Labor Agreement Between The City And The Police Department

The unions and management teams that engage in collective bargaining participate in a very important process. The need for a new labor agreement can result in collective bargaining outcomes that tend to favor one party over the other and as a result can often lead to an impasse which can lead to arbitration or even a strike. Voting on such an agreement can be subjective and the reasoning could vary greatly from one employee to another. The new labor agreement between the city and the police department is definitely a good deal for the city. The new agreement will resolve the current budget issues, allow the city to be able to repair an aging infrastructure, and keep the city from declaring bankruptcy in the long term. This will happen due to the 20% cut in the police force, lower starting wages for new employees and reduced wages of existing employees. For the city this could be viewed as a win-win, until the police department realizes what is at stake. A good example of the risk is the Boston Police strike of 1919 which resulted in the governor of Massachusetts having to bring in the state guard and take control of the police department. (Dresang, 2009) This example

In addition to all of the cut backs to the police force, the city provides the ominous threat that pensions for retired officers could be affected. Learning from personal experience, compensation that is taken away at the bargaining table rarely comes back in the way it was promised. A 7% pay cut and forced furloughs that are promised to be corrected over the next three years are bargained out at the next trip to the bargaining table. Using this example, this labor agreement would not be beneficial to the police department or the city. There will be a loss of quality officers, and potentially higher crime rates. In order for this new labor agreement to be successful, alternatives must be discussed and arbitration may even need to