Multimedia News

World AIDS Day: Observing a global epidemic
20 photos
Children from the Andile School choir sing du...
This weekend in sports
20 photos
Venezuela's boxer Jorge Linares, left, exchan...
Holiday gift ideas: Toys, games and more
20 photos
A child holds a newly released mobile phone c...
Black Friday frenzy
20 photos
Early bird shoppers run into a Target store i...
Mumbai massacre
20 photos
A police officer watches the Taj Hotel, Mumba...

Union: Overwork, low morale plague police

Jun 27, 2007 12:00 AM (524 days ago) by Jason Flanagan, The Examiner
This story ranks Not ranked
Related Topics: Annapolis
Annapolis (Map, News) - The union representing Annapolis police officers said the department is overworked, leading to low morale and potential risks to residents.

“They’re exhausted,” said Jim Lowthers, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 400.

“They have to work all the time. Response times are difficult to keep up in terms of protecting citizens.”

The union is making these claims after contract negotiations stalled last week when the union flatly rejected the city’s final offer.

This story continues below
Advertisement

Detective John Lee, shop steward for the union, said of the 130 positions on the force, 22 are open, with 20 more eligible for retirement.

Excessive overtime and a yearlong delay on the renovation of the police headquarters has led to low morale, he said.

“There must be more done to get officers in here,” Lee said.

Calls to police spokesman Officer Hal Dalton went unanswered.

Ray Weaver, the city’s public information officer, referred all comment to the city’s labor attorney, Eric Paltell.

Annapolis’ offer included a $5,000 signing bonus that would give first-year hires a $44,632 salary.

But Lee said the signing bonus is a one-time shot, and the real salary is much lower than other jurisdictions.

The city also offered a $1,500 referral bonus and to establish a committee to evaluate recruiting process.

“We are in total agreement with the union that [recruitment] is a serious problem,” Paltell said.

The union and the city also are battling over pension benefits, as the union wants a 10 percent increase for officers serving 20 years, but the city fears officers will retire earlier.

But the city will not budge on its final offer, and the union has yet to file a formal counter proposal, Paltell said.

“This is going to be a stalemate for the foreseeable future,” he said.

jflanagan@baltimoreexaminer.com

Add a Comment


Name: (required)
Comments:
characters left
Comments are regulated by the Terms of Use.

Comments from Examiner Readers

2:13 PM MST on Thu., May. 10, 2007 re: "County workers union rejects pension changes"

Examiner Reader said:
I am not sure where Ms. Malarkey is getting her information from, There is no "Law requiring governments to prefund retirement benefits." There is however GASB which is an accounting standard that has governments accounting for and paying for other post employment benefits, ie. health care, so they will be able to maintain their AAA bond ratings. Within GASB there is no mention of pensions. I sure do wish that reporters would verify their facts prior to printing such information. It should also be noted that this article depicts the union memebers in a positive light, which is good, but recent artcles about the BCFPE appeared to show the union as the "BAD GUYS". Thank you Ms. Malarkey for your true and honest information. Not.

225 agree | 211 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

5:24 AM MST on Wed., May. 9, 2007 re: "County workers union rejects pension changes"

Examiner Reader said:
finaly, a union that has sence to protect their members rather than line the pockets of a few. Thank You ASCME How many of the members of the other Unions voted to ratify because they were strong armed . Every employee out there should be writing to their Councilman right now and letting them know how this retirement proposal affects their family .and demand that the portion affecting prior and existing employees be removed..not approved, whether you voted to ratify or not.

216 agree | 238 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
6:36 AM MST on Fri., May. 4, 2007 re: "Union rejects health care offer"

Examiner Reader said:
I am a little confused by Johnny Olzewski's comment --- The future action hings on the FPE vote? There are 6 unions in Baltimore County, why does the future of all employees depend on this one vote? The contract was ratified by a vote of 152 to 146! Since the majority of the members (corrections and 911) were given a two step upgrade, those numbers say a lot. 146 people were willing to give up the upgrades to protect their benefits. And what about the other 1300 employees represented by this union, many who are on the low end of the pay scale and can not afford to join for the right to vote. These changes affect them also. Remember councilman, you are in an elected position. These are not just employees, they are tax payers!

234 agree | 219 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Advertisement