When times are tough, arbiter makes 'em tougher

Imagine a city that is virtually bankrupt.
It has closed most of its fire houses. It has cut back its police patrols. When a woman is killed and two firemen are injured at a house fire, some city employees and officials imply that it might not have been so if the fire department were not critically understaffed.
Make believe: Now imagine that the employment contract for some of that city's employees has expired and an independent outside party -- a fact-finder, he's called -- is asked to decide what to do about the employees' salary schedule.
Would he:
a) Suggest that wages be cut.
b) Suggest that wages be frozen.
c) Award a wage increase that exceeds the rate of inflation.
"A" would be the answer in many private businesses, where concessions are not uncommon at a time of fiscal crisis. "B" would at least be prudent, given that it would presumably allow for safety forces to be maintained at present levels. "C" boggles the mind, because it defies not only the facts, but logic. If a city has already made deep cuts that have endangered public safety and the safety of employees, why would anyone suggest that raises be given? Wouldn't it be obvious that increased wage costs would mean that even more cuts would have to be made?
Back to reality: Now, let's give our imaginary city a name: Warren.
Yes, Warren, a city crippled by a shrinking tax base and struggling to put out its fires keep policemen on its streets, must now come up with the money to give supervisory personnel in the police department 4 percent raises in each of the next three years.
The new contract will cover three captains, six lieutenants and 15 sergeants in the police department, all members of the Fraternal Order of Police's Gold Division, The contract also includes provisions for overtime, health benefits, a shift differential and vision care. The estimated additional cost to the city over three years exceeds $200,000.
It's a vision thing: Arbitrators and union representatives who see nothing wrong with this picture are afflicted with a kind of fiscal myopia. They block out the city's financial crisis and look only for what they think is "fair" to this particular group of employees.
At a time such as this, Warren's employees -- at all levels and in all departments -- should be volunteering to take wage freezes for at least a year, probably two and possibly three. That might even allow a few employees to be brought back to work.
But more important, it might convince more of Warren's voters to support a 0.5 percent income tax that will be appearing on the primary ballot in May. That tax, which failed in the past and was far from a sure thing this time, just got a little harder to sell.
Voters sometimes see things differently from arbiters.