To the editor:

Review-Journal reporter Frank Geary enjoyed comparing "perks" for public safety employees to most private-sector employees ("Police contract loaded with many benefits," Tuesday). However, Mr. Geary failed to report the most overwhelming comparison.

Life expectancy in the United States is now at a high of 77.6 years. Solid research has shown the life expectancy, after retirement, of a law enforcement officer is much shorter than that of the general population. A 40-year longitudinal study concluded the life expectancy of a retired male officer in the United States was 66 years, well below the U.S. average.

Law enforcement has serious hazards and high levels of stress not associated with other careers, particularly in the private sector. The suicide rate, divorce rate, and a host of other health-related issues is much worse for officers than the current national averages. The reasons for these problems are many, complex and varied.

Additionally, research has identified 53 stresses associated with police work. Officers suffer more often from heart disease, hypertension and diabetes than the general public. They have an above-average risk for heart attacks, obesity, arthritis, ulcers and cancer while also prone to bouts of depression and suicide. How are those "perks"?

I wonder why Mr. Geary only investigates half a story?

Troy McArthur

LAS VEGAS

THE WRITER IS A LAS VEGAS CORRECTIONS OFFICER.

Double-speak

To the editor:

In Tuesday's report, "Police contract loaded with many benefits," the reporter quoted Ray Visconti, Clark County's director of human resources as saying, "They have dangerous jobs. That is the main reason they get the additional benefits. The more dangerous the job, the more stressful the job is going to be. The thought is that it is beneficial for them to get time away from the job more often."

Later in the article, Mike Snyder, the Metropolitan Police Department's director of labor relations, says "cash-out and buy-back programs are provided as incentives for people to be at work. If you allow people to buy back a week of vacation, it enhances your staffing. That is one less week that that person will be away from work."

Sounds like bureaucratic double-speak to me.

I'm all for paying our police officers a fair wage as determined by the powers that be, but at least have policies and benefits that promote a well-defined goal.

Jerry Steffes

LAS VEGAS

Take the test

To the editor:

Once again, the Review-Journal has printed an article comparing the pay and benefits of police and fire agencies to those of the private sector. I think its time for some new material.

Those of us who work in public safety are here because it is our chosen profession. Those who work in the private sector are there for the exact same reason.

If the staff at the Review-Journal and/or the readers have sour grapes over the pay package that we enjoy, the message is clear: take the test.

Gary Mahoney

LAS VEGAS

THE WRITER IS A LAS VEGAS POLICE SERGEANT.