dfc
Newbie
Posts: 19
|
Post by dfc on Jan 10, 2010 13:43:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by vincegatto on Jan 10, 2010 13:59:45 GMT -5
And to my surprise the APD is working without a contract that expired 12-31st. That is the next can of worms The middle of a recession combined with State cutbacks in municipal aid, after layoffs, high unemployment and taxpayers grumbling about property tax is not a great time to be negotiating a contract. They will be lucky if they do not end up with "give backs".
|
|
dfc
Newbie
Posts: 19
|
Post by dfc on Jan 10, 2010 14:31:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by vincegatto on Jan 10, 2010 15:18:33 GMT -5
Well Vince I have negotiated contracts many years ago for my employees. If they know what they are doing you never give anything back unless you get something else in return. That is called negotiating!!!!! And you better make sure your Commissioner Buds have a solicitor who knows labor law. History will show that first year Commissioner's who don't have a clue end up giving the store away to all employees. These Commissioners are fiscally responsible. There is a 4% cap on municipal budgets, State aid has been cut and Christie will cut more - and Audubon did not qualify for the Federal Police stimulus package. You can't give away what you don't have in your store. Maybe the cops will have to give back their belts for tighter ones. You may have negotiated contracts for many years in the good times, those times are gone.
|
|
|
Post by johnnypeppers on Jan 10, 2010 16:46:47 GMT -5
Well Vince I have negotiated contracts many years ago for my employees. If they know what they are doing you never give anything back unless you get something else in return. That is called negotiating!!!!! And you better make sure your Commissioner Buds have a solicitor who knows labor law. History will show that first year Commissioner's who don't have a clue end up giving the store away to all employees. These Commissioners are fiscally responsible. There is a 4% cap on municipal budgets, State aid has been cut and Christie will cut more - and Audubon did not qualify for the Federal Police stimulus package. You can't give away what you don't have in your store. Maybe the cops will have to give back their belts for tighter ones. You may have negotiated contracts for many years in the good times, those times are gone. Wrong. Phila went into arbitration, thanks to our FOP, and there were NO givebacks. I was dismayed as to the APD switching over to a less influential LEO rep(PBA). For an update...FOP Lodge #5 Phila.
|
|
|
Post by vincegatto on Jan 10, 2010 17:39:31 GMT -5
These Commissioners are fiscally responsible. There is a 4% cap on municipal budgets, State aid has been cut and Christie will cut more - and Audubon did not qualify for the Federal Police stimulus package. You can't give away what you don't have in your store. Maybe the cops will have to give back their belts for tighter ones. You may have negotiated contracts for many years in the good times, those times are gone. Wrong. Phila went into arbitration, thanks to our FOP, and there were NO givebacks. I was dismayed as to the APD switching over to a less influential LEO rep(PBA). For an update...FOP Lodge #5 Phila. So you are saying that an arbitrator can order the Borough to give the PD union money that it does not have and cannot legally raise from the taxpayers? I guess, in theory, that if the Borough can raise the budget 4%, they could increase the Police department budget by 4%. Assuming that other cost like health insurance, fuel, etc. have not gone up, the cops could get a raise. Or, the Borough could reduce the PD budget and shift the money to the Library. Is there a librarians union ;D ? I guess we know where the money will go.
|
|
|
Post by johnnypeppers on Jan 10, 2010 17:54:52 GMT -5
Wrong. Phila went into arbitration, thanks to our FOP, and there were NO givebacks. I was dismayed as to the APD switching over to a less influential LEO rep(PBA). For an update...FOP Lodge #5 Phila. So you are saying that an arbitrator can order the Borough to give the PD union money that it does not have and cannot legally raise from the taxpayers? I guess, in theory, that if the Borough can raise the budget 4%, they could increase the Police department budget by 4%. Assuming that other cost like health insurance, fuel, etc. have not gone up, the cops could get a raise. Or, the Borough could reduce the PD budget and shift the money to the Library. Is there a librarians union ;D ? I guess we know where the money will go. Come on Vinnie...you KNOW an arbitrator will look at the whole picture due to the FACT the town ...any town, would put forth their budget restraints and most town/cities have already set aside their "earmarks" ala politicians. The arbitrator will then decide the best course after review.
|
|
|
Post by vincegatto on Jan 10, 2010 18:48:38 GMT -5
So you are saying that an arbitrator can order the Borough to give the PD union money that it does not have and cannot legally raise from the taxpayers? I guess, in theory, that if the Borough can raise the budget 4%, they could increase the Police department budget by 4%. Assuming that other cost like health insurance, fuel, etc. have not gone up, the cops could get a raise. Or, the Borough could reduce the PD budget and shift the money to the Library. Is there a librarians union ;D ? I guess we know where the money will go. Come on Vinnie...you KNOW an arbitrator will look at the whole picture due to the FACT the town ...any town, would put forth their budget restraints and most town/cities have already set aside their "earmarks" ala politicians. The arbitrator will then decide the best course after review. Is your assumption that an Arbitrator always favors the union. What if an arbitrator says that overall expenses for the Borough have exceeded 4%, they can't raise taxes and there are going to have to be cutbacks somewhere. You think the arbitrator is going to say, "but, you can't touch the PD and you have to take money from somewhere else to give them a raise because they want to earn more money." If you think that the politicians are hiding money for their pet projects, then get a copy of the budget, read it and vote them out of office. I am assuming the guys we elected are honest until someone shows me some facts and proves otherwise, I'll stick with that assumption. My original point was that municipal budgets are getting tight and there is not that much money to go around (unless you want to tell your government- OK, get rid of the budget cap and raise my taxes). It is not a good time to be negotiating a contract, that's all I meant.
|
|
|
Post by johnnypeppers on Jan 10, 2010 19:01:01 GMT -5
I was not part of a small town arbitration but I can tell you in large Cities as Phila etc, there is ALWAYS monies squirreled away for pet projects and I would say small towns are no different. A skilled arbitrator would look at all issues before a determination...pro PoPo or pro Adm then rule which is binding in those States that have such Laws
|
|
|
Post by vincegatto on Jan 10, 2010 19:32:56 GMT -5
I was not part of a small town arbitration but I can tell you in large Cities as Phila etc, there is ALWAYS monies squirreled away for pet projects and I would say small towns are no different. A skilled arbitrator would look at all issues before a determination...pro PoPo or pro Adm then rule which is binding in those States that have such Laws I would probably agree with you about large cities, but not with a small town. I don't think that there is a significant slush fund hidden in Audubon's budget that would not be evident to anyone examining an audited budget. But, here is where we need to change the talk on these boards. You need to show us where the "squirreled away" money is. We need to deal in facts - just because Philly politicians could hide money does not mean that Audubon can. Show me the money. There is no sense talking about "squirreled away" money that may or may not exist and can be awarded by an arbitrator to the police union. All of a sudden people will start talking about members of the PD getting screwed because the Commissioners have hidden away money for pet projects when there is no evidence that is the case.
|
|
dfc
Newbie
Posts: 19
|
Post by dfc on Jan 10, 2010 22:01:28 GMT -5
The police dept already got screwed when they laid off 5 men in the last year. Where is all those salaries going? What about the health insurance that is 12,000 + a man? Where is the money going?
|
|
dfc
Newbie
Posts: 19
|
Post by dfc on Jan 10, 2010 22:03:25 GMT -5
Why were two men laid off in 2008? That was before Audubon Park and I can't get a straight answer.
|
|
|
Post by vincegatto on Jan 10, 2010 22:24:33 GMT -5
The police dept already got screwed when they laid off 5 men in the last year. Where is all those salaries going? What about the health insurance that is 12,000 + a man? Where is the money going? "...The national rate of full-time law enforcement employees per 1,000 inhabitants remained at 3.5 in 2004, unchanged from the 2003 rate.."Based on the national average, we should have 32 police officers. However towns with populations under 10,000 averaged 4.2 officers per 1,000 population. If we compared Audubon to towns our size, we would have 38 officers. What do we have left after the layoff 17? It appears we are understaffed according to the FBI statistics and that's a fact. www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/law_enforcement_personnel/index.html
|
|
Pasta
getting the hang of it
Posts: 46
|
Post by Pasta on Jan 10, 2010 23:13:54 GMT -5
Mr. Gatto; with respect; I think dfc raises a very interesting, and very pertinent question. Why did the town lay off two police officers in 2008 when they were still flush with Audubon Park money? They; the former commissioners, did not yet know about what we all saw happened with the contract with Audubon Park. Dfc also makes reference to the medical costs; which is also a valid concern. I would trust your uncanny ability of research and factual reason to provide some sort of answer.
|
|
|
Post by vincegatto on Jan 10, 2010 23:33:52 GMT -5
Mr. Gatto; with respect; I think dfc raises a very interesting, and very pertinent question. Why did the town lay off two police officers in 2008 when they were still flush with Audubon Park money? They; the former commissioners, did not yet know about what we all saw happened with the contract with Audubon Park. Dfc also makes reference to the medical costs; which is also a valid concern. I would trust your uncanny ability of research and factual reason to provide some sort of answer. To the best of my memory, there was a budget issue in 2008 aside from the Park deal. If you remember, the previous year they sold the package store liquor license to cover the shortfall.
|
|