Fraternal Order of Police Threads, Local #3

[OnionAhaiReborn]

OAR,

Can you address the difficulty Police Unions create (because of their automatic defense of any member regardless of cause) in opposing the termination of employment of police officers who abuse their authority? Police are here, ostensibly, to serve and protect the public trust. In making termination of officers who abuse their authority difficult you build up a cadre of bullies within a given department who have beaten attempts to remove them from their positions. They figure out how the "blue wall of silence" aka "soliderity with other union members" helps them retain their jobs and authority and they then work to reinforce the "blue wall of silence".

I guarantee that after body cams become the norm Police Unions will fight tooth and nail to keep out or minimize the evidence they present and also fight tooth and nail to prevent automatic dismissal of officers who's cameras repeatedly "malfunction". Cameras will help but they will not be a panecea. The objective evidence they present will be opposed by Police Unions because the Unions are to represent their membership regardless of what a particular member may or may not have done.

That's a problem for public officials who literally carry a license to kill in certain contexts.

You're correct that reflexively they'll protect their members, if you look back in this thread here's a story about he union protecting an officer who refused to tase a suicidal student, and was facing punishment for that.

I'll concede that far more often in the news we get stories of unions reflexively protecting members who have abused their power, but I think there is more we can do in the area of policy before we need to think about eliminating police unions. Big ones would be to end the war on drugs, stop the militarization of police forces, and disarm beat cops.

On the issue of the blue wall of silence, I do not imagine this would be eliminated with the elimination of unions. In fact, it might make it easier for institutional powers to cover up abuses if they have far greater power over their employees. Unions are protecting due process in the workplace, if you eliminate that and allow higher ups to railroad employees you open up to a new and potentially far more dangerous abuses.

I guess you didn't red a few pages back where i stated i have a large amount of respect for unions in general, and what unions did for the working class. So yes, those benefits were , at least partially, a result of having a union. Now, however, we need to think of a way to take power back from those very same unions. Scot gives a great example of why in the post right above this one.

Nope, I read that. You said you have respect for unions in general but don't think civil servants should be allowed to have them. Now it seems you're saying they should have been allowed to have them in the past but no longer, which is completely different. But it raises the question of why you believe this to be the case when the reasons you've raised for this position (taxpayer salary, conflict of interest, service position), are not new issues, but would have always been present for public sector unions.

I also strongly suspect that if you eliminate public sector unions you will watch these benefits erode, because there is a conflict of interests, for sure.

[Relic]

Another cop shot and killed in Florida. I really hope this isnt the start of a trend.

Nope, I read that. You said you have respect for unions in general but don't think civil servants should be allowed to have them. Now it seems you're saying they should have been allowed to have them in the past but no longer, which is completely different. But it raises the question of why you believe this to be the case when the reasons you've raised for this position (taxpayer salary, conflict of interest, service position), are not new issues, but would have always been present for public sector unions.

I also strongly suspect that if you eliminate public sector unions you will watch these benefits erode, because there is a conflict of interests, for sure.

Well, for one we can't change the past, so there is no point debating whether or not cops should have ever had unions. Two, im not sure if ive seen so much anger directed at police in America during my lifetime, which leads me to ask what we can do to re-integrate the police back into our communities as servants, and not as the overlords they appear to some. And i think unions stand in the way of being able to purge departments of bad apples and instituting harsh penalties for any cops who over step their mandate of serving nd protecting. Three, only 7% of the private sector belongs to a union.

[Relic]

fuck this board has been wonky. no idea why the rest of my post is gone. So, 7% of the private sector belongs to a union. and yeah, id say that a majority of the 93% who don't have seen a decline in their benefits. Which is why i suggested some sort of over sight to make sure that wouldn't happen to civil servants after forcing them to disband their unions.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

I'll respond to other points later on when I have more time, but on the issue of private sector unionization:

http://s1.epi.org/m/?src=http://www.epi.org/files/2012/snapshot-unionmembership.png&w=608

That doesn't get directly at "benefits," I guess, but the picture is clear.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

OAR,

And for the record while I tend to be hostile toward Unions I do see their utility. What frustrates me are Unions who refuse to see the utility of self-policing (pardon the pun) of their membership.

How much more public support would Unions enjoy if the public knew Unions policed their own for quality control or to prevent abuse of power?

[Relic]

I'll respond to other points later on when I have more time, but on the issue of private sector unionization:

http://s1.epi.org/m/?src=http://www.epi.org/files/2012/snapshot-unionmembership.png&w=608

That doesn't get directly at "benefits," I guess, but the picture is clear.

Agreed, clear snapshot. For the record I'm a staunch advocate of unions in the private sector.

[Talleyrand]

Hey, anyone remember those two cops killed by right wing extremists a little while back? The ones whose bodies were draped in the Gadsden flag? How there was a huge outcry and police organizers started saying they were now a wartime organization?

Oh, that response didn't happen? Odd. Wonder why.

Also the difference between Fox (and some others" responses on both these incidents. the Vegas murders were the actions of two clearly mentally unhinged individuals and clearly has nothing to do with nor reflects on Bundy, the Tea Party nor the ant-govt. messages pushed by media such as Limbaugh.

But this happens and according to Riveria and Fox News the protesters and anti-cop media are all at fault and at least partially responsible for this

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Another cop shot and killed in Florida. I really hope this isnt the start of a trend.

Well, for one we can't change the past, so there is no point debating whether or not cops should have ever had unions. Two, im not sure if ive seen so much anger directed at police in America during my lifetime, which leads me to ask what we can do to re-integrate the police back into our communities as servants, and not as the overlords they appear to some. And i think unions stand in the way of being able to purge departments of bad apples and instituting harsh penalties for any cops who over step their mandate of serving nd protecting. Three, only 7% of the private sector belongs to a union.

OAR,

And for the record while I tend to be hostile toward Unions I do see their utility. What frustrates me are Unions who refuse to see the utility of self-policing (pardon the pun) of their membership.

How much more public support would Unions enjoy if the public knew Unions policed their own for quality control or to prevent abuse of power?

I agree that it would be better if unions in general, and particularly police unions, were more willing to turn against their members who fuck-up or, more specific to police, abuse power. I also understand the frustration, even absolute outrage in lots of cases, when police unions circle wagons around cops who are clearly in the wrong.

I think, though, we have to look at the utility of unions and weigh it against the cost. And for me it's basically no contest that there is a greater benefit than there is a cost.

For starters there is the ability of unions to negotiate salaries and benefits for their employees. There is already, with unions, significant pressure on public sector employees with benefits being reduced and pay increases being slowed. It's not quite the same pressure of private sector incentive to increase profits by immiserating workers, but there is still a contest here over how to distribute wealth with pressure from competing interests. Recent pressure is in part due to budget pressure from the recession and in part because politicians want to direct money (sometimes in the form of tax breaks) to their supporters.

For bad public servants being shielded from accountability or firing, I think we have to consider this in the same terms we consider the criminal justice system. How many guilty are we willing to let go free in order to prevent innocents from being wrongly punished? I think for the most part we all acknowledge to some extent the principle that we'd prefer more guilty people to go free than innocents wrongly punished. Similarly, we should consider the prospect of good public servants being fired or scapegoated by incompetent, malicious, or self-protecting management.

In an area where we're looking to increase accountability, as with law enforcement, this might be especially pressing. We should want to encourage people to come forward and expose abuses, and one way of doing that is to have some kind of institutional support, like a union, with the resources and know-how to protect its members. A lot of police abuse is coming from the top down, and with political pressure of leaders looking to cater to the needs of certain segments of the population to the great detriment of others- eliminating unions only makes it easier for pressure to be exerted from the top-down, by increasing their leeway to act as they please and to punish dissent.

I don't think the status quo is acceptable, I agree there is a level of anger against police that I've never seen in my lifetime, and reform is needed. But I think there are far better and more important things we can do before we even consider eliminating unions, which I suspect would not solve anything but would instead cause new problems and perhaps exacerbate current problems.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

OAR,

For bad public servants being shielded from accountability or firing, I think we have to consider this in the same terms we consider the criminal justice system. How many guilty are we willing to let go free in order to prevent innocents from being wrongly punished? I think for the most part we all acknowledge to some extent the principle that we'd prefer more guilty people to go free than innocents wrongly punished. Similarly, we should consider the prospect of good public servants being fired or scapegoated by incompetent, malicious, or self-protecting management.

I think that's a poor analogy. These people are employed as public servants. Make it next to impossible to fire someone for negligence or even recklessness/intentional malisciousness harms the people they are supposed to serve. They are not being incarcerated by the State they are being terminated by an employer for cause.

Failure to hold public employees accountable for their failings increases distrust and cynicism toward those are public servants who are genuinely trying to do their jobs properly and government in general.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

OAR,

I think that's a poor analogy. These people are employed as public servants. Make it next to impossible to fire someone for negligence or even recklessness/intentional malisciousness harms the people they are supposed to serve. They are not being incarcerated by the State they are being terminated by an employer for cause.

Failure to hold public employees accountable for their failings increases distrust and cynicism toward those are public servants who are genuinely trying to do their jobs properly and government in general.

Public employees do get fired, including cops. I reject the characterization that it's "next to impossible," that's far too extreme a claim.

The question is, is it worth having people fired without good cause so that it's easier to fire those who probably deserve to be fired but aren't, and, if so, at what threshold is it no longer worth it? Is it better that 2 should be wrongfully fired so that 1 is fired for good reason when they might not otherwise be, or is it the opposite?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

OAR,

If my characterization is innacurate how do you explain this story:

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/12/cleveland_police_union_defends.html#incart_river

From the article:

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- A Cleveland police officer fired after a drunken bar fight where he lost his service weapon and badge and didn't tell his supervisors about it for days has returned to the force after a federal arbitrator ruled his firing was excessive.

Daniel Flannery won back his job in part because the head of the union that represents Cleveland police officers argued that there are officers on the force who have done much worse and were not fired.

This officer lost his badge and firearm in a drunken bar fight. To argue that "others have done far worse and kept their jobs" like that's a good thing is so wrong I don't know where to start.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

OAR,

If my characterization is innacurate how do you explain this story:

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/12/cleveland_police_union_defends.html#incart_river

From the article:

This officer lost his badge and firearm in a drunken bar fight. To argue that "others have done far worse and kept their jobs" like that's a good thing is so wrong I don't know where to start.

I explain it as anecdote. I'm not saying you shouldn't be outraged over it, but it hardly justified a sweeping claim about it being next to impossible for cops to be fired.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2014/11/port_authority_police_hoboken_bar.html

Nine freshly-minted Port Authority Police officers are being fired and three supervisors disciplined following a rowdy celebration at a Hoboken bar after graduation from the police academy, the agency announced today.

If we look at this story- which I just found after a second of googling- we could say the exact opposite by that reasoning, that it's amazingly easy to fire lots of cops!

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

OAR,

How does seniority play into your anicdote?

[awesome possum]

NYPD cops abuse and kill citizens, it's business as usual. A couple NYPD cops are killed by a mentally unhinged jackass and it's now a "wartime" organization.

One person offering clear directives to the cops: Patrick Lynch, their union president, who asked them to sign an emotionally manipulative letter banning de Blasio from their hypothetical future funeral, and who actually said on Saturday night that there was “blood on their hands [of] those that incited violence on the street under the guise of protest … [blood] on the steps of city hall, in the office of the mayor”.

Yes, the cops blamed the protesters. (So did Rudy Giuliani, but don’t get me started on him.) Even more chilling, the police union declared that the NYPD has “become a ‘wartime’ police department. We will act accordingly.”

My immediate reaction when I read this news was the same as drawk and Littlefinger: good. And then the empathetic human in me was like, "That's stupid, it's not good." There are cops in the NYPD who do deserve to face justice and never will, but no one deserves to be murdered, ever.

However, fuck the NYPD and their piece of shit corrupt union after this response. Fuck them and their cowardly, hateful, wannabe Storm Trooper asses.

[The Notorious]

It's amazing to see the level of moral bankruptcy the far left has sunk to in their insane demand to dismantle public unions and the right of collective bargaining. I think what we are seeing is the capturing of the far left by the far right as they intertwined and merged.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

OAR,

How does seniority play into your anicdote?

Worked out better for more senior officers. As, quite frankly, it should. They've built a track record they shouldn't be treated the same.

I can come up with more anecdotes with more googling, too:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/elgin/chi-elgin-cop-fired-after-facebook-comment-20140929-story.html

The Elgin Police Department has fired an officer for making disparaging remarks on Facebook, including a comment about the Ferguson, Mo. teen shot dead by police, officials said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/04/28/knoxville-cop-fired-immediately-after-photos-show-brutal-choking-of-student/

Usually, after charges of police brutality, police officials take their time reacting while they follow procedure to determine who did what. But this episode in Knoxville, Tenn., was so extreme and well-documented that the local sheriff fired the officer immediately.

Frank Phillips, a Knox County Sheriff’s officer, was fired Sunday night after a series of pictures taken by photographer John Messner were published in the Daily Mail in Britain. They showed an officer identified by the Sheriff’s Office as Phillips grabbing 21-year-old college student Jarod Dotson around the neck and squeezing him until he fell to his knees.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/05/11/texas-cop-who-fatally-shot-93-year-old-is-fired/8966087/

A Texas cop who fatally shot a 93-year-old woman following a family dispute has been fired.

Hearne Police Officer Stephen Stem was dismissed Saturday by the Hearne City Council, four days after long-time resident Pearlie Golden was shot at multiple times at her home, about 140 miles south of Dallas.

And here's one that looks, on it's face, pretty unjust:

http://www.wkbw.com/news/fired-buffalo-cop-id-do-it-again

Former Buffalo Police officer Cariol Horne in a battle to get her pension. She was fired for trying to stop a fellow officer she says was abusing a suspect.

[The Notorious]

OAR,

How does seniority play into your anicdote?

Scot,

Is there a problem you have with the concept of probationary period?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

OAR,

Well, look at the Cleveland story I link to. The officer in that case was fired. He just didn't stay fired. Do you really want an officer back on the force who lost his badge and service weapon in a drunken bar fight? Much less other officers who have gotten their jobs back after doing things their Union rep says were worse?

How many of your anicdotes will stay fired?

[The Notorious]

Cool story, bro.

Cool. I have you remember what Ormond wrote about you sometimes ago and hopefully took it to heart.

[awesome possum]

Cool. I have you remember what Ormond wrote about you sometimes ago and hopefully took it to heart.

Neat! I have you remember what you wrote about me sometimes ago and hopefully took it to mean this sentence doesn't make a lick of sense.