Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

I had hope for Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O'Hara until I read the Star Tribune excerpts from the roundtable published in the April edition of Harper's Magazine ("O'Hara says there's blame to go around for Mpls. policing issues," March 20). Two comments really stand out: the first, his disappointment and apparent befuddlement that his officers "approach every situation like it might be a dangerous encounter." Really? And this guy has worked as a cop? Guess what, when you respond to a call, there is always a possibility that things will go south, and savvy officers will be cognizant, diligent and prepared for that possibility. That doesn't mean they can't be friendly while remaining professional and work some humor into what often seems a humorless job.

The second: O'Hara is mystified when in firearms training. "Why are we training people to [opt at times from shooting center-mass to] shoot in the head?" While I will skip the explanation to avoid instructing would-be shooters how to enhance their survival skills, every single cop in Minnesota, and probably the entire nation — other than O'Hara — knows why this is included in firearms training. I don't know if he was trying to portray himself as Officer Friendly who is flabbergasted by police training that has some focus on the real possibility that some people are willing to use violence against police or if he's just totally clueless. Either way, I wouldn't expect a surge of young recruit candidates rushing to sign up with a department that does not take officer safety seriously.

Richard Greelis, Bloomington

The writer is a retired police officer.


RED LAKE NATION

Much irony in land transfer debate

Regarding "Legislation would give Red Lake Nation state land" (March 21): I do sympathize with the concerns of residents and business owners of the area.

However, it struck me as ironic that the quote about legislation that would "choke our local economy, threaten livelihoods, ruin property values and take away our ability to stay in our own homes" could certainly have been attributed to the 1889 residents of Red Lake.

Jan Strommen, Hudson, Wis.


UBER AND LYFT

May other options flourish

I am an occasional user of Uber who doesn't see what all the fuss about Uber and Lyft leaving the Twin Cities is all about. It isn't like those ridesharing companies are the only game in town. Taxis and Metro Mobility used to provide the services ridesharing companies are doing now, and there is no reason that we couldn't fill that gap with them and possibly more.

If there is more need for transportation for the disabled then Metro Mobility should be improved. A well-regulated and, if needed, publicly subsidized transportation system and taxis that pay our workers decent wages are certainly preferable to a system where we prostrate ourselves before the superwealthy owners of these companies and beg them not to leave while we throw our workers into overwork.

We owe ourselves a better solution where we think of our collective community as strong and throw off our mindset of weakness and dependence on the wealthiest. When we remember, as Sen. Paul Wellstone used to say, that we all do better when we all do better, we will all indeed do better. And when that happens we will all benefit from the psychic rewards of living and belonging and being in a strong community that values each of us. Now, as we live in a community where many of us feel separated and dependent on the few strongest and wealthiest, we all feel less connected and anxious for our futures and well-being. A better world is possible, and we can lead the way.

Paul Rozycki, Minneapolis


•••


Assuming nothing changes, this is a plea to Uber and Lyft to stick by their threat to leave the metro area. I hope it is not a bluff. It is clear that is the only way that citizens of our Twin Cities will wake up and experience firsthand the damage that is being done to our cities by continuing to vote for leaders with far-left liberal intentions. We voted for leaders who have little to no experience raising a family, running a business or holding a nongovernment job. Minneapolis voters asked for this through a citizens' vote. Now it is time to reap what we sow.

Matt Gulling, St. Paul


WORKER CLASSIFICATION

Keep us contractors flexible

I recently learned about the issue of worker misclassification in Minnesota and the potential cost implications for small businesses. While it's important to recognize that a major policy change could negatively affect local businesses, it's also crucial to acknowledge the potential harm such changes could inflict on workers like me.

I'm a recruiter, but I also make deliveries through a platform called DoorDash. This role provides me with total flexibility, allowing me to work on my own schedule and earn money at my convenience. As an independent contractor, I can log off as I wish, set my own hours, prioritize my family and deliver when it suits me to earn extra income. However, this task force could potentially risk it all. If I were to be reclassified as an employee, I would lose the freedom that originally attracted me to this job.

I am not alone in this sentiment. DoorDash recently published data indicating that 88% of Dashers dash primarily due to its unique flexibility. Furthermore, 91% of Dashers prefer to maintain their independent contractor status. It's important for lawmakers to consider the perspectives of independent contractors like me before making drastic changes to the system.

Ben Falconer, St. Paul


TEACHER PAY

What matters is hours worked

Regarding the recent letter "Fewer hours, lower pay" about teacher wages: If we're going to nitpick the numbers, let's nitpick the actual numbers.

I'll use myself as an example of a pretty typical teacher (at least when it comes to my contract). My contract year is 187 days. Roughly a dozen of those aren't "instructional days," but they're certainly days that I'm working. So, right off the bat we're looking at teachers working 40 fewer days than their peers in other careers, not 59.

My contract day is 7:10 a.m. to 2:50 p.m.; my only breaks are when I use my limited preparation time for a bathroom break and my 23-minute lunch. Teachers in my district recently reported working an average of 10 hours a week outside their contract time (planning, grading and doing all the things that make those instructional hours with students actually effective), and I'd say that's typical for me as well. With that extra time included and our absurdly short lunch excluded, that's about a 47-hour workweek, or an average of 9.4 hours a day.

Meanwhile, many of our peers in other careers are often only working 35 to 40 hours a week when considering extended lunches and additional breaks. Working 224 days a year at (a generous) eight hours a day amounts to 1,792 working hours a year for the typical 9-to-5er. Working 187 days a year at 9.4 hours a day amounts to about 1,757 hours a year.

So, sure, the letter writer's right. Teachers work about 2% fewer hours a year than many of their peers with similar college education. But I'm confused. Why are we making 28% less?

Mike Phillips, Minneapolis