It implies that these two should be directly related without acknowledging any other contributing factors. It’s implying “overtime is a function of staffing, s

It implies that these two should be directly related without acknowledging any other contributing factors. It’s implying “overtime is a function of staffing, staffing went up so overtime should go down”. What if the population went up? What if there’s more work for 1 person to do for whatever reason, like some new process? What if crime rates changed? What if traffic beats were more demanding due to new roads or whatever? The rest of the data in the article is more damning and directly correlated to the point they’re trying to make. This specific data point just raises more questions than answers and feels like they’re trying to dogpile instead of being journalists, and it would have made their case stronger if they left it out, imo.