Police Unions To City Officials: If You Want Good, Accountable Cops, You'll Need To Pay Them More
from the 5%-pay-raise-for-'not-making-things-worse' dept
Three police unions in different cities have come forward to insert their feet in their mouths following changes to department policies. The thrust of their terrible arguments? Cops should be paid more for doing their job properly.
In Cincinnati, officers are being outfitted with body cameras. This, of course, has sent the local Fraternal Order of Police into defense mode. The FOP sent a letter to the city stating that officers won't be wearing the cameras until they're given more money. The union apparently believes any increase in officer accountability should be accompanied by an increase in pay.
A lawyer for Fraternal Order of Police Lodge #69, Stephen Lazarus, sent the city a "cease and desist" letter, saying until pay for wearing the equipment has been decided, officers shouldn't wear them. He asked that the city cease the program by Wednesday at the latest, pending the bargaining process.
The city's mayor has already suggested he'd be willing to grant an across-the-board 5% pay increase, but the union wants additional pay on top of that, simply for wearing body cameras. The union insists that cameras will alter many facets of officers' day-to-day duties, which -- judging from other cities' experiences with body cameras -- apparently includes discovering ways of ensuring footage of questionable arrests and uses of force aren't captured by the recording equipment.
Meanwhile, down in San Antonio, policies affecting misconduct punishments are receiving similar demands from that city's police union.
The San Antonio Express-News reports that the San Antonio police union demanded higher pay in exchange for accepting changes to their collective bargaining agreement that would have delivered stricter discipline for officer misconduct.
The Express-News notes that right now “the contract limits how far back a chief can invoke prior misconduct in punishing an officer — no more than two years in most instances — and automatically reduces suspensions of three days or less to a reprimand after two years.”
Once again, a union is fighting officer accountability with increased salary demands. In both cases, neither union seems to understand (or care) how tone deaf these arguments are.
Police reform is needed because officers aren't doing what they're being paid to do, or they're doing it in a way that results in civil rights lawsuits and DOJ interventions. The main obstacle to reform appears to be police unions, which often seem to offer hardline opposition to minor changes that even most of those supposedly represented by the union don't agree with.
It would be one thing if law enforcement was a historically-underpaid profession. But it isn't. These demands are simply a way to make cash-strapped cities rethink plans to introduce more accountability into the process.
But it's not always the unions that are at fault. The rank-and-file has its own issues with increased accountability. The city of Boston is outfitting its officers with body cameras. The pilot program asked for volunteers to wear the recording devices. There were no takers.
When the City of Boston called on 100 volunteers from the police department to help pilot a body camera program, something very expected, predictable, and heard of happened: Nothing.
Even with $500 bonuses as a result of negotiations with their union, not a single police officer in Boston volunteered to wear a camera.
If no one responds when asked nicely, the optional aspect goes away.
Speaking during the monthly “Ask the Commissioner” segment on WGBH-FM’s Boston Public Radio on Tuesday, Boston Police Commissioner William B. Evans said that a consultant has selected officers of all ages and races from five sections of the city and the department’s Youth Violence Strike Force to wear the cameras for a six-month trial. Any officer selected who chooses not to wear the camera would be subject to disciplinary action, Evans said.
It's not as though the police union here decided to sit this one out. When no officers volunteered to wear the cameras, the union claims that randomly selecting officers somehow breaches the department's contract.
Boston Police Patrolman’s Association President Patrick M. Rose told the Herald that goes against the deal the union reached with the department, which he says specifically states participants must be volunteers.
“The selection process must be from volunteers,” Rose wrote in an email to the Herald, adding that the union still supports that agreement.
“To require non-volunteers to participate in the program would clearly violate the agreement,” he said. “The BPPA would hope that the City and the Department would honor its written agreement with the BPPA concerning (body cameras).”
The Boston Police chief saw it differently, however, pointing out that no volunteers stepping forward to take part in a voluntary program also violates the agreement.
Somewhat ironically, civil rights and accountability activists were skeptical of the volunteer pilot program, fearing that the only cops that would volunteer would be exemplary models of the law enforcement profession and unlikely to generate much footage of misconduct or abuse. What a relief it must be to discover the Boston PD has no officers that fit that description.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: accountability, body cams, police, police unions
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How is it that when adults are given more power and privilege, they end up regressing into the most petulant, bratty scumbags possible?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the police officers refuse to wear body cams that provide a measure of accountability unless they get paid extra just to do so then those officers should be fired, period. We are long past the point when we can stick our heads in the sand saying it's only a few bad apples and the rest are good people doing their jobs. No, they aren't, and it's being proven so every single day. There is a systemic problem in law enforcement and those in charge have to start to stand their ground and force the issue cause the police damn sure aren't going to do it themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eh, how was that?
If you got nothing to hide, you got nothing to fear?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Makes total sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Always on video required
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But seriously, can we retroactively dock them pay when the officers did something wrong?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Union Busting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Union Busting
MOST unions done-did been busted alright already...
hmmm, probably just coincidence that THE One union left with ANY influence are armed...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sigh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't see why San Antonio matters
That's how contracts and negotiating work.
If the officers can use that as leverage to get more pay, more power to 'em....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't see why San Antonio matters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Union busting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The only way to reform bad cops is to terminate them and replace them with fresh officers from the academy and start from scratch. The cops currently employed are the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I thought we were paying them for their full efforts already, and always recommend their pay get cut to match their performance level.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Note to police union(s)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe there is some truth to this
Some people might choose a 2nd job, for LEO's you will often find them moonlighting at your local high crime area store as security guards, often still wearing their police uniforms.
Other people might choose to make the fast buck any way they can illegal or not.
So it is plausible that paying LEOs higher wages will result in some types of police misconduct being reduced.
But no matter what they get paid they need to be held accountable for their misconduct. If they do not like being held accountable for their actions as a LEO then maybe they should find a different job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maybe there is some truth to this
Possible but very, very unlikely I'd say. The kind of cop that uses their position for personal gain is not likely to stop doing so just because they got a raise, instead they'll continue to abuse their position for personal gain and enjoy the raise.
We're not talking about homeless, jobless people here doing anything they can to survive, breaking laws not because they want to but because they feel they have no other choice, we're talking about people that have homes, have jobs, and that break the laws simply because they want to and/or it benefits them in some way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Maybe there is some truth to this
It's not necessarily about whether better pay turns the same cops into better people, it's about whether better pay attracts better cops to the same jobs: in particular, cops who currently have no reason to go anywhere near an inner-city policing job as long as they're able to land a cushy gig out in the suburbs responding to noise complaints and manning stop sign traps. The way US policing works is all but deliberately designed to sort experienced/professional cops who don't abuse their authority into the role of policing rich people, and amateur/unprofessional cops who do abuse their authority into the role of policing poor people. This also helps keep the pressure off unprofessional cops to clean up their act, because society at large generally doesn't give a damn when poor people are abused. (Imagine if we responded to every case of police brutality or discrimination the way we responded to a case like Henry Louis Gates.)
Unless police are paid according to the difficulty and stress of their jobs, which is obviously much greater in poorer and more violent areas, this sorting mechanism will continue to do its ugly, discriminatory work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Maybe there is some truth to this
That still strikes me as solving the wrong problem. If a cashier for example is skimming from the register the solution isn't to pay them better it's to fire them hire someone who'll pay attention to the rules better next time.
Similarly if you've got rotten police it doesn't seem like it would help much just to pay them better, as that would leave the rot in place. Instead you fire the worst, making it clear that abuse of power and authority does carry consequences. Paying more isn't going to do squat about the rot and the draw for people who know that once you're a cop you can do pretty much anything without repercussions, it's just going to make the job even more attractive to those kinds of people.
As for the idea that they don't get paid enough for the 'difficulty and stress of the jobs'? Yeah, not sure how accurate overall it is, but the numbers I'm looking at at the moment seem to say otherwise.
From a '10 most dangerous professions of 2016' article in alphabetical order:
Job - Average annual salary
Construction laborer - $30,890
Correction officer - $40,580
Emergency medical technician - $31,980
Farmer - $64,170
Firefighter - $46,870
Nursing assistant - $25,710
Police officer - $60,270
Taxi driver - $23,510
Truck driver - $40,260
Veterinarian - $88,490
According to those numbers at least they rank #3 out of 10 as far as average annual pay goes.
Using 2013 BLS stats meanwhile I'm not even sure if cops make the list in the top 15.
'Fatal work injury rate(per 100,000 full-time equivalent workers)', pg 14:
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting - 23.2
Transportation and warehousing - 14.0
Mining, Quarrying, and oil and gas extraction - 12.4
Construction - 9.7
Wholesale trade - 5.3
Professional and business services - 2.8
Other services(exc. public admin) - 2.7
Utilities - 2.6
Manufacturing - 2.1
Government - 2.0
Retail trade - 1.9
Leisure and hospitality - 1.9
Information - 1.5
Financial activities - .9
Education and health services - .7
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Maybe there is some truth to this
Well saying "just fire the bums" doesn't solve any problem at all, other than the need for moral grandstanding. Fire them... and replace them with whom exactly? More exactly like them? If there are better replacements out there, where do you find them and how do you convince them to apply?
There will always be better cops and worse cops, and we have a national system in which better cops are steered toward jobs policing wealthy people while worse cops are steered toward jobs policing poor people. Moreover, our police brutality problem is largely a problem of police brutality toward poor people (or toward people like Henry Gates who because of their ethnicity are mistaken for poor people), which combined with our society's general indifference to the problems of the poor only encourages this brutality to continue unchecked. Accordingly, I see two interconnected solutions that involve working with the collective national police force we have instead of proposing to magically make bad cops vanish and conjure up better ones: first, steer some of the better cops into jobs policing poor people so they can have a positive influence on the existing police culture of casual brutality toward the poor; second, and just as importantly, steer some of the worse cops into jobs policing rich people so that the ruling class has a harder time ignoring their behavior.
Unless we're proposing to draft cops into involuntary servitude, the only way to accomplish this resorting of good and bad cops would be to pay cops who police the poor much, much more than the ones who police the wealthy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Maybe there is some truth to this
This may also explain why no one volunteered. "Good cops" find it hard to be around the "bad cops" just the way most of don't want to associate with those that under-perform and are disruptive at our jobs. You take only so much then leave/change careers.
I think it is quite plausible that getting rid of them will create a more attractive work environment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Insight
This is 100% just some ploy in a vein attempt to get money, the average officer we deal with doesn't actually care. Their bigger concern is actually our recent switch to the new radio systems and how much they suck or how terrible our in car mobile data reception is for doing reports.
Cincinnati is actually a good police department that cares about the community. They have good internal accountability. It is a sham for the FOP to make the officers look bad across the country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Instead, the only image the public gets is that 'police unions protect police officers from losing their jobs when they are caught doing something wrong'. Police unions have the image that their only goal is keep bad officers officers on the job, even when they should be fired from the department for gross misconduct in the performance of their duties.
The public needs to see police unions taking a stand to weed out bad cops and that they need to stop with this 'protect all cops under any cost' policy. The CCRB also has the same image problem. It's time to clean up police unions and the CCRB's with each department.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If the police are doing their job as they are suppose to, Camera's shouldn't be any issue. In fact it can be a good thing for you on anyone filing a false report on you. You have video and audio proof you did noting wrong. If you're corrupt, you have things to hide and a Camera is a bad thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Forget about the danger that comes with the job, I know, you will say that if you don't want the risk don't take the job. Low pay and dangerous work. Who the hell do you expect to apply for the job. Of course you will get a bunch of steroid induced losers. When doesn't "You get what you pay for" apply?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unfortunately "To Serve and Protect" is just a slogan
The vast bulk of your point is correct, but if "we" are trusting cops with protecting us, "we" are deluded. As it stands, they are not entrusted with protecting us, only with enforcing the law, and that only by arresting and bringing to trial those who have already broken it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Very easy to hate on criminals like that no matter what they wear
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What a statement! There are a few problems with your assertion:
1. It's like saying you shouldn't give a damn about customers if you work at a store that pays less than another store. If you don't like the pay, apply for a different job!
2. Cops are paid to enforce laws.....let me post that again in case you missed it. Cops are paid to enforce laws, regardless of the pay grade. If they didn't like the rate they would be paid for the job, then they shouldn't have applied for it--period. Low pay is no excuse for bad behaviour.
3. Cops are not paid to mete out "justice" and "punishment" how they see fit; that is what the courts are tasked to do. Again, if it's a low-pay issue, then the applicant should've not taken the job.
Nice try correlating the pay structure to the quality of the work; with that assertion, it somewhat seems that you're a bit of an underachiever, unless you're paid handsomely. That isn't the way it works in the real world: Where the blame rests on the officer for their behaviour because they should know better and if they don't like the pay, then don't take the job!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Starting a comment with an accusation of "cop hating" pretty much guarantees whatever comes after will not a be an intelligent and thoughtful argument...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cops dont deserve more pay, they get paid to start with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We will consider such a pay rise when you stop enabling murderers.
Kind Regards,
The Public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tying body cam use to pay isn't a bad idea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To state what should be the obvious re: law enforcement as an underpaid profession...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Oh you misunderstand me, it wasn't a request."
Police are required to wear body-cams. If one of them doesn't want to accept this then they are more than welcome to find another job where body-cams aren't required.
The police and their unions have spent years, decades even I'd say doing everything they could to avoid holding their own accountable and get rid of the blatantly rotten from their number(as opposed to the mild and moderately rotten that comprises the majority). They've demonstrated that if accountability is to be had, it's going to have to come from somewhere other than them, hence the body-cams(even if they do everything they can to sabotage those too). They can whine all they want about how it's 'unfair' and 'invasive', but they have no-one to blame but themselves for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"But, how am I suppose to feel powerful without my gun?"
Re-reading that it occurred to me: Are the police currently being paid to wear their other equipment? I mean if not being paid to wear a given piece of equipment means they can't wear it, sounds like it's time to start taking away some of their toys.
Not being paid to carry a gun? Say good-bye to the gun.
Not being paid to carry pepper-spray and/or taser? Say good-bye to both.
Not being paid to carry cuffs? That's out too.
If the 'Fraternal Order of Police Lodge' wants to play the 'You have to be paid to wear a particular piece of equipment' game sounds like it's time to start taking away a lot of the toys their members currently have on them. Should they object to that by claiming that the other gear is just 'part of the uniform/standard equipment' then great, their complaint is void, because that now includes the body-cam. All or nothing, body-cam and the other gear or no gear at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They have a point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]