Rehires versus First-Timers: Why the Division and How do we Fix it…

Members,

It’s one of those topics everybody has either talked about or listened-in on a conversation about for the past several years.  The opinions are strong, divided, and often based on an individual’s past experience, either good or bad.  It is a topic which has lead to a noticeable division on our Department and inside our Union (and don’t you find it ironic the word “union” is used here).  I’m talking of course about the Return-to Work program instituted approximately 10 years ago.  You know these officers by the more common reference “Rehire.”

Some officers say it frequently: “F the Rehires!”  “Send ‘em all back to the field.”   I also get to hear rehires talk about how the union screwed them and no one cares about them.   As the bid approaches, I’ve heard strong opinions from both sides about return-to-work officers. 

Below are my opinions.  I know I risk upsetting many people and I do not claim to have all of the answers but this is an issue we must address as a union so that we can be, a UNION. 

So what caused the division among return-to-work and first timers?

When APD first began taking advantage of the State law to allow retired PERA retirees to return to work, they did so like many other agencies to supplement manpower.   As the Department either reached out to some of these individuals or had those individuals approach them for jobs, special considerations were made.  A separate bid list was established for these employees.  Why you ask?  Well some of them wanted to come back and were willing to don the uniform, they just weren’t willing to have their seniority start all over again with the new guys, i.e. they didn’t want to show up to the bid and chose between graveyard or, well graveyard.  They wanted days with weekends off.  The Department accommodated this request because they wanted the numbers.  Unfortunately, the APOA was not blameless in this either, the union allowed two bid lists to be established.

This was problematic.  Not only were two “classes” of employees created, there was division among the two because the first time officers realized their own bid seniority was not improving as fast with this system and some spots on days or swing with weekends off were held out from the regular bid in order to accommodate the rehire bid.  This was clearly not fair to the first time officers hired before the rehires who were now getting better spots.

Gasoline was then thrown on the fire: the Department (and sadly the union) allowed return-to-workers to come back directly into “inside” positions.  The normal line of events for a first time officer was of course to be in the field and then test for positions as they were circularized.  Not for this other class of employees though.  Some of them, not all mind you, were allowed to simply “rehire” back into a detective position, support position, or admin position.  Rightly so, first time officers were upset at this travesty and eventually the union put a stop to the practice.

The anger over the discrimination against the first time officers remained and contributed to some officers’ extreme dislike of rehires. 

While it was always a bad, dividing practice, to have two separate bid lists, it became worse when the State changed the law allowing retirees to come back to work.  APD quit hiring these individuals and those remaining on the rehire bid list were then stuck in seniority.   Now the shoe was on the other foot.  The rehires did not see their own ability to get better shifts improve with time on the department and they grew to hate the separate bid lists.

How Do we Fix the Division?

The fact is, everyone should have always been on the same bid list.  The practice of allowing two bid lists was discriminatory against the first-time officers originally.  Now, the return-to-workers believe it to be discriminatory against them because they cannot ever move up the list.  While I believe it to be ironic that rehires feel discriminated against by the very system their predecessors created so as to have a special status, the fact is it does need to be fixed because it never should have existed to begin with.

Secondly, regardless of anyone’s personal beliefs on return-to-work, double dipping, etc., all of these men and women are police officers.   They have a secondary source of income, but that is really no different than someone retiring from another job and becoming a police officer, or owning a secondary business, or whatever.   Some of the hardest working, and most passionate officers I know are rehires.  Their status of being a “rehire” does not change the risks they take and, frankly, there are benefits to bringing back someone with experience.  I, like many others, am disappointed with how the City and the Union together handled this issue originally, but I think we can settle our differences. 

I encourage all members to get over the mistakes of the past.  No one should have been hired directly into an inside job and no second bid list should ever have been established.  Having said that, these were mistakes that are in the past and cannot be completely undone.  All we can do is move forward.  There is a benefit to everyone to merging the bid lists.  Some officers will feel that it hurts them because they might get pushed down the overall list by 10 or 20 spots.  However, those same 10 or 20 spots will no longer be held off the available spots when it comes time to bid.   We have plenty of other battles folks.  It seems to me that any one of us, if we were stuck with no freedom to ever bid for a better shift, would want something to change. 

It is time for us to stand together as a union and leave the past in the past….

Humbly,

Greg Weber

I am shocked the Chief thinks that the responses of 453 of his officers were somehow “flawed.”  The survey has 26 questions, only some of which were even about the Chief or the department.  Consider that Presidential polls are done with only 300 people and pollsters can often predict how an entire state will vote with only a small percentage of the total votes counted, why is the APOA survey any different? We stand by our survey! 

I, personally, am very proud of the Albuquerque Police Department badge that I wear.  I am proud to serve the public and I enjoy helping others.  Most officers I know enjoy coming to work each and every day.  They look forward to the challenges of their specific job and get great satisfaction out of fighting crime (cliche yes, true nonetheless).  But that is all at the INDIVIDUAL level.  

Morale is not a measure of individuals but of cohesion.  The APD is missing that overall cohesion: there are pockets of cohesion within specific squads or sections but the overall cohesion is non-existent.  To dispute this would be to ignore the constant bashing some department members do of each other on the blogs and social media. Officers believe there is a disconnect between the street level and the administration.  These are not the indicators of unit integrity, solid in approaching the mission but rather a broken group of individuals.  

BUT….  WE ARE ALL RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS MORALE ISSUE.  It is up to all of us to fix this problem, not just Ray Schultz.   For his part, the Chief should not simply dismiss the survey as flawed: that sends the message he is not listening to his troops’ concerns.

Some of you will disagree with my assessment that we are all, on some level, responsible for morale.  However, you would probably agree that the cohesion at the APOA is also very low.  As your current President, I feel I must at least attempt to address those issues which tend to divide us as a Union.  I have decided to begin writing articles taking on some of the issues I have come to believe plague the APOA and are responsible for the division I believe exists.  I welcome any commentary any of you wish to provide.  Both the Vice-President and I believe the APOA unity is fractured but that with hard work we can rebuild the APOA to be a more powerful, unified entity.

Stay tuned for the first installment coming out next week “Rehires versus First-timers: Why the Division and How do we Fix it?” 

-Greg Weber

Sergeant Assessment Center Training

                        Presented by Rockhill & Halton, Inc.

What:      3 DAYS of training and practice for the 2013 CWH Research Albuquerque Police Department Sergeant Assessment Center.

When:      Thursday, Friday, & Saturday – January 3, 4, & 5 (8:00 a.m. to approximately 4:00 p.m. each day)

Where:    MCM Elegante Hotel – 2020 Menaul NE, Albuquerque

Price:      $449.  Pay by check, MasterCard, Visa, Discover Card or American Express.  CANCEL WITHOUT PENALTY or receive a FULL REFUND if you do not pass the Written Examination and cannot proceed to the Assessment Center.

Instructors:    Mr. Rockhill has more than 22 years of experience in preparing candidates for promotional tests, conducted over 540 test preparation workshops, trained over 14,600 candidates for promotional tests, personally assessed hundreds of law enforcement assessment candidates, and has developed and/or conducted 39 promotional tests and Assessment Centers for the emergency services!  He will use this expertise to improve your performance!  Accept no substitutes!

Sign-up:          To register for the workshop, go to our web site at rockhillandhalton.com and click on “Register for Workshop.”  Or, you can call 407-482-8296 twenty-four hours a day.  Have your credit card ready when you call or go on-line.  Leaving your credit card number will secure your spot in the workshop.  See our web site for our cancellation policy on the “Register for Workshop” page.  Registration must be made by December 31.  Receive a FULL REFUND or CANCEL WITHOUT PENALTY if you do not pass the Written Exam.  Enrollment is limited, so call soon.

                           Rockhill & Halton, Inc. — (407) 482-8296

Once again, don’t pass up this opportunity and regret it later.  You’ll make up the cost of this workshop in just a few weeks if you’re promoted!  Thanks, and we look forward to seeing you at the workshop!  See page one of this flyer for workshop details.

Recognizing the True Cost of Low Morale

The following article was published in the Sept 2012 edition of Police Chief Magazine (the official magazine of the International Association of Chiefs of Police) and is reprinted here with permission.

By David Cruickshank, Chief Executive Officer, Law Enforcement Research Group, New Britain, Connecticut

Dwight D. Eisenhower once said of the military, “Morale is the greatest single factor in successful wars.” The business world has also found this to be true; several studies and companies have found that when morale is up, employees are more productive, use less sick time, and are less likely to leave even if offered more money elsewhere. Many of the world’s most successful military units and Fortune 500 companies trust their success to the members of the organization. It would be reasonable to assume that for policing—paramilitary in structure and highly service oriented—morale would also be a significant factor in success. So why then are acknowledging, reviewing, and improving morale on the back burner for so many law enforcement agencies?

Fear of the Unknown

Addressing morale is similar to addressing critical incident stress and carries along with it

1/ 7Morale in Law Enforcement

many of the same stigmas. Roger Solomon, PhD, Auburn University, defined critical incident stress as “[a]ny situation beyond the realm of a person’s usual experience that overwhelms his or her sense of vulnerability and or lack of control over the situation.” Individuals, especially in paramilitary organizations, have a tendency to take on a macho attitude when faced with critical incident stress, associating the dealing with or preparing for such incidents as weaknesses. Some managers, while seeing the overall value of being prepared for critical incident stress, view the subject as unnecessary and too touchy-feely. Addressing morale is often viewed in the same way—managers shrug it off as unnecessary and individuals view it as a sign of weakness. Poor morale issues severely damage an agency, cost untold expenses, and hurt its ability to provide effective service to the community.

Although research on morale has evolved significantly over the years, untested opinions of morale still outnumber the amount of peer-reviewed research studies. Almost all of the early research in this field focused on operational stress that officers face. Initially, it was widely believed that officer stress and morale were based on the premise that law enforcement professionals are placed in continuously difficult situations and are required to deal with these situations in the course of their duties. This is known as operational stress. While it is true that operational stress is inherent in policing, a serendipitous discovery during a critical incident stress study found that law enforcement professionals handle these operational stresses surprisingly well. This is coupled with current beliefs that, although law enforcement professionals are exposed to these negative situations, they are not exposed as frequently as previously believed.

In the early 1980s, the focus of law enforcement research in this area shifted from operational stress to organizational stress. Organizational stress refers to the stress placed on an individual from within one’s own organization. Not surprisingly, this was found to be far more significant in job satisfaction and morale. Unfortunately, the research on job stress, turnover, and morale mainly was conducted in large metropolitan agencies with the hope that it would apply as well to smaller agencies. While some of the data are useful, there remains a large gap in morale research because 95 percent of agencies in the United States employ fewer than 100 officers. Many organizational differences exist between agencies with 40 officers as compared to agencies with 400.

Organizational stress, as opposed to operational stress, was shown to be a main cause of stress and morale issues among law enforcement professionals. One study by Neal Trautman, PhD, National Institute of Ethics, surveyed more than 2,500 officers and reported that “the findings reveal the majority of the 10 greatest sources of anger and frustration among officers have a crucial common denominator, their administrators. The overall greatest source of bad morale is the perception of favoritism committed by administrators.” The study also reported many other organizational issues that directly impact morale—for example, poor

2/ 7

Morale in Law Enforcement

communication, unfair and inconsistent discipline, and supervisory politics.

For the command staff of an agency, certain stigmas exist that interfere with looking at or improving morale. Top administrators are generally in the twilight of their careers and are therefore hesitant to institute change. Senior law enforcement professionals have worked their entire careers to advance and are unlikely to risk failure or admit that there are issues within their agencies after coming so far. Accordingly, they keep to the ways they know—the same ways that got them to where they are. Just as with critical incident stress, some individuals believe that acknowledging that morale can be improved is the same as admitting defeat or accepting blame.

One of the largest hurdles for a law enforcement executive to overcome is to understand that working to address morale is not a personal attack on one’s leadership ability. Top police executives have a respectful fear of the unknown, a keen sense of liability, and an ever-present political view of their own image. Investigating the causes of low morale, its impacts, and corrective solutions within an agency is usually enough to cause leadership of an organization to decide it is not worth the potential scrutiny. This has been the case for many in law enforcement for years, but the recent perspectives on the true cost of low morale along with the benefits of improvement are too much to ignore.

Real Impacts of Low Morale

Organizational stress and morale issues have been researched for many years in the business world. As policing evolves into a more service-oriented profession, administrators cannot overlook the impact on the mission of the profession. There are five primary issues impacted by a morale problem.

Turnover. In 2005, Chief Dwayne Orrick of the Cordele, Georgia, Police Department highlighted some of the benefits of turnover and ways to ensure that the level of turnover does not become too high. Unexpected turnover is a two-pronged problem for an agency, which loses the value of experienced officers who know the streets, the local laws, and community, and gains deficits in these areas. A new law enforcement professional typically requires one year to fully complete training and several years before training costs are recovered. For a small agency, the cost of training coupled with the cost of the overtime created during that training year can be a staggering amount. Also important to consider, although much more difficult to assess, is the number of years that it will take a new officer to gain a working knowledge of the community and the agency.

3/ 7

Morale in Law Enforcement

Absenteeism. Abuse of sick time can easily turn into an unpleasant and expensive cycle. When morale is low, use of sick time increases. This causes a ripple effect as other officers become tired of working at staffing minimums and of being overloaded with work in a negative atmosphere. These officers in turn begin to take more time off, perpetuating the cycle of absenteeism and further lowering morale. Unfortunately, while there is ample software that exists to evaluate sick time abuse, very rarely is this software used to gauge whether there are morale issues. With low morale increasing sick time use, administrators need to focus on identifying the underlying problem rather than isolating and punishing abusers of sick time policies.

Low Productivity. Low morale damages community-oriented policing initiatives, numbers-driven grant programs, and overall agency case work by decreasing the quality and frequency of policing services. In law enforcement, as in the business world, satisfaction with supervisors develops employees who are more productive and produce better work. An unhappy officer, on the other hand, shrugs off responsibilities, does the bare minimum, and wastes resources, leaving others to do more with less assistance. This further lowers morale and perpetuates the cycle. At the same time, when officers refuse to thoroughly investigate cases, the public’s perception of the agency suffers. This damages not only the administration over the long term but also the community. It can take years to reverse these opinions and perceptions.

Civil Liability. As morale decreases, use-of-force and civilian complaints increase. Officers with low morale have lower tolerances, may utilize poor judgment, and can exhibit negative feelings, all of which can hinder their performance of duties. Thus, many police chiefs expend a great deal of effort on reducing civil liability. Use of excessive force, sexual harassment, and false arrests are factors that can financially cripple not only an agency but also the community served.

Officer Suicide. Policing is recognized as a stressful occupation regardless of the source of the stress. The law enforcement occupation has high rates of divorce, substance abuse, and suicide. Research shows that while the numbers of suicides in law enforcement are not significantly higher than other professions, law enforcement professionals are at a higher risk. The availability of weapons, consistently dealing with death and dying, and the constant stress of the job contribute to the increased risk. There are currently no studies positively linking low morale to the increased risk of suicide; however, there is one important inference. If organizational stress rather than operational stress is found to be more significant, then it is not unreasonable to say that organizational stress plays a role in the mental health of an officer. In a healthy organization with good morale, an officer who is experiencing problems on the job or

4/ 7

Morale in Law Enforcement

at home may be noticed earlier by supervisors when surrounded by officers who do not exhibit the same negativity. When shift morale is positive, officers more readily notice a colleague who is not dealing effectively with stress.

It would be impractical, if not impossible, for an agency to put a dollar amount to the losses incurred by these five morale issues. It suffices to say that when factoring in long-term consequences, the total would be staggering.

The Path to a Brighter Future

Regardless of the level of morale within an agency, there always is room for improvement. By the time low morale results in a breaking point, significant damage may have already occurred, which can take years to undo. Public manifestations of low morale (for example, negative press, unexpected turnover, suicide, or the termination of a chief) are obvious starting points, but such a dramatic trigger need not exist to begin improving morale. The process differs slightly for new administrations as opposed to those who have remained unchanged for a length of time.

For the New Administrator. The task of raising department morale is easier for new administrators who have little to lose and everything to gain by investigating how their departments operate and where stressors exist. If done well, bringing in outside evaluators or conducting anonymous surveys within an agency can improve morale simply by giving officers a chance to voice their opinions and open lines of communication. Lack of communication is known in numerous business and law enforcement studies to be a significant source of stress. Talking with a cross section of officers—if not all officers—is an excellent way to promote openness and increase communication. The single most important thing a new administrator can learn is what did not work with the previous administration. Organizational weaknesses may be discovered in the process. A new administration offers a perfect opportunity to institute changes supported by the rank and file.

For the Existing Administrator. Correcting morale issues can be difficult for administrators because these leaders must overcome suspicions while contemplating the motives of others. Dramatic changes in the way an agency operates are rarely necessary and may create more problems. Similarly, the blind approach of mandating leadership courses for supervisors is only marginally effective if underlying problems are not identified. Evaluation of the level of morale must begin the discovery process regarding the issues affecting agencies. Many simple techniques that have worked in the business environment such as steering committees, leadership

5/ 7

Morale in Law Enforcement

programs, and true open-door policies can work for policing if administrators are open to improving working conditions. Morale will improve if lines of communication are established and positive steps taken to correct the issues that arise.

Administrators need to ask themselves what legacies and lasting impressions are important to the communities and the agencies they serve. Reducing organizational stress, thereby improving morale, is a positive legacy. Recognizing and working to correct organizational problems and improving morale should be a goal of every administrator because of the potential impacts on communities and law enforcement professionals.

Building morale must be an ongoing process: the first step is recognition of the problem, followed by legitimate work toward improvement. The long-lasting, positive effects will lead to healthy professionals taking greater pride in the communities they serve, resulting in win-win outcomes.

Notes:

1John M. Zelenski, Steven A. Murphy, and David A. Jenkins, “The Happy-Productive Worker Thesis Revisited,” Journal of Happiness Studies 9, no. 4 (2008): 521–537. 2Paul P. Brooke Jr. and James L. Price, “The Determinants of Employee Absenteeism: An Empirical Test of a Causal Model,” Journal of Occupational Pysychology 62, no. 1 (1989): 1–19.

3William McGee, “A Culture of Loyalty,” McGee Partners LLC, May 5, 2010, ezinearticles.com/ ?A-Culture-of-Loyalty&id=4221726

(accessed June 16, 2012). 4Roger Soloman, “Critical Incident Stress Reactions,” The Heavy Badge, www.heavybadge.co

m/cisd.htm

(accessed June 16, 2012). 5Lasse A. Nurmi, “The Sinking of the Estonia: The Effects of CriticalIncident Stress Debriefing on Rescuers,” International Journal of Emergency Mental Health 1 (1999): 23–31. 6Matthew J. Hickman and Brian A. Reaves, Local Police Departments, 2003, NCJ 210118 (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, May 2006),

bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/lpd03.pdf

(accessed July 16, 2012). 7Neal Trautman, Bad Morale: The Facts Now Known (National Institute of Ethics, 2004), www.

ethicsinstitute.com/pdf/Bad%20Morale%20Facts%20Now%20known.pdf

(accessed July 16, 2012). 8Charles R. Swanson, Leonard Territo, and Robert W. Taylor, “Police Administration,” in Funda mentals of Law Enforcement Management by Chad C. Legel, Brian O’Sullivan, and Fred M Rafilson (Boston, Mass.: Pearson, 2005),

6/ 7

Morale in Law Enforcement

193–588. 9Dwayne Orrick, “Police Turnover,” The Police Chief 72 (September 2005): 36–40, www.police

chiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display&article_id=697&issue_id

=92005

(accessed July 16, 2012). 10Brett Garland, “Prison Treatment Staff Burnout: Consequences, Causes, and Prevention,” Cor rections Today 64 (December 2002): 116–121. 11Andrea Kohan and Brian P. O’Connor, “Police Officer Job Satisfaction in Relation to Mood, Well-being, and Alcohol Consumption,” Journal of Psychology 136, no. 3 (2002): 307–318. 12John M. Violanti, “Predictors of Police Suicide Ideation,” Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior 34, no. 3 (2004): 277–283.

Please cite as: David Cruickshank, “Recognizing the True Cost of Low Morale,” The Police Chief 79 (September 2012): 26–30.

Reprinted from Police Chief Magazine, Vol.LXXIX, No.9, 2012 Copyright held by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, Inc., 515 N. Washington Street, Alexandria, VA 22314. Further reproduction without the express permission from IACP is strictly prohibited

7/ 7

(CLICK HERE) for story.