Title Police Union Files Complaint Against Chief (Scranton: crime, layoffs)

[Trucker7]

And some wonder why people hate unions.

Police Union Files Complaint Against Chief | News | Lackawanna County News

Scranton's police chief has a knack for fighting crime when he is off the clock, but the police union said his off-duty crime fighting violates union rules, mainly because he, as a manager, is doing work that the rank-and-file are responsible for.

How dare the chief do some free police work on his spare time?

[NYRangers 2008]

I think it's crazy. So what if he was catching criminals on his day off, he's a cop, that's what he does. He's trying to make the city safe 24/7. I'm so sick of these unions, they got to stop. What kind of cop would he be if he saw crime and didn't act on it?

[bloominscranton]

Originally Posted by NYRangers 2008

I think it's crazy. So what if he was catching criminals on his day off, he's a cop, that's what he does. He's trying to make the city safe 24/7. I'm so sick of these unions, they got to stop. What kind of cop would he be if he saw crime and didn't act on it?

The issue is not he saw a crime committed and intervened, BUT (big one as usual) he stoped somone while walking and frisked him and found pot. Sounds crazy, and I think it has to do with the Mayors insistence on keeping PO's and additional layoffs at a later date. If you have mgmt. doing the work of Patrol men, it can be used to set a bar on the # or arrests and justify a reduced #. That is the issue to the best of my understanding, but I could be wrong!

[Magritte25]

The next line of the article:

The union said it does not have a problem with the chief fighting crime if he stumbles upon it, but it is a problem when the chief goes out looking for it.

And this:

The union filed a grievance because of an arrest made in west Scranton on March 20. The union said the chief was off duty when he answered complaints on possible drug activity in that part of the city.

Lt. Martin said the chief should have forwarded that complaint to officers on duty.

The chief said that's absurd. "If I see a person who's wanted or I see a person I know may have warrants and I act upon it, of if I act upon a crime I see in front of me, I don't think that's taking work away from anyone. It's something I should be doing," said Chief Duffy.

He didn't *see* the crime taking place. He "answered complaints on drug activity". Two totally different things. I agree with the union in this case.

[Mr Yuk]

While I think public sector unions are important to proect the workers from political agendas and cronyism....this is absolutely ridiculous and another reason why unions are despised by much of the public. This shows that the union is more concerned with "looking out for #1" than with actually fighting crime in the city. I say more power to Chief Duffy, I hope he shoves this right up the union's backsides. We need more Chief Duffys in the city, and less Bob Martins. Would they rather Duffy's do-nothing predecessor, Chief Elliott, who didn't make the news for fighting crime, but for making inappropriate remarks to female officers? The union is more concerned with their damn union contracts being followed than with getting criminals off the street. And isn't the police department stretched thin, and there's not always enough officers to answer calls immediately? Then they should be glad that Duffy is going the extra mile without extra pay.

[Mr Yuk]

Originally Posted by NYRangers 2008

I think it's crazy. So what if he was catching criminals on his day off, he's a cop, that's what he does. He's trying to make the city safe 24/7. I'm so sick of these unions, they got to stop. What kind of cop would he be if he saw crime and didn't act on it?

Couldn't rep you, so here's 2 thumbs up, I agree 100%

[auntieannie68]

Originally Posted by go phillies

While I think public sector unions are important to proect the workers from political agendas and cronyism....this is absolutely ridiculous and another reason why unions are despised by much of the public. This shows that the union is more concerned with "looking out for #1" than with actually fighting crime in the city. I say more power to Chief Duffy, I hope he shoves this right up the union's backsides. We need more Chief Duffys in the city, and less Bob Martins. Would they rather Duffy's do-nothing predecessor, Chief Elliott, who didn't make the news for fighting crime, but for making inappropriate remarks to female officers? The union is more concerned with their damn union contracts being followed than with getting criminals off the street. And isn't the police department stretched thin, and there's not always enough officers to answer calls immediately? Then they should be glad that Duffy is going the extra mile without extra pay.

[SteelCityRising]

Originally Posted by go phillies

Couldn't rep you, so here's 2 thumbs up, I agree 100%

I repped him for you.

[NYRangers 2008]

Originally Posted by go phillies

Couldn't rep you, so here's 2 thumbs up, I agree 100%

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.

[DE_NePA]

Originally Posted by Magritte25

I agree with the union in this case.

No surprise here. Sad, but not surprising.