Maybe they're all trying to get back to Lents. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Calling PPB grifters gives grifters a bad rap.

Now, what has Saltzman to say about the Office of Equity?

And what has Saltzman to say about the farce of PBOT deciding to go ahead with "Sunday Parkways" in the summer of 2012, at a not insignificant cost to PBOT, in the face of the PBOT budget fiasco.

Who does the collective bargainIng for the city with the PPB's union? Why in the world would a provision like this be made when there were: no clear cut rules or definitions of what constitutes a physical fitness test, no consideration of the obvious logistics (that is, do cops take the test on their own time or on the city's, and if they are hurt taking the test, is it considered an on-the-job injury), or the associated costs of implementing it (like overtime for cops taking the test)? Geez. That's some real hard bargaining they're doing there.

While I applaud Saltzman for doing the obvious and renouncing this charade, I have to laugh at his quote: "We are certainly able to discern when an agreement made in good faith is not being kept by all parties."

Good faith? Really? How naive is that? A union contract is a legally binding - well, contract! Don't you think it'd be wise to iron out all the details before signing on?

"We should not reward people for having a pulse."

He would know.

Gotta hand it to the police union - that's a beaut.

Saltzman must be running for re-election.

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2012/01/portland_commissioner_dan_salt_7.html

This situation is really a joke, but in this case it was the CITY that proposed this test, not the union. The City's HR people just gave this up. So the Union took it. Their contract negotiation skills are as good as other aspects of their management...