Comments on: Rewarding officiousness

By: Bill Alexander

Bill Alexander — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 00:58:29 +0000

It isn’t just the benefits that cost more, a new hire is very expensive in recruiting, background checks, and training.

By: gitarcarver

gitarcarver — Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:45:10 +0000

Mannie,

The benefits have already been paid.

I am not sure the economics work out unless you want to believe that benefits add 50% more to a salary. That may be the case, but I think that most bennies are less. SPO,

gitarcarver, does there need to be a study that shows everything?

As a matter of fact, yes. :) If you are going to make it "be in the calculus," don' t you think it has to be proven or shown?

By: mojo

mojo — Mon, 12 Sep 2011 19:47:13 +0000

There’s a reason they call it “The Big Easy”

By: SPO

SPO — Mon, 12 Sep 2011 18:30:26 +0000

gitarcarver, does there need to be a study that shows everything? I tend to think that a judgment call like that is committed to lawmakers. Do I personally buy it? My guess is that there are times where it would help others if the driver is wearing a seatbelt. I’ll leave whether that justifies the obvious nanny-statism here to others.

I get a lot more worked up about nanny-statism that yanks people’s kids etc. Seatbelt laws don’t offend me too much.

By: Mannie

Mannie — Mon, 12 Sep 2011 16:44:01 +0000

There is a pretty good argument that paying a limited amount of overtime is more cost effective than adding boots to the roll call. The benefits have already been paid. One guy I worked for described overtime as “The cheapest ours I pay.”

The most logical reason is that the police unions and their members would rather have more money, than more cops on the street.

This has been SOP for decades. Unions work to limit membership. When you’re in, you’re “in.”

By: gitarcarver

gitarcarver — Mon, 12 Sep 2011 05:10:15 +0000

SPO,

I am just curious as to whether you have any actual data to support the claim that other drivers are protected when people wear seatbelts. I have seen such claims from laboratory studies, but no real world data to support the lab claims.

As for the article, this is a case of a two-fer “law enforcement for dummies” awards. We all can see the problem with the guy entering false data, but why in the heck is there a grant to pay for overtime for the writing of seat belt tickets? Why not just hire another 1.5 officers that do nothing but write seat belt tickets? Why not use the overtime funds to hire another set of eyes on the road?

The most logical reason is that the police unions and their members would rather have more money, than more cops on the street.

By: Bumper

Bumper — Sun, 11 Sep 2011 05:12:11 +0000

I continue to be amazed that a police force that can maintain law and order of drunken crowds of over a million people unlike any other in America, has so many in their ranks with insufficient common sense to gauge personal right from wrong.

It doesn’t appear to be a Banana Republic thing as the adjoining parish has a force as large or larger and just as under paid and by comparison they have minuscule occurrences of similar events.

By: SPO

SPO — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 19:04:27 +0000

Not that I agree with this, but the reality is that seatbelts protect other drivers, as they allow a driver of an out-of-control car to maintain ability to steer, hit brakes etc.

That has to at least be in the calculus on whether seat-belt laws are nanny-statism gone amok.

By: Mannie

Mannie — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 15:32:08 +0000

Your deficit spending dollars at work.

By: Richard Nieporent

Richard Nieporent — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 14:45:52 +0000

A Federal grant to enforce seat belt laws. This is an example of the nanny state on steroids. I wonder if this grant was part of the stimulus package.