Police Employment/Take Home Vehicles

[CdwJava]

As a note, agencies with take home cars tend to find that they result in improved morale, more effective deployment (as the car is set up as the officer wants), efficiency, longer vehicle life and fewer required visits to the shop, etc. Take home cars tend to result in a cost savings in the long run. You tend to take better care of YOUR ride then you might take care of a pool vehicle. Plus, you know where everything is in the car.

 

[Johnmelissa]

Carl, sorry my spell check didn't work. You're absolutely correct about generational differences but I think it might raise a flag if the father has a "sheet" on file with his office and the local police agency. I had a couple of friends who were good guys and one each of their kids went off into the drug realm inexplicably...sad and incomprehensible. You never know.

I'm reminded of the head of BP (I owned a few shares) when his rig exploded and he had helicopters and corporate jets to get him where he needed to be ASAP. People who can make a difference have a legitimate claim to vehicle availability. I just don't see that in the case of a front line policeman 50 miles away...a "quick response" is just not possible - I mean that robbery is going to take place or that murder is done by the time he gets there from a distance of 50 miles. It's not reasonable for any agency to justify the expense in that manner. In the range of 50 miles, vehicle take-home policy should be as compensation not tactical imperative.

Unions are very strict about procedures. I once was severely admonished by a union steward for changing a lightbulb which was decidedly NOT my job. Maintenance, according to most unions, should be done in a shop that meets OSHA standards and by a trained technician who is a union member in good standing. I really don't understand how unions might have passed on sworn police officers doing vehicle maintenance, routine or otherwise. Do the unions at the facilities that maintain other police vehicles know that officers are doing maintenance?

Call me a finicky taxpayer but I believe there should be strict criteria met when the taxpayers' dollars are spent. If it is not justifiable based of need or mission requirements, the expenditure should not be made no matter the size...large or small. Someone said, and I paraphrase, a billion here and a billion there; pretty soon it starts to add up to real money.

Thanks.

 

[CdwJava]

I'm reminded of the head of BP (I owned a few shares) when his rig exploded and he had helicopters and corporate jets to get him where he needed to be ASAP. People who can make a difference have a legitimate claim to vehicle availability.

Certainly. But, in this day and age a mileage reimbursement is often sufficient. It's not too likely that command staff need to have their car loaded with tactical gear, breaching equipment, or other needs at an active scene. Supervisors or line staff would.

But, this is always an issue of agency priorities and expenditures.

I just don't see that in the case of a front line policeman 50 miles away...a "quick response" is just not possible - I mean that robbery is going to take place or that murder is done by the time he gets there from a distance of 50 miles. It's not reasonable for any agency to justify the expense in that manner. In the range of 50 miles, vehicle take-home policy should be as compensation not tactical imperative.

It can be for both. In my agency it is because we made a decision that a rapid tactical deployment was worth the expense. However, no officer outside the sphere of influence of the city has a take home ride.

In the case of your neighbor, apparently take home motors are not restricted by distance. And this is not done out of tactical need, but out of practicality, morale, and efficiency. If the expense becomes sufficiently burdensome, his agency will probably return the bikes to the garage ... though they might have to allow for more down time for the motor officers.

Unions are very strict about procedures. I once was severely admonished by a union steward for changing a lightbulb which was decidedly NOT my job.

Yeah, I recall the same thing happening when I worked as a school custodian many moons ago. I also had to care for the pool which was made difficult because the pump kept breaking down because sand got inside. I could have cleaned it out with a hose, but was told that an electrician and a plumber had to do it ... since they could never get there at the same time and that made my job more difficult (super-chlorinating the food and scraping the algae every day was a pain) I just decided never to report the problem and cleaned it myself.

However, here we are not talking about brake pads and tune ups, we're talking about polishing, shining, and cleaning. Motor officers can be a meticulous lot.

Do the unions at the facilities that maintain other police vehicles know that officers are doing maintenance?

In all but the largest agencies, the vehicle maintenance guys have plenty to do - they ain't gonna complain that they don't see a police vehicle for a while. Cops are hard on their vehicles and they tend to wear them down a bit.

Once upon a time we were expected to check fluid levels and tire pressure, add air and necessary fluids (transmission, oil, brake, coolant, etc.) all on our own. Most agencies no longer have that requirement not because of union complaints but because of liability ... most officers are not trained in this and if a car crashed and brake fluid pressure is the issue, there could be a problem.

Call me a finicky taxpayer but I believe there should be strict criteria met when the taxpayers' dollars are spent. If it is not justifiable based of need or mission requirements, the expenditure should not be made no matter the size...large or small.

Then this is something to bring up to the agency. I do not know their justification for a take home motor going 50 miles away, I am merely guessing. I have worked for an agency where 50 miles was not unheard of for motors to take their bikes home, and every agency I can think of has their officers take the motors home with the assigned officers. Apparently most agencies seem to consider it an expense worth taking.

 

[The Occultist]

Johnmelissa, after reading this thread, my opinion at this point is that your opinion on this vehicle matter isn't really important. It has nothing to do with your neighbor or his kid. Since this is something not regulated by statute, it falls to each department to make their own decisions. As you have already been told, if you have a problem with it, you'll need to contact the department to raise those concerns if you hope to have any changes favorable to yourself made.

As far as your argument of your precious tax dollars being wasted, I have two thoughts: 1) The department has a budget. It's not as though their decision on whether or not to allow vehicles to be taken home will change your tax payments. You're paying the same amount, the feds, and then the states, choose where those tax moneys end up, and then the department chooses how to spend what they have been given. It's not as though your taxes went up because an officer decided to take the vehicle home. And then 2) The points Carl has raised suggested that the life of a vehicle tends to be extended should it be allowed to be taken to a home, and that leaving it at the station leaves it in a comparatively larger state of disrepair, meaning that it takes more of your tax dollars (ignoring my first argument, of course) to repair/replace such a vehicle than it would to allow it to be taken to a home where it typically tends to receive more love.

 

[Ozark_Sophist]

As a mental health professional, I strongly urge counseling. Your neighbor has a LEGAL right to start his vehicle whenever he wants. You can't change that. The only thing you can change is how you internalize your reaction. I have followed your posts since you started posting here, and your posting history makes it clear there is an issue.

I'm not denying your claim your neighbor may be unprofessional and/or a dufus, but stalking your neighbor online (and perhaps in the real world--how do you know he parks his motorcycle in a garage two miles from your house, unless you followed him?), obsessing with his life, and becoming fixated on everything he does is NOT healthy.

Rationalizing your fixation by claiming to be a concerned taxpayer only makes you come across as petty. A professional counselor can help you see your situation from a neutral third party perspective and help you develop healthy responses. Good luck.

 

[Johnmelissa]

Thanks, Carl. Yours are always informative presentations.