zlacker

I think "just don't pay them for the time" is not reasonable or realistic, and thinking you can get consensus on what caused a riot is naive under the best of circumstances.

On the flip side I'd like to point out that this increased OT often has downstream effects as well, most notably in pensions which are typically based on your last n months of pay. Some contracts include OT in this and some do not. So soon-to-be-retired officers could literally be increasing their pay for the rest of their lives based on increased pay due to working a riot.

>>pc86+(OP)
I think that their continued behavior is putting the pensions at risk, since those depend on continuous taxpayer contributions.

It’s not wise to tear gas the people who are going to pay for your retirement.

>>ashton+u
Based on this comment it's not clear how much experience you have with public sector unions generally or LEO contract negotiations specifically, or how public sector pensions typically work. Barring conviction of a crime (and sometimes even in spite of conviction, depending on the offense), your pension is generally set based on your hire date, and is a percentage of your salary based on the average over some period of time (last 3 years is pretty common). About half the time these pensions are exempt from municipal bankruptcies. It would take legislation to dismantle these pension systems that would almost certainly be litigated and spend years in court, during which time they would still have to be paid out.

They're not putting their financial future at risk.

>>pc86+jx
The individual officer is guaranteed access to the pension, but there is no guarantee that the public ever bothered to fully fund said pension.