Friday, September 28, 2018

Policing Pensions: Shocking abuse of authority in California shows how far some public unions will go to protect their contracts.

The driver of the Kia was a private investigator employed by a law firm representing 120 police unions across California, and retained by the Costa Mesa Police Officers Association to do "Candidate research" in the run-up to a contentious election where their pay and pensions were at stake.

What happened in Costa Mesa is a window into the increasingly nasty battles over the rising cost of retirement benefits for public employees in California.

Cities employing police officers and firefighters will face the highest burdens: for every $100 spent in salary on current employees, they will soon have to shell out at least $54 to the state's pension fund, CalPERS. Police pension costs played a significant role in the bankruptcies of Vallejo and San Bernardino in 2008 and 2012, respectively, while larger cities such as San Diego, San Jose, and Sacramento have recently undergone difficult pension negotiations to avoid similar budget woes.

Police unions have used bareknuckle methods to fight pension reform, not just in Costa Mesa, but across California.

It advises unions to "Focus on a city manager, councilperson, mayor, or police chief, and keep the pressure up until that person assures you his loyalty and then move on to the next victim." Clients were told to employ work slowdowns and sick-outs, to "Storm city council," and, above all, to convince the public that higher compensation and pension benefits ensured continued public safety.

The most recent city contract signed with the Costa Mesa Police Association in 2016 represented a pyrrhic victory for pension reformers.

Their service on that line of duty is not free, nor should it be, but when the unions representing those in uniform abuse their members' privileged status to secure lucrative payouts, they risk crowding out essential public services-and even bankrupting cities.

https://www.city-journal.org/police-unions-16198.html

No comments: