The union representing nearly 10,000 rank-and-file Los Angeles Police Department officers has rejected a proposed contract offered by the city.
The contract was rejected in voting conducted this week between Tuesday and Friday, the Los Angeles Police Protective League announced late Friday, with 5,823 officers voting in person. The margin was not released.
“The voting results illustrate the extent of the problems not being addressed by City Hall and the department,” league President Tyler Izen said.
There was no immediate response to an email sent to a representative of Mayor Eric Garcetti early today seeking comment.
Terms of the proposed agreement were not released. However, a source familiar with the labor negotiations said the agreement did not include cost-of-living increases for most employees, but would raise starting annual salaries by $7,000 — to about $57,000 — beginning in January.
The proposed contract would also increase the amount the city would pay in overtime from an initially budgeted $30 million to $70 million, according to the source.
And the city would start paying down overtime banked over the past few years, the source said of the proposal.
The tentative contract would extend a labor pact that expired June 30 by one year.
In the statement released Friday announcing the rejection of the proposal, Izen again voiced his displeasure over “City Hall’s release of partial terms of the contract and violating confidentiality agreements with the league.”
Officers voted to reject the contract because of “deep-seated frustration and anger among the officers caused by their low pay, working conditions, a disciplinary system that is viewed as biased and unfair, and their perception that management is unreceptive to their problems,” Izen said.
Another factor was the department’s “complete lack of support to address the need to fully fund cash overtime, which would prevent forced time off,” Izen said.
“Currently, there are hundreds of fewer officers daily on the street, which creates an officer and community safety issue,” Izen said.
“Adding to the frustration is the department’s refusal to revamp a disciplinary system that has lost all credibility because it is viewed as arbitrary and inconsistent.”
