City shouldn't give officers gun allowance

Anonymous
May 7, 2013

 

My topic this week is the police union contract.

Starting in 2014, police officers will now be able to buy a gun from their uniform allowance. A one-time gun purchase is allowed during the officer’s career. The officer has to be employed on a full-basis for five years before requesting a gun.

Even though the guns will be bought with tax dollars, the guns will become the property of the officers unlike the service revolver that has to be handed back into the city. If the officers believe they need additional backup protection, the city should provide the guns and the guns should become city owned property. If the officer already owns his own second gun, he should not be eligible to apply for another additional gun out of the uniform allowance. Equipment, especially guns, bought and paid for through tax dollars should never become the property of the officer.

When the guns become the property of the officer, could the officer possibly end up reselling the gun at a later date profiting even more off the taxpayer? The resold guns could end up in the wrong hands. They could be involved in crimes in the community or be used to injure one of our own officers. There are 45 officers with a possibility of placing 45 guns on the street. At least if the city owned the guns, it could have better control over the guns, preventing the guns from causing tragic consequences.

Adding guns to the uniform allowance may indicate that the city may be too liberal with the uniform allowance. In the past, $750 would be paid directly to the officer. There would be no documentation of what was spent and whether or not there was any money left over to refund back to the taxpayer if the officer did not use his share of the allowance for the year. Under the new contract, the expenditure of the uniform allowance will now be documented, requisitioned, and the items delivered to the city so the city will be in full control of the expenditure. Carrying over the uniform allowance from year to year is not permitted. A yearly inventory of the officer’s government issued equipment should be done throughout the officer’s tenure with the city.

Until next week, buying guns out of tax dollars so officers can keep the guns as their own and possibly resell them at a profit is not a good use of our tax dollars. The city needs to be more accountable and responsible for decisions they make with our tax dollars. Making poor decisions takes money away from other projects that are needed within the city.

Comments

concernedtruth

OMG how stupid are some people, these men and women put their life on the line everyday and we can't even give them this small showing of our appreciation for keeping us safe and sound. They should be given more than this and if I had my way they would. Very stupid on someones part to not help them with this cost. Can you say, STUPID!!

MrSandusky

My topic this week is that the Schools are supplying jock straps and protective cups to the members of the football team and not collecting them after they leave the football team. Who knows, they may sell these jockstraps on the street to less athletic people that would not use them properly...

Sorry, but the paragraph above makes as much sense as this blogger does every week.

Kelly

My topic this week is does anybody take anything this busybody says seriously

milemarkerzero

Bad girl Sharon. Now go lay down. No biscuit for you. Too much barking.

Hurley

Can I pay extra to have her posts deleted from my sanduskyregister.com feed?

yogiberra

@milemarkerzero thank you. A gun allowance after five years of service is well deserved. find something else to complain about

SoldOnAcorns

Send them to personal training on morals, ethics, diversity etc...this would be $ well spent !

Tsu Dho Nimh

Excellent point!

WhyRweHere

Here we go again....soldonacorns (or should I call you God himself) preaching from his moral high ground.....we get it, you're perfect and the rest of us don't deserve to breath the same air as you.....

SoldOnAcorns

Good, it's about time you realize it ! Fall in line, fall in line !

Unassumer

A gun is part of a law enforcement uniform; it is their job to carry one and be trained to fire one. Why should they pay for it out of their own pocket? I think the 5 years of service requirement should be lowered. Two would be sufficient in my opinion. Even if the officers kept the guns and resold them at a later date, it would not amount to that much of a loss to taxpayers. The greater loss would be if he did not have a gun to defend himself or others with.

Centauri

Sharon, keep up the good work to inform and educate the masses about Sandusky, Ohio.

reporter54

Lady your five minutes should be up. This was not a well thought out argument nor is it realistic. As you can see by the comments, no one agrees with you. Blog this.

IT'S ME

Is Sharon married? If so I feel bad for her husband!

Curley

Yes she is married and he is the same way.

The Bizness

I sure hope Centauri's post is a joke. Sharon does nothing good for the city. We all know Sandusky has issues, and thankfully Sharon does nothing but make it worse by showing that if they make a move on something, then they will be persecuted for it being the wrong one(Even if it benefits the city).

Can someone please show one productive thing this woman has done for Sandusky?

Nemesis

For once we agree.

Darwin's choice

I think we should let them use them more often, and give them more bullets.....

reporter54

oh yeah and how many cops are going to put their guns
'on the street' (sell them to criminals) none. selling to a licensed gun enthusiast is okay by me. or to me, so I can protect myself with an established and well-kept weapon.

richrs

I'm just wondering what a "licensed gun enthusiast" is?

grandmasgirl

sorry people, but I don't think that just because they are police officers they should get to buy a "personal" gun from taxpayers money. Most government workers are paid sufficiently to be able to buy a gun from personal money. taxpayers are already buying Obama phones, food stamps, housing, etc. What next? A personal patrol car so that it is handy? No way. As long as they are furnished a gun for their use while employed by the government, that makes sense.

The Bizness

First of all most government jobs do not pay well at all. Look at how much lower level employees in local government get paid. I have a friend who has a job in local government, and he would be making a lot more if he were in the private sector.

Secondly, the slipper slope argument just doesn't work in this case. They need the guns to perform their duties, I think we can all be ok with letting them have it on them even if they are off duty.

Tsu Dho Nimh

Most police officers make less than $40,000 a year with many making between the high 20's to low 30's. Do you consider that sufficient pay?

grandmasgirl

You must live in a different town than I do. All you have to do is ask for the records (of wages) and they will give them to you.

Nemesis

Get a clue Grandmasgirl, they buy EVERYTHING - gas, groceries, toothpaste, "from taxpayers' money" because that's the source of their income. How DARE you compare the compensation they EARN to handouts like Obama phones and food stamps.

You and Sharon display a glaring lack of comprehension how employment works in the real world. When compensation is negotiated, collectively by a union, or by an individual without one, it takes many forms. Salary, wages, healthcare, paid time off, 401K matching, a company car, free coffee, a company holiday party - all these represent parts of the whole package of value offered to employees in exchange for their services. The nicer the package, the better an employer's ability to attract and retain the people they want.

A $750 annual uniform allowance is equal to 37.5 cents more per hour for a full time employee, but numerous studies show that such benefits go way further than direct compensation in attracting and satisfying employees, so to get the same employee good will with a wage increase would cost even more, like 40 cents an hour. What would that accomplish? It would be an extra $1000 a year, that the officer could go right out and spend on a gun, and then deduct the purchase on his taxes as a job expense. Instead of a documented gun as in the plan you dislike so much, he could buy it at a gun show off a random person. Since you and Sharon seem at least partially motivated by a viceral dislike of guns, if you were thinking rationally about this, you'd be happy that these guns would now be documented.

So, in summary, what is the impact of this policy?

-Where before they could use the uniform allowance for unlimited undocumented gun purchases, they are now limited to one, documented purchase.

-For $750 in ONE TIME gun reimbursement the city gets the same benefit in employee satisfaction and retention as it would from offering $1000 or more EVERY YEAR in extra pay.

The really sad part is, if Sharon wanted to expend one tenth the journalistic sense one would expect of someone given a weekly column, she could have spoken to the city's contract negotiator, or pretty much any business owner who employs people with specialized skills, and learned all this, before she dumped this ignorant rant on the public.

pavedparadise

Nemesis

Your handle is not very becoming. Consider changing your handle to a more "don't worry be happy" one.

Perhaps the previous contract was also flawed--a uniform allowance should have been for uniforms-nothing else. Do officers keep their shot gun, handcuffs, Taser, bullet proof vests or laptops upon ending employment? Why should a gun be different?

In the scenario you mention above, don't "company cars" have to be returned to the company after use?

Nemesis

Maybe the last contract was flawed, but if so, where were all these whiners then? Many officers do keep their handcuffs, and although I don't know the policy, I know I personally would not be very enthusiastic about wearing someone else's old body armor, and not just because it might not fit well.

Many companies either buy out the lease on company cars for their employees to keep, or let the employees do so at at ridiculously reduced rates. An attorney I know in California got to keep her company car, and it's a Porsche. The point is, ALL such contracts are dynamically negotiated, based on each party's needs and each party's willingness to walk away from a deal. This is not a giveaway - both sides bring value to the table, and value is exchanged for value. As I've pointed out, this contract clause represents both an improvement (based on the detractors' own stated criteria) over the prior one, and a cost reduction for the city, as such earmark benefits consistently yield more employee satisfaction per dollar spent than straight cash compensation. And let's face it, given the recent failed attempts to fire employees for conduct unbecoming an eighth grader, which means natural attrition is the only route to a quality workforce available to them, this department needs to do whatever it can to attract and retain a high quality of personnel.

I'm still waiting for someone to offer a rational objection that doesn't reduce to a viceral knee-jerk reaction to the fact that guns are peripherally involved. In fact, based on the failure of anyone, especially Sharon to offer anything substantive, Sharon's column this week could be reduced, without any loss of meaning, to "OMG!!! GUNS!!!"

Wait, oops, sorry, correction. Make that: "My topic this week is OMG!!! GUNS!!!"

pavedparadise

The difference here is a private company uses their own private money to pay for employee luxuries.

In the case at hand, we are talking about taxpayer dollars.

If I'm reading Ms. Johnson's blog correctly, her point is not about the City buying the gun---it's about the officers being able to keep the gun after employment.

Her blog has nothing to do with the men and women putting their lives on the line---we all get that--but it is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Nemesis

It doesn't matter whether it's a private company or the city. It's a free market transaction for labor, period. The terms of that transaction are subject to negotiation. The officers provide a service in exchange for a compensation package, consisting of cash, healthcare, retirement contributions, and other items, including, in this case a uniform/equpment allowance to be used to purchase professional items that are too specific to the individual to be issued out of a pool. The city has to offer a compensation package that satisfies the employees, or they will seek employment elsewhere - this is all 8th grade economics - the law of supply and demand.

Neither you nor Sharon has raised any objection to the overall cost of the compensation package, which is the only part of this that is any of your business as taxpayers - how much you are paying for what you're getting. You've raised no objection to the uniform allowance itself, or the fact that they get to keep the shirts, pants, belts, holsters, handcuffs, jackets, and all the other things they purchase using the uniform allowance. For YEARS, when the allowance was just handed over as cash, with NO accounting for how it was spent, when it could have been used to purchase flat screen TV's, lap dances, or booze, you didn't so much as raise an eyebrow. So, let's get down to brass tacks, and what is your REAL objection here. It's OMG!!!! GUNS!!!!!

Woody Hayes

Arf arf arf. Where is there a real news paper to swat someones nose.

sickofcrybabies

Sharon you have managed to get a your 5 minutes every week. However never once have I heard you say anything positive or redeeming about the city you proclaim to love. In fact it seems to me you like to cause problems and controversy where there should be none. I'm not sure what you get out of this except perhaps illusions of grandiose ideas about your importance to the running of Sandusky and keeping our officials on the up and up. I have seen you at many meetings where your soul purpose was to find what other people who are being proactive were doing wrong. You never seem to offer a positive solution or a positive opinion on how things are handled and I think that is just sad.

As for the guns for our law enforcement, when you are in the military the give you an uniform allowance. As long as you come to work in the proper uniform that looks good and meets regulations, you can spend that money on whatever you want. It can be guns, or potato chips and beer. Most do spend their money on uniforms though. Previously Sandusky police could do the same. Now however they are monitored on what and where the spend their allowances. Implementing a system of credits to a certain catalog. So already we are ensuring that tax payers money is spent more wisely. As far as a single gun credit allowing a purchase after 5 years of service and only once in a career this makes sense. Our officers need to carry a back up weapon, isn't it better that they purchase it through a dealer that is selling LE grade weapons? I'm sure that most would not take advantage of this allowance, because frankly they can't.

MrSandusky

I totally agree with the lack of positiveness! But that is how the simple operate.

SamAdams

Congratulations, Sharon. You've now gone from annoying busybody to complete idiot.

Okay, Register, sometimes you print good stuff and sometimes you print crap. That's the nature of the beast. But this? This is pure inanity on a GOOD day, and trust me: Today is NOT a good day.

akmed

The people have spoken Sharon you haven't got a clue.

Free Man

OMG how stupid are some people, these men and women put their life on the line everyday and we can't even give them this small showing of our appreciation for keeping us safe and sound. They should be given more than this and if I had my way they would. Very stupid on someones part to not help them with this cost. Can you say, STUPID!!

pavedparadise

I notice most commenters on this blog are new to the blog scene supporting the officer's ability to keep their taxpayer funded gun after retiring from the force (the basis for Ms. Johnson's blog but exaggerated on by some of the bloggers). I wander if they are all cops?

Kelly

Most? there's only a few names I don't recognize. Most have been here quite awhile.

Tsu Dho Nimh

Most of us are active posters!

VOTENO

When I was in the military I had to turn in my guns. I put my life on the line way more than the cops around here do. Should I have been able to keep mine? The answer is no. I had to turn them into the armory. What's the difference?

MrSandusky

Not true for those in the teams. The common soldier yes, but not for some special forces.

BULLISDEEP's picture
BULLISDEEP

No military gets to keep their gov issue gun after leaving the service. If they did it is stolen .

Perkins2060

No military personnel keeps their weapons. Special forces included. Trust me, I know.

MrSandusky

In the present, modern times they can. They have to get the proper tax stamp and other documentation, but they can and do.

KURTje

Please go away oldster.

VOTENO

And before you ask kURTje, yes, I have a CAR.

JERRY from SANDUSKY

without a dout

Fireside

I appreciate the job cops do. BUT please remember, they are well paid and compensated with great benifits. They are doing the job they applied for. IMO This would not be an issue if it were any other dept but Sandusky. They truly earned the second guessing from the public.

Good 2 B Me

My topic this week is how you sound like a Third Grade Student when starting a story off with: My topic this week is...

Train

PavedParadise is another Sandusky basher. Just read his previous posts and that will explain his dopey comment.

G George I du kno

Seriously Sharon! So before they could go out and spend money on anything they wanted. Now they are accountable for what they buy. I suppose you want their sweaty shoes and t-shirts they buy with uniform allowance back also? What a joke! Some of them should pay for a gym membership with it though!

sandusky2012

hey taxpayers lets give them a donut allowance and for those officers whom love them donuts lets give them a jenny craig allowance LOL

KnuckleDragger

Lol. Sharon is so out of touch. Officers haven't carried service "revolvers" in decades. This is nearly equivalent to the anti-gun nuts calling a semi automatic firearm and assault weapon.

The Answer Person

SHUT UP! One more stupid opinion/observation one week after another. SHUT UP!

Centauri

Why are most of you bashing Sharon who is an active citizen questioning her local government? She does has a right to her opinion as do all of you. Tax money is tight.

"Until next week, buying guns out of tax dollars so officers can keep the guns as their own and possibly resell them at a profit is not a good use of our tax dollars. The city needs to be more accountable and responsible for decisions they make with our tax dollars. Making poor decisions takes money away from other projects that are needed within the city."

http://m.sanduskyregister.com/ar...
"Commissioner Wes Poole voted against the contract after realizing city funds would pay for firearms officers could keep forever, even after leaving the department."

I think most of you are missing Sharon's message. Don't shoot the messenger. Sharon provided some information about the union contract. Jock straps, sweaty shoes and t-shirts should not be compared to a tax payer bought firearm to be given away at retirement. Sharon is concerned about the wise use of tax payer money. Is a 1/4% Sandusky city income tax increase coming in the future?

The Bizness

We are bashing her because we don't agree with her...

Oh and she doesn't really seem to ever offer any real answers to the problems she poses.

And well I just like to point out that I don't like the woman.

Darkhorse

For bloggers who don't like the woman, you all seem to have a lot to say and continue reading her blog. If you feel that way about her, why give her the time of day? If the second backup gun is a dire need, the city should provide the gun. I don't think anyone would have a problem with giving the police officers a backup gun. The problem here is that they get to keep the gun that was bought with tax dollars. How many more cities allow the tax dollars to be spent in this way or are we the only city buying guns for officers so they can keep them? The city already furnishes the officer a main gun but they have to turn the gun back in; they don't get to keep it. The second gun should be treated the same way.

pavedparadise

Right on DarkHorse.

I always get a kick out of those folks (pots) calling the kettle black.

I for one do not see Ms. Johnson's posts as bashing the City-rather offering enhanced conversation on City issues impacting our tax dollars. Those "pots" bashing Ms. Johnson are attempting to silence her out of fear. Well "pots'--it isn't working.

Oh, my private work buys me tools but I don't get to keep them for use or resale when I quit or retire. Why should my tax dollars go to purchase a gun for future private use?

Nemesis

Enhanced converstations do not consist of ignorance and illogic.

Nemesis

So, Sharon, previously, each officer received $750 per year, with no accounting of how it was spent, and without a peep of protest from you. They could have purchased a steady stream of guns with that money, without anyone being the wiser, and yet you sat in silence. Heck, they could have spent it on a flat screen TV, or a jetski, for all you or anyone else would have known, but you were unconcerned. They also got to keep everything they bought.

Now, it's been changed so they have to account for how they spend it, and gun purchases are limited to one in a career, and presumably, that gun will be documented. Suddenly, you have a problem. Suddenly, you're sure that those we entrust to protect us are going to start selling guns out of a back alley off Hancock Street.

But hey, I understand - logic is hard, especially when you can't manage to write above a grade school level. (I had a seventh grade English teacher who assigned a one page composition each week. She made it clear that beginning each one with the same phrase result in a lot of zero grades.)

Many departments consider their officers to be effectively on duty whenever they are at large withing the city limits, and some explicitly require them to carry. It's perfectly reasonable for them to be allowed to select a secondary weapon for those purposes based on their own preferences, and be reimbursed. The department may have little or no use for such a weapon after the officer's tenure concludes - it could have features specifically for a left handed shooter, use a different caliber of ammunition than the department's default service weapon, or be otherwise unsuitable for re-issue, in which case the department would have to sell it, probably at a loss.

Many employers offer benefits with ongoing value and do not recapture them at the end of an employee's tenure. Studies have shown that such gestures garner far more employee satisfaction per dollar spent than straight increases in wages or salaries (I'll personally always favor a bigger paycheck, but I'm apparently not typical.) It would probably require at least a $1000 increase in ongoing baseline annual wages to gain as much employee satisfaction, morale, and retention as this one time $750 gun allowance, if you're concerned about responsible stewardship of your tax dollars.

There's no basis for differentiating this benefit from all the corporate holiday gifts, cellphone allowances, etc. offered throughout both the public and private sectors, unless, of course, you're just expressing an irrational knee-jerk to the fact that guns are involved. That seems likely, given your demonstration of gross ignorance on that topic (police haven't carried revolvers for a long time.)

Nemesis

Centauri, the problem is that her column is consistently rife with ignorance and failures of basic logic. She makes no attempt to educate herself regarding her "topic this week" beyond the most rudimentary surface skimming. I've pointed out how this change actually increases accountability, limits and hence reduces the number of guns they can get this way, and actually saves the city money. The fact that Wes Poole shares her ignorance and lack of sound reasoning doesn't make it any less of a problem.
For those of you citing military policies, they have to return weapons ISSUED to them, which remain government property. As has already been mentioned, they can keep whatever they purchase with their unaccountable uniform allowance, the same as the FORMER policy here that is being tightened. Do better than Sharon and work the logic before you spout off.

pavedparadise

Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah

Nemesis

Translation: Don't confuse me with the facts, because, OMG!!!! GUNS!!!!
Do you have anything intelligent to offer, Paved?

tonto

This lady doesn't have a clue. Why does the Register allow her to open her mouth on any issue?

J. Hartman

Just thought I would point out, if you agree or disagree with Sharon, she has accomplished what the Register wanted her too. Just look how many(including myself) have read this all the way through and then left a comment. Thumbs up for her accomplishing the goal of discussion(unfortunately always negative) For next weeks topic, I would love to see Sharon talk about how she actually did something positive for the city! How can one say they love anything and then continue to kick it?(does she own a dog?) If you have a complaint and are going to go through all the efforts to find chinks in the amour, it would carry just a little bit of weight if you lead by example(requires action), presented a solid solution, or easiest of all show at least some support for those who do have the manhood to actually put their neck out there! Those who take a chance that they will and are making a difference in the city and the community, that they DO love and they show this through their ACTIONS! Yes, those folks may stumble and they should expect constructive criticism(comes with the actions/efforts) What makes those people great is their positive attitude and belief in knowing their efforts do and will continue to have a positive impact on the WHOLE community! Not only for one section of the city, the whole city! This is because failure is not in their vocabulary! They stumble, they dust off, and they get right back to it! My advice Sharon, is to look in the mirror each morning and ask that person staring back "What did I do positive for the world yesterday?" after whatever your answer is, I would then tell the person in the mirror "Today, I will have a positive impact on the world by....) Hopefully you don't end that sentence with "nit picking on those who actually do care" A positive attitude and a positive approach would do wonders Sharon. Give it a try and you just might find out it's relatively easy to do and is actually fun! S.M.I.L.E. P.S. Let me add, that my character allows me to welcome with open arms any constructive criticism or faults you would like to point out! I will even be kind enough to tell you the things you missed or can't find on a google search just because I'm a nice guy!

zachfromsandusky2

OK first, this woman referring to the cities service weapon which is a semi automatic GLOCK 22 .40 caliber pistol as a "service revolver" shows she knows nothing about law enforcement nor the benefits officers normally receive outside of health and retirement benefits. For starters the officers receive an equipment allowance every 6 months that is payed on their paycheck and is taxed. Officers can use this allowance for footwear or uniforms or new duty gear or anything they decide to use it for. So should we make the city take the officers old boots away when they get a new pair or maybe take their boxer briefs away when they buy a new pack at Walmart? See where I'm going. Show some respect you old hag. I challenge you to take a ride along for a whole 12 hour shift and see what these men and women deal with everyday and I assure you that you would not be so eager to deny them a 500 dollar pistol. Btw with the exception of about 12 or so officer the rest of the full time officers have 10 or more years of service. Show some respect because they have dam Well earned it!

zachfromsandusky2

OK first, this woman referring to the cities service weapon which is a semi automatic GLOCK 22 .40 caliber pistol as a "service revolver" shows she knows nothing about law enforcement nor the benefits officers normally receive outside of health and retirement benefits. For starters the officers receive an equipment allowance every 6 months that is payed on their paycheck and is taxed. Officers can use this allowance for footwear or uniforms or new duty gear or anything they decide to use it for. So should we make the city take the officers old boots away when they get a new pair or maybe take their boxer briefs away when they buy a new pack at Walmart? See where I'm going. Show some respect you old hag. I challenge you to take a ride along for a whole 12 hour shift and see what these men and women deal with everyday and I assure you that you would not be so eager to deny them a 500 dollar pistol. Btw with the exception of about 12 or so officer the rest of the full time officers have 10 or more years of service. Show some respect because they have dam Well earned it!

DGMutley

"Show some respect you old hag. ..." <<< zachfromsandusky2

Huh?

Nemesis

Let's just say zach isn't Sharon's biggest fan.

Then again, it doesn't look like anyone is.

SummerhomenSomrnot

I don't know about Sharon, but, a discount offered to our leo's would be the best

four

police free Sandusky,the Register won't have a bi.tc.h the dopers and junkies can come and go where and when ever they want stupid people.

pavedparadise

Right on DarkHorse Wed, 05/08/2013 - 10:50am

I always get a kick out of those folks (pots) calling the kettle black.

I for one do not see Ms. Johnson's posts as bashing the City-rather offering enhanced conversation on City issues impacting our tax dollars. Those "pots" bashing Ms. Johnson are attempting to silence her out of fear of the truth. Well "pots'--it isn't working.

Oh, my private work buys me tools but I don't get to keep them for use or resale when I quit or retire. Why should my tax dollars go to purchase a gun for future private use?

Do officers keep their shotguns, tasers, handcuffs, bullet proof vests or laptops at careers end?

Julie R.

Like.

zachfromsandusky2

Kevlar is only good for five years, many department do give officers their service pistol along with their retired badge and credentials, most officers buy their handcuffs and duty gear.

Nemesis

Paved, an enhanced conversation would involve an actual understanding of the situation, knowledge of the facts, and a logical approach. This column has none of that.

If your employer is able to keep you happy without offering that additional benefit, that's fine - it's your job, and you and your employer apparently have reached mutually agreeable terms that don't include keeping your tools. That doesn't have any relevance to anyone else's employment. Each employment relationship has its own terms based on what the parties are willing to give and what they expect to get in return. You say you object to your tax dollars being spent in this manner - would you prefer that MORE of your tax dollars were spent on direct wages to offset the loss of this benefit?

Why should your tax dollars go to purchase ANYTHING police officers might buy with their paychecks? Maybe because they earned them? An intelligent, informed taxpayer who cared about how his taxes were spent would focus on the cost of the overall compensation package, rather than how it was broken down. The real question is how much does it cost to keep an officer on the force for a year; whether that amount is transferred in cash, gun vouchers, Amazon gift cards, or cheese sandwiches is irrelevant.

Oh, wait, I forgot, you're blinded to that by "OMG!!!! GUNS!!!"

Kottage Kat

I am a nurse, I cleaned puke, crap took a lot of abuse, scratched,bit etc. No one paid for my uniforms or equipment. The job was a choice, knew what my unifonrm would be and that I would be required to pay for that.
LE makes a good wage, like many other? uniformed occupations, they should pay for their equipment
Just more entitlement ?

zachfromsandusky2

Sandusky pd start at 29k! You call that a good wage?

zachfromsandusky2

How about you research a standard duty gear rig for LE then price it. Between your duty belt to hold your gear and your holster is 200 -250 dollars. I doubt you pay 250 bucks for 2 pieces of your uniform.

pavedparadise

From a prior Register article, the average wage of Sandusky PD is $57,746 and this includes wages of auxiliary and rookies.

Nemesis

Kottage, some hospitals do provide a uniform allowance for nurses. If yours doesn't, maybe you should seek employment with one that does. It's all a question of supply and demand, and my understanding is that demand for nurses has been exceeding supply. If that's still the case, then you should have little trouble. I've always provided my own wardrobe, but a friend in a similar job at another company was provided dry cleaned white dress shirts from Cintas to wear to work. One person's employment terms do not dictate those of another.

Then again, maybe you'd rather have something else instead of a uniform allowance, like a higher salary. That's your choice. For reasons known only to the police officers, they find this uniform allowance to be a valuable benefit.The union wouldn't seek it if the members didn't want it, and since it's something they strongly desire, it's a safe bet that any alternative would cost more.

Everyone makes their own deal. Some deals are better than others. These are basic principles of economics that you, Paved, Sharon, and Grandmasgirl are failing to grasp.

Kottage Kat

Nemisis,
Retired
Just MHO
Thanks for yours

Kat

Nemesis

Everything I said still applies. Demand for nurses has exceeded supply for at least 20 years - everyone makes their own deal, and if yours wasn't good enough, then you should have done something to change that.

Kimo

What Kelly said.....