Omaha Forums

Because that's the same thing.  :roll:

Big E wrote:Because that's the same thing.  :roll:

Beat me to it.

Big E wrote:Because that's the same thing.  :roll:

I intentionally used an extreme to demonstrate the logic being applied appears to be along the lines of "well, I like police officers and work in the professions, so we should always pay more."   Bosco has clearly demonstrated that he does not believe someone deserves what they are willing to agree to work for.   Instead, they use third grade-like logic of "well, that person negotiated "x" so I should also make "x.""

Basically, I am curious what the reasoning for supporting additional money is.

joeglow wrote:

Big E wrote:Because that's the same thing.  :roll:

I intentionally used an extreme to demonstrate the logic being applied appears to be along the lines of "well, I like police officers and work in the professions, so we should always pay more."   Bosco has clearly demonstrated that he does not believe someone deserves what they are willing to agree to work for.   Instead, they use third grade-like logic of "well, that person negotiated "x" so I should also make "x.""

Basically, I am curious what the reasoning for supporting additional money is.

Hyperbole and strawmen don't make a sound logical argument. You'd know that if you were half as smart as you think you are. I also find it absolutely hysterical how you build up that straw man and then come back and ask for my reasoning.

Lolz indeed.

You better go back to Becka's Facebook page and get your talking points for the day.[/i]

Bosco55David wrote:

joeglow wrote:

Big E wrote:Because that's the same thing.  :roll:

I intentionally used an extreme to demonstrate the logic being applied appears to be along the lines of "well, I like police officers and work in the professions, so we should always pay more."   Bosco has clearly demonstrated that he does not believe someone deserves what they are willing to agree to work for.   Instead, they use third grade-like logic of "well, that person negotiated "x" so I should also make "x.""

Basically, I am curious what the reasoning for supporting additional money is.

Hyperbole and strawmen don't make a sound logical argument. You'd know that if you were half as smart as you think you are. I also find it absolutely hysterical how you build up that straw man and then come back and ask for my reasoning.

Lolz indeed.

You better go back to Becka's Facebook page and get your talking points for the day.[/i]

I see neither hyperbole, nor strawmen arguments.  Basically, you can't support your position, so you're attacking the messenger.

HuskerDave wrote:I see neither hyperbole, nor strawmen arguments.

Then you didn't look very hard.

Hyperbole - The million dollar salary lunacy.

Strawman - His "well, I like police officers and work in the professions, so we should always pay more." is basically the textbook definition.

 

Basically, you can't support your position, so you're attacking the messenger.

There is no need to attack Joe. He makes himself look more irrational and unintelligent then I ever could.

Bosco55David wrote:

HuskerDave wrote:I see neither hyperbole, nor strawmen arguments.

Then you didn't look very hard.

Hyperbole - The million dollar salary lunacy.

Strawman - His "well, I like police officers and work in the professions, so we should always pay more." is basically the textbook definition.

 

Basically, you can't support your position, so you're attacking the messenger.

There is no need to attack Joe. He makes himself look more irrational and unintelligent then I ever could.

It's not hyperbole - it's a legitimate argument.  How much is enough?  The $87,000 per year teachers in New Jersey, with no out of pocket for either healthcare or pension believe they don't earn enough, either.  This is not an argument limited to a single raise for a single official, it's a systematic problem with public officials, both union and nonunion, and that smashes your argument.  As for your imagined strawman, we have city officials looking to these numbers in other professions and in other states to justify their own raises.  I agree that the connection is tenuous at best - but we aren't the ones initiating such arguments.

Oh, and way to go proving that you still have to attack the messenger.  I guess you really have no other argument.

OK - move on - nobody is going to win this upset match.

HuskerDave wrote:It's not hyperbole - it's a legitimate argument.

Really? Joe himself admitted it when Big E called him on it. How cool is it that you can deduce the origin of his arguments better than he can.

How much is enough?

You tell me.

The $87,000 per year teachers in New Jersey, with no out of pocket for either healthcare or pension believe they don't earn enough, either.

Lets get some facts straight. According to the Star-Ledger, average teacher pay in NJ is $63,000 and median pay is $57,000, neither of which are egregious given the cost of living in that state. Those $87,000 salaries are the exception and not the rule. Also, the teachers DO contribute to their pensions and many contribute to their health insurance, which is negotiated on the district level.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/0 ... larie.html

http://www.proteacher.net/discussions/s ... p?t=243090

Now that I've corrected your glaring inaccuracies...

 This is not an argument limited to a single raise for a single official, it's a systematic problem with public officials, both union and nonunion, and that smashes your argument.  As for your imagined strawman, we have city officials looking to these numbers in other professions and in other states to justify their own raises.  I agree that the connection is tenuous at best - but we aren't the ones initiating such arguments.

So you're against using the market to set pay rates? That seems quite the strange stance for someone who fancies himself a dyed in the wool conservative.

Oh, and way to go proving that you still have to attack the messenger.  I guess you really have no other argument.

You might want to worry about handling your own debates first. It wasn't but a couple weeks ago that OmahaBen handed you your |expletive| in a debate about the Post Office and now you're trying to bring the same distortions and inaccuracies here. There are people here who will call that |expletive| out in a heartbeat.

Bosco55David wrote:

HuskerDave wrote:It's not hyperbole - it's a legitimate argument.

Really? Joe himself admitted it when Big E called him on it. How cool is it that you can deduce the origin of his arguments better than he can.

How much is enough?

You tell me.

The $87,000 per year teachers in New Jersey, with no out of pocket for either healthcare or pension believe they don't earn enough, either.

Lets get some facts straight. According to the Star-Ledger, average teacher pay in NJ is $63,000 and median pay is $57,000, neither of which are egregious given the cost of living in that state. Those $87,000 salaries are the exception and not the rule. Also, the teachers DO contribute to their pensions and many contribute to their health insurance, which is negotiated on the district level.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/0 ... larie.html

http://www.proteacher.net/discussions/s ... p?t=243090

Now that I've corrected your glaring inaccuracies...

 This is not an argument limited to a single raise for a single official, it's a systematic problem with public officials, both union and nonunion, and that smashes your argument.  As for your imagined strawman, we have city officials looking to these numbers in other professions and in other states to justify their own raises.  I agree that the connection is tenuous at best - but we aren't the ones initiating such arguments.

So you're against using the market to set pay rates? That seems quite the strange stance for someone who fancies himself a dyed in the wool conservative.

Oh, and way to go proving that you still have to attack the messenger.  I guess you really have no other argument.

You might want to worry about handling your own debates first. It wasn't but a couple weeks ago that OmahaBen handed you your |expletive| in a debate about the Post Office and now you're trying to bring the same distortions and inaccuracies here. There are people here who will call that |expletive| out in a heartbeat.

Wow, you're really passionate about this guy getting his exorbitant raise, aren't you?  Why is that?

HuskerDave wrote:Wow, you're really passionate about this guy getting his exorbitant raise, aren't you?  Why is that?

Actually I'm passionate about logical and factual accuracy, though I find it funny that you again try build up another straw man argument. Is it really that hard to carry on a debate?

Bosco55David wrote:

HuskerDave wrote:Wow, you're really passionate about this guy getting his exorbitant raise, aren't you?  Why is that?

Actually I'm passionate about logical and factual accuracy, though I find it funny that you again try build up another straw man argument. Is it really that hard to carry on a debate?

That's a laugh.

Bosco55David wrote:

HuskerDave wrote:How much is enough?

You tell me.

You still refuse to answer.  My answer is "enough" is the market rate someone is willing to work the job for (i.e. not inflated wages that are "negotiated" for).  I guarantee if the force was opened up, you could fill all the positions with highly qualified individuals who would individually agree to work for less.  Instead, you have a system where groups get together, buy off politicians and then play keeping up with the Joneses with neighboring cities doing the the same thing, leading to grossly inflated wages.  Since there is no way for the city to go bankrupt, there is nothing to keep in check the rampant corruption.

joeglow wrote:You still refuse to answer.  My answer is "enough" is the market rate someone is willing to work the job for (i.e. not inflated wages that are "negotiated" for).

Awesome. You've come up with your own definition of market rate and now want us to play by your rules. How about we talk about the correct definition of market rates, or would that not fit your agenda? FYI, moving the goalposts is another logical fallacy. Do you have some hangup with debate skills?

 I guarantee if the force was opened up, you could fill all the positions with highly qualified individuals who would individually agree to work for less.

Two questions. First, define "opening up" the police force. Second, if there are so many qualified individuals looking for this job, explain why OPD has had recruitment trouble for years.

Bosco55David wrote:Awesome. You've come up with your own definition of market rate and now want us to play by your rules. How about we talk about the correct definition of market rates, or would that not fit your agenda? FYI, moving the goalposts is another logical fallacy. Do you have some hangup with debate skills?

Okay.  Define "market rate."  Do you honestly think if there was no union, we would have to be paying our police force MORE to fill it with qualified candidates?

Bosco55David wrote:[Two questions. First, define "opening up" the police force.

Let individuals negotiate what they are willing to work for.

Bosco55David wrote:Second, if there are so many qualified individuals looking for this job, explain why OPD has had recruitment trouble for years.

How about you define "trouble?"  The police foundation is touting "record breaking" recruiting.

http://www.opd.ci.omaha.ne.us/foundatio ... plishments

joeglow wrote:Okay.  Define "market rate."

Market rate = Pay rates of comparable positions. Can be adjusted for cost of living and the like.

Bosco55David wrote:Let individuals negotiate what they are willing to work for.

Except that there would be no negotiation then. The department would set an arbitrary rate and expect you to take it or leave it.

How about you define "trouble?"  The police foundation is touting "record breaking" recruiting.

http://www.opd.ci.omaha.ne.us/foundatio ... plishments

Their record breaking recruiting is getting 800-1000 people to apply. Of those, typically only about 100 or so make it to the background investigation part of the process. By the time everything is finished, they're barely able to fill an average recruiting class.

Bosco55David wrote: Market rate = Pay rates of comparable positions. Can be adjusted for cost of living and the like.

I agree, assuming it is based upon what people are willing to work for.

Bosco55David wrote:Except that there would be no negotiation then. The department would set an arbitrary rate and expect you to take it or leave it.

And if enough people would not be willing to work for the pay, they would need to offer more to gain the number of qualified individuals needed.  Basic supply and demand.

Bosco55David wrote:Their record breaking recruiting is getting 800-1000 people to apply. Of those, typically only about 100 or so make it to the background investigation part of the process. By the time everything is finished, they're barely able to fill an average recruiting class.

Again, the ultimate question is what level of pay would need to be offered to attract the number of qualified individuals needed.   How many of those people who made the cut would be willing to work for $5,000 less?  If there are enough, then we are clearly paying to much.  

To be clear, I have no dog in this fight.  Everybody wants to make as much money as possible (myself included).  However, in looking at this objectively, I think you HAVE to determine at what pay level people are willing to work for.  I don't think you can get into the business of saying what you think someone should make based upon your feelings of what type of job they have.  Many people say teachers should make more because they admire the job they do and importance teachers have in our progression as a society.  However, these same people will tell you how great our current teachers are.  Thus, by their own logic, we are attracting more than enough great teachers at the pay levels being offered.

joeglow wrote:

Bosco55David wrote: Market rate = Pay rates of comparable positions. Can be adjusted for cost of living and the like.

I agree, assuming it is based upon what people are willing to work for.

Bosco55David wrote:Except that there would be no negotiation then. The department would set an arbitrary rate and expect you to take it or leave it.

And if enough people would not be willing to work for the pay, they would need to offer more to gain the number of qualified individuals needed.  Basic supply and demand.

Bosco55David wrote:Their record breaking recruiting is getting 800-1000 people to apply. Of those, typically only about 100 or so make it to the background investigation part of the process. By the time everything is finished, they're barely able to fill an average recruiting class.

Again, the ultimate question is what level of pay would need to be offered to attract the number of qualified individuals needed.   How many of those people who made the cut would be willing to work for $5,000 less?  If there are enough, then we are clearly paying to much.  

To be clear, I have no dog in this fight.  Everybody wants to make as much money as possible (myself included).  However, in looking at this objectively, I think you HAVE to determine at what pay level people are willing to work for.  I don't think you can get into the business of saying what you think someone should make based upon your feelings of what type of job they have.  Many people say teachers should make more because they admire the job they do and importance teachers have in our progression as a society.  However, these same people will tell you how great our current teachers are.  Thus, by their own logic, we are attracting more than enough great teachers at the pay levels being offered.

+1,064

Omaha Police Closer To Choosing New Cruisers
OPD Needs New Model To Replace Crown Victoria

KETV wrote:OPD has used the Ford Crown Victoria since the early 1990s, but Ford discontinued the model line in 2010, forcing the department to look for a new vehicle to replace it. City officials have said that the Ford Taurus, Chevrolet Impala PPV, and Dodge Charger are among the candidates for OPD's new cruiser.

I hope they go with the Charger, they look bad |expletive|!

I was thinking the same thing - I hope OPD goes with the Chargers.

word on the street is that the Chief's favorite is the Chevy Impala or Caprice. However, realistically, they'll just go with the cheapest thing that meets their base standards, so its anyone's guess at this point.

I like the Chargers, but I'm kind of hoping that they go with the Caprice. They're unique and are based off of the Holden Commodore and used to sell here in the US as the Pontiac G8. Those cars are pretty badass cars as well.

Hopefully Omaha doesn't choose Ford. The thought of a Ford Taurus Police Interceptor causes this to come to mind:

[/img]

Coyote wrote:hope OPD goes with the Chargers.

Me too.

jessep28 wrote:I like the Chargers, but I'm kind of hoping that they go with the Caprice. They're unique and are based off of the Holden Commodore and used to sell here in the US as the Pontiac G8. Those cars are pretty badass cars as well.

Hopefully Omaha doesn't choose Ford. The thought of a Ford Taurus Police Interceptor causes this to come to mind:

[/img]

OPD actually used those Taurus cruisers for a brief moment back in the 90's. That experiment didn't go so well.

It's been announced that Police Chief Hayes plans on retiring.

http://www.ketv.com/news/30611128/detail.html

I really wish I could retire in my 40's with a $100,000 pension!

heck I have been teaching 30+ yrs and I barely make half of that.  And at retirement time... I don't even want to think about it.  :shock:

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned yet that OPD is being investigated by the feds for, lets say... being a bit overzealous on the job. I'd like to say I'm surprised, but I'm not.

S33 wrote:I'm surprised nobody has mentioned yet that OPD is being investigated by the feds for, lets say... being a bit overzealous on the job. I'd like to say I'm surprised, but I'm not.

I guess golden parachutes aren't just for Wall Street anymore.

It looks like the city is looking at leasing new police cruisers. They would be replaced every 3 years.

http://www.ketv.com/news/30844938/detail.html

Omaha Police 2011 Annual Report

http://opd.ci.omaha.ne.us/images/storie ... 0Final.pdf

Short video Omaha Police put up showcasing their new Chevy Caprice police cars. Maybe it's equipment that had to be brought over from the Crown Vics, but I'm surprised they are still using incandescent spotlights. I would think that they would use LED for reduced power load.

[youtube][/youtube]

Those are LEDs.

Sorry, I was talking about the spotlights.

Omaha CC approves $733,000 for body cameras.