Let private security guards take over for the school police

To the editor:

In response to the Jan. 19 story, “Judge’s ruling sides with school police”:

Here we go again with public employee unions squeezing the private-sector, working taxpayer. A District Court judge ruled that school district police have the same bargaining rights as other police departments. Where is the judge’s common sense?

In 1967, the Clark County School Board had its maintenance crew act as security and patrol the school facilities. Now, the district deserves a full-blown police department. Many of these wannabe cops, who are nothing more than high-class security guards, are pulling down more than $100,000 a year. And now they want to bargain for even more, like all other police employee unions? Talk about a rip-off to us taxpayers. This is a great example.

Any security guard could patrol the grounds of any school facility in the state. That’s what security guards do. They are adept at walking a patrol post and guarding facilities. If a guard sees a crime being committed or has to apprehend or hold a suspect, he has the right to do just that until police officers operating in the jurisdiction arrive and make any needed arrest.

There are tens of thousands of private security firms operating in this country each and every day. Most are very professional, and they employee trained and bonded personnel. Employing a private security firm to patrol and secure Clark County school facilities would be extremely less expensive than unionizing a bunch of school guards and allowing them to play policeman and collect outlandish salaries, benefits and pensions at taxpayer expense.

The last thing we private-sector workers need is another public employee group gouging us. The school district would save millions of dollars by immediately disbanding this make-believe police force and hiring a private security firm to do the job which, in all likelihood, they could do much better. And, most of all, they would be employing private-sector people — and that is a plus in itself.

BRADLEY KUHNS

LAS VEGAS

Nice work

To the editor:

Rodney Young (Friday letter) might be onto something when he states that the burden of this recession should be shared equally by all. He thinks the entire problem has been unfairly placed on the shoulders of public employees.

Perhaps he should quit his government job and go to work in the lucrative private sector. He can get a nice job with no raises for two or three years, five days paid vacation for the first few years and a whopping six paid holidays. Don’t forget the wonderful health and retirement plans available to the private sector.

He can also do 10 hours of work in an eight-hour day to impress his supervisor and stay off the layoff list. Having been in the public sector, he might have to learn to produce a product or service someone will pay money for.

Surely he will also learn that private-sector employers cannot go to their customers and demand they pay more, or they risk men with guns hauling them to court and jail.

Robert Raider

Henderson

Survival of the fittest

To the editor:

I really don’t know about the rest of you intelligent, observant people, but I for one am tired of the bleeding-heart people who blame government and politicians for not getting them jobs and not doing enough for them. These are the same people who want forever unemployment insurance, free health care, benefits galore, free food, free housing, etc.

I have had enough with those who think that “we the people” who work hard and pay taxes owe them a free ride. Maybe the “law of the jungle” should once again rule, and these people who do nothing to help society ought to move to some country that will allow them to stay there free of charge. Then they can bleed that country instead of the United States.

The U.S. was built on hard work, intelligence and desire to succeed. Those who don’t know this should just move over and let successful people show them how it is done. If they can’t figure it out then …

Bob Dubin

Las Vegas

Turf grab

To the editor:

I was very disappointed to read in your newspaper that the White House Budget Office was proposing a 12.8 percent, $160 million reduction in the budget of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for the purpose of turning over the explosive and arson jurisdiction to the FBI.

I spent 32 years in law enforcement, many of those years involved in explosive investigations. Based on my many years of experience, I have found that the FBI have a few very good, technically competent explosive investigators. But the rank-and-file FBI agent does not know anything about conducting an explosives investigation. Meanwhile, the average ATF field agent is very competent in explosives and arson investigations.

It appears to me that the FBI is making a grab to increase its law enforcement empire at the expense of a much smaller, highly competent agency. United States law enforcement has a history of overlapping jurisdictions for the purpose of avoiding a police state by keeping one agency from having too much power. Giving the FBI more jurisdiction is not the answer for better explosives investigations.

The FBI is a good agency with good people, but in spite of its public image, it is not better qualified to assume this jurisdiction.

Michael Kelly

Las Vegas