Seattle’s Anti-Police, Leftist Media Fabricate Cop Controversy
The Seattle Times implies the cops (and firefighters) are doing something wrong by working within the retirement system they have to ensure a decent pension.
Seattle Police Department West Precinct, Photo: (Adbar, Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0)
I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve heard government officials and mainstream media prattle on about how much they value the sacrifices made by police officers, especially (maybe only) after one of us is killed in the line of duty. I’m sure some of them mean it. But, for others, like too many local politicians and media, they just pretend for appearances.
You can see this demonstrated in a recent article in The Seattle Times. Count on that “news” paper to lead the charge whenever the hating on cops starts.
In the article, the Times has contrived an issue with the Seattle police officer’s pension system, of which certain aspects may seem complicated because the firefighters’ and police officers’ pension system works differently than other systems.
But, oddly, while they seem to be making accusations of wrongdoing, nowhere in the article does the Times accuse any officer of violating any rules, regulations, their labor contract, policies, or laws.
So, the point seems to be solely to make cops look bad in the public’s eye.
While most city departments have city managed retirement systems, police and fire retirements are handled by the State, through the Law Enforcement Officer & Firefighter 1 and 2 (LEOFF1 and LEOFF2) pension system in which the members contribute a great deal of money.
And the fact the Times makes no direct allegations of wrongdoing or criminality, is why it’s so easy to catch them in this smear job.
So, the Times didn’t allege any wrongdoing, but they implied it, which was enough. They just don’t like that some officers earned more money than they think is “right.” In the name of watch-dogging taxpayer funds (laughable for the Left), the cop-haters just don’t like that officers will receive a decent pension in a retirement that they earned by putting their lives and health at risk for the people of Seattle for decades.
Essentially, pension benefits are based on an officer’s “high-five” or highest five earning years, which is often their last five years because, even without OT, of seniority and promotions.
The Times’ main point of contention seems to be that some officers choose to work more overtime (OT) during their last five years than in previous years, if they can, to increase their pensions. This is within the rules of the retirement system. It’s not illegal or even unethical.
So why does the Times imply the officers are guilty of wrongdoing—ostensibly for ripping off the taxpayers. Again, this is how the system works regardless of whether the Times and other cop-haters like it or not.
The Times explicitly explains “[t]he rules of their retirement plans…” writing, “Police officers and firefighters are the only Seattle city employees whose retirement plans are managed by the state. These plans allow overtime worked during an employee’s highest-income years to contribute toward their pension….”
They also noted, “This increase in overtime has created millions of dollars in additional pension obligations each year, some of which taxpayers will continue to pay for decades.”
Has anyone ever explained the “pension” concept to the Times? Paying out for decades is, hopefully, the point. Too many cops and firefighters don’t get those decades but only a few years sometimes due to the unseen mental and physical health consequences from the stress of the job.
Has the Times become the arbiter of what city employees are paid and what or when they are “overpaid.” Does the employee’s labor contract negotiated with the city count for anything? What exactly is the Times’ point if not to smear the cops.
Would any sensible person not consider padding their last five years by working more hours, which the Times seems to imply is cheating? If you say you wouldn’t, you may be lying to yourself because you hate cops that much.
Regardless of any other considerations, of which there are many, working more OT than in the past is not against policy, and it’s not against the law. That should be the end of it.
But not for the Times.
They still have problems with the police/firefighter retirement system’s benefits. Do they want cops to leave money on the table rather than work the OT to increase funds for their well-deserved retirements? Why? Is it envy or loathing? Why pick on the cops for something out of their control? Because they don’t like cops seems to be the reason.
Here’s just one consideration: (LEOFF 2) Officers lose health insurance benefits when they retire. This can cause officers a massive monthly expense of thousands of dollars they didn’t have to pay before retirement. Wouldn’t that affect your retirement strategy?
Another concern is officers who take on specific responsibilities earlier in their careers that either reduce or eliminate their ability to work overtime. Logic dictates that they will work more overtime in the twilight of their careers—when they can. That just makes sense.
But let’s put the specifics and details aside. As long as an officer works one hour for each hour of pay, then what’s the Times’ problem? They insinuate that the taxpayers are being bilked. The taxpayers pay public employees according to their labor contracts with the city. As long as employees are not breaking the rules or the law then, again, what’s the issue?
The issue seems to be to make the cops look like greedy assholes and appear as if they’re ripping off the public when they’re just working within the existing system.
The Times is being especially nasty, choosing to single out a specific SPD retiree for public condemnation. The officer (I won’t name him because he’s getting enough undeserved negative attention) gave the city an hour of work for every hour of pay he earned, and he employed a retirement strategy that would most benefit him and his family.
What is wrong with that? Was he supposed to agree with the Times’ view of the issue and refuse the overtime opportunities to bolster his pension benefit? That would be stupid. But, why is there so much OT available to officers in the first place? The Times doesn’t address this in their article about OT.
It’s because of the anti-cop political candidates the Times has helped elect over the years, which has devastated police department staffing by some 50 percent. Maybe the Times could do a story about how they helped make all that OT possible. The city is forced to make up for that 50 percent shortage from somewhere. And what does the Times do? It criticizes officers for working too much OT.
Bottomline: the Times seems to be creating a controversy so they can advocate taking away a current benefit from cops (and firefighters) while disguising it as reporting a legitimate news story.
