I'm confused about government unions ... who represents the taxpayers when the unions are funding the politicians and the politicians are the ones giving raises to the government unions?
Early in my career, I was a union steward who was even sent to a week school outside of Seattle...to be
"trained."
A lot of what I heard in that week, is what began making me see my particular union...in a different light.
What was hammered into us, was the fact that we were legally obligated to defend even the "problem children"...as hard as we could.
That didn't make sense to me...but the law was the law.
What I did receive, from our local union President, was some very sage advice.
His attitude was that although we were required to defend the union members, there are some that you
"don't have to get up early or stay up late...in their defense."
Later on in my career, when I had worked my way up through the system and had become a senior manager, I was on the other side of the table and negotiated a number of CBA's...with three separate unions.
The old president of my union at the time when I was a steward, had retired and the new/younger group(s) (all 3 unions), did not have the same wisdom and didn't bother to differentiate between the employee that was in a hearing for the umpteenth time...and the one that simply made a mistake.
Needless to say, they were not usually happy when I was at the table, because I often knew their argument and strategy...before they even expressed it.
Our standard punishment for a serious rules infraction conviction...was 30 days off without pay.
Recognizing that the time off didn't just affect them, but also affected their families and family finances, I often proposed an
"alternative discipline" in cases...where the employee wasn't a constant problem child.
My proposed alternative discipline consisted of determining how much money they would lose with the 30 days off and offering them to keep working, at a lower rate, that would in effect make them pay the same amount of money they would lose...but to do it over a period of up to year.
Since this allowed the employee to keep working and getting a regular paycheck, albeit less than they would normally receive... about 80% accepted this alternative discipline.
The other 20% were financially OK and were actually happy...to have the 30 day
"vacation."
Anyway, I saw it as a win-win...for both sides.
I didn't have to replace the employee and the employee was able to continue to pay their bills...even if it meant that they might have to tighten their belts a bit.
My long-winded point is, that I believe we need more
"out-of-the-box" thinking with police unions...if we're going to solve this issue.
[/SIZE][/QUOTE]