Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Worthless officer needs a blanket party

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Curt5811 View Post

    The downside? I'm not seeing it.
    The downside is that these other guys pay union dues too. Who is defending their rights not to get injured or killed because they work with a $***bag? The bosses? The city? The union?

    The answer is nobody.
    I make my living on Irish welfare.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Curt5811 View Post

      I understand your frustration, but I can't agree. The union has to defend him. That's their purpose. As was pointed out, the investigation is still ongoing. Of course they're going to minimize.
      And that's why people hate unions. That attitude is a disservice to all the hard working legit members there are. The union should be defending people from BS, ensuring the proper process is done when people mess up.... but it's not their job to minimize excuse screw ups, or try and get off someone who is a liability. They are burning political capital for someone who doesn't deserve it. When they next cop is on the hot seat for something he doesn't deserve, the union won't be taken seriously by people.

      Member representation is high level politics, public relations, and strategy... it's not some knuckle dragging crap where we just do everything the same all the time.
      Last edited by nobodyjr; 03-01-2018, 09:55 PM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by reils49 View Post
        The downside is that these other guys pay union dues too. Who is defending their rights not to get injured or killed because they work with a $***bag? The bosses? The city? The union?

        The answer is nobody.
        Originally posted by nobodyjr View Post
        And that's why people hate unions. That attitude is a disservice to all the hard working legit members there are. The union should be defending people from BS, ensuring the proper process is done when people mess up.... but it's not their job to minimize excuse screw ups, or try and get off someone who is a liability. They are burning political capital for someone who doesn't deserve it. When they next cop is on the hot seat for something he doesn't deserve, the union won't be taken seriously by people.

        Member representation is high level politics, public relations, and strategy... it's not some knuckle dragging crap where we just do everything the same all the time.
        Again... your ire and disgust is misplaced. It's not the union's responsibility to weed out bad officers. That is Admin's job. It's the union's job to defend the accused officer and ensure his rights are strictly observed. Innocent until proven guilty, based on an properly conducted objective investigation and review of the evidence.

        Nobody, you seem to be saying that the union should first decide if the accusation against the officer is BS, then only support and defend him if they believe he's a good guy. That's not how it works. They can't pick and choose which member is 'good' and which member is 'bad'. That's introducing personal feelings and animosities which can change depending on which union official is doing the deciding. In the case of disciplinary matters, the union should act like a defense attorney, and do their best to defend the officer despite their personal feelings. That tells the membership the union will do it's best to defend you no matter what.

        I think you would feel differently if you ever have an incident go completely sideways on you, and it turn out to be politically advantageous for your command staff to throw you to the wolves, despite a solid career of good work. I cant tell you how important it is to have some people in your corner. The price we pay for having that protection is that sometimes idiots get protection we feel they may not "deserve".
        You can trust just about every officer you work with to risk their life to save yours, but don't ever leave your lunch in the breakroom refrigerator.

        Comment


        • #19
          When I was a steward........I had no problem filing grievances when someone received discipline. It didn't matter to me one whit if the person screwed the pooch real bad. I wanted management to follow the correct procedures so they didn't get lazy (as they are want to do). The only thing worse than a lazy officer is a lazy supervisor / manager.

          Like Curt's incident noted above, we had a guy that was terrible. He was caught sleeping on duty several times and finally they decided to fire him. I represented him as the original steward. Sure enough the state made a fatal mistake in process when they terminated him.
          He got his job back about 1 yr after all the paperwork went through the courts.
          BUT like the OTHER people we deal with.............he was caught again and this time the termination lasted.

          I caught a lot of crap over that one but I still believe the union representation process is needed in our profession. I also told the membership that everyone got represented and that the union held managements toes to the fire according to the contract. MOST of the members understood WHY that was necessary.

          As a steward I saw a lot of managerial abuse. That is what inspired me to get active in the union in the first place. As a steward I also saw a lot of idiots that had no business in law enforcement and I saw how management both passed them over and how they "protected" certain people. I had a hard time PERSONALLY watching bad officers repeatedly doing crap stuff and getting away with it BUT I had no control over that.........

          I might add (like Curt did) about the defense attorney.......................I have never had a problem with them doing what was necessary at defending their criminal. This profession is a game and whoever plays it the best wins. SOMETIMES. But one thing I found out during the last 42 yrs is that we ALWAYS get another shot at 99 percent of the criminals. If we loose today we WILL have another chance tomorrow.

          Bad employees are the same. Management will get another chance at them .................. Remember that our justice systems is predicated on the premise that it is better to go overboard on the "rights" of the criminal...............it should also be that way on the "rights" of the officer.

          The union leadership can at some point decide that the case is not winnable. That normally comes after the first round of hearings where they get ALL the investigatory reports and hear the total case against the officer. BUT because they are dues paying member the officer still gets at least a minimum of service YOU WOULD WANT it if you were in a bad place

          I totally agree that once a person is involved in a situation where they were railroaded or were truly "wronged" they get a different outlook on the union situation BTDT when I was at an agency that had a weak union. The "other members" should remember that the union would do the same for them.........

          ANY person who doesn't think that management won't throw you under the bus if it looks like you MIGHT be in trouble should only look as far as Darren Wilson or
          , Caesar R. Goodson,Garrett E. Miller,Edward M. Nero,William G. Porter,Lieutenant Brian W. Rice, and Sergeant Alicia D. White and the **** show of Maryiln Mosby

          After 15 yrs as a supervisor / manager and now & more yrs as a "lead worker" in my double dipping job.................I STILL believe in the union system


          Now.........................as to the original post. That dirt bag needs a blanket party. In my area no one would work with him. No one would talk to him unless it was necessary & no one would go out of their way to assist him in routine matters. He would still get emergency assistance and other necessary backup but he wouldn't be a "brother"

          But until he was no longer an employee (after all appeals) he would be represented.
          Last edited by Iowa #1603; 03-02-2018, 07:27 AM.
          Since some people need to be told by notes in crayon .......Don't PM me with without prior permission. If you can't discuss the situation in the open forum ----it must not be that important

          My new word for the day is FOCUS, when someone irritates you tell them to FOCUS

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Curt5811 View Post

            I think you would feel differently if you ever have an incident go completely sideways on you, and it turn out to be politically advantageous for your command staff to throw you to the wolves, despite a solid career of good work. I cant tell you how important it is to have some people in your corner. The price we pay for having that protection is that sometimes idiots get protection we feel they may not "deserve".
            I have been on the receiving end of an incident investigation several times. Twice for what we call “critical incidents”. I greatly appreciated the assistance and I’ve said it before that I don’t envy cops working in non-union jobs.

            My initial comment was about what you said in your last sentence. I pay over a thousand bucks a year to be in a union. You call them and say “hey it’s an officer safety concern that we don’t have rifles” they give you some BS response. Yet when you sleep your whole shift, duck your calls or generally **** off they come running in to save you.
            I make my living on Irish welfare.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by reils49 View Post

              I have been on the receiving end of an incident investigation several times. Twice for what we call “critical incidents”. I greatly appreciated the assistance and I’ve said it before that I don’t envy cops working in non-union jobs.

              My initial comment was about what you said in your last sentence. I pay over a thousand bucks a year to be in a union. You call them and say “hey it’s an officer safety concern that we don’t have rifles” they give you some BS response. Yet when you sleep your whole shift, duck your calls or generally **** off they come running in to save you.
              Yea sometimes it sucks...................................and sometimes it matters what the contract says because the union also has to deal with things they are allowed to negotiate over.

              Again I have BTDT with things we were spanked on by arbitrators in the past and we were later asked to do again. When you tell the member that we "can't do anything about that because"...............they don't want to hear it because it is important to them .

              What I encourage people to do is ..................get involved in your union. Once in a leadership position you get to see the politics involved in doing all that stuff your dues pays for. You find out that what looks "easy to understand" .........isn't easy. You find out that there is a lot of give and take (called negotiations) involved in almost every action. You see that none of your stewards get paid enough to do what they do.

              I got paid NOTHING.....Yes ZERO DOLLARS.. for my steward work. I had to take vacation to go to training, conventions, and sometimes hearings. Yet I got bitched at about how I needed to do more because that was what he/ she was paying me to do.

              Perfect system ...........not even close. Better than an at will employment ...............yea.

              Since some people need to be told by notes in crayon .......Don't PM me with without prior permission. If you can't discuss the situation in the open forum ----it must not be that important

              My new word for the day is FOCUS, when someone irritates you tell them to FOCUS

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Curt5811 View Post



                Again... your ire and disgust is misplaced. It's not the union's responsibility to weed out bad officers. That is Admin's job. It's the union's job to defend the accused officer and ensure his rights are strictly observed. Innocent until proven guilty, based on an properly conducted objective investigation and review of the evidence.

                Nobody, you seem to be saying that the union should first decide if the accusation against the officer is BS, then only support and defend him if they believe he's a good guy. That's not how it works. They can't pick and choose which member is 'good' and which member is 'bad'. That's introducing personal feelings and animosities which can change depending on which union official is doing the deciding. In the case of disciplinary matters, the union should act like a defense attorney, and do their best to defend the officer despite their personal feelings. That tells the membership the union will do it's best to defend you no matter what.

                I think you would feel differently if you ever have an incident go completely sideways on you, and it turn out to be politically advantageous for your command staff to throw you to the wolves, despite a solid career of good work. I cant tell you how important it is to have some people in your corner. The price we pay for having that protection is that sometimes idiots get protection we feel they may not "deserve".
                The union's job is to benefit all their members #1, and also to ensure their rights are upheld. Publicly defending a screw up, before an investigation is done, hurts the first goal. In this case there is no defense for this, it's obviously he hurt the team. As a union you can just shut up and make sure he has a rep at his interview and that the process is done fairly without hurting everyone else. It's not the union's job to give a public defense when he doesn't deserve one. It hurts every other member. You have to balance it out. A statement like "the member admits he made a mistake and we are ensuring he goes through a fair discipline process." Would have been fine, but I would have made no statement at all. The statement they gave was minimizing it though. That does all the other members harm--- because it's obviously a bunch of BS. It's also not the unions job to get off cops who screwed up... it's the unions job to make sure discipline is fair and everyone rights are given to them. A defense attorney has an obligation to his client only.... the union has an obligation to everyone. It's very different.
                Last edited by nobodyjr; 03-02-2018, 10:40 AM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  I really can't talk about the whole "not going hands on " bit but what the heck is up with that video? No wonder most places don't want people on the social media.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by nobodyjr View Post

                    The union's job is to benefit all their members #1, and also to ensure their rights are upheld. Publicly defending a screw up, before an investigation is done, hurts the first goal. In this case there is no defense for this, it's obviously he hurt the team. As a union you can just shut up and make sure he has a rep at his interview and that the process is done fairly without hurting everyone else. It's not the union's job to give a public defense when he doesn't deserve one. It hurts every other member. You have to balance it out. A statement like "the member admits he made a mistake and we are ensuring he goes through a fair discipline process." Would have been fine, but I would have made no statement at all. The statement they gave was minimizing it though. That does all the other members harm--- because it's obviously a bunch of BS. It's also not the unions job to get off cops who screwed up... it's the unions job to make sure discipline is fair and everyone rights are given to them. A defense attorney has an obligation to his client only.... the union has an obligation to everyone. It's very different.
                    We will have to agree to disagree on this.

                    It would be malpractice to allow the bold statement above until all discipline / legal investigations have concluded


                    The employee that is being investigated has just as many rights as "ALL THEIR MEMBERS" and even if in the wrong deserves full representation and confidence until the process is exhausted. If the union doesn't make that stand so the member will trust them to "have their backs" the union looses it credibility . The leadership can articulate to the rest of the members that it is often necessary for the solidarity DURING the process.

                    I had a situation where the officer was swearing to us that he was not the person administration was saying was calling an ex inmate from our facility who got transferred to another prison . He was a long time member who we trusted. Investigators told us that we were backing the wrong guy.........we continued with the arbitration process strongly. The IA investigator took two of us off grounds and played us the audio tape of the conversation recorded at the other prison IN word and in description it was obvious the employee was lying to his union.

                    We finished the grievance step we were on and then backed off telling the guy to pound sand But we didn't do that until we had the evidence that he was lying to us. THAT broke the trust and the bond we worked on It was then easy to tell the other members WHY we stopped backing the employee.

                    NOW , would I want to say the things this union representative did under these circumstances.................I don't know. Not my case, not my monkeys not my zoo. I wasn't there.

                    and the Stewards "client' is not the union.............IT IS the employee. AND there is case law to prove it . I don't remember the cases and don't really care to do the research..........but I assure you it is there

                    Read here https://www.ueunion.org/stwd_dfr.html
                    Last edited by Iowa #1603; 03-02-2018, 02:41 PM.
                    Since some people need to be told by notes in crayon .......Don't PM me with without prior permission. If you can't discuss the situation in the open forum ----it must not be that important

                    My new word for the day is FOCUS, when someone irritates you tell them to FOCUS

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by reils49 View Post
                      My initial comment was about what you said in your last sentence. I pay over a thousand bucks a year to be in a union. You call them and say “hey it’s an officer safety concern that we don’t have rifles” they give you some BS response. Yet when you sleep your whole shift, duck your calls or generally **** off they come running in to save you.
                      I get what you're saying, and to a lesser extent, I agree. The union could communicate to the Administration that the membership feels they need patrol rifles. However, the union can't make the Admin to earmark funds to buy them, authorize the use and develop a policy, or train the agency. Saying "Officer safety" isn't going to cut it.

                      You have to understand... there are some things the union has a say in, and there are things it doesn't. Labor law/employee or civil service rules IS something the union can go to bat over. The equipment the agency provides or chooses not to provide, generally is NOT something the union has a say in. If the agency gets a better deal buying Ford Explorers than it does Chevy Tahoes, guess which SUV you're getting. Management rights. The union won't have boo to say.

                      The union reps will also come running to save you if some low-life files a bogus complaint of misconduct or excessive Use of Force.
                      You can trust just about every officer you work with to risk their life to save yours, but don't ever leave your lunch in the breakroom refrigerator.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Curt5811 View Post


                        The union reps will also come running to save you if some low-life files a bogus complaint of misconduct or excessive Use of Force.
                        EVEN if you were a bit overzealous or if you appeared to be heavy handed.

                        Since some people need to be told by notes in crayon .......Don't PM me with without prior permission. If you can't discuss the situation in the open forum ----it must not be that important

                        My new word for the day is FOCUS, when someone irritates you tell them to FOCUS

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          At the end of the day, I view unions the same way I view politicians, paying taxes or going to the dentist.

                          Necessary evils.
                          I make my living on Irish welfare.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Man what's the point of being a police officer for him? It was a mental health crisis, those officers are trying to get that man help and this guy is worried about an investigation? You aren't just helping your brothers control a dangerous situation, but helping a civilian. At what point does dereliction of duty come into play?

                            Comment

                            MR300x250 Tablet

                            Collapse

                            What's Going On

                            Collapse

                            There are currently 6792 users online. 269 members and 6523 guests.

                            Most users ever online was 19,482 at 11:44 AM on 09-29-2011.

                            Welcome Ad

                            Collapse
                            Working...
                            X