• 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!

Across the U.S., police contracts shield officers from scrutiny and discipline

It's been known for years, they take care of their own in our system.
 
It's been known for years, they take care of their own in our system.
Sadly true but can you think of any grouping that doesn’t do the same thing one way or another? It’s one of the things that keeps such groups together in the first place. It’s typically seen as a good thing when we’re inside the group and a bad thing when we’re not. I don’t think issue can be addressed as long as it’s seen as a police problem rather than a human being problem.
 
Across the U.S., police contracts shield officers from scrutiny and discipline

Special Report: Police union contracts offer shield of protection

Filed Jan. 13, 2017, 1:18 p.m. GMT
Reuters examined police union contracts across the country and found a pattern of protections afforded officers: Many contracts erase disciplinary records or allow police to forfeit sick leave for suspensions. Meantime, residents face hurdles in pursuing complaints.


SAN ANTONIO, Texas – In late 2013, a San Antonio police officer stood accused of handcuffing a woman in the rear of his police car and then raping her. The same officer had remained on the force despite prior sexual misconduct complaints and other brushes with the law.

So early in 2014, backed by the city council, City Manager Sheryl Sculley proposed reforms to the police union contract in the Texas city. She wanted to eliminate a clause that erased prior misconduct complaints from cops' records, increase citizen participation in the complaint process, and end officers’ ability to forfeit vacation time rather than serve suspensions.

The San Antonio Police Officers Association’s response: It targeted Sculley with a $1 million advertising campaign, according to estimates by the manager’s office. The union ran full-page newspaper ads and placed billboards downtown claiming crime rates rose because she refused to fill open police positions. Police backers broadcast ads highlighting Sculley’s six-figure salary and created a Facebook page, Remove City Manager Sheryl Sculley.

“They were really trying to intimidate,” said Sculley. “I knew it would be one of the hardest things I would work on here in San Antonio.”

Mike Helle, the officers’ association president, said Sculley pitched the changes simply to ride a wave of protest over police. The contract ensures fair discipline, he said, and if anyone was on the attack, it was the manager. “Her tone was immediately aggressive,” he said.

In the end, after two years of bitter negotiations, the sides agreed to a contract capping salaries and benefits at rates manageable for the city. But it did not include Sculley’s disciplinary changes. “The bottom line is that we could not change the contract,” she said.

This is so egregious. I give that woman tons of credit to standing up to these bullies. HAD THE PRESS BEEN ON HER SIDE, she would have won. Quite obviously, they were not.
 
not one of these contracts was unilaterally negotiated by the police officers
why no outrage that management agreed to such terms as discarding evidence of prior violations, which information would be essential for management to properly discipline police officers
management feathered its own bed with such contract provisions
being without the means to effectively discipline, now management can point to ITS labor-management contract as the excuse for not doing its job
additionally, EVERY labor-management has a contract expiration date, at which time management gets to again sit down with labor and fix the things that are wrong with the existing contract. why is management not exercising this provision
 
Across the U.S., protesters shield refuges from scrutiny.
Across the U.S., representatives shield themselves from scrutiny and discipline.
Across the U.S., contracts shield employees
Across the U.S....
 
Across the U.S., protesters shield refuges from scrutiny.
Across the U.S., representatives shield themselves from scrutiny and discipline.
Across the U.S., contracts shield employees
Across the U.S....

... people watch the Superbowl only for the commercials.
 
There are 2 sides to this issue. Always. And the problem is the unions will protect the scummy, lazy, and corrupt. If you think firemen or any other union doesn't have the same problem...you don't know unions. But the special case here is that these guys are in a different kind of job.

They are tasked with arresting people. People who lie, cheat, steal, kill, beat, drink, get high, and otherwise are the dregs of society. And sometimes they get violent. The job? It is demeaning, demanding, stressful, and detrimental to their health. Their compensation? Missed holidays, missed birthdays, missed anniversaries, and pay that doesn't really compensate them for the line of work.

The union protects them. Gives them a fighting chance against some of that stuff. But sadly...the stuff that benefits the good guys? Helps the scumbags too. So then you have to ask yourself? How do you protect the good cops, encourage them to stay, and still deal with scumbags? And remember...nobody likes cops and plenty of people will lie to cover their ass. Just watch cops to see some of the whoppers the criminals tell.

Tough issue. I tend to side with the administration over the unions. But I understand why the unions exist.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Sadly true but can you think of any grouping that doesn’t do the same thing one way or another? It’s one of the things that keeps such groups together in the first place. It’s typically seen as a good thing when we’re inside the group and a bad thing when we’re not. I don’t think issue can be addressed as long as it’s seen as a police problem rather than a human being problem.

Very well said!

The trouble when cops do it, is that violation of the law is at stake. When the rule of law is ignored and not enforced, it makes the law in general look bad.

Understanding the dynamics of the social order, cops should be seekers of truth and justice. Breaking the law to make the group feel better somehow, is still breaking the law. Makes the profession look bad. We cannot expect cops to act in a noble way as they enforce lousy and harmful laws.
 
Back
Top Bottom