Police Unions To City Officials: If You Want Good, Accountable Cops, You'll Need To Pay Them More

from the 5%-pay-raise-for-'not-making-things-worse' dept

Three police unions in different cities have come forward to insert their feet in their mouths following changes to department policies. The thrust of their terrible arguments? Cops should be paid more for doing their job properly.

In Cincinnati, officers are being outfitted with body cameras. This, of course, has sent the local Fraternal Order of Police into defense mode. The FOP sent a letter to the city stating that officers won't be wearing the cameras until they're given more money. The union apparently believes any increase in officer accountability should be accompanied by an increase in pay.

A lawyer for Fraternal Order of Police Lodge #69, Stephen Lazarus, sent the city a "cease and desist" letter, saying until pay for wearing the equipment has been decided, officers shouldn't wear them. He asked that the city cease the program by Wednesday at the latest, pending the bargaining process.

The city's mayor has already suggested he'd be willing to grant an across-the-board 5% pay increase, but the union wants additional pay on top of that, simply for wearing body cameras. The union insists that cameras will alter many facets of officers' day-to-day duties, which -- judging from other cities' experiences with body cameras -- apparently includes discovering ways of ensuring footage of questionable arrests and uses of force aren't captured by the recording equipment.

Meanwhile, down in San Antonio, policies affecting misconduct punishments are receiving similar demands from that city's police union.

The San Antonio Express-News reports that the San Antonio police union demanded higher pay in exchange for accepting changes to their collective bargaining agreement that would have delivered stricter discipline for officer misconduct.

The Express-News notes that right now “the contract limits how far back a chief can invoke prior misconduct in punishing an officer — no more than two years in most instances — and automatically reduces suspensions of three days or less to a reprimand after two years.”

Once again, a union is fighting officer accountability with increased salary demands. In both cases, neither union seems to understand (or care) how tone deaf these arguments are.

Police reform is needed because officers aren't doing what they're being paid to do, or they're doing it in a way that results in civil rights lawsuits and DOJ interventions. The main obstacle to reform appears to be police unions, which often seem to offer hardline opposition to minor changes that even most of those supposedly represented by the union don't agree with.

It would be one thing if law enforcement was a historically-underpaid profession. But it isn't. These demands are simply a way to make cash-strapped cities rethink plans to introduce more accountability into the process.

But it's not always the unions that are at fault. The rank-and-file has its own issues with increased accountability. The city of Boston is outfitting its officers with body cameras. The pilot program asked for volunteers to wear the recording devices. There were no takers.

When the City of Boston called on 100 volunteers from the police department to help pilot a body camera program, something very expected, predictable, and heard of happened: Nothing.

Even with $500 bonuses as a result of negotiations with their union, not a single police officer in Boston volunteered to wear a camera.

If no one responds when asked nicely, the optional aspect goes away.

Speaking during the monthly “Ask the Commissioner” segment on WGBH-FM’s Boston Public Radio on Tuesday, Boston Police Commissioner William B. Evans said that a consultant has selected officers of all ages and races from five sections of the city and the department’s Youth Violence Strike Force to wear the cameras for a six-month trial. Any officer selected who chooses not to wear the camera would be subject to disciplinary action, Evans said.

It's not as though the police union here decided to sit this one out. When no officers volunteered to wear the cameras, the union claims that randomly selecting officers somehow breaches the department's contract.

Boston Police Patrolman’s Association President Patrick M. Rose told the Herald that goes against the deal the union reached with the department, which he says specifically states participants must be volunteers.

“The selection process must be from volunteers,” Rose wrote in an email to the Herald, adding that the union still supports that agreement.

“To require non-volunteers to participate in the program would clearly violate the agreement,” he said. “The BPPA would hope that the City and the Department would honor its written agreement with the BPPA concerning (body cameras).”

The Boston Police chief saw it differently, however, pointing out that no volunteers stepping forward to take part in a voluntary program also violates the agreement.

Somewhat ironically, civil rights and accountability activists were skeptical of the volunteer pilot program, fearing that the only cops that would volunteer would be exemplary models of the law enforcement profession and unlikely to generate much footage of misconduct or abuse. What a relief it must be to discover the Boston PD has no officers that fit that description.

Filed Under: accountability, body cams, police, police unions

Police Union Thinks Cops Should Receive Less Scrutiny Than Retail Workers

from the pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-arbitration! dept

Police unions are working tirelessly towards destroying any remaining shreds of respectability. Presumably, they once served a purpose roughly aligned with the public good. Now, they serve the singular purpose of ensuring our nation's law enforcement agencies will always be forced to keep the abusive, incompetent officers on their payroll.

No entity has spoken out more frequently about the supposed damage body-worn cameras will do. Meanwhile, many officers appear to have made peace with the new technology, much as they had with dash cams. No entity has continued to voice its resistance to anything approaching accountability as vociferously as our nation's police unions. If you want to see what's wrong with today's policing and why it won't be changing anytime soon, all you have to do is spend a few minutes talking to a union rep.

Out in Pittsburgh, the local police union wants cops to be held to a lower standard than retail employees.

The union representing Pittsburgh police officers has filed a civil rights grievance against the city, claiming officers have been ordered to undergo drug and alcohol testing that is in violation of their contract.

The union tells Channel 11’s Rick Earle that the testing amounts to an illegal search and seizure that is not only in violation of the contract, but the Constitution as well.

Perhaps the union will be surprised to know that these supposed "Constitutional violations" occur daily at nearly every major employer. They are required before applicants are hired and random checks are often performed post-hire as well. Why the union feels police officers -- who should hold themselves to higher standards than the average hourly worker -- should be exempt from this extraordinarily common practice isn't clear.

The only thing it offers in its defense is that the contract signed with the city only specifies three times cops can be tested: after firing weapons, being involved in a car accident, or are "suspected of being under the influence." Why the additional testing of three officers involved in a car chase suddenly rises to the level of Constitutional violation is something only the union can suss out. And it seems to have confused "violated the terms of an agreement" with "violated officers' Fourth Amendment rights."

Because if the test is a violation of civil rights in this particular circumstance, then it's a violation of rights even under the terms of the agreement. The union reps seem to have opted for drama, rather than accuracy, which is kind of standard operating procedure. I mean, it's not as though the Pittsburgh PD needs to swear out a warrant to obtain the fluids requested in the circumstances permitted by the agreement.

Police officers should be subject to random drug and alcohol testing just like everyone else in the nation's workforce. Considering most states tie implied consent to drug/alcohol testing to the issuance of drivers licenses, it's really not too much to ask that people in powerful government positions be subject to the same expectations.

Filed Under: accountability, body cameras, civil rights, pittsburgh, police, police unions

Cop Accidentally Shoots Man, Ignores Emergency Responder, Other Cops In Order To Text Union Rep

from the 'I-feared-for-my-employment' dept

Late last month, rookie NYPD officer Peter Liang shot an unarmed resident of a Brooklyn housing project while entering an unlit stairwell. While opening a door, Liang's gun "discharged" (as they say). The bullet struck Akai Gurley in the chest, killing him.

It was an accident, but an avoidable one. Liang claims to have been opening the door to the stairwell with a flashlight in one hand and his gun in the other. While opening the door (possibly using his "gun hand), he inadvertently fired his weapon. That his gun was drawn was questionable enough. But this error in judgment was further compounded by his actions immediately following the discovery that he had shot someone in the stairwell.

The New York Daily News reports that in the crucial minutes following the shooting, Liang and his partner did not try to get medical attention for the grievously wounded man and could not be reached by either their commanding officer or the 911 dispatcher who fielded a call from a neighbor reporting gunshots.

Let that sink in for a moment. An accidental shot hits a man in the chest and the two officers on the scene have zero interest in ensuring the victim receives medical attention. Both officers (both rookies) decided to go off the grid rather than deal with the mess they had created.

Liang knew he had screwed up. But he chose to protect himself as a man he shot lay dying. Instead of responding to queries and calls, he was texting his union representative.

If there's any entity that can keep cops from being held accountable for their actions, it's police unions. Through the power of labor agreements and arbitration hearings, unions can reinstate cops despicable enough that their own departments have disowned them. Liang may only be a rookie but he already recognizes who holds the most power.

His partner may have been following Liang's lead or was equally unsure of where to turn in the wake of this unfortunate incident. He may not have texted a union rep, but he also did nothing to ensure the victim received medical attention. He also chose to remain incommunicado. That decision may have been prompted by the fact that not only had the two officers been forbidden from performing this sort of patrol (called a "vertical") by their supervisor, but they also had no idea where they were.

Mistakes happen. But this collection of errors snowballed into an accidental shooting of an unarmed man. That part is excusable, but only if entirely separated from the events following the shooting. Texting a union rep shows that Liang's primary concern was for his own livelihood rather than the well-being of anyone around him. His partner's compliant silence pushes this situation from merely tragic into the arena of the possibly criminal.

The Daily News cites court insiders as saying "while the shooting may have been a mishap, the cops' subsequent conduct can amount to criminal liability."

While I can appreciate the fact that the instinct for self-preservation can often override better judgment, police officers are held -- or should be -- to a higher standard. When someone's life is ebbing away thanks to your screwup, you need to take care of them first and worry about the extent of your ass coverage later. Police officers are already well-insulated against accountability. Talking to a union rep as a man lays dying is, no sickening pun intended, overkill.

Filed Under: akai gurley, nypd, peter liang, police, police brutality, police unions, protection