If recently hired City of Greensboro officials
are blaming lack of "perks" for recent turnover,
with no mention of potential losses
from replacing an entrenched black veteran police chief
with a new white outsider who may not be allowing some behaviors that occurred before
why wouldn't the article reflect other possibilities
other than saying "wages and lack of perks may be to blame for the turnover"?
How many of the officers wanting to leave are unhappy with the new chief?
How many of the officers wanting to leave were involved with prior unhappiness?
Or is it about more money?
Or is it about getting all City of Greensboro employees a 1.5% raise?
If the City knows how many applied for other jobs,
why haven't they studied the cases?
If Robbie Perkins is for spending more money, as almost always,
should his non-endorsement endorsement be considered a red flag?
Are some city officials looking to tap the city's savings of about $300 million?
Could the attrition have anything to do with a spike of gun related violence?
Could the attrition have anything to do with the City of Greensboro
being governed by a racially divided council?
Why such a one sided article?
2 comments:
Could the spike of gun related violence be connected to the new chief's reorganization of the department, which included dismantling the gang unit and tactical special enforcement teams, as well as reducing the number of officers on the street during peak hours for criminal activity, which also means officers don't always have backup available when they answer priority calls?
Could this have anything to do with the increase in attrition?
we turned your comment into a post
Post a Comment