Ticket Quotas Are Not A Myth
On every job there are pressures to excel and succeed meeting quotas. Employees are looking for chances to outshine their counterparts so that they stand out from the rest. A competitive atmosphere can be a weakness or strength for those operating in that nature. Going over and above provides probability of entitlement or more rewards such as increase pay, promotion, or bragging rights. Not reaching quota, can display inadequacies or scrutiny under the sharp eye for the need to improve.The environments of extreme harassment or stress make normal everyday business or moral decision difficult. Additionally, when high quotas are set, it doesn’t define a reflection of realistic goals. Therefore, the data is tainted and inaccurate. At times, the pressures set by expectations can be intimidating, causing an employee to reach those goals by any means necessary. The recent case of police officers in Whittier, California describe six police officers that are coming forward to take action against tactics used to reach ticket quotas.
Judges Struggle with California Ticket Quotas
A grand jury will hear what Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Howard L. Halm found evidentiary basis for a lawful claim for these officers to share what they have witnessed.Several cities around the world, like Whittier, use a method called “shift averaging” to bypass state law prohibiting obvious ticket quotas.
Shift averaging is the act of supervisors gathering the total number of tickets handed out by officers on different shifts and giving punishment to anyone that does not meet or exceed the average goal .
The six officers named in the law suit experienced retaliation when they complained to their immediate supervisors or those at the internal affairs office about the unjust quota merits. The police officers began to notice demerits also known as “black marks” in their records after speaking out. Counseling sessions were made mandatory, constant performance plans implemented, and the officers were transferred to less desirable work duties.
The Money Raised is Astronomical
Attorney Matthew McNicholas made a statement for his clients, describing that these six officers felt an obligation of duty to speak out against the rights violated of those involved: themselves, their fellow brothers and sisters of the law, and the public. They considered their complaints against the unlawful citations and arrest quota as harassment, intimidation, and retaliation for non-compliance of the illegal quota. In the suit, the citied California labor laws to show that the police department’s actions against the whistleblowers are in direct violation of protection offered by these allegations. The court established these allegations valid.Through the examination of practices and procedures conducted by the police department, evidence presented told a story of consistent and habitual behaviors constituting hostile employment action. Judge Halm said that the deliberate actions of negative reference for later jobs, multiple negative trimester evaluations, threat of demotions, negative permanent annual evaluations, denying of sick time, ordered documented counseling of the supervisory review, and the failure to investigate complaints regarding quotas are direct evidence. The act of refusing to investigate complaints would warrant negative evaluations and additional reviews to happen. For the stated reason, Halm restated that upon careful review by police supervisors of complaints given by the whistleblowers would produce the fact that officers are unable to meet the requirements of ticket issuance averages. Further, reiterating that this information could not be used against the whistleblowers at their evaluations.
Not Everyone Agrees With Ticket Quotas
Disagreeing to defendant’s claims, Judge Halm unquestionably noted that the fact that the laws in place to direct establishing citations, quotas, and establishing performance evaluations and employment decisions for officers to meet these quotas directly affect the community all together. The factors of pressures police officers face to meet quotas in order to deter a negative evaluation and the possibility of demotion, as well as the inability to exercise vocally, and the right to speak freely about arrest or tickets given out, present an unfair risk of individuals in the community receiving tickets or arrests.All citizens whether police or residents have a moral duty deciding what is right or wrong. Police officers hold a higher duty to uphold the law. They should not abuse the right nor be retaliated against if they choose to be the change if wrongdoings are present. One of the police officer’s duties is to protect the interest of the public. It is up to us whether we will back those who stand up for something or shun those who look with the blind eye.