It's About Liberty: A Conservative Forum
Topics => The Police State => Topic started by: oldcoastie6468 on November 18, 2013, 10:44:52 AM
-
Some cops allowed to work after drinking
Jim Noelker
Ohio State Highway Patrol officers are among many members of law enforcement who can’t be disciplined if they have a blood-alcohol content below .04 at work. That rule, enforced by some union contracts, has raised concerns among groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Drivers. “If I’m a law enforcement officer, I would be the last person in the world who would want to have alcohol on my breath when I pull someone over,” said Doug Scoles, executive director for MADD in Ohio.
By Josh Sweigart and Amanda Seitz
Staff Writer
Law enforcement officers in some area communities can strap on a gun and issue tickets for drivers who are more sober than they are, a Journal-News investigation found.
The newspaper reviewed union contracts for local public safety offices, including the Ohio State Highway Patrol, and found that officers and firefighters are sometimes protected from discipline when they are at work with alcohol in their system.
These rules are often enforced by union contracts.
In Lebanon, where officers and firefighters can work with a .04 blood alcohol level, Police Chief Jeff Mitchell said he’s actively pursued more stringent alcohol rules to be written into the city’s union contracts.
Mitchell, who’s been in charge for nearly two years, said he negotiated his first union contract this past summer. He got the unions to remove a clause that allowed officers to suck on a breath mint before they were tested for alcohol, but couldn’t get union representatives to reduce the .04 limit to zero.
“When I came across that, I thought, ‘Wow, that’s different,’ ” Mitchell said, adding that breath mints can distort breathalyzer readings.
“Doesn’t that sound odd to you that you would have that in a contract with police?”
Mitchell said he’s never had to discipline an officer for using alcohol on the job and he believes the alcohol provision was added to the contract decades ago.
“My thought process is, ‘How does that look if the public looks at this and sees our contract?’”
http://www.journal-news.com/news/news/some-cops-allowed-to-work-after-drinking/nbsbF/ (http://www.journal-news.com/news/news/some-cops-allowed-to-work-after-drinking/nbsbF/)
-
It is near impossible to fire rotten eggs from union jobs...police, fire, teachers...
It shouldn't be that way, scum should be forfeit, one way or another...
And if others in these fields are unable to police their own so to speak, then they cannot bitch one bit about general attitudes of the citizenry thinking ill of them and holding them in low regard!
::oldman::
-
I have never figured out why it's in a unions best interest to protect the lousy employees of the world. What does it get them? Nothing but bad press.
If anything, unions should be the ones promoting better behavior on the part of their members. They should be the ones drumming the worst of the worst out of the unions, not fighting employers trying (and failing) to get rid of bad employees. They have their lame marketing motto, "look for the union label".
Why would I look for the union label?
If anything, I am looking for the label, so I can avoid it.
-
I have never figured out why it's in a unions best interest to protect the lousy employees of the world. What does it get them? Nothing but bad press.
If anything, unions should be the ones promoting better behavior on the part of their members. They should be the ones drumming the worst of the worst out of the unions, not fighting employers trying (and failing) to get rid of bad employees. They have their lame marketing motto, "look for the union label".
Why would I look for the union label?
If anything, I am looking for the label, so I can avoid it.
Why? The answer is simple. All union members pay dues. Union bosses are not going to cut off their financial nose to spite their bank accounts by allowing the firing of the incompetent or the criminal.
Remember what Bob Chanin, outgoing legal head of the Teachers' Union, said in his good-bye speech? Just a little clip. Note the applause his remarks receive:
NEA General Counsel Bob Chanin Says Farewell (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-piPkgAUo0w#)
Albert Shankar, "former president of the United Federation of Teachers from 1964 to 1985 and president of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) from 1974 to 1997", stated: “When school children start paying union dues, that‘s when I’ll start representing the interests of school children.”
The reason why unions do not fire the incompetent and the criminal is naked power through money via dues.
-
If a nuke took that building out at that time I would not have shed one bloody tear for the wicked!