Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: The Ugly Underbelly of Public Employee Unions

Posted 1 year ago on May 3, 2013, 2:15 p.m. EST by penguento (362)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

20 Comments

20 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

That all sounds almost plausible enough.

Until you look beyond a shallow yahoo news blurb.

It's not him alone.

It's not recent.

It's endemic to the Opa Locka PD.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/09/08/2992690/tarnished-badges-opa-lockas-troubled.html#storylink=misearch

So you see, all you've done is politicize and misrepresent.

This is not in any way a public union issue.

It's more about the ugly underbelly of you.

[-] -2 points by penguento (362) 1 year ago

Me? Indeed. Did I bust up a handcuffed prisoner? Did I leave an assault rifle unguarded? Did I beat up juvenile prisoners? Did I steal from prisoners? Did I get fired 8 times? Did I get him his job back 8 times or did the union? And it's me???

That's laughable, my friend. No, I take that back. It's pathetic. Aren't these things the very sort of thing you guys scream about when the cops in NYC do them? If you had any integrity you'd be demanding that the union cut this asshole loose and encourage the DA to file criminal charges against him. But now, it's somehow different -- it's my fault for pointing out that union rules keep them from getting rid of what is clearly a bad cop. What bullshit.

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

An ugly underbelly indeed.

You cherry picked a single story taken from the most politically corrupt state in the union and ignore the total corruption in the Opa Locka PD.

My guess is they LIKE those kinds of people in their police force.

Laughable and pathetic, that's you and your infinitely ugly underbelly.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Not sure, this could be a big generalization against unions in your OP.

I have to question the Management, Executives, and the profesionalizm of those that supervise police.

  • The charge is not obvious or clear, is it a service arm, is it automatic, is it a personal firearm, what business does the employeer have over a personal firearm
  • They could be looking to get rid of the guy and are over reaching in this case to find a quick reason. A quick reason is not justice or due process
  • Yeah, the guy may have a real weird oppositional kind of presence. He may seem to disrespect authority. That is not actionable
  • The guy may have past issues, but you don't hire a guy and then find a reason to fire the guy. There should be due process. There probably are a lot of opportunities to catch the guy if he is doing drug, beating prisoners, drinking alcohol, how about piss testing him regularlarly
  • If the Union can not piss test the guy, but give him authority over the public, and give him a gun everyday... then the union has failed and is working against the public. Then it is time to review the Union Contract & Union Rules
  • Americans want to break the rules, Deny Due Process, unjustified fire people, unjustified lock people up, resort to secret prisons, resort to kidnapping, resort to torture, It is disgusting.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Yeah, let a couple of public executives sign something that says he isn't suitable for the job, to serve the public, and that he doesn't present the image that the city wants to project.

You are right. It is simple. And we can see the responsible parties. And if we had bench marks for the courts ... he would only be able to sue for an amount similar to his severance pay.... which the city would give him anyway.

If we make the courts serve the people they are quick and affordable based on bench marks, clear guidance, clear examples, clear limitations of situations like business contracts, financial instruments, jobs & bonuses, damages, punitive damages,... and we would fix the system and fix the penalties as the system works and weaknesses and problems are identified. The whole thing depends on setting precedents and standards for industries, torts, jobs, and banking activities.

[-] 0 points by penguento (362) 1 year ago

I'd go you one better. Cops ought to serve at the pleasure of the Chief of Police. Prosecutors ought to serve at the pleasure of the District Attorney or Attorney General, or whatever the local top guy is. That means they can be removed at any time, for any reason or no reason.

Of course, that means you have to have someone at the top that is morally strong, and smart. But if you have that, then that person is in a position to remove bad actors immediately, and liit the damage that they do.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26307) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

This time around, Sgt. German Bosque—who has been fired eight times from three different police departments

Miami Florida

Huh

To be seen next in Oakland California?

New York?

Seattle?

[-] -2 points by penguento (362) 1 year ago

Well, frankly, I think -- no, I know -- that the same sort of thing happens elsewhere, albeit usually not to quite the extent of this one. On a unionized force, it's often very difficult to get rid of a bad cop short of them committing a serious felony. Lots of times they fire them, and an arbitration panel just reinstates them after the union appeals. Maybe that speaks to some of the issues you and I were chatting about earlier. There are lots of people who really ought not to be allowed to be cops.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (26307) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Nope shooz is right - it is not about the union - it "is" about the police department and the local government.

[-] -2 points by penguento (362) 1 year ago

Nope. They keep firing him, the union keeps getting him reinstated. It's part of the problem.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (26307) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Nope - it is not about the union - it "is" about the police department and the local government.

  • busting the skull of a handcuffed suspect
  • beating juveniles
  • having dope and booze in his squad car
  • ripping off suspects
  • falsifying reports
  • participating in an unauthorized chase where four people were killed

Not in prison?

I repeat - - it is not about the union - it "is" about the police department and the local government.

[-] -2 points by penguento (362) 1 year ago

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly that they are a big part of the problem. And strictly speaking, you can't blame the union. Public safety isn't its job, protecting its members is. But if a guy like this can keep getting his job back because of union backing, it raises a serious question as to whether union representation and grievance procedures are appropriate for public employees like cops. Certainly, in this case that system is failing.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26307) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I repeat - - it is not about the union - it "is" about the police department and the local government.

[-] -2 points by penguento (362) 1 year ago

You're simply ignoring the fact that his firing is subject to union-based arbitration, and the union provides him with a no doubt excellent an experienced lawyer. That entire process is complicit in his continued career as a cop. And the union is doing its best to make sure he stays a cop.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26307) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

His kind are pure poison to unions.

I repeat - - it is not about the union - it "is" about the police department and the local government.

Often exonerated rather than open the door for law suits.

[-] -2 points by penguento (362) 1 year ago

Oh, I agree that he's poison for the union. He's poison for the police department and the city too. He's wrecking all their good names and reputations. But the system of which they are all a part is protecting him, and like it or not the union is protecting him. The union is, has, and continues to expend its money, resources and political capital to support him and keep him from getting fired or worse.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26307) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I repeat - - it is not about the union - it "is" about the police department and the local government.

Often exonerated rather than open the door for law suits.

[-] -2 points by penguento (362) 1 year ago

Not so. The city's open to much more liability keeping him around. That's undoubtedly part of why they're trying to get rid of him. A jury doesn't need his firing to find liability, and employing a repeat offender makes it worse for them. It's the union and the grievance process that are keeping him around. His lawyer isn't being provided by the city, he's from the union. And the rules are per the union contract, which makes firing someone very difficult, if not impossible.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26307) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

BS - change your needle your player is stuck on stupid.

[-] 0 points by penguento (362) 1 year ago

Oh jeez, we're back to sophmoric insults. That's disappointing -- for a moment there I thought we might actually have the start of a real, adult conversation going. Silly me -- I shoulda known better, particularly since it was you.

But no matter. You're out of your league on this one. I'm a lawyer. An old, very experienced lawyer. And I used to be a trial lawyer. And I know exactly how these things work. Fact is, his continued employment represents a huge liability for that city, and they'd like nothing better than for him to fall off the face of the earth. If I was a plaintiff's lawyer, I'd like nothing more than to point out to a jury that he's an eight time loser, but still on the force, still bustin' heads. It'd be great -- practically guarantee a win. And the city knows it.

I know you don't like to admit that the union is part of the problem -- hence your resort to name-calling -- but you can't avoid it.

You can't really blame the union -- they're just doing what they're paid by their members to do: protect their members from bad consequences. They're not in the business of being an impartial party, or being fair. Believe me, I get that - that's what lawyers, including the lawyer he got from the union, do. I used to do criminal defense, and I had no problem whatsoever getting guys off when I knew damn well they were guilty. Justice was somebody else's problem. The union's in the same position, and they're doing their job.

The problem is a system that allows the union to do that for a bad cop. And like it or not, the union is exploiting that system to protect him. Worse, the system itself is undoubtedly a product of bargaining by the union as part of contract negotiations So the union is not only complicit in the operation of the system, it had a significant hand in constructing it. And this case is a direct result of all of that. The union is certainly not the only culpable party here -- certainly one may question why the last two places hired a guy that had been fired for misconduct -- but it's got its own share responsibility for this.

You've been avoiding all of this by simply repeating yourself, and then when cornered, resorting once again to silly insults, but that accomplishes nothing.

Calling me stupid simply does not erase the fact that he's been fired 8 times, and 8 times the union has supported him to the hilt and got him his job back, and is continuing to support him on the 9th try. If you think that it does, I'd suggest that you are the one who is stupid.