Title Police Union Files Complaint Against Chief (Scranton: home, tenants)

[Lehigh Valley Native]

Originally Posted by toobusytoday

Enough with the hi-jacking, all of you. Here's the OP ^ Any more chest thumping, finger pointing posts after this will be deleted.

Don't go chasing waterfalls. Please stick to the rivers and the lakes that you' re used to. I know that you're gonna have it your way or nothing at all ...

Oh wait, sorry......The Police Chief done good.

[johnqpublic]

Originally Posted by NYRangers 2008

I agree with the structure thing and he should not go out and be a renegade cop and go looking for crime. But, he was acting on a complaint and was in the area and did something good for the community. Again, if a crime was staring him in the face, even though he was off duty, the cop in him would act upon it and he should be applauded. Cops are cops 24/7, it's in their blood, if they turned a blind eye to it, what kind of a cop would they truly be?

You miss 2 points,
1 When he took the position of chief he relinquished his rights contractually to be a street cop. he is now Administration
2 it didnt fall in his face, the news article clearly states he responded to a complaint and then chose to renegade police the situation...

If he is Chief and has faith in his workforce he should have followed chain of command and passed it to the on duty officers.. there are officers on duty 24/ 7 so there is no excuse for not doing so...

[DE_NePA]

This complaint is not about public safety, chain of command, proper procedure, etc, etc. It is union nitpicking over a contract. From the the complaintant's own mouth:

Union president Lieutenant Bob Martin said Chief Duffy broke the law because his position is not part of the bargaining unit.
"Our young officers are out there working day and night and weekends and they're working hard and they have to live with that threat over their head that they're going to be laid off," said Lt. Martin.

The complaint states that "the work of apprehending and arresting individuals has been the sole and exclusive province of members of the bargaining unit," and that the city did not inform or negotiate with the union that the chief would be "performing bargaining unit work."

[Magritte25]

Originally Posted by NYRangers 2008

I agree with the structure thing and he should not go out and be a renegade cop and go looking for crime. But, he was acting on a complaint and was in the area and did something good for the community. Again, if a crime was staring him in the face, even though he was off duty, the cop in him would act upon it and he should be applauded. Cops are cops 24/7, it's in their blood, if they turned a blind eye to it, what kind of a cop would they truly be?

No, he answered a call. He did not stop a crime in progress that he witnessed. Those are two completely different things. Again, he DID NOT WITNESS THE CRIME. So that is a strawman argument here. It has not place in this discussion because that's not what happened.

[Magritte25]

Originally Posted by DE_NePA

This complaint is not about public safety, chain of command, proper procedure, etc, etc. It is union nitpicking over a contract. From the the complaintant's own mouth:

Union president Lieutenant Bob Martin said Chief Duffy broke the law because his position is not part of the bargaining unit.
"Our young officers are out there working day and night and weekends and they're working hard and they have to live with that threat over their head that they're going to be laid off," said Lt. Martin.

The complaint states that "the work of apprehending and arresting individuals has been the sole and exclusive province of members of the bargaining unit," and that the city did not inform or negotiate with the union that the chief would be "performing bargaining unit work."

It does not matter what their motivation is. It is clearly stated in the contract and the job duties that Administration is NOT to perform these types of jobs. Simple as that.

[johnqpublic]

Originally Posted by Magritte25

It does not matter what their motivation is. It is clearly stated in the contract and the job duties that Administration is NOT to perform these types of jobs. Simple as that.

Correct Mags,
and THAT is why the city loses arbitration after arbitration, they simply dont follow the CONTRACT they signed their name to
FYI the CONTRACT is a 2 way street, the city can file against the unions if they break the CONTRACT, when is the last time anyone heard of that happening?

[johnqpublic]

"Originally Posted by DE_NePA
This complaint is not about public safety, chain of command, proper procedure, etc, etc. It is union nitpicking over a contract. From the the complaintant's own mouth:"

Sorry, not nitpicking the CONTRACT is specific and clear, it was broken, public sentiment aside, it was the proper thing to do. When there is a CONTRACT.. a legally binding document signed by 2 parties, you dont pick and choose what parts you want to follow and what parts you dont. if you did that the CONTRACT would be useless..

[DE_NePA]

Originally Posted by Magritte25

It does not matter what their motivation is. It is clearly stated in the contract and the job duties that Administration is NOT to perform these types of jobs. Simple as that.

Ja, ich verstehe, war ich wichtige Punkte zu diesen Themen gemacht. Verstehen Sie?

Mag - you keep jumping from point to point. Why mention that it's not like the chief witnessed a crime as it occurred, and interceded? From a contractual standpoint, that wouldn't matter, he'd still be in violation (unless there are specific exclusions that we don't know about). I address that point, and you say that doesn't matter. Then why bring it up over and over?

My point that I made earlier is that some labor negotiator stuck that language in the contract, and some idiot from the city allowed that language to stay in. That sort of protectionism may have a place in a streets administration or parks and rec union's contract with the city, but it doesn't belong in a contract between the city and police or fire fighters.

My stance is this. From a public safety standpoint, the chief did the right thing. From a fiscal responsibility standpoint, if he violates the labor contract, he does expose the city to whatever sanctions there might be, including (I guess) fines or other monetary damages. I wonder if American society is at the point yet when a police union would seek financial compensation from the taxpayers who pay their salaries in a petty job protectionism situation like this. I hope the hell not, for a lot of reasons. And you can bet that if they did, that clause wouldn't make it thru the next contract negotiations.

[johnqpublic]

Originally Posted by DE_NePA

Ja, ich verstehe, war ich wichtige Punkte zu diesen Themen gemacht. Verstehen Sie?

Mag - you keep jumping from point to point. Why mention that it's not like the chief witnessed a crime as it occurred, and interceded? From a contractual standpoint, that wouldn't matter, he'd still be in violation (unless there are specific exclusions that we don't know about). I address that point, and you say that doesn't matter. Then why bring it up over and over?

My point that I made earlier is that some labor negotiator stuck that language in the contract, and some idiot from the city allowed that language to stay in. That sort of protectionism may have a place in a streets administration or parks and rec union's contract with the city, but it doesn't belong in a contract between the city and police or fire fighters.

My stance is this. From a public safety standpoint, the chief did the right thing. From a fiscal responsibility standpoint, if he violates the labor contract, he does expose the city to whatever sanctions there might be, including (I guess) fines or other monetary damages. I wonder if American society is at the point yet when a police union would seek financial compensation from the taxpayers who pay their salaries in a petty job protectionism situation like this. I hope the hell not, for a lot of reasons. And you can bet that if they did, that clause wouldn't make it thru the next contract negotiations.

If I may,
If Chief Duffys calling is to be out on the streets, maybe his promotion to a administrative position was ill though out?
The whole thing, public opinion aside is there is management and there are the workers.. each have their jobs, and neither is allowed to do the others.
Should the rank and file be allowed to issue orders if they thought it was a good idea?? other side of the coin, and you cant have it both ways.

[DE_NePA]

Originally Posted by johnqpublic

Should the rank and file be allowed to issue orders if they thought it was a good idea??

That's pretty laughable. Duffy was a street cop, promoted up thru the ranks. To equate his doing the work of his former positions to allowing someone with no command or managerial experience to issue orders is a specious argument. You can do better than that.