The union representing police officers in Los Angeles has tentatively agreed to delay a pair of raises, while the city offered to drop prior plans to eliminate hundreds of police officer positions, the Los Angeles Times reported.
A 3% pay increase for police is currently scheduled for January 2022, and a 1.5% boost is supposed to happen in June 2022. But officials with the Los Angeles Police Protective League agreed to postpone them until January 2023, when raises would arrive together as a 4.5% pay hike.
In exchange, the city has agreed not to lay off police officers until at least June 30.
The deal must now be ratified by the union’s members.
City Council members who represent the Eastside hailed the LAPPL’s concession, but noted that more will need to be done before the city’s finances are in a stable position. Los Angeles needs to close a budget shortfall of approximately $675-million by June 30.
Here's what they said about the deal:
Kevin De Leon, Council District 14
"Every city department is making deep cuts," said De Leon, whose district includes Boyle Heights, Eagle Rock, El Sereno and other neighborhoods. "We are in an extraordinary moment where budgets are depleted and there are no sacred cows.”
Nithya Raman, Council District 4
“I am encouraged that the LAPPL has finally joined other city unions in delaying pay raises," said Raman, who represents portions of Los Feliz and Silver Lake. "Los Angeles remains in a state of fiscal crisis, however, and it will require even more ingenuity and shared sacrifice to maintain the level of services that Angelenos expect and deserve.”
Mitch O’Farrell, Council District 13
O'Farrell, whose district stretches from Echo Park to Hollywood, said the unanimous decision by police union leaders is a step to help the city manage the economic pain inflicted by the pandemic.
“My hope is that the LAPPL membership will ratify the agreement to help avoid layoffs while still keeping our neighborhoods safe,” O’Farrell said.
The Eastsider also reached out for comment from Gilbert Cedillo of Council District 1. But no response had been received in time for this article's publication.