Title Police Union Files Complaint Against Chief (employment, wages)

[Magritte25]

Originally Posted by NYRangers 2008

I agree with you totally. With the union bull aside, isn't it in everyone's benefit if he is getting criminals off the street and protecting the public. I strongly disagree with the union here.

Originally Posted by DE_NePA

No surprise here. Sad, but not surprising.

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?

[NYRangers 2008]

I still don't see what he did wrong. Maybe in the eyes of the union, but not the people. Unions are destroying the fabric of this country. Again, what kind of character would he have if he turned a blind eye to crime, even if it was off duty? Most cops live and breathe their job 24/7 and won't stand for crime, even off the job.

[Magritte25]

Originally Posted by NYRangers 2008

I still don't see what he did wrong. Maybe in the eyes of the union, but not the people. Unions are destroying the fabric of this country. Again, what kind of character would he have if he turned a blind eye to crime, even if it was off duty? Most cops live and breathe their job 24/7 and won't stand for crime, even off the job.

He didn't witness a crime. He responded to a call while he was off duty. There is a MAJOR difference there.

Again, how did he get this call and why?

[johnqpublic]

Sorry folks, but the union will win this one.
Something everyone seems to forget, there is this thing called a CONTRACT signed by both the union and the city. That CONTRACT stipulates what can and can not be done. As much as I think the Chief is doing a good job, his actions break the CONTRACT. When the Chief took his position he should have reaized he was Administrative/ Management. That in itself according to the CONTRACT bars him from doing a line police officers work. He should have followed proper proceedure and if he saw something wrong, called the officer on duty to rectify the situation

This may not be the popular sentiment here, but most of the mess this city is in is because the City Administration continues to break the CONTRACTS it has signed its name to..
The city loses yet again.

[Magritte25]

Originally Posted by NYRangers 2008

I still don't see what he did wrong. Maybe in the eyes of the union, but not the people. Unions are destroying the fabric of this country. Again, what kind of character would he have if he turned a blind eye to crime, even if it was off duty? Most cops live and breathe their job 24/7 and won't stand for crime, even off the job.

Unions are not destroying this country. Our country is not destroyed; neither is it in the process of destruction. Please stop with the overwrought hyperbole and focus on facts.

If it weren't for unions, the common worker wouldn't have rights, insurance, worker's comp and would be pseudo chattel for the corporations of this world.

[Magritte25]

Originally Posted by johnqpublic

Sorry folks, but the union will win this one.
Something everyone seems to forget, there is this thing called a CONTRACT signed by both the union and the city. That CONTRACT stipulates what can and can not be done. As much as I think the Chief is doing a good job, his actions break the CONTRACT. When the Chief took his position he should have reaized he was Administrative/ Management. That in itself according to the CONTRACT bars him from doing a line police officers work. He should have followed proper proceedure and if he saw something wrong, called the officer on duty to rectify the situation

This may not be the popular sentiment here, but most of the mess this city is in is because the City Administration continues to break the CONTRACTS it has signed its name to..
The city loses yet again.

Another very good point.

I will add that these contracts exist for a reason: to protect the city AND the cops.

[NYRangers 2008]

Originally Posted by Magritte25

Unions are not destroying this country. Our country is not destroyed; neither is it in the process of destruction. Please stop with the overwrought hyperbole and focus on facts.

If it weren't for unions, the common worker wouldn't have rights, insurance, worker's comp and would be pseudo chattel for the corporations of this world.

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 our 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.

[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.

[johnqpublic]

"The fireman and police unions don't care about public safety, only their union contracts"

I beg to differ...

[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?

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.