocal of the Tea Party members.  

The art of the deal is not in getting everything you want.  It's in getting what you can live with.

http://www.omaha.com/article/20110726/N ... ot-a-given

"Pay them well and get out of their way," Suttle said. "That's what we need to do with this agreement."



-Jesus, how people came to the conclusion that Suttle has the best interest of the citizens of Omaha first and is not in the back pocket of unions is beyond me.

Good to see the city council show a spine.  As much as our unions LOVE to base what they get off of "comparable" cities, it is only reasonable that they offered the chief what "comparable" cities pay their police chiefs.  I can't wait to hear what Suttle's excuse is for why we should be paying him more than the comparables.

Suttle seems to think the city council's decision is a direct violation of the union's collective bargaining rights, and that the decision will likely be repealed.

Also, he seems to be hinting that the "talent", Alex Hayes and the rest of the deputy chief crybabies, will be looking for jobs in other cities. Boo |expletive| hoo, you didn't reach the top 5% in the comparable city pay scale - get back to work.

And yes, kudos to the city council for pointing out that an initial pay raise of that magnitude does not reflect the reality of these economic times - the city council says that while Alex Hayes slouched and pouted in his chair.

S33 wrote:Suttle seems to think the city council's decision is a direct violation of the union's collective bargaining rights, and that the decision will likely be repealed.

Also, he seems to be hinting that the "talent", Alex Hayes and the rest of the deputy chief crybabies, will be looking for jobs in other cities. Boo |expletive| hoo, you didn't reach the top 5% in the comparable city pay scale - get back to work.

And yes, kudos to the city council for pointing out that an initial pay raise of that magnitude does not reflect the reality of these economic times - the city council says that while Alex Hayes slouched and pouted in his chair.

There are a lot of us - myself included - who could be making more money somewhere else.  Big deal.  If I wanted to move somewhere else, I would.  If Alex Hayes, or any other police officer, wants to move elsewhere they're free to go.

By the way, even though he did not get the $35,000 (26%) a year raise, he still got a $17,000 (12%) raise.

Brad wrote:By the way, even though he did not get the $35,000 (26%) a year raise, he still got a $17,000 (12%) raise.

Which puts him right about where he should be with comparable cities. I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with the pouting and backlash we've started to see since the city council's decision. Not to mention the union's, I mean, the "Mayors" response, as well.

Brad wrote:By the way, even though he did not get the $35,000 (26%) a year raise, he still got a $17,000 (12%) raise.

I think that's a pretty fair reason. Personally I would have pushed for at least 20k though.

Bosco55David wrote:

Brad wrote:By the way, even though he did not get the $35,000 (26%) a year raise, he still got a $17,000 (12%) raise.

I think that's a pretty fair reason. Personally I would have pushed for at least 20k though.

And therein lies the problem with using comparable cities as a basis for pay.  Next year, Des Moines will look at Omaha and decide they need to beat Omaha by 5,000-10,000 to be competitive and Oklahoma City will do the same the following year.  Net result is you end up with gross inflated salaries in all cities, justified because "that is what the comparable cities pay."

Bosco55David wrote:

Brad wrote:By the way, even though he did not get the $35,000 (26%) a year raise, he still got a $17,000 (12%) raise.

I think that's a pretty fair reason. Personally I would have pushed for at least 20k though.

You think he should have got a $20,000 raise?

Linkin5 wrote:You think he should have got a $20,000 raise?

That's what I would have pushed for.

Bosco55David wrote:

Linkin5 wrote:You think he should have got a $20,000 raise?

That's what I would have pushed for.

You think he should have got a $20,000 raise?

joeglow wrote:You think he should have got a $20,000 raise?

Absolutely. Do you not?

Bosco55David wrote:

joeglow wrote:You think he should have got a $20,000 raise?

Absolutely. Do you not?

Why don't we pay all fire fighters and police officers a million dollars a year?