Locust Club -- \"We Protect

¶ … Locust Club -- "We Protect the Police"

Fighting crime is a full-time job, and the men and woman of law enforcement are, in most states, duly compensated for their efforts. Yet, striking the balance between equitable salaries and accommodating work hours for law enforcement officers and municipal budgetary concerns is not easy. Debates between city officials and union representatives are often long, and at times, contentious. Though, at the end of the day, union reps and city officials typically come together to ensure that the streets are kept safe and that law enforcement officers are given the benefits and the salaries they deserve. Patience, the art of negotiating and collective bargaining, being empathetic and understanding of the other side's position, all of these factors play a role in coming to terms and executing a mutually beneficial agreement. It is the purpose of this essay to investigate labor relations between the Locust Club and Rochester city officials as well as explain how the Locust Club deals with grievances amongst its members.

Justin Collins is a Police Sergeant for the Rochester Police Department. In addition to fighting crime, he is the founding member of the Badge of Honor Association; a non-profit organization dedicated to honoring law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty in Western New York (Kovacic, 2010). He is also an active member in the Rochester Locust Club, the official police union for the city of Rochester, N.Y. which is dedicated to improving working conditions, wages and benefits, and to monitoring legislation at all levels of government to protect police officers' rights and to continually improve law enforcement in Rochester (Clottin, p. 1).

Justin gives a real practical, first-hand account of the tenuous relationship between the Locust Club and the City officials who draft budgets and negotiate civil service contracts. Meetings between the parties are often long and tedious, but are not like the meetings in the police procedurals one watches on TV. Meaning that although tempers sometimes flare-up and negotiations become heated, one doesn't observe the posturing and contrived drama or the smooth elocution of chisel-faced bohemians. There are no backdoor deals in seedy alleyways or clandestine talks over warm brandy poured from a crystal decanter. In short, there are no actors involved. This isn't Hollywood. Instead, it's two sides of concerned individuals who have their interests, the interests of their organization and constituents, at heart when they come to the bargaining table (J. Collins, personal communication, May 13, 2011).

The RPD is comprised of 893 sworn and non-sworn employees serving approximately 230,000 city residents (Clottin, p. 3). Of those sworn and non-sworn employees, 745 are active members of the Locust Club (Clottin, p. 3). The goals of the Locust Club are pretty straightforward, as mentioned; they exist to ensure Rochester police officers are given the best possible salaries, benefits and working conditions. Their motto is a rather laconic, but memorable refrain, "Police Protect People, We Protect the Police" (Clottin, p. 10).

In recent times, due to fiscal insolvency at the state and local levels, cities have been forced to make cuts in their municipal budgets. Rochester is a city that is faced with having to make tough decisions regarding civil service costs and overhead. One of the major problems is legacy costs, i.e. pensions. Pensions for retired officers (as well as school teachers) can deplete available funds for active civil service employees thus forcing a city to either borrow money from the state or raise taxes on its citizens to pay for the current civil service workforce as well as the retired civil service workforce. If cities are not prudent with their budgets, they can collapse into bankruptcy (J. Collins, personal communication, May 13, 2011).

So there are many forces at play with regards to the interests of the city and the interests of the police union. City officials in Rochester want to negotiate a deal that keep costs as low as possible for city employees. This, in turns, keep taxes low, which makes the citizens happy, and also helps to ensure that the city remains solvent; whereas, the Locust club wishes to maximize monetary compensation and benefits for its members. Here exists much of the tension between the two sides.

One thing to bear in mind is that there is a larger issue in play that dictates the terms of the agreement and informs the ongoing debate. And this issue stems from the primary function of the Rochester Police Department, which is to make Rochester a safer city, reduce the fear of crime and work in partnership with the community (RPD website). Public safety is the critical element in the debate. The purpose of the RPD is to keep the public safe by reducing crime rates through police activism and community support (J. Collins, personal communication, May 13, 2011).

So, the debate between the Locust Club and Rochester City Officials is not just about money, it's more about what does it take to keep the city safe. So the question is thus redefined as, what are the optimal conditions that maximize safety while at the same time keep costs manageable? And this is really the question that frames the whole debate.

Justin mentions that although they have an agreement in place, a contract, there is a growing anxiety about certain aspects of the job that are in danger of being changed due to the desire to reduce costs (personal communication, May 13, 2011). One of them is overtime mitigation. The city would like to reduce the number of hours of overtime without increasing the number of officers on duty. This was proposed in lieu of personnel cuts, which would have reduced the overall size of the RPD.

The Locust Club argues that overtime mitigation leads to gaps in coverage. For instance, when exigent circumstances arise, a shooting involving multiple people or a large gang fight in a residential area, and more members of the police force are needed to provide backup and support; many will accrue overtime, which leads to an increase in cost. A cost that city officials believe is superfluous (J. Collins, personal communication, May 13, 2011).

With an overtime mitigation policy in place, officers are limited on the amount of overtime they are allowed to work. Whether or not exigent circumstances arise, officers would be restricted from providing additional support. The Locust Club is adamant about the overtime mitigation policy being untenable as it makes an already dangerous job, increasingly dangerous (J. Collins, personal communication, May 13, 2011).

However, when faced with the decision between personnel cutbacks and reducing overtime, the Locust Club believes that it is better to take a strength-in-numbers approach and forgo the layoffs and, therefore, agree to a tentative overtime mitigation policy. There are certain caveats to the overtime mitigation policy that allows for additional resources in emergency situations (J. Collins, personal communication, May 13, 2011).

Another issue of concern is the proposed cutbacks on healthcare and pension benefits. Given today's political climate, specifically with regards to those teachers in Wisconsin who capitulated to the city's demands and forfeited their rights to collectively bargain while also absorbing cuts in pay and benefits, many civil service employees working under city municipalities, which are confronted with tough decisions due to rising costs and stagnant or dwindling tax revenue, are stressed about their pensions and benefits. The Locust Club is no exception. This following is a statement issued from the desk of Mike Mazzeo, the President of the Locust Club, "As the events unfold in Wisconsin, the truth is emerging concerning the motivation behind Governor Walker's move to repeal collective bargaining for unionized public sector employees. Balancing the budget is the excuse to justify union busting" (2011). Mazzeo believes that the rhetoric used in the debate -- i.e. "we need to balance the budget -- is a pretext for breaking up unions and killing the rights of workers to collectively bargain. The solution to money problems, Mazzeo posits, is not in union busting, rather it is in eliminating government waste and over-spending and imposing tax hikes on the rich, Mazzeo concludes his memo, "The solution is not to end collective bargaining rights of the working class. The answer is to hold our elected officials accountable for over spending, needless waste of public monies, and tax breaks for the rich" (2011).

The Locust Club is keenly aware that they are embattled in a forever-war with the city and the state government. Despite long-term agreements and good-faith handshakes, there is always the looming threat that a newly elected city official will purposely attack the pensions of civil service employees to appease what seems to be a growing faction of disgruntled voters who see civil service pensions, and organized municipal labor for that matter, as nothing but a product of government largesse. There are always a number of residents, especially those who have limited interaction with law enforcement, who don't understand the breadth and scope of crime fighting. These detractors, as Justin calls them, are there to subvert what the RPD has rightfully earned (personal communication, May 13, 2011).

Theoretically speaking though, why is there a constant tension between police unions and local and state governments? Can't they all just get along? Well, to answer this question, perhaps we should briefly examine the differences between police unions in the United States and those in Canada to see if there is some underlying difference between the way the two are viewed by their respective societies. In a project commissioned by the U.S. Department of Justice entitled, "Police Labor -- Management Relations (2006, Vol 1) the issue was addressed explicitly, the project states:

Labor relations in Canada and the U.S. share a similar history and similar original legislation. So why are the bargaining regimes and outcomes so different? The one word answer is legislation. Whether public sector or private sector, the notable difference between Canadian and U.S. labor relations history is that Canadian legislators have not eroded or outright annulled the substance and spirit of our early, formative legislation that enables the organization and certification of bargaining units, recognition of unions by employers, and facilitates collective bargaining and the administration of collective agreements.

Consequently, police labor relations in Canada operate in a protected environment where neutral third-party dispute mechanisms, like binding interest arbitration, are the norm. To our advantage as well, arbiters and most employer negotiators recognize the police as unique employees in unique workplaces. Police-to-police comparison generally is the accepted standard. For the most part, this has allowed us to hold our own in comparison with self-regulating professions, with each other regionally, and for larger bargaining units nationally. Most important, this protected environment has allowed us to stay ahead of the private sector and separate ourselves from the rest of the public sector in gains in salary and benefits. Good wage and benefit packages account for the low incidence of police corruption in Canada. Being able to rely on a defined process in our legislation and maintaining a favorable image in the eyes of the public as well as the respect of most of our politicians has helped us survive, and in most workplaces avoid, poor labor-management relations. (Kilnnear, 2006, p. 27-28),

In Canada police unions are not viewed as a pernicious entity, a money-gulping indolent bureaucracy, instead it is ingrained in the social fabric that a police union is a positive influence that assiduously works -- via the cooperation of its members -- to mitigate crime. Their ways of operation, their legislation, is clearly defined and transparent. And, what is most important is the understanding by both policy makers and the police unions is that police work is fundamentally different than any other type of work in the public sector. Consequently, it should be treated differently and comparisons that juxtapose police salaries and benefits with jobs in other sectors of the workforce are inherently flawed. In the U.S. however, police unions (really unions in general), are not viewed with the same deference and respect. Unfair comparisons are drawn in an effort to bust unions.

In addition to the external pressures the Locust Club faces, there is also internal pressure(s) within the organization. For example, conflict can arise over members' dues and fees, the near compulsory aspect of the union, grievances amongst union members and union management, etc. After all, cops are people too, so there are no shortages of complaints and issues that need to be addressed and handled in a calm and efficient manner. What's important is that these issues get resolved internally so that the Locust Club maintains a unified front and a singular voice when sitting at the negotiating table.