Memo To Police Unions

[Star]

.

"One of the banners so often waved in teachers’ faces is the canard that unions protect the incompetent, the extrapolation of this is, of course, do away with the union and the problem will be solved." ~ Desert Beacon​

Memo To Police Union Reps: Do Be Careful, Please
By Desert Beacon
December 27, 2014

<snip>

As long as the police are keeping such movements as the “99%” Occupy Whatever under control the powers that be will be supportive.

However, there’s a chink in the Kevlar. The police are fine as long as they don’t ask for “exorbitant” overtime pay, or get negotiated pension benefits which appear “too large.” United Airlines is bristling at the pay for security personnel (police/firefighters) at the Newark airport. [ChAviation] Wages for Port Authority Police are under scrutiny as some veteran officers earn six figure salaries – one example, which is not identified as an outlier, given as $221,000. [NBC]

<snip>

Now “unions” come under fire for “putting the needs of the teacher ahead of the needs of the students” for daring to declare that a salary schedule might need enhancement to meet the financial needs of the teachers in the system. Once again, the question is framed NOT as how revenue might be generated to pay teachers what they are worth and what they need, but how demands for salary increases are jeopardizing the services the school can provide. So-called ‘reformers’ come from the woodwork and every other conceivable direction to tell the general public that in order to ‘improve’ education the union must be broken, and teacher paid based on some matrix of quantifiable factors – as if education and schooling were one and the same.

The police unions are perilously close to the edge of the ‘public employees at the trough’ and ‘protectors of the incompetent’ charges when they negotiate wages and benefits. Once more, when it’s a question of controlling the ‘great unwashed’ the conservatives are supportive, but when it comes to a question of paying for that ‘protection’ the conservatives are willing to slip easily into their Taxpayer Protector mode – not the regular garden variety taxpayer, but the tax benefited, bond holding, variety.

It’s almost guaranteed that when the police negotiators come up against those who want to protect bondholders and tax break benefited interests their status as “public servants” at servants’ wages will be inserted into the public discussion. One of the banners so often waved in teachers’ faces is the canard that unions protect the incompetent, the extrapolation of this is, of course, do away with the union and the problem will be solved.

Policeman Police Thyself. There’s a way to defend against the latter charge, but it requires some humility. The boisterous defense of police activities by union leadership in St. Louis, Cleveland, and New York City, may ring well to the rank and file in the short term; however, it doesn’t take too much effort for the other shoe to drop – a public perception that the union is protecting incompetent officers. Therefore, it might be recommended that:

Police union leadership should remind the public that the union is protecting the contract, not necessarily the actions of a few officers. If the master agreement calls for a specific response to matters of suspension, demotion, or dismissal, then the union should insure the due process rights of its membership. After all, the union is collecting dues, and those dues include defense of the person and the contract provisions.

Perhaps instead of caterwauling about an attack on the police from an uncooperative community, the union representative might want to say, “Officer X is facing some very serious charges, charges which could result in his suspension, demotion, or dismissal, and his union is tasked with defending his due process rights under our master agreement at every step in that process.”

If more comment is deemed necessary, then something like the following could be offered: “Officer X is guaranteed by our contract to have every opportunity to present his defense, and we will help him present it.” (It isn’t necessary for the representative to add in public — “If he can dream one up.”)

The foregoing hypothetical allows the union to present its case as a defense of the contract provisions – and how many people don’t believe that contracts should be honored? – instead of taking the posture that even the most egregious actions by an individual union member should be fiercely defended in the public domain.

<snip>
.

 

[TheOldSchool]

 

[Iceweasel]

What a load of crap. Cops get assigned overtime whether they want it or not. The fact that the natives are restless is due to the racial agitators who assume guilt until proven innocent. BUT, that said, all this is lining their pockets, glad somebody figured it out. Maybe it was a plot?

 

[ScienceRocks]

But you demand that the cops not use force to stop thugs from destroying hundreds of businesses. So you support destruction and crime...yet, you get all pissed off when cops finally say fuck it.

Your entire belief system is based on lies and bs.

 

[Star]

But you demand that the cops not use force to stop thugs from destroying hundreds of businesses. So you support destruction and crime...yet, you get all pissed off when cops finally say fuck it.

Your entire belief system is based on lies and bs.

Nope, you're way out in right field.

And-----and why the meaningless personal attack? A personal attack without a response to the OP article is a waste of time and space? But if that's the way you want to roll... the 1st Amendment is your friend but-----but your post adds nothing to the dialogue.

I can't speak for everybody but-----but I'm guessing most people, like me, are not anti-police, but please explain why you-----you and some police unions support the few incompetent cops out there, cops that have taken an oath to protect and defend us?

Are you a union wo/man?
.

 

[The Rabbi]

Was that supposed to mean something?

 

[Iceweasel]

I can't speak for everybody but-----but I'm guessing most people, like me, are not anti-police, but please explain why you-----you and some police unions support the few incompetent cops out there, cops that have taken an oath to protect and defend us?

You aren't particularly bright. Unions are supposed to help their members, that's one of their purposes. Unions don't decide on the competence/incompetence and liberal agitators certainly aren't in a position to make the legal determination. There are systems in place for that, whether you approve or not doesn't matter.

Cops swear an oath to the Constitution, not protection and defence. You watch too much TV.

 

[Star]

I can't speak for everybody but-----but I'm guessing most people, like me, are not anti-police, but please explain why you-----you and some police unions support the few incompetent cops out there, cops that have taken an oath to protect and defend us?

You aren't particularly bright. Unions are supposed to help their members, that's one of their purposes. Unions don't decide on the competence/incompetence and liberal agitators certainly aren't in a position to make the legal determination. There are systems in place for that, whether you approve or not doesn't matter.

Cops swear an oath to the Constitution, not protection and defence. You watch too much TV.

Just a guess but-----but I'm guessing you're fine with teacher unions defending incompetent teachers too?

But that's not what the author of the article in the OP is writing about. The article (if you had read it before commenting on it, you'd know) is saying; the unions that are defending incompetence [some do, some don't] should change their blind support for incompetence to something like "Officer X is facing some very serious charges, charges which could result in his suspension, demotion, or dismissal, and his union is tasked with defending his due process rights under our master agreement at every step in that process.”
If more comment is deemed necessary, then something like the following could be offered: “Officer X is guaranteed by our contract to have every opportunity to present his defense, and we will help him present it.”

If police unions continue to defend incompetent cops rather than; the right of all cops to due process they'll alienate even more of we the people than they already have and-----and if they lose our respect, their job becomes exponentially more difficult.
And hopefully-----hopefully by Republicans/conservatives get their way and more people begin carrying weapons more cops won't get shot by people seeking justice FROM the police.

It’s almost guaranteed that when the police negotiators come up against those who want to protect bondholders and tax break benefited interests their status as “public servants” at servants’ wages will be inserted into the public discussion. One of the banners so often waved in teachers’ faces is the canard that unions protect the incompetent, the extrapolation of this is, of course, do away with the union and the problem will be solved.
Policeman Police Thyself. There’s a way to defend against the latter charge, but it requires some humility. The boisterous defense of police activities by union leadership in St. Louis, Cleveland, and New York City, may ring well to the rank and file in the short term; however, it doesn’t take too much effort for the other shoe to drop – a public perception that the union is protecting incompetent officers. Therefore, it might be recommended that:
Police union leadership should remind the public that the union is protecting the contract, not necessarily the actions of a few officers. If the master agreement calls for a specific response to matters of suspension, demotion, or dismissal, then the union should insure the due process rights of its membership. After all, the union is collecting dues, and those dues include defense of the person and the contract provisions.
Perhaps instead of caterwauling about an attack on the police from an uncooperative community, the union representative might want to say, “Officer X is facing some very serious charges, charges which could result in his suspension, demotion, or dismissal, and his union is tasked with defending his due process rights under our master agreement at every step in that process.”
If more comment is deemed necessary, then something like the following could be offered: “Officer X is guaranteed by our contract to have every opportunity to present his defense, and we will help him present it.” (It isn’t necessary for the representative to add in public — “If he can dream one up.”)
The foregoing hypothetical allows the union to present its case as a defense of the contract provisions – and how many people don’t believe that contracts should be honored? – instead of taking the posture that even the most egregious actions by an individual union member should be fiercely defended in the public domain.
.

 

[jwoodie]

I can't speak for everybody but-----but I'm guessing most people, like me, are not anti-police, but please explain why you-----you and some police unions support the few incompetent cops out there, cops that have taken an oath to protect and defend us?

You aren't particularly bright. Unions are supposed to help their members, that's one of their purposes. Unions don't decide on the competence/incompetence and liberal agitators certainly aren't in a position to make the legal determination. There are systems in place for that, whether you approve or not doesn't matter.

Cops swear an oath to the Constitution, not protection and defence. You watch too much TV.

Just a guess but-----but I'm guessing you're fine with teacher unions defending incompetent teachers too?

But that's not what the author of the article in the OP is writing about. The article (if you had read it before commenting on it, you'd know) is saying; the unions that are defending incompetence [some do, some don't] should change their blind support for incompetence to something like "Officer X is facing some very serious charges, charges which could result in his suspension, demotion, or dismissal, and his union is tasked with defending his due process rights under our master agreement at every step in that process.”
If more comment is deemed necessary, then something like the following could be offered: “Officer X is guaranteed by our contract to have every opportunity to present his defense, and we will help him present it.”

If police unions continue to defend incompetent cops rather than; the right of all cops to due process they'll alienate even more of we the people than they already have and-----and if they lose our respect, their job becomes exponentially more difficult.
And hopefully-----hopefully by Republicans/conservatives get their way and more people begin carrying weapons more cops won't get shot by people seeking justice FROM the police.

It’s almost guaranteed that when the police negotiators come up against those who want to protect bondholders and tax break benefited interests their status as “public servants” at servants’ wages will be inserted into the public discussion. One of the banners so often waved in teachers’ faces is the canard that unions protect the incompetent, the extrapolation of this is, of course, do away with the union and the problem will be solved.
Policeman Police Thyself. There’s a way to defend against the latter charge, but it requires some humility. The boisterous defense of police activities by union leadership in St. Louis, Cleveland, and New York City, may ring well to the rank and file in the short term; however, it doesn’t take too much effort for the other shoe to drop – a public perception that the union is protecting incompetent officers. Therefore, it might be recommended that:
Police union leadership should remind the public that the union is protecting the contract, not necessarily the actions of a few officers. If the master agreement calls for a specific response to matters of suspension, demotion, or dismissal, then the union should insure the due process rights of its membership. After all, the union is collecting dues, and those dues include defense of the person and the contract provisions.
Perhaps instead of caterwauling about an attack on the police from an uncooperative community, the union representative might want to say, “Officer X is facing some very serious charges, charges which could result in his suspension, demotion, or dismissal, and his union is tasked with defending his due process rights under our master agreement at every step in that process.”
If more comment is deemed necessary, then something like the following could be offered: “Officer X is guaranteed by our contract to have every opportunity to present his defense, and we will help him present it.” (It isn’t necessary for the representative to add in public — “If he can dream one up.”)
The foregoing hypothetical allows the union to present its case as a defense of the contract provisions – and how many people don’t believe that contracts should be honored? – instead of taking the posture that even the most egregious actions by an individual union member should be fiercely defended in the public domain.
.

.

"One of the banners so often waved in teachers’ faces is the canard that unions protect the incompetent, the extrapolation of this is, of course, do away with the union and the problem will be solved." ~ Desert Beacon​

Memo To Police Union Reps: Do Be Careful, Please
By Desert Beacon
December 27, 2014

<snip>

As long as the police are keeping such movements as the “99%” Occupy Whatever under control the powers that be will be supportive.

However, there’s a chink in the Kevlar. The police are fine as long as they don’t ask for “exorbitant” overtime pay, or get negotiated pension benefits which appear “too large.” United Airlines is bristling at the pay for security personnel (police/firefighters) at the Newark airport. [ChAviation] Wages for Port Authority Police are under scrutiny as some veteran officers earn six figure salaries – one example, which is not identified as an outlier, given as $221,000. [NBC]

<snip>

Now “unions” come under fire for “putting the needs of the teacher ahead of the needs of the students” for daring to declare that a salary schedule might need enhancement to meet the financial needs of the teachers in the system. Once again, the question is framed NOT as how revenue might be generated to pay teachers what they are worth and what they need, but how demands for salary increases are jeopardizing the services the school can provide. So-called ‘reformers’ come from the woodwork and every other conceivable direction to tell the general public that in order to ‘improve’ education the union must be broken, and teacher paid based on some matrix of quantifiable factors – as if education and schooling were one and the same.

The police unions are perilously close to the edge of the ‘public employees at the trough’ and ‘protectors of the incompetent’ charges when they negotiate wages and benefits. Once more, when it’s a question of controlling the ‘great unwashed’ the conservatives are supportive, but when it comes to a question of paying for that ‘protection’ the conservatives are willing to slip easily into their Taxpayer Protector mode – not the regular garden variety taxpayer, but the tax benefited, bond holding, variety.

It’s almost guaranteed that when the police negotiators come up against those who want to protect bondholders and tax break benefited interests their status as “public servants” at servants’ wages will be inserted into the public discussion. One of the banners so often waved in teachers’ faces is the canard that unions protect the incompetent, the extrapolation of this is, of course, do away with the union and the problem will be solved.

Policeman Police Thyself. There’s a way to defend against the latter charge, but it requires some humility. The boisterous defense of police activities by union leadership in St. Louis, Cleveland, and New York City, may ring well to the rank and file in the short term; however, it doesn’t take too much effort for the other shoe to drop – a public perception that the union is protecting incompetent officers. Therefore, it might be recommended that:

Police union leadership should remind the public that the union is protecting the contract, not necessarily the actions of a few officers. If the master agreement calls for a specific response to matters of suspension, demotion, or dismissal, then the union should insure the due process rights of its membership. After all, the union is collecting dues, and those dues include defense of the person and the contract provisions.

Perhaps instead of caterwauling about an attack on the police from an uncooperative community, the union representative might want to say, “Officer X is facing some very serious charges, charges which could result in his suspension, demotion, or dismissal, and his union is tasked with defending his due process rights under our master agreement at every step in that process.”

If more comment is deemed necessary, then something like the following could be offered: “Officer X is guaranteed by our contract to have every opportunity to present his defense, and we will help him present it.” (It isn’t necessary for the representative to add in public — “If he can dream one up.”)

The foregoing hypothetical allows the union to present its case as a defense of the contract provisions – and how many people don’t believe that contracts should be honored? – instead of taking the posture that even the most egregious actions by an individual union member should be fiercely defended in the public domain.

<snip>
.

Next time, try to organize your thoughts and state them succinctly.

 

[Star]

.

.