Does anyone else feel troubled about voicing support for police unions?...

[Rabblevox]

Here in Portland, OR, our police union is the 800 lb. gorilla on the block. Our cops shoot unarmed people with impunity, and the union protects violent thugs who carry a gun and a badge. They have successfully resisted both random drug-testing, and testing after officer-involved shootings. And a lot of these punk pigs are steroid-enhanced brutes who would be scary even without a uniform and a gun.

I'm pro-union, 100%, but police unions make me vomit in my mouth, a bit. It's a psychic disconnect that I have yet to solve.

[gateley]

1. We seem to have a lot of absolution going on with the Seattle police, too -- but

I'm not sure it is the union (then again, I'm not sure it's NOT), although the pass on drug testing is shocking. Hell, I worked at a pharmaceutical manufacturer and the line workers had to pass drug tests - just standing there filling bottles all day long! I agree with you that that especially is wrong.

I'm still for unions, though -- the police unions probably protect those who are unfairly charged, too -- hopefully.

Kind of an aside -- I'm gobsmacked that there is so much of this in Seattle and Portland! OUR cities! We used to be so liberal! :(

[speltwon]

3. How is it shocking

Cops are PUBLIC employees. You can't drug test w/o cause, iow specific cause they are on drugs. You can't, nor should you be able to test as a fishing expedition, because they MIGHT be on drugs.

That should be just as true for cops as it is for teachers, etc.

[gateley]

6. I think since police carry firearms, need every bit of critical judgment in so

many situations, they SHOULD be drug tested. If I were a cop, trust me, you wouldn't want me out there in a fast car with a gun on my hip. I might shoot YOU. :shrug: I honestly think I'd want to be stopped if I was out there high.

A friend of mine used to be a State Trooper and he was constantly smoking dope. Some of the stories he told, though hilarious, were pretty hairy. No way should he have been allowed to have that job as long as he was using.

[speltwon]

8. That;'s great, but I disagree

In my state, they need "reasonable suspicion" to drug test. Some states don't, as long as the testing is random. My state is a blue state and we have (generally) broader civil liberties and privacy rights. That applies to the general public (police are more restricted in search and seizure etc.) and to cops. For example, we can't have random DUI checkpoints here. They are unconstitutional as to the state constitution. You cannot drug test a cop merely because they are a cop. I am aware of one cop who won a rather large lawsuit because it was found that his agency did not have sufficient cause for the drug test they ordered.

I respect privacy rights, and that means for public employees, unless there are specific articulable reasons (reasonable suspicion standard) to suspect the cop is using either
1) illegal or
2) drugs that would negatively affect his performance in a substantial way

Drug tests are invasive (obviously) and affect a # of privacy interests, specifically in regards to - for example - medicines they are taking, etc.

I say no to testing, and the courts agree with me.

[gateley]

10. I agree with much of what you say, but others are subject to it with NO real

reason -- being high wouldn't necessarily affect their jobs or the safety of others.

I think an exception should be made for professions in which actions of the employee have possible consequences to others.

That's where we differ on this.

[speltwon]

13. I can agree to disagree

I should note that in my state, I am not sure exactly how far privacy protections against drug testing applies to private employees but our public employees enjoy pretty broad protection, to include bus drivers, etc. iirc. Not just cops. A bus driver on drugs can do a LOT of damage, obviously.

Civil rights have consequences. As do unions. That's my point. If you support unions, collective bargaining, and privacy, you must necessarily recognize that there ARE and will be costs to the public and others when workers advocate for their rights. Worker rights often CONFLICT with public interests. Unions help protect and expand worker rights. It is not the case that worker rights exist in a vacuum. Privacy rights constitute a danger to public safety. Cops can't just bust down your door on reasonable suspicion, for example. IF they could, the public would be safer, in general. That's a tradeoff in a free society. I agree with it.

[Rabblevox]

7. Bullshit. To drive a cab, I had to take a pre-employment drug test, and agree to...

both random tests and mandatory tests after an accident. You are honestly suggesting that police should be held to a LOWER standard?

[speltwon]

9. Cab drivers are not PUBLIC EMPLOYEES

and in my state and many others, public employees have broader privacy interests because their employer is the govt. The govt. has broader restrictions on its behavior towards employees, and that sets aside collective bargaining issues.

For example, criticize your private employer publically and in most cases, you can get fired no questions asked. Not true of public employees. Cops, firefighters are much more free to criticize their employer, because their employer is - the govt.

Look at SPD. Recently, an officer has come under immense controversy because he has written some seriously incendiary articles about the city management and police management and their social justice policies. He is free to do so. The mayor etc. have essentially said he should not BE a cop because of the opinions he holds. But they can't fire him. Also noted that despite his opinions, he works a diverse neighborhood and doesn't even have any IIU complaints against him in his long period working there. His job performance is not the issue. His statements are.

In my state, they need "reasonable suspicion" to drug test cops. That's a reasonable standard, lower than probable cause but higher than a hunch.

I should also note that during a cops' probationary year, they can be fired for any (or no) reason (apart from civil rights protected reasons) etc. but once civil service protection attaches, ... well... it attaches.

[Rabblevox]

12. Nope, that's not even a bit reasonable...

almost every job that involves public safety, except policing, requires both willingness to "random-test" and mandatory testing after any injury-related incident. Bus drivers, teachers, nurses, pilots, and crossing guards all think this is reasonable.

For the people who carry guns every day to get a free pass on this is abhorrent, unreasonable, and downright stupid.

[speltwon]

15. That's not true in my state

and many teachers, nurses etc. do NOT think it's reasonable. Our state constitution has a right to privacy. A specifically delineated one. We also have collective bargaining.

I can agree to disagree with you. You can call it a free pass. I can call it privacy and labor rights. As in many debates, the framing gets interesting, doesn't it? Many of cops, firefighters, etc. protection exist BECAUSE of unions and collective bargaining.

They also exist because of the enhanced protections of privacy under our state constitution. Privacy and labor rights have costs. I do not think that random testing of a cop is acceptable. I do not think that testing a cop, which necessarily means finding out about his legal medications, to include psychiatric etc. is justified just because they had an accident, or a shooting. There MUST be specific articulable reasons to suspect malfeasance before violating privacy imo. Fortunately, that is the case in my state.

[Rabblevox]

17. and you don't think shooting an unarmed suspect counts as "specific reasons?" /nt

[speltwon]

18. I didn't say that

I was referring to shootings. That was how the previous post was phrased. If the shooting is ruled UNJUSTIFIED and if there is reason to believe the officer's perception/judgment may have been altered due to intoxicants, then that would certainly justify a test. *if* the test were to be used against the officer criminally, the test would have be done pursuant to a warrant based on PC, but civilly/administratively, I think the reasonable suspicion standard should suffice.

If you are referring to the Birk shooting, fwiw, the shooting was ruled preliminarily - unjustified. He was (technically) armed, but the shooting was still bad. It wasn't criminally actionable, and he resigned already before he COULD be fired.

But in brief, there must be specific articulable suspicions (as to drug use) to order a test. This is the same standard that cops are required to have (RS) to conduct a terry stop for instance. However, the RS *must* be related to RS *of* drug use for a drug test to be authorized - against an officer's will.

That is the standard in my state, and I agree with it.

You have to remember any investigation of a police investigation is multi-pronged
at a minimum

1) administrative (dept penalties up to firing)
2) civil
3) criminal (local level)
4) criminal (federal)

setting aside the dual sovereignty issues that imo are essentially "legalized double jeopardy" violations against the officer's rights (right to not be tried twice for the same crime), there are different standards for gathering evidence in the first 2 vs. the second 2.

[Rabblevox]

5. The really sad thing is that most of the country still thinks of SEA and PDX as "liberal"

completely unaware of just how "police-state" and corporate-run we've gotten in the last 10 years.

And what's truly, impossibly fucking sad is that compared to most of the rest of the country, they're right.

[notesdev]

2. And of course there are abuses

like this one that hit the papers today:

http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/03/lapd_drop_salaries_pensions.php

One billion to 2800 privileged people, while all around them people resort to food stamps to eat. A microcosm of why this country is going to hell in a handbasket.

[speltwon]

4. No. The job of the union is to protect the worker, and to advocate for them against the interests

of management and others. That is JUST as true of cops as it is of ANY other profession. If you support the concept of unions you understand that unions are not supposed to advocate for the common good of society. They are there to advocate for the workers, to be THEIR voice against powerful administrators/management and public pressure. If you are truly a union supporter, you don't selectively exclude police unions. Like any form of power, there are costs to this power.

[Blue Owl]

11. Still, without the union

the opportunities for corruption would be even greater and more widespread.

Unions aren't perfect by any means.

But I'd take an imperfect union over serfdom, slavery, or totalitarianism any day.

[speltwon]

16. Yes. I agree

Freedom has cost. Labor rights and privacy has costs. I accept those costs because I believe society on the whole is better if labor has collective bargaining, etc.

[virgogal]

14. I have no trouble at all supporting them. eom

[murielm99]

19. This is a tough one for me.

I know many good cops. I worked with quite a few of them in our Democratic central committee. One of our former chairmen was a cop.

I hate to paint anyone with a broad brush.

[speltwon]

20. I think that's tangential

There are bad cops just like there are bad teachers, or bad... anything. The point is that cops should have the protection of collective bargaining and labor representation through unions. Unions are going to mean cops have more rights. That means it will be (generally speaking) harder to fire cops. That means that cops rights against discipline will be greater. That means the burdens placed on administration to discipline will be higher. That's kind of the point of unions - to expand/protect LABOR rights. Why should police be any different?

[Rabblevox]

21. I also know good cops. I'm not at all trying to say police are bad...

However, when 900 police union members show up at a rally (paid time, btw) wearing t-shirts defending a cop who literally kicked an unarmed, non-violent, mentally ill man to death, then I say "Houston, we have a problem".

http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/a-line-in-the-sand/Content?oid=1881655

[speltwon]

22. That;'s not how I read the article

It sounds to me that they showed up at the rally based on his suspension for the beanbag incident. The previous incident occurred well prior and was not the reason for the rally. Read it again...

The union was making the argument (essentially) that Humphrey was suspended w/o due process in the beanbag incident. The commissioner overruled Salzer.

"Then last Saturday night, November 14, in East Portland, Humphreys shot a 12-year-old girl in the leg with a "less lethal" beanbag shotgun, after she struggled with a fellow officer who was trying to arrest her for violating an exclusion from MAX, the city's light rail.

Saltzman suspended Humphreys, saying the actions he saw on a video of the incident—which was subsequently released to the public—were "not consistent with my expectations and what I believe are the community's expectations for a Portland police officer."

The police commissioner also overruled Chief Sizer, who told reporters she was "troubled" by the incident, but that she would await the findings of an internal affairs investigation before imposing discipline.

"The police union can no longer tell its officers that politics do not play a part in discipline," said Police Union President Scott Westerman, flanked by 40 of his fellow cops at a hastily convened press conference last week on the steps of the Multnomah County Justice Center on SW 3rd.

"Officer Humphreys' action was appropriate, justified, warranted, and necessary," he continued."

[Rabblevox]

23. Don't need to re-read it, I lived it.

I knew James Chasse. And I know Chris Humphreys. He is an evil nazi steroid -enhanced thug who the union has protected over and over again. I know local police who have told me (off-duty and off-record) that they are embarrassed and ashamed that the PPU forces them to defend people unworthy of the uniform.

[speltwon]

24. Great, but from the article it sounds like they were responding

to the suspension w/o due process. Even scumbag thugs deserve due process. The union was saying FOLLOW DUE PROCESS. If they could suspend due process for this scumbag, they could do it to others. Kind of similar to how defense attorneys would (and should) object, even if a scumbag child molester isn't afforded due process.