Ask the PBA

[Matt Puckett]

Now I have another suggestion, longevity pay is an issue. I think we should stop proposing base salary increases. We owe nothing to those who do not work here and all you do is increase the long term effect of the pay raise by also applying it to future workers. How about proposing to leave or even reduce starting salary to offset workers with higher years on (so we actually make more then people on FTO) and propose a pay increase only to current workers, leaving the base salary unchanged. This will give flexibility to the legislature to mitigate future expenditures by maintaining a lower starting salary. Lets get people working a raise, not people who havent even applied yet.

The raise proposed by the three PBA bargaining units are the same. 6% across the board with a 3% increase for those with 7 years or more. The plan is for everyone to get a raise. However, I have also stated that PBA will not leave money on the table.

Your last comment maybe workable. We could try to get the raise for everyone employed on the effective date and not increase the starting salary. Let me run that idea by the three chapter boards and see what they think.

Anyone else have an opinion on that idea? Pay raise only applies to actives and doesn't increase the starting salary for those hired after the effective date of the raise.

[Matt Puckett]

Start watching at the 1:00 mark. Chairman Joe Negron explains addressing the compression issue for ALL state law enforcement officers.

http://thefloridachannel.org/video/2613 ... oe-negron/

[Matt Puckett]

Well, I just learned something I didn't know.

The raises do not typically raise starting salaries for those hired after the effective date. I apologize for not knowing that.

Chapter President Bill Smith just set me straight.

Now I have another suggestion, longevity pay is an issue. I think we should stop proposing base salary increases. We owe nothing to those who do not work here and all you do is increase the long term effect of the pay raise by also applying it to future workers. How about proposing to leave or even reduce starting salary to offset workers with higher years on (so we actually make more then people on FTO) and propose a pay increase only to current workers, leaving the base salary unchanged. This will give flexibility to the legislature to mitigate future expenditures by maintaining a lower starting salary. Lets get people working a raise, not people who havent even applied yet.

The raise proposed by the three PBA bargaining units are the same. 6% across the board with a 3% increase for those with 7 years or more. The plan is for everyone to get a raise. However, I have also stated that PBA will not leave money on the table.

Your last comment maybe workable. We could try to get the raise for everyone employed on the effective date and not increase the starting salary. Let me run that idea by the three chapter boards and see what they think.

Anyone else have an opinion on that idea? Pay raise only applies to actives and doesn't increase the starting salary for those hired after the effective date of the raise.

No it should be to the starting salary also but that seniority raise really needs to be secured. Negotiation should be on the across the board % mostly and the extra 3% should be locked in imo.

Well, I just learned something I didn't know.

The raises do not typically raise starting salaries for those hired after the effective date. I apologize for not knowing that.

Chapter President Bill Smith just set me straight.

Matt,

Yes they do. Years ago when raises were given it raised the starting salary the same %. Only seniority raises for time dont effect starting salaries.

Nice how 5 guys out of academy get a spot in CVE out of Academy while others have Transfers in for same spot. How can this happen.

Now I have another suggestion, longevity pay is an issue. I think we should stop proposing base salary increases. We owe nothing to those who do not work here and all you do is increase the long term effect of the pay raise by also applying it to future workers. How about proposing to leave or even reduce starting salary to offset workers with higher years on (so we actually make more then people on FTO) and propose a pay increase only to current workers, leaving the base salary unchanged. This will give flexibility to the legislature to mitigate future expenditures by maintaining a lower starting salary. Lets get people working a raise, not people who havent even applied yet.

The raise proposed by the three PBA bargaining units are the same. 6% across the board with a 3% increase for those with 7 years or more. The plan is for everyone to get a raise. However, I have also stated that PBA will not leave money on the table.

Your last comment maybe workable. We could try to get the raise for everyone employed on the effective date and not increase the starting salary. Let me run that idea by the three chapter boards and see what they think.

Anyone else have an opinion on that idea? Pay raise only applies to actives and doesn't increase the starting salary for those hired after the effective date of the raise.

No it should be to the starting salary also but that seniority raise really needs to be secured. Negotiation should be on the across the board % mostly and the extra 3% should be locked in imo.

I disagree. I think the compression issue is bigger then worrying about future employees. Right now trained and skilled workers are leaving for better jobs. Job morale is down, especially when you have guys on 10 years making the same as the trainee sitting next to them in the car during FTO. I think right now the focus should be on increasing exponentially the pay of officers with time on versus worrying about the increase in base salary. We can worry about starting pay after we get the compression issue solved. By doing this we reduce the overall impact of the raises and decrease the future and long term cost of applied raises, making it more appealing to the legislature. I think starting pay is fine right now, hence we still have people applying. I think the folks leaving with 5-15 years is the big issue. That is your meat and potatoes of experience and that is where retention is the issue. If we get anything, lets drop increasing starting salary and work on compression only. It may make it more appealing to the legislature.

Starting pay is not the best, but with zero experience and the usefulness of someone that is green with little job knowledge should take a back seat to the dedicated folks who have hung in here for a long time waiting to make more then someone on FTO. I think we should aim to give pay increases for longevity, much like what was proposed several years ago with the 5% (or 7%, 10% whatever we can get) plus $500 per year of service up to some max. This will cause a good amount of separation amongst skilled workers from green workers and improve morale of the currently employed. This way all employed workers get something, but those with the biggest compression issues get more.

I also think this should be minimized to the higher brass. They have taken care of themselves over the years and have found ways to recategorize themselves to increase pay. This should apply mostly to Sgt's (Lt's at the other State LEO agencies that do not have Sgt's) and below.

[Matt Puckett]

Now I have another suggestion, longevity pay is an issue. I think we should stop proposing base salary increases. We owe nothing to those who do not work here and all you do is increase the long term effect of the pay raise by also applying it to future workers. How about proposing to leave or even reduce starting salary to offset workers with higher years on (so we actually make more then people on FTO) and propose a pay increase only to current workers, leaving the base salary unchanged. This will give flexibility to the legislature to mitigate future expenditures by maintaining a lower starting salary. Lets get people working a raise, not people who havent even applied yet.

The raise proposed by the three PBA bargaining units are the same. 6% across the board with a 3% increase for those with 7 years or more. The plan is for everyone to get a raise. However, I have also stated that PBA will not leave money on the table.

Your last comment maybe workable. We could try to get the raise for everyone employed on the effective date and not increase the starting salary. Let me run that idea by the three chapter boards and see what they think.

Anyone else have an opinion on that idea? Pay raise only applies to actives and doesn't increase the starting salary for those hired after the effective date of the raise.

No it should be to the starting salary also but that seniority raise really needs to be secured. Negotiation should be on the across the board % mostly and the extra 3% should be locked in imo.

I disagree. I think the compression issue is bigger then worrying about future employees. Right now trained and skilled workers are leaving for better jobs. Job morale is down, especially when you have guys on 10 years making the same as the trainee sitting next to them in the car during FTO. I think right now the focus should be on increasing exponentially the pay of officers with time on versus worrying about the increase in base salary. We can worry about starting pay after we get the compression issue solved. By doing this we reduce the overall impact of the raises and decrease the future and long term cost of applied raises, making it more appealing to the legislature. I think starting pay is fine right now, hence we still have people applying. I think the folks leaving with 5-15 years is the big issue. That is your meat and potatoes of experience and that is where retention is the issue. If we get anything, lets drop increasing starting salary and work on compression only. It may make it more appealing to the legislature.

Starting pay is not the best, but with zero experience and the usefulness of someone that is green with little job knowledge should take a back seat to the dedicated folks who have hung in here for a long time waiting to make more then someone on FTO. I think we should aim to give pay increases for longevity, much like what was proposed several years ago with the 5% (or 7%, 10% whatever we can get) plus $500 per year of service up to some max. This will cause a good amount of separation amongst skilled workers from green workers and improve morale of the currently employed. This way all employed workers get something, but those with the biggest compression issues get more.

I also think this should be minimized to the higher brass. They have taken care of themselves over the years and have found ways to recategorize themselves to increase pay. This should apply mostly to Sgt's (Lt's at the other State LEO agencies that do not have Sgt's) and below.

you are making some good points.

[Matt Puckett]

Okay in the spirit of trying to get some traffic to our PBA News forum, we have posted the latest PBA Capitol Report on that forum. The report discusses pensions and pay raises. Please click over and watch.

So now I have a great question to ask. Now that the state has won the 3%,, what about the people in the investment plan who are now only getting 12% instead of the 20%??? Its like a double hit, I want something to be done about this..! Is there anything in the works on this? What is the PBA proposing about this? With the 3% cut final, and the loss of the 8% in investments and now my taxes went up also,,, I am loosing out on a lot. I think it may be time I put in an application with Tampa Police Department. I am tired of all of this BS. Why does Georgia and Alabama State Troopers get paid more (a lot more) than FHP? Has anyone ever though of that??? This agency-- with its new heads, its terrible pay, is CRAP and I want out. I have invested a lot of years just to be crapped on the whole time, with beautiful dreams about the future that NEVER materialize.

Yeah us in the investment plan are getting screwed by **** Scott big time!