Title Police Union Files Complaint Against Chief (credit, attorney)

[DE_NePA]

Originally Posted by Magritte25

I don't think the ends justify the means. Also he *is* doing something he should not be doing when he is off the clock. If he ****s up while off the clock, the city won't have a leg to stand on if a criminal decides to sue or calls his constitutional rights into question.

Sad or not, you need to look at the WHOLE picture not just "Hero Cop Bags Criminals in His Off Hours".

If he was off duty, how and why did he answer this complaint?

So, Perry Mason...hypothetically, if he had called for an officer on duty, and none were available, should he just ignore the situation calling for attention right then, because of contractual specifics? Of should he do what he is paid to do? And don't say he's not paid to take calls. Everyone in a company is paid to do ultimately the same thing: contribute to a positive experience when a customer uses the company's product or service. Everyone in a police dept is paid to do ultimately the same thing: enforce the law.
Enforcing the law takes precedent over a labor contract. He's a cop, he did what he should have done. If some a-hole signed off on a contract with ridiculous stipulations in it, they made the mistake, and failed the people who pay the taxes to pay the contracted wages. And the union that pushed that language into the contract put their own financial gain above the good of the people they serve. That bull**** about mgmt not doing line-level worker tasks, while maybe tolerable in a factory assembly or bus driver union's contract, has NO place in a public safety related employment contract.

[Magritte25]

Originally Posted by NYRangers 2008

Unions are not for the working class, they are for themselves. The teacher's unions don't care about the kids, only their contracts, as evidenced in Wisconsin. The fireman and police unions don't care about public safety, only their union contracts. At one time, unions did serve a purpose and do good, no more though. They have become corrupt and as greedy as the companies they claim are so greedy and these companies are the ones employing them. And public unions are paid by the taxpayers and we have a right to know where and how are money is being used. It is not hyperbole. Every time you disagree with me or someone, you say we don't know what we are talking about. You never give us the benefit of the doubt, we are always wrong and you're right. I'm in a union and I don't like it. I'm forced to be in one and I don't think that is right. This is not Communist China, which unions basically are, communist.

Unions are for the workers that belong to them. Unions ARE the workers who belong to them. There is no union without workers. I will not get into a discussion about Wisconsin teachers' unions because (a) off topic and (b) very evident you are merely following talking points vs. actual facts of the situation. I know quite a few firemen and policemen & women who would take quite a big issue with your assertion that they all only care about contracts vs. safety. If unions didn't exist, I would bet everything I am and have that the workers would be the first to suffer. You prove you don't know what you are talking about by the things you post which have no basis in fact or reality. I don't believe in forcing someone to be in a union. I also don't believe that those who oppose unions should be protected by them.

[Boompa]

Originally Posted by Trucker7

And some wonder why people hate unions.

Police Union Files Complaint Against Chief | News | Lackawanna County News
How dare the chief do some free police work on his spare time?

Is the Chief a CERTIFIED Police Officer meeting State Certification Standards, Many are not and are not legally Police Officers they are management. I don't know if this is true in this case but it is something to be considered before passing judgement. The last Chief I had who acted like that was led off in handcuffs

[Magritte25]

Originally Posted by NYRangers 2008

I'm not going to respond anymore on this thread. I stated my piece and that's it. I refuse to go back and forth with my arguments and have people not getting it. I don't want to be to blame for yet another closed or deleted thread. I will let you guys have this from here on in.

So, in other words, you've stated your baseless talking points and refuse to defend them under scrutiny? Good to know.

[Magritte25]

Originally Posted by DE_NePA

First you say you agree with th union, who is complaining about mgmt doing their job, at risk of them losing hours. But now you cite liability. Ther is no liability unless the Chief of Police is an hourly position, which I highly doubt. Only hourly employees are on/off the clock. Salaried workers/management is never off the clock.
How did he answer the complaint? He became aware of it. Why did he answer the complaint? Because its his duty, police officers swear an oath.

Um yes. I did. In two different posts citing different issues. I never asserted there was merely one reason for the union/city to take issue with this guy. Strawman on your part.

If the COP is hourly, he shouldn't be doing a darned thing off duty unless he has personally witnessed a crime in action or if he is on call. If he is salaried, he has signed a contract which has stated, in black and white, what his rights and duties are - it seems he has violated his word.

How did he become aware of the complaint? Why did he answer the complaint when it is painfully obvious that it is against his contract?

[Magritte25]

Originally Posted by DE_NePA

So, Perry Mason...hypothetically, if he had called for an officer on duty, and none were available, should he just ignore the situation calling for attention right then, because of contractual specifics? Of should he do what he is paid to do? And don't say he's not paid to take calls. Everyone in a company is paid to do ultimately the same thing: contribute to a positive experience when a customer uses the company's product or service. Everyone in a police dept is paid to do ultimately the same thing: enforce the law.
Enforcing the law takes precedent over a labor contract. He's a cop, he did what he should have done. If some a-hole signed off on a contract with ridiculous stipulations in it, they made the mistake, and failed the people who pay the taxes to pay the contracted wages. And the union that pushed that language into the contract put their own financial gain above the good of the people they serve. That bull**** about mgmt not doing line-level worker tasks, while maybe tolerable in a factory assembly or bus driver union's contract, has NO place in a public safety related employment contract.

Again, strawman because it hasn't been shown there wasn't an officer on duty. It's merely been shown this COP "became aware" (how we don't know) of a situation and responded in a manner that violated his contract.

If he doesn't want to follow what is in the contract that he voluntarily signed, he needs to resign. Upon resignation he needs to understand that he is not a renegade cops without bounds to the law of which he swore to abide.

A contract is a law binding document. Violating it is against the law and subject to prosecution and restitution . This man signed a contract and failed to follow through with his word.

[Trucker7]

So, contract > public safety & taxpayers money. Got it!

[Magritte25]

Originally Posted by Trucker7

So, contract > public safety & taxpayers money. Got it!

If the man didn't agree with this, he shouldn't have signed the contract. And where was it shown or proven that public safety was at risk if the man decided on a different course of action?

[bloominscranton]

Originally Posted by Magritte25

So, in other words, you've stated your baseless talking points and refuse to defend them under scrutiny? Good to know.

Baseless according to you. You enjoy turning every post into a long debate, some people, like myself state a OPINION which I believe we are still allowed to do here. I for one am not forever harping on others for their beliefs. I also do not see every post as an opporunity to chage someones position, sometimes reading anothers take on an issue gives me pause to think more, or research more FOR MYSELF. This is not a debate forum, but you sure do act like it is.

[Lehigh Valley Native]

Not a fan of unions myself. They do have a place in a few circumstances in todays society. But, we have numerous state and federal laws on the books to protect workers, laws that we didn't have 50-75 years ago.

As far as the article, I don't know enough about the situation. If the Police Chief tries to act like a one man police force after hours, and it is something that happens often, I could see valid concern.
If this is a one shot deal and he was trying to help out, he should be thanked and everyone should move on.
If he violated a contract he signed, he is legally on the hook for that. He should try to work it out quietly with the police union, instead of grandstanding in the press.