The union that represents Los Angeles area police is trying to have the editorial writers at the San Diego Union Tribune fired for opining that public employees should have their salaries and benefits cut.
This is no idle threat. A company called Platinum Equity purchased the Tribune. Platinum is funded, in part, by investments from various public service pension funds, etc. So technically — the police union is a part owner of the Tribune.
Platinum relies on a $30-million investment from the pension fund of Los Angeles police officers and fire fighters, along with large sums from other public-employee pension systems around the state, to help fund its acquisitions of companies. As League President Paul M. Weber views it, that makes the League part owner in the flagging Tribune and League officials are none to happy with the paper’s consistent position that San Diego lawmakers should cut back on salaries and benefits for public employees in order to help close gaping budget deficits.
“Since the very public employees they continually criticize are now their owners, we strongly believe that those who currently run the editorial pages should be replaced,” Weber wrote in a March 26 letter to Platinum CEO Tom Gores.
Weber, in an interview, emphasized that the League is not demanding changes in the paper’s news coverage of the issue or in its staff of reporters. “It’s just these people on the opinion side. There is not even an attempt to be even-handed. They’re one step away from saying, ‘these public employees are parasites,’ ” Weber said.
Bob Kittle, editor of the Union-Tribune’s editorial page, rebuffed Weber’s comments. While his staff has written several editorials critical of the benefit and pension commitments city leaders have made to San Diego’s five public employee unions, he denied Weber’s charge that the paper is out to hurt public employees.
I love cops. I’ve worked with and for cops — state and local for nearly 15 years. In my experience most “public service” union officials are not real cops — they’re politicians. Like a lot of unions — they support political causes that rank and file don’t, but they vote for the union because they get higher salaries. Who doesn’t want a higher salary? Of course, like most they poor-mouth their existence. It’s the politician’s job to say “No” with the public’s money. Therein lies the problem. Saying “no” afterwards is much more difficult.
Police officers, with overtime, often make well over $100,000/yr. in southern California. Once they get over detective and into Sergeant it stays up there. (Counties make less than municipal due to tax base issues). We’ll use $100,000 as the basis. Under California’s Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) an officer can retire when he satisfies the “Rule of 80″ = 30 years of service and over age 50. Many officer get out of academies at around 22-23 years of age. They retire at 52-55 on average. The state has given them what is called a 3% multiplier — take years of service times and that’s the amount of annual retirement you take home. It’s a defined benefit program so the money — ostensibly — never runs out. Take 30 years times 3 = 90%. The officer retiring at 53 making $100,000 base pay will make $90,000/yr. plus cost of living adjustments and raises for the rest of his life. Unlike TV shows — most cops don’t eat donuts, don’t smoke or drink at pre-1990 levels, work out regularly — in other words — they will start to live into their late 70s and longer.
Corrections officer, probation and parole officers, etc. Where does it stop? Other state employees — with a lower multiplier (2.5 or so) also clog the system. Some districts give teachers $20,000 a year raises in their last three years because retirement is based on your average salary for the final three years of your tenure.
Not all cops are in PERS. Some municipal cops have different deals with their cities which are usually similar. But cities are strapped too.
I love cops and I come from a family of school teachers, but in California — and I can’t speak to other states — they have become pigs at a trough that is out of turnips. Imagine retiring at 52 — healthy and educated and making $90,000/yr. and then having enough time to get another state or local job for 15 years and getting a second retirement. Health care costs are also moved off the government books onto the retirement plan. It would’ve all worked fine if the pension funds hadn’t invested in real estate or been robbed by the state legislatures to do whatever it is that liberals and RINOs do.
Print
Digg
StumbleUpon
del.icio.us
Facebook
Yahoo! Buzz
Twitter
Google Bookmarks
Google Buzz
LinkedIn
MSN Reporter
MySpace
Orkut
Ping.fm
Reddit
RSS
Slashdot
Technorati
Tumblr
Webnews.de
You know, I agree with the editorial writers. Governments make a mistake when they give public employees the best of both worlds. On the one hand, they have job security and incredible benefits, and on the other, a high salary.
But if the owners of the paper have a problem with the opinions expressed on the editorial pages, don’t they have the right to fire them? I think it would be a mistake to turn the “Union Tribune” into the “Union Tributary,” but then it’s not my money.
It’s more than a tad worrisome to have a quasi-government owned co. limit speech.
And that’s true too.
Considering my small dealings with the police as a newspaper writer, it wouldn’t surprise me one bit that this was the general feeling of the cops on the street, or at least their management. The police hate newspapers, at least in my experience.
John… I think that’s generally true, but this is of a different sort. They hate the sanctimony of many journalists who don’t know what it’s like to have their lives threatened and yet get the vapors when a murderers head gets “roughed up” a bit. In those cases they complain about hyped up coverage and the usual complaints we all have about misspelled names, getting facts messed up, etc. But I don’t know many cops who have ever argued to shut the press up or if they did it never went beyond break room bitching.
This feels different to me. This is someone perhaps in a position to really force the issue and involves a political matter as opposed to a mistake on the street or a reporting issue. This goes to opinion. I don’t know — I may be overly concerned, but I don’t like any gov’t agency limiting speech as a general principle. Maybe this is just traditional cops v. press.
Just remember, I’m stating based off my own dealings with small town police departments – the one I dealt with regularly redacted and withheld public records to the point of making them useless. Not to mention the verbal abuse I dealt with.
As for your initial observation, this being more about bureaucratic muscle-flexing and leverage rather than an adversarial police/press relationship makes sense.
True that John. Small-town po-po don’t always have the same ideas as others. (And that’s not an uneducated bias on my part — I have a lot of experience with all types — both professional and life experience)
Cops had no accountability for so long and now they have (mostly) too much I think, but the tendency to authoritarianism — especially against perceived enemies — is great — but wrong nonetheless.
“Rich, June, Blackhawk, Scott M (at least this week); John Milton, Texacalirose”
Floyd, in the past three weeks I’ve received personal e-mails from each and everyone of them explaining why they were leaving. I don’t want to betray their trust, but there was a common thread running through each of their responses. By the way, off topic, but are there any mirrors in the Turbo household?
Rufus, I know what you’re implying but I never insulted June.
Never mind. Strike that.