A union stranglehold on police policies

Let me get this straight. Metro’s police union has agreed to “allow” its uniformed members to wear body cameras in exchange for a 2 percent annual cost-of-living raise for the next three years (Sept. 26 Review-Journal).

Every citizen of Clark County should be outraged at the union’s stranglehold on policing policies. Conditions of employment should dictate what equipment officers should or should not have to wear, similar to private industry mandates. For example, male casino employees are banned from having beards and mustaches and cocktail servers are mandated to wear specific clothing.

Unions, without a doubt, have a noble calling. But no union should be allowed to usurp power — be it work schedules or dress codes — from the paycheck writers. If workers don’t like the employment requirements, which can and do change, they should find some other line of work or become self-employed.

It should also be insulting to valley residents that the Metro officers’ largess is not tied to consumer price increases or other economic indexes as are hikes in Social Security payments.

As for the cameras, I welcome their widespread use. The devices are a much-needed tool into the window of policing and are an adjunct to increase police accountability to the people who pay their salaries.

Leon Pitt

Las Vegas

Vulnerable seniors

Thank you, Barbara Buckley, for your leadership on the guardianship issue (“Nevada high court panel calls for guardianship system reforms,” Sept. 30 Review-Journal). So many of our most vulnerable citizens, primarily seniors, are being victimized by a system that almost invites exploitation.

Isn’t it interesting that the Clark County Commission is spending so much energy and time on the matter of a football stadium and so little time on the guardianship issue?

It would be powerful if the senior organizations in the state, led by the Nevada State Commission on Aging, were to coalesce in advocating for the speedy reforms needed to protect one of our most vulnerable populations.

Carl Martinez

North Las Vegas

More harassment

I agree with former Gov. Bob Miller’s opinion on Question 1 as stated in his Saturday letter to the Review-Journal. Background checks prior to the purchase of a handgun “makes sense.” We want to keep handguns out of the hands of criminals and crazies. But is that all this new law will do?

The way the background check law is written and what is required under the current and new law does not make sense. For example, if I go to a licensed gun store and buy a handgun, I must get a background check — at an extra cost to me of $25 — in order to complete the purchase. If I go to another gun store or a gun show later that same day to buy another handgun, I will under this new law be again required to undergo another $25 background check. What has changed since I made my first purchase that same day?

Why can’t the laws be changed so that once you have undergone a background check, you do not have to get another one for an extended period of time, just like they do with concealed-carry permits?

If the law was written in a non-punitive manner, I would definitely vote “yes” on Question 1. But as long as the law amounts to more harassment on law-abiding citizens, I will vote a big “no.” Change the background check statute before you vote yes on this or any law that weakens our Second Amendment rights.

Jim Hayes

Las Vegas

Tough choice

I’m sure there are many millions of good Americans who would be a better president than Donald Trump. Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton is not one of them.

Larry Bardell

Las Vegas