[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by John_W

Are you serious? You're Not REALLY serious are you??

It Couldn't of Been Me, You wouldn't find me in a position like that, maybe you will, but I'm not that STUPID!!

The REAL story is, the mayor ordered the police to enforce his curfew. They arrived on the scene, set up a line and moved ahead at a slow pace clearing the street. This bystander, ran down the street and jumped in front of the line of cops, and even though they ordered him several times to move along, he disobeyed and stood erect and was pushed back and the man took a fall that any wimp would of been proud. They should just handcuffed him and hauled his ass to jail, instead they gave him break and he refused to obey, that's called Disobeying a Police Officer's Command, that will get you in trouble.

Interesting that some people will always think the police are at fault. Why let facts get in the way.

[ColdNoMore]

Originally Posted by Stuart Zaikov

Interesting that some people will always think the police are at fault. Why let facts get in the way.

Show ONE post that says..."the police are ALWAYS at fault."


Just one.


We'll wait.

[ColdNoMore]

Originally Posted by Stuart Zaikov

Interesting that some people will always think the police are at fault. Why let facts get in the way.

Who has said that..."the police are always at fault?"

[anothersteve]

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore

Who has said that..."the police are always at fault?"

Just to clarify it was said;

Originally Posted by Stuart Zaikov

Interesting that some people will always think the police are at fault. Why let facts get in the way.

Some people "think". Why the offence?
Maybe it should have been better phrased.....
"when it's white police dealing with a black person...."the police are always at fault"
Steve

[rlcooper70]

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]

[Bay Kid]

Going to be like the wild west. Everyone will be on their own.

[Stu from NYC]

[QUOTE=rlcooper70;1779568]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?

Nobody which is why a number of cities will not be able to pay the pensions owned to union members

[Two Bills]

Back in the day in UK, Fords of Dagenham workers were always on strike for more and more., an amusing story of the time was:

Union shop steward to a workers meeting.
"Good News Comrades!
We have negotiated a very good deal from management.
12 weeks paid holiday a year, another 50% pay rise, private health care for workers and families, and we have negotiated the working hours down to such a level, that we will only have to work on Wednesdays!!"
From the back of the hall a voice shouted out:
"What, every bloody Wednesday?"

[camaguey48]

Unions are there to defend the 3 percenters. Those are the ones who continually break the rules. The others want to do their job competently and safely. This Chauvin guy had 17 incidents of misconduct lodged against him and he was still on the force. How did that happen? The other three did not have the guts to stop him from hurting Mr.Floyd, who, by the way, was not a model citizen himself, but still a human being. Mr. Floyd was under control and was not a threat. Following the blue code was more important to these officers than following their moral code. I support the good police officers, the bad ones need to be found out and fired. May these four be found guilty and thrown in jail for a long, long time. To the demonstrators: demonstrate all you want, but do it peacefully. That's the key word.

[ColdNoMore]

Originally Posted by camaguey48

Unions are there to defend the 3 percenters. Those are the ones who continually break the rules. The others want to do their job competently and safely. This Chauvin guy had 17 incidents of misconduct lodged against him and he was still on the force. How did that happen?

The other three did not have the guts to stop him from hurting Mr.Floyd, who, by the way, was not a model citizen himself, but still a human being. Mr. Floyd was under control and was not a threat. Following the blue code was more important to these officers than following their moral code.

I support the good police officers, the bad ones need to be found out and fired. May these four be found guilty and thrown in jail for a long, long time.

To the demonstrators: demonstrate all you want, but do it peacefully. That's the key word.

...100%

[Cybersprings]

Originally Posted by kenoc7

That is absurd.

Unfortunately not. I wish it was absurd to say it was happening.

[TexaninVA]

Originally Posted by kenoc7

That is absurd.

No it's accurate unfortunately.

[TexaninVA]

Originally Posted by bd20166

A more accountable police force equals a more accountable public. Think about it.

That's very profound, I think ....

[Cybersprings]

Originally Posted by sloanst

I don't believe in public sector unions at all. We should have a more direct control of our tax dollars and being able to terminate bad apples quickly should be at the forefront of that control.

I am a retired public employee. I was never a "fan" of unions. But do you think "bad apples" only exist in the bargaining unit ranks? What happens when the bad apple is in management and abuses their power to get rid of someone they claim is a "bad apple" but is really just questioning the manager's abuse? That is what the union is for. In many cases it protects the 3%. But the intent of that is to ensure that management follows its own processes (to protect others ...not sure if 97% is an accurate #). If they followed process, the union would not be able to protect the 3%. But it many cases, management does not follow its processes and the 3% are retained.

But to steer my comments back to the original topic, it is not black and white...very gray. So many times the mobs will turn on the police when they did nothing wrong, just followed the law and the rules. They have to stick together, so that when the danger comes, they know they can trust each other. But wouldn't it be great if there was some internal policing among police as well as many other groups. If you could change the culture so that you stand together publicly, and then address the problem children to get them inline or out, that would be amazing...but not holding my breath for that to happen with police, doctors, lawyers, politicians, teachers or any other group.

[billethkid]

Lotta talk about the bad apples in the police force and changes needed to get rid of them

What about the "Floyd-types"? Would they be considered bad apples? Of course they would. And they would not even be the baddest apples in the group.
Yet we do not hear condemnation of blacks in general.
Yet we do not see or hear an outcry that something needs to change to assure other's rights/safety.

These issues are emotional, political, special interest driven....when an opportunity real or manufactured presents.