Oakland needs a complete overhaul when it comes to law enforcement! (San Diego: how much, house)

[DocGoldstein]

Originally Posted by loloroj

Keep in mind that 90k is a starting wage, the city has to pay insurance not only on that LEO but also malpractice insurance if he/she does anything that allows a claim to be won. Also at 90k, what the hell will be the pension when that LEO hits twenty years? And if they're in a management position, they can "retire," work some other departments, and gain even more pensions. The pension system for LEO/firefighter/administration has to be overhauled and thrown out. Cities are going BK simply trying to fulfill obligations to those people long after they're gone. Makes no sense anymore....

Beautiful post.

Let's get rid of CALpers while we're at it. It's a huge drain on California.

[Sunshine City]

I was in Oakland over the weekend, the city needs major help. This coming from an ex resident.

[DocGoldstein]

Originally Posted by ssmaster

wrong.
OPD does not have a problem getting applicants.
2300 showed up for 55 positions
Oakland Police Department jobs attract thousands - SFGate

some people should just do a little research before posting

How many are actually qualified applicants who should even consider being an officer?

Probably less than 1%.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by Sunshine City

I was in Oakland over the weekend, the city needs major help. This coming from an ex resident.

Thanks, we'll take this under advisement.

[Sunshine City]

Originally Posted by DocGoldstein

How many are actually qualified applicants who should even consider being an officer?

Probably less than 1%.

[Ultrarunner]

Law Enforcement costs are staggering when one looks at the financial outlay the city makes...

https://www.baycitizen.org/news/poli...d-police-dips/

[ssmaster]

Originally Posted by DocGoldstein

How many are actually qualified applicants who should even consider being an officer?

Probably less than 1%.

show me the data less than 1%
"the average annual cost of an Oakland police officer's annual pay and benefits package was $188,000" and during the worse economic downturn since the Great Depression.

[loloroj]

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

Law Enforcement costs are staggering when one looks at the financial outlay the city makes...

https://www.baycitizen.org/news/poli...d-police-dips/

This is EXACTLY the problem, in this case, a bad cop "retires" and then gets the same job with another pension as well. This BS must stop, we can't have public employees gaming this system. And it isn't just any public employee, the poor slobs who fill in your potholes, or answer the phones, aren't the ones doing the gaming. It's LEO/firefighters and administration.

For too long, local politicians refused to stand up to those unions because it meant career suicide. Having an endorsement from public safety unions was the difference between getting elected or having to get a job and doing actual work. But that has changed, the public simply will not and cannot put up with giving away massive pay packets to these people. The cities/counties are flat broke and they either fire current employees to pay these kinds of outrageous pensions, or they face the wrath of voters if they cut current workers.

This is the point. If you're retired, that means you don't work anymore. If you leave one job to get another one, you are not retired. All you did was switch jobs. That's it, you're still working and cannot collect a pension. At some point this will have to be the case....

[Mack Knife]

SO much misinformation:

"Keep in mind that 90k is a starting wage, the city has to pay insurance not only on that LEO but also malpractice insurance if he/she does anything that allows a claim to be won. Also at 90k, what the hell will be the pension when that LEO hits twenty years? And if they're in a management position, they can "retire," work some other departments, and gain even more pensions. The pension system for LEO/firefighter/administration has to be overhauled and thrown out. Cities are going BK simply trying to fulfill obligations to those people long after they're gone. Makes no sense anymore....


Beautiful post.

Let's get rid of CALpers while we're at it. It's a huge drain on California."

____________________________________________

First, there is no mal-practice insurance being paid by Oakland on behalf on the police. That is pure nonsense. At least get some facts instead of posting rubbish.

Most cities, like Oakland are self insured.

Next, CalPERs isn't the problem, all the social programs the voters voted for are the problem since they affect the entire state. Calpers doesn't lose money and if the State and cities ran their financials as well there would be the financial mess there is.

The life expectancy of a law enforcement officer who works to their standard retirement age has a rather short life expectancy afterward.

About 5 years on average.

Most never collect their retirements past some short years after retirement. Long after they've passed on you are planning your next trip and BBQ.

How many of you would do their job? Few. Work that holiday year after year? Not be able to make that kids birthday party? How about working a double shift on Christmas? You like to sleep at night? How about working from 10:30pm to 6:30am and then pull extra shifts?

You people that sit in judgement of a retirement for those that do what you'd never do are a real piece of cake. You're better off resting in your recliner, sipping a drink and trying to figure out which movie to watch.

[loloroj]

Originally Posted by Mack Knife

SO much misinformation:

"Keep in mind that 90k is a starting wage, the city has to pay insurance not only on that LEO but also malpractice insurance if he/she does anything that allows a claim to be won. Also at 90k, what the hell will be the pension when that LEO hits twenty years? And if they're in a management position, they can "retire," work some other departments, and gain even more pensions. The pension system for LEO/firefighter/administration has to be overhauled and thrown out. Cities are going BK simply trying to fulfill obligations to those people long after they're gone. Makes no sense anymore....


Beautiful post.

Let's get rid of CALpers while we're at it. It's a huge drain on California."

____________________________________________

First, there is no mal-practice insurance being paid by Oakland on behalf on the police. That is pure nonsense. At least get some facts instead of posting rubbish.

Most cities, like Oakland are self insured.

Next, CalPERs isn't the problem, all the social programs the voters voted for are the problem since they affect the entire state. Calpers doesn't lose money and if the State and cities ran their financials as well there would be the financial mess there is.

The life expectancy of a law enforcement officer who works to their standard retirement age has a rather short life expectancy afterward.

About 5 years on average.

Most never collect their retirements past some short years after retirement. Long after they've passed on you are planning your next trip and BBQ.

How many of you would do their job? Few. Work that holiday year after year? Not be able to make that kids birthday party? How about working a double shift on Christmas? You like to sleep at night? How about working from 10:30pm to 6:30am and then pull extra shifts?

You people that sit in judgement of a retirement for those that do what you'd never do are a real piece of cake. You're better off resting in your recliner, sipping a drink and trying to figure out which movie to watch.

Talk about misinformation, your post has to be one of the best examples of this. Whether or not a city is self insured doesn't change the fact that the same principles of insuring risky ventures are in place. Whoever the administrator is, whether it's the city or an outside party, they must mitigate risk. And they must invest that money. The more that a LEO is paid, the more of a return must be brought back in order to pay any claims either against that city, LEO or if that LEO is disabled. That only means that premiums must go up accordingly.

And LEO's aren't the riskiest positions in public service, it's the highway and road crews that have far higher risk of death on the job. If anyone should be getting better pay and perks, it should be those men and women, if you're so concerned about risk.

CALPERS has a great administrative overhead, far lower than Wall Street administration costs. But that has nothing to do with payouts and terms of those payouts. That is between LEO/fire unions and the cities/counties. You're deliberately conflating the two. The terms of which LEO's/firefighters retire and how they get their payouts is a negotiated agreement and CALPERS plays no role in that.

Let me give you an example. The city of San Jose is now renegotiating how an LEO is to get a disability retirement consideration. Why this became an issue was because LEO's were claiming a disability, but then were turning around and getting the same job at a different department for the same pay. But they still were getting a disability pension payout. Why did that happen? Because the board which adjudicated disabilities were run by former LEO's who were making those determinations. Oh wow, no problem with self interest there, I guess. It was a scam in order to have those 'disabled' LEO's not pay as much taxes on their retirement packages. Finally San Jose got wise and demanded a change, basically because tax payers were getting tired of paying retirements for people who were claiming to have been too injured to continue working at that job, getting the same job somewhere else.

This is very simple. I don't care how dangerous the job you claim is, I don't care if you work on holidays, if you are retired, that means you're not working anymore. Period. You don't get a pension until you stop working. If you are supposedly disabled that means you're done. It doesn't mean that you can game a system in order to get another pension. CALPERS wasn't established so that public employees can max out their pensions retirements and then do it again to another municipality. Simple, if you claim that you have worked all those years to stop working, then and only then do you get a pension. If you go get the same job, either in the public or private sector, all you have done is switch jobs. You're not retired. That is basic common sense....