• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gov Christie suspends union members for fake calling out sick

haymarket said:
Did you miss the point here? Its not ME who needs to have anything other than -"you made the accusation - you back it up with the facts". In America, that is the way it works. Nobody accused of anything needs to prove their innocence. Everyone is presumed innocent and it is up to the side making the accusation to buuild their case.

Which you have not done on this point.
Click to expand...

In other words, ya' got nothin'.
 
MaggieD said:
In other words, ya' got nothin'.
Click to expand...

And until YOU prove your case with evidence - I do not need anything - and neither do the workers who are presumed innocent.

Why does that bother you so much? Is this another item on the right wing agenda slated for appeal along with union rights?
 
Troubadour said:
Most people have taken sick days when they aren't sick, and usually not for anything as noble and justifiable as a union rally.
Click to expand...

And if they did, and was caught by their boss, they'd likely get disciplined for it.

haymarket said:
Yeah!!!!! Get big government out of our lives.
Click to expand...

So wait, the government executive dealing with government employees is "big government".

Seriously haymarket, you make yourself look ignorant on the topic of conservatism when you make comments like this. When PUBLIC employees are fraudulently taking the tax payers money its both fiscally and governmentally reasonable in regards to conservative ideology for the government to take action.

If these were private sector employee's you'd likely have a case. But, as is typical with you, you don't.
 
haymarket said:
And until YOU prove your case with evidence - I do not need anything - and neither do the workers who are presumed innocent.

Why does that bother you so much? Is this another item on the right wing agenda slated for appeal along with union rights?
Click to expand...

The employees were suspended without pay for calling in sick when they clearly were not. Do you think the county and state don't know the rules and are guilty of suspending employees without cause?

In the article, even the employee's union is basically acknowledging that calling in sick when you aren't is a violation (error in judgement). The union's only defense seems to be "no medical appointments were missed due to the sick out". Do you see any statement anywhere in which the union is claiming that calling in sick when you aren't is not a violation?


These employees are being suspended without pay based on the fact that we have evidence to prove that they were not home sick as they had claimed," said Lillian Burry, a county official.
Click to expand...

The CWA statement added "When all the facts come out, it will be clear that whatever errors in judgement were made, no one served by the county missed a medical appointment and no one should be fired."
Click to expand...
 
buck said:
The employees were suspended without pay for calling in sick when they clearly were not. Do you think the county and state don't know the rules and are guilty of suspending employees without cause?

In the article, even the employee's union is basically acknowledging that calling in sick when you aren't is a violation (error in judgement). The union's only defense seems to be "no medical appointments were missed due to the sick out". Do you see any statement anywhere in which the union is claiming that calling in sick when you aren't is not a violation?
Click to expand...

you want me to prove a negative?

We need to see just what the contract language is on the matter. And then there is how the language has been routinely enforced during its existence that will come into play also.
 
haymarket said:
I learned long ago that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should return back to where you learned that then and relearn that such a thing is the case with regards to the court of law.

Second, its funny...I don't remember your extreme objection to rushing to judgement with no hard evidence of anything bad happening with regards to Walker getting a prank phone call:

haymarket said:
This is going to cost Walker support in public opinion polls as well as a blow to his image of a nice guy looking out for taxpayers. The Halloween costume has been stripped off and is is beginning to be revealed for who he really is. And that is a good thing.
Click to expand...

You seemed to imply the phone conversation was absolute proof and showed him for "who he really is". Seems you were judging him before he was proven guilty. Funny how that goes.

If you feel anyone has done anything wrong the burden is upon the accuser to show that it is so.
Click to expand...

The state had visual evidence they lied to their employeer and wrongfully accepted tax payer money in the form of Sick Leave compensation when they were taking a personal day, in violation of the NJ state employee code of ethics:

4. No State officer or employee or special State officer or employee should knowingly act in any way that might reasonably be expected to create an impression or suspicion among the public having knowledge of his/her acts that he/she may be engaged in conduct violative of his trust as a State officer or employee or special State officer or employee.
Click to expand...

Lying to your boss and having tax payers essentially pay you to go to a protest is actions give the impression that said employee is not a trusted state official.

This is America. That is the way it works here. And I like it that way.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is America. If you lie to your employer and misapropriate tax payer funds and get caught doing it you can be disciplined.

I know you'd rather people just do whatever the hell they want because it feels good, but that's not what this country is or ever has been. Lets take your ridiculous notion of "enlightenment" and the fact that people should do whatever they FEEL like is most "enlightened" regardless of the rules....I think I should just come into your house and take every item you own because I think its a more "enlightened" view that there is no personal property but all communal. So you can't be pissed, I'm just doing what I think is most "enlightened". I'm sure you wouldn't call the cops or complain, because it may be against the rules or the law...but its "enlightened".
 
Zyphlin said:
And if they did, and was caught by their boss, they'd likely get disciplined for it.



So wait, the government executive dealing with government employees is "big government".

Seriously haymarket, you make yourself look ignorant on the topic of conservatism when you make comments like this. When PUBLIC employees are fraudulently taking the tax payers money its both fiscally and governmentally reasonable in regards to conservative ideology for the government to take action.

If these were private sector employee's you'd likely have a case. But, as is typical with you, you don't.
Click to expand...

You tell me I look ignorant on this but you and others have not presented any actual contractual violation supported with the contract langauge.

Perhaps you should return back to where you learned that then and relearn that such a thing is the case with regards to the court of law.
Click to expand...

So you do not believe in the principle behind it? That is rather unAmerican of you.

Second, its funny...I don't remember your extreme objection to rushing to judgement with no hard evidence of anything bad happening with regards to Walker getting a prank phone call:
Click to expand...

I have no idea what a formal accusation of job abandonment has to do with a prank phone call where there is no legal penalty for simply being punked.

Lying to your boss and having tax payers essentially pay you to go to a protest is actions give the impression that said employee is not a trusted state official.
Click to expand...

We need to see two things here: the first is the exact contract language covering use of sick time. Second is the practice on the job and how this has been routinely dealt with and enforced over the life of that same language.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
you want me to prove a negative?

We need to see just what the contract language is on the matter. And then there is how the language has been routinely enforced during its existence that will come into play also.
Click to expand...

Poor haymarket, still thinking that them being discipliend is somehow a court case.

If they were wrongfully terminated or suspended, I'm sure they'll be able to present the arguments in court since THEY will be making the accusations in court of wrongful action against them. THEY will have to prove they were wrongfully disciplined. As it stands right now, we have the employees words against the employers.

The employees (in the union) are acknowledging they did wrong, but saying its no big deal. The Government is acknowledging they did wrong, and taking action. You seem to be grabbing on to absolute bull**** that you've created from thin air to say they've done no wrong, and then when people call you on your bull**** you go "Prove they did do something wrong!".

They lied about their use of sick leave and were caught. They've admitted it, the governments stated it. We don't have to prove they lied about the use of sick leave, they've essentially admitted to it. Nor do we have to "prove" the government couldn't act to discipline public employees, employee actions are not a matter of law. However, bringing suit against the employer to suggest wrongful action could be...in which case, the person would have to prove they were wrongfully acted against.

This is not asking to prove a negative. For example, you could present their contract or the NJ code of ethics and state that no where in there does it state anything that could be applied to that situation. That could be your "proof". You of course don't do that, because you've got nothing to stand on other than your "enlightened" view point that is completely irrelevant to reality and fact.
 
haymarket said:
you want me to prove a negative?

We need to see just what the contract language is on the matter. And then there is how the language has been routinely enforced during its existence that will come into play also.
Click to expand...

Not asking you to prove a negative. I'm asking you to prove that the county was wrong to suspend the employees. That is what you have been alleging.
 
haymarket said:
You tell me I look ignorant on this but you and others have not presented any actual contractual violation supported with the contract langauge.
Click to expand...

I'm presuming Christie innocent of any wrong doing until proven otherwise.
 
haymarket said:
You tell me I look ignorant on this but you and others have not presented any actual contractual violation supported with the contract langauge.
Click to expand...

Again, the NJ code of ethics states that an employee may act in such a way that suggests that the employee may make actions that violate the trust of the public.

A legitimate argument can be made that LYING to your supervisor and fraudulently accepting public money are actions that suggest an employee may take actions that violate the publics trust since those are actions that violate the publics trust.

You may not AGREE with that reasoning, but to state that there is not at least a reasonable argument to be made there that a violation was present is ridiculous and patently false. As is claiming that I've not provided anything backing up my point...but then again, making illogical, ridiculous, factually incorrect statements is appearing to be your forte in this thread.

They lied to their supervisor and took public money in a fraudulent manner...there's absolutely no way you can possibly suggest that can not at least be ARGUED to be actions that suggset the employee will act in ways that violate the public trust.
 
haymarket said:
you want me to prove a negative?

We need to see just what the contract language is on the matter. And then there is how the language has been routinely enforced during its existence that will come into play also.
Click to expand...

Ah, yes!! There comes the usual goal post move. :rofl :rofl

If someone does go to the trouble to research, spends a significant amount of time posting a link, then we have.....wait for it!!!! "Well, we have to see how it's been routinely enforced." That right there, that goal post move, is egzkly why you may have gotten your last link from me. Actually, my posting a link for you at all centers around whether or not you've made any kind of significant point that I'd like to refute for the benefit of others. You have proven time again that you can't say, "Well, I might be wrong there." You just keep moving the goalposts.

Anyone on DP who isn't prepared to prove someone else wrong will just stand around saying, "Prove it! Prove it! Prove it!" Just like a little boy in the playground.
 
Zyphlin said:
Poor haymarket, still thinking that them being discipliend is somehow a court case.

If they were wrongfully terminated or suspended, I'm sure they'll be able to present the arguments in court since THEY will be making the accusations in court of wrongful action against them. THEY will have to prove they were wrongfully disciplined. As it stands right now, we have the employees words against the employers.

The employees (in the union) are acknowledging they did wrong, but saying its no big deal. The Government is acknowledging they did wrong, and taking action. You seem to be grabbing on to absolute bull**** that you've created from thin air to say they've done no wrong, and then when people call you on your bull**** you go "Prove they did do something wrong!".

They lied about their use of sick leave and were caught. They've admitted it, the governments stated it. We don't have to prove they lied about the use of sick leave, they've essentially admitted to it. Nor do we have to "prove" the government couldn't act to discipline public employees, employee actions are not a matter of law. However, bringing suit against the employer to suggest wrongful action could be...in which case, the person would have to prove they were wrongfully acted against.

This is not asking to prove a negative. For example, you could present their contract or the NJ code of ethics and state that no where in there does it state anything that could be applied to that situation. That could be your "proof". You of course don't do that, because you've got nothing to stand on other than your "enlightened" view point that is completely irrelevant to reality and fact.
Click to expand...

Z - do you have experience in handling charges made against union members? Because I have over 20 years worth in literally hundreds of cases.

Not being a member of their union, I cannot say for 100% sure how there discipline procedure works. But I strongly suspect there is a long established procedure which does just what you pretend it is not. In my former union, anyone subject to a charge of a contractual violation had to have a hearing where the charge was presented against them and they had the right to union representation. The very first thing you look at is the contract language. That is where it all begins.

It is indeed close to a court hearing with a presentation of charges, evidence, a defense and other things.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
You tell me I look ignorant on this but you and others have not presented any actual contractual violation supported with the contract langauge.
Click to expand...

This is getting to be a lame excuse. You don't think the State of New Jerseys HR department or the Governors lawyers didn't look into the rules?

So you do not believe in the principle behind it? That is rather unAmerican of you.
Click to expand...

It is far from Un-American to expect people to be honest and follow the rules. You're defending of these clowns is a prime example of why your "enlightenment" doesn't work.

We need to see two things here: the first is the exact contract language covering use of sick time. Second is the practice on the job and how this has been routinely dealt with and enforced over the life of that same language.
Click to expand...

Since none of us are Judges and we aren't hearing a court case, we need nothing of the sort.
 
Kandahar said:
:roll:

Yeah, I'm sure the public is going to be staunchly opposed to suspending public employees who skip out on their duties for personal reasons, and bill the taxpayers anyway. Perhaps you could clarify why you think that the public should foot the bill for their absenteeism?
Click to expand...

you know what's funny? people of all stripes play hooky everyday.
 
from mac


This is getting to be a lame excuse. You don't think the State of New Jerseys HR department or the Governors lawyers didn't look into the rules?
Click to expand...

I assume nothing.

It is far from Un-American to expect people to be honest and follow the rules.
Click to expand...

Which is why we first need to examine the exact language of the rules which have supposedly been broken.

I pointed out how these things work in real life in labor situations:
We need to see two things here: the first is the exact contract language covering use of sick time. Second is the practice on the job and how this has been routinely dealt with and enforced over the life of that same language.

Since none of us are Judges and we aren't hearing a court case, we need nothing of the sort.
Click to expand...

Of course you are free to decide this on the basis of your own biases and pre-judments made without all the facts. As an American you have that right. Thankfully, when this matter isdecided in the arena of reality, you and your standards are not involved.
 
haymarket said:
I assume nothing.



Which is why we first need to examine the exact language of the rules which have supposedly been broken.

I pointed out how these things work in real life in labor situations:
We need to see two things here: the first is the exact contract language covering use of sick time. Second is the practice on the job and how this has been routinely dealt with and enforced over the life of that same language.



Of course you are free to decide this on the basis of your own biases and pre-judments made without all the facts. As an American you have that right. Thankfully, when this matter isdecided in the arena of reality, you and your standards are not involved.
Click to expand...

Are you still prattling on about this? There are consequences for employees who lie... Christie's actions were reasonable.
 
Ockham said:
Are you still prattling on about this? There are consequences for employees who lie... Christie's actions were reasonable.
Click to expand...

I did not realize this case was closed and decided already?
 
liblady said:
you know what's funny? people of all stripes play hooky everyday.
Click to expand...

you know what's funny? People get caught playing hooky everyday. Remember the chick that got fired because she called in sick but then posted on facebook that she was at a party? Yeaaa...
 
haymarket said:
I did not realize this case was closed and decided already?
Click to expand...

It pretty much was, you just never realized it. When you work for the government, the government can do to you what it damn well pleases, period. Unfair? debateable. you still work for them, so they can do to you whatever they want, as far as your job is concerned. Period.
 
cpwill said:
"These employees are being suspended without pay based on the fact that we have evidence to prove that they were not home sick as they had claimed," said Lillian Burry, a county official.
Click to expand...

Really, now can you realistically tell if a person is sick or not? What kind of possible convincing evidence could they have?

Dems see it as a political ploy. Me too Reps see it the way Burry sees it.

ricksfolly
 
DarkWizard12 said:
When you work for the government, the government can do to you what it damn well pleases, period. Unfair? debateable. you still work for them, so they can do to you whatever they want.
Click to expand...

Not much different than it was a 150 years ago when blacks were slaves to the plantation owners.

ricksfolly
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom