voiceofsandiego.org: Opinion... Why Cops Should Get a Raise

Saturday, April 14, 2007 | The mayor announced an agreement today with the Police Officers Association. The agreement includes a raise that will no doubt be the subject of much scrutiny so I appreciate the opportunity to explain the mayor's thinking on the issue of police recruitment and retention. The agreement also includes a number of very important reforms for city government. Click here to go to a fact sheet on the subject that provides a very comprehensive treatment of the issue.

The mayor did not set out to give a raise to police officers or to any other employee group. In fact, when this issue first surfaced, the City Council took the mayor to task for "not caring enough about police officers." The mayor's rationale was and remains that the city has a number of very serious financial problems that must be addressed. In the end though, it was his judgment that our public safety would be harmed if we did not do everything possible to retain our experienced officers and/or attract new ones to fill vacant positions. And that is only possible by means of a pay increase.

In response to a market condition -- a market condition in which there are more job openings for police officers regionally and nationally than there are qualified candidates -- the announced agreement today with the San Diego Police Officers Association focused on reversing the loss of experienced officers by improving pay and benefits. Incidentally, the recruitment and retention issue does not exist for any other category of city employees. The mayor's FY08 budget, for instance, will not include a pay raise for unclassified employees.

The result of the national recruitment and retention problem is that police departments that offer better compensation packages win over candidates.

Due to the city's financial situation, San Diego Police Department officers have not received a raise in two years and are at the bottom of the compensation list when compared to other competing departments. The consequences of that are that the SDPD is currently down more than 200 officers with another approximately 200 officers set to retire next fiscal year. If we did nothing, we would lose even more officers.

Reforms are the hallmark of this agreement. A central tenant of the agreement is that the city will be providing better health care coverage for officers at a lower cost. This approach is a dramatic change for the city and one that the mayor is committed to accomplish as a key reform for how the city provides benefits. The city will be moving away from a cafeteria-style plan to one in which the health care benefits are based upon a percentage of funding.

For example, if you're an officer that has a spouse and family and opt for Kaiser, the city will cover 75 percent of your coverage -- savings to officers of approximately $2,600. As part of the agreement, the city will begin the consolidation of the 21 health care plans currently administered by the employee unions. The goal will be three plans for all city employees. For the POA alone, this move will save the city approximately $800,000, assuming current enrollment. In the end, the city will provide better coverage for less money. The city will also be ending a workers compensation program that will save $2 million.

As I said at the beginning, the entire purpose of our negotiations was to stem the loss of officers and to recruit new ones. This contract goes a long way toward achieving that goal. It is the mayor's hope that our experienced officers will remain with the department and that we will be able to attract new ones.

Agree? Disagree? Send a letter to the editor.

How is taking $4000.00 away from a single officer going to stem the tide of officers leaving?. I spoke to several officers yesterday outside the POA offices and they stated that they where told that they where only voting for the pay increase portion of the proposal. They where told that they where not voting on the health care proposal because that was being rammed down their throats whether they wanted it or not. Should'nt they have been able to vote on the entire proposal?

Posted by Billy Bob Henry II | reply to this comment
April 11, 2007 6:06 am

In fact, we were told that if we didn't approve the contract we would only get 6% and the health care proposal was going to be implemented no matter how we voted. So now I am losing $1300 in flex benefits money that I previously used to bolster my 401k and I have to change healthcare providers all because I choose not to have children. If the mayor honestly believes this contract will stop the exodus, he is mistaken. it will slow for awhile but in another year we will be worse off that we are today. Standby San Diego.

Posted by Jim | reply to this comment
April 11, 2007 6:39 am

I a newer officer, i have to agree that this is a start, but it won't do much to solve the problem. We will still be dead last in pay, and with the raises other agencies are getting, will still be on average paid 20% less than other officers in so cal. many officers voted yes because they think we can get another raise next year. I think this will be the only raise we see in the next several years given the unwillingness for new taxes. Things are going to get much much worse.

Posted by Ross | reply to this comment
April 11, 2007 6:49 am

I have been a firefighter and captain for 28 years. How can you cops continue to complain about a nine percent raise. I have taken a $700 take home pay cut in the last two years and I'm getting 0 this year. Since you have three times the uniformed personnel that we have a one percent decrease in your big raise would equate to three percent for firefighters. Since we are both on the safety side of the retirement system and the assumption for annual raises is four percent annually, I will have to contribute more for you. Thanks

Posted by jack fried | reply to this comment
April 11, 2007 8:33 am

Hey Fred..you know why ff's can't leave. Because our skill level for medical treatment is supervised by each county, and requires much more expertise than anything cops do. So we are trapped. That's not negotiating in GOOD FAITH. Why don't we give medical treatment back to the police like it was in the 80's. Then they could earn their raise.

Posted by jack fried | reply to this comment
April 11, 2007 8:47 am

BBH-See I agree with you again! I did vote "yes" for the reasons you stated. Plus for retention, this is not going to help at all. Essentially, with this raise, my personal situation, my take home pay will be ELEVATED to LESS (close but under)than it was before the take aways in 2005! For others, depending on the different family situations it doesn't come close. So reality is we still havent had a "raise" in two years. Jack Fried-We knew this would divide the cops and FF's. You get unlimited OT, open ended comptime accounts, your rigs are fully staffed, our beats go unmanned. We have as many issues facing us as you do, please direct your anger/frustrations at the responsible parties. We're on your side!

Posted by Gene | reply to this comment
April 12, 2007 12:42 am

i'm a firefighter here in SD and Jack Fried and his divisive rhetoric is garbage...strive for solidarity within all departments..and stop picking one another apart. Work together and stop the finger pointing. Maybe someday there can be collaborative contract negotiations. And, we can work together for one another.

Posted by "Con" Servat | reply to this comment
April 12, 2007 12:50 am

Gene, as you've seen in my writing I'm pretty much on your side.I'd like to clear up a couple of misconceptions.Comp time accounts are limited to 96 hours.Second, we don't have unlimited OT, not even close, but we typically have more than the cops because of the mandatory staffing requirement.Lastly, if you figure out the numbers of what we'd need to meet the national minimum, we're understaffed by about 450 positions out of 900.So... I agree, we're all in this together and we need to act as such.Remember, though we've had a contract, we haven't had a pay raise either.

Posted by JF | reply to this comment
April 12, 2007 3:00 am

Jack fried, your argument about medical licensing is crap.That's all you have to do is go that county and apply, just as we ask applicants here to be San Diego County EMTs.I agree with Gene and ConServative that we need to work with the cops.Unfortunately, the POA doesn't always see it that way, but we still need to strive to work with them.

Posted by JF | reply to this comment
April 12, 2007 3:08 am

Unfortunately it was the best that was going to be offered. Sanders is not stupid. He had the POA over a barrel. Once he said the cafe style Medical benifits were non negotiable, some cops were going to get less than others. Here is a question: How can the City pay someone more for being married with kids than if you were single? That is what they are doing by giving Cops with dependents more pay for Medical? I voted for the contract simply because 9 is better than 6 period.

Posted by Ron Weiss | reply to this comment
April 12, 2007 4:04 am

JF and Jack Fried-Next year even more do we need to work together, I asked Sainz what he meant by his statement that the Mayor wants to work on "fundamental reforms" to the pensions when all of the associations are at the bargaining table. This was in his other post and he hasn't responded. I doubt they will clarify any ideas. Whether Aguirre's appeal is decided by then or which way the courts decision goes, Sanders and Aguirre will not stop going after our pensions.

Posted by Gene | reply to this comment
April 12, 2007 6:05 am

Ron, the city can pay an employee with kids more than an employee without because that's what Republican 'family values' are about!And Gene, I agree that we need to work together, but since POA typically signs first, they've gone back on their agreements to hold the line with us... not meant as a slam against you, but that's reality.I'd love to see about 2000 cops and firemen marching on city hall.

Posted by JF | reply to this comment
April 12, 2007 9:39 am

Since I am a republican, I believe in family values and I do not have an issue with the process. Now JF, Let me clarify something for you. The POA did not request to be separated from the FF, or the other union reps. The Mayor made that decision on his own. However, we can debate this issue forever. Personally, Safety personnel should stick together regardless what happens during negotiations. We are not fighting each other regardless what Jack Fried may feel. God Bless all of you.

Posted by Ron Weiss | reply to this comment
April 12, 2007 10:11 am

Ron, I was speaking a little tongue in cheek with my family values comment.Jerry's a Republican too, you know.Also, I was certainly not speaking of the past few negotiations when I wrote about the POA and L145 going in separate directions... that was a long time ago.There are guys out there who don't like the cops, but I'm not one of them... as long a ya quit parking in front of fire hydrants!

Posted by JF | reply to this comment
April 12, 2007 3:05 pm

I kind of knew that JF, The process I was refering to was the benifits for those that have families and can't afford a home in this county! At least this will help the young cops with families that are struggling.

Posted by Ron Weiss | reply to this comment
April 13, 2007 8:24 am

Fred-you better have that 401K up your sleeve when ALL the unions came to the table next year. Becuase if PENSION reform does not happen San Diego, and every other municipality in CA, will go BK. NO ONE should be retiring at age 50 and making MORE money than when they worked. Raise pay-no problem, as long as the pension scam gets taken care of too.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry-Future SDPOA M | reply to this comment
April 13, 2007 12:37 pm

BBH - FYI, MP 2, that you would like to have declared illegal, put a 90% cap on retirement benefits. Also, looks like the Mayor won on this one, he separated Police and Fire in order to get them arguing with one another. By giving up the cafeteria style flex benefits, that is a good size salary reduction. Also, by giving employees with families more to pay for insurance benefits than single employees, that is discrimination. By the way, the City Attorney's attack on the pension is a trip down the rabbit hole with Alice. The City's own actuary, Mr Esuchenko, declared under oath that the pension is 97% funded. Where's the problem?

Posted by Jan Lord | reply to this comment
April 14, 2007 1:16 am

Billy Bob, Now is the time to start acting responsible in your posts. If you have issues with the pension, that can be verified by hard facts, not just undocumented opinions, I would love to read them. With the pension being funded at 97%, the arguement stems more from jealosy by those that don't but wish they had. Unfortunately our president's suggestion of fixing the SS system was voted down and our country as a whole continue to invest in a system which is only a supplement towards retirement. The PD,FF and City employees have a better plan which again is 97% funded.

Posted by Ron Weiss | reply to this comment
April 14, 2007 5:53 am

The funny thing about Jerry's whole "decoupling" thing is that the cops and firefighters never have negotiated together.Contracts have had different lengths,pay raises, etc. in the past 20 or so years.More smoke and mirrors from Hizzoner.In other words, he didn't win squat.

Posted by JF | reply to this comment
April 14, 2007 7:15 am

Jan Lord- The "90% cap" you refer to is of HIGHEST years salary-not AVERAGE years salary. Average years salary would be about 60% of final years salary assuming 3% raises through out the 30 years-which is LOW based on the last 30 years. As for charging more for benefits to families-if familes have more dependants to insure, why would it be discrimination to charge more? Don't follow that one. How Mike's pension lawsuit ends is anyones guess-my guess is he wins at least 100 million-if not much more-but it is pure speculation by everyone.As for Mr Esuchenko and the funding level, have see different funding levels. One thing for sure-pensions are NOT expenesed out long term currently-that is a problem.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
April 14, 2007 9:12 am

Basic economics - if our policemen and firefighters aren't paid enough to live here, they'll go somewhere else, and we'll be left unprotected. These people risk their lives daily, and they deserve to be compensated for it. I'm a teacher. The next time SDEA wants to push for us to have a raise, I say give it to the policemen and firefighters instead. What many teachers don't tell you is that there is plenty of opportunity to work 'overtime' (extra duty for supervision, teaching night school, special program admin work, etc.). Our base salary is fine as it is.

Posted by Poppa | reply to this comment
April 15, 2007 1:40 am

San Diego over the next few years you are going to witness the demise of one of the most professional law enforcement agencies in our Nation. In what is really a 9% raise over the last three years few seasoned officers are going to stay as the Mayor hopes! Those looking elsewhere will continue to do what right for their families. Additionally, the City's negotiators threat of greatly reducing retirement benefits next year will end any real efforts to recruit highly qualified candidates. Who will want to work 5 additional years for a smaller retirement percentage? I understand the city was raped by past politicians and unethical bureaucrats but today's dedicated employees, the officers who do the work survive too. Good luck San Diego, hopefully our aging population will keep crime down.

Posted by BobD | reply to this comment
April 15, 2007 9:20 am

I actually agree with BBH on this one.I support families, but why should employees with families be paid more?Under Jerry's new system that's exactly what's happening.Having more kids is a choice.Why should I get paid less for someone else's choice?Just another plan to divide the work force.

Posted by JF | reply to this comment
April 15, 2007 8:37 pm

Why Cops Should Get a Raise

By Fred Sainz