Police union ridiculousness again

[srellim234]

Once again a union finds a way to alienate a large segment of the population through greed. Public safety be damned, the police chief apparently had no business doing police work without paying union dues. It's all about greed and money and not about keeping the bad guys off the streets.

Unions and management in this country need to come to terms with the fact that they need to be PARTNERS, not adversaries.

http://citizensvoice.com/news/scranton- ... z1NVh3akOv

[IBCoupe]

Oooooh, interesting.

The complaint states that "the work of apprehending and arresting individuals has been the sole and exclusive province of members of the bargaining unit," and that the city did not inform or negotiate with the union that the chief would be "performing bargaining unit work."

Because of this, the union says the city violated the state Labor Relations Act and the Policemen and Firemen Collective Bargaining Act.

"We're not out to bust his chops," Sgt. Bob Martin, police union president, said. "It's not against the chief. The action is against the city."

Srellim, what gets them riled is not the fact that he was non-union, it's that he's the boss.

Police Union Members = Widget Factory Employees
Police Chief = Supervisor

Would a union be in the wrong to file a grievance with the NLRB when a supervisor, in violation of the collective bargaining agreement (read: "contract"), starts working on the assembly line? That's what happened here.

The Police Chief can't be protected by the NLRA, though I'm sure the Police in general aren't, but are probably operating on a public union law modeled similarly. Supervisors are exempt because Congress didn't wanting them to have mixed allegiances. It's not like he's opted out of membership, it's that the job he performs makes him ineligible because, effectively, he represents the City.

Is it better? Maybe, maybe not. The police are special because they're public servants out meant to support public safety. But it's a different issue than what you wrote. This is a contract dispute.

[bigbadberry3]

If he was getting paid to arrest criminals on his free time that may be one issue, but he didn't do it or monetary gains. Too far here.

EDIT: Hope karma let's the union president get held up while someone off duty gets to watch

[IBCoupe]

It wasn't the off-duty bit that's got the union in a tizzy. It's the job description.

[stebo0728]

And what if in your scenario, business take a boom, and production cannot keep up, and the supervisor taking to the assembly line keeps the orders moving until more laborers can be hired? Oh wait, we cant do that, lets back up orders and make the unions happy. Another reason why unions are outdated and overrated. There are more things to be considered in a business besides JUST the employees, and when the unions have the industries hamstrung, the emloyees end up being ALL that matters to anyone.

[IBCoupe]

Stebo, it's a friggun contract. The provision is bargained for. That means union negotiated and the business negotiated and they came to mutual agreement. Sorry that the law holds you to your legal obligations.

If the employer forfeits his right to work on the assembly line by awarding that right exclusively to the union, then that's what he's done.

[stebo0728]

No no you misunderstand, or I miscommunicate. I know if that contract is in place you have to hold to it, and if you dont theres trouble. My problem is the friggun contract has the friggun provision, or even that the friggun contract itself exists.

[IBCoupe]

You're upset that a company makes a contract with a union? And that the two parties work out what's in it?

What?

[stebo0728]

Clever. I suppose I should be equally upset at an employer to see them pander to their labor as I am that the unions take hand over fist. I dont have a problem with contracts, or anyones ability to make them. I just dont like them, and see reasons why they have the potential to make things worse.

[IBCoupe]

Am I actually understanding you? You don't like contracts?

In your perfect world, what actually gets accomplished?

[stebo0728]

No its not the contracts, its the parties involved, chiefly, the labor unions. I just consider them cumbersome and unnecessary in todays world. Thats just my view, Im sure others disagree, and thats fine. Im not out trying to end them with legislation, just sitting proudly in my "right to work" state.

[IBCoupe]

People have a right to organize to better their workplace, no?

[srellim234]

IB, as I stated in my OP, unions and management need to become PARTNERS, not adversaries. I realize as a "lawyer" you are completely wrapped up in the letter of the contract and not the spirit. That's what you are trained to do in the legal profession. However, in the real world of business, both managers who are forced to deal with such situations by union lawyers and the unions themselves are tainted by that and then forced to work in an atmosphere of hostility.

Having been on both sides of union contracts (member and management) with multiple unions I have come to the understanding that it IS about the money to the union leaders and not about getting the job done. A normal, civil human being will accept help or at least refuse the help with a polite "Thank you, but no." Not unions. They are all about the union leaders (the ruling class) doing everything they can in a hostile manner to intimidate and coerce the servant class (union members and non-union management) to protect their personal income derived from union dues.

[IBCoupe]

I look at it the way that the NLRA and the Court looks at it: my primary concern is to get the two parties to the table. What goes on from there is none of my concern. If they want to tear each other's throats out, okay. If they don't, that's fine, too. A contract is a way to make sure that everything goes together.

They are all about the union leaders (the ruling class) doing everything they can in a hostile manner to intimidate and coerce the servant class (union members and non-union management) to protect their personal income derived from union dues.

I don't buy it.

[C-Kwik]

The issue here is that the Unions negotiated the provision into the contract so the management can't lay people off and then fill the gaps by using the supervisors to fill in their place. The intent is to protect the "labor". It might be one thing if the guy happened to be there, but from the article, it sounds like he is actively patrolling on his own time. And this may indeed be a violation of the contact.

He claims he won't stop patrolling due to the complaint, but I'd say he may end up out of a job if he continues to expose the city to such a lawsuit. And as IB pointed out, the city agreed to it in the contract and did so of their own free will.

Understand that I am not a big fan of unions and I would agree that unions and the employers need to be on the same page, but that's really an ideology as people on both sides ultimately have some level of interest in bettering their own circumstances. And unfortunately, many interests of employees tend to be diametrically opposed to the interests of the employer.

I realize as a "lawyer" you are completely wrapped up in the letter of the contract and not the spirit. That's what you are trained to do in the legal profession.

Actually a good lawyer will consider both. While it is important to be able to interpret law (or contract language) literally, its also quite important to understand the spirit or intent of a law as that largely dictates how things might play out in court. No law or contract can accurately apply unambiguously to every situation that may come up. As a result, the intent and spirit of a law can make a huge difference in applying the law or contract language appropriately. I don't have any stats, but I believe (probably from stats I saw while I was taking certain insurance certification courses years ago) many (if not most) contract disputes tend to revolve around this very issue.