Why are California Cops Paid So Much More than Cops Elsewhere? (house, college)

[Ultrarunner]

Quite a few of my High School Friends are in CA law enforcement... and yes... the compensation package is that good for a number of reasons...

Oakland even had recruiting banners advertising starting base pay around 70k a few years ago... the operative word is starting base pay.

Law Enforcement has some of the best benefits in addition to the base pay... and ample opportunity for overtime among all I know... court hearings, special events, police action and training can all add to the bottom line, plus there is a uniform allowance and the Oakland police union wanted officers to be compensated for the time it takes to change from street clothes into the uniform...

I know those that receive more than the 100k in retirement benefits and others that have worked in various departments and have earned multiple pensions... although much harder to do now since most departments changed to CALPERS.

The city manager of a Bay Area City said her city's biggest issue is the total cost of funding police and fire...

[Axxlrod]

Originally Posted by Lovehound

Good unions.

"good" is a matter of perspective. Good for the cops, bad for the rest of us taxpayers.

The unions are the same reason prison guards in CA all make over $100K per year too.

[Lovehound]

Originally Posted by Axxlrod

"good" is a matter of perspective. Good for the cops, bad for the rest of us taxpayers.

That's what I meant.

[SOON2BNSURPRISE]

Wonder if my MBA would help me land one of those jobs. LOL. Not too much into doughnuts though.

Is the OP interested in this line of work? Not too sure why it matters what someone is paid in another line of work.

[mysticaltyger]

I work in the public sector and I can tell you why. Most police and firemen (and prison guards, I think) have what's called "binding arbitration". That means if they don't like their contract, they can take it to an arbitrator, who almost always decides in their favor.

Some people call this a "good" union. I call it corruption. It's one of those instances where the real crime is what's legal.

I find the whole thing frustrating because other public services get cut as a result of police and firemen getting whatever the h*ll they want.

And of course, the other civil service unions use police & firmen as their "benchmark" in negotiating agreements. So, even though police & fire usually get bigger raises (not to mention benefit enhancements) the other civil service unions get more than they would if police and fire unions didn't have binding arbitration agreements.

Unfortunately, the general public is mostly in the dark about this and you can be sure their unions aren't about to enlighten anyone.

[NewToCA]

Before I'd be outraged I'd like to know the total cost for police support in a jurisdiction, and compare it to other similar size/type cities. For example, is the cost per citizen for police support in Oakland significantly higher than Cleveland, Detroit or St Louis?

Perhaps it is a genuine issue that could stand critical analysis, but first I'd like to see overall cost data.

[kettlepot]

Originally Posted by sav858

I'd be curious to know what the average wage was for cops in Vallejo before the city went bankrupt.

From the news reports I heard, you are absolutely correct to ask that question. Law enforcement compensation and the requirement to properly fund the pension plan that went with it, were directly responsible for the City of Vallejo going bankrupt.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

Before I'd be outraged I'd like to know the total cost for police support in a jurisdiction, and compare it to other similar size/type cities. For example, is the cost per citizen for police support in Oakland significantly higher than Cleveland, Detroit or St Louis?

Perhaps it is a genuine issue that could stand critical analysis, but first I'd like to see overall cost data.

I don't know about other cities, but I know San Jose has fewer police and firemen (and other civil service workers in general) per capita than other cities of similar size.

In many ways, being a cop in San Jose is a walk in the park compared to what other large cities have to deal with because the overall crime rate here is lower.

[Lovehound]

Maybe crime should be handled more in the criminal justice system and penal system than on the streets. Maybe criminals aren't sufficiently motivated to do something else other than commit crimes. Spending more time in prison would give them less time to commit more crimes. Before you blow this off, please consider that while there are high costs of housing prisoners, to have an accurate estimate of that cost you have to subtract the cost of the damage their crimes cause. This is not only the cost of the crime they are convicted of but also the costs of all the other crimes that they didn't get apprehended for. And how can you assign a cash value to the suffering of victims and lives lost?

I really don't understand why so many people commit crimes. My parents taught me that laws should be followed just because it's the right thing to do. I don't understand why so many people haven't been taught this lesson, or why they ignore it. Perhaps it's the low risk of being caught, but what do we have to do? Should we hire maybe 10 percent of California's population just to watch over everything and catch all criminals in the act? How could we possibly afford that?

The problem isn't really how many policemen, firefighters and teachers California has, it's what we pay each of them, not only in their salaries but also in their retirement benefits and overtime pay (probably not including teachers on overtime).

I think that the biggest problem is that strong public employee unions have driven up the salaries to unrealistic levels. We taxpayers are being forced to choose whether to cut costs or "It's for police protection," "It's so our houses won't burn down," "It's for the children." Yeah, sure, we appreciate all that. But just how high do public employee salaries have to go? Is it going to be worth $200K or $300K to get good police officers, firefighters or teachers? Just how much more do these public employees have to make before we think it's too much? What do we do when the public employee unions think that $300K isn't good enough? Are they going to quit protecting us from criminals? Let our houses burn down? Let our children go ignorant?

Public employees and their unions are asking just too much. Their salaries should be in line with private industry, including overtime and retirement benefits. We appreciate the work they are doing for the citizens of this state, but they're asking too much. Our state is going broke and we taxpayers are going broke.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by Lovehound

Public employees and their unions are asking just too much. Their salaries should be in line with private industry, including overtime and retirement benefits. We appreciate the work they are doing for the citizens of this state, but they're asking too much. Our state is going broke and we taxpayers are going broke.

I work in the public sector and I mostly agree with you. Most people in the public sector think they don't get paid that much. That is usually a slight exaggeration. They're not usually making a fortune, that's true, but compared to what they'd get in private industry doing the same job, usually they're getting paid more per hour for the same job.

What public sector workers totally forget is the cost of their pensions. Since they don't see the cost of that in their paychecks, they like to pretend it isn't there. Although I must say, some cities have gotten around this by hiring more part time non-benefitted workers. So not all public sector workers get those pensions. But pretty much all of the full time folks do, and some of the part time ones do (depending on municipality).

And as I said, the cops, firemen, and prison guards are the greediest. If they can be reigned in, the rest of the unions will fall into line.