Quote:
Originally Posted by knightsroad
Just know that the FOP didn't trot anybody out there. Those families volunteered their time to put a face on the situation. All the politicians out there see are what they want to see. They have to be made to see the faces of those people whom their political based bull**** games affect. These are some of the same politicians who pour out alligator tears at a cop funeral and talk about the benefits they deserve for giving all and then spit on the officer's grave with their true actions a few months later.
|
Hmmm... I can't quite see how trying to bolster the city's long-term fiscal health is tantamount to "spit[ting] on the officer's grave". Nutter (and, in theory, our sad excuse of a City Council) have an obligation to the entire city and to the taxpayers who fund the city government.
I suppose one thing that confuses me about the FOP's protests: if being a police officer is truly a noble sacrifice (and occasionally entails the ultimate sacrifice), then an officer's willingness to do that job and do it well shouldn't be predicated on what kind of retirement or survivor's package (s)he or his/her spouse receives. If the job did not provide sufficient pay and benefits to attract candidates, then the city would need to enhance them. That's how labor markets work. But, unless someone can point to data showing otherwise, I don't think the issue we have is with not being able to attract new officers. Rather, the issue seems to be with how we afford them, given the pay and benefits they receive.
Many workers in private industries are suffering through a tough job environment, and the city's budget is feeling the pinch of the difficult economy. It is simply illogical for municipal employees (including police officers and fire fighters) to presume that their pay and benefits should somehow be insulated from these difficulties. Ultimately, if the city's government cannot find a way to limit its spending to a level that is commensurate with the city's generally meager resources, then the tax burden that has been (and will be) required to support that government will continue to eat away at the city's tax base.
In other news, it appears that the House and Senate leadership
are talking.
Quote:
|
Representatives of the House Democratic majority and the Senate Republican majority are discussing possible changes to the pension provisions.
|
Compromise, perhaps? As this thread and others show, I'm not much of a prognosticator; but I would guess that a compromise would mean that either the freeze on current benefits or the effectively-mandated switch to a defined contribution plan will go. (Alternatively, the Senate Republicans might just give up on the pension amendments entirely in exchange for a concession on the state budget negotiations.)