Police Pay
June 10th, 2012 at 11:00 am by David FarrarA couple of commentators have been predicting the proposed changes to Police pay could end the Government up in a similar situation to the class size issue. I do not believe this is the case, because of the unique law around how Police pay, terms and conditions are decided.
Schedule 2 of the Policing Act 2008 sets out an arbitration procedure between the Police Commission and the appropriate Police unions if they can not agree amongst themselves to any changes. A three or five person committee arbitrates any disputes. Each side appoints one or two members, and the Labour Dept CEO appoints the Chair.
The decision of the committee is binding (this is in return for no right to strike), but more significantly it can not agree to any compromise or partial solution. It’s sole job is to decide between the offer from the Commissioner and the claim from the union.
This has a very significant impact on how reasonable each side is. The more hardline you are about your offer, the less likely it is that it will be chosen. This is different to normal negotiations where you try and budge as little as possible.
So it is unlikely there will be significant changes to Police pay and conditions unless they can convince the Police unions of their merits, or the independent committee is convinced they are fair, will help recruit and retain constables etc compared to the status quo.
June 10th, 2012 at 11:34 am
Ordinary hardworking cops are usually attacked more by their superiors than by the thugs: http://www.nominister.blogspot.co.nz/2012/06/police-attacked-but-not-by-armed-thug.html
Vote:June 10th, 2012 at 11:52 am
Well done for getting in quick here with these important facts, but, as one of the commentators you refer to, I think the police union will be able to frame this as the government not providing enough money to pay the extra officers the government employed in its first term as part of Judith Collins’ very successful get-tough-on-crime polices.
These officers started out as junior constables over the last three years and now are starting to move up the pay scale as they get more experience/training etc.
The union will be able to point to the total appropriation for police going up 0.6%, or less than $9m, from $1,477,440,000 to $1,486,332,000 and point out this is not enough to cover a fraction of the rising payroll costs as a result of Ms Collins’ policies. They will say that that is why the Police Commissioner is being forced to suggest pay cuts.
It is unlikely that the public will care about the formal procedures you refer to, and the government will look very process orientated if it spends time talking about formal procedures while the union talks about how much police officers (who risk their lives etc etc etc – you can hear it now!) get in the pocket each week to feed their families.
I don’t expect the Beehive to outperform the police union in a PR war either, especially if the police do a good old silent march on parliament, in their best uniforms, like they have done before.
It will also be difficult for the government to explain why police salaries are being cut while university graduates continue to have interest-free student loans, multi-millionaires get superannuation at 65, and families on $160,000+ get welfare through Working for Families. Explaining that would be beyond even the most brilliant PR minds in the world, and they are not currently working in the Beehive as we have seen throughout this year.
Vote:June 10th, 2012 at 12:17 pm
While I am sure there is merit in the argument its a no win and I have to agree woth Hooton.
No win for the Govt. here.And Bill won’t stand behind the Police Minister. Didn’t stand behiond her when she was Education Minister. Time the dope from Dipton went along with Smithy his mate.
Vote:June 10th, 2012 at 1:35 pm
Dear Matthew
Did Judith announce the 300 extra first? Or, perhaps, was it actually a Labour policy continued and expanded by National? Credit where credit is due.
Secondly, some cops are underpaid, some are overpaid. The CSI system is ridiculous – it means the only way to get a meaningful pay increase is to get promoted, and also means long-servers in a Senior Constable role who are below par but are on call etc. get massive total packages.
Cops may go on about their tough life but believe me, 19 weeks training at Porirua doesn’t even begin to compare to basic training for the NZ Army. It’s basically a luxury stay in comparison.
The Police Association are also scum. They did NOTHING to stop a bunch of non-sworns being sacked, but threaten to take a couple dollars off a copper, and they’re in with a grin. Perhaps if Greg O’Connor didn’t practice “police apartheid” he might accept that the best way to avoid redundancies is to have pay reduced.
The Army has performance pay, most organisations have performance pay. It’s not hard to have say a 90% base and then go to 95, 100, 105 depending on performance.
Vote:June 10th, 2012 at 2:08 pm
http://wheresmytaxes.co.nz/
Vote:June 10th, 2012 at 4:17 pm
Always good to see the government’s talking points on such issues. Thank you.
Vote:June 10th, 2012 at 4:34 pm
Surely they will save enough money just through the instruction to police to make 13% less arrests?
Vote:June 10th, 2012 at 7:18 pm
“Cops may go on about their tough life but believe me, 19 weeks training at Porirua doesn’t even begin to compare to basic training for the NZ Army. It’s basically a luxury stay in comparison.”
I don’t see many complaining about how tough Police college is, it’s more the demands placed on them when they come out. And I’d also suggest that on an academic level there are probably a fair few differences in toughness between the two.
Position based pay scales rather than performance pay would make more sense. Should someone sitting in a back office working monday/friday, 9-5 be on the same scale as someone on the front line, working more hours, including night shifts, in a dangerous and busy area?
Vote: