The Importance of Fulfilling Obligations to Maintain High Morale and Performance

Roughly a decade ago our country suffered an economic collapse as “the real estate bubble” burst and property values tanked. Many people didn’t realize the impact that had on governments at almost every level. EVERY government depends on tax revenue to survive and property taxes are a key part of that for most states, counties and municipalities. When property values dropped, the associated property taxes also dropped which had a negative impact on operating budgets; a negative impact that is sometimes still being felt. After a decade though, some elected representatives are using it as an excuse for not meeting fiscal obligations of a given government entity. Those elected representatives may not appreciate the short and long term impact that their neglect toward their responsibilities in how they treat their employees may have.

Anyone who has worn a uniform as a public safety employee, whether it be as a law enforcement professional (officer, deputy, agent, etc) or as a firefighter, EMT, paramedic, etc. knows all too well how it feels to expect your higher-ups to take care of you and then be disappointed when they don’t.  That “take care of you,” includes leadership, providing training, approving needed days off, providing proper equipment, insuring adequate pay and supporting bonuses as appropriate. If you look over that list again, you’ll see that several of the items boil down to compensation with the remainder related to job performance tools and training. Both are affected by budgeting and this is where the elected representatives perform a juggling routine. All too often, though, the budget items they drop in their juggling routine are the ones that impact compensation.

In retrospect, things could be worse. As an example, during the peak of the financial crisis, some agencies were completely dissolved while others were cut in manpower by half or more. Many of the agencies that managed to maintain manpower did so by not giving pay raises in the way of merit increases or cost-of-living increases. That was completely understandable at that point in time and the majority of them worked cohesively with employee union representatives to work out such solutions. After all, most unions aren’t in a hurry to see an entire segment of employee simply removed, as occurs when a police agency is dissolved, so they bargain in good faith to protect their employees while also recognizing the realities the government entity involved is dealing with.

Bring that forward to today, however, and we find that some government agencies, more at the county and municipal level than state or federal, are still not honoring their contractual obligations where compensation for employees is concerned. One municipality cited was the City of Mount Rainier in Maryland. On the eastern border of Washington D.C., Mount Rainier has a police department represented by its own chapter of the Fraternal Order of Police. In looking back across the span of the past decade since the financial crisis first started for so many municipalities, the Mt. Rainier FOP realized that no merit increases had been paid, even though they are required by contract between the city and the agency FOP.

The impact of such a failure on the part of a municipal government is both short and long term. The short term impacts include a negative impact on morale which overflows into the employees struggling to maintain motivation levels. In some studies, where municipalities fail to meet their obligation to “take care of” the employees, use of sick leave increased, health of the employees deteriorated and, in some cases, job performance was measurably reduced. Long term impact can include reduction in applicants, reduction in retention and a reduction in employee advancement; not due to the municipality’s failure to provide opportunity but due to a drop in employee interest in pursuing such.

The unsettling part of such situations is that while the short term impacts can be readily seen and measured in time spans as little as three to six months, the long term impact may not be observable for a decade or more. In other words, what the municipal, county or state governments do today may not have a measurable negative impact until 2025 or later. The larger challenge is that if they wait that long to make a change, then turning it around can take just as long… if not longer. Once a government entity develops a reputation for not taking care of its employees, overcoming that reputation can take twice as long as it did to develop.

Thankfully, for those governmental entities, if the course of action is corrected in a timely fashion, before the bad reputation grows and spreads, then the long term negative impacts can be mitigated and the short term impact becomes a positive one. The provision of compensation due, extra training, new tools and more can create a very positive morale boost that is measurable in decreased leave use, increased job performance and, ironically, an increase is revenues generated by the various agencies impacted.

This reality of short and long term impact on performance and reputation dependent on how well a governmental entity meets its obligations is one that is all too often either overlooked or dismissed by those in positions to impact it. Where the elected representatives fail to recognize the challenge and take appropriate corrective action in favor of caring for the employees, it behooves the agency leadership and/or union representatives to take the necessary action to protect the employees’ best interests. Also ironic in its reality, by taking action against the municipality, the leadership and/or union representation is looking out for the long term best interests of the government entity.