Newark NJ Lays Off 167 Officers

[PEMO3 523]

Newark has pink slipped 167 Officers representing every officer hired in Newark since 2006. This comes as Newark's violent crime numbers have been on the rise. My heart goes out to these officers, given pink slips just before the holidays. Hard on them and their families in this economy and at a time of the year when cost of living increases with heating costs.

Star Ledger report

[efdcapt115 1,511]

Wow this really sucks.

[Alpinerunner 61]

Yes obviously this is terribly anywhere and to anyone. But in Newark, at this time of year, is an extra slap in the face.

[BFD1054 1,552]

I saw this on the news earlier (forget what station) and they showed some of the laid-off members stopping by a precinct to hand in their guns and shields.

What a crappy situation and right before the holidays no less.

My heart goes out to the NPD members who were laid off and those who will have to work harder to cover the loss.

[jack10562 414]

This was avoidable to some degree.

There is no reason why the union could not have put the latest concession offer to the membership for a vote, instead the "inner circle" shot it down, thereby forcing the City's hand.

It goes against the definition of what the union is supposed to represent.

[PEMO3 523]

It seems as more information comes to light the Newark PBA was these officers own worst enemy. Newark Union president Derrick Hatcher told Booker in an email asking to return to the table "This e-mail is to inform you that our membership has expressed no interest in re-opening the contract or executing any side agreements with the City of Newark regarding the Lay Offs." Source NJ.com Surprisingly, the City of Newark address the layoffs on their website while the Newark PBA's website seems to ignore the fact that 167 officers are on the street.

Regardless who is to blame it is a shame that 167 good men and women are caught in the middle and on streets with out pay in the weeks before the holidays. Hopefully, cooler heads will surface and get these officers back to work soon.

[Guest jcnyc]

You can NEVER re-open a contract for negotiation, it sets the worst precedent ever! While it sucks that 167 lost their jobs, I am sure that they will be working soon enough. I would be more concerned as a now unlicensed gun owner in NJ of what to do with all the guns you accumulated as a PO, and what to do with them.

[Just a guy 493]

My thoughts and prayers are with my brothers and sisters in Newark who have been layed off. I would say that anyone who is not directly involved in the negotiations between the Newark FOP and the city can't fairly place blame in this situation. It's very easy to say " The union should have put the latest offer to a vote " or " why didn't the union make concessions to save those jobs " .. the reality is that union give backs are a slippery slope and when you give in once, the city will ask for it over and over and will sit down at a collective bargaining table and they will lead the negotiations knowing that the union will break. The FOP represents 1,033 cops in Newark and although they have to try to save those 167 jobs, they also have to look out for the good of the countless other members they represent. The city is using the cops as political pawns and it isn't right. Public safety in Newark has always been a problem and being minus 167 cops during the holiday robbery season is a crooks dream.

The union had to play hardball with the city, and now is the time for the ad campaigns and to ratchet up the public pressure which will undoubtedly get some or all of those jobs back.

God Bless all of our brothers and sisters and may they be back at work in no time at all !!

[SageVigiles 1,194]

You can NEVER re-open a contract for negotiation, it sets the worst precedent ever! While it sucks that 167 lost their jobs, I am sure that they will be working soon enough. I would be more concerned as a now unlicensed gun owner in NJ of what to do with all the guns you accumulated as a PO, and what to do with them.

With all due respect, that's ridiculous. The union's job is to look out for the best interests of the membership. How do 167 pink slips help anyone? They don't help the membership, don't help the union board, don't help management , and MOST IMPORTANTLY, don't help the people of Newark who need police protection.

[Guest jcnyc]

With all due respect, that's ridiculous. The union's job is to look out for the best interests of the membership. How do 167 pink slips help anyone? They don't help the membership, don't help the union board, don't help management , and MOST IMPORTANTLY, don't help the people of Newark who need police protection.

Once you are in a Union you will know how it works. And as for the residents of Newark the protection will be the same regardless of the number of the force. Staffing levels should also be in the contract. Once you re-open the contract once it will become a normal procedure, and that means any time the mismanagement becomes evident they will just do the same thing again, but usually it will be worse.

[SageVigiles 1,194]

It doesn't set a precedent at all, the union has to agree every time they are going to open the contract outside of negotiations. Opening it once doesn't mean management can open it whenever they want. Staffing levels should be in the contract, but if the city has no ability to pay that can all be scraped and the arbitrators, after looking at the books, will most likely agree. Emergency situations (IE: City on the brink of bankruptcy) can override the contract anyway. Look at what happened to Waterbury a few years back.

That being said, I hope the rank and file guys who are suffering as a result of this find work again soon.

[grumpyff 1,159]

While it sucks 167 police officers are laid off, the union is there to protect its members the best it can. Look at some of the concessions...a limit on overtime pay in the budget (after budget is exhausted you get comp time....ok now what do you do if comp time is denied which happens all the time), work 5 unpaid days (is the mayor, the chief, city council taking 5 unpaid days, I don't think so), no night differnential for those that were going to be laid off(let guess they would all be transferred to midnights, a tour that takes it toll on your body). When times were good the city was not bending over to take care of the police. It misspent federal anti-terror funds to purchase garbage trucks. It used the arguement that the trucks would be used to clean up after a terror attack. Never reopen a contract, you never get back what you give up, and only opens the door to the city crying 'we have no money' and asking for givebacks whenever it wants to. If you recall shortly after 9/11 the City of New York cried it had no money for pay raises for the NYPD, which at the time was the lowest paid police agency in thirteen counties. It went to arbitration where the city lost its arguement, and the NYPD got 5% and 5%.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704638304575636653817597286.html

[Just a guy 493]

It doesn't set a precedent at all, the union has to agree every time they are going to open the contract outside of negotiations. Opening it once doesn't mean management can open it whenever they want. Staffing levels should be in the contract, but if the city has no ability to pay that can all be scraped and the arbitrators, after looking at the books, will most likely agree. Emergency situations (IE: City on the brink of bankruptcy) can override the contract anyway. Look at what happened to Waterbury a few years back.

That being said, I hope the rank and file guys who are suffering as a result of this find work again soon.

It most certainly does set a precedent... they city will always want you to open up your contract, it's a balancing act for the union, trying to secure a raise for the membership while trying to keep what you already have and trying to get a few more things out of the city. The membership has to trust the elected union officials, we elected them to the positions so we should trust them.

The city will always cry poverty but they will never cut where they need to, they will always go to the emergency services, very rarely will they cut on the legislative side of the budget.

You have to remember that in a perfect world, the city would sit down with the union and everything would be amicable and they would agree on everything and the union would get 5 % 5% and 5% and 3 extra personals, etc... but it's not, collective bargaining is cut throat and I don't envy the FOP guys from Newark at all.

[INIT915 1,119]

Well, I'm in a Union, a fairly successful one at that, and I think our Union has learned that the first rule of negotiating is never say never. To say there would never be a reason to reopen a contract is extreme. We can all agree there wouldn't be many times the Union would benefit from it, but you really need to keep all options on the table.

And the underlying fact remains is that Unions are democratic organizations. Either way, the leadership of this Union should have put this to a vote of their membership. If the membership voted it down, as the leadership anticipated, so be it. But the decision must be made by the membership, not the hierarchy. This failure to put this matter to a vote tells me, from experience, the leadership was at least somewhat fearful of an outcome they did not want.

[Alpinerunner 61]

I can certainly see both sides, but I know my company has enacted furlough days and no-raises for the past 2 years. It seems to me, the right thing to do. Housing prices have fallen significantly, the stock market is still down significantly from its high, and it makes sense that part of the economy "resetting" is to take sacrifices in salary for the greater good of everyone. This seems in line with union philosophy. I also know that lawmakers always find it easier to take from emergency servies than their own pockets, but emercency servies are second in budget only to schools.

That being said, I understand why a union wouldn't want to re-open negotiations as it sets a bad precident, but why wasn't this addressed in the original negotiation? I'm sure there was a reason, and I admit to not being educated on the relationship between unions and municipalities.

[Guest jcnyc]

We had a reopener clause in our contract the FDNY, it was only to be used to our benefit, and it was since the NYPD did better than we did.

[x152 179]

Opening it once doesn't mean management can open it whenever they want. Staffing levels should be in the contract, but if the city has no ability to pay that can all be scraped and the arbitrators, after looking at the books, will most likely agree. Emergency situations (IE: City on the brink of bankruptcy) can override the contract anyway. Look at what happened to Waterbury a few years back.

That being said, I hope the rank and file guys who are suffering as a result of this find work again soon.

Sage:

Taking the "Collective Bargaining in the Workplace" 3 credit elective class at the University of New Haven does not make you a labor or legal expert.

You are entitled to your opinion, but until you have some experience in dealing with labor issues or working within a Union, you should avoid statements indicating your facts, because they are far from factual.

The Waterbury situation was by no means automatic and was based upon year's of fiscal mismanagement. The State Oversight Board and subsequent abolition of existing labor agreements in Waterbury was created by an act of the Connecticut Legislature and not some language in existing in law.

The Union's responsibility is not subjective to your perceived opinion of what their mission should be.

The Union's responsibility to their membership is based upon the direction and collective will established by a particular Union.

Meaning....every Union may differ based upon the where majority of their players feel as to take them.

Not being a member of the Newark PBA, I have no idea what basis was made for not opening a contract or accepting give-backs. However, I can be certain that the facts behind the Police Union's rationale will not be found within 1 or 2 articles from the local press rag.

There is usually a lot more to a story such as this and I pretty sure that the future of those 167 Officers was weighed heavily prior to any decision being made.

Edited December 1, 2010 by x152

[Guest jcnyc]

Good post, this is one of the things that kept me away from this site for a while. People with no clue speaking about things that they 'think' they know about. The same way I wouldn't tell a plastic surgeon how to do his job, do not tell a card carrying union member what he or she should do.

[SageVigiles 1,194]

I'm not telling anyone what to do, and I think you're taking this a bit too personally. I'm simply saying that 167 layoffs because the union didn't want to sit down to the table is, in my opinion, not reasonable. You're more than welcome to your own.

Anyway, sorry if I offended anyone.

[islander 27]

The union's job is to look out for the best interests of the membership.

Exactly. And while it sucks that the 167 lost their jobs, hopefully temporarily, remember that the membership includes the 1,000 or so cops on the job. The best interests of the entire membership would be at stake with a re-open of the contract, and effects of such a move would be felt long after the department returns to pre-layoff strength.

[helicopper 1,050]

This topic has struck a nerve with many of our members (especially those represented by unions and those who may be facing a similar crisis at their job) and some of the theoretical comments, hypotheses, and/or opinions have been interpreted as insensitive or uninformed. Please keep in mind that this is a forum for all to enjoy but we do have to be sensitive to the stark realities being discussed; whether LODD, layoffs, or just tactics.

If you're post may be construed as hostile or offensive, take a few minutes away from the computer, come back and reread it (change it if necessary) and then post it. This will save everyone a lot of aggravation.

Thanks and stay safe!

[Guest jcnyc]

Like I said before, it is responses that were given here that not only made me but a lot of other people refrain from either adding content or being permitted to add content. When people comment on a topic that they have no personal experience with they should really look at those of us that have had the experience to make the true comments. Like I said before, I wouldn't tell a cop how to reconstuct an accident scene and I don't want him telling me where to put the first hoseline. I thought the idea of this place was an exchange of ideas, and when those of us who know state the same thing over and over, and someone still disagrees yet has no experience or connection to it we are the bad guys cause we hurt his feelings over the internet? I have shared numerous thoughts with other members here asking if I did something wrong cause the thread was taken down, and all I heard in return was no. This isnt about friendships it is about facts.

[INIT915 1,119]

This isnt about friendships it is about facts.

I think that's part of the problem. (And this isn't directed to you, it comes up in lots of threads and discussions.) Members post their 'opinions', which they perceive as 'facts', predominantly as a function of their past experience. The problem is, many of those facts are in reality just opinions. Just as some Unions have had negative experiences with reopening contracts, others have made it work to their advantage.

So, in negotiating, much like life in general, there is very little "black and white", and a whole lot of "gray".

[Guest jcnyc]

But you should at least have to have had the experience to comment on it. I know of no bargaining dept that re-opened their contract and did better, other than the FDNY. You always lose. This is about making this place better, a learning environment. If people are not willing to take the information from those of us that know, what good will this place be? We could all go to the firehouse.com forums and have the same discussion.