BCT Editorial – 1/5/06

This page was last updated on January 7, 2006.

Wage gap; Editorial; Beaver County Times; January 5, 2006.

Here’s my summary of this editorial. Local taxpayers can’t be trusted to balance their needs with a willingness to pay, so they must be fooled into paying more for a service than the market demands. This is typical liberal thinking.

For the record, I personally believe that most police officers probably aren’t paid enough. The vast majority is hard working and they put their lives on the line everyday for us, as we were unfortunately reminded recently by the murder of PA State Police Cpl. Joseph Pokorny. That said, men and women don’t need to take these jobs if they feel the compensation is inadequate.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Regionalizing police forces could open the way to paying officers what they deserve

“It’s too bad we don’t value police officers as much as we claim to.

“Sure, we’re good at lip service, praising police officers for the valuable service they provide to our communities and claiming to respect them for their dedication to protecting us.

“However, paying them a wage that is commensurate for the dangers they run on a daily basis is another matter altogether. (And when shift work and weekend scheduling are factored in, their pay seems almost parsimonious.)

“Last week, Ambridge Council approved a three-year contract that calls for a 3 percent raise each year. But, like those of many other workers, their raises will be offset somewhat because they’ll have to contribute more out-of-pocket health-care costs.

“Under the contract, a full-time patrol officer in the first year of full-time employment will receive a base salary of $32,164 in 2006, and full-time patrol officers who have completed more than four years of full-time employment will receive a base salary of $42,885.

“One reason for these less-than-generous wages is the law of supply and demand. Our region has many communities that operate with part-time police forces or that have a small number of full-time officers supplemented by part-timers. There are simply too many men and women seeking employment opportunities in too few municipalities that have full-time police forces.”

[RWC] When did the Times learn about supply and demand?

“But don’t police officers deserve better than a starting salary of $15.50 an hour (based on a 52-week, 40-hour week)? That’s what a rookie cop in Ambridge will receive for putting his or her life on the line.”

“We’re not picking on Ambridge. The wages and benefits its officers will receive are in line with those in many communities, and these municipalities are no more at fault than Ambridge. Many would pay their police officers more - if they could.

“The problem municipalities face is that public safety already is eating up huge chunks of their budgets, and these costs are growing yearly. Stagnating or declining tax bases exacerbate the situation.

“Because costs are growing faster than revenues, these municipalities are struggling to balance public safety and costs. They simply can’t afford to pay any more.

“A way to pay police officers what they are worth and not break the municipal bank would be to regionalize law enforcement, with the larger tax base providing the opportunity for higher salaries.”

[RWC] Note the author doesn’t tell us how this would happen. While the author likely wants us to believe regionalizing law enforcement would result in no tax increases but the same number of police officers with better pay, in practice it would happen in one of two ways.

First, the higher compensation would be provided to fewer police officers. This is usually what happens to employment when compensation exceeds the free market value. Would we be better served by better-paid but fewer police officers? It’s possible, but I honestly don’t know the answer.

Second, the higher compensation would be paid by new and/or higher “regional” taxes from areas the editorial claims “simply can’t afford to pay any more.”

Did you catch the inconsistency in the last three paragraphs? The first two talk about “stagnating or declining tax bases” and municipalities that “simply can’t afford to pay any more.” The third then talks about a “larger tax base.” What good is a larger tax base when it’s composed of “stagnating or declining tax bases” and municipalities that “simply can’t afford to pay any more?”

“‘To protect and to serve’ is the police motto. The best way we can acknowledge that service is to pay them a decent wage. If you think $15.50 an hour is a decent wage, ask yourself this: Is putting your life on the line part of your job description?”

[RWC] Here’s another way to pose the question. If a police officer believes putting his life on the line is worth more than $15.50/hour, why not take a job with a lot less risk?